Open Iraqi election thread

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Yes, I do. Do you read the arguments you are responding to?

I originally posted the following:

As for withdrawal, it should be screamingly obvious that the American occupation is not popular, regardless of how people regard the insurgency. The vast majority of Iraqis think they can handle things themselves. The Iraqi president himself came out recently and expressed this very sentiment. In other words, you have absolutely no basis for dismissing talk of US withdrawal as the voice of suicide bombers.

The most relevant bit in bold, obviously replacing president with the Hakim fellow.

What was your accusation again?

Er, in case you havent been watching too closely, the position of the US administration is that ultimately the Iraqis can handle things themselves. Thats why the US is focusing on training Iraqi forces. I assumed you meant something more than that, like Iraqi leaders think they can handle things themselves NOW. Which they do not.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Er, in case you havent been watching too closely, the position of the US administration is that ultimately the Iraqis can handle things themselves. Thats why the US is focusing on training Iraqi forces. I assumed you meant something more than that, like Iraqi leaders think they can handle things themselves NOW. Which they do not.

Well, you know what they say about people who assume...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Yes, I do. Do you read the arguments you are responding to?

I originally posted the following:

As for withdrawal, it should be screamingly obvious that the American occupation is not popular, regardless of how people regard the insurgency. The vast majority of Iraqis think they can handle things themselves. The Iraqi president himself came out recently and expressed this very sentiment. In other words, you have absolutely no basis for dismissing talk of US withdrawal as the voice of suicide bombers.

The most relevant bit in bold, obviously replacing president with the Hakim fellow.


What was your accusation again?

you posted in response to the following:
"Withdrawal is a fine and good thing and will be done, but doing it before there are a stable government would not do anything than start a civil war. You want that we shall respect the voice of the Iraqui people, well, why not let them speak for themself as the have done in the election instead of the "voice" of suicide bombers"



As far as I can tell from the quotes, both Yawer AND Hakim agree with Black Cats quote above - except that the focus is on adequate Iraqi security capability - im not sure if that was what black cat meant by stable govt. You responded to him as if you disagreed - ergo i assumed you thought there was something in your quotes that contradicted him.

So, we're all agreed that leading Iraqis want the US to withdraw, but not until Iraqi is much further along in its security capabilities?

[GePap]

Iraqi security forces are a bits away from being effective themselves. This is assuming nothing dramatic occurs in the coming months.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Iraqi security forces are a bits away from being effective themselves. This is assuming nothing dramatic occurs in the coming months.

yes my point exactly. The most optimistic Iraqi official said 6 months - most say 18 months. US officials wont give a date, just that for planning they want to keep 135,000 troops in till end of 2005.

Myers says today that of the 135,000 "trained and equipped" Iraqi forces, 40,000 can be used on there own anywhere in the country. The rest can still be useful, but have a long way to go.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


you posted in response to the following:
"Withdrawal is a fine and good thing and will be done, but doing it before there are a stable government would not do anything than start a civil war. You want that we shall respect the voice of the Iraqui people, well, why not let them speak for themself as the have done in the election instead of the "voice" of suicide bombers"



As far as I can tell from the quotes, both Yawer AND Hakim agree with Black Cats quote above - except that the focus is on adequate Iraqi security capability - im not sure if that was what black cat meant by stable govt. You responded to him as if you disagreed - ergo i assumed you thought there was something in your quotes that contradicted him.

So, we're all agreed that leading Iraqis want the US to withdraw, but not until Iraqi is much further along in its security capabilities?

BlackCat's reply was to my post talking about agreeing to a timetable for withdrawal.
As such, it was his equating talk of early withdrawal with terrorists that bothered me, and thus I wanted to show that withdrawal is already on the table, from the (future) Iraqi government's side.

I certainly don't think US troops should just up and leave. However, I see nothing wrong with a quick timetable for withdrawal either, if the Iraqi government sees it proper. After all, it's their sovereign right to kick out foreigners, ill advised or not.

But yeah, a lot of the disagreement here was merely because of talking past one another.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo


details? how will 'getting rid of' (killing?) Saddam solve any of Iraq's serious problems?

There is overall agreement here and elsewhere that the primary resistances by "former regime elements." These people are not fighting solely to drive the Americans out of Iraq, but to restore the former regime to power. Their leader is still alive and in jail, and undoubtedly inspires even if he does not lead the resistance directly. Saddam is like a Mafia boss who has been placed in jail, but who continues to be the mob leader, regardless of whether or not he is free to personally direct day-to-day operations. The eventual goal of the resistance is to restore the former regime, as I said before, and hopefully get Saddam back in the power. So long as Saddam lives, there is hope for the former regime elements to succeed. Thus, as long as he continues to live, there is no doubt in my mind at the resistance will continue. But if he dies, there is no legitimate heir as Saddam's sons are gone. Therefore there is a chance, a good chance, that if Saddam is gone the resistance will end, at the least by the "former regime elements."

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jaakko


BlackCat's reply was to my post talking about agreeing to a timetable for withdrawal.
As such, it was his equating talk of early withdrawal with terrorists that bothered me, and thus I wanted to show that withdrawal is already on the table, from the (future) Iraqi government's side.

I certainly don't think US troops should just up and leave. However, I see nothing wrong with a quick timetable for withdrawal either, if the Iraqi government sees it proper. After all, it's their sovereign right to kick out foreigners, ill advised or not.

But yeah, a lot of the disagreement here was merely because of talking past one another.

You may have hit something with your last line, but it has been that clear.

I certainly think that withdrawal shall happen, but when and if it shall be done according to a strict time table, there I'm not so sure.

The Iraqui government are a open question here, but unless the election should end up in something far to the right of Iran, then I think that they don't want any foreign troops to leave before Iraq itself are capable of maintaining a reasonable security. But I also think that it will be insane to commit to a strict timetable, say in six months half shall be gone and in next six the rest goes. What if after six months Iraq isn't able to take over and the missing troops make it impossible to protect people ? That would be a disaster because either you leave and chaos starts or you stay and gives ammo to the view that we are just liars that don't have the intent to leave. I'll much prefer that withdrawal is done on a 'not need to stay' descicion when the Iraquis are capable to protect themselves. Some may say that it just are an excuse to stay forever, but why are there then so much work done to build up the Iraqui policeforces ?

[Bosh]

Myers says today that of the 135,000 "trained and equipped" Iraqi forces, 40,000 can be used on there own anywhere in the country. The rest can still be useful, but have a long way to go.

Most of those are shake n' bake cops who've only had a 2 week training course.

[Ramo]

Cole accussed these bloggers of being CIA agents and he got his ass handed to him for making that rediculous statement. worm all you want but that's the kind of guy you are quoting.

Prove it. I read the post where Cole supposedly said that, it was clear that he said that they might be trolls. As I said earlier, "CIA" wasn't even in that post. Hell, he even retracted his post soon afterwards (correcting himself with regards to the TX server issue). So continue making ignorant accusations about people you disagree with, that doesn't change the facts.

apparently he didnt use the word CIA, but only intimated it, talking about where they got their support from.

In his own words:
"It is now being alleged in the rightwing press (which really is a paid-for manipulation of public opinion) that I said that the Ali brothers were connected to the CIA. I never said any such thing. My phrase "certain quarters" referred to, at most, the Republican Party or organizations associated with it. As the email below should make clear, I never thought that charge plausible. Some have suggested that the controversy endangers the brothers' lives. But if meeting with high US officials in Washington and blogging about it does not, nothing would."

http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/iraqthemodel-on-december-12-just.html

Remember, this is a guy who likes to talk about the "likud supporters" in the administration. He knows how to imply something, while maintaining full deniability.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Criticizing the actions of Feith et al. with regards to Israeli policy makes you an anti-Semite?

[lord of the mark]

Somehow this conversation had actually returned to facts on the ground in Iraq. Can we keep it off of the personal qualities of Juan Cole, Feith, et al? Suffice it to say that Juan Cole is highly respected in SOME quarters, and is NOT respected at all in many others, and not just in the Republican press. He can certainly be cited as one source, but I wouldnt consider him an authority. However where an ANALYSIS by him is cited, without appeal to authority, it would be preferable to critique his analysis, and not rehash other controversies about him. Similar approaches should be take to commentators and officials of all stripes - attack the analysis, not the analyst. The obvious exception is where whats being cited is not an analysis, but a statement of fact, an eyewitness report, etc where we are forced to rely on the credibility of the source.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boshko

Most of those are shake n' bake cops who've only had a 2 week training course.

My understanding is that training has been transformed and intensified since Maj Gen. Petraues (sp?) took over back in June. Also the ING always received heavier training than the IP.

In any case Myers says the 40,000 are not just trained, but capable of real combat throughout Iraq. This is higher than a number cited by Joe Biden (D-Delaware) but that discussion was weeks ago, and may have used outdated info.

[Brundlefly]

So now that it is clear that the pro-Iran Shiites will win the election, what does the US do? This is clearly what they do not want to happen..

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by bfg9000
So now that it is clear that the pro-Iran Shiites will win the election, what does the US do? This is clearly what they do not want to happen..

I dont think Ayatollah Sistani wants Iraq to be subordinate to Iran. In any case, its NOT clear what the final returns will look like. Your source, please?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I dont think Ayatollah Sistani wants Iraq to be subordinate to Iran. In any case, its NOT clear what the final returns will look like. Your source, please?

According to the NYT with 35% of the votes counted, mainly from Baghdad and the Shiite south the allience has 67% of the vote. It is beyond obvious that at least outside the Kurdish areas, given the lower voter turnout amongst Sunnis, that the List supported by Sistani will undoubtedly win, whih Alawi and Kurdish parties coming in second and third. By how much the Sistani supported list wins is the question left now, but its not really realisitc to think that somehow Sunnis and Kurds voted en mass for Alawi.