Moktada al-Sadr, Emperor of Iraq

[Harlan Huckleby]

there is nothing moderate about the Huffington Post.

They are a Daily Kos for grownups, the same politics of demonization without swear words. They are about like Air America.

I saw Ariana Huffington on a panel group discussing election returns on Charlie Rose. She essentially stopped the show. All the other guests were attempting to place the returns in context, like real journalists. Huffington went on an angry tirade, claiming BArack OBama was still king of the hill. (It must have been Super Tuesday when Clinton did well.) Charlie Rose's jaw dropped, and they didn't allow her to speak again.

I think she is smart, but she is suffering from Obama fever, something like dengue fever only the hallucinations last longer. She's become a raging extremist, like Nancy Pelosi when she's alone in her car.

I'm beginning to think Tex may be correct that the Republicans will successfully portray Obama as an extreme liberal. I have no idea if it is true, as I have little feel for OBama. But his supporters are gripped with an extreme confidence and ideological rightousness that doesn't sell well.

Joe Lieberman had some interesting quotes yesterdays. He feels that the Dems have swung to the left and are driving him out of the party. (He must be reading the Huffington Post) :

"[The Dem Party] has been taken over by a group on the party left that is protectionist, isolationist and hyperpartisian. It's a strange turn in the road when I find that among the candidates this year, the one closest to the Kennedy legacy is John McCain."

I must be a Lieberman Democrat.

[Joemailman]

The Dems are driving Leiberman out of the party? I'd say he left the party when he ran against the Democratic nominee in the general election for Senate in 2006. Now he's traveling with McCain wherever he goes. He's not a Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but I think he ought to be honest about where he is politically.

By the way, the Huffington Post isn't just about Huffington. I rarely read her stuff.

[oregonpackfan]

People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

Texas,

The U.S. has spent almost $500 billion(that's with a "B" not an "M") dollars thus far in Iraq. Most of that money has been borrowed from countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Two leading economists estimate we will pay $3 Trillion(that is with a "T") dollars before the war is over when you factor in interest on the borrowed money, care for injured soldiers, replacement of used military equipment, etc.

The Iraq War has not prevented another 9/11. The President's own bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy. Of those 19 terrorists on the 4 hijacked planes, none of them were from Iraq! Fifteen of them were from Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't dream of holding Saudi Arabia responsible for that attack because they are the United States' importer of foreign oil.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission also reported that Saddam Hussain was not affiliated with al-Qaida in any fashion nor were there any al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq at the time of the US invasion.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

Texas,

The U.S. has spent almost $500 billion(that's with a "B" not an "M") dollars thus far in Iraq. Most of that money has been borrowed from countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Two leading economists estimate we will pay $3 Trillion(that is with a "T") dollars before the war is over when you factor in interest on the borrowed money, care for injured soldiers, replacement of used military equipment, etc.

The Iraq War has not prevented another 9/11. The President's own bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy. Of those 19 terrorists on the 4 hijacked planes, none of them were from Iraq! Fifteen of them were from Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't dream of holding Saudi Arabia responsible for that attack because they are the United States' importer of foreign oil.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission also reported that Saddam Hussain was not affiliated with al-Qaida in any fashion nor were there any al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq at the time of the US invasion.

Trying to discuss this with Tex is the definition of pissing into the wind.

[texaspackerbacker]

You guys can spin it any way you try to spin it, but the indisputable fact is that there have been no repeats of 9/11 or worse on Bush's watch.

That can be attributed to two factors: enhanced security AND occupying the terrorist enemy--by THEIR choice to prioritize messing up Iraq. Or are you guys going to claim it was all luck or something?

As for the idea that there are less than a thousand al Qaeda outsiders remaining in Iraq, if that is so, then I'd say it is a sign that our troops are making real progress. It is indisputable, however, that the "domestic insurgency" or whatever it was somebody referred to, was instigated by al Qaeda blowing up mosques and barbarically murdering both Shi'ites and Sunnis to stir up latent ethnic hatred.

Yeah, as somebody corrected me on, it was hundreds of billions, not millions--but STILL well under the economic hit we took from 9/11--and presumably would again from a repeat. Most of that money was injected into the economy--salaries, equipment, contractors, etc., thus doing more good than harm anyway--in a Keynesian sense--as opposed to money simply and deleteriously taken OUT of the economy from 9/11.

As for characterizing Obama as an extreme liberal, talk about a slam dunk, the guy is about as extreme as it gets--generally acknowledged as the most liberal person in the Senate.

As for pissing into the wind, yeah, that's a fair assessment. And when your piss blows back in your face, what does that prove? Damn straight! It proves the wind was right and you were wrong.

[BallHawk]

sorry for interrupting the war, but thought you might want to take a break to see Paul McCartney's man boobs.

Is he using Grecian formula or something? Who's the woman he's with?

It's Nancy Shevell. It seems he knew her through ties with Linda.

Hopefully he recovers from having that bitch Heather Mills as his "wife."

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Dems are driving Leiberman out of the party? I'd say he left the party when he ran against the Democratic nominee in the general election for Senate in 2006.

The party rejected him in the primary. For an amateur who's only credential was he was against the war when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Or some such thing.

Lieberman has a rather liberal voting record, he's a Dem. He continues to attend the Dem meetings, in fact the Dems wouldn't have the majority in the Senate without him. But he is out of step on the IRaq war, so the left demonizes him as a rotten character.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, the three part thing, i.e. Joe Biden's plan is unrealistic. There is just too much geographic overlap of ethnicities. Baghdad alone would be block by block in some parts. You'd end up with ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia only worse.

If you created the geographical boundaries, the different ethnic groups would migrate to those areas. If you give each group autonomy over their own affairs, you'll have far less trouble long term. There is already ethnic cleansing going on Tex...what the hell do you think the daily bombings are?

Actually, the whole "mess" as it is characterized by detractors, really isn't that bad.

I'd love to see you go live over there for a year before you claim how great it is.

Iraq is a mess. The situation was handled poorly throughout by an inept administration. Sure, there are some positives emerging from the mess...but the negatives continue to outweigh the positives by a long shot.

[The Leaper]

That can be attributed to two factors: enhanced security AND occupying the terrorist enemy--by THEIR choice to prioritize messing up Iraq. Or are you guys going to claim it was all luck or something?

It could've been done far cheaper and more effectively here at home...without occupying a foreign nation at a massive cost and bearing the brunt of world contempt.

[Deputy Nutz]

You guys can spin it any way you try to spin it, but the indisputable fact is that there have been no repeats of 9/11 or worse on Bush's watch.

That can be attributed to two factors: enhanced security AND occupying the terrorist enemy--by THEIR choice to prioritize messing up Iraq. Or are you guys going to claim it was all luck or something?

As for the idea that there are less than a thousand al Qaeda outsiders remaining in Iraq, if that is so, then I'd say it is a sign that our troops are making real progress. It is indisputable, however, that the "domestic insurgency" or whatever it was somebody referred to, was instigated by al Qaeda blowing up mosques and barbarically murdering both Shi'ites and Sunnis to stir up latent ethnic hatred.

Yeah, as somebody corrected me on, it was hundreds of billions, not millions--but STILL well under the economic hit we took from 9/11--and presumably would again from a repeat. Most of that money was injected into the economy--salaries, equipment, contractors, etc., thus doing more good than harm anyway--in a Keynesian sense--as opposed to money simply and deleteriously taken OUT of the economy from 9/11.

As for characterizing Obama as an extreme liberal, talk about a slam dunk, the guy is about as extreme as it gets--generally acknowledged as the most liberal person in the Senate.

As for pissing into the wind, yeah, that's a fair assessment. And when your piss blows back in your face, what does that prove? Damn straight! It proves the wind was right and you were wrong.

I feel that when posters on here try to have a debate with you, you refer to it as spin, even though they mostly back up their writing with facts. You remind me of my mother, she has rose colored glasses on when it comes to her beloved republic party along with her fearless leader in the White House.

No there has been no 9-11, thank God. If George Bush can take total responsibility for that then I guess he did his job. He could have done an even better job if he would have focused his attention 100% towards terrorist cells instead of fighting a war with Iraq and spent 500 billion on going after Bin Laden then he really would have secured this countries future. Iraq was a platform for him, unfortunately Americans have either bought into his speak that this was for the security of the nation and freedom for Iraqis, or still don't really understand the real truth of the agenda of Iraq, because my gas prices certainly haven't gone done in 5 years.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the fear that al-Sadr could be a future leader of IRaq was borne-out last week. He is much stronger militarily than the central government, according to reports, this surpised me. And also he has gone from zero political support in the South two years ago to being the most popular. He could do well in provincial elections next fall, and some say this is what the whole fight was about, trying to knock him down and out.

I just wonder if we are fighting a losing battle. Maybe we have to not support any side and let the country reach its own equilibrium.

[Freak Out]

Paltry results of Iraqi offensive silence U.S. withdrawal talk

Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: April 01, 2008 09:26:19 PM

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration was caught off-guard by the first Iraqi-led military offensive since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a weeklong thrust in southern Iraq whose paltry results have silenced talk at the Pentagon of further U.S. troop withdrawals any time soon.

President Bush last week declared the offensive, which ended Sunday, "a defining moment" in Iraq's history.

That may prove to be true, but in recent days senior U.S. officials have backed away from the operation, which ended with Shiite militias still in place in Basra, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki possibly weakened and a de facto cease-fire brokered by an Iranian general.

"There is no empirical evidence that the Iraqi forces can stand up" on their own, a senior U.S. military official in Washington said, reflecting the frustration of some at the Pentagon. He and other military officials requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak for the record.

Having Iraqi forces take a leadership role in combating militias and Islamic extremists was crucial to U.S. hopes of withdrawing more American forces in Iraq and reducing the severe strains the Iraq war has put on the Army and Marine Corps.

The failure of Iraqi forces to defeat rogue fighters in Basra has some in the military fearing they can no longer predict when it might be possible to reduce the number of troops to pre-surge levels.

"It's more complicated now," said one officer in Iraq whose role has been critical to American planning there.

Questions remain about how much Bush and his top aides knew in advance about the offensive and whether they encouraged Maliki to confront radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

A senior U.S. lawmaker and four military officials said Tuesday that the Americans were aware in general terms of the coming offensive, but were surprised by the timing and by the Iraqis' almost immediate need for U.S. air support and other help.

One senior U.S. military commander in Iraq said the Iraqi government originally told the United States about a longer-term plan to rid Basra of rogue elements. But Maliki changed the timing, and the nature of the Iraqi operation changed, he said.

"The planning was not done under our auspices at all," the American commander said. The plan changed because "the prime minister got impatient."

There's no evidence, however, that the U.S. tried to dissuade Maliki from executing either plan.

"My instinct is that we knew but did not anticipate" that American forces would be called on to help, said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden stressed that he's still seeking information from the Bush administration on the matter.

Another senior American military official in Baghdad said Maliki notified Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker less than two days before launching the operation.

"By then it was a done deal," this official said.

Biden, who'll hold hearings on Iraq over the next 10 days, spoke shortly before lawmakers were to be briefed on an updated, classified National Intelligence Estimate on security, political and economic trends in Iraq.

The apparent misjudgment of the Iraqi security forces' capabilities and the strength of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, as well as the revived political controversy over the war, come at an inopportune moment for the White House.

Petraeus and Crocker are due to testify to Congress next week about the strategy in Iraq now that the 30,000 troops Bush ordered there in a "surge" are being withdrawn.

In the larger sense, "this is a reminder that nothing has changed," said a senior State Department official, who also wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

As if to underscore that point, Britain announced Tuesday that it's freezing plans to withdraw 1,500 of its 4,000 remaining troops from southern Iraq due to the failure of the Iraqi offensive to crush Shiite militias.

Bush already has signaled that, following the Petraeus-Crocker report, he'll order a pause in further drawdowns of U.S. troops in Iraq below about 140,000, which is slightly more troops than were in Iraq before the "surge" began.

As part of its post-surge plan, the Pentagon planned to reduce troop levels by one brigade a month, thin out its presence in Iraq and lean more heavily on Iraqi forces. But the Basra offensive has some in the U.S. military fretting that Iraq's forces, while better than they were six months ago, cannot fully defend their communities.

Some say that Iraqi security forces are entangled in the intra-Shiite battle for power in southern Iraq. The Iraqi forces that Maliki sent to Basra contained a large number of one-time fighters in the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which vies for power with Sadr's Mahdi Army.

"We're not going to stop the tensions between the Shiite camps. Those were there all along; we've just seen them emerge," said retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and a longtime war critic, during a conference call.

Indeed, violence began rising in places where the U.S. military drew down its forces. The first brigade left in December from the volatile Diyala province in northeast Iraq. The U.S. military moved two battalions out of Baghdad to cover parts of Diyala and Mosul, a Sunni stronghold in northern Iraq, according the military.

Violence in the capital then increased, according to statistics compiled by McClatchy.

In January, civilian casualties and improvised explosive device attacks rose. U.S. military statistics showed that suicide vest attacks increased in January and February. The second brigade is leaving Iraq now.

According to icasualties.org, which tracks U.S. troop deaths, American losses rose slightly in March to 38, compared with 29 in February. Troop deaths also shifted toward the capital this year.

Biden said that the Iraqi offensive may indeed have been "a defining moment," but not in the way Bush intended. "The president may be half-right," he said.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

[Joemailman]

I think the fear that al-Sadr could be a future leader of IRaq was borne-out last week. He is much stronger militarily than the central government, according to reports, this surpised me. And also he has gone from zero political support in the South two years ago to being the most popular. He could do well in provincial elections next fall, and some say this is what the whole fight was about, trying to knock him down and out.

I just wonder if we are fighting a losing battle. Maybe we have to not support any side and let the country reach its own equilibrium.

What happened last week is a prime example of why we need to get out of Iraq, and the sooner the better. You had the Shiite-led Iraqi government, backed by the United States, going after the Shiite-led Mahdi Army which wants the U.S. out of Iraq. The main reason these two groups are fighting each other is the U.S. occupation. As long as we occupy the country, there will be groups like the Mahdi Army that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government. I realize we can't just pack up and leave tomorrow. I just don't think there will peace in Iraq until we really turn the country over to the Iraqis.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You had the Shiite-led Iraqi government, backed by the United States, going after the Shiite-led Mahdi Army which wants the U.S. out of Iraq. The main reason these two groups are fighting each other is the U.S. occupation. As long as we occupy the country, there will be groups like the Mahdi Army that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government.

The Mahdi Army wants to U.S. out so that they can seize power in a miltary coup. That's been the story all along.

Recall that the Mahdi Army was a huge importer of Sears Black & Decker drills. They specialized in drilling holes in peoples heads and bodies before murdering them. And I'm not talking about a few instances, this is their signature. The Mahdi Army has cleansed 80% of Baghdad of Sunnis.

The provincial elections next fall are a HUGE deal. Right now, the provinces have little power, and they don't have much legitimacy. The elections next fall will really show which groups are popular and where. I think (finally) having those election will bring some measure of stability to Iraq. The frustration of the inept central government will be diffused by increasingly empowered regional alternative.

al-Sadr seems to be following a political tract now, he figure out this can work for him.

I agree with you in a general sense, U.S. has to be out for stability. I disagree with McCain's mention of a permanent presence. But your "sooner the better" I just can't buy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 30

Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until "victory." The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for "staying the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush's and Sen. John McCain's forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of "falling dominoes" that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.

Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal "no."

Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-American passions in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and increasing the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments.

In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad's Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.

Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq's neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development -- all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

Since Iraq's neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them -- albeit for different reasons -- are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.

The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The "unipolar moment" that the Bush administration's zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization -- all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy.

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.

Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region's religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East's growing wealth.

We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war -- to America's historic detriment.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter.