[QUOTE=xtisme]
Go up thread a bit and you’ll see the same link used by PatriotX, Red. 
-XT
[/QUOTE]
No, not really, Patriot links to the full pdf DNI report on the Iraq situation. I took Mike McConnell’s quotes from a meeting he had with the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Obviously, he agreed with himself.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Let me just add that a nasty civil war, as horrible as it may be, isn’t a sign that the US “lost” in Iraq.
I can’t think of many modern democracies that didn’t have to go thru a civil war to get to where they are now.
Did the US lose the War of Independence because we engaged in a civil later on?
[/quote]
Don’t believe that I claimed it did.
True in many instances.
No. What a ridiculous question.
Well, al Qaeda is now a force in Iraq. And last time I checked, they were the instigators of September 11, so it seems to me that it has happened and is happening even as I type. Or will this particular definition of “lost” only be properly fulfilled when they next instigate an attack on US soil?
Again. . .sheesh!
No, but the facts as they exist on the ground, according to the definition that you provided, does indicate that the statement is true.
So, which facts do I have wrong again?
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Nope. It’s in a “false” state of anarchy :rolleyes:
From Answers.com:
Nota bene: that article is almost two years old when thing were going “well” by today’s yardstick
Don’t tell me. You had lunch with Laura Bush last night.
Laura Bush: Much Of Iraq Is ‘Stable,’ There’s Just ‘One Bombing A Day That Discourages Everybody’
Cripes. Just how much reality (read:blood) do some of you need to realize you’re mired in a clusterfuck you can’t possibly win? Militarily or politically, your time to “fix” Iraq is long gone.
Say, could you forward this article to your pal, Laura? In Iraq, the killing of 18 teenagers is a horrible routine
[/QUOTE]
Since you take leaves out of Juan Coles book, does this mean I can actually sprout links from Bill Roggio? Someone who’s been the length and breadth of Iraq? Where as Juan Cole sits at his desk some 5,000 miles away?
I’ll say for now, the Kurdish North is pretty much secure, and no matter what anyone says about their aspirations for independence, it’s still a part of Iraq, and is therefore deemed a peaceful area of Iraq. As for the Shia south, it’s not stable or as secure as the Northern Kurdish part, but is far more politically and militarily secure than the Sunni centre, Shias are infighting primarily because they’re starting where the Kurdish leadership was ten years ago, who were in split into rival KDP and PUK factions.
So we’ve got the most conflict, where most of the ethnic faultlines arise, Baghdad, Samarra, various Sunni/Shia towns in Babqua and Diyala province. So in some respects, there is a mini civil war happening, but it’s not precipitated into a fully blown war between armed camps.
Like I’ve said before, what civil war produced a proportional represenative government still governing the country, drafting constitutions, building up security forces, trying to establish itself, when all camps around them were gunning for each other’s blood? Hence the reason not to call it a civil war yet, I’m with Xstime on this one, I’ve been told I jump to conclusion of success to readily, then it’s also applicable to those who say the only way the Iraqis are heading too is civil war, whilst blatantly ignoring those same Iraqis who are trying to stop it.
For the record, Anarchy exists when there is absolutely no functioning state, no national army or police force, no ability to represent your country from your government to the world outside ala Somalia, springs to mind. so why Redfury thinks this is applicable to Iraq is beyond me.
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
For the record, Anarchy exists when there is absolutely no functioning state, no national army or police force, no ability to represent your country from your government to the world outside ala Somalia, springs to mind. so why Redfury thinks this is applicable to Iraq is beyond me.
[/QUOTE]
Oh I have no doubt that tons of things are beyond you. Enough to fill a library no doubt.
Then again, you could read the definition given and compare to the situation on the ground in Iraq. Perhaps then, it wouldn’t be so far beyond your limited scope to call Iraq a nation. in anarchy. BTW, I agree with you vis-a-vis Somalia.
Now, if you want a clear (as in political theory of anarchism) then no, it isn’t as reflected by this very article published in an Anarchist Communists’ website.
Warms your heart*, doesn’t it?
Warning: Unedited pictures of what’s really happening on the ground: anarchy. Outside the Green Zone and the American compounds of course.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
How does the number of deaths = “we’ve lost”? Did we lose WWII because so many people died-- many, many more than have died in Iraq.
I have seriously given little thought to whether we’ve won or lost, so I’d like to see the case made that we have, in fact, “lost”. If it’s so obvious and so easy to see, then it should be easy for you to explain. So far you’ve offered two explanations (that things are crappy and that lots of people have died), neither of which determines whether we’ve won or lost.
[/QUOTE]
John, we lost as soon as we decided to invade. If the war was run more effectively, then we could at least say that we kicked some ass but as soon as we decided to invade Iraq in the face of overwhelming global opposition based on the lies of our own government, America lost.
In my book, the attacks of 9/11 were an idealogical loss for the terrorists and if we had used that opportunity to do something good instead of something that was morally ambiguous (I do not include Afghnistan in this category), we would have had a decicive victory in the idealogical war we are engaging in today.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
IMHO, we will have ‘lost’ in Iraq when/if the popularly elected government is overthrown and replaced by an Iranian style theocracy…and one that is militantly Islamic AND anti-America/anti-West. One that supports, openly or covertly terrorists and terrorist organizations. In short, we will have ‘lost’ when/if Iraq becomes Iran.
If you have a better definition of what ‘lost’ means, by all means trot that puppy out…-XT
[/QUOTE]
Why didn’t we just go afer Iran in the first place?
I think the real question is when will conservatives face reality and admit that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here’s how I see it. The goals of this war were:
Regime change. Done.
Elimination of WMDs. Moot.
Ensuring that Iraq does not become an exporter of terrorism. Here’s where we are bumping up against failure. Al Qaeda has gotten a foothold in Iraq, but so far it has mainly been operating inside Iraq, and has not been used a base to launch attacks against the US homeland (for lack of a better term). In this sense, we really are “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”. Of course the particular “them” we are fighting might not have existed as a “them” had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, but that’s a separate matter.
If, as some here have advocated, Iraq were to be partitioned, then a disaffected “Sunni Arab Iraq” would almost certainly be a breeding ground for al Qaeda as that area would be economically depressed (much more so than now, having been cut off from all oil revenue). That area would be similar to the West Bank and Gaza, only they would see the US as direct enemies along with the other parts of Iraq that they think should be theirs. Most of the Democrats in the Senate seem to realize that the US still has a legitimate interest in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, per the latest attempt to redefine the AUMF along those lines. There certainly is the potential of failure on this point, especially if we were to exit Iraq precip
[/QUOTE]
Assuming (reasonably based on all the facts that we have) that Al Queda wouldn’t have a presence in Iraq but for the monumentally stupid invasion and granting that there were no WMDs (which anyone who seriously considered the evidence would have concluded), didn’t we effectively invade to institute regime change? If that is the case, then if Saddam Hussein was willing to leave Iraq if he could keep the 5 billion dollars he squirreled away while he was dictator, didn’t we lose as soon as we spent 5 billion dollars on the war?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, that’s actually a good analogy. I was thinking of another one: I’m convinced that my neighbor’s house has termites, and that my house is going to get an infestation. I convince my neighbor to get his house inspected, but the inspectors give it a clean bill of health. Undaunted, I hire a fumigation company to secretly tent his house while he’s on vacation. Unfortunately, the fumigators are inept and while they do fumigate the house, they also ruin all his furniture, which I have to pay for.
Did I lose the battle against termites? No. I made a fool of myself and recklessly spent money that didn’t need to be spent. I also created a lot of ill will between my neighbor and me. But I don’t have termites.
[/QUOTE]
Did you think of that yourself because thats a pretty good analogy.
I’m not really happy with any of the posters who have posted in this mess, today, but the following are pretty direct violations of the rule against name-calling or direct personal insults:
And the following (besides being just dumb), are close enough to the line to raise eyebrows:
Everyone ratchet back the personal hostility. Now.
Red Fury, you have managed to attract Moderator attention on more than one occasion, recently. If you keep it up, you are going to start collecting Warnings. You are not going to get the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq by violating rules on this MB. If you are that mad, get your representatives to force your government to take action against the U.S. Don’t wave it around here.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=col_10022]
Why didn’t we just go afer Iran in the first place?
[/QUOTE]
lol…what are you asking ME for?? 
Not only do I not look or sound like Bush (thank the gods), but I rarely sneer or strut about.
I’ll take a shot at guessing however, if it makes you happy. Were I to guess, then went after Iraq first because they could…there were aspects of our relationship with Saddam that allowed us the excuse Bush et al needed to launch the invasion. Iran didn’t have those same conditions, so it would have been impossible at that time to launch a full scale invasion. Additionally, this was before things really started heating up with Iran wrt their nuke program…so that was probably a factor too. Also, Iran is a lot bigger and less accessable than Iraq to an invasion. Finally, were I would guess that the ‘logic’ Bush et al used (prior to things going tits up in Iraq of course) was that, by invading and wiping the floor with Saddam and the Iraq army and bringing democracy to the howling wilderness that is the ME, America would be giving the rest of the folk there a rather pointed warning…don’t fuck with us or the same thing could happen to YOU. Of course, this message has sort of been overtaken by events in Iraq by this point…but I would guess that it was in the thought process, such as it was, when they decided to go after Iraq instead of Iran.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
I think the real question is when will conservatives face reality and admit that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.
[/QUOTE]
Define ‘unmitigated disaster’. Just kidding btw…well, mostly. Seriously, they will admit it when A) You can define exactly what that means, and B) When they see for themselves that it is.
Again, if you want my guess, it will be the same time they admit we’ve ‘lost’…i.e. when we actually HAVE lost, when we are forced to tuck tail and bolt and Iraq goes completely into the fire of full scale, no holds barred civil war on its way to becoming another Iran…or worse, another Afghanistan.
Even then, if the Kurdish region doesn’t follow suit but remains what it is today (a stable and calm area in a sea of conflict), then I wouldn’t hold my breath were I any of you for the day conservatives admit all this stuff.
FWIW, if we pull out and the country goes completely tits up I will gladly admit we’ve ‘lost’, and that the invasion was an ‘unmitigated disaster’. In fact, I’m quite prepared to concede the ‘unmitigated disaster’ point right now…at least academically.
-XT
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
So we’ve got the most conflict, where most of the ethnic faultlines arise, Baghdad, Samarra, various Sunni/Shia towns in Babqua and Diyala province.
[/quote]
It also happens to be the most densely populated sections of Iraq.
The bulk of Iraq [the parts with only a few folks per sq kilometer] are relatively peaceful.
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
So in some respects, there is a mini civil war happening, but it’s not precipitated into a fully blown war between armed camps.
[/quote]
Given that they’re already using crew served weapons like mortars, what more would it take before it was a ‘genuine’ conflict between armed camps? Jets and aircraft carriers?
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Like I’ve said before, what civil war produced a proportional represenative government still governing the country, drafting constitutions, building up security forces, trying to establish itself, when all camps around them were gunning for each other’s blood?
[/quote]
Are you saying that “violent sectarian conflict” in Iraq has led to these benefits instead of these benefits occurring IN SPITE OF the “violent sectarian conflict?”
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Hence the reason not to call it a civil war yet…
[/quote]
You disagree with the USIC because you think that the violent sectarian conflict has produced a fledgling democracy? You really think that the fledgling democracy is actually brought about by the violence rather than hampered and hamstrung by it?
It’s certainly a new and unusual interpretation of events. I do hope you’ll expound.
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I’m with Xstime on this one, I’ve been told I jump to conclusion of success to readily, then it’s also applicable to those who say the only way the Iraqis are heading too is civil war, whilst blatantly ignoring those same Iraqis who are trying to stop it.
[/quote]
Could you rephrase this run-on sentence? I really can’t quite make heads or tails of it.
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
For the record, Anarchy exists when there is absolutely no functioning state, no national army or police force, no ability to represent your country from your government to the world outside ala Somalia, springs to mind. so why Redfury thinks this is applicable to Iraq is beyond me.
[/QUOTE]
So Iraq is just like anarchy-lite, or perhaps merely chaos?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
IMHO, we will have ‘lost’ in Iraq when/if the popularly elected government is overthrown and replaced by an Iranian style theocracy…and one that is militantly Islamic AND anti-America/anti-West. One that supports, openly or covertly terrorists and terrorist organizations. In short, we will have ‘lost’ when/if Iraq becomes Iran.
[/QUOTE]
Would it count if the popularly elected govt WAS an Iranian style theocracy along the lines as envisioned by Iraq’s largest political party, the SCIRI?
Or would that still be a success because the govt wasn’t overthrown?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I’m not really happy with any of the posters who have posted in this mess, today, but the following are pretty direct violations of the rule against name-calling or direct personal insults. . .
[/quote]
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. That was, indeed, over the line and I apologize to all concerned, particularly John Mace.
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Would it count if the popularly elected govt WAS an Iranian style theocracy along the lines as envisioned by Iraq’s largest political party, the SCIRI?
Or would that still be a success because the govt wasn’t overthrown?
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t ‘Iranian style theocracy’ come at odds with the clerical leadership down in Najaf and by Ayatollah Sistani who himself is at odds with the form of Mullaocracy in Tehran?
Now I know what you’re thinking, he might not be supported of such a style of government, but Sadr is, however, even the likes of Sadrists still kow tow to the leadership in Najaf.
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Would it count if the popularly elected govt WAS an Iranian style theocracy along the lines as envisioned by Iraq’s largest political party, the SCIRI?
[/QUOTE]
Hm…good question. From MY perspective it certainly would. I’m unsure what most ‘conservatives’ would think of such a turn of events however…or whether or not they would consider it a loss at that point.
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Or would that still be a success because the govt wasn’t overthrown?
[/QUOTE]
In essence the government WOULD be overthrown if they became an Iranian style theocracy, as kep portions of their constitution would have to be subverted for this to happen. And as I said above, it definitely would indicated we had ‘lost’, at least from my own perspective.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
And you my friend have a reading disability.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I hate it when you guys get all nasty on each other. With too much venom in a thread, I wind up missing individual occurrences.
xtisme, this direct personal insult is also out of line. Avoid this behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
xtisme, this direct personal insult is also out of line. Avoid this behavior.
[/QUOTE]
You are right Tom…apologies all around. It wasn’t even justified, considering the somewhat convoluted nature of my own posts sometimes…there is, after all, the very real possibility that it was my own fault for not being clearer when I posted.
Again, sorry guys.
-XT
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Doesn’t ‘Iranian style theocracy’ come at odds with the clerical leadership down in Najaf and by Ayatollah Sistani who himself is at odds with the form of Mullaocracy in Tehran?
Now I know what you’re thinking, he might not be supported of such a style of government, but Sadr is, however, even the likes of Sadrists still kow tow to the leadership in Najaf.
[/QUOTE]
Its not monolithic. There’re folks who agree with the Iranian theory of political authority [it rests with the clerics/scholars] and there’re folks who think it lies with the laity.
As far as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
Last Updated: 1:13am BST 04/09/2006
[INDENT]The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
“I will not be a political leader any more,” he told aides. “I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters.”[/INDENT]
The SCIRI back the Iranian model.
[indent]Although SCIRI has distanced itself from Iran to some extent, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard reportedly continues to provide it with weapons and training. [circa late 90s]
Military Ties Iran To Arms In Iraq
Explosives Supplied To Shiite Militias, U.S. Officials Say
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, February 12, 2007; A01
The officials said the weapons are often supplied to what the officials called “rogue” elements of the Mahdi Army, the powerful Shiite militia led by anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. One official said there was no “widespread involvement” of the Iraqi government in supplying the weaponry.
The officials provided further details on the case of two Iranians captured during a December raid on the compound of a leading Shiite politician, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and five Iranians seized in the raid of a liaison office in the northern city of Irbil in January.
The raid …netted… a high-ranking Quds Force***** operations chief, as well as documents with information about sniper rifles and mortars, the officials said. The senior defense official said that when U.S. officials discussed the allegations with Hakim’s representatives, their explanation was that “it is normal for different groups to acquire armaments for protection purposes.”[/indent]
There’s a fair amount of Iranian sympathy and Iran’s in the position to CONTINUE TO PROVIDE interesting benefits to those who will play ball. [Remember that many of the political players of today were exiles in Iran yesterday.] I don’t think that the Iraqis are mere tools of Iran, but I do think that as long as it benefits them, they will associate with the Iranians, and the Iranians will do the same.
al-Sisatni ain’t butterin’ as much bread as the Iranians
Qods (Jerusalem) Force Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC - Pasdaran-e Inqilab)
Incidentally, coincidentally, the Chief of Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress’ security, Aras Karim Habib, was also a member of the Pasdaran. The Iranians found out we had broken one of their codes through this channel.
DIA says Iran INC to get US into Invade Iraq
Rogue Element On the Loose in the Pentagon
Chalabi Gave Iranians Top Secret Info - Who Gave it To Him?
A senior U.S. official says Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, are suspected of giving Iran “highly classified” data that were “known to only a few within the U.S. government.” The FBI investigation, sources say, will probably involve dozens of agents and a full arsenal of investigative techniques, possibly including court-authorized searches and wiretaps. The probe will examine whether U.S. officials illegally transmitted state secrets to the i.n.c. The investigation could ultimately reach high-ranking civilian officials at the Pentagon and the Defense Intelligence Agency (dia) who have dealings with Chalabi and his organization.
Iraqis are just as nationalistic in not wanting the Americans as having Iranians influencing their lives either. There is much disdain amongst some Shias in Iraq of having various parties affiliated with the Iranians across the border. And it doesn’t cover my point that if Al Sistani is the ultimate authority in Iraq.
Al Sistani is Iranian.
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Iraqis are just as nationalistic in not wanting the Americans as having Iranians influencing their lives either.
[/quote]
I don’t think that the Iraqis are mere tools of Iran, but I do think that as long as it benefits them, they will associate with the Iranians, and the Iranians will do the same. The Iranian govt does have things to offer that the Iraqis want.
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
And it doesn’t cover my point that if Al Sistani is the ultimate authority in Iraq.
[/quote]
As I noted previously, he decided to recuse himself as a political leader.
“I will not be a political leader any more”
[INDENT]–al Sistani 2006[/INDENT]
Further, despite numerous previous attempts, his authority such as it is has not allowed him to halt the bloodshed so far.
Why, now that he has decided not to play as large of a political role, should he suddenly be able to effect more change than previously when he was making an active effort?
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Al Sistani is Iranian.
[/QUOTE]
Please amend my previous statement to read as follows
al-Sisatni ain’t butterin’ as much bread as elements of the Iranian govt are