|
|
Tags for This Article:
Iraq (5275) Government (3370) Military (3110) Iraq War (2256) Peace (1456) Religion (1142) War Iraq (1003) Bush War Strategery (828) War On Terrorism (763) Activism Anti-War (453) War Iraq Neocon Failures (359) Peace_War (312) War Lies To Continue (302) War Collateral Damage (264) War Of Deception (258) Military War Strategy (241) War For Oil (228) War Conflicts Regional (225) Military Occupation (222) War (198) Violence-War (194) War- Sectarian (183) Congress War Oversight (176) War Predatory (161) Pentagon War Strategy (135) Media Use In Asymmetric War (117) Culture War -s- (97) War- Class (81) Kurd (64) War Rationale Du Jour (64) War Ethnic (53) War Guerilla (53) War Regional (52) Dept Of Def War Strategy (28) Isolation (26)
|
(more...)
(less...)
Add to My Group
It depends on where you’re looking from The Surge has certainly changed the face of war/occupation in Iraq but the law of unintended consequences continues to play its usual roles. The surge, itself, was supposed to last no more than 6 months but the usual political word games morphed that into a 6 month buildup and then 6 months of active operations to date with promises of reductions ‘next year’. The newspapers seem quiet on Iraq other than repeating the administrations claims of success but maybe it is just that issues in our topsy-turvy world keep happening at such breakneck speed that we’re all getting attention-deficit disorder trying to keep a watchful eye in constantly changing directions. That we are living under an administration gifted in the tactics of diversion and distraction is undeniable. In watching/listening to public pronouncements, I often get the smell of a planned, or real, schizophrenic presentation of truth, untruth, placations, avoidances, isolation, disconnection and fuzzy logic. “The surge is working”: Iraqis are returning home due to it being so much safer, they say. Not so, according to the returnees and the U.S. press in the area. They are returning because they are financially bereft of the ability to live in foreign lands that will not allow them to work. Essentially, they have no choice. “The surge is working”: Fewer ‘coalition’ soldiers are being killed, fewer roadside bombs, fewer Iraqi’s killed. What would define success? Well, U.S. military deaths were 951 through 12/26/07 making it the highest death toll for the 4 years of this particular war. Of course, there were 30,000 additional troops involved in probably more aggressive actions. For the first 3 years of the Iraq war, the U.S. cleansed the government, military and the police of any Sunni’s – the tribal base of Saddam Hussein. We called it debathification, referring to the Bathist party. Between losing their status and power in society, and having no way to earn a living, the Sunni’s fought back in the only way they could – the ‘uprising’ of guerilla warfare against the Americans and terror against the Shia. The violent reactions throughout Iraq rose. First it was uprisings, then a rebellion, then guerilla war, insurrection and finally an insurgency. We could not control it so the surge was created – more troops, stronger responses. Still the fighting continued – Shiite vs Sunni – both fighting the Americans – the Americans fighting Shiite militias and death squads, Sunni militias and death squads and the relatively new presence of a well trained Al Qaida force. Mufta Al Sadr refused to back down from our Army and Faluja was only ‘won’ by being mostly destroyed – we occupied empty territory and declared victory. The ‘coalition’ armed and trained innumerable Shia for the Police and the Army as well as trying to make the new Shiite dominated government appear to function. Untold billions were funneled to various Shiite leaders, either for their support or at least to keep them from loosing their own militias into the fray. Additional millions of dollars and close to a million weapons are just gone, we know not where. This just wasn’t working so we ditched the generals and upgraded new ones. We started an opposite tact – one that worked so well back home in the States. We quietly switched sides and enhanced the divisions already existing in Iraq. Slowly and quietly we assisted the Sunni’s by hiring them to go after Al Qaida - $300/month per soldier plus more godzillions in weapons and money. It’s all the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” all over yet again –and it mostly worked. Violence against the U.S. went down, Al Qaida was continually being defeated. Shiites were bogged down in trying to develop a working government. Meanwhile, violence overall began to diminish, certainly one of the major goals of the surge. We simply armed and provided money and protection for all sides and voila! Relative peace. Or is it? Below is a simple map of Baghdad that shows the reduction in violence over the year of the surge and provided by General Jones. Looks good, right? And so it is. Now look at the population distribution changes underlying the violence flashes. Baghdad, always having been a mixed community is now very solidly one religion or the other, Shia or Sunni, and very much resembles the battle maps of WWII. Each faction consolidating it’s territory and having killed or chased out its enemies It is similar throughout Iraq with the Kurds in the northeast (and 20% of the oil), the Shia in the southeast, (70% of the oil and the only water port) and the Sunni major enclaves in the capital and the central region. Christopher is a retired Mayflower family, Navy Vet, flower child, Mensan and a long-time rural Alaskan with a lifetime or two in Social Sciences and cross-cultural endeavors. He has a terminal graduate degree and is heading into his terminal years with full speed ahead.
His idols are those wonderful people who can take a complex subject and make it meaningful and understandable to those not specifically trained in that field but none the less affected by it.
He writes mostly about human behavior, foibles, science, history, Alaskana, the environment and presently, critical thinking, politics, war and social change. Chris generally prefers to just give you the info and let you make up your own mind – it just doesn't work well otherwise – but sometimes he just can't resist slapping people on the forehead.
"Talk your walk and walk your talk"
A concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.
Is it a Surge? This is a request for information about the surge, more than it is a comment. Perhaps someone has some data, but is the surge really a surge? It occurs to me that the so-called surge (a whopping 20K troops) has occurred at the same time that Great Britain and other nations have been withdrawing troops. Does anyone have information about the history of overall troop strength? by
PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 391 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 8:20:53 AM
Troop Surge? Good Question! According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq#Troop_deployment_in_Iraq_2003-present) the invasion in 2003 was 297K with 154K U.S.. The same source says that of 12/07, the U.S troop strength is 164K - not including 182K contractors of one kind or another. However, ABC and the Washington Post in Sept 07 showed 162K going to 172K by the end of the year. None of this includes the various military on ships and airbases covering Iraq but not physically deployed there. nor does t cover the approx. 30K of mercenaries. The penchant for secrecy in this administration makes it all a bit of a guessing game and I think your question is right on. by
Christopher Wright (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM
Faculty member at University of Kentucky. Teacher, Researcher, social activist. Political independent who believes in better government, not necessarily smaller or larger government.
Troop Surge a Success? I believe the Republicans and conservatives like to suggest the Surge is a success and thus by silly logic that the entire Iraq war is now a success. Others like to suggest we are winning and thus leaving Iraq when you are winning is defeatist. The surge did what was promised -- it decreased violence in Iraq. That is all. Very little else that was suppose to also happen as a result of the surge has happened. Sunni's have not been welcomed back into government by the Shiites. The oil contracts Bush wanted signed have not been signed by the Iraqi Parliment. Ninty percent of the hospitals in Iraq lack resources to function properly. Only half of the 63 medical facitiles built since 2003 in Iraq is even operating. Poor water quality affects more Iraqi's now than before the war. Poverty is worse, millions of Iraqi's are so poor they have no means of feeding themselves. More children are facing starvation now than before the war started. The Iraqi government is considered the 3rd most corrupt in the world, just behind Somalia. It is estimated over 1 milliion Iraqi's have died since the start of this war. I think only a fool would call that winning. A successful surge which reduces violence is great, but thus far it hasn't translate well to success at least by Iraqi standards. The Bush Administration signed a strategic alliance with the Iraqi government in Nov. 2007 to keep 50,000 troops and another 50,000 security and contractors in Iraq long past 2008. In my opinion, the goal has been to not make the same mistake the US made in Iran when it put the Shah in power in the early 1950's so US and British oil companies could regain control over Iranian oil reserves. The US left the Shah to run things and when he was overthrown in late 1970's, the oil companies lost their control over that Iranian oil. I personally believe, this time the goal is to put US troops and bases in Iraq to protect their oil investment regardless of what happens politically. The largest US embassy in the world in Iraq is to keep a close eye on the political scene so we aren't surprised by events there and can respond to changing events as needed. The troops will of course make sure the oil companies don't lose this important resource again. This war was never about Democracy, it was about getting control over Iraqi oil reserves first and then pending that success moving on to the next country --Saudi Arabia. The objective has been to make it all appear reasonable and justified. This explains why the charges against Iraq and Saddam Hussein were trumped up. It explains why the US has neglected the suffering of the Iraqi people. It explains why the US has build the large military bases and embassy in Iraq. It explains the Strategic alliance agreement with Iraq. It explains why the US government told the Iraqi Parliment to either sign the oil contracts or face a termination of financial aid and military support. It explains why the US concentrated its initial investment in oil fields and the oil ministry when it first took over Iraq. At what time have the Iraqi people ever been foremost on the minds of this Administration? This administration doesn't even consider Iraqi deaths and suffering as part of the equation in the Iraq war. by
Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 11:50:06 AM
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
