Iraqi reaction to Petraeus Report

[chickenhead]

I think there are some interesting things in this article. What I find striking most always when listening to people in the region who are being honest is the incredible nuance of feelings. While it seems like so many here see things in black and white...I think the situation on the ground, and the feeling of Iraqis, is anything but. In the new ABC poll referenced by Sec in another thread I saw the Iraqis polled 51-49 about whether the US should pull out. I think that in some ways says it all. In that same report only 19% of Iraqis blame the US for the ongoing violence in Iraq, more blame Al Qaeda and and the "other" sect, and also Iran.

Listen to this guy struggle with what he thinks has been done, and should be done:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/world/middleeast/12reax.html?ref=todayspaper

A city employee in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province, vividly described his ambivalence.

“The withdrawal of the occupation forces is a must because they have caused the destruction of Iraq, they committed massacres against the innocents, they have double-crossed the Iraqis with dreams,” said the worker, Ahmad Umar al Esawi, a Sunni. “I want them to withdraw all their troops in one day.”

Dropping his voice, he continued: “There is something that I want to say although I hate to say it. The American forces, which are an ugly occupation force, have become something important to us, the Sunnis. We are a minority and we do not have a force to face the militias. If the Americans leave, it will mean a total elimination of the Sunnis in Iraq.”

Mr. Esawi added, “I know I said I want them to leave, but if we think about it, then I have to say I want them to stay for a while until we end all the suspicions we have of each other and have a strong national government.”

[Greyfox]

Good post CH. Most people have "mixed feelings" about a lot of things.
Obviously the man quoted has. eg. I don't like exercising. I'm glad I do exercises.

The very act of having to state something out loud sometimes stimulates our brains to form new concepts. Sounds like that's what happened with this guy.
As he spoke about how horrible the U.S. occupying force was, he came to a new thought about how they are saving him.
Intuitively, I think that I would hate an occupying force too. Seems very natural. Even if it was there for my "well being." Unfortunately, to stay until the Shiites trust the Sunni's or vice versa, might take a full generation or two or more. Can't stay that long.

[Tom]

The Nazis wanted us to leave, too.:rolleyes:

It's not their call. When they can take care of themselves, meaning not allow terrorists to rule the land, then we can leave. Until then, I sympathize with them, but am also very impatient with them. Like I posted last night, our interests come first.

[Lefty]

Tom, absolutely, and i think it goes beyond our own interests i think it's in the World's interest for us not to let the terrorists rule this land.

[46zilzal]

Tom, absolutely, and i think it goes beyond our own interests i think it's in the World's interest for us not to let the terrorists rule this land.
Terrorists will exist as long as there are people who are poor, have no future and with NOTHING left to lose. They don't need a lot of money, support network or sequestration.

Wake up. As long as conditions are out there that breed them they will persist.

[Lefty]

zilly, you give responses to my posts but when challenged you bk off and don't have the guts and/or maybe the intellect to defend what you say. You hide behind links and aside from the putdowns cannot or won't defend your positions one on one. The mainstream press has consistently pooh poohe, buried or omitted anything good that has been accomplished in Iraq. They have consistently tried to dishearten the american people and have succeeded. The way Petraeus has been treated and reported on is ample proof for even you.

[46zilzal]

guts? That challenge is beneath me quite frankly. Debating authoritarianism is not a debate, it is a lecture.

[Greyfox]

Terrorists will exist as long as there are people who are poor, have no future and with NOTHING left to lose. They don't need a lot of money, support network or sequestration.

Wake up. As long as conditions are out there that breed them they will persist.

Poverty is a factor, but....
bin Laden came from a wealthy family.
The British Doctors that were recently arrested had wealth.
They all had futures.
I think that terrorism of the type that we are looking at goes deeper than poverty. It involves religious fanaticism. Service to Allah, combined with a belief that they will be rewarded in eternity for that service.
It is a brain washed mindset. Without a pathologically sick cause, these would be disturbed individuals in any social group. Major problems with authority are to be suspected.
Also, they do need money. Cut off the funding and they can't get the weaponry. Some group somewhere is giving them lots of funding to keep the shit stirred.

[46zilzal]

Poverty is a factor, but....
bin Laden came from a wealthy family.
The British Doctors that were recently arrested had wealth.
They all had futures.
I think that terrorism of the type that we are looking at goes deeper than poverty. It involves religious fanaticism. Service to Allah, combined with a belief that they will be rewarded in eternity for that service.
It is a brain washed mindset. Without a pathologically sick cause, these would be disturbed individuals in any social group. Major problems with authority are to be suspected.
Also, they do need money. Cut off the funding and they can't get the weaponry. Some group somewhere is giving them lots of funding to keep the shit stirred.
You are confusing the leaders from the foot soldiers. The former rarely do the deed just organize it.

And usually get away scott free as the West attacks the wrong group!!

[Tom]

The surge is focused on the foot soldirers.
And it is working.
Pisses you off royally, doesn't it?:lol:

[Greyfox]

You are confusing the leaders from the foot soldiers. The former rarely do the deed just organize it.

And usually get away scott free as the West attacks the wrong group!!

Wrong. No confusion at all. The British Doctors were foot soldiers.

[46zilzal]

Wrong. No confusion at all. The British Doctors were foot soldiers.
Another one who doesn't read nor comprehend. ONE case a cause does not make. Did you miss the word "rarely?"


Terrorism is home grown and small. The concept will continue forever despite this stupid wasteful war on the wrong part of the world.

[Greyfox]

Another one who doesn't read nor comprehend. ONE case a cause does not make. Did you miss the word "rarely?"


Terrorism is home grown and small. The concept will continue forever despite this stupid wasteful war on the wrong part of the world.

Oh I can read and comprehend. If I failed to comprehend your post, I feel that we also have here a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You show very little evidence of having absorbed my original post re: fanaticism, money supply, social demography.

Do you have demographic data to back up your claim that poverty is the cause of terrorism? If so, please post. Until then I will take the stance that it has an influence, but not out of proportion to the distribution of wealth across peoples. (Or to make it more concrete, the number of terrorists coming from impoverished circumstances, will be proportionate to the number coming from wealthy circumstances within the Islamic religion. Might be a thesis in that.)

[46zilzal]

I didn't say Middle Eastern terrorism, but generic terrorism in general. In the case of Middle Eastern, a Harvard study found this to be true.

[Greyfox]

46Zil,
I'll give you credit for having better eyesight than me. I can barely make out the graph that you've posted.
The fact is I doubt that there are recent figures on the statistics of terrorists.
They are hardly going to step forward and be interviewed in large numbers.
By extrapolation you might make a case for the link between poverty and crime, and/or poverty and delinquency. Then make a leap to terrorism. Fine.

I'll give poverty part of the variance in explaining who is likely to become a terrorist.
I also give need to belong, deep seated problems with authority, rigidity of thought templates leading to lack of empathy, religious devotion to a sick cause, and brainwashing of the very young, higher credits in my regression equation. Hence, I would expect terrorists, in general, to come from any social strata, with a few more coming from poverty.

[chickenhead]

I think people focus too much on the wrong thing regarding stay/go. I've seen the poll numbers anywhere from 50% to 70% Iraqis want us to stay. To me that is utterly remarkable, for it to be so high. It would be entirely understandable if it was 80-90% wanting us to leave, it is natural human nature, and Iraqis are nationalistic despite what is going on right now.

I cannot under any circumstances imagine the US supporting a foreign army on our land to the tune of 50-70%. We hardly support our own army to that extent. Maybe it is just my own weird perspective on things to find that so remarkable.

People in mass tire of fighting. We here in the US fatigue of it very easily, even if it is happening far away. It seems to me that they will tire of it in Iraq, it looks like that is what is beginning to happen. Even people who may support or agree with the goals of some of these groups are tiring of the car bombings and kidnappings and executions -- lets remember they are primarily killing each other. And what is the gain? You don't think they are beginning to ask themselves that question?

In some sense that is what Democracy is the alternative to. Democracy is what happens when people get tired of fighting each other and decide to talk instead. Even if the issues are not resolved, are never resolved...at least no one is dying, that is a huge gain.

When people in Iraq truly tire of the bloodshed we are going to begin to see a different breed of Iraqi politician that can give voice to what they want. Civil wars do end. Not always because of any decisive victory, but because the people just get tired of fighting and dying.

No one involved in the fighting right now is gaining anything, or doing any good, and I think the people are realizing that. They are beginning to look for other solutions. They are beginning to look for an Iraqi State.

I think a full and immediate withdrawal by the US would leave them utterly hopeless. I think it would be unforgivable. Our interests align with theirs more than a lot of people think, I suspect, and it would be in neither of our best interests.

They don't want us to leave, they want our help, and I think we need to do a better job of that.

[hcap]

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10988

From the link above:

...Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit, and author of Imperial Hubris, told me this himself. He said that the Ayatollah Khomeini spent the 1980's railing against American culture and the entire region yawned. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, kept his pitch straight and to the point – and it worked.

He told them that America was the aggressor, and cited 6 specific policies as evidence:

1: The bases in Saudi Arabia

2: Unquestioning support for Israel (The 1996 Fatwa came on the heels of the first Qana massacre in Lebanon)

3: The no-fly zone bombings and blockade of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people (now replaced on the jihadist sales pitch list by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed hundreds of thousands more)

4: Support for dictators across the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.)

5: Pressure on the oil producing states to keep their prices set where America wants them

6: Support for Russia, China and India in their wars against Muslims

This is why al-Qaeda is not just bin Laden and Zawahiri sitting around hating "the Jews" and American culture from their mother's basement. They have a following because they point at concrete examples of how the U.S. government makes life worse for the average guy in the Islamic World – when it's not taking it from him outright.



...As Professor Robert A. Pape proved in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism – by studying every single individual suicide bomber on Earth between 1980 and 2004 – the one characteristic that all suicide bombers have in common is the presence of foreign combat forces in their country – not Islam. Whether it's Sikhs in India, the Communist and atheist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Hamas in Palestine, al-Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia and Egypt crashing planes in the United States, or Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

.....
Pape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terro rism
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people6/Pape/pape-con4.html

[Greyfox]

Reading your post hcap it looks as if you were told that directly.
Unless you are Scott Horton, who it turns out wrote the above, you weren't told anything.
In addition to crediting the link, maybe you should also write a word of two saying, "the following is from the Scott Horton column."
That would help individuals like me separate what you are saying from what
someone else said.

[Lefty]

zilly, you lack guts sir, you make demeaning statements and run or hide behind your links. I have always debated my positions with anyone that wants to engage. I don't think it's beneath you, i think you lack a qualified argument and/or the ability to express it. I'm here as always waiting...waiting...waiting...

[46zilzal]

making the attempt would be a complete waste of time..

You never debate Lib this and Lib that is hardly debate but rather stone cold closed mindedness. Over the years I have come across many of your clones: all the world's problems are confined to a single set of ideas adapted to the situations never understanding a more complex interaction than that.

Inability to express it....what a laugh.

[Lefty]

Yeah, I laugh at the sillyzilly with no words of his own except to put people down.

[46zilzal]

Don't want you to have to go out and buy a dictionary. Those old stiff brain cells would explode. ALL 7 of them.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0503-03.htm
Lessons not learned from review of McNamara's book on the mistakes of Vietman: In his book "Retrospect," McNamara argues that he and his colleagues in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations made 11 mistakes in their handling of Vietnam.

The first, and presumably the most egregious, was to exaggerate the dangers our adversaries posed to us, something the Bush administration did in Iraq by exaggerating intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ties to Al Qaeda.

Bush's comments about how we are fighting the enemy in Baghdad so we will not have to fight it in Boston (or Brooklyn) are eerily reminiscent of President Johnson's comments about how we were fighting communists in Saigon so we would not have to fight them in San Francisco.

McNamara's next four mistakes concern our misjudgments about the political forces, nationalism and the history and culture of Vietnam as well as our ability to shape every nation in our own image.

It is now clear that our lack of knowledge about Iraq, coupled with the belief that America could shape Iraq in its own image, led the Bush administration to assume that we would be greeted as liberators, and that the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds would agree to set up a federal republic modeled after our own.

Another three of McNamara's criteria focus on the use of military power. He warns that high-technology military equipment is insufficient to win the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

He also says Congress and the American people should be drawn into a full, frank debate on the pros and cons of large-scale military involvement, and that military action should be carried out only in conjunction with the real support of the international community.

Casting these lessons aside, the Bush administration failed to heed the advice of military professionals that our overwhelming conventional military power would not be enough to translate a military victory into a stable peace without the deployment of a large number of ground troops for a long time.

[hcap]

Reading your post hcap it looks as if you were told that directly.
Unless you are Scott Horton, who it turns out wrote the above, you weren't told anything.
In addition to crediting the link, maybe you should also write a word of two saying, "the following is from the Scott Horton column."
That would help individuals like me separate what you are saying from what
someone else said.
1-I gave 2 sources for Robert Pape
2-OsBL has said those very things

3-An opinion by Michael Scheuer is relayed to Horton. Sounds right on.
You think that story is incorrect ? I don't recall Khomeini having any where near the influence of OsBL. Even before 911.

BTW, most wars are fought over land and resources or control of resources, why do you dress it up in make believe holy war clothes and make up? As though we are facing the incarnation of evil. WWIII? WWIV a? WWIV b? I am familiar with the Islamofascist myth and associated story telling

There are a long chain of historical events starting in the late 19th century under the umbrella of Colonialist policies. The growth of money and wealth were based on control of the underlying land and resources and the industrial/softmachine revolution. Thru the 20th century the Europeans and then US partook in the spoils. Control of Mid East resources has been a strategic, well known and admitted US plank of foreign policy. So? So? Blowback, and reasons to hate us. Granted in many cases-they are equally guilty. But the crap about "they hate us for our freedoms" is pure hokum.

1-Many times control was gained peacefully and with the cooperation of other countries.
2-Many times left over remnants of colonialist/capitalist forces influenced our foreign policy decisions resulting in aggression and interventions dressed up in the flag and patriotism. Particularly when those who had objections to being the minor buisness partner complained to loudly.

Iraq is not an prime example of the first.

[46zilzal]

U.S. dollar dropped significantly today.
Oil prices above $80.00 a barrel.....No it is NOT about resources and the oil, it is about FREEDOM!!!

Wake up people.

[Lefty]

zilly, how much will oil go up if we let the terrorists control Iraq? Hmmmm?
Stockmkt went up again today and please don't resort to the tired lie that it only helps the wealthy. Too many people are in the mkt one way or another to blve that excrement anymore.

[Greyfox]

1-I gave 2 sources for Robert Pape
2-OsBL has said those very things

3-An opinion by Michael Scheuer is relayed to Horton. Sounds right on.
You think that story is incorrect ? .

I'm not quibbling with the accuracy of the story. I quite enjoyed the read.

Your style of presenting it though in the particular post leaves the reader, if he/she hasn't read the associated link, with the impression that you are the author. That is not on. I am suggesting a few lead in words so that we know you are citing someone in the link. Otherwise, how do we separate you from Scott Horton?

[chickenhead]

U.S. dollar dropped significantly today.
Oil prices above $80.00 a barrel.....No it is NOT about resources and the oil, it is about FREEDOM!!!

Wake up people.

If you ever would respond to a direct question, please explain to me why high oil prices indicate some justification of this being a resource war. You're a logical guy...low oil prices would indicate success, not high prices.

HCAP himself posts a reason for jihadism is low oil prices. His expert says the jihadis want higher oil prices, and we now have higher oil prices. And somehow this goes through some garbled filter in your head and comes out as "See!" See what?

Wouldn't securing Iraqi oil have an inverse relationship to price? You dodged me in another thread, but this is my thread, explain yourself.

[46zilzal]

Nationalizing is called stealing.

[hcap]

Greyfox,

Usually I put quotation marks around the snippet.
Or I start the excerpt with a series of periods
.....
I guess I could actually say I AM NOT THE AUTHOR. IN ALL CAPS?
:jump:
I am glad you found the links useful.
Anyway when you and 46 were debating motivations, I thought I would chime in

[chickenhead]

Nationalizing is called stealing.

that doesn't qualify as an answer. You do realize that IRAQ..regardless of whatever contracts are signed with whatever oil company, if they find in a few years they don't like them, will nationalize whatever the hell they want.

We OWN NOTHING in Iraq. Venezuela recently nationalized their oil. Despite the tin hat chatter...what was the end result? All the oil companies signed new contracts, that were favorable to Venezuela.

[ddog]

I think people focus too much on the wrong thing regarding stay/go. I've seen the poll numbers anywhere from 50% to 70% Iraqis want us to stay. To me that is utterly remarkable, for it to be so high. It would be entirely understandable if it was 80-90% wanting us to leave, it is natural human nature, and Iraqis are nationalistic despite what is going on right now.

I cannot under any circumstances imagine the US supporting a foreign army on our land to the tune of 50-70%. We hardly support our own army to that extent. Maybe it is just my own weird perspective on things to find that so remarkable.

People in mass tire of fighting. We here in the US fatigue of it very easily, even if it is happening far away. It seems to me that they will tire of it in Iraq, it looks like that is what is beginning to happen. Even people who may support or agree with the goals of some of these groups are tiring of the car bombings and kidnappings and executions -- lets remember they are primarily killing each other. And what is the gain? You don't think they are beginning to ask themselves that question?

In some sense that is what Democracy is the alternative to. Democracy is what happens when people get tired of fighting each other and decide to talk instead. Even if the issues are not resolved, are never resolved...at least no one is dying, that is a huge gain.

When people in Iraq truly tire of the bloodshed we are going to begin to see a different breed of Iraqi politician that can give voice to what they want. Civil wars do end. Not always because of any decisive victory, but because the people just get tired of fighting and dying.

No one involved in the fighting right now is gaining anything, or doing any good, and I think the people are realizing that. They are beginning to look for other solutions. They are beginning to look for an Iraqi State.

I think a full and immediate withdrawal by the US would leave them utterly hopeless. I think it would be unforgivable. Our interests align with theirs more than a lot of people think, I suspect, and it would be in neither of our best interests.

They don't want us to leave, they want our help, and I think we need to do a better job of that.


EXACTLY, both things can be true and I agree are to a great and increasing extent.
They want us to leave but know they NEED us to stay.

:ThmbUp:

[Lefty]

chick, the sad truth is zilly hasn't the intellect to respond to our q's./ All he knows is what he reads on the leftwing blogs.

[46zilzal]

Yes everyday, just after the typical terrorists loads his RPG's, tries to find food and electricity for his family the day, stops by his local news stand to check the Wall Street Journal to make sure his fighting through the back streets are effecting the oil prices like he wanted to when he woke up that morning. He has his finger on the pulse of Wall Street!!

[Lefty]

zilly, you just keep revealing what sillyzilly you are.

[chickenhead]

Yes everyday, just after the typical terrorists loads his RPG's, tries to find food and electricity for his family the day, stops by his local news stand to check the Wall Street Journal to make sure his fighting through the back streets are effecting the oil prices like he wanted to when he woke up that morning. He has his finger on the pulse of Wall Street!!

What are you even talking about? If you don't think jihadis want higher oil prices, fine, take it up with hcap, that was his post. I can tell you who doesn't want higher oil prices...US!

Did it ever occur to you that in RESOURCE wars, the RESOURCE is generally seized, or at least up for grabs? Consider the Iran/Iraq war...they were attempting to MOVE THE BORDER so one side or the other would get more resources. Have I missed our intentions of making Iraq the 51st state? Whereby we would actually gain resources?

Iraq owns all of the Iraqi oil. At most we help them to dig it out of the ground, and then we pay them for it. Same as every other country sitting atop petrol.

[46zilzal]

What are you even talking about? If you don't think jihadis want higher oil prices, fine, take it up with hcap, that was his post. I can tell you who doesn't want higher oil prices...US!


They think about it night and day I'm sure, right along with bread and a place to sleep at night!! I am sure all of them check several times a day on their blackberry devices.

[chickenhead]

When rational people want to know about a subject, they usually heed the opinions of those IN the field.


Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit said...


<spews a bunch of jibberish insinuating Michael Cheuer doesn't know his ass from a rasberry danish>

hehehoho

[NoDayJob]

Terrorists will exist as long as there are people who are poor, have no future and with NOTHING left to lose. They don't need a lot of money, support network or sequestration.

Wake up. As long as conditions are out there that breed them they will persist.

An interesting theory. The Dems seem to feel that there's more poverty in America than ever. Something's wrong. Poverty doesn't make people terrorists. How many U.S. citizens have you heard of, that are impoverished, went out, bought explosives and committed suicide by blowing up civilians?? Terrorist leaders are not stupid enough to blow themselves up. They get ignorant, religious, zealots to do their dirty work. Think about it! :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Equating terrorism to poverty is just wacko!
I've heard crazy stuff here before, but that one is off the coo coo chart! :lol:

[46zilzal]

"Spews a bunch of jibberish insinuating Michael Cheuer doesn't know his ass from a rasberry danish"
I never wrote that...since I know how to spell raspberry.

[Lefty]

They think about it night and day I'm sure, right along with bread and a place to sleep at night!! I am sure all of them check several times a day on their blackberry devices.
zilly, in your own silly way you are saying they're worse off than us. Well, duh! And it was Saddam who made them that way and the terrorists, Iran included that would like to keep them that way. It's US zilly, that have given them a chance at freedom and the good life. THey have to take some responsibility in seizing it, and they're starting to do that.

[chickenhead]

I never wrote that...since I know how to spell raspberry.

but not the meaning of insinuate, apparently. Stay out of my threads from now on, if this is all you have to offer.

[46zilzal]

but not the meaning of insinuate, apparently. Stay out of my threads from now on, if this is all you have to offer.
This is a public forum, without limitations on entry. Idle threats don't cut the mustard.

[chickenhead]

This is a public forum, without limitations on entry. Idle threats don't cut the mustard.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of threat, either.

[46zilzal]

zilly, in your own silly way you are saying they're worse off than us. Well, duh! And it was Saddam who made them that way and the terrorists, Iran included that would like to keep them that way. It's US zilly, that have given them a chance at freedom and the good life. THey have to take some responsibility in seizing it, and they're starting to do that.

B. S. It is the clowns who are stealing from them left and right at taxpayers expense to "re-build" while their own citizens are not getting close to the same attention.

[NoDayJob]

Equating terrorism to poverty is just wacko!
I've heard crazy stuff here before, but that one is off the coo coo chart! :lol:

I'm koo koo for kocoa puffs. ;)

[Lefty]

Well, you can't have it both ways. WE gave them their own elected govt, you wouldn't want us interfering would you. We are giving them a chance. Meanwhile we are there to keep the terrorists from taking over. It's up to Iraqui citizens to clean up their own govt. You libs are all over the place. You guys always present the circle argument.

[46zilzal]

using that logic we should "clean up" Indonesia, Sri Lanka, East Timor and on and on....Hmm but many of these doesn't have the OIL or the means to steal it either so, no thanks...Let's not forget the oil pipeline of ex-Unocal oil exec Hamid Karzi is setting up to go through old Afghanistan as well.

[Lefty]

YOu libs always go bk to oil. Indonesia? Were they shooting at our planes? Were they funding terrorists? Do they have enriched uranium?
How much oild did we steal. First you complain because oil went to $80 a barrel and now you say were stealing it. We are paying full price and you know it. Not a drop has been stolen. You present the same old lib arguments; same old lib lies that are so easy to defeat. Ho, hum...

[JustRalph]

using that logic we should "clean up" Indonesia, Sri Lanka, East Timor and on and on.....

One shit hole at a time please......................... :lol: