NationStates Jolt Archive

Basra quieter after troop pullout
Mon Oct 1, 2007

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Residents of Iraq's southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.

Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Mortar rounds, rockets and small arms fire crashed almost daily into the palace, making life hazardous for British and Iraqis alike in Iraq's second-largest city. To many Basrans the withdrawal of the British a month ago removed a proven target.

"The situation these days is better. We were living in hell ... the area is calm since their withdrawal," said housewife Khairiya Salman, who lives near the palace.

Civil servant Wisam Abdul Sada agreed. "We do not hear the sounds of explosions which were shaking our houses and terrifying our women and children," he told Reuters.

Source: Reuters
http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKYAT72246420071001more peaceful after the soldiers leave?

makes sense.

If a car-bomb explodes in a forest where all the civilians are already dead, does it make a sound?

Makes sense but... <insert mandatory request for source>

If a car-bomb explodes in a forest where all the civilians are already dead, does it make a sound?in space, no one can hear you scream.



...

what the hell are you talking about anyways?

in space, no one can hear you scream.



but what the hell are you talking about anyways?

If a post falls into the internet, does it always need to be answered?

Makes sense but... <insert mandatory request for source>done.

If a post falls into the internet, does it always need to be answered?
If someone gets a response to his post, must he always respond with a post that sounds a lot like an ancient Chinese proverb?

Isn't it Ramadan?

I think it probably makes sense in Basra. It's a majority Shia city (and the Sunnis who used to live there have probably all been cleansed by now), so sectarian violence should not be a huge issue.

Try the same experiment in parts of Baghdad, and the results will probably be different.

So I think, OD, saying that "soldiers leave => more peaceful" is not a general rule.

So I think, OD, saying that "soldiers leave => more peaceful" is not a general rule.It worked for Vietnam. ;)

It worked for Vietnam. ;)
The only people comparing Iraq to Vietnam are those out for a cheap headline. The two are different places facing different problems with different solutions. Oversimplifying what's going on is the last thing we should be doing.

Isn't it Ramadan?

I'm pretty sure they had no compulsions about attacking during Ramadan in the past.

This makes a lot of sense, really; the main target isn't the Iraqi citizens, or even the government. It's the foreign troops that are seen as occupiers and are targeted accordingly. It may be interesting to see what effects pullouts might have on other cities; if it leads to improved security, it may enable us to pull some troops out.

This makes a lot of sense, really; the main target isn't the Iraqi citizens, or even the government.
That depends on the group in question, which in turn depends on where in the country you're talking about.

The Shia and Sunni gangs out to ethnically cleanse their cities don't care about the Americans. And Al-Qaeda is happy having the Americans there as targets, but would be equally happy to have them leave and be able to use parts of Iraq as bases for future international operations undisturbed.

Probably the most unhappy if the Americans left would be the Iranians, because there's nothing quite as good as having the bad guys having trouble next door, being able to test new weapons against them and having them rendered incapable of doing anything major to you.

in space, no one can hear you scream.

... unless it's the battle-cry of a United States Marine!

in space, no one can hear you scream.... unless it's the battle-cry of a United States Marine!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wZoBGYcpA&mode=related&search=

more peaceful after the soldiers leave?

makes sense.

Except that Basra is not typical of your average Iraqi city, in that it's population is near totally ethnically homogeneous. It's unlikely that one might see ethnic violence erupt there.

The only people comparing Iraq to Vietnam are those out for a cheap headline. The two are different places facing different problems with different solutions. Oversimplifying what's going on is the last thing we should be doing.

True. But politically they are similar, if not militarily.

The Shia and Sunni gangs out to ethnically cleanse their cities don't care about the Americans.
They don't? Since when? Your source?

And Al-Qaeda is happy having the Americans there as targets, but would be equally happy to have them leave and be able to use parts of Iraq as bases for future international operations undisturbed.
Where did you garner this tidbit of info?

Probably the most unhappy if the Americans left would be the Iranians, because there's nothing quite as good as having the bad guys having trouble next door, being able to test new weapons against them and having them rendered incapable of doing anything major to you.
Wow, I think you are misfiring on all cylinders today.

Ahmadinejad: U.S. Should Leave Iraq (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32x5l_ahmadinejad-us-should-leave-iraq_news)

True. But politically they are similar, if not militarily.
How? North Vietnam had a stable government, and to a lesser extent so had the south. The two were functioning states. There was one major ethnic group, the differences were political. When the US left Vietnam, one government defeated another and took over control of the other's territory. It was a conventional war occasionally fought with unconventional military methods.

In Iraq you have no stable government to speak of, you have groups divided along ethnic and religious as well as political lines, and when the US leaves there is no one to take over and take charge - hell I'm not sure there is someone in charge now. It is not a conventional war and it is never fought with conventional military methods. If the US leaves there will not be a winner and there will not be peace any more than there was a winner or peace when Yugoslavia fell apart - and that place doesn't even have oil.

They don't? Since when? Your source?
Oh, so you're saying that these gangs hunt and kill people that belong to the other ethnic group do it because the US troops are in Iraq? And if they leave, they'll stop cleansing suburbs and whole regions?

I don't think I need a source for that one.

Where did you garner this tidbit of info?
I spoke to Osama on the phone.

Dude, what do you want me to say? Am I to just say "well, I don't know exactly what the guys think, so I'll just ignore them"? Is it not allowed to make educated guesses based on some reasoning of strategy, politics and past precedents?

Or are you just annoyed because I'm not jumping the "get the troops out" bandwagon without at least mentioning the side effects of such a decision?

Wow, I think you are misfiring on all cylinders today.
Ahmadinejad: U.S. Should Leave Iraq (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32x5l_ahmadinejad-us-should-leave-iraq_news)
I think you should be the first to accept that what politicians say in public is not necessarily what they (or their intelligence services) actually think.

How? North Vietnam had a stable government, and to a lesser extent so had the south. The two were functioning states. There was one major ethnic group, the differences were political. When the US left Vietnam, one government defeated another and took over control of the other's territory. It was a conventional war occasionally fought with unconventional military methods.

In Iraq you have no stable government to speak of, you have groups divided along ethnic and religious as well as political lines, and when the US leaves there is no one to take over and take charge - hell I'm not sure there is someone in charge now. It is not a conventional war and it is never fought with conventional military methods. If the US leaves there will not be a winner and there will not be peace any more than there was a winner or peace when Yugoslavia fell apart - and that place doesn't even have oil.

Sorry, lol, but I meant politically similar in relation to the political fallout in America as far as staying in the war too long with waning popularity and public support.

So I think, OD, saying that "soldiers leave => more peaceful" is not a general rule.

Since when has many of us taken what he says for granted? LOL

Oh, so you're saying that these gangs hunt and kill people that belong to the other ethnic group do it because the US troops are in Iraq? And if they leave, they'll stop cleansing suburbs and whole regions?

I don't think I need a source for that one.

For CH you do. He's gotten alot worse over the past several months in this regard. Sad really! He used to be a great poster.

I spoke to Osama on the phone.

LOL

Dude, what do you want me to say? Am I to just say "well, I don't know exactly what the guys think, so I'll just ignore them"? Is it not allowed to make educated guesses based on some reasoning of strategy, politics and past precedents?

Of course its allowed, unless it disagrees with CH and other posters with his mindset.

Or are you just annoyed because I'm not jumping the "get the troops out" bandwagon without at least mentioning the side effects of such a decision?

Judging by his past posts, I'd say yes.

I think you should be the first to accept that what politicians say in public is not necessarily what they (or their intelligence services) actually think.

hear hear.

i think the reason the killing is going down in the cities is partially due to the surge, and because the sunni cheifs are pissed at al quada, i guess we'll see if shia's wanna help out too?
BTW im arab,muslim and i am in the middle east so i think if you want to know the truth about us ask me

Sorry, lol, but I meant politically similar in relation to the political fallout in America as far as staying in the war too long with waning popularity and public support.
Oh, well in that case, I agree with you.

-snip-
You're no better, you know. You just happen to be an blind in the other direction.

The thing with me is that I actually don't have an answer. I've been trying to figure one out for years now, and I can't do it. Pull out, and people get killed in big numbers for a short while. Stay, and people get killed perhaps in smaller numbers but indefinitely. Leaving won't solve many problems, staying won't either.

I don't like anyone proclaiming there is some sort of easy answer to any of this and resorts to stupid catchphrases, which range from "no blood for oil" to "if we weren't fighting them there, we'd be fighting them here".

Oh, so you're saying that these gangs hunt and kill people that belong to the other ethnic group do it because the US troops are in Iraq? And if they leave, they'll stop cleansing suburbs and whole regions?

I don't think I need a source for that one.
The majority of Iraqis do care about Americans....they want them gone (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2).


I spoke to Osama on the phone.

Dude, what do you want me to say? Am I to just say "well, I don't know exactly what the guys think, so I'll just ignore them"? Is it not allowed to make educated guesses based on some reasoning of strategy, politics and past precedents?
Al-Qaeda want the US to stay...it is obvious (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p01s04-woiq.html).

Al Qaeda Letter Says Prolonging The Iraq War ‘Is In Our Interest’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/04/qaeda-letter-iraq/)

Or are you just annoyed because I'm not jumping the "get the troops out" bandwagon without at least mentioning the side effects of such a decision?
It just makes more sense to get the troops out now!!

I think you should be the first to accept that what politicians say in public is not necessarily what they (or their intelligence services) actually think.
You think Iran likes the US surrounding them?

The majority of Iraqis do care about Americans...
That's not what I said though. Ordinary Iraqis aren't the ones walking through suburbs killing everyone who doesn't share their faith.

Al-Qaeda want the US to stay...it is obvious (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p01s04-woiq.html).
And if the Americans left, it wouldn't exactly break them either. They'd just build lots of little pre-siege Fallujahs with bomb shops, training camps and so on, and then make trouble in Syria, Jordan and so on. And the Shia and Kurds in Iraq, of course.

It just makes more sense to get the troops out now!!
If it made that much sense, I think I would have made a decision by now. It just doesn't seem as obvious to me as it is to you.

You think Iran likes the US surrounding them?
I think Iran knows that realistically it doesn't really matter whether the Americans are in Iraq or in Wisconsin, as long as they can't attack.

Yep, our lads and lasses are pulling out of the southof Iraq. They'll probably be sent to Afghanistan- that's a bit cynical but more than likely.
At least things are starting to look up in the Basra area. The resistance can claim victory until the cows come home, but in our view we've (seemingly)done alright.
The British Army never retreats!

You're no better, you know. You just happen to be an blind in the other direction.

At least I'm not advocating the "cut and run" maneuver. I know what that would do to the nation if we did. Unlike some politicians I could name on both sides of the aisle.

The thing with me is that I actually don't have an answer. I've been trying to figure one out for years now, and I can't do it. Pull out, and people get killed in big numbers for a short while. Stay, and people get killed perhaps in smaller numbers but indefinitely. Leaving won't solve many problems, staying won't either.

Regretably. There is no easy answer at all.

I don't like anyone proclaiming there is some sort of easy answer to any of this and resorts to stupid catchphrases, which range from "no blood for oil" to "if we weren't fighting them there, we'd be fighting them here".

I agree 100%.

It just makes more sense to get the troops out now!!

IT does? Who will it benefit? No one at the moment.

You think Iran likes the US surrounding them?

LOL. Neither did the USSR. US on the east. Nato on their west. A few of our allies under them... YIKES! And the thing is, we never had to actually attack them. They collapsed on their own. Maybe we are doing the samething. Surround them on all sides and put mass pressure on them. It worked with the USSR :D

LOL. Neither did the USSR. US on the east. Nato on their west. A few of our allies under them... YIKES! And the thing is, we never had to actually attack them. They collapsed on their own. Maybe we are doing the samething. Surround them on all sides and put mass pressure on them. It worked with the USSR :D
No, what brought the USSR down was the fact that it stopped being an authoritarian state that could essentially do what it liked, and started trying to modernise.

They shouldn't have tried to fix that which was not broken. For most of the 1980s, things were moderately crap and repressive. When Gorbachev came to power, it turned from moderately crap to utterly crap, but on the proviso that you could kvetch about it.

Big mistake, cost them their whole country.

*edits*

Oh, as to this particular incident, that's not entirely surprising, as the various groups acting against the British in the area were basically competing to try and get our forces out of there. Now that that's occured, things should calm down in the short term, if spark up a bit more in the medium-long term.

No, what brought the USSR down was the fact that it stopped being an authoritarian state that could essentially do what it liked, and started trying to modernise.

They shouldn't have tried to fix that which was not broken. For most of the 1980s, things were moderately crap and repressive. When Gorbachev came to power, it turned from moderately crap to utterly crap, but on the proviso that you could kvetch about it.

Big mistake, cost them their whole country.

Well there is that to. LOL

It worked for Vietnam. ;)

Uhm. Not particularly, no, it didn't. When the last US ground troops left in 1973 there were two more years of warfare which culminated in a major invasion of the South by the North. Then the Chinese invaded, and the Vietnamese fought in Cambodia ... etc.

For CH you do. He's gotten alot worse over the past several months in this regard. Sad really! He used to be a great poster.

LOL

Of course its allowed, unless it disagrees with CH and other posters with his mindset.

Judging by his past posts, I'd say yes.

hear hear.
And your significant contribution is just to flame me? Sad really.

And your significant contribution is just to flame me? Sad really.

So you're the only one allowed to talk behind a poster's back? And before you claim that you haven't, you have. Not in this thread but in others.

I know what that would do to the nation if we did.
The best you can do is guess, and most of your guesses have missed the mark. Your numerous "boots on the ground" stories, while fascinating, have truely had very little basis in reality.

The best you can do is guess, and most of your guesses have missed the mark. Your numerous "boots on the ground" stories, while fascinating, have truely had very little basis in reality.

*yawns*

And all that you can do is guess. And my "bootson the ground" stories had more basis in reality than what the press has reported. But then, the press goes by the addage "if it bleeds it leads".

So you're the only one allowed to talk behind a poster's back? And before you claim that you haven't, you have. Not in this thread but in others.
So you want to revert to the methods that got your last nation deated? Also, I thought you turned over a new leaf with that public apology? Oh well....

This thread is about Basra being quiet since the UK troops left. That is what the majority of Iraqis want despite the consequences that may arise.

Give the people what they want.......and the sooner the better.

So you want to revert to the methods that got your last nation deated? Also, I thought you turned over a new leaf with that public apology? Oh well....

This thread is about Basra being quiet since the UK troops left. That is what the majority of Iraqis want despite the consequences that may arise.

Give the people what they want.......and the sooner the better.

As has been pointed out, this is nearly entirely Shia. Baghdad is not. An Bar is not. There are many areas that are mixed Shia/Sunni/Kurd. What do you think would happen if we leave? Oh yes...more meyhem than what we have seen so far.

And you never answered my question:

If we pull out, whom will it benefit? I know what my answer is. What is yours?

As has been pointed out, this is nearly entirely Shia. Baghdad is not. An Bar is not. There are many areas that are mixed Shia/Sunni/Kurd. What do you think would happen if we leave?
If you clicked on my links (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2)and read, you might actually see some answers to your questions?

Most Iraqis believe that many aspects of their lives will improve once the US-led forces leave, but are nonetheless uncertain that Iraqi security forces are ready to stand on their own.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph7.GIF

Oh yes...more meyhem than what we have seen so far.
Your opinion only. In the meantime, just how much mayhem has happened in Iraq?

- Shock and Awe
- Abu Ghraib
- Fallujah 1
- Fallujah 2 (The Hidden Massacre (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm))
- Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html)
- Iraqs Refugees - 4,000,000 Displaced (U.N.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9dNbDdPpsw)
- Blackwater: Hired Guns, Above the Law (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6849)
- Iraq Body Count (Year Four: Simply the worst (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/year-four/))

How much more mayhem do you want to inflict on these people?

And you never answered my question:

If we pull out, whom will it benefit? I know what my answer is. What is yours?
You have known my answer for a long time now. The Iraqi people will benefit from a US withdrawal. BIG TIME!!

Oh, and take Bremer's Orders with you when you leave!!

*snip*

Still spouting nonsense I see instead of well actually looking over facts. Do most people want us to leave? Damn straight. Its a given so that information is nothing new.

As to Bremer's orders, they have no bearing on the Basra pull out by British troops.

As to Iraq itself, the US Senate voted to split it into three autonomous regions.

Would lives improve if we pullout? That's a good question with no answer. Some lives would improve but so would the mayhem against all sides.

Still spouting nonsense I see instead of well actually looking over facts. Do most people want us to leave? Damn straight. Its a given so that information is nothing new.

As to Bremer's orders, they have no bearing on the Basra pull out by British troops.

As to Iraq itself, the US Senate voted to split it into three autonomous regions.

Would lives improve if we pullout? That's a good question with no answer. Some lives would improve but so would the mayhem against all sides.
Ahhhh, more flaming, more trolling, more rhetoric, and more of your usual false compassion and concern for the people of Iraq. You know.....the people that YOU would have "carpet bombed".

Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.
Edit: And once again, your own words come back to bite you in the ass!!

more peaceful after the soldiers leave?

makes sense.

As John Adams said "Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs for every one."

Ahhhh, more flaming, more trolling, more rhetoric, and more of your usual false compassion and concern for the people of Iraq. You know.....the people that YOU would have "carpet bombed".

Where was the flame? Nevermind. I forgot that you can't listen to reason anyway.

Edit: And once again, your own words come back to bite you in the ass!!

I see you take things out of context. I'd respond more but I'm going to the mall. When I get back, well maybe we'll see what kind of mood I'm in.

*points at Corneliu*

Class, this is what being forced to eat your words looks like.

Not a surprise. Maybe we should start all pulling out.

Once all troops are pulled out of the cities who is the insurgency going to target? I would think the Iraqi elected government. Maybe they will just go about doing what they did before they started making bombs and shooting rockets and Ak-47's.

If we evacuate everyone from the city, the violence will stop.

Once all troops are pulled out of the cities who is the insurgency going to target? I would think the Iraqi elected government. Maybe they will just go about doing what they did before they started making bombs and shooting rockets and Ak-47's.

There are already attacks on civilians, not just troops. There are car bombs set off market places all the time.

There are already attacks on civilians, not just troops. There are car bombs set off market places all the time.
That is what is happening in other occupied cities. It is quite possible that most of the sectarian violence will subside once the US troops withdraw from the cities. It is obvious that the US forces have not been able to police Iraq effectively without using brute force, and then only with a modicum of success.

That is what is happening in other occupied cities. It is quite possible that most of the sectarian violence will subside once the US troops withdraw from the cities.

Why?

Why?
Because it increased with US increases in troops?

http://www.clw.org/policy/iraq/resources/clippings/troop_surge_just_another_escalation/

Sectarian violence has also intensified since the American troop increase in October 2005. Sparked in large part by the bombing of the al Askariya "Golden Mosque" in Samarra on February 22, 2006, the insurgency is now estimated to be 20,000-30,000 strong, including numerous renegade militias and up to 2,000 foreign fighters. Injecting additional American soldiers into this raging tempest is a gamble that will undoubtedly fail once again.

The danger that Iraq will slip even further into chaos if the U.S. leaves is a legitimate concern, but three quarters of Iraqis believe that violence will subside once American troops leave.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1206-25.htm

Here again, there is a paradoxical problem. Though the logic of more seems once again to make perfect sense, "Operation Together Forward," the distinctly a more-style joint American-Iraqi operation devoted to suppressing sectarian violence in Baghdad, has had the opposite effect. Six months after the operation started, the number of insurgent attacks in Baghdad had actually increased by 26%, and the number of violent deaths reported at the city morgue had doubled, and then doubled again, leading New York Times journalists Edwin Wong and Damian Cave to report that "sectarian violence is spiraling out of control."......

The most recent crescendo of sectarian violence in Baghdad is a consequence of Operation Together Forward, and as long as American troops and their Iraqi allies attempt to pacify Baghdad neighborhoods, they will generate and amplify sectarian attacks.

When U.S. Occupation in Iraq Ends the Violence is More Likely to Subside (http://democracyrising.us/content/view/658/164/)

Surely it will be much better than what has already happened......a totally failed US foreign policy that has Iraq in shambles?

There are already attacks on civilians, not just troops. There are car bombs set off market places all the time.

Indeed.

Oh and guess what CH? There was a nice little headline in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that says that both military and civilian deaths were down. And we are not just talking Basra area either.

*yawns*

And all that you can do is guess. And my "bootson the ground" stories had more basis in reality than what the press has reported. But then, the press goes by the addage "if it bleeds it leads".

Wunderbar.

Two facts strike me immediately. Everything that happens in Iraq kicked off after the Americans invaded. Secondly,its not their country. The conclusion is therefore that ye fuck off and send a check in the post for the clean-up. A Simplistic, yet not unreasonable summation and solution, I think.

Wunderbar.

Two facts strike me immediately. Everything that happens in Iraq kicked off after the Americans invaded. Secondly,its not their country. The conclusion is therefore that ye fuck off and send a check in the post for the clean-up. A Simplistic, yet not unreasonable summation and solution, I think.
While simplistic, and totally reasonable, you and I both know that it is not going to happen until there is a complete change in the US administration. That change cannot come fast enough, and even though US troops will begin the pullout under that new administration, it is unlikely that the US will completely pull out.

Until Bremer's Orders are squashed and as long as US troops continue the occupation of Iraq, Iraqis will have no sense of their "freedom" and will not be able to function as a "sovereign" entity.

Oh and guess what CH? There was a nice little headline in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that says that both military and civilian deaths were down. And we are not just talking Basra area either.
And why might they be down? It wouldn't have anything to do with residents fleeing the areas under increased US occupation, and it wouldn't have to do with areas of cities being "segregated" by US built walls??

At Street Level, Unmet Goals of Troop Buildup (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/middleeast/09surge.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

And in some cases the good news is a consequence of bad news: people in neighborhoods have been “takhalasu” — an Iraqi word for purged, meaning killed or driven away. More than 35,000 Iraqis have left their homes in Baghdad since the American troop buildup began, aid groups reported.

The hulking blast walls that the Americans have set up around many neighborhoods have only intensified the city’s sense of balkanization.
An effective strategy? Methinks not.

Can we trust the numbers that Petraeus HAS to deliver?

Iraq Security Statistics (http://www.cfr.org/publication/14196/)

Experts also say Baghdad has become more segregated as a result of the surge, which is likely contributing to the reduction in attacks. Tens of thousands of Sunnis have fled, and those that remain are walled in by massive (NYT) U.S.-made blast walls. Some sources directly disputes U.S. commanders’ contention that civilian deaths have decreased in Baghdad. An unnamed Iraqi Ministry of Interior official told McClatchy Newspapers that the number of Iraqis killed by violence soared in August 2007—to 2,890—nearly double the number cited by Petraeus. The actual numbers may be even higher. The Iraq Study Group report noted in 2006 violence is significantly underreported.
There is an election coming up, and much pressure for troop withdrawal; therefore the "surge" HAS to work?

Where is the honesty? Where is the accountability?

If it made that much sense, I think I would have made a decision by now. It just doesn't seem as obvious to me as it is to you.
It is extremely obvious to me. The Iraqis want the US gone. What democratic principles are keeping them there? Did Iraq ask for a US "surge"? Was a "surge" strategy recommended by the Iraq Study Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group#Recommendations)?

Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment: Few See Security Gains (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504&page=4)

ABC NEWS/BBC/NHK POLL – IRAQ: WHERE THINGS STAND (http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1043a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf)

From that poll:

SEGREGATION and VIOLENCE – Segregation of Iraqis – both forced and voluntary –continues to occur. Across the country, one in six Iraqis – 17 percent – report the separation of Sunni and Shiite Arabs on sectarian lines, including 11 percent who describe this as mainly forced. In Baghdad, it soars: Forty-three percent report the separation of Sunnis and Shiites from mixed to segregated areas, and 27 percent say it’s mainly forced – similar to the 31 percent who said so in March.

Ethnic cleansing clearly is not isolated in Baghdad. The forced separation of Iraqis along sectarian lines is reported by 39 percent in Basra city, in the mainly Shiite south; and by 24 percent – one in four – across all major metropolitan areas.
And of course the Iraqis like this forced segregation? NOT:

In a continued sign of hope, this separation is enormously unpopular: Ninety-eight percent, with agreement across ethnic and sectarian lines, oppose it.
And again from the poll.....after 4 and 1/2 years of war, the Iraqis have "freedom"?

Related results underscore the difficulty of life in Iraq: Seventy-seven percent rate their freedom to live where they want without persecution negatively; 74 percent rate their freedom of safe movement negatively.
All hail the Iraqi Liberation. Millions of Iraqis have been liberated from their homes, their families, their jobs, their infastructure, and far too many have been liberated from their lives.

While simplistic, and totally reasonable, you and I both know that it is not going to happen until there is a complete change in the US administration. That change cannot come fast enough, and even though US troops will begin the pullout under that new administration, it is unlikely that the US will completely pull out.

Until Bremer's Orders are squashed and as long as US troops continue the occupation of Iraq, Iraqis will have no sense of their "freedom" and will not be able to function as a "sovereign" entity.

Indeed. A complete binning of all previous structures/regulations imposed by the CPA and re-allocation of contracts awarded by it. Semi-state bodies should replace them, run by Iraqis, managed and directed by Iraqis, with no US imposed constraints on where they get their supplies from etc.

Indeed. A complete binning of all previous structures/regulations imposed by the CPA and re-allocation of contracts awarded by it. Semi-state bodies should replace them, run by Iraqis, managed and directed by Iraqis, with no US imposed constraints on where they get their supplies from etc.exactamente.

any halliburton/Blackwater contracts.. any treaties.. any laws.. anything done under Foreign occupation has to be reviewed.. and is subject to nullification by the Iraqi people.

Indeed. A complete binning of all previous structures/regulations imposed by the CPA and re-allocation of contracts awarded by it. Semi-state bodies should replace them, run by Iraqis, managed and directed by Iraqis, with no US imposed constraints on where they get their supplies from etc.
Aye to all of that and then one also needs to consider this fact:

ORDER 81: Re-engineering Iraqi agriculture
The ultimate war crime: breaking the agricultural cycle (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20050827&articleId=870)

An interesting read.

It is not always bombs, bullets, and oil,
Sometimes, it is wheat, animals, and soil.

exactamente.

any halliburton/Blackwater contracts.. any treaties.. any laws.. anything done under Foreign occupation has to be reviewed.. and is subject to nullification by the Iraqi people.
Absolutely!!

It is extremely obvious to me.
Yeah, but you can feel comfortable in ignoring half the picture.

The Iraqis want the US gone. What democratic principles are keeping them there?
Very few are. Question is whether these polls are accurate, whether the respondents added conditions in their answers that the poll couldn't capture and so on and so forth.

Nonetheless, there are probably many people who don't think the US troops have a place in Iraq, like the people in Basra, or those who feel that the collateral damage due to attacks on US troops is the biggest problem. But the minorities, those that are at risk of being killed and have to flee their homes would probably prefer proper security, and the Iraqi police and military just doesn't seem likely to provide that.

The former properly outnumber the latter. But if there's a real risk of ethnic cleansing, is it really always appropriate to just follow a "majority rules" approach?

Of course, it's not like the US forces are very good at protecting people from ethnic cleansing at the moment. That would probably require many more rather than less troops, to get the sort of coverage one needed.

Did Iraq ask for a US "surge"? Was a "surge" strategy recommended by the Iraq Study Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group#Recommendations)?

Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment: Few See Security Gains (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504&page=4)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/interviews/mcmaster.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/interviews/zelikow.html

I maintain that in principle the "clear, hold, build" strategy is a good one. It's been used on a smaller scale with great success, and if it had been used a few years ago across the country there'd be a lot fewer problems. Instead they thought they could just stay in their bases and let the Iraqis sort it out amongst themselves, which was a stupid idea.

But the "surge" was always too small to actually work. So I'm hardly surprised that it turned out to be a bit of a dud.

All hail the Iraqi Liberation. Millions of Iraqis have been liberated from their homes, their families, their jobs, their infastructure, and far too many have been liberated from their lives.
Now you're going off at a tangent. I was against the war when it started, I was against the pretext and against the real reasons for it. I think Saddam was a bad guy, but there were plenty worse ones out there that would have deserved to be kicked out of power a lot more.

But what's done is ultimately done. We have to go from the now and try to get the best outcome in the future. I don't think leaving the Iraqis to themselves is the way to do it, nor do I think that US troops staying in the country in present numbers, with present strategies is meaningfully better.

Very few are. Question is whether these polls are accurate, whether the respondents added conditions in their answers that the poll couldn't capture and so on and so forth.

Nonetheless, there are probably many people who don't think the US troops have a place in Iraq, like the people in Basra, or those who feel that the collateral damage due to attacks on US troops is the biggest problem. But the minorities, those that are at risk of being killed and have to flee their homes would probably prefer proper security, and the Iraqi police and military just doesn't seem likely to provide that.

The former properly outnumber the latter. But if there's a real risk of ethnic cleansing, is it really always appropriate to just follow a "majority rules" approach?

Of course, it's not like the US forces are very good at protecting people from ethnic cleansing at the moment. That would probably require many more rather than less troops, to get the sort of coverage one needed.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/interviews/mcmaster.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/interviews/zelikow.html

I maintain that in principle the "clear, hold, build" strategy is a good one. It's been used on a smaller scale with great success, and if it had been used a few years ago across the country there'd be a lot fewer problems. Instead they thought they could just stay in their bases and let the Iraqis sort it out amongst themselves, which was a stupid idea.

But the "surge" was always too small to actually work. So I'm hardly surprised that it turned out to be a bit of a dud.


Now you're going off at a tangent. I was against the war when it started, I was against the pretext and against the real reasons for it. I think Saddam was a bad guy, but there were plenty worse ones out there that would have deserved to be kicked out of power a lot more.

But what's done is ultimately done. We have to go from the now and try to get the best outcome in the future. I don't think leaving the Iraqis to themselves is the way to do it, nor do I think that US troops staying in the country in present numbers, with present strategies is meaningfully better.
Best solutions?

1. Have a referendum. Let the Iraqis choose their fate. On the ballot, allow for US forces complete withdrawal over 6, 12 or 24 months, or alternatively, to allow the US forces to stay indefinitely.

2. Dismantle intrusive laws such as Bremer's Orders, which have shackled Iraqi businesses, and allowed contractors to have immunity from Iraqi laws.

3. Lay groundwork for a UN peacekeeping force, augmented by the Iraqi army, that would oversee the reconstruction of the Iraqi infastructure and economy, with the bills forwarded to Washington.

4. Once the rebuilding has commenced in earnest, allow for new elections and a revamping of the constitution.

I am sure that much more could be done, but I do believe that the above ideas would be a start in the right direction.

Best solutions?

1. Have a referendum. Let the Iraqis choose their fate. On the ballot, allow for US forces complete withdrawal over 6, 12 or 24 months, or alternatively, to allow the US forces to stay indefinitely.

Agreed.

2. Dismantle intrusive laws such as Bremer's Orders, which have shackled Iraqi businesses, and allowed contractors to have immunity from Iraqi laws.

Agreed fully.

3. Lay groundwork for a UN peacekeeping force, augmented by the Iraqi army, that would oversee the reconstruction of the Iraqi infastructure and economy, with the bills forwarded to Washington.

Umm peacekeeping force. Could work but depends on the ROEs.

4. Once the rebuilding has commenced in earnest, allow for new elections and a revamping of the constitution.

I can agree to that.

I am sure that much more could be done, but I do believe that the above ideas would be a start in the right direction.

I agree.

WHAT? Me agree? What a novel thought.

1. Have a referendum. Let the Iraqis choose their fate. On the ballot, allow for US forces complete withdrawal over 6, 12 or 24 months, or alternatively, to allow the US forces to stay indefinitely.
And whoever gets outvoted loses the referendum, their house and maybe their life? I mean, the suggestion isn't bad in principle, but what do you do if it ends up being 51% vs 49%? If you're the last Sunni family in Sadr city, and you vote against a troop withdrawal and get outvoted, who do you turn to? The Shia police? The Mahdi Army? Ba'athists or some sort of Sunni protection racket?

2. Dismantle intrusive laws such as Bremer's Orders, which have shackled Iraqi businesses, and allowed contractors to have immunity from Iraqi laws.
Agreed. But that's up to the government, I believe. The government that isn't in session because they can't find a compromise on who'll be speaker of parliament. :rolleyes:

Because whatever exists right now is not capable of governing Baghdad, let alone the country.

3. Lay groundwork for a UN peacekeeping force, augmented by the Iraqi army, that would oversee the reconstruction of the Iraqi infastructure and economy, with the bills forwarded to Washington.
I'll just quickly propose that any country that values its money and soldiers stay well away from such a peacekeeping force. Maybe Nepal would be happy to send some though.

4. Once the rebuilding has commenced in earnest, allow for new elections and a revamping of the constitution.
Rebuilding won't happen without security and economic stability, and a UN peacekeeping force is even less likely to create it than the American forces.

New elections haven't solved any problems yet, and even the constitution that exists now was only written because the Americans sat on the side and forced people to speak to one another. Without that, the Kurds want their own state, the Shia want the oil and the Sunnis don't want to be left standing in the proverbial rain. There is nothing in Iraqi politics that suggests such a compromise could be reached.

Agreed.

Agreed fully.

Umm peacekeeping force. Could work but depends on the ROEs.

I can agree to that.

I agree.

WHAT? Me agree? What a novel thought.
After the paramedics revived me, I insisted on bookmarking this post. :)

However, you and I both know, that the above agreed upon items are very likely not going to be acceptable to the US administration at all. :(

After the paramedics revived me, I insisted on bookmarking this post. :)

Goes to show that I am not out of the mainstream as you thought I was CH.

However, you and I both know, that the above agreed upon items are very likely not going to be acceptable to the US administration at all. :(

Regretably, you're correct.

Now you're going off at a tangent. I was against the war when it started, I was against the pretext and against the real reasons for it. I think Saddam was a bad guy, but there were plenty worse ones out there that would have deserved to be kicked out of power a lot more.

But what's done is ultimately done. We have to go from the now and try to get the best outcome in the future. I don't think leaving the Iraqis to themselves is the way to do it, nor do I think that US troops staying in the country in present numbers, with present strategies is meaningfully better.So if -in your opinion- we cannot leave and present numbers are not going to work.. What is your solution?
what is the number you need?