Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure

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......

The media has been portraying Iraq as a disaster. This is just to confuse muslims into thinking that America is neutral by nature, when in fact it is cunning and aggressive. Just like WMDs, this is another myth propagated by the western media.

The Iraqi fiasco, however depressing for Iraq fans, is going EXACTLY according to the plans laid by the neocons to destroy internal security, encouraging factional divisions and a pliable government which will allow the oil to be stolen under legal cover.

hehe...ummah homies duking it out...it`s an ali v/s hussein (or abdul v/s abdul) deathmatch...sort of like the WWE but for real..


GCC WOULD SUPPORT U.S. STRIKE ON IRAN

ABU DHABI [MENL] -- Gulf Cooperation Council states would support a U.S. strike to destroy Iran`s nuclear weapons program.

A report by the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center asserted that the six Gulf Arab states would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The report said the GCC regards Iran as a bully that seeks to dominate the region.

``Teheran has to finally realize that if push comes to shove, if the choice is between an Iranian nuclear bomb and a U.S. military strike, then the Arab Gulf states have no choice but to quietly support the U.S.,`` the report, authored by international studies director Christian Koch, said.

GRC, which on Tuesday held a roundtable that included U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, said Iran has rejection negotiations with the Gulf Arab states. The report cited Iran`s military buildup in the Gulf and its refusal to negotiate the seizure of two islets from the United Arab Emirates.

#10 by mohar11

Does it make sense to you?

No it doesn`t. But read the following Newsweek report from January 2005
and some pieces of the puzzle may fall in place:

‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq.

After you`re done with the above, contemplate upon what the two British SAS men were doing when caught in a booby-trapped car packed with explosives and disguised as Iraqis:

British Uncover Operation in Basra: Agents Provocateurs?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I am quite surprised at the choreographed nature of union of state addresses in US. What really bothers me is the fact how these events are choreographed not only for the speaker but the audience as well. Everybody just seems to know when to stand up and applaud as if they have memorized a script.

Compare this to annual state of union speeches in countries like britian, France, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh etc. where annual state of union address is like passing through a gauntlet for the Head of the Executive. In some of the countries the event ends up in jootaybaazi like India or Bangladesh or even France, spain, Italy, Japan, Mexio,Taiwan, and many many more countries. In Pakistan the dictator have not mustered up courage to address even one time to his hand picked rubber stamp assembly - because he can`t.

On the other hand state of union address in US seems more like Poliburo party conventions of former Soviet union or present day China.

#17 by parthaab
You are a real political analyst with clear vision, Parthaab.
Bush junior was not wrong atall when he declared that his mission was accomplished. Even a blind Freddy could have seen that it is exactly what would happen with the action that the so called coalition of the willing had taken.
The mission is well and truly accomplished in them engineering the civil quagmire that exists there now. You don’t hire the best brains in the White house for advisors not to have seen it coming. Unless we want to judge them of those who only have half of the brain!
The Coalition of the willing are playing the fiddle and shedding crocodile tears while Iraq burns and the Shias, Sunnis, the Kurds, the region and some part of the world is singing:
Jo lagaaye bhi lagey or bujaahye nah bujhey! (With apologies to Ghalib).
Rashid

Re: # 22 Urstruly {``...state of union address in US seems more like Poliburo party conventions of former Soviet union or present day China...``}

The United Soviet States of America has far more in common with its former rival. The SU was a wannabe imperialist power with a system of State-monopoly capitalism, where the ultimate in M&A (mergers and acquisitions) had been achieved by a stroke of genius. There was one ``limited liability`` corporation in the SU, called the Communist Party Inc., that had successfully ``acquired`` the entire economy. Only 4% of the population of the SU were members. Likewise, in the USSA hardly 4% of the population ``owns controlling interest`` in the top 5,000 corporations. In other words about the same proportion of the general population (4%) really matter in the USSA as mattered in the USSR.

...SR