|
Post by solinvictus on May 31, 2007 13:24:26 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Am0m.cfZybRRgMql3HbyhWms0NUE"BAGHDAD - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said." It's about damn time. More news like this would change my mind about us being over there.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 31, 2007 19:33:07 GMT -5
Someone from the AP is gonna get fired for letting this story out...
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 31, 2007 19:46:15 GMT -5
The Democrats will probably launch an investigation to find out who this person is.....
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on May 31, 2007 22:03:39 GMT -5
Yeah, they'll probably start some sort of gun buyback program and have the Baghdad chief of police sing Muslim hymns because Satan is testing her.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on May 31, 2007 22:49:41 GMT -5
Interesting... I just happened to take a glance at a copy of USA Today (May 1st) and they had a story about something that goes along the same lines... pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/advancedsearch.html(to search for/buy the article in the archive) "Behind success in Ramadi An Army colonel's gamble ; Brigade's pragmatic tactics in working with sheiks reflect a new emphasis on flexible battlefield leadership. Now, the goal is to apply the strategy elsewhere in Iraq." Basically, the colonel was told by superiors to try to get control of Ramadi, but not destroy it like Fallujah. He only had a force of about 5,000 troops, so rather than a failed attempt at an occupation, he decided to try to work with the local sheiks. After some apprehension and distrust, the local sheiks started being pressured by the al-Qaida people, they agreed to work with our army. They also used different strategies like starting rebuilding and helping the locals even before they had full control of an area, as a way to show they were not just there as occupiers. They also let police recruits stay in their home area rather than move them elsewhere so they would be more responsible and desire to to do the job well. The colonel got the chance to adapt his strategy to the situation, rather than have to take orders from stuffed shirts in DC, and he ran with it... And it helped a lot... Too bad it took so long for the leadership to allow the forces on the ground to try something that has a chance of success...
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Jun 1, 2007 7:16:56 GMT -5
Actually, I am a democrat and am very happy to hear news like this and share the sentiment that its "about damn time". Watch the Reich-wingers say "its been happening everyday but the liberal media won't report it". As if the media, who by the way can only report on the parts of the country where they won't have their head removed, is some how fabricating how BLOODY the last few monthes have been and been censoring all the great things going on in Iraq. I agree that if we all saw more Iraqis willing to stand up and fight for what our boys are dying for it would help support for the war. Good post Twista!!!!
If we had more innovation like this, as opposed to 4 years of "stay the course", when it was clear that wasn't working, we would have a chance there.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Jun 1, 2007 9:20:10 GMT -5
LOL!!! Liberals just don't know how to handle humor!!!!
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Jun 1, 2007 9:29:41 GMT -5
I'm more than happy to hear that Sunnis are resisting al-Quaeda, but if we think they are doing so out of a sense of duty and support to the government in Baghdad, we are mistaken. The Sunni tribal chiefs are laying the groundwork for establishing their own long-term control over their turf, and we'd better let them do so. If we gain their support, and then insist that they cede their power to a central government that includes the Shiites that they can't and won't get along with, this will all be for nothing.
If we continue in the same vein, and drop our misguided insistence on unity government, we can be successful.
This is indeed an opportunity.
Let the Sunnis have Sunni-stan, the Shiites can have Shiite-stan, and tell Turkey to back off and let the Kurds establish Kurdistan, and all will have their own sandbox to play in. The elite who always seem to suddenly materialize out of exile can hang out in Baghdad, and all will be happy.
.................and we can come home.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jun 1, 2007 10:04:34 GMT -5
Indeed it is an opportunity and over-centralization of the wished for unity government has been a problem, but the separate entities must remain at least confederate with one another. While any of the mentioned ethnic and or religious divisions can effectively resist opportunistic non-state jihadists, none can alone effectively resist sustained attack from neighboring states. Already Turkey amasses on the border of Iraq, www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_6032467And does anyone here deny our gov't claims of Iranian activity in Iraq? This news is not only a reflection upon a change in US tactics but a reinforcement of already existing US policy. After all, a democratically elected central government of a certain unity does exist. When setbacks are again the news, will those that here express hope continue to believe that a competent munafiq state, destabilizing of neighboring authoritarian regimes, can exist in Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Jun 1, 2007 10:36:38 GMT -5
Good point. Do you mean a confederation in the sense of a defense pact between said separate entities, or a confederated form of government loosely binding those entities. I believe the former is more workable than the latter. Your opinion? Iran comes to mind as the chief threat. Do you believe that the Iranian population will support another war in Iraq? I see the potential for toppling the current regime should it insist on war. A possible threat for further instability. It is my understanding that there is currently underway in Turkey a new wave of nationalism. Syria comes to mind considering the influx of Iraqi refugees. That might be used as a pretext by them to "stabilize" the situation in Iraq. Yes, but don't you agree that its effectiveness is questionable, and the staggering contradiction in terms that is the Iraqi constitution provides no stable basis for future peace and stability? I'm not confident of that at all. My expression of happiness that Sunnis are fighting Jihadists is based on the hope that this will provide for fewer American casualties, but not on the hope that our current policy will produce a satisfactory outcome in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jun 1, 2007 11:28:17 GMT -5
Good point. Do you mean a confederation in the sense of a defense pact between said separate entities, or a confederated form of government loosely binding those entities. I believe the former is more workable than the latter. Your opinion? I believe that "at least" either sense of the term confederate must be retained, but I have a preference for a more federal system of sovereign states. Defense pacts are both easier to create and dissolve than federated states. So, yes it would be more workable but less desirable to have wholly separate entities in a defense pact than a federal unity gov't that deals honestly with real divisions. Iran comes to mind as the chief threat. Do you believe that the Iranian population will support another war in Iraq? I see the potential for toppling the current regime should it insist on war. Actually I think war could be strengthening to the regime in Iran. Once the shooting starts a persons natural predilection is toward the "devil they know." But no, I think Iraq is more than Iran can chew, while southern Shiite portions of Iraq are not. And yes our success in Iraq will continue to undermine Iran. A possible threat for further instability. It is my understanding that there is currently underway in Turkey a new wave of nationalism. Turkey is still in denial of the Armenian genocide and the existence of Kurds. Syria comes to mind considering the influx of Iraqi refugees. That might be used as a pretext by them to "stabilize" the situation in Iraq. Any neighboring state, (Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria) may use such justification for the parceling out of Iraq. Yes, but don't you agree that its effectiveness is questionable, and the staggering contradiction in terms that is the Iraqi constitution provides no stable basis for future peace and stability? Relative stability is already achieved. None of the belligerents have any actual hope of dislodging US forces or the democratically elected gov't that they support. And the flawed, as we agree, const. is itself a degree of stability. To deal most effectively with the possible recurrence of jihadism in Iraq, islam must be confronted. I'm not confident of that at all. My expression of happiness that Sunnis are fighting Jihadists is based on the hope that this will provide for fewer American casualties, but not on the hope that our current policy will produce a satisfactory outcome in Iraq. Satisfactory is a relative term. A stable munafiq state is possible but it will still be left with the task of dealing honestly about where their problems have arisen. It is not from colonialism, but from the koran.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 1, 2007 17:25:29 GMT -5
I read that very same USA Today story back on May 1st. In fact, I might even have referenced it here somewhere- not sure.
Sorry rich, but the fact is that this has happened before- albeit on a smaller scale- and the MSM has been loathe to print it or any of the other good news that happens on a daily basis in Iraq. Part of the reason for their reluctance is endemic to all news organizations- 'good news doesn't sell papers'- but some of it (a rather large portion I'd wager) is because the last thing they want to do is give Bush credit for anything.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 1, 2007 17:38:47 GMT -5
deo, this one has me worried. MUCH worried.
The Kurdish area of Iraq is, compared to the rest of the country, a paradise. The Kurds have a very positive opinion of Americans and a great deal of thankfulness for what we've done on their behalf.
And now along comes Turkey to threaten that 'utopia'.
Not only is Turkey experiencing the nationalism that you reference, but it's also experiencing a rising tide of what I guess you'd have to call 'secular Islam'. While the country is Muslim, the people are fighting to maintain their very own 'separation of mosque and state'. I can think of several other countries in the region that should take lessons on that particular subject.
Syria will do what Iran tells them to.
I tend to agree with MG here.
I think Iran will 'rally 'round the flag' to a much greater extent than we here did if we attack under really ANY pretense imaginable.
The secret (unless until the NY Times revealed it) was to pursue covert destabilization there with the ultimate goal of compelling the Iranians to topple Ahnindamoodforjihad themselves.
Permit me to be excessively speculative for a moment.
If this becomes a more widespread pattern- Iraqis turning on al Qeida and related Jihadist organizations, it >could< provide Bush with an excuse for a graceful exit from Iraq because he could make the case that we truly have completed the mission he sent our troops to do:
1) overthrow Saddam 2) provide conditions for an autonomous and (relatively) stable democratically elected Iraqi government 3) help to organize and train an Iraqi military capable of defending itself 4) defeat Al Qeida and other terrorist organizations in Iraq
As I said, it's very speculative on my part. But is it plausible?
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Jun 2, 2007 9:47:52 GMT -5
A condition possibly emanating from, and worsened by, our involvement in the Middle East. It truly seems as though whenever we step foot, for whatever reason, in that region of the world, the result is immediate resistance to our presence............and that not for unfounded reasons. "Secular Islam" is indeed what I'd call it, and it's probably a component of the referenced nationalism. I've read that Turkey is really asserting itself within the EEC. It's no longer willing to take a back seat, regardless of the state of its economy or its ability to compete, in the realm of economic affairs. It has a foundation here. Many second-generation German citizens of Turkish ethnicity are gaining footholds in government. This can only serve to hasten the coming Muslim domination of Europe. I think Turkey sees this coming and is making its reservations to dinner well ahead of time. Do you really see Syria as so subservient to Iran? If we attack Iran, I'd agree, too. Generally speaking, the citizens of any country would rise up in its defense, if only as an immediate means of self-preservation. Actually, and I didn't yet respond to MG on this, I was entertaining the notion that Iran might unilaterally attempt to assert itself in Iraq militarily. That is what I was wondering if the Iranian people would support. Thus, I was speaking of Iran taking on an offensive posture as opposed to a defensive posture. I hope he goes the way of the do-do. I don't have real insight into the moods of the people there. I'm not objective on this point, admittedly. I really don't care about that part of the world, other than Israel. Why? Because we've been bending over backwards, kissing the asses of and playing footsie with second-rate dictators of those third world nations for years now. Why? Because they control access to the black stuff in the ground that we need to fuel our economy. They collectively form what I'd call the Ultimate Union. I really hope to see us succeed in the area of alternative fuels, so that one fine day we can bomb those wells, flood their sandy plains with the stuff, and watch them swim, or sink, in it. And the Israelis can laugh their asses off. Yes. And no. Such a situation could provide for a graceful exit from Iraq, if that is what we are truly after. Frankly, saving face is not what I'm after. I'm voting for saving soldiers. 1. We did overthrow Saddam. That freed the country of a Hitler-in-miniature, but destabilized the entire region in doing so. 2. They crafted a constitution on paper, as did the nations of the Soviet Union, and all were worth the one sheet of toilet paper that Sheryl Crow suggests we limit ourselves to. The leadership of the Soviet bloc nations were as well democratically elected, with all candidates being members of their respective Communist parties. 3. I cannot envision an Iraqi military "voluntarily" rising to the colors as opposed to being forced to do so under the hand of a dictator such as Mr. Hussein. I can envision armies of the "mini-stans" rising to defend themselves. We forget all too often that Sunnis don't like Shiites, and vice versa. We've already seen instances of that within the newly created Iraqi Army. 4. As MG suggested, the entities of a divided Iraq could, and are showing they can, defeat insurgencies of Jihadists. That said, we are banking on a unified Iraq, existing in peace and harmony. Granted, we aren't shooting at one another, but we can't even accomplish that here at home. We are pursuing the wrong strategy, and sad to say, I see Joe Biden as the only one who understands that. I guess even a left-wing nut job can get lucky once in a while. All I can envision for a "unified" Iraq is a government controlled by the "House of (insert name of current sect, cult, or tribe of choice)", and the remaining sects, cults, and tribes will suffer accordingly. What Shiites say about Sunnis The Shi'ites say this regarding Sunni Muslims "Although Allah, the Exalted, has not created a creature worse than a dog, yet a Nasbi (ie. A Sunni) is worse than even a dog." (Haqqul Yakeen (Persian) Vol 2, P. 516) Here the Shi'ites have said that Sunni Muslims are worse than Dogs! What Sunnis say about Shiites They almost unanimously say that the Shiites believe that Angel Gabriel made a mistake: Instead of choosing Ali, Prophet Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, as the prophet, Angel Gabriel chose Prophet Muhammad by mistake.Zarqawi, in a 2004 letter, said he wanted to create a civil war in Iraq. He called Iraq's Shiites "a greater danger and ... more destructive to the nation" than U.S. forces.
The Shiites "in our opinion are the key to change," he said in a the letter, which was found in Iraq and released by the Pentagon. "I mean that targeting and hitting them ... in (their) religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies.Ain't no central government in Iraq gonna fix that, friend. Remember, we fought a civil war in this country in an atmosphere of less inflammatory invective than that referenced above.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jun 2, 2007 11:27:11 GMT -5
Many second-generation German citizens of Turkish ethnicity are gaining footholds in government. This can only serve to hasten the coming Muslim domination of Europe. It could also serve to shock the German dhimmis into realizing that this is no quaint religion of peace. Not all German's are willfully ignorant of the dangers of islam to their country, but you are right to suggest that Turks are more boldly asserting themselves. editrixblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/fox-henhouse-and-chill-down-my-spine.htmlIf we attack Iran, I'd agree, too. Generally speaking, the citizens of any country would rise up in its defense, if only as an immediate means of self-preservation. Actually, and I didn't yet respond to MG on this, I was entertaining the notion that Iran might unilaterally attempt to assert itself in Iraq militarily. That is what I was wondering if the Iranian people would support. Thus, I was speaking of Iran taking on an offensive posture as opposed to a defensive posture. To some extent they already have. The Al Quds force has been active in Iraq as well as the famous capture of British sailors in Iraqi waters. www.navytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_petraeus_iran_070523w/What holds Iran in check is that the Iranian military is no match for our forces. They strain their economy to support proxies such as Sadr and Nasrallah. (unfortunately this may have an effect to increase the radicalization of Iran in the short term) online.wsj.com/article/SB118072271215621679.html?mod=googlenews_wsjThere does exist a sizable pro democracy movement in Iran. And, there are even those still loyal to the Shah's family in exile. 1. We did overthrow Saddam. That freed the country of a Hitler-in-miniature, but destabilized the entire region in doing so. Bingo. Stabilization in cultures mired in a seventh century death cult, is over rated. 4. As MG suggested, the entities of a divided Iraq could, and are showing they can, defeat insurgencies of Jihadists. That said, we are banking on a unified Iraq, existing in peace and harmony. Granted, we aren't shooting at one another, but we can't even accomplish that here at home. In each case it is assumed that unity must be complete. Both situations would be helped by the realization that not every problem nor every solution should be nationalized. That an evangelical president was elected in USA did not change the constitutions of any of the fifty states, nor did it insure that any religious minority would be excluded from equal protection under the law. In fact we by virtue of not shooting at each other do exist in peace and by republican governance so too can the Iraqis. Harmony is too much to ask of either peoples. All I can envision for a "unified" Iraq is a government controlled by the "House of (insert name of current sect, cult, or tribe of choice)", and the remaining sects, cults, and tribes will suffer accordingly. Ain't no central government in Iraq gonna fix that, friend. Islam dellende est. The munafiq state is a building block.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 2, 2007 13:11:23 GMT -5
deo-
Our effort has been toward attaining the end goal of a united Iraq with a strong, though not oppressive as it was under Saddam, central government.
If there was a real push to implement Biden's plan of three largely autonomous regions with a weak central government, perhaps I could more understand Turkey's uneasiness over a Kurdish state within Iraq.
The thing is, there really is NO such push within the American government. So unless Turkey is looking to be imperialistic, what's their beef?
Could it also not be that Turkey is looking toward becoming a full-fledged memeber of the 21st century, rather than the 11th century as many Islamic nations seem to be mired in?
For all the talk of the rich culture of Islam and the praise heaped upon it by many, Islam doesn't seem to foster the advance of the technical and the mechanical and the scientific to nearly the extent that nations embracing Western religions (and, truth be told, some Asiatic eastern religions too) do. Islam seems to be threatened by modernity....or at least a modernity that spreads past the most elite within the nation.
Turkey looks to be casting off those Islamically-imposed limitations, yet remaining an Islamic nation. If they can find a balance of both, they could present the role model that we'd hoped Iraq would...with the added benefit of having no direct involvement of the United States (aside from rewarding good behavior financially).
Absolutely. Syria's leash is only as long as Tehran permits it to be.
Gotcha.
It does make some sense.
If there is a degree of disconnect between our leaders in Washington and the people (and there is on any number of issues), I'd venture to say that the disconnect is much greater in Tehran.
Being the the State controls the media in Iran on a virtually Soviet-esque level, the 'peasantry' are probably being told that our attack on Iraq was done with the goal of establishing a base from which to attack Iran. Maybe at one time that was true, but no longer.
I think Bush's recent backing off from any number of principaled stands- like holding direct talks with Syria and Iran, for instance- indicate that he's at least considering throwing in the towel provided he can do so while still claiming 'victory' of some sort.
|
|