Iraq: Moving forward after the 'Three Week's War'.

US troops say that they returned fire, killing the gunman and injuring his six-year-old son who was with him.

see, those kind of tactics infuriate me. what are soldiers supposed to do? not shoot back at someone trying to kill them because he decided to bring junior for a "take your kid to work day?" if a kid got hurt, that's not good. and his dad dying ain't good either. but when you put a kid at your side when you try to kill people, i can't honestly say that the right thing to do is let it go. when those who would try to shoot soldiers see that human shields don't prevent their own and others deaths as a result of their actions, that kind of tactic will cease.

The ambush of the threevehicle convoy in Haifa Street joined a catalogue of violence yesterday that showed ten Americans injured, two seriously, a similar number of Iraqis wounded, including a six-year-old boy, and three local men killed in at least eight separate attacks. This was described as ?a pretty normal day? by one senior officer.

no, this was not a "normal" day. this was the worst day so far. yes, soldiers are getting killed. and it's alarming. but this is not accurate. the attacks have been stepped up recently, and the day described here was hands down the worst. those who don't like the American/British presence need to be accurate instead of posting false or misleading information. it's bad for [i any [/i] side to be inaccurate with characterizations. the military should avoid overly optimistic appraisals and those detractors of the effort need to be wary of overly pessimistic appraisals.

 

yodashizzzle

The article comes from a newspaper that was mildly pro-war and the 'normal day' phrase that you disagree with was a quote from an American officer not the opinion of the journalist who wrote the article.

 

i understand. i saw that it was an officer quoted and it just seemed to be inaccurate or at least a remark he made without neccesarilly being completely conscious of strict facts. there have now been 29 fatalities of U.S. soldiers since Bush declared that most fighting was over. that was about nine weeks ago. unfortunately, if that officer had made those remarks in reference to the last week or so, i'd say that now his words are accurate. multiple occurances are now becoming a daily trend.

 

Another interesting item:
American troops have captured Ahmed Khalil Ibraham Samir al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence officer who apparently met with Mohammed Atta in Prague five months before 9/11.

 

I heard that that meeting actually did not take place. I don't remember where though.

EDIT: Here we go, CNN said this:

However, U.S. officials said that they had no evidence Atta ever went to Prague and that there were indications he might have been in the United States at the time the meeting supposedly took place.

 

But Bloomberg reports it this way:

Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a former Iraqi envoy to the Czech Republic, was taken into custody in Iraq on July 2, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Central Intelligence Agency believes al-Ani was using his post in Prague as a cover for spying, AFP reported, citing an unidentified person in the U.S. government. Al-Ani is suspected by the U.S. of meeting with Atta, an Egyptian, in Prague in April 2001 to discuss terrorist operations.

EDIT: It will be interesting to see what Mr. al-Ani has to say about who he was talking with.

 

Local democracy in Iraq

...The inauguration of the capital's 37-member municipal council, which Mr Bremer was addressing, marked the ?resumption of the democratic system in Baghdad?, and was, he said, a step towards the establishment of an elected national government.

Well, up to a point. For the past six weeks, the CPA has been supervising the creation of a system of advisory councils throughout the country. In Baghdad, local caucuses chose 88 neighbourhood councils, which in turn chose nine district councils, which in turn chose the city council.

American officials freely admit that the improvised selection process fell far short of the democratic ideal. They had the final say on who made the cut, juggling the results to make sure they matched up with their vision of what should constitute a cross-section of the community.

...The advisory councils have been involved in projects that range from street-cleaning to recruiting volunteers for an Iraqi security force. However, they have no budget?though they are allowed to request funds from the CPA?and they have no executive powers. In terms of form and function, they are less like American democratic institutions, about which Iraqis have been hearing so much, than the powerless city councils of other Arab one-party states, which primarily serve as intermediaries between the public and an all-powerful centralised regime.

If the councils' main job is liaison, as one CPA official suggested, they have their work cut out. Baghdadis complain endlessly about the chaos into which their capital has been thrown, particularly by the lack of electricity for more than a few hours every day.

...few residents of this particular neighbourhood seem to have much sympathy for the Iraqi fighters taking pot-shots at American soldiers: there is not much point, they suggest, in launching an insurgency if what you want is stable government. But they have lost trust in the American authorities, and most call for an Iraqi government to be established.

Mr Bremer is expected soon to give the names of the 25-30 members of a national ?governing? council (as opposed to the ?advisory? council he originally espoused). Iraqi opposition groups, which had previously attacked the national council as democratic window-dressing, now embrace it, claiming that Mr Bremer has promised them real executive powers. However, the council will still be appointed by the Americans. And although CPA officials say that they intend it to reflect the country's sectarian balance?which means that a majority of the members will be Shia?there will be strong complaints if it excludes popular but radical groups, such as the Sadr movement.

The CPA claims that this transitional process will help to acquaint Iraqis with the democratic process. Time is required to reassemble electoral rolls and establish a secure environment for voting, let alone for the contentious task of drafting a constitution. But the passage of time will also cement the authority of the American-screened council members in their communities, giving them an edge when Iraqis do eventually compete in elections.

 

More on the council...

SOON after he swept into Baghdad on May 12th, Paul Bremer, Iraq?s top administrator, stamped on the idea of awarding the Iraqis real political power any time soon. Despite suggestions to this effect by his predecessor, Jay Garner, who had been deemed not up to the job, Mr Bremer decided that the most pressing challenge was to stop the chaos on the ground rather than to try out models of democracy. He quickly downgraded the interim government set up under Mr Garner to a merely advisory political council. However, events have forced the pragmatic Mr Bremer to perform a U-turn. On Sunday July 13th, a new 25-member governing council of Iraq was unveiled. As well as running civilian affairs under the auspices of America and Britain, and subject to their veto, the council is due to supervise the drafting of a new constitution, its ratification and, eventually, elections of a truly representative government. However, Mr Bremer still cannot give any idea of just how long that will take.

It was, perhaps, understandable that Mr Bremer should have thought Iraq needed other things before it needed devolution of power, let alone democracy?basics such as security, electricity, clean and reliable water and jobs. He soon realised, though, that it would not be possible to separate the two goals. Those who opposed America?s presence in Iraq were clearly using the lack of progress in devolving power to support their arguments that the war was about America getting its hands on Iraqi oil. Growing discontent led to regular attacks on American troops. In turn, these led to increased pressure on the Bush administration to show signs of progress in bringing democracy to Iraq. That, after all, was one of the things George Bush had promised to do.

In the aftermath of the war, Iraq?s Saddam-era opposition groups were unhappy at the meagre levels of authority they were being offered: it made them look like puppets of the distrusted occupiers. Even the most pro-American political figure, Ahmed Chalabi, complained that the locals were not being given enough power. A representative of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq made it clear that it would not work with the original political council. And Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa, or religious edict, demanding that Iraqis have a bigger role in electing a constitutional drafting committee.

The Americans? aim has been to have a council that, if not democratic, can at least be representative. There are three women among its 25 members. The council also broadly reflects the country's ethnic and religious balance, containing 13 Shia Muslims, 5 Sunni Arabs, 5 Kurds, a Christian and a Turkmen. The majority of members lived outside Saddam's control, either in exile or in the autonomous Kurdish zone.

The governing council emerged only after fierce horse-trading over the past couple of weeks, with most of the concessions being made by Mr Bremer, not least over how the council was to be described. The council has been granted real executive power, such as to appoint and supervise ministers; appoint diplomats; approve budgets; and play an as yet undefined role in national security, although all of its powers are subject to the coalition's veto. One of the council's first diplomatic forays will be to send a delegation to the United Nations Security Council in New York next week. Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN's special representative in Iraq, is preparing a wide-ranging report on the country for a council meeting that will cover justice, human rights and the new constitution.

The council will be closely watched for its role in supervising the commission that will draw up a new constitution, which must then be ratified before elections are held and a sovereign government appointed. The UN is sending a delegation of experts to Iraq next month, to help the country prepare for those elections. This will involve a census, voter registratio

 

There was a set back yesterday in the US plans for gaining peace in Iraq. From Reuters: India has refused US requests for support in Iraq. Requested of India was a division (15,000 to 20,000 soldiers) "to command a sector of northern Iraq around the city of Mosul."

 

A lot of nations appear to still be on the fence or outright refusing to participate now in the occupation force. Bremer is providing no type of leadership in forming a real coalition presence and all we are getting now are recalculations of how much money, time and person power will be necessary to raise Iraq to any livable levels.

 

Cheveyo and GDS, you forgot to mention that millions of women and children in Iraq are dying of starvation and lack of clean water, the Arab street is rising up against their governments across the Mid East, and that the U.S. has been hit by numerous attacks launched by Islamist extremists angry about the U.S. actions in Iraq.



Don't forget to look on the bright side. It is not as bad as many predicted it would be.

 

Well the moment of truth in my opinion is coming up.

August, in Iraq

I remember all too well how hot is was in Iraq in July of 1991 before we returned to Europe after Desert STorm, and when it reaches 130 degrees in teh shade in Iraq, that is when I become most fearfull that Chemical Weapons that Saddamns' regime in hiding may use them, when it becomes like hell on earth when you are in your full chemical protection gear.

Keeping my fingers crossed.....

 

Am I the only one who wondered about the intelligence of asking India to put a division of it's troops in Iraq?

I mean what with the whole Hindu/Muslim thing....

It would seem to me that it would be intelligently politically to ask both(showing no favortism in the face of their rivalries and diplomatic support, but quitely asking India not to send troops despite the public request.

 

Don't worry Farraday, India has denied the U.S. request for help.

U.S., while dissapointed, still views India's relationship as positive and still wishes to continue good relations.

India did say they would reconsider if the UN approves or gives some sort of resolution authorizing it.

 

Don't forget to look on the bright side. It is not as bad as many predicted it would be.

That's right, it hasn't. And those people were you and I at one point, Jediflyer.

It's interesting, though, that there have been 33 fatal attacks against US forces since the formal cessation of hostilies, despite what appeared to be overwhelming signs of welcome and gratitude for taking Saddam's regime and throwing it in the dustbin of history. I'm curious as to what you all make of this. I feel that perhaps the Iraqi people may see this as swapping an oppressor for an invader, but I've been out of touch these past few weeks. Thoughts?

E_S

 

It means a lot of people aren't happy about US presence, and law and order isn't well established enough to constrain some of these forces.

Even though fatalities 'post-war' are approaching or surpassing those during the war, the difference is that during the war there was always a chance for much, much larger casualties and a lot of death, on both sides. Now, the amount of damage irregular/terrorist/mob forces can do to coalition forces is limited in scope.

 

The thing is, most of the people in Iraq seem to be happy with the removal of Saddamn's regime. Sure they are nervous....if you spent most of your life under the regime of Saddamn, would not y ou be a LITTLE weary of things?

It only takes a few Baath Party loyalists with RPG's to cause a lot of problems.

 

The thing is, most of the people in Iraq seem to be happy with the removal of Saddamn's regime. Sure they are nervous....if you spent most of your life under the regime of Saddamn, would not y ou be a LITTLE weary of things?

And let's not forget the shi'as who died in 1991 with the uprsing we didn't back up. They're afraid we'll do the same thing again, leave them when they need us the most.

But I think we learned from that mistake, and we'll do what needs to be done.

It only takes a few Baath Party loyalists with RPG's to cause a lot of problems.

Too true.

 

When will people realize that these are not just a few "Batth loyalists"? This is a paramilitary force fighting with geurilla tactics!

This is why there was no Battle of Bagdhad. The Dubya admin was convinced that the urbal battle would close the war and even predicted American casualties. Yet there was no resistance and we basically just marched in and set up the colony. Does that not seem odd?? Is it not obvious that the Iraqi strategy was to let Bagdhad be seized and then launch a guerilla campaign? There are daily attacks that have not ceased for a month!! This is a terrible situation!

What has the admin advised as a strategy to counter these tactics? Is anyone confident that the daily deaths (2 already this morning) will stop in the next 2-3 weeks? This is acceptable??

Unbelievable.

 

When will people realize that these are not just a few "Batth loyalists"? This is a paramilitary force fighting with geurilla tactics!

Yeah ok, it is more than Baath Loyalists, it includes also the Republican Guard and Al Quedia. Good Point.

Yet there was no resistance and we basically just marched in and set up the colony.

Colony? You mean Americans are migrating to Iraq in huge numbers to start a new life? Bad choice of words, perhaps puppet state, or maybe satellite, but Colony? No, I dont think that word fits here.

What has the admin advised as a strategy to counter these tactics? Is anyone confident that the daily deaths (2 already this morning) will stop in the next 2-3 weeks? This is acceptable??

So you are saying the lives of the Americans are more important than the lives of the Iraqis?

All and all the people arent treating the soldiers too bad, the soldiers have money, they want money, if they get the soldiers to spend money on their products, then they suddenly have money. They are also allowed to speak out against the current rulers of the country, something they havent been able to do for a generation with out ceasing to exist. Dont be naieve and think because the people arent happy with the Occupation they were thrilled under Saddam, its just now they have a right to speak their mind. But the sooner a government of the Iraqis is in place the better.

 

JEDI_XEN said: You mean Americans are migrating to Iraq in huge numbers to start a new life? Bad choice of words,

If you had studied history of European colonization int he 15th and 16th century (the age of Columbus), you'd know that most colonies did have any mass intake of migration for 80-100 years later. But anyway...

perhaps puppet state, or maybe satellite, but Colony? No, I dont think that word fits here.

Oh, so "puppet state" is a good choice of wordS?? LOL.

On Meet The Press, right now, Paul Bremer is on. Here is a quote from a 2nd Seargent in Iraq that was just displayed on the screen:

"I have my own deck of 'Most Wanted Cards'..the aces in my deck are Paul Bremeber, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz..."

So the US soldiers are in a guerilla war with no effective counterplan and in what many are calling a 'shooting gallery' and you say it's not that bad? Is anyone concerned that these young men and women have been ordered to put their lives on the line for false pretenses and are now languishing after being told they'd go home months ago? All this with North Korea announcing they have nukes and could get to 10, almost begging even more US forces to be added to the 38,000 stationed at their border (don't believe me, the Speaker of the HOuse in on 'Meet the Press' right now discussing the possibility of pre-emptive strike on N. Korea).

When will our leaders be held accountable for this ongoing war and terrible situation?

 

Tell me Green, do you have an actual plan or is your idea just to insult the one in place?

Could you please tell me how you'd have them fight a guerilla war?
Usually monday morning quarterbacking requires you to say what they should have done not just insult the current plan.

 

Farraday said :Tell me Green, do you have an actual plan or is your idea just to insult the one in place?

Oh you mean like you are insulting my ideas? I am pointing out the lack ofleadership and planning on the part of Dubya, the Commander-in-Chief. I have every right to point this out and will continue to. This is horrible situation and I believe it deserves attention. Of course, the fact that you make this kind of point indicates that you probably agree that the situation is horrendous but just don't want to say it. LOL.

ld you please tell me how you'd have them fight a guerilla war?
Usually monday morning quarterbacking requires you to say what they should have done not just insult the current plan.

Hello! "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" implies that the conflict is over. Here it is not. That is my point. We are in the midst of a guerilla war. It is not "Monday orning."

The first step to stopping a guerilla war is acknowledging it. This is all very reminiscent of the colonial wars in the caribbean in the 17th and early `8th centuries. If something is really going to be done, like casting a net around bagdhad and sweeping inwards to the central command base, a much larger force would be required. These are the great problems that occur when you try occupy an entire nation.

There have now been 4 U.S. soldiers killed in the last 38 hours.

 

Both of you calm down now.

farraday, insults are never appropriate. GDS, I suggest that you try to temper criticism with suggestions of what should be done.

Kimball Kinnison