• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Admin Playing Politics With The Iraq War!!

conjur

No Lifer
Bush Administration Plans to Delay Major Assaults in Iraq
http://www.latimes.com/news/na...coll=la-home-headlines
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

Any delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, however, could alter the dynamics of a different election -- the one in January, when Iraqis are to elect members of a national assembly.

With only four months remaining, U.S. commanders are scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible to shore up the poll's legitimacy.

U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders in the field to pause operations in the weeks before the Nov. 2 election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season.

Pentagon officials said they see a benefit to holding off on an offensive in the Sunni Triangle, the insurgent-dominated region north and west of Baghdad. By waiting, they allow more time for political negotiations and targeted airstrikes in Fallujah to weaken insurgents.

"We're having more impact with our airstrikes than we had expected," said a senior Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We see no need to rush headlong with hundreds of tanks into Fallujah right now."

Because U.S. commanders no longer have carte blanche to run military operations inside Iraq, they must seek approval from interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who has his own political future to consider -- even though he owes his position to the United States.

Larry DiRita, a Pentagon spokesman, asked whether Allawi supported delaying the operations until after the U.S. election, said: "It's his view, and it's shared by the commanders, that the timing has to be based on the circumstances and nothing else."

U.S. officials said Allawi had signed off on a broad plan to retake insurgent-controlled cities in Iraq before the January election. Allawi approved the recent successful U.S. offensive into Samarra, which U.S. commanders considered necessary only after a local government installed by Allawi buckled under constant attack by insurgents.

Yet there has been occasional friction between U.S. commanders in Baghdad and the Iraqi government that took power after the U.S.-led coalition handed over sovereignty June 28.

In August, top U.S. officers in Iraq and Pentagon officials were angry when Allawi ordered a halt to a day-old, U.S.-led offensive against Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia as it holed up inside the sacred Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf.

Allawi called the cease-fire to allow time for negotiations with al-Sadr that ultimately broke down. U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington argued that such frictions were just part of a gradual process of reducing Iraq's dependence on the U.S. military.

"We made a deal, and that's what you get when you set up an interim government," a senior military official at the Pentagon said. "But the alternative is not recognizing them."

U.S. officials said the recent offensive operation into Samarra went more smoothly than they had expected and has boosted optimism that more cities can be wrested from insurgent hands before January's election.

"People looked at Samarra and said, 'Wow, this works.' It wasn't nearly as difficult an operation as we had anticipated," the senior Defense official said. "After Samarra, we now believe we can do more."

Just weeks ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John P. Abizaid of U.S. Central Command began lowering expectations about how comprehensive the January vote would be, suggesting that some rebellious cities such as Fallujah might have to be left out of the balloting.

U.S. officers in Baghdad said the biggest difference between the Samarra operation and the failed U.S. offensive in Fallujah in April was that select units of the Iraqi national guard held their ground under enemy fire. In April, the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces in Fallujah capitulated soon after the U.S. offensive began.

"You've got to have a credible Iraqi security force that the local populace has confidence in," said Army Col. Bob Pricone, chief of operations at the U.S.-led coalition forces' headquarters in Baghdad. "Four or five months ago, the populace didn't have a lot of confidence in the Iraqi national guard."

Still, Pentagon officials say that it may not be militarily feasible to bring every Iraqi city in the Sunni Triangle under control of U.S. forces and the Iraqi government in time for the January election. The military view was contradicted by senior State Department officials who declared in recent congressional testimony that there were no plans to exclude any Iraqi city from voting.

"The State Department can talk about people voting everywhere. But securing Iraq in time for the election can't happen without the U.S. military," the senior Defense official said.

During his recent trip to Washington, Allawi expressed his interest in reclaiming insurgent-controlled cities in the Sunni Triangle in time for the January election, even in light of the potentially negative political impact in Iraq that a bloody military operation could have.

Yet officials say the man who owes his job to President Bush -- and who might not have such a warm relationship with a President John F. Kerry -- does not want to press his case too hard before the U.S. election in November.

"A lot of his political future depends on our election," the senior administration official said.

Conversely, much of the U.S. future in Iraq may depend on Allawi and his ability to emerge from the shadow of the U.S. occupation and ensure Iraq reaches its own political milestone in January.

For 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq trying to break the will of a deadly insurgency, that means understanding -- and sometimes bending to -- the needs of U.S. politics and the demands of their Iraqi hosts.

Said Pricone: "We'll work through as many cities as the Iraqi government wants us to."


And this, too:

Times: U.S. Details Plan to Quell Iraq Insurgency
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne..._nm/iraq_insurgency_dc
Civilians involved in the process also told the Times that the new approach was formulated in part to counter criticism from President Bush (news - web sites)'s Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), that the administration has no plan for Iraq.

Repeating the mistakes of the past.

Playing politics with our men and women in battle.

It's exactly this type of CRAP that John Kerry protested against when he returned from Vietnam.

It's great to see the same fvcking assholes who were involved in the Nixon administration are making the same mistakes now! :| :|
 
I think it's a mistake. I know he's probably thinking that upcoming actions in Iraq will be shamelessly spun and twisted by Kerry, but he needs to stand his ground and do what needs to be done, regardless of the political cost. I'm disappointed he doesn't have a stronger backbone and faith in the public to see things for as they are.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think it's a mistake. I know he's probably thinking that upcoming actions in Iraq will be shamelessly spun and twisted by Kerry, but he needs to stand his ground and do what needs to be done, regardless of the political cost. I'm disappointed he doesn't have a stronger backbone and faith in the public to see things for as they are.

Exactly.

This is absolutely a case of Bush doing what he thinks is best for his campaign (in case of large casualties) and not what's best for the people of Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
This report has been all over the place. Word is they are going to assault falluja the week after the election.

Yes lets give them a chance to get ready for it. Likely propaganda to confuse the enemy.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
LA TIMES MONDAY: Bush Administration Plans to Delay Major Assaults in Iraq Until After U.S. Election... Developing...


This *is* from Drudge...awaiting more info.


If it's true, I find this completely disgusting.

I just heard Drudge claiming that Rummy announced today that troops would be brought back after January (in some number) and then quickly and quietly offered the disclaimer that it would only occur if things calm down after the election.

What's f4cked up is that Drudge totally mischaracterized what Rumsfeld said. In fact Rumsfeld said in his own words that troops would not be coming home in any significant number before January, and even then it would be contingent upon the Insurgents not going ape sh1t during and after the "elections."

If anyone is having trouble following what I'm stating, I'm pointing out that whereas Rummy's speech came across as somber yet steadfast; drudge spun it to sound like he told the troops they were more than likely coming home when in fact they are not.

The propaganda minions keep chanting away.
 
What I saw earlier was that Rumsfeld was stating that some troops would begin heading home in Jan. Yes, Drudge goes for excitable headlines to get poeple to click them but the content of the articles underneath reveal much more detail.

We'll see where this one goes.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
What I saw earlier was that Rumsfeld was stating that some troops would begin heading home in Jan. Yes, Drudge goes for excitable headlines to get poeple to click them but the content of the articles underneath reveal much more detail.

We'll see where this one goes.

Excitiable doesn't properly describe his tone during the broadcast, he was notably cheerful when stating that Rumsfeld would be sending home troops in January. That does not match the tone of Rumsfelds press conference at all.
 
Straight from the horse's mouth
Rumsfeld: Troop Reductions Not Likely Until Iraqis Stronger
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq, Oct. 10, 2004 -- There likely won't be a reduction in U.S. troop strength in Iraq until after the country's national elections in January, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a gathering of servicemembers here today.

About 2,000 U.S. Marines, soldiers, airmen, and sailors greeted Rumsfeld at this former Iraqi air force facility in western Iraq. The secretary took a C-17 transport aircraft from Manama, Bahrain, to attend a town hall meeting with the Al Asad troops, mostly Marines, inside a large, open-ended hanger.

During a question-and-answer session with the troops at Al Asad, Rumsfeld said the situation on the ground would first dictate how many American troops are needed in Iraq. Currently, there are about 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Secondly, Iraqi security forces must be strong enough to maintain order throughout Iraq before there can be large redeployment of U.S. troops out of the country, Rumsfeld said.

There are now about 100,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, the secretary said. By the January elections, he added, there should be an additional 50,000 Iraqi security forces. Rumsfeld said the goal is to have 200,000 to 250,000 trained Iraqi security troops.

During the town hall meeting, Rumsfeld introduced Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim al Shalan to the troops. The secretary saluted the efforts of Iraqi security forces, noting that more than 700 have died in service to their country.

Iraq is "ground zero" in the war against terrorism, Rumsfeld said, noting insurgents are trying to derail the new, sovereign, Iraqi government. Now is a test of wills, and victory over global terrorism will come "to those who are resolute and steadfast," he said.

America is indeed fortunate to have men and women in its military who can be counted upon "in this time of peril" for America," the secretary said.

After the town hall meeting, Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad to meet with senior U.S., coalition and Iraqi military and government officials. Right now, he noted to reporters after attending a senior-level meeting, U.S., coalition and Iraqi officials are concentrating on measures to ensure the January elections are successful.
 
Originally posted by: her209
Straight from the horse's mouth
Rumsfeld: Troop Reductions Not Likely Until Iraqis Stronger
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq, Oct. 10, 2004 -- There likely won't be a reduction in U.S. troop strength in Iraq until after the country's national elections in January, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a gathering of servicemembers here today.

About 2,000 U.S. Marines, soldiers, airmen, and sailors greeted Rumsfeld at this former Iraqi air force facility in western Iraq. The secretary took a C-17 transport aircraft from Manama, Bahrain, to attend a town hall meeting with the Al Asad troops, mostly Marines, inside a large, open-ended hanger.

During a question-and-answer session with the troops at Al Asad, Rumsfeld said the situation on the ground would first dictate how many American troops are needed in Iraq. Currently, there are about 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Secondly, Iraqi security forces must be strong enough to maintain order throughout Iraq before there can be large redeployment of U.S. troops out of the country, Rumsfeld said.

There are now about 100,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, the secretary said. By the January elections, he added, there should be an additional 50,000 Iraqi security forces. Rumsfeld said the goal is to have 200,000 to 250,000 trained Iraqi security troops.

During the town hall meeting, Rumsfeld introduced Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim al Shalan to the troops. The secretary saluted the efforts of Iraqi security forces, noting that more than 700 have died in service to their country.

Iraq is "ground zero" in the war against terrorism, Rumsfeld said, noting insurgents are trying to derail the new, sovereign, Iraqi government. Now is a test of wills, and victory over global terrorism will come "to those who are resolute and steadfast," he said.

America is indeed fortunate to have men and women in its military who can be counted upon "in this time of peril" for America," the secretary said.

After the town hall meeting, Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad to meet with senior U.S., coalition and Iraqi military and government officials. Right now, he noted to reporters after attending a senior-level meeting, U.S., coalition and Iraqi officials are concentrating on measures to ensure the January elections are successful.


Noy exactly straight from the horses mouth, I'm trying to find an actual transcript of the press conference to illustrate the bleakness of his tone. There isn't a chance in hell the insurgents are going to all of the sudden become pacified in the midst of what most Iraqi's would consider an illegitimate election. They won't stop until we're gone. Period.
 
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Noy exactly straight from the horses mouth, I'm trying to find an actual transcript of the press conference to illustrate the bleakness of his tone. There isn't a chance in hell the insurgents are going to all of the sudden become pacified in the midst of what most Iraqi's would consider an illegitimate election. They won't stop until we're gone. Period.
Nothing yet. Link

 
jjzelisnki, did you say the insurgents won't stop until we're gone? Heh, wishful thinking. The insurgents do not want a free democratic Iraq (and if we just up and left they would surely get want they want). But the sooner we get the Iraqis well-trained and in control the better for everyone.
 
Wow, way to completely change your original topic post conjur. Is that like a bait and switch? In any case, I still think it's a mistake but I don't have the sheer anger you display. It's sad to me that Bush doesn't have the backbone I thought he could, but it's the political reality of our times. Kerry is Monday-morning quarterbacking every move we make in Iraq. If you're angry over politics and our troops, it goes both ways brother.
 
How is it a bait and switch?

There was no article up there before. And, I found that Yahoo News article, too.

This is complete madness!
 
It is the headline article in today's Hartford Courant.

Personally I feel that W's teflon coating, which makes him impervious to either taking responsibility or blame for mistakes and crash political manuers (like releasing gasoline from the strategic stockpile just in time to hold prices down just before the election, when he refused to do so previously) may have finally worn off. His true nature came through in the first debate. This should cause a sh*tstorm of public response.

He can talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
 
Originally posted by: PatboyX
conjur...did you get a NEW custom title?

elite members with more than 25k posts got Master Elite member titles and normal members with more than 25k posts get Master Member titles.... still only a few thousand to go 😀
 
Bush is obviously focused on his re-election now. I don't see any reason why he can't hold off any major plans in Iraq until he and his administration can focus on the job to do it properly. It's not playing politics, its common sense.

I mean, Kerry isn't exactly doing his Senate job right now, is he?

This is absolutely a case of Bush doing what he thinks is best for his campaign (in case of large casualties) and not what's best for the people of Iraq.
I actually think its best for the people of Iraq that the administration is focused on the job.
 
Anyone not seeing the parallels with the way this war is being run and how Vietnam was run for political rather than necessary reasons is just delusional.

I'm still pissed as hell about this...esp. the little quip mentioned in the Yahoo News article.

:|




And, yeah, PatboyX....guess I made elite after the new Master Member status was enabled. 😱
 
And...let's add this to the mix:

Iraqis Fearing a Sunni Boycott of the Election
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10...14b50c0b5e&ei=5094
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 10 - Leaders of Iraq's crucial Sunni Arab minority say they have failed to generate any enthusiasm for nationwide elections scheduled for January, and are so fearful of insurgent violence and threats that they can meet only in private to talk about how - or even whether - to take part.

The leaders among the Sunni Arabs, which had dominated Iraqi politics since the nation's birth in 1920, also said in interviews here that many prospective Sunni voters were so suspicious of the American enterprise in Iraq, and so infuriated by the chaotic security situation in the Sunni-dominated areas, that they were likely to stay away from the polls in large numbers.

Sunni participation is crucial to the election. While a Sunni boycott remains far from certain and some Sunni leaders still hold out hope for a turnaround, American officials fear that if large numbers of Sunnis do not vote, the election will be regarded as illegitimate and may even feed the insurgency that has gripped much of the country.

While American military commanders say they intend to open up many predominantly Sunni areas now under the control of insurgents, some Sunni tribal and religious leaders say that so far the campaign appears to be having the opposite effect, alienating the people it is supposed to liberate.

"What elections are you talking about?" said Raad Rahim Ahmed, a 50-year-old resident of Samarra, who said American soldiers killed his wife and two children when they cleared the city of insurgents last week.

"I've lost my entire family," he said. "Why should I trust this government? Why should I vote at all?"

Although several Sunni-based political parties have taken root here, their leaders say their attempts to rally constituents are failing to resonate in the face of cynicism and violence. Many of those who want to take part in the elections say they can do so only in secret, lest they risk assassination by Sunni insurgents.

"What we think is that people ought to vote," said Dhari al-Samarrai, a senior leader of the Islamic Party, a largely Sunni group. "But people are telling us, we won't take part in the elections. What is the use, with all these bombings? The big tribes, Dulaimi and Jabouri, all of them are telling us this."

With voter registration to begin Nov. 1, some Iraqi leaders say they are hoping that enthusiasm among the Sunnis for the elections will pick up, especially if the violence is brought under control. Some Sunni leaders predict that more of their brethren will decide to take part as it becomes more certain that the elections will not be postponed.

But for now, the mood among tribal and religious leaders as well potential voters appears to be one of apathy. Many leaders say they are especially fearful that the Sunnis, who dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein, face an era of persecution under an American-backed alliance of Shiites and Kurds, who together make up as much as 80 percent of the population. Both groups are expected to vote in great numbers.

Already, one of the largest independent Sunni groups, the Association of Muslim Scholars, has announced that it will not take part in the elections. The group claims to represent 3,000 Sunni mosques around the country.

The prospect of a low turnout by Sunni Arabs is deeply troubling to Iraqi leaders and American officials, who fear that the results of an election in which they do not take part will be viewed as illegitimate and fuel the guerrilla insurgency, and not, as is hoped, bring it to end. The body to be chosen in the elections, the National Assembly, is supposed to draft Iraq's permanent constitution.

Without adequate Sunni representation on that body, many people fear here that the constitution may not adequately protect them.

Some Sunni leaders, especially those who are planning to run for office, say they still expect a large turnout among the Sunni voters once they realize that they will be left behind if they do not take part. Even if they have not begun campaigning in the Sunni Triangle, the area west of Baghdad that has been a hotbed of the insurgency, these candidates say they have begun meeting with tribal leaders to persuade them to support their candidacies.

Some of these political leaders say they place great hopes in the American-led offensive to recapture as many as two dozen cities, most of which are in the Sunni-dominated areas. Once those obstacles are removed, they say, Iraqis from even the most hostile cities, like Falluja, will step forward to run for office.

"The Sunnis have been in power for 500 years, and for the first time that has changed," said Saad Abdul Razak, a senior leader of the Iraqi Independent Democrats, a predominantly Sunni party. "They are afraid of losing their power, but I think through the democratic process they will realize that this is nonsense."

While some Sunni leaders, like those in the Association of Muslim Scholars, say free elections are not possible until the Americans leave the country, others say they may be willing to take part under certain conditions. In that case, the Sunni leaders say, their people may yet come out to vote in large numbers.

Wamid Omar Nadhmi, the leader of the Arab Nationalist Movement, a largely Sunni political party, said that if the American military could guarantee that it would pull back to its bases during the election campaign and if the Americans offered sufficient assurances that they would refrain from interfering in the elections, then many Sunnis, including himself, might take part.

"A lot of people want democracy here, but they are just not comfortable with elections under American supervision," Mr. Nadhmi said. "If they don't meet our conditions, we will call for a boycott. Otherwise, we would be accused of being puppets of America."

American and British commanders say that they intend to allow the Iraqi forces to take the lead role in providing security during the election campaign, but that they have no plans to withdraw completely on election day or during the campaign.

Despite his concerns, Mr. Nadhmi has quietly begun to pull his own party together and to meet potential partners in a political coalition. Those meetings, he says, are private. Mr. Nadhmi, like many other Sunnis here, is afraid to campaign or hold public gatherings, for fear that he will become the target of insurgents.

Yet even if many Sunni leaders decide to jump into the fray, it seems far from certain that ordinary voters will follow their lead. In the Sunni areas under the control of the Iraqi government, large numbers of Sunnis remain deeply ambivalent about the American-backed enterprise.

In the areas recently freed from insurgents, like Samarra and Babil Province, the attitude seems to be not one of gratitude, or even ambivalence, but of anger and resignation. Such bitterness seems widespread in the Sunni Triangle. At a recent meeting in Baghdad, a tribal leader from Falluja, a town still under insurgent control, gave a grim assessment of the coming elections.

"You will not have one office to run the elections in Falluja," said Ismail Abdid Fayad, a tribal leader taking part in peace negotiations with the government. "People will not vote. We will not participate in the elections. We will not support imperialism."

Yet even Mr. Fayad acknowledged the costs of Sunni inaction, saying it could doom the Sunnis to impotence in the new Iraqi political order.

"That's the problem," he said. "The Sunnis will suffer if we do not participate."

Yet after that moment of self-doubt, Mr. Fayad reverted to his original line. "All the revolutions in Iraq have been made by the Sunnis," he declared. "We will make a revolution again."

Some Sunni leaders say one solution could be to delay the election until the violence in those areas subsides. Such a delay seems highly unlikely, given the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most powerful Shiite leader, that the elections be held no later than Jan. 31. The Shiites, who make up perhaps 60 percent of the population, are the Sunnis' mirror-image: long dispossessed and eager to vote.

Shiite enthusiasm, coupled with Sunni apathy, spells out the quandary faced by the Iraqi government and their American benefactors. The fear of many Iraqis, like Mr. Nadhmi, is that the elections will go forward and the Sunnis will stay home, rendering the result a spur for even more conflict.

"If the Sunnis don't participate in the elections," Mr. Nadhmi said, "we will weaken considerably the legitimacy of the elections and of the parliament."

"The elections," he said, "will be meaningless."


Iraqi employees of The New York Times contributed reporting from Samarra for this article.


There's nothing at stake here. Naah. Not a damn thing. Let's just worry about our poll numbers and if we can get re-elected. Those silly insurgents won't mind and neither will the people having to endure the weeks on-end of strife. It's hard work winning an election. Can't waver from the campaign.

:| :|
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
jjzelisnki, did you say the insurgents won't stop until we're gone? Heh, wishful thinking. The insurgents do not want a free democratic Iraq (and if we just up and left they would surely get want they want). But the sooner we get the Iraqis well-trained and in control the better for everyone.

So you actually believe that once the US is gone the Sunnis Shias and Kurds will live peacefully ever after? LMAO.

The US can't leave for at least 20 years if that is the goal.

The Kurds have been fighting for a kurdistan for many decades, you think they will just suddenly settle down and forget about that? You think the Sunnis and the Shias will just be friends now after what the Sunnis have done to the Shias in the past?

Without a ruthless regime just like the one the US ousted that won't happen, decades of hate don't just go away that easily.

The truth is, eventually the US forces will have to be removed because the public pressure gets to strong, when that happens a civil war will take place and Iraq will for a few years be ruled by extremist war lords, in the end it is not unlikely that genocide will create a new opressive regime. Back to square one.

 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
So you actually believe that once the US is gone the Sunnis Shias and Kurds will live peacefully ever after? LMAO.

The US can't leave for at least 20 years if that is the goal.

The Kurds have been fighting for a kurdistan for many decades, you think they will just suddenly settle down and forget about that? You think the Sunnis and the Shias will just be friends now after what the Sunnis have done to the Shias in the past?

Without a ruthless regime just like the one the US ousted that won't happen, decades of hate don't just go away that easily.

The truth is, eventually the US forces will have to be removed because the public pressure gets to strong, when that happens a civil war will take place and Iraq will for a few years be ruled by extremist war lords, in the end it is not unlikely that genocide will create a new opressive regime. Back to square one.
You've described the problems with engaging in war for ideological purposes.
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: cwjerome
jjzelisnki, did you say the insurgents won't stop until we're gone? Heh, wishful thinking. The insurgents do not want a free democratic Iraq (and if we just up and left they would surely get want they want). But the sooner we get the Iraqis well-trained and in control the better for everyone.

So you actually believe that once the US is gone the Sunnis Shias and Kurds will live peacefully ever after? LMAO.

The US can't leave for at least 20 years if that is the goal.

The Kurds have been fighting for a kurdistan for many decades, you think they will just suddenly settle down and forget about that? You think the Sunnis and the Shias will just be friends now after what the Sunnis have done to the Shias in the past?

Without a ruthless regime just like the one the US ousted that won't happen, decades of hate don't just go away that easily.

The truth is, eventually the US forces will have to be removed because the public pressure gets to strong, when that happens a civil war will take place and Iraq will for a few years be ruled by extremist war lords, in the end it is not unlikely that genocide will create a new opressive regime. Back to square one.

There has never been a civil war in Iraq. It is a mistake to divide the Iraqi population down Sunni and Shi'te lines. This overlooks the tribal system. A tribe can have both Sunni and Shi'ite members and it would be foolish to expect tribes to start a civil war against essentially itself. True, the Kurds want autonomy but it is as much or perhaps more the US, Iran and Turkey that are against that idea as the Sunni or Shi'ite leaders. The surest way to a civil war is if the US supports and arms one faction (like Allawi and his likes) against another, much like it did in Afghanistan where it supported the fundamentalists in its civil war against the secular state (another war created to further destabilize the ME), and much like the French did in Algeria.

For close to a century now it has been the strategy of the West, led by the superpower US, to destabilize the ME. Now the West, after having laid a siege to Iraq that killed over 1,000,000 people, two wars GWI and GWII, and a proxy war against Iraq that killed at least another million people. Now the superpower US has flipflopped it's strategy and wants to "stabilize" the ME. However that "stabilization" will be on US terms. The ME will be "free" but only as long as it does what the US wants it to do. The ME will have a "free" market but it is only "free" as long as it plays according to US terms. The ME countries are "free" to do what they want with their oil (the main asset) as long as it serves US interests. The people of the ME are "free" to vote whichever way they want as long as they are voting for US supported candidates. The US will support the candidates that promotes the US agenda and attack the candidates that does not. That is not democracy. That is not sovereignty. That is not freedom.

So, yes, the Bush admin is playing politics with the Iraq war.
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer


The truth is, eventually the US forces will have to be removed because the public pressure gets to strong, when that happens a civil war will take place and Iraq will for a few years be ruled by extremist war lords, in the end it is not unlikely that genocide will create a new opressive regime. Back to square one.

Sadly, I agree with your read on the situation Klixxer, the US public doesn't have the balls to stay in the game we started, we'll head home with our tail between our legs, "The Fall of Bagdad" will become as familiar to us as "The Fall of Saigon", and we will have helped develop a generation of potential terrorists that not oly hates us, but has good reason to do so, first in the occupation of their country (and all the casualties that's making it personal for the potential terrorists), then in abandoning Iraq, & watching it crumble from a civil war back to the stone age.

What has happened since 9-11 has ushered in a new world order, where the mightiest nations can be brought to our knees by a few dozen dedicated fanatics, witness the effect the recent beheading has had in the UK... They're horrified, and they're going to want to pull out.

 
Back
Top