Iraq steadily getting worse

Frederico

Sober reading from the Red Cross..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6543377.stm

Is there debate anymore on this?

Manic Moran

That the situation sucks? No, I don't think anyone's debating that bit.

NTM

Fratton Fred

what do you do though? I'm of the opinion that pulling all the western forces out would cause even more bloodshed, but maybe that's the answer, bring this to a bloody conclusion.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

That the situation sucks? No, I don't think anyone's debating that bit.

NTM

No, the debate has moved on from whether or not the war was right (and the pro war side completely lost that debate) and is now whether or not the occupation should continue (and the anti occupation side are being proven more correct every day)

Unfortunately, the decisions about these things are all made by people on the right, not in the right.

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote:

what do you do though? I'm of the opinion that pulling all the western forces out would cause even more bloodshed, but maybe that's the answer, bring this to a bloody conclusion.

I disagree. It's the occupation that caused the situation and it's the occupation that's making it worse. It divides (as always) the population.
It's quite possible that the occupiers fomented the civil war in the first place. How they then can be any part of the solution is beyond me.

Akrasia

Fratton Fred wrote:

what do you do though? I'm of the opinion that pulling all the western forces out would cause even more bloodshed, but maybe that's the answer, bring this to a bloody conclusion.

It's all totally academic because the POTUS has no intention of pulling the troops out any time soon. (this was never about the Iraqi people, why should they care when hundreds of thousands of them die horribly)

marco murphy

There is one voice that unites Iraqis and thats fcuk the US.
If the troops leave and let Iraqis control their own borders then theres no reason for Al Qieda to see Shias as US allies. The fact that Iraq is occupied by US and Brit troops, the Shias are seen as collaborators.

Akrasia

Poblachtach wrote:

There is one voice that unites Iraqis and thats fcuk the US.
If the troops leave and let Iraqis control their own borders then theres no reason for Al Qieda to see Shias as US allies. The fact that Iraq is occupied by US and Brit troops, the Shias are seen as collaborators.

100% correct

Manic Moran

More like 70% correct.

There is little doubt that part of the objection that the Sunnis have is that because of American interference, the Shia are now generally in charge, and they've taken umbrage at this. However, Al Quaeda has outstayed its welcome amongst the Sunni population as well, and in places like Anbar province is in as much a state of conflict with the local Sunni population as the Sunnis are against the Shia in other locations. AlQ is trying to keep Sunni tribes in line by assasination of tribal leaders, and the tribes are ganging up on AlQ. It's really quite a mess.

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

More like 70% correct.

There is little doubt that part of the objection that the Sunnis have is that because of American interference, the Shia are now generally in charge, and they've taken umbrage at this. However, Al Quaeda has outstayed its welcome amongst the Sunni population as well, and in places like Anbar province is in as much a state of conflict with the local Sunni population as the Sunnis are against the Shia in other locations. AlQ is trying to keep Sunni tribes in line by assasination of tribal leaders, and the tribes are ganging up on AlQ. It's really quite a mess.

NTM

But if you take out the reason d'etre for al qaeda to be in Iraq, their support base will dissolve and they will fall apart.

The IRA would be long gone if the British hadn't been occupying the north of Ireland.....

Jimboo_Jones

Anyone see this on CNN over the weekend

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html

seems there is a large group of terrorists that the US are protecting, despite calls from the Iraq goverment for them to leave the country. I guess they are keeping them arround just incase they can be used against Iran at a later date....

Fratton Fred

Akrasia wrote:

But if you take out the reason d'etre for al qaeda to be in Iraq, their support base will dissolve and they will fall apart.

The IRA would be long gone if the British hadn't been occupying the north of Ireland.....

yeah, murdered in their beds by loyalist paramilitaries (Probably).

That is a very simpistic way of looking at things, read the accoutns in that news article, we are talking kids being blown up here, not a few paramilitary types slugging it out.

This has turned into a sectarian civl war, caused by the downfall of Saddam, people are targeting hospitals, schools and markets. someone needs to police the situation and the Iraqi police seem incapable at the moment.

Pulling the US, UK and other UN forces out surely will lead to an escalation of violence.

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

But if you take out the reason d'etre for al qaeda to be in Iraq, their support base will dissolve and they will fall apart.

doesn't seem to have worked in Algeria

Jimboo_Jones

I thought that the trouble in Algeria started when the army canceled an election which an islamist party won?

I think it would be madness for America to pull out of Iraq at the moment, I think that they should have gone in with many more troops and that if anything they should pump even more troops in.

Of course, not going in in the first place would have been the best option. Waiting until Afghanistan was completed would have been the next best option. But I guess none of us have a time machine.

Akrasia

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I think it would be madness for America to pull out of Iraq at the moment, I think that they should have gone in with many more troops and that if anything they should pump even more troops in.

Do you still think America should stay in Iraq now that they're repeating the same disasterous policies that failed in Vietnam and Palestine

Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad - despite President George Bush's "surge" in troops - US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.

The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

They're going to 'help the Iraqi people' by turning their communities into outdoor prisons and indiscriminately locking up men of military age and anyone who looks a little bit like a terrorist.

The latest "security" plan, of which The Independent has learnt the details, was concocted by General David Petraeus, the current US commander in Baghdad, during a six-month command and staff course at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Those attending the course - American army generals serving in Iraq and top officers from the US Marine Corps, along with, according to some reports, at least four senior Israeli officers - participated in a series of debates to determine how best to "turn round" the disastrous war in Iraq.

The initial emphasis of the new American plan will be placed on securing Baghdad market places and predominantly Shia Muslim areas. Arrests of men of military age will be substantial. The ID card project is based upon a system adopted in the city of Tal Afar by General Petraeus's men - and specifically by Colonel H R McMaster, of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment - in early 2005, when an eight-foot "berm" was built around the town to prevent the movement of gunmen and weapons. General Petraeus regarded the campaign as a success although Tal Afar, close to the Syrian border, has since fallen back into insurgent control....
FM 3-24 is harsh in its analysis of what counter-insurgency forces must do to eliminate violence in Iraq. "With good intelligence," it says, "counter-insurgents are like surgeons cutting out cancerous tissue while keeping other vital organs intact." But another former senior US officer has produced his own pessimistic conclusions about the "gated" neighbourhood project.

"Once the additional troops are in place the insurrectionists will cut the lines of communication from Kuwait to the greatest extent they are able," he told The Independent. "They will do the same inside Baghdad, forcing more use of helicopters. The helicopters will be vulnerable coming into the patrol bases, and the enemy will destroy as many as they can. The second part of their plan will be to attempt to destroy one of the patrol bases. They will begin that process by utilising their people inside the 'gated communities' to help them enter. They will choose bases where the Iraqi troops either will not fight or will actually support them.

"The American reaction will be to use massive firepower, which will destroy the neighbourhood that is being 'protected'."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2439530.ece

Ulster9

Of course the US should pull its forces out of Iraq.I think Iraq should now be left to the mercy of those you live there.The damage has been done, the Iraqi state has been ruined and the countries prospects destroyed for twenty years at least.
The only people who can remove the Al-Qaida influence are the Iraqis themselves but this will not happen while US forces remain in the country.I suspect the US will not withdraw until its oil interests are secured.
Its unbelievable that the US have been allowed to do this, and are even considering attacking Iran as well.I dont think its a exaggeration to suggest the current US administration as destructive on the world as the 3rd Reich.

Akrasia

Ulster9 wrote:

Of course the US should pull its forces out of Iraq.I think Iraq should now be left to the mercy of those you live there.The damage has been done, the Iraqi state has been ruined and the countries prospects destroyed for twenty years at least.
The only people who can remove the Al-Qaida influence are the Iraqis themselves but this will not happen while US forces remain in the country.I suspect the US will not withdraw until its oil interests are secured.
Its unbelievable that the US have been allowed to do this, and are even considering attacking Iran as well.I dont think its a exaggeration to suggest the current US administration as destructive on the world as the 3rd Reich.

Well, considering that Hitler was elected in 1933 and by his 6th year in office he had taken over Austria and Czech, and he didn't attack France until 1940, his political career is following a similar trajectory to George W at the moment (Bush still has 2 years to start world war 3 and then start his own islamic holocaust or whatever his twisted administration will think of as 'the final solution' to 'islamofascism'

Frederico

Yeah the main problem is the occupiers, but I firmly believe that Al Qaeda will push very hard for an Islamic state if/when the Americans leave.

In a strange turn of events, Bush can stick by his guns and still get out of Iraq (the dems choosing withdrawal date).

I think people forget that groups like Al Qaeda are making a huge sacrifice and massive effort to fight the great Satan and chiefly to turn Iraq into a huge mess, they really are going to want their cake after this is done. Something perhaps like Mogadishu.

CPT. SURF

Bush will veto the bill calling for complete troop pullout by March 08.

There is not enough support of the bill in Congress to get the 3/4 majority needed to override that veto.

That means the troops will be there for at least another year. Probably till the end of the Bush Presidency. If a Democrat wins the office (Clinton/Obama) there will most likely be troop pullout then.

Akrasia

CPT. SURF wrote:

Bush will veto the bill calling for complete troop pullout by March 08.

There is not enough support of the bill in Congress to get the 3/4 majority needed to override that veto.

That means the troops will be there for at least another year. Probably till the end of the Bush Presidency. If a Democrat wins the office (Clinton/Obama) there will most likely be troop pullout then.

Not if Bush starts another conflict with Iran there won't and there is still every chance of that happening.

Zambia

They increased the tour of Duty from 12 months to 15 for regular US troops.

I would love to hear someone come up with a decent plan to resolve this rather than harking back to the scene of the crime. As ark said the debate over the war is over is was a bad move.

Pulling out all troops would leave just another lawless country where anything can fester. Plus remove any security the Iraqis have.

Retaining troops provides a big open wound attracting every dis affected Anti- american terrorist.

CPT. SURF

Not if Bush starts another conflict with Iran there won't and there is still every chance of that happening.

The US military is more stretched at present than it has ever been.
The money and troops have run out.

And that is why Iran has been so aggressive lately... THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!

To say there is "every chance" of a conflict with Iran is an incorrect statement.

marco murphy

Anyone who says the US pulling out would result in escalation of violence is wrong in my opinion. Soon enough, we're going to see, just like Vietnam, the US closing off parts of Baghdad, with walls of fences or what have you. This is according to the Independent anyway. Desperation.

About starting war with Iran.. I doubt that will happen. What could happen IMO is that the US will fight a proxy war, behind Israel.

purple'n'gold

Just imagine
1. The USA went into Iraq (to secure their huge oil reserves) with absolutely no plan as to what to do when they won the “war”
2. An educated man, the prime minister of the United Kingdom was so in awe of that gob****e Bush that he just blindly followed him.
Scary and sad.

sovtek

CPT. SURF wrote:

And that is why Iran has been so aggressive lately... THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!

Compared to the US they've been quite tame. Read Iranian diplomats kidnapped in Arbil and Iranian intelligence agents kidnapped elsewhere in Iraq.

nacho libre

Zambia232 wrote:

They increased the tour of Duty from 12 months to 15 for regular US troops.

I would love to hear someone come up with a decent plan to resolve this rather than harking back to the scene of the crime. As ark said the debate over the war is over is was a bad move.

Pulling out all troops would leave just another lawless country where anything can fester. Plus remove any security the Iraqis have.

Retaining troops provides a big open wound attracting every dis affected Anti- american terrorist.

What about a redistribution of the oil wealth to include the Sunnis in Anbar, and a semi-autonomous Anbar too? Along with a time table for the Americans to withdraw. surely with the Sunnis on board it would be easier to
defeat Al-Qaeda. or it is a case that among the Sunni insurgents there isn't a unified objectve to the insurgency. Are a good deal of Iraqi Sunnis fighting for a salafist islamic state alongside Al-qaeda rather than fighting for nationalistic reasons and for greater political influence in the running of the country?

nacho libre

purplengold wrote:

Just imagine
1. The USA went into Iraq (to secure their huge oil reserves) with absolutely no plan as to what to do when they won the “war”
2. An educated man, the prime minister of the United Kingdom was so in awe of that gob****e Bush that he just blindly followed him.
Scary and sad.

Whar irks me is Tony is going to make millions on the lecture circuit in America out of this catastrophe.

Manic Moran

CPT. SURF wrote:

If a Democrat wins the office (Clinton/Obama) there will most likely be troop pullout then.

Honestly, I'm not so sure. It wouldn't be the first time that a politician has run on one platform to get into office, then when he got there realised that perhaps he'd better leave things alone for a while.

Besides, if there's a D I want to win office, it's Richardson. Sod Clinton/Obama...

NTM

marco murphy

I dont reckon any US president will just pull out.

CPT. SURF

Besides, if there's a D I want to win office, it's Richardson. Sod Clinton/Obama...

Richardson does not have the money to go anywhere and will be trounced in the primaries.

A Democrat might change their tune once in office, but you can guarantee a Republican will not support a timed pullout.

John McCain is running a pro-war campaign and is suffereing for it. He is not getting financial support. His campaign announced yesterday that they let some staff go to save money...

sovtek

nacho libre wrote:

Whar irks me is Tony is going to make millions on the lecture circuit in America out of this catastrophe.

That's assuming he doesn't get banged up in the Hague one day.