Iraq the 100 Year War
Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:59:24 PM PDT
As Rachel Maddow pointed out quite eloquently tonight, should we accept John McCain at his word, we truly never will leave Iraq. If there are American casualties, this means we must stay until success is attained, if there are none, it is safe for us to remain.
It has always been impossible for me to describe what exactly is happening in Iraq, but pre-war, I became a huge advocate for the one candidate who openly and loudly questioned that lead up to war and subsequent invasion, and it was Howard Dean. I came to admire many other things about Howard Dean, but ultimately, that drove my support for him, and I became a Deaniac, much in the way I am an Obamamaniac.
In 2002, I never envisioned that my older brother would decide, because of finances in 2004, he would become one of those private Americans signing on with KBR to go to Iraq. He lived and worked in the Green Zone for 3 years, and now we simply don't speak. For most of those 3 years I begged him continually to return home, knowing how miserable he was. So miserable he changed from my older brother into a person I now no longer know.
All of the things that I had been studying, and even found some warning about, in why the war in Iraq was so wrong, are now becoming especially evident. Certainly, most of us don't really need a rehashing of the history; but within this diary I will offer just some "news" from mainstream media offered over the last few days. Everything we have done in Iraq from March 19, 2003, until March 30, 2008 has essentially been for naught. Iraq is seriously more dangerous, as a country, both for Iraqis and for Americans and our "allies", than it was pre March 19, 2003. You remember, that time when Howard Dean and Barack Obama were both saying it was the wrong war.
So now let me offer current news that shows just how right most all of us were, after that stuff we all read about in the past, including pre-2003...a "wrong" that Hillary Clinton still cannot explain away (no matter how great she is in discussing "issues)...
The fighting in Basra, which has spread to parts of Baghdad, is not a clash between good and evil or between a legitimate government and an outlaw insurgency. Rather, as Anthony Cordesman, military analyst for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes, it is "a power struggle" between rival "Shiite party mafias" for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country.
Sadr, who may be Iraq's most popular Shiite militant and who controls several seats in parliament, gave Maliki the crucial backing he needed to become prime minister. However, largely under U.S. pressure, Maliki has since backed away from Sadr, who has always fiercely opposed the occupation and whose militiamen have killed many American soldiers (until last year, when he declared a cease-fire).
Maliki has since struck a close alliance with ISCI, which has its own militia, the Badr Organization, and whose members also hold much sway within Iraq's official security forces (though more with the police than with the national army). This alliance has the blessing of U.S. officials, even though ISCI—which was originally called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq—has much deeper ties with Iran than Sadr does. (ISCI's leaders went into exile in Iran during the decades of Saddam's reign, while Sadr and his family stayed in Iraq—one reason for his popular support. As Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations has noted, SICRI was created by Iran, and the Badr brigades were trained and supplied by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.)
http://www.slate.com/...
So, let's get this straight, Sadr, who is an Iraqi "nationalist" has always been opposed to the American presence in Iraq. He does, apparently, receive funding and support from Iran, but believes strongly in Iraq, and supported Maliki to become Prime Minister. On the other hand, our country blesses and supports the real alliance Maliki is drawing upon with ISCI, whose members truly did live, were created by, and are primarily receiving full support from Iran. Of course, Sadr is not one I would champion here, but when you compare the Mahdi Army (Sadr) to Badr Brigade (ISCI) which organization do you believe will fight harder for Iraqi independence (while neither choice is ultimately great for Iraq).
Ok...on with more news...
As U.S. warplanes attacked targets in Basra yesterday, Bush administration officials acknowledged that their hands-off strategy toward southern Iraq in recent years has left them with little knowledge of the conflicts among competing Shiite groups there and few ways of influencing them.
"This is a precarious situation," a senior official familiar with U.S. intelligence in southern Iraq said, with "a lot to be gained and a lot to lose." This official and others said that even as Maliki takes needed military action in Basra, he appears to be positioning himself and his Shiite political allies for dominance in provincial elections this fall.
Competition for power and resources in the oil-rich south has been ongoing for months among the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; the Badr Corps militia of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest single party in the Iraqi parliament; and the breakaway Sadrist movement known as Fadhila. The Shiite groups are opposed and allied with each other in a tangle of national and local issues, with many divisions reflected in factions of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Now, if you are reading this correctly, apparently Bush and his administration are so out of touch with events on the ground, they don't even know what is happening, and are blinding supporting Maliki. Do they even know whether their support of Maliki is appropriate? After all, Maliki was an exile, out of Iraq long before Saddam was overthrown. Maliki had no "base" of support within Iraq, he was just another Bush puppet, picked for his position as "prime minister". No wonder he doesn't have a lot of support within Iraq, but apparently Iran is firmly on his side, as is George Bush and his administration, followed up by no less than John McCain and Joe Lieberman...
Now, more news from the last few days...but first...an article that forces us to remember this:
Iraq's new army is "developing steadily," with "strong Iraqi leaders out front," the chief U.S. trainer assured the American people. That was three-plus years ago, the U.S. Army general was David H. Petraeus, and some of those Iraqi officials at the time were busy embezzling more than $1 billion allotted for the new army's weapons, according to investigators.
http://news.yahoo.com/...
We will stand down as they stand up, the Bush administration has assured us over and over again. McCain assures us of the same thing, over 5 years later. How long does it take exactly to "develop" an army? How many months of training does the average American receive before sent into active duty in any branch of our armed forces? What is the problem in Iraq?
From the same article...
arlier, in January last year, President Bush said Iraqi forces would take charge in all 18 Iraqi provinces by November 2007. Four months past that deadline, they control only half the 18.
Responsibility for these ever-unfulfilled goals lies in Washington, contends retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who preceded Petraeus as chief trainer in Iraq.
"We continue to fail to properly resource and build the very force that will enable a responsible drawdown of our forces," Eaton told The Associated Press.
Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a West Point professor and frequent Iraq visitor, also sees insufficient "energy" in the U.S. effort. "Even now, there is no Iraqi air force; there's no national military medical system; there's no maintenance system," he told a New York audience on March 13.
The current chief trainer counters that his Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, known as MNSTC-I, has made "huge progress in many areas, quality and quantity."
Could it be Bush just didn't want to really turn over full "control"? Perhaps it was just another taxpayer funded adventure feeding the pigs at the trough....
A look back by the AP, as the Iraq conflict enters its sixth year, finds the $22 billion training effort has been a story of uncertain steps and policy reversals, corruption, questionable numbers and distrust, ending with an Iraqi military with narrow capabilities and years more "standing up" ahead.
Wow, we have a winning policy going on in Iraq as of March 30, 2008.
Finding that this diary is stretching on much longer than I originally intended, here are some addition sources of current "news"...indulge yourself and see just how wrong it is for us to remain...
http://news.yahoo.com/...
http://news.yahoo.com/...
http://www.juancole.com/
Permalink | 8 comments