The Iraq thread 3

[Tex -USMC- 0]

At least there won't be much attacks  

I think if it was on 30 June hell would have broken loose  

Pardon? Everyone and their uncle has known about the June 30th date for months now- do you honestly think that 72 hours will make an earth-shaking difference in anyone's plans? This was clearly done to avoid nasty PR problems like a couple huge explosions right outside the green zone causing Bremer and Allawi to flinch during the handover ceremoney; in other words, it was to create the impression of a peaceful transition, even though everyone knows that this next week has the makings of one of the most violent weeks since the MCO phase. Artful timing, and an excellent use of a symbolic ceremony, but when it boils down, that's all this schedule change is: symbolic.

[Ironsight 1]

@ June 28 2004,10:28)]Pardon? Everyone and their uncle has known about the June 30th date for months now- do you honestly think that 72 hours will make an earth-shaking difference in anyone's plans?

Not earth-shaking, but I think it will make a difference because lot of terrorist groups plan attacks during the ceremony.

Now the ceremony is earlier, terrorist groups can't ruin the ceremony.

[ran 0]

Now the ceremony is earlier, terrorist groups can't ruin the ceremony.

why couldn't they ?

[Ironsight 1]

Now the ceremony is earlier, terrorist groups can't ruin the ceremony.

why couldn't they ?

Because they didn't know it started so they can't attack it

[WhoCares 0]

While I appreciate the probable saving of some innocent iraqi lifes, this step gives you an idea of who is currently ruling this country - and it is neither the Coalition nor any iraqi authority.

[Ironsight 1]

While I appreciate the probable saving of some innocent iraqi lifes, this step gives you an idea of who is currently ruling this country - and it is neither the Coalition nor any iraqi authority.

That's indeed sad

[theavonlady 2]

While I appreciate the probable saving of some innocent iraqi lifes, this step gives you an idea of who is currently ruling this country - and it is neither the Coalition nor any iraqi authority.

No. They terrorize the country. They don't rule it.

Life goes on in Iraq. The Iraqi Authority works. So do family breadwinners.

Fighting against the terrorists goes on. They rule over much of Fallujah and sections of Najaf but that's it.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Fighting against the terrorists goes on. They rule over much of Fallujah and sections of Najaf but that's it.

Oh come on AL,that`s a bit low.Sections of Najaf?You mean the Mehdi Army who is composed of Shi`ites who were opressed by Saddam and haven`t deliberatly inflicted casualties on the civillian side,enganging US soldiers in face to face combat.

The Mehdi militia who also announced that it will stop fighting in Sadr City to help the fight against those who are performing suicide attacks pledging to help the Iraqi police?

Would you be so kind of telling me what is your definition of terrorist because if the Shi`ite militia fits in it then surely other military organisations in Iraq(hint) do also.

[WhoCares 0]

No. They terrorize the country. They don't rule it.

...

Terror can also be a kind of ruling, if the terror (and the fear of it) influences the daily political decisions.

The aftermath of the Madrid bombings (election; pulling out of Iraq) showed what a powerful political mean terror can be, as sad as it is... (but I definatly do not say that Spain is controlled by terror)

Bringing forward such a highly symbolical act due to the fear of terror tells me, that they are not in control of the country and that terrorists can freely decide whenever and whereever they strike.

[denoir 0]

Life goes on in Iraq. The Iraqi Authority works. So do family breadwinners.

Fighting against the terrorists goes on. They rule over much of Fallujah and sections of Najaf but that's it.

The Iraqi Authority has no authority and the family breadwinners don't have jobs and have to be worried about get blown up by the resistance and the coalition forces. Reconstruction has more or less been halted and more and more contractors are leaving the country.

The current Iraqi "government" represents a bunch of US-loyal factions, and is not representative of the Iraqi people.

A majority of Iraqis think that firing RPG's at coalition soldiers is quite alright and an alarming pecentage even supports the attacks on Iraqi collaborators (police, military etc)

The new Iraqi police & military according to Bremer cosists of "20% insurgent infiltrators and 30% deserters". The other 50% are apparently quite allright (that is when they're not blown to pieces by car bombs).

The Kurdish question has not been solved and the new Iraqi authority has of course no authority at all over the northern part of the countries.

The cities are not in control of the government but of various armed militias - some cooperative, others not.

Every day a bunch of civilians and a few US soldiers are killed.

The Iraqi state is bankrupt and its only real source of income: the oil production is being sabotaged on a regular basis.

---

I'm all for optimism, but at some point you have to be realistic about the situation. It ain't looking good. I really wish the best of luck to the new Iraqi "government", but it is far far far away from guaranteed that they will succeed.

[theavonlady 2]

Oh come on AL,that`s a bit low.Sections of Najaf?You mean the Mehdi Army who is composed of Shi`ites who were opressed by Saddam and haven`t deliberatly inflicted casualties on the civillian side,enganging US soldiers in face to face combat.

Where? For the most part the cease fire agreement between the US and Sadr has held for the last 3 weeks. And the vast majority of Sadr fighting before that was in Najaf. And Sadr's men are entrenched not in all of Najaf. The US has positions within.

Quote[/b] ]The Mehdi militia who also announced that it will stop fighting in Sadr City to help the fight against those who are performing suicide attacks pledging to help the Iraqi police?

Yes but they don't control other areas, like they do in Najaf.

Quote[/b] ]Would you be so kind of telling me what is your definition of terrorist because if the Shi`ite militia fits in it then surely other military organisations in Iraq(hint) do also.

I don't know what you're hinting at - wink wink.

My definition is the same as Sistani's is for Al-qeda and Zarqawi except that no one in Iraq is stopping me from adding the likes of Sadr to the same list.

[denoir 0]

The US has positions within.

AFIK there are no US troops in Najaf or Karbala. Both cities are in control by the Sadr militia and the Sistani militia which often, but not always work with the Iraqi security officers.

Quote[/b] ]My definition is the same as Sistani's is for Al-qeda and Zarqawi except that no one in Iraq is stopping me from adding the likes of Sadr to the same list

That's the problem. And it's the same lack of understanding the resistance that is plaguing the coalition. Zarqawi and AQ are nothing. They behead contractors and from time to time blow up some civvies. And as nasty as that is, it's strategically inconsequential.

The real problem lies in the heavily armed factions that oppose a US rule for one reason or another. And they have a solid support from the people in terms of logistics etc

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Where? For the most part the cease fire agreement between the US and Sadr has held for the last 3 weeks. And the vast majority of Sadr fighting before that was in Najaf. And Sadr's men are entrenched not in all of Najaf. The US has positions within.

You were implying that Al-Sadr militia is terrorist and I explained that during their insurection they engaged US soldiers in face to face combat avoiding civillian casualties.

Quote[/b] ] don't know what you're hinting at - wink wink.

My definition is the same as Sistani's is for Al-qeda and Zarqawi except that no one in Iraq is stopping me from adding the likes of Sadr to the same list.

No one is stopping people from calling Osama bin Laden a CIA operative that orchastrated 9/11 with their help but that doesn`t make it true does it?

You are calling Al-Sadr militia a terrorist organisation and I ask you what is your reasoning and logics behind this claim that I find unfounded.

[Apollo 0]

It aint good looking indeed.

Deffinatly ,i wouldn't like to be one of those new ministers of Iraq ,i wouldn't be surprized if they have a price on their head already and it wouldn't be the first of such American supported ministers are murdered.

The reality on the ground and control of the coalition is an almost exact copy of the situation in Afhanistan ,rebels and warlords of various faction's religions or ethnicity's with different interrests are controlling most of the country ,while the U.S toghether with the Iraqi security forces try to hold strategic strongholds of their interrests being the capital ,the inportant airfields ,certain transport route's and probably also and maybe foremost oil wells ,oil pipeline's and harbor installations.

It's not like many people hadn't expected such an eventual outcome ,i could predict such a level of post war insurgency before the iraq war started so could some other member's on this board.

The Iraqi minister expressed that his foremost task would be to restore stability ,afcourse it is but then the foremost task for all those rebels and terrorists has always been to destablize the country as much as possible and up till now they are still more effeciant in creating destability than the iraqi goverment can create stabilety.Figure's of death's and terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last year clearly show a growing trend of violence ,this while the U.S more and more looks at ways to pull those forces back from Iraq ,understandable as opperational army's cost a lot of cash and it's nice to have "the boys" back before the ellections.

[WhoCares 0]

Defining 'casualty of war'

While the article is generally not too interresting something caught my attention:

Quote[/b] ]But the Army does report totals for soldiers evacuated for medical treatment. Through May, 12,000 had been shipped out of Iraq, more than 90 percent for reasons other than combat wounds.

Quote[/b] ]The 12,000 evacuees include only 1,300 soldiers wounded in action. The Pentagon reports nearly 5,300 wounded overall, meaning three-fourths are treated without being evacuated.

12000 would make ~9% of their forces.

And just assuming that about the same amount of injured/sick soldiers are treated in Iraq (the second quote would actually propose more than that), that would easily make about 20% out of duty. That's quite a lot, I guess...

Edit: Bah, ambiguous meaning of the word through... 'Through May' could be from the beginning of the war until the end of may or just in the month May alone. So I just misread it first, its from the beginning... Casualties in Iraq

[WhoCares 0]

Good news for our fellow in Iraq, Pins:

Stryker Brigades will trade places

Quote[/b] ]...

The two brigades will swap places beginning in October, Stryker spokesman Capt. Tim Beninato said Wednesday.

...

It also gives families from the initial Stryker brigade - the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division - a little more reason to be optimistic that their soldiers' one-year deployment to Iraq will really last just one year. They left Fort Lewis in November.

SO he has a good chance to come back then. An extension seems to be unlikely because of the swap of equipment:

Quote[/b] ]The Army's second Stryker brigade is bound for Iraq later this year, but it will leave its namesake vehicles home at Fort Lewis.

Instead, soldiers will fall in on the 310 or so Strykers and hundreds of Humvees and trucks their Fort Lewis comrades from the first Stryker brigade are using now across northern Iraq, officials said.

[Akira 0]

If not already stated, Iraqi control has been handed over two days early.

[bn880 5]

Yeah people have been posting that, but really both sides try to play games on each other, the coordinated guerilla attack took place a few days ago as well, where over 100 people were killed AFAIK. So it really made little difference other than a small small ceremony, the insurgents had their fun already and will continue to do so I guess.

[theavonlady 2]

So Iraq was pursuing African uranium purchases after all. No doubt for dental x-ray machines.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq Had Talks on Buying Uranium for Nukes -FT

Sun Jun 27,10:12 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Iraq was among several countries in negotiations to buy supplies of illicit uranium from Niger at least three years before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, the Financial Times reported Monday.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined uranium from the West African country to several states, including Iraq, the newspaper reported, citing senior European intelligence sources.

Although the European intelligence material suggested a proactive role by the sellers, intelligence officials said that Iraq actively sought supplies, the FT said.

In the run-up to the war against Iraqi, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair both accused Saddam of trying to buy uranium from Niger as part of a program to build nuclear weapons.

But their assertions were widely dismissed after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said documents meant to support the claims were clearly forged.

Although the United States later retracted the accusation, Britain stuck to its guns and continued to declare it had additional evidence not seen by the IAEA. The accusation formed part of Britain's September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which Blair used to justify going to war.

The FT said the smugglers planned to sell uranium mined illicitly in Niger to Iran, Libya, China and North Korea.

Despite evidence that it was supplied to at least two of those countries, it was not clear if talks with Iraq ever led to exports, the report added.

The intelligence officials said human intelligence sources showed there was sufficient evidence to conclude the West African country was the center of a international uranium smuggling operation.

"The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an unidentified official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation told the paper.

To date, despite widespread searches in Iraq, there have been no discoveries of an active program to build weapons of mass destruction.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi Authority has no authority and the family breadwinners don't have jobs and have to be worried about get blown up by the resistance and the coalition forces. Reconstruction has more or less been halted and more and more contractors are leaving the country.

The current Iraqi "government" represents a bunch of US-loyal factions, and is not representative of the Iraqi people.

A majority of Iraqis think that firing RPG's at coalition soldiers is quite alright and an alarming pecentage even supports the attacks on Iraqi collaborators (police, military etc)

The new Iraqi police & military according to Bremer cosists of "20% insurgent infiltrators and 30% deserters". The other 50% are apparently quite allright (that is when they're not blown to pieces by car bombs).

The Kurdish question has not been solved and the new Iraqi authority has of course no authority at all over the northern part of the countries.

The cities are not in control of the government but of various armed militias - some cooperative, others not.

Every day a bunch of civilians and a few US soldiers are killed.

The Iraqi state is bankrupt and its only real source of income: the oil production is being sabotaged on a regular basis.

---

I'm all for optimism, but at some point you have to be realistic about the situation. It ain't looking good. I really wish the best of luck to the new Iraqi "government", but it is far far far away from guaranteed that they will succeed.

It seems you forgot about my post about a new poll in which a clear majority of Iraqis do support the government, army, and police....

[denoir 0]

Havn't seen it, but I don't doubt it's correct. It's fairly natural that they're more positive to Iraqis being in charge (even if it's just symbolic) than the occupiers. But that doesn't change anything of what I've said.

[denoir 0]

So Iraq was pursuing African uranium purchases after all. No doubt for dental x-ray machines.

Yeah, if Financial Times says so then it really has to be that way

Havn't we been through this already, say a year ago?

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Personally, I think it's time for the US to come out of their defensive positions and wage war the way it should be done or leave and let the Iraqis sort it out between themselves.

Quote[/b] ]New Iraqi police fight US troops who trained them

By Damien McElroy in Baghdad

(Filed: 27/06/2004)

With american fighter jets and helicopters buzzing the skies overhead, an officer in Iraq's new police force approaches a group of fighters on Fallujah's front lines with an urgent call to arms.

"I need a man who can use an RPG," says Omar, who wears the uniform of a first lieutenant. Four hands shoot up and a cry rings out: "We are ready." He chooses a young man, Bilal, and they drive to an underpass on the outskirts of the city.

There, on Highway One, an American Humvee is driving east. Bilal aims and fires his rocket propelled grenade, turning the vehicle into a smoking, twisted, metal carcass. The fate of its occupants is unknown.

First Lt Omar is sworn to uphold the law and fight the insurgency that threatens Iraq's evolution into a free and democratic state. Instead, he is exploiting his knowledge of US tactics to help the rebel cause in Fallujah.

"Resistance is stronger when you are working with the occupation forces," he points out. "That way you can learn their weaknesses and attack at that point."

An Iraqi journalist went into Fallujah on behalf of the Telegraph on Wednesday, a day on which an orchestrated wave of bloody rebel attacks across the country cost more than 100 lives.

Inside the Sunni-dominated town, he met police officers and units of the country's new army who have formed a united front with Muslim fundamentalists against the Americans, their resistance focused on al-Askeri district on the eastern outskirts of the town.

That morning, US marines had taken up "aggressive defence" positions on one side of Highway One. On the other side, militant fighters were dug in, ready for battle.

Their preparations were thorough. Along the length of a suburban street in al-Askeri, they had dug foxholes at the base of every palm tree. Scores of armed men lined the streets. Most had scarves wrapped around their heads but others wore the American-supplied uniform of Unit 505 of the Iraqi army, and carried US-made M-16 rifles. Yet more were dressed in the olive green uniforms worn by Saddam Hussein's armed forces. Since April, when a US offensive failed to crush an uprising by Islamic fighters and Ba'athist loyalists, Fallujah has been effectively a no-go area for American troops.

A newly formed, 2,000-strong force known as the Fallujah brigade, led by a Saddam-era general, Mohammed Latif, was supposed to disarm the rebels. Instead, the town remains a hotbed of resistance. Now, once again, US military pressure is being brought to bear.

Three separate air strikes have been launched on houses in the town in recent days, aimed at killing an al-Qaeda leader believed to be based in Fallujah. The Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is believed to be behind the wave of kidnappings and terror attacks across Iraq.

US officials say that they narrowly missed their target on Friday, in their most recent strike on a house where he was suspected of hiding. Up to 25 people were killed.

On the ground in al-Askeri, tension was once again rising under the US attacks. Strangers had to seek permission from the "district commander", a local imam called Sheikh Yassin who controls a broad coalition of Saddam loyalists and Islamic radicals, to move beyond the rebel lines. The sheikh, who has emerged as the neighbourhood strongman since the uprising against American occupation, has used his following to unite all strands of resistance under his leadership.

His radio buzzed constantly as scouts, moving incognito in private cars, sent in reports about US positions around the suburb. The ground shook as F-16 Falcons dropped precision-guided 500lb bombs on rebel positions near the football stadium, half a mile away.

US commanders have spoken of their frustration over the Fallujah Brigade's failure to rein in rebels, and the ineffectiveness of the political deal struck with local tribes in April. "We've been prepared to pull the plug on it three or four times, but each time we detect a faint heartbeat," a senior marine officer said. To Sheikh Yassin, the supposedly anti-rebel brigade is a useful tool, providing support for his fighters. "We respect the Fallujah brigade - it never interferes against us," he says. He openly acknowledges that his coalition was a marriage of convenience, bringing together the secular Saddam faithful and Muslim fundamentalists.

The imam, who wants Iraq to be governed by Islamic law, points to one of his companions - a colonel in the disbanded Iraqi army - and asks why he is still fighting.

The colonel is blunt. "Fallujah is the starting point of the return of the Ba'ath Party," he says. "Our comrades in Baghdad and other provinces are joining our struggle. Here already we are free. No one can touch us."

In violence yesterday, a car bomb in the predominantly Shia city of Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad, killed at least 15 people according to the Arabic satellite news channel al-Jazeera.

Six guerrillas and several other people were killed in Baquba, north of Baghdad, when rebels blew up the local party headquarters of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister, and attacked a moderate Shia political party's office. Another car bomb killed a man in the Kurdish city of Arbil.

Exactly Avon, agree with you 110%! We need to start fighting like the terrorist over there, if we do this, then we can gain some control. Those people do not know how to handle freedom, so we have to be tough with them. Personally I don't think democracy will ever work in a Islamic nation, I just can't see it. Still we can do some clean up, and the head home.

[denoir 0]

It works fairly well in Turkey, an Islamic nation.

"Need to start fighting like the terrorists"? You mean suicide bombings, beheadings and stuff like that?

[bn880 5]

Start fighting like the terrorists? What does that mean exactly.

I'd say in order for US troops to fight like terorrists means to fight like the guerillas/insurgents. So, keep small communication rings, leave most of your weapons, blend into the society, watch/wait for weeks at a time to strike a single target, execute prisonners on tape, etc. LOL