I realize I didn’t blog much last week. I was busy elsewhere. But it was a sad, sad week for the relationship of the US citizenry with the rest of the world. For two main reasons:
- (1) We saw Karl Rove, finally let off the hook of fearing a possible indictment over Plamegate, coming back into the party-political arena with all his most divisive guns firing.
(2) We saw the Democrats, who’d previously held together on a sort of lowest-common-denominator course of standing by to watch the Republicans implode politically under the weight of their own contradictions, being completely sandbagged by Rove, and unable to come up with any unified, proactive, and effective political response to Rove’s truly vicious attacks.
One big risk Rove took– and I see him as perhaps the most risk-happy person in the whole Bush entourage– was to turn the subject of politics inside the Washington Beltway back to Iraq.
So risky for the Prez, you would have thought, wouldn’t you?
Previously, the Repubs (also known– I have no clue why– as the “Grand Old Party”, GOP) had been trying to steer clear of talking much about Iraq. They were trying to keep the conversation on topics like immigration or gay marriage, instead. Immigration turned out to blow up in their face: they looked deeply divided over it, while the Dems could stand aside, looking principled and thoughtful while not having to do much (or take responsibility for much) at all. Gay marriage also turned out not to be a great support-winner for those in the GOP who are passionately opposed to it.
So Rove comes along, and turns the topic to Iraq, with some vicious accusations that the Democrats just want to “cut and run”… And what this has done is send the Democratic Party politicians into a tailspin of internal division and indecisiveness… Revealing that on this, the most important issue facing our country right now, the Democratic Party leadership is still too divided to be able to take any kind of a principled public stand.
Taking most of the heat from Rove has been that great and principled patriot, Congressman John P. Murtha from Pennsylvania… a much-decorated former Marines officer (and generally, a “hawk” on defense issues), who has become one of the most outspoken voices in Congress urging a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Murtha knows very well whereof he speaks. See this transcript of a TV talk show. (It’s from yesterday, June 18, though the heading says “June 11”.)
Rove has been going with special venom after Murtha and the other Dems who had voted for the war-enabling resolution back in October 2002 and then later came out against the war. As noted in a transcript of a videotaped portion shown on that same t.v. show, Rove said,
- Like too many Democrats, it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running…
Murtha, it has to be said, did not keep his cool when shown that video during his live broadcast there. He said of Rove:
- He’s, he’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, “Stay the course.” That’s not a plan. I mean, this guy—I don’t know what his military experience is, but that’s a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he’s saying…
A near-toxic rightwing attack-dog/commentator called “Ann Coulter” has also been majorly getting her rhetorical teeth into Murtha, saying recently that that he was, “The reason soldiers invented ‘fragging.'” (Fragging is US soldiers’ slang for trying to kill your officer.)
But what seems saddest to me is not the frenzy of the anti-Murtha rhetoric but the failure of the Democrats as a political leadership group to be able to come out forthrightly and unitedly to say, “This war in Iraq is going disastrously, and was anyway built on a lie perpetrated by the ruling party. We need to get out of Iraq and to re-order our relations with a world that will no longer be simply standing aside to allow the US to wreak such havoc on other nations. Let’s all work together to heal our relations with the rest of the world and with each other… based first and foremost on bringing our much-abused troops home from Iraq.”
Instead of which, at the end of a disgraceful, politically charged debate in the House of Representatives last week, 42 Dems bucked their leadership and joined a virtually united GOP in the House to pass a resolution stating,
- that the United States must complete “the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq” without setting “an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment” of U.S. troops.
The authors of that WaPo report linked to there note that the 42 Democratic “defectors” this time “were about half the 81 [Dems] who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force”…
So at this rate, it could take us just as long again to arrive at a Democratic Party that is clear and united in opposition to the Bushist vision of perpetual and unilateral US “preventive” war?
H’mmm, that would take us until, let’s see, January 2010?
Not fast enough, guys! Let’s get ourselves a real and principled Democratic Party in the country long before then!
(The good news: at the broad level of the US public, few people seem to have been bamboozled by Bush’s “Mission Accomplished Part Deux” last week, or by the bullying tactics used by Rove and Coulter, into reducing their opposition to this disastrous war effort. The Democratic Party just needs to catch up with the people…)
Unfortunately, I see no hope in the Democratic Party as a check on right wing foreign policy. When I was younger in the 80s I remember being heartbroken and confused again and again by “good liberal” Democrats supporting the death squad/ torture regimes of Central and South America. Believe it or not though, I am actively supporting our local (15th district)Democratic canditate for Congress–Dr. David Gill–who is progressive and a real dissenter. What is the answer nationally? I don’t know. I think our political system is really bankrupt.
“Except for a lapse of several months, Selective Service records show presidential adviser Karl Rove escaped the draft for nearly three years at the height of the Vietnam War using student deferments. ” [Walsh, Salt Lake Tribune, 9/18/2004]
Rove’s (non-)draft history includes a period where he claimed a student deferment even though he had dropped out of school.
President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland
As we fight the enemy in Iraq, every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation deserves an unwavering commitment to the mission — and a clear strategy for victory. A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein — and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group.
Is it “rejectionists”= Resistances?
Yah, the words changed now some thing need to think about
72% of the troops want to be out by the end of the year according to zogby. most, like 90%, of Iraqis want a timetable for withdrawl. Most americans want the same. Congress, the mainstream media and the NEW media are totally out of touch with the people this is actually affecting.
Honestly, at the end of the day, republicans care about immigration, not Iraq, Rove or even Coulter. speaking of Ann, why does she thing the 9/11 widows are celebrities? I haven’t seen one story about them in like 2 years.
lester, Ann Coulter likes to sell books and get rich. She knows how to do this, and is very good at it. That is absolutely all anyone needs to know about her.
In what way do you think Republicans “care” about immigration? The Republicans that matter (the ones who actually run things) want a large illegal immigrant workforce in America. They are the perfect employees: they work hard for low wages, they can’t vote, and they seldom try to enforce their so-called “rights” in court. That’s why enforcement of immigration laws against employers has dropped dramatically since W. took office. The other Republicans will vote for anybody who says he loves Jesus, guns and freedom, and hates gays, liberals and taxes.
The Democrats are scared to be for anything that directly contradicts big business interests, because they don’t think they can get elected without huge campaign contributions, and they’ve forgotten how to do grassroots organizing and fundraising. The Republicans are actually better at that than the Democrats nowadays – amazing.
“The administration’s policy to date — that we’ll be there for as long as Iraq needs us — will result in Iraq’s depending upon us longer,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who has been designated by the Democratic leadership to present the party’s strategy on Iraq. “Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent.”
Can some one tell Carl Levin these are Lies, Did Iraqi’s asked you to stay in Iraq?
Those Puppets they did take them with you when you Pullout from Iraq.
Did you listen or read your president what he said after his fast visit to Baghdad?
He said “The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis,”
Ok then “The rejectionists” are the majority of Iraqis (Not just Sunni as for three and half years keep fool yourself); they don’t like you on their land, they rejecting you and your troops, isn’t clearer enough to you?
From where you get “security blanket is not permanent” and who asked for it?
This just pathetic and Ironic speech by some one he simply just lying. Go and learn how to speak and how to lead.
I think Democrats are frightened to take a strong stand to get out of Iraq because they think Iraq will melt down when we leave…. which it will. And the longer the US stays there, the worse the meltdown will be.
There is no possiblity of stability with US troops in the country.
Also, there is no possibility of Iraq providing for it’s own security without an air force, and no possibility that the Bush administration will allow them to have one.
The Bushits have no intention of leaving Iraq, ever.
Is there a dime of difference between the following?
GOP: Stay the course [but quitetly draw down troops by 2008].
Dems: Announce withdrawal [but stage it cautiously through 2008].
Karl knows that the former posture looks brave, while the latter can be chided as a cowardly admission of defeat or stab in the back. If a Dem controled Senate tries the latter and it leads to chaos, the GOP will reap the benefit royally in 2008. Spin is everything.
Note: the W speechwriter who chose the word “rejectionists” to designate insurgents probably did not understand that some Sunnis call their Shia neighbors by the Arabic equivalent, or that the Shia consider it quite offensive.
I suspect that the democratic Mc-senators are totally flaccid due to the 3 following possibilities, 1= totally corrupt them-selves, 2= being blackmailed for some lapse of judgment, & or 3= afraid/threatened with physical harm personally and or to their families (as in Wellstone)… that is the only thing that makes sense of their inadaquate, lame, dead response that looks like repose to me….. what can be done? they have sold us, Iraq, Palestine, Columbia, Timoor, etc, etc, etc to the nashing corporations.. NO Pride, No Courage, No Honor… except a few LIONS!who are kept effectively at bay, made to look like self-serving idiots…. trying to hold on but it seems hopless.. as the voting is so corrupt that it will be impossible to put a real working cadre into a position of effectiveness… am I missing something in the translation??? peace Seastar
George W. Bush: “The Iraqis have to know that America will not abandon them.”
The Iraqis: Please, America, we beg you in the name of Allah! Please abandon us!
Note: the W speechwriter who chose the word “rejectionists” to designate insurgents probably did not understand that some Sunnis call their Shia neighbors by the Arabic equivalent, or that the Shia consider it quite offensive.
You try to be smart, yah!!
This is not true case at all in Iraq, Iraqis lived thousands of years with their ethnic differences if you are familiar with ME, which I believe most of you either worked in Saudi or Gulf region Iraq is different, Iraqis smarter than what ironically you stated.
Tell GWB to stated right instead, tell him to stated they are RESISTANCES to your invasion and your presence on their land this is the reality don’t not mangling in the words or using them for ironic thinking its just show us how most of you short of site and mind about Iraq.
Its better to keep think better before make post here what Iraq and what Iraqi thinks.
Salah, my condolences. Evidently, the mention of sect touches a raw nerve.
Let me see if I understand what you say.
Your theory is that Iraq’s sects love each other and need only oust the hated Infidel to be at fraternal peace. The US conspires to divide the sects. Americans disguised as Iraqis cause all the deaths and havoc. Similar American or Israeli genies cause the bombings of holy shrines.
Very fine, except that I see little Iraqi or other evidence of anything of the sort. I will agree only that Iraqs get angry very quickly if the subject of sect arises. Your double exclamation marks are a giveaway: a raw nerve. It is rather like US realtors on the topic of race {shush!!}.
No Shiite will agree there was any “equal opportunity” under Saddam. One great mistake of the US was to believe Iraqis like K. Makiya and A. Chalabi, who said the sectarian rivalry was not acute. The daily acts of sabotage and death greatly surpass anything covert Coalition forces could pull off without detection. Furthermore, your notion could not possibly explain the daily suicide bombings of civilians.
Can you imagine Shaikh Abd al-Fattah Muhammad of the AMS enjoying tea and a good game of bridge with Muqtada al-Sadr? Why don’t the imams of all sects join hands in one joint prayer session in all cities?
If you really do have any insights on what Iraqis think, please offer ideas on what al Maliki can or should do to attain peace with the Sunnis. Are the appointments to Interior and Defense good? What of the head of Intelligence? Is Al-Shahwani a good man?
Anthony Shadid and Nir Rosen are often credited for reasonably objective reports on Iraq. Do you disagree?
By the way, there is no such thing as a unitary “American view” of America, so why should there be a sacrosanct “Iraqi view” of Iraq? Every argument should be supported by proof, no matter what the nationality of the proponent.
Today in Iraq war History!!!
13 die in Iraq suicide attack june 21 05
ARBIL (Iraq), June 20: A suicide bomber killed 13 Iraqi traffic police on Monday when he rammed an explosives-packed car into them on a sports field in the Kurdish city of Arbil. Ansar al Sunna, an extremist group linked to the Al Qaeda network, said in an Internet statement it had killed a Japanese contractor in Iraq and six of his Iraqi guards.
The statement said Al Sunna fighters had ambushed a convoy as it was leaving the Al Walid military base near Ramadi.
One of the wounded in the Arbil attack said the bomber, dressed as a policeman, had driven a red Chevrolet on to the field where around 160 policemen were exercising.
Elsewhere in the north, 15 people were killed in several attacks, including a Kurdish official and his three bodyguards.
In Baghdad, five policemen were killed as they went to help US forces fighting guerillas in the Al Bayaa district.
At the Baghdad International Airport, a suicide car bomber killed one person and wounded two others.—AFP
———————————————————————————-
Iraq Leader Says Army Will Target Insurgents
Prime Minister Outlines Reorganization of Forces
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 21, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55669-2004Jun20.html
BAGHDAD, June 20 — The interim Iraqi prime minister announced a reorganization of the country’s fledgling security forces Sunday and declared that all of Iraq’s military resources, including the army, will be used to combat anti-U.S. insurgents, whom he denounced as “enemies of God and the people.”
————————————————————————————
New rebel group vows to keep attacking US forces
June 21 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/21/1056119507628.html
A previously unknown group, the National Front of Fedayeen, vowed today to keep attacking US soldiers in Iraq until the occupying forces leave the country.
A man, his face hidden in a chequered red-and-white headscarf, delivered the warning to US President George W “Bush and his henchmen” in a videotaped message broadcast on Lebanon’s LBCI satellite channel.
But he strongly denied any links to the regime of ousted Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein.
Three young men, also masked, stood behind him, gripping rocket-propelled grenades during the 90-second message.
“We swear to deliver one strike after another in retaliation for the terrorist and inflammatory acts carried out by their barbarous forces, including arbitrary killings and various humiliations of the population,” the man said, reading from a statement.
“Before God, we are committed to strike them even harder and more cruelly than in previous attacks,” he said.
“Also, we tell them if they wish that their soldiers are healthy and safe they must immediately leave our pure land, otherwise we will avenge every Iraqi who has been killed, humiliated, or whose house has been robbed,” the masked spokesman said.
“The Iraqis have returned from your great lie to free Iraq.”
The fiery message came after three US soldiers were killed in guerrilla attacks this week, including a rocket attack yesterday, a drive-by shooting on Wednesday and a sniper attack on Monday.
Other groups have stepped out of the shadows this week to take credit for the hit-run attacks that have bedevilled US forces since they ousted Saddam in April.
One faction calling itself the Iraqi Resistance Brigades claimed responsibility for “all” attacks against US-led occupation forces in Iraq, in a statement read on the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera news channel.
Coalition forces have blamed diehard Hussein loyalists for the repeated attacks on US troops in Sunni-populated regions extending from Baghdad to the north and west of the country that have prompted the US army to launch major operations to root out resistance.
A total of 52 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq – 16 of them in attacks – since US President George Bush declared the war there effectively over on May 1, according to an AFP count from US military statements.
AFP
Salah, my condolences. Evidently, the mention of sect touches a raw nerve.
You don’t need to, it’s not “touches a raw nerve” but what you said it’s not a true case you may tried to diluted our friends here or others.
your theory is that Iraq’s sects love each other and need only oust the hated Infidel to be at fraternal peace.
I don’t have theories to say, it’s the truths, with regards of “Infidel” they came with you (US) when you invade the country, they are a collection of criminals bad guys and opportunists guys.
If you really do have any insights on what Iraqis think, please offer ideas Let me see if I understand what you say.
I fell sorry for some one after three and half he asking me as an Iraqi some very basic and simple questions in time this war and invasion of a country approved to be illegal and built on lies.
I didn’t know there are some still in a “deep sleep”. I think your question should be asked to your follows there who are on the ground for more than three years seeing everyday Iraqis on the ground they should tell you better than me what 26Millions Iraqis needs and say or you have those research centres and polls centre they can find easily what the Iraqi thinks.
Is Al-Shahwani a good man?
Good question, my answer here
If US administration believed and guided by people like ” K. Makiya and A. Chalabi” then “my condolences” to you and to all Americans
Dear Mr/Ms jkoch,
You have no doubt never set foot in Iraq (and probably could not locate it on an unlabeled map). Your command of Arabic is, I am sure, limited to a few selected “hot button” terms like jihad (which you probably pronounce JEEEhawd), and whose meaning you really do not understand. Your knowledge of Islam (which you probably pronounce ISlum) consists of whatever you can pick up on anti-Islam websites like Jihad Watch (which you, naturally, pronounce JEEEHawd Watch). Your grasp of Iraq’s history most likely begins and ends with Saddam Hussein. And in spite of all this, you presume to lecture Iraqis about Iraq, and you do so while parrotting the kind of standard-issue rubbish that reveals both your source of information, and your profoundly ignorant, bigotted, racist views.
Do yourself a kindness and before you come back here to spout your ill-disguised venomous nonsense, spend a bit of time learning something real about Iraq. Then perhaps you can at least ask some intelligent questions.
In the mean time, for your information:
1) Prior to March, 2003, Iraq’s has never been a society divided along sectarian lines, but along tribal ones.
2) Most of Iraq’s large tribes, and many of its small ones are neither Sunni nor Shi`i, but mixed.
3) Intermarriage has always been very common in Iraq between Sunnis and Shi`is, Arabs and Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, Muslims and Christians – in fact, among all of Iraq’s religious and ethnic groups. Therefore the number of mixed families is very high.
4) Iraqis have never, in general, based their choices of whom to associate with on sect or ethnicity but upon compatibility. Certainly there have always been some exceptions to this – after all, there are such people in every society, are there not? However, overall, one just did not think about such things when it came to choosing friends, neighbors, employees, employers, colleagues, or business associates.
5) Prior to March, 2003, Iraqi political affiliations have never been based primarily on sect or ethnicity, but on political ideology. Politics of identity in Iraq is a innovation introduced and nurtured by the American rulers, whether out of ignorance or by design.
6) Contrary to the standard assumption, the Ba`th party is not a Sunni party. It is not even a Muslim party. It was, in fact, founded by a Christian. The Ba`th party, for all its serious problems, provided more political opportunity for Shi`is and other non-Sunni Arabs than any other political entity in Iraq. Some of the worst criminals in Saddam’s regime have been Shi’is and Kurds. No doubt it would shock you to learn, in fact, that not all the defendants in the present make-believe trial of Saddam Hussein are Sunnis.
7) Saddam Hussein did not care about sect or ethnicity, he cared about loyalty. He did not give a fig whether someone was Sunni, Shi`i, Kurd, Christian, Turkmen, or atheist, but about whether he believed they could be trusted to support him. He did not oppress or reward people on any basis other than whether he believed they were loyal to him and his regime, or opposed it. His regime was rife with favouritism based on nepotism and cronyism, not sectarianism.
8) Contrary to the received rubbish that comes mechanically out of the American government, its “experts” and the press, most Sunnis did not enjoy any power, privilege or status under Saddam’s rule. Sunnis suffered oppression, deprivation, torture, disappearance and death at the hands of Saddam and his regime. Individuals and groups were treated according to whether they were seen as supporting or opposing the regime, not according to their sectarian or ethnic identity. Ironically, one of the populations that suffered significant punishment and periodic purges as a result of its non-support of the regime was that of Falluja.
Now, a response to a few of your specific ignorant and inflammatory remarks:
“…the hated Infidel… blahblahblah wa fulan wa fulan wa fulan… “…the hated Infidel… blahblahblah wa fulan wa fulan wa fulan…
You know, there is no better way to give yourself away than this kind of language.
“I will agree only that Iraqs get angry very quickly if the subject of sect arises.”
Do yourself a kindness and do not mistake an emphatic statement with getting angry.
“No Shiite will agree there was any “equal opportunity” under Saddam.”
A demonstrably false statement. Many “Shiites” fared very well indeed under Saddam, and did not mind at all what they had to do to obtain and keep their positions of favour. Shall I name a few of them? Quite a few of them are now fairing quite well under the Americans.
“Why don’t the imams of all sects join hands in one joint prayer session in all cities?”
In fact, there were many such events and other efforts and maintaining unity in the first weeks and months of the occupation. The Americans, whether out of ignorance or by design, managed to put a stop to most of it by supporting those individuals and groups who care only about seeking their own advancement. In any case, there is a significant difference between the politicians and the violent extremists on the one hand, and Iraqi society on the other.
“Anthony Shadid and Nir Rosen are often credited for reasonably objective reports on Iraq.”
Irrelevant. Their knowledge and experience of Iraq, and especially of Iraqi society, is still very limited compared to that of any Iraqi, and they are sometimes completely off base in their analyses.
Well put Shirin, and Thank you.
It’s obvious we see some posting like jkoch, Davis and Neil, not surprising me those types of people just a breed of this man who said two days ago:
“I don’t think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we’ve encountered,” Cheney said. He said much of the continuing violence has its roots in “the devastation” that 30 years of Saddam Hussein’s iron-fisted rule “had wrought on the psychology of the Iraqi people.”
Cheney now says he didn’t anticipate the insurgency’s strength
So
– The 13 Years of sanction did nothing to the “psychology of the Iraqi people”
– 500,000 babies died because of 13 Years sanction when the sick and pathetic Madeleine Albright happy with the outcome of the sanction, did nothing to the “psychology of the Iraqi people”
– Bombing Iraqi with DU in 1991 with massive bombardments power and kill the Iraqi army on the highway back home after ceasefire did nothing to the “psychology of the Iraqi people”
– Shock and Awe bombardments in 2003 did nothing to the “psychology of the Iraqi people”
– Bring Death Squad Ambassador to Iraq “John Negroponte “ and his specialist trainers James Steele and Steven Casteel from A Salvador time to Iraq to crated the “Death Squad” did nothing to the “psychology of the Iraqi people”
– Abu Graib and atrocities by your troops did nothing to the “psychology of the Iraqi people”
The war on terror is the ” seminal lie” ….
THE level of violence in some areas of Iraq is worsening dramatically and US forces may soon be asked to leave by the Iraqi Government.
In an exclusive interview with The Australian, former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage has given a gloomy assessment of the situation.
“The British used to make a big deal of walking around in their berets in the south,” he said. “Now they won’t even go to the latrines without their helmets. The south has got much rougher, it’s mainly Shia on Shia violence.”
Salah & Shirin,
Don’t worry, the US forces will be largely gone by Nov. 2008, regardless whether this is labeled “Iraqification” or “redeployment.” If your theories are right, that foreigners cause all the evil, then the gardens of Babylon will flower anew.
IMHO, you understate the past privileges held by Iraqi Sunnis, whether in the military, business, or government. Their control was far above their pro rata share of the population. Certainly, Shiites were present in the regime, but not in their demographic proportion.
It is also a fact that sectarian political parties have drawn more votes than the secular ones. They are Iraqi parties, not an invention of foreigners. You provide no support for your claims to the contrary. The US would have preferred a secular or nonsectarian party victory.
If you find fault with the reports of Anthony Shadid and Nir Rosen, please cite specific points you believe to be wrong. A blanket dismissal harms your credibility more than theirs.
A little humility, please. After all, who can claim perfect knowledge of anything? Bill Gates, despite all his money, sure wouldn’t.
Expatriate Iraqis should not presume themselves to be all-knowing about Iraq. Don’t be ashamed. You have company. K. Makiya was brave and offered an important testimony, but over-estimated secular nationalism. A. Chalabi was a cunning lobbyist, but could never build his franchise in Iraq.
How one stood prior to 2003 is largely irrelevant to the discussion of how to deal with the present situation. You or I can claim to have been 100% right in 2002 about the outcome of the war, yet be clueless how to remedy the outcome. The key question that any should answer is how to fix the problem without causing even more damage. Mere recriminations and teeth grinding do no good at all.
Frankly, I wish Mr. al Maliki the best, but don’t envy his task. Can you share some constructive advice?
Hopefully Helena will not mind if I drop in here and blog whore slightly. I have just returned from 10 days in Jordan and Syria as part of a delegation of US peace activists. We talked with Iraqis of every sort we could find as well as Jordanians, Syrians and even “policy experts” such as Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. So far I’ve only put up a few accounts of the folks we met with, but more will go up over the next two days. See my blog here.
Though a few (mostly the Westerners) worried some about what would happen when the US leaves, after some talk they would always come around to saying something like “Iraqis have a long history — they will solve it.” I certainly came away even more committed to getting the US out so that process can happen.
janinsanfran,
Thanks for your info.
There is two points I would to make
First Saddam was rolling Iraq by his sick mind he did not care about Sunni Shiites as such his attention developed after war in 1991 when the looters run in the south with aids from Iranians and start to burn Hospitals, Civil Registrations Offices, Land Registrations offices, Birth Certificates Offices, Grains Stores, Supermarkets and Schools also includes most Ba’ath’s office this not major but every one in south was happy early days but the pull themselves from what happened on the ground after these acts happened Saddam punish all the south without care who is and who isn’t keep in mind there are no lines and areas that you can say this Shiites city or Village or this Sunni city or Sunni street or area this not the case at all.
Secondly your folk calculation some how miss one thing which most of the US observers and thinker keep ignore this fact this Iraqi Military?
All we remember Katrina disaster when happened the governor and his offices and his setup not vanished or destroyed but we saw the lawlessness and gangs looting raping all sort of crimes, these things the only way to be stopped when the military came to the city!!!!
This in US presumably civilized society and there people have long lived with the laws and orders they knew how to respect the laws, netherless all that gone.
Back to Iraq whatever reasons justified dismantled the Iraqi Military forces and then there is low level of admissions of this fault, there are no real steps done to restore that power.
The main point here if US leave things to Iraqi or before leaving Iraq its not matter of build multi collation government as such you need military forces respected by the people of Iraq that have the power and tool to control that will open windows for the governments to get out of green zone borders and be functional.
Dear Jkoch,
I give this piece from The Code of Hammurabi who taught you the first law and democracy you live under, you need to consider article 251 well to be “then the gardens of Babylon will flower anew”
If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.
Before make your point that US will leave 2008, which I doubt and I can say there are not credits and evidences make me and more people and most importantly Iraqi inside to believe unless its happened when there are no US Troops on the land of Mesopotamia and there are no military bases, no hidden advisors in any shape or form if that happened I will be with you 100% then.
In regards to Makia and Chalabi they brave men they are smart and good guys please take them let them lectures and advice you and take them consultant to you they are marvellous, Iraqis do not deserve these guys congratulations to you, I fell joules that you got so smart brave guys like them good on you.