PDA

View Full Version : ATTENTION: There will be no withdrawal from Iraq



Osborne Russell
11-24-2006, 06:21 PM
This is the plan for the next hundred years. Iraq is only the beginning; the happy (for America) state of affairs prevailing immediately the collapse of the Soviet Union is to be prolonged indefinitely. The number of American troops stationed abroad will increase, not decrease; and there will be more Iraqs; not fewer.

They call the neo-con Manifesto “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf), constructed by, among others:

William Kristol
The Weekly Standard

Mark Lagon
Senate Foreign Relations Committee

I. Lewis Libby
Dechert Price & Rhoads

Gary Schmitt
Project for the New American Century

Abram Shulsky
The RAND Corporation

Paul Wolfowitz
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Their words, not mine; emphasis added by me.


Goal #3:

CONSTABULARY DUTIES. These duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations. . . . these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional “peacekeeping”missions.” For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations . . . Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome . . . Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat. While they also demand personnel with special language, logistics and other support skills, the first order of business in missions such as in the Balkans is to establish security, stability and order. American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force.

In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life . . . Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.. . . Over the long term,Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

And, to wrap up:


Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.

JimD
11-24-2006, 06:47 PM
Glad to see somebody has a plan to clean up Dodge.

Ross M
11-24-2006, 06:50 PM
September 2000???

LeeG
11-24-2006, 07:27 PM
projecting power,, Neo-cons appreciate cold hard steel. Do ya feel lucky punk? Make my day, bring it on!

Nicholas Scheuer
11-24-2006, 07:39 PM
No Troop drawdown by 2008; no chance of a Repub President.

What part of that is difficult to understand?

Moby Nick

Osborne Russell
11-24-2006, 08:36 PM
What part of "New" "American" "Century" don't you understand? I know you know what "new" and "American" are. A "century" is one hundred years.

Osborne Russell
11-24-2006, 09:29 PM
Besides, we CAN win if we WILL.


Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so.

Yo, we win Iraq, the terrorists go home and stay home, because America will have won everything everywhere, and has the means, and please God, the will, to keep it that way.

Osborne Russell
11-24-2006, 09:31 PM
Dated September 2000. Ancient history.

When did Bush say that?

Osborne Russell
11-24-2006, 09:33 PM
Ancient history.

Like the thousands of dead. Joke's on them!

Osborne Russell
11-24-2006, 10:04 PM
Try reading the paper before cutting and pasting. It has a date in big, bold letters.


I don't why they would mention Dubya, he wasn't even President. Why would they put in anything he said, and the date he said it?

BrianW
11-25-2006, 01:34 AM
Because it was obvious Kerry wasn't going to be the Prez. :D

WX
11-25-2006, 01:54 AM
Pax Amerikana
Well, come on Wall Street don't slow, this is war man a go go.
There's plenty of good money to be made supplying the army
with the tools of the trade,
and it's 123 what are we fighting for?
No more Iraq's eh? Somebodies dreamin.

sdowney717
11-25-2006, 08:41 AM
I am not convinced that the US can economically afford to be the worlds policeman.

We went to Iraq simply because of the war for oil.
Stabilising world oil markets is critical to keeping the price somewhat reasonable and therefore keeping US economy working and well lubricated.

The sooner we can get off the oil standard for energy the better.
Lets develop nuclear, wind, solar, tidal power.
Lets develop all electric cars.

Keith Wilson
11-25-2006, 10:34 AM
Dated September 2000. Ancient history.Quite right. It tells us about some of the thinking that got us into this mess, that's all. I'd be very interested in knowing what Bill Kristol et al are saying these days.

1. That trying to remake the entire world ourselves with military power is overreaching and may cause more problems that it solves?

2. That it was a good idea but that the Bush administration was too incompetent to make it work?

3. That all was well until we were "stabbed in the back" by:

A. Disloyal fifth columnists at home
B. Ungrateful bloody-minded sectarian Iraqis
C. European weenies
D. Other

Osborne Russell
11-25-2006, 12:29 PM
Because it was obvious Kerry wasn't going to be the Prez. :D

I still don't get it. Where and when did the Chimperor say that the Plan for the New American Century is ancient history?

huisjen
11-25-2006, 01:12 PM
Because it was obvious Kerry wasn't going to be the Prez. :D

Okay Brian, a refresher: In September of 2000 Clinton was still President. Gore and Shrub were neck and neck. Eventually, Gore won.

Dan

Osborne Russell
11-25-2006, 03:43 PM
Speaking of ancient history --

1. When did Paul Wolfowitz leave the Project for the New American Century for the Department of Defense?

2. When did Paul Wolfowitz leave the Department of Defense to become President of the World Bank?

3. When did the Chimperor forget that he had decided these things?

JimD
11-25-2006, 05:10 PM
Yo, we win Iraq, the terrorists go home and stay home, because America will have won everything everywhere, and has the means, and please God, the will, to keep it that way.

The freedom hating cut n' run Dems would never allow it.

WX
11-25-2006, 05:21 PM
I don't know how Paul Wolfowitz can sleep at night, he's a nasty piece of work.
How the hell did he get his claws into the World Bank?
I would love to apply a little rendition to him.

ishmael
11-25-2006, 05:24 PM
This isn't Vietnam, boys and girls.

I'm about as expert as Kevin, the guy across the road who works on my truck, but there is much more at stake here in protection of western values--and some of them are pretty good--than anything dreamt of in the Vietnam fiasco.

I think it was a mistake to go in. I think the control that should have been present at the fall of Baghdad was shamlessly missing and the responsibility for that comes back to Rumsfeld. That was what, three year ago?

But, we've got ahold of this tarbaby now. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.

Nicholas Scheuer
11-25-2006, 05:36 PM
Is the same guy who as President has made all of the mistakes, so far.

Since when has he quit making huge mistakes?

Sticking "cut and run" on Democrats as a way to run national policy the opposite direction is too stupid to deserve comment.

Moby Nicki

JimD
11-25-2006, 05:38 PM
This isn't Vietnam, boys and girls...

I knew there was a reason the agent orange wasn't working.

WX
11-25-2006, 05:47 PM
The US could have avoided the whole mess of Vietnam by accepting Uncle Ho's request for US help in setting up the country. Ho had a lot of respect for the US, after all the US backed and supplied Ho's resistance against the Japanese..but they blew it, as did the French before them.
The US may not suffer the casualty rate of Vietnam, but Iraq is just as big a F**kup as Vietnam, and the end result will probably be similar.
The one thing both have very much in common is no frontline, and this is never good.
Ish, American values are the preserve of Americans, name one country the US has been into since the Korean War where the Nationals are now enjoying the full benefit of American democratic values?

ishmael
11-25-2006, 06:09 PM
"Ish, American values are the preserve of Americans, name one country the US has been into since the Korean War where the Nationals are now enjoying the full benefit of American democratic values?"

Oh, I dunno, I think the Panamanians are doing okay. But generally I agree. People have an odd concatenation of stuff going on, and foreign policy that tries to enforce a particular set of values by force of arms inevitably, by observation, fails. People have to want it. And, lo and behold, people want different things than western democracy.

Getting back to Iraq. My limited understanding is that our attempt there was not some evil thrust for power. We wanted the oil fields secure, fer sure. But I think Wolfowitze and Perle, and Rumsfeld, and Cheny, et al were acting out of a psychology born in 1945. They believed in American exceptionalism, and wanted to spread it with the power before them.

They miscalculated, horribly, of that there's no dispute. I still believe in western, not American, exceptionalism. The ability to worship as you wish, or not at all. The ability to go where you want, when you want. The ability to share ideas, be free to love who you want, are incredibly rare in human history. And our enemy right now, who we've fostered with our ill-formed designs, wants exactly the opposite.

ahp
11-25-2006, 08:19 PM
AS I understand it we slipped into Viet Nam because Gen. Charles deGaul threw a tantrum at President Truman. DeGaul told Truman that if we did not transport French troops to Viet Nam, France would not join NATO. We needed NATO bad.

Keith Wilson
11-25-2006, 11:43 PM
Iraq is just as big a F**kup as Vietnam, and the end result will probably be similar. Yes, it's at least as big a f**kup as Vietnam, but I sure do hope it turns out so well. 25+ years on Vietnam is hardly perfect, but it's stable, peaceful, friendly, getting more prosperous, and joining the rest of the world. Bush just visited them, fer Chrissake, and said nice things. There are no Vietnamese terrorists. Do you think Iraq will do so well?

WX
11-26-2006, 12:55 AM
Yes Keith we can but hope, however there is a lot that can be said about what the US did and did not do during and after the Vietnam war...not to mention the surrounding countries.
Vietnam was boycotted by the US for many years afterwards while the Pol Pot regime was supported. Vietnam still has many problems that date back to the war that it still has to deal with, for example deformaties from Agent Orange.
Yes Vietnam may have bounced back but they paid an extremely heavy price. The US loss of around 53,000 KIA was tiny in comparison.
Would the US public be willing to sacrifice 53,000 in Iraq? I think not, and yet that once again would be a small price compared to Iraqi losses to date.

huisjen
11-26-2006, 08:35 AM
This morning I notice that, while shrub has bankrupted the US, the insurgents seem to have their books balanced.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061125/ts_nm/iraq_insurgency_dc

Dan

ishmael
11-26-2006, 09:00 AM
This is huge compared to Vietnam. The death toll isn't the point. Don't get me wrong, I mourn the carnage. But if we don't find some copacetic fix for this it's going to haunt our grandkids. Vietnam never held that potential. It was a backwater of geopolitics in comparison.

These people, in part aided by our misteps, are winning. What are we going to do!?

Vietnam A) had no resources the west needed. B) was a colonial/civil dispute.

I'm not sure what to do. One thing I would recommend we get started on with real verve is energy independance. We might need to set aside environmental concerns for a bit, but detaching from that arena of the Mid East is a priority. A big part of the reason this is happening is energy.

My second recommendation would be reexaming our Israel policies.

Osborne Russell
11-26-2006, 01:30 PM
Iraq is far worse than Viet Nam.

1. This time vital US interests really are involved.
2. This time there really is a potential domino effect.
3. This time the US is overtly imperialistic.

Aside from the removal of Wolfowitz from direct participation -- supposedly -- what evidence is there that the policy of the Project for the New American Century has been abandoned or even modified by the Bush administration?

WX
11-26-2006, 05:23 PM
Ish and Osborne, I agree on the points you have raised, though I'm not sure about the domino effect. Most of the surrounding countries have a tight lid on their populations.
The big problem for the US is how to extricate it's self without it looking like a retreat and secondly leaving behind a government strong enough to unite the various factions...if they can pull that off then it would be a well deserved breackfast at the Restaurant at the end of the Universe :D
Seriously though, I don't think the US can solve this one by it's self...you will need help, and that may require a bit of humble pie.

Osborne Russell
11-26-2006, 09:44 PM
Most of the surrounding countries have a tight lid on their populations.


So did Saddam, but he was bad.

WX
11-26-2006, 11:48 PM
Osborne all of them are bad. Tell me do you honestly believe Iraq is now better off than it was under Saddam?
How many Iraqi's did he kill?
How many Iraqi's have been killed since the invasion? A damn sight more than he ever killed that's for sure, and what do they have now? A government that uses death squads, torture and murder, and just to make it even more interesting there are mad buggers running around kidnapping and setting off carbombs.

BUT...most of the leaders in the area are just as brutal or dictatorial as Saddam.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 12:49 AM
Osborne all of them are bad. Tell me do you honestly believe Iraq is now better off than it was under Saddam?
How many Iraqi's did he kill?
How many Iraqi's have been killed since the invasion? A damn sight more than he ever killed that's for sure, and what do they have now? A government that uses death squads, torture and murder, and just to make it even more interesting there are mad buggers running around kidnapping and setting off carbombs.

BUT...most of the leaders in the area are just as brutal or dictatorial as Saddam.

You seem to imagine that The Lancet's casualty count is at all accurate; it is not and has been catagorically refuted--please do your research before repeating lies. So, you are very wrong--Saddam killed a million or so more Iraqis than have coalition forces during both the war and "the peace".

So, all I can put together from your post is that:
A)You wish Saddam was in power
B)You see no hope of Iraqis not slaughtering eachother by the thousands anytime in the near future
C)You seem to not imagine Iraqis as capable of anything by their own agency--you expect nothing of them but everything from the USA. Seems your standards are different for some groups than they are for others. The Arabs I know would find you immensely offensive.

Osborne Russell
11-27-2006, 02:46 AM
Iran was capable of a democracy but it was bad. They had a Shah and it was good. They had an Ayatollah and it was bad. Iraq had Saddam and it was good. He couldn't defeat Iran and it was bad. He invaded Kuwait and it was bad.

The Taliban fought the Russians and it was good. The Taliban took in Osama bin Laden and they were bad. Pakistan looked like they might turn bad but came around when we threatened to blow them back to the stone age.

China was bad until Wal Mart came along. Cuba has always been bad.

Osborne Russell
11-27-2006, 02:54 AM
You seem to imagine that The Lancet's casualty count is at all accurate; it is not and has been catagorically refuted--please do your research before repeating lies. So, you are very wrong--Saddam killed a million or so more Iraqis than have coalition forces during both the war and "the peace".

Be patient.


So, all I can put together from your post is that:
A)You wish Saddam was in power

Who would've believed there were so many American Baathists?



B)You see no hope of Iraqis not slaughtering each other by the thousands anytime in the near future

Based on current trends, no.


C)You seem to not imagine Iraqis as capable of anything by their own agency--you expect nothing of them but everything from the USA. Seems your standards are different for some groups than they are for others.

1. Who's "an Iraqi"?
2. Whoever they are, I have no right to expect anything of them. You are God Damned right that I use different standards for different groups. I expect the US to honor its own principles, though any more I don't know why.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 03:55 PM
You are God Damned right that I use different standards for different groups.

Thanks for admitting your incredibly patronising viewpoint.

WX
11-27-2006, 06:54 PM
Gee eleseus:
So, all I can put together from your post is that:
A)You wish Saddam was in power
No, but he was the lesser of two evils. The US by invading Iraq created not only a power vacum, but also a perfect live training ground for terrorist organisations.

B)You see no hope of Iraqis not slaughtering eachother by the thousands anytime in the near future

Iraq is now in the grip of a devastating civil war, it has been suggested by the deputy head of Australian SAS forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (retired) that the 500 or so Australian soldiers bee pulled out of Iraq and Australian military and police trainers be used to train Iraqi's at training facilities somewhere outside of Iraq instead...at least that way dozens of young Iraqi men won't be blown up in job queues.
C)You seem to not imagine Iraqis as capable of anything by their own agency--you expect nothing of them but everything from the USA. Seems your standards are different for some groups than they are for others. The Arabs I know would find you immensely offensive.
The US, Britain and Australia launched a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation based on a false premiss, a premiss that has since proved to be not only based on false intelligence but morally corrupt. These 3 countries have a duty to find a way to restore the country to the Iraqi's. The presents of Westeners in the country acts as a honeypot to disafected groups with a gripe against the West.
Biuld up a professional Iraqi army and police force and get out, I believe the Iraqi's are the best people to restore their country.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 07:04 PM
Gee eleseus:
So, all I can put together from your post is that:
A)You wish Saddam was in power
No, but he was the lesser of two evils. The US by invading Iraq created not only a power vacum, but also a perfect live training ground for terrorist organisations.

B)You see no hope of Iraqis not slaughtering eachother by the thousands anytime in the near future

Iraq is now in the grip of a devastating civil war, it has been suggested by the deputy head of Australian SAS forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (retired) that the 500 or so Australian soldiers bee pulled out of Iraq and Australian military and police trainers be used to train Iraqi's at training facilities somewhere outside of Iraq instead...at least that way dozens of young Iraqi men won't be blown up in job queues.
C)You seem to not imagine Iraqis as capable of anything by their own agency--you expect nothing of them but everything from the USA. Seems your standards are different for some groups than they are for others. The Arabs I know would find you immensely offensive.
The US, Britain and Australia launched a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation based on a false premiss, a premiss that has since proved to be not only based on false intelligence but morally corrupt. These 3 countries have a duty to find a way to restore the country to the Iraqi's. The presents of Westeners in the country acts as a honeypot to disafected groups with a gripe against the West.
Biuld up a professional Iraqi army and police force and get out, I believe the Iraqi's are the best people to restore their country.

Gee, ya think? That's exactly what we are doing. But we will not allow Iran to claim victory in Iraq--which will happen if we leave now, with the Shia militias running the show. That is the way it is, that is the premise upon which all of the US strategic thinking is now based(I think)--whether you and I agree with it or not.

you write:


These 3 countries have a duty to find a way to restore the country to the Iraqi's


Yes, to the IRAQIS, right? Not the Iranians? Good, then we are doing the right thing by staying, possibly stoking some nationalist motivation, and preventing hundreds of thousands of these people from slaughtering eachother if we leave before a powerful enough authority can fill the power vaccum.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 07:22 PM
Elesues, who cares what Iran claims, hell we could proclaim Peace With Honor and put it on billboards. Removing Saddam has shifted the power balance in the middle east more towards the Shia. Don't think GW really intended on that kind of democratization.

The funny thing about building up a professional army and police force without a cohesive gov't behind it is that we are building up the militias involved with the police and army at the same time. That's the problem with trying to seperate out the population into good/bad for our purposes.

here's an interesting book

http://www.amazon.com/Shia-Revival-Conflicts-within-Future/dp/0393062112/sr=1-1/qid=1164673208/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5232982-2112668?ie=UTF8&s=books

LeeG
11-27-2006, 07:33 PM
Eleseus, You appear to have the militias identified as an enemy that can be eliminated with miltary tools. The militias filled a power vacuume created by our invasion when we didn't replace the destroyed Iraqi security apparatus.
The militias can't be eliminated when they are providing services the gov't can't provide. Getting rid of the militias is like Lebanon getting rid of Hezbollah. This is wishful thinking.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 07:50 PM
Elesues, who cares what Iran claims, hell we could proclaim Peace With Honor and put it on billboards.

The funny thing about building up a professional army and police force without a cohesive gov't behind it is that we are building up the militias involved with the police and army at the same time. That's the problem with trying to seperate out the population into good/bad for our purposes.

here's an interesting book

http://www.amazon.com/Shia-Revival-Conflicts-within-Future/dp/0393062112/sr=1-1/qid=1164673208/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5232982-2112668?ie=UTF8&s=books

I just read that book--most of it, I skipped around a bit--last week. My local library has a great selection of stuff like this. I really liked that book, I think Nasr does an excellent job explaining the huge differences between these two groups, and even gets into the third group, the Sufi, a bit.

And I meant more than just "claim" victory... I meant them really winning, which is totally against our national interest, as you know, as was empowering the Shia, as I'm sure you know. I am still very conflicted about what we should do, I am only thinking about what will probably happen. Big difference. Good call on the book, though. Did you know about Saddam's speech(before you read this book) in which he stirs the pot with his mention of Ibn Al-Alqami, a vizier of the last Caliph--how al-Alqami, a Shia, supposedly sold out Bagdad to the Mongols in the 13th century? I never knew about Saddam saying that until I read this book--it is full of very interesting things like that.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 07:55 PM
what do you mean by Iran really winning?

eleseus
11-27-2006, 08:06 PM
what do you mean by Iran really winning?

If we left Iraq tonight. The power of the Shia gangs, acting as Iran's proxy, will kill the remaining Sunnis. Al Sadr will have no loyalty to the Maliki regime, and will take all orders from Tehran. That is unacceptable to anyone here who knows that there are options still left--I have discussed what I think is the main option in a few different threads tonight.

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-27-2006, 08:12 PM
"I have discussed what I think is the main option in a few different threads tonight."

Since you seem to be able to dicern what the president's advisors can't, how about running thru' it again ,real slow.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 08:20 PM
"I have discussed what I think is the main option in a few different threads tonight."

Since you seem to be able to dicern what the president's advisors can't, how about running thru' it again ,real slow.

just scroll up and read. and then search for a few other of my posts from tonight. I will explain specifics if you want but I am not typing the same thing twice.:)

edit, addition:
Chuck,
http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=58436
posts 21 and 33, mainly

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
11-27-2006, 08:48 PM
http://www.buckfush.com/images/Bush_Rumsfeld_Prediction.jpg

LeeG
11-27-2006, 11:20 PM
creative chaos

WX
11-27-2006, 11:24 PM
The Iraqi President has asked for Iran's help.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6188348.stm

At this point in time, help from any quarter would be welcome. As for the Iranian's winning...winning what?
Which is more important, that Iraqi fiasco be bought to an end where Iraq is once more a stable and peaceful nation...or that the US alone be seen to solve the problem? If you beleive the later then you live in fairyland because the US or the so called Coalition is not going to fix this by themselves.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 11:28 PM
Elesusus believes in the evil outsider, Iraq would be a paradise run by Chalabi if it wasn't for Iran.

Osborne Russell
11-27-2006, 11:31 PM
If we left Iraq tonight. The power of the Shia gangs, acting as Iran's proxy, will kill the remaining Sunnis. Al Sadr will have no loyalty to the Maliki regime, and will take all orders from Tehran.

If all this were so, it seems also likely that --

1. Al Sadr already takes all orders from Tehran, meaning of course that
2. He has no loyalty to the Maliki regime and
3. The Shia gangs, acting as Iran's proxy, already are killing the remaining Sunnis. In fact it's in the news every day.

If these things are already so, what's the point of US troops staying in Iraq?

eleseus
11-27-2006, 11:40 PM
The Iraqi President has asked for Iran's help.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6188348.stm

At this point in time, help from any quarter would be welcome. As for the Iranian's winning...winning what?
Which is more important, that Iraqi fiasco be bought to an end where Iraq is once more a stable and peaceful nation...or that the US alone be seen to solve the problem? If you beleive the later then you live in fairyland because the US or the so called Coalition is not going to fix this by themselves.

Well, this is about national interest, not about a happy rosy future for Iraq without us getting something in return--or exhausting every last possibility of getting something. Surely you are old enough to know that nations act to secure their intersests? Well, grow up... Iran is "winning" control of a vast swath of Iraq as we speak--because it is in their interest to break into the formerly Sunni-Arab controlled country of Iraq, thus breaching their longstanding absence from the Arab world--they are Persians and many of their interests conflict with Sunni-Arab middle eastern countries; Saudi Arabia is more likely to go to war with Iran than just about anyone else, their rivalry is so enlivened as of late. So, thanks to the ridiculous folly of W and pals, we have given Iran the keys to Iraq, widening their Shia-ocracy and practically connecting them to their homeboys in Lebanon. We will not let this stand, as we should not let this stand. Because W and pals made a hideously stupid mistak does not mean we will not try to correct this and stem the tide of Iranian influence. Our interests are being threatened by an advancing Iran--the new, would-be, almost regional superpower. So this is, like most geopolitics, less about the local effected people but about the power shift in the region.

WX
11-27-2006, 11:44 PM
Ex-SAS officer hits out at Iraq war 'sham'

A former senior SAS officer has called for the immediate withdrawal of Australia's troops in Iraq.

Peter Tinley was the lead tactical planner for Australia's special forces in 2002 ahead of the Iraq invasion.

He went on to become the deputy commander for the joint special forces group in western Iraq.

Mr Tinley has spoken out against the war, two years after retiring from the military.

The 44-year-old says Australia's involvement in the war has been a strategic and moral blunder.

"I think it's morally bankrupt to actually consider - when you look at the reasons for this conflict and the reasons this Government took us into that war - I think it's an absolute shame and it's a sham and this Government ought to own up to what it's done and make amends," he said.

"I think we can better contribute by our outstanding training regime and I think we could do that outside the country.

"I think it's safer for the Iraqi military, the Iraqi police, if we were to set up some sort of base outside the country and produce an outstanding result in terms of training for their troops."

Mr Tinley says the Australian troops' presence in Iraq is not popular with the Australian people.

"It's not appropriate for us to be in there, there is no particular reason tactically that we should remain there," he said.

"We've done a lot of the work early on in the piece and there's a lot of other ways we can define our contribution to the people of Iraq and our US alliance."

However, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says the decision to send troops to Iraq was not taken lightly and was in Australia's best interests.

Federal Opposition spokesman Robert McClelland says the Government should listen to Mr Tinley.

"This is a solid, proven SAS officer, saying that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and we shouldn't be there," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1797372.htm

LeeG
11-27-2006, 11:46 PM
what makes you think Iraqis will be proxies of Iran?

eleseus
11-27-2006, 11:46 PM
Elesusus believes in the evil outsider, Iraq would be a paradise run by Chalabi if it wasn't for Iran.

Leigh-M:
You are putting words into my mouth. You don't know what you are bloviating about, do you? I can tell.
Chalabi is a charlatan and a fraud. Iraq would still be a mess without Iran. But this is less about what shape Iraq is in than the fact that Iran has a big say, right now, in just what type of mess it is becoming. Don't you see that Iran is going to screw with our interests in the region if this remains the status quo? The KSA is more likely to eventually fight Iran than anyone else besides Israel. The KSA is our ally and energy source and most of all, relatively stable state in a volitile region. We will not let Iran "take" Iraq. Got it?

eleseus
11-27-2006, 11:52 PM
If all this were so, it seems also likely that --

1. Al Sadr already takes all orders from Tehran, meaning of course that
2. He has no loyalty to the Maliki regime and
3. The Shia gangs, acting as Iran's proxy, already are killing the remaining Sunnis. In fact it's in the news every day.

If these things are already so, what's the point of US troops staying in Iraq?

To soon kill al-Sadr and his lawless minions and hopefully foment a strong, central government policy of weeding out the masses of chaotic violence and slaughter. You seem to be the type of feeble-minded simpleton who thinks that... "If it is partially black then it is to be classified as totally black".

LeeG
11-27-2006, 11:52 PM
if WHAT remains the status quo?

WX
11-27-2006, 11:57 PM
"Well, this is about national interest, not about a happy rosy future for Iraq without us getting something in return--or exhausting every last possibility of getting something."
In this we agree.
Iraqi dead are not important when it comes to national interest, but US body bags will be.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 11:57 PM
what makes you think Iraqis will be proxies of Iran?

Because I know. And it isn't "all Iraqis"--here we go again with your "If all, then nothing; If nothing, then never anything" simplicity. It is the ones with the most guns and the least education that will be/are proxies of Iran. Sadr has Maliki on a leash; he knows where he gets his support from and who pays his militia's bills--Iran! Thus begins Irans foray into the Arab middle east--somewhere where they are certainly not welcome by the vast Sunni majority in the region.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 11:57 PM
Sadr and his lawless minions are Iraqis, who is going to do this weeding when Sadr has political power? If he is killed what would the 10,000's of armed Iraqis do,,take up knitting? Do you think that percentage of Iraqis that he sometimes leads will roll over and say to the US forces that killed their leader,,"ok, we quit"

really?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15898064/site/newsweek/page/7/print/1/displaymode/1098/

The movement may now be more important than the man. Sadr "is faced with a common problem," says Toby Dodge of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "He can't control the use of his brand name, the use of his legitimacy." Some elder followers of Sadr's father have broken away, disillusioned with the son. And some young toughs seem to be freelancing where they can. Renegade factions could eventually threaten Sadr's power. If he were to fall, "you'll end up with 30 different movements," says Vali Nasr, a scholar and author who has briefed the Bush administration on Iraq. "There are 30 chieftains who have a tremendous amount of local power. If you remove him, there will be a scramble for who will inherit this movement ... It's a great danger doing that. You may actually make your life much more difficult."

eleseus
11-27-2006, 11:59 PM
"Well, this is about national interest, not about a happy rosy future for Iraq without us getting something in return--or exhausting every last possibility of getting something."
In this we agree.
Iraqi dead are not important when it comes to national interest, but US body bags will be.

Of course. Welcome to the real world. In what country would that statement not be true? NONE. Welcome to reality.

eleseus
11-28-2006, 12:00 AM
if WHAT remains the status quo?

Re-read the post and think.

LeeG
11-28-2006, 12:01 AM
Elesus, how do you know?
Sadr and the Mahdi militia don't need Iran to affect their interests with fellow Iraqis. It may meet your need to confront Iran but the 100,000 of poor Shiite exist quite well without Iran.

LeeG
11-28-2006, 12:02 AM
Re-read the post and think.

answer the question please

eleseus
11-28-2006, 12:12 AM
Elesus, how do you know?
Sadr and the Mahdi militia don't need Iran to affect their interests with fellow Iraqis. It may meet your need to confront Iran but the 100,000 of poor Shiite exist quite well without Iran.

Who gives a flying crap if "they need them"...that is not at issue since they WANT them. Sadr wholly relies on Tehran and Qom for his theological guidance and a boat-load of money, too. How do you imagine that Sadr is setting up "all of his Nasrallah-ish social welfare network"? The poor don't have money for zakat, so it aint Sadr City that is stuffing his posse's pockets with money and guns. And I have absolutely no wish to fight Iran--I do hope that we contain them, though, by doing what I have proscribed elsewhere tonight. Big difference. Why can't you measure things in between shades? "He wants Iran's influence contained; he must want to nuke them..." Grow up.

eleseus
11-28-2006, 12:13 AM
answer the question please

I did. I can't hold your hand at all times. Re-read the post; it explains itself.

LeeG
11-28-2006, 12:15 AM
Because I know. And it isn't "all Iraqis"--here we go again with your "If all, then nothing; If nothing, then never anything" simplicity. It is the ones with the most guns and the least education that will be/are proxies of Iran. Sadr has Maliki on a leash; he knows where he gets his support from and who pays his militia's bills--Iran! Thus begins Irans foray into the Arab middle east--somewhere where they are certainly not welcome by the vast Sunni majority in the region.


Elesues, your knowledge and lack thereof would be a lot more tolerable if you didn't expound on it's superiority while dispensing insults. But when it's not superior, one is left with the insults.

regarding who pays the militias bills, if you have sources supporting your contention that it's from Iran please provide it. If you wish to modify the amount of that support you have the opportunity to do so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15898064/site/newsweek/page/7/print/1/displaymode/1098/

U.S. forces have tried hard to win hearts and minds. They've spent $120.9 million on completed construction projects in Sadr City, for instance—building new sewers and power lines—and projects worth an additional $197 million are underway. But the United States doesn't always get credit for the good works. When the Americans doled out cash to construct four health clinics in Sadr City during the past year, Sadr's men quickly removed any hint of U.S. involvement. They also put up signs giving all credit to their boss, according to Lt. Zeroy Lawson, an Army intelligence officer who works in the area.

The Mahdi Army has other sources of cash. It's taken control of gas stations throughout large parts of Baghdad, and dominates the Shia trade in propane-gas canisters, which Iraqis use for cooking. Sometimes the militiamen sell the propane at a premium, earning healthy profits; at other times they sell it at well below market rates, earning gratitude from the poor and unemployed.

A key source of Sadr's income is Muslim tithes—or khoms—collected at mosques. But his militiamen also run extortion and protection rackets—demanding money to keep certain businesses and individuals "safe." One Iraqi in a tough neighborhood, who did not want to reveal his name out of fear, says he pays the local Mahdi Army the equivalent of $13 a month for protection.

Analysts believe that Iran has also provided support to Sadr, but not much. Tehran began supplying Shia insurgents, including the Mahdi Army, with a special type of roadside bomb, using a shaped charge, in May 2005. These are often disguised as rocks and are easy to manufacture locally. But diplomats say they are made to the exact design perfected by Iranian intelligence and supplied to Lebanese Hizbullah in the 1980s.

Yet Tehran's main Shiite clients in Iraq are rivals of Sadr, who is often critical of Persian influence. Sadr worries that Iran may be trying to infiltrate his movement, and he's almost surely right. Fatah al-Sheikh, who is close to Sadr, says the boss sent a private letter to loyal imams around Baghdad in the past two weeks identifying 10 followers he believed were suspect. They had been using the Mahdi Army name, but Sadr believes they're really tools of Iranian intelligence, says Sheikh

WX
11-28-2006, 12:23 AM
"Of course. Welcome to the real world. In what country would that statement not be true? NONE. Welcome to reality."
Reply With Quote

Just because this is how polititians and industry do business, does not mean it should always be so. To consider what is happening in Iraq to be normal practise is an abyss the Human Race should best avoid.
What's the saying? Bad things happen when good men do nothing.
Or should we just sit back and all become Callous Uncaring Nineties Types?

LeeG
11-28-2006, 04:03 PM
Eleseus, I'm still perplexed at your assertion that Iran is paying the Mahdi militias bills, are you thinking of the Badr Brigade? There have been fights between Mahdi and Badr groups.

The Badr Brigade has definate links to Iran.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_Organization

Because of their opposition to Saddam Hussein, the Badr Brigade was seen as a U.S. asset in the fight against Baathist partisans. After the fall of Baghdad, Badr forces reportedly joined the newly-reconstituted army, police and Interior Ministry in significant numbers. The Badr Brigades were supposedly trained by American Jim Steele who also trained Death Squads in El Salvador.

eleseus
11-28-2006, 04:56 PM
Lee,
From your own book recommendation (Nasr, The Shia Revival)
"Outside the precincts of government, Muqtada's popularity grew in the months following the US-led invasion, but not because of his anti-Iranian POSTURING. In fact, his superficial nationalist rhetoric belied his actual interest in drawing Iranian money and support" P. 200 (this is footnoted thus: Middle East Report, Brussles, 2005).

I know of other credible sources saying this same fact. It is buried beneath POSTURING and RHETORIC-- he obviously can't be open about these relations.

LeeG
11-28-2006, 05:21 PM
Elesus, you said paid the bills, to imply that "posturing" defines a particular level of support is a stretch of the imagination, not fact. It's as valid an argument as Rumsfeld and Cheneys unknown unknowns justifying pre-emptive war.

"interest" is as substantial evidence of Iranian support as Saddams attempts to buy yellow cake from Niger. It's like saying Saddams intention to make "WMD" someday is an existential threat to the US.

Now if you had said Mahdi soldiers trained by Hezbollah you'd be closer to some truth but still that would not support the statement "paid the bills"

I will be kind to say you have some understanding but an unfortunate manner of claiming certainty where it isn't deserved.

I won't argue that Iran is an important player, as is militant jihadism, but in Iraq,,it's primarily Iraqis having problems. Which Gingrich, the revolutionary republicans and the neo-cons dismissed so well.

eleseus
11-28-2006, 05:44 PM
Elesus, you said paid the bills, to imply that "posturing" defines a particular level of support is a stretch of the imagination, not fact. It's as valid an argument as Rumsfeld and Cheneys unknown unknowns justifying pre-emptive war.

"interest" is as substantial evidence of Iranian support as Saddams attempts to buy yellow cake from Niger. It's like saying Saddams intention to make "WMD" someday is an existential threat to the US.

Now if you had said Mahdi soldiers trained by Hezbollah you'd be closer to some truth but still that would not support the statement "paid the bills"

I will be kind to say you have some understanding but an unfortunate manner of claiming certainty where it isn't deserved.

I won't argue that Iran is an important player, as is militant jihadism, but in Iraq,,it's primarily Iraqis having problems. Which Gingrich, the revolutionary republicans and the neo-cons dismissed so well.

There was just an interviewee(some pundit on Iraq/Sadr) on NPR in which at the end, he stated very clearly Iran's involvement with Sadr. Lee, you are forgetting about statesmanship and gamesmanship--which is what I pray for every day to return to the "skill set"--however diminished--of our leaders. I want us to out-manuevre Iran and her interest, NOT BOMB THEM. So please do not, again, imply that I am some stupid neo-con looking for links, inventing links and "evidence", between a governent we want to bomb and it's nefarious activities.
My whole point of all my posts these last three days has been:
We still have some bargaining chips in the region, and should employ them, put them in the pot, against Iran. Statesmanship, and Gamesmanship. Anything else is putting words in my mouth because some people here have no better arguments than "if you say balck, I say white".

LeeG
11-28-2006, 06:00 PM
Asking you to back up your statements isn't putting words in your mouth. You have provided some worthwhile conversation but you also make stuff up.

Maybe someone has told you to STFU too many times and you think that's a normal conversation starter. It's not.

Try again in a few months.

eleseus
11-28-2006, 06:10 PM
Asking you to back up your statements isn't putting words in your mouth. You have provided some worthwhile conversation but you also make stuff up.

Maybe someone has told you to STFU too many times and you think that's a normal conversation starter. It's not.

Try again in a few months.

Again, you ignore the content of the post you seem to be trying to respond to. Try again to respond to my comments about my hopes for our future course of action re: Iran.

Osborne Russell
11-29-2006, 02:19 PM
We still have some bargaining chips in the region, and should employ them, put them in the pot, against Iran.

Iran would make an excellent ally or at least partner "against" many nations, including Afghanistan, China, Syria, and the southern former Soviet Republics . . . and Iraq.

The problem is reducing the circumstances to "war" on our "enemies" like for example "the war on terrorism." As the Iraq debacle has proven, the US doesn't have the power or the wisdom to accomplish its will by force in the region. The only way US Troops should remain in Iraq is if both Iraq and Iran ask them to. There's nothing for them to do but serve as targets for terrorists in training.

If Iran then invades Iraq, then we'll see if "the Iraqis" want a Republic, or not. I wish them best of luck, either way.

John of Phoenix
11-29-2006, 03:36 PM
Iran would make an excellent ally or at least partner "against" many nations, including Afghanistan, China, Syria, and the southern former Soviet Republics . . . and Iraq.

We tried that already and screwed it up. I'm pretty sure they're not going to invite us back.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-29-2006, 03:41 PM
China and Syria both see Iran as an excellent ally against the United States, and have done for some years, now...

Osborne Russell
11-29-2006, 05:47 PM
China and Syria both see Iran as an excellent ally against the United States, and have done for some years, now...

Yeah! Time for us to get in there and get busy, and I don't mean with the military!

Osborne Russell
11-29-2006, 05:49 PM
We tried that already and screwed it up. I'm pretty sure they're not going to invite us back.

Surely no harder than Viet Nam. These people know how to talk turkey, man. The real problem is the Red American Rabble and their hero, the Chimperor.

eleseus
11-29-2006, 07:17 PM
China and Syria both see Iran as an excellent ally against the United States, and have done for some years, now...
It seems some people here don't understand the huge shift in alliances our "buddying up" with Iran would entail. Saudi Arabia is our staunchest ally, besides Israel, in that region. An Iran nuke is more likely to be used against KSA than against anyone else but Israel--they both have a long and bitter history--the whole Persian Power vs. the seat of oil and arab Islam thing. Whether we like the KSA or get much from them besides some oil is a good question; but these alliances have long histories and are largely counterpoints to one another. Russia, becoming less and less our partner if they ever were, is everyday more and more getting into bed with Iran--Russia refines almost all of their oil for them. It is not as simple as "just be peaceful, man" and "just reach out to them with an olive branch, dude". That being said, I hope we could balance our Sunni/nationalistic-dictatorial state allies(Egypt, KSA, Jordan, more and more Libya) against our potential Shia/Alawite "non-adversaries"--ie Iran,Syria, Lebanon... It is a tough assignment, especially for this administration lol, to initiate some clever statesmanship, but I'd be for it. I just don't see how we wouldn't lose one group of allies if we saddled up to their antagonists--I'm all ears if someone can suggest a reasonable deal. Anyone?

eleseus
11-30-2006, 04:05 PM
what makes you think Iraqis will be proxies of Iran?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=2688501 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501)

EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

Hezbollah Training Also Linked to Iraq Violence

By JONATHAN KARL AND MARTIN CLANCY

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.


Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

While the New York Times reported that as many as 2,000 Iraqi militia fighters had received training in Lebanon, one of the senior officials said he believed the number was "closer to 1,000." Officials say a much smaller number of Hezbollah fighters have also traveled through Syria and into Iraq to provide training.

U.S. intelligence officials believe the number of Al-Sadr's Mahdi army now includes 40,000 fighters, making it an especially formidable force.

Osborne Russell
11-30-2006, 05:08 PM
U.S. intelligence officials believe the number of Al-Sadr's Mahdi army now includes 40,000 fighters, making it an especially formidable force.

Formidable to whom, and who cares, and why?

Osborne Russell
11-30-2006, 05:11 PM
It is not as simple as "just be peaceful, man" and "just reach out to them with an olive branch, dude".

Nobody's saying that. Just be careful lest this "global war on terror" bull**** make you militaristic. Remember that the Roman legions avoided many more battles than they fought.


I'm all ears if someone can suggest a reasonable deal. Anyone?

Step 1: Dump the chimp and the chimp squad.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-01-2006, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by eleseus
I'm all ears if someone can suggest a reasonable deal. Anyone?

There ain't one. That's due mostly to the fact the bozos that started this mess were military illiterates. The Secreatary of Defense wanted to play general real bad and becuse he was the boss nobody could say no to him. Now he is off contemplating his naval while his war goes on unresolved.
It's a damned shame that the guy that caused it all doesn't have to answer for his mistakes.

LeeG
12-01-2006, 08:49 AM
Now if you had said Mahdi soldiers trained by Hezbollah you'd be closer to some truth but still that would not support the statement "paid the bills"

.

Elesus, like claims of WMD it actually matters what the specifics are. Are you telling me that 5%,10%,50% of the Mahdi militia traveled through Sunni territory and got training? According to the article its around 1-2%. Given that there are other articles saying that the militias pay through various domestic activities I don't think there's enough data to say "Iran pays the bills"

Osborne Russell
12-01-2006, 10:49 AM
As to Iranian interference, I would think we have to assume that everybody has their irons in this fire, Iran, Syria etc. We're not in a position to oppose interference in Iraq on principle.

eleseus
12-01-2006, 04:13 PM
As to Iranian interference, I would think we have to assume that everybody has their irons in this fire, Iran, Syria etc. We're not in a position to oppose interference in Iraq on principle.

We are not in a position to oppose outside State support in Iraq -- by whinning about the fact that it exists; we have every right, in our national interest(and in Iraq'sIMHO), to oppose Iran's influence in Iraq by whatever reasonable means possible--that is the way this works; just as the Soviets had every right to try to stop our overwhelming material support via Pakistan of the Afghan mujahideen. That is the way it works.

Osborne Russell
05-31-2007, 11:32 AM
Like I told you. Like Scooter Libby told you. Like Tony Snow told you.

The Chimp didn't tell you cause he was afraid you wouldn't go for it in sufficient numbers. So he lied. He intended never to leave Iraq but didn't say so. That's called lying by omission which is as close as I'm going to come to explaining to you Red blockheads.