Someone Tell the President the War is Over

[DinoDoc]

Eh. The last time I posted an article from the magazine it sparked an interesting discussion (to me at least) and this one looked better able to start one than a dime a dozen op ed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
note I said spefically biden and clinton. There are other dems who think differently. Presumably Mr. Dean, for example.

September 1, 2003: "I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there ... and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq." --Howard Dean

[Ted Striker]

Yep, we are freaking stuck there, forever probably. This insurgency is going to take 10 years to beat down.

The sheer incompetence and mismanagement still boggles the mind. Those security forces need to be up and running YESTERDAY. Experts across political lines all agree upon that. duh

What is going to happen, as predicted a year ago, is that those security forces are going to become so ruthless (think Salvador) that they will eventually destroy the insurgents.

However, there will be the usual side effects of living in a police state.

It will take another 10 years after that before Iraq becomes normalized again.

We're looking at a 20 year time frame before this thing is over.

[chequita guevara]

OUT NOW!

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Odin


Quit being obnoxious.

You too.

It doesn't matter if you were for or against this war; I was against. But now that we are there and we need to cleen up our mess. Leaving without the place being stable will let it turn into a terrorist haven.

You're not trying to clean up your mess at all. You're still pursuing the same policy which lead to the aggression in the first place - putting a puppet "democratic" government in place which will allow the US to control one of the worlds major sources of oil, just at a time when the "tipping point" is reached and world oil output starts to decline, leading to skyrocketing prices.

Any belief that the US has anything positive to offer Iraq at this point in history is just self-delusion. Any upsurge in terrorist sympathies is due directly to US policies. The resulting terrorist threat is not geographically limited to Iraq, as recent events in Britain have shown. As long as the US and its' allies attempt to occupy Muslim countries, the terrorist threat will grow.

[Sikander]

Typical polemic from Frank Rich, the NY Times weakest columnist since he took the crown from Paul Krugman. Almost as stupid as "No Blood for Oil!".

[techumseh]

Piss off.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by techumseh
Piss off.

Righto!

[Ramo]

Dear Leader's apparantly planning a major reducion in American presence in 2006 (probably to avert 1994 redux in the elections), under the delusion that Iraqi troops are prepared to take over the bulk of the defense by that time. But the Ministry of Defense is basically a joke. It's unable to even provide its troops with basic supplies, and has to rely on American support (there was an interesting Times article on that recently that I posted here). Indeed, an Iraqi audit recently turned up over a billion dollars in fraud, including half a billion that literally disappeared.

The Board of Supreme Audit, led by former Human Rights Minister Abdel Baset al-Turki, examined defense contracts that had been signed starting with the transfer of sovereignty June 28, 2004, through Feb. 28, 2005. The investigation's results, supported by bank statements, receipts and internal Defense Ministry memos, were delivered to al-Jaafari's office May 16.

Among the findings:

-Multimillion-dollar contracts were awarded to favored weapons suppliers without a bidding process and without the required approval from the prime minister's office. Investigators wrote that the chief procurer went "beyond his authority" in purchasing equipment.

-Senior Iraqi officials kept little or no record of major purchases, sometimes noting lucrative deals in "undated and unnumbered" memos. Nearly all purchases contained a clause - unusual in international contracting of this magnitude - that required the contract's full value to be paid up front in cash.

-Instead of buying directly from a foreign company or government, Iraqi arms procurers hired third-party companies to negotiate the contracts. When Iraqi leaders later complained about unfulfilled contracts, they discovered they had no recourse to demand a refund because the payments were made to Iraqi middlemen who vanished after receiving the millions. "The undertakings make no obligation ... toward the Iraqi Ministry of Defense," according to the report.

-The sole beneficiary on 43 of the 89 contracts was a former currency-exchange operator, Nair Mohamed al-Jumaili, whose name doesn't even appear on the contracts. At least $759 million in Iraqi money was deposited into his personal account at a bank in Baghdad, according to the report. Internal records incorrectly "indicated that the Ministry of Defense signed contracts with Poland, Arab countries, the United States and Europe, but we discovered that all contracts were signed and executed with Iraqi suppliers," the report said.

The contracts under scrutiny total $1.27 billion, nearly equal to the estimated $1.3 billion allocated for the Defense Ministry's budget this year. The money came solely from Iraqi coffers, not from the training budget of the U.S. military or from NATO and foreign donations to Iraq's military.

"There's no rebuilding, no weapons, nothing," said retired Iraqi Lt. Gen. Abdul Aziz al-Yaseri, who worked in the Defense Ministry at the height of the alleged corruption. "There are no real contracts, even. They just signed papers and took the money."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12360839.htm

The Constitution process is being derailed. The fundamental questions of Islamism and federalism still haven't been addressed. Hakim has raised the spectre of a Shia superprovince, which (along with the Kurdish superprovince) would deny the Sunni Arabs a share of the country's oil wealth - and extend the insurgency indefinitely. Because SCIRI controls 11 out of 13 of the Southern provincial gov't's, a Shia superprovince would mean they would be able to dominate the gov't, whereas in all of Iraq, their power would be considerably diluted (interestingly enough, Sy Hersh in an article a couple months ago asserted that in the provincial elections, there was considerable pro-SCIRI, anti-Da'wa ballot stuffing). The Iraqi Parliament just gave the Constitution delegates a week extension to compromise, but the problems might be too intractible to resolve in such short a time. This whole timeline for the Constitution has been absurdly compressed, and really serves no purpose other than giving Shrub yet another chance to say "the tide is turning" to the American public.

In summary, we're ****ed.

[alva]

Originally posted by techumseh


OMG, the Tide Has Turned!

They've turned a corner!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Eh. The last time I posted an article from the magazine it sparked an interesting discussion (to me at least) and this one looked better able to start one than a dime a dozen op ed.

True, but in the middle of this thread, I don't know if it'll do much good. Maybe a new thread with that as the OP would get better results.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

All I want to know is: when are the Bush twins going to volunteer for duty?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by alva



They've turned a corner!

Sure, but they're in a cornfield maze.

[GePap]

That was not one of Rich's better columns.

But the idea that waiting for Iraqi troops to be "strongt enough to handle the militants" is actually the solution to our Iraq problem is absurd. Our problem in Iraq is the fiction that an American invasion would lead to a free, democratic and singular state known as Iraq in that region that would become some shinning beacon. Iraq was always one of the most artificial of the 1922 creations.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Dear Leader's apparantly planning a major reducion in American presence in 2006 (probably to avert 1994 redux in the elections), under the delusion that Iraqi troops are prepared to take over the bulk of the defense by that time.

LOTM - 20,000 or so troops - there are likely to be enough Iraqi troops trained to make that feasible, from what Ive read.


But the Ministry of Defense is basically a joke. It's unable to even provide its troops with basic supplies, and has to rely on American support (there was an interesting Times article on that recently that I posted here).

LOTM - I read that article - what was interesting is how the Iraqi troops are persevering despite logistical problems. Oh, and this is a third world, country, there are going to be problems, and corruption. Especially with a new government.

Indeed, an Iraqi audit recently turned up over a billion dollars in fraud, including half a billion that literally disappeared.

LOTM - like i said, theres gonna be corruption.


The Constitution process is being derailed.


LOTM - the incorporation of the Sunnis has complicated things, but is still very hopeful. We will see what happens in a week.

The fundamental questions of Islamism and federalism still haven't been addressed. Hakim has raised the spectre of a Shia superprovince, which (along with the Kurdish superprovince) would deny the Sunni Arabs a share of the country's oil wealth - and extend the insurgency indefinitely.


LOTM - but Jaafari distanced himself from that proposal.

Because SCIRI controls 11 out of 13 of the Southern provincial gov't's, a Shia superprovince would mean they would be able to dominate the gov't, whereas in all of Iraq, their power would be considerably diluted (interestingly enough, Sy Hersh in an article a couple months ago asserted that in the provincial elections, there was considerable pro-SCIRI, anti-Da'wa ballot stuffing).

LOTM - Hersh again. From what ive read, theres disillusionment with SCIRI, which is why theyre so eager to get a constitution through, since if they dont theyd have to face new elections.

The Iraqi Parliament just gave the Constitution delegates a week extension to compromise, but the problems might be too intractible to resolve in such short a time. This whole timeline for the Constitution has been absurdly compressed, and really serves no purpose other than giving Shrub yet another chance to say "the tide is turning" to the American public.

LOTM - Im not sure. It also leads to the next election, which is likely to be the first with massive Sunni Arab participation. I can see arguments for delay, but also good arguments against delay.