The deceived Sunnis began rejecting the New Iraq before it had even begun:
a) With silly protest marches on Saddam's birthday immediately after the fall defeat of his regime
b) By immediately allying with jihadis
c) Some of them still send on bone-headed Sunni Muslim human bombs to Ir%aq through Syria
d) They've cost Iraq four precious years, and very nearly transformed it into a super-Lebanon circa 1985.

As evil and corrupt as the Shi'a militias are, they were not, until a few months ago, trying to overthrow the democratically elected government.

20% is a good start for now. It's probably all they can vet and train right away. They will not be able to rely only on Shi'a police in the Sunni dominant areas for long, so the ratio will increase as the trust increases.

If Allawi's reputation had proved true, he would have been far more unforgiving than Maliki.

The problem is that the Iraqi Armed forces need to be purified first. And in order to go the right way, the Awakening groups need to be examined thoroughly before joining the official forces. Most of them were connected to Al-Qaeda, and believe it or not, some of them are still connected to Al-Qaeda.
Without cleaning the page of the forces that are already there, and scanning the Awakening people to be added to them, all what we will have is a huge bunch of enemies with lots of weapons.
And its not about forgiving people who participated in the terrorist acts before, its about acknowledging that they succeeded in forcing the government to accept them, and about balancing the powers. If Al-Maliki saw any other way to go about the awakening guys without legalizing them, he would have done that.

Excellent comments by CMAR II and BlogIraqi. Also I agree with Omar that many Shia are afraid that Sunni Arabs will try to re-dominate, but I think their fears are legitimate, since many of those Sunni Arab militiamen murdered Shia and Iraqi goft/ISF until recently. Omar says that Shia militiamen, many of them ISF, also murdered innocent Sunni Arabs, but I think it's important to note that the killing was started by Ba3thists and Al Qaeda types.

When I heard about the murder of my mother's friends/relatives in Amriya earlier this year, I wondered if the murderers are Iraqi or not. If the killers turn out to be Iraqi, I don't think that my relatives would want to see those guys become members of the ISF, and I don't blame them one bit. Having said that, Maliki's govt must find a way to find out who the good guys are and merge them with ISF as soon as possible. So if they can determine who the bad guys are, what will they do with those bad guys? They can't be allowed to roam the streets with guns.

From IraqPundit: 'The most useful sentence about the local citizen groups I saw was in the NYT story came from a former Baathist intelligence officer: "Will they go back to being insurgents?” he said. “Will they be dangerous? We don’t know yet.”

He's right. How can anyone predict the future? Gen. Petraeus told the BBC, "I no longer will use the term optimism nor pessimism. I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist, I am a realist at this point on Iraq," he said. "I have well over three years on the ground in Iraq, and the reality is that Iraq is hard," the general said.'

Omar,

I think that this is one of your better blog entries of the last couple months. I do not agree, however, that the Americans were too late in trying to bring the Sunna into the government. You will recall that it was from American pressure that extra seats were apportioned to the Sunna after they themselves mostly boycotted the January, 2005, elections. The Americans have known from the beginning that Iraq's future depended on the Sunna and Shia working together. "For so long, Harith al-Dhari and al-Qaeda in Iraq have controlled the Sunni youth and directed them to destroy Iraq and its future," you wrote today. That's a positive admission. Listen, the Madhi militia, in my view, also shares just as much blame. Back in 2004 they killed a lot of Iraqi citizens when they, led by Muqtada Al-Sadr, tried to secure the cash-box in Najaf. You know of my deep dislike for him, so I blame both Sunni rejectionists and those Shia like Muqtada who have tried to take advantage of the situation for political dominance. Both factions have blood on their hands.

I think your continued use of the epithet "turbaned snakes" is counter-productive. Whether you like it or not, Hakim and the others are going to be part of Iraq's future. Listen, I too want a more secular Iraq, but only because the sectarian issue results in the deaths of Iraqi citizens. Religious issues have always been and probably will always be part of Iraqi life. In Japan and China, in contrast, the entire populations are atheists and don't follow any gods in the way the the three religions of the Book (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) do. For Japanese and Chinese (who together number more than all Muslims around the world), religion is an empty category (but not so in neighboring Korea, however, where Christianity has increased in numbers and importance every year there).

So, just as Roman Catholics and Protestants had to learn to live together in countries like Germany, Shia and Sunna will have to learn to live with the new power readjustment that came with the overthrow of Saddam's Sunni-dominant dictatorship.

I think we've begun a good discussion.

*

Omar, excellent post. i read it yesterday and had to sleep on it! there are some aspects of this 'awakening' process i think need exploring.


Finally the Sunnis, who were involved in the fight against the U.S. troops and Iraqi government, are fighting Iraq’s real enemy: Harith al-Dhari gang and al-Qaeda.

i think this is too simplistic. iraqs 'real' enemy are all those that who seek an iraq divided by sect, either in their minds, or physically, by not supporting a strong central nationalistic government in contrast to separate divided nation ruled by religious influence.


The Shiite militias, financed and baked by the Iraqi government and Ali al-Sistani, worked on the sectarian cleansing of Baghdad,

the iraqi government has been supported by the US who partly financed and empowered them so it is disingenuous to relieve them of responsibility from the outcome.

here is, as i see it the contradiction in goals of those who 'awake'. it stands to reason that sunni and shia who join together (regardless of the religion practices they hold in private) for a unified iraq and choose secular practices for their desire for a strong government would have a nationalist goal for iraq. i read in one defense dept report that once the army was 'trained' units would be dispatched to different regions to implement security. so this sounds like they will be 'trained ' together but the finality would be for them to then secure their regions. how do you get a secular government to implement a plan that ultimately leads to sectarian goals of an iraq divided by region based on sect?

Hakim? .....The one who wants to cut a big chunk of Iraq’s map so he can control its oil?

hakim is not the only player who wants to cut big chunks of iraq's map. this is the trade off the US made wrt who would be empowered and why. i guess they thought it was worth it at the time.

it seems to me for there to be a strong army there needs to be a common goal that brings iraqis together in a desired goal of a strong central government that holds the country together. as long as the iraqi army is task w/the goal of a divided iraq that accepts a permanent US occupation w/a goal that just happens to align w/a sectarian IG government desiring to cut iraq up then there is a built in problem and friction.

Al-Hayat: The GreenZone fears the awakening movement as a potential Sunni-Shia nationalist alliance

herein lies the problem. a nationalistic alliance, with nationalistic goals which obviously supports the ideal of a strong central government (and strong army) for all iraqis unified, is contrary to one important goal the turbaned and the US share in common...a divided federalized iraq.

so how do you get an 'awakened' army moving towards a secular unified goal to carry out dividing the country into regions divided by sect? can a democracy vote itself into into undemocratic concepts that produces inequality? apparently yes. do governments such as these want those who strive to be equal represented in their armed forces? NO, of course not.

who started this sectarian policies that led to sectarian conflicts? is it any reason All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord?

you can't have it both ways.. you can't promote divisive platforms and hold yourself up as a leader in unification. not maliki, not the US, not sistani, not al-Dhari. and you can't point your finger at one side and blame them for the violence and discord when the policies you are promoting lead to an end product that is divisive.

'al queda' exists. but they are by far the smallest faction w/the smallest bone to chew in this outcome. they serve a purpose for all sides in this conflict. that being, they can be used as the supposed fall guy for everybody's crimes and dirtywork. wanna blow up a bridge? AQ did it. wanna blow up a recruiting station? AQ did it, want to run and clandestine operation? lets blame AQ! face it, you can't just change their name to AQI and call all your enemies AQ.

there needs to be a sit down about what the goals are and who aligns w/who. because you can't align yourself w/the idea of a 'moderate' 'secular' group while operating to implement sectarian goals that please iran and the US. even if you apply every fancy propaganda tool in the book. getting a secular national army to carry out sectarian goals AND support a permanent occupation ? ain't gonna work. no matter how much lipstick you slap on the pig.

if betrayus was a realist he would realize this.

...on a separate note

i know it is tempting to do play the 'who started what first', again (cmar, mojo)...but seriously at this point hasn't every group participated in the massacre? is it really going to serve anyone to continue w/this form of argument? instead of hypothosizing about whether the chicken came before the egg.. can we just look to the future and what the options are?

blogiraqi

the Awakening groups need to be examined thoroughly before joining the official forces. Most of them were connected to Al-Qaeda, and believe it or not, some of them are still connected to Al-Qaeda.

hm, well most of the armed forces have been connected w/some militia. i think it is a mistake to think the sunni awakening's primary 'downside' is their association to 'AQ' which is very very small when compared to the resistance.

the ptb simply don't like using the term 'resistance' and as i mentioned earlier AQ is used as a very convenient boogyman to be blamed on everyones dirtywork. unless you completely redefine the concept of AQ (like say... AQI.. or any sunni badguy) one needs to acknowledge awakening sunnis are not primarily considered threats because of association w/AQ, but there association to what many people believe is legitimate resistance to an occupation supported sectarian government.

AQ is not only (in relative terms) a minor threat, they are a propaganda achievement. they are no where near as large or as deadly a force as the militias representing shia religious fanatics. imo .

annie

I believe the key to the "calm-iraq" doors is to filter ALL the security forces by a secular party.
I have a wild suggestion although most people won't like it and I would really like to see the Americans leave Iraq.
My suggestion is to hand the ministry of defense and the ministry of interior to the Americans. And the americans should have secular consultants that run the whole show behind the curtains. Maybe six months would be enough to eliminate all the bad apples there. And add the right "Awakening" guys to the security forces in a balanced way.
I know its not going to happen. But I believe its a good way out. If this handover period is run in the right manner, we will not have the battle over power anymore.

Hi BlogIraqi- I don't mind your idea. Obviously you see the downsides here in the states are that we don't have the political will to do it, and the downsides in Iraq are that those who think the US wants to "colonize" Iraq would be fueled by this. Iraqi civilians shopping in marketplaces would pay the price for that, as usual.

You may want to check out the pages at longwarjournal.com that Anand has linked- they really do provide insight into the hidden story of the progress & problems in the MoI and MoD. Here's the link to a pertinent one.

I personally hope that we continue to assist Iraq in training, retraining, and improving the ISF until they can fully stand on their own.

On another note, Nabil has a new post related to the Awakenings too.

[annie] i know it is tempting to do play the 'who started what first', again (cmar, mojo)...but seriously at this point hasn't every group participated in the massacre? is it really going to serve anyone to continue w/this form of argument?

We didn't get to this point in a day. The tactics and justifications of Insurgency drove Iraqis further and further apart each day until very recently. (Yes, it also created a dynamic where Shi'a militias were allowed to push it apart from the other side too) But, it was the Sunni Arabs who chose to place themselves outside of legitimate Iraq through the infamous Boycott. And the Insurgents came in from the cold (those that did) only after discovering that their chosen allies were more detestable and their declared enemies more numerous than they had counted on.

Naturally, those who worked (by their lights) for the improvement of the new Iraq all these years and who protected it from the Insurgency, are not going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Well, that's that then!"

As long as foreign troops remain to monitor and enforce each side's promises, I do not believe the "making-up" will take as long as the "breaking-up" did. But it will take an indeterminate amount of time.

Even so, after the rejoining has taken place, at some point, some Sunnis Arabs will finger certain Militianeers for the murder of their family members, and some Shi'a Arabs will identify an Insurgent who killed, say, his father who was fixing water pumps for the government. Then there will need to be a brand new reconciliation dance to bring the country together again.

What's pointless is to think this can be rushed, or to try to force it. It won't allow itself to be rushed. Iraqis have to learn for themselves that it is real.

[blogiraqi] My suggestion is to hand the ministry of defense and the ministry of interior to the Americans.

I wouldn't want to take from Iraqis any chance to practice non-biased government. Iraqis need to trust each other, be betrayed by some, be pleasantly rewarded by the honor of others. Iraqis have spent the last 17-50 years (depending on who's counting) being driven apart by religion and ethnicity (excellerated over the last 4). It will take time to get their stiff muscles into a position to hug each other again. As I tell nervous new artists: "The only way to do it is to do it."

But, it was the Sunni Arabs who chose to place themselves outside of legitimate Iraq through the infamous Boycott.

check your timeline rhus, that was AFTER debaathification. The tactics and justifications of Invaders drove Iraqis further and further apart also. chicken egg, 2 can play the game. i guess it would be too much to expect you move on.


Naturally, those who worked (by their lights) for the improvement of the new Iraq all these years and who protected it from the Insurgency , are not going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Well, that's that then!"

no sheet sherlock. neither are the ones who lost families to the shia death squads empowered by the invaders. but, you gotta start somewhere.

But it will take an indeterminate amount of time.

like say, a permanent US presence that iraqis don't want.

blogiraqi, my question regarding your idea for americans to 'run the show behind the curtain' is twofold.

first off, don't you imagine they have already done quite a lot 'behind the curtain' (for example 'iraqi 'intelligence' is an american cia affair.) does anyone think the american agenda is all spelled out for all to see? something tells me they have been doing all they can to 'run the show' and how's that working for you?

next is.. well, to what end? to imagine the security forces are supposed to represent 'everything good' or plain 'ol 'security' is a misrepresentation.

let's not forget there is an 'agenda' people are fighting over (including the US) and it needs to be defined more clearly before you can expect the US to 'run the show' w/success.. as in 'what show'.

are they supposed to abandon the US agenda and please, don't imagine the only US agenda is 'safety' because it isn't.

In January, the United States will also invite the Iraqis to negotiate a new "strategic partnership agreement" to replace the existing U.N. mandate for U.S. troops, starting in 2009. David Satterfield, Rice's special coordinator for Iraq, will ask Baghdad to appoint a negotiating team that represents all the country's factions and ministries. This new agreement will be sensitive for both sides, since it will cover .... future U.S. basing rights to Special Forces operations against al-Qaeda terrorists.

ok we all know the US targets more than AQ. basing rights. did you get that? rights! this isn't just about sunni and shia working it out. the US wants 'rights'. aside from the 'right' to impose 'free trade' which sounds less free all the time, along w/the US/IS plan for separate regions, control of the airspace.. etc.

U.S. officials concede that there's a tension between the political goal of full Iraqi sovereignty and the military's desire to maintain security. ....The Catch-22 for Petraeus is that the more successful he is on the ground, the more pressure he will encounter for troop cuts...

in other words the US cannot succeed themselves out of business. their continued presence relies on discord as rhus so aptly points out "Then there will need to be a brand new reconciliation dance to bring the country together again."

get it? it will go on til the well runs dry. It won't allow itself to be rushed.

or, better put, we won't allow it. we will make sure it lasts a long long long time. that is why the war junkies call it 'the long war'.

more from wapo

What's ahead in Iraq... is a messy process of sorting out political control across the country. .... That's a preview of what to expect in Iraq, where continued American success paradoxically will mean less and less American control.

and i might add.. less and less need for an american presence which iraqis are supposed to renegotiate BEFORE the political configurations occur.

also, this david shatterfield character.. how is it he was promoted instead of sitting in jail for passing secret docs to israel via aipac. his sidekick franklin was convicted. who's team does he play on anyway or perhaps i should question if their is really any difference between the US and israel anymore.

meanwhile.. the neocons want those US 'rights' defined BEFORE bush leaves office.

IF this was solely an issue of sunni and shia working out a plan this would be one thing. but its not, it is shia and sunni agreeing on the US plan, which most iraqis... don't want.

annie

CMAR II: "But, it was the Sunni Arabs who chose to place themselves outside of legitimate Iraq through the infamous Boycott."

annie: "check your timeline rhus, that was AFTER debaathification."

annie, not all Ba'athists are/were Sunni, and not all Sunni were/are Ba'athists. Right?

True enough that the highest echelons of Saddam's criminal regime were/are Sunnis though.

Muhammed Hamza al-Zubaidi
Muhammed Zmam
Abdul Baqi al-Saadoon
Taha Yasin Ramadhan
Muhammed Salih al-Noman
Saadoon Hummadi
Saadoon Shakir
Zuhair Hamid al-Zubaidi

They were all criminals and belonged to Saddam Hussein’s regime. They were all involved directly in killing Iraqis directly. They ruled and killed in the 1980s, 1990s and until the invasion in 2003. They are ALL Shiites.

Let’s not base our statements on ignorant and ill-informed sources, whose motivation is the hatred they have to Iraq and its people.
Criminal Sunnis and Shiites participated in the massacre of Iraqis following the orders of Saddam Hussein. Plus, it is irrelevant to talk about the criminals who killed Iraqis before the invasion because believe it or not, they are not in power now. They are all behind bars, but the massacre continues on the orders of the leaders of the “new Iraq.”

your point rhus? are you claiming the majority of people negatively impacted by debaathification were in the highest echelons of Saddam's regime? or that this policy did not effect the sunni's boycotting the election?

why chicken egg it at this point? why? getting ready got the long slow drawn out process of 'reconciliation' via americas roll in overseeing the 'dancing' to bring the country together???

is this what iraq has to look forward to? everyone pointing fingers to decide who swings the noose. nice to be so forthcoming about the next 'process'. iraqi style of course! w/a little help from their friends. after all we know who holds the cards in iraqi intelligence now don't we. oh, i bet we have many ways to keep ourselves very 'needed' in the next few decades.

annie

rather than rehash the past, or skip ahead to the 'dancing' process. might i suggest we focus on the present, and what exactly we think iraqis together can decide for their future?

seriously, how can we expect them to reconcile if they keep trying to blame eachother for what happened in the past.

what kind of political resolutions do you think they could agree apon, outside the obvious need for security?

annie

what about the idea of federalization. this seems to be a pretty big issue for all concerned.

how does anyone think this can be resolved? are there any parties involved that might be willing to give up their goal which was handed like candy by the occupation to the turbaned ones and drives nationalist wild.

do anyone think reconcilliation can occur w/out dealing w/this issue?

[cmar ii] Naturally, those who worked...for the improvement of the new Iraq all these years and who protected it from the Insurgency , are not going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Well, that's that then!"

[annie] no sheet sherlock. neither are the ones who lost families to the shia death squads empowered by the invaders. but, you gotta start somewhere.

I'll know you'll be disappointed to learn this, but that ship has already sailed. Which is why Iraqi Blogger Kasimi at Talesmin Gate refers to the "Awakening" by the less diplomatic term of "the collapse of the Insurgency".

However it happened, I'm glad it happened. Now the slow dance of reunification will need to take place of its own accord.

[paraphrase of 24Steps] Shiites also collaborated with and took part in Saddam's regime

Good point. So why do you and annie speak of debaathification as something that can only affect Sunni Arabs? Why not complain of bigotry in the government hiring process? But you harp on and on: debaathification! debaathification! debaathification!

The way you frame it, you would think that such a policy, objectively inacted, would only affect Sunni Arabs. How did that happen? You cannot have the door open and shut. Either debaathification would not affect Sunni Arabs more than others or Sunni Arabs are somewhat more ensconsed among the Ba'athi than others.

By the way, I would think membership in the Fedayeen Saddam should equally block people from getting security jobs....actually moreso.

Find me ONE example where I said debaathification affected only Sunnis. ONE. And if you don’t, don’t accuse me of saying things I never say again because that just lowers your credibility more and more, and I don’t think you can afford more of that.

Plus, if you were in Iraq, you would realize that, after the invasion, the Shiites who were baathists and lost their jobs to debaathification, joined one of the empowered Shiite parties: Dawa, SIIC and Fadhila and got jobs right away or returned to their original jobs. Their argument was: we had to be in baath party because otherwise we couldn’t provide to our families. [the same reason why most Sunnis were in baath party, but no one cares about Sunnis in Iraq nowadays.]

But hey what the hell, your trusted sources are neither Iraqi nor in Iraq. Good for you.

On the Sunni Arab mafiosi blowing shit up: "that was AFTER debaathification"

Is that why the Saddamist mafiosi & Al Qaeda started blowing up Iraqis? Because of debaathification? That huge car bomb attack on Hakim in Najef in 2003 - you know the one that killed him and several dozens of other Iraqis - was that before or after debaathification?

24: "They were all criminals and belonged to Saddam Hussein’s regime."

I worded my reply very carefully in deference to your & Mojo's prior debate on the topic. I do believe that it was Sunnis who were/are ~mostly~ (but not all) behind the insurgency & terrorism, whether they are/were Iraqis or foreigners.

24: "Plus, it is irrelevant to talk about the criminals who killed Iraqis before the invasion because believe it or not, they are not in power now."

I believe it is relevant because a good portion of the insurgency was due to those same criminals who sought to re-establish themselves in power using the same sort of horrific violence they were accustomed to. Not the exact same methods, mind you, just similar.

24; "They are all behind bars"

Oh, if only! Yes, most of the bigwigs are dead/captured, but scores of their sympathizers remain even to this day. Go check out Layla Anwar's. That's where they hang out ;). these blogging Ba'athists may be harmless, but there are surely others on the ground "actively engaged" who share those opinions. right?

24: "but the massacre continues on the orders of the leaders of the “new Iraq.”

I still think a significant part of the massacre was/is on the orders of the leaders of the old Iraq, or at the very least, in alignment with its policies.

The attack that killed Hakimwas in August 2003, which means after the debaathification. Check your sources!

Did you arrest the perpetrators of that attack and they told you that they were Sunni? Because as far as I know, interestingly enough, non of the perpetrators of any major attack in Iraq were arrested. How did you decide they were Sunni?

This is your reply:
"True enough that the highest echelons of Saddam's criminal regime were/are Sunnis though."

You were not talking about the insurgency, obviously. And my reply was to the point.

Check what you say before and after you say it.

annie: "your point rhus?"

Your comment to CMAR II about debaathification made it appear that you thought that is the reason the Sunnis boycotted the election. If the Ba'ath criminals were not exclusively or majority Sunni that couldn't be it. I was hoping you'd clarify your point, so I can see to what degree you are wrong.

annie: "seriously, how can we expect them to reconcile if they keep trying to blame eachother for what happened in the past."

Could you expect a Jew to hug a Nazi the day after VE Day? Bygones, right? The Ba'ath and their sympathizers to this day deny their crimes. How do you think that sits to their victims and friends & relatives of their victims? We tend to think the failure of reconciliation is on the Shia only, like they should just forgive & forget. It is a two-way street, and really neither "side" is driving much. The Awakening and CLC is really the first time they are willing to accept the possibility of working with the new gov't in many cases.

And on the Awakenings- you see how Iraqis like Ali and Nabil are not so quick to embrace their former tormentors. Maybe you have trouble empathizing because you also deny Saddam's crimes, or you appear to.

you gotta start somewhere.

I'll know you'll be disappointed to learn this, but that ship has already sailed.

great, so tell me then, what have you heard about the reconciliations. who reconciled, besides the US that is.

However it happened, I'm glad it happened.

if it's in fact happened (reconciliation) between warring factions... i would be glad of this too. speaking of however it happened this is an interesting post.

annie speak of debaathification as something that can only affect Sunni Arabs?

would you care to reword this to support whatever allegation you are making ? or are you standing by this w/example or just a hunch?

annie

Me: "The Ba'ath and their sympathizers to this day deny their crimes."

The criminal Ba'ath, Okay? I do realize that not all Ba'ath were criminal. However, the criminals who carried out Saddam's criminal orders were/are criminals. I do believe these are the ones who deny their crimes even to this day. I do believe these are the ones who believe themselves to be the only rightful rulers of Iraq and will burn the whole place to prove it.

so I can see to what degree you are wrong.

lol what a cad.

Your comment to CMAR II about debaathification made it appear

ah. don't you mean made it appear to you? in other words you are questioning your impresssion of me?
perhaps your impression is wrong. let's see how wrong it is.

you thought that is the reason the Sunnis boycotted the election.

there were many reasons, that being one of them. one that i KNEW of the top of my head that happened before the elections. it by know means stands exclusive as being one of the many reasons some sunnis boycotted the election. nor could you construe that by by my words which is exactly why you didn't quote me.

i can always tell how hot to handle the post is by how much posters avoid the topic of the post.

annie

Many of you know Caesar of Pentra. After living in Jordan for a year he returned to Baghdad this September. He has recently blogged about what had happened in his neighborhood in his absence and reports on the situation now:

By time, with the appliance of "Baghdad security plan" and formation of councils of Sahwa (= Awakening) and alliance of the free good individuals of this country, security and stability are being restored to the capital step by step. Now the violence levels in Iraq has come to its lowest degrees and , in sha Allah, security will continue and get better over time. Now people are going regularly to their workplaces, colleges, schools, markets, etc. Some families are taking their kids in Eids and weekends to "Al Zawraa Park" which is a famous park (Zoo + playing field) in Baghdad. It's improving slowly and gradually here. When I first got to college, I was worried of that the recent event might affect some fellas *** as I was affected to an a certain level by the media. But thanks god, none of this is real. I'm enjoying the college with my friends whether they were Sunnis or Shiites.

See Omar? Don't worry about returning. Iraq needs you.

*

So the Sunni Arab baathists lost their jobs, and that is why they started blowing up Iraqis, beginning with the attack that killed Hakim and dozens of other innocent Iraqis in Najef in 2003.

It coulda been Sadrists who did that attack, but I doubt it. Didn't the blast damage the Imam Ali shrine? No self-respecting Shi3i would damage the shrine of Imam Ali. Actually, no Muslim who respects Imam Ali would damage the burial place of Imam Ali, I would think.

" no Muslim who respects Imam Ali would damage the burial place of Imam Ali, I would think.'

So, we are on the same page: The Sunnis did not perpetrate the attack on Hakim in Najaf in August 2003.

Done.

24: "Did you arrest the perpetrators of that attack and they told you that they were Sunni? Because as far as I know, interestingly enough, non of the perpetrators of any major attack in Iraq were arrested. How did you decide they were Sunni?"

This abcnews article talks about a guy executed for the crime, and that AQI claimed the attack. That may be wrong though- at that time wasn't AQI not yet AQI, but was Tawfiq and jihad or something? Maybe abcnews dumbed it down for the American audience there, or I am wrong about the timeline. I give you the opportunity to correct me before I look it up.

Al-Qaeda did the attack?

Then you and I are on the same page too: The Iraqi Sunnis are not responsible for the attack.

Done.

"The attack that killed Hakimwas in August 2003, which means after the debaathification. Check your sources!" --Omar the Uniter


My sources: "In November 2003, [2 months after the attack that killed Hakim and dozens of other innocents in Najef] Bremer established the debaathification commission to root out senior Baathists from Iraqi ministries and hear appeals from Baathists who were in the lowest ranks of the party's senior leadership."

Mojo: "It coulda been Sadrists who did that attack, but I doubt it. Didn't the blast damage the Imam Ali shrine? No self-respecting Shi3i would damage the shrine of Imam Ali."

Of course, al-Sadr took it over and holed up in it during his 'Resistance'. That would've made a Monte Cassino-esque finish legal and appropriate (I'm NOT saying we shoulda!!)...

fyi

Are you kidding me?

Day after day you prove that you have no idea what happened, or is happening, in Iraq after the invasion. When you come now and tell me that debaathification, which is one of the most controversial issues in the aftermath of the invasion, was issued in October, you show that you have no clue about anything that concerns Iraq.

The debaathification decree was issued on May 16, 2003.

Here is a source that you would love: Coalition Provisional Authority

If you don’t know how to search for information, how do you want people to listen to you?

Everything you’ve said and will say about the situation in Iraq is not true and has not basis, because you obviously have a wrong understanding of what happened and is happening there.

For what it's worth, Omar, I think AQ (and AQI) are heretics to whatever religion they claim.

I also think AQI was/is allied with the mostly-but-not-all-Sunni 'Resistance' in Iraq. In fact one of the reasons given for the Awakening in Anbar has been that AQI began attacking their 'allies'. Nothing worse than a strongly worded letter against AQI from the 'Resistance' when they were simply blowing up mostly-but-not-all-Shia marketplaces.

I also think AQI was/is allied with the mostly-but-not-all-Sunni 'Resistance' in Iraq.

yes, like we have heard that a zillion times AS IF we are supposed to think of this each and everytime just to keep cementing this impression.. however,not everyone is going to buy this mostly-but-not-all liberal approach w/slinging around narrative.

everybody knows debaathification started right off the bat w/bremmer. of course they got the $ squared away the first day. the army being fired was right around the beginning of bremmer too as i recall. those 2 were deep initial stabs designed to bring discord imho. coming right after the horrendous thrashing of iraqi cultural archives and artifacts. well, not just iraqis, all of ours really, iraqis being the preservers of the cradle of civilization. of course america being a new nation knows nothing of preservation.

Omar,

Everything you’ve said and will say about the situation in Iraq is not true and has not basis, because you obviously have a wrong understanding of what happened and is happening there.

Why do you do this? It just makes you look childish. Listen, Mojo was born in Iraq and later came to the US with his family. He still has plenty of family in Iraq with whom he is in contact. He has read a lot of the reports coming out of Iraq over the last couple years, just as you have here in the US. So I doubt if everything he has ever said or will ever say is false. You always go red in the face in these discussions and then claim to be dispassionate. C'mon. Everyone here has eyes. You two will agree on some issues and events, disagree on others, right?

By the way, what did you think of Caesar's report from Baghdad?

*

RhusLancia,
What you are saying doesn’t concern me at all.
To me, the “resistance” has no religion. They are a group of armed criminals with self-centered interests, and this definition applies to militias too. I cannot believe there is a religion that calls for killing people, no matter what the reason is. Therefore, the Iraqi Sunnis have nothing to do with the resistance and the Iraqi Shiites have nothing to do with the militias. And therefore when I talk about “resistance” or militias, I talk about a bunch of criminals, period.

And his “plenty of family in Iraq with whom he is in contact” told him that debaathification decree was issued in October 2003?

When he believes and goes around telling people that the “Iraqi Sunnis” started the attacks and bombs before debaathification sent home dozens of thousands of Iraqis with no income and resources, that shows how little he knows about Iraq and what happened after the invasion in 2003. And that shows that he has the wrong information and ideas about the situation in Iraq and its background. And that leads to the wrong assumptions and wrong analysis and the wrong statements.

What is wrong in what I’ve said?

And what is not polite in what I’ve said? Did I call him “tedious fool?” I don’t think so!

Omar,

To me, the “resistance” has no religion. They are a group of armed criminals with self-centered interests, and this definition applies to militias too. I cannot believe there is a religion that calls for killing people, no matter what the reason is. Therefore, the Iraqi Sunnis have nothing to do with the resistance and the Iraqi Shiites have nothing to do with the militias. And therefore when I talk about “resistance” or militias, I talk about a bunch of criminals, period.

This is pretty good. I think it could be a feasible contemporary rendering of the place of religion in society. Historically, however, it rings a bit false. Mohammed, the guy in the Koran, was a military leader with blood on his hands. Jesus, on the other hand, handed out bread and fish, healed people, kicked some money-changers out of their business digs, hung around with prostitutes, and then got crucified by the Romans. One wielded a sword and led an army like Saladin and the other got nailed to a cross for being kind of a smartass.

*

Omar,

Did I call him “tedious fool?” I don’t think so!

There's only one tedious fool here -- and it's NOT Mojo.

Heh heh heh.

*

24, I share your disdain for the 'Resistance' and militias. Some of them certainly would disagree with us, especially those in Ansar al-Sunna or the Islamic Army or Jaisch al-Mahdi, for example.

24: "Therefore, the Iraqi Sunnis have nothing to do with the resistance and the Iraqi Shiites have nothing to do with the militias. "

My opinion of the CLC groups (slightly different from the Awakenings) is that they are *mostly* ordinary Iraqis who are fed up with the violence and who are getting off the fence to protect their neighborhoods. There are ex and current insurgents, ex and current terrorists, and ex and current militiamen mixed in of course. But for the most part that's what I think they are- former fence-sitters. And good for them! I can't cite anything for you on this, but I agree with what you say above.

Then it's you, jeffrey.

What a joke! How old are you? Because your comments show you have a mind of a six-month-old pig.

Omar,

Mohammed used a sword while Jesus used empathy and wit. Islam and Christianity today reflect those primary differences.

*

24: "When he believes and goes around telling people that the “Iraqi Sunnis” started the attacks and bombs before debaathification sent home dozens of thousands of Iraqis with no income and resources, that shows how little he knows about Iraq and what happened after the invasion in 2003."

The attacks and bombs of summer '03 were horrific and evil (so were those that followed). God, I hope they were not done by disgruntled Ba'athists because they were unemployed!!

What I do think is that they were at least assisted by the very same evil mother-effers who were criminally running the country for decades before. OK, not the rank and file ones maybe, but certainly the ones who thought Saddam's criminal orders pre-2003 were just peachy.

My father had a very good job and lost it in a reduction-in-force at his company in 1992. He was unemployed for about 20 months. He was very bitter, but didn't blow up a single cleric, UN envoy, or marketplace because of that.

Good for you

Mohammed and his mounted soldiers are riding along the banks of the Red Sea when they come across a bunch of guys fishing with nets. They call one of the long-haired guys over.

Mohammed: What's your name?

Jesus: I'm Jesus.

Mohammed: Where are you from?

Jesus: Nazareth.

Mohammed: You're a JEW?!

Jesus: Yes.

Mohammed: Fishing in OUR sea?

Jesus: Uh ... what?

Mohammed to soldiers: WASTE 'EM!

*

Merry Christmas!

*

24: "Good for you"

No, good for him. He's not going to Hell when mortality catches up with him. Not for that at least.

RhusLancia,

Your Dad was just in the wrong religion. If he had been a Muslim, he could have blown up some people for Allah and later gone to Heaven and had 72 virgins to take as his multiple mistresses. I'm not sure that your Mom would dig that, but that's the religion. Swords and whores, I guess.

*

This is a good story about the Awakening councils. Click

Jeffrey, I think those guys who blow themselves up "for Allah" are mighty surprised when Allah tells them in personage how horribly mislead they've been. Islam itself is not the problem, just perversions thereof.

And you jeffrey, the little rat,
I do not allow you to insult any religion or followers of any religion or faith on my platform. This platform respects all religions and faiths and it will stay this way. If you have problems with any kind of faith, you have your own blog to show your racism and hatred, or you can go to where your kind of creatures are and post to them.

NOTE to My Respected Readers: Please do not reply to any of the nonsense that this little rat is writing or any other insults to any religions or faiths. This platform is political and written and ran by a secular person. We have no interest whatsoever in discussing religion or spiritual faith here unless it is necessary, which is not the case in the time being. I hope you understand and respect this wish of mine. Thank you-- Omar

Read your NYT article. Here's one that's not on the Awakenings per se, but I like it.

24, after reading yours I think "they" ought to get the GoI's signatures on those paychecks as soon as possible, but US oversight should remain until it's no longer needed. In the meantime, both US and Iraqi lives are being saved, so that counts for a lot.

Given all the potential problems with the Awakenings long-term, does it make some sense for them to be a "temporary" solution only? In other words, once stability is restored it should take less ISF to maintain it, right? Or a third way: if you eradicate all the roaches from your house it takes less pesticide to keep them away than it took to eradicate them...

Here's another, this one about the acceptability of former regime elements getting their jobs back. I doubt they'll get a million, but we'll see...

And his “plenty of family in Iraq with whom he is in contact” told him that debaathification decree was issued in October 2003? --Omar the Uniter, displaying his excellent skills at uniting Iraqis.


I didn't ask anybody - I was curious when it happened, so I googled "debaathifiction" and found the source I posted above. I also found this:

What were the original debaathification orders?

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, issued two sweeping orders in May 2003: one outlawed the Baath Party and dismissed all senior members from their government posts; the other dissolved Iraq's 500,000-member military and intelligence services. In November 2003, Bremer established a Supreme National Debaathification Commission to root out senior Baathists from Iraqi ministries and hear appeals from Baathists who were in the lowest ranks of the party's senior leadership. The party's foremost leaders--some 5,000 to 10,000 individuals--were not permitted to appeal their dismissals.

How many Baathists were dismissed?

Bremer's first order led to the firing of about 30,000 ex-Baathists from various ministries. Some 15,000 were eventually permitted to return to work after they won their appeals, says Nibras Kazimi, a former adviser to the debaathification commission and currently a visiting Iraq scholar at the Hudson Institute. All military officers above the rank of colonel were barred from returning to work, as were all 100,000 members of Iraq's various intelligence services.

When he believes and goes around telling people that the “Iraqi Sunnis” started the attacks and bombs before debaathification sent home dozens of thousands of Iraqis with no income and resources, that shows how little he knows about Iraq and what happened after the invasion in 2003. --Omar the Uniter

Umm, this is the first time I have claimed anywhere that debaathification happened after the Sunni Arabs started mass murdering Iraqis in Najef. I googled it and saw the first source mention that the debaathification commission was formed in November 2003. I should have read the entire article on CFR's site to learn that the orders came in May 2003.

So let's get this straight: the Ba3thists, along with Al Qaeda, started mass murdering Iraqis AFTER (and BECAUSE of) debaathification, and not before as I claimed above. You win, Omar.

Although you have passed that subject in the discussion, but I would like to go back to the explosion that killed Al-Hakim in Najaf.
I have some information saying that the whole thing was arranged and implemented by former Iraqi intelligence officers. And it was done because of Al-Hakim's huge participation in the torture of Iraqi war prisoners in Iran in the 1980s.

@ All.

An interesting study having been made in Iraq:

'All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows', by Karen DeYoung,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802262.html


American 'divide and conquer' tactics produced the present mess in Iraq (but RhusLancia, the Anti-Iraqi American 'Mojo', and the rest of that crowd keep denying it ... LOL !).

[24Steps] Al-Qaeda did the attack? Then you and I are on the same page too: The Iraqi Sunnis are not responsible for the attack.


I was prepared to walk away, as I can see people try to reason with you, and as you cover your eyes and ears and respond with "lalalalala!" But this tears it.

Who received AQ-inspired jihadists from Morocco, Eqypt, Indonesia, anywhere else in the Sunni Muslim world? That was Shi'a Arabs? It was Shi'a Arabs providing carbomb factories to AQI to plant in front of Shi'a mosques? So Sunni Arabs lost their jobs and the responded by killing innocent strangers going to church. That's an equal reponse? Are you as crazy as they are???

How did the AQI imports live without safehouses when they arrived through Syria and Saudi Arabia? (nevermind that the US military reports with sadness that most of the AQI members were Iraqi) Why is it that since IRAQI SUNNI ARABS turned on AQI, those monsters have become men on the run and violence in Iraq has dropped EIGHTY PERCENT?
I repeat: EIGHTY PERCENT. This change occurred after the IRAQI SUNNI ARABS came in from the cold. So who bears responsibility for EIGHTY PERCENT of the violence until then? Answer: The Iraqi Sunni Arabs who JOINED as well as allied themselves with AQI FROM THE BEGINNING as this IRAQI SUNNI ARAB (formerly of Saddam's regime) testifies.

You're words have left me no recourse but to conclude that you are as bigoted a SUNNI ARAB as Layla Anwar. I'm through.

(p.s. I'll save this comment for when you silently delete it)

CMAR II,

Thank you. The complicity between the Sunni rejectionists and Al Qaeda in Iraq is clear and undeniable. It's wonderful that they finally turned on AQI, but that doesn't wash away the blood on their hands from the years previous to their "awakening."

Both the Sunnis and the Shiites have a lot to put behind them if they want to reconcile and build a future together, but this does not also include lying about the past. Muqtada, for example, was responsible for the deaths of many Iraqis in 2004. He was not a Boy Scout leader for local Sadr City youths. The rejectionist Sunnis worked with AQI and many, many Iraqi citizens were blown to pieces due to their collaboration.

*

“you are as bigoted a SUNNI ARAB as Layla Anwar”

When did the term “Sunni Arab” become an insult? Do you think you are insulting me when you call me Sunni Arab? No you don’t.

I would be honored if the Iraqi Sunnis consider me one of them, just as much honored I would feel if the Iraqi Shiites consider me one of them, and the Christians and the Kurds and Yazidis and Turkumans and every other minority in Iraq.

And one more thing: I have much respect to Layla Anwar, although I completely disagree with her, because at least she believe in something and has tons of information and evidence about it, unlike your kind of idiots.

I am Iraqi, and someone like you, a total ignorant and arrogant racist, can never insult me. You are much much smaller than a bug in my world, which means you are not noticed. From now on, keep barking and I will not listen, as usual.

24: "at least she believe in something and has tons of information and evidence about it"

Layla recently said that the dawa party was formed in Iran in the 70s, but also during the Iran-Iraq war. She has provided no evidence for either claim, which I contend are both wrong (the Dawa website says Najaf in 1957, not that they are absolute but they would know). She should be able to back up something as simple as the date a political party was formed, shouldn't she? But if she is wrong about that and will not correct it or prove herself, then what else might she be wrong about?

If Iraqi history is viewed through an Arab Ba'ath Master Race prism, apparently backed only by Saddam era history books and historical interpretation, don't you think it is highly suspect? Don't you think it opens the door for incorrect analysis and conclusions? Sure she believes in her cause, just like Goebbels believed in his, and Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf believed in his.

You should go check out her posts and comments sections sometime, Omar. You'd return here shaking, and would probably give Jeffrey a hug and a kiss.

On the other hand, Layla recently correctly identified the tedious fool who posts here as "condescending" when she was trying to reach out to her!!

Layla is smart, and she writes well, but she has wicked thoughts upon her brain.

RhusLancia,

Check your sources again and try to find more information, or more accurate information.
The people in Babil province protested because Fadhil Raddad, the new police chief, is a member of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, or SIIC, which is led by Abdula Aziz al-Hakim, not because he was in Saddam’s regime.

AFP: [Around 2,000 people, meanwhile, protested the appointment of Major General Fadhil Raddad as the new police chief of Babil province of which Hilla is the capital.
Raddad was appointed after his predecessor Major General Qais al-Mamoori was killed in a bomb attack on December 9.
But locals protested his appointment for his political links with the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, a powerful Shiite party in the Baghdad government.
Protestors were carrying Iraqi flags and banners that said "Babil needs an independent police chief," an AFP correspondent reported.]

And, even if he was in Saddam’s regime, that proves that what I said before is right, as usual, which is that after the invasion, Raddad, as many other Shiites who were high ranking baathsts, joined one of the main Shiite parties and got jobs, sometimes much better than their jobs under the baath party, like Raddad.

You guys are the worst propagandists ever. You don’t even know how to search for sources and do nothing but to embarrass yourself.

24: "You don’t even know how to search for sources and do nothing but to embarrass yourself."

That AFP article is 2 hours old, as of now. It didn't exist last night when I posted that VoI article about the upcoming protest. How can I search for something that isn't there yet? The point of linking my article was about Iraqis accepting FRE back into high-ranking jobs. Do you agree that this might be a problem? Am i wrong to point it out?

Your point: "And, even if he was in Saddam’s regime, that proves that what I said before is right, as usual, which is that after the invasion, Raddad, as many other Shiites who were high ranking baathsts, joined one of the main Shiite parties and got jobs, sometimes much better than their jobs under the baath party, like Raddad."

I don't dispute this, and my article says nothing of it.

In this case 24, it is possible that both our articles are right: he was former regime, he is SIIC.

So who bears responsibility for EIGHTY PERCENT of the violence

this kind of stupidity game has gone on long enough. is this the same cmar that claimed the US does not care if oil is traded in dollars and every other completely ignorant hypothesis you contrive via your pea brain. do you gobble up propaganda like ripe grapes off the vine? let's take a little walk down memory lane.


The struggle between popular pressure for real independence and the English Mandate continued, and by 1927 it had taken the form of a dispute about military defense. England wanted to keep control of the volunteer Iraqi armed forces, while Faisal, backed by popular opinion, was for universal military service with Iraqi control.

Here's what happened: The English decided it would be a good idea to get Faisal out of the country, so they invited him to London, where he stayed for almost four months, while the English conducted sham negotiations with him. What is particularly instructive, Batatu wrote, is what happened in Iraq "behind his back". He lists four developments, negative as far as Faisal was concerned, all showing some evidence of colonial-power instigation: Fanning of Shiite-Sunni animosities; problems with the Shiite clerical establishment; separatism; and British exploitation of attacks by salafi fundamentalists from the Arabian peninsula. And running through it all, the question of who controls Iraq's military capabilities.

clip..

The student of Iraqi history cannot help noticing that Dawish carried out his raids precisely on those occasions when the Iraqis or their government would not bend to British wishes, that is,in 1922, when the King stood against the "Mandate;" in 1924, when a powerful anti-treaty opposition developed within the Constituent Assembly; and lastly, in the circumstances now under discussion.

It appears unlikely that Dawish should have attacked, at least in 1927-1928, unless he knew beforehand that the British air force, which was still committed by treaty to the defense of the Iraqi borders, would give him a free rein. Interestingly enough, on 11 January 1929, the secretary of state for the colonies directed the high commissioner "to exercise [his] judgment in using the present situation on the Iraq-Nejd frontier to emphasize the necessity of British support and the dependence of Iraq upon such support."

"The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq"

The book was first published 1978.

i suggest you read the entire link. and try injecting some common sense into your thinking about exactly how military planners go about controlling and conquering 25 million people. even to suggest 80% of any death/destruction during wartime (by a minority of a minority (no less!) you attribute to an entire ethnic group!) should land at the feet of the recipients of invasion!

do you ever imagine there could be complexity in warfare or do you think there are just bad guys and good guys all playing their respective parts leading to some logical simple black/white end product?

ok, don't bother answering that.

Is Voices of Iraq a bad source, 24? I go there on Zeyad's recommendation, but if you think it's biased or wrong I'll take that into account in the future.

Here's another VoI article that covers something I haven't yet seen reported elsewhere. It covers a binary event- either it happened or it didn't. if it happened: yaaay! If it didn't: booooo!

No, I don't think Voice of Iraq is biased or wrong. I don’t know if they are biased. They have good coverage of local news in Iraq and I really appreciate that.

My point is: before you believe something and make your statement, search for more information.

Qais Al-Mamoori was a very loved man in Hilla. I saw him more than once in Hilla and saw how the people loved and respected him. He was an idol in the city.
Few days before his death he ordered to close the offices of Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Council, because they were disturbing the security of the city. This has some background of course. He sent them few warnings earlier because he noticed some activities of Badr Brigade and Al-Mehdi Army. More than once there were some turbulences between the official security forces and Badr and Mehdi people when they tried to enter Hilla and bring more guns and men in there.

wapo Warnings Unheeded On Guards In Iraq


In previous wars, the Pentagon had prohibited contractors from participating in combat. But in Iraq, military planners rewrote the policy to match the reality on the ground. On Sept. 20, 2005, the military issued an order authorizing contractors to use deadly force to protect people and assets. In June 2006, the order was codified as an "interim rule" in the Federal Register. It took effect immediately without public debate.

Critics, including the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warned that the Pentagon had used an obscure defense acquisition rule to push through a fundamental shift in American war-fighting without fully considering the potential legal and strategic ramifications.


'Universally despised' is probably a kind way to put it."

sorry, that last post was me as was my post @10:39

this is about the photographer the rightwing blogosphere got upset about and started lobbying the military to investigate. they didn't like his photos. it keeps getting stranger all the time.


Bilal’s case has been assigned to investigating Judge Dhia al-Kinani, who has already conducted a long series of evidentiary hearings in the case. The source said the Pentagon is confident that they will secure a conviction in the case. “Nothing is being left to chance in this case. It’s important and a lot of resources are being thrown at it.” The Pentagon isn’t concerned about evidence or legal arguments. I wonder why. Some other points.

• Under strong pressure from the U.S. military, the investigating judge closed the case and imposed a gag order. This was requested principally because the U.S. military was concerned about unfavorable media coverage. The Pentagon media strategy involves leaking information as it finds convenient to “friendly new media” (this I take to be wingnut bloggers), but restricting the flow of information to traditional media. The Iraqi judge is fully cooperating with his gag order.

• The U.S. military has assigned a team of five to act effectively as prosecutors in the case. The team is headed by a JAG Captain named Kelvey (or perhaps Calvey). (Says the source: “We recognize, of course, that the U.S. has no authority to prosecute a case in an Iraqi court. That’s one of the reasons that a gag order was essential.”)

is that weird or what??

• The Iraqi judge is also allowing the U.S. military to present evidence by witnesses through remote television hook-ups from undisclosed locations. This is done particularly to be sure that Bilal Hussein would not be able to cross-examine any witnesses.

• The Pentagon was particularly concerned about the prospect of Bilal Hussein getting effective defense from his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe. The judge was told to refuse to allow Bilal Hussein’s U.S. lawyer to participate in the case. The judge accepted this advice. Consequently, the U.S. military has a five-man team to press its case, but Bilal Hussein’s lawyer is silenced and not permitted to participate–and all of this has occurred as a result of U.S. Government intervention with the court. The irony of course is that under Iraqi law, the U.S. military has no authority or right to appear and prosecute, but Bilal Hussein’s chosen counsel has an absolute right.

• The U.S. military continues to keep Hussein in their custody and will not allow his lawyer, Gardephe, access to him to conduct interviews or trial preparation without having both a U.S. military representative and an interpreter in the room at all times. Under international norms, this means that Bilal Hussein is not permitted access to counsel: a serious violation of his trial rights. And note that the violator is not the Iraqi authorities, who have no control over Bilal, but the United States Government.

• The Pentagon is convinced that regardless of the evidence presented and the arguments made, Bilal Hussein will be convicted based on its influence wielding and pressure tactics. “The judge announced on the opening day that he would recommend conviction and refer the matter to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. This was before any evidence or arguments had been produced. Our folks were elated, but concerned that his somewhat rash statement would undermine the credibility of the proceedings. They had expected him to say this only at the end of the proceedings.”

i wonder of this resembles the dancing rhus referred to earlier. is this the democracy we brought to iraq?

what every happened to a jury of one's peers?

24: "My point is: before you believe something and make your statement, search for more information."

That's good advice, definitely. You can see that, had I searched for more information last night I would not have found any, right? And just now I see nothing new about the story available. Antiwar.com is linking to the VoI version for whatever reason.

And my statement, that some Iraqis are reluctant to accept FRE in high-level positions... is that wrong? We can look at the VoI article again and notice that the statements came from Ahmed al-Masoodi, a Sadrist MP. Omar, wouldn't you say that the Sadrists in particular have been less than willing to accept FRE into the new Iraq? Weren't they the ones who were pounding their desks in parliament in response to the Justice & Accountability Act?

I appreciate your advice, but see little wrong in my posting last night or the statement I made. If you want we could share a laugh that the Sadrist MP said they'd get a million people out, but they got a few thousand out instead.

l love painting of betools Omar. i wonder if she ever names them. it appears she has updated her site.

annie

'this' painting.

annie

24: "Check your sources again and try to find more information, or more accurate information.
The people in Babil province protested because Fadhil Raddad, the new police chief, is a member of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, or SIIC, which is led by Abdula Aziz al-Hakim, not because he was in Saddam’s regime."

Hmmm, on third thought you were denying my earlier point. Here's another from LAT that says the protest was 'cause he was in the Regime, and this one says the claim he's in SIIC comes from a Sadrist MP... the same one cited in the VoI article. So who knows? But it does appear the boo-boo is on you,dude, for poo-poo'ing the VoI's version, or more specifically the fact that I cited it as evidence of opposition to the FRE getting high-level jobs back.

Ah well. Hope you had a nice Christmas anyway.

geez rhus, thanks for skipping a little beat.

RIP Bhutto.

annie

yeah, RIP Bhutto.

Messed up the LAT link above. s/b Here's another...

Hey 24, did you see Allawi on the Doha Debates? The interviewer was pretty rough with him, and the audience too, but he did really really well, IMO.

hmm

Meanwhile, a Washington lawyer who has represented Americans who were abducted by Iraqi forces after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait said that he doubted the official explanation for President Bush’s rejection of the bill.

interesting

"... I continue to have serious objections to other provisions of this bill, including section 1079 relating to intelligence matters . . ."

What is in 1079 you ask? A provision requiring the Director of National Intelligence to make available to the Congressional intelligence committees, upon the request of the chair or ranking minority member, "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion," within certain conditions.

congress has the authority to request such reports and opinions, but cheneyco has often blocked these. the law would give congress explicit authority to obtain them, i.e. a much firmer legal case.

the empire doesn't like oversite.

annie

there was a very interesting story buried on page A19 of WAPO yesterday.

earlier in the thread i mentioned does anyone think the american agenda is all spelled out for all to see?

relax and enjoy.


Vickers's job also spans ... the retooling of conventional forces to combat terrorism -- a portfolio so expansive that he and some Pentagon officials once jokingly referred to his efforts as the "take-over-the-world plan," one official said.


Senior Pentagon and military officials regard Vickers as a rarity -- a skilled strategist who is both creative and pragmatic. "He tends to think like a gangster," said Jim Thomas, a former senior defense planner who worked with Vickers. "He can understand trends then change the rules of the game so they are advantageous for your side."

isn't that reassuring!


Vickers's greatest influence was in the clinically precise way he reassessed the potential of Afghan guerrilla forces and prescribed the right mix of weaponry to attack Soviet weaknesses. This brash plan to create a force of "techno-guerrillas" able to fight year-round ...

techno guerillas? otherwise known as freedom fighters? not to be confused w/terrorists?

Today Vickers's plan to build a global counterterrorist network is no less ambitious. The plan is focused on a list of 20 "high-priority" countries, with Pakistan posing a central preoccupation for Vickers, who said al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the country's western tribal areas are a serious threat to the United States. The list also includes Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Iran, and Vickers hints that some European countries could be on it. Beyond that, the plan covers another 29 "priority" countries, as well as "other countries" that Vickers does not name.

now, isn't that reassuring. one would almost think we were preparing for endless war.


"The war on terror is fundamentally an indirect war. . . . It's a war of partners . . . but it also is a bit of the war in the shadows.... That's why the Central Intelligence Agency is so important . . . and our Special Operations forces play a large role."

how reassuring.


But while local forces can be far more effective in countering terrorism in their regions, creating the forces must be done carefully, said Thomas, the former defense planner. "The last thing we want to do is create a bunch of right-wing goon squads that go out and shoot jihadists with very little legitimacy."

hell no, we want them to have legitimacy! just like in columbia, chile, nicaragua...etc etc.


Finally, Vickers seeks authority for more flexible and rapid "detailing" that would allow Special Operations forces, in larger numbers, to be seconded to the CIA and allowed to work under agency rules.

Working with proxy forces will also enable the United States to extend and sustain its influence.

proxy forces? hmm. its the shadow war w/no oversite..

annie

Happy Eid, Cristmas and New Years brother Omar good job you are doing to every-day fight and win with the rats.

Maybe Annie and others can share their perspectives on the global state of Jihadi/Takfiri terrorism. A good summary is here:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/01/the_state_of_jihad_2.php

The Takfiris have killed over a hundred thousand civilians around the world excluding Iraqis, Afghans and Americans.

What is the best way for the world to work together to defeat the global Takfiri menace?

you can read about the world working together to defeat the global empire here

annie

What? Annie, you are off topic.

In several of our presidential debates (both parties) almost every candidate (except for Ron Paul) came out in favor of a weaker dollar. Most Congress people favor it too. Most of our politicians strongly favor a weaker dollar as a way to reduce imports and outsourcing as well as increasing exports. Note how every presidential candidate except for Ron Paul rails about the strong dollar against the Chinese Yuan, and by implication the strong dollar against other currencies, and how “THEY” will weaken the US dollar to save American jobs if elected.

Almost the entire left has always favored a weaker dollar (and the left of other countries favor debasing their own currencies too.) Martin Luther King’s widow strongly favored a weaker dollar and high inflation.

So far the weaker dollar has met with celebration in Washington. Further weakness is likely to meet with additional celebration.

To weaken the dollar, you need to reduce demand for dollars abroad. Two thirds of dollars are used abroad.

Personally I am a big strong dollar, price stability, free trade fan. But I am very much in the minority. Annie, do you agree with me?

Annie, you brought up the long war. So I mentioned a summary of the “long war” the global takfiri are waging against all human civilization and every country. I am genuinely curious about different perspectives on how to end the Takfiri war being waged upon humankind, and begin the peace our 7 billion people so strongly desire.

My opinion and hope is as follows:
In the 1980s, we Americans and many other countries around the world made a terrible temporary pact with some Takfiris (some of the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters were actual jihadis) to our later great suffering. I hope that we do not make that same mistake again.

Happy new year!!!

anand,
According to The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2006 Congressional Candidates, U.S. Rep Mark Kirk (R-Ill) received $66,064 from the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee the 2005-2006 election cycle with a career total of $119,382

that is just one person. you can read about his horrendous bill merging US/IS at the link. i think we need a more balanced approach to our foreign policy. US politicians should not be accepting money from people whose first priority is a foreign power. we need to address the issues that feed terror. we need to look at the people getting rich off terror.

the first thing i would do is make it unlawful for entities representing foreign governments to buy our politicians. end aipac. treat those who promote genocide equally. don't give lip service to democracy while propping up governments that aren't and promote racists policies of dishing out unequal representation.

don't support governments who treat people different based on religion.

clean our own house before imposing our state sponsored terror on others. it ferments terror. take away the incentive for hate.

i hope that answers your questions.



Annie, you brought up the long war.

i 'brought it up'? that's funny. you constantly trump this long war site of yours.

What? Annie, you are off topic.

off your topic? write your own blog, make your own posts, then when people don't address issues you believe in (waging war against all human civilization and every country, yawn) you can tell them they are of topic. here, you are just a poster like me. nothing more.

go read Omar's post, which it seems to have completely ignored in your quest to propagandize your terra alert. accusing me of being off topic is hypocritical.

sorry, that was supposed to say 'which you have completely ignored'.

annie

I hope that we do not make that same mistake again.

Doubts Engulf an American Aid Plan for Pakistan

aid plan?

In fact, wary of corruption and hamstrung by local hostility, American officials say that as in Iraq they will rely heavily on private contractors to administer the development aid, a decision that could eat up as much as half the budget. Other proposals, liketraining a civilian conservation corps, have yet to gain traction.

The new program is meant to start slowly, with the first portion of the overall program out to bid at $350 million. Among the handful of companies invited to bid are DynCorp International and Creative Associates International Inc., both of which won substantial contracts in Iraq. How effective they will be in the tribal areas is equally uncertain.

aid? mercenaries??? who do they think they are kidding? this 750 million dollar 'aid' bill passed just days before bhuttos murder.

annie

i'm out for the evening, may the new year bring us peace. regardless of our absurd foreign policy.

Annie, we agree with each other. :-)

Multinational corporations and foreigners are buying our politicians and using them for their own ends.

Note that many countries are influencing Washington in the way you describe. Israel is not the most influential of these countries.

I am not intentionally promoting Bill Roggio's site. Nor am I asking you to visit it. You are free to do as you choose.

I was just asking your opinion about the Takfiri Jihadi attack on many countries around the world.

Too many Americans ignore it, because Takfiris are primarily interested in attacking and killing non-Americans.

I find the attacks on non-Americans as offensive as I find attacks on Americans. I also love America. Does this make me a less patriotic American than I should be?

Annie, I was wrong to tell you that you are off topic. My apologies.

If you don't mind my asking, do you favor a weaker dollar or a stronger dollar?

“we need to address the issues that feed terror. we need to look at the people getting rich off terror.” Very true. Please elaborate.

“treat those who promote genocide equally.” Completely agree. We need to take a much stronger stance in Sudan, Congo, the anti-Shia attempted genocide in Pakistan, and every where else in the world.

“don't give lip service to democracy while propping up governments that aren't and promote racists policies of dishing out unequal representation.” I completely agree with you. America needs to promote freedom, democracy, prosperity, and success everywhere consistently. It is like you are reading my mind.

“don't support governments who treat people different based on religion.” I completely agree with this. I think that all religions and philosophies need to be respected and honored equally. This is what Mahatma Gandhi thought. You sound like a Gandhian.

“clean our own house before imposing our state sponsored terror on others. it ferments terror. take away the incentive for hate.”

We need to clean up our house. We have many problems. One way we should do this is by expressing our values through our actions consistently, inside and outside America. When you criticize “state sponsored terror,” are you implying that we were wrong to support extreme Jihadis against the Soviets in the 1980s and Saddam against Iran 1980-88? If so we agree again.

Regarding the many attempted genocides against Shia around the world (Saddam committed one in 1991—killing perhaps 100,000 Shia in weeks, including 30,000 Shia in Karbala over three days), please see:
AQ’s ongoing attempted genocide against Pakistani Shia:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers26/paper2528.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers26/paper2526.html
Zawahiri just had a series of interviews in which he blasts Iran (code for Shia): http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers26/paper2529.html
I’ll admit that I like Iran. Is this wrong?

Note how the anti-Shia wings of AQ (Lashkar e Jhanvi, whose emir is Osama Bin Laden, had close links with Saddam because they both hated Shia and Iran) were targeting the Shia Bhutto: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers26/paper2530.html

Annie, I am sure that your conscience must be stirred by the oppression of 150 million Shia around the world.

I think that the world should give Pakistan $200 billion over 10 years in grants contingent on difficult reforms to transform Pakistan into a prosperous plural free democracy.

Do you agree Annie? I think that you were criticizing the fact that foreign aid to Pakistan is way too low. {Pakistan has 165 million people.}

Happy new year, dear Omar.

That said, do crush this psychopathic snake 'anand', and remove the sick, evil, lying thing permanently from you blog: have you followed, by any chance, the discussion this abomination 'anand' had today with Ali at the Rat's Central, concerning you (among other things) ?
This evil, repulsive critter is completely disingenuous and mendacious (on top of being of an almost unique rudeness, inviting commentators to your blog to go to SOME OTHER blog to discuss !!!).

If you keep tolerating its evil presence, dear Omar, people will laugh at you, not at him (or at the rest of that truly subhuman, slithering gang: the Rat Schuster, the CmarII, the KreepTonite, the Anti-Iraqi American 'Mojo', and the tactically better mannered RhusLancia).

That said, again, good 2008 !

"Happy new year, dear Omar," Ali, and everyone else!!!

May 2008 be good for all of us, including Italy, Iraq, America, Shia, Sunni, Kurd, China, India and everyone else!

May the transcendent choose to bless all of us.

“(on top of being of an almost unique rudeness, inviting commentators to your blog to go to SOME OTHER blog to discuss !!!).” I don’t remember doing this. If I did, my sincere apologies. This was an honest mistake.

I hope that the Italians and MoI succeed in fixing the INP (Iraqi National Police) in 2008 and 2009. Long live Italy! Long live Iraq! May they always be brothers united by the bond of mutual love, understanding, and respect.

Israel is not the most influential of these countries.


really. do enlighten us. the last i heard aipac was the second largest lobbiest in washington , after the NRA. do you think if i looked i could find a chinese lobby donating to as many politicians? or russian. please, expand our minds. what foreign country is more influential?

Cuban Americans are very influential. Powerful country lobbies include:
Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Japan, Greece, UK, Germany, Australia, more recently China.

Other countries tend to work their influence more discretely.

Why do you believe that Israel's lobby is more influential than Mexico's lobby, for example? I personally think that the Mexico lobby generally advances American interests, since Mexicans and Americans are so interdependent. So I don't mind the Mexican lobby.

Remember how hard the Mexican lobby pushed NAFTA in 1993 and the amnesty bill (which I strongly supported) in 2007?

who said anything about very influential. you said israel was not the most influential. if you have any proof of discreet $$$ influence from other foreign countries making its ways to our congress critters effecting appropriations that superceeds that of the israel loby do tell. all contributions can be tracked. just prove it. otherwise it will look like you are avoiding the elephant in the room.

annie

Anne, just to be clear . . . you believe that Israel is more influential than Mexico within the US? Why do you believe that? Evidence?

we need to look at the people getting rich off terror.” Very true. Please elaborate.

oh, i think you know what i am talking about. the military industrial complex. this being one small example. 'defense' is big big business.

US Must Reevaluate Its Relationship With Israel


December 17, 2007

by Scott Ritter

I have for some time now publicly articulated my sympathy and support for the state of Israel, even while criticizing those cases that I believed constituted poor judgment and bad policy. My stance was based upon my past experiences with Israel, which began indirectly in 1990-1991 when I was involved in counter-SCUD activities during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and continued in a much more direct fashion as a weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with disarming Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

As a weapons inspector I made numerous visits to Israel for the purpose of coordinating with the Israeli intelligence community on matters pertaining to Iraqi WMD. I was greatly impressed not only with the professionalism of the Israeli intelligence services, but also with the Israeli people and society. During my time in Israel, I was witness to numerous horrific events, including several terrorist bombings and the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The resilience of the people of Israel in absorbing these blows yet continuing to live life to its fullest was remarkable, and worthy of admiration.

As a firsthand witness to the remarkable vigor of the Israeli state and its people, and as someone who considers himself to be their friend, it saddens me to see just how poorly the current Israeli government returns this friendship, not to me personally, but to my country, the United States of America. The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has embarked on policies that are questionable at best when one examines them from a purely Israeli standpoint; they are nothing less than a betrayal of the United States when examined from a broader perspective.

The insidious manner in which the current Israeli government has manipulated the domestic political machinery of the United States to produce support for its policies constitutes nothing less than direct interference in the governance of a sovereign state. The degree to which the current Israeli government has succeeded in this regard can be tracked not only by the words and actions of the administration of President George W. Bush and the American Congress, but also by the extent to which a pro-Israel lexicon has taken hold within the mainstream media of the United States. Witness the pro-Israel bias displayed when discussing the situation in southern Lebanon, the air strike in Syria, or the Iranian situation, and the retarding of any effort toward a responsible discussion of anything dealing with Israel becomes apparent.

One would expect such efforts to shape the domestic public opinion of a state deemed hostile, but when the target of these Israeli actions is its ostensible best friend, one must begin to question whether or not the friendship is a one-way street. And if this is indeed the case, then perhaps it is time for the United States to reconsider its decades-old policy of strategic partnership with Israel.

It must be understood that the government of Ehud Olmert is acting in a post-9/11 environment, with considerable facilitators in the administration of President Bush, including the vice president. These two factors combine to create a cycle of enablement that allows a purely Israeli point of view to dominate American policy. If the Israeli point of view were built on logic, compassion, and the rule of law, then this tilt would not constitute a problem. But the Israeli point of view is increasingly constructed on a foundation of intolerance and irresponsible unilateralism that divorces the country from global norms. In this day and age of nuclear nonproliferation, the undeclared nuclear arsenal of Israel stands as perhaps the most egregious example of how an Israel-only standard destabilizes the Middle East. It is the Israeli nuclear weapons program, including its strategic delivery systems, that is the core of instability for this very volatile region.

The statements by Israeli officials concerning the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and its nuclear program are perhaps the best manifestation of this reality. Avi Dichter, Israel's public security minister, has condemned the NIE as a flawed document, and in terms that link the American analysis to a cause-and-effect cycle that could lead the Middle East down the path of regional war. Like many Israelis, including the prime minister, Dichter disagrees with the American NIE on Iran, in particular the finding that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Israelis hold that this program is still active, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reached a conclusion similar to the NIE's based upon its own exhaustive inspection activities inside Iran over the past five years.

In threatening the world with war because America opted for once to embrace fact instead of fiction, Israel, sadly, has become like a cornered beast, lashing out at any and all it perceives to threaten its security interests. The current Israeli definition of what constitutes its security interests is so broad as to preclude any difference of opinion. Israel's shameless invocations of the Holocaust to defend its actions not only shames the memory of those murdered over 60 years ago, but ironically dilutes the impact of that memory by linking it with current policies that are cruel and intolerant. The message of Holocaust remembrance should be "never again," not just in terms of the persecution of Jews, but in terms of man's inhumanity to man. The birth of the Israeli state, as imperfect and controversial as it was, served as a foundation for the pursuit of tolerance. However, Israel's current policies, rooted in ethnic and religious hatred, are the antithesis of tolerance.

Israel at present can have no friends, because Israel does not know how to be a friend. Driven by xenophobic paranoia and historical grievances, Israel is embarked on a path that can only lead to death and destruction. This is a path the United States should not tread. I have always taken the position that Israel is a friend of the United States, and that friends should always stand up for one another, even in difficult times. I have also noted that, to quote a phrase well known in America, friends don't let friends drive drunk, and that for some time now Israel has been drunk on arrogance and power. As a friend, I have believed the best course of action for the United States to take would be that which helped remove the keys from the ignition of the policy vehicle Israel is steering toward the edge of the abyss. Now it seems our old friend is holding a pistol to our head, demanding that we stop interfering with the vehicle's operation and preventing us from getting out of the car. This is not the action of a friend, and it can no longer be tolerated.

It is time for what those who are familiar with dependency issues would term an intervention. Like a child too long spoiled by an inattentive parent, Israel has grown accustomed to American largess, to the point that it is addicted to an American aid package that is largely responsible for keeping the Israeli economy afloat. This aid must be reconsidered in its entirety. The day of the free ride must come to an end. The United States must redefine its national security priorities in the Middle East and position Israel accordingly. At the very least, American aid must be linked to Israeli behavior modification. The standards America applies to other nations around the world when it comes to receiving aid must likewise apply to Israel.

Let there be no doubt: Israel and its considerable lobby of supporters here in America will scream bloody murder if their aid is trimmed in any fashion. But in the greater interest of what will best benefit the security interests of the United States, and indeed the Middle East and the entire world, the grip Israel has on American policymaking must come to an end. It is up to the American people to make this change, first and foremost by recognizing that a real problem exists in American-Israeli relations, then by electing officials to Congress who will deal responsibly with these problems based not on the behind-the-scenes lobbying of Israel and its proxies, but rather the legitimate interests of the United States.

If Israel decides it wants to be our friend, then it will change its behavior accordingly. Absent this, America has no choice but to declare its independence from a relationship that has destroyed our credibility around the world and drags us dangerously down the path toward another irresponsible military misadventure in the Middle East. If, in the future, Israel desires to reestablish a relationship with the United States built upon the principles of mutual trust and benefit, then so be it. Such a relationship is something I could embrace without hesitation. But one thing is certain: no such friendship can truly exist under the conditions and terms that are in place today, and for that reason the entirety of the American-Israeli relationship must be reexamined.

annie

as far as your highly trumped 'global jhiad' i think people find it more prudent to examine why some find a need to 'play up' the threat, and who exactly this benefits. the plan, as documented in pnacs 'rebuilding americas defenses' of having 100's of 'lillypad' bases all over the globe conviniently surrounding oil proceeded the growth of these 'terrorists'. the megaphone (of which you play an important part) is to cause fear fo the purpose of justifying unsound destructive policies that while claiming otherwise, fuel terror. if there was a 'global threat' there would be no need for programs such as Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program.

.....

Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist. Although Zarqawi and other foreign insurgents in Iraq have conducted deadly bombing attacks, they remain "a very small part of the actual numbers," Col. Derek Harvey, who served as a military intelligence officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Army meeting at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., last summer.

In a transcript of the meeting, Harvey said, "Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will -- made him more important than he really is, in some ways."

feeding the war beast. i ain't gobbling your global threat bs.

annie

you believe that Israel is more influential than Mexico within the US?

cute diversion. lets focus on american foreign policy shall we. everybody knows the ptb love screaming about immigration prior to the elections. don't ask me for evidence to prove your point. it is you who claimed Israel is not the most influential country. now back it up w/evidence some mexican lobby is driving our foriegn or domestic policies.

people know who benefits from immigration! we aren't stupid. when push comes to shove the gop will never dissatisfy the corporate greed that fuels the immigration debate. it drives the labor prices down. it they wanted to do anything about it they could easily create a database that confirmed social security numbers and extinquish these fake green cards. after all we all know if you want a loan they can confirm your status in less than ten minutes. instead someone could take the slow train to china during the 6 plus months it takes for the feds to contact employers informing them their staff is illegal. and during that 6 months the taxes are withdrawn from those paychecks just like everybody else propping up the social security coffers to the tune of 8 billion a year, never to arrive back in the pockets of illegals who feed the system.

this is a drop in the bucket problem compared to the billions diverted from the american taxpayer to fund global jhiad in the guise of 'defense'. it is no more than a socialized spoon fed war machine transfering the wealth of the nation to the privatized war patrons..

get a life anand, a try peddling your crap to someone else.

annie

here's a fun quote for the new year

"It's a cultural challenge," the US commander added. "In the end they will need to follow our plan, but we've got to make them feel that it's their plan .

hahahahah. this is what those fair and free 'elections' are all about. and 'free' trade. and 'democracy'.

source

annie

happy new year!

annie

I think that the world should give Pakistan $200 billion over 10 years in grants contingent on difficult reforms to transform Pakistan into a prosperous plural free democracy.

cnn Sources: Bhutto was to give U.S. lawmakers vote-rigging report

"Where an opposing candidate is strong in an area, they [supporters of President Pervez Musharraf ] have planned to create a conflict at the polling station, even killing people if necessary, to stop polls at least three to four hours," the document says.

The report also accused the government of planning to tamper with ballots and voter lists, intimidate opposition candidates and misuse U.S.-made equipment to monitor communications of opponents.

"Ninety percent of the equipment that the USA gave the government of Pakistan to fight terrorism is being used to monitor and to keep a check on their political opponents," the report says.

...

Sen. Latif Khosa, who helped put the report together, accused the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence of operating a rigging cell from a safe house in the capital, Islamabad. The goal, he said, is to change voting results electronically on election day.

"The ISI has set up a mega-computer system where they can hack any computer in Pakistan and connect with the Election Commission," he said.

how very gop of them. i noticed recently when the US 'helps' form a democracy one of the first things we fund is their new electronic systems. we are way up on that in african nations. anyone noticed what's happening in kenya?

Kenya joins Ethiopia in America's Most Valuable Dictators club



The American government is historically very famous for supporting dictators as long as its interests are met. Saddam was one example himself, until his value died out for the American imperialist governments. But this imperialist country has welcomed many members inside its America's Most Valuable Dictators (AMVD) club. Of course the permanent AMVD members will always be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is in this club because of oil and the red sea. Egypt because of Israela's influence and its US-agent role in the Arab world as well as the Suez Canal trade route. And Pakistan, as the main pro-America Muslim agent in the center of Al-Qaeda zone.

Throughout the years, America have added and kicked out, and vice versa, many countries in its AMVD club. So membership in the club changes over time. Today, dozens remain inside it, including the newly admitted dictatorship government of Ethiopia that rigged its own elections as well as dictatorships in Nigeria and Libya. Now, another African country has joined after Kenya's dictator Kibaki rigged and stolen this year's election. The fact remains, America knew about the existence of Dictatorship in Nairobi long time ago.....con't

i recommend. isn't nairobi where the new africom is supposed to be centered? it all fuzzy to me.

anyway. intersting, these 'democracy' elections shered in thru electronic computer systems.

hmm.

annie

Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya are free democracies.

I feel very sad when these great countries are insulted.

There was a book and movie called "The Ugly American." It shows how arrogant Americans can be in insulting other countries.

I am sad to see that the "Ugly American" mentality is alive and well.

Sen. Latif Khosa has an axe to grind in Pakistan. "Ninety percent of the equipment that the USA gave the government of Pakistan to fight terrorism is being used to monitor and to keep a check on their political opponents," makes no sense.

The Pakistani government is trying to use the aid money it receives to advance interests that harm America and the rest of the world. But the 90% figure makes no sense. To be clear, political opponents are being monitored and Pakistan is far from a free democracy.

What I favor is economic aid to encourage rapid economic growth in Pakistan and a stronger civil society. This should gradually facilitate Pakistani civil society’s quest to transform their beloved motherland into a prosperous free democracy.

Re: 'Anand', 8:35 AM.

['Anand'] "Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya are free democracies. I feel very sad when these great countries are insulted".

Neither Nigeria, nor Ethiopia, nor Kenya can be regarded as 'free democracies', at least in the Western sense.
Elections are systematically rigged, human rights are violated on an everyday basis.

This lying snake 'Anand' is just showing his disgusting true colours once more.

BTW, the compulsive liar 'Anand' lied as well on the book 'The Ugly American' (that I discussed here, months ago). It seems that misrepresenting and lying is for this repulsive beast second nature.

“Neither Nigeria, nor Ethiopia, nor Kenya can be regarded as 'free democracies', at least in the Western sense.”

Western sense? So now Westerners are the judges of right, wrong, fact and fiction. Talk about Western bifocals.

The book needs to be renamed “The Ugly Westerner.”

Let us see, the Europeans fought a tribal, racial spat in the 1940s that killed over 50 million people around the world. And now Europeans are the judges of global righteousness?

Maybe Westerners aren’t the best exemplars of freedom and democracy. If you really want to learn how it is done, visit Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Thailand and India. Come to ‘civilized’ countries that were expanding human knowledge of science and culture when ‘Westerners’ were busy drawing pictures in caves.

Ethiopia was an advanced lower Nile civilization 6,000 years ago. Western Europeans were discovering their first tools.

Ethiopia has a very sophisticated and nuanced culture. In what way are they not a free democracy today. Democracy and Freedom are young. But they are establishing themselves.

Are India and Indonesia not free democracies. I think that India and Indonesia are freer and more democratic than most European countries.

Nigeria is still working out the kinks. It is half Christian, half muslim, and by far the most populous country in Africa. The old European anti-African bigotry shows its ugly head.

Freedom and democracy are still not as firmly established in Kenya. But they are working their way through it. I love Kenyans. AQ killing 250 Kenyans in 1998 did not stop them. And nor will Western anti-Kenya bigotry stop Kenyans.

What does the poster mean by " old(original) and new residents of Baghdad? Who are the new ones? are they aliens from Mars? Saddam's laws on circulation and mouvment within iraq are no longer in force , i assume , is the blogger in favour of those laws? is he in favour of an apartheid system?

" sunnis will always be there "
We all know that , but was that a threat? and to whom?

As evil and corrupt as the Shi'a militias are, they were not,
until a few months ago, trying to overthrow the democratically elected government.

That would be because the Iraqi puppet government was set up by the raafida.