Tag: Iraq

Iraqi View: The Surge Is a Very Bad Idea for So Many Reasons

Buck Banks

Canary in the mine shaft: Nadim al-Jabiri is a professor of political science at Baghdad University, a member of Iraq’s parliament, and the head of the Islamic Virtue Party (Al-Fadhila). He makes a pretty good argument why Iraqis think George Bush’s surge is a really bad idea:

Despite the overwhelming demands of the majority of Americans and Iraqis to end the war and occupation of Iraq, and despite the Baker-Hamilton report’s recommendations for de-escalation, President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki are designing a new “surge” targeting the Iraqi capital.

This will put an end to the participation of many Iraqi groups in the ongoing political process, because people like us will lose faith in achieving our goals.

and getting our country back through diplomacy.
Many Iraqis welcomed the first few steps President Bush took following the release of the Baker-Hamilton report recommendations, like pressuring Mr. Al-Maliki to include more Sunnis in the government, reconsidering the de-Baathification process, and re-evaluating the laws for distributing oil revenue. But the current Bush-Maliki plan for attacking Baghdad shows that the Baker-Hamilton report was not taken seriously enough. In fact, the new Bush-Maliki strategy is the polar opposite of that report’s major recommendations.

The new Bush-Maliki plan includes sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, mostly to Baghdad, and sending more Iraqi troops, mostly from the Kurdish militia “Peshmerga,” to Baghdad.

Increasing the U.S. troops will show Iraqis that the U.S. administration is against setting a timetable for withdrawing all the occupation forces. This will both increase and legitimize the Iraqi armed resistance to the occupation even more, and it will destroy all the other non-violent options. In addition, this will put an end to the participation of many Iraqi groups in the ongoing political process, because people like us will lose faith in achieving our goals
and getting our country back through diplomacy.

Sending the Peshmerga, the Iraqi Kurdish militia, to fight Iraqi Arabs will activate other militias and justify forming even more militias in the middle and south of Iraq. This could lead to increasing the civil violence, and might even spark an Arab-Kurd civil war that will be added to the current civil conflict that was fueled by the destruction of the Shia Shrines in Samarra in February of last year.

The current political plan of President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki in establishing a US-backed coalition that includes the few Shia and Sunni parties that are justifying the occupation and working to divide Iraqi into three separate regions will do nothing other than increase the violence and confirm sectarian divisions.

Iraqi political groups like Al-Fadila party, Al-Sadr movement, the National Dialogue Front, the Reconciliation and Liberation Front, and many other Sunnis, Shias, Kurd, and Turkoman groups can’t see any chance for this Bush-Maliki plan to succeed. Because, unlike our plans, this plan is not based on a political solution that can put Iraqis together in building a nonsectarian government that aims to stabilize Iraq and end any foreign intervention.

Iraqi PM: Bush, Rice Comments Comfort Terrorists

Jon Ponder

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki responded yesterday to criticism of him and his government by Pres. Bush and Sec. of State Condolezza Rice, saying that their grim assessments were giving aid and comfort to terrorists:

“I believe such statements give a morale boost to the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort, making them believe they have defeated the American administration.”
— P.M. Maliki

Commenting on a recent statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he said, “Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the [Iraqi] government is on borrowed time,” humorously suggesting that it might be the Bush administration that is on borrowed time.

“I understand and realize that inside the American administration there is some kind of a crisis situation, especially after the results of the last election,” he said.

Maliki said suggestions by Bush officials that the U.S. did not fully support his government played into the hands of insurgents.

“I believe such statements give a morale boost to the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort, making them believe they have defeated the American administration,” Maliki said. “But I can tell you, they haven’t defeated the Iraqi government.”

The question this raises is whether Maliki is being told to act defiant toward his puppet masters in order to create an illusion of independence, or whether the puppet is truly cutting his strings.

Bush: Iraq “Has Still Got Some Maturation to Do”

Trish

First, Saddam Hussein is executed in such a way that even Bush feels sorry for him. Next, Hussein’s half-brother dies from having his head ripped from his body instead of from hanging. And finally, the United Nations releases an estimate that 34,452 innocent Iraqis died brutally during 2006.

So what does Bush have to say on PBS’s Newshour about how it’s going for Iraq? Oh no, he did-ent.

“…it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do.”

Yeah, he did. And it gets worse.

“No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq.”

Let’s review.

“Lousy” is how Ohio State played against the Florida Gators.

“Lousy” is how Britney’s career has been going lately.

“Lousy” is how I feel the next morning after one too many vodka and néctar de granadillas.

“Lousy” does not even come close to describing the average of 94 random and horrific deaths every day in a country plunged into fear and darkness and violence.

And “lousy” is also how I feel knowing that this idiot isn’t done yet.

Can We Call It a Civil War Yet?

Trish

I think we’re there.

A suicide bomber and a car bomb killed at least 70 people and wounded 169 more at entrances to a once-prestigious university in Baghdad.

The strike at Mustansiriya University was a dual bomb attack. The suicide bomber detonated a vest at the back entrance of the school, and a parked car exploded at the main gate under a pedestrian bridge where students and employees get public transit.

A CNN producer near the scene said police sealed off the area and there were armed members of the Mehdi Army — the militia under the control of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — on the street.

The university, in northeastern Baghdad, is at the tip of Sadr City, a Shiite neighborhood where there is much support for al-Sadr. It is considered to be a Mehdi militia stronghold.

Meanwhile, gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on a marketplace in the Mehdi Army-controlled Bunouk area of eastern Baghdad and killed 12 civilians. Seven others were wounded.

In the Sadr City neighborhood, a bomb left inside a minivan detonated, killing four people and wounding 10 others, the official said. The blast occurred 100 to 200 meters away from al-Sadr’s main office.

…A bomb exploded near a police convoy along a main road in central Baghdad, the official said. When police and others responded to that blast, a second bomb exploded nearby. At least 15 people were killed and 70 wounded by the two bombs, the official said.

About two hours before that incident, two police officers who helped defuse a car bomb in central Baghdad’s Karrada section were killed when another bomb hidden nearby exploded, the official said. Two civilians were also killed in the blast, and 10 people, including three policemen, were wounded, the official said.

In Baghdad’s western Bayaa neighborhood, two policemen were gunned down as they drove home after work in civilian clothing and car.

Mortar rounds hit a residential area in the Amil neighborhood in western Baghdad, wounding 10 civilians.

Richardson: Congress Should Cut Iraq Funding

Jon Ponder

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has a prodigious foreign policy portfolio — he was ambassador to the U.N. under Pres. Clinton and continues to negotiate in hotspots like Darfur today. His bona fides in foreign affairs make this exchange on CNN very interesting:

I just believe [cutting funding for war expansion] is an ultimate decision by the Congress. But since the president doesn’t listen, he’s off in, I think, his own bubble. Unfortunately, that’s the course I believe the Congress needs to take.”

WOLF BLITZER: Are you in favor of using the power of the purse that Congress has to try to stop this war?

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: Yes. I believe because the president has not listened to the Congress, he hasn’t listened to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and to the American people, that overwhelmingly want a change of course, I believe that’s the function of the Congress, to deal with the appropriations process, find ways to at least this surge, to deny the funds to make it happen, because this is going to add to sectarian violence.

I would support a phased withdrawal, tie it to a political solution. There is no military solution. I would also organize a regional conference to get other states to help with the security and civil administration. I would talk to Iran and Syria to try to get the situation to at least a stable level.

I just believe that this is an ultimate decision by the Congress. But since the president doesn’t listen, he’s off in, I think, his own bubble. Unfortunately, that’s the course I believe the Congress needs to take.

BLITZER: What do you say to those who would then come back and say you know what, you’re going to undermine the U.S. fighting men and women in Iraq by denying them the bullets, the military equipment they need, by cutting off funds?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would say that you don’t cut off the military equipment. You don’t cut off the armor or their weapons. But you basically say to the 20,000 surge of troops that it can’t happen without an adequate explanation and that it shouldn’t happen because the American people don’t believe this is the right course of action.

Again, Wolf, I do believe that what is important is to redeploy those troops that are in Iraq. Use them in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are getting stronger. Use them against the fight on international terrorism. Use them to deal with nuclear proliferation and a loose nuclear weapon on the black market.

Use it for our ports. Use it for our subways. Use it in homeland security protection in this country.

Whether or not cutting the funding turns out to be the right strategy, it’s refreshing to hear a knowledgeable politician make a declarative statement about the Democrats’ available options.

Are Hangings and Accidental Beheading a Cover-Up?

Trish

Can this get any worse?

The official video of the hangings showed Hussein’s half-brother lying headless below the gallows, his severed head several yards away

Iraq hanged two of Saddam Hussein’s aides early Monday, and one of the men was decapitated in the process.

The official video of the hangings showed Hussein’s half-brother lying headless below the gallows, his severed head several yards away, The Associated Press reported.

Good Lord.

The new barbarities come as people continue to question the timing of Saddam’s recent hanging, which took place after he was found guilty of a charge that paled in comparison to the biggie — gassing thousands of Kurds. Some observers, such as Ghada Karmi in The Guardian, wonder if the Bush administration wanted to see Saddam die before American support for Iraq’s 1980 — 1988 war on Iran, which took place while Junior’s dad was vice president, could be explored.

But it was also essential to stop him revealing secrets about the west’s past enthusiasm in supporting and arming his regime. Hence he was tried on the relatively minor charge of killing 148 people in the village of Dujail, after a plot to assassinate him. Far better to put him away safely for that rather than risk his exposing western hypocrisy, treachery and double-dealing.

New Poll: The Military Thinks Bush Blows Too

Trish

Bush has never been less popular among American troops, maybe, as Jon pointed out, because he stands in front of them and tells them bold-faced, transparent lies.

No doubt there are other reasons, too, such as demanding they serve…and serve…and serve as he, himself, was never willing to do.

A poll released at year-end by the Military Times shows our soldiers are no longer pickin’ up what Bush is puttin’ down.

Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the [Dec. 22,] 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war…

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

The poll was taken before His Assholiness spoke the other day.

Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it likely will have the replacement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.

Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 percent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

And they should know. So much for Bush listening to those “boots on the ground.”

Bush Caught Lying to Troops about Escalation Plan

Jon Ponder
Here we have one branch of the Traditional Media reporting the true facts on the ground only to have the elite crew in the White House press corps ignore it when the president lies about these same facts to the very uniformed military personnel he intends to send into harm’s way.

If I’m lying, you’re dying: Pres. Bush was caught rewriting recent history in a speech he gave Thursday to the troops at Ft. Benning, Georgia, some of whom are preparing for their third deployment to Iraq. Here is the transcript of the president’s load of bull:

“The [Iraqi] Prime Minister came and said, look, I understand we’ve got to do something about this violence, and here is what I suggest we do. Our commanders looked at it, helped fine-tune it so it would work. . . .

“The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to — by the way, that’s what you want your Commander-in-Chief to do. You don’t want decisions being made based upon politics, or focus groups, or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. And they analyzed the plan and they said to me, and to the Iraqi government, this won’t work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence. . . .

“And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, Mr. President, it’s not going to work until — unless we support — provide more troops. And so last night I told the country that I’ve committed an additional — a little over 20,000 more troops, five brigades of which will be in Baghdad.”

Meanwhile, back in reality, the facts are quite different. The strategy of escalating the war came from the West Wing, not the Iraqi leadership or Bush’s generals:

[A Washington Post story Wednesday] made it abundantly clear that adding U.S. troops was not an idea that emerged from the American commanders — nor, for that matter, from the Iraqis.

And, as it turns out, two stories in this morning’s New York Times add to the evidence: “A narrative pieced together from interviews with participants and from public testimony suggests that through much of the process, generals who had been on the ground in Iraq during the past year had favored that the new strategy begin with a substantially smaller force than the one that President Bush announced to the nation on Wednesday night. In the end, it was Mr. Bush who appeared to drive his commanders along to the conclusion that more troops were needed.”

Not only were the Iraqis not involved in creating the plan, they are not happy about it, according to another Times report:

So, not surprisingly: “Iraq’s Shiite-led government offered only a grudging endorsement on Thursday of President Bush’s proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in an effort to curb sectarian violence and regain control of Baghdad. The tepid response immediately raised questions about whether the government would make a good-faith effort to prosecute the new war plan.”

Where was the White House press corps on this? Didn’t anyone in that elite corps of journalists know the facts about the origins of the escalation?

Or maybe the president lies so often, they’re inured to it.

Here we have one branch of the Traditional Media reporting the true facts on the ground only to have the elite crew in the White House press corps ignore it when the president lies about these same facts to the very uniformed military personnel he intends to send into harm’s way.

Leonard Pitts: Support for Bush’s ‘Surge’ a Matter of Trust

Buck Banks

Nailed it: As usual, columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. sussed out the nagging reason that most of us don’t condone President Bush’s latest plan to fix the war in Iraq — we simply don’t trust the guy who has lied to us, spied on us and proved to be the Worst President Ever.

Bush is a man who has heretofore shown only arrogance in the face of monumental and fatal misjudgments. Now he comes before the country asking us, in effect, to trust him.

I know that we’ve been misled to an awful intersection of history where there are no good options, only options in varying shades of bad. I know how tempting it is to say we ought to wash our hands of this mess and bring our men and women home. I know that it still strikes me as wrong, for reasons both moral and pragmatic, to come in, blow up these people’s country, then walk away and leave them in the rubble.

Most of all, though, I know this: I do not trust my leaders. And politics is not the only, or even the primary, reason. No, at the end of the day, this is a question of character.

From the beginning, the architects of this war have shown a frightening nonchalance toward truth, a troubling willingness to treat fact as optional. Where reality has collided with political expedience, political expedience has invariably won. Where it has been inconvenient, it has been ignored.

It happened when the administration linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks even though one had nothing to do with the other. It happened when the White House used discredited intelligence to make the case for war. It happened when the president dismissed gloomy intelligence reports that did not jibe with his preferred view. It happened when he insisted we ”stay the course” even after it became apparent to everyone with eyes that the course led straight off a cliff.

So now, here comes Bush with sober mien and chastened air asking for one more chance to get it right. And if you sense in this corner a reluctance to comply, well, it has less to do with the merits of his proposed strategy than with the fact that it is his proposed strategy. Bush is a man who has heretofore shown only arrogance in the face of monumental and fatal misjudgments. Now he comes before the country asking us, in effect, to trust him.

You can read the complete column here.

Olbermann Catalogs Bush’s Flip-Flops and Failures on Iraq

Jon Ponder

Since 2002, when Pres. Bush and his team began “marketing” the war in Iraq, they have floated a string of bogus, often contradictory rationales for invading and occupying Iraq. On Countdown Wednesday night, about a half-hour before the president announced his plan to escalate the war, Keith Olbermann offered a rundown of the president’s failure of leadership, so far:

“[Pres. Bush] has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, because of terrorism in general, to liberate Iraq, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to keep the oil out of the hands of potentially terrorist controlled states, because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.”
— Keith Olbermann

Before Mr. Bush was elected he said he was no nation builder. Nation building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital for America. He said he would never have put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs, mobile labs, secret sources, aluminum tubing, yellow cake. He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, because of terrorism in general, to liberate Iraq, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to keep the oil out of the hands of potentially terrorist controlled states, because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Moqtada al Sadr, Osama bin Laden. He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi army and deBaathified the government. He short changed Iraqi training. He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence. He sent in troops without life saving equipment, gave job to foreign contractors and not the Iraqis, staffed U.S. positions in Iraq based on partisanship, not professional experience.

We learned that America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throws. He has said that more troops were not necessary and more troops are necessary, and that it‘s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam. We would be greeted as liberators with flowers, as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. We would never stay the course. The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, was terrorist, was Baathists.

The war would pay for itself. It was cost 1.7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars. And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.