I've been saying since Nov. of 2002 that even if you supported the invasion of Iraq that the Admin's planning was still terrible. Several military strategists including the Army Chief of staff told the Admin that to occupy and rebuild Iraq they will need more troops, more money and more time than they were planning for. Instead this Admin let Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles blow smoke up their colons that the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms. They also believed their own Neo-Con hype that all they needed to do was get rid of Saddam and the Iraqis would suddenly become peaceful democratic secularists. It seems to me that it didn't take a geo-political genuis to guess that there probably was a whole bunch of Iraqis who had it good under Saddam and they weren't going to sit by while their world got flipped over or that the Shiites being a majority weren't going to sit by and, at least in their minds, get sold down the river (again) by the US to keep ethnic harmony. Instead the Admin. worried more about setting up lucrative reconstruction contracts for US companies and freezing out the UN than developing an occupation plan that would provide for security and deal with insurgencies. So now our troops are fighting on two fronts in Iraq and are fighting exactly the kind of battle we wanted to avoid. Street to street urban fighting with irregular militias. At the same time we are undermanned to deal with widespread violence and many of those Iraqis we trained to police Iraq are turning their guns on us. Lets not forget that come June 30th these are going to be the guys that are going to be in charge of running Iraq. Things aren't looking good and I fear they are still going to get worst.
Some other posters are claiming the media is misrepresenting what's happening in Iraq and we are winning hearts and minds like cake, and nothing majorly wrong has happened - it's all blown out of proportion.
It's blown out of proportion, when you compare the overall population versus the much, much smaller percentage of those thuggish militia type idiots anti-sensing the goal of proper handover for a democratic setting for all the people of Iraq...The terrorists don't want democracy because that is about freedom and fairness,...they are scared and their choice exudes the irregular theological tyranny that is a repugnant stigmatism accorded to outright religious-based rule, which of course lends itself at odds to the virtue of individual rights and freedoms, and thusly a safer Iraq... Surely, by the polls I have seen and the overall sentiment insinuates the majority want the freedom, the rights and are willing to cooperate, as evidenced by the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis doing their part as it relates to security and civil reconstruction... I am fully capable of seeing what is happening and what is coming, and I don't doubt insurgency will unearth it's ugly head, and to continue to some degree in the future, because there are clearly Iraqis that we haven't killed (unfortuneately) who are the face of religious fanaticism, bathist members, or even terroristic seeking individuals...What I intend on seeing is the continuance of our military doing what they do best...The United States Marines are warriors! Instruments of death praying for War!,...and I hope we blow these repugnant slugs to smithereens!...God Bless them!...
Actually the Baathists are quite secular and aren't religious extremists at all. They most often get along with the shiites but aren't allied. The problem is that now they are finding a common enemy in the U.S. The dislike is rising.
Maybe it is time to go back to war and quit this policing action. It really cracks me up how the Saddam-spoiled Sunni Triangle and a few scattered loyalists are taken to represent all of Iraq.
At least we have the first stringers (Uncle Sam's Misguided Children) in Fallujuha and not our second string, the Army. In Somalia, the khat-chewing whackjob gunmen feared Marines after a few times snipers were killed instantly by highly accurate return fire (Marines have a much higher standard on rifle marksmanship among other things. If you're not able to shoot accurately, you are asked to leave the Corps). But when the Army arrived without the support we had over there (LAV fighting vehicles and skinny birds [AH-1Whiskey Cobras], they were toast because of a stupidly planned mission without the correct resources (a Specter gunship and some armored support) to do the job properly. We'll get some payback in Fallujah, because there is no more dangerous weapon in all the world than a Marine and his rifle.
It really cracks me up how the Saddam-spoiled Sunni Triangle and a few scattered loyalists are taken to represent all of Iraq. The NYT thinks you are mistaken. ********** Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand By JAMES RISEN Published: April 8, 2004 ASHINGTON, April 7 — United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday. That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq. But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising. A year ago, many Shiites rejoiced at the American invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who had brutally repressed the Shiites for decades. But American intelligence officials now believe that hatred of the American occupation has spread rapidly among Shiites, and is now so large that Mr. Sadr and his forces represent just one element.. Meanwhile, American intelligence has not yet detected signs of coordination between the Sunni rebellion in Iraq's heartland and the Shiite insurgency. But United States intelligence says that the Sunni rebellion also goes far beyond former Baathist government members. Sunni tribal leaders, particularly in Al Anbar Province, home to Ramadi, the provincial capital, and Falluja, have turned against the United States and are helping to lead the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say. The result is that the United States is facing two broad-based insurgencies that are now on parallel tracks. The Bush administration has sought to portray the opposition much more narrowly. In the Sunni insurgency, the White House and the Pentagon have focused on the role of the former leaders of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein's government, while in the Shiite rebellion they have focused almost exclusively on the role of Mr. Sadr. Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon that the fighting in Iraq was just the work of "thugs, gangs and terrorists," and not a popular uprising. General Myers added that "it's not a Shiite uprising. Sadr has a very small following." According to some experts on Iraq's Shiites, the uprising has spread to many Shiites who are not followers of Mr. Sadr. "There is a general mood of anti-Americanism among the people in the streets," said Ghassan R. al-Attiyah, executive director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in Baghdad. "They identify with Sadr not because they believe in him but because they have their own grievances." While they share the broader anger in Iraq over the lack of jobs and security, many Shiites suspect that the handover of sovereignty to Iraqi politicians from the American occupying powers on June 30 will bypass their interests, Mr. Attiyah said. With his offensive, Mr. Sadr has "hijacked the political process," he said. As a result, more moderate Shiite clerics and politicians risk going against public opinion if they come out too strongly against the rebellious young cleric, he said. Also hard to gauge is the relationship between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Mr. Sadr. Ayatollah Sistani is an aging cleric venerated for his teachings, while Mr. Sadr is a youthful rabble-rouser, with little clerical standing. This week, Ayatollah Sistani issued a statement supporting Mr. Sadr's decision to act against the Americans, but emphasizing the need for a peaceful solution. In this, the older man seemed to be marking out a position that allowed him to associate with the tide of Shiite popular feelings, while allowing Mr. Sadr, for whom he is said to harbor a personal contempt, to risk his militia — and his life — in a showdown with the Americans. While Mr. Sadr's militiamen prepared for battle, all was quiet at the Kufa headquarters of a rival militia that has helped sustain Mr. Sadr's political influence — the Badr Brigade. Nominally controlled by another Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Brigade has generally been seen as underpinning Ayatollah Sistani's authority. Although anti-Americanism is hardly universal among Shiites, an anti-American mood has been building for months. At the Grand Mosque in Kufa, where Mr. Sadr took refuge as his militiamen were seizing control of the city on Sunday, this deep vein of anti-Americanism feeds off every rumor. At night, as they torch gasoline-soaked tires to light checkpoints guarding the approaches to the mosque, the militiamen speak of America's planning to uproot Islam in Iraq, to steal its oil, to deny Shiites a voice in the country's future governance, even to bring back Saddam Hussein. In the Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq, some Pentagon officials and other government officials believe that Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shiite extremist group, is now playing a key role in the Shiite insurgency. The Islamic Jihad Organization, a terrorist group closely affiliated with Hezbollah, is also said by some officials to have established offices in Iraq, and that Iran is behind much of the violence. C.I.A. officials disagree, however, and say they have not yet seen evidence that Hezbollah has joined forces with Iraqi Shiites. Some intelligence officials believe that the Pentagon has been eager to link Hezbollah to the violence in Iraq to link the Iranian regime more closely to anti-American terrorism. But C.I.A. officials agree that Hezbollah has established a significant presence in postwar Iraq. The Lebanese-based organization sent in teams after the war, American intelligence officials believe. Hezbollah's presence inside Iraq is a source of concern since it is widely recognized by counterterrorist experts to have some of the most effective and dangerous terrorist operatives in the world. The United States has issued a $25 million reward for the capture of Imad Mugniyah, the longtime chief of foreign terrorist operations who is believed to have been behind a series of terrorist attacks against Americans in the 1980's, including the hostage-taking operations in Lebanon. More recently, Hezbollah has focused its terrorist activities on Israel, and, before the war in Iraq, is not believed to have launched a major terrorist attack against American interests since the bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996 killed 19 American military personnel. There were some clues to an Iranian presence in Kufa this week. Even as militiamen ferried food and medical supplies into the mosque this week in preparation for a siege, among the pilgrims to the sanctuary were Iranian men. Militiamen at the mosque said that at least some of the funds needed for extensive reconstruction work currently under way inside the sanctuary have come from Iran. There are close ties between the Shiite clerical establishments in the two countries. But whether the Iranian role extends beyond finance is hard to know. Some foreign Islamic fighters have been playing a role in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian affiliated with the Ansar al-slam terrorist group, is conducting terrorist operations in conjunction with the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials believe. Mr. Zarqawi may have been behind some recent car bombings in Iraq, although American intelligence officials do not believe he is commanding any of the Sunni militia forces facing the United States military. The Sunni forces appear instead to be led by former Iraqi government members and local tribal leaders in Falluja and other cities in the Sunni heartland, intelligence officials said. Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. official who worked covertly in Iraq in the mid-1990's, said that some of those Sunni tribal leaders were once opposed to Saddam Hussein, and years ago approached the C.I.A. about working with it against Hussein. But now, many of those same tribal leaders have turned against the occupation, current and former intelligence officials say. link A good source for authoritative comment on Iraq from an expert. http://www.juancole.com/
Considering Sadr's father and brother were assasinated by Saddam I think this latest uprising is anything but the Saddam spoiled Sunni Triangle. I heard a report this morning that throughout Iraq Sunnis, Shiites and even Kurds have been moving to support the Fallujah and Shiite uprisings.
bammaslammer; I agree with you that it was a shameful chapter in the US military history in Somalia that the troops weren't given enough support. I hope that the troops fighting in Iraq now will be given as much manpower and hardware. Unfortunately though things might have gone differently if the planning for the invasion and occupation had been more thoughtful from the beginning. As I said even if you supported the invasion you should've been concerned about the planning. The force used was about the half the size of the force used to expel Saddam out of Kuwait. While even before the war it was a reasonable argument that we didn't need a large force to defeat Saddam's depleted and demoralized army we certainly needed a large force to police and provide security in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam. The Admin. knew this because several former and active military officers with extensive experience had told them so but they still chose to go in with a force that didn't have enough boots on the ground to control the situation in Iraq once Saddam fell. If we could've stopped much of the looting the current problems we now face might've been less.
Well, that can be explained by the huge cuts in our forces following the Cold War. We simply didn't have the amount of troops that we could deploy during Gulf War I. Were they too much, too deep, too soon. You betcha and I lay that blame with both the elder Bush and Clinton.
Yes both those guys deserve some blame but so does Rumsfeld. If you follow what Rumsfeld has done as Sec. of Defense in this Admin he has been obsessed about "force-multipliers" to reduce the need for large numbers of troops. Tommy Franks had to fight Rumsfeld just to get the amount of troops that went into Iraq in the first place. According to some if it had been up to Rumsfeld the invasion of Iraq would've been undertaken with only 50K troops.
The majority doesn't really matter if our occupation force cannot guarantee the safety of anyone outside *our* concrete enclosures. But at least the NRA should have no problem establishing a foothold in Iraq. http://slate.msn.com/id/2093154/entry/0/