What is the worst that could happen if US leaves Iraq?

Manic Moran

Fair point, and an interesting dilemma. Whilst it is probably quite reasonable to treat a DOD press release with a little skepticism, it is also important to note that even if DOD plays completely honest, the opposition may be under no compunction to do so. As a result, if the DOD fails to put what reasonable spin they can, they are probably failing in their job, which is to defeat the opposition. Knowing that they 'played fair' and lost because of it is probably small comfort.

Unfortunately for MNF, the opposition has an easier time of it. All they need to do is blow up a market or shrine or some such. Lots of news, massive public/political effect, for little effort, and as bodies/destruction are tangible and can be shown on TV, it's an excellent return on investment. The nature of MNF's goal is inherently intangible: You can't show on TV uncontrovertible evidence of a success. As a result, even geuine successes can only be reported generally by an MNF press release, which brings us back to skepticism. Doubtless there is enhancement going on in the Press Office, but I think there is also more underlying truth than many give credit for. At the very least, there is probably balance. From watching the news, you'd almost think there wasn't a town in Iraq where a bomb doesn't go off every week, so that misperception needs to be counter-acted.

When you think that damn near all the media reporting in the west is coming from the DOD or DOD veted sources

In fairness to DOD, there have been few reports of censorship of journalists who want to go looking for themselves, and even fewer of "We won't allow you to go there to look." That said, the major Western media sources are reluctant to go wandering anyway, citing safety concerns. The few line journalists like Yon (who has spent some two years in Iraq, all but a couple of weeks of it outside the Green Zone) are rather scathing of the mainstream news anchors and politicians who fly into the Green Zone for three days, listen to the briefings, and then head off home, claiming to know all about what's going on, and reporting their observations to the rest of us.

About the best source are the middle-East journalists from local publications like Al-Arabya as they do go around the streets without US military escort, but how many of us read those, other than what might be linked to on the occasional blog? Non-DOD sources are out there, but the mass media seems too lazy, or too cautious to use them.

NTM

Liam Byrne

Manic Moran wrote:

Combination between statistics from numbers caught, and intelligence reports.

Would that be the same "intelligence" reports that supposedly suggested that we were 45 minutes away from annihaliation ?

Manic Moran wrote:

Whilst it is probably quite reasonable to treat a DOD press release with a little skepticism, it is also important to note that even if DOD plays completely honest, the opposition may be under no compunction to do so. As a result, if the DOD fails to put what reasonable spin they can, they are probably failing in their job, which is to defeat the opposition. Knowing that they 'played fair' and lost because of it is probably small comfort.

This was already discussed in reverse, where the general opinion seemed to be that just because the U.S. Administration lied and played dirty didn't excuse the Iraqis from doing likewise......presume the same would apply if we reverse the scenario ?

And whether it does or doesn't, the defence of "the opposition will do it anyway" doesn't provide an excuse for the U.S. Administration to do it.....they started it.

You'd expect lies and deceit from a group of terrorists, but (any) Government should be above that - note that I said "should be".....I'm not naive, and while our own Government isn't actually [directly] involved in any war, they definitely have shown a serious tendency to try to prove black is white when required.

But as I said, dirty tactics should be expected from terrorists, not from Governments.....

RedPlanet

i see that Sadr has called for the suspension of armed actions from the Medhi Army. Including attacks against occupation forces.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0830/iraq.html
These are very positive things you'd have to agree.
- announcing they'd work with UN peacekeeping forces
- suspending armed actions.

If it's also true that sunni groups are rooting out Al Queada then maybe they are really turning a corner. I think we can all agree that's it's best if Iraqis empower themselves for the benefit of Iraq, despite whatever the American's are up to.

Perhaps they are creating enough wiggle room for the American's to leave.
Afterall, when people or the mainstream media discuss Iraq it's really from the perspective of what's best for the American's, not really the Iraqis. I've always believed, that since the invasion it became obvious america used lies and poor judgement and made bad decisions that totally messed up that country from top to bottom. Since then one of the unspoken things is that since america made a mess of things, how can they withdraw without loosing face? Which means america's pride is put in front of the welfare of Iraqis. And that stinks, bad.

Liam Byrne

Careful, RedPlanet.....with opinions like that you'll probably be accused of being "anti-American", which is a catch-all phrase for anyone who doesn't view the invasion as being "good for Iraq & good for democracy"......

Red planet-good post.
However if you said the "neo cons" pride ,I'd say you'd have hit more of the nail on the head.
An American Government as you say rightly will drop Iraq quickly regardless of what the dropping looks like,when it does them more harm domestically politically than good.
It's been that way for at least 2 years now but for the neo cons being bullish.
There should be a change late in 08 and through 09-all going well for the democrats.

flogen

Apparently the September status report has leaked and Iraq has failed to meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks set out earlier in the year.

Who's willing to take bets that the importance of this report will now be played down and the decision by Sadr will be hyped to nauseum as proof of a changing tide?

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

These are very positive things you'd have to agree.
- announcing they'd work with UN peacekeeping forces
- suspending armed actions.

Actually I wouldn't agree. Acceptance of this stance is recognition of the Mahdi Army and Al Sadr as having some sort of legal status. Only a democratically elected Iraqi government has that power.

However the suspension of terrorist attacks is to be welcomed as a sign that the group has accepted it cannot remove Coalition Forces from Iraq by violent means and that only a permannent cessation of violence will see a return to normality.

RedPlanet wrote:

I think we can all agree that's it's best if Iraqis empower themselves for the benefit of Iraq, despite whatever the American's are up to.

Obviously. A stable, democratic government in Iraq removes whatever justification the US has for remaining in the country without the invitation of the Iraqi government.

Manic Moran

flogen wrote:

Apparently the September status report has leaked and Iraq has failed to meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks set out earlier in the year.

That's not the September report which everyone is waiting for, it's an analysis by the GAO.

Note that the benchmarks set out by Congress do not require that they be met, just that progress towards making them is being met. Thus 'failed to meet' 15 of 18 is closer to shill reporting. What's more important is if any progress towards achieving them is being made. For that, we'd need to actually read the report as opposed to relying on such a short soundbite.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Mick86 wrote:

legal status.

Mick86 wrote:

However the suspension of terrorist attacks is to be welcomed as a sign that the group has accepted it cannot remove Coalition Forces from Iraq by violent means

Or maybe they realise that there will be a withdrawal regardless and need just sit back, organise themselves and wait before filling the void.

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

However the suspension of terrorist attacks is to be welcomed as a sign that the group has accepted it cannot remove Coalition Forces from Iraq by violent means.

I certainly don't interpret the suspension like that. What leads you to draw such a conclusion? Some columnists are speculating that it's a test by Al Sadr to rediscover his command over his forces, and to purge unwanted elements from the ranks.

But whatever the case, why would it be some sort of good, that the Mehdi army somehow "couldn't" remove occupation forces by violence?
Are you saying that an occupation army, has more right to be where they are, then the people of the occupied country have to resist it?

flogen

Manic Moran wrote:

That's not the September report which everyone is waiting for, it's an analysis by the GAO.

Note that the benchmarks set out by Congress do not require that they be met, just that progress towards making them is being met. Thus 'failed to meet' 15 of 18 is closer to shill reporting. What's more important is if any progress towards achieving them is being made. For that, we'd need to actually read the report as opposed to relying on such a short soundbite.

NTM

Well according to the Washington Post it says that the number of attacks on Iraqi civilians has not reduced, nor has violence as a whole. It also says the capabilities of Iraq security services have not improved, key legislation has not been passed and there is no sign of aid packages being divvied out by the Iraqi Government.

I'm sure some of the other benchmarks are being advanced on but it still doesn't sounds like the critical areas are seeing any improvement.

As for the requirement on the benchmarks being met or being progressed upon both of us can surely recognise that this definition doesn't matter; whatever the report says, good or bad, the Bush administration won't change its mind and it won't need to because the Democrats gave it a mandate to do whatever the fúck it wanted with this straw-man act of faux accountability.

banaman

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=13669