Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[inked]

Chris Hitchens take in SLATE:

http://www.slate.com/id/2186740/

[The Gaffer]

Yes - the prejudices are there to see. It's one reason why I would never visit some of those countries. Saudi Arabia is a pretty despotic regime for example: religiously prejudiced, racist, sexist, etc. Not sure about its bearing here.

I guess we can agree that oil plays a defining strategic role.

Two points of information:
- those people we aren't killing would still be alive if we hadn't invaded. This consequence was reasonably and entirely predictable.
- also, al quaeda has been massively strengthened as a result.

The US is now tied down in a defensive, containment role, the limits of its power plain for all to see. China must be laughing while they order the pounding of Tibetan protestors.

It's simply a strategic and moral catastrophe.

[GrayMouser]

Fat's in the fire again:

BAGHDAD — Shiite militiamen in Basra openly controlled wide swaths of the city on Saturday and staged increasingly bold raids on Iraqi government forces sent five days ago to wrest control from the gunmen, witnesses said, as Iraqi political leaders grew increasingly critical of the stalled assault.

Some members of the Iraqi security forces surrendered their weapons to representatives of the Mahdi Army in Baghdad’s Sadr City district.

Witnesses in Basra said members of the most powerful militia in the city, the Mahdi Army, were setting up checkpoints and controlling traffic in many places ringing the central district controlled by some of the 30,000 Iraqi Army and police forces involved in the assault. Fighters were regularly attacking the government forces, then quickly retreating.

Why did Maliki choose this time to go ahead?

Most popular theory is that he and Hakim realised that they were going to lose to the Sadrists in the proposed October provincial elections (which is why they originally vetoed them when they passed Parliament) but the Bush administration needs the them to go ahead as a sign of progress just before the US elections.

So on Cheney's visit last week they came to a deal- the elections would go ahead, but the US would support Dawa's and ISCI's attempt to smash their political opponents by military means ahead of the election.

The Arab press is apparently reporting that during Ahmadinejad's triumphal visit to Baghdad last month he agreed with Maliki to throw Sadr under the bus- no longer useful.

But things are not going well- surprise, surprise- and American troops are having to get involved.

"Several Mahdi Army commanders said they had been fighting U.S. forces for the past three days in Sadr City, engaging Humvees as well as the Strykers. By their account, an Iraqi special forces unit had entered Sadr City from another direction, backed by Americans, but otherwise the fighting had not been with Iraqis. "If there were no Americans, there would be no fighting," said Abu Mustafa al-Thahabi, 38, a senior Mahdi Army member."

(Abu Muqawama is an American veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq who runs a counterinsurgency blog)

If Abu Muqawama was leading one of those U.S. units into Sadr City past a bunch of Iraqi Army soldiers hanging out on the outskirts, he would not be happy. He would be asking himself a) why is he the one establishing the authority of the Iraqi state and not the Iraqi Army and b) why is he duking it out with a militia with broad popular support so that another Iran-backed political party can win a bigger share of the vote in the fall?

Now Iraqi Army units are calling for U.S. and UK military units to lend direct support in Basra as well.

In Lebanon, in September 1983, the U.S. lent direct support to what it assumed was a national institution, the Lebanese Army, in the battle at Souk el-Gharb. By doing so, it became, in the eyes of the rest of the Lebanese population, just another militia. The U.S. history in Iraq is more complicated, obviously, but what's happening now is the U.S. is throwing our lot in with ISCI in the upcoming elections. And all Abu Muqawama is saying is, there better be a whole lot of quid pro quo going on as well.

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/03/

[hectorberlioz]

Some very nice pictures from Iraq:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ind...&Itemid=55#yvC

[Coffeehouse]

Well, we're in an election year, and while the economy is currently top of the agenda, the Iraq war certainly isn't far behind. So I daresay it is constructive to revive this informative thread (some very good debating going on in here!)

Here's my response to some of the assertions in this thread..

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They all say it should be wiped out, because it is illegitimate. They refer to violence accomplishing this, and he says it will happen soon.

Again, these are some of the most professional people we have. And from both parties, they agreed it is valid. This shows that the evidence was very substantial. It may have turned out to be wrong, but war was the best decision we had available to us at that time.

Hindsight.

And I know there were people who objected to the war from the beginning, but these were not the Congress, some of the most highly professional people there are. They looked at the evidence and judged Saddam to be developing WMDs because the evidence looked very strong.

Again, this was not the Bush Administration acting by itself, and it's rather nuts to say that the vast majority of Congress was just hoodwinked. That assumes a highly elaborate plot.

The notion that the intelligence in the pre-war days of 2002 and 2003 somehow gave evidence of WMDs and strike capabilities on the part of Saddam Hussein, is simply false.
The notion that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Iraq had a 48-hour time frame to deploy and launch WMD's is not just false, but absurd. No intelligence at the time suggest this.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Again, these are some of the most professional people we have. And from both parties, they agreed it is valid. This shows that the evidence was very substantial. It may have turned out to be wrong, but war was the best decision we had available to us at that time.

This post seems to indicate that the Bush Administration, the intelligence community in the U.S. and the U.S. Congress acted in unity, based on an equal opportunity to view an equal amount of intelligence information on an equal amount of time.
However, nothing of the sort happened. The situation was far more complex than that, and the amount of time given to the U.S. Congress to assess the intellengece was indeed inadequate.

By I don't wish to sound absolutist, as there are numerous good articles and books now on this subject which really convey this lack of time and information and lack of cooperation in the U.S. leading up to the war.

What I reacted to so strongly in the months, weeks and days leading up to the war was the nonchalant arrogance which was displayed towards the allies of the U.S. and the international community at large.

Here's an excerpt from the speech of the Foreign Minister of France, Dominique de Villepin, on the 14th of February, a full month before the invasion.
I've taken the liberty to highlight sections was I think are very, very telling.
It's not a particularly long read

"There are two options:
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves. This will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.

Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allows us to move forward day-by-day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end, is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?

No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections. No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?

[...] Ten days ago, the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, reported the alleged links between Al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liasion with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.

On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples - divisions that nurture terrorism?

[...] In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead to us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an ol country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows it owes everything to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere."

The chilling truth is that the Bush Administration along with the Blair Administration decided to wage war on Iraq, invade the country and occupy it, without the support of the international community.

Emphasis: without the support of the internationa community.

I can't help but wonder what these two administrations were thinking, invading one of the least peaceful nations for the last 1,000 years, with a plethora of ethnic divisions, religious conflicts, strife and poverty, and believing that they would somehow come out on top in a grand scheme of nation-building without the support of the international community.

We stand 5 years on after the invasion, and nothing is resolved, nothing went as planned and everything the invading nations were warned of has come true.

Where's the humility?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Let's be clear about the question at hand.
You've been asked why you define Iraq as a success, and you've answered in 4 points.

But the inescapable truth is that however much it would be alot 'nicer' to define success in new, 2008 terms, the reality is that the benchmarks for success were set not today, but in 2002 and 2003. That's the way the world works my friend.

Allow me to revise: we are on a continuing scale of successes both military and political. The larger victory is still far and away, requiring that we (US/IRAQ) halt Iranian import of weapons to Sadr and other insurgent groups, among other things.

In so far as Iraq was in a quagmire 2004-2007, our current progress can be defined as success because of all the points I previously posted. We are on top of the situation.

To get out of that quagmire:

1) An overcoming of Al-Qaeda In Iraq by our military forces, resulting in
2) a decrease of violence
3) The people, Imams and other clerics and other groups side with the US/Iraqi forces, and not Al Qaeda in order to achieve their pursuit of peace and/or opportunities for work and a living.
4) The Maliki government begins to meet objectives.

So yes, the overall objectives HAVE changed from 2002 and 2003. But things went badly and we had to get out of said quagmire. President Bush's "surge" has worked, as was acknowledged by most prominent Democrat leaders.

I'm defining this as a success on the above criteria for our present concerns in Iraq. The WMDs issue has little to do with anything at this point.

And because of the continuing better news coming from Iraq, we must stay there to insure it stays that way. We need to stay until Iran [is neutralized] and Syria stop their inflow of weapons to insurgents.

The United States of America (along with mainly the UK) invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the pretense that Saddam Hussein's Baathist Iraq had WMD's and that he was likely to use them in the near future.
In addition to this, the Bush Administration argued that the following were also goals:
- Freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant.
- Spreading democracy in the Middle East.

Thus, we have three important benchmarks to see success in Iraq.
1. The WMD's must be found, and must be shown to have been available for use.
2. The tyranny in Iraq must be removed.
3. Democracy must spread as an effect of the invasion of Iraq.


Today in 2008 we see:
1. No WMD's, not today, not yesterday, not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago.
2. The people of Iraq were freed from Saddam Hussein, but as so many news stories from Iraq, and interviews with Iraqis in Iraq show, the tyranny of Saddam Hussein has been replaced with a multiple of new tyranny's.
Tyranny of fear, Tyranny of Al Qaeda, Tyranny of suicide bombings, Tyranny of house-to-house inspections by U.S. forces, Tyranny of Freedom of Movement, Tyranny of Deprivation of the Basic Necessities of a Society: Lack of water, Lack of electricity, Lack of food, etc.
3. The last one is a no-brainer. Democracy is in the Middle East is as futile as ever. Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc, etc.

1) Moot at this point.
2)You're correct, the complications have multiplied. And it is obviously the most mountainous obstacle. But that's the main mission. That's what we're fixing right now, and the results are looking better. This connects with objective #3.
3) Difference of opinion.

This quote is of course very telling. You have basically come to the point where you are defining, right here and now, that success is the Iraqi people turning away from Al Qaeda and condemning them.
That is truly remarkable. The Iraqi people had nothing in common with Al Qaeda before the invasion. None of the suicide bombers in 9/11 were Iraqis. The fundamentalist Islamic views of Al Qaeda and its violent ways of death were non-existant in Iraq, and then 5 years on after the invasion, you are characterizing it as a success that they are turning away from it.

1) Conceded.
2) True enough. Nevertheless, it is still good news that they have shunned Al Qaeda. Sad, hard lessons. As I said above, my definitions of current success are based on the fact that we were in really bad shape two years ago, and now we are on top of the situation.

The second point you make is that violence is down dramatically in Iraq. This is a very vague assertion, and I'd like it if you explained to me what you define as an acceptable amount of violence to be occurring in Iraq for you to get a good night's sleep.
Also please identify an acceptable level of Al Qaeda activity in Iraq.

The death count from 2007 and 2008 is even with or lower than in 2004 through 2006. Since 2003 was the beginning of the war and the insurgency had not yet fully launched, naturally that is the year with the lowest levels of violence save for the month of the invasion.

Acceptable level of violence: in the lower percentage points 1-9%. Of course we can't achieve that if we withdraw. Same with Al-Qaeda activity. Zero is the preferred level of activity.

In both cases, we stay there until it is manageable by Iraqi forces.

You define the 3rd point of success in Iraq that the current government of Iraq proper (bar the Kurdish government, let's not forget them!) fights a non-governmental force in Basra, and settles for a cease-fire, whilst being completely unable to oust Moqtada (that's his name, not Mophead) Al-Sadr politically from the very same government.
So here we have a governmental force and a non-governmental force fighting in a country where there is a 3rd force, the occupiers. This is happening 5 years after all major combat operations are over.
So I'm asking you, what is the acceptable level of conflict between the government and non-governmental forces in Iraq? Are you seriously suggesting that the current level of violence in Iraq is a success?

"Mophead" fits just fine.

For a general survey of what happened in Basra, this from Fred Kagan*:
*(please note that this article is from the 1st of April)

* The legitimate Government of Iraq and its legally-constituted security forces launched a security operation against illegal, foreign-backed, insurgent and criminal militias serving leaders who openly call for the defeat and humiliation of the United States and its allies in Iraq and throughout the region. We can be ambivalent about the political motivations of Maliki and his allies, but we cannot be ambivalent about the outcome of this combat between our open allies and our open enemies.

* The Sadrists and Special Groups failed to set Iraq alight despite their efforts--Iraqi forces kept the Five Cities area (Najaf, Karbala, Hillah, Diwaniyah, and Kut) under control with very little Coalition assistance; Iraqi and Coalition forces kept Baghdad under control.

* Sadr never moved to return to Iraq, ordered his forces to stop fighting without achieving anything, and further demonstrated his

dependence on (and control by) Iran.

* Maliki demonstrated a surprising and remarkable commitment to fighting Iranian-backed Special Groups, Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi (the Mahdi Army, or JAM), and even criminal elements of JAM. The Iraqi Government has loudly declared that "enforcing the law" applies to Shia areas as well as Sunni. Maliki has called Shia militias "worse than al Qaeda." These are things we've been pressing him to do for nearly two years.

* We've said all along that we did not think the ISF was ready to take care of the security situation on its own. Maliki was overconfident and overly-optimistic. But for those who keep pressing the Iraqis to "step up," here's absolute proof that they are willing. Are we willing to support them when they do what we demand? Can anyone reasonably argue that they will do better if we pull out completely?

* On March 30, Sadr ordered his followers to stop fighting. This decision contrasts with his 2004 decision to fight on, and his continued presence in Iran combined with this surrender results from weakness, rather than strength.

* The ISF operation did not clear Basra or destroy either Special Groups or the Mahdi Army. * But the ISF performed remarkably well, moving numerous units to Basra on short notice, establishing them in the city, engaging in hard fighting, and stopping only when Sadr caved.

* Special Groups launched concerted attacks in Baghdad and in the Five Cities area (the Shia heartland), but were repulsed by ISF forces acting almost alone in the Five Cities area and by a combination of ISF and Coalition forces in Baghdad.

Here's what Maliki has done, according to this article in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/wo...ll&oref=slogin

Maliki successfully took over Basra, Mophead al-Sadr's fort location.
Here's why dethroning Sadr is tricky:
He often backed Maliki, so obviously Maliki doesn't want to destroy that infrastructure of support. From what I've read Maliki's move has been heartening to the people in Basra and for the Iraqi Army troops.

Here's to hoping we see Mophead's complete political clout on a stake tomorrow.

Considering that a large amount of political influence used to rest on Sadr's influence, and the fact that Maliki has taken Basra and cut down Sadr's influence...the Iraqi government's uniting power to itself is succeeding. This is probably the most important story of Iraq right now, so it's not over. Which means your saying Maliki is "unable" is premature.

That is too vague for me to answer.
What exactly is progress in domestic matters? What does that encompass?
What successes can you name for the Iraqi people?
I hope of course the answer you give takes into consideration the basic human rights promoted in the United Nations Human Rights Charter.

I concede this one. This is probably going to be the toughest area to get more-than-adequate results from. But I submit this bit from the NTY Basra article:

Shaker’s floating restaurant stands as one emblem of the change since then.

Just two months ago, he said, masked men in military uniforms walked into the packed dining room and abducted a businessman at gunpoint. The man was never seen again, and the restaurant closed.

Now, however, customers who fled that evening are pressing the 34-year-old owner to stay open later at night, so they can enjoy their unaccustomed freedom from the gangs, which once banned the loud Arabic pop music now blaring from Shaker’s loudspeakers.

That was in Basra, which is the hotbed of violence right now. I imagine things are better in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.

The mission in Iraq isn't over, but violence has gone down from the worst months of 2004-06. Maliki's moves show that he is leading, as opposed to letting Sadr have his cake and eat it. I should point out that most of the news from Iraq right now is the Basra scene, and not from everywhere in Iraq. We are succeeding.

I should also note that while violence is only even with 2004 statistics, the circumstances now are different than in 2004. Insurgents who sided with Al Qaeda to earn money or because they wanted the US out have stopped joining, and our US troops are being helped by former insurgents to capture caches of weapons. So the political tide has changed against Al Qaeda and in favor of us. This is probably the most crucial element to our current successes. But it doesn't mean only that we're winning, but that Iraqis are tired and want a solution. This time they are coming to us.

That previous paragraph concedes:
Al Qaeda came to Iraq where it would not have before, and that the insurgents were Iraqis who were tired of US occupation (in addition to other sources of insurgents like Syria, Iran and Egypt).

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Sad, hard lessons.

What do you think those lessons are?

[Coffeehouse]

I thought I'd add this quote by G.W. Bush, from Gordon Brown's visit to the White House. This is of course about Iraq:

"So long as I'm President my measure of success is victory, and success."

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Allow me to revise: we are on a continuing scale of successes both military and political. The larger victory is still far and away, requiring that we (US/IRAQ) halt Iranian import of weapons to Sadr and other insurgent groups, among other things.

In so far as Iraq was in a quagmire 2004-2007, our current progress can be defined as success because of all the points I previously posted. We are on top of the situation.

You write Hector that you wish to revise your position, by saying quote "we are on a continuing scale of successes both military and political."

This vague language of continuing and scale is of course telling. But what is interesting is that the Bush Administration has, since April 2003 (that's over 5 years ago), been revising what a success constitutes. I've already addressed the original goals of the invasion, but here we stand in 2008 and these goals somehow don't seem to count any longer. The new goals you define below:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

To get out of that quagmire:

1) An overcoming of Al-Qaeda In Iraq by our military forces, resulting in
2) a decrease of violence
3) The people, Imams and other clerics and other groups side with the US/Iraqi forces, and not Al Qaeda in order to achieve their pursuit of peace and/or opportunities for work and a living.
4) The Maliki government begins to meet objectives.
So yes, the overall objectives HAVE changed from 2002 and 2003. But things went badly and we had to get out of said quagmire. President Bush's "surge" has worked, as was acknowledged by most prominent Democrat leaders.
I'm defining this as a success on the above criteria for our present concerns in Iraq. The WMDs issue has little to do with anything at this point.
And because of the continuing better news coming from Iraq, we must stay there to insure it stays that way. We need to stay until Iran [is neutralized] and Syria stop their inflow of weapons to insurgents.

The only comforting part of your answer is that you at least acknowledge that the objectives have changed and that things 'went badly'.
Thus the new objectives in Iraq, as you describe them, seem to be to neutralize Al Qaeda in Iraq (which I do hope you understand is not the
Al Qaeda.

The Bush Administration, which you seem to be implicitly defending, has set so many goals, and failed so many of them.
You seem to believe that you can willy-nilly set new goals as you go along, and as each new benchmark is failed to be met, new ones magically pop up. And we've now, it seems from your point of view, come to a point in time where success is not that Iraqis can enjoy the basic rights and safety that any people should have, but that there can be everything from 1 to 9% violence in Iraq, and a likewise presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

And today a 9% mark, which I assume you mean by the total percent of the population affected by it, is not even remotely close.

You argue that getting rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq is a step in the right direction, which it undoubtedly is, but that must be seen in the wider context.
Were, or were they not, in Iraq before Saddam Hussein?

The last point you argue, to get out of the quagmire (Of course the Bush Administration fervently denied a quagmire, and the use of the word civil war, while getting out of the quagmire is of course much more attractive to say now that there has been a surge in troop levels and violence has fallen),
is for Maliki's government to meet objectives.
But what are these objectives? And is he close to reaching them?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

1) Moot at this point.
2)You're correct, the complications have multiplied. And it is obviously the most mountainous obstacle. But that's the main mission. That's what we're fixing right now, and the results are looking better. This connects with objective #3.
3) Difference of opinion.

The next part of your answer carries with it three assertions:
1. You consider it to be a moot point that the invading forces found no WMD's whatsoever. But that is just laughable.
You seem to believe that because 5 years have gone by and that the USA is up to its knees in violence in Iraq, that the question of WMD's is not important. But it is very, very much important.
It is about the credibility of the forces that are occupying Iraq. The fact that not a single shred of evidence of any WMD's has been found has not escaped the attention of ordinary Iraqis and it certainly hasn't escaped the attention of the international community. And if you believe that a sudden onset of mass public amnesia will affect the entire world, and specifically the Iraqis, you are sorely mistaken.
An occupying country needs credibility, and every corner of the way, from 2003 to 2008, the Bush Administration has shown that it simply doesn't know the definition of being honest.

The war in Iraq and the reason for going into Iraq are impossible to separate. There is a very good reason for why historians have been writing rooms upon rooms of books about the Origins of wars and how these origins have been closely linked to the progress of the war.

2. Quote: "And it is obviously the most mountainous obstacle. But that's the main mission. That's what we're fixing right now, and the results are looking better."
This answer is a reply to my post about the Tyrrany's that ordinary Iraqis suffer these days.
I'd like then your reaction to the fact that about 2+ million Iraqis have sought refuge in neighbouring countries and that 1.9+ million Iraqis are internally displaced. That makes more than 3.9 million Iraqis out of a population of about 28 million.
Is that success?

Likewise I'd like your response to the over 1,000,000+ violent deaths that have occurred as a result of the war in Iraq.

And the 4,000+ troops that have died?
Is that success?

3. Your last position is that it is a 'difference of opinion' whether democracy has been spread in the Middle East because of the war in Iraq.
Please provide examples as to how democracy has affected the neighbouring countries of (clock-wise) Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. Inclusive is of course the Israelly-occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza, and Lebanon.
Does anything suggest things have gotten better??

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

1) Conceded.
2) True enough. Nevertheless, it is still good news that they have shunned Al Qaeda. Sad, hard lessons. As I said above, my definitions of current success are based on the fact that we were in really bad shape two years ago, and now we are on top of the situation.

The death count from 2007 and 2008 is even with or lower than in 2004 through 2006. Since 2003 was the beginning of the war and the insurgency had not yet fully launched, naturally that is the year with the lowest levels of violence save for the month of the invasion.

Acceptable level of violence: in the lower percentage points 1-9%. Of course we can't achieve that if we withdraw. Same with Al-Qaeda activity. Zero is the preferred level of activity.

In both cases, we stay there until it is manageable by Iraqi forces.

The reoccurring line seems to be that the Bush Administration is on top of things and that things are going well in Iraq.
You argue that numbers of violence have declined and that things are looking better than they did in 06, 07.

But what have these numbers done to help the political climate in Iraq?
Is Iraq closer to unity? Is it on the verge of becoming a nationstate?
Are we really seeing progress that unites Shi'ite and Sunni, Christians and Muslims, Kurds and Arabs?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

"Mophead" fits just fine.

You can call him Mophead all you like (it's not particularly funny), but you seem to implicitly assume that the guy is a every-day lunatic with a few thugs following him.
But you assume wrong. Moqtada al-Sadr is immensely popular in Iraq. His popular following with Shi'ites is overwhelmingly greater than Maliki's, who is part of a small part, the Dawa.
Calling him Mophead is fine enough, but I hope you realize he is more than a mophead to many Iraqis. Keyword: Being smart. Knowing what words to use and not use. And the more degrading names you use, even here on Entmoot where I doubt we'll find many al-Sadr supporters, the less serious you are taken. Just my advice

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

For a general survey of what happened in Basra, this from Fred Kagan*:
*(please note that this article is from the 1st of April)

You're actually quoting from an article, published by the Weekly Standard, that was fervently pro-War, published one of the first 9/11-Saddam Hussein link articles in the USA, and call it "general survey of what happened in Basra"?
You'll have to do alot better than that.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Here's what Maliki has done, according to this article in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/wo...ll&oref=slogin

Maliki successfully took over Basra, Mophead al-Sadr's fort location.
Here's why dethroning Sadr is tricky:
He often backed Maliki, so obviously Maliki doesn't want to destroy that infrastructure of support. From what I've read Maliki's move has been heartening to the people in Basra and for the Iraqi Army troops.

Here's to hoping we see Mophead's complete political clout on a stake tomorrow.

Considering that a large amount of political influence used to rest on Sadr's influence, and the fact that Maliki has taken Basra and cut down Sadr's influence...the Iraqi government's uniting power to itself is succeeding. This is probably the most important story of Iraq right now, so it's not over. Which means your saying Maliki is "unable" is premature.

You then proceed to argue that Maliki's government has, quote, 'cut down Sadr's influence... the Iraqi government's uniting power to itself is succeeding.'
First you provide an article by the NY Times on Maliki's actions in Basra.
But if you'd read the entire article you'd come across this:
And I quote:
"Such words underscore the widespread belief here that the Mahdi army has its own reasons for lying low and is by no means eliminated."

But the problem with your analysis is that is entirely one-sided. You write in the latter part that "your saying Maliki is 'unable' is premature", while the evidence suggest in fact the completely opposite.
Let's be clear: Your assertion is that Sadr's influence has been 'cut down' by Maliki and that the stronghold of Sadr is defeated.
But the situation is so much more complex than that. The battle between governmental forces and the Mahdi Army (Sadr's forces) stopped, and there was a cease-fire. But this cease-fire was first called not by al-Sadr, but by Maliki! Moreover, Sadr's main stronghold is not in Basra, but in Sadr City in Baghdad.
In fact, Reuter's article (http://www.reuters.com/article/homep...4127._CH_.2400) from the 31st of March, directly contradicts your assumptions:
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown on militias in the southern oil port of Basra appears to have backired, exposing the weakness of his army and strengthening his political foes ahead of elections."
Reuters add that:
"It has also exposed a deep rift within Iraq's Shi'ite majority - between the political parties in Maliki's government and followers of populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr."
But the most telling part is this:
"Analysts say Iraqis may be about to witness a new phase in the cycle of violence that has gripped the country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 - intra-Shi'ite bloodletting that could tear Iraq apart and more deeply embroil U.S. forces."
And it goes on..
"Embarrassingly, Iraq's defence minister had to admit that despite much preparation, his forces were not ready for such fierce resistance. U.S. and British forces have intervened, launching air and artillery strikes to support Iraqi troops."

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We are succeeding.

In the end you seem content on repeating the phrase. But it appears more emtpy than an assertion of truth.

But what is the reality? What was the surge intended for?

The surge had a political objective didn't it?
It sought to get about real, political dialogue and progress with the help of an improved security environment, that would be achieved with a surge of American troops.
Undoubtedly we've seen the surge. We've seen 30,000+ troops (including all those troops that have stayed instead of going back to the U.S.) quelling much of the violence and arguably pushing Al Qaeda in Iraq and numerous other factions back.
But what has been achieved? Has the surge worked?
And that's what you have to answer to. Not whether you're killing more Al Qaeda fighters or if Sadr is suffering defeat in Basra. It is the political outcome that is interesting.
The job is therefore 2-fold:
1. Creating an improved security environment with a surge in troops
2. Achieving political progress as a consequence of this.

Yet at the end of the surge period we see the Shi'ites are even more divided now than they were 1, 2, 3 years ago.
Maliki's gov't and al-Sadr's populist movement are deeply entrenched in their political positions and al-Sadr keeps scoring political points even when he loses battles.
A CSIS publication (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...ite_gamble.pdf) in April tellingly points out that:
"Virtually all experts agree that the Sadrist movement probably has more mass support among Shi'ites than the combination of Dawa (that's Maliki's faction) and SIIC (that's another gov't faction)"
And this part just flat-out falsifies your assumption that Sadr's influence is quote, 'cut':
"More practically, it is hard to dismiss the possibility that the fighting that began on March 25 has been directed largely against Sadr precisely because he was becoming an increasingly better organized political force and more of a threat to Dawa and SIIC eladers who gained power more because they rode the U.S.-led invasion into power than because of real support".

The baseline Hector, is that cherry-picking your sources will not change the reality on the ground, which is far more complex.

Nobody is denying that violence levels have dropped from 06-07 levels.
Nobody is denying that Al Qaeda in Iraq's capabilities have been reduced.
And these are two positive points for the Iraqi people.
But is the current situation a successful situation? Does the situation in 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, look promising?
Have the occupying forces provided the security, peace, nation-building and democracy that they said they would?
Is 3.9 million refugees really a success?
Is 1 million deaths successful?
Is that not exactly the sort of carnage that the Bush Administration were warned off in 2002 and 2003?

G. W. Bush likes to portray himself as a straight-shooter, saying it like it is. But where's the straight-shootin' on Iraq? Where's the honesty? Where's admitting the hard truths, learning from the hard truths, and improving on the hard truths?
(No, excusing a soldier's shooting at the Koran is not admitting a hard truth)

So, I ask again, where's the humility?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What do you think those lessons are?

I hope also that you answer this interesting question Hector. Thanx

[Insidious Rex]

So (speaking as someone who thinks Bush is a disaster as president as well...) are your posts made simply to ridicule the administration and point out how corrupt and incompetent they have been in regards to Iraq? You wont get any arguments from me with that opinion but you’ve sure spent an awful lot of energy condemning the easily condemnable without listing what it is you think should be done instead. I mean we can scream about WMD’s all day in an attempt to find the five people still left in the world who still believe fervently they exist or existed but is there really a point? And don’t confuse poor hector with a Bush yahoo so much as hes the main resident conservative apologist here and has to speak to the party line no matter how unfortunate a position it puts him in.

The fact is for better or worse weve messed things up in Iraq. Personally I feel when you’ve razed your neighbors house, even if it was done by corrupt incompetent bozos acting in your name, you have SOME obligation to fix things not simply dust your hands off and say this was a mistake therefore we are leaving. So I guess my question to you (and other people who have issue with the situation in Iraq – and, as I said, I include MYSELF in that group) is what do we do now? Hopefully your answer is not simply “get out” and let it fix itself. My thinking is the first most important step is get BUSH out of office so that someone else (anyone else!) can approach the issue with a more competant approach who hasnt bankrupted themselves reputation wise as the Bush Administration has. As to what that fix would be to be honest Im not completely sure. It should involve some sober realization as to what exactly weve gotten ourselves into and how long it will actually take to get things to a point where minimum manditory achievements have been met. But what if that means a long term presence...

[Mari]

In the long term education is IMHO the most important thing. Educate the masses, maybe by working with informative programmes on TV and radio. Teach the leaders so they can share their knowledge with the rest of their village. I'm not a big fan of democracy, but you can slowly teach them that WITHIN their own cultural frame.

On a short term scheme it is important to get the people involved with the state. Make them want to work together for their own country. This through helping them rebuild their schools and roads. Once the first step is taken, etc.

To be able to give a better and more detailed plan, I would have to read up on the current state of Iraq's infrastructure etc. and someone would have to tell me what exactly the Americans and the Brits are doing there already concerning the rebuilding of Iraq. (Are the Brits still there? That's what you get for not watching or reading the news... )

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So (speaking as someone who thinks Bush is a disaster as president as well...) are your posts made simply to ridicule the administration and point out how corrupt and incompetent they have been in regards to Iraq? You wont get any arguments from me with that opinion but you’ve sure spent an awful lot of energy condemning the easily condemnable without listing what it is you think should be done instead. I mean we can scream about WMD’s all day in an attempt to find the five people still left in the world who still believe fervently they exist or existed but is there really a point? And don’t confuse poor hector with a Bush yahoo so much as hes the main resident conservative apologist here and has to speak to the party line no matter how unfortunate a position it puts him in.

The fact is for better or worse weve messed things up in Iraq. Personally I feel when you’ve razed your neighbors house, even if it was done by corrupt incompetent bozos acting in your name, you have SOME obligation to fix things not simply dust your hands off and say this was a mistake therefore we are leaving. So I guess my question to you (and other people who have issue with the situation in Iraq – and, as I said, I include MYSELF in that group) is what do we do now? Hopefully your answer is not simply “get out” and let it fix itself. My thinking is the first most important step is get BUSH out of office so that someone else (anyone else!) can approach the issue with a more competant approach who hasnt bankrupted themselves reputation wise as the Bush Administration has. As to what that fix would be to be honest Im not completely sure. It should involve some sober realization as to what exactly weve gotten ourselves into and how long it will actually take to get things to a point where minimum manditory achievements have been met. But what if that means a long term presence...

If this is the essence of what you have understood from my posts I emphatically advise you to re-read them, and if that does not suffice, read them again.

You are asking me to come with solutions to problems your administration created, your country has caused, and your country is up to its knees in.
Your own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, infamously said: "If you break it, it's yours."
I just hope you realize, I hope I am making myself crystal clear, that I am not American, this is not my nation that has so unapologetically messed up.
If you really are interested in what Norway's gov't advised USA on, I suggest you get yourself a few hours of reading time and search for the words "allies", "UN", "international community", "Norway", "WMD's" and "Hans Blix" and you will find exactly what you need.
I will not be sitting here and reading that you expect me to list the numerous ways that could have averted this catastrophe.
And if you are interested in some decent alternatives that have been put forth by your fellow Americans, I suggest you look at Biden's plan for Iraq and other plans similar to it. In the end your country, the USA, are at a point where there are no good alternatives.
There are only bad alternatives, and really bad alternatives, and so whatever improvement in policy and diplomacy that can be achieved, it will not be optimal.

Getting out is a bad idea, staying is a bad idea. Your country was so emphatically warned of this before the war. I myself sat in amazement at the stupidity of the invasion and so I don't tolerate not for one nanosecond any delegating of blame to anyone but the nation's that decided to invade(!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Personally I feel when you’ve razed your neighbors house, even if it was done by corrupt incompetent bozos acting in your name, you have SOME obligation to fix things not simply dust your hands off and say this was a mistake therefore we are leaving.

Fair point. Although if my house had been razed I don't think I'd be too happy that the razers were hanging around.

Restitution has to start with an acknowledgement of the wrong. The very first thing that has to happen is that you have to kick that murderous regime out of office. Then there must be clear statements and policy action focused on righting the wrong. There must also be accountability: those who perpetrated the wrong should be held to account. This means Bush, Bliar, but especially the likes of Rumsfeld.

The Iraq Study Group showed the way forward: regional talks involving Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, with a view to establishing a multinational peacekeeping force. This could facilitate the withdrawal of US troops.

But the disgrace of the act that has been perpetrated in Iraq will haunt the reputation of the West for many years.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

If this is the essence of what you have understood from my posts I emphatically advise you to re-read them, and if that does not suffice, read them again.

Done. Still the same take. In fact more so. Whats your sage advise now…

You are asking me to come with solutions to problems your administration created, your country has caused, and your country is up to its knees in.

Im simply asking for whats logical: where do we go now. Clearly you have a problem with whats happened in Iraq. If it is such a concern of yours I would assume you have some vague notions of what should be done now (and what shouldnt). I mean isn’t your concern vested in the human tragedy of whats happened in Iraq? Or is your concern simply about an opportunity to berate Americans for something MOST Americans agree with you on? [comment deleted by Eärniel]

If you really are interested in what Norway's gov't advised USA on, I suggest you get yourself a few hours of reading time and search for the words "allies", "UN", "international community", "Norway", "WMD's" and "Hans Blix" and you will find exactly what you need.

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

Im not interested in official Norwegian policy on Iraq. Im simply interested in what people who post here and who have issues with what happened in Iraq think would be the best way to PROCEED from where we stand. A simple question. A none hostile question. And one fellow mooters have already started to ponder.

I will not be sitting here and reading that you expect me to list the numerous ways that could have averted this catastrophe.

The “catastrophe” is done. I never asked you to tell me how to avert it… Maybe YOU need to read MY post again… [comment deleted]

And if you are interested in some decent alternatives that have been put forth by your fellow Americans, I suggest you look at Biden's plan for Iraq and other plans similar to it.

Last I heard Biden wanted to divide Iraq up into three separate regions and pull out the troops. So are you saying that’s your assessment as well?

In the end your country, the USA, are at a point where there are no good alternatives.

We certainly agree there! But I think [comment deleted by Eärniel] that when you have no good choices you better figure out your least worst one and act on it because doing nothing will screw you even further. Which, of course, leads me back to the reason for my question which you avoided…

Getting out is a bad idea, staying is a bad idea. Your country was so emphatically warned of this before the war. I myself sat in amazement at the stupidity of the invasion and so I don't tolerate not for one nanosecond any delegating of blame to anyone but the nation's that decided to invade(!)

And please show me where I was attempting to “delegate blame” to your nation or any other nation by asking what do people think we should do…

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

The truth is that most people (EVEN here in America believe it or not!) had great disagreements with the war and how it was run. And now almost everyone thinks it was handled badly (to put it mildly). So to sit here and site nonsense about WMD’s as if its still relevant is silly when no one believes the long dead WMD argument anymore anyway. [comment deleted by Eärniel]

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Restitution has to start with an acknowledgement of the wrong. The very first thing that has to happen is that you have to kick that murderous regime out of office.

Agreed. And of course that is a guarantee now since Bush has served two terms and cannot be elected again.

There must also be accountability: those who perpetrated the wrong should be held to account. This means Bush, Bliar, but especially the likes of Rumsfeld.

To be honest I don’t k now if that is helpful as much as it might feel good. It will only muddle our government, already bogged down and limited by partisan bickering, into damaging open feuding and revenge fury on both sides. And so many important things will go ignored and so many will suffer for the sake of forcing that one issue. Its best to write them off, say good riddance and pick up the pieces as best we can. There will be decades of opportunity to write books, condemn them in the press and point out every short coming and corrupt incompetent policy position we can uncover.

And anyway I don’t really think the Iraqi people are looking for that really. They just want things to improve. Not for Bush to be jailed. For the most part, most Iraqis are of the mind whats done is done. Now PLEASE can we make things better here.

But the disgrace of the act that has been perpetrated in Iraq will haunt the reputation of the West for many years.

Yes and so many Americans are truly saddened by this fact… But all the more reason to go forward with real change and new thinking on this (and many other) matter(s). Those in power are generally wise enough to know that regime change means opportunity. Having Bush gone will go miles toward gaining back some measure of respect and influence on the international stage. But it will take years of positive diplomatic action to truly recreate the level of trust and bridges of understanding that were destroyed in the past 8 years.

[Coffeehouse]

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

You responded to my first post non-chalantly, assuming any of the last few posts' discussion was about post-Bush alternatives to fixing Iraq. But that is not why I had in mind when discussing.
The argument Hector and I have been having relates to a discussion in the UK Politics section, and has to do with disagreement on what constitutes a 'success' in Iraq.

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

Now, I'm happy to discuss the numerous ways Iraq can be fixed, and ways forward for the nations that are currently occupying Iraq, including cooperation with the international community. But that isn't what I've been discussing and neither is it what Hector has been discussing in these last few posts.

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

[Mari]

Could we please not do this?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Mari

Could we please not do this?

I'm sorry Mari. I think it's really sad that it stoops to this level, but I wrote that last post in disbelief.

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

My first post to you was a admittedly terse post, but there was nothing personal about it except some clear and plain pointing out that the number one nation in this mess Obviously must be held accountable. Nowhere in my comments will you find anti-American comments, where I've again and again and again directed my criticism at your administration, not your country and NOT Americans whom I know so many of (I have gone to three American schools for the love of god)

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

[Mari]

(deleted)

[Earniel]

I know political debates can get heated but this is far enough. Personal attacks and flaming are not allowed on the Entmoot. And if I see any more, by anyone, it will be removed.