Calls for calm as crowd stones Iraqi PM

Reuters ^

[Lunatic Fringe]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Angry fellow Shi'ites stoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's motorcade in a Shi'ite stronghold of Baghdad on Sunday in a display of fury over a devastating car bomb that tore through their area.

Maliki was visiting the Sadr City slum to pay respects to some of the 202 victims of last week's devastating bombing.

"It's all your fault!" one man shouted as, in unprecedented scenes, a hostile crowd began to surge around the premier and then jeered as his armored convoy edged through the throng away from a mourning ceremony.

The area is a base for the Mehdi Army militia led by Maliki's fellow Shi'ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Though the violence was limited, it was a dramatic demonstration of the popular passions Maliki and his national unity government are trying to calm following Thursday's multiple car bombs in Sadr City -- the worst since the U.S. invasion -- and later revenge attacks.

On Sunday, a car bomb killed at least 6 people and wounded more than 20 in a market just south of Baghdad, police said.

On the third full day of a curfew on the capital, mortar bombs crashed down in various parts of Baghdad and residents reported isolated and mostly unexplained clashes.

The government has said traffic can circulate again from Monday morning but, after a series of high-level meetings, it again appealed for calm.

[Alia]

Nope. It's not crap. You are obviously limited in comprehension of this matter.

Does it interfere with your single-lobalness?

[George W. Bush]

Had Bush talked totally about national security and not mentioned democracy, he would not have so much carping now.

It's the fatal flaw of Wilsonian internationalism. Pretty soon, you're sallying forth, in search of dragons to slay. The Founders warned us about this tendency. And the trap is to think you can give people human rights, democracy, etc. You can't.

Had the Iraqis ended up with a democracy, fine. If we had to put some really tough guy in power to keep control, fine. Bush would not have been int he corner he is in now.

Yeah, but I think that's what we'll do now since plan A is, well, a little doubtful. Saddam kept the peace in Iraq, brutally, but he did it. Much the same as the old Soviet Union kept the peace in their territories like Bosnia or the southern band of Muslim theocracies. People who won't rule themselves will be ruled by dictators. It's the shape of history. Iraq will have a full-blown civil war. We'll probably retreat to our bases and protect the Kurds and intervene occasionally.

It's unpleasant to consider the return of the Baathists to power. But I think we're going there.

[George W. Bush]

The basic problem is that few if any of the delegates in parliament have a true constituency. There is a disconnect between the "people" --even local sheikhs, I think--and the pols in Baghdad.

They aren't stupid. They can see, just like us, how many strong enemies of freedom and human dignity are aligned against liberty in Iraq. And that their neighbors want them to fail, fearing the danger of a good example in their despotic neighborhoods. This was/is the threat to them from Bush's vision. It's not a terribly hopeful picture for Iraqi liberty. I can't blame them for being cynical. Still, they turned out to vote in big numbers and took their elections seriously.

I've wondered if part of Baker's plan is to pull back a while and let the massacres really start, probably from Sadr, and then carpetbomb Sadr City flat and march back in. The population might become more determined to eject or kill all the insurgents if they get a full taste of it without us standing the way, taking the brunt of it for them. If that is his plan, it might work. Kind of a shock tactic but we have to do something. At least that way, if they really wanted liberty and democracy, they'd get another chance before we mostly withdraw.

Woh, getting late. Bedtime...

[Terpfen]

That's... quite odd. Well, that's why I'm not a web designer.

[Marysecretary]

And there's spiritual warfare in both countries. satan hates America and President Bush because we stand in the way of Israel's becoming a parking lot. That's why it's important to pray for Bush and for the Peace of Jerusalem. And to pray against the principalities and powers over the Middle East. The Prince of Persia is a powerful spirit entity and CAN be stopped through intercessory prayer and lots of it. It will not be won militarily. It WILL be won through our continual prayers.

[RobbyS]

Give SDR City the Fallujah treatment? We can dream, can't we. Easy to fight a war from this armchair.

[B-Chan]

I agree. If this were a real war, our troops would be allowed to do whatever was necessary to win -- and every one of these "militia leaders" would be put up against a wall and shot as the enemy combatants that they are.

[gogogodzilla]

I didn't mean to imply that it was for America. I meant that this would work in Iraq.

And we sure didn't have a free press when it came to D-Day or any other battle in WWII. If a reporter wanted to cover the war, they had to join the military and be censored.

Such an approach towards Iraq would most definitely staunch a great deal of terrorism. Of course, you'd have to ban all foreign press from the country as well. (But hey, it's not like we had free-lance Irish journalists interviewing our troops in the Battle of the Bulge, now did we?)

For terrorists only commit their acts in the hopes that the press will amplify their message to the real targets (in the hopes of influencing them).

[Allegra]

I am interested in what you as a group on site think should be done about Sadr.

I wish they had killed him in 2004.

I'd like to see him wasted. Perhaps there's some emotion in that. He was behind the deaths of two of my co-workers in spring of '04.

But aside from that, he is a major disruption to acheiveing peace in Iraq. He has ties to Iran and doesn't even try to hide it. And we've got to keep Iran OUT of Iraq.

If Sadr gets killed, there would be mayhem in Sadr City and probably Najaf and surrounding areas for a few days, but it could be quelled.

And the end result would be worth it.

[Alia]

Alia, the real problem was that what we offered them was something they didn't want. Not everyone in the world wants a western democracy or human rights or a constitution or a judiciary. Quite often, they're more worried over tribal and national rivalries or ancient grudges or they see occupying Americans as a continuation of something they always hated. In Vietnam, we lacked fundamental political appeal. The same in Iraq but with a culture that loathes the West and a fanatic religion hostile to every tenet of western democracy and human rights.

And so how do you explain Iraq and Afghanistan? The people DO want American Democracy. We learned, I think, from Vietnam, the importance of assisting in removing dictators and assisting in having genuine Representatives of the Will of the People in these lands in a position of power.

Just as we learned this via Vietnam, the lefties demanded a "pull-out". Just as they are doing now. Here's the redux.

We are rich and powerful on a scale unparalleled in history. But that really doesn't mean that everyone wants to be just like us.

America doesn't propose that Iraq be "just like America". America proposes that Iraq/Afghanistan join in on the benefits of the 21st century. Pretty hard to argue with that. People in these countries WOULD like access to clean water, fair justice, medicine, trade, a safe life style. Even if they are nomads and isolationists. They'd prefer, I've no doubts, to not have family members "disappeared" for merely insinuating that the "king is a thug". History continues to teach and prove this.

Human nature isn't like that, however good our intentions toward these countries. Vietnam demanded the freedom to decide for communism.

And Vietnam has now entered the larger markets. This is such big news. This is SUCH BIG news. Hardly anyone paid it any mind. This is such mind-blowing, dynomite news. I'm in awe. And thanks to the sacrifices of our soldiers in Vietnam, Vietnam is NOW a bone fide business partner and power in the open market. Hurrah!, Vietnam!

Nations have to learn some things for themselves. It's part of the meaning of being a nation.

I don't disagree with you here. Partly the reason it took so long for Vietnam to become stable was because our input was so thoroughly "aborted", and the Vietnamese were left as carnage for larger operators to manipulate. We'd best not make that mistake again in re Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think we will.

Your post is well intentioned, I've no doubts, but given the gang and horrible activities in many of the US large cities, the "gang culture" doesn't want to be like America; it rejects the American way of life. So, do you propose we simply remove all forms of police protections? Government? Inner city violence is similar to the violence going on in Iraq. Turf/Ideology wars. Does anyone really need reminding of the LA Riots? How about the Korean/Black wars? How about the Latino/Black gang wars? And the "US" keeps attempting to intervene in these hostile zones. For shame, huh? We should just let the thugs in these cities destroy each other and innocents, too? And while these gangs propose threats to the places you and I live and work in? No.

[woodbutcher]

If Sadr gets killed, there would be mayhem in Sadr City and probably Najaf and surrounding areas for a few days, but it could be quelled.

---

And each and every person who takes part in that mayhem identifies himself as a fellow terrorist and therefore a target.

I would hope that it would be handled that way.

[woodbutcher]

And we sure didn't have a free press when it came to D-Day or any other battle in WWII. If a reporter wanted to cover the war, they had to join the military and be censored.

---

I am not sure that a free press is the problem.

My belief is that there are certain people in the press that even their compadres should shun.

For instance, why would anyone buy a NYT? That company should be bankrupt. It is morally bankrupt.

There will never ever be a copy of the NYT in my house.

[Steel Wolf]

Right, destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has had nothing to do with their ability to command and control. Likewise maintaining offensive tactics is not sa dterrent to their ability to command, control and execute missions in continental America.

I thought we were discussing Iraq, no? Certainly, losing Afghanistan was a severe blow to al-Qa'ida, the premier terrorist organization with intent to attack the continental United States and our interests abroad. Hitting them *after* 9/11 was 100% necessary and 100% the right thing to do. Still, on the direct question of what prevents attacks like 9/11, between the Patriot Act, the TSP, and Iraq, the latter does nothing for us. The former raise our defenses to the point that we very likely could have prevented the attacks in the first place.

Abandoning Iraq now makes Iraq the new pre 9/11 Afghanistan where terrorists and those withan animus toward America can plot at their leisure using oil money to command, control and execute offensive operations in the United States and Europe.

Not much oil money in Anbar. Even in a worst case territorial breakup scenario, Anbar becomes the new Yemen.

Yemen, you may not be aware, is the ancestral home of bin Laden, and is packed full of more terrorist sympathizers and extremists than Saudi Arabia. It's also heavily scrutinized, and the local government is under massive international pressure to keep a lid on things. As a hotbed of Sunni fundamentalism, it's far worse than Anbar, yet we have it managable now.

[Alia]

It is a real war. And you've just revealed how little you understand war of any era.

[Steel Wolf]

So Abizaid, Vallely and a host of others who have commanded divisions and brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan are "absurd" when they state such things and your's is the voice that Americans should heed?

You can't trust an officer to say anything to a camera other than what he's supposed to say. The fact that they all say the same thing in almost the exact same wording should be an indication that something is up. It's certainly not a unanimous opinion behind closed doors.

After we get some historical milage between us and Iraq, it will come to light that many officers and analysts didn't support this line of reasoning. Still, at the time, it was the party line, and you either toe it publicly, or you lose your job. Selectively keeping your mouth shut when talking to the media and following orders is part of the job, even when you know your boss is wrong.

I understand if you disagree with me, of course.

[Alia]

As a hotbed of Sunni fundamentalism [Yemen[, it's far worse than Anbar, yet we have it managable now

Thank you, Steel Wolf, and for yet revealing how little actual unbiased reporting is done re the WOT.

[Alia]

While AQI is a powerful terrorist group, most of al-Qa'ida is still outside of Iraq.

This is true.

[George W. Bush]

I didn't mean to imply that it was for America. I meant that this would work in Iraq.

Oops! My bad. Yeah, you do have a point. And the press is a tool for the jihadis. Terrorism works on a small scale to intimidate people. But it has a much greater effect once the press broadcasts it everywhere repeatedly.

[jwalsh07]

You can't trust an officer to say anything to a camera other than what he's supposed to say.

This is the fatal flaw of this particular argument. Vallely and others that I have heard issue this warning are retired. All have commanded in Iraq/Afghanistan and what they have in common is their deeply held belief that the islamofascists will follow us home and any precipitive pullout from Iraq will surely render Iraq as pre 9/11 Afghanistan. Again, why should I ignore their collective wisdom for yours? We both know, as much as the grunt has friction with the officers, that the commanders have a vastly superior knowledge of the macro situation on the ground. That's just the way it is.

The fact that they all say the same thing in almost the exact same wording should be an indication that something is up. It's certainly not a unanimous opinion behind closed doors.

I never said it was a unanimous opinion but it is an opinion widely held by former commanding Generals. I see no reason to doubt that opinion and many reasons supporting it. I have yet to see one reason from you disabusing me of the notion that the islamonuts won't stop hating us and trying to kill us. Have the Fatwahs been rescinded? Has bin LAden renounced his declaration of war on America? What exactly gives you confidence that withdrawing from Iraq will appease these fellows?

[Future Snake Eater]

I guess that makes you part of the Quitter's Caucus. .

I guess that makes you part of the Keyboard Commandos? Have you been to Iraq?