Iraq open thread #2
I'm in a real rush today. There was an interesting article in toway's WaPo by Ann Scott Tyson (embedded). It gave a clear picture of how the US forces have almost zero control of the terrain, just 25 miles out of downotwn Baghdad. (Okay, so there are huge areas of Baghdad itself where they have no control, either.)
I found this portion, where a US Army captain commanding a small position at the south of the "Triangle of Death" is describing his situation to a visiting colonel, particularly interesting:
- Capt. Ryan Seagreaves, of Allentown, Pa., told McMaster that he needed engineers to reinforce and expand his austere base so that there would be room for more Iraqi forces. He said he also needed dirt to fill protective barriers. Iraqi contractors are so terrified to work in the area that a convoy of 10 earth-filled dump trucks recently refused to travel south to McMaster's base. One driver fainted when told the destination, he said.
When the British Army suffered terrible losses and strategic setbacks in Iraq back in 1916-17, it was precisely because of completely insufficient logistic support for their forward positions. And yet, in 2003, Donald Rumsfeld blithely thought he could ignore the lessons of history (and all the good advice the uniformed military had tried to give him), and decided to go ahead and conquer Iraq with an ultra-"lean" attacking force, anyway.
The US forces-- but also, to a much greater extent, the Iraqi people-- have been suffering the chaotic, disastrous consequences of that decision ever since.
I've been thinking of trying to write a broad strategic survey of what's been happening with the war, but I absolutely need to continue concentrating on my Africa book.
So while I do that, I'll leave the comments thread here for y'all to put in additional news about Iraq.
Well the drift in the press has shifted from insurgency weakened to not so sure. But something else is rearing it's head. This hostage situation, first they are there, then government denials, then Talibani saying that 50 dead found were the hostages, right now silence at least on front pages on yesterday's headlines.
Somebody important has been lying or at least criminally ignorant. I notice many on the right think the Kurdish president is the nation's leader and I suspect his acting as such irritates everyone not kurd and probably half of them. He is turning the government into farce.
Yankee, Go Home!
Back in June I predicted in a personal conversation that the US would have to withdraw from Iraq within a year, and it would have no choice. I've wavered from that prediction since January but now I'm thinking I may have been right the first time.
And the British didn't have to worry about a fifth column like the moslem US sargent that went on a killing rampage in Kuwait even before the invasion began. The sargent was found guilty today in spite of the usual moslem rage and insanity defense.
.- Viola
"The Bush administration hopes that Iraqis will replace Saddam Hussein's secular socialism with a new breed of secular liberalism. This ideal government would be committed to free enterprise, respect the rights of women, be tolerant toward ethnic and religious minorities, be favorably disposed towards Israel, and open and hospitable for American diplomats and businessmen"
Unfortunately this is not can happen in Iraq I think....
"I notice many on the right think the Kurdish president is the nation's leader and I suspect his acting as such irritates everyone not kurd and probably half of them."
huh?...Why don't the Iraqis have a right to choose an Iraqi Kurd as their president?
Steve Gilliard has a very trenchant post here explaining clearly in military terms that the US is defeated in Iraq. (Right click or control-click, depending on your operating system, to see the maps in his piece in detail.)
The US is going to leave Iraq -- the question is when. And for those of us in the US, can any efforts of ours help advance the date?
Hummurabi, you appear to have completely missed the poiant. This is not about the Iraqis'a right to choose an Iraqi Kurd as their president (for the record, the Iraqis did NOT choose their president, or either vice president, or their prime minister-to-be). In the systen devised by the occupying power, and set down by them in the TAL, the president has no real power and is not the leader of the country. It is the prime minister who has the power, and it is the prime minister who is the "leader". That is the point.
Shirin
America has propped up, aided, sustained and rewarded handsomely the most stinking of the rogues the world over….
here is a small list of rulers of outlaw regimes, with some omissions, of those who denied freedom to others and, thus, deserved it not for themselves;
General Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Idi Amin of Uganda, Colonel Hugo Banzer of Bolivia, Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, P.W. Botha of South Africa, General Humberto Brancoof Brazil, Raoul Cedras, Francois Duvalier and Jean Claude Duvalier of Haiti, Vinicio Cerezo of Guatemala, Chiang Kai-Shek of Taiwan, Roberto Suazo Cordova of Honduras, Alfredo Christiani and General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador, Ngo Dihn Diemof Vietnam, General Samuel Doe of Liberia, King Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz of Saudi Arabia, General Francisco Franco of Spain, Hassan II of Morocco, Ferdinand Marcos of Philippines, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, General Manuel Noriega of Panama, Turgut Ozal of Turkey, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi of Iran, George Papadopoulos of Greece, General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Pol Pot of Cambodia, General Zia Ul-Haq of Pakistan of Pakistan, Hale Salassie of Ethiopia, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar of Portugal, Anastasio Somoza Jr. and Anastasio Somoza Sr. of Nicaragua, General suharto of Indonesia, General Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina and, hold your breaths, Saddam Hussain of Iraq.
Salah,
I know very well about that list, and I especially know about the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein. I know, among others, the following:
While he was committing his worst atrocities, the U.S. was not only supporting him, but in some cases directly or indirectly aiding and abetting his actions.
* When the Ba`th took power in the late '60's, the U.S. government provided them with a list of people (Communists) they wanted eliminated, and helped the regime to locate them.
* All during the '80's when Saddam was using Chemical weapons against Iran, and against Iraqi Kurds the U.S. continued to provide him with financial, technological, and diplomatic support. The U.S. also provided him with logistical support in the war with Iran, thus directly aiding and abetting his use of chemical weapons.
* During the Anfal campaign the U.S. government continued to support Saddam Hussein, knowing full well what he was doing to Iraqi Kurds. When it became clear that he was using U.S. helicopters and other technology in his attacks on the Kurds, and the U.S. Congress attempted to impose sanctions that would prevent him from obtaining any more U.S. technology, the White House vetoed the action.
* The U.S. killed UN attempts to even condemn, let alone take action regarding the Halabja massacre.
* The U.S. government attempted a coverup of the Halabja massacre by claiming what had killed the people was gas that only Iran, and not Iraq, posessed. Medical experts who examined the victims' symptoms blew that attempted coverup out of the water.
* In 1991 President George H.W. Bush publicly urged Iraqis to overthrow the regime. Then, in response to a major uprising by Shi`a and Kurds - when that uprising showed potential success - the U.S. gave permission to Saddam's military for eight days in a row to fly armed helicopters to the rebel-held areas, which were controlled by the U.S. military. For eight straight days, by permission of the U.S. government, Saddam's military slaughtered Shi`as and Kurds by the tens of thousands while, in some cases, U.S. military aircraft flew in circular patterns overhead, and on the ground U.S. troops confiscated rebel vehicles and arms and blocked reinforcements from reaching rebel-held areas. In other words, George H.W. Bush aided and abetted Saddam's brutal squashing of the rebellion he himself had urged.
Shirin
You don’t need to tell Iraqis about this we knew this in details but the most of Americans they don’t know and sadly they support Bush for 2nd term in power...
Ok all of us know, 100 orders by Paul Bremer put them to restructured the Iraq future which he or US designed to split and scattered the Iraqi society to ethnics groups and Kurds Arab what ever groups looking US so care about them in fact this is another lies added to list of lies by US, all they interested as I put it in previous comment is "This ideal government would be committed to free enterprise," which will be listen to US orders not to Iraqis and what there needs and Iraq.
Tell me for two years most of us saying US did many mistakes till now no one in US administration come forward and admitted this all we hear from Bush down to lowest officer in the end of the list that Iraq it’s on track toward the democracy! Do you believe in this?
I don’t have any faith in US administration that can make me believe they working for Iraq and Iraqi and Big Meddle East this as I read from the steps US follow in Iraq.
All we know they only interested in OIL Shirin I wish this oil in Iraq be vanished and see the response from US administration what will be?
'During the '80's when Saddam was using Chemical weapons against Iran, and against Iraqi Kurds the U.S. continued to provide him with financial, technological, and diplomatic support. The U.S. also provided him with logistical support in the war with Iran, thus directly aiding and abetting his use of chemical weapons.'
US demanding from other countries to bring to justices these companies and personal they helped the regime in his programs of MDW and chemical weapons, Tell me did US brings to justices any US company or personal helped the regime at that time and why?.
Salah,
US just claim loudly that German and French companies were the culprit selling forbidden chemical and weapons to Irak. Since these two countries both opposed the war in Irak that comes in handy for them.
Dear Helena,
I think that any broad strategic survey of Iraq should take into account the many reports filed by Patrick Cockburn for The Independent, one of the largest papers in the UK. He is one of the few unembedded journalists who dares to venture outside the Green Zone.
In a notable article was published last weekend
(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=630159), Cockburn makes several important observations.
He mentions "Ironically, one reason why Washington can persuade the outside world that its venture in Iraq is finally coming right is that it is too dangerous for reporters to travel outside Baghdad or stray far from their hotels in the capital."
And he adds "Despite the elections on 30 January, the US problem in Iraq remains unchanged. It has not been defeated by the Sunni Arab guerrillas but it has not defeated them either. The US army and Iraqi armed forces control islands of territory while much of Iraq is a dangerous no-man's land."
This observation agrees with what I was told by Dahr Jamail (another unembedded journalist) when I asked him how much of Iraq was actually under US control. His answer was not much.