This just in: good news from Iraq

[KevinTheOmnivore]

A nice addition to this article is the series conducted by Arthur Chrenkoff at http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/. Scroll down to the right for the "good news from Iraq" stuff.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-300041c.html

New York Daily News

This just in: good
news from Iraq

by Richard Chesnoff

Monday, October 3rd, 2005

I once had an editor who used to cynically quip, "There's no news like bad news!" He would have loved Iraq: unrelenting terrorism, an insatiable casualty rate and an estimated 200 billion of U.S. tax dollars down a bottomless drain - all this at a time when we could use serious help back on our own devastated Gulf Coast.
There's no denying the torrent of bad news out of Iraq. Yet buried beneath it is a steady stream of good news, positive developments that rarely make the evening TV shows, the front page headlines or even the back pages.

I'm no Pollyanna. But whether you support our presence in Iraq, or think we should be pulling out tomorrow, it's vital to see the bright side of Iraqi events before deciding our efforts in that long suffering land are valueless.

Take, for example, the way brave Iraqis continue to defy bloody attempts by pro-Saddam terrorists to sabotage the upcoming Oct. 15 constitutional referendum and deny Iraq democracy. Like the January presidential vote, registration has been exhilaratingly high across the country - even in provinces with heavy "insurgent" presence.

In Anbar and Salahuddin, approximately 75% of eligible voters recently signed up to vote. Iraqis are also beginning to take over the heavy burden of their own defense. Our 149,000 troops clearly remain vital to any semblance of order, but the Iraqi army is making strides: It already boasts a counterterrorist unit and a commando battalion.

Iraq's once-powerful Air Force is back in the skies with three operational squadrons that already include nine reconnaissance and three U.S. C-130 transport aircraft that operate around the clock under Iraqi control. Even the Iraqi Navy is afloat again, with 39 patrol craft and a full navy infantry regiment.

Some members of Congress loudly disagree, but top Iraqi officials and several senior U.S. military chiefs believe that we may be able to safely withdraw substantial numbers of our troops by year's end. The Iraqi police force already has more than 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers.

And suicide bombings at recruiting stations haven't frightened away long lines of new candidates for Iraq's five police academies; they now produce more than 3,500 new police officers every eight weeks.

Then there are the 4,730 schools that have been renovated or constructed; the more than 4.3 million Iraqi children in primary school; the publication of 51 million new Saddam-free textbooks for Iraqi schoolchildren; and the 70 universities, colleges and research centers now operating in Iraq.

Such progress has even triggered a steady "brain drain in reverse" - thousands of educated Iraqi expatriates who are returning home to teach and participate in the New Iraq.

During my first visit to Saddam-controlled Iraq in 1988, there was no free press and there was brutal oppression - especially of Kurds and Shiites. Today, there's a successful semi-autonomous Kurdistan, a politically powerful Shiite majority, plus an independent media with 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations.

And best yet, Saddam Hussein is about to go on trial. Consider all this next time you feel that we're making no headway in Iraq.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.praguemonitor.com/ctk/?id...ood-conditions

Talabani invites Czech firms to Iraq, promises good conditions

(PDM staff with CTK) 4 October - Czech companies are invited to Iraq and all will be given good economic conditions, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said yesterday after meeting Czech President Vaclav Klaus at Prague Castle.

Czech companies could take part, for example, in the reconstruction of oil refineries and power plants destroyed in the war.

Possible Czech investments in Iraq will be discussed today and also during Talabani's visit to arms maker Aero Vodochody on Wednesday.

Klaus said the Czech Republic was ready for close political, economic, military and cultural cooperation with Iraq.

Klaus noted that the fact that the Czech Republic was the first European country visited by Talabani after his election was evidence to the close relations between the two countries.

Talabani arrived for a three-day visit to the Czech Republic yesterday.

One of the Czech companies ready to sign contracts in Iraq is Inekon Group which may build a cement factory in Iraq for CZK 4 billion. A preliminary contract has already been signed.

Inekon is also interested in the reconstruction of a hydroelectric power plant, and talks are currently under way on the technical and commercial aspects of the project, Zdenek Moravek of Inekon Group told the Czech News Agency yesterday.

Czech companies are well-known in Iraq and were praised for the quality of their work in the country's industrialisation in the 1970s and 1980s.

Czech trademarks Skoda, Jawa, Sigma and Zetor are very popular in Iraq.

CTK news edited by the staff of the Prague Daily Monitor, a Monitor CE service.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...005100125.html

Iraqi business optimism about Iraq's future
Iraq, Economics, 10/1/2005

An international survey of more than 600 Iraqi business owners and managers suggests that a majority of them are optimistic about Iraq's economic and political future.

The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the Zogby International polling firm, both based in Washington, conducted the survey of 641 owners and managers of Iraqi small, medium and large businesses in five Iraqi cities: Baghdad, the capital, Arbil and Kirkuk in the north and Hilla and Basra in the south. The fieldwork for Baghdad, Hilla, Basra and Kirkuk was conducted from July 17 to July 25; for Arbil, it was conducted from August 28 to August 30. The results of the survey were released in Washington September 27.

More than three-fourths of the business people said they anticipate growth in Iraq's national economy during the next two years, although 45 percent of them indicated that they do not expect the profits of their concerns to climb during the next six months, according to the survey. Three percent of the respondents said they believe that the Iraqi economy will shrink.

The survey indicated that business has grown throughout most of Iraq since the end of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. More than four in 10 of those surveyed said they have added employees since that time and about three in 10 said the number of their employees has not changed, for a total of 71 percent saying their employee figures have grown or remained stable.

The percentage of business leaders expressing optimism about Iraq's economic future -- 69 percent -- is unchanged from the results obtained in a similar poll taken by the same groups a year ago. Optimism was highest in Arbil in the far north (99 percent) and in Basra in the far south (92 percent). The optimism quotient for Baghdad and Hilla was in line with the national figure. In stark contrast, only 9 percent of business people in Kirkuk said they were optimistic about Iraq's economic prospects.

As for Iraq's political future, the poll results indicated that 60 percent are optimistic, 9 percent pessimistic, 26 percent neutral and 6 percent unsure.

The level of optimism reached 93 percent in Arbil, followed by 73 percent in Hilla, and 71 percent in Basra. Among business leaders in Baghdad, 58 percent expressed optimism about the country's political future. In Kirkuk, the optimistic assessments accounted for 7 percent, the pessimistic for 24 percent and the neutrals for 55 percent.

The poll turned up a number of other indicators of the state of the Iraqi economy. Almost half the respondents said the new Iraqi government represents and protects their interests. One in five disagreed with that statement.

The Number 1 way the Iraqi government could help the business community was to get the security situation under control, according to 33 percent of the business leaders. That figure rose to 45 percent in Baghdad. Fifty-seven percent of the leaders indicated that security has improved since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but 38 percent said it has worsened.

A substantial majority of the business people -- 71 percent -- is optimistic about the prospects for nationwide stability following the elections, scheduled for December. And 84 percent of them said that economic stability in the regions will be enhanced by the elections.

The poll results showed that an overwhelming 82 percent of Iraqi business leaders believe that a democratic and diverse government will bring economic benefits; 62 percent said the business community is able to influence government policy.

In a sweeping change from the results of the poll taken in 2004, most of the business leaders named the political parties they thought best represent them in this year's sounding. Only 13 percent of the respondents declined to name the party they support. In the poll taken in 2004, 72 percent of the respondents did not express a preference for a political party.

Two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi economy is based primarily on cash, with seven in 10 business owners saying it is the basic means of exchange they use, according to respondents to the poll. Bank transfers are preferred by 24 percent of the business people, and credit cards are used by 1 percent of the respondents to pay for goods and services, the poll showed.

Fifty-three percent of the business people said they never have taken out loans to start or expand their firms, the poll showed. Another 8 percent said they attempted to receive loans but their application was rejected. Twenty-nine percent said they have borrowed money successfully.

More than eight of 10 business people (82 percent) said they welcome opening Iraq's borders to international business. The Gulf states received the most endorsements (23 percent) as the place that offers the best commercial opportunities. In descending order were Syria (13 percent), followed by Lebanon, Europe, Turkey, Jordan, the United States and Iran.

The employment of women in Iraq has surged during the past year, according to the poll. In late 2004, 43 percent of the business people said they employed women. In the 2005 poll, the figure was 63 percent. The percentage is even higher in Baghdad (68 percent) and highest in Arbil (91 percent).

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story....pub=1&div=News


Second base handed over to Iraqis
10/3/2005 1:08:00 AM
Daily Journal


By Jennifer Farish


Daily Journal Oxford Bureau


With their return home just a few months away, members of the 155th Brigade Combat Team successfully handed over security of another area of Iraq to local forces this past week.


Earlier this month, the brigade transferred control of the city of Najaf to Iraqi forces, and, this past week, the city of Karbala also was handed over to the Iraqi army and police, said Maj. Erby Montgomery, public affairs officer for the brigade.


The handover was marked by a special ceremony attended by Iraqi army and police commanders as well as representatives of the Iraqi government.


Members of the 114th Field Artillery Second Battalion have been working with the people of Karbala since mid-January and made great strides in providing security and infrastructure support for that area, Montgomery said.


Karbala, located just southwest of Baghdad, is one of the holiest cities in Muslim religion and has a large tourism industry related to holy landmarks.


While stationed there, the 114th Field Artillery completed 68 projects totaling $21.5 million to improve the city and help boost its tourism income. Projects included work to the water and sewer systems, assistance to local schools, electrical infrastructure, as well as medical and humanitarian aid.


The base where the soldiers lived is now the property of the city of Karbala, and officials there will be able to decide how to best use the property.


Meanwhile, soldiers who were stationed at that base have been relocated to others throughout the 155th Brigade Combat Team's area of operations in the region just south of Baghdad.

[mburbank]

Well, all of that is certainy good and factors into the... other news out of Iraq.

At a press conferene yesterday Abasid (?) said there is currently one Iraqi combat unit ready to fight independant of us control. A year ago at this time there were three. At least so the same man claimed.

My point is, I find the 'news' of iraqi flight squadrons and economic prospects.... suspect at best. Where is this info coming from? What are the vested interetsts? How is the info being vetted?

The most solid news in any of this is voter registration, which I thnk is in and off itself very, very impresive, and very good news. But valiant as it may be, it sheds no light at all on what Iraqis so deperately want to vote for. Sharia Law? Shiite dominance? Kurdish separatism? Time will tell.

I suspect your point in posting this is that the press rarely reports any progress in Iraq. Perhaps they feel burned by the mountains of lies they were spoon fed and dutifully reported in the lead up and early days of the invasion. The scientists point to buried WMD caches. The toppling of Saddams statue. The beautfully lit cathedral in New Orleans. Oh, sorry, difffernt good news.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

My point is, I find the 'news' of iraqi flight squadrons and economic prospects.... suspect at best. Where is this info coming from? What are the vested interetsts? How is the info being vetted?

Shall I henceforth refer to all of your Iraqi news posts as 'news'??? How is any info out of Iraq being vetted?

The most solid news in any of this is voter registration, which I thnk is in and off itself very, very impresive, and very good news. But valiant as it may be, it sheds no light at all on what Iraqis so deperately want to vote for. Sharia Law? Shiite dominance? Kurdish separatism? Time will tell.

Right, and ultimately, that time will be up to them. From a realist perspective, it doesn't necessarily speak to just America's interests, but I'm of the opinion (where's abc!!?) that it needs to be about more than that.

I suspect your point in posting this is that the press rarely reports any progress in Iraq. Perhaps they feel burned by the mountains of lies they were spoon fed and dutifully reported in the lead up and early days of the invasion. The scientists point to buried WMD caches. The toppling of Saddams statue. The beautfully lit cathedral in New Orleans. Oh, sorry, difffernt good news.

Or, maybe media is ultimately a business, and all ethics and intellectual honesty flies out the window when it comes to selling papers. This is why sex scandals were more important than everything in the 90's, and that's why bad news in iraq is more important than good news in Iraq. If it bleeds it leads, no? Iraq most certainly bleeds, and that's what will sell.

[Preechr]

In addition to the bleeding, there is clotting and healing and the billions of dollars worth of Vitamin E we're daubing on Iraqi wounds will minimize the scarring. The media HAS reported on the future in the past. The question is why aren't they doing so now?

So, Mr. Burbank is worried about what Iraqi freedom will look like? Would we consider asking Polish folk who we should vote for next year? How bout Indonesians? Who really cares what form of government they eventually choose as long as it's not voting in Saddam Hussein again? Freedom is risky business, though, and they will have just as much right to vote in a new dictator as you will have to vote for Hillary in '08.

Your fears seem to hint at a feeling that our investment in their freedom should restrict their political expression to only that with which we approve. Now, I know you're not the kind of guy that would think that way, so why are you building men of straw, Mr. Max?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Well, let's be fair, Preechr. This war was ultimately cooked up as one in the best interests of the American people, as well as being consistent with the overall war on terrorism.

If this war wasn't about American interests, and Iraq eventually turns into Iran, haven't we merely made things worse, ESPECIALLY regarding the Islamic extremsim aspect...?

[mburbank]

We didn't go there to free them, anyone who thinks so is a rube.

Any Freedom they get is incidental.

Should that Freedom be a religous aliance with a Nuclear powered Iran, I would say our interests would have been far better served by letting well enough alone, and that we will have lost our economy, the lives of our children, the fragile semi-stability only to make things worse all so a very small mean spirited man could think himself better than his father.

[Preechr]

I missed the part of the discussion where you explained why all Arab societies are doomed to end up just like Iran. If they'd ever fix the search feature, I'm sure I'd find it. Link?

A free Iraq is in our best interests as well as that of the world, and cooking up an environment that will support a free Iraq is absolutely consistent with the larger picture of a world without terrorism.

Islamic extremism does not breed terrorism. The fact that terrorism works breeds terrorism. Everybody adopts some sort of moral code for their behavior, including Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims do not kill people in support of their religion. The vast majority of Christians have never blown up an abortion clinic. The vast majority of Irishmen have never set off a car bomb. In none of those cases, however, do people with closely held beliefs shed many tears for those they perceive to be active enemies of their lifestyle.

The more terrorists we kill, the more chances we get to kill those that recruit and train the foot soldiers. The more terrorist leaders we kill, the more ineffectual terrorism becomes. Say what you want, including that I'm a bastard for saying this, but I'm pretty happy that what terrorism there is in the world right now is not causing huge explosions and loss of life in this country. If that's not proof of a good idea at least from an American perspective than I don't know what is.

There's only one sensible reason why we've yet to experience another attack within our borders, and that's the prosecution of the WOT exactly as we've done it, including Iraq.

You can argue that Iraq was a diversion, but I've seen too many terrorists die in Iraq to believe it. Sorry. As long as the goal remains to kill terrorists and that's happening every day in some place that is not my backyard, I'm cool with it.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

We didn't go there to free them, anyone who thinks so is a rube.

SCREW YEW, YANKEE!!!

*stomps back inside trailer*

[mburbank]

Take a number, baby.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

A free Iraq is in our best interests as well as that of the world, and cooking up an environment that will support a free Iraq is absolutely consistent with the larger picture of a world without terrorism.

I'd like to agree with you, but i don't think it's quite that peachy. Afterall, you could make a very sound argument that having a stable, totalitarian Iraq was good for our security, too. I mean, dig up the story on the 100 Saudi terrorists arrested in Iraq during a sting operation. The country that produced our 9/11 terrorists is STILL producing them!

Islamic extremism does not breed terrorism. The fact that terrorism works breeds terrorism. Everybody adopts some sort of moral code for their behavior, including Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims do not kill people in support of their religion. The vast majority of Christians have never blown up an abortion clinic. The vast majority of Irishmen have never set off a car bomb.

I disagree, and perhaps I ironically take a harder stance on this than you, but I think this is in fact an ideological problem rather than a tactical problem. I think the enemy is Islamic extremism, and the difference between it and the other examples you provided is that radical Islam has a pervasive problem all throughout it, one that the others have already addressed to a great extent.

Yes, most muslims haven't personally killed themselves in a pizza place or a bus. But a lot of muslims seem really, really good at making excuses for that minority of murderers, and there is the key distinction, IMO.

The more terrorists we kill, the more chances we get to kill those that recruit and train the foot soldiers. The more terrorist leaders we kill, the more ineffectual terrorism becomes.

I agree, but it takes more than this. Killing all of the terrorists seems rather implausible. There needs to be something internal within Islam and the Arab world, something that the barrel of a gun can't change.

[Preechr]

Islamic extremists can be as "extreme" as they wish as long as they are made to understand that convincing young, impressionable idiots that they should blow themselves up will not work out in their favor. You could make that arguement that we were better off with a repressed Iraq, but you'd have to go back to the 1980's to do so.

It is just impossible for a modern, democratic, western civilization to deal with a totalitarian goon like Saddam. You lie with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Dealing with goons has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS left us with a black eye.

I agree with you and max in that N. Korea, Saudi and Iran pose even greater dangers to our security for the same reasons Iraq was a threat: They have shitty governments. Saddam was weakened and was STILL difficult to replace. It's now common knowledge among the people of those countries the hardships faced by waiting until the US marches in and "fixes" things... If their own leaders get too far out of line, wouldn't you think they'd start to wonder if it'd be easier to take the task in hand for themselves?

The mistakes we've made so far in Iraq work in our favor in this respect. Had we expertly zipped in to depose Saddam and promptly zipped out within weeks, leaving a model Democracy in our wake, the people of Iran, N.Korea and Saudi would have simply decided to sit and wait until we did the same thing for them. This way, our interference seems much more like a worst case scenario... Not that we really want to be sending troops their way any time soon anyway...

Once the Iraqi people round the corner on their new government, whatever it is they've built will be seen as a shining example of whatever it is because THEY did it, not us. It will be THEIR OWN blood, sweat and tears they see in their nation and they will defend it just as we do ours. What we might have, in a "best case scenario," built for them flawlessly, they would not have appreciated nor understood.

Dictators around the world demand less now and speak in more subtle tones, depite the fact that everybody knows we couldn't possibly manage another front in the war. Iraq is being rebuilt by Iraqis with a little help from a bigger, stronger nation. That surely sends a signal to the repressed people of other nations that it's up to them just how little "help" they get. It's probably going to best for everyone involved if they get up off their asses and overthrow their own despots...

You say the problem is internal within Islam. I counter that Islam is their form of government as well as their religion, and thus we agree. The spiritual side of Islam is just as good as any other religion as far as I'm concerned, and I see no good coming from chastising a people for their spiritual beliefs. Most religions suffer from a sense of superiority, and most have set out to conquer and subjugate the unbelievers at one time or another.

It's just what we do when we think we're right, isn't it?

I will likely argue with you until one day I convince you you are in fact a libertarian, just like me. I will be right, and you will admit you've always been wrong. You will probably want to kiss my butt, but I'm a nice guy and I'll probably spare you the humiliation you deserve for being so wrong for so long.

When I finally do convince you of the error of your ways, it will not be because I tracked you down and blew up your car, killing your wife and kids. We are ideologically chained to a similar set of limitations to our conflicts. A small faction of Islamic evangelists have decided to loose those chains for whatever reason, and we are in the process of proving to them that, in a civilized society, there is never a good enough reason for terrorism, and that it will never be tolerated.

If they choose, as has the IRA, to lay down their arms and seek more acceptable solutions to their problems, we will help them as we are the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Africa and South Korea and Chechnya and... damn, we're helping a bunch of folks...

If, however, they choose to continue their "jihad," we will continue to exterminate their terrorist soldiers and every once and a while even the leaders will get caught up in the killing. It will only become more difficult to recruit, and operations will become more dangerous and less effective. If they truly believe themselves to be leaders of their people, don't you think they'll eventually realize that they'll be doing their people no good if they're dead?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Islamic extremists can be as "extreme" as they wish as long as they are made to understand that convincing young, impressionable idiots that they should blow themselves up will not work out in their favor. You could make that arguement that we were better off with a repressed Iraq, but you'd have to go back to the 1980's to do so.

Well, I again disagree. I think you're right about the religious aspect-- we all think we're right, and as long as we abide by the parameters and play nice, we can go on thinking just that. That's a great idea, but how will it be in practice? Will an Islamic Iraq be free of the madrasas that teach hate and suicide? Presumably, if there's some semblance of democracy and schooling, but can we risk that? Will democracy teach them not to omit the state of Israel from their text books, and stop them from preaching anti-semitism?
What about martyrdom? Will this no longer be a noble and spiritual gesture in a democratic iraq?

We're on the same page about religious co-existence, and I think we also agree about the positives of a free, deomocratic Iraq. But even the Islamic nations that are often held up as proto-types for how "it could be," such as Morocco, have produced killers.

It's now common knowledge among the people of those countries the hardships faced by waiting until the US marches in and "fixes" things... If their own leaders get too far out of line, wouldn't you think they'd start to wonder if it'd be easier to take the task in hand for themselves?

I dunno. I've heard this said about Iran for years now, and they just reverted to a hardline president with nuclear ambitions. I realize this doesn't mean Iran as a whole is accepting Islamic fundamentalism, but regardless, these "West loving kids" just elected a radical.

Dictators around the world demand less now and speak in more subtle tones, depite the fact that everybody knows we couldn't possibly manage another front in the war. Iraq is being rebuilt by Iraqis with a little help from a bigger, stronger nation. That surely sends a signal to the repressed people of other nations that it's up to them just how little "help" they get. It's probably going to best for everyone involved if they get up off their asses and overthrow their own despots...

Subtle tones? Like in Uzbekistan, or Russia? How 'bout, um...IRAN!? Demanding less??? I don't know that other nations are looking at Iraq and trembling in their boots. I think they are looking at it as an exposure of our limitations, and they will begin to speak in even "bolder" tones I believe.

When I finally do convince you of the error of your ways, it will not be because I tracked you down and blew up your car, killing your wife and kids. We are ideologically chained to a similar set of limitations to our conflicts. A small faction of Islamic evangelists have decided to loose those chains for whatever reason, and we are in the process of proving to them that, in a civilized society, there is never a good enough reason for terrorism, and that it will never be tolerated.

And I have no doubt that a modern, moderate Islam will emerge out of this someday soon. But right now, I believe there's too much of a "but the Americans..." syndrome amongst most muslims. I have known several muslims who obviously would NEVER think of hurting another human being, much less resort to terrorist tactics. But, there's the but! They also don't hold back in making excuses for those killers, for linking it to us, to Israel, to Jews, etc. etc. There remains a moral equivalence that makes excuses for terrorists. So again, this is an extreme minority, but there's a silent majority that is yet to come out en masse to denounce them and dismiss them. That is what we need.

[mburbank]

US Policymakers Despair of Iraqi Army
By Martin Sieff
United Press International

Monday 03 October 2005

As Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, commented, "It doesn't feel like progress when we hear today that there is only one Iraqi battalion fully capable."

US politicians and policymakers' perceptions towards the Iraq war have reached another tipping point: There is now a widespread recognition shared among senior uniformed US military officers and Washington foreign policy analysts that plans to rapidly build up the Iraqi army as a new, independent effective fighting force have failed disastrously.

The Senate heard testimony last week from some of America's top generals that the war in Iraq is going worse than ever and that only 1 out of 119 Iraqi army and security battalions can operate by itself in combat situations without US military backup.

Top US generals admitted in testimony Thursday to the Senate Armed Services Committee that only a single Iraqi battalion was prepared to operate on its own without US military support. This was a stunning decrease from the three battalions that US generals had assured Congress in previous testimony were ready to operate independently.

The Iraqi army consists of 119 battalions. But the generals' testimony meant that after two and a half years of US efforts, only 750 men out of 200,000 can be relied upon to operate and obey orders independently in combat situations.

As Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, commented, "It doesn't feel like progress when we hear today that there is only one Iraqi battalion fully capable."

And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. bluntly told Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's most reliable uniformed hawk on Iraq, "Things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, Gen. Myers."

Alarmed by the political breadth and intensity of the reaction to the generals' testimony, the Bush administration ordered its top generals into spin control mode over the weekend.

Casey claimed to be more confident in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. "There are peaks and valleys that you go through, but overall the trend is good," he said. We're certainly confident."

And the same day he told ABC's "This Week" that the training of Iraqi forces was "very much on track."

But that was not what he and other senior generals told lawmakers frankly that "Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time."

And as the Washington Post's Dana Priest noted Monday, "It is not unusual for the administration to send out its top military commanders to clarify or speak more optimistically about operations after congressional testimony or independent statements to the media that appear more pessimistic than the administration's position."

Commenting on the Congressional testimony, Anthony H. Cordesman who holds the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of America's most respected military analysts, said, "If only one battalion has the highest level of readiness, doesn't this mean that after some two and a half years of Coalition effort, less than 1 percent of the 86,900 men in the (Iraqi) Army have the highest level of readiness?"

"The decline in the readiness of Iraqi forces described in (the) testimony is a major reversal for the United States," Cordesman said. "We expected to be far better off today, not only in terms of the highest readiness category, but the second. (category of readiness)."

The generals reported that the Iraqi army now did have 35,500 men trained and equipped, but they did not specify how many of them were in units in the two highest categories of readiness?

They also reported some 68,800 men in the regular Iraqi police as trained and equipped. but Cordesman expressed some skepticism at this claim. "We have reports of major problems in both measuring the effectiveness of police units and in bring them to the level of readiness required," he said.

Nor did the generals specify how many of the Level One and Level Two (levels of readiness) units are primarily Shiite and Kurdish, Cordesman said. "How much of the cutting edge of Iraqi forces consists of largely ethnic and sectarian units?" he asked. "Isn't it true that almost all of the newly "trained and equipped" troops are Shiite?"

Cordesman also noted that there had been serious problems in properly manning the US and Coalition advisory teams for the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior? Other major unaddressed problems with building up the Iraqi security forces, he said, included a lack of data about their missing and desertion rates, which are believed to be high and rising.

Also, he said, in many critical areas, such as Basra, the primary Iraqi security forces are now completely different forces like hard-line Shiite militias, elements of the Badr Corps, and other forces over which the Coalition and Iraqi government has limited or no control and influence.

Just as hawkish Republicans like Sen. McCain are now strongly and openly criticizing administration policy on Iraq, Democratic groups are taking much stronger positions in advocating major or even full withdrawals of US troops from there.

On Friday, a well-funded and influential think tank with strong ties to the Clinton administration issued a new security report saying the United States should pull all of its troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007.

The report, entitled "Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists," was written by Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis and was issued by the Center for American Progress, a major Washington think tank run by John Podesta, Democratic President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff.

"By the end of 2006, the United States should take out 80,000 troops and it should announce after the Iraqi elections (scheduled for December) that we should be out (of Iraq) by the end of 2007, Korb, a senior fellow at CAP and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, told reporters.

The United States should "keep some forces in Kuwait and over the horizon in the Gulf" on US warships, Korb said.

The massive US military presence in Iraq, now nearly 150,000 troops, was counterproductive and jihadi fighters from around the world were learning expertise there that they could use in the United States and in other countries around the world against US targets, Korb said.

The fact that the much-touted new Iraqi armed forces have been making almost no progress in defeating these forces in their own country, as the US generals admitted in their Senate testimony, didn't hurt Korb's case either.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

[Dr. Boogie]

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1475581.htm

Iraq U-turn on constitution vote rules

Iraq's Parliament has reversed an earlier decision over rules governing a referendum next week on the country's new constitution.

"They have reversed their decision as we had hoped they would," United Nations spokesman Said Arikat said in Baghdad.

On Sunday, the Iraqi Parliament voted to change the rules for the referendum, saying that for it to be defeated, two thirds of registered voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces would have to say "no", rather than two thirds of those who turn out to vote.

The decision sparked a storm of protest, including from the UN.

The UN said such an interpretation was unfair and did not meet international standards.

But under pressure from the UN and the United States, the Iraqi Parliament has decided to revert to the original rules.

The deputy speaker of the parliament, Hussain al-Shahristani, says a crucial clause in the interim constitution will be interpreted as meaning those who turn out to vote, not merely registered voters.

"The 'voters' means those voters who are registered and who exercise that right," he told reporters, speaking in English.

Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker who had campaigned against parliament's earlier decision, calling it a double standard, says he is pleased it has been reversed.

"The decision the other day was wrong, it was unfair and it was not democratic," he told Reuters.

"Now when we say voters, we mean those people who put their ballots in the box, as it should be."

The earlier decision by parliament was rammed through by Shiites and Kurds, who dominate the chamber and who want to ensure that the constitution, largely drafted by them, is passed.

Many Sunni Arabs, a minority in Iraq, reject the constitution, saying it favours the Shiites and Kurds, and are hoping they might be able to defeat it at the referendum if they can rally enough "no" votes.

[GAsux]

I'm baised I suppose but I'll always be skeptical of the plan to "hand over" security in any country. With all of our training, professionalism, technology, etc, our efforts to combat the insurgency militarily are marginally beneficial.

I don't have the slightest confidence that a hastily trained, marginally motivated Iraqi security force will fare better. The day you turn over control to the Iraqi security apparatus is the day you've lost.

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

"They have reversed their decision as we had hoped they would," United Nations spokesman Said Arikat said in Baghdad.

Tee hee.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pen...eda/index.html

Pentagon: Bin Laden deputy complains about money, Iraq tactics
U.S. says it obtained intercepted letter


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An intercepted letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the al Qaeda leader in Iraq complains that the terrorist network is short of cash and faces defeat in Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman says.

The United States obtained a recent letter that appears to be from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 figure, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, outlining both the strategy and concerns of the terrorist network, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

In the letter, al-Zawahiri warns that some of the tactics currently employed by the insurgency, including the slaughtering of hostages and the suicide bombings of Muslim civilians, may risk alienating the "Muslim masses," Whitman said Thursday.

Reading from a summary of the letter, Whitman said al-Zawahiri concedes that al Qaeda has lost many key leaders, is resigned to defeat in Afghanistan, and that its lines of communication and funding sources have been seriously disrupted. Al-Zawahiri includes a plea for financial support, indicating he is strapped for money, Whitman said.

He could not say when the letter was intercepted or when authorities believe it might have been written.

The lengthy communication was said to detail the strategy of Muslim extremists to push the United States out of Iraq and establish an Islamic state that could expand its form of governance to neighboring countries, Whitman said.

Senior U.S. officials told CNN that the 6,000-word letter is believed to have been written within days of the July 7 terror attacks in London. Only parts of the letter have been made public, the officials said.

The decision to confirm the existence of the letter came after an incomplete and partially inaccurate version was leaked to news organizations, the senior officials said.

Earlier Thursday, President Bush made similar points about the terror network in what aides billed as a "major speech" on the war on terrorism, which was launched after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

Bush repeated his long-standing contention that Iraq had become the central front in that conflict, and said a U.S. withdrawal from that currently unpopular conflict would leave behind a country ruled by bin Laden and al-Zarqawi.

"We will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence," Bush said. (Full story)

CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report.

[Preechr]

Once upon a time in Indonesia, Muslims were generally regarded as the least problematic of the various religious groups found in the many diverse cultures contained therein. Nothing like the "Mohammedism" practiced back in the Arabic western nations. Something happened that changed all that, and since that something that happened, Indonesian Islam has become more and more fanatical to the point that violence is commonplace and Indonesia, home to the largest population of Muslims in the world, is written off by Westerners as just another "war torn" area it's probably best to stay clear of.

What was that pivotal something? Krakatau. The worst natural disaster in human recorded, verifiable history. What happened immediately thereafter? The Dutch closed up shop and pretty much abandoned the Asians to economic famine and ignominy. Next thing you know ol' Abu's a fanatical muslim.

Afghanistan? We abandoned it to the Taliban after the Russian war was safely (for us) over.

Pakistan? Well, with the Cold War waning, we really couldn't justify those listening stations there anymore now, could we? Bye Bye to the West and Hello Radical Islam!

Over and over and over this pattern repeats itself throughout modern history. Westerners abandon and Muhammed soothes. The kings of the islamic theocracies... and I'll be so bold as to place Iran in this catagory... have become expert at manipulating the rage of their peoples so as to deflect the expression of their pain onto the West and away from those that are directly responsible for their plight, their leaders themselves.

The East has been mismanaged from the get go. We can keep trying to blame it on them, claiming they've "always" been fighting "over there" and will continue to do so forever. The price for those pseudo clean hands of ours can be set up on a payment plan, with horrors like 9/11 serving as installments. We also have the choice of owning the consequences of the West's past involvements reaching back to the spice trade and fixing that which we abandoned to disrepair and outrage.

One needs to look no further than Cuba to see how well America's turning of a cold shoulder works in our favor. Had we followed the advice of our founding fathers and avoided entangling alliances with other nations, keeping our noses out of the business of others, maybe we wouldn't be finding ourselves in this position today. Personally, I blame the Europeans for being such pussies and dragging us into WWI, but I sigh and admit that it was our own leaders at that time that answered the call with their hearts in the right, albeit a misguided, place.

As a libertarian, I firmly believe in isolationism and I can point to the mess it's absense in our policy has created as proof that my beliefs are correct. As a realist, however, and a responsible person, I can also see the need for fixing that which we had a hand in breaking. Can isolationism ever again be the official foreign policy of America? Probably not in my lifetime. There's just to much international work that needs to be done before such a policy could be considered reasonable and prudent. I do believe, however, that a return to such a policy, once we've helped repair the damage we've caused, should be the long term goal.

In the mean time, there's work to do in the Middle East...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

EDIT: Let me change that.

It seems to me that you don't really advocate isolationism. You advocate "isolationism, but...". My problem with that is that there can always BE a "but," and unforseen circumstances are in the eye of the beholder.

I think the issue of isolationism does have a place in this conversation though. Have Libertarians like yourself Preech made strange bed-fellows with the far Left? I mean, people who want us to pull out of Iraq and withdraw from the world don't call themselves isolationists, but that's essentially what they are. It almost strikes me as the uneasy alliance in the early 20th Century between Republicans like Bob La Follette and Bob Taft. Soon, Democrats will grow a spine (I know, a cliche these days, but it works), and they will start calling for withdrawal. Especially if '06 goes the way it looks like it might. What then? Paint the picture, Preechr-- the GOP is hurt, the Democrats are on the rise, and we have ourselves an internationalist, interventionist president, and an isolationsist Congress. Who jumps on board? Where do you stand? Is it ideology, or stick with Bushy?

[Preechr]

Well, I have yet to vote for but one Republican, and his name wasn't Bush. That's not to say I prefer a pull-out guy like Badnarik (who?) over a fighting-God's-fight guy like Dubya... I vote third-party moreso than I vote for whomever the Libertarian Party dregs up to waste a few million on..

In that respect, I'm not even your average LP voter.

Back during the campaign, I was encouraging dissatisfied liberals to vote for the only significant candidate that had adopted an anti-war stance (hint: it wasn't the Democrats.) Not that I'm necessarily anti-war myself, but I am a bit of a self-appointed booster for the LP even if I've never officially joined.

My stance isn't really "isolationism, but..." as much as it is one that ultimately favors isolationism and acknowledges that the main problem with our foreign policy it's severe lack of isolationism. Can we adopt overnight an isolationist policy like the LP believes? Hell, no. That's idiocy. My ideal plan would be one that has isolationism as a goal, but honors all of the checks we've written since this time last century when we began to become entangled in messy relationships with foreign powers.

To be clear, I believe globalization is a permanent, postive force for the future of this world. Globalization is a commercial force, not a political one. When I speak of isolationism, I mean to take political power off the global market. Eliminate all trade barriers and all strategic trade alliances. You're a smart guy, and it's almost beer-thirty, so I'm not gonna fill up several paragraphs describing what commercial globalization is and what political isolationism is and how they differ and whatnot...

How can I reconcile preferring two goals that seem inseparable? Easy: It's possible as long as we live in a homogenously free world.

Let Bush and his (Democrat?) successor break the eggs that will make my omlette. Bringing Democracy to the MidEast is by no man's plan an easy task, and I'm willing to bet that no matter how well thought out such a plan might have been there would have been MAJOR issues with implementation. Let the bunglers bungle as long as we stay on the right path. Maybe it's bad to be so cavalier about mistakes involving the deaths of people, but it's not like my guy's in charge now, is it?

I feel no responsibility for the actions of Bush, just as I would have felt about the likely identical actions of a President Kerry. The swollen egos and shortsightedness of our leaders are to blame for the few thousand lives that could possibly have been spared in this fight so far, but at least they're fighting the fight that needs to be fought, IMHO.

BTW, Democrats grow a spine? The race between the two parties at this point is not about ideology and how closely one party sticks to theirs as compared to the other. JFK's dead, or haven't you heard?

These days, it's all about effectiveness of party management and staying on top of the political game. Both parties are racing to the place held so well by Blair's Tories in the UK system. We will have large and growing government with ever-expanding welfare programs tempered by reason and prudence no matter which party's in charge. Isn't that sounding a lot like Maxist Populism? I guess it's a win-win for Mr. Burbank no matter who's in charge, huh?

Personally, I believe all large human structures are destined to fail. That includes governments and "Great Societies." I like small and efficient, not huge and doomed. The best government is no more than we absolutely need. Again, though, this is not something we can have overnight. Consider the trauma caused by the sudden lack of expected titty in service addicted New Orleans.

See how tired I am of Iraq? I can't even write a whole ramble without going horribly off topic.

Let's talk about something interesting like Tax Reform...