Outsourced War?

Hopes for success in Iraq rely more on private security contractors, or mercenaries, than the U.S. military, based on the failed recent attempt to oust Blackwater USA by the Iraqi government following a recent incident that left 11 Iraqi civilians dead at the hands of Blackwatwer guards.

Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki has stated the killings were in fact illegal and saying this type if incident challenges the sovereignty of Iraq.

These comments not withstanding, the expulsion of Blackwater seems a bit of a stretch, especially when they are the people responsible for guarding all the top level diplomats In Iraq, including Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

“If Blackwater left at this moment, it might leave a security gap because most of the embassies and most of the foreign organizations that are working in Iraq” are guarded by Blackwater, Tahseen al-Sheikhly, a spokesman for the Iraqi security forces, said.

Sheikhly went on to say that if the security firm was expelled, American forces would have to redeploy from other hostile areas to fill the void, leaving a vaccuum sure to be filled by insurgents and terrorists.

So lets get this straight. The U.S. does not have sufficient forces to protect both its highest value people while conducting combat operations with the hope of bringing safety and security to this war ravaged country? And at a time when the President wants to draw down 30,000 troops seems ludicrous to me.

The level of incompetence shown by the Bush Administration in waging this war verges on the criminal, in my opinion.

The President has stated, ad nausea, that the safety and security of every American hinges on the outcome in Iraq. Yet his decisions have gotten the U.S. to a point where they rely more on mercenaries who live outside the law, than the brave Americans who take an oath in the defense of liberty.

Does any of this make sense? Is anyone paying attention?

Joke of the Day

Joke of the Day

Fools Paradise

The President of the United States, in what the White House has dubbed a "major speech" on Iraq, has once again put the blame on the American people if his vision of Iraq is not met.

In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Bush compared the War in Iraq to past wars the U.S. has been involved in while wondering if this current generation would have the “will” to see this conflict through to victory.

This is hubris beyond compare. Here we have the one person solely responsible for the invasion and all the catastrophic errors that followed blaming the one group that has been asked to contribute nothing to the war efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh don’t get me wrong, there has been a great investment of blood and treasure, but that has been born by the U.S. military, not the greater U.S. population as a whole. There have been roughly one million U.S. personnel in and out of Iraq, out of a population of 200 million, which is less than 1 percent of the U.S. That’s astounding. Though in all fairness, the President has noticed the toll it has taken on our television viewing, noting that we make sacrifices by having to see unsettling images on our television screens. That is when the news is actually covering the war.

So the President thinks it will be our fault, not his fault, not his leadership, not the militaries fault. No, apparently it will be the American people, who have been asked to bear no burdens, make no sacrifices, and indeed contribute almost nothing to the war effort that will have lost the war in Iraq.

I am personally insulted by his comments, not only for blaming me for losing a war I have nothing to do with, but also because before whenever people criticized the way he was waging a war he never should have started, he would send out the patriotism police to shout down any dissent. And now, after all his terrible decisions that have cost the lives of 3700 Americans and untold tens of thousands of Iraqis, he blames you and me for the failures of his Iraq policy.

Does Mr. Bush take the American people to be fools?

He stumbles this great nation, a nation people actually looked to for moral guidance, into a war half a world away on dubious claims of WMD, then proceeds to inadequately provide enough troops, to deny there is an insurgency, to fail to properly armor the men and machines of war leading to added needless loss of life, while creating the political situation which is on the verge of collapse, he blames you and me for the potential failure in Iraq.

Throughout the speech this quote from the great Hunkpapa Sioux Chief Sitting Bull resounded in my head:

"They tell you I murdered Custer. It is a lie! I am not a War Chief. I was not in the battle that day. His eyes were blinded, so he could not see. He was a fool and rode to his death. He made the fight, not I."

I think the President is a fool.

The Bush Administration is again touting successes and progress in Iraq, and they are selling this over used expression by pointing to the western section of the country, Anbar Province.

There can be no doubt that there has been a turn around in places like the provincial capital of Ramadi, as well as the restive Fallujah. But these gains, if you can call them that, have been made at he expense of the central government in Baghdad. This is because the United States in paying off the tribal sheiks in Anbar with cash and weapons, and ultimately power.

The plan is the U.S. pays off these Sunni tribal leaders, who up to months ago were killing Americans, so they will turn their weapons on al-Qaida.

The problem with this plan is that the Iraqi central government of Nouri Kamal al-Maliki is opposed to the arming of Sunni militias. Now the U.S. claims these Sunni militia members will have to take an oath not to harm Americans, as well as claiming these men will eventually be mustered into the Iraqi Security Forces. Indeed, many of these militia members have already enrolled in the Iraq Police Force, though it is clear their loyalties are to the tribe or sect first, and Iraq second. After all, this is all about power.

What is so frustrating is that this plan flies in the face of attempting to help create a unified Iraq. If that is the plan, it seems the U.S. is setting up the conditions for the real war for power in Iraq. Arming a group, indeed giving legitimacy by entering them in the rolls of the security forces, that has been killing Americans for the past 4 years in hopes of defeating another group that has been killing Americans for the past 4 years, seems like a recipe for disaster.

The point is the U.S. is not winning the hearts and minds of these Sunni insurgent groups with visions of democracy and freedom, but with cold cash and even free guns. What could be more American than that?

How can the United States ever intervene in a genocide if we abandon a genocide of our own making?

No End in Sight

New movie about the occupation of Iraq. I read one review that called it an excellent campanion piece to "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Click on title to link to theaters the film is playing at

Jokes

Just watching the President give a speech on al-Qaeda in Iraq. He is trying to make his case that al-Qaeda are the only people fighting the U.S. in Iraq, and that AQI is an all foreign group. Bush is doing this by naming the 2 foreign leaders of the group, not mentioning the absolute fact that it is made up almost entirely of Iraqis and is aided and abetted by Iraqi nationals.

The problem with Bush right now is number one he has no credibility when discussing Iraq, intelligence, or just about anything. Fours years of making progress in Iraq lends to this credibility problem for the President. Most people have pretty much tune hime out on matters of Iraq.

He is starting to sound delusional, in my opinion. Does he really think AQI can take over and rule Iraq? Does he really think the Iraqis would be dominated by a foreign entity? Has Mr. Bush missed the last 5 years in Iraq? Iraqis dont like foreigners on there soil occupying them.

Mr Bush, is it AQI who cannot keep the electricity on in Baghdad? Is it AQI who cannot pump even prewar levels of Oil? Is it AQI who will not allow former low level Baathists into society, instead of fueling the insurgency with well trained, motivated soldiers? Is it AQI who cannot provide clean drining water for Baghdad? Is it AQI who is providing the Shiites insurgency with the EFP, the most deadly roadside bomb that can penetrate the main battle tank of the US, the Abrahms tank. Is AQI walling off neighborhoods to separate sects so they wont drill hole eachother to death? Who is doing these things Mr Bush? Its not AQI.

He looks so beleaguered, like a manager for a baseball team that is 20 games out of first. He makes no mention of Sunni, Shiite, civil war. This is the leadership we get? God Help us all.

Oh, FOX "News" is already back to Linsday Lohan.

Joke of the Day

Bob Schieffier on Barry Bonds

Ya, but its a dry heat

Funny clip from the Daily Show about the heat in Baghdad.

Reporter Murdered in Baghdad

We often hear how difficult it is for Western reporters to move freely about Iraq in order to provide their readers with the best picture of what is going on in the war, and as a result all Western news outlets rely upon legions of Iraqi reporters who can move more freely, while acting as interpreters, guides and drivers.

Well, one of these reporters who worked for the New York Times was murdered in Baghdad the other day, his name was Khalid Hassan, he was 23 and the sole bread winner for a large family. If anyone is interested in donating to the fund to help his family out, this is how you do it.

Email

foreign@nytimes.com

subject: fund for Khalid Hassan’s family

Please click on title to be redirected to an article about Khalid Hassan by John F Burns of the New York Times

Joke of the Day

Support for the War, Young America, Victory in Iraq

The History Boys

The great writer/journalist David Halberstam wrote an excellent article about President Bush and his delusionary historical comparisons.

This was his last piece. Please click on title to be followed to the Vanity Fair piece

The Blame Game

Just watched Senator Mccain on CSPAN speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the War in Iraq, and he was making a good point that if the U.S. pulls back to the big bases, Iraq will look like it did back in 2006, with 3000 Iraqi civillians dying every month.

In doing this he referred to the failed strategy of the previous 3 1/2 years as the "Rumsfeld-Casey" plan, referring to the former Secretary of Defense and the former top General for Iraq who over saw the war plans for most of the war up until early 2007.

This was a thunderbolt statement for me, I was blown away when I heard this. Here we have, for the first time, someone high in the Government blaming the military for the failures in Iraq. And McCain to boot. He of the Hanoi Hilton, the infamous POW prison during the Viet Nam War.

I dont know how else one can interpret that statement. He just blamed the top military commanders for the debacle that is Iraq, while of course shielding the politicians from any blame. Mr. McCain ofcourse being a member of the rubber stamp party for Mr. Bush. But McCain says he was opposed to this strategy the whole time. Well John, why didnt you speak up? Why not call for some committee meetings and get to the bottom of what is going on?

Now, after all the deaths, all the bombings, all the IED's, the American people demand real progress, you find your voice? And with that voice, you blame the Generals? Maybe you should have brought a mirror to the floor of the Senate instead of a map of Iraq.

Good NYT article about Iraqi Legislature

Amid the constant car bombings, suicide vest bombings, assassinations, destruction of infrastructure, there is little reporting about the legislature in Iraq. I found this to be one of the most concise portrayals of the tribulations of the Iraqi Council of Representatives.

One telling fact is I learned is that the Council rarely has a quorum, meaning even if there is legislation to be voted on, in cannot by virture of parliamentary regulations.

Check out the article

Joke of the Day

Same Old Tune

The Bush Administration has been employing new language to support its policies in Iraq by stating al-Qaeda is the main obstacle to peace and stability in Iraq, rather than the sectarian wars dividing the country. Thus, based on following the Bush Administration the past four years of the War in Iraq, I believe he has no plans of a significant draw down of U.S. combat forces during the remainder of his presidency.

It seems apparent to me in all the public statements I have heard from U.S. officials concerning the sectarian problems is that they have resigned themselves to the Iraqis figuring that problem out amongst themselves, in their own way, in their own time, on there own terms. We rarely hear from Mr. Bush or General Petraeus about the Mahdi Militia, or the Badr Brigades. This is from the fact the militias have gone to ground for the most part, as well as reports the U.S. is easing off some of the more moderate militias in order to bring them in the political fold.

This is a smart strategy. Talk constantly about terrorists and extremists while ignoring the sectarian bloodshed, the sectarian bloodshed that until several months ago was seen by most Generals in Iraq as the number one enemy. Remember when the militias were enemy number one to the U.S. military? This is not to say al-Qaeda is not, and has not, been one of the main instigators of the most horrific suicide bomb attacks. But since al-Qaeda is not part of the Iraqi Government, while Sadr and Hakim and the myriad of political parties with accompanied militias are, it appears the U.S. has changed its tone in speech and deeds, in the hopes of giving an appearance of peace between the warring factions. This is merely a stalling tactic to buy time, in my opinion.

The “surge” was advertised as necessary to secure Baghdad so the political and sectarian (who can tell the difference?) parties can get some breathing space and come to reconciliation on laws for oil sharing and de-Baathification, that is the returning of many Sunnis who worked for Saddam Hussein, which is the least likely to pass given it means the Shiite cede some control to the Sunnis.

But now, all we hear from Bush and the Generals is that the only enemy is al-Qaeda, when it has been widely reported for most of the war that it is the militias, both Sunni and Shiite, that are killing most of the U.S. soldiers. Indeed, the Generals and politicians alike have been openly revealing the training and equipping by Iran to Iraqi Shiite militias with the most lethal of weapons killing Americans, the explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, which can disable the M1-A1 Abrams tank, the main battle tank for the U.S. military.

The undeniable fact is that the majority of U.S. deaths in Iraq are from driving around and getting blown up. These people that are dying are not even getting a chance to fight, as they are dying sitting down inside an armored vehicle. Does this make any sense? That’s what pisses me off the most about this stupid war. And the vast majority of these bombs are made, planted, observed, detonated, by Iraqis. And what further pisses me off is that the President and Generals never, ever talk about that. Its al-Qaeda this, extremists that, never mentioning the militias planting these bombs just happen to represent the largest block of parliamentarians in the Council of Representatives.

Now the military has apparently focused its main thrust upon finding and destroying the bomb making factories in what the military refers to as the Baghdad “belts,” while attempting to keeping some calm in the sectarian wars long enough to make it appear as if calm and peace has descended upon Baghdad, possibly setting up for large withdrawals of U.S. combat troops.

Yet my gut instinct after observing this President on this issue, the War in Iraq, it is my opinion that the shift in rhetoric and tactics is being done to set up for a long term presence in Iraq, or as long as Mr. Bush is on power. If the main enemy is al-Qaeda, while appearing as if the sectarian bloodletting has abated, he can justify keeping combat forces in Iraq, albeit at smaller numbers.

Despite the recent defection of key Senators such as Richard Lugar, Rep Indiana, and the former Foreign Relation Committee Chair, as well as Pete Dominici of New Mexico, also a long standing Republican, on the strategy and policies of the Bush Administration when it comes to Iraq, there will not be a cut off of funding or precipitous withdrawal. It seems apparent these Republicans would prefer not to have a confrontation with either the Democrats, or the President, when it come to the funding of the troops. These Republicans would like to see the Americans stop being the police force for Iraq, constantly patrolling the streets only to be blown up, while stating they have no confidence in the current Iraqi Prime Minister, his government or the Iraqi security forces.

But recent comments by Senator John Warner, one of the most respected senators and a former Secretary of the Navy during the Viet Nam War, about his regrets on being silent when surge after surge of American forces were sent to Viet Nam without sound policy to back them up, almost as if he wants to make up for past failures when he might have spoken up, could signal the biggest tipping point for the GOP and Iraq.

Just to reiterate the point, there has been no indication from any of the Republican Senators that they would support legislation for the cutting off of funds for troops in the field.

So it is this all al-Qaeda all the time talk is what concerns me there are plans for long-term U.S. combat commitments to Iraq. No matter who is the next President, I believe the Generals will advise some significant troop levels in Iraq to combat al-Qaeda. In this day and age, what President could ignore that type of advice?

Since in the world of politics, all actions and deeds are usually preceded by very well thought out words and statements, it is apparent Mr. Bush is falling back on a tried and worn tactic of blaming everything on al-Qaeda in hopes of returning to his more comfortable black and white world, where the “evil doers” are around every corner.

Gravy Train

President Bush commuted the sentence of the former chief of staff for the Vice President, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on the basis that the sentence was "excessive."

This administration continues to put its foot in its mouth when it is entirely unnecessary, just like with the fired US Attorneys. In that case, all they had to do was fire them and not give any reason, instead they said it was for performance, when it was apparently political.

In the Libby case, one would think the lawyers on Mr. Bush's staff would know the sentence was within the Federal sentencing guidelines, and that the majority of perjurers and obstruction of justice criminals go to jail. So why not just pardon him outright and simply say it is the right of the President to do this?

I was also wondering, given the reason the President cited for commuting felon Libby of this prison sentence, how deeply Mr. Bush studied the Federal sentencing guidelines and how many similar cases he researched in order to get an understanding just what is a fair sentence? I noticed he cited no legal precedent for his actions. I would bet there are hundreds of people languishing in prison with similar sentences for similar crimes who would love the same preferential, extra judicial treatment Mr Bush accorded Mr Libby.

The aspect that troubles me the most, is that for the past 16 years, the America people will have had the past two Presidents setting an example that it is acceptable to lie under oath. Isnt that remarkably sad? That some lies are ok, or that lying is not ok, yet punishment for lying is also not acceptable.

Green Zone

To say I am frustrated by the policies in Iraq by the Bush Administration is an understatement. Since I have no confidence in the people that got the U.S. in this mess to get the U.S. out of this mess, I feel it important to remind us of the early days of the occupation.

The differences between then and now are, well, striking to say the least. It is surreal.

Please click on title for a clip from a good book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City"

Colbert at the White House

Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Good listen! He sticks it to everyone!

Please click on title for audio

Pablo versus Powell and the Power of Art

Truthy Goodness

Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Pace gave a press conference to talk about the War in Iraq, and unfortunately it was the same tired song and dance the Administration has been giving on Iraq these past four years

Mr. Gates demonstrated some fine footwork when answering a question concerning the all-important September date for the progress report, the one the President was ballyhooing as the time when there would be signs whether the all important “surge” would have had the effect of giving breathing space to the raging sectarian divide.

The President was the one who set the expectations for the progress report by criticizing the Democrats who question the surge tactic by saying “wait until Gen Petraeus gives his progress report to the Congress in September.” Now the President is tamping down expectations for that report, saying they never made it out to be a make or break date, rather a time to examine the “metrics” as Press Secretary Tony Snow alluded to the other day.

Mr. Gates then did a fancy side step around a question about his model for the future presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, a model that sees a long-term presence in Iraq. He stealthily did not answer the question, said something about events on the ground, etc, etc.

Gen Petraeus was asked a similar question on Sunday, but it was more in terms of how long insurgencies have historically taken to defeat, and consequently how long US troops will be in Iraq in large numbers. At this point he could have said something like, "Insurgencies typically take 8 to 10 years to defeat, and since I wrote the book on counter-insurgency, I advised the President and Congress that the U.S. should be preparing to be in Iraq with a large combat force for 10 years. I am now here telling the American people that that is the commitment it will take to truly be successful in Iraq."

General Petraeus could provide no greater service to his nation than if he said those simple words. Whether or not the country is prepared for that should not influence his decisions. I am sick and tired of hearing things like it’s going to be a tough fight, instead of honest assessments on the reality of the war.

That way the American people could have an open and honest debate about whether the U.S. should make that type of commitment to Iraq.

The problem so far has been the Administration and the Generals have been more than willing to give assessments about the grim future if the U.S. withdraws, yet has been conspicuously silent when it comes to the possibilities, indeed the planning, of a long term commitment to Iraq. If our military strategy is aimed at just getting the U.S. out of Iraq as fast as practicable, then tell the American people. If the plan is to stay for many years, tell the American people, and dispense with the vague references to fighting until the job is done and the rest. Contrary to your beliefs Mr. President, the American people are smart enough to handle the truth. Actually, they are entitled to the truth.

Then we have the Democrats on one side saying we have to get out of Iraq, yet offering little else in terms of substantive debate, while the Republicans echo the White House that we have to stay in Iraq “until the job is done,” but never detailing how long or how many losses are acceptable, saying the Generals on the ground decide that.

This is where Petraeus could step in to give the most honest assessment that would not be political, merely the honest truth going forward. He could tell the President and the Congress in September that to be successful we need to have a long term commitment with a large combat force for at least 10 years, and yet this will not guarantee victory, while also detailing the effects as he would see them if the U.S. were to withdraw its combat forces from Iraq within one year. Most experts agree there would be death on a scale greater than Iraq is living through now. What does this mean for Iraq, the region, not to mention the al-Qaeda’s left behind after the U.S. withdrawal?

So if the Democrats want to be elected on a bring the troops home platform, they are made aware of the possible consequences, and the Republicans know that if they want to be elected on a supporting the war platform, they are doing so knowing it means committing the bulk of the U.S. military to Iraq for the next 10 years.

In my opinion, that would be the most honest and fair debate the American people could have, and it would take place with the backdrop of a Presidential race, so we could all see just the choice we are making. We can this and that about how we got into this war, but that will do us no good, except to point out the things not to do in the future, which is the reality we have to deal with in order to extricate the U.S. from Iraq, be it in 1 year or 10.

Fighting Words

Whenever I hear the President and his minions say we are "fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here," I get very confused, even angry. What does he mean by this? That the Shiite Death squads lead by Moktada al-Sadr will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to occupy the White House? Should we be readying the Atlantic Wall from an invasion of thousands of ships carrying an invasion force from the desert nation of Iraq?

I am getting sick and tired of this idiotic fear mongering rhetoric. The threat of terrorism inside the U.S. was a reality before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, while the chances of our “enemies” in Iraq actually taking over the U.S. are remote to say the least; so then what are we fighting for in Iraq?

And if we are truly in a fight to preserve the sovereignty of the USA, why are we doing it on the cheap? Why not go all in and tell all active and ready reserve and National Guard that you are in for the duration of the "War on Terror?" If it is that big of a deal, why is Bush constantly talking about his desire to draw down troops? Does anyone else see a serious disconnect from the reality of Iraq versus his rhetoric?

Whenever I hear that phrase about fighting them there, so we dont fight them here, I am reminded of a great man who uttered some prescient words in 1838, and they are as true today as they were way back in the olden days.



Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln 1838

Joke of the Day-FUNNY!

Whats in Word?

Everyone has heard the phrase “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.” Well this morning, I read some words in an article by Tom Hundley in the Chicago Tribune, and they hurt, went right through me. “People feel that if they vote for the radar, they are signing up for Guantanamo," a member of parliament from the Czech Republic was quoted as saying concerning the issue of a radar station to be placed in that country by the U.S., in tandem with missiles in Poland, to thwart any attacks upon the U.S. or Europe from a “rogue” nation, or so says the U.S. government.

Consider that someone who lives in a country dominated by the Soviet Union could now, in so short a time, think that if they aligned themselves with the United States, you are allying yourself with torture.

How did we allow ourselves to get to this point? To be thought of as torturers by the people who staged the “Velvet Revolution” where not a single life was lost in releasing themselves from the grips of tyranny and oppression.

From now on that one not so simple sounding word, Guantanamo, coupled with another hard to pronounce place Abu Ghraib, will forever be synonomous with torture and the United States.

But then we here in the United States have a history of double standards when it comes to lofty words like liberty, freedom and human rights, only to genocide one race while enslaving another.

Jokes

Coups and Korea

Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki does not trust the officer corps in the Iraqi Army, and he admitted exactly that in a CBS interview with Lara Logan I just viewed thanks to CrooksandLiars.com. The Prime Minister of Iraq made a stunning admission that many in his officer corp "may start planning coups, those people do not believe in democracy."

In the exchange he admits that there are many top ranking officers that are loyal to Hussein, which he has to be on guard against a coup. He then goes on to say he does not fear for his safety, or that of the government. Its easy to say that when the U.S. military has 150,000 troops in his country propping up his regime.

Further, he said that the Americans have no influence over the government; rather it is "The Iraqis that tell the Americans what to do," not the other way around.

Now I know he is saying this about America and influence for internal consumption, but does this exchange give any hope for reconciliation? How can there be stability when the Iraqi P.M. himself admits that large parts of his Army are not loyal to the government they serve. And what about the soldiers serving under these generals? Will they follow the directives of the Prime Minister once the Americans pull back from combat, or will they follow their officers who may or may not be loyal to the government? These are serious questions that the Bush Administration would prefer to avoid, and do a good job ignoring.

This brings me to the recent developments in Washington that has the Bush Administration comparing the War in Iraq to the War in Korea. This is a poor model to fashion “plan B” after as it infers that the U.S. will have a massive combat force in Iraq for 50 years. I see no discernable border to defend with thousands of troops behind tall walls with concertina wire and landmines. Though some Baghdad neighborhoods eerily resemble the stark reality of division.

I understand that the model the Bush Administration favors is a small contingent of combat and support troops to ensure the sovereignty of the Iraqi government. If we could achieve that sort of settlement, when American troops can go mingle with the Iraqis in a social environment, pick up girls, get married, bring them back to the states, nothing would please me more. But can anyone foresee that ever happening? Honestly?

The problem with this model is whom are we defending against? In Korea there is a plainly visible enemy, wearing uniforms and fighting in the conventional manner. In Iraq, the enemy comes from within, as the Prime Minister alluded to in his interview with Lara Logan.

President Bush has taken his talking points to al-Qaeda all the time, seemingly forgetting about his surge to end the sectarian blood letting between Sunni and Shiite. Remember that thing? If my memory serves me correct it was the “surge,” the shift in tactics as Mr. Bush called it, which was to bring calm to Baghdad so the many sides could come together and solve the constitutional issues.

In my opinion, and until about 3 months ago the opinion of most senior officers in the U.S. military, the greatest threat to the stability of the Iraqi government is the sectarian wars waging throughout the country.

The fact that Mr. Bush says "Al-Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq's young democracy,” yet fails to mention the sectarian wars going on in Iraq, while Prime Minister Maliki states that he is concerned that the officers corps in the Iraqi Military has mixed loyalties and is on the lookout for a coup, reinforces this serious disconnect I constantly hear from people in Washington, especially the President, versus the events on the ground in Iraq.

Shelter?

Photo Credit: AP Photo

Sometimes you see a photo and just stop and think. Everything slows down for a moment. This photo just did that for me.

It is such a powerful image, and conveys so much. So many thoughts. So many meanings.

I am not quite sure how I feel. Is it the brave, resolute American facing the enemy head on while shielding the helpless Iraqi?

Or is the Iraqi simply seeking shelter from the storm?

Please click on title to enjoy a nice tune.

Eyes Wide Open-Too Many Shoes left Unfilled

In a lush green field in Grant Park along Lake Michigan, a Memorial Day event was held as part of a traveling memorial to U.S. Service personnel killed in Iraq called “Eyes Wide Open,” comprised of over 3400 combat boots with the name, age and state of the Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, Marine or Coast Guardsman killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

The boots are lined up in perfect rows, sectioned off by state, in a similar fashion as many military cemeteries. Indeed the memorial is reminiscent of Arlington National Cemetery, with its neat rows of white marble head stones.

The memorial was a somber, less enthusiastic affair than the traditional parade that was held only a few blocks away, with its marching bands, marshal music and cheering crowds.

Several groups representing families of military personnel, both killed and currently serving organized the program. These groups consisted of Gold Star Families Speak Out, whose loved ones died as a result of the war in Iraq; Military Families Speak Out, whose loved ones are currently deployed, soon to deploy, or have returned from Iraq physically and/or psychologically damaged as well as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War who have served in Iraq.

Two Gold Star Mothers, mothers whose son or daughter has died in combat, told their stories of loss and pain, and one decorated Iraq War veteran suffering from PTSD spoke about going off to war only to be disillusioned and coming back home unable to re-enter society.

The goal of the organizers of “Eyes Wide Open” is to honor the dead American and Iraqis while ending the War in Iraq and bringing home safely the U.S. Service Personnel.

The refrain heard from all of the speakers was the need for a better understanding of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and improved care for returning veterans.

One mother described how her son returned from Iraq only to hang himself in the basement, from what she says was severe PTSD and the lack of recognition and care from the United States Military.

Darrell Anderson, who saw combat in Iraq, spoke about the conditions that contributed to his suffering from PTSD, that you lose yourself in war, that when one of your friends gets blown up in front of you “All you feel is hate.”

He spoke about the feeling of confusion when he first arrived in Iraq and the veteran soldiers told him they were not fighting for democracy and freedom “and all that stuff,” which made it difficult to reconcile within himself his actions in combat.

Furthermore, Mr. Anderson is concerned for people like himself who went AWOL and received less than an honorable discharge from the military, thus being denied medical or therapeutic care from the Veterans Administration. Or the ones who commit suicide from PTSD, whose boots Mr. Anderson says, will not be added to this memorial because they will not have died from combat related injuries.

As the service ended and a light rain fell, a poem from the great British World War One poet Siegfried Sassoon was read below a statue of the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln.

Bush's Magic Elixir

You know things are not going well for the President when he has to retreat to oft used and frankly tired explanations of his current policies concerning the not going so well War in Iraq. (Dana Milbank-Washington Post Michael Abramowitz-Washington Post Mark Silva-Chicago Tribune) I am talking of course about the attempted reintroduction of fear into the national discourse by President Bush regarding the War in Iraq.

Whenever things are going poorly, whenever he feels the need to explain to the American people his motivation for the continued policies of the War in Iraq, Mr. Bush always falls back on the familiar, and previously successful tactic, of invoking the attacks of September 11th 2001 and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He then takes a subtle, and in my opinion sleazy, step in a grey area by tying those attacks to the War in Iraq.

He does this by saying things like this “We are fighting the same kind of people that killed 3000 of our citizens,” but doesn’t actually say we are fighting the SAME exact people who attacked in New York and Washington.

This is very comfortable ground for the President to walk over. It makes him look tough and resolute and bold, to use on of Mr. Bush’s favorite adjectives. He can pretend like it is the days after the attacks on our country and everyone likes him and takes he sounds credible. He looked like a man who had found his himself, finally found his place.

Has anyone else ever noticed that when he talks about terrorism or al-Qaeda he gets all juiced up, he doesn’t need to look at his notes but simply restates these tired, worn out phrases written for him so they sound bold and resolute. He actually told two reporters that bin Laden was personally gunning for their children.

This tactic is frankly insulting. To fall back on the rhetoric of 9-11, simply invoking the date as if it has a tangible quality, like it can talk and help the President out of a mismanaged, losing war.

He talks about 9-11 as if it were a tonic, a sweet elixir you can almost see drip down his chin when he invokes the terrorist attacks, that will change the way everyone looks at his failed policies. He also says we have to fight them over there so we don’t fight them here, then the next breath he says we were attacked before we went in Iraq so that means we didn’t create the terror problem in Iraq.

So what is it Mr. President?

Another aspect of this al-Qaeda/9-11 drumbeat is that it is so simplistic, as if the American electorate are children and can only understand complex issues with the most basic of terms. He thinks that people will grasp your point easier if you put it in the most simple, childlike manner. No need to confuse anyone with the facts.

The idea of nuance has long since passed the President. What was once looked on as a positive, that he has “plain talk” does not suit him well when he is asked to explain why the most powerful, richest country cant keep the electricity on in Baghdad. So, instead he says things like “these people are killers because they want to kill,” or some such nonsense.

This tactic allows Mr. Bush to avoid having to explain the inner workings of the Iraqi parliament, or the myriad of Shiite dominated political parties and their accompanied death squads. Just say al-Qaeda and all that goes away. No Sadr, no Hakim, no Maliki, its bin Laden all the time for Bush. I dont recall him even mentioning the sectarian wars going on except to say the increase in mutilated corpses, the hallmark of the sectarian murder, only represents a "snapshot," thus diminishing its impact. It was all al-Qaeda all the time.

This is an attempt to set up the rhetoric of "victory" or "success" in Iraq as having sectarian killings at a "manageable" level while saying we are staying in Iraq to fight the same people that attacked us on 9-11.

I just cannot believe we are back to this type of rhetoric and disconnected language in the national discourse on the War in Iraq. I thought after the election, the escalation in troops, that some sobriety had settled upon Mr. Bush, but as he is all to aware, the wagon is a hard thing to stay on, and that tonic tastes oh so sweet.

Joke of the Day

Questions

In the last 2 days I asked the same question of 2 prominent voices on the War in Iraq. The first is by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," a book that tells the story of the early days of the occupation in Iraq.

The second is by L Paul Bremer , the very man leading the early days of the occupation, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA.

These questions were asked on the discussion page at the Washington Post website.

Any thoughts?


Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the process? Is that just a tactic to confuse everyone?

Rajiv Chandrasekaran: Both entities are a threat to stability, and what makes finding compromise difficult is that both sides -- al Qaeda, in particular -- are so extremist that it's hard to envision a peaceful compromise. There is another common factor: Both sides are fractured and diverse. There's no single al Qaeda commander in Iraq to which every militant is loyal. Same goes for the militias, although there is far more command-and-control with the Badr organization. If there is to be peace in Iraq, extremists on both sides have to be offered a chance to put down their weapons and receive some sort of emolument -- a job, a payout, etc. Those who opt not to compromise will have to be targeted by the Iraqi government's security forces.

Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because you and most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the political process?

L. Paul Bremer: It is a good question and requires a complicated answer. The threat in Iraq has three dimensions: the Al Qaeda terrorists, as you note; the killers from Saddam's former intelligence and security services; and the mllitia(essentially here the one that matters is Muqtada al Sadr's). The Shia militia became a problem after I left largely because Al Qaeda was able to carry out its threat to kill innocent Shia men women and children. When we could not protect them, the Shia turned to their militia. Now we must deal with all three threats. There are some signs that the surge is having a good effect on reducing some of the sectarian murders, by and of Shia. There will be no place for al Qaeda in the poltitical process--in Iraq or anywhere else--because they explicitly condemn democracy as "unislamic".

The World On Fire

The Simpsons Analysis of the War in Iraq. I found it to be powerful. God Bless the Simpsons.

But watch out, FOX launches counter strike of its own!

Joke of the Day

Mowaffak al-Rubaie on Baghdad Time

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Adviser was just interviewed on the “Newshour” and when asked about the status of the all important Oil Sharing Law, or PetroCarbon Sharing Law that will equitably divide Iraq’s oil revenues between the myriad of sects, Mr. al-Rubaie said it only requires the “dotting of the I’s and crossing of the T’s.”

If this is the case, why has it not been passed from the Iraqi Council of Representatives and signed into law by the Prime Minister? I was under the impression the draft had been approved and that is all that need be done.

The way he is talking it would seem like it is a done deal and could be completed within days, but I think we all know that is not the case. This is the one piece of power that the Shi’ites, in my opinion, will be unwilling to give an equal share of to the Sunnis.

I believe this is the one piece of the puzzle that just might guarantee a successful outcome to all the blood and suffering endured these 4 years in Iraq. This would say to the Sunnis that they have a stake in the future of Iraq, that they are considered equals among the leading Shi’ites.

Alas I am not optimistic given the past on this issue. Mr. al-Rubaie said last year they would have that piece of legislation in place January of 2007. Now we are in May 2007 and that same Council of Representatives had voted to take a two-month vacation this summer before that law is passed.

Mr. al-Rubaie said that they plan on changing the vacation to either five weeks or one week, however he wasn’t too clear on that poin. But just that fact that they had planned on vacationing while the American military bleeds so that they could have time to pass legislation of such importance does not leave me with much confidence the Shi’ites are willing to share this power.

One point Mr. al-Rubaie completely avoided when asked was concerning the RE-Ba’athification, as I call it. This is another piece of legislation that seeks to reintegrate a large part of the Sunni populace that was discarded by the CPA following the invasion.

The original decision by the CPA said that just about anyone that was a member of the Ba’ath, or ruling party, of Saddam Hussein was not welcome in the new Iraq. Unfortunately the CPA did not do their homework since almost anyone who wanted to move up the ladder in the Hussein Iraq had to belong to the party, including low-level Army officers, police and even teachers. Yes they fired thousands of teachers.

One should read "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks to get a full understanding of the ramifications of this decision by Pro-Consul Bremer.

Mr. Ricks quotes the CIA station chief in Baghdad as saying to Pro Consul Bremer upon learning of this impending action that “By nightfall, you’ll have driven 30,000 to 50,000 Baathists underground. And in six months, you’ll really regret this.”

He obviously was exactly correct and we have paid the price in American and Iraqi blood and treasure ever since.

I don’t have any confidence these important pieces of legislation will be passed given the lack of a sense of urgency by the Iraqi Governing Council and the simple fact that they do not even want to be in session while the U.S. military is buying them the very time they have asked for to get their house in order.

So, the President dispatched his scheduler in Chief, Vice President Cheney to Iraq in hopes of convincing the Iraqi's that time is of the essence.

What time is it Mr. Vice President?

Its "Its game time in Iraq", saith Mr. Cheney.

Joke of the Day

Enjoying a Cold Beer Baghdad Style

This is a really good column by Great Baghdad.

For anyone who enjoys a cold one at the end of a long day check this out.

I tend to get caught up in the macro of the whole situation over there, that I can miss the micro. People just trying to live.



For those who fancy a cold can of BEER in the middle of the heat of Baghdad, the following is a guide to where you can find BEER now in the free, democratic and liberated Baghdad.

For those who live in the northern part of the city, there is always the liquor stores compound which is right behind the concrete Blast Barriers around the Italian Embassy in Wazziryia. For the thirsty people of Central Baghdad you can either get it across the street from the Famous Baghdad Hotel. Right across the street from the other concrete Barriers protecting the residents of Baghdad hotel with its high guard towers that provides protection to those liquor stores ( later you will know from what).

Please click on title for rest of story.

Face of the Fallen

I would like to take a moment to honor a young man who died in Iraq.

I did not know him, but he came from my home state of Illinois.

Please click on title.

Phase IV

I am watching Anthony Zinni on t.v. and he says that the Bush Administration scrapped his plan, several years in the making, for the invasion of Iraq.

"I think they tried to do it on the cheap," the former head of CENTCOM, or the Central Command that is responsible for the MIddle East said in response to what the major problem was in the planning for the invasion of Iraq.

Just threw it right out the window.

Remember that "genius" Paul Wolfowitz saying when asked about an estimate by then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, was "wildly off the mark."

I guess Wolfy knew more than a decorated West Point graduate and head of the U.S. Army?

Wolfowitz was also condescending to those who contradicted his rosy estimate of how much it will cost. This is an oldy, but a goody...

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Zinnis plan called for 380,000 American troops to ensure the occupation provided safety and security for the Iraqis. It was based on many years of research and planning by people that had been operating in the region since the first Gulf War.

But then that would be the kind of plan Bush Sr. would advocate, so we know GW would not have any of that, seeing he gets guidance from a "higher father," someone elses father who apparently was President and invaded Iraq.


SWIFT BOATS AT THE READY!

Betrayed-The Iraqis who trusted America the most.

This is an article from The New Yorker by George Packer, author of "Assassins Gate" a really good book about the War in Iraq.

The article, from March 28 edition of the New Yorker, tells the stories of some brave Iraqis who risked their lives to help the U.S. in Iraq, and the treatment they received from the occupation forces. Its a good read, though sad at times.

PLEASE CLICK ON TITLE for article

“I have this nature—I don’t expect a lot from people,” Firas said. “Not betrayed, no, not disappointed. I can never blame the Americans alone. It’s the Iraqis who destroyed their country, with the help of the Americans, under the American eye.” I was about to say that he deserved better, but Firas was lost in thought. “To this moment,” he said, “I dream about America.”

Lil Bush

Click on the title to be redirected to youtube where you can see the other 2 installments!

I like America

I have to admit, the War in Iraq has at times made me feel uncomfortable with the actions of America, my country. I love my country, and this video reminded me that we have done some amazing things in our history.

Please click on the title.

This is Progress?

"We welcome the decision, even though we know this is against the basic rights of individuals," Health Ministry spokesman Qasim Yahya said. "But it is in the interest of the Iraqi people."

I just read an article in the Washington Post detailing reinstalling a Saddam Hussein law forbidding medical schools from issuing diplomas to its graduates.

This in order to keep them from practing medicine anywhere other than Iraq.

This is Democracy? This is why all those people are dying?

I am stunned.

Joke of the Day

Linear Time is So Pre 9-11

Thats good diktionary...

“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?,’’ Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”

Here is another good one from last year

"There are jobs Americans aren't doing. . . . If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."

I just had to post this. I have no comment, other than the President is demostrating some fine strategery.

Click on the title to read Eugene Robinsons article in the Washington Post concerning this issue

Victory and Violence

President Bush repeated his new metric for victory in Iraq today, stating success means "sectarian violence down."

So now we have gone from invading Iraq keep it from attacking the U.S., to a government that can "sustain, defend" and is an ally on the war on terror, to "Success is not 'no violence."

Our nation has given over 3000 of its brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen and spent well over 500 billion dollars.

He said today "But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives."

Thats it people, the metrics for success in Iraq have boiled down to that. I have no idea where else he can go with that logic.

Will he next say success means garbage is picked up on a semi weekly basis?

Does anyone listen to this guy?

People are dying, and this is the crap he feeds the American public. Had he been honest and forthright with the American people, he would not be in this mess, in my opinion.

The U.S. is going to declare the surge has worked and victory has been attained in Iraq by September, because some members of the population of Iraq can collect their mail without their bodies being filled with ballbearings.

Buying the War-Bill Moyers

This is the entire documentary by BIll Moyers about how the U.S. press corp dealt with the run up to the War In Iraq. For anyone interested, or to those who should be, this is a good watch. Check it out, its for free! Just click on the title.

Joke of the Day

Orrin Hatch Blames America

I am listening to Orrin Hatch, Senator of Utah on the floor of the United States Senate.

He is blaming the American people if we lose in Iraq. If we lose our "resolve." So he is blaming you and me.

You and I didnt send enough troops to provide safety and security to a country we had the obligation under international treaties to protect.

You and I sent the troops to Iraq ill equipped and lacking sufficient body armor and armored Humvees.

You and I disbanded the Iraqi Army and fired thousands of teachers.

You and I protected the Oil fields, turned our backs on rampant looting.

You and I know very well Stuff Happens.

You and I invaded a foreign nation with no intelligence about that country and the state of the infrastructure. Indeed, we invaded this country with almost no human intelligence.

You and I invaded this country because Saddam Hussein, as Cheney said, simply stated is amassing weapons of mass destruction to use against America and its friends.

You and I will have lost this War, according to the Republicans in Congress.

Poor Sancho

Acceptable Violence

I was just listening to a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon by General Petraeus, the top general in Iraq, and he addressed this notion of an acceptable level of violence in Iraq.

By this they mean that life could get back to normal, shops open, kids playing, yet these specatular car bombs may continue.

I understand that every society accepts some violence. There are hundreds of murders in most big cities in the U.S. Yet I can still walk the steeets and feel safe, as President Bush noted the other night. Compare an American city violence to Baghdad. Is he serious? Did he say that?

So that is where we are at now in Iraq. One of the standards supporters of the war will cite now is, well the amusement parks are open and some guy is watering his soccer field despite the suicide car bomb that killed 180 people on the other side of town.

How many car bombs is peace? How many car bombs is acceptable?

So the plan for safety and security in Iraq makes room for a few car bombs here and there.

Could you imagine if the President told us that a couple Oklahoma City bombings once in a while isnt so bad. The Mall of America is still open, after all.

Does anyone listen to what these people actually say?

Poor Sancho

Peace Lines

I am getting sick and tired of hearing people say the surge is working in Iraq because the "enemy" is hitting hard back.

Or that the fact that U.S. casualties has risen, in many cases above that of the Iraqi Army, makes the case that the War is being won and the new strategy has been successful.

This one gets me mad: The surge is working and the War is being won because the number of mutilated corpses has dropped from a flood to a stream. And most officers one hears from in the news say it is more because the militias have stood down rather than from the modest increase of U.S. troops in Baghdad.

I thought the objective of the surge was to give the Iraqi government breathing space to start the reconcialation process. If that is the case, where has been the Iraqi goverment on this score? The parliament rarely meets with a quorum. They pass no meaningful legislation. None of the so called benchmarks have been met, not that I even know what they are, since they are never discussed publicly.

I was watching on TV the other day and Ian Paisley, the leader of the Protestants in Northern Ireland, and Gerry Adams, the leader of the Catholics, can barely even have a civil exchange after over 30 years of fighting and bloodshed. And the issue being discussed was the formation of a unity government to replace British rule. Sound familiar.

Another thing that sounds familiar are these walls being built around neighborhoods to separate Baghdadis. They call these "peace lines." These walls went up in the 1970's and yet still remain. Seperate to bring together. Makes sense.

Now think of the current situation in Iraq. The same amount of civilians killed in the Troubles equals the monthly death toll for Iraqis.

So all these experts on foreign affairs and retired military guys keep saying give this surge a couple months to work and bring the parties together. What world have they been living in? So, in the fall, the Sunnis and Shias and Kurds will all come to a safe and secure Baghdad and shake hands and end a Civil War that is killing on average 1000-2000 innocent Iraqis a month? And all these people have been killed even with the additional troops in Iraq? Is that what they are saying?


Furthermore, all these experts say that the surge is supposed to bring back some semblance of normalcy to Iraq. I was wondering what reality would they base that normalcy on? Life under Saddam? Life in Baghdad pre Baath party rule? The long ago days of the Salah al-Din?

Poor Sancho

Joke of the Day

"They've been doing it in Florida, and the old people seem to like it"

This new tactic of selectively compiling biometric data of Iraqis as part of the new operation to wall off and establish checkpoints for some of the most restive neighborhoods of Baghdad almost got by me in this article.

I understand here in America fingerprinting for things like a new job is common practice, but this exceeds that limited scope.

This operation gives the appearance, rightly or not, of forcing citizens of a democracy to submit to random tracking as if they were cattle on a farm. Thats the way it looks like to me.

I understand the logic behind the plan to track residents and seperate the criminals from the law abiding citizens, but it just seems to me to be another one of these things the U.S. does that makes more enemies than it vanquishes.

If the cops came to my neighborhood and said crime is up so Ill need your fingerprints and eyescan to cross the street, I would say go screw yourself.

This is why we invaded that country, to wall them in and tag them like steer?

Excerpt from:

'Gated Communities' For the War-Ravaged
U.S. Tries High Walls and High Tech To Bring Safety to Parts of Baghdad
By Karin Brulliard
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 23, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD


In some sealed-off areas, troops armed with biometric scanning devices will compile a neighborhood census by recording residents' fingerprints and eye patterns and will perhaps issue them special badges, military officials said. At least 10 Baghdad neighborhoods are slated to become or already are gated communities, said Brig. Gen. John F. Campbell, the deputy commander of American forces in Baghdad.

The tactic is part of the two-month-old U.S. and Iraqi counterinsurgency plan to calm sectarian strife and is loosely modeled after efforts in cities such as Tall Afar and Fallujah, where the military says it has curbed violence by strictly controlling access. The gated communities concept has produced mixed results in previous wars -- including failure in Vietnam, where peasants were forcibly moved to fortified hamlets, only to become sympathizers of the insurgency.

Iraqi Leader Orders Halt to Wall in Baghdad

Is this what leadership looks like? Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki has ordered the wall being built by the U.S. military to be removed.

In my opinion this is exaclty the kind of thing I want to be seeing from the Iraqis. How could the American military not have foreseen this outcry? Are they that out of touch with the needs and wants of the Iraqis?

This is a prime example of the folly that the U.S. military is involved with in Iraq. Building barriers to seperate neighborhoods when the goal of the new operation is to build security so the sides could come CLOSER together.

I am not very confident in the ability of the United States bridge to a religious divide withing Iraq based on this most current example of bad decisions made by senior leadership of the Bush Administration.

Poor Sancho

following is a part of an article from the NYT. The whole halting of building the wall isnt quite as clear as I thought...





By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: April 22, 2007
BAGHDAD, April 22 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said Sunday that he was ordering a halt to construction of a wall that would blockade a Sunni Arab neighborhood in Baghdad from other areas, saying it reminded people of “other walls.”

The announcement, which he made in Cairo while on a state visit, appeared intended to allay mounting criticism from both Sunni Arab and Shiite parties about the project. “I oppose the building of the wall and its construction will stop,” Mr. Maliki told reporters during a joint news conference with the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.

“There are other methods to protect neighborhoods,” he said.

A spokesman for the American military, Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, said the military would remain “in a dialogue” with the Iraqi government about how best to protect citizens. The military did not say whether the wall’s construction would be halted.

Mr. Maliki did not specify in his remarks what other walls he referred to, but the separation barrier in the West Bank being erected by Israel, which protects Israel but greatly inconveniences Palestinians, is a particularly sensitive issue among Arabs.

In Baghdad, the wall would surround the Adamiya neighborhood, a Sunni Arab enclave bordered by Shiite areas. The Sunni neighborhood often comes under mortar attack from those neighborhoods. But Adamiya has also been a stronghold of militant Sunni Arab groups and the wall would have helped the Iraqi security forces control their movements.

“The Native Americans were treated better than us”

The United States military has begun building walls in Baghdad to seperate Sunnis and Shiites in an attempt to stem the endless intranacine bloodshed.

The first of these walls is being built to enclose the Sunni Arab neighborhood of Adhamiya,one of the most violent of Baghdads districts.

This is another development in the War that you will probably not hear very much from the people like the President. This is not the part of the story Bush wants you to hear.

So we are now walling off neighborhoods from each other, creating check points on each block that effectively cut off one part of the capital city from another.

Is this what Bush calls breathing space for the Iraqis? This is the plan to bring the warring sects together to work on national reconcialiation? Does any of this seem counterintuiitive to you?

We are going to bring the Sunnis and the Shi'as together by seperating them?

And then to top it all off, Bush says this, just to remind himself that he is GW

"the men who attacked Iraqis … swear allegiance to the same network" that assaulted the United States on 9/11."

"This was hardly a random act of murder," Bush said of the explosions in Baghdad. "It has all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda attack. The terrorists bombed … at rush hour with a specific intent to kill as many people as possible."

I just wish the President would actually be honest with the American people and talk about things like this wall being built.

So this is why we invaded Iraq? To seperate the capital city into neighborhood fiefdoms? Does that sound like Democracy?

And what happens to these "gated communities" when the United States leaves Iraq, which Mr. Bush has promised to the
American people?

Is this really a plan?