Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Snip...

The Petraeus-Crocker report to Congress will no doubt offer further evidence that the new approach is working but is far from having completed its assigned task. No fair-minded observer could conclude otherwise. Petraeus has already indicated that the central military element of the surge—the increase of 30,000 troops—will end by summer 2008. At that point, U.S. forces in Iraq are set to decline to pre-surge levels, roughly 130,000. The question Petraeus will now have to answer is: how long will troop levels need to stay there, and when can they start moving down?

What Petraeus must have uppermost in his mind is the record compiled by his predecessors in trying to produce results with just enough troops to come close but not enough to succeed. A premature drawdown would, by definition, cause the forfeiture of his hard-won gains. And the political reality is that once those troops left Iraq, they would not be coming back...

This is an interesting piece in presenting a rare articulate view of the entire process from inside the White House. It explains many things, such as why Baker-Hamilton was ignored. I still see whole article as spun, and giving too little credit to the critics. There was a great deal of good will in Iraq immediately after the statue fell. That moment was squandered in disbanding the Iraqi army in its entirety, and a too thorough de-baathification. No credit is given to the critics who said the initial troop level was too low in the beginning. There was just too little planning early. Thus, I see a good deal of washing in the above account.

But it leaves me wondering about the difference between "stay the course," NSVI, and the surge. The early approaches expected meaningful progress coming from the Iraqi government. The new approaches don't expect much. The early approaches attempted to transfer the security load to Iraqi forces. The new approaches don't??? Was there really a change in course, or just a lowering of expectations? What was the surge?

1. An increase in American troop levels.
2. A change in tactics from killing insurgents to protecting neighborhoods.
3. After an internal Al Qaida in Iraq document leaked revealed the nature of its 'Controlled Chaos' strategy, other factions rejected AQiA, and started working with the Americans. US - Sunni cooperation increased significantly.
4. After the destruction of the dome, there was a period of ethnic cleansing, where mixed neighborhoods were ethnically cleansed. About the time the surge was declared, the ethnic cleansing was essentially complete, leading to a reduction in violence.
5. As the ethnic cleansing ended, shortly after the leak of the AQiI "Controlled Chaos" paper was released, the Shiite militias declared a cease fire.

The Feaver paper credits the troop level increase and change in tactics, and calls to stay the course. I believe the changes in tactics long overdue, but I'm not at all clear that troop counts and tactics were the decisive factors in reducing the violence.

The positive news is that both the Sunni and Shiite have significant elements that are rejecting AQiI and it's attempts to escalate violence. If AQiI blows up something, people are apt to blame AQiI rather than the opposite religious block. Both religious blocks now do have something approximating a 'moderate' faction that is attempting to deescalate, as well as extreme groups unwilling to cooperate with the Americans and Iraqi central government.

Three problems, at the very least, remain.

1. The elected government in Iraq is not ready for a reasonable division of power yet.
2. The elected officials in Iraq are blocking a new set of elections.
3. Iraqi security forces, in spite of more than enough time to train to technical competence, are not competent.

I believe the last is because of a large divide between government policy and what the people want. The official government seems content with an indefinite US occupation, with all the foreign aid money that implies going to a great degree into politician's pockets. The people want the US gone. As long as the young Iraqi males making up the security forces don't believe in what they are fighting for, they aren't going to fight well.

Short term, we seem to be opening a new phase in the fighting, with the Shiite government forces taking on Al Sadr and the Shiite militias. I kind of expect the militias will be hard to suppress. We'll have to give them a Friedman Unit to see where the balance lies, and how the lies balance.

Long term, I half expect a democratic administration will work with Al Sadr and others of the 'Yankee go home' school, rather than trying to isolate them. The democrats will truly be working to get out of Iraq, while the Bush 43 gang wants US troops near the oil. I don't see Iraqi security forces becoming effective so long as they serve a government collaborating with permanent occupiers.

In an insurgent war, it's about what the people want, rather than tactics and boots on the ground, at least until you get to that 1 foreign soldier to 50 natives textbook ratio that we can no where near sustain. Short of that, you can't dislodge an insurgent force that the people support. Thus, the question is whether the Iraqi people really want to be occupied.

Thousands in Baghdad Protest Basra Assault. The New York Times.

Here we go with the next phase of the war. Maktada al-Sadr leads the major Shiite 'Yankee go home' faction. The government recently blocked a new round of elections as the polls say al-Sadr would gain considerable power should elections be held. Then, they attempt to suppress him by force.

The interesting thing is I've seen a rise in reports of large non-violent protests, recently, generally backing al-Sadr. The Middle East generally isn't big on non-violence protests, as totalitarian governments just oppress protestors and ignore the will of the people. Does whomever is behind this think the new Baghdad government will listen, or are they aiming the protests at the western press?

For discussion purposes.

BAGHDAD — Thousands of supporters of the powerful Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia took to the streets of Baghdad on Thursday to protest the Iraqi Army’s assault on the southern port city of Basra, as intense fighting continued there for a third day.

In Basra, there seemed to be no breakthrough in the fighting by either side; as much as half of the city remained under militia control, hospitals in some parts of the city were reported full, and the violence was continuing to spread. There were clashes reported all over the city and in locations 12 miles south of Basra.

The Iraqi Army’s offensive in Basra is an important political test for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and for American strategy in Iraq. President Bush sought to portray the fighting in a positive light on Thursday, declaring the offensive by Mr. Maliki’s government a “bold decision.”

But if the army’s assault in Basra leads the Mahdi Army to break completely with its current cease-fire, which has helped to tamp down attacks in Iraq during the past year, there is a risk of escalating violence and of replaying 2004, when the militia fought intense battles with American forces that destabilized the entire country.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Good nuff. I don't see any head on collisions on basics, then.

Just a few examples of head on collisions... A fundamentalists might believe thoroughly in the literal word of the Christian Bible, and thus be incapable of honestly evaluating evidence of evolution, or evidence that anything existed more than 6000 years ago. A libertarian might believe that no problem exists that requires intervention by the government, thus global warming can't possibly be real. Again, you occasionally encounter individuals whose deep held values prevent them from perceiving reality. The above would be examples of religious and political values trumping scientific.

I'm not quite sure I'm with your labeling schemes. It almost seems that you label political values Blue, and religious values Red. I don't see the Red / Blue divide as quite so clear cut. Blue values might support equality, due process and free speech rights more, while Red values emphasize security and the right to bear arms. Blue populations might emphasize secular values more, Red religious. But it would all be vague and fuzzy. Not everyone that lives in any given area follows a precise manifesto.

A scientific first probably assumes a biblical year is the same as mans standard of measurement of time. I admit, I find it hard to believe the earth was created in just six days. However, I don't view God as being the same thing as man either. So, a biblical day or year spanning several thousands man years isn't out of the realm of possibility.

A libertarian might believe global warming is more of a natural occurrence vs a man made incident. Therefore, mass government intervention isn't going to drastically change or reverse the situation. As previously mentioned, the land my house sits on, was at one time covered by a very thick layer of glacial ice. Obviously, something natural must have occurred which caused a climate change without industrialized mans assistance. Maybe, the earth just tilted or something. Does man really have the ability to tilt the earth back, reverse ocean currents, air currents or volcanic activity?

Hey, I'm an enviromentalist. Sportsman are often viewed as the true conservationists and the largest financial contributors to preservation and animal habitat. I view clean air and clean water as being necessary things. Plus, I'm even a promoter, owner and supporter of high efficiency products. However, I do realize that not all people were born rich. Therefore, I take issue with immediate government imposed mandates. I prefer gradual phase outs over a reasonable amount of years. I view gradual phase outs as being less of an economic strain imposed on the not-so-rich people. So, I applied all three to trump you one. This is an example of religious values being combined with the other two trumping scientific.

Why would a person who claims to represent or support post-Cival War American values even argue over or claim to favor the right to free speech over the right to bear arms? I recognize the blues right to free speech. Blues should be able to recognize the reds right to bear arms. I'm sure the red values all of his/her basic rights as much as the blue. I own a gun. I assume, you can or might own a gun. You see, equality is a wunderful thing. I don't see a problem with blues/reds owning guns. I have the same opinion in regards to free speech.

I agree, not everyone who lives in any given area follows a precise manifesto. However, I believe most of the folks who live around them follow some sort of basic manifesto. Honestly, I tend to view seculars as being a bit out of touch with cultural reality beyond their utopian societies. But, this is just my opinion of coarse.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

A scientific first probably assumes a biblical year is the same as mans standard of measurement of time. I admit, I find it hard to believe the earth was created in just six days. However, I don't view God as being the same thing as man either. So, a biblical day or year spanning several thousands man years isn't out of the realm of possibility.

If you are trying to rationalize science and the Bible, make those days equal to 1 billion years ... or assume that the entire creation story is an allegory suitable for the scientifically ignorant people of the time it was written

Originally Posted by K-I-A

... A libertarian might believe global warming is more of a natural occurrence vs a man made incident. Therefore, mass government intervention isn't going to drastically change or reverse the situation. As previously mentioned, the land my house sits on, was at one time covered by a very thick layer of glacial ice. Obviously, something natural must have occurred which caused a climate change without industrialized mans assistance. Maybe, the earth just tilted or something. Does man really have the ability to tilt the earth back, reverse ocean currents, air currents or volcanic activity?

The earth's tilt hasn't changed for a long time, though there is evidence that it has been moved around over the billions of years it's been here. If yo want an explanation for the cyclical ice ages and interstitial warm periods, you can try meteor strikes, massive volcanoes and galactic periodicity.

Originally Posted by K-I-A

... Hey, I'm an environmentalist. Sportsman are often viewed as the true conservationists and the largest financial contributors to preservation and animal habitat. I view clean air and clean water as being necessary things. Plus, I'm even a promoter, owner and supporter of high efficiency products. However, I do realize that not all people were born rich. Therefore, I take issue with immediate government imposed mandates. I prefer gradual phase outs over a reasonable amount of years. I view gradual phase outs as being less of an economic strain imposed on the not-so-rich people. So, I applied all three to trump you one. This is an example of religious values being combined with the other two trumping scientific.

That idea, while certainly commendable, hasn't been shown to work vary well. most people do what comes easiest to them, especially those of limited means. There is also the question of how fast we must move to preserve any semblance of modernity. No one can say for certain, but the odds favor moving fast. Being wrong on this has a huge downside, if the 'wrong' is doing little to nothing when full-tilt-boogie is actually required.

Originally Posted by K-I-A

... Why would a person who claims to represent or support post-Civil War American values even argue over or claim to favor the right to free speech over the right to bear arms? I recognize the blues right to free speech. Blues should be able to recognize the reds right to bear arms. I'm sure the red values all of his/her basic rights as much as the blue. I own a gun. I assume, you can or might own a gun. You see, equality is a wonderful thing. I don't see a problem with blues/reds owning guns. I have the same opinion in regards to free speech.

Well, i can cuss you out and raise your blood pressure, but you can calmly kill me, my family and anyone else within the limit of the weapon you have and the ability you have with it. I don't see them as being very equivalent.

Originally Posted by K-I-A

... I agree, not everyone who lives in any given area follows a precise manifesto. However, I believe most of the folks who live around them follow some sort of basic manifesto. Honestly, I tend to view seculars as being a bit out of touch with cultural reality beyond their Utopian societies. But, this is just my opinion of coarse.

Bush's folk refer to that as the difference between the faith and reality based communities. I'll take reality, thank you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

A libertarian is actually most likely to believe that, whether or not global warming is occurring and/or human-induced, government intervention is not the best way to solve the problem.

I would have agreed with this until just recently. Now I'm not so sure. Even libertarians recognize that systems are not necessarily self-correcting or self-healing. Watching the market-magic melt all over Bear-Stearns changed some minds about supposedly self-managing systems, and the potential down sides of being uninvolved.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would have agreed with this until just recently. Now I'm not so sure. Even libertarians recognize that systems are not necessarily self-correcting or self-healing. Watching the market-magic melt all over Bear-Stearns changed some minds about supposedly self-managing systems, and the potential down sides of being uninvolved.

The ongoing financial meltdown has nothing to do with the operation of the market and everything to do with loose monetary and fiscal policies by the state and its unaccountable private appendage, the Federal Reserve. The Fed counterfeited trillions of dollars over a period of decades, and that money had to go somewhere. It created serial asset bubbles which have all burst and are now threatening to drag the dollar (and the U.S. economy) into a black hole. The misbehavior of large financial institutions was fueled by an avalanche of fiat money searching for an outlet and would not have been possible if Greenspan hadn't left the faucet running for 20+ years. The call now for tighter regulation will accomplish nothing, other than to create more intrusive bureaucracy and increase transaction costs for consumers, because the U.S. government doesn't actually control the country's money supply (it has delegated that function to the Fed) and is politically incapable of implementing the austerity measures necessary to attack its astronomical debt in any meaningful way.

But I've said this all before. It will take the utter ruination of this country to jolt people out of their old reflexes. Until then, believe whatever you like.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Perhaps so, but my point was that a hardcore libertarian would be "delusional" about the correct solution to the problem, not whether or not the problem existed in the first place.

Rather, a libertarian (or at least this libertarian) would reject the notion that a select group was privy to the Truth, or Special Knowledge of the Future, or whatever other justification might be offered for the imposition of a Singular Vision of Reality -- and its corresponding Plan or Course of Action -- on all mankind. (These are all trademarked terms, mind you, so respect the IP. You wouldn't believe the DRM the Deity has incorporated into the latest version of Cosmos OS, and a saintly copyright lawyer is a terrifying sight to behold -- what with the fire and the brimstone and the wrath.) A libertarian would say "try everything -- even the crazy shit -- and the optimal solution will sort itself out naturally" rather than "my way or the highway -- and, oh yeah, I've posted surly bull dykes all along the highway to violate you with truncheons should you choose incorrectly".

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

I agree, not everyone who lives in any given area follows a precise manifesto. However, I believe most of the folks who live around them follow some sort of basic manifesto. Honestly, I tend to view seculars as being a bit out of touch with cultural reality beyond their utopian societies. But, this is just my opinion of coarse.

I could quibble or refine other paragraphs of your post, but don't feel a great need to. I might come back to it.

To me, the core reason rural areas are conservative while urban areas tend progressive is that urban areas are impacted more severely by changing technology. There are more people closer together. As new science changes the economy, the lives and jobs of city dwellers are more heavily impacted. Thus, the need for change is greater in urban areas. Thus, the people living in urban areas are more likely to vote for changes.

On the flip side, if rural life doesn't change that much, rural people would feel less need to change things. If there are fewer problems, there is less perceived need for the government to intervene to solve them.

When I take my walks, I pass two houses with large former farm land tracts. Both owners keep a half dozen dogs. Passing their houses is noisy. I'm of the opinion that a few dogs and a rifle over the fireplace is a perfectly good rural security system. Will the same system work in an apartment complex? Are the people living in the two environments apt to share the same opinion on the Right to Bear Arms?

Look at some county level voting maps. You'll quite regularly see blue urban areas, red rural. California is by area mostly red, but far more people live in the blue costal cities. This is fairly typical. To my mind, rural folk can handle their environment pretty well on their own, are more self sufficient, and therefore don't need or want government folk wandering around doing stuff. They are just plain so spread out that central services don't make as much sense. On the other hand, problems in the city can get bigger and uglier, not so easily handled on an individual free lance basis. If everybody isn't pulling in the same direction, things don't work as well. Greater numbers result in better opportunities for economy of scale.

Thus, perhaps, rural folk might see city folk as 'utopians,' trying to solve using government problems that either don't matter or could best be handled by individuals. Urban folk see real problems in day to day life that are best handled by government that rural folk just don't see. Thus, while you see urban 'utopians' trying to solve problems that shouldn't be solved, I see rural folk not ready to step up and fix real problems.

Unfortunately, neither group generally has a lot of empathy for the life style of the other. Many will extrapolate that what is best for them must be best for everyone everywhere. People from either zone won't like to pay to solve problems that they don't see, or support solutions not optimized for their zone.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...725642,00.html

The Real Meaning of 4,000 Dead
Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2008 By LIEUT. SEAN WALSH

The passing of the 4,000th service member in Iraq is a tragic milestone and a testament to the cost of this war, but for those of us who live and fight in Iraq, we measure that cost in smaller, but much more personal numbers. For me those numbers are 8, the number of friends and classmates killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3, the number of soldiers from my unit killed in this deployment. I'm 25, yet I've received more notifications for funerals than invitations to weddings.

The number 4,000 is too great to grasp even for us that are here in Iraq. When we soldiers read the newspaper, the latest AP casualty figures are glanced over with the same casual interest as a box score for a sport you don't follow. I am certain that I am not alone when I open up the Stars and Stripes, the military's daily paper, and immediately search for the section with the names of the fallen to see if they include anyone I know. While in a combat outpost in southwest Baghdad, it was in that distinctive bold Arial print in a two-week-old copy of the Stars and Stripes that I read that my best friend had been killed in Afghanistan. No phone call from a mutual friend or a visit to his family. All that had come and gone by the time I had learned about his death. I sometimes wonder, if I hadn't picked up that paper, how much longer I would have gone by without knowing — perhaps another day, perhaps a week or longer until I could find the time and the means to check my e-mail to find my messages unanswered and a death notification from a West Point distro list in my inbox. The dead in Afghanistan don't seem to inspire the keeping of lists the same way that those in Iraq do, but even if they did it wouldn't matter; he could only be number 7 to me.

I'm not asking for pity, only understanding for the cost of this war. We did, after all, volunteer for the Army and that is the key distinction between this army and the army of the Vietnam War. But even as I ask for that understanding I'm almost certain that you won't be able to obtain it. Even Shakespeare, with his now overused notion of soldiers as a "band of brothers," fails to capture the bonds, the sense of responsibility to each other, among soldiers. In many ways, Iraq has become my home (by the time my deployment ends I will have spent more time here than anywhere else in the army) and the soldiers I share that home with have become my family. Between working, eating and sleeping within a few feet of the same soldiers every single day, I doubt I am away from them for more than two hours a day. I'm engaged to the love of my life, but it will take several years of marriage before I've spent as much time with her as I have with the men I serve with today.

For the vast majority of Americans who don't have a loved one overseas, the only number they have to attempt to grasp the Iraq War is 4,000. I would ask that when you see that number, try to remember that it is made up of over 1 million smaller numbers; that every one of the 1 million service members who have fought in Iraq has his or her own personal numbers. Over 1 million 8's and 3's. When you are evaluating the price of the war, weighing potential rewards versus cost in blood and treasure, I would ask you to consider what is worth the lives of three of your loved ones? Or eight? Or more? It would be a tragedy for my 8 and 3 to have died without us being able to complete our mission, but it maybe even more tragic for 8 and 3 to become anything higher.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...606888,00.html

"Bush warned that if Democrats in Congress did not pass a bill to fund the war on his terms, "the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones." But they are already paying a price for decisions he has made, and the larger costs are likely to be borne for at least a generation. This is not only a matter of the U.S.'s ability to defend itself at home and protect its interests overseas, vital though those missions are. The Army is the heart of the U.S. military, practicing what democracies sometimes manage only to preach. All soldiers are created equal; race and class defer to rank and merit. Except for the stars, the general wears the uniform of the private in combat. The Army is the public institution that sets the pace for others to follow, makes the stakes higher, the demands greater. Its rewards are paid in glory and blood."

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

A scientific first probably assumes a biblical year is the same as mans standard of measurement of time. I admit, I find it hard to believe the earth was created in just six days. However, I don't view God as being the same thing as man either. So, a biblical day or year spanning several thousands man years isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Science relies upon rigid definitions for explaining natural phenomena. Non-scientific usage allows the blurring of scientific categories, as referring to a vicious dog as a "tiger" in view of obvious similarities between the two creatures; no biologist would ever confuse Canis lupus familiaris with Panthera tigris in a scientific context, alghough in a non-scientific context, as when overpowered by a wayward Rottweiler he might treat the dog metaphorically as a large cat. Beyond question, units of time and distance have rigid meanings in science so that lab people can measure motion, although Einstein clearly demonstrated that at relativistic speeds, time and distance can be distorted.

A libertarian might believe global warming is more of a natural occurrence vs a man made incident. Therefore, mass government intervention isn't going to drastically change or reverse the situation. As previously mentioned, the land my house sits on, was at one time covered by a very thick layer of glacial ice. Obviously, something natural must have occurred which caused a climate change without industrialized mans assistance. Maybe, the earth just tilted or something. Does man really have the ability to tilt the earth back, reverse ocean currents, air currents or volcanic activity?

Of course a libertarian could just as easily hold that the scientific evidence overpowers a desire to believe that human activities have insignificant effects upon climatic patterns and recognize that if property rights of people who live in areas at risk of inundation or environmental degradation are to be protected, then something must be done to alleviate the effects of human activities upon the environment. Reckless feeding of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could be the chemical equivalent of drunk driving. Do libertarians endorse the repeal of laws against drunk driving?

Hey, I'm an enviromentalist. Sportsman are often viewed as the true conservationists and the largest financial contributors to preservation and animal habitat. I view clean air and clean water as being necessary things.

Preservation of a characteristic climate is essential to maintaining the ecological systems that sportsmen enjoy. Although climate change is unlikely to cause the extinction of deer-like creatures, it is likely to change the availability of some species of fish. Some biomes depend upon real winters to prevent diseases to ravage animal populations, and global warming is likely to take away the real winters of Michigan. As I see it -- if you don't like Michigan winters, then go to Alabama.

[quote] Plus, I'm even a promoter, owner and supporter of high efficiency products. [/quoet]

OK -- I recognize that high energy costs will surely cause people to give up energy-devouring appliances and vehicles in favor of more efficient ones. I figure that lots of RVs are now being mothballed. Energy use as a measure of prosperity is a sham; commies usually overvalued the GDP by over-using cheap energy and pricing the energy use as a positive input into the economy.

However, I do realize that not all people were born rich. Therefore, I take issue with immediate government imposed mandates. I prefer gradual phase outs over a reasonable amount of years.

That happens without government intervention. Businesses that rely upon inefficient uses of resources because they have fixed investments that they can get away with using until they are priced out of the market stay in business until costs overwhelm revenues, after which the activity comes to an end -- usually in a recession. Obsolete, energy-devouring equipment is either scrapped or sent to some museum.

I view gradual phase outs as being less of an economic strain imposed on the not-so-rich people.

The phase-outs are not so gradual as you think they are. They begin as reduced production and end as shutdowns -- each resulting in unemployment.

Why would a person who claims to represent or support post-Cival War American values even argue over or claim to favor the right to free speech over the right to bear arms?

Freedom of expression and public assembly is possible without the right to bear arms (Great Britain), and the right to bear arms is possible without freedom of expression and the right to peaceable assembly (the old Soviet Union). I don't have a problem with sport hunting; sport hunters on the whole are conscious of gun safety and do not use their guns for criminal purposes.

The Second Amendment exists in America to allow people to defend themselves against such (then real) dangers of Indian attacks, pirates, and wild animals. Hunting was a suitable way of supplementing agriculture with some venison and wild fowl on the frontier. It also allowed collective ownership of weapons in accordance with the need for a well-regulated militia that the States would have to rely upon to quell rebellions, usurpations, and invasions. The Second Amendment allows the States to have their own systems of law enforcement.

I recognize the blues right to free speech. Blues should be able to recognize the reds right to bear arms. I'm sure the red values all of his/her basic rights as much as the blue. I own a gun. I assume, you can or might own a gun. You see, equality is a wunderful thing. I don't see a problem with blues/reds owning guns. I have the same opinion in regards to free speech.

Sport hunters use their weapons responsibly. I know enough to not go for a walk in the woods during deer season. I am more concerned about criminals having guns to protect their scummy activities, to commit armed robberies, terrorize spouses or children, or to shoot at cops in desperate attempts to evade arrest.

I agree, not everyone who lives in any given area follows a precise manifesto. However, I believe most of the folks who live around them follow some sort of basic manifesto. Honestly, I tend to view seculars as being a bit out of touch with cultural reality beyond their utopian societies. But, this is just my opinion of coarse.

Religiosity and secularism do not dictate where one stands on environmentalism, human rights, or economics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would have agreed with this until just recently. Now I'm not so sure. Even libertarians recognize that systems are not necessarily self-correcting or self-healing. Watching the market-magic melt all over Bear-Stearns changed some minds about supposedly self-managing systems, and the potential down sides of being uninvolved.

A general rule, the key word with regards to the governments role, social influence or control would be limited.

I think most libertarians agree that preventing or punishing fraud is a legitimate function of government. Therefore, re-regulating our financial institutions to the point where most of the tricks they pulled, such as bundling bad and good loans, is no longer legal, is proper just as forbidding pyramid schemes is and for the same reason.

The NY Times reports Shiite Militias Cling to Swaths of Basra and Stage Raids For discussion purposes.

BAGHDAD — Shiite militiamen in Basra openly controlled wide swaths of the city on Saturday and staged increasingly bold raids on Iraqi government forces sent five days ago to wrest control from the gunmen, witnesses said, as Iraqi political leaders grew increasingly critical of the stalled assault.

Witnesses in Basra said members of the most powerful militia in the city, the Mahdi Army, were setting up checkpoints and controlling traffic in many places ringing the central district controlled by some of the 30,000 Iraqi Army and police forces involved in the assault. Fighters were regularly attacking the government forces, then quickly retreating.

Senior members of several political parties said the operation, ordered by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, had been poorly planned. The growing discontent adds a new level of complication to the American-led effort to demonstrate that the Iraqi government had made strides toward being able to operate a functioning country and keep the peace without thousands of American troops.

I still do not believe the lack of effectiveness of Iraqi government security forces is due to a lack of equipment or training, but a lack of belief in what they are fighting for. Here, the puppet regime is trying to drive Shiite militias out of Shiite neighborhoods. It is oft reported that the militias have heavily infiltrated the official security. I find myself wondering, if when the end of watch rolls around, how many of the Iraqi police and Shiite militia people trade places with each other.

I don't think it is going to work. The puppet regime is not going to be able to put off elections indefinitely, and they aren't going to win by force.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...te-cnn-partner

The Battle in Basra Escalates
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2008 By CHARLES CRAIN AND ABIGAIL HAUSLOHNER
It is now clearer than ever that what the Iraqi and American governments billed as a fight against criminal gangs in Basra is actually a battle with the Mahdi Army, Iraq's largest militia. On Saturday the Iraqi government, the Mahdi Army and U.S. forces all escalated the fight, and the militia's cease-fire seemed on the brink of total collapse.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has staked his credibility and that of his government on the Iraqi military's ability to crack down on militants in Iraq's second-largest city. He and top security ministers traveled south as the operation got underway to supervise it in person. But the pretense that the operation was simply a crackdown on ragtag criminal elements has fallen by the wayside as militias in Basra have offered stiff resistance.

On Saturday the office of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr made its harshest statement against Maliki's government in nine months. It was an ominous sign that the militia's unilateral cease-fire, which was declared in late August and has contributed to a dramatic decline in violence, could be close to collapse.

"Moqtada al-Sadr stopped the Mahdi Army's activities for six months, and then extended that for six more months," Haider al-Jaberi, a member of Sadr's political committee in the holy city of Najaf, told reporters. "But the Iraqi government didn't respect that decision."

"The events in Basra today are the straw that has broken the camel's back," he continued. "To Maliki we say, the Mahdi Army has the ability to stop those who attack it, and we are prepared for that."

Jaberi, saying he was speaking on Sadr's behalf, urged fighters in Basra not to surrender their weapons unless it was to a government committed to expelling U.S. troops from Iraq. That defiance echoed the statements of a commander of one Shi'ite Islamist group in Basra, who told TIME that his fighters were prepared to use suicide tactics to defend Basra from the "occupier."

"Basra has no water, no electricity and no food. The sons of Basra have decided to form groups of martyrs to defend Basra and all of wounded Iraq," said Abu Thar, a commander of the Abu Fadil al-Abbas group, whose videos of attacks on U.S. troops are commonly found on Sadrist websites.

"This is a warning to security and government forces who follow the occupier and its collaborators," he said. "We present this statement to the government to hurry their withdrawal from Basra, or else our response will be tough, and we have selected specific targets."

It is difficult to separate real plans from bluster, but militants opposed to the government's Basra operation have already struck a high-profile blow in Baghdad. Tahsin al-Sheikhli, the government's spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, was kidnapped from his home on Thursday. The al-Sharqia television station on Saturday aired an audio tape in which Sheikhli said that his fate depended on the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Basra and the opening of negotiations with Sadr's movement.

As the Mahdi Army has stiffened its military and rhetorical resistance, Maliki has upped the ante as well. Saturday, during a televised meeting with tribal leaders in Basra, he accused enemy fighters in Basra of being "worse than al-Qaeda." It was an inflammatory and ironic statement, since the militia, in addition to its attacks on Sunni civilians and its criminal activities, has often defended Shi'ites from Sunni terrorists when the government proved powerless to do so.

The heated rhetoric was matched by escalating military activity by American and British forces. Maj. Tom Holloway, spokesman for British troops in Basra, told TIME that American planes dropped two precision-guided bombs on a target in the city on Saturday afternoon.

"The air support was requested by Iraqi ground troops that were being attacked by that position," he said. He said that the Americans have carried out four air strikes overall since the offensive began. He also said that, at the request of Iraqi forces, British artillery fired on the al-Halaf district of Basra on Saturday.

Violence continued to escalate in Baghdad as well, with the U.S. using air power against Mahdi Army positions in the militia stronghold of Sadr City.

The Basra operation was conceived to assert government power and break the influence of the Mahdi Army. For now it appears to be accomplishing the opposite.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...725265,00.html

The Threat of a Re-Surge in Iraq
Monday, Mar. 24, 2008 By DARRIN MORTENSON

Could Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attempts to re-establish control over Basra backfire? There is a growing possibility that it could become a wider intra-Shi'ite war, drawing in the forces loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose ceasefire has been key to the success of the U.S. "surge"? If so, the consequences for American military strategy in Iraq in an all-important political year will be grave.

Maliki's government targeted Basra because it could. Unlike many other southern cities where fighting has escalated in recent weeks, Maliki has built an independent power base among the security forces there. But Tuesday's sweep of Basra could turn sour in other southern cities where the central government's power is weak. Indeed, many Shi'ites are seeing this not just as an example of the Shi'ite Maliki taking on other Shi'ites (including Sadrists) but of America backing the Prime Minister up in a de facto Shi'a civil war. Iraqi government forces have attacked Shi'ite militias and gangs in at least seven major southern Iraq cities in the past two weeks. And America has been there to support Maliki's troops every time.

In response, Sadr loyalists have already taken to the streets in Baghdad, where U.S. troops will have to deal with the backlash. U.S. officials have so far shied away from blaming Sadr for the recent rise of violence (including an Easter attack on the Green Zone), mostly because Sadr's ceasefire has been key to the success of the surge. (General David Petraeus has pointed the finger at Iran instead.) But as clashes increase, they may not be able to dance around it for much longer.

The violence is escalating as Patraeus, the architect of the nine-month military "surge" involving some 30,000 extra troops in Iraq, prepares for a scheduled Apr. 8 and 9 report to congress on his progress in Iraq. They also come as he and Defense Secretary Robert Gates waffle over whether to withdraw five combat brigades by July, reducing troop levels down from about 158,000 to 140,000 — the pre-surge peak. If the fighting spreads to other southern cities and attacks by Shi'ite militias increase, intra-Shiite violence may be the wrench that jams the whole works of a meaningful reduction of troops.

While the focus this weekend on attacks on Baghdad has now turned towards Basra, violence has surged for weeks throughout the Shi'ite south, where Americans have suffered fresh losses in old haunts in the cities of Nasiriyah, Hilla and Diwaniyah. Meanwhile, the Shi'ite infighting in Basra has forced British forces to stall the planned withdrawal of some 1,500 troops. Some 4,000 British troops have been hunkered down at the Basra airport after turning the city over to Iraqi forces last year. So far they have not been drawn from their base into this week's fighting there.

If the U.S. decides to actively go after the Shi'ite forces in the south, it would mean reopening a southern front where American forces once fought some of the Iraq war's fiercest battles against Sadr but now have only a shadow presence. That would involve draining the concentration of surge troops around Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. It might even require more troop extensions or additional deployments to hold ground and maintain modest gains. Moving against the Shi'ite strongholds could then open opportunities for the Sunni fighters of al-Qaeda to strike Iraqi and U.S. targets in the Sunni triangle as the American heat turns south.

This week's violence in Baghdad and Basra followed several days of bloodshed in the Shi'ite city of Kut, some 100 miles southeast of the capital, where Sadr loyalists clashed with police forces largely controlled by their Shi'ite rivals, the Badr Corps militants of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, and with government troops affiliated with Maliki's Da'awa party.

"This was expected. It was just a matter of timing," said Vali Nasr, Tufts University scholar and author of the bestselling book, The Shi'a Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future. "The ceasefire and the surge allowed everyone to regroup and rearm. There is still the Shi'a-Sunni conflict. There is still the Sadr-Badr conflict. The surge and the ceasefire merely kept them apart, but there has never been a real political settlement," he said. "No, the big battle for Iraq hasn't been fought yet. The future of Iraq has not been determined." Nasr said the question now remains just how deep U.S. forces will get sucked into a Shi'ite civil war.

Sadr's ceasefire did allow U.S. forces to concentrate on hunting al-Qaeda in Baghdad, Mosul and Diyala without having an open front in the south. But it also allowed the cleric to rearm, clean his own house and retake the reins of his splintering movement. However, Sadr's devoted rank and file seem to be itching for a fight now as the Iraqi government and their American backers take sides with rival factions and continue to crack down on Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi, or JAM. "Sadr has had an interest in making sure everyone knows he's still around," Nasr said. "He's not going to go down without a fight."

The conveniently quiet arrangement between Sadr and the U.S. is now being challenged from within and from without. "There are all kinds of groups who would be interested in dragging [Sadr] into positions and into conflicts that he doesn't want to be in," said Anthony Cordesman, a top Iraq analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Cordesman warns against jumping to conclusions that the south is rising up. He says it's more likely that the recent violence is a sign that the many Shi'ite factions that have broken from Sadr's movement are seeking to prove their mettle, and that al-Qaeda cells are seeking new ways to strike as they are forced out of more and more areas by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Cordesman echoes Army Lt. Gen Ray Odierno, who, after leading U.S. forces in Iraq for the past 15 months, recently reported that Sadr seemed to be softening and his movement becoming more of a faith-based political movement than a militia waiting to kill Americans or take power by force. That said, Odierno expressed concern over the growing Shi'ite rivalries. "I worry about intra-Shi'a violence a bit," he said upon returning to the Pentagon earlier this month. "That could, you know, spiral out of control."

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

The conveniently quiet arrangement between Sadr and the U.S. is now being challenged from within and from without. "There are all kinds of groups who would be interested in dragging [Sadr] into positions and into conflicts that he doesn't want to be in," said Anthony Cordesman, a top Iraq analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Cordesman warns against jumping to conclusions that the south is rising up. He says it's more likely that the recent violence is a sign that the many Shi'ite factions that have broken from Sadr's movement are seeking to prove their mettle, and that al-Qaeda cells are seeking new ways to strike as they are forced out of more and more areas by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

This paragraph in particular seems like administration spin. The prime split between the Shiite factions is on whether to collaborate with the occupiers. Al-Sadr has consistently rejected strong outside influence from either the US or Iran, while the official Iraqi government seems structured around dividing the spoils from the US rebuilding money. While the US might try to play the Cold War strategy of backing the best politicians money can buy, this approach will not build an effective Iraqi security force or win elections.

I sort of expect al-Sadr to hang on waiting for democrats in the White House.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This paragraph in particular seems like administration spin. The prime split between the Shiite factions is on whether to collaborate with the occupiers. Al-Sadr has consistently rejected strong outside influence from either the US or Iran, while the official Iraqi government seems structured around dividing the spoils from the US rebuilding money. While the US might try to play the Cold War strategy of backing the best politicians money can buy, this approach will not build an effective Iraqi security force or win elections.

Al-Sadr is one canny politician. He knows the Shia area far better than the duffers in the White House as well as the weaknesses of Dubya's allies in Iraq. Ultimately the disputes in Iraq will have to be mediated by countries unsympathetic to a US presence in Iraq -- like China, Russia, Germany, and France.

I predict that the next President -- even John McCain -- will want out. Forget the pre-diplomatic bluster that "we" might be in Iraq for fifty years; "we" have good reasons to get out, including the desire to salvage our dollar (and living standards). Dubya has no graceful exit from Iraq; others do on January 20.

Objectionable as Saddam Hussein and his clique were, the American presence in Iraq must offend current sensibilities in Iraq irrespective of sect.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...acy/index.html

War costs weigh on Bush legacy

* Story Highlights
* War has totaled $608 billion, congressional panel estimates
* Economists calculate that war costs could total $3 trillion
* Bush says costs are needed to prevent a "strategic victory for our enemies"

By Ed Henry
CNN Washington Bureau

updated 4:00 p.m. EDT, Wed March 19, 2008


Ed Henry covers White House for CNN.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When I started covering the White House beat for CNN two years ago this month, the news cycle was dominated by a downward slide in Iraq.


President Bush Wednesday admits the war in Iraq has come with a high cost but is necessary.

I specifically remember White House officials being frustrated that bad news from Iraq was preventing President Bush from getting credit for -- get this -- a good economy.

The painful irony for the president's legacy, of course, is that now there's been a dramatic reversal.

On this fifth anniversary of the start of the war, Bush has success in Iraq to tout because of last year's surge of U.S. troops. But he's getting very little credit because the economy has gone sour. Video Watch Bush argue that U.S. "must win" in Iraq »

One of many factors in the economy's slide has been the war in Iraq, with the president himself noting Wednesday it has been "longer and more costly than anticipated."

The biggest cost, of course, has been the loss of life for nearly 4,000 Americans. But there has also been a major economic impact. The conflict has cost American taxpayers about $608 billion, according to the House Budget Committee, and counting.

A shocking number when you consider that Bush's own economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, was pushed out of the White House in 2002 for suggesting the war might cost between $100 billion and $200 billion -- less than a third of the current tab.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino correctly points out that war planning is an imprecise science, and notes that funding expensive equipment like Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles is expensive but worth it.

"They've helped save lives and prevent injuries, and that's just one example of the many things that we are spending money on," she said earlier this month.

But with the president reiterating again Wednesday that he is determined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until there is victory, it's likely there will be some level of American presence in Baghdad for many years to come, regardless of who wins the White House.

The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, has said he would keep at least some U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years if necessary.

And even though Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have endorsed large-scale pullouts of Iraq, such a drawdown will take time.

As a result, economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have estimated the long-term tab on the Iraq war to be in the neighborhood of a whopping $3 trillion.

They factor in years more of fighting, a sharp increase in veterans benefits as wounded veterans come home, and hundreds of billions of dollars just to pay the interest on the debt created from funding the war.

Bush fired back at this assessment during a speech at the Pentagon, suggesting the price tag was grossly inflated. "War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq -- so now they argue the war costs too much," he said.

"In recent months we have heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war. No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure -- but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."

The next showdown comes in April, when Gen. David Petraeus will deliver another progress report to Congress. Democratic leaders will try and make the case that the cost of the war is sapping resources from important domestic priorities. But we've seen this movie before, and it always ends with the president getting his way on more war funding.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...0aY7wD8VPSAIG0

Military Feels Fuel-Cost Gouge in Iraq

By ANNE FLAHERTY – 10 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Think you're being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves.

Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.

Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars — $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Some lawmakers say oil-rich allies in the Middle East should be doing more to subsidize fuel costs because of the stake they have in a secure Iraq. Others point to Iraq's own burgeoning surplus as crude oil prices top $100 a barrel. Baghdad subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.

The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies. The center then sets a fixed rate for troops, currently $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline, $3.04 for jet fuel and $13.61 for avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles.

Kuwait does grant substantial subsidies, but they cover only about half the fuel used by the U.S. in Iraq. And the discount is eaten up by the Energy Support Center's administrative costs and fluctuations in the market.

Overall, the military consumes about 1.2 million barrels, or more than 50 million gallons of fuel, each month in Iraq at an average $127.68 a barrel. That works out to about $153 million a month.

Historically, these figures are astounding. In World War II, the average fuel consumption per soldier or Marine was about 1.67 gallons a day; in Iraq, it's 27.3 gallons, according to briefing slides prepared by a Pentagon task force established to review consumption.

The surge in demand can be attributed in part to the military's expanding aviation fleet, including helicopters, and its reliance on planes to shuttle cargo and troops between the U.S. and Iraq. Vehicles, too, are more heavily armored and require more energy to run. Another major contributor is the widespread use of generators to cool troops.

The Pentagon's demand for fuel in Iraq has had little if any effect on global oil prices. Frank Verrastro, director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the military's use of 1.2 million barrels a month — or roughly 40,000 barrels a day — represents a small chunk of the 86 million barrels demanded each day on the global market.

Instead, Verrastro says, the hike in oil prices since the 2003 invasion is more likely due to a "fear factor."

"Prices rise when Iran saber-rattles, or there's a disruption potential in Nigeria," he said. An even larger driver of fuel costs is global demand, fed by robust economies in Asia and the lack of available alternative fuel sources, according to Verrastro.

Still, some lawmakers say the U.S. is paying too much to secure an oil-rich nation that resides in a neighborhood swimming in the natural resource.

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was shocked last December to watch U.S. troops in Kuwait filling diesel tanks at higher prices than he would have paid to fill up his boat in Mississippi.

"The Kuwaitis have been good allies. But let's face it, that nation would not be there if not for the American liberation of Kuwait," he said, referring to the 1991 conflict.

When Taylor pressed Pentagon and embassy officials on the matter, he was told Kuwait was actually offering a rare discount. Unlike other oil-rich allies, Kuwait is estimated to have saved the U.S. government $1.2 billion in four years, from 2002 to 2006, U.S. Embassy officials told the congressman in a Jan. 3 letter.

Under the current agreement, the Kuwait-owned company supplies 7,000 gallons per day of free fuel to U.S. forces operating inside Kuwait. For troops in Iraq, Kuwait offers 860,000 gallons of jet fuel a day at less than half the market price. This discounted fuel represents more than half the fuel the U.S. uses in Iraq each day.

The rest of the fuel — about 100,000 to 200,000 gallons a day — is sold to the U.S. military at market rate.

When Taylor asked whether more could be done by Kuwait and other oil-rich allies in the Middle East, a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. wants to see an even bigger reduction in prices from Kuwait but indicated there was no guarantee that would happen.

"It is our view that all of those forces, whether they are semi-stationed in Kuwait ... or those transitioning into Iraq, should receive that fuel at a reduced rate, and that is continuing dialogue that goes on between our government and the government of Kuwait," Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, said in a January hearing.

It's unlikely the U.S. has pressed Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other oil-rich allies recently to help subsidize the cost of fuel in Iraq. The Defense Department referred questions about such negotiations to the State Department, where a spokesman said the agency was not aware of any.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., also a member of the Armed Services Committee and a vocal advocate pushing the military to pursue alternative energy solutions, said he doubts such talks would be fruitful anyway because of the impression by many in the Middle East that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil to begin with.

"I'm not sure they're as convinced we're fighting for them, as they were in the first Gulf war," Bartlett said.

He said he hopes instead that the war will spur military development of hybrid technologies and alternative fuels at a time when private companies are lacking the financial incentive. So far, the price of oil hasn't restricted combat operations, but it has inspired the military to hunt for new ways to conserve energy.

Development of more energy-efficient equipment will take time. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who co-chaired a policy panel on the Pentagon energy study, said operations in Iraq and elsewhere are forcing the military to take the burden of fuel costs more seriously.

"The combination of $100-a-barrel oil and the terrorist situation and the dependence on the Middle East are really, I think, waking them up very fast," he said.

In the meantime, other lawmakers say they want to see the high costs of the war defrayed by Iraq dipping into its own oil revenues, which are projected to be substantial. Independent auditors estimate that Iraq is headed this year toward a massive surplus because of as much as $60 billion in oil revenues — a consequence of increased production paired with the sharp rise in prices.

"It's totally unacceptable to me that we are spending tens of billions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq while they are putting tens of billions of dollars in banks around the world from oil revenues," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "It doesn't compute as far as I'm concerned."

Administration and military officials say Baghdad hasn't been able to spend its oil revenues so far because the newly formed government is still learning how to manage its revenues. They say Iraq's lack of spending isn't due to corruption or laziness, but rather Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently.

The Iraqis have a "genuine mechanical problem in drawing up national budgets (and) executing those budgets, particularly when it comes to capital infrastructure," said David Satterfield, the State Department's senior adviser on Iraq. But, he added, the government is improving with time and should be able to do more in the months to come.
On the Net:

* The Defense Science Board Task Force report: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf

Well, it seems al-Maliki disagrees with my perspective. He is going to 'stay the course.' For discussion purposes.

Al-Maliki vows to repeat Basra crackdown in Baghdad, elsewhere in Iraq

BAGHDAD: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says he plans to launch more security crackdowns like the one in Basra against "criminal gangs" in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

He has singled out Sadr City and Shula — two Mahdi Army militia strongholds in Baghdad — as likely targets in the future crackdowns, telling reporters they are under the influence of "criminal gangs."

Al-Maliki did not mention by name the Mahdi Army militia, which is led by radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr City and Shula are militia strongholds and any attack by government troops there is likely to trigger a backlash by the militia like what happened in Basra last week.

http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/badr...thousands.html

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday honored the militias of the parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, i.e. the Da'wa (Islamic Call) Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. They were singled out for having fought alongside government security forces, and some 10,000 of them were inducted into the latter.

Al-Zaman points to a double standard, insofar as the government has not similarly honored, or accepted into the state apparatus, most members of the Sunni Awakening Council militias that have been fighting the Qutbist Jihadis.

The induction of Badr Corps fighters (the paramilitary of ISCI) and those of the Da'wa Party into security positions came in the wake of the firing of thousands of officers and troops who had refused to obey orders to fire on the Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad and the southern provinces. They were accused of mutiny.

If al-Zaman's reporting is correct, the scale of the mutiny is breathtaking, and helps explain why government troops did so poorly against the Sadrists-- the hearts of the thousands of them were simply not with the fight.

Al-Hayat adds details in Arabic, quoting soldiers who have been fired by al-Maliki. They say they were thrown, in Basra, into a situation where they were taking sniper fire from every direction. They had little training in street combat

Back to al-Zaman: Iraqi Interior and Defense Ministry statistics show that 923 Iraqis were killed during the month of March, a 31% increase over February, making March the deadliest month in Iraq since last August.

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/badr...thousands.html The induction of Badr Corps fighters (the paramilitary of ISCI) and those of the Da'wa Party into security positions came in the wake of the firing of thousands of officers and troops who had refused to obey orders to fire on the Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad and the southern provinces. They were accused of mutiny.

If al-Zaman's reporting is correct, the scale of the mutiny is breathtaking, and helps explain why government troops did so poorly against the Sadrists-- the hearts of the thousands of them were simply not with the fight.

Again, the primary difference between the puppet government and al-Sadr is in the puppet government's willingness to tolerate indefinite occupation by a foreign power. Expecting people to fight fiercely for the continued occupation of their own country by a foreign force is rather far fetched. The puppet government's security forces have the weapons and have had time to train. What they don't have and are unlikely to acquire is a good reason to risk their lives for a puppet regime.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Again, the primary difference between the puppet government and al-Sadr is in the puppet government's willingness to tolerate indefinite occupation by a foreign power. Expecting people to fight fiercely for the continued occupation of their own country by a foreign force is rather far fetched. The puppet government's security forces have the weapons and have had time to train. What they don't have and are unlikely to acquire is a good reason to risk their lives for a puppet regime.

Don't worry, our 'new leader' has got it even more figured-out than our current dear leader -

http://tinyurl.com/yqxf7e


Check the comments, they're a hoot!