IM;

One other piece of news that will bug the Bush haters.   

 With the significant downturn in violence, US officers are free to help Iraqis get back to work.                                       

One province along the Euphrates is ideal for fish farms.  A  US officer advised the locals how to set and stock  ponds. They produce a local fish that is very popular with local restaurants. The downturn in violence has  increased the desire of locals to eat out. Fish ponds now dot the landscape.

I hope the US bashers on OD like fish. 

IM;

A response for US Bashers?

They have a knack for poisoning the "well".

Yeah...it's tough being a Superpower these days.

;-)

[quote]And which one of us has been offering: they [the Islamic radicals] have nothing to offer their people but pyrotechnic nilhilism and stagnation in a life closed to all of the opportunities that open to people in the modern world.[/quote]

You did.  But that suggests that one of us has been offering the opposite? C'mon that's a no-brainer.  There is near universal agreement of the dead end nature of radical islam, except among Islamic radicals. 

[quote] The great problem (tragedy!) is that the Iraq War helped strengthen the appeal of Islamic Radicalism. Osama bin Laden has won the Iraq round of the conflict with Islamic Radicalism.[/quote]

The most telling paragraph of the article suggests otherwise--when reality confronts ideology, ideology is found wanting.

[quote]Violent struggle against the United States was easy to romanticize at a distance. “I used to love Osama bin Laden,” proclaimed a 24-year-old Iraqi college student. She was referring to how she felt before the war took hold in her native Baghdad. The Sept. 11, 2001, strike at American supremacy was satisfying, and the deaths abstract. Now, the student recites the familiar complaints: Her college has segregated the security checks; guards told her to stop wearing a revealing skirt; she covers her head for safety. “Now I hate Islam,” she said, sitting in her family’s unadorned living room in central Baghdad. “Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army are spreading hatred. People are being killed for nothing.”[/quote]

Eventually, the allure of radical islam is lost in reality of a violent repressive lifestyle.  As Iraq heals and becomes prosperous, they will become the model in the Middle East of life after radical islam and consumerism will be a stronger appeal than religion or even nationalism.  

Osama bin Laden has not won the Iraq round, because the round is not over.  Like his ideology, he too will burn out before the end of the round.

I bet the people who swallow this drivel are the same people who believed Jusith Miller's stories about WMD - also in the NYT.  

Irin Mike,

[quote]I think you missed my point. The US prosecution of the Iraq war has had a positive effect in Iraq of turning islamic radicals away from radical islam. . . . The article points to the reality of war and the reality of radical islam undermining the influence of islamic radicals.[/quote]

So some gain offsets any cost?

Meanwhile you evade my far more consquential one that the NET result of this misbegotten war has been to render emergence of a broadly held Arab/Muslim understanding on the 'dead end' nature of the radical course more difficult. THAT wins the round.

Further on up the thread you propose:

[quote]There is near universal agreement of the dead end nature of radical islam, except among Islamic radicals[/quote]

Characterizing the propostion as a 'no-brainer'

This is not the first time you have made light of an idea on the grounds that it is 'obvious'.

You ignored my little Civil War homily on Bedford Forrest as to the oft-times absolute importance of timing. As one who has proclaimed his military background, I would have thought you would appreciate the proposition. [You might recall, as well, that moment in the Civil War when Alexander Pope was most uncomfortabley surprised to discover half of the Confederate Army on his flank at Second Bull Run.]

The application here is that an understanding of the poverty of the radical message should have dominated our thinking and shaped our course after 9/11, and most certainly after Afghanistan. Instead the decision was made to go to war in Iraq, diverting attention and energies that might have been directed at what will prove to be the decisive matter.

[quote]A victor cannot be proclaimed when the Iraq round is not over.  If radical islam does not maintain a hold on Iraq, there is no way to proclaim Bin Laden the victor in anything but bringing death and destruction upon those aligned with him. . . . ..As Iraq heals and becomes prosperous, they will become the model in the Middle East of life after radical islam and consumerism will be a stronger appeal than religion or even nationalism. . . . . Whether it's because or in spite of US involvement is immaterial.[/quote]

How do you come by the curious notion that historically speaking 'alls well that ends well'? The costs, the losses of life and treasure that one course may entail as opposed another can be regarded as 'immaterial'?

I have used this tungue-in-cheek observation before, but for YOU, it would appear to be anything but tungue-in-cheek.

Given how well Japan was doing in the 80's - and its still eviable position today - does that make Pearl Harbor a good  idea?

[quote]

BTW, to be precise, there is no such thing as "political hackery," so I clearly cannot be engaging in it.[/quote]

Well, would you then plead guilty to crude and inept political hack work?

[quote]As Iraq heals and becomes prosperous, they will become the model in the Middle East of life after radical islam[/quote]

What planet to these people live on? The fact that no real progress has been made is hidden in the very reasons for the decrease in violence:

1. The co-opting of the Sunni resistance - a move which will inevitably lead to further conflict as the Shia dominated government are refusing to absorb them into the security services

2. The ceasefire by the Mehdi army which could break at any time.

3. The completion of confessional cleansing is the main reason for the decrease in inter-faith killings. There are very few mixed areas left and people have learned not to travel outside their own areas. In effect there is no one left to kill!

In addition, the underlying problems which preceded the "surge" have hardly been dented:

The government's writ doesn't run outside the fortified green zone. In a recent bit of set piece propaganda, Maliki ventured outside the green zone and bought two suits. After he and his armed retinue had left the scene the tailor promptly closed his business and left - knowing that the incident would make him a marked man. (http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick03072008.html)

Quite apart from the travails it suffers in the arab part of the country, the kurdish area is effectively a defacto sovereign state (albeit one which cannot prevent neighbouring Turkey from invading at will!).

Al Qaeda may well have been forced to lie low by the so-called "awakening" movement but they are still bombing mosques and market places. As Ron237 has pointed out, Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq prior to this moronic mis-adventure

And lastly how can a country prosper when over 4 million of it's people (about a 7th of it's population!) have had to flee?:

"UNHCR estimates more than 4.2 million Iraqis have left their homes, many in dire need of humanitarian care. Of these, some 2.2 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2 million have fled to neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but the largest number has fled since. In 2006, Iraqis became the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe."(http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html).

This is especially damaging when such a large number of these are the professionals, skilled workers and business people who have most to fear from the kidnappings and common crime which are now endemic in Iraq. Without them it is difficult to see how "consumerism" will happen.

The fact is that the US has lost in Iraq. While terrorist activity is down on 2006, it is still one of the most dangerous places on earth. The temporary decrease in violence has only been achieved by effectively surrendering control of much of the country to the very people (the awakening) who they were fighting to deny it to. In addition it has gifted Al Qaeda both a cause celebre to aid it's recruiting and a training ground to blood it's cadres. Add to that the fact that they have also strengthened the influence of Iran in the region and it is difficult to see what it has achieved.

The question now is will America have the sense to get out now to limit the damage to it's economy (already massive) and image (even more so) or will it repeat the mistake it made in Vietnam of hanging on until it's forced to be seen running away with it's tail between it's legs. The image remains etched in my head of a helicopter taking off from what I assume was the US embassy roof in Saigon with a be-spectabled man kicking off the desperate Vietnamese collaborators trying to hang on to the skids. That's what they've ultimately got to look forward to if they persist with the fantasy that they can win.

[quote]Do your opinions make you a US Basher? Yes, but it is your own fault.

What is needed on OD are MATURE OPINIONS.  US Bashers like yourself lack that.[/quote]

Criticising the US makes you a "US Basher" and  "mature opinions" are only those favourable to the  US.   This guy has locked himself into a loop where it's impossible for him to be wrong.   It's got to be a wind up!  I think he's really a leftie engaging in a highly satirical double think scam .

[quote][You might recall, as well, that moment in the Civil War when Alexander Pope was most uncomfortabley surprised to discover half of the Confederate Army on his flank at Second Bull Run.][/quote]

JOHN Pope!

"The only army commander operating against the Army of Northern Virginia to earn the personal animosity of Robert E. Lee was John Pope. ..."

Apologies to the Poet Alexander Pope, who would likely not have been so stupid.

[quote]Apparently you failed to read my post in its entirety.[/quote]

I never fail to read in entirety the posts of yourself and your understudy Iron Mike (entertaining and delighting the left since 2004 - the idea that we are bored and enraged by him is another of his delusions!).

The idea that Bush needed advisors to tell him that the US could overthrow a third world dictator doesn't dissapoint. It's one of your best.

As is the proposition that the US overthrew the Taliban. They didn't. They employed the Northern Alliance to do so - though the US has joined in by massacring the odd wedding party and pouring tonnes of ordnance into empty caves.

But the funniest of your combined outpourings so far is this clinging to the notion that the addition of another 30,000 troops is going to stave off defeat in Iraq.

As discussed elsewhere, the lull in killings is due to the enlistment of the erstwhile resistance to banish Al Qaeda( a move which undermines the shia dominated government) the truce by Muqtadr al Sadr which will expire sooner or later, and the fact that the confessional cleansing has resulted in the demise of mixed areas.

I remain convinced that you and IM are really left wing plants bent on bringing the cause of US imperialism into deserved disrepute. Genuine or not, I promise you that I will never miss a word that you and your pal pour out. I assure you that it far more effective US bashing than anything I could achieve.

It's so annoying when work gets in the way of my OD avocation.  I miss a few days and so much to catch up on.

[quote]Ron: You ignored my little Civil War homily on Bedford Forrest as to the oft-times absolute importance of timing.[/quote]

Indeed.  I often ignore the red herrings you toss out to divert the subject.   Do you really want to engage in a battle of famous military quotes?  Because frankly that is too boring to warrant my time.

The central thread is about the changing attitude of the youth of Iraq away from empty religious rhetoric of Islamic extremism to a more hopeful future made possible by American liberators.  Not MY words--it's theirs! 

Whether or not you or Big C or anyone here on OD are convinced is irrelevant. What matters is in the mind of Iraqis who must live in Iraq and shape their own future.  I am happy however to provide some amusement.  After all, the best joke of all is when the reality of what you believe to be parody becomes the truth. 

[quote]I never fail to read in entirety the posts of yourself and your understudy Iron Mike (entertaining and delighting the left since 2004 - the idea that we are bored and enraged by him is another of his delusions!). [/quote]

Credit should be offered where due.  It was my favorite Palestinian apologist, Eric who likened my posts to speeches by President Bush---boring and enraging at the same time.  I was so amused by his observation that I felt compelled to immortalize his words in my tag line.  So please, thank Eric.  The credit is all his.

Iron Mike,

I DON'T THINK so!

The point you raise is hopeful, but, in a phrase that has recently gained some currency here, 'too little too late'. The point I raise is of far greater consequence.

Care to actually address the question? 

I will leave it for the others here to judge the poverty of your response.

Some of us think it was wrong to have prosecuted the war in Iraq but, having done so, it would be equally wrong to simply pull out. Personally I was, and am, in favour of the surge and of the continued presence of US forces until there is a degree of stability. I think Bush is incompetent (and that Rumsfeld was a complete, overpromoted, arrogant prat) but that does not mean that Bush gets everything wrong. I do have concerns that it would be hard for a Democrat government to continue with the commitment to Iraq given the rhetoric that has been used; but it remains to be seen.

Iron Mike, englishman et al,

Iron Mike AGAIN evades the consequential point. The Iraq War has delayed the outcome we all wish: the emergence of a widely held acceptance throughout the Muslim world of the poverty of the radical course, and the evolution of more constructive and enduring avenues for engaging life in that world.

There none (Iron Mike) so blind as those who will not see.

A budget surplus because of oil? At a world price in excess of $100.00 dollars a barrel? If we were down around $30.00 a barrel - where somewhere recently I recall it said was the case before the war?  Ahh me! ANY 'good' news blots out EVERYTHING for Iron Mike. All glasses must be be half full!

What Glass?

And Barack Obama has defined the guiding principle which ALL - in fact - subscribe to: We must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. How one strategizes that 'careful' becomes the REAL issue. In that regard, swallowing whole one side's characterization of some other sides proposals serves no one's interest - let alone the country's.

[quote]Iron Mike AGAIN evades the consequential point. The Iraq War has delayed the outcome we all wish...[/quote]

In YOUR opinion.  I find it equally plausible that US involvement hastened the disillusionment with radical islam by making the violent jihad less distant and impersonal and AGAIN offer the article which began this thread as proof...which AGAIN you evade.

[quote]And Barack Obama has defined the guiding principle which ALL - in fact - subscribe to: We must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. How one strategizes that 'careful' becomes the REAL issue.[/quote]

And THERE we agree.  Too bad Obama is either unwilling or unable to define that strategy.  His foreign policy advisor even suggested that pulling out wasn't REALLY his strategy in Iraq.  I guess it's just his strategy to win the election. 

<sob> ...and I thought Obama was different from all the other politicians!

[quote]A budget surplus because of oil? At a world price in excess of $100.00 dollars a barrel?[/quote] So what? They didn't create the current oil market. and as long as they have a surplus, it's time for them to start financing their own infrastructure and lessen the burden on the US.

'Although Englishman's statements include a
rather subjective measurement, certainly his statements are not as unreasonable
as championing the opposite. Is that what you are supporting? If
not, then you must be in agreement with the concept and just need an objective
measure.'

Englishman is a dupe because he has been
convinced that his choices are either ‘A’ or ‘B’, a binary argument devised to be a no-lose situation for the right wing nuts in your current government. For example, look at your question to me, a fine example of reinforcing the binary argument if ever there was one, and I doubt you are even aware of it, I’m sorry but that makes you a dupe to. Genius though, yet hardly original, if we’re all busy weighing the merits of ‘should we stay’ or ‘should we go’ it
obviously means we’ve all accepted - or at the very least, are ignoring the
question of why we’re there in the first place.

I know, you like to think it’s for all
the fuzzy and feel good reasons, good little misguided patriot that you are,
the problem is I don’t. That means for me the questions that needs to be
answered first is why the Americans are there in the first place, only when
this is HONESTLY answered can a strategy be developed.

TT

[quote]I was being brief. Everyone knows the role played by them. They had
been stalemated for years prior to 9/11. We backstopped them with
airpower. The Taliban toppled in 90 days. [/quote]

...and you've been fighting them ever since (or at least the Canadians and British have). The puppet government only controls about 30% of the country - and that's only in daylight.

[quote]Al-Sadr has extended his truce. Sunni tribes are working with the US
and Iraqi government to toss out al-Qeda. The Iraqi Parliament is
starting to make progress. Why does that upset you? [/quote]

It doesn't upset me. It amuses me! Al Sadr is simply waiting for the troops to be pulled out again. When they're gone he'll come back. First rule of 4th generation warfare. When the enemy advances, withdraw, when they withdraw, advance.

And you seem to be completely oblivious to the significance and consequences of co-opting the resistance or "Sunni tribes" as you call them. They are the people you have been fighting since "mission accomplished" (5 years ago!) They'll use US help to get rid of Al Qaeda then get right back to fighting the US and the government (which opposed their formation in the first place) as soon as that's done - except they'll now have new weapons and supplies courtesy of the US.Even then they're only interested in clearing al qaeda from their own areas - they (Al Qaeda) are still bombing mosques and market places in the Shia areas.

And finally, what progress is the Iraqi parliament making? They've failed to agree on control of the oil and distribution of the revenues and they've failed to agree on arrangements for electing provincial officials. The only partial success they've had is repealling the laws prohibiting the re-employment of Baath party members. And that's purely academic as the government departments are controlled by the militias who will keep them out anyway.

This is simply another "turning point" which is no less illusory than all the previous ones ( or all the future ones as I'm sure there'll be more - and I'm sure the same people will believe them)

Oh and by the way, congratulations on the amusing little adaptation of my monika. Very witty. You'll never know how much I laughed...

It seems not everyone is as enthusiastic about motherhood and apple pie:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bereaved-iraqi-mother-vows-revenge-on-us-795018.html

I wonder why...

Chris, I was surprised by your lack of understanding that someone can be incompetent but sometimes, if even by chance (if you like), can get something right. It can happen the other way too: someone who is competent can get some things wrong.

But I see it was not just the logic you objected to, reasonable though it is, it was also the use of English in using the phrase "equally wrong". This may not be very accurate in a quantitative sense but is a commonly used expression. In the context I used it, I meant that going into Iraq was a bad idea but then I also think that leaving a weak force there is also bad, and pulling out even worse. I really can't fathom how you did not understand this either.

Then there was an accusation of double speak because I used the phrase "a degree of stability". This is not strictly doublespeak and is really a shorthand phrase to suggest that there will come a point where it will be reasonably satisfactory, if not perfect, to withdraw from Iraq. I cannot define this situation well at this time (can you?) but I would foresee that such a time may come about.

Then I was called a dupe for taking a view that there should be continued military presence. As most Canadians, British and possibly most Americans think there should be a withdrawal from Iraq, how is taking a contrary view any demonstration of being duped? Being somewhat politically non-conformist, I don't get accused of that very often.

You are permitted to simply disagree you know!

Chris, I would prefer to discuss the issues rather than your opinions of my intellect, or if you have such a dim view of my perceptions, perhaps not to discuss anything with you at all. But to persist...

I could, given time, list a set of criteria that I would regard as a guide as to whether it was time for the US to pull out of Iraq. But this cannot be a very explicit view because the situation is fluid and the criteria would change with time. If the USA pulled out now, I think there would be a high chance of civil war. The situation is too messy to predict with any accuracy, but there is a Shia (previously repressed) majority who would get much support from Iran across the border. There is a large Sunni population, although in the minority, were, prior to the occupation, the most powerful group and held the key political and military positions. Many of these people would like to restore this situation. And then there are the Kurds who may be able to stay isolated, at least for a while, from much of the likely warring but who would certainly be affected in areas they co-occupy with the other groups. Then there is the distribution of the oil wealth to consider. There is no shortage of arms and explosives it seems. I cannot believe your view would be to just let them get on with it and fight, but I do not see any realistic chance that this would not happen. The best approach would be a sufficiently large UN neutral force, but, basically, this does not exist. I am not under any illusion that there are some in the US government who would wish to stay in occupation of Iraq because of the strategic value in doing so, rather than the reasons I have stated. It may stick in the throat that some of the nefarious plans of the neocons may be appear to be working. But because you disagree with someone's motives does not mean you have to disagree on their actions. There were various motives for the war, which I discussed at length in the past, including the desire to reshape the ME, to aid Israel, to gain a source of oil and to rid Iraq of a dictator to name a few. Some have worked and some have gone awry, but all at a huge cost in lives, money and to the detriment of future world peace. My view is what's done is done and we have to do the best from where we are. In my view it is essential to have a well policed and stable society, with some form of working civil government set up, before you can simply withdraw. If you ask Iraqis what they want, in order of preference, it would be law and order, the restoration of essential services and financial stability for businesses to work. Getting the US out would not come before the first two to many people there.

A stable peace will also need the cooperation of Iran and, probably, Turkey. It is hard to see how either of these countries, especially Iran, would not take the opportunity to take advantage of a politically and militarily weak Iraq. This would not be a peaceful affair, in my opinion.

I thought some time ago that the only solution in Iraq would be an imposed federal arrangement with three regions. Like all these simplistic views it has many flaws, not least of which is the three regions are not wholly distinct by the ethnicity of the populations. Recently I have been more hopeful that such a drastic action may not be necessary, but it needs time for stability to arise. If such partition occurs through the force majeure of a power vacuum the resulting ethnic cleansing will be bloody indeed.

Briefly, that is my view. Now what is your opinion, with reasons please.

BC;

"This whole thread is about a cherry-picked article!"

So that justifies you doing the same? Tsk, tsk. You sound like a sectarian militia man in Iraq looking for payback. As a matter of fact you act like one.

Just because I point out that some article you cherry-picked has a smell to it, don't flip out. You don't like the paper that printed your story? If you didn't like the newspaper it was printed in, why did you pick it?

1) al-Sahwa?

Do I condemn everyone who fought for Saddam? No. Neither do I write dishonest articles about their widows and tout them on OD.

Should Bush disband al Sahwa? US forces negotiated for years with Sunnis leaders to join them. It worked. It irks you that the Sunnis are rejecting al Qaeda and allying with US forces? tough.

The Sunnis are going to get rid of the US and the Shiites after they defeat Al Qeda?

I didn't know you were clairvoyant about Sunni intentions (or have you been listening to hacks again?) If you're clairvoyant, why did you screw up picking this embarrassing article?

2) Al Qeda did not exist in Iraq before the invasion?

In name only.

Prior to 9/11 Afghanistan was home to many terror groups, not just Al Qaeda. Zarqawi trained there with one of those groups and then ended up in Iraq prior to 2003. He was active from the beginning. He just changed hats when he called himself the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Without his presence jihadist would have had no one to follow. Syrian and Iranian Itelligence have also trained terror cells and sent them to Iraq. Most of them are chasing virgins now.

3) Loss of Income?

Mama clearly mourns the dinars her Saddam thugs brought in.

4) The Sons?

Having the taint of Saddam has been a mark of death in Iraq for a long time. If Iraqis had joined together and formed a new country per US advise, neither son would have died in sectarian fighting. You and Mama should assign blame where blame is due.

5) Arming ex-Baathists?

I'm confused. First you dredge up this article which sympathizes with slain baathists opposed to the US. Now you criticize live baathists who reject al Qeda and join the US. One would think you don't care a twit about Baasthists. You just have an axe to grind with the US and you use anything you find to bring it home.

The fact is , the US has been trying to get Shiite, Sunni and Kurd to form a united government since the beginning. The militias that you blame on the US were whipped up by outside influences like Al Qaeda, Syria and Iran to prevent that.

. US success turning Sunni insurgents around bothers you? Tough. The downturn in violence bothers you? tough. Sporadic success at reconciliation bothers you? Double tough

It is not hard to get the meaning behind your words.