HAMAS holds secret talks with US Democratic Party

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Do you know where in SA that commodity is produced? Do you know where in Saudi Arabia the Shiite minority is concentrated?

Didn't know that. Still, 5% isn't all that much.

SA spends enough on defence that they should be able to quell any uprising quick enough.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
For Ned...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53312

Ahh, World Nut Daily. That esteemed news source which claims people turn gay by eating tofu.

WND is a rag which posts nothing but drivil. Completely anti-science and anti-reality.

[Ramo]

I think the likelihood of our going to war with Iran in the next two years is low, and the likelihood of our using Iraq as the base for a land invasion of Iran is near zero. If we did attack Iran, it would like be by air, and main role for boots on the ground would be to occupy parts of the Iranian gulf coast to prevent its usage for attacks on Kuwaiti and Saudi oil shipments. To achieve that it would be preferable for the US to be OUT of Iraq.

I don't disagree with any of that. BTW, by "regime," I meant Iraq's.

Edit:
As for my original point, just look at a hypothetical about what would've happened if the generals (see Sy Hersh) weren't able to successfully convince Shrub to not bomb Iran's nuclear facilities several months back. I think that'd tell you roughly who the Da'wa gov't's, and their popular base, would consider allies.

Wanting to deal with a failed state on their borders might appear irrational, but so do many positions taken by the govt of Iran. And Im not sure they would need a failed state for years - they would need an acceleration of chaos until we leave, and until the side favorable to them (which i see as Sadr and the Mahdi army) win and establish a Khomienist state.

Again, that basically where we're going right now. Sadr's kingmaker in Maliki's gov't. Professionals have emigrated en masse out of the country. I don't see Iran getting anything out of more violence. Just a crappier economy, which means trouble at home.

With some more money, which as i said, the sunni insurgency doesnt seem to be short of.

In a place that's dirt poor and has sky-high unemployment, more money isn't exactly meaningless.

I dont buy that, for one minute. Since the shrine attack Sadr has opposed every action by either the Iraqi govt or by coalition forces that would control the militias, and hes defended his supporters in the cabinet who seem to be protecting and enabling the militias. There may be rogue elements, but Sadr is happy to have them do his work for them.

I don't see how opposing the suppression of the Mahdi Army is in any way inconsistent with steadily losing control of it. And if he wants to see more ethnic cleansing, why bother making public pronouncements against such violence. That's just making yourself look ineffectual for no reason.

You are asking me to belive that you have greater insight into Hakim than Ayatollah Sistani did.

When did Sistani vouch for Hakim's secularist creds? It's true that their relationship is better than Sistani and Sadr's, but that because Sadr poses a threat to the Najaf hierarchy. And Da'wa has dealt with both guys on similar terms.

Further, note that Hakim's the strongest proponent of a Shia super-province, in which Khomenism becomes a lot more viable than in Sadr's centralized ideal. I've always thought that the description of SCIRI as Mensheviks to the Sadrists' Bolsheviks is apt; pseudo-secular state for now, but transition into an Islamic revolution.

IIUC Peter Pace has said the opposite, and that a surge strategy has been seriously under consideration at the Pentagon. The question becomes what the definition of surge is. If youre going to put another 100,000 troops in for several years, you cant do that at acceptable cost. But you can do a smaller surge for a shorter period of time. That was what McCain was so angry about, they only looked at the big long surge, not at the realistic one. This is a standard bureucratic practice for killing an alternative you dont like, and BH was nothing if not filled with people expert at such practices.

But folks like Abizaid have been saying that a smaller surge - a few tens of thousands - isn't sustainable. I don't believe that a short-term surge has any guarantee of changing things. We've done similar things before - highly concentrated attacks. Hell, we've destroyed cities with very little to show from it besides more headaches in the long term. I think we need to try something different, and I think that Iran and Syria are willing to play ball.

[Ramo]

Just read this:

Three weeks ago, November 12, there was a report in Asharq al Awsat about what was being called the National Iraqi Gathering or Assembly, apparently sponsored by a branch of the Dawa party, but including Sadrists, people from the Iraqi National Accord, National Dialogue Front and others, the news of that day being that this was joined by one of the Najaf authorities, Ayatollah Yaqubi, spiritual leader of the Fadhila Party. From the summary back on November 12:

[The movement's spokesman] said: The Iraqi experience since the American attack in 2003 has demonstrated the inability of the existing political parties to go beyond their "narrow special interests, and their ideological sacraments" in a way that could save Iraq from the fate that appears to be awaiting it. To make a long story short, he says the elected political parties have ended up abdicating their responsibility to the nation as a whole, and giving in to the temptation sectarian in-fighting.

Of particular interest to American readers should be his analysis of the "the new American strategy" in Iraq, which he describes as focused on extricating America from a situation that is "distressing [to America] both domestically and globally, even if that [extrication] is at the expense of the democratic experiment in Iraq, which has cost us so many victims." The appeal, which is not only to political parties, but to other groups and tribes and so on as well, refers to the risk currently facing Iraq of being "dispersed and [the various parts] snatched up".

Three short weeks later the risk of an American withdrawal at the expense of the Iraqi democracy obviously seems a lot more threatening. It has been widely reported that Moqtada Al-Sadr, in a reaction to the Maliki-Bush meeting, has been at work on a parliamentary alliance that would call for US troop-withdrawal as an act of Parliament. The news today is from Aswat al-Iraq, and it is in the form of a statement by Saleh al-Mutlak. Here is the whole news item:

Head of the National Dialogue Front Saleh al-Mutlak said today there will soon be an announcement about establishment of a National Salvation Front in Iraq to include various political and religious figures. He explained [in Amman] that the announcement comes by way of reviving a political movement that had been stalled (or words to that effect). He said this will include, besides [his own] National Dialogue Front, the Iraqi List led by Iyad Allawi, the coalition for Reconciliation and Freedom led by Mashaan Juburi, and the Sadrist movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr. It will also include groups from outside the political process including [something called] the Constituent Council led by Jawad al-Halasi, tribal elements from south and central Iraq, along with representatives of the Yazidis, and the Turkmen, Kurdish movements that oppose separation, a coalition of Christians, along with the [something called the] Arab Shiite Movement. And Matlak said the movement will be supported by religious figures of social and political weight, including al-Baghdadi, al-Yaqubi, al-Muiid, and al-Sarkhii, along with the Khalasia school.

That's all it says. This appears to be an expanded version of what was referred to three weeks ago as the National Iraqi Gathering or Assembly, representing nationalist groups of both the Sunni and Shiite persuasion, described then as aimed at protecting the country from the ill effects of an American withdrawal designed only to save their own skin. It is possible this project and the Sadr project for a parliamentary-alliance for US withdrawal are on the same page, but on the other hand a lot of people will say: "it is too late for this". Time will tell.

http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2006/12/sunni-leader-promoting-revival-of.html

Notably absent from this list of parties is SCIRI. I think that nationalism is a very important key to Sadr's ideology, and that SCIRI and Hakim are considerably more sectarian.

[Ramo]

It looks like we'll the the surge strategy. From the WSJ (through Josh Marshall):

The Bush administration is leaning toward temporarily sending as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, even as the Democrats taking charge of Congress demand a drawdown of forces.

U.S. officials say the increase is needed to make a new push to stabilize Baghdad and to bolster efforts to train the Iraqi army. The emerging plan is facing opposition from Iraqi officials adamant that more U.S. forces aren't the answer. U.S. military commanders in Baghdad have drawn up plans for the country that don't require any new personnel. The debate over whether to send additional U.S. forces to Iraq is the most visible manifestation of the high-level tumult roiling the Bush administration as it works to find a way forward there ahead of a presidential address to the nation early next year.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


"I don't disagree with any of that. BTW, by "regime," I meant Iraq's.

Edit:
As for my original point, just look at a hypothetical about what would've happened if the generals (see Sy Hersh) weren't able to successfully convince Shrub to not bomb Iran's nuclear facilities several months back. I think that'd tell you roughly who the Da'wa gov't's, and their popular base, would consider allies."


I dont trust Sy Hersh. Sorry.


"Again, that basically where we're going right now. Sadr's kingmaker in Maliki's gov't. Professionals have emigrated en masse out of the country. I don't see Iran getting anything out of more violence. Just a crappier economy, which means trouble at home."

The question is not if they want MORE violence, but the continuation of the present trend, versus helping us stabilize things under an effectively broader Iraqi govt.



" don't see how opposing the suppression of the Mahdi Army is in any way inconsistent with steadily losing control of it."

He may not have 100% control, but I cant see how opposing the suppression of the elements carrying out ethnic cleansing of Sunni areas is consisent with a desire for Sunni-Shia unity.

"And if he wants to see more ethnic cleansing, why bother making public pronouncements against such violence. "

Fairly obviously because if he openly advocated violence the coalition would have little choice but to take him on directly.


""It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De **** of the World Health Organization.

Male circumcision is common at birth in the United States. But in sub-Saharan Africa, home to more than half of the world's almost 40 million HIV-infected people, there are large swaths of populations where male circumcision is rare.

The WHO plans an international meeting early next year to discuss the studies' results and how to translate them into policies that promote safe male circumcision — done by trained health workers with sterile equipment — while teaching men that it won't make them invulnerable.

If male circumcision were widely adopted, officials predicted that could help to avert tens of thousands of HIV infections in coming years; Fauci cited one model from South Africa that suggested possibly up to 2 million infections could be averted over a decade.

"This is tremendous news, and it could help millions of men while in turn reducing the risk faced by millions of women," said Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance.

"When did Sistani vouch for Hakim's secularist creds?"

I didnt say secularist. Non-Khomeinist. Sistani wants an Iraq thats islamic through the votes of its people but without an insitutional role for the clergy, and without the extremism of Iran, and independent of Qom. IIUC thats why he favors Al Hakim fairly consistently over Sadr.


" It's true that their relationship is better than Sistani and Sadr's, but that because Sadr poses a threat to the Najaf hierarchy. And Da'wa has dealt with both guys on similar terms."

Im not defending Dawa.

"Further, note that Hakim's the strongest proponent of a Shia super-province, in which Khomenism becomes a lot more viable than in Sadr's centralized ideal. I've always thought that the description of SCIRI as Mensheviks to the Sadrists' Bolsheviks is apt; pseudo-secular state for now, but transition into an Islamic revolution."

Except the strongest Khomeinists are in Sadr City, which would not be part of the super province. SCIRI wants a super province they can dominate, which is why they dont want the Shiite areas they cant dominate, like Sadr City.


"But folks like Abizaid have been saying that a smaller surge - a few tens of thousands - isn't sustainable. I don't believe that a short-term surge has any guarantee of changing things. "

Nothing has a guarantee. I cant see how we can make a political process work without containing the violence in Baghdad, and I dont see that the Iraqi army is capable of doing that.


" We've done similar things before - highly concentrated attacks. Hell, we've destroyed cities with very little to show from it besides more headaches in the long term. "

Yes, cause we go to one place, like Fallujah, and then leave it for Ramadi, and then somewhere else. The McCain strategy would focus on Baghdad first, to containt the most political;y dangerous violence, while the political process and train and equip continue.

"I think we need to try something different"

The McCain approach WOULD be different.

"and I think that Iran and Syria are willing to play ball."


Theres already been hints from Teheran that they ARENT. At best that means they'll talk only for major concessions on a range of issues beyond Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Just read this:

http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2006/12/sunni-leader-promoting-revival-of.html

Notably absent from this list of parties is SCIRI. I think that nationalism is a very important key to Sadr's ideology, and that SCIRI and Hakim are considerably more sectarian.

also absent are the main Kurdish parties.

Theres clearly US pressure right now for Dawa to dump Sadr and the other sadrists (like Fadilla). The implied threat is that if Maliki doesnt, there will be a coalition of Kurds, Allawi, Sunnis and SCIRI (plus the UIA independents like Rubaie). Obviously theres counter moves going on. And obviously the Sunnis and the Allawi group can use this to maximize their leverage.


I suspect a lot of behind the scenes bargaining is going on.

[Ramo]

The question is not if they want MORE violence, but the continuation of the present trend, versus helping us stabilize things under an effectively broader Iraqi govt.

The trend is leading to partition, meaning a lot more violence.

I didnt say secularist. Non-Khomeinist.

Alright. So when did Sistani vouch for Hakim's quietist creds?

As for why he's backing Hakim, I'd say that it's much closer to the Najaf hierarchy than Sadr. IOW, they're closer in terms of their religion. Also, since Sistani is originally from Iran, he's sensitive to Sadr's excessive nationalism.

Except the strongest Khomeinists are in Sadr City, which would not be part of the super province. SCIRI wants a super province they can dominate, which is why they dont want the Shiite areas they cant dominate, like Sadr City.

But outside of Sadr City, Baghdad isn't very Khomeneist. The agenda gets diluted even more as you go North. OTOH, I really doubt that a quietist agenda is viable anywhere in the South besides Najaf.

Yes, cause we go to one place, like Fallujah, and then leave it for Ramadi, and then somewhere else. The McCain strategy would focus on Baghdad first, to containt the most political;y dangerous violence, while the political process and train and equip continue.

The problem is that the surge would be off by about an order of magnitude. 20-40k troops (that we can't sustain for more than a couple years) aren't going to be able to suppress not only a militia, but a rather vibrant social movement. We beat the Mahdi Army in the spring of '04, and then we beat them again several months later in Najaf, and they just become more and more powerful. Who knows, the surge might help more than hurt, but their role needs to play second fiddle to a serious diplomatic effort.

also absent are the main Kurdish parties.

Of course. Kurds aren't Arab nationalists.

[Ramo]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-manual16dec16,1,2371107.story?coll=la-news-a_section

A cornerstone of the Iraq plans of Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has been to concentrate Baghdad's U.S. Army forces in a few large forward operating bases, or FOBs. Counterinsurgency experts have questioned the practice, arguing that to protect the populace from insurgents, military forces must have a constant presence in the area.

The authors of the manual say the new doctrine is not meant as a critique of the Iraq strategy. Retired Army Col. Conrad Crane, who helped oversee the manual's development, said they were not criticizing the practice of putting soldiers on large bases but rather were saying they simply did not want people to hole up and become "fobbits."

"You have to get out and mingle among the people," Crane said. "You can't cede control of the night and the street to the enemy."

Retired Gen. John Keane, former acting chief of staff of the Army, said the military needed to move off the big bases in Baghdad and establish small bases peppered throughout key neighborhoods, as had been done in the Iraqi cities of Tall Afar and Ramadi.

"You put a protect force in that lives in the neighborhood. They stay 24/7 to protect the people," Keane said at a briefing this week. "That piece is what we have never been able to execute in Baghdad."

But if we're going to surge, we need to do it right.

[Ramo]

This ought to be good for diplomacy (and if Khamenei were to die).

Ahmedinejad's candidate at 6th place

Iran reformist regains influence
Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
Mr Rafsanjani has got a new lease of political life
Iran's moderate former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has won election to Iran's powerful clerical body, the Assembly of Experts, results show.

With more than half the votes counted, Mr Rafsanjani, who was defeated in the 2005 presidential election, had a clear lead at the top of the list.

The election - and simultaneous local polls - was seen as a test of support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Early results suggest liberals and moderates have regained some influence.

Official results have not yet been announced in either of the two elections.

Political revival

Displaying what correspondents describe as a new lease of political life, Mr Rafsanjani led the poll with 1.3 million votes as counting continued.

He is almost half a million votes ahead of the second placed candidate.

His main rival, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi - seen as a political mentor to President Ahmadinejad - is trailing in sixth place, but with enough votes to retain a seat on the Assembly of Experts.

Mr Rafsanjani's strong performance has exceeded his supporters' expectations after his humiliating defeat in 2005, the BBC's Sadeq Saba in Tehran says.

The assembly of 86 theologians supervises the activities of Iran's supreme leader and chooses his successor when he dies.

Mr Rafsanjani's success was helped by an unexpectedly high turnout and by a new alliance between him and the reformists, our correspondent says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6188207.stm

[Sirotnikov]

boy you guys are boring.

[Ramo]

IIUC Peter Pace has said the opposite, and that a surge strategy has been seriously under consideration at the Pentagon.

The Joints Chiefs have unanimously come out against McCain's surge. Anonymous sources, but it is the WaPo.

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html

boy you guys are boring.

It could be worse. It's been a while since I started a physics or math thread.