'Just World News' with Helena Cobban: Conetta continues discussion of 'Necessary Steps' report

'Just World News' with Helena Cobban Info, analysis, discussion-- to build a more just world
« At week's end \| JWN front page \| ICC showboat Moreno-Ocampo, and Darfur » Conetta continues discussion of 'Necessary Steps' report Posted by Helena Cobban June 30, 2008 2:10 PM EST \| Link Filed in Contribution from Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives to the discussion on the 'Necessary Steps' report on how to withdraw from Iraq, sent June 28, 2008 in response to the comments made on the report by Helena Cobban, June 25 Published here by permission of Carl Conetta and under JWN's usual Creative Commons license (main principles: always give attribution; don't use for profit-making endeavors without negotiating specific permission.) On Saturday Carl Conetta, who was a member of the "experts' group" for the recent "Necessary Steps" report, sent me this thoughtful response to my JWN comments of June 25. Most of what he wrote he keyed directly to the rows in the table in that post. So as soon as I have time, I shall make a new column for the table and insert his comments into it. It's a good discussion. ~HC Here's what Carl wrote: I found your review of the report thoughtful and helpful. Probably the most thorough and thoughtful review that the report will receive. So thank you. Important additions and amplifications as well. Carl Conetta Regarding some of the points of difference you mention, my comments: 1. Handoff to UN. I tend toward your view, but there were differences among participants about UN capacities, Iraqi acceptance of UN authority, and whether leaning heavily on the UN would really answer congressional concerns about post-withdrawal stability. Personally, I think the first two of these concerns are resolvable. But whatever the nature of the UN mandate after US withdrawal, it would have to be sell-able to an Iraqi populace that is pretty sick of occupation by foreigners. 2. Arab-Israeli conflict. I agree that much of the instability that troubles the Muslim world gains impetus from this conflict. But I don’t think resolution of it is essential in order to reduce the risks of post-withdrawal bloodshed and chaos in and around Iraq. And the latter objective was the aim of the report. Baker-Hamilton linked the two theaters with a bigger vision and agenda in mind. If, indeed, reducing the risks I mention are contingent on progress in the A-I conflict, then we’ll be in Iraq a long time. Conversely, some of the international mechanisms that would be established as part of the Task Force agenda might contribute indirectly to progress in the A-I conflict (mostly by building cooperation with Syria and Iran). Of course, progress in A-I disputes would be helpful to stability in Iraq. And the issue, IMHO, is as important. 3. Elections and constitution. I think the balance of opinion on the TF was that this would follow on the new "national reconciliation" process and/or be a necessary part of it. There was some concern, I think, that specifying too many requirements here would impede withdrawal or undercut withdrawal sentiment. Also, some debate and tension about what constitutes ongoing meddling. So we had to balance different concerns. Anyway, I agree that Iraq’s long-term stability requires a constitutional rewrite. I think that the present election system is also flawed. Moreover, this needs to be overseen by the United Nations. 4. You’re right that not enough was said about repatriation and assistance to IDPs. But I don’t think anyone intended to exclude or impede these options. The point was that repatriation will be a long task and perhaps not preferred by the displaced Iraqis. The principal concern here was not to subtly compel repatriation when many may just want to get the hell out and stay out for a while. Still, most will want to return, if not right away then soon or eventually. I think we all support that fully. And the report should have said more about how we could facilitate that. RE: YOUR COMMENTS IN TABLE Row A. * You’re right that sequencing is ambiguous, reflecting the fact that you’d probably get different answers from different TF members and advisors. My own opinion (and of some others, I think) is that the Iraqi government needs to know where we’re headed (ie. out) very soon and that key players (especially UN) need to know and be brought into the process quickly (ie. before "official" announcement of withdrawal). Publicly, something like what you suggest would seem to occur (perhaps a few months into the behind-the-scenes process): public withdrawal announcement, request to UN, quick convening of various support elements. Realistically, though, the USA would have to commit considerable political capital and resources to grease the wheels beforehand. My opinion: All the players would need to be prepared to step forward very fast once withdrawal is officially announced. Anything less would invite instability. * Functions of the "International Support Group" are outlined on Page 12. Besides the functions outlined there, it could offer a "pool of capabilities" to provide and coordinate various types of material support to Iraq under UN supervision. What types of support? TF members and advisors differed on this. Certainly humanitarian, reconstruction, and development. I would add a "Security Support" component that, beyond blue helmets, would assist in the further development of Iraqi Security Forces. * I agree that part of the UN mission would be supporting the renovation of Iraqi governance structures and would include election oversight. TF members and advisors differed on this. As for the specific type of democratic structure. The group didn’t broach this, either. Too interventionary, for some. Of course, as you point out, this (and the constitution) is essential to Iraq’s long-term stability. [ Personally, I favor tying assembly seats to sub-provincial administrative units according to some population-related rule and then filling those seats according to proportional representation. This should result de facto in a flexible constituency-based outcome. ] >>> It is important to note a persistent tension in the TF and advisor group between three objectives (1) developing initiatives to "reduce the risks of post-withdrawal chaos and bloodshed", (2) achieving relatively rapid withdrawal, and (3) letting Iraqis completely assume the reigns of government as quickly as possible. How to balance these? TF members and advisors differed. Row B. * On stemming the flow of arms. As you note: once we leave, other powers may try to continue or to ramp-up flows of arms and assistance to various groups. Indeed, there could be a surge in anticipation of our leaving. I agree, responsibility to stop it falls to the UN after we leave. But we need to develop better multi-national mechanisms before and during transition. The transition needs to be seamless, not punctuated by a gap. My own view is that this is solved principally by political means via the International Support Group, which must include all of Iraq’s neighbors. But there’s a role for technical means, too, as well as better and joint border control. Row C. * Well, as I said above, I disagree on the necessity of linkage between resolving the A-I dispute and the goals of withdrawing from Iraq while reducing risks of post-withdrawal chaos. If I’m wrong about this, then we’re stuck in Iraq for a very long time. Don’t get me wrong, I think resolving the A-I dispute is as important to regional stability as Iraq withdrawal – or even more so. I just don’t see them linked in the way you and Baker-Hamilton do. * On US vs UN as driver of international efforts. I agree it should be UN in the lead ASAP. I would have liked to see the report put more emphasis on the UN generally. But TF members and advisors differ on this. At any rate: practically speaking, the US must put tremendous weight behind this for it to really work. And that means, initially, being ahead of the UN, getting people into the process and underwriting the process. Another reason this section of the report put emphasis on specifying the things the US must do and push was to convey to congress that just dumping the mess in the UN’s lap was not sufficient. Row D. * It may be the case that in 10 or 12 or 15 months Iraq will not require any outside security forces. I think it will. Either way, the report makes such arrangements provisional. Still, the international community must be ready for it. * I don’t think US forces should be a part of this – except perhaps in small numbers providing service support. Some provision for US rapid reaction support (delivered from outside Iraq) might be good as well (and will exist, at any rate). Row E. I already mentioned some things about the repatriation issues. Regarding "third countries": this does include the United States. Row F. In this context, "America must lead" was meant to imply "first to pony up" and "most generous", not that we should grab and hold onto leadership. I do agree, though, that how we express and seek leadership is an issue worth watching. I wrote on this a while back: Also indicative of the "hegemonic presumption" is our fixation on "American global leadership" – as a pre-eminent and necessary end. We’re obessed with extoling, asserting, justifying, and defending it. That we intend to lead in every dimension seems often to overshadow what we intend to do. AND ALSO: The United States should seek to win leadership, rather than simply claim or assert it. American efforts at engagement will be most reliably productive if we build consensus through dialogue, not inducement. We should aim to convene, facilitate, and provision cooperative action. This implies "leading" from within the team as a co-equal member. « At week's end \| JWN front page \| ICC showboat Moreno-Ocampo, and Darfur » Comments Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 03:32 PM: When A Map Is Worth a Thousand Words Comment from... Shirin, at June 30, 2008 03:41 PM: The only involvement the United States should have in Iraq after it withdraws completely is the payment of reparations mandated and administered by a third party not allied or beholden to the United States. Other than that, the United States has no right to any kind of involvement, not military, not political, and not economic. Individual Americans and NGO's who wish to come to Iraq to assist in the recovery and reconstruction of the country and its people UNDER IRAQI DIRECTION are another story. They should be be welcomed. And by the way, "small numbers [of U.S. forces] providing service support" is not complete withdrawal, and "US rapid reaction support (delivered from outside Iraq)" is absolutely not acceptable as it will certainly be used in the furtherance of American and not Iraqi interests. Nor is any kind of "aid" money acceptable because that is ALWAYS tied to conditions favorable to the United States, and would be used later if not sooner to coerce the government. Oh yes, and the Regional Imperial Command and Control Center must be dismantled and the land returned to Iraqis. After a legitimate Iraqi government can be elected in a legitimate election if that government wants to establish real diplomatic relations with the United States, let the United States set up a real embassy for diplomatic purposes, not a citadel from which to run its imperial acquisition. Comment from... Don Bacon, at June 30, 2008 05:16 PM: It's time to Re-Engage: "True security is people-centered rather than state-centered, she wrote (page 103, R-E). And: Wouldn't a diplomacy based on the "Golden Rule" of treating the peoples of other countries with the same fairness, respect and generosity that we hope to enjoy from them do more to build the real security of U.S. citizens than one that seeks to grab unilateral advantage for American corporations wherever it can? Why does our country's approach to the other people and governments of the world need to be marked so deeply by fearfulness and mistrust, rather than by hope and a sense of responsibility . . .(p. 104, R-E) Do we follow the old American Exceptionalist way of ordering what we want, perhaps using the UN as a foil, or do we sit down as equals with liberated Iraqis and acknowledge that they have the power? An international worker I admire, not the one quoted above, was instrumental in setting up a girls secondary school in an impoverished city of Brazil (Salvador) where females have few rights. She gave money she had raised, and advice, but she ceded all control to a local Brazilian woman. She believed that to get power, and results, you have to give up power, and she demonstrated her belief by action. Some of 'her girls' are now in college. Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 06:10 PM: The only involvement the United States should have in Iraq after it withdraws completely Shirin, I think there is far important point from what you said. While the democratic world concerning on issues around the world in regards to dictatorship's crisis or rough regimes like what we seeing in Sudan, or Mozambique Robert Mogabi doing and others. Should be the same democratic world bring those who lied and run to war in Iraq on false claims to justices? This is important point not just the money it will be a historical moment and event in US democracy and the world to see people who lied and planed to ruined member of UN state for five years and they keep saying we do for the best of humanity and Iraqis while their acts not justified at all and regarded no more than crimes and human catastrophe with people have nothing to do with US and with war on terror which designed by those war criminals think-Tank to lead our world. Those who sit in Think Tank are criminals should be fronting them and brought to justice sooner not later. Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 06:43 PM: Mean while you keep feeding you up with these photos and pictures from Iraq with your heros hardworks!! as if Iraq living in 17th century they forgot their claims that Iraq was developed and had the 3rd strong military power Iraqi developed WMD and scientists that Saddam relay on them. This the pictures all over in the media in the news and most importantly on US site Operation Iraqi freedom, dose any western car if he looks to that photos which first bring to mind that these people living in mud hoses control vast oil reserve 2nd or 3rd let push to withdrawal our tropes from their, hill now, who cares then Comment from... Shirin, at June 30, 2008 08:30 PM: Salah, I agree with you completely that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and the other criminals who are responsible for the catastrophe in Iraq should be brought to justice. I don't have much hope, though, that this will ever happen. Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 10:53 PM: I don't have much hope, though, that this will ever happen. Same for you call of "the payment of reparations " this may be the opposite, it might I am sure will be Iraqi will bay for those 4113 US marines killed and also tens of thousands who disabled by the war on the claims that we went for you help! Just reading found that one Senator talking about high oil prices saying let get that damn oil form there where our Sons, Brothers and Sister fighting!! Ok it's a US Promises Land isn't? Five years after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq is throwing open its oil sector to foreign oil firms in a way Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others in the region are reluctant to. Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani "(Iraian Guy do care about Iraqis!!)" says no company will have any special privilege. Wonder how the truth manipulated and how people talking about Iraq from illegal invasion to "sovereign" government and fake political setup. many regarded as if this is a new Iraq where people of Iraq have seeing the horrible live to push them out of their land and country, slaughter them, make their life hill in many ways form Shock & Awe to death squad to sectarian cleaning and assassinations and most importantly horribly daily life for those who still live. Finally to make them to obey the master and obliged for his demand even their Allah gifted resources just to get their minim life back. Just talking to some family members and friends still in Iraq recently, Imagine Shirin the garbs from household for FIVE years no one collected although there were some times was collection but imagine the life of Iraqi in the middle of piles of garbage and rubbish any one who speak here and comment have his mind in his head knew what such life Iraqi have under your administration liberation and progress they making in Iraq?	Recent Posts on JWN • Realism, war, and pacifism (3) • Palin's performance: Insulting and very scary (28) • September 11 and the war in Afghanistan (6) • US's global dominance 'Reduced': It's nearly official! (1) • JWN redesign update #1 (2) • Oliver North??? (5) • J. Diehl criticizing Saakashvili (3) • Peres warns against attacking Iran (0) • Georgia-Hizbullah: Dept. of Delicious Ironies (2) • US probing Russian Red Lines in Georgia (0) • Women discuss Sarah Palin (26) • New vistas-- personal, and blog-related (12) • The longterm status of Georgia: Challenges ahead (20) • Text of the draft Iraq-US SOFA (10) • HRW revising its Russian cluster bomb accusations (11) • International tensions and the US election (9) • Iraq: Another Quaker in the 'Red Zone' (3) • HRW's flawed 'Research' on Georgian cluster bombs (20) • More on China in Iraq (12) • Post on China in US occupied zones-- at Japan Focus (0) • Palin and the 3 a.m. phone call (39) • China and Iraq (4) • Egyptian delegation to break Gaza siege (2) • Waiting for Gustav (5) • Italy gives Libya $$ compensation for colonial rule (17) • China buys in to Iraqi, Afghan end-games (15) • "Resolution": Palin's goal in Iraq (8) • China's way of 'Emerging' (6) • A note on US politics (6) • Conway does a Dannatt (sort of) (7) • China gets Iraq oil deal (6) • Rest-of-world saving US from recession? (5) • Russia and the world (12) • Milanovic: From Global Trade to Global War (5) • The return of geography (3) • Still no US-Iraq security agreement (yawn) (2) • Iraq-US: More disagreement than 'Agreement' (23) • NATO's supply lines in Afghanistan (27) • My CSM piece on the big-picture implications of Georgia (21) • Mahbubani on western hypocrisy, etc. (5) • Condi in Baghdad: YES on a timetable (aspirational) (8) • More on NATO, etc. (14) • NATO's crisis (8) • And another thing about Finland (23) • Where in the world is... Ban Ki-Moon? (22) • Russian military assessment: New arms race? (26) • And now for a little audio (0) • Yglesias nails McCain (4) • Sarkozy's ceasefire, Georgia's future (22) • Georgia crisis and the shifting global balance (0)

Conetta continues discussion of 'Necessary Steps' report

Posted by Helena Cobban
June 30, 2008 2:10 PM EST | Link
Filed in

Contribution from Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives to the discussion on the 'Necessary Steps' report on how to withdraw from Iraq,

sent June 28, 2008 in response to the comments made on the report by Helena Cobban, June 25

Published here by permission of Carl Conetta and under JWN's usual Creative Commons license (main principles: always give attribution; don't use for profit-making endeavors without negotiating specific permission.)

On Saturday Carl Conetta, who was a member of the "experts' group" for the recent "Necessary Steps" report, sent me this thoughtful response to my JWN comments of June 25. Most of what he wrote he keyed directly to the rows in the table in that post. So as soon as I have time, I shall make a new column for the table and insert his comments into it. It's a good discussion. ~HC

Here's what Carl wrote:

I found your review of the report thoughtful and helpful. Probably the most thorough and thoughtful review that the report will receive. So thank you. Important additions and amplifications as well.

Carl Conetta

Regarding some of the points of difference you mention, my comments:

1. Handoff to UN. I tend toward your view, but there were differences among participants about UN capacities, Iraqi acceptance of UN authority, and whether leaning heavily on the UN would really answer congressional concerns about post-withdrawal stability. Personally, I think the first two of these concerns are resolvable. But whatever the nature of the UN mandate after US withdrawal, it would have to be sell-able to an Iraqi populace that is pretty sick of occupation by foreigners.

2. Arab-Israeli conflict. I agree that much of the instability that troubles the Muslim world gains impetus from this conflict. But I don’t think resolution of it is essential in order to reduce the risks of post-withdrawal bloodshed and chaos in and around Iraq. And the latter objective was the aim of the report. Baker-Hamilton linked the two theaters with a bigger vision and agenda in mind. If, indeed, reducing the risks I mention are contingent on progress in the A-I conflict, then we’ll be in Iraq a long time. Conversely, some of the international mechanisms that would be established as part of the Task Force agenda might contribute indirectly to progress in the A-I conflict (mostly by building cooperation with Syria and Iran). Of course, progress in A-I disputes would be helpful to stability in Iraq. And the issue, IMHO, is as important.

3. Elections and constitution. I think the balance of opinion on the TF was that this would follow on the new "national reconciliation" process and/or be a necessary part of it. There was some concern, I think, that specifying too many requirements here would impede withdrawal or undercut withdrawal sentiment. Also, some debate and tension about what constitutes ongoing meddling. So we had to balance different concerns. Anyway, I agree that Iraq’s long-term stability requires a constitutional rewrite. I think that the present election system is also flawed. Moreover, this needs to be overseen by the United Nations.

4. You’re right that not enough was said about repatriation and assistance to IDPs. But I don’t think anyone intended to exclude or impede these options. The point was that repatriation will be a long task and perhaps not preferred by the displaced Iraqis. The principal concern here was not to subtly compel repatriation when many may just want to get the hell out and stay out for a while. Still, most will want to return, if not right away then soon or eventually. I think we all support that fully. And the report should have said more about how we could facilitate that.

RE: YOUR COMMENTS IN TABLE

Row A.

* You’re right that sequencing is ambiguous, reflecting the fact that you’d probably get different answers from different TF members and advisors. My own opinion (and of some others, I think) is that the Iraqi government needs to know where we’re headed (ie. out) very soon and that key players (especially UN) need to know and be brought into the process quickly (ie. before "official" announcement of withdrawal). Publicly, something like what you suggest would seem to occur (perhaps a few months into the behind-the-scenes process): public withdrawal announcement, request to UN, quick convening of various support elements. Realistically, though, the USA would have to commit considerable political capital and resources to grease the wheels beforehand. My opinion: All the players would need to be prepared to step forward very fast once withdrawal is officially announced. Anything less would invite instability.

* Functions of the "International Support Group" are outlined on Page 12. Besides the functions outlined there, it could offer a "pool of capabilities" to provide and coordinate various types of material support to Iraq under UN supervision. What types of support? TF members and advisors differed on this. Certainly humanitarian, reconstruction, and development. I would add a "Security Support" component that, beyond blue helmets, would assist in the further development of Iraqi Security Forces.

* I agree that part of the UN mission would be supporting the renovation of Iraqi governance structures and would include election oversight. TF members and advisors differed on this. As for the specific type of democratic structure. The group didn’t broach this, either. Too interventionary, for some. Of course, as you point out, this (and the constitution) is essential to Iraq’s long-term stability. [ Personally, I favor tying assembly seats to sub-provincial administrative units according to some population-related rule and then filling those seats according to proportional representation. This should result de facto in a flexible constituency-based outcome. ]

>>> It is important to note a persistent tension in the TF and advisor group between three objectives (1) developing initiatives to "reduce the risks of post-withdrawal chaos and bloodshed", (2) achieving relatively rapid withdrawal, and (3) letting Iraqis completely assume the reigns of government as quickly as possible. How to balance these? TF members and advisors differed.

Row B.

* On stemming the flow of arms. As you note: once we leave, other powers may try to continue or to ramp-up flows of arms and assistance to various groups. Indeed, there could be a surge in anticipation of our leaving. I agree, responsibility to stop it falls to the UN after we leave. But we need to develop better multi-national mechanisms before and during transition. The transition needs to be seamless, not punctuated by a gap. My own view is that this is solved principally by political means via the International Support Group, which must include all of Iraq’s neighbors. But there’s a role for technical means, too, as well as better and joint border control.

Row C.

* Well, as I said above, I disagree on the necessity of linkage between resolving the A-I dispute and the goals of withdrawing from Iraq while reducing risks of post-withdrawal chaos. If I’m wrong about this, then we’re stuck in Iraq for a very long time. Don’t get me wrong, I think resolving the A-I dispute is as important to regional stability as Iraq withdrawal – or even more so. I just don’t see them linked in the way you and Baker-Hamilton do.

* On US vs UN as driver of international efforts. I agree it should be UN in the lead ASAP. I would have liked to see the report put more emphasis on the UN generally. But TF members and advisors differ on this. At any rate: practically speaking, the US must put tremendous weight behind this for it to really work. And that means, initially, being ahead of the UN, getting people into the process and underwriting the process. Another reason this section of the report put emphasis on specifying the things the US must do and push was to convey to congress that just dumping the mess in the UN’s lap was not sufficient.

Row D.

* It may be the case that in 10 or 12 or 15 months Iraq will not require any outside security forces. I think it will. Either way, the report makes such arrangements provisional. Still, the international community must be ready for it.

* I don’t think US forces should be a part of this – except perhaps in small numbers providing service support. Some provision for US rapid reaction support (delivered from outside Iraq) might be good as well (and will exist, at any rate).

Row E. I already mentioned some things about the repatriation issues. Regarding "third countries": this does include the United States.

Row F. In this context, "America must lead" was meant to imply "first to pony up" and "most generous", not that we should grab and hold onto leadership. I do agree, though, that how we express and seek leadership is an issue worth watching. I wrote on this a while back:

Also indicative of the "hegemonic presumption" is our fixation on "American global leadership" – as a pre-eminent and necessary end. We’re obessed with extoling, asserting, justifying, and defending it. That we intend to lead in every dimension seems often to overshadow what we intend to do. AND ALSO:

The United States should seek to win leadership, rather than simply claim or assert it. American efforts at engagement will be most reliably productive if we build consensus through dialogue, not inducement. We should aim to convene, facilitate, and provision cooperative action. This implies "leading" from within the team as a co-equal member.

Comments

Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 03:32 PM:

When A Map
Is Worth a Thousand Words

Comment from... Shirin, at June 30, 2008 03:41 PM:

The only involvement the United States should have in Iraq after it withdraws completely is the payment of reparations mandated and administered by a third party not allied or beholden to the United States. Other than that, the United States has no right to any kind of involvement, not military, not political, and not economic. Individual Americans and NGO's who wish to come to Iraq to assist in the recovery and reconstruction of the country and its people UNDER IRAQI DIRECTION are another story. They should be be welcomed.

And by the way, "small numbers [of U.S. forces] providing service support" is not complete withdrawal, and "US rapid reaction support (delivered from outside Iraq)" is absolutely not acceptable as it will certainly be used in the furtherance of American and not Iraqi interests. Nor is any kind of "aid" money acceptable because that is ALWAYS tied to conditions favorable to the United States, and would be used later if not sooner to coerce the government.

Oh yes, and the Regional Imperial Command and Control Center must be dismantled and the land returned to Iraqis. After a legitimate Iraqi government can be elected in a legitimate election if that government wants to establish real diplomatic relations with the United States, let the United States set up a real embassy for diplomatic purposes, not a citadel from which to run its imperial acquisition.

Comment from... Don Bacon, at June 30, 2008 05:16 PM:

It's time to Re-Engage:

"True security is people-centered rather than state-centered, she wrote (page 103, R-E). And: Wouldn't a diplomacy based on the "Golden Rule" of treating the peoples of other countries with the same fairness, respect and generosity that we hope to enjoy from them do more to build the real security of U.S. citizens than one that seeks to grab unilateral advantage for American corporations wherever it can? Why does our country's approach to the other people and governments of the world need to be marked so deeply by fearfulness and mistrust, rather than by hope and a sense of responsibility . . .(p. 104, R-E)

Do we follow the old American Exceptionalist way of ordering what we want, perhaps using the UN as a foil, or do we sit down as equals with liberated Iraqis and acknowledge that they have the power?

An international worker I admire, not the one quoted above, was instrumental in setting up a girls secondary school in an impoverished city of Brazil (Salvador) where females have few rights. She gave money she had raised, and advice, but she ceded all control to a local Brazilian woman. She believed that to get power, and results, you have to give up power, and she demonstrated her belief by action. Some of 'her girls' are now in college.

Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 06:10 PM:

The only involvement the United States should have in Iraq after it withdraws completely

Shirin, I think there is far important point from what you said.

While the democratic world concerning on issues around the world in regards to dictatorship's crisis or rough regimes like what we seeing in Sudan, or Mozambique Robert Mogabi doing and others.
Should be the same democratic world bring those who lied and run to war in Iraq on false claims to justices? This is important point not just the money it will be a historical moment and event in US democracy and the world to see people who lied and planed to ruined member of UN state for five years and they keep saying we do for the best of humanity and Iraqis while their acts not justified at all and regarded no more than crimes and human catastrophe with people have nothing to do with US and with war on terror which designed by those war criminals think-Tank to lead our world.

Those who sit in Think Tank are criminals should be fronting them and brought to justice sooner not later.

Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 06:43 PM:

Mean while you keep feeding you up with these photos and pictures from Iraq with your heros hardworks!! as if Iraq living in 17th century they forgot their claims that Iraq was developed and had the 3rd strong military power Iraqi developed WMD and scientists that Saddam relay on them.

This the pictures all over in the media in the news and most importantly on US site
Operation Iraqi freedom, dose any western car if he looks to that photos which first bring to mind that these people living in mud hoses control vast oil reserve 2nd or 3rd let push to withdrawal our tropes from their, hill now, who cares then

Comment from... Shirin, at June 30, 2008 08:30 PM:

Salah, I agree with you completely that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and the other criminals who are responsible for the catastrophe in Iraq should be brought to justice. I don't have much hope, though, that this will ever happen.

Comment from... Salah, at June 30, 2008 10:53 PM:

I don't have much hope, though, that this will ever happen.

Same for you call of "the payment of reparations " this may be the opposite, it might I am sure will be Iraqi will bay for those 4113 US marines killed and also tens of thousands who disabled by the war on the claims that we went for you help!

Just reading found that one Senator talking about high oil prices saying let get that damn oil form there where our Sons, Brothers and Sister fighting!! Ok it's a US Promises Land isn't?

Five years after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq is throwing open its oil sector to foreign oil firms in a way Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others in the region are reluctant to. Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani "(Iraian Guy do care about Iraqis!!)" says no company will have any special privilege.

Wonder how the truth manipulated and how people talking about Iraq from illegal invasion to "sovereign" government and fake political setup. many regarded as if this is a new Iraq where people of Iraq have seeing the horrible live to push them out of their land and country, slaughter them, make their life hill in many ways form Shock & Awe to death squad to sectarian cleaning and assassinations and most importantly horribly daily life for those who still live. Finally to make them to obey the master and obliged for his demand even their Allah gifted resources just to get their minim life back.

Just talking to some family members and friends still in Iraq recently, Imagine Shirin the garbs from household for FIVE years no one collected although there were some times was collection but imagine the life of Iraqi in the middle of piles of garbage and rubbish any one who speak here and comment have his mind in his head knew what such life Iraqi have under your administration liberation and progress they making in Iraq?