14 Comments so far

1. Rick March 1st, 2007 11:12 am

   American and Iraq forces entered the militant Shia stronghold of Sadr City on Tuesday for the first time since the surge began. No other major operation has yet been attempted there but “we or the Iraqis are going to have to fight them”, one US officer said.
   We and the Iraqi’s? This suggests that the resistance is something other then Iraqi’s themselves.
   Are own intelligents agencies have admitted that outside fighters including Al-Queda only makeup about 12 % of the resistance.
   The rest are Iraqi’s themselves fighting the occupation.
   They are either in deep denial or just think the rest of us are stupid enough to buy this propaganda.

   I recently watched a documentary where their was an interview with someone from the resistance, made the statement that they were Iraqis and would continue to fight as long as the U.S. remains in their country.
   Wouldn’t you do the same?
   Here is another statement that I disagree with.
   “We’re not going to stop the suicide bombers and the roadside explosive devices for some time. And the military alone are certainly not going to solve the problem. Maliki has to meet the benchmarks. A civilian surge is needed, too. The Iraqis have to do it themselves.”

   “The Iraqis have to do it themselves”!
   The U.S. created this tragedy with their arrogance and Ignorance of a people and their culture when they went in with guns blazing..
   Now they are tying to blame it on them! For shame!
   It seems hubris know no bounds.

2. Essie March 1st, 2007 11:22 am

   The US decision to join talks with Iran and Syria in Iraq is only posture. It reminds me of Israel’s apparent willingness to negotiate with Palestinians. Those “negotiations” have been going on for decades without any result. The truth is that Israel will never give back an inch of the land it has stolen as long as the Zionist AIPAC controls the American foreign policy in the Middle East. What Bush really wants to do by joining the talks in Iraq is to get more PR for the good, gullible American public to make them ready for an attack on Iran. He would go on national television and say, look, we’ve done everything: we tried the UN and imposed sanctions on Iran, we even did what Baker-Hamilton recommended, but nothing works. Now, it’s time to kick some ass. Judging from their Zionist sidekicks in Israel, this Administration will not be seriously and genuinely partaking in the talks. They just want to get the PR out of it for their next war.

3. MountainMike March 1st, 2007 11:36 am

   General Anthony Zinni back in 2002 was the one in charge of US forces in the mideast. When he was approached to lead the invasion into Iraq, Zinni looked at the Bush administration plans and said more boots on the ground were needed in the post invasion phase to secure Baghdad and secure the borders. He was basically forced into retirement.

   He was absolutely correct in his assessment, but it went against the Washington DC, neo con micro management. A “surge” in 2007 is four years too late and is once again the result of Washington DC, neo con micro management. One of the lessons to be learned from Vietnam is Washington DC micro management does not work.

   Another lesson is a desperate need for the military to change strategies. The “surge” is simply adding a modest number of troops and is basically not using new strategies in a war of ambush, a war of no front lines, a war against insurgents that strike and then melt back into the local population. When we have cleared hot spots like Fallujah, we have left only to see insurgents filter back in.

   Another lesson from Vietnam is that the South Vietnamese troops were basically fighting for a paycheck, not fighting for a government they truly believed in. The new Iraqi government has not inspired the WILL to win. It has been too often the case that, instead of providing leadership, the new government has fallen into factional bickering. It is impossible for us to give others the will to win.

   The Iraq Study Group and other experts have clearly stated that the Iraq War cannot be “won” militarily, and Bush has stubbornly dug in his heels and sought a military solution. If there is a collapse, the blame squarely needs to be placed on Bush and neo con micro management.

4. Curlew March 1st, 2007 11:42 am

   Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times has, on at least four occasions said that the “next six months” would prove vital in Iraqnam. Four “next six months’” equals 24 months. Now we have another 6 month mantra. How many more American kids are going to have to die in this failure and how many more billions of dollars are going to have to be squandered in this failure, before we the people rise up and say “six more HOURS” and put an end to this like we ultimately did in Vietnam? When is enough of the lies going to be enough?

5. observer March 1st, 2007 11:56 am

   It is funny to watch how people, who care enough to read CommonDreams material, are falling for delusion themselves. There is no win in Iraq for people in this country the same way as there was no win in the Cold War. Because people in this country as well as people in all other countries, who subscribe themselves internally to the dictates of Market economy, preeminence of Me-first philosophy, Earth-is-Flat BS cannot even lose the war in Iraq and all other war that will follow. For as a Western Civilization, we are not part of it anymore, then those Romans who had met Barbarians at the gates of Rome were Romans of Roman Republic, or Athenians of late were Athenians of Pedicles’ era. The mess is so big that even the brightest minds try not to open their eyes to see abyss they are looking into. For opening eyes will most definitely affect their bank account, if not their freedom.

6. voxclamantis March 1st, 2007 12:04 pm

   “Shoulder to shoulder with our Iraqi comrades?”

   “An emboldened Congress?”

   Who writes this crap?

7. rtdrury March 1st, 2007 2:25 pm

   The US military general describes “a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people”.

   On the powerless side of the great class chasm, working Americans who actually pay for the war imagine the security coming with rights, opportunities, equity and justice for the Iraqis.

   And on the powerful side of the great class chasm, the oligarchs imagine the security without rights, opportunities, equity or justice. Instead, the oligarchs imagine Iraqi society quietly enduring oppression while ExxonMobil and its ilk tap anywhere from 20% to 40% of Iraqi oil revenues for net profit, secured by a permanent US military presence in Iraq including twenty to fifty thousand troops.

   Whether there is a Vietnam style collapse in Iraq or not will have some impact but the attention of working people should always be focused on their own individual aspirations. Working Americans and working people everywhere may always look forward to more economic opportunities closer to home, in small local enterprises that keep the political/economic power where it belongs, in local communities where the oligarchs can’t get at it. So let’s stop funding their misadventures. Let’s build our individual/local self-sufficiency.

8. amberwaves March 1st, 2007 4:37 pm

   This feels like a pro-war propoganda piece designed to stall for time…and to place the primary blame of the “defeat” on the american people for not having the will to win. I am surprised to see commondreams putting up this article…and doubly surprised that they made it a headlines item.

9. Poet March 1st, 2007 8:04 pm

   To expand z bit on one of rtdrury’s points, the most important part of that article wa the throw away line about “oil revenue sharing”.

   I know the Iraqis resent a foriegnm occupier and to some degree each other depending on either ethnicity or Islamic persuasion, but I’ll bet ther isn’t a Kurd, Shiite, or Sunni, who doesn’t seethe at teh L. Paul Bremmer jury rigged rules under which thier oil wealth is expected to be managed. I will similarly bet that this resentment is one thing on which all Iraqis agree and that they have reached the conclusion that if they can’t manage thier own resources then by Allah, neither will anybody else–its caled “scorched earth” and it worked for the Russians opposing the Nazis duiring WWII.

10. White Rose March 1st, 2007 8:43 pm

    Bottom line:
    The occupation of Iraq is an illegal act, the aggressive war waged for that occupation was declared illegal by the Kofi Annan.
    Another six months? Hah! Where have we heard this before?
    Why not ask for something with more impact? like what they want is another four or five hundred dead Gis a few thousand more wounded and rendered almost useless for anything, and tens of thousands more dead Iraqis, and buckets and buckets of blood. And oceans of other peoples money sloshed all around to sop up the blood of other peoples kids.
    When this is over there must be war crimes tribunals and I hope these SOBs swing.

11. RickinSF March 1st, 2007 10:53 pm

    “But the next six months are make-or-break for the US military and the Iraqi government.”

    Friedman alert!

12. sANDmeLT March 2nd, 2007 8:03 am

    …same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
    Our humanity tinged with madness…

13. WmC March 2nd, 2007 8:17 am

    “The scene is very tense,” the former official said. “They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis. But they’re still trying to figure out what’s the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they’re thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do.”

    A brilliant strategy on the part of our Slow-Learner-in-Chief: he keeps the enemy guessing. Unfortunately, he keeps his own generals guessing too.

14. bnhysavoxopy December 10th, 2007 4:44 am

    tittepavuhuso…

    exzohycawace…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)