The Iraq thread 3

[Acecombat 0]

Its disturbing now , one can only hope for a miracle.

But truly americas lack of undertsanding the countrys volatility and religious sentiments along with nationialistic pride has ruined it bigtime. The iraqi people are very temper-full having met a few of them i say the situation is badly f*cked now this is turning like somalia   , only more terrorists created and more anti-americanism created widening the gulf ever more between ME and the US .......

Read up on public opinion on BBC here :

BBC opinion page

I cant believe there are still some morons out there who believe the war is still heading in the right direction

[Acecombat 0]

Another BBC link here quoting arabic news papers on Iraqs crisis:

Press warning on Shia 'danger'

A article

The Things Neocons Didn’t Know About Iraq

Richard H. Curtiss, Arab News

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON, 5 April 2004 — Let’s skip China and point out that Iraq and Egypt have the longest written histories in the world. Leaving out Egypt let’s turn our attention to Iraq. Time is short so we won’t start at 3000 B.C. We’ll pick a much later date, and go to the last days of the Iraqi monarchy in 1958.

I was in the Ankara, Turkey airport to meet the Iraqi delegates for what was to have been a meeting of the Baghdad Pact Organization. The members and associate members included Jordan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, Britain and the United States. The Iraqi party was to include Nuri Said who was a grizzled veteran statesman, the crown prince regent Abdul Al Illah and the young Iraqi King Faisal II.

We waited for at least three hours until it became clear that none of the party was going to arrive. When we got back to Ankara we learned that the party had been delayed. Already rumors were flying and by the next day we learned that the young prince and the regent had been killed.

A day or two after that we heard that Nuri Said had tried to escape but was caught dressed in women’s clothing because a young boy saw that he was wearing men’s shoes under a woman’s black robe. He was killed and then dragged through the streets until, literally, there was nothing left of him. Meanwhile it turned out that most of Iraq’s royal family, including the women, had also been killed.

The bloody details were horrible but so is much of Iraq’s history. The new leader who had plotted the assassinations was Abdel Karim Qassim and his vice president was Abd Al-Salam Mohammad Aref.

It appeared that a new era was dawning in the Middle East. Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser would join with Qassim and Aref, and Syria into one entity called the United Arab Republic. But there were jealousies. Soon the United Arab Republic fell apart. For a time longer the Baathists in both Iraq and Syria worked cooperatively together. But eventually they, too, parted.

Qassim began to have serious troubles and because he was neither photogenic nor handsome, as many Arab leaders are, he resorted to surrounding himself with a permanent cheering section. Wherever he went one could hear them shouting rhyming slogans, such as “there is no other leader except Qassim.†More and more the Iraqis began to hate him.

Eventually Qassim was seized by Aref and moderate Baathist officers. They put Qassim in a chair sitting boldly upright and machine-gunned him to death. Lest no one be in doubt about what had happened, the scene was televised over and over for days.

Only half a year later there was another coup and so it went. Among these tragic events, one stands out. A large group of Communists was loaded into boxcars and sent off into the desert. They remained there until all had suffocated.

Eventually Baathists took control under Ahmad Hasan Al-Bakr. At this point Saddam Hussein was No. 2 in the country and not too long after that, Al-Bakr died and Saddam became the new president. From that point on there has been a long period of relative stability due to Saddam’s iron-fisted rule.

That ended with the conquest of Iraq by US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a handful of other allies. It took fewer than 200 US and British lives to end the shooting.

But what followed has been a long and tragic story as the US, British and other military and civilian forces continued suffering more than 600 deaths and at least 2,500 injuries. There is no official toll of Iraqis killed and injured but it surely already has totaled more than 10,000.

Among the first casualties were Saddam’s sons, Uday, 39, and Qusay, 37 and one of Saddam’s teen-aged grandsons, Mustapha. They were killed in a shootout when they were betrayed by a man eager to collect the reward money.

Subsequently, Saddam himself was found and has been held in American custody ever since. It’s going to be up to the Iraqi people to decide what to do about him. No American should be involved in deciding his fate.

The United States should do its best to put the entire Iraqi saga behind it. Sad to say, it may well be that the only thing all of the Iraqis have in common now is a poisonous hatred of the newest foreign conqueror. I’m not sure that the United Nations will pick up the job but I am certain that the US must get out as soon as possible.

The conventional wisdom is that about 60 percent of the Iraqis are Shiites. It appears that they have no intention of sharing power with the Sunnis or the Kurds. The Sunnis are probably at least 20 percent and the Kurds are a little less numerous.

We’ll only know whether the Shiites will share any power when the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani agrees to meet with an occupation official. To date the ayatollah has refused to do that but the US occupation will end on June 30.

Perhaps the Sunnis and the Shiites will go their separate ways. That is not going to happen peacefully, however, since Baghdad is ethnically a very divided city and there’s no easy way to separate the adherents of the two sects. The third group, the Kurds, are the only people who do not have potential oil riches. It’s unlikely that the Kurds will get deeply involved and they will probably stay in their own traditional homeland in the north and east.

Will there be a civil war in Iraq between the Sunnis and the Shiites? No one really knows.

It may be far more complicated to disentangle the two or three groups than to have them learn to live with each other. What the United States has to do is get out on schedule because we have become an obstacle to peace.

If any American politician is closest to the truth it is probably Dennis Kucinich who says “get out, period.†Second closest to the truth is Howard Dean who says the US should get out gracefully. Furthest from the truth is Sen. John F. Kerry who hasn’t fully grasped that the US must get out. And, most frightening of all, is President George W. Bush who never understood why he couldn’t just go from one war to another without having to pay the terrible consequences of wars of conquest.

Meanwhile it is undoubtedly tempting to go after those Sunni ghouls who have just finished tearing four American mercenaries from limb to limb. But the United States should not even dream of revenge. Our job is to disentangle from a bad war, not create new grievances.

The US was quite justified in hitting back hard at Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban. As long as the US is welcome in Afghanistan the United States should do whatever it can to remain a positive influence. In Iraq, with its bloody history, there’s no way to win.

It was George W. Bush’s misadventure to get into something that he couldn’t finish. He is encumbered with his despicable neoconservative advisers, whose only desire is to find oil for Israel. Let us never forget the names of these neoconservatives who set out to assure the world that going to Iraq would be “a walk in the park,†or “a cake walk,†to use two of their catch phrases.

Strangely, apparently none of these neoconservatives knows anything at all about the Middle East, and certainly not about Iraq. George W. Bush had never been near the country until after the war began. Nor apparently had Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former Defense Board member Richard Perle, nor Deputy Assistant Secretary Douglas Feith, to mention just a few. And let us never forget the American servicemen and women who died or were maimed in the service of a “wartime president†who had never gone to war.

— Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

[Balschoiw 0]

I´m sorry to say so but if they imprison the spiritual leader the coaltion forces will be thrown out of the country.

A lot of blood will be splattered. Iraqi blood and coalition blood. Not to think about the effect on other ME countries. Some of them await the bloodshed to start only, to sound the same horn. It´s so stupid what the coaltion forces do now. They thought that they can put all the nasty things on the Iraqui security and police forces and left them alone. They did not assist them, not even with intel. They don´t trust them and left them alone. They even killed a lot of them by "accident". Coaltion forces failed. That´s what it is. A 100 percent failure. Once 60 percent of Iraq are on the move against coaltion soldiers there is nothing that could stop them.

History is there to learn of it. The US supervisors of the Iraq war and the time after war have learned nothing from the faults they already have made years ago. They make the same faults all over.

Extremely stupid and ignorant.

[brgnorway 0]

I´m sorry to say so but if they imprison the spiritual leader the coaltion forces will be thrown out of the country.

A lot of blood will be splattered. Iraqi blood and coalition blood. Not to think about the effect on other ME countries. Some of them await the bloodshed to start only, to sound the same horn. It´s so stupid what the coaltion forces do now. They thought that they can put all the nasty things on the Iraqui security and police forces and left them alone. They did not assist them, not even with intel. They don´t trust them and left them alone. They even killed a lot of them by "accident". Coaltion forces failed. That´s what it is. A 100 percent failure. Once 60 percent of Iraq are on the move against coaltion soldiers there is nothing that could stop them.

History is there to learn of it. The US supervisors of the Iraq war and the time after war have learned nothing from the faults they already have made years ago. They make the same faults all over.

Extremely stupid and ignorant.

Don't be so negative and pessimistic Balschiow! Can't you see the coalition are bringing peace and prosperity to Iraq? Pretty soon they'll have democracy there.

[bucket man 2]

Peace indeed!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are they insane? The only thing this will do is to force the more moderate clerics to join up with his cause. This is just moronic. The current problems started after the occupational forces closed down a pro-Sadr newspaper and arrested one of his assistants. How do they think people will react if they arrest Sadr himself? It's just insane. The man has a huge number of followers. He was the only strong Shia leader that emerged directly after the war, organizing security and distributing food in Baghdad. They renamed Saddam city (largest Baghdad suburb) to Sadr City in his honor. Bremer must be losing his mind.

The arrest warrant was issued last Oct. but the Iraqi police or coalition troops did not carry it out. The arrest warrant was issued because another Shiite cleric was murdred and he was wanted in connection.

Sadr City was named for his killed father not him.

Note: His father was killed by Saddam agents.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are they insane? The only thing this will do is to force the more moderate clerics to join up with his cause. This is just moronic. The current problems started after the occupational forces closed down a pro-Sadr newspaper and arrested one of his assistants. How do they think people will react if they arrest Sadr himself? It's just insane. The man has a huge number of followers. He was the only strong Shia leader that emerged directly after the war, organizing security and distributing food in Baghdad. They renamed Saddam city (largest Baghdad suburb) to Sadr City in his honor. Bremer must be losing his mind.

Here is something else:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....raq

Quote[/b] ]

Al-Sadr's main support is among young seminary students and impoverished Shiites, devoted to him because of his anti-U.S. stance and the memory of his father, a religious leader gunned down by suspected agents of Saddam Hussein (news -web sites) in 1999.

However, al-Sadr's religious status is low, giving him less influence than more moderate Shiite leaders. And many Shiites see him as erratic.

[Bernadotte 0]

Are they insane?

No.  They know exactly what they are doing.

If it was truly in TBA's interest to transfer power by 30 June then they would not hesitate to warn that the target date is now under threat.  Instead, they insist that their plans remain on schedule.  Why warn that something might not happen if you really don't want it to happen in the first place?  They'd rather let things get worse just to be able to say, "In spite of our greatest efforts... blah blah blah."

The last thing they want is a political solution.

The last thing they need is any form of dialogue with the militants.

They renamed Saddam city (largest Baghdad suburb) to Sadr City in his honor.

Actually, I think it was renamed in honor of his father.

Edit:  Ok, I've just noticed that billybob2002 confirmed this already.  

[denoir 0]

The arrest warrant was issued last Oct. but the Iraqi police or coalition troops did not carry it out. The arrest warrant was issued because another Shiite cleric was murdred and he was wanted in connection.

Oh, golly what a coincidence that just when he became nasty, they decided to enforce the arrest warrent. Nice little coallition racketeering there, eh?

Quote[/b] ]Sadr City was named for his killed father not him

True.

Quote[/b] ]Here is something else:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....raq

There seems to be several different estimates of how many Shiites support al Sadr but the general concensus seems to be a third of them or more.  { src }.

So while he does not represent the majority, he has a number of followers that could make the situation impossible for the occupational forces. Furthermore, no Shia will side against him with the US. By a confrontation he only gains supporters.

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ]If it was truly in TBA's interest to transfer power by 30 June then they would not hesitate to warn that the target date is now under threat. Instead, they insist that their plans remain on schedule. Why warn that something might not happen if you really don't want it to happen in the first place? They'd rather let things get worse just to be able to say, "In spite of our greatest efforts... blah blah blah."

Hardly, if they wanted to make the situation bad, they could have done it without drawing this much attention to their questionable actions. If they did not care about the publicity then they could have made things several orders of magnitude worse. I think the problem here is the incompetence of Bremer who's incompetence prevents him from seeing the bigger picture.

[Bernadotte 0]

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ]If it was truly in TBA's interest to transfer power by 30 June then they would not hesitate to warn that the target date is now under threat.  Instead, they insist that their plans remain on schedule.  Why warn that something might not happen if you really don't want it to happen in the first place?  They'd rather let things get worse just to be able to say, "In spite of our greatest efforts... blah blah blah."

Hardly, if they wanted to make the situation bad, they could have done it without drawing this much attention to their questionable actions. If they did not care about the publicity then they could have made things several orders of magnitude worse.

Oh, but they do care about publicity so they can't be too heavy-handed.

How do you know they are not trying to make things worse in ways that do not get our attention.  How would we find out about it if it's not meant to draw attention?  (Catch22)

I think the problem here is the incompetence of Bremer who's incompetence prevents him from seeing the bigger picture.

Most people prefer that conclusion, but it assumes everyone advising Bremer is of equal or greater stupidity and that none of them read any newspapers and that they all get their info from Fox News or comic books.  I don't buy it.

Every Repulican administration since Nixon has developed some form of Madman Approach to dealing with international crises.  Nixon wanted China to believe he'd really nuke Beijing over Vietnam.  Regan played the same game of chicken with Gorbachev, but more convincingly.  It works very well for them because smart Republicans can see through it, while the redneck Repulicans at the bottom of the food chain actually think it makes sense to nuke Beijing.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

On this forum we would comment the situation in Iraq right now with the following symbol

[WhoCares 0]

As the war is officially over for quiet a while, some very interesting After Action Reports are available. Should please you war buffs out there  

Interresting overall analysis

Quote[/b] ]Conclusions

•Central finding: synergistic interaction between advanced technology and Iraqi ineptitude was necessary and sufficient for low-cost victory

–Without 2003 precision, situation awareness, survivability, eveninept Iraqis could have inflicted much heavier casualties

–Without Iraqi ineptitude, even 2003 technology could not have enabled a force this size to prevail at this cost

–2003 technology punishes ineptitude very severely, but cannot guarantee similar results vs. adept enemies

•Can speed, precision, information now substitute for mass?

–In Iraq, speed less important than precision, information

–Effects of precision, information critically dependent on Iraqi exposure –against less-exposed opponent, results could be very different

[bn880 5]

On this forum we would comment the situation in Iraq right now with the following symbol

Hehhe Exactly. Well no, I'd give it 3/5 to 4/5 still. It can be a lot worse.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I should put that in my sig! It should always reflect the current status in Iraq.

Done!

[bn880 5]

Not a bad idea! You might not be the only one.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You already have a alert under your avatar!

[miles teg 1]

I agree with Denoir. However alot of this could have been prevented if Bremer had followed the old saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

There seems to be a very big lack of communication between the Bremer administration in Iraq and many of the more radical Shi'ite leaders like Sadr. But its easy to pass judgement from here and I don't think any of us know for sure whether attempts were made to bring Imams like Sadr closer into the fold of the Bremer administration.

But my guess is that very little effort was made in that regard because generally conservatives like Bremer tend to see people like Sadr as savages who are not to be trusted and who are only dealt with using force because they believe such people only understand the language of violence. It's a typical colonialist mentality that is not all that different then the mentality that led to the downfall of the U.N. attempt at nation building in Somalia.

History repeats itself...

Everyone remembers the movie, "Blackhawk Down" but few people know or have studied the root causes of that even that led to the departure of US forces from Somalia. It's roots were purely political and a failure to address and work within the existing power structure.

You see this same problem with alot of development work where attempts are made to circumvent the existing political power structure in a community (and on higher levels). The outcome is usually complete failure and the blame is put on "those damn backwards peasants" when in fact it more often then not is due to a failure to acknowledge the reality seen from the eyes of people who live in the target community. Bremer seems to have failed to measured the danger of Sadr. Not only him but also many of the US military commanders have done the same. One Marine General was on TV a few months back talking about how Sadr had more followers in the media then he did amongst Iraqis.

Apparently he was wrong.

I agree with Denoir in that the most likely outcome is that the majority of Shi'ites WILL begin to support Sadr as they see US troops killing and rounding up fellow Shi'ites. They definitely will not side with the US.

But blood has been spilled and the lines drawn in the sand, so now that Sadr has unleashed his forces there is no turning back and he has to be dealt with.

Storming that mosque is going to be a very ugly and bloody affair. But they've raided mosques before. Personally I think that if Sadr and Co. want to use a mosque as a fortress then they should be prepared to see it destroyed. A few 500lb GPS bombs would do the job. Either that or a full-scale assault are going to result in lots of dead Iraqis and the mosque being destroyed.

The difference is that a few 500lb bombs would be quicker and would resolve the situation without coalition casualities.

Another tactic is to surround the mosque and starve them out...as well as use psychological warfare tactics to force them out. Having loud speakers blaring verses from the Qu'ran or hadiths condemming hypocrits to hell is an example. At first they would think...yes those damned Americans are talking about themselves...but eventually doubt would creep into their minds as the verses are played over and over day and night along with speeches in Arabic encouraging them to surrender and seek the righteous path of peace and Islamic unity.

It would still be dangerous, and alot of people would get pissed off, but it would probably be the best alternative short of a bloody assault or bombing the mosque...both of which will destroy the mosque and rally thousands of more Shi'ites to Sadr's cause.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Tovarish 0]

Kind of obvious to many of us but....

War worse for Iraq than Saddam: Blix

Quote[/b] ]COPENHAGEN - The war in Iraq has left the country worse off than it was under Saddam Hussein's regime, former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix told a newspaper in Denmark.

In an interview published in Tuesday's edition of the daily Jyllands Posten, Blix said the cost of ridding Iraq of Saddam has been too high.

"What's positive is that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when figuring out the score, the negatives weigh more," Blix said.

"That accounts for the many casualties during the war and the many people who still die because of the terrorism the war has nourished," he said.

Blix led the UN weapons inspections in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last March.

His teams found little to support the pre-war assertions by the United States that Saddam's regime was actively developing and stockpiling chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Post-war searches led by the United States have likewise come up empty.

Having retired from the UN, Blix now heads a new Stockholm-based independent commission on weapons of mass destruction.

[Balschoiw 0]

Do you think it is ok to silence political opponents like saddam did    ?

The goal of all these efforts by Iraq´s citizens is to gain full self-control. Right now the Iraqi people have no choice. They can´t decide anything on their own. Politicians who have been selected by the occupiers rule their life. Would you accept this ? Would you like to see your country exploited the way the US does right now ? Would you like to see your future  directed by commercial interests like it is right now ? Wouldn´t you feel very pissed to see that in fact Iraq is not for Iraqi people and run by Iraq´s people but exile politicians and lobbyist´s ?

I would feel pissed. I would feel pissed about all the civillian casualties. I would be pissed to hear that the reasons the US used to justify the war were nothing than bullshit. People got killed for the US&UK bullshit. Can´t you realize that people are fed up ? Where is the democracy ? Where is the freedom ? Where is the help ? Where is the security ?

All they see is that their country gets exploited by coalition.

All they see is that the coaltion is interested in their oil and to dominate them.

Not to cooperate with them.

You can´t exclude 60 percent of a population from participation in running the country. If you do, you get killed, sooner or later, no matter what. No matter if it is the Kurds, the Shia´s, the Sunni´s or anyone else.

Lies may work in western medias or with media-fed citizens.

The Iraqi people live in Iraq and they can judge their situation pretty well. They see what coaltion forces do for them or not do for them.

If the coaltion thinks they can go on like that and fight Iraqi citizens who want a role in their own country and rule anyone out as bad guy who doesn´t fit their likes or favours they will learn that the Iraqi population will not allow them to do it.

They are no terrorists or foreign fighters. They are the people of Iraq. And they demand what they were promised. If the coalition can´t hold this promise they will send them to hell.

[Acecombat 0]

Ok we all know this isnt right whats happening ....

But come to think of it what other way has US got anyway?

I mean giving in to these nutheads demands isnt also a very good idea but then again it all started with one mistake which led to all this crap in the first place. I am kinda divided on this but what other way is there to stop sadr and his mental gang of religious zealots ? and tame them to the idea using diplomatic channels to make a point .

[Balschoiw 0]

Give them what you promised them.

Free elections, democracy, transparacy, participation,

a role in Iraq. You just can´t lock them all up or alienate them.

What difference would it make to Saddam´s regime if US/UK take the same way. 10.000 or more Iraqi people were killed already.

The role of the US/UK should have been to help them find a new way not to force them into THEIR way.

Let people participate. If you don´t let them they will doubt your promises. That is very natural.

Check out the situation in Iraq right now. Is it better now than it was before the war ? Really ?

I don´t think so. Saddam is gone. That´s the only good thing right now.

Now coaltion soldiers shoot civillians and "terrorists".

Does this make a difference to the average Iraqi Joe who get´s shot in his car by accident ?

I don´t think so. The only goal that Bremer fully achieved is that the Iraqi people as a whole have no trust in coaltion motivations and intentions. And now they form a common voice to express this: Resistance.

Edit:

Update:

-4 Us soldiers killed while storming one of Sadr´s offices

- last night over 60 people were killed by coaltion forces in Bagdad

- Nasirija; at least 15 Iraqi´s killed by Italian forces. Italian forces have at least 12 wounded soldiers.

- Muktada el Sadr has already left the Mosque his current position is unknown.

- In Falludscha Us tanks were attacked with mortars. They fired back.

- In Ramadi a US infantry patrol got attacked by gunmen. 2 soldiers died.

[billybob2002 0]

Blackwater Security Consulting here to help!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53059-2004Apr5.html

Quote[/b] ]

Private Guards Repel Attack on U.S. Headquarters

By Dana Priest

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 6, 2004; Page A01

An attack by hundreds of Iraqi militia members on the U.S. government's headquarters in Najaf on Sunday was repulsed not by the U.S. military, but by eight commandos from a private security firm, according to sources familiar with the incident.

Quote[/b] ]

Before U.S. reinforcements could arrive, the firm, Blackwater Security Consulting, sent in its own helicopters amid an intense firefight to resupply its commandos with ammunition and to ferry out a wounded Marine, the sources said.

Quote[/b] ]

In Sunday's fighting, Shiite militia forces barraged the Blackwater commandos, four MPs and a Marine gunner with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 fire for hours before U.S. Special Forces troops arrived. A sniper on a nearby roof apparently wounded three men. U.S. troops faced heavy fighting in several Iraqi cities that day.

The Blackwater commandos, most of whom are former Special Forces troops, are on contract to provide security for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Najaf.

Quote[/b] ]

During the defense of the authority headquarters, thousands of rounds were fired and hundreds of 40mm grenades shot. Sources who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of Blackwater's work in Iraq reported an unspecified number of casualties among Iraqis.

A spokesman for Blackwater confirmed that the company has a contract to provide security to the CPA but would not describe the incident that unfolded Sunday

Quote[/b] ]

Blackwater has applied to occupy a former MIG air base near Baghdad as a counterterrorism training facility for Iraqi forces. The training range will mirror the 6,000-acre Moyock site, which is frequented by U.S. law enforcement and military personnel.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]"I know if you just report on those few places, it does look chaotic," Bremer said on CNN's "American Morning." "But if you travel around the country, what you find is a bustling economy, people opening businesses right and left, unemployment has dropped.

It`s all the fault of the news agencies!Why don`t they show cities were Iraqis friendship with the coalition is growing by the day.Every time they broadcast about those few places where Iraqi terrorist and foreign fighters want chaos over democracy and gives a total unbalanced view of the real situation.But what about cities like Baghdad-uhm 10 US soldiers since weekend dead and fighting continues; Basra-uhm, Resistance took control of the gouverment office,Nassiriah-nope fighting all day long with the Italians,Najaf-Resistance took full control of the city; Kerbala-Bulgarians clashed all day with militiamen.

So,maybe he`s talking about the Sunni triangle or the desert  

[denoir 0]

How do you know they are not trying to make things worse in ways that do not get our attention.  How would we find out about it if it's not meant to draw attention?  (Catch22)

There's nothing to gain. The worse the Iraq situation gets the worse it is for Bush. Had the occupation been a success story Bush would have gotten a mandate to move on to the next country and enforce the necon vision of pax Americana. While keeping America at a state of war may in principle be benifitial for the hawks, it would only be relevant had the enemy been elsewhere. Now they're stuck in Iraq. There is no way Bush will get a mandate to start another Iraq-like war.

Not to mention that an election is coming up. How many GI:s come home in body bags is quite relevant to the outcome of the elections.

The neocon reason for the war was to establish a 'friendly' government in Iraq for both political and economic reasons. Civil disorder is hardly helping them achieve that goal. Removing Saddam is not relevant if he is replaced with somebody even less friendly.

In other news:

Al-Sadr supporters take over Najaf

Quote[/b] ]Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.

The source said al-Sadr's followers controlled the governor's office, police stations and the Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Muslim's holiest shrines.

Iraqi police were negotiating to regain their stations, the source said.

The source also said al-Sadr was busing followers into Najaf from Sadr City in Baghdad and that many members of his outlawed militia, Mehdi's Army, were from surrounding provinces.

Where is the coallition? I'm starting to get the feeling that they do not have territorial control of Iraq at all. Apart from Baghdad, there seems to be no military presence in any of the major cities. And in Baghdad they're base-camping anyway - regular patrols were cancelled in October and AFIK they have not been restored.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Where is the coallition? I'm starting to get the feeling that they do not have territorial control of Iraq at all. Apart from Baghdad, there seems to be no military presence in any of the major cities. And in Baghdad they're base-camping anyway - regular patrols were cancelled in October and AFIK they have not been restored.

Expect to see a whole lot of coalition soldiers guarding the pipelines and the oil ministry