Is the situation in Iraq improving?

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Martin, I sympathize with your position, I held to the “broke it - must fix it” position for some time. There is much to be said for responsibility for our actions.

But at a certain point it becomes nothing more than penance, nothing more than suffering for the sake of suffering. Even if our will is benign and pure, we cannot enforce that will. We don’t have the power to force a peaceful resolution.

Perhaps - *perhaps! * - if we had made the right moves some years back, we might have been able to shepherd the Iraqi people towards an acceptable state of mutual comity and respect. Be that as it may, that time is long past, we cannot stuff the Cheney back into the bottle. We cannot cut their losses, we can only cut ours.

Out now.
[/QUOTE]
That was a good post. I liked reading that, primarily because it was both honest and magnanimous. Personally, I’m still in the boat which says “We dug it, we fill it…” but I don’t have any problems conceding that posts like the one I’ve just quoted also make for a compelling case too.

One thing I will note about the current Iraq tragedy is this - it seems almost unfair in a way that a domestic political battle within the United States will inexorably force itself as a conclusion upon Iraq, regardless of what the Iraqi’s themselves truly want. Perhaps, if there was some sort of fantasy way of safely holding several referendums within Iraq (which were secure and free of rorting), perhaps we’d be able to find out what the MAJORITY of Iraqi’s want right now. Do THEY want us to stay? To try and sort things out? Or do THEY (the majority) just want us to leave and then let the cards fall where they may?

Certainly, I’d like to see such a fantasy referendum take place, if only because it seems pretty apparent that the current federal government there is pretty dysfunctional at the moment.

[RedFury]

:::sigh:::

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show

They say the same god damn thing in EVERY freaking poll taken. Perhaps it’s time some of you started paying attention?

[XT]

What does the Iraqi government have to say on the subject? Are they asking the US et al to leave? Should the US base its policy on such polls?

BTW, is anyone in this thread disputing that a large percentage (even a majority) of Iraqi citizens don’t want us there? Is this surprising to anyone?

-XT

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
What does the Iraqi government have to say on the subject? Are they asking the US et al to leave? Should the US base its policy on such polls?

BTW, is anyone in this thread disputing that a large percentage (even a majority) of Iraqi citizens don’t want us there? Is this surprising to anyone?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

What “Iraqi Gov.”? Malaki and Co. are nothing but US puppets stuck inside the Green Zone.

As for query number two, read the post directly above my last one.

And then read this if you would: Why there was no exit plan

[ralph124c]

The war is producing some strange bedfellows-I heard about a local arab sheik who allied himself with the Americans-because Al-Queda was interfering with his local racket (smuggling stolen oil to Syria).
Small victories, but hey, ya gotta go for what you can get!

[Squink]

One of the legislative pillars of a new Iraq is in jeopardy:

A critic of Iraq’s draft oil law with perhaps the biggest shadow – one of its original authors – says the version penned by oil experts has been compromised by politics and he no longer wants it approved.

“I think really the majority of the oil technocrats are against it,” Tariq Shafiq, director of the oil consultant firm Petrolog & Associates and one of three authors of Iraq’s draft hydrocarbons law, told United Press International in a telephone interview from his home in Amman, Jordan.
…
The hydrocarbons framework – a portion of the legislative regime needed to govern Iraq’s oil – was approved by negotiators and Iraq’s Cabinet in February. The Bush administration immediately hailed it as a major step forward; passing an oil law is one of U.S. President Bush’s benchmarks for success in Iraq. Iraq’s Parliament needs to approve the document for it to become law, but the remaining pieces of the legislation need to be finalized first.

Now, however, the process is falling apart. Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani told reporters at a conference two weeks ago in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, that Parliament would take it up last week. It didn’t.

At the same meeting, Hawrami said the list of control over oil fields is unacceptable to the Kurds and said their parliamentarians will vote against the law.

[marshmallow]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
What does the Iraqi government have to say on the subject? Are they asking the US et al to leave? Should the US base its policy on such polls?
[/QUOTE]

Hell no! I mean, it doesn’t even work that way in the United States. It’d be embarassing to be out-democratized by Iraq of all places.

[RedFury]

Adding to my last point, vis-a-vis “Malaki’s Gov”:

Maliki’s position increasingly shaky

Iraqi lawmakers have become increasingly impatient as violence rages and the legislative process has essentially ground to a halt. While Sunni lawmakers have long accused al-Maliki’s government of not doing enough to entice Sunni insurgents to lay down their weapons and join the political process, there have been rumblings even within al-Maliki’s own Shi’ite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), that the political situation has become unfeasible.

<snip>

“He is a weak prime minister,” Mahmud Uthman, a member of the Kurdish Alliance, which is part of the government, told the US daily “USA Today” on 24 April. “This government has not delivered and is not capable of doing the job. They should resign.”

Shi’ite lawmaker Qasim Dawud, a member of an independent bloc within the UIA, told the daily that the prime minister’s inability to push through legislation that would ease tensions between Shi’a and Sunnis would ultimately lead to this government’s demise.

“The present government is not competent,” Dawud said. “It’s more or less paralyzed, inactive. I doubt very much that this government can continue in power much longer.”

So, again, I ask: What ‘Iraqi Government’?

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
So, again, I ask: What ‘Iraqi Government’?
[/QUOTE]

The only one there is. The one that, if they asked us to leave, you’d be touting as the font of wisdom.

[Ryan_Liam]

So, again, I ask: What ‘Iraqi Government’?

So a government in deadlock isn’t a government now? What’s Lebanon got then?

What “Iraqi Gov.”? Malaki and Co. are nothing but US puppets stuck inside the Green Zone.

As for query number two, read the post directly above my last one.

And then read this if you would: Why there was no exit plan

Yeah, some puppets if they have cordial relations with the Iranian government, allocate ministries to the Sadr bloc, and raise objections to the building of security barriers to lessen insurgent violence.

Yep, puppet government, move along now, it’s just a puppet government.

[RickJay]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
What do you think should be done, honestly?
[/QUOTE]

Leave. Immediately.

The Iraqis don’t want you there. It’s their problem, and they have a government now. Either it’ll last or it’ll be replaced; either way, the situation will not get worse, it’ll remain bad until such time as the conflicts are resolved, one way or another.

The “you broke it, you bought it” philosophy is plainly idiotic. If you come into my house and break my coffee table, I don’t want you to stick around and break my china cabinet, I want you to get the fuck out.

Even if we accept all the Democratic propaganda about how ill-considered this action was, I do not see how that absolves us of our greater responsibility to the Iraqi people. Withdrawal will not end the war, it will just remove us from it.

Then we simply disagree on the facts. Continued American presence prolongs and worsens the war. Every day the U.S. remains guarantees the war will last one more day and that more people will die than otherwise would have died.

No matter what, sooner or later the U.S. will leave, and then Iraq will fight its civil war and reorganize itself. If the U.S. chooses to stay 2 years, then there will be 2 years of this shitfest, followed by civil war. If the U.S. chooses to stay 2 weeks, then there will be just 2 weeks of shitfest, then the civil war. Why not just get it over with? Failure is inevitable; just accept it, cut your losses, and move on.

I appreciate that the generals will try their best, and their men and women will try their best, but they are going to fail. This is an Iraqi problem now, solvable only by Iraqis, not Americans. American involvement simply means death, destruction, and the continued lack of an Iraqi government capable of sustaining itself. It’s going to be ugly, in all likelihood, and yes, a lot of it is the fault of the United States, but that’s s sunk cost now. Time to move on and maybe concentrate some more effort on finding Osama bin Laden.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Then we simply disagree on the facts. Continued American presence prolongs and worsens the war. Every day the U.S. remains guarantees the war will last one more day and that more people will die than otherwise would have died.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, that’s not a fact - merely an opinion. Presenting it as a fact, even letting it be an imposter as a fact, still doesn’t hide the reality that your position is ultimately an opinion. Indeed, there is a strenuous body of counter opinion which argues that an immediate withdrawal will actually open the floodgates on a mini-Rwanda on the Euphrates. If such a thing were to happen, the numbers who will die will doutbless be greater than if the USA stays. That’s an opinion which is no less valid.

To be fair however, consider this… the most stable, peaceful 15 years in Lebanon’s history this past century have been when Syria occupied the country after the civil war of the mid 1980’s. After Syria pulled out, Lebanon became an exercise in anarchy, and lo and behold, Hizbolla started going nuts on the Israeli border - something they NEVER would have done while Syria still ran the place.

My example is perfect example, in the Middle East no less, of how an occupying force can actually be a force for good. It’s rare, but it can happen. Lebanon was an absolute shithole back in 1989 - a total shithole. Granted, the occupiers were a local country and not the United States - which means that if the USA pulls out of Iraq, there is an extremely high likelihood that a neighbouring country(s) will do a Syria and fill the power vacuum and invade Iraq out of pure self interests. This last outcome is an outcome not many people are considering it seems to me.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Boo Boo Foo]
if the USA pulls out of Iraq, there is an extremely high likelihood that a neighbouring country(s) will do a Syria and fill the power vacuum and invade Iraq out of pure self interests. This last outcome is an outcome not many people are considering it seems to me.
[/QUOTE]
There’s no reason why we should. Nobody’s suggesting we leave the region, and we can easily keep enough bombers and troops nearby to keep Iran (or anyone else) from bringing an army over the border.

When you’ve got a military like ours, other countries’ armies are easy things to stop. Massed troops, tanks, etc. are easy targets for all the conventional weaponry we can bring to bear. Our adversaries within Iraq are much more of a challenge, because we can’t identify them.

[RTFirefly]

I should refine that last post somewhat. If a country we’re on good terms with (Saudi Arabia, Turkey) should decide to send an army into Iraq, we would be unlikely to bomb it due to political considerations. But they’d be unlikely to do so except in extreme situations, for the same reasons.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Boo Boo Foo]
Sorry, that’s not a fact - merely an opinion. Presenting it as a fact, even letting it be an imposter as a fact, still doesn’t hide the reality that your position is ultimately an opinion. Indeed, there is a strenuous body of counter opinion which argues that an immediate withdrawal will actually open the floodgates on a mini-Rwanda on the Euphrates. If such a thing were to happen, the numbers who will die will doutbless be greater than if the USA stays. That’s an opinion which is no less valid.
[/quote]
The problem is, (a) we’re going to leave sometime, and (b) there’s no evidence to suggest the situation in country is improving on account of our staying.

So the proper comparison is not between what will happen in Iraq in 2009 if we leave in 2008 v. if we stay, but if the alternatives are between leaving in 2008 or leaving in 2014, what will happen in Iraq in 2009 v. what will happen in Iraq in 2015.

There’s zero evidence I can see that what will happen in Iraq the year after our inevitable withdrawal will be better as a result of our having stayed longer. Maybe you can provide some.

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
The only one there is. The one that, if they asked us to leave, you’d be touting as the font of wisdom.
[/QUOTE]

Ya think? Because many of them have:

Iraqi lawmakers demand U.S. withdrawal

As calls in the U.S. Congress grow for a scheduled troop withdrawal from Iraq, similar demands are escalating in Iraq’s National Assembly.

Some 133 Iraqi lawmakers from different political blocs, calling themselves the “free deputies,” signed a document demanding a scheduled withdrawal of the U.S.-led multinational troops from their country, according to the Sadrist bloc in Parliament.

But of course, The Puppets simply can’t go along with them as their own survival depends on the Americans keeping them in power.

[RedFury]

Projectile Bomb Attacks Hit Record High in Iraq

BAGHDAD – Attacks in Iraq involving lethal weapons that U.S. officials say are made in Iran hit a record high last month, despite efforts to crack down on networks supplying the armor-piercing weapons known as explosively formed projectiles, according to a senior U.S. commander.

The number of attacks with the projectiles rose to 65 in April, said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who oversees day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq. “The overwhelming majority” were in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad, Odierno said in an interview this week. Officials have said the projectiles are used almost exclusively by Shiite fighters against U.S. military targets.

The growing use of the projectiles is a major concern for American commanders because the weapons are powerful enough to punch through the heaviest U.S. armored vehicles, including the Abrams tank. As a result, the weapons are far more lethal than other roadside bombs, and have been a factor in keeping U.S. troop casualties from dropping despite improvements in the military’s ability to detect and defeat roadside bombs.

– highlights mine.

So you now have The Shiites starting to engage against you too. Not exactly what you were hoping for, is it? Unless its a Reverse Surge you wanted. Never mind that it also demonstrates, as the many polls have shown, that outside Kurdistan, you’re universally reviled.

Pack it up.

[RedFury]

Oh, and BTW, least some of you think it’s only Sadr’s group that thinks Malaki is just a non-functioning American Puppet, this is what the Sunni side in Government have to say:

Iraq Sunni bloc says weighing leaving government

BAGHDAD, May 3 (Reuters) - Iraq’s main Sunni bloc said on Thursday it was considering pulling out of Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s coalition government, saying sectarian violence and corruption was worsening under his administration.

Some members of the Sunni Accordance Front, the largest parliamentary bloc of the Sunni Arab minority, have been urging the group for several months to quit Maliki’s government because they believe Sunni concerns are not being addressed.

It has six cabinet ministers and a pullout would not be enough to topple the government, which would still have a majority in the 275-seat parliament.

– underlining mine.

Yeah, but add the aforementioned 133, and I ask again, what “Iraqi Government”? Couldn’t have more splinters if it was made of dried-up wood.

[RedFury]

Beleaguered Iraqis now fear their own security forces more than the insurgents

“Be careful,” warned a senior Iraqi government official living in the Green Zone in Baghdad, “be very careful and above all do not trust the police or the army.”

He added that the level of insecurity in the Iraqi capital is as bad now as it was before the US drive to make the city safe came into operation in February.

The so-called “surge”, the dispatch of 20,000 extra American troops to Iraq with the prime mission of getting control of Baghdad, is visibly failing

There are army and police checkpoints everywhere but Iraqis are terrified because they do not know if the men in uniform they see there are, in reality, death squad members.

And:

Coalition should ‘admit defeat and leave Iraq’

A former commander of the British Army has said that Britain and America should "admit defeat" and withdraw from Iraq.

General Sir Michael Rose: Former Army commander has called for coalition forces to leave Iraq.

Sir Michael says coalition troops should withdraw

General Sir Michael Rose also said he understood why insurgents were attacking coalition forces and said he believed they were right to try and force invading troops out of the country.

Sir Michael, who led British Forces in Bosnia, has written a book comparing the insurgents’ tactics with those of George Washington’s forces in the American War of Independence.

Asked on BBC2’s Newsnight if he thought the insurgents were right to try to get the American forces out of Iraq, he said: "Yes I do. As Lord Chatham said, when he was speaking on the British presence in North America, he said ‘if I was an American, as I am an Englishman, as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms’.

“The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way. I don’t excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting the Americans.”

He added: “It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the front line that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved.”

Asked if that meant admitting defeat, he said: **“Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in North America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened. The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened.”

“The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq.”**

– highlights in both quotes mine.

What else do you need in response to your OP, xt? Reality-based of course, as I’m obviously a proud member of said community.

---

PS-Pardon the multiple postings, but I’ve posting as I’ve been reading today’s news.

[Ryan_Liam]

So you now have The Shiites starting to engage against you too. Not exactly what you were hoping for, is it? Unless its a Reverse Surge you wanted. Never mind that it also demonstrates, as the many polls have shown, that outside Kurdistan, you’re universally reviled.

Pack it up.

Shiites have sometimes attacks Coalition forces on and off ever since the invasion, but you know what? Shiites aren’t a monolithic bloc, neither are the Sunnis, in which some support the insurgents and some in which are aligning themselves with the Iraqi Government.

So I’ll say, again, why are you saying there is no Iraqi Government when in fact the governments there, it’s just heavily divided, as say Lebanon.