Brave Iraqi Freedom Fighters attack New World Order Baghdad HQ

[SlowwHand]

Define stunning success, Oerdin.
WTF do you want?

And the 2 countries were 2 separate reasons.
1441, like it or not, was the reason for Iraq.
You can blabber all day and into the night, but that's the fact.

[Zkribbler]

One of the judges from the courthouse where I work just left for Baghdad as part of a UN delegation. I hope she hasn't made it over there yet...or if she is, maybe she wasn't in the building.

[lord of the mark]

why assume this is al qaeeda?

it makes perfect sense as a Baathist operation.

UN had just passed a res welcoming iraqi governing council. Serge Vieria de Mello (sp?) in particular advocated that. And the UN was likely to take a role in reconstructing Iraq, something displeasing to the Baathists. Their motives are clear.

The MO ( a truck bombing) looks like Islamists, but the Baathists seem quite capable of learning tactics from the Islamists, among others. They even had a bomb factory going in Tikrit, till 4th ID took it down.

Should we get out and leave it to the Iraqis - well eventually, certainly. But they need first to have an army, militia and police stood up - their not far enough along - and to get further in infrastructure, and politics. This is a country that has had its civil society ground into dust for the last 35 years, its hard for them to take responsibility in a space of a few months. Leave them alone and the Iranian mullahs will rush in, for sure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Wrong, Jac. It took weeks before the Iraqi Police force came out to take responsibility for looting.
What if the U.S. says, "That's it. Enough. Finito."
How pissed off will the population be then ?
We're not there to spoon-feed them for eternity.

You mean the police force that we armed and authorized on our schedule?

We invaded, so we're stuck with the responsibility for dealing with the place.

Look at Afghanistan.
They were ready and willing to take charge of their future.

Aaah, and a bright future it is. A vice president blown up, a president who doesn't dare leave the capital, and each little warlord that played ball with us running his own little fiefdom. Oh, and the bad guys still lurking in the boonies for when we leave, and the place is still a ****hole.

Ride 'em, cowboy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Maybe some Baathites are unhappy at UN failure to contain american aggression.

the baathists have a helluva lot to be unhappy about - despised Shia running things in most of the south. even more despised kurds taking a role in running Kirkuk, and - god save the mark - Mosul. First president of Iraqi Governing Council is - god help us - a Shia. Most of the Sunnis arabs on the council are exiles. True Baathists are being excluded from running things - and their crimes are being dug up.

Even the things the Baathists have to be happy about are limited - I mean blowing up a water pipeline and leaving several hundred thousand Baghdadis without water was a MAJOR accomplishment - but heck, Baghdad shouldnt even have water at this point - I mean the BBC never reported that water was back in all of Baghdad, did they - so the sabotage only moves things back partway to where they were supposed to be - and the lousy Americans will have the water back in a couple of days anyway.

Baathists seem able to kill about 3 to 4 Americans a week - which would be an accomplishement, if they werent losing 3-4 midlevel or higher leaders a week.

And here goes this UN, recognizing the Shiite and Kurdish scum, and the Sunni arab traitors, on the Governing council - and to boot looking at ways to reconstruct the country, threatening do all that hard work of sabotage. If i was a baathist, id be royally pissed at the UN.

[Defiant]

"Aaah, and a bright future it is. A vice president blown up, a president who doesn't dare leave the capital, and each little warlord that played ball with us running his own little fiefdom. Oh, and the bad guys still lurking in the boonies for when we leave, and the place is still a ****hole."

Yes, and I love the alternative even more, never attack, let the terrorists train and plan there so we can have more innocent Americans die here.

Maybe, just maybe if we leave them alone they will leave us alone, right?

[The Mad Monk]

Interesting choice of target.

Were they that much softer (less secure), or are the culprits counting on them being that much softer (less resolute)?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Defiant
Yes, and I love the alternative even more, never attack, let the terrorists train and plan there so we can have more innocent Americans die here.

Maybe, just maybe if we leave them alone they will leave us alone, right?

If something is worth doing then it is worth doing right and not half assing it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Aaah, and a bright future it is. A vice president blown up, a president who doesn't dare leave the capital, and each little warlord that played ball with us running his own little fiefdom. Oh, and the bad guys still lurking in the boonies for when we leave, and the place is still a ****hole.

Actually Karzai just moved the warlord of Kandahar out of power - kicked him upstair to a ministry in Kabul. Bamiyan is also under the control of the central govt.
Areas still under the control of warlords are the Northeast - under Attah Muhammed - the north center - under Dostum, and the West, under Ismail Khan. Ismail has been relieved of his post as commander in the west, under a rule that limits individuals to one post (Khan is also governor of Herat, a post he retains)
Kharzai has also shaken customs revenues loose from the control of the warlords.

You really have to follow the details to know whats going on in afghan. The situation is still not what it should be - the frustration for me is that its going relatively well, considering how little the Bush admin has put into it - one gets the impression that a little more effort would have yielded significant results there.

[Defiant]

"If something is worth doing then it is worth doing right and not half assing it."

I somewhat agree, two things I would have done different, wiped out the warlords and brought the 75,000 troops stationed in Germany as the peacekeeper force in Aghanistan. Remember we didn't even settle our own West for about a 50 years and we want Afghanistan to be a civil as we are now, in what 2 years, it takes time, lots of time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


If something is worth doing then it is worth doing right and not half assing it.

though the question remains how would you have done afgan "right"

more troops? Likely to be counterproductive, Afghans dont like seeing lots of foreign troops - that was the trap the Brits and Soviets walked into.

More money for reconstruction? Cant reconstruct without security.

More euro- ISAF troops? No one offering additional troops.

More training to afgahn police and army - sounds like the best option - what have been constraints on pace of this?

More funds to the central govt to gradually weaken the warlords? Maybe.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Defiant
"If something is worth doing then it is worth doing right and not half assing it."

I somewhat agree, two things I would have done different, wiped out the warlords and brought the 75,000 troops stationed in Germany as the peacekeeper force in Aghanistan. Remember we didn't even settle our own West for about a 50 years and we want Afghanistan to be a civil as we are now, in what 2 years, it takes time, lots of time.

75,000 US troops into afghan, taking on the warlord forces? Would have been a disaster. Nothing more certain than that to get Afghans to rally around the warlords as defenders of Afghan independence.

The warlords are not as universally hated there as is sometimes indicated in the press. Ismail Khan in particular is popular in Herat. They are also widely given credit for fighting the Soviets (Khan in particular) and driving out the Taliban. Warlordism is not necessarily an irrational response to a broken civil society like that - overcoming it requires the slow buildup of central authority.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You mean the police force that we armed and authorized on our schedule?

We invaded, so we're stuck with the responsibility for dealing with the place.



Aaah, and a bright future it is. A vice president blown up, a president who doesn't dare leave the capital, and each little warlord that played ball with us running his own little fiefdom. Oh, and the bad guys still lurking in the boonies for when we leave, and the place is still a ****hole.

Ride 'em, cowboy.

Michael, I have a big ****ing news flash for you.
We didn't go there to adopt the Afghans.
If you ere under that impression, you were misinformed.
Their future, is their future.
And in any casr, their future has more prospects of being bright than before coalition troops went in.
If you don't think so, that's your right.
You'll just be wrong.

PERSONALLY, what I would do is tell the American agenda, a whole lot like Bush has always done.
Don't like it? Fine, gather in this spot with this group.
SAY all is well, but lie? You move up to the top of the list.
That's ****ing Iraq, Saudia Arabia, France, who the hell ever.
Make a choice.

[Defiant]

"The warlords are not as universally hated there as is sometimes indicated in the press. Ismail Khan in particular is popular in Herat. They are also widely given credit for fighting the Soviets (Khan in particular) and driving out the Taliban. Warlordism is not necessarily an irrational response to a broken civil society like that - overcoming it requires the slow buildup of central authority."

Lord, I will cede the point to you on that but in the press lately the Taliban loyalists have been killing officers and burning stations, with a fast response military team there to help the Afghan police force when they are put in massive harm's way we can hearts of the Afghan people behind us. I am not saying to make ourselves shown on every street corner, we stay in the background until we are needed, as the attacks grow less and less and the growth of Afghan is maturing we quietly move our forces out. I just don't believe there is enough protection there.

[SlowwHand]

No. U.S. troops are not policemen.
Yo uopen all new cans of worms, if you take the attitude that they are.
That's been seen.
Hell. Read Michael's damned logic.