Middle East Features
Nov 8, 2007, 14:59 GMT
Iraqis prepare for fuel shortages ahead of a cold season
And Also
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Iran still open to diplomacy in nuclear dispute, says speaker
- 2. Egypt's Mufti slams Swiss vote on minarets
- 3. Iran wants to build 10 more enrichment sites (3rd Roundup)
- 4. Israel likely to exchange 980 Palestinian prisoners for Shalit
- 5. Iran wants to build ten more enrichment sites (2nd Roundup)
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
'Baghdad - Aside from bombings, Iraqis have an extra concern every winter'
The bombings have been reduced by about 80% over the past few months. The Iraqis have evidentially gotten sick of bombing each other.
'Iraqis have an extra concern every winter; stocking enough amounts of home heating oil in preparation for the four-month-long cold season, '
So do I. Is this news?
'Even with a surge in oil production, reported by the government to have reached 2.3 million barrels per day,
Gee, you had to let that slip out...
'According to Shahristani, the 'destructive operations' that target oil facilities affect the delivery of the fuel to citizens.
'During the last year only, up to 210 destructive operations occurred; attacking (oil) fields, torching reservoirs, bombing pipelines,' he said.'
'Destructive operations', a happy euphemism for islamist terrorism... Thanks for nothing Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
Also in the weather forecast: A huge reduction in the possibility of winding up in a plastic shredder for the amusement of Uday and Quassy Hussein...
I ran across an interesting poll trend regarding America’s views on Iraq . The trends in public opinion track, with a reasonable response delay due to some reasonable ‘wait and see’ hesitancy, with the results of the Surge on violence in Iraq. My expectation is that as the trends in Iraq violence continue downward and demonstrate these are not simply some temporary condition that the public opinion will shift back to Bush and his determination to succeed.
The level of denial things will rebound for Bush is seen in this one comment noted by Andrew Sullivan:
For one, even if we do achieve something close to victory in Iraq the media narrative will be that it was in spite of Bush rather than because it.
Someone is dreaming. The fact is if things turn around Bush will be given credit and the Dems will be seen as the Surrendercrats they are. How can people ignore “these statistics?
“Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak” he said. “(Improvised explosive device) attacks are down 70 percent.”
As someone pointed out Americans are not happy with the war, but they don’t want to lose it either. Americans want to succeed and will credit those who pull out the upset in the fourth quarter. They will not reward those who gave up and laid down in the third quarter (end of my football analogies).
fuel shortage ? in Iraq ? Cold people ? sounds like alittle right-wing expertise might help !
When you are not listening to Yanni.... Admit it.
His hot air alone should take care of a province or two.
When Good News Is Bad News
While the following good news stories may come as a great disappointment to many people, we Iraqis welcome the developments:
This Arabic story says Baghdad officials decided to reopen 10 main roads in the city by removing concrete barriers. This is in addition to last week's reopening of Palestine Street, which had been blocked for security reasons.
These Arabic stories say Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh placed the first stone to rebuild Baghdad's fabled Mutanabbi Street, which had been around since the Abbasids -- until it was blown up by insurgents last March.
Before you start calling me names, let me say something. Nobody's saying everything's back to normal. This Arabic story says Nouri Al Maliki took a stroll along historic Abu Nawwas Street amid tight security.
I know those who are wedded to the idea of a failed Iraq are calling me a deluded idiot and worse. But things are improving slowly. My relatives in Baghdad say there's no comparison; things are much better than they were six months ago. They can visit friends in different areas and walk about the neighbourhood in the evening.
Frankly, I don't understand why so many mock us for wanting a future for Iraq. Is your hatred for George Bush so great that you prefer to see millions of civilians suffer just to prove him wrong?
It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush. And we are determined to see Iraq become a success, because we want to live.
posted by IraqPundit at 3:17 AM
iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/when-good-news-is-bad-news.html
RE: It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush. And we are determined to see Iraq become a success, because we want to live.
===========================
More of the usual slanted perspective. If anyone 'hates' Bush, it's because of the huge costs in both lives and dollars incurred for Iraq (a worthy cause in and of itself), and LOUSY strategy and execution on the part of the Administration and the top brass. Petraeus was the first to demonstrate competence, after years of failures.
Meanwhile, The situation with the Taliban in the Afghan provinces is awful, and Pakistan, with a population of 165 million and over 80 nuclear weapons, is the real problem. We propped up the Shah of Iran, once upon a time. Kurdistan likewise awaits resolution, and that's a thorny political problem, for the most part. including the revenues from their oil deals.
Even dumber waa recent diatribe on the order of 'Iraqis wanting to blow themselves up', as though the entire nation of over 20 million is made up solely of radicals and fanatics. Unfortunately the educated and business classes largely fled back when the violence escalated, and while no doubt most would like to return, the entire makeup of Baghdad and other cities is altered, with sects now living separately rather than intermixed, and the Shia holding more ground than before. Reconstruction, assuming the violence level ever diminished enough to permit it, will be extraordinarily expensive.
While al Qaeda's larger-scale attacks (which they favor) are diminished, to the relief of everyone, the lower-level conflicts continue unabated, since they're driven by the native insurgencies and militias. If this is 'success', I really don't want to contemplate 'failure'.
news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1372704.php/Eight_k illed_several_wounded_in_Iraq_blasts__Roundup_
Baghdad - Eight Iraqis were killed and several wounded in explosions and other attacks in Baghdad, Baquba and Mosul on Saturday, while the death toll in an overnight attack on a meeting of Baquba tribal leaders rose to five.
Meanwhile, Iraq's Interior Minister Jawad al-Boulani confessed in an interview with the pan-Arab al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper that the ranks of his ministry were infiltrated by elements loyal to certain parties or religious groups and that the ministry needed 'a comprehensive reshuffle.'
He also told the newspaper that around 190,000 pieces of weaponry were missing and believed to be stolen from the ministry's stocks.
In another development, the US military said on Saturday that a soldier was killed and three others wounded in an explosion during an operation in Diyala province a day earlier. An explosive devise was detonated as a US army patrol passed.
In another incident reported Saturday by al-Sabah newspaper, gunmen reportedly attacked the Majnoun oil field in Basra, 550 kilometres north of Baghdad, and destroyed some buildings near it Thursday. The attack also destroyed water tanks near the oil field flooding certain areas. According to the paper, this is the third attack on the Majnoun oil field. No human losses were reported.
www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20071109.aspx
November 9, 2007: American military commanders believe al Qaeda has been driven from Baghdad, and the only areas still controlled by terrorists are those occupied by Shia militias. These amount to about 13 percent of the city area, and pacifying them will be a political, more than a military, problem. The Shia militias, or rather their leaders, also control several government ministries. The militias are also heavily involved in several criminal activities, especially black market gasoline. There are still Sunni Arab criminal gangs, but they are out of political terrorism now, and keeping their heads down. The Sunni Arab community in Baghdad is ready to accept any political deal they can get from the government.
Outside Baghdad, Sunni Arab groups are more feisty, although at the moment, few of them support al Qaeda. Many Sunni Arabs outside Baghdad still back terrorism against foreign troops. Very few Sunni Arabs still believe they can regain control of the government, and most are not sure they will be able to remain in the country. At this point, U.S. troops are mostly concerned with controlling the Shia militias. These groups still have it in for Sunni Arabs. While political murders are down 80 percent (of their peak last year, when over 3,000 civilians were being killed a month), most Shia would still like to see all the Sunni Arabs gone.
Foreign terrorists are still getting into the country, and al Qaeda is still operating in the Baghdad suburbs and near the border of the northern Iraq Kurdish region. The most dangerous terrorists are still the Sunni Arab ones, although Shia militias are attacking U.S. troops as well. But roadside bomb use is down 70 percent, and the people building and deploying these weapons are on the defensive.
Peace won't arrive until the police are able to assert themselves throughout the country. That's not impossible. The Kurdish areas have been at peace for years, and many areas in the Shia south have seen little or no terrorism. However, many rural Sunni Arab areas have been without police since 2003. Recruiting and training will take years. Meanwhile, tribal militias or other informal security units are all that's available. These are subject to corruption, or control by a local warlord or big shot.
Corruption, and organized crime, remain a nationwide problem, even in the Kurdish north. Solving these problems is a long term effort. In particular, corruption is so ingrained that it may take generations to get under control. Where there is a lot of corruption, there is always potential for unrest.
'What a strange perspective'
That is from an Iraqi living in Iraq. You find it 'strange' because it is not the self selected propaganda that you consume and regurgitate.
'More of the usual slanted perspective. '
Again, idiot, this gentleman lives in Iraq. He has railed against the mistakes that have been made in the occupation and now that things have improved he can be counted on to tell the truth. There is nothing 'slanted' about this other then it is not what you desperately want to hear.
'If anyone 'hates' Bush, it's because of the huge costs in both lives and dollars incurred for Iraq'
You have ranted against the man here for volumes, scapegoating for everything under the sun. You despise the man, that is your prerogative. It is disgusting and cynical of you to have been openly rooting for your 'resistance' (comparing them to our soldiers in the revolutionary war) and peddling your defeatism here as you have because of it though. Thank God you were WRONG when you declared that the coalition was defeated.
'(a worthy cause in and of itself), '
Brace yourself to be reminded of that.
'Meanwhile, The situation with the Taliban in the Afghan provinces is awful'
1) The subject is Iraq.
2) It has gotten marginally worse in Afghanistan because al Qaeda has had it's ass kicked in Iraq and they are returning to cause trouble closer to home.
3) It has gotten marginally worse in Afghanistan because of the political instability in Pakistan...
Now just think about what would have happened if we had caused MORE instability by invading them like you have advocated and retracted.
4) The body count for the Taliban/terrorists has been incredible.
'Even dumber waa recent diatribe on the order of 'Iraqis wanting to blow themselves up', as though the entire nation of over 20 million is made up solely of
There were enough. 'Radicals and fanatics' isn't the description though, 'terrorists' is.
'Unfortunately the educated and business classes largely fled back when the violence escalated, and while no doubt most would like to return,'
Thousands ARE returning:
'Declining violence leads 46000 refugees back to Iraq, government says'
The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times contributed to this report.
BAGHDAD – Declining violence is prompting some Iraqi refugees to pack up and return home, with more than 46,000 people crossing back over the borders in October, the government said Wednesday.
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the Iraqi spokesman for a U.S.-Iraqi military push to pacify Baghdad, said border authorities recorded 46,030 people returning to Iraq in October and attributed the large number to the 'improving security situation.'
'The level of terrorist operations has dropped in most of the capital's neighborhoods, due to the good performance of the armed forces,' he said.
www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/07/iraq.main
FORTY SIX THOUSAND IN ONE MONTH.
' Reconstruction, assuming the violence level ever diminished enough to permit it, will be extraordinarily expensive.'
With oil trading at the prices it has been there will be plenty for reconstruction.
' If this is 'success', I really don't want to contemplate 'failure'.'
Bury your head in the sand then...
'Eight Iraqis were killed and several wounded in explosions and other attacks in Baghdad, Baquba and Mosul on Saturday, '
The point is, last year it was hundreds of Iraqis murdered a day. The whole al Qaeda strategy was to commit the nihilistic 'Event atrocity' designed to grab the headlines. 8 people murdered? That's a bad night in the Bronx.
'An explosive devise was detonated as a US army patrol passed.'
Yes, there is still fighting going on there.
'unmen reportedly attacked the Majnoun oil field in Basra, 550 kilometres north of Baghdad, and destroyed some buildings near it Thursday. '
That is what you are reduced to throwing out as 'evidence' that all is lost in Iraq. LOL! Thank God. Actually, thank the coalition soldiers as well.
'Some commentary on Iraq and corruption'
Then...
'November 9, 2007: American military commanders believe al Qaeda has been driven from Baghdad, and the only areas still controlled by terrorists are those occupied by Shia militias.'
LOL!
Non-News From Iraq
By Rich Galen
There is an old saying: 'What if a tree fell in the forest and nobody came?' Or, as Samuel Johnson once wrote, words to a like effect.
The news out of Iraq, Wednesday, was that there was no news out of Iraq. At least no news that the New York Times wanted to particularly feature, doing everything it could to be certain that readers would not be around to hear that tree fall.
We have previously discussed the matter of the Times editorializing by placement. As another example, this was the squib in the teaser box on the front page of Thursday's paper: Rebel Force Out of Baghdad: American Troops have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from every neighborhood of Baghdad, the commander of United States forces in Baghdad says.
Not the front page. Not the second nor third nor fourth page. Page 19. Following a four-page advertisement by the Siemens Corporation.
And the non-news was unambiguous as the opening paragraph by Damien Cave attests:
'American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad a top American General said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned.'
Routed. Every. Planned.
Not 'making headway against.' Routed.
Not 'some neighborhoods.' Every.
Not 'leave in disgrace.' Depart as planned.
Am I misreading the reporting here? If this is true, this isn't just pretty good news, this is extraordinary news. This is GREAT news.
Here's what it is not: It is not Page A19 news.
The commander, Major General John Fils told reporters that 'murder victims are down 80% from the peak and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70%.' Among other things he gave credit to 'the Iraqis' rejection of 'the rule of the gun.''
To be fair, MG Fils said that 'the biggest threat to Baghdad security is now Shiite militias' and not Al Qaeda, but he also said that 2008 would be 'a year of reconstruction, a year of infrastructure repair, a year of - if there's going to be a surge - a year of a surge in the economy.'
The question, then, becomes: Will Iraq be as important an election issue next November as the news media believes it is this November?
Who is helped and who is hurt if Iraq is still a major issue; and what is the calculus if it has faded to the Page A19 of Americans' consciousness?
At the Presidential level on the Democratic side, a fading Iraq hurts both Obama and Edwards. It would be difficult to sell the 'Troops Out Now!' line if an orderly withdrawal - signifying success - is underway.
It helps Clinton because her vote to authorize military action in the first place is not nearly so onerous to Democratic primary voters.
On the Republican side it probably helps everyone but Ron Paul. Success in Iraq helps George W. If his approval numbers begin to climb into the mid- to high-forties then whoever the GOP candidate is runs with more confidence.
At the Congressional level, the Harry Reid (D-Nevada) wing of the Democratic Party looks even more spineless than it does today if the President's 'surge' strategy continues to produce positive results.
If that is the case incumbents like Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) look decidedly stronger in their re-election bids, meaning massive Democratic increases in the US House and Senate are far less likely.
First, though, the White House has to help sell the story of success in Iraq. The White House alone has the capacity to move the Success in Iraq story from page A19 to page A1.
Our BS-artist-in chief extracts ONE measly paragraph, as though it's even the point of the article.
Assuming the 'Iraq' poster is not a troll or dum-dum in disguise, he/she suffers from a very limited view, as was noted in the article to which you paid NO attention as usual. The problems in Iraq are large scale - one might say, on the order of your own lack of intellect, or bias, or both. Your earlier outright condemnation of Iraqis in general, rather than seeing radical elements as the minority that they are, hardly makes you an objective poster.
'The Iraqis have evidentially gotten sick of bombing each other.'
(Reiterating: 'Corruption, and organized crime, remain a nationwide problem, even in the Kurdish north. Solving these problems is a long term effort. In particular, corruption is so ingrained that it may take generations to get under control.'
It's crapheads like you who try to mislead the American public into continuing to support failed policies (outside of Petraeus' immediate efforts to repel al Qaeda, who are responsible for the larger attacks that draw headlines). We've had four years of Rumsfeld, Feith, Bremer, and other outright imbeciles to muck this up, and even YOU get to pay that bill financially. al Qaeda attacks now are focused and better planned, and tribal chiefs and others who actually influence the Iraqi society are now the targets; rather than 'mere crowds' to get headlines.
'The death toll of an overnight suicide bombing that rocked a meeting of high-level tribal leaders near Baquba, meanwhile, rose to five on Saturday. Sheikh Faiez Lafta al-Obeidi, who was also the deputy head of the anti-terrorism voluntary group known as the Diyala Salvation Front, and four of his relatives were among the dead. Three people were also wounded in the attack that occurred while members of the group were gathered at al-Obedi's house in al-Khalis district near Baquba, the provisional capital of north-eastern Diyala province, according to reports.'
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR200711100031 7.html?hpid=topnews
The six deaths brings the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to at least 101, according to an Associated Press count, surpassing the 93 troops killed in 2005. About 87 died last year. The toll echoes the situation in Iraq, where U.S. military deaths this year surpassed 850, also a record.
Launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the war in Afghanistan quickly ousted al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors and appeared to have been a swift military victory.
But insurgent attacks _ advanced ambushes and suicide and roadside bombs _ have risen sharply the last two years, and analysts say the counterinsurgency battle U.S. and NATO forces now face will take a decade or more to win.
Critics of the Bush administration say the Pentagon turned its attention away from Afghanistan during the build-up to the invasion in Iraq, leaving the military with too few resources here to back up that initial victory with an adequate security presence.
Though attacks in Iraq have dropped in recent months, U.S. troops there have also faced a rising number of suicide and roadside bombs since the 2003 invasion, known as asymmetric attacks in military circles. Seth Jones, an expert on Afghanistan at the Washington-based RAND Corp., said the power of the U.S. military has forced insurgent groups into relying on such bombings.
'It's an irony that the United States far and away has the most powerful military in the world,' said Jones. 'I think the current levels of attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan show, however, that the key vulnerability to the United States both in Afghanistan and Iraq is the asymmetric attacks.'
Rich Galen is a GOP operative, not an objective news source. He was an executive of GOPAC. One BS artist quoting another.
www.mullings.com/richbio.htm
It's a free country, where anyone can speak - but some with heavy political ties come with agendas, and that needs to be considered when weighing what they have to say.
'Veteran Republican operative Rich Galen has signed on as a senior advisor to former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tennessee, who is exploring a bid for the GOP presidential nomination.'
news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/features/article_1372038.php
(Note the first post in that thread having nothing whatever to do with the story being reported, but rather an effort to barf a layer of feel-good bullcrap. Here's part of the actual story)
Accusations of abuse of power, murder, and other illegal acts are flying back and forth between supporters of Shiite cleric Moqtada al- Sadr and the mainly Shiite local police force in Karbala, with Sadrists claiming that the police have systematically attacked and tortured civilians, including women and children.
Although Moqtada al-Sadr ordered a stop to the activities of his army following the 'Karbala sedition,' dissidents from the group have continued to operate. During the past weeks, firefights between police and Sadr- affiliated militants have also ensued after several Sadrist leaders across Iraq were arrested by joint Iraqi and US forces. Police in the city on the other hand alleged that Sadrists had been carrying out assassinations and other attacks against local police - citing this as a reason for the systematic crackdown on their ranks.
'Those who talk about random arrests and targeting innocents should know that these outlaws have performed 300 assassination attempts, and killed 89 police officers and top religious figures, and raped 50 women,' senior police officer Raed Shaker told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa concerning unnamed 'Shiite militias.'
(While the good news in Baghdad is a welcome sign for the Sunni, whose leaders now have good reason to ask the sheiks to support the U.S. troops, the TOTAL picture in Iraq is nowhere as good. Meeting the benchmarks is a non-event, as is leadership without corruption amidst.)
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-11-05-iraq-homeless_N.htm?csp=34< br />
2.3 million in Iraq were driven from homes
Now, struggling to pay rent higher than his salary, Abdul-Wahab is among the nearly 2.3 million people the Iraqi Red Crescent says have been driven from their neighborhoods as Iraq is increasingly carved up along sectarian lines.
The number of internally displaced people has swelled in Iraq since the beginning of 2007, when the group counted less than half a million. A new report issued Monday by the Iraqi Red Crescent shows that such people now outnumber Iraqis who have fled the country altogether for refuge in neighboring states like Syria and Jordan. On average, at least 56 Iraqis — civilians and security forces — have died each day so far in 2007, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press. Deadly rivalries have forced Shiite and Sunni Muslims to flee once diverse neighborhoods across Iraq's capital, leaving the city with clear boundaries between sects. More than 60% of those forced to flee were in Baghdad, the report said.
In some places like Shiite-dominated Hurriyah in northwest Baghdad, fighting has subsided because there are literally no more Sunnis left to kill.
The scramble for safety in segregated enclaves was thought to have eased after anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called a formal cease-fire in August. His militia, the Mahdi Army, was blamed for dozens of bodies turning up on Baghdad's streets each day — apparent victims of sectarian murders. But while the daily body count has dropped dramatically — three corpses were found Monday in Baghdad — the Red Crescent said the number of residents displaced from their homes rose 16% in the month after al-Sadr's cease-fire. About 83% of the country's displaced people are women and children under the age of 12, the organization reported. And many are not able to find permanent housing like Abdul-Wahab was.
(Here's a good and BALANCED story noting the benefits of Petraeus' initiatives, while clearly also noting the !LARGER! and more persistent problems that persist; plus rumors of Bush's growing discontent with al-Maliki in the final paragraph)
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/04/notebook/main3450392.shtml?source=RS Sattr=HOME_3450392
'Up To A Point': Measuring Success In Iraq
Allen Pizzey Analyzes President Bush's Claim That Iraqis Are 'Taking Their Country Back'
Certainly there is evidence, both statistical and anecdotal, that violence is subsiding and fragile stability is taking hold in wider areas. The death toll of Iraqi civilians and U.S. and Iraqi forces in October was the lowest it has been in about 18 months. Stores and restaurants are re-opening in parts of Baghdad that have been virtual no-go zones for a year and more.
But, and it is an important but, the people who live in many of the newly vibrant neighborhoods venture out of them at their peril.
Over the weekend the Iraqi government announced that more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods by sectarian violence have returned to their homes in the past three months. On the other hand the Iraqi Red Crescent Society will release a report this week showing that the number of IDPs, internally displaced persons, in Iraq now tops 2.3 million, an increase of 16 percent in the last 30 days. Sixty-five percent of them are children.
One reason for the decline in civilian deaths is undoubtedly that fewer people are dying in sectarian violence because there are fewer mixed neighborhoods left to fight over. It has also helped that radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr declared a ceasefire and called his forces off the street, a situation he may just as easily be able to reverse.
Mr. Bush dealt with the issue by repeating his oft-stated argument that reconciliation is going on at the local level, pointing to what he said was co-operation between Sunni and Shiite leaders to take on al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Certainly there is evidence of that, but the motivations may be as much connected to gaining a share of the money, weapons and attendant power that goes with taking on AQM as to actually trying to build a nation.
The arming of local tribal sheikhs may contribute to a short-term solution, but the exercise is risky to say the least. Without a strong central government to exercise authority and command loyalty, the sheikhs will have little reason to give up their arms and the political clout they provide. And even Mr. Bush concedes that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not coming up to the mark.
When the troop build-up, the so-called 'surge,' was announced in January it was supposed to give the Maliki administration a 'breathing space' to bridge sectarian divides. On Friday, Mr. Bush noted that 'reconciliation at the national level hasn't been what we hoped it would have been by now,' and said he had 'made my disappointments clear to the Iraqi leadership.'
In fact, there are persistent whispers and rumors here that the Americans are so fed up with Maliki's dysfunctional government that they are willing to let him slide. There is evidence that Ayyad Alawi, who was Interim Prime Minister before elections is positioning himself to make a grab for power. What that all adds up to is a recipe for creating a kind of 'Lebanon on the Tigris' with warlords holding more sway that politicians and a central government divided along sectarian lines, capable of little more than political infighting.
'Assuming the 'Iraq' poster is not a troll or dum-dum in disguise, he/she suffers from a very limited view, '
HE LIVES IN IRAQ!!!!!! IDIOT! Who's view is more 'limited' Yours or his? He can look out the blasted window to find out what is going on, you have to go to moveon.org. THAT IS 'LIMITED' PERSPECTIVE.
', as was noted in the article to which you paid NO attention as usual.'
I you post that after suggesting that I am 'iraqpundit.blogspot.com'... Who didn't read the article? Idiot?
'Your earlier outright condemnation of Iraqis in general, rather than seeing radical elements as the minority that they are, hardly makes you an objective poster.'
And your outright support for terrorists who have killed Americans colors the opinion of your commentary with every decent reader. As well as your flip flopping, lies, distortions and predictions that have been proven to be flat out wrong. Your perspective seems to be that of someone looking at their own colon because your head is up your backside.
'The Iraqis have evidentially gotten sick of bombing each other.''
And??????
'Reiterating: 'Corruption, and organized crime, remain a nationwide problem, even in the Kurdish north.'
They remain a problem in Manhattan. Does that mean the war is lost? LOL! Idiot. 'Corruption, and organized crime was a major problem in Iraq since the Sumerian's, it is in most countries. If this is what you are left holding on to in order to declare the effort 'lost' it is better then I thought.
'crapheads like you who try to mislead the American public into continuing to support failed policies'
Failed policies? You wanted to abandon Iraq to the terrorists. You were begging heavens and earth to turn it over to al Qaeda and the Iranian revolutionary guards. THAT would have been a 'failed policy'... Don't you think people are going to realize that?
'The death toll... rose to five'
5? Where are the 250+ killed attacks? Where are the chlorine bombs? Where are the suicide bomber attacks that targeted children getting candy? The ones that you were celebrating and promoting here daily? Attacks are down 80% in October and already in November they are looking to be down 90%.
'
The six deaths brings the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to at least 101,'
We are talking about Iraq. I addressed Afghanistan above. Ill get back to that...
'2.3 million in Iraq were driven from homes'
Didn't you read what I posted? (of course you didn't, it did not come from moveon.org. They are returning, by the tens of thousands.
More 'failures' of perspective. No wonder the democrats approval rating is in the teens.
=====================================================
WASHINGTON: Rank-and-file Democrats expressed dismay over their party's latest anti-war strategy, with some members reluctant to vote next week right after the Veterans Day holiday to bring troops home.
The House was on track to consider legislation next week that would give President George W. Bush $50 billion (€34.05 billion) for operations for Iraq and Afghanistan, but insist that he begin withdrawing troops. Veterans Day is a national holiday observed on Sunday.
The measure identifies a goal of ending combat by December 2008, leaving only enough soldiers and Marines behind to fight terrorists, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. assets.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed off plans for a Friday vote after caucus members told her late Thursday they were not sure they would support it. Liberal Democrats said the proposal was too soft, while conservative members told Pelosi they thought it went too far.
'I think the message in the next week ought to be that a heck of a lot of people have been harmed (in combat) and we ought to take care of them,' said Rep. Gene Taylor, a conservative Mississippi Democrat who says his constituents mostly support the war.
Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said the vote was delayed because leadership was not satisfied it would pass. The proposal — which also includes a provision that would effectively ban waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques and restrict troop deployments — might be tweaked to address member concerns, he said.
Pelosi told reporters on Friday that she was confident the measure would pass.
But one guarantee, Murtha said, is that Bush will have to accept some timetable on troop withdrawals if he wants the money.
'I don't think you'll see the House pass anything without restrictions,' said Murtha.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Thursday that Bush would again veto any legislation that sets an 'artificial timeline' for troop withdrawals.
'We should be supporting our troops as they are succeeding, not finding ways to undercut their mission,' he said.
Pelosi told members in a private caucus meeting on Thursday that if Bush rejected the measure, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.
'It's a war without end,' Pelosi later told reporters. 'There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it.'
www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/10/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq.php
================================================================
I think the House republicans should actually let it pass and give Bush the honor of vetoing it.
michellemalkin.com/archives/images/whiteflagbok.jpg
'Rich Galen is a GOP operative, not an objective news source.'
Coming from someone who regulary cites dailykos and huffingtonpost....
What was incorrect about what he wrote?
'Dum-dum now rushes to post irrelevancies'
Such psychological projection. Why don't you address what the man said instead of confirming it:
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
I know those who are wedded to the idea of a failed Iraq are calling me a deluded idiot and worse. But things are improving slowly. My relatives in Baghdad say there's no comparison; things are much better than they were six months ago. They can visit friends in different areas and walk about the neighbourhood in the evening.
Frankly, I don't understand why so many mock us for wanting a future for Iraq. Is your hatred for George Bush so great that you prefer to see millions of civilians suffer just to prove him wrong?
It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush. And we are determined to see Iraq become a success, because we want to live.
=====================================================================
====================================================================+
Re Afghanistan:
IT'S TRUE THAT INSURGENT violence is on the rise in Afghanistan, with a surging Taliban taking up tactics first used against U.S. forces in Iraq, including suicide bombs, improvised explosive devices, and vehicle-borne IEDs. Afghan civilians and national security forces are being killed in greater numbers this year than any year since the 2001 invasion. According to an Afghan diplomatic source, 700 civilians have been killed so far this year--some in poorly-targeted U.S. bombing raids--but a large proportion of those have been the victims of insurgent attacks.
The other side of the story is quite different, however. Along with the rise in Taliban--and to some extent, al Qaeda violence--has come a sharp increase in the number of insurgents killed by Coalition (mostly American and Australian) troops and Afghan security forces. The Afghan diplomat said about 3,500 Taliban have been killed this year, and several top commanders captured.
There's been a major tactical shift recently in how the Taliban insurgency attacks Coalition forces. Of course, IEDs and suicide bombings are up 20 percent over last year's 5,388 total, but there have also been a number of large-scale engagements waged against allied patrols that wind up resulting in high enemy losses. It seems anathema to the usual tactics of an insurgency, where small hit-and-run attacks prove most effective at driving government forces and their allies out of the fight. And it speaks to a growing trend of military incompetence within a Taliban depleted of its experienced, native-born fighters.
In September alone, a number of engagements involving hundreds of Taliban fighters resulted in resounding defeats for the insurgents. In two separate battles on September 27, Coalition forces claimed 165 Taliban fighters killed. And just this week, NATO forces and Afghan soldiers reportedly trapped 250 Taliban fighters in a village north of Kandahar after an attempted insurgent ambush. That's counter to the basic tenets of guerrilla warfare which abhors mass--the more fighters you pull together in one group, the bigger the target. The Soviet-fighting mujahedeen were only able to mass in significant numbers after U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles eliminated Soviet air cover.
So, why the sudden wave of mass attacks? A lot has been made in recent news reports of the increase in foreign fighters joining the ranks of the Taliban, with some of those stories insinuating that the development is a measure of the insurgency's growing strength and influence. The New York Times reported on October 29 that the foreign fighters 'are not only bolstering the ranks of the insurgency. They are more violent, uncontrollable and extreme than their locally bred allies.'
But a top American commander based in Kandahar--where the Taliban movement was born--explained that from his perspective the foreign fighter influx is actually a sign of weakness. The high body count is a result of 'ineptitude' he said, and stems from the fighters' lack of experience and training.
'In this type of war, when you mass against forces like us . . . without firepower, we're able to destroy them quite easily and we've shown that over the last six to seven months,' said Col. Thomas McGrath, the American commander in charge of training Afghan security forces near Kandahar. 'They're bringing in cohorts of young men who really don't know any better and it's been a colossal failure for them.'
The violent reprisals, fundamentalist edicts and civilian deaths resulting from suicide bombings, IEDs and ambushes against Coalition forces have driven the Afghan population away from the Taliban and curtailed local support for any insurgents, particularly foreigners. The Afghan government has been using this rift to its advantage recently, initiating talks with Afghan Taliban commanders to convince them their lot is ill served by an association with the foreign fighters who terrorize their countrymen.
With locals dropping out of the insurgent ranks, foreign zealots are assuming command. And as they continue their suicide charges against Coalition forces in Afghanistan, their influence and battlefield acumen withers.
'What they've been able to do is just terrorize people. And people are getting tired of it, and you can tell that because they don't have the local fighters,' McGrath explained. 'There's a lot of fighters down here but they're not the same as we saw back in 2001; they're coming from outside and they're just coming up here and getting killed.'
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story