I guess the president will have to take the blame or praise himself. It sounds also as if there is no wide consensus on what should be done.
Pentagon won't make surge recommendation to Bush
By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 email | print tool nameclose
tool goes here
WASHINGTON — In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won't make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month's strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.
"Consensus is not the goal of the process," Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. "If there are differences, the president will hear them."
Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.
"The professional military guys are going to the non-professional military guys and saying 'Resolve this,'" said Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That's what it sounds like."
White said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on.
Bush has said on several occasions that he will follow the recommendation of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, but the Pentagon plan makes certain that other points of view are heard.
Morrell said the commanders will make their presentations to Bush at around the same time that Petraeus appears before Congress to assess progress in Iraq in mid September.
Morrell said that those making presentations to the president would include Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. military actions in the Middle East, Army Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, and Petraeus. In addition, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will share his opinion with the president.
Pentagon commanders are known to be divided over how to proceed in Iraq.
Pentagon officials have told McClatchy Newspapers that Casey, who was the top commander in Iraq, wants the U.S. to draw down forces and focus on training the Iraqi forces, as it did during his tenure in Iraq, and worries about the strain the war is having on the Army.
Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Pace would recommend reducing the number of troops in Baghdad because the deployments are straining the military.
Petraeus, however, is expected to argue that the number of U.S. troops should be kept at their current levels, saying that the increase in U.S. forces this year is beginning to reduce sectarian violence.
Gates' position is not known, but he was a member of the Iraq Study Group, which advocated a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The surge, which sent an additional 28,000 troops to Iraq between February and June, was crafted as the secretary took over the department in December, and it is not considered his plan.
The surge, which called for about 28,000 additional troops into Baghdad, has pushed the number of troops serving in Iraq to its highest level since Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.
The increase was intended to reduce violence so that Iraq's politicians would have time to broker deals on some of the country's most divisive issues. Instead, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government is floundering and Iraq's various political and ethnic factions are battling for control of the country.
An assessment by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies last week foresaw little progress during the next 12 months in efforts to reconcile Iraq's warring ethnic groups. It also reported that civilian deaths and violence remained at high levels.
Morrell said that making individual presentations about Iraq policy rather than trying to reach a consensus before talking to the president will lead to a more honest discussion.
Gates is "looking for a way to sort of make sure that the normal bureaucratic massaging that sometimes eliminates the rough edges or the sharp differences between individuals does not victimize this process so that the president can get distinct — if that's the way it turns out to be — points of view on where we are and where we need to go," Morrell said.
At the same time, Morrell made it clear that the decision rests with the president, not the military.
"I think once [the president] receives the advice from Gen. Petraeus — and as I have outlined — and others, my understanding is that he has a decision to make," Morrell said.
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
Showing posts with label US policy in Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US policy in Iraq. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Change of Iraq policy--a Super Surge?
Just how long will the American people put up with the nonsense that has been fed to them since even before the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Bush simply ignores the polls and the majority sentiment that the troops should come home. His next step may very well be to attack Iran or have Israel attack Iran. All the news reports are softening up public opinion. Just read the next post about the Senate bill on Iran.Will the people rally around the president if he attacks Iran. Probably!
Pace: US troops in Iraq could rise By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Mon Jul 16, 7:06 PM ET
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military is weighing new directions for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.
The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.
The military must "be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," Pace said in an interview with two reporters traveling with him to Iraq from Washington.
"That way, if we need to plus up or come down" in numbers of troops in Iraq, the details will have been studied, he said.
Pace, on his first visit since U.S. commanders accelerated combat operations in mid-June, said another option under consideration is maintaining current troop levels beyond September.
There are now about 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, reflecting a boost of about 30,000 to carry out the new strategy Bush announced in January. The plan is focused on providing better security for Iraqis in Baghdad, but the intended effect — political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites — has yet to be achieved, and many in Congress are clamoring to begin withdrawing troops soon.
In Washington on Monday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he would force the chamber's first all-night debate on the Iraq war Tuesday night in advance of a vote Wednesday on whether to bring home all combat troops by next spring.
Republicans are using Senate rules to insist that the measure have 60 votes to pass — a de facto filibuster since it takes that many votes to cut off debate.
Pace said in Iraq that the administration must consider not only what works best on the battlefield but also the growing stress of more than four years of war on American troops and their families.
He repeatedly mentioned his concern about soldiers and Marines doing multiple tours of duty and the decision in January to extend soldiers' Iraq deployments by three months, to 15 months.
"That has impact on families," he said in a separate Associated Press interview at a U.S. military headquarters on the outskirts of the capital after meeting with commanders and conferring by secure video teleconference with Bush.
Pace also conferred with Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, who said he did not currently foresee requesting more troops.
"Right now I can't find an assessment where I would say I need more troops," Odierno said, adding that he is confident that by September he will be able to give Petraeus his advice on how the troop buildup is working.
"My assessment right now is, I need more time" to understand how the offensive targeting al-Qaida in Iraq is working and how it could lead to political progress, Odierno said.
"I'm seeing some progress now here in Iraq. We have really just started what the Iraqis term 'liberating' them from al-Qaida. What I've got to determine is what do I need in order to continue that progress so that the political piece can then take hold and Iraqi security forces can hold this for the long term."
Pace said he saw signs of improvement since his previous visit in April, based in part on a 30-minute aerial tour of Baghdad in a Black Hawk helicopter as well as private talks with commanders.
"The surge is having very good positive results on the streets of Baghdad," he told AP. "We have yet to see the political progress and results that you would hope to see."
All the while, the violence continues. On Monday, a suicide truck bombing followed by two smaller car bombs killed more than 80 people and wounded at least 180 in Kirkuk, about 180 miles north of Baghdad.
There are deep tensions between Kurds and Arabs in the city, and Sunni insurgents are believed to be moving north, fleeing the U.S. offensive around Baghdad and consolidating to carry out deadly bombings.
At the same time, the U.S. military said American troops launched a new offensive south of Baghdad on Monday, aiming to stop weapons and fighters from moving into the capital.
As for the U.S. troop boost, some on the Joint Chiefs had argued against it in January, in part out of concern that it could not be sustained long enough to have the desired effect and that it would put too much strain on the military.
In the AP interview, Pace made clear that he believes the soldiers and Marines in Iraq are focused on their mission. He seemed more concerned about the possibility that families eventually would grow fed up with the strain of long separations and the worry about loved ones being killed or wounded.
The chiefs for a number of weeks have been studying the timing of a possible U.S. military transition away from today's combat-oriented mission to one focused mainly on training Iraqi security forces while also protecting Iraq's borders and continuing the fight against terrorists.
Without opining on any new course of action in Iraq, Pace stressed in the interview his concern that multiple combat tours for many in the Army and Marine Corps could tear at the fabric of the military. He said that is one reason he is visiting the troops now — to hear their concerns, assess their morale and explain to them why he advocated extending Army tours from 12 months to 15.
He said he also would stop in Germany this week to meet with family members of military units that are affected by tour extensions.
Pace, who will be replaced soon by Adm. Michael Mullen as Joint Chiefs chairman, was asked whether he feels political pressure amid a heated and prolonged Iraq debate in Congress and the approach of the 2008 elections.
"I don't feel any pressure" of that sort, he said.
Pace: US troops in Iraq could rise By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Mon Jul 16, 7:06 PM ET
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military is weighing new directions for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.
The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.
The military must "be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," Pace said in an interview with two reporters traveling with him to Iraq from Washington.
"That way, if we need to plus up or come down" in numbers of troops in Iraq, the details will have been studied, he said.
Pace, on his first visit since U.S. commanders accelerated combat operations in mid-June, said another option under consideration is maintaining current troop levels beyond September.
There are now about 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, reflecting a boost of about 30,000 to carry out the new strategy Bush announced in January. The plan is focused on providing better security for Iraqis in Baghdad, but the intended effect — political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites — has yet to be achieved, and many in Congress are clamoring to begin withdrawing troops soon.
In Washington on Monday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he would force the chamber's first all-night debate on the Iraq war Tuesday night in advance of a vote Wednesday on whether to bring home all combat troops by next spring.
Republicans are using Senate rules to insist that the measure have 60 votes to pass — a de facto filibuster since it takes that many votes to cut off debate.
Pace said in Iraq that the administration must consider not only what works best on the battlefield but also the growing stress of more than four years of war on American troops and their families.
He repeatedly mentioned his concern about soldiers and Marines doing multiple tours of duty and the decision in January to extend soldiers' Iraq deployments by three months, to 15 months.
"That has impact on families," he said in a separate Associated Press interview at a U.S. military headquarters on the outskirts of the capital after meeting with commanders and conferring by secure video teleconference with Bush.
Pace also conferred with Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, who said he did not currently foresee requesting more troops.
"Right now I can't find an assessment where I would say I need more troops," Odierno said, adding that he is confident that by September he will be able to give Petraeus his advice on how the troop buildup is working.
"My assessment right now is, I need more time" to understand how the offensive targeting al-Qaida in Iraq is working and how it could lead to political progress, Odierno said.
"I'm seeing some progress now here in Iraq. We have really just started what the Iraqis term 'liberating' them from al-Qaida. What I've got to determine is what do I need in order to continue that progress so that the political piece can then take hold and Iraqi security forces can hold this for the long term."
Pace said he saw signs of improvement since his previous visit in April, based in part on a 30-minute aerial tour of Baghdad in a Black Hawk helicopter as well as private talks with commanders.
"The surge is having very good positive results on the streets of Baghdad," he told AP. "We have yet to see the political progress and results that you would hope to see."
All the while, the violence continues. On Monday, a suicide truck bombing followed by two smaller car bombs killed more than 80 people and wounded at least 180 in Kirkuk, about 180 miles north of Baghdad.
There are deep tensions between Kurds and Arabs in the city, and Sunni insurgents are believed to be moving north, fleeing the U.S. offensive around Baghdad and consolidating to carry out deadly bombings.
At the same time, the U.S. military said American troops launched a new offensive south of Baghdad on Monday, aiming to stop weapons and fighters from moving into the capital.
As for the U.S. troop boost, some on the Joint Chiefs had argued against it in January, in part out of concern that it could not be sustained long enough to have the desired effect and that it would put too much strain on the military.
In the AP interview, Pace made clear that he believes the soldiers and Marines in Iraq are focused on their mission. He seemed more concerned about the possibility that families eventually would grow fed up with the strain of long separations and the worry about loved ones being killed or wounded.
The chiefs for a number of weeks have been studying the timing of a possible U.S. military transition away from today's combat-oriented mission to one focused mainly on training Iraqi security forces while also protecting Iraq's borders and continuing the fight against terrorists.
Without opining on any new course of action in Iraq, Pace stressed in the interview his concern that multiple combat tours for many in the Army and Marine Corps could tear at the fabric of the military. He said that is one reason he is visiting the troops now — to hear their concerns, assess their morale and explain to them why he advocated extending Army tours from 12 months to 15.
He said he also would stop in Germany this week to meet with family members of military units that are affected by tour extensions.
Pace, who will be replaced soon by Adm. Michael Mullen as Joint Chiefs chairman, was asked whether he feels political pressure amid a heated and prolonged Iraq debate in Congress and the approach of the 2008 elections.
"I don't feel any pressure" of that sort, he said.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The big question: to continue to surge or not to continue to surge
I have thought for a while that Bush policy was clearly for a continued extensive presence in Iraq. There is a sharp struggle between Bush, his supporters, and some of the military against those who want a definite withdrawal plan right away. At best Bush will be able to stave off opposition until September. Perhaps Bush will try to divert the public's attention by encouraging Israel to attack Iran which might provoke Iran to attack US forces. The neo-cons might see this as their salvation and also achieve a key goal for them.
Iraq report may mean longer U.S. surge By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Fri Jul 13, 5:08 PM ET
WASHINGTON - While many in Congress are pushing President Bush to alter course in Iraq by September if not sooner, his new status report on the war strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals.
The report cited no specific timeframe, but its language suggests what some U.S. commanders have hinted at recently: The troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in January may need to remain until spring 2008.
That's a military calculation at odds with an emerging political consensus in Washington on bringing the troops home soon.
The disconnect between the military and political views on the best way forward is a symptom of four-plus years of setbacks in Iraq — not only missteps by the U.S. government but also by Iraqi political leaders, who have fallen far short of their stated aim of creating a government of national unity.
In the view of some members of Congress — and not just Democrats — the time has long passed for the Iraqis to show that they can parlay U.S.-led military efforts into progress on the political front.
"That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said after the White House delivered its war report to Congress on Thursday. Warner was the author of legislation requiring the report.
Hours after the report's release, the House, on a 223-201 vote, approved a Democratic measure requiring U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by spring. House Democrats pursued the vote despite a veto threat from Bush.
The president apparently has made the calculation that he can ward off political pressure to change course before the next required progress report, set for mid-September. That's when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to lay out his assessment of whether the counterinsurgency strategy he launched in February is working and recommends to Bush whether to stick with it into the coming year.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice advanced that view Friday morning, telling Fox News' "Fox & Friends" that by waiting until September, "we can make a coherent judgment of where we are and we can chart a way forward."
"I understand people's concern. I understand people's impatience," she said, "but I would just hope that we could recognize that our men and women in the field, our ambassadors, our generals out there, our commanding general, are on a course that was laid out by the president in Jaunary. We ought to stick to that."
By extending troop deployments in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months, the Army has made it possible for Bush to maintain the troop buildup until about April 2008. But if he wanted to go beyond that it would require some even more painful moves by the Army, at the risk of reaching a breaking point.
Although the war is increasingly unpopular, Bush does have support in some prominent quarters for continuing his current military strategy, not only for the remainder of this year but into 2008. John Keane, a retired four-star Army general, said this week that security progress, though slow, is gaining momentum.
"The thought of pulling out now or in a couple of months makes no sense militarily," Keane said.
Between now and September the battle for Baghdad will intensify, likely costing hundreds of American troops' lives, and the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will be pressured to do more to weed out sectarian influences in the Iraqi security forces and to pass legislation designed to promote reconciliation.
The U.S. casualty rate has increased in recent months, and total U.S. deaths in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 now exceed 3,600.
Petraeus hopes that by September the U.S.-led counteroffensive will have reduced the level of violence enough to create an atmosphere in which political progress can be made, while Iraqi security forces move measurably closer to the point where they can sustain the security gains made by U.S. forces.
"We should expect, however, that AQI will attempt to increase its tempo of attacks as September approaches in an effort to influence U.S domestic opinion about sustained U.S. engagement in Iraq," Bush's report said. AQI is an acronym for the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq that U.S. officials say has a small number of fighters but an outsized ability to accelerate sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere.
At a White House news conference, Bush pleaded for patience, saying that as difficult and painful as the war has become, the consequences of giving up and withdrawing the troops now would be even worse.
His report to Congress acknowledged shortcomings while asserting that the "overall trajectory" of the military and political effort in Iraq "has begun to stabilize, compared to the deteriorating trajectory" in 2006.
Sprinkled through the report are phrases that make clear the administration believes its military strategy is the right one, that it should be given more time and that positive results are at least months away.
Some examples:
• There are encouraging signs that should, "over time," point the way to lower U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
• Meaningful and lasting progress on national reconciliation may require a "sustained period" of reduced violence.
• Pushing "too fast" for reforms to allow former Sunni Baathists to participate more fully in the government could make it harder to achieve reconciliation. Likewise, it said the time is not right to establish amnesty for those insurgents who fought against the government since 2003, although amnesty is a key goal. At the moment, the report said, "a general amnesty program would be counterproductive" because no major armed group has said it is willing to renounce violence and join the government.
• The report listed eight "core objectives" that will be the main focus "over 2007 and into 2008." These included defeating al-Qaida and its supporters and helping Iraqis regain control of Baghdad.
___
Iraq report may mean longer U.S. surge By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Fri Jul 13, 5:08 PM ET
WASHINGTON - While many in Congress are pushing President Bush to alter course in Iraq by September if not sooner, his new status report on the war strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals.
The report cited no specific timeframe, but its language suggests what some U.S. commanders have hinted at recently: The troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in January may need to remain until spring 2008.
That's a military calculation at odds with an emerging political consensus in Washington on bringing the troops home soon.
The disconnect between the military and political views on the best way forward is a symptom of four-plus years of setbacks in Iraq — not only missteps by the U.S. government but also by Iraqi political leaders, who have fallen far short of their stated aim of creating a government of national unity.
In the view of some members of Congress — and not just Democrats — the time has long passed for the Iraqis to show that they can parlay U.S.-led military efforts into progress on the political front.
"That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said after the White House delivered its war report to Congress on Thursday. Warner was the author of legislation requiring the report.
Hours after the report's release, the House, on a 223-201 vote, approved a Democratic measure requiring U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by spring. House Democrats pursued the vote despite a veto threat from Bush.
The president apparently has made the calculation that he can ward off political pressure to change course before the next required progress report, set for mid-September. That's when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to lay out his assessment of whether the counterinsurgency strategy he launched in February is working and recommends to Bush whether to stick with it into the coming year.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice advanced that view Friday morning, telling Fox News' "Fox & Friends" that by waiting until September, "we can make a coherent judgment of where we are and we can chart a way forward."
"I understand people's concern. I understand people's impatience," she said, "but I would just hope that we could recognize that our men and women in the field, our ambassadors, our generals out there, our commanding general, are on a course that was laid out by the president in Jaunary. We ought to stick to that."
By extending troop deployments in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months, the Army has made it possible for Bush to maintain the troop buildup until about April 2008. But if he wanted to go beyond that it would require some even more painful moves by the Army, at the risk of reaching a breaking point.
Although the war is increasingly unpopular, Bush does have support in some prominent quarters for continuing his current military strategy, not only for the remainder of this year but into 2008. John Keane, a retired four-star Army general, said this week that security progress, though slow, is gaining momentum.
"The thought of pulling out now or in a couple of months makes no sense militarily," Keane said.
Between now and September the battle for Baghdad will intensify, likely costing hundreds of American troops' lives, and the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will be pressured to do more to weed out sectarian influences in the Iraqi security forces and to pass legislation designed to promote reconciliation.
The U.S. casualty rate has increased in recent months, and total U.S. deaths in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 now exceed 3,600.
Petraeus hopes that by September the U.S.-led counteroffensive will have reduced the level of violence enough to create an atmosphere in which political progress can be made, while Iraqi security forces move measurably closer to the point where they can sustain the security gains made by U.S. forces.
"We should expect, however, that AQI will attempt to increase its tempo of attacks as September approaches in an effort to influence U.S domestic opinion about sustained U.S. engagement in Iraq," Bush's report said. AQI is an acronym for the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq that U.S. officials say has a small number of fighters but an outsized ability to accelerate sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere.
At a White House news conference, Bush pleaded for patience, saying that as difficult and painful as the war has become, the consequences of giving up and withdrawing the troops now would be even worse.
His report to Congress acknowledged shortcomings while asserting that the "overall trajectory" of the military and political effort in Iraq "has begun to stabilize, compared to the deteriorating trajectory" in 2006.
Sprinkled through the report are phrases that make clear the administration believes its military strategy is the right one, that it should be given more time and that positive results are at least months away.
Some examples:
• There are encouraging signs that should, "over time," point the way to lower U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
• Meaningful and lasting progress on national reconciliation may require a "sustained period" of reduced violence.
• Pushing "too fast" for reforms to allow former Sunni Baathists to participate more fully in the government could make it harder to achieve reconciliation. Likewise, it said the time is not right to establish amnesty for those insurgents who fought against the government since 2003, although amnesty is a key goal. At the moment, the report said, "a general amnesty program would be counterproductive" because no major armed group has said it is willing to renounce violence and join the government.
• The report listed eight "core objectives" that will be the main focus "over 2007 and into 2008." These included defeating al-Qaida and its supporters and helping Iraqis regain control of Baghdad.
___
Friday, July 6, 2007
Bush: US in Iraq for the long haul
While many prominent Republicans are suggesting time frames for troop pullouts, Bush is going in the opposite direction. He has also renewed talk about victory which will take a long time if it is even possible.
The political rhetoric justifying the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations is disgusting. The word "freedom" is now wholly degraded. The freedom brought to Afghanistan for example includes a legislature in which the rules forbid legislators to criticise each other! Of course legislators break the rules. However when an outspoken woman legislator pointed out the obvious--that warlords with horrendous human rights records were still in the legislature she was suspended! An Afghan Muslim who converted freely to Christianity was threatened with the death penalty but fortunately was offered asylum in Italy. So much for freedom. I am always reminded of e.e. cummings lines:
as freedom is a breakfastfood
or truth can live with right and wrong
or molehills are from mountains made
--long enough and just so long
will being pay the rent of seem
and genius please the talentgang
and water most encourage flame
The problem is that freedom is now marketed just as breakfast food but its great qualities are that it can justify illegal pre-emptive wars and make people feel that they are fighting for lofty causes, long enough and just so long that the military-industrial complex can thrive and extend its global reach.
Bush braces Americans for prolonged struggle in Iraq
July 5, 2007
By Joseph Curl - President Bush yesterday used a July Fourth speech to airmen in West Virginia to brace Americans for another year of war in Iraq, saying the U.S. struggled for six years in the Revolutionary War to win independence from Britain.
"Our first Independence Day celebration took place in a midst of a war — a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years before America finally secured her freedom. More than two [centuries] later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way. But at the time, America's victory was far from certain," the president said in a speech also heavy with praise for current troops and their families.
The Iraq war is in its fifth year, and Iraqi forces are not ready take over security duties from U.S.-led coalition forces. Earlier this year, Mr. Bush ordered another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq, but Democrats and some prominent Republicans say the move is too little too late.
Yet Mr. Bush, addressing more than 1,000 National Guard personnel and family members gathered inside a hangar at the West Virginia Air National Guard base in Martinsburg, praised the men who took up arms against Britain and said today's troops are carrying on a grand tradition.
"Those who wear the uniform are the successors of those who dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty. Like those early patriots, you're fighting a new and unprecedented war — pledging your lives and honor to defend our freedom and way of life. In this war, the weapons have changed, and so have our enemies, but one thing remains the same: The men and women of the Guard stand ready to put on the uniform and fight for America," he said to applause.
The president used the words of a West Virginia Guard member in the audience, Staff Sgt. Derek Brown — who suffered burns on his hands and face in a 2004 attack in Iraq but has since re-enlisted — to repeat a point he makes often.
"I want you to hear what Derek says. He said: 'This war is something that has to be done — either over there or here. And I think it's best we fight it over there,' he said. 'I'm proud to serve my country like those before me — for the cause of freedom,' " Mr. Bush said.
The president defended the war by criticizing some of its opponents as shortsighted.
"Oh, I know the passage of time has ... maybe convinced some that danger doesn't exist. But that's not how I see it, and that's not how many of you see it. These people want to strike us again," he said.
After listing U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush warned that more hardship is to come. "Victory in this struggle will require more patience, more courage and more sacrifice," said Mr. Bush, flanked by a giant American flag.
"However difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it — we must succeed for our own sake; for the security of our citizens, we must support our troops, we must support the Iraqi government, and we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq."
But as he did last week, the president urged patience and called on critics to give his "surge" strategy a chance to work. "Our goal is to help the Iraqi government protect their population, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, and upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against these extremists and terrorists and killers," he said.
"The time will come when Iraq has a stable, self-sustaining government that is an ally against these extremists and killers. That time will come when the Iraqi people will not need the help of 159,000 American troops in their country. Yet, withdrawing our troops prematurely based on politics, not on the advice and recommendation of our military commanders, would not be in our national interest."
The president also noted that the U.S. has "lost some good men and women in this fight. And so on this Fourth of July, we pause to remember the fallen — and the grieving families they have left behind. We hold them in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we pledge to honor their memory by finishing the work for which they have given their life."
The political rhetoric justifying the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations is disgusting. The word "freedom" is now wholly degraded. The freedom brought to Afghanistan for example includes a legislature in which the rules forbid legislators to criticise each other! Of course legislators break the rules. However when an outspoken woman legislator pointed out the obvious--that warlords with horrendous human rights records were still in the legislature she was suspended! An Afghan Muslim who converted freely to Christianity was threatened with the death penalty but fortunately was offered asylum in Italy. So much for freedom. I am always reminded of e.e. cummings lines:
as freedom is a breakfastfood
or truth can live with right and wrong
or molehills are from mountains made
--long enough and just so long
will being pay the rent of seem
and genius please the talentgang
and water most encourage flame
The problem is that freedom is now marketed just as breakfast food but its great qualities are that it can justify illegal pre-emptive wars and make people feel that they are fighting for lofty causes, long enough and just so long that the military-industrial complex can thrive and extend its global reach.
Bush braces Americans for prolonged struggle in Iraq
July 5, 2007
By Joseph Curl - President Bush yesterday used a July Fourth speech to airmen in West Virginia to brace Americans for another year of war in Iraq, saying the U.S. struggled for six years in the Revolutionary War to win independence from Britain.
"Our first Independence Day celebration took place in a midst of a war — a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years before America finally secured her freedom. More than two [centuries] later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way. But at the time, America's victory was far from certain," the president said in a speech also heavy with praise for current troops and their families.
The Iraq war is in its fifth year, and Iraqi forces are not ready take over security duties from U.S.-led coalition forces. Earlier this year, Mr. Bush ordered another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq, but Democrats and some prominent Republicans say the move is too little too late.
Yet Mr. Bush, addressing more than 1,000 National Guard personnel and family members gathered inside a hangar at the West Virginia Air National Guard base in Martinsburg, praised the men who took up arms against Britain and said today's troops are carrying on a grand tradition.
"Those who wear the uniform are the successors of those who dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty. Like those early patriots, you're fighting a new and unprecedented war — pledging your lives and honor to defend our freedom and way of life. In this war, the weapons have changed, and so have our enemies, but one thing remains the same: The men and women of the Guard stand ready to put on the uniform and fight for America," he said to applause.
The president used the words of a West Virginia Guard member in the audience, Staff Sgt. Derek Brown — who suffered burns on his hands and face in a 2004 attack in Iraq but has since re-enlisted — to repeat a point he makes often.
"I want you to hear what Derek says. He said: 'This war is something that has to be done — either over there or here. And I think it's best we fight it over there,' he said. 'I'm proud to serve my country like those before me — for the cause of freedom,' " Mr. Bush said.
The president defended the war by criticizing some of its opponents as shortsighted.
"Oh, I know the passage of time has ... maybe convinced some that danger doesn't exist. But that's not how I see it, and that's not how many of you see it. These people want to strike us again," he said.
After listing U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush warned that more hardship is to come. "Victory in this struggle will require more patience, more courage and more sacrifice," said Mr. Bush, flanked by a giant American flag.
"However difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it — we must succeed for our own sake; for the security of our citizens, we must support our troops, we must support the Iraqi government, and we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq."
But as he did last week, the president urged patience and called on critics to give his "surge" strategy a chance to work. "Our goal is to help the Iraqi government protect their population, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, and upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against these extremists and terrorists and killers," he said.
"The time will come when Iraq has a stable, self-sustaining government that is an ally against these extremists and killers. That time will come when the Iraqi people will not need the help of 159,000 American troops in their country. Yet, withdrawing our troops prematurely based on politics, not on the advice and recommendation of our military commanders, would not be in our national interest."
The president also noted that the U.S. has "lost some good men and women in this fight. And so on this Fourth of July, we pause to remember the fallen — and the grieving families they have left behind. We hold them in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we pledge to honor their memory by finishing the work for which they have given their life."
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Iraq Oil Law: A view from Cuba
The author is an American. I wonder how he manages to be in Cuba. I thought that in general the US did not allow travel there. I guess he does not intend to go home! Given the tone of his articles he probably will not be regarded as a refugee fleeing Cuba and welcomed back with open arms.
US-Iraq Pullout Bad for Business
Por Etchegaray / Jueves, 24 de Mayo del 2007 / 12:10:14 / rene@ahora.cu
By Circles Robinson*
A US pullout from Iraq would jeopardize the windfall profits for a host of well-placed corporations specializing in oil, weapons, construction, security, and other war services.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at a record high, so it’s no surprise that Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Parsons, BP, Shell, etc., are firmly behind President Bush in his efforts to maintain and extend the Iraq occupation as long as possible.
With the corporations’ security expenses and investment risks being picked up by the US taxpayers, what incentive is there to hurry up any eventual withdrawal?
To keep the profits flowing, Bush has just named Lt. General Douglas E. Lute as the new “war czar” for Iraq and Afghanistan. In appointing Lute -who must be confirmed by the Senate- Bush said he is “a tremendously accomplished military leader who understands war and government and knows how to get things done.”
Gen David H. Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq said Lute would be “a great addition to the team that is striving for success in Iraq.”
What “success” means at this point in the war has never been fully explained to the people of the United States.
OIL FOREVER
Washington’s current top agenda item in Iraq is getting the puppet Iraqi government and legislature to approve a bill that would assure that private foreign corporations control the Iraqi oil industry and hundreds of billions in profits for decades to come.
Author and oil analyst Antonia Juhasz says the law being pushed by the Bush administration for Iraq, “opens up at a minimum, two thirds of Iraq’s oil to private, foreign corporate investment on terms that are literally the most generous available, just about anywhere in the world. Generous to the oil companies that is.”
The law is so slanted to favor the transnational corporations that it has little support even among the Iraqis that have collaborated with the occupation forces. The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU),-not the resistance- are threatening to strike if it proceeds.
BUSH IS NO PUSHOVER FOR CONGRESS
The charade over why Iraq had to be attacked ended shortly after the 2003 occupation began. The pretexts of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein being on a first name basis with Osama Bin Laden collapsed like a house of cards. Congress overwhelmingly supported the first hundreds of billions of dollars for the war. Now, the President is betting that when push comes to shove many critics on Capitol Hill will buckle to the fear of being accused of deserting the troops.
The 67-29 Senate vote last week against stopping funding for major combat operations within a year has bolstered the President’s hand, at least temporarily. There is still grumbling in the House of Representatives and among Democratic Party presidential candidates in the Senate but a prolonging of the war and related profits is almost guaranteed.
ROSY PICTURE, CLOUDY REALITY
For years now, the US news media has published one Pentagon report after another boasting of scores of “insurgents” killed in Iraq and rejoicing at the death of supposed “top ranking” Al Qaeda leaders. The hanging of Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi officials was also supposed to mark a turning point. If killing Iraqis was the solution, the war would have been over a long time ago. Instead, for every “militant” or “leader” killed, many more Iraqis are willing to take their place. Kill five today and fight fifty tomorrow.
To counter the would-be quitters, the State Department and its supporters on Capitol Hill warn of a civil war and possible large-scale bloodbath if the US forces leave Iraq. I wonder what they call the 50 to a 100 dead and hundreds more wounded every day; month after month, year after year?
As was the case in the early years of the Vietnam War, the vast majority of major US newspapers rushed to support the war on Iraq. Three hundred fifty billion dollars later with $90 billion more on the horizon, and public opinion turning against the war, several major newspapers are now calling for some sort of pullout.
The L.A. Times made its about face in a recent editorial stating: “The longer we delay planning the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.”
But the California daily misses the point: Worse for whom? If the real reason for being in Iraq is to help US corporations make a buck than every day the troops remain in place is another day that the dollars flow. Isn’t the motto: What’s good for business is good for the nation?
*Circles Robinson is a US journalist living in Havana. His reports and commentaries can be read at www.circlesonline.blogspot.com
Disculpa, los comentarios no están activados para esta noticia.
US-Iraq Pullout Bad for Business
Por Etchegaray / Jueves, 24 de Mayo del 2007 / 12:10:14 / rene@ahora.cu
By Circles Robinson*
A US pullout from Iraq would jeopardize the windfall profits for a host of well-placed corporations specializing in oil, weapons, construction, security, and other war services.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at a record high, so it’s no surprise that Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Parsons, BP, Shell, etc., are firmly behind President Bush in his efforts to maintain and extend the Iraq occupation as long as possible.
With the corporations’ security expenses and investment risks being picked up by the US taxpayers, what incentive is there to hurry up any eventual withdrawal?
To keep the profits flowing, Bush has just named Lt. General Douglas E. Lute as the new “war czar” for Iraq and Afghanistan. In appointing Lute -who must be confirmed by the Senate- Bush said he is “a tremendously accomplished military leader who understands war and government and knows how to get things done.”
Gen David H. Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq said Lute would be “a great addition to the team that is striving for success in Iraq.”
What “success” means at this point in the war has never been fully explained to the people of the United States.
OIL FOREVER
Washington’s current top agenda item in Iraq is getting the puppet Iraqi government and legislature to approve a bill that would assure that private foreign corporations control the Iraqi oil industry and hundreds of billions in profits for decades to come.
Author and oil analyst Antonia Juhasz says the law being pushed by the Bush administration for Iraq, “opens up at a minimum, two thirds of Iraq’s oil to private, foreign corporate investment on terms that are literally the most generous available, just about anywhere in the world. Generous to the oil companies that is.”
The law is so slanted to favor the transnational corporations that it has little support even among the Iraqis that have collaborated with the occupation forces. The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU),-not the resistance- are threatening to strike if it proceeds.
BUSH IS NO PUSHOVER FOR CONGRESS
The charade over why Iraq had to be attacked ended shortly after the 2003 occupation began. The pretexts of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein being on a first name basis with Osama Bin Laden collapsed like a house of cards. Congress overwhelmingly supported the first hundreds of billions of dollars for the war. Now, the President is betting that when push comes to shove many critics on Capitol Hill will buckle to the fear of being accused of deserting the troops.
The 67-29 Senate vote last week against stopping funding for major combat operations within a year has bolstered the President’s hand, at least temporarily. There is still grumbling in the House of Representatives and among Democratic Party presidential candidates in the Senate but a prolonging of the war and related profits is almost guaranteed.
ROSY PICTURE, CLOUDY REALITY
For years now, the US news media has published one Pentagon report after another boasting of scores of “insurgents” killed in Iraq and rejoicing at the death of supposed “top ranking” Al Qaeda leaders. The hanging of Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi officials was also supposed to mark a turning point. If killing Iraqis was the solution, the war would have been over a long time ago. Instead, for every “militant” or “leader” killed, many more Iraqis are willing to take their place. Kill five today and fight fifty tomorrow.
To counter the would-be quitters, the State Department and its supporters on Capitol Hill warn of a civil war and possible large-scale bloodbath if the US forces leave Iraq. I wonder what they call the 50 to a 100 dead and hundreds more wounded every day; month after month, year after year?
As was the case in the early years of the Vietnam War, the vast majority of major US newspapers rushed to support the war on Iraq. Three hundred fifty billion dollars later with $90 billion more on the horizon, and public opinion turning against the war, several major newspapers are now calling for some sort of pullout.
The L.A. Times made its about face in a recent editorial stating: “The longer we delay planning the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.”
But the California daily misses the point: Worse for whom? If the real reason for being in Iraq is to help US corporations make a buck than every day the troops remain in place is another day that the dollars flow. Isn’t the motto: What’s good for business is good for the nation?
*Circles Robinson is a US journalist living in Havana. His reports and commentaries can be read at www.circlesonline.blogspot.com
Disculpa, los comentarios no están activados para esta noticia.
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Reconciliation Stage of US policy in Iraq
This is an interesting point of view on US strategy in Iraq emanating from Lebanon.
Hashemi Gains and Maliki Concessions
Mustapha Zein Al-Hayat - 13/05/07//
Reconciliation is the title of the US new stage in Iraq. Former US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has called for and laid some of the foundations of this reconciliation, which has been adopted by the Bush Administration. It was the slogan of the Sharm el-Sheikh conference, where a bargain has been struck on making progress in this process in return for assisting the Iraqi government in consolidating its political and military authority and allowing it to further normalize its relations with neighboring countries. In other words, Iraq will exercise some of its sovereignty, following Washington's agreement with Iran and Syria on many issues that include, besides the Iraqi issue, the Palestinian and nuclear files.
Reconciliation, as proposed by Washington, is based on several points, some of the most important of which are: concession by Shiites of some of their gains, particularly in security services and the Interior and Defense Ministries, to the Sunnis; laws ratification, chiefly a new oil law that allows foreign companies, especially American ones, to invest in Iraq under certain conditions which Iraqi experts say is unfair, non-existent in any oil-rich country, and that allow federal territories to sign contracts without referring to the central government; and reinstalling former army officers and repealing the debaathification law, which was orchestrated by Paul Bremer at the beginning of the invasion.
Any reading of the reconciliation terms will confirm that the US administration seeks to invest the reality created by the occupation and formulate it into texts and laws laid down by the Iraqis themselves, after reconsidering sectarian and ethnic pro rata through eliciting concessions from this or that party. What is important is to maintain the outcome of the invasion and consolidate the correlation between Iraqi and US interests, via the oil and arms companies, and the mercenaries who have spread corruption, death and destruction without being punished by the law, and under the full protection of an administration that has lied to its people, its army and institutions to justify the war.
Cheney has warned al-Maliki that "Washington's patience is wearing thin" and that he must speed up the process of reconciliation, in the belief (or rather the fancy) that this will end resistance and allow the U.S. administration to claim that it has achieved its objectives and that it can now withdraw its forces and face the Democrats in the upcoming presidential elections.
It is painful that the Iraqi leaders have responded positively to the U.S. proposals. Iraqi Vice President Tariq Hashemi welcomed Cheney's visit and lauded its outcome. He also said that the implementation of these conditions would do justice to the Sunnis. For his part, Maliki is studying the best way to implement the U.S. dictations without raising the ire of his allies in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA).
All the Iraqi leaders are only thinking about their communities and how to satisfy them by increasing their share in the government, while only a few people are talking about the identity of Iraq. They have replaced a united country with a splintering sectarianism.
Hashemi has managed to wrest a position in the government and within the community with US support to forestall any reconciliation with the armed factions, and, consequently, he must convince the government of his leadership and achievement. For his part, Al-Maliki has to convince the remaining Shiite parties with the necessity of relinquishing some of their gains. This will not be easy, as differences are running high within the UIA, particularly between Muqtada al-Sadr and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Meanwhile, the Al-Fadhila (Virtue) is preparing for its battle to preserve its gains in Basra.
Cheney holds the Iraqi government responsible for the progress in the reconciliation process. He headed to neighboring countries to promote for this course, reassuring himself and others that calm will soon descend on Iraq; after that, undivided attention may be given to a conflict with Iran, using Iraq as a springboard after that country has been transformed into a sectarian strife-ridden federal State and has been consolidated to become an advanced post in the war on terror- a war that is open war in time and place. Arms and mercenary companies are always ready to engage in this war.
Neither the gains al-Hashemi aspires to achieve nor will the concessions to be made by al-Maliki build a unified country. The opposite will be the case. They instead will achieve many of the occupation's objectives, of which taking control of oil, erasing the identity of Iraq and turning it into a hotbed of religious and sectarian conflict are self-evident.
Reconciliation is only feasible through agreement on a national program that transcends sects, creeds and races. Gains can either be for all, or become a source of dissension.
<
Hashemi Gains and Maliki Concessions
Mustapha Zein Al-Hayat - 13/05/07//
Reconciliation is the title of the US new stage in Iraq. Former US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has called for and laid some of the foundations of this reconciliation, which has been adopted by the Bush Administration. It was the slogan of the Sharm el-Sheikh conference, where a bargain has been struck on making progress in this process in return for assisting the Iraqi government in consolidating its political and military authority and allowing it to further normalize its relations with neighboring countries. In other words, Iraq will exercise some of its sovereignty, following Washington's agreement with Iran and Syria on many issues that include, besides the Iraqi issue, the Palestinian and nuclear files.
Reconciliation, as proposed by Washington, is based on several points, some of the most important of which are: concession by Shiites of some of their gains, particularly in security services and the Interior and Defense Ministries, to the Sunnis; laws ratification, chiefly a new oil law that allows foreign companies, especially American ones, to invest in Iraq under certain conditions which Iraqi experts say is unfair, non-existent in any oil-rich country, and that allow federal territories to sign contracts without referring to the central government; and reinstalling former army officers and repealing the debaathification law, which was orchestrated by Paul Bremer at the beginning of the invasion.
Any reading of the reconciliation terms will confirm that the US administration seeks to invest the reality created by the occupation and formulate it into texts and laws laid down by the Iraqis themselves, after reconsidering sectarian and ethnic pro rata through eliciting concessions from this or that party. What is important is to maintain the outcome of the invasion and consolidate the correlation between Iraqi and US interests, via the oil and arms companies, and the mercenaries who have spread corruption, death and destruction without being punished by the law, and under the full protection of an administration that has lied to its people, its army and institutions to justify the war.
Cheney has warned al-Maliki that "Washington's patience is wearing thin" and that he must speed up the process of reconciliation, in the belief (or rather the fancy) that this will end resistance and allow the U.S. administration to claim that it has achieved its objectives and that it can now withdraw its forces and face the Democrats in the upcoming presidential elections.
It is painful that the Iraqi leaders have responded positively to the U.S. proposals. Iraqi Vice President Tariq Hashemi welcomed Cheney's visit and lauded its outcome. He also said that the implementation of these conditions would do justice to the Sunnis. For his part, Maliki is studying the best way to implement the U.S. dictations without raising the ire of his allies in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA).
All the Iraqi leaders are only thinking about their communities and how to satisfy them by increasing their share in the government, while only a few people are talking about the identity of Iraq. They have replaced a united country with a splintering sectarianism.
Hashemi has managed to wrest a position in the government and within the community with US support to forestall any reconciliation with the armed factions, and, consequently, he must convince the government of his leadership and achievement. For his part, Al-Maliki has to convince the remaining Shiite parties with the necessity of relinquishing some of their gains. This will not be easy, as differences are running high within the UIA, particularly between Muqtada al-Sadr and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Meanwhile, the Al-Fadhila (Virtue) is preparing for its battle to preserve its gains in Basra.
Cheney holds the Iraqi government responsible for the progress in the reconciliation process. He headed to neighboring countries to promote for this course, reassuring himself and others that calm will soon descend on Iraq; after that, undivided attention may be given to a conflict with Iran, using Iraq as a springboard after that country has been transformed into a sectarian strife-ridden federal State and has been consolidated to become an advanced post in the war on terror- a war that is open war in time and place. Arms and mercenary companies are always ready to engage in this war.
Neither the gains al-Hashemi aspires to achieve nor will the concessions to be made by al-Maliki build a unified country. The opposite will be the case. They instead will achieve many of the occupation's objectives, of which taking control of oil, erasing the identity of Iraq and turning it into a hotbed of religious and sectarian conflict are self-evident.
Reconciliation is only feasible through agreement on a national program that transcends sects, creeds and races. Gains can either be for all, or become a source of dissension.
<
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Talabani lashes out at US occupation
Surprising that Talabani speaks of an occupation. The US of course now considers itself as being present in Iraq at Iraq's invitation and UN approval. It uses these figleafs regularly. Of course one might wonder if Iraq is a sovereign nation why it cannot protect Iranians seized from Irbil or even have them released! It cannot even control US forces or control US jails in Iraq. Why does not this sovereign nation release to the press the new oil law and have a national debate about it before it passes parliament?
Talabani lashes out at US policy in Iraq under 'occupation'
March 30, 2007
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani attends the Arab summit in Riyadh on 28 March. Talabani has said that the US-led invasion of his country four years ago had turned into an occupation with dire consequences for Iraq.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Thursday that the US-led invasion of his country four years ago had turned into an occupation with dire consequences for Iraq.
Talabani, a member of the Kurdish minority, which has been largely insulated from the violence and devastation visited on other parts of the country since Saddam Hussein fell, was addressing the Arab summit in the Saudi capital.
"The decision to turn the liberation of Iraq into an occupation ... with the dire consequences this had internally and the fears (it aroused) in Arab, regional and international arenas, all this was contrary to what Iraqi parties and national forces were planning at the time," he said.
"This applies equally to many hasty decisions and measures taken by the occupation's civil administration without understanding the Iraqis' point of view and the consequences they had on the situation in the country and the political process as a whole," he said.
"The policies pursued in the wake of the overthrow of the former regime, and the weakness of the international response to the will of the political forces who rallied to rebuild the new Iraq, stymied our early quest to broaden popular participation in order to ... establish security and stability and confront the challenges of sabotage, chaos and terrorism as quickly as possible and with the least human and material losses."
Talabani did not spell out the mistakes he was referring to, but the US-run civil administration installed after Saddam's fall has been widely criticised for taking decisions that have made the situation worse.
Particularly were the disbanding of the Saddam regime's army and the banning of the former dictator's Baath party. That left tens of thousands of military personnel and civilian officials and bureaucrats without jobs, fueling an insurgency among the minority Sunni community from which most of them came.
Talabani lashes out at US policy in Iraq under 'occupation'
March 30, 2007
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani attends the Arab summit in Riyadh on 28 March. Talabani has said that the US-led invasion of his country four years ago had turned into an occupation with dire consequences for Iraq.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Thursday that the US-led invasion of his country four years ago had turned into an occupation with dire consequences for Iraq.
Talabani, a member of the Kurdish minority, which has been largely insulated from the violence and devastation visited on other parts of the country since Saddam Hussein fell, was addressing the Arab summit in the Saudi capital.
"The decision to turn the liberation of Iraq into an occupation ... with the dire consequences this had internally and the fears (it aroused) in Arab, regional and international arenas, all this was contrary to what Iraqi parties and national forces were planning at the time," he said.
"This applies equally to many hasty decisions and measures taken by the occupation's civil administration without understanding the Iraqis' point of view and the consequences they had on the situation in the country and the political process as a whole," he said.
"The policies pursued in the wake of the overthrow of the former regime, and the weakness of the international response to the will of the political forces who rallied to rebuild the new Iraq, stymied our early quest to broaden popular participation in order to ... establish security and stability and confront the challenges of sabotage, chaos and terrorism as quickly as possible and with the least human and material losses."
Talabani did not spell out the mistakes he was referring to, but the US-run civil administration installed after Saddam's fall has been widely criticised for taking decisions that have made the situation worse.
Particularly were the disbanding of the Saddam regime's army and the banning of the former dictator's Baath party. That left tens of thousands of military personnel and civilian officials and bureaucrats without jobs, fueling an insurgency among the minority Sunni community from which most of them came.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Civil War in Iraq
This is an article from Foreign Affairs Magazine. The whole article is available here.
It is not clear to me that Bush is siding with the Shiites except insofar as part of the surge is targetting Sunni areas. Other operations are targetting Shia's. At most the US is siding with some Shias. This article is interesting in recognising explicitly that civil war is already started and that it is probably not stoppable by US and allied action. Bush would like both Kurds and Shias to recongise Sunni rights to some oil revenues and to share power with them as a way of creating a more stable government, but of course one strongly influenced by the US.
Iraq's Civil War
James D. Fearon
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007
Summary: The White House still avoids the label, but by any reasonable historical standard, the Iraqi civil war has begun. The record of past such wars suggests that Washington cannot stop this one -- and that Iraqis will be able to reach a power-sharing deal only after much more fighting, if then. The United States can help bring about a settlement eventually by balancing Iraqi factions from afar, but there is little it can do to avert bloodshed now.
James D. Fearon is Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Stanford University.
NO GRACEFUL EXIT
As sectarian violence spiked in Baghdad around last Thanksgiving, Bush administration spokespeople found themselves engaged in a strange semantic fight with American journalists over whether the conflict in Iraq is appropriately described as a civil war. It is not hard to understand why the administration strongly resists the label. For one thing, the U.S. media would interpret a change in the White House's position on this question as a major concession, an open acknowledgment of dashed hopes and failed policy. For another, the administration worries that if the U.S. public comes to see the violence in Iraq as a civil war, it will be even less willing to tolerate continued U.S. military engagement. "If it's a civil war, what are we doing there, mixed up in someone else's fight?" Americans may ask.
But if semantics could matter a lot, it is less obvious whether they should influence U.S. policy. Is it just a matter of domestic political games and public perceptions, or does the existence of civil war in Iraq have implications for what can be achieved there and what strategy Washington should pursue?
In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic. Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the "surge" option, as President George W. Bush has proposed, or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group.
Even if an increase in the number of U.S. combat troops reduces violence in Baghdad and so buys time for negotiations on power sharing in the current Iraqi government, there is no good reason to expect that subsequent reductions would not revive the violent power struggle. Civil wars are rarely ended by stable power-sharing agreements. When they are, it typically takes combatants who are not highly factionalized and years of fighting to clarify the balance of power. Neither condition is satisfied by Iraq at present. Factionalism among the Sunnis and the Shiites approaches levels seen in Somalia, and multiple armed groups on both sides appear to believe that they could wrest control of the government if U.S. forces left. Such beliefs will not change quickly while large numbers of U.S. troops remain.
As the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad proceeds, the weak Shiite-dominated government is inevitably becoming an open partisan in a nasty civil war between Sunni and Shiite Arabs. As a result, President Bush's commitment to making a "success" of the current government will increasingly amount to siding with the Shiites, a position that is morally dubious and probably not in the interest of either the United States or long-term regional peace and stability. A decisive military victory by a Shiite-dominated government is not possible anytime soon given the favorable conditions for insurgency fought from the Sunni-dominated provinces. Furthermore, this course encourages Sunni nationalists to turn to al Qaeda in Iraq for support against Shiite militias and the Iraqi army. It also essentially aligns Washington with Tehran against the Sunni-dominated states to the west.
As long as the Bush administration remains absolutely committed to propping up the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or a similarly configured successor, the U.S. government will have limited leverage with almost all of the relevant parties. By contrast, moving away from absolute commitment -- for example, by beginning to shift U.S. combat troops out of the central theaters -- would increase U.S. diplomatic and military leverage on almost all fronts. Doing so would not allow the current or the next U.S. administration to bring a quick end to the civil war, which most likely will last for some time. But it would allow the United States to play a balancing role between the combatants that would be more conducive to reaching, in the long run, a stable resolution in which Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish interests are well represented in a decent Iraqi government. If the Iraqis ever manage to settle on the power-sharing agreement that is the objective of current U.S. policy, it will come only after bitter fighting in the civil war that is already under way.
WAR RECORDS
A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies. Everyday usage of the term "civil war" does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife. Political scientists sometimes use a threshold of at least 1,000 killed over the course of a conflict. Based on this arguably rather low figure, there have been around 125 civil wars since the end of World War II, and there are roughly 20 ongoing today. If that threshold is increased to an average of 1,000 people killed per year, there have still been over 90 civil wars since 1945. (It is often assumed that the prevalence of civil wars is a post-Cold War phenomenon, but in fact the number of ongoing civil wars increased steadily from 1945 to the early 1990s, before receding somewhat to late-1970s levels.) The rate of killing in Iraq -- easily more than 60,000 in the last three years -- puts the conflict in the company of many recent ones that are routinely described as civil wars (for example, those in Algeria, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, and Sri Lanka). Indeed, even the conservative estimate of 60,000 deaths would make Iraq the ninth-deadliest civil war since 1945 in terms of annual casualties.
It is not clear to me that Bush is siding with the Shiites except insofar as part of the surge is targetting Sunni areas. Other operations are targetting Shia's. At most the US is siding with some Shias. This article is interesting in recognising explicitly that civil war is already started and that it is probably not stoppable by US and allied action. Bush would like both Kurds and Shias to recongise Sunni rights to some oil revenues and to share power with them as a way of creating a more stable government, but of course one strongly influenced by the US.
Iraq's Civil War
James D. Fearon
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007
Summary: The White House still avoids the label, but by any reasonable historical standard, the Iraqi civil war has begun. The record of past such wars suggests that Washington cannot stop this one -- and that Iraqis will be able to reach a power-sharing deal only after much more fighting, if then. The United States can help bring about a settlement eventually by balancing Iraqi factions from afar, but there is little it can do to avert bloodshed now.
James D. Fearon is Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Stanford University.
NO GRACEFUL EXIT
As sectarian violence spiked in Baghdad around last Thanksgiving, Bush administration spokespeople found themselves engaged in a strange semantic fight with American journalists over whether the conflict in Iraq is appropriately described as a civil war. It is not hard to understand why the administration strongly resists the label. For one thing, the U.S. media would interpret a change in the White House's position on this question as a major concession, an open acknowledgment of dashed hopes and failed policy. For another, the administration worries that if the U.S. public comes to see the violence in Iraq as a civil war, it will be even less willing to tolerate continued U.S. military engagement. "If it's a civil war, what are we doing there, mixed up in someone else's fight?" Americans may ask.
But if semantics could matter a lot, it is less obvious whether they should influence U.S. policy. Is it just a matter of domestic political games and public perceptions, or does the existence of civil war in Iraq have implications for what can be achieved there and what strategy Washington should pursue?
In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic. Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the "surge" option, as President George W. Bush has proposed, or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group.
Even if an increase in the number of U.S. combat troops reduces violence in Baghdad and so buys time for negotiations on power sharing in the current Iraqi government, there is no good reason to expect that subsequent reductions would not revive the violent power struggle. Civil wars are rarely ended by stable power-sharing agreements. When they are, it typically takes combatants who are not highly factionalized and years of fighting to clarify the balance of power. Neither condition is satisfied by Iraq at present. Factionalism among the Sunnis and the Shiites approaches levels seen in Somalia, and multiple armed groups on both sides appear to believe that they could wrest control of the government if U.S. forces left. Such beliefs will not change quickly while large numbers of U.S. troops remain.
As the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad proceeds, the weak Shiite-dominated government is inevitably becoming an open partisan in a nasty civil war between Sunni and Shiite Arabs. As a result, President Bush's commitment to making a "success" of the current government will increasingly amount to siding with the Shiites, a position that is morally dubious and probably not in the interest of either the United States or long-term regional peace and stability. A decisive military victory by a Shiite-dominated government is not possible anytime soon given the favorable conditions for insurgency fought from the Sunni-dominated provinces. Furthermore, this course encourages Sunni nationalists to turn to al Qaeda in Iraq for support against Shiite militias and the Iraqi army. It also essentially aligns Washington with Tehran against the Sunni-dominated states to the west.
As long as the Bush administration remains absolutely committed to propping up the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or a similarly configured successor, the U.S. government will have limited leverage with almost all of the relevant parties. By contrast, moving away from absolute commitment -- for example, by beginning to shift U.S. combat troops out of the central theaters -- would increase U.S. diplomatic and military leverage on almost all fronts. Doing so would not allow the current or the next U.S. administration to bring a quick end to the civil war, which most likely will last for some time. But it would allow the United States to play a balancing role between the combatants that would be more conducive to reaching, in the long run, a stable resolution in which Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish interests are well represented in a decent Iraqi government. If the Iraqis ever manage to settle on the power-sharing agreement that is the objective of current U.S. policy, it will come only after bitter fighting in the civil war that is already under way.
WAR RECORDS
A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies. Everyday usage of the term "civil war" does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife. Political scientists sometimes use a threshold of at least 1,000 killed over the course of a conflict. Based on this arguably rather low figure, there have been around 125 civil wars since the end of World War II, and there are roughly 20 ongoing today. If that threshold is increased to an average of 1,000 people killed per year, there have still been over 90 civil wars since 1945. (It is often assumed that the prevalence of civil wars is a post-Cold War phenomenon, but in fact the number of ongoing civil wars increased steadily from 1945 to the early 1990s, before receding somewhat to late-1970s levels.) The rate of killing in Iraq -- easily more than 60,000 in the last three years -- puts the conflict in the company of many recent ones that are routinely described as civil wars (for example, those in Algeria, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, and Sri Lanka). Indeed, even the conservative estimate of 60,000 deaths would make Iraq the ninth-deadliest civil war since 1945 in terms of annual casualties.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Article on Iraq: Iranian ambassador to UN
Although this naturally portrays Iran in positive terms it is still remarkably perceptive and compared to the rhetoric of the president of Iran also moderate in tone. His points about US policy inflaming sectarian tensions is surely right on the mark.
How Not to Inflame Iraq
By Javad Zarif
Iranian ambassador to the United Nations
02/08/07 "New York Times" -- - BEFORE the United States invaded Iraq on false pretexts nearly four years ago, the overwhelming view of analysts and diplomats was that war would plunge the region and the world into greater turmoil and instability. Echoing the views of my colleagues from the region and beyond, I told the Security Council on Feb. 18, 2003, that while the ramifications of the war could go beyond anyone’s calculations, “one outcome is almost certain: extremism stands to benefit enormously from an uncalculated adventure in Iraq.”
This assessment came not from any sympathy for the former Iraqi dictator or his regime. Certainly Iran — which had suffered the carnage of an eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, and on which Saddam Hussein unleashed chemical weapons — had no affinity for him. Rather, it was based on a sober recognition of the realities of the region and the inescapable dynamics of occupation.
Now the United States administration is — unfortunately — reaping the expected bitter fruits of its ill-conceived adventurism, taking the region and the world with it to the brink of further hostility. But rather than face these unpleasant facts, the United States administration is trying to sell an escalated version of the same failed policy. It does this by trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq.
The United States administration also appears to be trying to forge a regional coalition to counter Iranian influence. But even if it succeeds in doing so, such a coalition will prove practically futile, dangerous to the region as a whole and internally destabilizing for Iraq. By promoting such a policy, the United States is fanning the flames of sectarianism just when they most need to be quelled.
Coalitions of convenience like the one the United States government now contemplates were a hallmark of American policy in the region in the 1980s and 1990s, and their effect then was to contribute to the creation of monsters like Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Short memories may be responsible for this ill-advised return to old habits.
But who can forget that Saddam Hussein used the very same scare tactic, invoking the “Iranian threat” to extort money, loyalty and military hardware from the region and the world, only to turn them later against his suppliers? Who cannot remember that to contain the supposed “Shiite Crescent” after the 1979 Iranian revolution, the extremism of the fundamentalist Salafi movement was nourished by the West — only to transform later into Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Why should the same policy in the same region produce any different result now?
There are already indications that extremists are exploiting the most emotional sectarian and ethnic divides in the region in an effort to sell possible collaboration with old and new occupiers of Arab lands to a restive, frustrated and resentful populace. Such a shortsighted campaign of hatred will compound regional problems, and it will have global implications, from the subcontinent to Europe and the United States, long after the current crisis in Iraq ends.
We need to remember that sectarian division and hatred in Iraq and the wider region was most recently instigated by none other than the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The shameful legacy of Mr. Zarqawi and his collaborators should have been buried with him. To that end, all of us in the region need to set aside shortsighted schemes and engage with the government of Iraq in a common effort to contain sectarian violence.
The Persian Gulf region is in dire need of a truly inclusive arrangement for security and cooperation. Only through such regional cooperation, with the necessary international support, can we contain the current crisis and prevent future ones. I wrote in these pages almost four years ago that the removal of Saddam Hussein provided a unique opportunity to finally realize the long sought objective of regional confidence-building and cooperation, as well as to reverse the dangerous trend of confrontation, exclusion and rivalry.
We have lost many valuable opportunities to effect this arrangement, with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives shattered in the interim. The forthcoming meeting of Iraq’s neighbors, to be held in Baghdad next month, will be a good place to begin this difficult but necessary journey toward regional security.
The American administration can also contribute to ending the current nightmare — and preventing future ones — by recognizing that occupation and the threat or use of force are not merely impermissible under international law, but indeed imprudent in purely political calculations of national interest. As authoritative studies have repeatedly shown, no initiators of war in recent history have achieved the intended results; in fact, in almost all cases, those resorting to force have ultimately undermined their own security and stature.
When 140,000 American troops could not bring stability to Iraq, and in fact achieved exactly the opposite, an additional 20,000 soldiers with a dangerous new mandate can only be expected to worsen tension and increase the possibility of unintended escalation. Only a reversal of the logic of force and occupation can dry up the hotbeds of insurgency.
Similarly, forging imaginary new threats, as the United States administration is now doing with Iran, may provide some temporary domestic cover for the failure of the administration’s Iraq policy, but it can hardly resolve problems that — as widely suggested — require prudence, dialogue and a genuine search for solutions.
We all need to learn from past mistakes and not stubbornly insist on repeating them against all advice — including the advice George Bush gave as a presidential candidate in 2000: “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”
How Not to Inflame Iraq
By Javad Zarif
Iranian ambassador to the United Nations
02/08/07 "New York Times" -- - BEFORE the United States invaded Iraq on false pretexts nearly four years ago, the overwhelming view of analysts and diplomats was that war would plunge the region and the world into greater turmoil and instability. Echoing the views of my colleagues from the region and beyond, I told the Security Council on Feb. 18, 2003, that while the ramifications of the war could go beyond anyone’s calculations, “one outcome is almost certain: extremism stands to benefit enormously from an uncalculated adventure in Iraq.”
This assessment came not from any sympathy for the former Iraqi dictator or his regime. Certainly Iran — which had suffered the carnage of an eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, and on which Saddam Hussein unleashed chemical weapons — had no affinity for him. Rather, it was based on a sober recognition of the realities of the region and the inescapable dynamics of occupation.
Now the United States administration is — unfortunately — reaping the expected bitter fruits of its ill-conceived adventurism, taking the region and the world with it to the brink of further hostility. But rather than face these unpleasant facts, the United States administration is trying to sell an escalated version of the same failed policy. It does this by trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq.
The United States administration also appears to be trying to forge a regional coalition to counter Iranian influence. But even if it succeeds in doing so, such a coalition will prove practically futile, dangerous to the region as a whole and internally destabilizing for Iraq. By promoting such a policy, the United States is fanning the flames of sectarianism just when they most need to be quelled.
Coalitions of convenience like the one the United States government now contemplates were a hallmark of American policy in the region in the 1980s and 1990s, and their effect then was to contribute to the creation of monsters like Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Short memories may be responsible for this ill-advised return to old habits.
But who can forget that Saddam Hussein used the very same scare tactic, invoking the “Iranian threat” to extort money, loyalty and military hardware from the region and the world, only to turn them later against his suppliers? Who cannot remember that to contain the supposed “Shiite Crescent” after the 1979 Iranian revolution, the extremism of the fundamentalist Salafi movement was nourished by the West — only to transform later into Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Why should the same policy in the same region produce any different result now?
There are already indications that extremists are exploiting the most emotional sectarian and ethnic divides in the region in an effort to sell possible collaboration with old and new occupiers of Arab lands to a restive, frustrated and resentful populace. Such a shortsighted campaign of hatred will compound regional problems, and it will have global implications, from the subcontinent to Europe and the United States, long after the current crisis in Iraq ends.
We need to remember that sectarian division and hatred in Iraq and the wider region was most recently instigated by none other than the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The shameful legacy of Mr. Zarqawi and his collaborators should have been buried with him. To that end, all of us in the region need to set aside shortsighted schemes and engage with the government of Iraq in a common effort to contain sectarian violence.
The Persian Gulf region is in dire need of a truly inclusive arrangement for security and cooperation. Only through such regional cooperation, with the necessary international support, can we contain the current crisis and prevent future ones. I wrote in these pages almost four years ago that the removal of Saddam Hussein provided a unique opportunity to finally realize the long sought objective of regional confidence-building and cooperation, as well as to reverse the dangerous trend of confrontation, exclusion and rivalry.
We have lost many valuable opportunities to effect this arrangement, with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives shattered in the interim. The forthcoming meeting of Iraq’s neighbors, to be held in Baghdad next month, will be a good place to begin this difficult but necessary journey toward regional security.
The American administration can also contribute to ending the current nightmare — and preventing future ones — by recognizing that occupation and the threat or use of force are not merely impermissible under international law, but indeed imprudent in purely political calculations of national interest. As authoritative studies have repeatedly shown, no initiators of war in recent history have achieved the intended results; in fact, in almost all cases, those resorting to force have ultimately undermined their own security and stature.
When 140,000 American troops could not bring stability to Iraq, and in fact achieved exactly the opposite, an additional 20,000 soldiers with a dangerous new mandate can only be expected to worsen tension and increase the possibility of unintended escalation. Only a reversal of the logic of force and occupation can dry up the hotbeds of insurgency.
Similarly, forging imaginary new threats, as the United States administration is now doing with Iran, may provide some temporary domestic cover for the failure of the administration’s Iraq policy, but it can hardly resolve problems that — as widely suggested — require prudence, dialogue and a genuine search for solutions.
We all need to learn from past mistakes and not stubbornly insist on repeating them against all advice — including the advice George Bush gave as a presidential candidate in 2000: “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
Mike Dunleavy the governor of the US state of Alaska is intending to introduce legislation that will repeal the two state boards which regu...
-
(August 11 ) In recent weeks, a recurring problem has been that Russia has intercepted US surveillance planes over the Black Sea as they wer...
