IAP Political Forum

The war in iraq is probably one of the most complicated issues (next to healthcare and education) in which it takes a huge amount of time (at least for me) to try and figure out what exactly is going on and what needs to be done.  After reviewing the many issues that goes on in Iraq like the continuing insurgencies, private contracting, and troubles with setting up an Iraqi parliment, I would like to know what you believe we should CURRENTLY do about our situation in Iraq and WHY.

I would make a list of all possible scenarios but I think it would better just keep it open and maybe some new ideas can sprout from that.

Houm....

Point 1, Iraq is going to go to hell no matter what you do. It MUST go to hell first so Iraqis settle all blood deeds. Then, once they're tired of killing each other, they may be willing to work together before the country disintegrrates.

Point 2, USA is bleeding to death about/in Iraq. Is a no-win, much-to-lose situation.

Point 3, time to accept it's been a friggin' disaster and go back home. Do it for your soldiers, for your budget, for your economy, for your children.

Point 4, once you're retreating, do it in the safer way for your troops.

Point 5, call in the UN to establish refugee camps so Iraqis have safe zones to flee at. Invest money in their safety. Ease immigration to Iraqis -you owe that to them, and the immigration ease must be proportional to the need. 33,000 Iraqis a year are a tasteless joke provided there are 2 million displaced so far.

Just thinking out loud. :-\

Some very good points and before I agree with you...

I hate to accept that the self-destruction of Iraq is inevitable.  I want to think that there is some hope for the Iraqi people given that the U.S. stays in there until the dust settles.

Can't there be any hope for the Iraqi people? 

Yes, there is hope for Iraq. What is hopeless is America's intervention in Iraq. The seed is dead, rotten and weed has taken over the field. But as far as Iraq is concerned, once after they kill each other enough, they will need help to rebuild their country... Iraq won't cease to exist unless intenrational diplomacy spoils it BIG.

The crucial point is that Iraqis are nationalistic. That comes second to the ethnic grudges, but neither Shi'a nor Sunni want to split the country. Kurds want to, but that's because they're Kurd, not Iraqi. Actually in the brutal world of realpolitik, preventing that kurds "steal" the northern half of the country (and its oil fields) could be a lever to push Sunni and Shi'a together. That would suck for Kurds, but, seriously, does someone want to fuck it up wiht Turkey about the Kurds? The Kurd case won't be resolved until Turkey wants to, and that won't happen any soon.

As the USA are concerned, the only real thing left to them is to damper the humanitarian disaster, a great chance to get back to leading the world by the simple method of putting themselves ahead of a marching crowd. It's been demonstrated that the USA can't drag people out of their way, neither politically (Europe, Rusia, China) nor militarely (Iraq). Iraq implies a lot of lessons in humility for the USA.

But, being realistic, the USA will quit Iraq and won't do anything else. They won't touch Iraq with a 10 foot pole, ashamed and with their national pride hurt and disgusted about how "stupid Iraqis" spoiled it all (by being, hum, Iraqis). Meanwhile the world will see how "stupid arrogant American" can't take a lesson, thus spoiling further their already disastrous foreign image. And then it will come the time when American learn the bitter lesson that you can't be part of the world and give a damm of your foreign image, specially when your economy pivots around loans and defficit. Yet that would be another story.

It is likely that chaos and mayhem last about 3 to 5 years in Iraq before they exhaust themselves (run out money, weapons and bloodthirst) and figure that foreign interventionism (al-Qaeda, fai) is about to steal their country from them. It would be sensible to make plans and begin working ASAP to ensure that Iraq is refounded in a convenient way -nobody in West wants it to become a nuttislamist republic. Preserving Iraq's laicism should be the ultimate goal to diplomacy.


(Of course, all this is made in the assumption that Bush won't attack Iran. An attack on Iran is endgame for ME politics as we know them, and may God and Allah have mercy of us while we learn the new rules... On the other hand, all crumbling powers in denial of reality like to "end the world" along with them. Hitler and the no-man-left defens efo Berlin, Japan and the kamikazes, people is not like saying "huh, I've been a fool and my power is dead, time to pass away in silence", rather like "if they don't die, we my followers will do, in a blaze of glory! Banzai!". The temptation to sue their crumblign power to revenge against the world ("let's do it while we can!")will be strong to Bush and his nutters. Let's hope the USA will be lucky and will skip the ultimate nonsense of "necocons". Talking about conventional warfare, of course... any use of nuclear weaponry on Iran will be endgame not just to ME politics, but to USA as a superpower)

It is a shame that the only plan we can resort to is for our own self-interest; protecting our troops and saving tax payers billions.  It is definitely the best way to ruin the already muffled bad reputation that U.S. foreign policy has taken in this world.

I just can't help to think of all those soldiers and private contractors who risked there lives for the neocons vision of world domination.  As the saying goes "Those who control Iraq, control the ME." 

I believed in the idea that spreading this American influence in an already half-way developed country would help our fight against keeping the ME from being the powder keg it is today.  Unfortunately, I now have to accept that America is responsible for lighting the fuse and that the ME will never be the same.

I really want to say that we should relinquish ourselves out of this whole debacle.  Accept that we were wrong for going in the first place and try and patch the whole situation up.  But what I just can't see is the risk that we would have to take in making sure that the ME will be stable if we left.  I fear that it won't.  I fear that the ME will collapse under our own wrongdoing and because of that, we are the creators of a great war in the ME. 

I say this because Iraq is a valuable gem.  Something that the Kurds and Iranians find very tempting.  Whilst in civil war, as the Shiites and Sunnis reorganize their country through bloodshed and then try to build everything from the ground up, I find that other interests may settle inside Iraq.  Some that would be very detrimental to the U.S.'s position in the ME and the world. 

I can't imagine the repercussions that the U.S. would face if we did pull out and I am very hesitant to say so at first.  Yet again, after watching Ron Paul on Jay Leno I was shown a different side to the story.  To paraphrase Ron Paul,
we should just get out while we can and if anyone plans on coming within our borders we will fight them with all we got.

But the U.S.'s position in the world economy will never be the same and we may have just dug a ditch in which we will fall into and that all the marchers behind us will pass us by and not even bother to give us a hand.  That is my fear for leaving the ME.

My suggestion? Back up.

Since the US won't leave we can only hope we change strategy. Trying to "control" areas of the country will fail unless troops STAY in those areas so the only thing we can hope is that Iraqis do it themselves WITHOUT American intervention.

Conflict is unavoidable. Shiites and Sunnis will kill eachother whether we're their or not, and while this is not the most moral decision out there, I suggest we back up.

Not leave, mind you. My suggestion is that we move to the outside of the country, protecting it from Iranian, Saudi Arabian and Turkish influence and let their violence expire.

Please note that I disagreed with the initial invasion and damn Bush for bringing this thing about... but we can't fight history. Since leaving would create the same problem (but without the added benefit of protection from foreign neighbors) and staying will take us on a long road to no where... why don't we just take a step back and see what happens?

Sectarian violence has stopped in neighborhoods where ethnic cleansing has had a chance to create a strong majority. It's a grissly, yet inevitable conclusion.

Why not let it happen?

Complete disengagement is the best course of action.  The problem is that you can't disengage without huge loss of civilian life and massive economic fallout here in the US. 

If you disengage from Iraq, you have to disengage from the rest of the Middle East.  Sign a defense pact with Israel so that she knows we will fight on her side if some outside country picks a fight, and pack up and leave.  No more military aid to Israel, just a defense pact.  Eliminate the deals with the Saudis, tell Pakistan to take a hike, leave Iraq a mess, and above all make it clear that the Middle East will no longer be our problem.  Stop attempting a two state solution with the Palestinians - have no part in it.  Abstain from every vote at the UN.  Do not get involved with non-proliferation, human-rights abuses, or anything else.  The ONLY thing the US should do is drop food, medicine, and supplies in the event of NATURAL disasters.  If the disaster is caused by mankind, let them take care of themselves.

Finally, spend the 250 billion dollars per year that we'll save by getting out of the Middle East on making oil obsolete.  Also, build a robust missile defense shield and hypersonic delivery infrastructure and give Iran the green light to do what they want.  Redeploy our troops to our own borders, stop the illegal immigrant flood, and rebuild American manufacturing capacity.  Stay out for a few decades and let them sort out their own affairs.   It will be an awful thing to watch, but eventually, they will sort out their own problems, with their own blood and treasure, and without being able to blame us. 

The Middle East is not a lesson if humility, but a lesson in futility.  The quicker we come to the politically incorrect but obvious conclusion that they are their own worst enemy, the better it will be for everyone.

The problem is, as was in 2002, that "American influence" around the world is about as welcome as the Plague. And some countries would actually choose the Plague if they could... ;D

Seriously, back in 2002-03, there was peopel who doubted that Bush & co were fit tot he task they had imposed themselves. A task which stinked, and in hands of incompetent people, was not the best way to capitalize the influence gained aftter 9/11.

Also some people claimed that the USA ar epoorly suit to  task like Iraq. Iraq was a case of good old fashioend imperialism. It was the attempt to make it unlike good old fashioned imperialism what killed the possibility to succeed, and it was the blatant intent of playing good old fashioned imperialism in disguise what alienated public opinion abroad. The way to succeed in Iraq after a military invasion and overthrowing of Saddam was appointing a viceroy who used Saddam's army, Saddam's police and to some extent Saddam's methods to keep the Iraqis bloody quiet and foreigners bloody away. Crush any opposition (easy to do with 400,000 Iraqi soldiers at your disposal rather than kicking your ass) and so and so... good old fashioned imperialism. Now, if you feel this is not what the USA are about, welcome to the club as that's what European populace was thinking. What alternative was bout iraq? Nothign. Massive amounts of actively doing nothing.... but ready a few democratic leaders, gathering support of people like Muqtada al Sadr (the ones bleeding in their fight agaisnt Saddam), and readying the ground to get the closest thing to a friendly laicist democracy once Saddam passed away -maybe with some help of iraqi populace. All that were long term plans as Iraq was no pressing business. Pressing business was (is) Afganistan and was (and it really really is) Pakistan. Also Iran, although certainly they where friendlier less hateful until they were squeezed between two US invasions. (Be noted that in Iran USA stands for anti-democracy, dictatorship and being attacked by a psycho with WMD... they would be between the ones choosing the plague in a blink).

Now... well, you don't fight a wildfire from within the flames, if you know what I mean. ;)

Provided that the USA didn't invade Iraq in order to ensure US control of Iraqi oil over the long term (i.e. force Iraq to sell oil denominated in US dollars)... in which case the USA will never actually leave Iraq and any talk to the contrary is just a fools' game.

Given that, if we are to assume the US was supposedly serious about removing Saddam and instituting a free and democratic Iraq, then I think the only possible road out of the present mess is through Sadr. 

Sadr, with Sistiani as a figurehead, does appear to be moving himself into position for taking over Iraq.  The only thing apparently preventing him from doing so is the US occupation forces.  The flipside of this same coin is that Sadr appears to have the power to prevent any other possible political solution from coming to be in Iraq.

Thus, it seems like a waiting game - Sadr waiting for the Americans to withdraw. 

If America honestly wants peace and security in the Middle East, then they need to pull back enough to let Sadr take over.  Sadr is a strict Iraqi nationalist and is the best barrier against Iranian influence taking root in Iraq.  A shining example of liberal democracy is quite unlikely in the short term, but indications are that Sadr as 'strongman' in Iraq would put Iraq on that path - in a way that nothing else would.

But of course, I've not been able to abandon the original point that the USA doesn't give a flying fuck about Iraq or Iraqi democracy - only oil and geostrategic positioning, so you can pretty much guarentee that no only will the USA not prudently pull back for Sadr, the USA will continue to pursue Sadr as a demonized public enemy (pretty much guarenteeing turning Iraq into another Iran with generational hatred of the USA).

Because that would be a categorical US permission for it and translated onto the 'Arab Street' that means orders from Washington made it happen.  US already carries enough explosive baggage from Iraq, adding to it doesn't seem like a good plan.

Anyway dormouse, when considering Sadr.... le'ts recall he still is the head of the Army of the Mahdi. That means, bye bye laicist Iraq and welcome another Islamist Republic... at least.

My greatest fear.  There is no way America will be able to pursue economic interests in the region ever again if said thing happens.

Indeed, that would be the most likely result. 

However, that's the only 'path' out of the mess that I see.  No other possibility in Iraq leads towards the potential for peace and stability in the short to medium term and potential democratic development in the long term.

I'm not voting for Sadr here, just recognizing that he holds a potential key to peace and stability in Iraq.  If peace and stablity are what is desired, then Sadr's the one most likely to deliver it.  I am of course rejecting pie-in-the-sky dreams of the type that normally come out of Washington on this topic.  None of those frameworks are even remotely credible.

Your greatest fear?  What about 1979?  Iran has already gone down this road and the world didn't end.

And Iran has a hundred times more reason for implacable hatred of the USA than Iraq does.  Iraq is building that up right now, but still has a long way to go.  Four years of US occupation is small potatoes compared with 30 years of US-installed Shah Palavi running a police state.

100% on the nail here.

Troops aren't stopping it. Ignoring Al Malaki doesn't stop it. Pretending like it's not there won't stop it.

Basically, our current strategies toward it aren't stopping sectarian violence... but in neighborhoods where it's been allowed to expand, sectarian violence polarizes both sides and effectively ends.

Again, it's not pretty... but it works.

The only other option is to KEEP US troops in the middle, a solution neither the US or Iraq will tolerate.

Whoever said that the world was going to end?

I said that economic interests in the ME were going to end.  The Iran Contra Affair was a direct retaliation in keeping us from setting up a puppet government to extract as much petrodollars from the country as we can, much like Saudi Arabia.   Jimmy Carter was soft in the affairs of America's elite and didn't care to go through with any action that until now, entices Bush and makes everybody nervous.   I don't know how long the Saudi's would keep the Wahabists uprising from gaining any ground but I do know that the destabilization of Iraq won't help. 

Leaving Iraq open to another fundamentalist regime is bad news for the rest of American interests in the ME which currently only happens in two places: Saudi Arabia and the place were every fundy Islamists gun is pointing towards, Israel. 

It won't be long for the Wahabists to rise up and we have to retract our weapons contracts with Saudi Arabia before that nation falls apart too.  It will be like some sort of domino effect in which the dollar's hold on the MEern economy disappears and we start seeing oil measured in petroeuro's or worse...petroyuan.

Sorry, I thought the topic was about Iraq - not the US need for dominance in the Middle East.

Petrodollars or Petroeuros?  That is generally only of concern to plutocrats and US dominance fanatics (and Euro-chest-thumpers).

No, US forces have not prevented such sectarian violence from happening.  But no one is accusing the USA of making that sectarian violence happen.  US forces are trying (unsuccessfully) to stop the sectarian violence.  This is credible.

Your policy would be for the USA to endorse ethnic clensing.  And to the 'Arab Street' US endorsement the policy means the US is the architect of the policy - and that would be a really bad decision for the USA.  When one is deep in a hole, first rule is 'stop digging'.  Your policy entails more digging.

Well, if you read my posts my reluctance for leaving is because of my belief in preserving American interests in the ME.  

As for being a US dominance fanatic, I guess that's something I need to think about.

The proverbial "Elephant in the Room" NOT ONE single Presidential candidate acknowledges...I guess they figure the American people are too stupid to figure it out.

Preserving American interests in the ME can best be achieved by stopping the destruction of American interests in the ME.

GWBush has done more to permanently destroy US influence in the ME than anything  else anyone can name. 

More of the same is thus not a viable policy option - if you favor US interests in the ME.  One cannot be said to have an 'interest' if it only exists at the point of a gun.

More like guarenteed career-death to even mention it.  The US media and polical elites will make sure of it.

Btw, Patton, do you post at any other political discussion forums?  Your username appears to be quite familiar to me for some reason.

US didn't create this violence? That's a delusional conclusion.

Once Hussein was deposed, so went the relative control he had over the warring regions. This is a point of history, not interpretation.


Letting it happen is NOT endorsing the idea. It's the conclusion you reach when faced with an inevitability. Better to let it happen on YOUR terms then it sneak up and endanger your control over a region. Also, if the troops are on the border, preventing Iranian, Saudi Arabian and Turkish interference it whould be interpreted as Iraq establishing control of it's OWN government and not us forcing one on them.

It's going to happen whether we leave or stay. Why perpetuate it by ignoring it?

Well, I agree with all this except that decision has already been made. 

This thread was about what to do about it now...

No.

Ole "Blood and Guts" is pretty popular in military circles, I'm sure it is fairly common around the net.

Since things are improving now, I would say "stay the course". Keep the 30,000 extra troops there another 6 months or even a year.

Efforts must now be made to fight curruption or simply bad fund management for aid and reconstruction.
Incentives to start or restart a private business are excellent things. There should more initiatives like that. Economy and education quickly become more important than basic safety and military deployement.

But there should be no let up in street safety and no time break between the fight against militants and the fight against corruption.

6 months ago I was still saying that if Iraqis realy want to kill each others, let them do it and save american soldeir lives. Today, I see that they are capable of enjoying peace, give up the obscur fanaticism of al-Qaida wannabee groups and return to their home without fear or vengeance.

So IMO, the present situation is the best, considering the narrow range of other options.

I am sorry to burst your buble, Fred, but nothing has improved in Iraq. The effort to thighten control in Bagdhad was made at the expense of losing it elsewhere. But then, al-Qaeda is in Baqubah, not in Bagdhad. So the Surge has basically made Bagdhad a no-entry zone at the expense of leaving the rest of the country wide open and free to ride. In Spanish we call that undressing a saint to dress another.

The point is thta US forces in Iraq are really, really insufficent to hold an effective ground control. You don't win a war by not owing nor controlling anything else but the ground where your soldiers step on. And you know why you don't win a war this way? Because that's EXACTLY how France lost in Indochina and the USA lost in Vietnam.

US soldiers go to street A, bad guys leave it (after setting some IEDs, of course), US soldiers (if lucky) leave street A in one piece and bad guys get back to business as usual in street A. And in the case of Baqubah, it is like US soldiers get into Baqubah, are grinded to raw meat and leave the hell out of there before al-Qaeda hits them more. As reinforcements are in Bagdhad, gloriosuly achieving a "succesful" Surge. That's exactly the size of the "ground control" the USA currently have in a country they supposedly invaded and conquered.

Now, if you were a Iraqi, who would worry you more? American who come in and go away, or the armed bastids who are here, quit for a while and then come back? :(

.


I am sorry Major, I have to agree with Fred on this one. The commander of US forces has drawn down the surge troops (about 30,000) and says that 2008 will be gaining the trust of the people, winning the peace and repairing infrastructure (power, water, schools etc.) while insuring the government has a chance to put sect differences aside, deploy their own unbiased police force and work toward a unified Iraq before the troops come home. He said recently that you could almost touch all that now, but just a little more independence is needed.


Regards
Terry


.

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m16/xkxlxkx/att4b1ad-thumb.gif)

The apparent drop in violence in Iraq over the last couple of months is not actually due to the US 'surge'.

It is due to a 'ceasefire' called by Sadr.  This is what accounts for the apparent drop in violence, not any act of the US military.

The US military cannot take credit for Sadr's own ceasefire.  Well, they can for domestic propaganda purposes, but one ought not to believe one's own propaganda when making policy.  Deciding US policy based on the idea that the 'surge' is working would be foolish since the 'surge' doesn't actually account for the drop in violence, nor can it account for any other 'improvement' (which there is none - the only positive metric is the drop in violence).

Oh well... guess some people just have had their face rubbed with some ugly reality, Iraq style. Sadr ceasefire is working... err, and the Surge too... ::)

'good thing allah told him to "decide" upon a ceasefire, as his "army" was on the verge of being decimated by US and Iraqi forces for the third time in 3 years.
Could it have been for political gain? How's he doing latley outside of the slums in Sadr City?  Pure stroke of luck for Iraqis and Americans in Iraq?.....We'll take that...it's a shame you won't accept it, though.

SuperChicks,
What is the source for the chart you posted here earlier?

Where does Blackwater's debacles fit into that chart?

Can you cite a reasonably credible source for this rather fanciful assertion? 

To think that Sadr would do it for any other reason would be irrational.

He controls the largest militia force in Iraq and is the heir of one of Iraq's most revered families.

I understand your need to denigrate Sadr.  That is official US policy right now.

But I don't let propaganda determine my analysis.  I just take it like it is.

Not a pure stroke of luck.  It is quite rational to expect violence levels in Iraq to drop when Sadr orders a unilateral ceasefire given that the Madhi Army has been quite active as a 'primary source' of Iraqi violence in the past three years or so.

However, any reduction in violence in Iraq is certainly a good thing.  I'm only pointing out that this reduction in violence was not brought to you by the US military (unfortunately).  It was brought to you by Sadr. 


I'll take it and I do accept it.  I can't imagine why you'd assert otherwise.

Just because I'm pointing out that the US military was not responsible for the present drop in Iraqi violence doesn't mean I'm not happy to see a drop in violence in Iraq.

And it is important because as some have noted in this thread (and many in the media and Washington have done the same), this reduction in violence is taken as some kind of vindication of the 'surge' policy and that is based on erroneous data.  Making policy based on erroneous data is not good.  Indeed, one might argue that is exactly how and why the US is in Iraq right now (making policy based on erroneous data).

.




You really missed the mark!  ::)

Sadr's area is rather small, the stats cover all Iraq.  ;)
.. and the surge in Baghdad WAS responsible for the reduction in violence, even the commanding General said so. Give credit where credit is due factually, not wishfully. The sucesses have allowed the 'surge' forces to be withdrawn from the Theatre.


.



.

The source was Anthony Cordesman and Arleigh burke at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a quarterly report on “Measuring
Stability and Security in Iraq"...in which they were most definatley NOT trying to cast a rosey glow upon the situation.

Sadr himself credis Allah to every edict he disgorges. Now if it wasn't the increase in dead terrorists, dead death-squads, airstrikes, sorties, US military activity...if it wasn't allah, if it wasn't that the US Marines and Iraqi Special Forces were kicking in the doors to his slums that made him call a ceasefire to which nobody else agreed...AGAIN, then what was it?

Don't forget Blackwater.

Blackwater escorts and defends high-value State Department targets. They have a perfect record in doing so. They don't do offensive operations. Everybody BUT the State Department wants them out.
Do you think State Department-supplied security might have a let's say....less-than-perfect security record by now?

No but at least they would have been accountable.  Blackwater's security forces just act like they can do anything they want.  There have been many accounts.  It completely disgraces the image of the American Soldier.

They operate in a completely legal manner under US laws rules and regulations. They were ambushed while escorting SD officials. ! vehicle was disabled but later extracted. There was a 20-min. firefight with somebody...and a dozen or so Iraqis died. Is there more to it than this?

Terry Mathis: Please refrain putting YOUR words under my name.  That is intellectually dishonest.

I shall presume it was a simple mistake with the quote code.

Besides the ambiguity of that particular media debacle, Blackwater security forces serve the coporation that hires them, not for God and Country.  Something doesn't work in that sentance. 

They are infamous for being mercenaries who don't adhere to any of the state's rules of engangment and cultural guidelines.

Somebody must have the case of the Monday's.

Get a life.  What part of that post is relevant to your interest?

That Terry has credibility on IAP and you don't.

Can't take a joke? Sheesh.

To be a mercenary, you cannot have been sent by a government, you cannot be a party of the actual conflict, you cannot be from a country that’s a party of the actual conflict, your primary motivation has to be money.

They are Americans under contractual obligation to the US government. They do not fall into the internationally accepted definition of mercenary. Are you trying to hold them accountable to a specific law, rule, regulation, contract, etc...or just wanting to trash them for being the largest, most powerful security company available to us?

Terry committed an offense against me.  I have politely pointed it out and indicated that it was probably a simple mistake on his or her part.  No offense was taken or offered on my part.

And you rag on me about it?  I repeat, get a life.  You are being offensive.

 ::)

Also....security companies do not operat under ROE..which is kept secret...They operate ...according to US Law....under RUF...rules for the use of force....which are made public...Blackwater can do whatever it takes to protect themselves, their assests and objectives or Iraqi citizens in mortal danger...nothing more, nothing less. They are accountable to the Iraqi government...their licence is good for 6 months and must be renewed 9 months in advance....you do the accountability math.
They can have their contract revoked and individuals are accountable to Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which essentially says that a person working for a contractor can be brought back to the United States and tried for a felony. The latter which applies to any nationality. I'm sure other US laws apply...Where exactly is this accountability lacking

What rules dictate whether your a mercenary or not?

Merceanary
adjective
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal. 
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc. 
–noun
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army. 
4. any hireling. 

Sounds like I hit the definition alright.  But if you want to get into semantics...

Although, a mercenary maybe an incorrect characterization in your defnition it still correctly characterizes most of them. 


Don't even get me started on private contracting in Iraq... 

I can't say for sure what is written in the contracts and what the U.S. asks of them.  Maybe you can clarify what they say.  What I do know, is that their current actions, do not serve American intersts well.  They maybe getting the duty done for their contractor however a lot of this war has to do with sensitivity to cultural ramifications and that is somethign that they DON'T take into consideration.  But I guess that is the Government's fault for drafting such a contract.


Oh, I don't know...the recent Blackwater debalce you stated earlier?  But than that would be another issue wouldn't it because I don't expect either you or me to know exactly what was going on.

I think you can figure out my assumptions on that one.

They are an American company hired by America to fight for America.Read you own definition. Any characterization is yours and yours alone. They are not mercenaries anymore than cops, security guards....or even you and me.
Private contractors in Iraq....get started....The way I see it NOTHING gets fixed or built in Iraq without them. Mostly Iraqis...but then the Americans.
The debacle you state.....Blackwater was....stick with me....ambushed....1 vehicle was disabled but later extracted, a 20 min firefight ensued and 11 Iraqis died. Unless you have a certain law, code, rule, regulation, or contractual obligation under which Blackwater needs to be held to account, then you only have your opinion of Blackwater. They're evil in a completley legal manner....sounds like Walmart.

I support Wal-Mart.  I don't shop there though.  More a Target kind of guy...

All I know is that private contracting in Iraq is not working the way it should because it doesn't adhere to the direct command of our generals and compromises what we are trying to accomplish. 

And just because it is legal doesn't make it right.  That's why we have a represenative democracy, when a law or lack of law doesn't fulfill its intention, whatever that maybe, we have the right or power to change it. 

It's all how you look at it. 

It's just as irrational to credit the drop in violence soley on Sadr's cease fire
as it is to credit it soley on the US Military.

There are multiple reasons for the drop in violence.
- Sadr's cease fire
- Effective US military strategy
- A strengthened Iraqi security force
- An agreement among Iraqi tribes to take up arms against militant factions

All of these come into play according to Major General Joseph Fil.


An accusation of intellectual dishonesty isn't polite.

 

Sorry, US Generals have in the past been a bit less than truthful in the past when reporting to the media about actual conditions on the ground in Iraq.  That is to say, that source is entirely self-serving.

As for "effective US strategy" - that is not credible since US strategy has not substantially changed at all.  The US strategy has been failing all along and now, all of a sudden it is working?  That's not credible.

As for "strengthened Iraqi security forces", that is not credible either since every report I've seen on that topic seems to suggest the contrary - that the Iraqi security forces are entirely riven with sectarian divisions and are not effective on their own.

And any "agreement among Iraqi tribes to take up arms..." would by definition increase the amount of violence in the short term.

On this basis, the only plausible explanation of the reduction in violence in Iraq over the last three months is Sadr's unilateral ceasefire.

It is an accurate description of the action (misrepresenting the authorship of words).  And it is polite when one suggests that it was probably an innocent error, easily blamed on improper usage of the forum software.

Does that include Generals that've spoke out against current policy?




LINK (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/08/upi_newstrack_topnews/3884/)

The words of someone currently on the ground hold more weight than some fellow
on a political forum, Dormouse.

I've offered a source for the above comments.
I suspect you should be able to do likewise in regards to your position...A non self serving source, of course.




The accuracy is beside the point. You assumed either Terry wasn't aware of the weight of his
mistake, or he did it on purpose ~ "Terry committed an offense against me".

If you believed it was a mistake, there was no need to imply intent on Terry's part.
The polite thing to do would've been to refrain from calling honesty into play in the first place.

Do you think you're the only one here aware of the offense mis-quoting represents?

Zee,
This is no bubble and the fact is that thing are realy improving and this is a very recent evolution. What you are talking about is the situation until 3 months ago.
Since sunnite sheiks have risen against al-Qaida things are changing at a rapid pace. Two other factors added to the improvement: intestine fights among shiite militants (weakening them) and the "Surge".
Al-qaida is being fought by former al-qaidists or by fed up iraqis and the shiite militia are killing themselves so to speak. Moqdata al-Sadr is calling for calm: normal, the Mehdy army is dislocated.
The "Surge" alone would have had no effect without these two local events but it certainly helped these two event taking some importance and influence daily life.

46,000 iraqi refugees returned to Iraq last month instead of 100,000 leaving one year ago. Daily civilian dead body count fell from 50 to 30 (roughly) during the same period.
You have to admit that there is an improvement, even if for a socialist it's a hard thing to do with neo-conservative capitalist policy but I'm not making that sort of politic here.
I'm basicaly very happy to finaly ready some good, or at least less bad, news from Iraq.

Last but not least, it seems that we avoided another conflagration and human disaster with the Kurds and Turkey. Another relative success. It was realy not the best time for Turkey to mess up in Iraq.

The Blackwater's affair is a small detail in the whole picture.
I won't defend them because it seems that they realy shot randomly while under fire. But I won't overblame them neither since they are in a region where when a suicide bomber miss his target and kill 20 children, poeple barely rise an eyebrow.

IMO, it's a bad idea to hire private firms for things that are supposed to be made by the police, army or the state security.

Zee,
This is no bubble and the fact is that thing are realy improving and this is a very recent evolution. What you are talking about is the situation until 3 months ago.
Since sunnite sheiks have risen against al-Qaida things are changing at a rapid pace. Two other factors added to the improvement: intestine fights among shiite militants (weakening them) and the "Surge".
Al-qaida is being fought by former al-qaidists or by fed up iraqis and the shiite militia are killing themselves so to speak. Moqdata al-Sadr is calling for calm: normal, the Mehdy army is dislocated.
The "Surge" alone would have had no effect without these two local events but it certainly helped these two event taking some importance and influence daily life.

Zee,
What you are talking about was true until 3 months ago. The improvements are relatively recents and are due to other factors than the "surge" but the 30,000 new us soldiers helped the situation impprovement.

Al-Qaida is now fought by local tribesmen and former al-qaidists. Shiites militants now kill themselves, without the help from us forces, in intestine fights.
And the "surge" forces just apply more pressure on these two at a critical moment.

Moqdata al-Sadr called for peace because his mehdi army is dislocated and what remained loyal to him would have been decimate "a third time" as someone else said here.
But it seems that he called for a ceasefire with those who are not loyal to him anymore.
Who fights who became even more unclear, as if it was still possible.

The fact is that 46,000 iraqis refugees returned from Syria to iraq last month, versus 100,000 leaving the same month one year ago. Fact is that civilian casulaties fell by one third from last month. You have to admit there is tangible improvement.

.





Dormouse, can it please. You just can't bring yourself to admit you are in error, let alone try to cast disrepute on the troops or the Generals. BTW, where are you from?  ;)

Terry Mathis


.

there is just one thing that determines success or failure of the project, and the US Pres election with it, - American casualties. More death - more Dem chances and probability of Hillarious withdrawal. The funny thing is that reduction in casualties in a year-long trend might mean far greater casualties in the final count.

the place has always been ruled by brute force, - Ottoman, British, Baathist, American. No one was ever asked if he wanted to live in a country called "Iraq", and what that country should be. Now it is expected that the populations will make a voluntary choice to continue doing what was forced on them. Two alternatives, -either the principle of self-determination or the principle of force. If people's decisions, - independent Kurdistan, Islamic Republic, etc - are unacceptable, stop asking their opinion.

.




Peisi mate,

The people of Iraq HAVE made their choice and that is to say Peace. I hope they are successful in their endeavor. We can almost touch it now, but not quite yet for the troops to go home. All in good time. At least they will have that chance .. soon.


Regards to the Omelet too Peisi,
Terry


.

.




Be as it may, the Iraqi people will soon be able to govern themselves. They already flock back to Baghdad in anticipation of peace and all outside forces will go once it is apparent they have a grip on things.  ;)


Terry


.

I'll take that as a good indication that posting at this forum is a waste of time.  I enjoy serious discussion - can't find much here.

 

If finding opinion that runs contrary to your own is a waste of time, perhaps an echo chamber is
more to your liking.

Good luck with that.

I just dropped by today to post a link for this particularly pompus jackass.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69572  (http://www.newsweek.com/id/69572)


Like I said, I don't see much serious discussion going on at this forum - just lots of trolls and personal attacks.

Speaking of jackasses...

Your posts were the first to indicate to me that this forum is not really meant for actual discussions.

.


Back on topic, I hope that Iraq can soon sustain a viable government so that outside forces can draw down.
We are close, just a little more support to the young, new government.


Terry


.

I asked Dormouse for commentary supporting his position on page 4.
He refuses.


When asked to offer facts to back his position, he doesn't.


Again, when given an opinion contrary to his, he sees no need to continue.
It's certainly obvious 'serious discussion' is exactly what you want, Dormouse.[/sarcasm]

If calling names constitutes 'serious discussion', please continue.

I thought you said Generals weren't to be trusted.
You said they were self serving.

Does that not apply when theirs is a postion you agree with?

FBI report has claimed that the Blackwater shooting on Sep. 16 were unjustified, although the secuity agency likes to think otherwise.

From NPR.org, November 14, 2007 · Federal investigators have found that Blackwater Worldwide guards were unjustified in the shooting deaths of 14 Iraqi civilians and violated rules governing the use of deadly force, according to a report in Wednesday's New York Times.



Damn Straight.



Typical PR for a politician.



Let's hope he does.

These private contractors are the number one reason why I feel so uneasy about our occupation in Iraq.  We should be fighting for God and country, not profit margins and earnings.  If this is how we will continue our War I want out now.

Gorija
Actualy using private and expensive security contractors hurts profits and margins.

Hah!  :laugh:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/60950/

Look at any of the private contractors financial statements on Yahoo Finance, they all have positive Net Incomes.  That means they are making profits.

.


Better to use contracted security under USCOM control than to use more troops as 'security'.  ;)


Terry

That's a dark way of looking at it.  But hey, I guess the greatest question a man can ask himself is "What's my price?" 


"We want you to go into Iraq and serve our country! We want you know that you may die there and since you didn't give your honest oath to serve, we will give you a nice contract of over $100,000 for three months for you to go in there.  But no harsh feelings if you die there OK?"

Deal.

I guess the greedy bastards can die for their bloated salary.   Rather them than seeing our true red, white and blue die for lies.  Ouch, I never I thought I would curse in liberal backfire but, hey, its the times we live in eh?

Yes but those who hire them are losing money doing so.

And you know who hires them don't you?  The U.S. government.

Not only. Private firms also hire them.
But I agree that the U.S. government hiring them is absurd while they have the whole US army with them.

It's because our U.S. military doesn't have the capacity to launch such a large scale invasion on Iraq like we did.  Instead, Rumsfeld said we needed to do it anyways and hired all these contractors to go in and do the military's job for them.  He didn't put faith in our military or use any other means of assessing the situation correctly when the U.S. military had specific military strategies based upon sociological factors for all different theaters of the world.  And Rumsfeld said screw that, and went in anyway because he had to do it NOW, not LATER.

What a bastard.

.




Bush did it, it was he that is a bastard. SecDef follows orders and makes lemonade out of lemons. Since the troops are not policemen, he had no choice but to use contractors. Rumsfeld is brilliant, the village idiot screwed the pooch.  ;)


Background by Herb Meyer, former advisor to Ronald Reagan:



Regards
Terry


.

G.W. is only but a puppet.  Rumsfeld and Bush Sr. were lackeys since the beginning of the Reagan Administration.  This movement had Neo-Con written all over it.  I understand the need to thwart terror, and the U.S. are not the only ones in the fight.  But whoever in the Administration advised Bush to make this move is an idiot.

Terry,

Contractors are not policemen neither. They are just body guards. That's the problem. At least GIs tried to behave as policemen.

.





I agree. That is why they are under USCOM control.  :D


Terry


.

.




The new US SecDef is an idiot, very unlike Rumsfeld, who has come 'out of retirement' three times to wage battle when directed to do so by the then current Administration be it Republican or Democrat.
I agree, there are numerous nations fighting against terror as I quoted. Australian S.A.S. among them in Afghanistan, E. Timor, and the Solomons.   :D

Terry


.

This is pretty enlightening. I surprises me.