Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

By the Way - We're in Iraq Forever.

By winston  Posted by winston (about the submitter)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

The article "Baath Reconciliation Bill Draws Anger of Shiite Bloc" puts it clearly. The 60% Shiites, who the formerly stronger 20% Sunnis persecuted for years, now want revenge. In their land of violently, barbaric customs of vengeance, the US forms of attack--nasty words or reduced benefits doesn't cut it. When these groups tangle there aren't any prisoners. It is always a steel cage death match.

We have been sacrificing our youth as IED fodder for so many years now, but a "draft law that would ease restrictions on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, a measure seen by the Bush administration as crucial to national reconciliation, was presented in parliament on Sunday for the first time. A powerful Shiite faction quickly objected to any moves to bring the Baathists back into government jobs, and a table-pounding argument erupted in the closed-door session, forcing postponement of the debate."

Independent Kurdish lawmaker, Mahmoud Othman, who attended the session, explains, "The Sadrists see the draft law as permissive with Baathists and it would bring them back their jobs. They think it's an amnesty for them… We are against the idea of revenge, we want a real reconciliation. The judiciary decides who committed crimes against Iraqis," he added. "Flexibility and forgiveness are needed to reach this goal."

Aside from the law on Baathists, reconciliation legislation to distribute oil revenue among Iraq's sects, reform the constitution and set a date for provincial elections also remain stalled.

Just think of this. Big bro 43 is signing treaties that will affect the US for generations without any Congressional support. He thinks he is King George the 1st, but in reality he's a dangerous psychopath.

This article "Bush, al-Maliki sign deal" puts it all in perspective. W's oil bidness cronies will get to rape and pillage Iraq's resources for huge amounts of money which will be dwarfed by the huge financial treasure we will throw away for the top 1%'s benefit only! This treaty--which isn't one, and wasn't even read by Congress-whose role it is to ratify treaties, shows the utter contempt W has for us.
 We are going to be stuck there as long as we've been stuck in Korea-which W has been lately muttering, and once these bases and military get hunkered down, it isn't an overnight thing to get them back! We need them. W has pissed off the entire 1% sub-segment of Islamic people who believe in killing the infidels-which would be us, for this war for oil at a staggering price.


"The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms. The U.S.-Iraq agreement will replace the present U.N. mandate regulating the presence of the U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Maliki said the pact provides for U.S. support for the ‘democratic regime in Iraq against domestic and external dangers.’  It also would help the Iraqi government thwart any attempt to suspend or repeal the constitution drafted with U.S. help and adopted in a nationwide vote in 2005. That appeared to be a reference to any attempt to remove the government by violence or in a coup."

This also implies that big bro 43 is going for the 80% solution which amounts to a death warrant for the 20% Sunnis. The 2005 constitution had an agreement that it could be changed to give the Sunnis more power, as the 2005 constitution dealt solely with Shiite concerns.

The article "White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence" deals with who specifically W will help as "A ‘democratic Iraq’ here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against coups or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation strikes the Shiite government -- with some justification -- as a recipe for a future coup."

Why is W getting the Sunnis to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq? Does he think they won't notice that if and when Al Qaeda in Iraq stops killing Sunnis that the Shiite will be continuing? Why not just tell the Sunnis to go and let the Shiite and Al Qaeda in Iraq battle it out. The Sunnis have nothing to gain as a result of vanquishing Al Qaeda in Iraq and when they realize that their hard work won't get the US to aid them they deservedly will be disgusted with W.

The detached central Baghdad government is hypocritical if the pact between W and al-Maliki turns out to be between the US and the Iraqi Shiites solely. If W wanted this type of local solution then why didn't he support partitions? The only answer is that he wants the Shiite to run every last Sunni out of Iraq, but that isn't a sure thing. How could it be with the Sunnis in Iraq getting help from their brethren in Saudi Arabia?

The article "American-backed killer militias strut across Iraq" considers that the Sunnis can hold their own against the Shiites. It goes back to basic math-the Shiites have 3 times as many soldiers than the Sunni. It states the Suunis are being armed by the US as "Members of the Baghdad Brigade receive $300 a man each month from the Americans, who also provide vehicles, uniforms and flak jackets. In return the brigade keeps out Al-Qaeda, dismantles roadside bombs and patrols the area, a task performed with considerable swagger by many of its 4,000 recruits....

But, for Shi'ites such as Kahiriya Musa, however, a Sunni militia represents another potential source of terror in a country where millions have been traumatized by ethnic cleansing.

Officials in the Shi'ite-led government also fear the burgeoning of fresh forces beyond its control. The question being asked in government circles is: have the Americans achieved a short-term gain in security at a cost of long-term pain that may be inflicted by the Sunni militias, which are already threatening to go to war against their Shi'ite counterparts?

The western province of Anbar first witnessed the phenomenon known as "the awakening" – the turning of Sunni tribes against the largely foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.  “For General David Petraeus, the American commander, the awakening has proved a powerful force with which to increase the impact of his surge of 30,000 US troops earlier this year."

What happened with the Sunnis was predictable as "First they tired of Al-Qaeda's beheadings, bombings and strange demands, such as a ban on salads containing (male) cucumbers and (female) tomatoes, and on ice cubes because the Prophet Muhammad never had them. Then the militias threw in their lot with the Americans to get rid of Al-Qaeda, but without losing their animosity for the occupying forces that many of them had been fighting.  Now they are starting to think about what happens when the Americans leave and how they can counter Iranian-backed Shi'ite forces.
 Abu Omar, an intelligence officer with the Baghdad Brigade in Abu Ghraib, was candid.  "Of course the coming war is with the [Shi'ite] militias," he said. "God willing, we will defeat them and get rid of them just as we did Al-Qaeda."

The Sunni are vicious and so are the Shiite, and they are desperate if they are dealing with Chalabi. "It is little wonder that Shi'ite sheikhs have been queuing up this month to air their worries about the Sunni militias to Ahmad Chalabi, a former deputy prime minister who is now in charge of reconstruction and who straddles the sectarian divide.

"Many of the groups in the awakening are the same men who used to kill and displace our people," one protested. "Any return of refugees is near impossible if this is not resolved."
 Chalabi has come to an accommodation with the Sunni sheikhs of Sab al-Boor: they will get better services – electricity, schools, factories reopened to create jobs – if they guarantee security for 100,000 refugees to return home from temporary shelter in Baghdad."

Who knows what will happen? Recently Ryan Crocker trotted out Rummy's line about it being "a long hard slog". It will depend on when Saudi Arabia and Iran decide to stop aiding their surrogates fighting in Iraq. Since they both are making huge profits on their oil this war could be going on for generations.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Bush planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Why did we all hate Palin?

Why is Obama protecting 43?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

What happens to US credibility if Spain finds them guilty and we don't?

Bush, with criminal intent, planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments