Is the situation in Iraq improving?

[Squink]

From link:

signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, parliamentary officials said Thursday.

Deputy Speaker Khaled al-Attiyah told The Associated Press said the draft legislation had not been officially submitted to the speaker, but was currently being reviewed by the house’s legal department, apparently the final step before it can be submitted.

Latest news from around the world | The Guardian

Khaled al-Attiyah, Parliament’s deputy speaker, said that the bill was under review by the chamber’s legal department before submission to the chamber, according to the AP.

Rubaie said that if the bill does not come to the body within a week, he would use the 144-member majority to force the issue, the AP reports.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2717/Majority_of_MPs_Support_US_Exit_Timetable
No one who might know seems to be denying the number.

[tagos]

@Squink

From link:Latest news from around the world | The Guardian
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2717/Majority_of_MPs_Support_US_Exit_Timetable
No one who might know seems to be denying the number.

First we smash their country and now they want us to leave?

Ungrateful bastards.

[RTFirefly]

@elucidator

But what does it mean? To this jaundiced eye, it means that the Shia dominated “government” of Iraq has decided that having American troops and American firepower available to slaughter Sunni “insurgents” (a term of simply marvelous flexibility) is more trouble than its worth.

Here’s how Alternet describes it:

The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and “anti-government forces,” nor is it a clash of “moderates” against “radicals”; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.

After describing the Maliki government as “dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists” who “oppose a unified Iraq with a strong central government” and “favor partitioning Iraq into three autonomous regions with strong local governments and a weak central administration in Baghdad,” it continues:

Iraq’s separatists also oppose setting a timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, preferring the addition of more American troops to secure their regime. They favor privatizing Iraq’s oil and gas and decentralizing petroleum operations and revenue distribution.

But public opinion is squarely with Iraq’s nationalists. According to a poll by the University of Maryland’s Project on International Public Policy Attitudes, majorities of all three of Iraq’s major ethno-sectarian groups support a unified Iraq with a strong central government. For at least two years, poll after poll has shown that large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the United States to set a timeline for withdrawal, even though (in the case of Baghdad residents), they expect the security situation to deteriorate in the short term as a result.

[David_Simmons]

This just in from this morning’s Los Angeles Times.

GENERAL’S CALL FOR MORE TROOPS
MAY SIGNAL A NEW TONE. [from print edition]

U.S. commander for northern Iraq citeS
the growing violence in Diyala province.

[Maj. Gen Benjamin R.] Mixon, speaking Friday by teleconference from Camp Speicher, outside Tikrit, to a Pentagon news conference, said that he did not have enough soldiers to provide security in Diyala. The local government is “nonfunctional” and the central government is “ineffective,” he said.

According to the story, lower ranking generals in Iraq might have been told by DoD Secy. Gates to speak freely. This is most unusual, if true, and leads one to wonder why? Why not follow the ususal chain of command where the word from the lower ranks will reach Gates who will then speak publicly? Notice that the official army spokesman in Iraq downplayed the increased violence so it would appear that the policy of lower ranks speaking out has already led to disagreements among the generals. If SECDEF really did tell lower ranks to short circuit the chain of command all that can result is public wrangling that doesn’t do anyone any good.

This should give a hint as to whether or not things are getting better.

Mixon also said that the Iraqi government had failed to help the situation in the restive province and that it has been a hindrance at times by failing to support local army and police forces.

The whole surge was meant to give a window of relative security so the Iraqi government could get its shit together. If it refuses to do that, it’s really over. We cannot provide endless security, even the little there is now, in Iraq even if we want to. So far the Iraqis don’t seem interested in getting organized, and the parliament wants to take two months off. Perhaps the hangup in the Iraqi government is because of the “nationalist” - “separatist” split mentioned in the cite by RTFirefly.

And the early reports of decreased violence seem a bit premature.

Mixon’s call for help coincides with a rise in the number of sectarian death squad killings in Baghdad. U.S. officials had heralded an earlier decline in such deaths as a sign of the success of the security clampdown in the capital that began Feb. 13.

Iraq’s Interior Ministry said 234 people — men whose bodies were found throughout the capital — died at the hands of death squads in the first 11 days of May, compared with 137 in the same period of April.

Don’t count your chickens until they hatch. One swallow doesn’t make a summer. And so on and so forth.

[Ryan_Liam]

Well if they want full withdrawal immediately, they seem to be backpedalling somewhat.

The withdrawal would only take place if the Iraqi security forces became strong enough to ensure that an American departure would not create a security vacuum or make the sectarian conflict worse, the petition’s sponsors said

Even Mr. Sadr, who has been in the vanguard of Iraqi leaders demanding an American departure, and who withdrew his six ministers from Mr. Maliki’s cabinet in protest over the prime minister’s resistance to timetables, has cautioned against an immediate American withdrawal.

Iraq Petition Presses for Withdrawal of U.S. Troops (Published 2007)

[John_Mace]

Two guys at the Brookings Institute have published a monthly “Iraq Index” that tries to dispassionately asses the situation in Iraq. There isn’t much analysis, and you have to slog thru a lot of PDF files to get the information, but this may be the best tool out there to decide if any progress is being made. The latest update is not particularly upbeat-- not much of a surprise there.

Iraq Index.

[Squink]

U.S. Embassy employees fearful over Green Zone attacks

U.S. Embassy employees in Iraq are growing increasingly angry over what they say are inadequate security precautions in the heavily fortified Green Zone, where recent mortar and rocket attacks have claimed the lives of six people, including two U.S. citizens.

In spite of the attacks, embassy employees complain, most staff members still sleep in trailers that one described as “tin cans” that offer virtually no protection from rocket and mortar fire. The government has refused to harden the roofs because of the cost, one employee said.
…
The officials also complained that important security precautions appeared to have been set aside during highly publicized official visits. During a March 31 visit from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a high-profile presidential candidate, the embassy lifted a requirement that bulletproof vests and helmets be worn at all times. When a rocket landed outside the U.S. Embassy while Vice President Dick Cheney and several reporters visited last week, no warning sirens were sounded.

“Where were the sirens then?” one official asked. “We don’t belong here, and people are afraid to say it.”

[Martin_Hyde]

@DMC

If you don’t view Iraq as in intervention, then why was your point “not all interventions in a country should be based on whether or not the populace wants us there.”? Not by the people who sent us there in the first place. To them, it’s "The war against terror."Stuff that was held in check quite well until we invaded.Not possibly, probably, or maybe? Cite?While I think everyone would be much better off if we had defended it from us in the first place, I don’t entirely disagree with this. I do think we need to take responsibility, but the method we’re using isn’t working. I’m personally of the opinion that it will continue to not work as long as Bush keeps maintaining the stance that it was the right thing to do in the first place. If he’d apologize for starting it, and then, and only then, ask for international help in peacekeeping, I think Iraq would have a better chance of stability. Right now, the people protecting them is the same people who attacked them in the first place. I don’t see how that’s supposed to make anyone feel good about the protection they are receiving. Sort of like the mobster that burns down a business, and once it’s put back up offers to “protect” it from fires.

As to your request for a cite, you’re honestly asking me to cite what I think would happen in the future? All one can do in such a situation is point to history and experience. History shows that internal conflicts within a third world country often lead to civil wars. How many ongoing civil wars do I need to point to in order to at least suggest the existence of such a trend?

Also, the United States has asked for help in peacekeeping. We’ve gotten it from some, mostly we haven’t. Do you really think countries are so vindictive that those countries who aren’t helping would be inclined to help if Bush got on his knees and begged? The countries that aren’t there aren’t there because they don’t want any part of something so difficult.

[Martin_Hyde]

@DMC

No, what’s unfortunate is that people like RickJay weren’t listened to in the first place, as we wouldn’t be counting hundreds of thousands of dead bodies if that were the case. Perhaps he is morally superior.

As noted above, I’m aware that leaving presents major problems, and I think there are possible solutions. Unfortunately, I see no signs that this administration is doing the things they need to do to implement similar solutions, even if we stay. So, unless we can get some new upper management of the U.S. in the next month or two, or see a complete change of heart in the current management, leaving, staying, I think it’s all the same in the end. That sucks.

This is my biggest problem with the Democrats. I still don’t view it as a bad thing we went in. But let’s assume, for the sake of debate I make this statement (not my actual feelings, just something to put out there for the purposes of debate:

“I think invading Iraq was the worst decision ever made, in the history of the world, period. I think it was inexcusable, Bush is the worst President ever, and he should be impeached and flogged out of the White House. I think every one who opposed the war was right, and every one who supported it was stupid beyond imagination.”

There, for the sake of debate, I’m willing to stipulate all that. To me, it seems like you guys just can’t get over it. What’s it matter if it WAS a mistake? The fact is, that’s four years ago, whether or not it was a mistake is no longer relevant what is relevant is how you want to deal with it.

When I was a kid, I used to like playing with matches. My mother always told me not to. If I accidentally caught the house on fire, would it be more prudent for her to sternly explain to me “I told you so, you should have listened to me” over and over again as the house comes down around us, or to have actually done something to deal with the conflagration itself?

[Martin_Hyde]

@RTFirefly

Of course not: France and Germany are independent actors. Iraq isn’t. They’re not the sovereign in Iraq. We are. Our military and our dollars prop up the Iraqi government. The government’s not going to tell us to leave.

Actually there’s a discussion in the Iraqi parliament about asking us to leave right now. :dubious:

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
So, exactly, what are you doing? Playing chess against yourself? Because, if so, you seem to be losing with both the white and the black pieces.

Good job./QUOTE]

Thanks. I never said polling never factors in to how elected politicians make decisions. I said they don’t make “decisions through polling.” IE a politician doesn’t go to his constituents and say, “alright, time for you guys to decide whether or not I should support this funding bill, my pollsters will be calling you, and I’ll decide based on what you say!” That’s a form of direct democracy, we don’t have direct democracy.

Polling is only part of the situation. If polling was everything, we’d have to remove the President every time his approval rating fell below 50%. We’d also never have had integration. Furthermore, my point is beyond obvious that when sovereign state A is dealing with sovereign state B, sovereign state A (the United States) does not base its actions towards sovereign state B (Iraq) on the polling of sovereign state B but on the actions of sovereign state B’s elected representatives.

My point is, polling doesn’t make the decisions in a representative democracy. So all these canards about "x% of Iraqis don’t want us there or “x% of Americans want Bush impeached” are irrelevant. Decisions are never made by polls.

Also, last I checked just because you pull out a quote from William Blum you don’t get to crown yourself King. William Blum is no more an authority on anything than a coked up schizophrenic ranting about the CIA on the street corner.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Squink

Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation I would hope we aren’t arrogant enough to ignore the Iraqi people. I suspect we are.

As I said in the thread on this issue, if they pass this proposed binding resolution (or whatever, I don’t know how their government works) we should leave. I’ve said that on multiple occasions.

[Martin_Hyde]

@RTFirefly

Why? Do you think Sadr doesn’t really want us out of Iraq?

I’d say the evidence is overwhelming that he does.

The evidence suggests Sadr himself wants out of Iraq. I know he wants us out of Iraq since he’s very likely hiding from us in Iran and his organization back home is in shambles.

[elucidator]

What an extraordinary grasp of the situation! Clearly, you have sources of intelligence the rest of us lack! Please share.

[flight]

@Martin Hyde

When I was a kid, I used to like playing with matches. My mother always told me not to. If I accidentally caught the house on fire, would it be more prudent for her to sternly explain to me “I told you so, you should have listened to me” over and over again as the house comes down around us, or to have actually done something to deal with the conflagration itself?

I would say she should take the damn matches out of your hands so you can’t do anymore damage and then warn the neighbors so the fire doesn’t spread. Other than that she is stuck watching your house burn, because in this analogy there is no fire department and her little wimpy extinguisher ain’t gonna cut it.

[RTFirefly]

@Martin Hyde

The evidence suggests Sadr himself wants out of Iraq. I know he wants us out of Iraq since he’s very likely hiding from us in Iran and his organization back home is in shambles.

1. I’m glad you are so knowledgeable on the state of Sadr’s organization.

2. You’re saying Sadr wants out of Iraq because (a) he’s already there, and (b) wants us out, presumably so he can go back in safety.

Yeah, that makes sense.

@Martin Hyde

Actually there’s a discussion in the Iraqi parliament about asking us to leave right now. :dubious:

That’s not a point you want to make. It potentially proves me wrong on something small (whether the Iraqi government would tell us to go), and right on the larger point: whether the Iraqis want us out of their country.

[Fear_Itself]

@Martin Hyde

Actually there’s a discussion in the Iraqi parliament about asking us to leave right now.

And what if they pass a bill to that effect? Should we leave?

[Martin_Hyde]

@RTFirefly

1. I’m glad you are so knowledgeable on the state of Sadr’s organization.

2. You’re saying Sadr wants out of Iraq because (a) he’s already there, and (b) wants us out, presumably so he can go back in safety.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I agree, it makes perfect sense. Obviously if he fled the country because of an increase in U.S. military activity, it only follows he’d want us to leave so he could return in safety.

Perhaps it’s not entirely germane to the post of yours I was responding to, but I felt it was worth mentioning in any case.

Getting back to Ryan_Liam’s point, while I too take anything the al-Sadr organization says with a grain of salt, just because it was one of their spokesmen mentioning it, I doubt they’d lie about an action taken in the Iraqi legislature. It’d be unspeakable dumb to lie about something that could be so easily verified (and the mainstream media has reported that a majority of Iraqi lawmakers did in fact do exactly what the al-Sadr spokesmen said–why a spokesman of al-Sadr’s was the first to report it is beyond me.)

That’s not a point you want to make. It potentially proves me wrong on something small (whether the Iraqi government would tell us to go), and right on the larger point: whether the Iraqis want us out of their country.

You’re making the assumption that I denied the Iraqis want us to leave, I’ve never denied they have–I just said that’s for the Iraqi government to decide, not a pollster. I want what’s best for the Iraqi people, I think us staying is what’s best for them. I think us ignoring their request to leave would be a blow against their sovereignty and to ignore a request to leave from their government would do even more harm than staying, so if they request us to leave, I seriously hope we do, but I hope they don’t request it.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Fear Itself

And what if they pass a bill to that effect? Should we leave?

I’ve said it a few times. Unequivocally yes we should leave if they pass such a bill.

[Martin_Hyde]

@flight

I would say she should take the damn matches out of your hands so you can’t do anymore damage and then warn the neighbors so the fire doesn’t spread. Other than that she is stuck watching your house burn, because in this analogy there is no fire department and her little wimpy extinguisher ain’t gonna cut it.

Not so. Your assumption that there’s no way to “stop the fire” is ludicrous.