The standard response by the Bush administration to charges that Iraq is a major setback in the war on terror--confirmed by the recent NIE terror report—is that the transformation of Iraq to a free and democratic society will ultimately prove a key victory for America's quest to make America safe from terrorism.
However, a sober analysis of present day Iraq reveals a country in the early stages of a full-blown civil war: Iraq is beset by violence, torture, freelance militias, terrorism, political and economic collapse, and failed reconstruction efforts. The destabilization of the country following the US invasion has gotten gradually worse. Today, Iraq is hell on earth. "On average," writes British reporter Patrick Cockburn, "100 people are being killed in Diyala every week."
There are reportedly 23 different freelance militias in Baghdad alone. A report by the Iraqi government shows that 1,089 civilians died in Iraq last month (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC145456.htm), and this is a conservative estimate.
An Iraqi citizen fortunate enough to avoid the violence would also be concerned with other daily social ills. Across Iraq, for instance, children are suffering from chronic malnutrition. Another problem is the scarcity of electricity. These are the natural effects of war and turmoil, but Iraqi disarray has reached a historic level.
And while warnings were abound, the Bush administration stubbornly pushed on making Iraq the "center stage" in the war on terror. Perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy, Iraq is the "cause celebre" for the jihadist movement and the gravest tragedy for Iraqi civilians.
The prospect for peace and freedom and democracy in Iraq seems little more than illusion.
And still the president pushes on.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
The important observation: the intelligence report MAKES SENSE! That is unfortunate to the Bush administration who relies on the logic that says were reducing the terrorist count by increasing the body count. However, Bush is a horrible mathematician as most who have died are Iraqi civilians - 20,000 just this year!
So, with 20,000 dead Iraqis it is hard to discount the observation that if Saddam were in power there would not be such a human toll. So, taking that thought process to the mad Iraqis, you have a larger pool of possible Insurgents.
My prediction is that in time, there WILL BE this civil war with world disgust for the United States continued sugar-coating the war. At that point, I would have to side with the world and say we should have admitted we were wrong ALOT earlier.
Unfortunately, Bush does not seem the type to apologize. He seems more apt to cover-up and look for excuses in order to save his dairy-aire.
2. Do you know anyone in Iraq?
3. What is your source for intel on what's happening in Iraq?
If your answers to 1 and 2 are no, and your answer to 3 is "the MSM" then you don't have much of a clue as to the reality of Iraq.
Yes, war is hell. Innocent people die in war. then again, the family members of 5,000 Kurds Saddam tested his WMD's on in the 80's in 1 weapons test thought life under Saddam is hell.
They (the civilians) now have the chance to live a more peaceful life. What, you thought the terrorists would give up and move out without a fight? The Iraqi gov't has asked us to stay. REPEATEDLY. We will come home when they ask us to leave or they can defend themselves, whichever comes first.
And what do you siggest we do? Should we pull out and let Iraq destroy itself? We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq, granted. But we have no other option but to stay.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
I guess things are just PEACHES AND CREAM in your non-Iraqi land. Eh?
I'm TOTALLY ready for that man to be out of office. I have way to many friends who's husbands and wifes are over there fighting for what cause? These people are killing our AMERICAN CITIZENS and THEIR FELLOW COUNTRY MEN. They don't give a rats butt.
I say get our men out of there! We've done enough and ENOUGH LYING has been going on since the start of this crap.
I appreciate your comments--everyone's comments really.
Heres my response to this:
"If your answers to 1 and 2 are no, and your answer to 3 is "the MSM" then you don't have much of a clue as to the reality of Iraq.
Yes, war is hell. Innocent people die in war. then again, the family members of 5,000 Kurds Saddam tested his WMD's on in the 80's in 1 weapons test thought life under Saddam is hell."
No, I have not been to Iraq, and yes I know people in Iraq. I have a best friend (Marine) and brother-in-law (Air Force) who have served in Iraq. But my sources are reporters in Iraq...keep in mind that the US military is saying that 95% is off limits to reporters because so many regions are dangerous. They still go, and this information is not made up. Its the reality on the ground. If you care to dispute my facts please do so.
Also, regarding the gassing of the Kurds, I should remind you that this took place under our watchful eye. The first Bush and his administration made a deliberate decision to allow Saddam to murder the Kurds and the SHi'a to the South, and leave him in power. They did so because they knew that while a cruel dictator, Saddam was effective at manipulating and violently holding together a fragile country: with its sectarian and ethnic divisions.
It was also for strategic purposes that before this time the US government supplied Saddam with weapons and support, no matter his policy towards the oppressed Shi'a and Kurds. So its nice to hear humanitarian calls now, after the fact, but recall that during these atrocities the US was its accomplice.
Thanks for your comments.
I do think that Iraq is gonna be a bad place for a long time regardless, but by now it is obvious American troops are a symbol for the growing resistance. The American presence in Iraq is what is igniting this jihadist movement, its leading to new terrorists, and fueling the violence--the civilians and our troops pay the price.
I will always support our troops, but never support this policy. I have nothing but respect for our brave soldiers, and I know that they have a job. But this is empire building, not protecting American soil.
If American occupation is replaced by a UN coalition that is there for order, this jihadist fire that we have set in Iraq may subside. The country will still suffer from civil war, but it may start on the road to stability sooner. But as long as we have a military presence there, I dont expect any real progress--just more of what we are witnessing now.
Shawn : Remember something called the Battle of the Bulge? That was alot worse than the battleground we are currently on. We lost alot of soldiers there, but to win we had to do it. Would you claim that we shouldn't have fought there? Or how about the 2,500 that died on the beaches of Normandy during the first day of invasion? Were those loses too high? It was a price that had to be paid.
FYI, 2,700 in 3 years of sustained combat is the lowest the US has ever lost in any war.
If you don't learn from your past, you are bound to repeat the mistake again. After WWI we left Germany to its own destiny... broke, poor, and ravaged. If we leave Iraq we leave it in the same shape. We also leave it in the mercy of the terrorists. If we had supported Germany and helped them rebuild, history could have been changed enough that Hitler would not have come into power. Thus WWII might not have happened. If we pull out of Iraq too soon, it will come back to haunt us.
The last thing we need in Iraq is the blue hat club. Look how well they are currently doing in places like Africa... oh, thats right, they are setting up prostitution rings and letting warlords run the country.
Gustavo: You are right, 95% of the country is off-limits. Thats partially due to the fact that its almost the wild west, but also that there is nothing out there. I've probably eaten half my weight of that sand-gravel crap. They also don't want to have to worry about protecting reporters when they already have their hands full covering their asses.
Yes, the gassing of the Kurds did happen under our eyes. We did nothing about it, which may have been the wrong thing to do. The Russians tried challenging Iraq, but they got severely defeated in the ensuing battle. The aid we gave Iraq was to help them repel the Ruskies. We didn't believe those weapons would one day be turned against us.
But just leaving the terrorists in their safe-havens across the ocean isn't the answer. We already tried that, and what did that get us? USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Truck bomb in twin towers parking garage, 9/11. Not to mention the numerous attacks all over the world. Madrid, various consulates, etc. Are we really nieve enough to think that they will stop with 9/11? Of course not; if we do nothing then they will just try for something bigger... like the 10 aircraft attempted takeover a few weeks ago. Fortunately it failed. Americans in Iraq are not fueling the Jihadist movement. It existed long before 9/11. It just happens that they know they will lose a major staging ground ifthey lose Iraq.
So where would you rather have the fight: on our turf or theirs? Me, I'd rather go over there knowing my family is safe.
Huge support for 'frank' Army boss
Press Association
Friday October 13, 2006 11:38 AM
The head of the British Army has received overwhelming support from across the ranks over his call for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq "sometime soon".
Senior officers said General Sir Richard Dannatt should be "saluted" for his honesty while frontline soldiers praised their commander for "telling it how it is".
Their comments came after Sir Richard, who became Chief of the General Staff in August, gave an interview to the Daily Mail warning that we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".
Sir Richard's frank remarks were seized on as a major broadside at the government's foreign policy. They caused widespread astonishment but appeared to be widely welcomed by his troops, opposition MPs and anti-war groups.
Colonel Tim Collins, one of the most senior officers in Iraq in 2003, said Sir Richard had given a "refreshing and very honest insight into what the Army generally feel".
"That is that the political shortcomings and the shortcomings in the planning for the occupation of Iraq have made the job of the Army very much more difficult," he told the Today programme.
"And there comes a time when the realisation on the ground is that the people of Iraq do resent foreign intervention and there comes a time when we have got to look forward to when we can hand it over to the Iraqis for them to sort out."
He added: "I think we have to salute the honesty of the Chief of General Staff and understand that he is reflecting the beliefs of the Army, the people on the ground. He is not a politician and he is not given to spin, so what you hear from him is absolutely ground truth."
Unofficial military internet forums were inundated with praise for Sir Richard from serving soldiers. Messages posted on the Army Rumour Service website included: "The most impressive comments I have heard from someone of his seniority for a long time" and "I am thoroughly heartened by this and have the beginnings of a thaw in the cynicism which has dogged my service thinking since 2003."
However, the general played down his comments claiming they were neither "substantially new or substantially newsworthy".
This should sober down those delusionals who still believe Iraq is a paradise thanks to Bush's criminal and treasonous war.