What To Do With Troops In Iraq

[Guest T-Bone]

Three options.

Edited March 31, 2007 by T-Bone

[xTrishaxLynnx]

We're already there. Why not finish it?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xTrishaxLynnx' post='1223543' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:26 PM']We're already there. Why not finish it?[/quote]

...and how would you suggest that we do that?

[xTrishaxLynnx]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1223547' date='Mar 31 2007, 12:28 AM']...and how would you suggest that we do that?[/quote]

If you really want to get into this, it'll have to be later... too tired for that right now.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xTrishaxLynnx' post='1223551' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:32 PM']If you really want to get into this, it'll have to be later... too tired for that right now.[/quote]

[Mercy me]

Never surrender

[Mr.Cat]

[quote]“I shall not surrender nor retreat!” [b]Colonel William B. Travis, Alamo [/b][/quote]I am unsure what we should do but it seems wrong for us to invade a nation overthrowing their government then leaving when it becomes a little more than we thought. You finish your fights and you eat all the food that is on your plate. I seriously feel that even though there may have been circumstantial evidence when this started to invade Iraq but looking back I regret such a decision. I really wish there was a diplomatic solution...

[KnightofChrist]

If we leave the enemy wins, if we leave we will betray the Iraq people (again) who we own very much.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1223742' date='Mar 31 2007, 02:19 AM']If we leave the enemy wins, if we leave we will betray the Iraq people (again) who we own very much.[/quote]

Please explain this position more clearly because I just don't make that connection. The Iraqi people are in a civil war, and according to every major poll, sunnis and shiites both agree that it's acceptable to kill US Troops, so how would it be betraying them?

Reza

[Anomaly]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1223765' date='Mar 31 2007, 07:28 AM']Please explain this position more clearly because I just don't make that connection. The Iraqi people are in a civil war, and according to every major poll, sunnis and shiites both agree that it's acceptable to kill US Troops, so how would it be betraying them?

Reza[/quote]Why do you believe polls? Did they poll people who have all the facts of the socio-politcal circumstances, factors, and conditions of life in Iraq? Is it really a civil war when it's other Countries sending in arms and fighters? Or is it really outside opportunists that are attempting to take advantage of the transition from Sadaam to Iraqi self-rule?

The majority of Iraqis don't want to kill US Troops. The majority of Iraqis simply want to run their own country and want the fighting to stop. It's a minority with agendas of Muslim extremism or quests for personal power or agendas of influencing global politics that are sending in car bombs, constructing IED's, instructing and creating chlorine bombs. Do you think Iran taking 15 Brigish military persons has nothing to do with Iraq?

What would additional troops do? Additional troops without artifical restrictions, could limit the movement and organization of insurgents. Most of the insurgents are centered around the Bahgdad area and the outer countryside is mostly at peace. As it is now, US troops are not allowed in certain neighborhoods. There are restrictive rules of engagement.

Maybe the US should make some operational demands such as full reign of all areas and the ability to go into every home if need be and have numerous nts thoughout the area. But the US has to be respectful of the new Iraqi government. The US helped create this mess, so right or wrong for going in there, the US is responsible to make the best of it. Are you familiar with JP-II saying the US is now moraly obligated to deal with the problem they created?

Why do you hold the average Iraqi citizen in such low regard that 1 American death is not worth 100 Iraqi lives? Do you not think that tens of thousands of Iraqis will be killed in political reprisals if the US pulls out now?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1223769' date='Mar 31 2007, 06:22 AM']Why do you believe polls?

[b]Because it gives insight that is helpful in deciding the "next move". Surely not every poll is right but if every poll [weather democrat or republican] are saying the same thing, then I don't think that there is much to doubt[/b]

Is it really a civil war when it's other Countries sending in arms and fighters? Or is it really outside opportunists that are attempting to take advantage of the transition from Sadaam to Iraqi self-rule?

[b]If you're not aware, its not fighters from other countries, rather it's Sunni and Shiites that are both Iraqi citizens. Muqtadir Al-Sader is a prime example, he's not foreign but rather was born and raised in Iraq but also happens to be the leader of the Shiite Mahdi Army [Militia] and goes through the cities at night, pulling Sunni Muslims out of their homes and murdering them. If that isn't a civil war, then what do you call such a situation.[/b]

The majority of Iraqis don't want to kill US Troops. The majority of Iraqis simply want to run their own country and want the fighting to stop.

[b]I don't know where you get that idea, that isn't what the majority have been saying that's for sure. Being a former soldier that still stays in contact with friend in the military, I can definately assure you that that isn't what the soldiers are saying. I also have friends and family that have taken pilgrimages to Iraq, to visit the Shiite Shrines there, and can also testify that Iraqis don't want to be occupied [as even Mr. Bush has said] and feel justified in killing US Troops. Don't believe me, General Abizaid [the top general in Iraq, that just reciently resigned] even mentioned that it's a civil war, and that the Iraqis are killing the US Troops. General Abizaid's word for word quote, "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war". Sectarian violence isn't foreign fighters but rather are the permanent residents in Iraq that are fighting each other [Sunni and Shiite].[/b]

It's a minority with agendas of Muslim extremism or quests for personal power or agendas of influencing global politics that are sending in car bombs, constructing IED's, instructing and creating chlorine bombs. Do you think Iran taking 15 Brigish military persons has nothing to do with Iraq?

[b]That's alot of car bombs and IED's out of such a small amount of "foreign fighters" that's for sure, and I don't think that assessment is logical. I'm sure that you'd heard about the mass number of Syriac Orthodox Christians being killed in Northern Iraq [such as the Priest that was executed], guess what? That was the Kurds [permanent citizens of Iraq] that killed that priest and are killing and persecuting the other Syriac Orthodox Christians. Sectarian violence and that of a civil war is a fact that is undeniable.[/b]

What would additional troops do? Additional troops without artifical restrictions, could limit the movement and organization of insurgents.

[b]The "surge in troops" that Bush has proposed and put into action isn't any more troops then was in Iraq a year ago, and the situation was out of control then. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over again, expecting different results. It's not going to even come close to stopping the Mahdi Army, which is a much more important factor the so called "insurgants" as the Mahdi Army killing far more people every night.[/b]

Most of the insurgents are centered around the Bahgdad area and the outer countryside is mostly at peace. As it is now, US troops are not allowed in certain neighborhoods. There are restrictive rules of engagement.

[b]No the violence is also in Northern Iraq [Mosul], Basra [southern Iraq], and lots of other areas. Its not just baghdad, baghdad is just a media primary focus because they don't travel outside of Baghdad much due to security issues. Even the King and Queen of Jordan have said that the US Troops in Iraq, are in a dangerous position and that the sectarian violence is erupting into a civil war.[/b]

Maybe the US should make some operational demands such as full reign of all areas and the ability to go into every home if need be and have numerous nts thoughout the area.

[b]That's been tried, it didn't work.[/b]

But the US has to be respectful of the new Iraqi government. The US helped create this mess, so right or wrong for going in there, the US is responsible to make the best of it. Are you familiar with JP-II saying the US is now moraly obligated to deal with the problem they created?

[b]Sure but "morally obligated" is quite different then keeping US Soldiers in Iraq to be butchered.[/b]

Why do you hold the average Iraqi citizen in such low regard that 1 American death is not worth 100 Iraqi lives?

[b]This is a very humorous phrase of yours, because I was raised by Shiites from Persia. It's not that I don't hold the average Iraqi citizen to lower worth, but more that I know the situation from a close perspective and understand the culture there. Iraqis have over and over and over and over and over again said that the presence of US Forces isn't welcomed, and that they're justified in killing US Troops. Let me drop another perspective in the conversation, alot of Iraqis are seen as "innocent women and children" but its not always the situation. A grip of shiite women, give shelter, food & water, and help hide Mahdi Army soldiers, then after Sunni's attack them, the US Media reports, "innocent shiite women were killed by sunni gunmen." Therefore, I'm thinking of every side in the situation, with the withdraw of American Soldiers.[/b]

[b]More then 90% of Shiites in Iraq have relatives in Iran, so if the US withdraws, those women and children that would like to avoid the bloodshed, could move to Iran with their relatives, while the two sects [Sunni & Shiite] battle it out.[/b]



Do you not think that tens of thousands of Iraqis will be killed in political reprisals if the US pulls out now?

[b]With all due respect, thousands of Iraqis are being killed right now, while the US Troops are there, the difference is that the US Troops are also being murdered in the process.[/b][/quote]

[Didymus]

our victory in Iraq will help determine future relations with Iran

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1224359' date='Mar 31 2007, 05:47 PM']our victory in Iraq will help determine future relations with Iran[/quote]

Absolutely! Especially because Iran is actively working within Iraq to destablize it.

[KnightofChrist]

[b][url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1152096,00.html"]Syria and Iran aiding militants, Iraq says[/url][/b]


[u][b]Intelligence officers claim evidence of infiltration[/b][/u]

Michael Howard in Kirkuk
Friday February 20, 2004
The Guardian

Senior Iraqi intelligence officers believe an Islamic militant group which has claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings in Irbil and a spate of deadly attacks in Baghdad, Falluja and Mosul is receiving significant help from Syria and Iran.

The officers, who have been tracking the activities of domestic and foreign jihadists in northern Iraq, claim that members of Jaish Ansar al-Sunna (the army of the supporters of the sayings of the prophet) have been [b]"given shelter by Syrian and Iranian security agencies and have been able to enter Iraq with ease".[/b]

The group is suspected of training suicide bombers and deploying them against US forces in Iraq and Iraqis considered to be collaborating with the US-led authorities.

Jaish Ansar al-Sunna was one of a dozen Islamic militant organisations which issued a joint statement two weeks ago in Ramadi and Falluja warning Iraqis against cooperating with the occupation.

It distributed CDs carrying video footage of some of its operations, which included roadside bomb attacks on US military convoys.

US officials believe that since Saddam Hussein was captured in December the insurgency is being increasingly fought by Islamic guerrillas rather than former regime loyalists.

The emergence of Islamist extremist groups has added to the challenges faced by the occupation authorities and the local security forces.

While the Iraqi authorities are struggling to establish an effective intelligence operation in the centre and south of the country, in the north they have been able to build on the existing intelligence network in the Kurdish ruled area.

An intelligence officer in the northern city of Kirkuk said: "We have arrested a number of foreign Arabs that we believe may be connected to the global terror network.

"They all seemed to have Iranian or Syrian visas in their passports. A number of them told us they had received assistance in those countries."

He said Hassan Ghul, a suspected al-Qaida operative found to be carrying a document urging the fomenting of civil war in Iraq, had been arrested by Kurdish forces on the Iraqi side of the Iranian border near the town of Kalar.

The Americans have said the 17-page letter was written by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian fugitive allegedly linked to Osama bin Laden.

Jaish Ansar al-Sunna is suspected of coordinating the infiltration of foreign militants - experienced terrorists and young footsoldiers - from Europe through Syria, the intelligence officer said.

"We are not talking huge numbers, perhaps 100 since the war, but that is too much," he said.

"We believe that there is a safe house for them near Damsacus. They are crossing the border west of Mosul, then heading for Mosul before dispersing to other cities."

He said Iran and Syria wanted to use the militant issue as a bargaining point in their relations with the US.

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, said: "There are incidents of infiltration from the outside.

"I do not want to accuse anyone, but we are not getting sufficient cooperation from our neighbours.

"If they believe they can play with the security of Iraq, they are playing with fire. It's very dangerous."

Damascus and Tehran reject the allegation they are harbouring or facilitating jihadists and point to their increased cooperation with George Bush's global war on terror.

The Iraqi intelligence officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Jaish Ansar al-Sunna was believed to be a splinter group of Ansar al-Islam (supporters of Islam), an extreme Kurdish group with suspected links to al-Qaida.

The group's leader is identified on its website as Abu Abdullah al-Hassan bin Mahmoud, thought to be the brother of a leading Ansar al-Islam fighter.

Until the invasion of Iraq Ansar al-Islam controlled a string of villages high in the Zagros mountains near the Iranian border.

There it introduced Taliban-style rule and despised the secular governments of the two main parties in the Kurdish ruled area, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Jalal Talabani, and the Kurdistan Democratic party, led by Massoud Barzani, whose Irbil offices were attacked with synchronised suicide bombers on February 1.

A total of 109 people were killed and scores more injured in the attacks, the worst since the fall of Saddam.

Ansar al-Islam was ousted from its stronghold at the beginning of the war by a joint operation involving PUK peshmerga forces and US air power.

About 200 fighters fled to Iran, the intelligence official said.

They had now had time to reorganise and had been filtering back into Iraq, where they had joined Sunni Arab extremists to form the new group.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.huliq.com/8925/u-s-warns-iran-to-stop-aiding-iraqi-insurgents"]U.S. Warns Iran To Stop Aiding Iraqi Insurgents[/url]
Nicholas Burns


A senior U.S. diplomat has accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons technology used to kill U.S. troops.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said the United States had been tracking Iranian involvement in Iraqi insurgent attacks for about two years and had found increasing evidence that Iran had given assistance to Shi'ite insurgent groups in southern Iraq.

Burns's comments, in a U.S. radio interview to be aired later today, came amid reports that Iraq had invited neighbors -- including Syria and Iran -- to a meeting in March to discuss the political and security situation there.

AP also reported that Iraq will halt flights to and from Syria as the government prepares for a new crackdown on insurgents in Baghdad and surrounding regions.

Baghdad and Washington accuse Syria, along with Iran, of failing to halt insurgents and weapons crossing their borders into Iraq.

As part of the security operation, the first of three Iraqi brigades is expected to deploy in Baghdad today.

Violence continues, meanwhile. At least 43 people were reported killed across the country on January 31, including a U.S. soldier.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/23/africa/web0623iran.php"] Iran aiding Shiite attacks inside Iraq, general says[/url]
By Michael Gordon The New York Times

Published: June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON [b]Iran has stepped up its support for violent Shiite groups in Iraq and is providing the weapons and training so they can attack American troops, the top American commander in Iraq said Thursday.
[/b]
"They are using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq both against us and against the Iraqi people," the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., told reporters. "It is decidedly unhelpful." He said that the Iranian assistance had increased since January and that this had emerged as an important factor in weighing further reductions in American forces in Iraq.

General Casey's comments were his most forceful and explicit criticism of Iran's involvement in Iraq, and came at a sensitive time in American-Iranian relations. The Bush administration has offered to conduct direct talks with Iran in an effort to persuade it to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

The general spoke at a Pentagon news conference after meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to discuss plans for reducing American forces in Iraq. General Casey said he was confident there would be troop cuts this year but stressed that there would be a "gradual reduction over time." Mr. Rumsfeld said General Casey would consult the Iraqi authorities before submitting a final recommendation on how reductions should be made.

American officials have criticized Iran's involvement in Iraq before. But General Casey's remarks were unusually specific. He said the Iranian security forces were training Shiite groups with the approval of the authorities in Tehran.

"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, I.E.D. technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq," the general said. I.E.D. stands for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs.

Some training is being carried out in Iran, he said. In other cases, Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist group, is providing weapons and training at Iran's behest.

General Casey said there was no evidence that Iranians had crossed into Iraq to direct the attacks, but said the assistance appeared to be a result of an official policy of the Iranian government, and not the actions of a faction. "You would assume that they're not doing that independently, that there is some central direction from somebody in Tehran," he said.

One indication of additional Iranian support, he said, was an increase in the number of attacks with bombs that feature shaped charges, which focus the explosive power in a single direction. That type of bomb is specially designed to destroy armored vehicles, and American commanders have previously asserted that these bombs have been built in Iran and shipped to Iraq.

General Casey had previously forecast "fairly substantial" troop cuts in 2006. Those cuts have yet to materialize. American forces in Iraq have dropped from 138,000 in March to 126,900 now, and relatively modest reductions are expected over the next several months.

He said setting a timetable and deadline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq - as Senator John Kerry and some other Democratic lawmakers have proposed - would undermine his efforts.

"I feel it would limit my flexibility," he said. "I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable. And I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."

General Casey offered a generally upbeat interpretation of the efforts made by the Iraqi government to rein in militias and establish a coalition government. He said the Iraqi military was improving. By the end of the summer, he said, 75 percent of Iraqi brigades would be assuming the lead in military operations.

He said there were indications that some Sunnis who had opposed the new government were now considering whether to drop their armed resistance and play a political role.

The general said that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had weakened Al Qaeda, but that it remained a threat. "They're hurt, but they're not finished, and they won't be finished for some time," he said. He said the group is "still quite capable of conducting terrorist acts across Iraq."


WASHINGTON Iran has stepped up its support for violent Shiite groups in Iraq and is providing the weapons and training so they can attack American troops, the top American commander in Iraq said Thursday.

"They are using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq both against us and against the Iraqi people," the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., told reporters. "It is decidedly unhelpful." He said that the Iranian assistance had increased since January and that this had emerged as an important factor in weighing further reductions in American forces in Iraq.

General Casey's comments were his most forceful and explicit criticism of Iran's involvement in Iraq, and came at a sensitive time in American-Iranian relations. The Bush administration has offered to conduct direct talks with Iran in an effort to persuade it to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

The general spoke at a Pentagon news conference after meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to discuss plans for reducing American forces in Iraq. General Casey said he was confident there would be troop cuts this year but stressed that there would be a "gradual reduction over time." Mr. Rumsfeld said General Casey would consult the Iraqi authorities before submitting a final recommendation on how reductions should be made.

American officials have criticized Iran's involvement in Iraq before. But General Casey's remarks were unusually specific. He said the Iranian security forces were training Shiite groups with the approval of the authorities in Tehran.

"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, I.E.D. technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq," the general said. I.E.D. stands for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs.

Some training is being carried out in Iran, he said. In other cases, Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist group, is providing weapons and training at Iran's behest.

General Casey said there was no evidence that Iranians had crossed into Iraq to direct the attacks, but said the assistance appeared to be a result of an official policy of the Iranian government, and not the actions of a faction. "You would assume that they're not doing that independently, that there is some central direction from somebody in Tehran," he said.

One indication of additional Iranian support, he said, was an increase in the number of attacks with bombs that feature shaped charges, which focus the explosive power in a single direction. That type of bomb is specially designed to destroy armored vehicles, and American commanders have previously asserted that these bombs have been built in Iran and shipped to Iraq.

General Casey had previously forecast "fairly substantial" troop cuts in 2006. Those cuts have yet to materialize. American forces in Iraq have dropped from 138,000 in March to 126,900 now, and relatively modest reductions are expected over the next several months.

He said setting a timetable and deadline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq - as Senator John Kerry and some other Democratic lawmakers have proposed - would undermine his efforts.

"I feel it would limit my flexibility," he said. "I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable. And I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."

General Casey offered a generally upbeat interpretation of the efforts made by the Iraqi government to rein in militias and establish a coalition government. He said the Iraqi military was improving. By the end of the summer, he said, 75 percent of Iraqi brigades would be assuming the lead in military operations.

He said there were indications that some Sunnis who had opposed the new government were now considering whether to drop their armed resistance and play a political role.

The general said that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had weakened Al Qaeda, but that it remained a threat. "They're hurt, but they're not finished, and they won't be finished for some time," he said. He said the group is "still quite capable of conducting terrorist acts across Iraq."

[KnightofChrist]

From an real Iraqi


[b][url="http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/"]The real front in the war on terror.[/url][/b]


"When The Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell young men waited in lines to get a haircut and when Saddam fell barbers became targets."
My father offered this simple example during a discussion we had about war on terror the other day. Although the example is very simple but the idea behind it is deep and aims at identifying the change of the main battleground for war with terror.

I wanted to talk about this because recently we've been watching the debate in America about redeployment of troops and identifying the real front we must focus on.
I see that al-Qaeda and terrorists in general didn't hide their position in this respect—despite the fact that they still operate in many parts of the world, they are clearly redirecting most effort and resources to the war in Iraq.
The war here has a lot that to do with drawing the future prospects of spreading religious extremism and this in turn is connected to the agendas of countries that have mutual goals with al-Qaeda in spite of the difference in ideology. This collaboration is complex but it clearly shows the priorities of the terrorists and rogue regimes and in turn suggests what our strategic priorities should be.

There are greater examples than killing barbers of course so I'd like to include some more to remind those who try to naively oversimplify the issue in the context that the commanders of al-Qaeda are hiding in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan far away from civilization.

Al-Qaeda and its supporters are using most of the capabilities of their propaganda machine to cover their effort in Iraq, and so is the case with financial resources. All evidences indicate that most of the money is used to support the terror activity in Iraq.
Let's not forget recruiting networks that are discovered constantly in many European and Arab countries; we rarely, if ever, hear that those networks were sending recruits to Afghanistan because recruits are being sent to Iraq all the time. Even more telling, some of the prominent lieutenants of al-Qaeda left Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. One example I remember was Omar al-Farouk who escaped from Bagram to be later captured in Basra!

Al-Qaeda itself boasts about the great "sacrifices" of more than 4,000 "martyrs" to emphasize the importance of the war here. And the hundreds of suicide bombers preferred to blow themselves up in Iraq than anywhere else should remind us that if al-Qaeda considers this the main war then why talk about redeployment?
Walking away from the main war is not redeployment, it's quitting.

But why Iraq became the main front?

Iraq can simply not be equated with Afghanistan which the bulk of al-Qaeda largely abandoned after few weeks of battles—that doesn't sound like al-Qaeda!

Iraq, weak after a war that toppled the regime but rich-relatively-with resources and scientific base is a greater temptation than Afghanistan, and at the same time the possibility of a democracy arising in Iraq posed a great threat to the ideology of caliph state. Therefore al-Qaeda and whoever is backing it directly or indirectly felt they had to move the front to Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan.
Let's imagine that the world left Iraq alone before the country is able to defend itself and let it fall in the hands of extremists, what would happen then?

Can we compare the opium fields with the massive oilfields of Mesopotamia? Can we afford to leave these resources in the service of the terrorists?

The other point is scientific infrastructure, especially when it comes to military technology such infrastructure almost doesn't exist in Afghanistan while Saddam celebrated 17 years ago in launching a rocket to space. The same "accomplishment' Iran claimed to have made just days ago.
This infrastructure, while still humble compared to advanced countries, could be very dangerous if captured by terrorists.

An Islamic state in Iraq whether to be led by al-Qaeda or one of the local extreme religious parties would be an enormous threat to the security of the region and the world and a turning point that might encourage fence-sitters to join the terrorists…the tide would be much more difficult to stop then.

It's true that what's happening in Iraq doesn't meet the ambitions of Iraqis or Americans and everyone admits that many mistakes were made.
I agree that the Iraqi government should be pressed to speed up the effort to establish rule of law and achieve reconciliation. And I also agree that the American administration needs to revise the way it's been handling and planning for this critical war.
But abandoning this front or failing to recognize its priority is a terrible mistake that can lead to disastrous consequences to all of us.

[KnightofChrist]

[b][url="http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/"]The future of an Islamic state in Iraq.[/url][/b]

Politicians, pundits and observers differ in their assessment as to what faction poses the greatest threat in Iraq; some, including the pentagon put the Mehdi Army on top of the list while others believe it's al-Qaeda.
Who is number one is not really the most important point because both groups are almost equally extremely dangerous and both had already caused so much mess and cost Iraq and America a heavy price in blood, treasure and precious time. Both need to be dealt with.

I think it's important to note that since any kind of theocratic rule in Iraq is a threat then it would make sense to add a third group which is religious political parties both Sunni or Shia. While the former two groups are so radical that they can't be reasoned with the third is relatively open to dialogue and when not under pressure from their radical counterparts, diplomacy and negotiations can play a role in reaching a solution.

In fact the correlation between the two main extremist groups is some sort of catch 22, though it really isn't. it might be believed that the attacks of al-Qaeda led to retaliation from the Mehdi army and at the same time that the attacks of Mehdi army's death squads left many Sunni with no choice but to seek protection under the umbrella of al-Qaeda; as if the two militant groups were enemies, while there's good evidence that they work jointly at some level to escalate the violence in Iraq.

We had said many times that Iraq's neighbors support both groups and since the most involved neighbors Syria and Iran are closest allies with mutual goals in Iraq, then there's a lot of reasons to believe that the two surrogates are receiving orders from the same top of the pyramid of the chain of command of the Tehran-Damascus axis. What I'm trying to say here is that when either wing is weakened, the whole structure of the evil plot of the bad neighbors is directly affected. And that any progress for Iraq and America at either front would be progress toward ultimately neutralizing both.

Nearly five weeks into operation Imposing Law in Baghdad the movement of the Mehdi Army has been largely restrained and its coercion and arm-twisting capacity is at least temporarily contained and with a policy of sustained pressure this threat can be drastically reduce. But what has it been like lately for the plans of al-Qaeda et al in establishing the core of a radical Islamist terror state in Iraq?
The "Islamic State in Iraq" a branch of al-Qaeda has been dealt several good blows recently in the same city they were planning to announce as the first capital of their state.

For four years since the liberation of Iraq Anbar remained distant from the rest of the country, defiant to the central government and a dangerous place for everyone including its own sons…this is slowly, yet clearly, changing now.
For a few months after more than two dozens of tribes formed the "Anbar Awakening Council" not much success was reported but recently there's been a constant stream of reports on battles between the tribes and al-Qaeda in several towns and villages across the vast western province; in most cases the tribes came out triumphant but sacrifices were also made.

The restive province is finally coming back into the arms of the state.

While I wouldn't take any poll results to be accurate assessment of the public attitude, they are useful in determining the general direction of changes in attitude among the population.

Recently there were two separately conducted polls in the news, and the results were contradictory to each other in more than one point which is not surprising at all but one item of the poll conducted for the BBC and ABC that caught my attention.
The poll shows that only about 4% of the Sunni are in favor of an Islamic rule. This is interesting and worth noting even if the error margin for this one was three times what the pollsters claimed, which is somewhat unlikely for an error margin. This extremely low approval rate is understandable given all what the Sunni had suffered under the extremists who touted the idea of Islamic rule in the Sunni areas for four years.

The city that at some point was about to become the new Talibanistan is now working hand in hand with the government in Baghdad and the coalition forces to defeat al-Qaeda. Maliki's and Petraeus's visit to the province were not only of symbolic value. The visit and the meeting with the heads of tribes marked the beginning of the return of the once stray province to where it belongs.

The clash between the tribe and the mosque was inevitable. For centuries and since the early days of Islam the two institutions squabbled for power and dominance and while tribe sheiks are diplomats by nature and always seek to resole conflicts and find compromises between the two sides of a conflict, clerics, especially extreme ones, do not recognize the idea of compromise; to them there is halal and haram (or allowed and forbidden) with absolutely no gray area in between whatsoever.
Iraq and the western part in particular is a very tribal community and so the increased influence and interference of clerics became a serious threat to the position of sheiks.
Sheiks are more businessmen than ideological leaders, like my tribe's sheik put it once "the hell with them [clerics] we want to live like normal people and all they care about is death".

By no means I'm trying to say that al-Qaeda is defeated. This is still far away but we can say that the in order for al-Qaeda to continue its plan to establish a safe haven in Iraq it will have to search for alternatives to Anbar. Their primary alternative is Diyala where demographics are already not as favorable for al-Qaeda as Anbar was.

There are signs that the tribes in Diyala too are changing their attitude and there are signs that they are slowly following the steps of their peers in Anbar. If this change is encouraged and supported al-Qaeda will not have many, if any, good alternative plans.

[kujo]

If we pull out now, there will surely be thousands and thousands of people slaughtered in a Middle East variation of genocide. Do you have the stomach to watch this on Fox News and CNN? Because I sure don't.

We need to do whatever is necessary to achieve victory. 'Nuff said. I'm not intelligent or educated in the ways of the military to make any sort of plan of action. I just know what is right and what is wrong. And leaving these Iraqis to rip each other to shreds is plain WRONG.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Its important to seperate the differences between "insurgents" and the sectarian violence that's primarily being seen. We often hear that "Iranian Insurgents" came into Iran and started fighting but what more over look is that most Iraqi Shiites have family in Iran.

Reza