Our Success in Iraq and What it Means

[Darth Rotor]

About Success and a few other points, one can always count on Joe Galloway to cut thrugh the BS.

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/397340.html

Primus: Al Sadr's guidance to his faction to implement a cease fire is not guaranteed to last any longer than his perception of how advantageous, or disadvantageous it is.

In recent weeks, however, a wave of assassinations by al Qaeda in Iraq and by Shiite Muslim militiamen is threatening the American-paid tribal leaders and fighters of the Sunni Awakening Councils, which are at the heart of the reduced violence in some of the most dangerous places in Iraq.

Secundus: the counter attack to the Sunni Awakening movement is being felt.

This seismic shift {Awakening} virtually ended the violence in bloody Anbar and helped dampen the killings in Diyala province north of Baghdad and in some of the worst neighborhoods in the Iraqi capital. This and a six-month cease-fire by radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army militia are far more responsible for the improved security in Iraq than the temporary increase in American troops is.

Assassinations of council leaders and sheiks, however, have spiked since Osama bin Laden called the 80,000 tribal volunteers ''traitors and infidels'' in a recent videotaped lecture.

Suicide bombers and ambushes have killed more than 100 Awakening Council leaders and several tribal sheiks, and that has American commanders worried. U.S. officials say they believe that Sunni militants have mounted most of the attacks, but that some have been carried out by Sadr's militia or by the Iranian-backed Badr Corps, which has close ties to Iraq's Shiite-led government

Play is continuous. No one has removed any significant players from the game, and all of the cards have yet to be played.

Success?

Over what timeline?

DR

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Success?
Iraq has amply demonstrated that an invasion initiated on the basis of lies and carried out by soldiers who often demonstrated contempt for those they were supposedly sent to help by killing huge numbers of locals with little compunction or regret and who thought they could impose democracy at the point of a gun and through torture and the operation of a corrupt post invasion US administration simply doesn't work - as predicted by enormous numbers of people around the world before the lunacy started.

King Pyrrhus would have been proud of the 'successes' in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[gumboot]

Some interesting discussion going on in here. Good read. Thanks everyone.

I just want to throw in some musing. I think western civilisation faces two significant threats currently. One is the growing sphere of Chinese influence and the other is Radical Islam. I consider both a threat because the influence of both is increasing, both have global ambitions, and both have basic values that are not compatible with our liberal democratic values.

Currently I would consider China the greater threat, simply because it has a larger sphere of influence. In particular China is increasing its influence in the South West Pacific at an alarming rate. However China, I think, is also more susceptible to shifting cultural and social values due to western influence. China will no longer pose a threat if its people choose to become westernised and embrace our liberal democratic ideology. I find that likely.

In contrast, Radical Islam has a widespread but unconnected sphere of influence - that is it can be found in virtually any place you can imagine but it controls an incredibly limited area, and that area is scattered far and wide. Yet ideologically speaking, I cannot see reconciliation between our values and theres. If anything, I think the gulf is growing. Their entire ideology is a reaction against ours.

So then, Islam poses a greater long term threat, based solely on the condition that it is able to spread its sphere of influence by connecting the isolated tiny cells of its current existence.

What it needs - desperately - is a state. Once it has an actual solid base from which to work on, it can start to spread its influence and connect all those tiny little powerless satellite groups into a vast net. Not Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Iran, where some Radical Islamic sentiment is allowed to grow at times because it is useful. I mean a genuine top-to-bottom Radical Islamic state. Full Sharia Law and everything that comes with it.

Now before the invasion of Iraq I'd have said it wasn't going to happen. It now seems at least possible in Pakistan, which is a disturbing notion, but not especially alarming. Pakistan only has four neighbours. China and India are minority Muslim and Afghanistan is filled with NATO troops and still has fresh in its memories the joys of rule under the Taliban. I can't seen a Radical Pakistan influencing Iran overly.

But Iraq is an entirely different kettle of fish. Iraq is smack in the middle of the Middle East. It borders Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey as well as Iran. All of those except the last, I would consider vulnerable to the spread of Radical Islam.

In 2003 the notion of Iraq becoming a Radical Islamic state would have been laughable. Now it seems rather possible. I find that a disturbing prospect.

I admit what I'm talking about here is essentially the domino theory, swapping communism with Radical Islam. I think the Domino Theory in this case, however, has one distinct difference. The countries that would supposedly fall to communism had to real connection culturally with the USSR - they had no real affinity with communism as a concept. But the countries that I guess I am claiming might "fall" in this application are already Islamic states with a relatively significant Radical minority. Radical Islam is not something foreign to them.

Now this theory would speak strongly against invading Iraq. If you want to take the domino metaphor further, there's a row of dominos, and in the middle is a domino that is glued to the floor. That's Iraq. It was preventing the spread of Radical Islam.

But now, if you leave, not only have you taken out the fire wall, but you've replaced it with a fire.

I think the US should never have gone into Iraq. But they did. Now they're in there, I absolutely think they must stay. I think the consequences of them leaving now could be disastrous. And I'm talking collapse of civlisation disastrous.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Some interesting discussion going on in here. Good read. Thanks everyone.

I just want to throw in some musing. I think western civilisation faces two significant threats currently. One is the growing sphere of Chinese influence and the other is Radical Islam. I consider both a threat because the influence of both is increasing, both have global ambitions, and both have basic values that are not compatible with our liberal democratic values.

Your list appears to be too short. I would add in a resurgent Russia and a USA that has lost any vestige of credibility as a country that respects the law and now inhabits much of the same territory vis a vis moral authority as China, Radical Islam, Russia, the UK and Israel.

Currently I would consider China the greater threat, simply because it has a larger sphere of influence. In particular China is increasing its influence in the South West Pacific at an alarming rate. However China, I think, is also more susceptible to shifting cultural and social values due to western influence. China will no longer pose a threat if its people choose to become westernised and embrace our liberal democratic ideology. I find that likely.

China threatens some within its sphere of influence much as Russia does. Perhaps it is assassinating people it doesn't like around the world as Russia does and as the USA tacitly supports by arming other countries who do assassinate people. As far as I am aware China didn't support the illegal invasion of Iraq nor lied about WMD.

Should we be concerned at its appalling human rights record - of course. The decent world is also appalled at the USA's recent human rights record and Russia's human rights record and Zimbabwe's human rights record and Israel's human rights record and Hamas' human rights record and Hezbollah's human rights records and Sordid Arabia's human rights record and Iran's human rights record.

In contrast, Radical Islam has a widespread but unconnected sphere of influence - that is it can be found in virtually any place you can imagine but it controls an incredibly limited area, and that area is scattered far and wide. Yet ideologically speaking, I cannot see reconciliation between our values and theres. If anything, I think the gulf is growing. Their entire ideology is a reaction against ours.

Many western countries are reacting against the ideology of torture and illegal invasions and subverting the UN espoused by the USA. The religious intolerance by some adherents of Islam is mirrored in many countries and many other religions.

So then, Islam poses a greater long term threat, based solely on the condition that it is able to spread its sphere of influence by connecting the isolated tiny cells of its current existence.

So then you conclude that the religion is the problem on the basis of an incomplete analysis. All religions are the problem - apart possibly from Buddhism and the cargo cult in the south pacific.

What about religions that prevent peace by claiming a god given right to certain land for which it has been prepared to accept the collective punishment of entire groups of people for. What about fundamentalist Christians who long for armageddon and promote it. These are just as great current and long term threats.

[QOTE]What it needs - desperately - is a state. Once it has an actual solid base from which to work on, it can start to spread its influence and connect all those tiny little powerless satellite groups into a vast net. Not Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Iran, where some Radical Islamic sentiment is allowed to grow at times because it is useful. I mean a genuine top-to-bottom Radical Islamic state. Full Sharia Law and everything that comes with it.

Now before the invasion of Iraq I'd have said it wasn't going to happen. It now seems at least possible in Pakistan, which is a disturbing notion, but not especially alarming. Pakistan only has four neighbours. China and India are minority Muslim and Afghanistan is filled with NATO troops and still has fresh in its memories the joys of rule under the Taliban. I can't seen a Radical Pakistan influencing Iran overly.

But Iraq is an entirely different kettle of fish. Iraq is smack in the middle of the Middle East. It borders Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey as well as Iran. All of those except the last, I would consider vulnerable to the spread of Radical Islam.

In 2003 the notion of Iraq becoming a Radical Islamic state would have been laughable. Now it seems rather possible. I find that a disturbing prospect.

I admit what I'm talking about here is essentially the domino theory, swapping communism with Radical Islam. I think the Domino Theory in this case, however, has one distinct difference. The countries that would supposedly fall to communism had to real connection culturally with the USSR - they had no real affinity with communism as a concept. But the countries that I guess I am claiming might "fall" in this application are already Islamic states with a relatively significant Radical minority. Radical Islam is not something foreign to them.

Now this theory would speak strongly against invading Iraq. If you want to take the domino metaphor further, there's a row of dominos, and in the middle is a domino that is glued to the floor. That's Iraq. It was preventing the spread of Radical Islam.

But now, if you leave, not only have you taken out the fire wall, but you've replaced it with a fire.

I think the US should never have gone into Iraq. But they did. Now they're in there, I absolutely think they must stay. I think the consequences of them leaving now could be disastrous. And I'm talking collapse of civlisation disastrous.[/QUOTE]

The US and UK have form here in this very area. They subverted a democratic movement in Iran and supported the despotic Shah in the name of oil and thereby gave us the Mullahs. Civilisation did not collapse.

Not content with that signal success story the USA invaded the neighbouring oil rich country on the basis of lies and without any plan to handle the aftermath. Plus ca change.

What are we to do? We have to start with our own houses. If we won't keep our own houses clean how can we assert the right to demand that others do what we won't. How can we condemn one group of terrorists while supporting another. We can try but it won't wash. We have to be honest in our assessments and obey the law in all our actions.

Try looking at our own actions in torturing people and denying them access to the law. Stop demonising people just to keep warmongering nutters like Cheney and Condie and those that bought them happy. Take off the blinkers that blind us to our own appalling record.

Decommissiion all torture and concentration camps before trying to claim moral authority over anyone. Stop supporting despots and governments that collectively punish entire groups of people etc etc.

Will China, Russia or the USA do those things. Nah. Not while Bush or any similar nutter, Putin (and his appointee) and Hu (and the communist party of China) remain in control. So what hope is there that all others will behave properly? None whatsoever. The Augean stable is overflowing and Bush and Putin and Hu and the despots of Saudi Arabia etc are no Hercules.

I offer one tiny glimmer of hope.

Perhaps Barack Obama and the decent countries of the world are?

 

[gumboot]

Your list appears to be too short. I would add in a resurgent Russia and a USA that has lost any vestige of credibility as a country that respects the law and now inhabits much of the same territory vis a vis moral authority as China, Radical Islam, Russia, the UK and Israel.

Except that the USA (and the UK for that matter) are nations built on a long cultural history of promoting ideological values that are important to the west. You need only look through this subforum to find evidence of many, many Americans who reflect those values. How many Chinese posters, or Radical Islamic posters express the same values?

China threatens some within its sphere of influence much as Russia does. Perhaps it is assassinating people it doesn't like around the world as Russia does and as the USA tacitly supports by arming other countries who do assassinate people. As far as I am aware China didn't support the illegal invasion of Iraq nor lied about WMD.

I don't think you understand what a "sphere of influence is". China's sphere of influence is the threat itself. That sphere is expanding.

Should we be concerned at its appalling human rights record - of course. The decent world is also appalled at the USA's recent human rights record and Russia's human rights record and Zimbabwe's human rights record and Israel's human rights record and Hamas' human rights record and Hezbollah's human rights records and Sordid Arabia's human rights record and Iran's human rights record.

Of the nations listed the USA is the only one with a significant sphere of influence, and the USA's human rights abuses are insignificant compared with the others you listed. The reason there is so much outrage (both from within and from without) towards US abuses is because it has such a high standard. Abuses like the USA has allowed go unnoticed in places like Zimbabwe.

Many western countries are reacting against the ideology of torture and illegal invasions and subverting the UN espoused by the USA. The religious intolerance by some adherents of Islam is mirrored in many countries and many other religions.

So then you conclude that the religion is the problem on the basis of an incomplete analysis. All religions are the problem - apart possibly from Buddhism and the cargo cult in the south pacific.

What about religions that prevent peace by claiming a god given right to certain land for which it has been prepared to accept the collective punishment of entire groups of people for. What about fundamentalist Christians who long for armageddon and promote it. These are just as great current and long term threats.

The degree of threat is established by the size of the ideology's sphere of influence. The sphere of influence of Christian fundamentalists is virtually nil. The sphere of influence of Radical Islam is potentially very great.

I can't name another religious movement with ideals as conflicting with western civilisation as Radical Islam that has any significant sphere of influence at all.

The US and UK have form here in this very area. They subverted a democratic movement in Iran and supported the despotic Shah in the name of oil and thereby gave us the Mullahs. Civilisation did not collapse.

That's because Iran's neighbours didn't offer fertile soil in which to spread the ideology.

Not content with that signal success story the USA invaded the neighbouring oil rich country on the basis of lies and without any plan to handle the aftermath. Plus ca change.

What are we to do? We have to start with our own houses. If we won't keep our own houses clean how can we assert the right to demand that others do what we won't. How can we condemn one group of terrorists while supporting another. We can try but it won't wash. We have to be honest in our assessments and obey the law in all our actions.

Certainly. I think that would be a very good idea.

Try looking at our own actions in torturing people and denying them access to the law. Stop demonising people just to keep warmongering nutters like Cheney and Condie and those that bought them happy. Take off the blinkers that blind us to our own appalling record.

Decommissiion all torture and concentration camps before trying to claim moral authority over anyone. Stop supporting despots and governments that collectively punish entire groups of people etc etc.

Will China, Russia or the USA do those things. Nah. Not while Bush or any similar nutter, Putin (and his appointee) and Hu (and the communist party of China) remain in control. So what hope is there that all others will behave properly? None whatsoever. The Augean stable is overflowing and Bush and Putin and Hu and the despots of Saudi Arabia etc are no Hercules.

Your comparison between regimes like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia and the United States is pretty silly. I don't know if you've exaggerated what the US has done, or down played the severity of these other regimes, but neither is smart.

I can't say I'm a big fan of lots of things the US has done. I'd be very happy to see all of it stop. But they're simply not on the same level of depravity as the other regimes you've mentioned. They don't even come close.

The most glaring difference, of course, is the loud voice of large numbers of the US population - including a good chunk of the media - who decry the inappropriate behavior of their own country and uncover it all in its hideous glory for the world to see.

You'll never see that happen in any of the other regimes you mentioned. And that difference alone is profound.

(By the way I'd be appreciative if you didn't try to include my country in your country's wrong doings, to the best of my knowledge my government has never in its entire history partaken in any of the things you described above).

 

[egslim]

So then, Islam poses a greater long term threat, based solely on the condition that it is able to spread its sphere of influence by connecting the isolated tiny cells of its current existence.

What it needs - desperately - is a state. Once it has an actual solid base from which to work on, it can start to spread its influence and connect all those tiny little powerless satellite groups into a vast net. Not Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Iran, where some Radical Islamic sentiment is allowed to grow at times because it is useful. I mean a genuine top-to-bottom Radical Islamic state. Full Sharia Law and everything that comes with it.

I don't think such an entity is viable. Any kind of organized governmental system produces politics, and politics is secular. Leaders who choose political expediency over religiousity will be favoured by any human selection process.
The current radical Islamic cells are religiously pure, because they lack such an organization. They are kept together by religious idealism, without almost any politics.

Currently I would consider China the greater threat, simply because it has a larger sphere of influence. In particular China is increasing its influence in the South West Pacific at an alarming rate. However China, I think, is also more susceptible to shifting cultural and social values due to western influence. China will no longer pose a threat if its people choose to become westernised and embrace our liberal democratic ideology. I find that likely.

As long as the "Western life" is considered enviable by Chinese the country will continue to westernise. By "Western life" I mean our prosperity, freedom and environment. The key then is to improve our own respective countries, so that others will want to follow. Instead of trying to force others to change.

But China will always remain Chinese. The country is huge, with a population some four times larger than that of the US. We should not confuse China's westernization with a willingness to remain the US' junior partner. As China becomes a major power the country will want to carve its own sphere of influence.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Except that the USA (and the UK for that matter) are nations built on a long cultural history of promoting ideological values that are important to the west. You need only look through this subforum to find evidence of many, many Americans who reflect those values. How many Chinese posters, or Radical Islamic posters express the same values?

Go on tell me.

Britain had an imperial past and Blair elected to support deliberate lies by the USA. The USA has now declared iotself to be a torturing regime and has built concentration camps. Those are not values I support. THe USA no longer represents my values.

I don't think you understand what a "sphere of influence is". China's sphere of influence is the threat itself. That sphere is expanding.

A balloon is a threat? On what definition is that based?

Of the nations listed the USA is the only one with a significant sphere of influence, and the USA's human rights abuses are insignificant compared with the others you listed. The reason there is so much outrage (both from within and from without) towards US abuses is because it has such a high standard. Abuses like the USA has allowed go unnoticed in places like Zimbabwe.

The USA's human rights abuses are legion and demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of a nation that tries to sell itself on its 'values' Sooy, but the USA is isolated now from decent democratic states in being a self proclaimed torturing regime. The USA's example of illegally kidnapping people for torture by proxy and building concentration camps are not values that decent democratic states suscribe to.

The degree of threat is established by the size of the ideology's sphere of influence. The sphere of influence of Christian fundamentalists is virtually nil. The sphere of influence of Radical Islam is potentially very great.

Like fundamentalist Christianity where more than 50% on the USA don't believe in evolution. That is not a small sphere of influence.

I can't name another religious movement with ideals as conflicting with western civilisation as Radical Islam that has any significant sphere of influence at all.

So what you really mean to say is Islam.

That's because Iran's neighbours didn't offer fertile soil in which to spread the ideology.

And the subversion of democracy by the USA and the UK?




Certainly. I think that would be a very good idea.

Your comparison between regimes like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia and the United States is pretty silly. I don't know if you've exaggerated what the US has done, or down played the severity of these other regimes, but neither is smart.

No, it is if anything not stated enough. The USA has an appalling record in Cambodia, Vietnam, South America where it supported many despots and engaed in the active subversion of democracy all across South America and supported the Taliban and the Mujihadin etc. Your blinkered state about the USA's actual history suggest the need for a good historicla text book. Perhaps Wikipedia would be a good start in relation to South America alone.

I can't say I'm a big fan of lots of things the US has done. I'd be very happy to see all of it stop. But they're simply not on the same level of depravity as the other regimes you've mentioned. They don't even come close.

Yes they do. You just don't know the history of its behaviour in the areas I have described.

The most glaring difference, of course, is the loud voice of large numbers of the US population - including a good chunk of the media - who decry the inappropriate behavior of their own country and uncover it all in its hideous glory for the world to see.

Good people should be congratulated but the country elected the liar and war mongers Dick, Condie and Bush to govern you and are going along with their torturing regime. We at least got rid of tBlair for lying to the people of the UK on behalf of your leaders.

You'll never see that happen in any of the other regimes you mentioned. And that difference alone is profound.

Unfortunately journalists in all those regimes are highlighting the oppression and suffering as well. Michael Moore has highlighted the failure of many of your so-called independent journalist to hold your regime to account and has been vilified for doing so..

(By the way I'd be appreciative if you didn't try to include my country in your country's wrong doings, to the best of my knowledge my government has never in its entire history partaken in any of the things you described above).

That statement clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge about your country's own history.

The USA has a well documented history of building concentration camps including Guantanamo Bay and your president himself has declared recently that the USA is a torturing state. Your country helped despots all around the world and in fact established a special school to teach those despots how to terrorise their own people. Your country has undermined democracy all around the world when it did not like the people democratically elected.

It is clear that you need a history primer about the USA. Please read the history of the USA in Central and Southern America and then try and make that same statement again in all honesty.

 

[zenotter]

Hmmm... I'd say Iraq has been a success in distracting the world from our homeland security issues. I'm on several emergency management listservs where I work, and I worry about the lack of things done here at home. Take border security - not really an issue down south because of the fence hoo-hah, big issue up north where there isn't anything, and potential terrorists who blend in (look like friendly Americans) can get through easily. Why don't we call our troops back home where they're actually NEEDED?

 

[gumboot]

I don't think such an entity is viable.

Neither do I. But even a failed attempt to establish it could hurt us. A communist Russia wasn't a viable entity either, but it didn't stop efforts to make a communist Russia almost causing several nuclear wars.

As long as the "Western life" is considered enviable by Chinese the country will continue to westernise. By "Western life" I mean our prosperity, freedom and environment. The key then is to improve our own respective countries, so that others will want to follow. Instead of trying to force others to change.

But China will always remain Chinese. The country is huge, with a population some four times larger than that of the US. We should not confuse China's westernization with a willingness to remain the US' junior partner. As China becomes a major power the country will want to carve its own sphere of influence.

Exactly.

 

[gumboot]

Britain had an imperial past and Blair elected to support deliberate lies by the USA. The USA has now declared iotself to be a torturing regime and has built concentration camps. Those are not values I support. THe USA no longer represents my values.

The USA has built concentration camps? Um... okay...

A balloon is a threat? On what definition is that based?

Get back to me when you understand English.

So what you really mean to say is Islam.

No, what I mean to say is Radical Islam.

No, it is if anything not stated enough. The USA has an appalling record in Cambodia, Vietnam, South America where it supported many despots and engaed in the active subversion of democracy all across South America and supported the Taliban and the Mujihadin etc. Your blinkered state about the USA's actual history suggest the need for a good historicla text book. Perhaps Wikipedia would be a good start in relation to South America alone.

Thanks, I've got it covered.

Good people should be congratulated but the country elected the liar and war mongers Dick, Condie and Bush to govern you and are going along with their torturing regime. We at least got rid of tBlair for lying to the people of the UK on behalf of your leaders.

Um, what are you talking about> Do you see a star spangled banner at the bottom of my posts? You won't find any of my elected leaders amongst the list of idiots who pushed ahead with the invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately journalists in all those regimes are highlighting the oppression and suffering as well. Michael Moore has highlighted the failure of many of your so-called independent journalist to hold your regime to account and has been vilified for doing so..

The only Michael Moore that ever had anything to do with any of "my" regimes was in fact leader of said regime (if you can call two months a regime).

That statement clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge about your country's own history.

That statement clearly demonstrates you lack of knowledge of the flag of the United States. One would think a Brit would be a little more knowledgeable of a nation that twice sent an entire generation of men to the opposite side of the world to be sacrificed to help save your country from German aggression, but oh well.

Let me spell it out for you.

IAMNOTANAMERICAN

I have never been an American, and I have no desire to ever be an American. I would rather die defending my nation's sovereignty than call myself an American. (No offense to the Americans on this forum - you're alright, I just like my own place more).

 

[zenotter]

The USA has built concentration camps? Um... okay...

I take it this is a reference to Guantanamo Bay. I would think the torture and killing associated with some such camps would have to happen elsewhere, outside of the USA, probably somewhere overseas where legality doesn't count....

I know a fair amount of local Americans (myself included) who have debated moving out of country, and the three countries that always get discussed are Canada, France, and Australia. You wouldn't kick us out to live in the bush if we came over, right??

 

[Darth Rotor]

Um, what are you talking about> Do you see a star spangled banner at the bottom of my posts?


That statement clearly demonstrates you lack of knowledge of the flag of the United States. One would think a Brit would be a little more knowledgeable of a nation that twice sent an entire generation of men to the opposite side of the world to be sacrificed to help save your country from German aggression, but oh well.

Let me spell it out for you.

IAMNOTANAMERICAN

I have never been an American, and I have no desire to ever be an American. I would rather die defending my nation's sovereignty than call myself an American. (No offense to the Americans on this forum - you're alright, I just like my own place more).

It's all good, mate. Without the Kiwis, the world would be a less interesting place.

DR