f13.net

Supporters of the cleric we put a warrant out for sieze city

You know, maybe if we hit Al-Sadr with a massive helicopter strike, everything would get better.

/sigh

Tell me again how this invasion is going to result in the lives of the Iraqi people getting any better? Or how it served US interests at all?

The image I get of Paul Bremer in that article is of Nero fiddling while Rome burns behind him.

This is not going to be an isolated incident. Allowing any of these "clerics" to form militias was a bad fucking idea from the start. But what does the coalition do? Nothing, just lets them form up into mini-Qaeda's. Those motherfuckers are going to be the real problem. These guys, like Sadr and Sistani, are only going to be happy when they have their own little fiefdom and Iraq is split into separate sovereign countries with the lines drawn between different sects.

There is going to be a lot more bloodshed before it gets better.

I think you give the clerics too much credit. It's not just about having their own fiefdom. It's about permanantly ending the United State's status as a global power.

We overthrew a guy who turned out to have no serious plans to pose a threat to us, and now his country is going to turn into a terrorist playground full of people who do want to destroy us.

Fucking brilliant.

Maybe if we get 'em all in one place, then pull out and nuke it from orbit, we can move on to oppressing the American people some more.

Going to Mars becomes alarmingly clear --

Sounds more and more like the Warlords that were the major OpFor in Somalia. Sure worked well for us then...

From CNN:



I get angry.

I wish that this shocked me.  I really, really wish that it did.

Not being an authority on our military's understanding of Iraq and its people, this is purely my own assertion.  However, I really don't think we considered all of the possibilities going into this war.

We're supposed to be out by June.  If we're pulling out troops by June 13, I'll be shocked.

Given the reports of mismanagement of intelligence leading up to 9/11, I wouldn't be shocked if we hadn't considered the possibility that not all Iraqis would appreciate a continued American presence after deposing Hussein (and yeah, Clarke may not be the BEST source, but until the committee makes its report, he's something to go on).

The United States is supposed to hand over governmental control of Iraq to Iraqis in June; there has never been any intention of withdrawing our forces then, though some people have understandably thought that was the case. That our government is set to have several thousand 'embassy officials' above and beyond our continued military presence over the course of the next several years also suggests that the transfer of political power from Bremer to the Iraqi Governing Council will be superficial at best.

Things do not seem to be going well.

Baath Party loyalists have partial or full control of Ramadi. Unidentified anti-coalition elements are engaged in heavy fighting with the Marines in Fallujah. Muqtada al-Sadr's forces are in control of Najaf and 'at least four' cities in southern Iraq; additional militants loyal to him have been gathering in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Tinfoil hattery: I do have to wonder whether or not our government purposely goaded al-Sadr into an action of this sort so that it could openly move to crush his people with military force, which is really the only way to remove them from the Iraqi political scene. Al-Sadr was specifically barred from joining the Governing Council despite his widespread popularity, and it will be ultimately beneficial to the American cause to have the moderate Sistani as the only major Shiite leader in Iraq. Remember that this all started when coalition forces picked up one of al-Sadr's lieutenants on a murder warrant issued six months ago but apparently ignored until now; do judges regularly issue warrants for twenty-five people in connection with one murder?

The last thing the Bush administration wanted at this point was any sort of ugliness in Iraq juxtaposed on TV with his re-election ads, let alone more American soldiers coming home in boxes.

You are the long way from the first person on this board to say this.

And it troubles me.

Because noone is leaving in June.

On the 30th of June Paul Bremer hands over sovreignty to random_iraqi_01. US/UK/Coalition troops will then continue to guarantee whatever level of security they can until some unspecified point in the far future when the new government says it's ok to go home. (Note: in previous, historically similar circumstances, the period of time before anything bar a token withdrawal has been measured in decades)

If the general perception in the US is that your troops are coming home in June then...

1) Your lazy-ass media needs an ass-kicking. Not even the BBC would get away with that degree of sloppy reporting.
2) Bush needs his head examined for not making it really fucking clear that nobody should expect troops coming home in June.

The American media has been fairly clear that the June 30 handover changes nothing for the US forces in Iraq (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,606092,00.html).  There's no way that Bush's administration is going to start shouting it from the rooftops, though, because admitting that the security situation in Iraq is still bad one year on, that there's no exit plan, and that US forces are going to be stuck there indefinitely makes him look bad with an election coming up.  Don't forget, the party line is "mission accomplished".

It's worrisome when George Bush speaks about the transfer of sovereignty on June 30, but makes absolutely no statement whatsoever about who they will transfer it to. I mean, shouldn't we have fucking known this already?

As for al-Sistani, if you really think he's a moderate, you should try reading his web site. First off, he's not even a fucking Iraqi, he's Iranian. Secondly, this backwards fuck thinks that "temporary marriages," a medieval concept I can barely wrap my head around in which the women becomes a fucktoy with no legal rights other than what the man allows her in the original contract. Now, I will be the first to admit there are things about Islam and other religions I don't get, but this is the 21st goddamn century, for fuck's sake. Leave that shit with the fucking history books.

In short, Iraq is fucked, and we are going to lose more troops trying to unfuck the fuckup we made by going in there. It's quite clear the administration had no clue what they would do once Hussein was gone, shitty intelligence about how well they'd be received, and is walking blind.

If only Iraq had a strong, secular dictator US interests in the region would be much more secure.

I want to see what happens if and when the new Iraq government does something that the US doesn't like.  Like perhaps declaring Sharia law to assuage the masses or going soft on militants.  

Either the US does nothing and allows "democracy" to dissolve, or it steps in and "helps out" again.  In which case we are still really in control and the June 30 date would have been a meaningless cover.

Perhaps I misunderstood the June 30 deadline.

I know that the U.S. is planning on making several permanent installations in Iraq, but I thought part of the transfer of power was a large number of troops coming back to the U.S.

You know, since if the Iraqis are really governing themselves, they should probably provide the lion's share of their own defense and police, etc.

Otherwise, all you have is a puppet government with the U.S. military STILL running the show behind the scenes.

    Right, like the Shah of Iran used to be.

I think he's talking about the guy with decades of dictatorial experience who is currently being held by US forces.

Hint: He needs a shave.

I'd be amazed if situations like these hadn't been counted on. Actually, not amazed - more like downright shocked.

I think we'll see some predetermined strategies going into effect. And they'll involve big guns.

Today's catch-all story on Iraq is up (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/07/iraq.main/index.html) at CNN.

A military spokesman reports that the Marines are now in control of Fallujah. Najaf is still under the control of al-Sadr's forces, and his militia is fighting Polish troops in Karbala, have forced the evacuation of Ukranian troops from Kut, and have approximately 3,000 fighters in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Even though none of this looks positive, I would venture to guess that the military will have the situation back under control in a week. There are only two pieces of news that I think could have a significantly negative impact: first, Rumsfeld has said that some personnel in Iraq might have their tours extended further, which certainly isn't going to help morale; second, there has been quite a bit of fighting around mosques, with American forces dropping bombs and launching munitions into mosque compounds to strike fighters holed up inside. Especially when the fighting moves south to the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, a misplaced bomb or shell in the area of a mosque could have serious consequences.



His nationality and social views are pretty irrelevant to his being a political moderate. He believes--albeit presumably because his group is in the majority--that Iraqis should express their will in the voting booth rather than with bombs and guns. Considering the state of Iraq at the moment, that makes him about as moderate as anyone outside of the Westernized secular elites; and if Ahmed 'Saddam has tons of chemical weapons because I have millions of dollars invested in American armaments firms' Chalabi is a representative figure, significantly less corrupt.

What should be more worrying thsn the US population thinking the US army is going home on June 30th, is the IRAQI population who have been told that.

More hidden costs of the invasion:

Money awarded to tortured US POWs by an international court will be blocked by the Bush Administration in order to pay for reconstruction. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gulf_war_pows_6)

Watching servicemen cheer for Bush is like watching a friend make excuses for her abusive boyfriend.

Wow. Speechless I am.

Hey.  Infidel.  Do not mess with the Man-Love Whiskers.

(http://www.scheffer.net/elements/images/ScruffySaddam.jpg)

Could he use some Just for Men on the damn thing at least?

Whew.  Well in the last few hours it has really spun out.

"Iraqi marchers break through US roadblocks in bid to relieve rebel bastion"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=31&u=/afp/20040408/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_fallujah_demo_040408103955

"No Sunnis, no Shiites, yes for Islamic unity," the marchers chanted. "We are Sunni and Shiite brothers and will never sell our country."

This is the kind of thing that really worried me when we charged in without UN or broad coalition/Arabic help.  Much of the ME has this millineum-old saying of "me against brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against my tribe, my tribe against tribes, all tribes against the world."

Crazies, all of them.  We need to throughly bomb the place in Big Macs and MTV until they're thoroughly sedated.

Welcome to Chezhoslovokia 1950. Or however you spell it.

Iraqi unity brought about because they hate us more than they hate each other.  A regular fucking Kodak moment.

Isn't it about time for us to Declare Victory and Get Out?

No, we have to massacre a shitton of protesting civilians before we can leave.

Yea that worked really good for the USSR.  You know they attacked a middle eastern country distroyed all the leadership and bolted.   Then 21 years later...
   BAM!
The most devastating attack on america anyone could have conceived, thats forethought!  Maybe thats what the Bushes had in mind...  we'll get those damn commie bastards, if it the last thing we do!

seriously...


Lessons learned  (http://www.bdg.minsk.by/cegi/N2/Afg/Waraf.htm)

Que?  I don't follow this at all.

Since it was the Soviets that destroyed Afghanistan but for some reason it became a breeding ground for the terrorist that attacked us.  Following the "logic" that Soviets invade, leave, and then America gets attacked this time it would be America invades, leaves, and the Soviets get attacked 20 years later.  

ALthough a convoluted attempt at a funny it does skirt the issue that if we leave we will only have to go back in 20 years or so and put the peices back together after the civil war, then the take over by a fanatical Islamic regime and the abolition of most human rights, then the terrorist training camps, and finally a huge strike against America.

The terrorists existed before Afghanistan collapsed..

Remember they are mostly Arabs, not Afghanis (who don't even really like Arabs). Bin Laden and his gang had their terrorist camps in Sudan I believe and then the govt got Sudan to kick them out. Afghanistan just provided the best home for them because it was being ruled by an extremist Islamic faction (who wouldn't give in to US diplomatic pressure)  that took over in their civil war.

The Soviets indirectly gave the terrorists a nice base (and they probably could've easily found another place in a different shitty country, maybe not as good though), but they hardly caused 911.

On a side note, last night I finally learned what the difference between Sunni's and Shiites are. Pretty hilarious they hate each other over such a minor difference in opinion on the stature of a few of the original Islamic holymen. It's like the Arian and the Orthodox Christians butchering each other in Roman times over the nature of the Trinity. Go religion, woo woo!

Um, Iraqi governing council?  Or am I missing something?  I am known for missing things.

See what happens without [sarcasm] tags?  I think the "Declare Victory and Get Out." was a Nixon plan for Vietnam.  Could be wrong.

A little off topic, but I saw a bit on O'Reilly (sp) where he was insisting that it wasn't an uprising, it was an insurection.  Go go deep political thought.

No shit.
Calm down everyone, it was merely hyperbole.

But the administration has not said definitively who in Iraq is actually going to receive the transferred power. The Governing Council is supposed to only be an iterim body, and the Constitution which would actually set up a true interim government hasn't exactly met with approval.

As for the link to Afghanistan, keep in mind that while the Soviets were occupying there, the US was busy training "freedom fighters" to fight off the Communist occupation. The Mujadeen (sic) was one of those groups. Guess who was one young freedom fighter in Afghanistan during the 80's, trained by the US to evade Soviet military and internation law enforcement?

Your friend and mine, the Arab with spunk, Osama Bin Laden.

This tangent brought to you by the letter, OH FUCK ME.

Idealogues form their opinions first, then dig up facts that weakly support their opinions. That is the main problem here.

Our government, at least the Excutive Branch, believed we would be welcomed with open arms - because they wanted to believe that. It fit with their view of the US and the world.

And so they dug up reasons to believe that. Hey Saddam was so bad, we would just HAVE to be better, right? That's pretty much the entire argument right there.
---
Nobody who performed any objective analysis believed we would be welcomed in Iraq. This is par for the course for this administration.

Abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, but the administration wants to believe it does. The administration wants to believe global warming doesn't exist. The administration wants to believe tax cuts are great because we have so much money we should be giving it back - and then, tax cuts are greats because we have a huge deficit and need to spur the economy!
---

In similar discussions on WT.org, a lot of people said something to the effect of "well, I WANT leaders who have convictions!" So do I. But not poorly formed ones that don't jive with reality. My definition of a strong conviction is "we should do our best to keep the populace informed" or "we should put the interests of American's ahead of our own as officials." NOT "we need a missile defense shield dammit!!!" (Missile defense shield, where have you gone?)

If you make a decision without considering facts, and won't reconsider based on the facts, that's a sign of a stupidity and politicking, not conviction.
---
This administration came in wanting to topple Iraq from day 1. Luckily for them 9/11 helped them "sell" their case, they invented a convenient reality (they'll love us in Iraq if we do this) and here we are now. This was entirely predictable from the get go. I'm not a CIA member or intelligence expert and it's obvious to me.

Anti-US Outrage Unites a Growing Iraqi Resistance (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/international/middleeast/11RESI.html?ex=1082260800&en=d40accd6907f055c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

Some caveats:

1. It's anecdotal, as journalism tends to be.
2. It's from the New York Times.

That said, I think it gives a good picture of why an unknown number of Iraqis are frustrated and angry with the situation in their country: Shi'ites previously indifferent to al-Sadr rallying around him now that he's under attack, Sunnis desperate and miserable now that they're a threatened minority, a lack of effective law enforcement apparatus, the usual rise of nationalist sentiment in the face of occupation, unfortunate gaffes on the part of American soldiers due to lack of cultural and religious understanding, resentment about civilian casualties during the fighting and the fact that, in a culture like that of Iraq where violence is praised and revered, fighting still has the old tribalist purpose of winning honor and glory.

Also from the Winning Friends and Influencing People Department:

Iraqi battalion refuses to deploy to Fallujah (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4711706/). They don't want to 'fight Iraqis.'

Members (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=407302004) of (http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/04/10/f223.raw.html) the US-appointed Iraq Governing Council have both individually and collectively condemned American action in Fallujah, and have called for an end to the siege.

I'm not normally the sort to preach things like conciliation and seeing things from the perspective of the enemy, but it seems as if pretty much every group in Iraq has condemned our activities in Fallujah, and that should tell us something. It might have sounded like great macho chest-pounding in the White House, like something that would reverberate well with those 'NASCAR dads' who are the ridiculous voter buzzword of the '04 campaign: four mercenaries in our employ get killed in Fallujah, so we'll surround the place, bomb the hell out of it, starve it into submission and force the citizens to turn over those responsible for the killings.

Did the outburst of violence in Fallujah demonstrate that the residents are angry and have grievances they believe to be legitimate? Yes. Could the perpetrators of the violence likely have been received into American custody without the deaths of a lot of Marines and a lot more Iraqi civilians? Probably. But the government was apparently swayed by the murmur of outrage over the Fallujah killings and decided that public opinion, which had forgotten the matter by the time the week was out, demanded the Big Stick, a demonstration of American power and resolve. What were the results? A lot of people are dead; Iraqis across the political, ethnic and religious spectrum hate us even more; the perpetrators of the murders are still at large.

Well, at least the Kurds still like us.

Almost all of the problems we are having in Iraq can be traced back to a lack of any good, clear intelligence, from the top level to the lowest grunt soldier. The soldiers there aren't really trained to be policemen, and they sure as hell don't understand or are even that well-educated in the culture of Iraq. They might have a general understanding of Islamic culture in the abstract, but I bet less than 1% of them could tell you what the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni (and I don't even know myself). On the macro level, our intelligence either did not know nor would not be allowed to say just how US troops would be welcomed in Iraq after Saddam's downfall. Thus we got the mantra that they'd be welcoming us with open arms, which has not been the case.

These aren't the French 1942. These are more like the Vietnamese 1968 style. Some might like us, some might not, and some desperately want to feast on our eyeballs. And there's no way to know the difference.

If we get a huge influx of Iraqi 'boat people' and they bring something as yummy as this (http://www.spiceplace.com/product_recipes_info.php/products_id/54/recipes_id/46), then this whole debacle might be worth it.

What I think I vaguely remember learning at school:

The Sunni and Shia schism happened when muslim_prophet_01 died, and two uncles or something both tried to take over leadership of teh muslims. The shia wanted to have a war with arab_tribe_01, while the sunni felt it more important to go 'convert' arab_tribe_02.

(I suspect this explanation works with only very minor modification for any number of other religious schisms across the middle east and elsewhere since forever.)

Also, one of these sects (I forget which) were, in a war that followed shortly after the schism, responsible for the invention of trousers. It would seem that at the time this was a major breakthrough in battlefield science; apparently they find found that slicing up skirt-wearing unbelievers is much easier when your leg wear is appropriately bifurcated.

Here in the UK we have a hideously expensive producer service broadcaster, known as the BBC, and so we are also kept espeicially well informed on up to date initimate detail of Shia/Sunni culture:

- Shia are more likely to have beards, and enjoy waving their arms about a lot.
- Sunni are more likely to wear lighter colours. Khaki is quite popular. Facial hair is generally restricted to mustaches.

Iraq has had FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of civilaistion. Bush wanted to install Democracy in 9 months.


Anyways...I now think the US (and small other contingents) have lost this counter insergency (except the British, who AFAIK, havn't taken hardly any causlaties latly). The US won't and CAN'T stay there for a decade with more troops (Hussien kept things under control with a million men).

Prediction: The coaltion will pull out...possibly trying to hand it over to the UN, who will be incapable of doing anything except get shot at (UN needs US militry support to win anyway). Iraq falls into a civil war and breaks up into 3 nations (Kurdistan, which at some point gets invaded by Turkey, An Iranin co-belligenet which acualty forces MORE pressure on Iran which then undergoes it's OWN civil war, and a old Iraq that's a dictatorship).

Bush loses in November and goes off to write his memories and blames it on all on everyone else. He goes down in history as the man who broke american militry invincability.

Expect some cool war movies in the mold of Black Hawk Down and 3 Kings in about 10 years.

For those of you who, like myself, enjoy wasting time by speculating on the political future of Iraq:

Hussein-Era Army Officers Return in Security Move (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a0bbwWIjTpv0&refer=top_world_news)

Although it makes sense that the government is belatedly heeding the Iraq experts who said that disbanding the Iraqi Army outright would lead to chaos (by making hundreds of thousands of armed and disgruntled men unemployed) and overstretch (by denying the Coalition the use of Iraqis as auxiliaries and security forces), this really seems like the worst of both worlds: former Iraqi Army officers are going to be brought back into the military, but only those who deserted in the face of the American invasion. Isn't running away the one area in which the current Iraqi Civil Defense Corps is already amply familiar?

The ones who didn't run away were killed in the fighting. All 6 of them.