Signs of progress summarized: 1. Iraqi's don't control their own army or intelligence services. 2. Iran has serious influence within the police force and health care services. 3. The US no longer is concerned about Democracy - just an ally (ie, it's no longer about the Iraqi people). Progress indeed. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html U.S. officials rethink hopes for Iraq democracy BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security. A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the Bush administration's stated goals of the war. But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been. "Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future," said Brig. Gen. John "Mick" Bednarek, part of Task Force Lightning in Diyala province, one of the war's major battlegrounds. The comments reflect a practicality common among Western diplomats and officials trying to win hearts and minds in the Middle East and other non-Western countries where democracy isn't a tradition. The failure of Iraq to emerge from widespread instability is a bitter pill for the United States, which optimistically toppled the Saddam Hussein regime more than four years ago. Millions of Iraqis went to the polls to cast ballots, something that generated great promise for the establishment of a democratic system. But Iraqi institutions, from the infrastructure to the national government, are widely regarded as ineffective in the fifth year of the war. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, declined to be interviewed for this story, but they issued a joint statement to CNN that reiterated that the country's "fundamental democratic framework is in place" and that "the development of democratic institutions is being encouraged." And, they said, they are helping Iraqi political leaders find ways "to share power and achieve legislative progress." But Crocker and Petraeus conceded they are "now engaged in pursuing less lofty and ambitious goals than was the case at the outset." Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning, also reflected a less lofty American goal for Iraq's future. "I would describe it as leaving an effective government behind that can provide services to its people, and security. It needs to be an effective and functioning government that is really a partner with the United States and the rest of the world in this fight against the terrorists," said Mixon, who will not be perturbed if such goals are reached without democracy. "Well, see that all over the Middle East," he said, stating that democracy is merely an option, that Iraqis are free to choose or reject. "But that is the $50,000 question. ... What will this government look like? Will it be a democracy? Will it not?" he asked. Soldiers, he said, are fighting for security, a goal Mixon described as "core to my mission." But security is far from complete in Iraq, where the government seems dysfunctional and paralyzed. Seventeen of the 37 Iraqi Cabinet ministers either boycott or don't attend Cabinet meetings. Parliament, now on a much-criticized month-long summer break, has yet to pass key legislation in the areas of energy resource sharing and the future roles of former members of Hussein's Baath Party. U.S. officials, including President Bush, have said there is frustration with efforts by the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to promote political reconciliation. The government is unable to supply regular electricity and at times running water in the capital. The health care system is run by one Iranian-backed militia and the national police are dominated by another. Death squads terrorize Sunni neighborhoods. Sectarian cleansing is pushing people into segregated enclaves, protected by Shiite or U.S.-backed Sunni militias, and spurring the flight of thousands to neighboring countries. Thousands of innocents are dying violently every month in cities and villages across the country. Iraqi government officials concede things aren't working, but they say that's because the United States doesn't allow Iraq to really control its own destiny. While the Iraqi government commands its own troops, it cannot send them into battle without U.S. agreement. Iraqi Special Forces answer only to U.S. officers. "We don't have full sovereignty," said Hadi al-Amri, the chairman of parliament's Defense and Security Committee. "We don't have sovereignty over our troops, we don't have sovereignty over our provinces. We admit it." And because of the very real prospect of Iranian infiltration, the government doesn't fund or control its own intelligence service. It's paid for and run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Abdul Qarim al-Enzi, director of the parliamentary ethics committee, asks whether it is "reasonable for a country given sovereignty by the international community to have a chief of intelligence appointed by another country." One senior U.S. official in Baghdad told CNN that "any country with 160,000 foreigners fighting for it sacrifices some sovereignty." The U.S. government has long cautioned that a fully functioning democracy would be slow to emerge in Iraq. But with key U.S. senators calling for al-Maliki's removal, some senior U.S. military commanders even suggest privately the entire Iraqi government must be removed by "constitutional or non-constitutional" means and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.
In all fairnes, the "less lofty" idea is old news. I don't have any links handy, but Bush signaled a while ago that democracy in Iraq wasn't the goal any more. That rhetoric is long dead. The goals now (which I would say are also lofty) are too have a functioning, stable, competent government that is able to provide security for the country AND is a U.S. strategic ally. If Bush and minions had been more realistic and forthcoming in, say, early 2005, these current goals might have been possible BACK THEN. Right now, they are a borderline pipedream. How is the current Iraqi government removed and how is a new one put in? That is the $100,000 question. It MUST be done in a way the Shias approve of and therein lies the problem. Iraqi Shias are less willing to compromise with Sunnis than 18-24 months ago for obvious reasons. The notion of a unified government that represents all the factions is great but nearly impossible. IMO, the only way to a stable central government in Iraq is with brute force. The amount of force needed would be more than the U.S. would approve of and more than any Iraqi faction can exert. Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together. If the U.S. figures out how to remove the government, put in another one and then it bombs out or turns against us, that is strike 3. It's time to plan our exit, split the nation into three zones and get out of dodge. Shouldn't take more than a couple of years. How many troops we leave behind to protect & lasso the Kurds and to strike at Al Qaeda is open for debate.
so we need a secular sunni strongman who will control the iran backed shia majority and keep iran and the islamic terrorists occupied for us. i have the perfect man! too bad he's dead! goodbye iraqi rose though i never knew you at all you had the grace to hold yourself While those around you crawled They crawled out of the woodwork And they whispered into your brain They set you on the treadmill And they made you change your name And it seems to me you lived your life Like a candle in the wind Never knowing who to cling to When the rain set in And I would have liked to have known you But I was just a kurd Your candle burned out long before Your legend ever did
It's too bad they executed Saddam. The surge has been working, and progress made in rooting out some of the counterinsurgency....but I've never said the political end was being successful, it's been a disaster from the start. I think putting a despot in power is going to blowup in our face as well, but the only solution may be to have a military controled type of secular gov't - which is what they had before.
Well I don't think you need to force democracy on Iraq to prove you have the people as your concern. We tried that same crap with Native Americans.
Saddam was a vampire, but isn't it ironic he was anti-Iran, anti-Syria (the Assad regimes), anti-Al Qaeda and secular? He was also WMD-free after we invaded the first time. Military controlled, huh? Whose military? Ours? Assuming you mean Iraqi, how do you have a military controlled government without a despot? This makes no sense at all. Military governments rule by force. Secular, huh? Very unlikely. Might have been possible when moderate Shias had more influence and there were some influential moderate Sunnis still alive (I exaggerate slightly). Bold decisions are necessary instead of coming to realizations 2-3 years late. Iraq is broken and can't be fixed. The sooner we start the end game, the fewer Americans lives are lost, the less our military is broken down and the sooner this sorry chapter will come to a close.
You either have a military dicatorship headed by despot and hope he's better then Saddam or you partition the country. Personally, I think our strategy should be to push out Al Qaeda and then partition the country and then get out. Anyway we can find closure to this and not leave Iraq in a civil war has to be deemed a relief at this point.
So over the last few days you seemed to have come around to the sensible view. Does that make you a "liberal"? If we took a poll of "liberals" on this forum, I bet over 50% of them would actually agree with your solution to Iraq posted here. In case you hadn't noticed, even the major Dem candidates have ceased calling for immediate withdrawal and the "liberal"/left-wing pressure kook groups haven't called them out for it. Sheehan doesn't count. Folks, I guess a leopard CAN change his stripes.
What are you talking about? I support staying in and finishing of Al Qaeda, and I think the surge has had a beneficial impact. I've never said we had to create a democratic Iraq so I think you really need to read more carefully and not jump to random conclusions about what people are saying. What the "liberals" here have a problem with is that new tactics are having impact, they are saying it's not and it's just spin by the White House, I'm saying, hey, the military finally has a competent general in Iraq and some good things are happening. Talk about reading comprehension skills.
Have you considered though the only reason Al Qaeda is there in the first place and has a base of operations is because we are there and Iraqi Sunnis were looking for allies. How likely are other Iraqis going to put up with Al Qaeda if the US isn't there to fight?
This general finally has enough troops to make a temporary impact. Too bad this administration has repeatedly denied more troops were needed for the last 4 years. Few are denying there is a temporary beneficial impact in the surge. The issue is whether it will do any lasting good, which most doubt (for good reason). Al Qaeda won't be "finished off" in Iraq over the next year or so. Sorry, it isn't so simple. They will be back in force, whether we leave or occupy for 10 years. The only way Al Qaeda can be removed from Iraq is by ethnic cleansing all the Sunnis and closing the borders. This is how dire things are.
Well, people were denying it at first. I said I believed the report by the brooking institute and people were shocked, and now everyone buys into it as being accurate. And I don't think you can assume that Al Qaeda will be back in force in the next year or so. It isn't so simple.
You're assuming that Al Qaeda is only interested in fighting the U.S. I think if we left and Iraq did descend into chaos then Al Qaeda would keep a presence there since they could use it as a base of operations to recruit and coordinate from.
Progress at this stage is any kind of improving situation, that can be from a military or political standpoint. Obviously both were is bad condition, so right now, it doesn't take much to have progress, but at least we are seeing improvement.
No doubt Al Qaeda would but they can't stay without some support of the local populace. Al Qaeda's welcome has been wearing thin for the past few years and without the US its questionable how much the remaining Iraqi supporters would stick with them. This is the probelm though. Depending how narrowly you define progress you could always say that progress is being made as long as you can find something in Iraq that was slightly better than it was the day before.
