Regarding redeployment of American troops out of Iraq:
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: What do you believe, General, would be the effect on the sectarian violence in Iraq?
ABIZAID: I believe it would increase.
In this definition, somehow the sectarian violence is limited to clashes between Sunnis and Shi'ites. General Abuzaid sees any conflict of USA troops outside the rhelm of sectarian confrontation, yet, when his assignments to troops includes invading places in An Albar he is killing Sunnis and possibly some al Qaeda.
Does that lessen sectarian violence?
No. It only serves to make it worse increasing attacks against Shi'ites and their Mosques.
When he deploys troops into Southern Iraq to destroy ORGANIZED police and military well armed for the fight because they no longer are a part of the Iraqi nationally recognized police and military then they are killing Shi'ites engaged in protecting their cities and hamlets because the USA military does not have that capacity.
Does that lessen sectaraian violence?
No. It only serves to make it worse with attacks in Baghdad on the central authority including recruitments and their training facilities.
But, yet, to the amazement of me General Abuzaid sees nothing "W"rong with the USA fighting an unjustified war and killing Iraqis of any ethnicity because they don't consider equity in killing ethnic cleaning. However, General Abuzaid will call border scurmishes between Shi'ites and Sunnis ethnic cleansing because the Shi'ites in those towns are seeking to kill people that are killing Shi'ites and destroying their Mosques.
Michael Gordon only makes mud out of issues here:
GORDON: It's not a question of numbers.
At the Pentagon, they trot out all these figures. There are 115,000 troops, with all their equipment. But the problem is, a lot of them, these forces, were developed locally. Some of -- a number of battalions refused to deploy to Baghdad when ordered to do so. They have gone AWOL. They're not necessarily politically reliable.
We had a reporter with a unit north of Baghdad, who their commander was essentially signaling out Sunnis and arrested them as part of a Shiite kind of ethnic cleansing campaign.
The problem is the political reliability of the Iraqi forces and their -- their loyalty to the new Iraqi government.
COOPER: But, Michael, you know, there are a lot of folks who say, and -- and a lot of Democrats who are saying right now, look, everything we have done so far doesn't seem to be working.
Why not tell the Iraqis, look, we're going to be withdrawing in six months, or phasing down, or -- or -- or, you know, redeploying troops, and force them to stand up, force them to do something that -- that they're not doing. In your opinion, from what -- the people you have talked to, is there something the Iraqi -- Iraqis politically, the government of Maliki, could be doing that they're not doing?
GORDON: Well, there's a lot they could be doing.
First of all, they have to overhaul their security forces. They could be engaging in reconstruction projects in Baghdad, which they're not adequately doing. They could be engaging in political reconciliation. That's well-known.
But this notion that the United States can pressure the Iraqi government into doing these things by threatening to withdraw or by beginning to withdraw, as Senator Levin has proposed, I think, would not work.
And that's because there are a significant number of players in Baghdad today who don't mind if the Americans withdraw. These are the militia leaders. They would be happy if the United States withdrew, because, then, they can go and carry out their ethnic cleansing campaign against the Sunnis.
I think General Abizaid laid out a course. He wants to kind of give it one last real try -- and he didn't put it that way, but that's kind of what it comes down to -- to really improve the Iraqi security forces, with a stepped-up training and advising effort.
COOPER: But, you know, to a lot of people -- and I think it was Senator McCain who said it today -- that just sounds like status quo, whether -- whether you call it status quo on steroids, as -- as some have, but it -- it sounds like stay the course.
GORDON: Well, I think General Abizaid is in a little bit of a difficult position.
I mean, the White House is reviewing policy. Baker and -- and Lee Hamilton are reviewing policy. It seems like everybody in Washington is reviewing policy and trying to develop a plan B. So, he's not really in position to come up with a -- a very different strategy this month. That's going to be determined by the White House.
But I think what he's trying to do is work with what he has. There are not a lot of American forces to deploy in Iraq. Our -- our military is simply too small for that. And, so, that's not a big option. Withdrawing is not a good option.
What does he have left? Improving the Iraqi security forces -- so, that's what he's going with.
IF I MAY:
THE FACT that General Abuzaid is in a difficult position brings to reality the fact much of what he is faced with is keeping his troops alive to keep his troop size in Iraq at a level they can cause their presence to be known. If the American troop numbers fall the vulnerability of the American troops increase, if that happens then the vulnerability of Baghdad increases, hence, no central authority.
Now, General Abuzaid did not comment on the kidnappings in Baghdad, in broad daylight that indicate even the Iraqi military/police in Baghdad are not politically reliable. In ignoring that fact that there maybe an opposition troop build up inside The Green Zone and the good General is underestimating the fact, there could be a major battle within the Green Zone between those not politically reliable and the American forces WHILE the central authority stands by to see what the outcome is.
The majority of authority in Baghdad is Shi'ite. If there was a major front within Baghdad by al Qaeda or the Sunnis or the Shi'ites OR a comination of those forces what is the plan for USA forces. So far, the American forces have had the upper hand. What if these Iraqi forces without political loyalty find it amoung themselves and seek the expertise of al Qeada. What if all of a sudden an assault on the USA forces whom find it simply a matter of strategy to assault individual cities and hamlets seeking out these local forces that are AWOL from what the USA military considers it's 'central authority Iraq force' are attacked en masse? Then what?
Yesterday Maliki stated:
"What happened was not terrorism, rather it was due to dispute and conflict between militias from one side or another," he said in televised remarks. He later said the government's response had been strong and vowed to catch those responsible.
... the government's response had been strong and vowed to catch those responsible.
The Iraqi government is strong?
Not without the USA military, because their forces are going home after USA training to take care of their own cities.
The Iraqi government will catch those responsible?
How? Who amoung the Iraqi government is going to catch those responsible? If those people responsible for the kidnappings are from within their own forces, who will catch them? This is not a game. There was a demonstration of power yesterday in Baghdad. In broad daylight. Those responsible are 'sending a message.' Does anyone 'get it?'
I stated yesterday:
"I disagree that it is to embrass the Iraqi government. Not at all. It is to embarass the USA Military and let them know who the bosses really are. The Shi'ite nation already has it's own forces. They are just waiting for everyone to wake up to that fact. Obviously, the words of Mr. Maliki reveal same. What do you think Mr. Ware? Hm? Three years is a long time and hundreds of thousands of unregistered weapons and high quality explosives from the formerly secured UN Bunkers makes a fairly substantial military wouldn't you say, Mr. Ware?"
Michael Gordan stated today:
At the Pentagon, they trot out all these figures. There are 115,000 troops, with all their equipment. But the problem is, a lot of them, these forces, were developed locally. Some of -- a number of battalions refused to deploy to Baghdad when ordered to do so. They have gone AWOL. They're not necessarily politically reliable.
We had a reporter with a unit north of Baghdad, who their commander was essentially signaling out Sunnis and arrested them as part of a Shiite kind of ethnic cleansing campaign.
The problem is the political reliability of the Iraqi forces and their -- their loyalty to the new Iraqi government.
In the Sunday edition of the New York Times there was an article that stated the message from Baghdad via an Iraqi commander was to arrest Sunnis that the USA considered friendly to 'the unity government process.'
It seems very clear to me that the USA is running a different priority from the White House than the agenda in Baghdad. Where does everyone think this is leading?
Bush, not Maliki, Bush has no loyality to his directives by the Iraqi people. On the other hand, Maliki, is looking at the ever increasing violence and realizing that Baghdad needs protection that the USA cannot provide. He is no longer calling the people that carry out such attacks in Baghdad terrorists. He doesn't even call them insurgents. He is looking at the kidnapping while realizing Abuzaid is fighting a losing battle and knows full well HIS PEOPLE are taking control IF he can't. He is siding with the Iraqis when he makes statements like, "...rather it was due to dispute and conflict between militias from one side or another." He is making an open statement for a reason and it is like saying 'May the best man win." After he had his ears bobbed by someone of USA authority he later made the statement about how strong the government is and the resolve to find the culprits. Yeah, right.
COOPER: Well, difficult days ahead, no matter what the plan is.Michael, appreciate it. Appreciate your writing. Thank you very much, Michael Gordon, from "The New York Times."
Is that all you have to say, Anderson? You wear a badge of honor that you have been there and embedded and know first hand what is going on, but, all you have to say is 'there are difficult days ahead?'
We need to leave Iraq. There is no clear mission for our troops there. They are not accomplishing their original orders and while that goal was admirable, it is not desired by the people we are supposed to protect. The Iraqi people now have professionally trained forces protecting their cities, their central authority is setting up a provincial level 'allowance' within the Iraqi Constitution. If the people of Iraq ever show the will to be one country then I am sure it will be so, but, if not we have no purpose there except for what Bush wants to secure the American presence there. We are causing sectarian violence, not ending it.
There are nearly 3000 American soldiers dead and over 20,000 significantly injured. There is no 'back up' to the American presence in Iraq. We have troops in Afghanistan under NATO which serve more of a purpose to removing terrorists from the Middle East than any other front. It is where Osama and his leaders are and where we need to place our emphasis. Afghanistan should have received the benefits of the deployment Iraq did as well as the reconstruction monies. Now, all that has been placed on a back burner while Bush dives into the funds for Iraq rebuilding to support USA troops and their longevity there. It's all wrong.
This failure of the American forces is simply an extension of the very poor invasion strategy which never put trust or security in the hands of Americans. To repeat the disaster as McCain wants will only escalate the battle and bring together the forces within Iraq against the USA military and there will be carnage.
Bush lost this war three years ago. What the Iraqi Holy Men have done is to inspire bravery in their men to take training and return home to protect their cities and hamlets while praying their loyality to Allah. The Shi'ites have suffered enough from a Sunni government under Saddam. I wish them well and I wish their central government success in healing those wounds. Wounds the American military no longer has to inflict, nor has the right to inflict.
Staying in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with will, it has to do with reality.
Democratic Majority
Granted Represntative Murtha wanted to be the Majority Whip and many of us wanted it for him, but, if the Demcracts see Representative Hoyer as someone who can get the job done then just as well. Sometimes the Prom King is the least one expected.
DEMOCRATS REGAIN HOUSE MAJORITY!!!
'We Will Take America in a New Direction,' Says Democratic Whip Hoyer
The one person who had the assessment right was (drum roll) :
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: (INAUDIBLE) a majority. But remember one thing. And this is the dirtiest part of all. This is a secret ballot. Nobody knows how anybody is going to vote. They -- both Hoyer and Murtha both claim they have the votes. Nobody knows. There's been plenty of instances in the past of people going in, absolutely certainly they had a majority, and then they come out feeling betrayed.
I like Bill Schneider. He mostly has very good commentary on everything. Realistic without any junky spin like you Anderson.
I'll say this much, Trent Lott knew EXACTLY the votes he had. It's supposed to be secret, huh? What did Lott do, ask Bush to spy on everyone? It shows you who is honesty and who is corrupt, doesn't it?
I DON'T CARE ABOUT OJ SIMPSON.
FRED GOLDMAN, RON GOLDMAN'S FATHER: Originally, some weeks ago when there was a story that "The Enquirer" had about a book, didn't know if it was true or not. But then just yesterday it all came to fruition. We found out that this, in fact, was a book. And in fact, FOX was going to air a two-hour interview with this murderer.
GOLDMAN: Well, there's no doubt about it. It's always there, and this just adds insult to injury. This is a guy who viciously, brutally murdered two people. And now 12 years later, he writes a book. As far as I'm concerned, he writes a book to tell us all how he did it. And it's going to add a little information to suggest that if he did it, he might have changed a few things so maybe he wouldn't have gotten caught.
THERE IS nothing else I need to know.
al Qaeda
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): For five years, Osama bin Laden has been on the run from international forces. Yet now, a group of U.S. researchers says his ideological influence also appears to be running out.
A new study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point suggests bin Laden and his top deputy are growing less and less important to radical Muslims, calling for worldwide jihad, or holy war against non-Muslims. It says bluntly, "They have little or no influence on Jihadi thinkers."
The study says the new philosophers for the Jihadist movement are Islamic clerics in Jordan, Egypt, England and Saudi Arabia, who use the Internet to spread their message of violent struggle against non- believers.
They are saying al Qaeda is not the threat anymore, but the Holy Men are, huh? Well. You could fool me, I thought NATO was waging a war in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda. We aren't? Then what are we doing there? All the Holy Men in the world won't but weapons in the hands of their flock without an organization that provides it.
There maybe some truth in the fact religious teaching provide permission for a Jihad, and that might be misguided, but, in the case of Iraq the USA put weapons and training in the hands of men whom abandoned their post for another one closer to home. The clerics did that? They didn't do that, the neglegence and the incompetency of Bush did that. Those weapons were supposed to be registered. No different than overpayments to USA contractors like Halliburton, they were never supposed to be an issue either. It difficult to run a war without hardware and difficult to strategize against a Superpower without insight. Osama had plenty of insight regarding the plot that lead to a successful 911 attack. Holy men of any regligion can grant permission for self preservation but they can't and haven't armed the resistance that can pull it off. Speaking hate is against the law in many countries. Having children attend Madras schools where hate is taught is outlawed more and more in Islamic nations. It's necessary for Islam to recapture it's religious truth and perspective in 2006, I'll grant you that much, but Holy Men alone don't run wars. That is simply propaganda.
Nothing else interested me.
