HOW WE'RE FUCKED IN IRAQ
motown67
4,513 Posts
THE CRAP IN IRAQ[/b]In a previous post I outlined how the Bush administration lied about Iraq???s ties with terrorism and WMD to get us into the war. http://soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=crates&Number=514214&Forum=crates&Words=how%20bush%20lied&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3weeks&Main=513396&Search=true#Post514214My current research is focused upon America???s current situation and its future plans in Iraq. The outlook is just as bad as when we got into it. Basically, we are fucked. U.S. training of Iraqi security forces is going backwards not forwards despite billions spent on the project, reports are that Bush disparages and ignores bad news about Iraq, in late November 2005 Rumsfeld didn???t want to call the fighting in Iraq an insurgency anymore, Cheney claimed the insurgents were just about beat in May 2005, there is a low level civil war going on between the Shiites and Sunnis with the Kurds chipping in as well. The Democrats don???t know what to do with the mess either. Basically, with our leaders in a fantasy land, and the Iraqis seemingly more interested in killing each other and Americans rather than trying to form a new state, things are not going to get better. They???re going to get worse. A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies released on 11/29/05 about Iraq???s security forces predicted that Iraq would be unstable for at least the next 5-10 years. In the immediate future, you can expect to hear more and more about withdrawal plans. BE WARNED, the U.S. is not really going to withdraw from Iraq. Here???s a breakdown of the major developments.U.S. Counterinsurgency Operations[/b]The new U.S. counterinsurgency program is to sweep through cities, stay there with Iraqi forces, start rebuilding projects, and eventually leave when Iraqi forces can take over the cities. In Bush???s recent speech to the Council On Foreign Relations in New York in early December 2005 he brought up the examples of Najaf and Mosul as evidence that the U.S.???s counterinsurgency program was working. A week before his speech however, Mosul and all of Ninevah province was put under emergency rule with a curfew. Najaf on the other hand is controlled by 2 rival Shiite militias, and U.S. commanders are afraid that Iran is gaining influence over the city. In November 2005 Secretary of State Rice went to Mosul to start the new counterinsurgency program. She flew in and out of a U.S. headquarters in a helicopter because the city wasn???t safe enough for her to drive in. This month, December 2005, the U.S. is also suppose to turn over control of Samarra to Iraqi forces. However, only 100 of the 700 Iraqi police signed up, show up for work each day. This will be the 3rd time the U.S. has turned over control of the city to Iraqi forces. The last two times, the police were attacked by insurgents who eventually took over the city and the U.S. military had to roll back in. Don???t be fooled by Bush???s 11/30/05 ???Victory??? speech either. U.S. commanders in Iraq never saw the White House victory plan that went along with it until the day of the speech. That was for the U.S. public, not for the actual fighting of the war. Withdrawing U.S. Forces[/b]Since Democratic Congressman Murtha gave his speech calling for a 6-month withdrawal of all U.S. forces, this has become the new buzzword around Washington on Iraq. People are talking about ???when??? U.S. troops will be coming home, rather than ???if.??? Don???t be fooled though. Almost exactly a year ago, U.S. commanders said that there would be a serious drawdown of U.S. troops by the end of 2005 and nothing???s happened. The number of soldiers is actually up rather than down. Before November 2004 there were 138,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, now there are around 160,000 because of the series of elections in the country. If there are any withdrawals it will only be back down to the original 138,000 level. If things continue to go bad in the country however, they may not even withdraw those troops.In a related note, the U.S. is increasing its air strikes in the country and that will go up even more if U.S. troops start coming home, to make up for the loss of ground power. The major effect of air attacks has been an increase in the number of Iraqi civilians killed. Air Force commanders are also afraid that if a lot of U.S. troops go home and the Iraqi army is in charge of calling in air strikes, the U.S. Air Force will be used to kill Sunnis and rival Shiites in a civil war and political struggles, rather than in fighting insurgents. Most importantly, is that the U.S. will have permanent bases in Iraq unless a new Iraqi government tells them to leave or the whole country blows up in a full fledged civil war. An example of the permanent nature of the U.S. military presence in Iraq is that there is no serious planning on creating a new Iraqi air force. From now on, it will be U.S. planes over Iraqi air space flying out of U.S. bases in Iraq. Even if the country falls into a serious civil war, there are even plans to move U.S. bases to Kurdish northern Iraq where they wouldn???t have any problems. Bottom line, we???re in Iraq to stay.Iraqi Security Forces[/b]The Iraqi security forces are a wreck. Their readiness is going backwards instead of forward. The first thing you need to know is do not believe a thing Bush or any White House official says about them.Here???s an example, in Bush???s 11/30/05 ???Victory??? speech he said that the number of Iraqi security forces had gone up from 96,000 in September 2004 to now more than 212,000. In September 2004 however, internal Defense Department documents said that only 8,169 Iraqis had gotten training. Another 46,176 had signed up but had no training. The 96,000 figure actually came from Rumsfeld. He couldn???t count either because in February 2004 he said there were 210,000 in the Iraqi security forces, then that dropped to 96,000 in September 2004. Now Bush says they???re up to 212,000. Whether it???s 96,000 or 212,000 though doesn???t matter, because all those numbers are made up by the White House. They???re all a myth, most likely counting every Iraqi that has ever signed up for the armed forces and police whether they actually went to work or not.Of course, the Iraqi units that actually exist aren???t that good either. In November 2005 U.S. generals told Congress that the number of Iraqi battalions that could work completely independently had actually gone done from 3 to 1. That means there are ONLY 750 Iraqi soldiers that can go out and fight by themselves. According to the U.S. general in charge of training the Iraqi forces 66% of the army units and 50% of the police units are labeled incapable. Here???s the main reason why there???s no effective security forces. The U.S. didn???t even get serious about starting, training and paying for them until the Summer of 2004. Before then, while the insurgency was growing and Americans were dying every day, Rumsfeld didn???t really care about an Iraqi army or police. Since then the U.S. has spent $5.8 billion on the project, and Bush has asked for $5.7 billion more.A report by 2 analysts at the Army???s War College said that the U.S. may never be able to create an effective Iraqi security force no matter how long they stay. In Anbar province, U.S. soldiers told the New York Times that at best, they were hoping that Iraqi security forces would patrol the streets of towns and act as police. All the fighting, reconstruction, and more importantly dying, would still be done by Americans. U.S. commanders were just happy that Iraqi units stuck a
round during raids and battles rather than fled like they had in the past. The second thing you need to know is that almost all of the Security Forces are Shiite Muslim, that they are corrupt, incompetent, torture, kidnap, act as death squads, are part of Shiite militias, and listen to clerics before the national government. How???s that for an effective national defense?The New York times, L.A. Times and Knight Ridder Newspapers have all reported on torture, executions, abductions, disappearances, death squads, etc. against thousands of Sunnis. Sometimes its for fighting the insurgency, sometimes its for revenge killings, and sometimes its just to drive Sunnis out of neighborhoods. Even the Iraqi Interior Ministry???s Inspector General admits that there are death squads working out of the police force. In late November 2005 Rumsfeld called the death squads ???hypothetical???, then when pressed said the charges were part of a political attack on the Iraqi government, and then at the end, said ???that???s life???! U.S. commanders are also fully away of all the abuses, but haven???t been able to stop them. U.S. generals have told their troops to stop any abuses they see. Rumsfeld just wants U.S. soldiers to report abuses by Iraqis, but not actually stop them. In a 10/12/05 report for Knight Ridder Newspapers, a reporter was embedded with the only new Iraqi Brigade capable of independent action, the 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Division. This unit has been held up as a sign of success by the U.S. The unit was mostly Shiite, but patrolled a mostly Sunni area in Baghdad. Most of the soldiers interviewed wanted to kill Sunnis for revenge, and the unit acted like a Shiite militia because the general in charge of the unit talked to leading Shiite clerics and followed their orders rather than the national government. Some in the unit, actually said that they were waiting for word from the clerics to start fighting the Americans to kick them out of the country. The U.S. general in charge of training Iraqi forces admits that most Iraqi army and police units are controlled by militias even. Do Not Look For The Democrats For Help[/b]Amidst all the new withdrawal plans comes dissension within the Democrats. Some are for immediate withdrawal. Senator Lieberman sounds like a neocon who wants all out war against terrorism and the insurgents. Others are for staying until the Iraqis can take over themselves. Basically, they don???t have a unified voice and I don???t expect them to anytime soon. Oil/Energy Production[/b]Remember when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraq???s oil would pay for the entire war and reconstruction of Iraq? Remember how Rumsfeld and Bush keep on talking about all the progress and reconstruction projects completed in Iraq?In case you didn???t now, the energy situation in Iraq is worse or the same as it was before.Oil production is down since the war. Prewar Iraq was producing 3.5 million barrels. Now its down to 2 million a day. November 2005 it went down to 1.24 million a day, the lowest of the year. Electricity is not much better for day to day use by Iraqis. Before the war Iraq generated 4,300 megawatts. After the war it sank to 2,500 megawatts. Now it???s at 4,400 after the U.S. has spent $3.2 billion on projects. In one case the U.S. built an electricity plant, but didn???t take the time to build the cables that would deliver the power to customers. Most of the drop in production in both oil and electricity is due to insurgent attacks.
round during raids and battles rather than fled like they had in the past. The second thing you need to know is that almost all of the Security Forces are Shiite Muslim, that they are corrupt, incompetent, torture, kidnap, act as death squads, are part of Shiite militias, and listen to clerics before the national government. How???s that for an effective national defense?The New York times, L.A. Times and Knight Ridder Newspapers have all reported on torture, executions, abductions, disappearances, death squads, etc. against thousands of Sunnis. Sometimes its for fighting the insurgency, sometimes its for revenge killings, and sometimes its just to drive Sunnis out of neighborhoods. Even the Iraqi Interior Ministry???s Inspector General admits that there are death squads working out of the police force. In late November 2005 Rumsfeld called the death squads ???hypothetical???, then when pressed said the charges were part of a political attack on the Iraqi government, and then at the end, said ???that???s life???! U.S. commanders are also fully away of all the abuses, but haven???t been able to stop them. U.S. generals have told their troops to stop any abuses they see. Rumsfeld just wants U.S. soldiers to report abuses by Iraqis, but not actually stop them. In a 10/12/05 report for Knight Ridder Newspapers, a reporter was embedded with the only new Iraqi Brigade capable of independent action, the 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Division. This unit has been held up as a sign of success by the U.S. The unit was mostly Shiite, but patrolled a mostly Sunni area in Baghdad. Most of the soldiers interviewed wanted to kill Sunnis for revenge, and the unit acted like a Shiite militia because the general in charge of the unit talked to leading Shiite clerics and followed their orders rather than the national government. Some in the unit, actually said that they were waiting for word from the clerics to start fighting the Americans to kick them out of the country. The U.S. general in charge of training Iraqi forces admits that most Iraqi army and police units are controlled by militias even. Do Not Look For The Democrats For Help[/b]Amidst all the new withdrawal plans comes dissension within the Democrats. Some are for immediate withdrawal. Senator Lieberman sounds like a neocon who wants all out war against terrorism and the insurgents. Others are for staying until the Iraqis can take over themselves. Basically, they don???t have a unified voice and I don???t expect them to anytime soon. Oil/Energy Production[/b]Remember when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraq???s oil would pay for the entire war and reconstruction of Iraq? Remember how Rumsfeld and Bush keep on talking about all the progress and reconstruction projects completed in Iraq?In case you didn???t now, the energy situation in Iraq is worse or the same as it was before.Oil production is down since the war. Prewar Iraq was producing 3.5 million barrels. Now its down to 2 million a day. November 2005 it went down to 1.24 million a day, the lowest of the year. Electricity is not much better for day to day use by Iraqis. Before the war Iraq generated 4,300 megawatts. After the war it sank to 2,500 megawatts. Now it???s at 4,400 after the U.S. has spent $3.2 billion on projects. In one case the U.S. built an electricity plant, but didn???t take the time to build the cables that would deliver the power to customers. Most of the drop in production in both oil and electricity is due to insurgent attacks.
Comments
Collective IQ level would go down if you weren't... Ha!
Far too many disturbing pieces of knowledge you are dropping...
"Whether it???s 96,000 or 212,000 though doesn???t matter, because all those numbers are made up by the White House. They???re all a myth"
"Rumsfeld just wants U.S. soldiers to report abuses by Iraqis, but not actually stop them."
"In one case the U.S. built an electricity plant, but didn???t take the time to build the cables that would deliver the power to customers"
And do the US troops really need 45 flavours of Ice cream to keep them happy at the KBR built city of Camp Victory North? Why would they build American cities, known as 'Enduring Bases' unless they were there for the long haul. I mean these places have McDonalds, cinemas, themed post offices, etc... As far as I know they are building another 15 that will hold up to 100,000 troops indefinitely. Sounds to me like they aren't going home anytime too soon.
I'm about to watch this 3 part BBC program I taped this week. It just aired here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
Thanks bro, appreciate your input...
Always interesting
Again, thanks for posting that.There turning the FOB's and various camps in Iraq into the ones that you can find in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Interesting, ain't it?
What he said...J*** is the man.
We have one free to air tv station that is unafraid of covering all of these things. I should consider us very fortunate indeed. Even when our Prime Mnister is embarrasingly in Bush's pocket, yet NZ aren't.
exactly
He was being a sarcastic dick again.* I practically died of shock.
* The new Republican talking point is that if you can't come up with a "solution" to the stalemate in Iraq, your views are worthless. Problem is, they don't have a solution either....
Next election I won't even need to read your mandate, I'm voting for you anyway. Duh!
Discussion brings debate brings ideas brings resolution... Hopefully.
What's yours?
You're proposed solution is the best part.
(This is like Abott & Costello
or
Free Saddam
Sabadawhatever, are you ready to step up?
Do you have any opinions about why Iraq is going to turn out OK or why we should be there in the first place?
Last time all I heard was crickets.
You say one line of shit and only respond if people start talking shit back. Otherwise I have not heard one scrap of intelligent response from you on anything political on this site.
THERE IS NO SOLUTION TO IRAQ[/b]
Whatever course we take there will not be a good, nor immediate outcome
1) As long as Bush and company are in power there wll be no change in Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld are in a little fantasy land detached from the reality of what's going on in Iraq. They cannot be counted on for leadership in this situation.
2) As long as U.S. forces stay in Iraq there will be an insurgency that is growing in power rather than declining. The presence of U.S. troops gives the insurgency legitimacy.
3) The plan to build Iraqi security forces will be a failure because of simple demographics. 60% or so of Iraq is Shiite. The security forces will be overwhelmingly Shiite. Many Shiites do not want to live in peace with Sunnis because of abuses under Saddam and current killings by insurgents.
4) If U.S. forces withdraw in serious numbers the civil war will probably bubble up into a serious one rather than a low level one that it is now.
So what to do?
1) Seriously talk with Sunni tribal leaders. They are the ones that have real power in the Sunni triangle and until just recently they have been completely ignored by the U.S. If you can win some of them to your side you can cut insurgent attacks.
2) Begin a serious withdrawal of U.S. forces and get permanent bases out of the country. If U.S. soldiers stay, they will be killed. This is not Vietnam. This conflict is more like Northern Ireland with bombings and occassional attacks. Police work and intelligence is what's most effective at fighting this kind of insurgency yet the U.S. has none of it. There are constant reports that the U.S. military still has no solid intelligence on the insurgency, hardly any of the U.S. troops speak Arab, and the Iraqi police are either corrupt or incompetent or both. That's a no win situation. The U.S. soldiers are not effective and therefore should be withdrawn and brought home.
3) Sadly, the Iraqi civil war is probably the only way that the insurgency is going to actually end. The Shiites and Kurds sheer numbers and power will be the only thing to take out insurgents. The problem is that many of the leading Shiite groups want some kind of quasi-religious state and are close with Iran. Do we want the war to end in Iraq, but with a government that's not to our liking, or do we want to keep a dependent government in power and a war with no end?
There you have it.
I didn't know about this. Do you have a link?
This isn't a new problem - the Dems, as a party, have been slowly dying since the 60s (some argue the 30s) and have let the Republicans steal a lot of their moves in the meanwhile. Somehow the Dems are no longer the party of the pissed working man (perhaps because there's just not that many of those left in our domestic economy) but instead have been painted as the effete party of the loafer-shod and tennis playing. The Republicans aren't doing much better; today's GOP would make yesterday's Republicans be glad that they're dead - their current financial, ideological and political stances have nothing to do with the original intent of the Republican party. It's really sad.
The thing is, though, we need both parties; no progress happens when there is no resistance. It's just like the muscles in your arm; you need to have one muscle working against another muscle in order for both to be built. When one party rules in total, you have decadence, and we're living through a R-sponsored decadence right now (though being slowed by the threat of midterm elections). We've had D-sponsored ones in the past, too, and those were no better. (This was my main problem with SF when I was living there - too many liberals is no better than too many conservatives. Not hating, just saying. Great town nonetheless.)
Personally, party-wise I feel that the most responsible/selfless thing for me to do with my vote for the rest of my life is to vote for a 3rd party; not necessarily the Green, not necessarily Libertarian, or anyone in particular - it could be a write-in for my wife, for all I care. I feel the best shot at helping right (I mean this as in "upright," not an objective "This Is Right" or a politically conservative stance) our political system - if it's rightable at this point - would be to somehow make it a legitimate concept in the voting public's collective mind that a third, fourth or tenth party might actually win; our society is entirely too culturally complex to be boiled down to a binary political outlook of Black/White, Conservative/Liberal, Hot/Cold, whatever - even if the parties were different enough today to give a rat's ass about. Yes, this means that I will probably vote for the "losing party" for the rest of my life, but I'm OK with that - if you vote solely to win, you have a popularity contest and not a true democracy. And we all know how cornball popularity contests are.
---
Sorry, rant over - long story short is that when it comes to Iraq, fked is fked. Leave now or leave in ten years, the outcome will be the same - it's very strange to read Kipling and realize how little things have changed with regards to that region. We had no business being there in the first place, but probably for more reasons that I or any other Normal Citizen will have privy to know about in our lifetimes. I have a suspicion that all this renewed squawking about Leaving Now is fueled by the threat of people losing their cushy jobs in '06 in the aforementioned midterms.
Begin to pull out our troops out of Iraq ASAP and have them all out by mid-'06
Use the Military to round up EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL ALIEN IN THE COUNTRY and deport them to where they came from.
Line every inch of border of the country with troops and shoot anyone who tries to come into the country illegally
Initiate a "Test" like they have in New Zealand that makes you conform to certain things like the ability to speak english, no criminal record and having a job before you can get on a one year waiting list to become a citizen.
No more temporary VISA's that allow visitor's who may be terrorists to enter the country...if you're a U.S. citizen and you want to visit your relatives outside the country YOU have to travel to see them.
Pull out all troops from Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. and if conflicts happen in those countries they are on there own solve them.
Start drilling for oil in Alaska and ramp up the R&D on alternative fuel sources so that by 2020 we are no longer dependent on oil.
Stop the ridiculous "Free Trade" agreements where the U.S. is constantly getting screwed. We can produce everything we need ourselves.
Mind our own friggin' business.
Now y'all can decide how much of this is sarcasm and how much of it would actually work...
Oh yeah....Bomb Canada off the map while we're at it.
hey! what's the hell?
The states screw most people over (look at the wood thing with canada) and other WTO things where the US just doesnt follow the orders. Post ww2 all the way to GATT and today the states have steady screwed others. Look at cooperation theory (IO) for references
Destroy the environement with Alaska, your other point is smarter though however the funding has been cut by our man dub-ya fuck so Good luck
Alhtough you were probably not being too serious
I wish
As far as Canada I still think water shortage will bring the navy our way to ''negotiate'' in the future. People of vermont get in while you can
Motown, I think you're right that ultimately a withdrawl followed by a period of inevitably internecine Iraqi fighting is probably the only way that country will ever return to self-rule. So, basically, that country will be further destroyed before it can rise from the ashes again.
Some called for it now, others later... We`ve given up on thinking we can accomplish much..how are we going out.
What happened to accountability. even from a conservative standpoint peeps should be pissed they went to war for no reason with no impact in the end. If the states had to actually provide real $$$ for the reconstruction and tie theselves up for like 20= years to rebuild for real. People would be like well fuck this is a burden.. yeah but e did vote for him... but its not like that
remeber the 'we will hep rebuild afghanistan' 6 month and a weamsly 60 million later and there gone like the wind
peeps should never forget this either
What means anything anymore accountability, answering questions all massively ignored
Ranting i guess
ps: one word for sabada I got no hate for you (love your site) just think of the favelas and be conscious of things that are going on in hte country who's music you love so much.
It wasn't enough that they abused the minorities inside their own country, they have a goal of destroying the planet and taking an elite few to the moon to live happily ever after.
Bush has apparently promised his cronies that they will each get 72 virgins when they reach that big piece of green cheese in the sky.
Just look up in the sky during the next full moon and you will be able to see that the "Man In The Moon" has taken on an amazing likeness of Satan.
We are doomed....only Al Franken and Howard Dean can save us.......Hurry, time is running out.
On an totally different note...
Can anyone explain why Indian Porn seems to be all the rage these days??
Not sure. But I'm sure glad that it is. I was beginning to feel weird and lonely.