Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure

So after breaking humty Dumpty, you want the Iraqis to put him together again ....

Brilliant Gill Saheb.

Re: # 1

What other choice do the iraqis have?... suck it in and get cracking on reconciliation... sooner the better... americans sure made a mistake, but iraqis do not have to reinforce that, by killing each other like crazy fools...

Sorry ... the foregoing response was after reading just the teaser.

You`re right. It won`t work. These troops are not actually a `surge`, but partial replenishment for the 30,000 or so dead and wounded (remember the initial deployment to Iraq was 162,000 out of which about 132,000 still remain). The difference is that all of these will be deployed in Baghdad and Al-Anbar in an attempt to clear and hold districts, while the earlier strategy was to clear and rush back to green zones. If they hold districts, they will become perfect targets for shooting practice. I just don`t know what these americans are doing. They must be completely insane.

I think soon they will opt for plan `B`, which is to fortify themselves in the permanent bases they have built for 70,000 troops or so, and keep the oil flowing. That`s all.

Mohar,

This is relevant to your question which I had posted on UP today:

Saddam was the boy with his finger in the dyke. It was never simple to pull him away, and he knew that. Lots of other people knew that too, but the US administration neither knew, nor bothered to find out.

Iraq is no ordinary country. I know you`re not too keen on Islamic history or the catalysmic events that characterise it, but that was the capital of the first caliphate, and that`s where the iconic figures like Ali and Hussain are entombed. It has always been a tug of war since the time Ayesha battled Ali over Kufa right there, and where the Khwarij encamped in rebellion. This is also the land where the Sassanids were defeated.

All these adverseries are still there, and that`s my point. That`s what I meant by letting the `genie` out of the bottle in an earlier post.

I think currently Americans are in the process of gathering guarantees that if they limit their occupation of ME by keeping their military in the surrounding countries of Iraq, like Gulf States, and SA etc,. the freedom fighetrs in Iraq and Al-Qaeda would not come chasing them there. Iss waqt sab ki phati hoi hay -Arbon ki bhi aur kafiron ki bhi.

I have very mixed feelings about the US staying on in Iraq. Were they to leave, the sunnis will be run over and/or the country will be partitioned. Like it or not, americans are the only neutral party there now and they also bear COMPLETE responsibility for the catastrophe there.

#6 by soysauce

soysauce, what makes you decide americans are a neutral party? They sowed the seeds of sectarian clash between shia/sunni by disenfranchising Sunnis in the very constitution that they wrote for Iraq, and when that didn`t work in turning one against the other, they blew up Hasan Askari`s tomb. Even that didn`t work, so they formed death squads with 50 Sunni bodies turning up every single day in Baghdad. That worked, and Sunnis decided if Iraq is going to be split, might as well protect your turf, and grab more if possible. Thus the sectarian strife.

...and no the Sunnis will not be run over if US was to leave ... as it is the 21,500 more are to crush the Sunnis. And the collaberator is the Shia government which would love that to happen.

It is unbelievable, but I have never used this Shia/Sunni terminology till now. Was never even aware of it. But that`s the divisive power of the farang. It does work. However I know better.

zeemax, newspaper reports say americans are working to stop the mehdi army death squads and are apparently having some success. There has been a drop in the number of torture-cum-murder victims recently. There also has been ``ethnic`` cleansing of shia and sunni areas of Baghdad by sunni & shia militias, respectively, and the americans are supposedly trying to stop & reverse that. They are under a lot of pressure from the saudis and egyptians on one side and their puppet government on the other side so the net effect (one hopes) is some neutrality on the part of the americans.
Given Bush`s track record, it`s hard to believe he can do anything constructive anywhere but I do hope that good sense prevails and the Iraqis will get back to something resembling a normal life. It`s american responsibility to reconstruct Iraqi civil society.

Re: # 4
[...All these adverseries are still there, and that`s my point..]

I understand... now here is my point: how long ago was that when Ali kicked hussain`s a$$ or Ayesha occupied Kufa or whatever?... how much water has flown down euphratis and trigris since then?...Why is 21st humans fighting battles of the 7th century desperadoes?... whatever issues Ali, hussain, ayesha may have had in those days, are they even relevant today in the real world?...

And where is the outrage and words of wisdom from good folks of the community?... where is the call to stop the madness of the past and have intra-muslim harmony for the future?...

Does it make sense to you?

Mr. Gill,

Iraq was in a mess even brfore the US entered there. Unfortunately it appears that it may well become a bigger problem for the US as well.
Extra troops are not going to do anything worth while. But the US is caught in an inextricable dilemma. One way or the other, the outcome does not appear to be positive. In my opinion Bush has given the lead of ascendancy to Iran in the middle eastern theatre. Iran becoming more powerful may or may not be a desirable outcome for stability in the middle east. As long as the baboons in saudi are in proper control of the US, hopefully things should remain in control.
But in all this drama, the biggest loosers are ordinary iraqis who are dying for no fault of theirs. One can argue of course that they are dying because of their own prejudices and schisms in the society. First it was under saddam and now under the US occupation. I don`t think it matters to a common man if death comes to him via an al qaeda nut job, saddam or a good intentioned US soldier.
Even if this is the last gasp of imperialsim from US, it surely wouldn`t be the last one in the wrold.
Adios

Iraq campaign is one that was very badly executed. Hubris and pathetic ignorance of middle eastern history on the part of Americans has caused all this mess.

Kamath

Current public polls in the US show that about 3 of 4 Americans oppose the President`s efforts in Iraq and that fewer than 1 in 5 support a surge of troops. President Bush has lost the confidence of the American public. As yet, that loss of public confidence has not connected to President Bush at all. Either that or he simply chooses to ignore it. The militarily futile ``surge`` is on. Soon, the second Battle of Baghdad will erupt.

This is not a ``surge`` in real military terms. Bush is sending 20,000 US combat troops to Baghdad. The first US brigade will arrive on January 25.

The next brigade will arrive by February 15. The remaining three brigades will go in after that in 30-day increments. Militarily, this is a trickle. The first to move into Iraq will be the Second Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division which is now in Kuwait and ready to move. The remaining four brigades are in the US in assorted stages of disassembly, repair and retraining. The last of the US brigades will be ready to go to Iraq - in late March!

Militarily, the US cupboard is empty. When the 82 Airborne`s 2nd Brigade moves from Kuwait to Baghdad, the US military will no longer have either a tactical or a genuine strategic reserve inside Iraq. All of the 15 brigades there will be fully deployed and engaged. None of them will be able to assist any of the other US brigades without ending what it is now doing.

Politically the situation is simple in principle. President Bush had to make his own move before the newly-elected US Congress itself had a chance to do so. He has made his move with his speech and with this mini-escalation. That forces the US Congress into responding to his initiative instead of acting first and forcing President Bush to respond. President Bush is playing for time. Meanwhile, the Iraq enterprise has FAILED.

It is not generally understood by the American public that the reason the US has not been driven out of Iraq is that the vast majority, the Shiites, have not been part of the insurgency. The Shiites are attacking the Sunnis who are forced to fight a two-front war against US troops and Shiite militias and death squads.

If President Bush launches an attack upon Sadr City, a vast Shiite slum area north of the Green Zone in Baghdad which contains the US Embassy, he could ignite a general Shiite uprising against the US Forces, not only Baghdad itself, but across the main Shiite areas to the south which go all the way to Kuwait.

Here, the military facts on the ground are simple and harsh. Were the main grouping of Shiites to the south to rise up against the US occupation of Iraq, the US Forces around Bagdad would be CUT OFF!

US Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor, a decorated combat veteran who served in Operation Desert Storm, has said this: ``Surge? Yes, we can. It will break the force, which in my estimation is broken already. It will leave you with N0 strategic reserves.`` Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway pointed this out on January 8, ``If you commit your reserve for something other than a decisive win, or to stave off defeat, then you have essentially shot your bolt.`` President Bush has shot his bolt.

Over the coming weeks, Senate Democrats plan to hold at least 11 hearings on Iraq alone. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has announced a schedule for four weeks of hearings on Iraq featuring witnesses such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, members of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) which recommended a new course in Iraq, a slew of former secretaries of state and defence, current and retired generals and Middle East scholars. A devastating report by the Center for Defence Information, founded by former top-ranking US admirals and generals has revealed that in the most recent US Federal Budget, overall defence spending will rise to more than $550 Billion. That exceeds what all the rest of the world`s nations combined spend on defence. This is Empire based upon raw force.

The militarisation of America has gone so far that the gargantuan US war machine now stands with 702 bases in 132 foreign countries and has annual military budgets topping $550 Billion. At issue here is whether this is what the American people genuinely want, or whether they have been cajoled into it?

The historical irony is that America`s birth cry was an uprising followed by a rebellion and then a long war AGAINST an Empire (the British Empire) in order to gain their own freedom and independence?

The wonder here is why anybody in Washington is so surprised if people in other nations do likewise.

...SR

Following words were spoken on the floor of the US House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul, a conservative Republican from Texas :

``There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.

Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth-- including home.``

Check it out...

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr011807.htm

Re: # 2
Mohar:

Today There was a bomb blast in Iraq by a suicide bomber and I believe 100 people died.
Why Why -one should ask. Killing fellow brethren - innocent helpless men, women, and children.

One wonders if the society has gone mad or just a few ? Is it because of Americans?
Kamath

..a majority of the american public is against the occupation of iraq....a majority of the iraqi public is against the occupation of iraq.....

....then how, and why, in the world is the us still occupying iraq....doesn`t democracy mean the govt. doing what the people want (in this case, what the populations of both the occupied and occupying country want!)...

...in fact, out of the 191 or so countries the majority population of every single country is against the us occupation of iraq.....

........then how, and why, in the world is the us still occupying iraq....

oh wait!!.....i mis-spoke.....the majority population of one country in the world is in favor of the occupation of iraq....israel!.....

hmmm......