SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (761679)4/27/2007 12:14:37 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Iraqis welcome U.S. Congress vote but fear vacuum By Mussab Al-Khairalla
Fri Apr 27, 8:39 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis are glad U.S. soldiers could soon depart but fearful of what they might leave behind, after the U.S. Congress approved a bill linking troop withdrawals to war funding.


"U.S. forces have to leave Iraq but not now," said Abu Ali, a 47-year-old trader from the southern city of Basra, on Friday.

"The Iraqi government and its security forces are unable to control security, especially in Baghdad and its neighborhoods."

Like many, he said tying funding to a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops over the next 11 months would force Iraq's police and army units to shape up quicker.

"We demand a withdrawal but not in one go, so that there is no vacuum," said Tarek Qader, a 55-year-old retiree from the northern city of Kirkuk.

Added Baghdad student Ali Adel: "The exit of the occupation has to be preceded by the building of Iraqi forces and national reconciliation."

In a rebuke to President George W. Bush, the Democrat- controlled Congress on Thursday approved legislation linking withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq to paying for the war.

Bush has promised to veto the bill. He is sending an additional 30,000 soldiers to Iraq, mainly to back a security crackdown in Baghdad that is regarded as a last-ditch attempt to drag Iraq back from the brink of all-out civil war.

The Senate joined the House of Representatives in backing the bill that would provide about $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year while setting a deadline to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq over the next 11 months.

"I'm glad some Americans have finally realized they are no longer welcome here," said Hakim, a 25-year-old army officer in Baghdad who declined to give his last name.

SPEED UP RECONCILIATION

U.S. officials regard the Baghdad security plan as a chance to buy time for Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to speed up reconciliation with minority Sunni Arabs, who feel marginalized.

Maliki insists no timetable will be set for withdrawing the 150,000 American troops until his own security forces are ready.

"There has to be an agreement on the shape of the political map for Iraq after the U.S. forces' withdrawal since there are many pending issues ... it will result in the division of Iraq," said Abdullah Khaled from Kirkuk.

Some Iraqis said a quick withdrawal would be dangerous. "I would expect a power struggle and the increase of violence," said Mohammed Younis, a 43-year-old engineer.

Fellow Baghdadi Bassim Abdulla agreed. "Differences in Washington will encourage militants to increase their attacks after they realize Bush has lost domestic support for the war."

"The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq without ensuring Iraqi troops can provide and maintain security will result in massacres and a humanitarian disaster," said Omar al-Dulaimi, from Ramadi, in the volatile western Anbar province.

Others felt the presence of U.S. troops was fuelling the insurgency and their departure could only help.

"If the occupation leaves, all acts of violence in Iraq will end due to less suicide bombers, and the interference of neighboring countries will be unjustified," said Qassim Uthman, a 51-year-old teacher.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (761679)4/27/2007 5:43:21 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
LOL!

*Not* a very considered rebuttal to my reply to your 'important question', that you 'ask of everyone who posts about Iraq policy', Peter....

(I mean, if tossing out a Red Herring like 'go tell it to Reid' is all the considered response that you've got to the points, then a reasonable conclusion might be that you really have no argument that you can make about the question you raised....)



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (761679)4/27/2007 6:02:14 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Re: "If we have lost the War...."

1) The 'Iraq War', (against S.H.), was a win inside of three and one half weeks.

2) The War against Taliban Afghanistan was a remarkable win for Rummie's concept of the utilization of local forces, with the command/control and accurate force application of American Air Power and Special Forces....

3) On the other-hand the subsequent *occupations* of those places, and the respective 'nation building' efforts, have been at best a bit of a seriously mixed bag subsequent to those 'wars'.

4) And the 'War against al Qaeda' remains unfinished, and unresolved yet... with important tactical 'wins' and important tactical 'losses' both chalked-up thus far.

5) The 'W.O.T.' though, was always explained in context by the W.H. and it's proponents as a 'larger global and ideological struggle', the 'long war', described as much larger in scope then any single regional conflict. If it is as described, I would have to answer that --- by definition then --- it too has not had enough time pass, or developments mature, to characterize *it* as a 'win' or a 'loss' yet. And so, I will not.

(Incidentally: I remain, as always, extremely confident about the much greater odds for global strategic victory of 'Western' ideals such as pluralism, religious freedom and secular, democratic societies in this ideological contest with Authoritarian religious fundamentalism. I just believe that ultimate victory would come about a Hell of a lot faster if we chose more intelligent national policies....)

Re: "...who has won? Iraqi Shites? Iraqi Sunni? Syria? Russia? France? Saudi Arabia? Iran?"

6) Now you are on to a conflict ('Iraqi Civil War'... or 'Iraqi National War' & 'regional Sunni/Shia religious war' & 'Saudi / Iranian and assoc. regional Zones of Influence Contest', etc.) significantly different then those previously mentioned....

(And, PS, you can take 'Russia' and 'France' off of your list above. They ain't significant players in this particular contest, which is inter-Islamic and regional and Persian/Arab/Kurd/Turkomen mostly in ethnic complexity.)

To also answer your question "who has won?" about this particular contest, the answer is EASY: No one has won it yet, because it mostly hasn't even been fought yet. It's still in early innings, I believe. (It is possible the religious aspects of it could continue for a very long time --- as it, indeed, reflects an unresolved centuries old Islamic conflict --- or, as I personally believe, the vehicle of the Iraqi Civil War may actually accelerate the final resolution of this unresolved conflict within Islam... possibly accelerating the advent of the long-delayed 'Islamic Reformation'. Or not....)

While, the regional power-politics and the ethnic angles in this war may be settled much more expeditiously then the religious ones, IMO. (Perhaps in something on the order of a decade or so....)

The sooner it gets to happening, of course, the sooner the issues will be resolved for the region (for example: a unitary Iraq, or a federal one? Iraq or two or three emergent independent States? Kurdistan to finally satisfy the Kurds long stymied irredentist desires, yea or nay? Trans-Jordan or a Saudi Sunni Arab homeland? Etc.)

Re: "Further more which of those would you see as been the most beneficient to the Iraqi citizenry? If we have not lost it, but are losing it, who would you like us to declare the victor?"

That's just the thing, ain't it, Peter?

*WE* don't get to 'declare a winner'... unless we annex the place (God forbid...), 'cause it *ain't our country*

(Even if Lawrence of Arabia and Churchill *did* draw up the boundaries for this 'artificial' country one afternoon, over a LOT of drinks, in an effort to come up with an internally divided colony that would be easy to rule. :-)

No, the locals, living in the place, will be the ones who's decisions about WHAT Iraq is to be, and 'who won', will become the historical reality in the fullness of time....

(MEANWHILE though, as I've pointed out here many times, this conflict stands to work for our national strategic long-term interests very well... and better still the faster we can get extricated from it, Peter.)



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (761679)4/29/2007 7:23:22 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
The liberals want to "restore America's credibility in the world" by offering a timetable for surrender... sure, that'll work...<g>

GZ™