Posted on 01/12/2007 4:55:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
PRESIDENT Bush's "surge" assumes that the Iraqi Government shares his goals, and that given a bit of help with security and a bit more time, they will get there together.
Just before Christmas, his Government invited several Iranian officials to Baghdad, to the anger of the US, which arrested them.
Maliki pressed ahead with Saddam Hussein's execution over the New Year despite US requests to slow down the process until legal questions had been answered.
In November, Maliki ordered US forces to lift roadblocks they had put in place to try to track down a missing US soldier.
On October 24, when Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador, and General George Casey, the coalition commander, announced (with Bush's backing) a new "timetable" for quelling the violence, Maliki denied that he had signed up to any such plan -- a public rebuff to the US. Iraq was sovereign, he said, and no one was going to dictate timetables (nor does Bush's plan this week venture to put dates on its targets for the Iraqi Government).
On October 25, US and Iraqi forces raided Sadr City, the stronghold of the militia led by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whom the US blames for persecuting Sunnis and destabilising Iraq. Maliki disavowed the operation, saying he had not been consulted and insisting "that it will not be repeated".
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
what happens regarding this issue - is the key to success or failure in iraq.
unless the US is prepared to take down Maliki.
According to Sec Gates today, the tide has turned on this stuff. We will see.
I don't know what will make this different from the past times. You're right - we'll see. May God watch over our troops and protect them!
His actions obviously need to change and soon or the Iraqi people will suffer far beyond their current levels and there will be zero support in the US for the continuation of this mission.
In past "surges" the Iraqis didn't show up. So if the Iraqi forces show up, that will be different.
In past operations, we couldn't go into certain areas or had to pull out immediately. So if that is no longer an issue that would be different.
In past operations we didn't have enough strength to leave people around after we cleared an area to keep the bad guys from coming back. That is also a difference.
According to a report by an insider today on Savage Radio, Bush has issued Maliki an ultimatum. If Maliki does not fall in line, Bush will pull all the troops and set up a base in a Kurdish region and let the Iraqi factions shoot it out.
True. I suppose I'm grumpy and tired of Maliki and others in the Iraqi government who seem to be getting arrogant and defensive about where our troops can go and what they can do regarding our troops Rule of Engagement. This time had better be different.
indeed, that is likely plan B.
P.S. It just aggravates me to end, too, that our brave troops are also fighting the MSM war, too! I know they're making a big difference in Iraq. I still check the Defend America and Dept. of Defense and other websites every single day even though our son is home. There is so much good being accomplished by our troops, it's horrible that only the bad stuff is reported.
Maliki has to deliver. We won't know for a few weeks I guess. His first brigades are suppose to show up in three weeks or so. Operations are not really suppose to begin until the beginning of Feb, the SECDEF said to the Senate today.
Yeah, taking down Diem really solved things, didn't it?
if another coalition could be assembled, that boxed sadr out - it could work.
Hope that's true. Don't know. I would never want us to abandon the Kurds.
Must've missed that story. Did we comply? Was the soldier ever found?
I think the problem is bigger than Sadr. The militia principle works. You can't control an armed populace bent against your rule. You can wipe them out, but you can't control them. I don't think the American populace is interested in wiping out Iraqis, they didn't really do anything to us. They had a scumbag dictator, who couldn't play nice with his neighbors, and we iced that guy. However, trying to reform arab culture appears to be a bridge too far.
still, its a tiny number of the Shia who are in the mahdi army. if any modest percentage of the shia populace was willing to take up arms against the US, we'd have been drummed out of iraq a long time ago.
Yes and no.
Absolutely shameful, but perfectly consistent with the weak "hearts and minds" approach in the region.
Hopefully the tide has now turned...
A couple of things....
There is nothing posted here that has not been considered by the Bush Admin and his Generals and Officers in charge.
The decisions are probably predetermined but subject to change depending upon "at the moment" circumstances.
IOW, President Bush went on national TV to issue an ultimatum to Iraq, Iran and Syria. What further plans and directions will be have not been fully disclosed.
President Bush said the US would follow the terrorists and their suppliers to their source. He said that the Iraqis must stand up and police themselves.
What he did not say is that the US could arm the Sunnis and align with the Saddam Bathists against the Iranian Shia.
Why? The Saudis are Sunni!
Options are on the table. Events are transpiring.
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.