« Visser: Partition Iraq? | Main | GCC-Iran Watch »

January 16, 2008

Comments

Gregg Gordon

This is just a continuation of one of the main problems of our policies ever since we weren't greeted with flowers and candies. Our policies are always based on short-term domestic political expediencies -- what might shore up support for the occupation among American voters -- rather than what would serve the best interests of Iraq, or even ourselves, in the long run. To achieve a near-term drop in US casualties and create a perception of "success," we've created another monster. But in the Bush administration's mind, better that than admit they screwed up.

mullah cimoc

mullah cimoc say this:

not be believe govt lie of iraq war. govt lie too much, not the good reputation for the truthful.

in true so different: usa soldier confine to base. so few the patrol and run away, not to fight. usa govt not wanting ameriki casualty. same as last time before election 2004.
just to create the false lying in tv and newspaper.

in true ameriki him now to giving arm to same sunni support and part him saddam hussein govt. this for create image for tv but all him lie and distortion. now worse than any time during him war in iraq.

for true info:
stop1984now@yahoo.com

Nur al-Cubicle

But wasn't the surge initiated at the request of the Saudis, to hold the al-Sadr militias at bay and forestall the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad? And aren't the Awakening Councils themselves the result of Saudi pressure on Dick Cheney himself, when he was summoned to the KSA?

Did not the US plan the invasion in coordination with Kurds, SCIRI and Shia factions and, most importantly, the mullahs of Iran (at least that's what D'Avanzo and Bonino write in La Repubblica). It can't very well turn on its allies but it can work assiduously at weakening them and this is what the Councils appears to be about.

Derfel64

Very interesting, i hope you write more on this.

Certainly the awakenings or more broadly clcs are just militias, they can´t be better or worse than others but they´re not going to make Iraq a beacon of democracy. Perhaps the best thing Iraq can hope for is relative stability as gangs dedicate themselves to business rather than war, like Somalia in the late 90s and early 2000s. Of course there could also be mayhem in many ways, or a re-starting of the insurgency against the US.

However, to the dismay of the anti-war movement and many other people, these militias don´t seem eager to start a war again with the Americans - their abuses in "pacified" areas seem to be mostly theft of locals and, most worryingly, occasional clashes with iraqi government or shia militias. There has been a lot of tension in the Dora area particularly in last several days.


I also understand that there are still "insurgents proper" who have not joined the clcs, they are coexisting with these new militias BUT not conducting attacks on US forces anymore because the clcs don´t let them. See specially the last of iraqis blog. There aren´t any clashes between insurgents and clcs but still insurgents say they are disturbed by this development, which they don´t control.

As i always say, nobody really knows. So better to debate.

Eric Martin

However, to the dismay of the anti-war movement and many other people, these militias don´t seem eager to start a war again with the Americans

What type of risible nonsense is that? Ugh. Do you have links? Citations? Or is this just a general and baseless slander?

arman

KMCwEP fdv084y0v4t3cnfv593bv29vb

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad
Analytics