Iraqi President: U.S. to Stay As Needed [``no matter what the period.'']

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - President Jalal Talabani on Saturday underscored the need for a unity government in Iraq after a spasm of sectarian killing and said he had been assured U.S. forces would remain in the country as long as needed - ``no matter what the period.''

His comments came after a bomb exploded at a minibus terminal during morning rush hour in a southeastern Baghdad suburb, killing seven people and wounding 25, one of a string of explosions in the capital and elsewhere.

The violence shattered the relative calm brought by Fridays' driving ban in Baghdad and its outskirts, which helped avert major attacks on the day Muslims congregate for the most important prayer service of the week.

Talabani spoke to reporters after meeting with Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command.

Abizaid said he was ``very, very pleased with the reaction of the Iraqi armed forces'' during the crisis unleashed by the Feb. 22 bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra and reprisal attacks against Sunni Muslims that pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.

``We should understand that the terrorists are trying to create problems among the Iraqi people that can lead to difficulties between various groups,'' he said after a separate meeting with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. ``We should not fall into their trap. We are stronger than they are. We will ultimately prevail.''

Later, Abizaid warned that Iraq can expect more bombings like the one in Samarra.

He blamed Al-Qaida terrorists for the blast and said it marked a clear - and successful - change in tactics by the group in its campaign to ignite civil war among Iraqis.

``I expect we'll see another attack in the near future on another symbol,'' Abizaid said during a stop in Qatar after his two-day trip to Iraq. ``They'll find some other place that's undefended, they'll strike it and they'll hope for more sectarian violence.''

The surge of violence, which has killed at least 500 people since last week, has tangled negotiations to form a new government after December parliamentary elections and threatened American hopes of starting a troop pullout this summer.

Talabani said Abizaid assured him that U.S. forces ``are ready to stay as long as we ask them, no matter what the period is.''

He said the U.S. commander also stressed that ``a strong national unity government made up of all blocs in parliament will help in stabilizing Iraq and bringing peace.''

However, Talabani said his Kurdish followers and their allies will fight against a second term for al-Jaafari.

Sunni, Kurdish and some secular politicians have asked the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, the largest bloc in parliament, to nominate another candidate. They accuse al-Jaafari of failing to rein in attacks against Sunni mosques and clerics in the aftermath of the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine.

``With all our respect to Dr. al-Jaafari, we asked them to choose a candidate who is unanimously agreed on by Iraqis,'' Talabani said. ``I want to be clear, it is not against Dr. al-Jaafari as a person. He has been my friend for 25 years. What we want is consensus.''

Talabani said he hoped to announce soon a date for parliament to convene. But there is little indication a government will be ready by then. As the largest bloc in parliament, the Alliance gets the first chance to form a government, but it must be approved by two-thirds of the 275 lawmakers.

Al-Jaafari's supporters in the United Iraqi Alliance have vowed to resist moves to replace him. But other Shiite leaders are troubled by his close ties to radical young cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose support was key to al-Jaafari's nomination by a single vote in a Feb. 12 Shiite caucus.

Two lawmakers from al-Jaafari's Dawa party and a senior aide to the prime minister visited the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Saturday to seek the endorsement of Iraq's most revered Shiite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

``His eminence stressed two points: first, the importance of the Alliance, its survival and its unity, and second, the necessity of adhering to the decisions that came out of the Alliance,'' lawmaker Jawad al-Maliki said after the meeting.

Hundreds demonstrated Saturday in Amarah and Najaf, in Iraq's southern Shiite heartland, in support of al-Jaafari's bid for another term.

Iraqi soldiers and police - backed in one neighborhood by a Shiite militia the United States wants disbanded - enforced a driving ban that brought relative peace to Baghdad streets Friday.

The bus terminal blast occurred at the height of the morning rush, setting three minibuses on fire and damaging nearby market stands, police Capt. Ali Mahdi said. The attack struck in a region where 19 people were killed when gunmen stormed an electricity substation and brick factory Thursday night.

Another bombing targeted an Interior Ministry special forces patrol in the Salman Pak area, 10 miles southeast of Baghdad, killing two commandos and wounding two others, police Maj. Falah al-Mohamadawi said.

In Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of the capital, a bomb exploded in a busy commercial area near a shop that repairs radios and tape players, killing a young girl and injuring eight other people, police said.

In the south, a Shiite lawmaker was seriously wounded when gunmen in two speeding cars fired on his vehicle near Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. An aide for Qasim Attiyah al-Jbouri was killed and two bodyguards injured, police Capt. Mushtaq Kadhim said.

The attack against al-Jbouri, the former head of Basra's provincial council who ran for parliament on the United Iraqi Alliance slate, was the second in 10 days. Gunmen on Feb. 24 kidnapped three of his children but freed them unharmed hours later.

Police also found at least four more handcuffed, shot-up bodies dumped in Baghdad and south of the capital.

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub, Bassem Mroue and Bushra Juhi contributed to this report from Baghdad.

And now it looks like an Iraqi civil war is in the making with our troops squarely in the crossfire.

What "crossfire"? "Crossfire" occurs when you are between two groups. But we are helping to defend the democratically-elected Iraq government, at their request, from a terror insurgency fueled by a minority. Whatever else that is, and however bad a civil war might be, that's not "crossfire".

Maybe our military bungled it by sending in ground troops instead of standing back and zapping Iraq to rubble with high-tech naval and air power.

The end result of Iraq being "zapped to rubble" was not among our objectives.

It has long been accepted military strategy not to fight on the enemies’ turf and terms.

We chose to open this front in Iraq, voluntarily. Those are our terms. Many of our enemies have travelled to Iraq to meet us simply because we are there - looks like they're the ones violating your military strategy.

At this point it appears that America has done all it can for Iraq.

Not so, America can continue to play the caretaker role we are playing as Iraq's nascent democratic government struggles to build a civil society. All that is required is a little patience, or is that too much to ask?

There is nothing more to be gained by spending additional American lives and resources.

We can prevent Al Qaeda from assuming power and creating a terror safe haven in a naturally-wealthy Middle Eastern country. This would be a HUGE loss; preventing it is therefore a huge gain. This is so non-debatable that the mere suggestion of ceding this territory to Al Qaeda (for no good reason, I might add) is frivolous and idiotic to the point of irresponsibility.

Nothing remains to be done except to secure the Iraqi oil flow.

... and its democratically-elected government against an ongoing terror assault from our enemy. Or do you simply not care whether Al Qaeda gains the foothold of a wealthy state sponsor?

We could easily do that by simply seizing the oil fields and operate them under a U. S. protectorate.

Not clear how what you suggest is any different from status quo. Iraq is, at present, a de facto U.S. protectorate already. I guess the difference is that you want us to "seize" the oil fields (why?).

Iraq has become the central Islamic battleground into which an endless stream of Muslim terrorists can be funneled to grapple with the “Great Satan.”

Another way to put it is that it is a sinkhole for Muslim terrorists to be captured and killed by the "Great Satan" there instead of wreaking havoc elsewhere. And you want to do away with that situation, why? If it's the central battleground, shall we not fight the battle? Or shall we retreat? If so, why?

After a raid into Iraq, Muslims’ flee back across the borders or fade into the civilian population making it impossible for our forces to fight decisive set-piece battles.

We are fighting an enemy whose beloved tactic is terror. There is no such thing as "set-piece battles" in a terror war. To say that we should retreat from any battlefield in which we cannot arrange for "set-piece battles" is to say that we should surrender entirely.

The only way the U. S. can win such a fight is to unleash total war on the whole country as we did in World War II on Europe and Japan.

This is just a non sequitur. Situations not analogous.

The alternative is to allow another Third World country to hand the U.S. another stalemated military defeat as we suffered in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, and Gulf War I.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's precisely what you're advocating here.

Muslim countries who covertly or overtly support the Islamic Jihad can easily supply men and war materials to keep a perpetual guerilla war going on forever in Iraq.

For all the good it will do them. You act as if you believe these nihilistic terrorists are accomplishing something of military (or any other) value in Iraq. It is precisely the opposite. To the extent that you're right about Muslim countries' supplying men and war materials on this nihilistic sacrifice, they are essentially pouring those resources down a pit instead of using them on something which could do us significant damage. Sounds ok to me.

I might add that the jihadis in Iraq have caused Al Qaeda's cause a huge PR setback by their actions there. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that slaughtering Muslims indiscriminately isn't quite the PR coup Zarqawi et al think it is. And you intend to scare me with the promise that they could continue? If Muslim countries intend to continue wasting their resources supporting this PR disaster indefinitely then by all means, let them do so.

President Bush has made it clear that our immediate task in Iraq, after removing Saddam, is to stabilize the country, train Iraqi troops, help the Iraqi factions to form a government and assist in the establishment of a constitutional democracy. But it’s fair for critics of the Bush administration to ask: what is our long term goal in Iraq?

Read over your first setence again; that is the long term goal. You may as well have written "President Bush has said 2+2=4. But it's fair for critics to ask, what is 2+2?"

Is it to move in as an imperial power and permanently colonize Iraq?

No. "Colonize"? No. Go look up the definition of "colonize". We are not doing anything even remotely resembling "colonization".

Is it to establish democracy as we know it?

Not necessarily. Just a democracy (which is shorthand for, reasonably decent consensual government).

Is it to bring peace to a part of the world that has seldom known peace?

"Bring peace" cannot be a goal of military action per se, that is nonsensical. To the extent that there can even be defined such a state of affairs as "peace" (is there "peace" in the U.S.? yes? but what about in Compton, CA?), "peace" will have to follow (if it does) from some tangible goal... such as a reasonably decent consensual government. If it does not, well too bad, but that makes the tangible goal no less worthy of pursuit.

As to colonizing, I don’t believe Americans would stand for a long occupation of another foreign country, although Iraq would greatly benefit.

You are confused. "Colonizing" and "occupation" are not synonyms. We currently occupy (just for starters) Germany, Japan, and South Korea militarily, and have done so for a long time - the very thing you insist Americans wouldn't stand for. But does that mean we have "colonized" them?

Looking at history a good argument can be made that Middle Eastern nations are not capable of self-government and are very nearly ungovernable except by a theocratic strongman.

A facile and self-serving argument, sure. "We're gonna abandon the majority of you to the violent minority, cuz we've looked at your history and" bla bla bla.

Wake up and look at the facts: Iraqis have voted in a constitution and a government for themselves. They have participating in self-government. It is a democracy, right now. But its government is under assault by fascists, thugs and zealots, and needs our help to stand. It appears you don't wish to provide that help, for whatever reason of your own. But instead of just saying that, you instead decide they're "not capable of self-government" (because they're being attacked? did 9/11 prove that America is "not capable of self-government"?) and wash your hands of them. Facile.

The hope that Iraqi forces will ever be trained well enough to keep order and defend Iraqi borders is probably too optimistic.

Iraqi forces are people. People can learn to use implements and follow simple orders. Iraq is a territory. Territories can be defended. Non-pacified people are people. They can be pacified or killed. These things have occurred zillions of times in zillions of places throughout human history, yet you make them sound like magic tricks when applied to Iraq. Why? Is Iraq a special-magical "can't defend"/"can't pacify" zone? Or is it that Arabs are particularly incapable of learning how to point and shoot, write and execute laws, and so forth?

Except for the Turks, Middle Eastern troops have never -- to put it kindly -- demonstrated an ability to perform well as an army.

They don't necessarily need to "perform well", just good enough. And your criticism is self-nullifying anyhow, because their foes are also Middle Eastern. If Middle Eastern troops are so incapable then for Iraq to defend herself against her attackers shouldn't be a problem.

As for peace, there can never be a realistic peace in a region where personal freedom and liberty are as rare as indoor plumbing.

Circular argument, basically. Lack of personal freedom and liberty is a symptom of lack of peace, not its cause. You speak as if lack of personal freedom and liberty are features of the landscape there, unalterable as mountains. Rubbish.

It’s time, I believe, for us to move on in the war on terrorism.

What does this even mean? "Move on"? To where? Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Where would you rather us fight them? North Dakota? They might not agree to that.

We must establish a series of steps for withdrawing and then carry them out leaving Iraq free to determine its own destiny.

Um, and this is different from what we're doing, how?

Still, we must leave within a reasonable time. We cannot nation-sit Iraq forever.

Straw man. Of course we can't do that "forever". We can't do anything "forever". Since when was "forever" on the table? You say we must leave within a reasonable time. Well who can disagree with that? The question is what's the definition of a reasonable time? You say we can't nation-sit forever but we sure as hell can do it longer than the attention-span of a 15-year-old watching MTV.

Your entire post is laden with an overarching assumption that our military presence in Iraq is seriously threatened and/or that there is some sort of crisis point reached or nearly reached, that the situation is urgent or dire or about to break in the short term. I wholeheartedly reject these notions and think they are based on absolutely nothing of substance; I do not believe you can defend them or state in objective terms where the urgency lies.

Best,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.