Cat-and-mouse 'diplomacy'

Report: US no closer to Iraq goals
Web-posted 4/07/2008
The United States is no closer to achieving its goals in Iraq than it was a year ago but a quick military withdrawal could lead to massive chaos and even genocide, according to a report released Sunday by a U.S. think tank.

The pathetically ill-informed & dishonest Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff (ACES) is at it again with their brand of tabloid-style, yellow-journalism designed to inflame The Chronicle's ignorant Republican reactionary readers. First lie, Moqtada al Sadr did not sue for a cease-fire in Basra. The U.S.-backed Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki did that after his impulsive offensive in Basra was repulsed & rolled back until U.S. airpower, UK artillery, U.S. armor & U.S. special forces pulled Maliki's iron out of the fire. The Chronicle is revising recent history al la Tony Snow, Bill O'Reilly & FOX News. Maliki's govt sought the help of Iran in brokering a cease-fire with Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army militias. It is also arguable that the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq with militias that back Maliki is more closely allied with Iran than is al Sadr. Don't expect The Chronicle to inform or educate its readers in these basic facts. Iraq was in flames between Baghdad & Basra. Maliki wisely backed down. Today the U.S. is fighting in Sadr City which has resulted in the greatest loss of life in The Green Zone to date. The U.S. surge has failed. Maliki is weaker & Moqtada is stronger.

Wow Cain, you hate American and all things involved with America, What a surprise! Good news is a lie and bad news is good. What a point of view. Well, nothing new here. Same hate, different day. Thanks for sharing.

This scenario is no different than anyone who plays the game of power and greed with a little sociopathy thrown in the mix. Sadr will be held accountable not only by God at the judgment but right here in this life and if history has done nothing else it tells us it will happen sooner than later. Great article Chronicle...right on point....

patriciathomas, I don't hate America or all things involved with America. The truth is the truth. Where is the good news here? That Maliki now says that Motada al Sadr can't participate in Oct elections unless his militias disarm? Notgonnahappen! After swearing a showdown in late Jan with Al Qaeda in Iraq in the city of Mosul, Maliki delivered exactly nothing! Maliki pledged to fight to the finish with "rogue" militias in Basra then sued for a cease-fire & cancelled offensives against Shiite militias nationwide. Has Maliki demanded that the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) militias under the control of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim diarm? No! Hakim has sided with Maliki & the U.S. against al Sadr (an intra Shiite power struggle) but the ISCI is very close to Iran - even closer than the Iraqi nationalist al-Sadr. patriciathomas, your comment added EXACTLY NOTHING of substance. You don't have any particular insight or wisdom to share do you? And about the so-called "success" of the surge: Al Qaeda in Iraq has NOT been destroyed & is awaiting an opportunity to regenerate itself according to the LA Times. Sunni Tribal fighters paid by the U.S. have cut down on violence but are subjugating women to medieval mores according to Newsweek.

Christian134 wrote: "Great article Chronicle...right on point....". Right on point of what? Does The Chronicle seriously think a weakened Maliki can "take out" the "mouse" Moqtada? Didn't anybody learn anything from the failed offensive in Basra? Maliki never delivered on his pledge of Jan 25 2008 to have a "final" battle with Al Qaeda in Iraq in Mosul. Maliki pledged not to back down in Basra, but he did. Maliki's words RING HOLLOW. The Iraq army's performance in Basra was "disappointing" (the kindest words they could use) according to the U.S. military. Does The Chronicle SERIOUSLY think the Iraq govt army which has NEVER stood up will "take out" Moqtada's Mahdi army? Sunnis aren't happy that their militias have not been inducted into the Iraq army like the Shiite militias of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme Coucil of Iraq. More than 1000 Iraq govt troops deserted in Basra. Maliki swore in thousands of Shiite ISCI militias into his army to replace them but not the Sunni militias. Iraq is not reconciled. The U.S. army expects continued fighting this summer. The U.S. surge in Iraq has FAILED to stem sectarian violence, promote political progress, unite or reconcile Iraqis. The Chronicle's editorial staff doesn't have a clue!

If one disagrees with patriciathomas then one obviously hates America. You must see things her way or she will attack your patriotism. She is just following the mantra of Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity.

I am surprised Mr Cain-surprised that you don't go to Iraq and share your opinions with those you appear to admire so much.
We could probably take up a collection for a one-way ticket to Iraq, maybe even throw in a cocktail or two for you to enjoy on the way.

Who is it exactly, JL Segrel, that I "appear to admire so much"? Is this another iteration of the "America, love it or leave it" mantra of reactionary Republicans? I am critical of United States' foreign policy. Millions of people marched before this war began and BEGGED President Bush not to invade Iraq. "I get to make that decision" sneered Bush "you don't." The Bush 41 administration didn't march to Baghdad in 1991 precisely because the consensus was that uncontrollable sectarian chaos would ensue in Iraq. Even Dick Cheney argued that case in 1991. Bush 43 didn't listen to Gen. Eric Shinseki. Is Shinseki "anti-American"? I didn't admire Saddam Hussein, but going to war to get one man doesn't make sense. Why didn't Bush bring a case against Saddam in the World Court and seek an arrest warrant? It worked for Slobodan Milosevic. Subjecting Iraq to years of war to get one man did not make sense 5 years ago. Continuing to illegally occupy Iraq and trying to subjugate them into client state status will NEVER work. Retired Lt. Gen. Wm Odom testified before Congress and wrote that a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the only solution to this fiasco. Is Gen. Wm Odom "anti-American", JL Segrel?

Cain please no more....Go and help out the countries and folks you so obviously admire-I can almost guarantee you that you will be looked upon as American and they will seek to silence you not for your drivel but for no other reason than being an American--.....If that doesn't suit your purposes then seek help or at the very least take something for your acid tongue. AS a famous king once uttered to his soliders "I have enough crazies around me why do you bring me one more".

Arrogant U.S. warmongers are the wackos, christian134, you included. And you often seek to drag religion into the fray as well. Do you think Gen. Jesus Petraeus walks on water? Why does (using The Washington Post's words) "President Bush gives Gen. Petraeus a privileged voice in White House deliberations over Iraq, bypassing several levels of the military chain of command"? Newly promoted 4 star Gen. Jesus Petraeus is an acknowledged "expert" in counterinsurgency warfare. He knows full well that the number of successful counterinsurgency campaigns can be counted on one hand, and those took on average more than 10 years to win. Many of the basic precepts that Gen. Petraeus wrote in the U.S. Army's newly published counterinsurgency warfare manual are being violated in Iraq including a severely undermanned U.S. occupation force. Why is Bush bypassing layers of other generals & admirals who have expertise in other areas including expertise on regional matters? Gen. Jesus Petraeus is not omniscient, & according to sentiments attributed to fired U.S. Central Command chief Adm. Wm Fallon, Petraeus is all too happy to kiss up to Bush & be his yes man in an effort to please his superiors & advance his career. Petraeus must follow orders or resign, but speaking truth to power is the highest form of patriotism. Petraeus isn't the only expert in the U.S. military nor is he an expert on how this war has destabilized the region. Petreaus will likely point his finger at Iran for interfering in Iraq, but that alone should not be sufficient evidence for Bush to order military strikes on Iran. United States has less of a legitimate right to "meddle" in Iraq than does neighboring Shiite Iran. A peace summit is in order not further escalation of hostilities inside Iraq and in the region.

Cain and his half truths and smoke and mirrors. The mission in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait, it was done and we got out. The idea was there to invade Bagdad, but that was not the mission. Milosevic gave up after the US had bombed him and he turned himself in when the pressure became to great. An arrest warrant for Saddam, give me a break, he was so distrusting and his security was layers thick. Please come to the real world. When GEN Odom said we should rapidly withdrawl, it was the best way to boost morale for the soldiers and families, NOT to settle the situation in Iraq. With our rapid withdrawl would come genoicide and chaos (according to the Peace Institute). Fallon was not fired, he resigned of his own will, so dont confuse the facts with those that are in your mind. When you quote both the LA Times and the Washington Post, you may as well quote the Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, the NY Times, Arriana Huggington, and so forth. Your ideas may seem to make sense and idealistic in your Utopian world where all obey the rule of law, but in the real world where most of us reside your rantings only tell the story you WANT it to tell, leaving out facts that dispute your hypthesis.

Fallon was FORCED OUT as head of U.S. Central Command - equivalent to a firing. It is like giving someone the "option" of resigning to save face. The man had no real choice. Fallon was effectively terminated. For you to write, RJH, "Fallon was not fired, he resigned of his own will, so dont confuse the facts with those that are in your mind" it is YOU who is passing off half truths. Why was an arrest warrant never sought for Saddam? I knew he was "The Butcher of Baghdad" by 1980, but United States dealt with him & supplied him with weapons & intelligence to wage an 8 year long war against Iran. United States has a history of supporting dictators it later takes out when the dictators no longer carry water for United States. After Michael Gorbachev peacefully ended the Cold War showing the world a new paradigm for settling international disputes, what is the first thing United States did? We invaded Panama TO GET ONE MAN, Gen. Manuel Noriega. It was back to the business of war as usual. Necons took the collapse of Soviet Union as a green light to make the U.S. economic & political system the dominant system throughout the world THROUGH THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE. PAX AMERICANA ineed! RJH, read what retired Lt. Gen. Wm Odom testified to before Congress on April 2, 2008
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Augusta_Alternative/index.php?showtopic=713

Well Cain, why are you changing your story AGAIN. First you say FIRED, now you say forced out and give your defination of that. It is true that the US has had some strange bedfellows over the years, but there are some thugs that have to be taken out by force. You seem to mock the MILITARY FORCE, how else would you have it down. Have the local sherrif show up with an "arrest" warrant for these people. Noriega nullified elections, brutalized his opponent (Guillermo Endara), and by force maintained control of the country against the peoples wish. True Noriega did work for the CIA, but then he turned into a rotten apple who was not in the best interest of the US. I am not sure you understand that the spread of democracy is what defeated communism, Reagan spent 50 years combatting Communism from his days in Hollywood to his Presidency, that was his life long goal. I will note that you have many good points, however you sometimes only state what supports your point, and ignore those that run counter to it. America is a noble country who reaches out to many across the world, and your trampling of this country does not sit well with many people and your ideas are not mainstream.

Fallon was effectively fired. I stick by my assertion. It is not I who has changed MY story but Bush who has changed HIS rationales for this war more times than he changes underwear. I came of age during the Vietnam war. The consensus among historians is that the U.S. war in Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos was a mistake. It took until 1975 to end it. It took years for the American Establishment to admit that cigarettes cause cancer & admit United States errs in foreign policy. During the 1980 Presidential campaign Reagan made it clear he was going to war in Central America. United States backed military dictatorship in Guatemala which killed hundred of thousands of Mayan Indians. The U.S. orchestrated a coup in 1954 against the democratic Arbenz govt in Guatemala one year after it installed The Shah in another coup in Iran. United States was involved in the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. United States supported the Salvadoran govt which tolerated rightwing death squads in that country. They killed Archbishop Oscar Romero & 4 American nuns. United States supported Contra terrorists who killed healthcare workers & daycare workers in Nicaragua because they were "communists". U.S. interventions are legion!

Cain is not anti-American but wanting to extinquish his opinion surely is. Cain is pointing out perceived flaws with American policy and offers perspectives of "other" experts-nothing wrong with being informed (you don't have to accept or agree). Of course he does it with a flash and he sometimes gets nasty (who can blame him with the retorts he gets), but it does get your attention. But really folks you have to admit that Bush has made some mistakes and it is difficult to understand any logical policy. U.S. interventions around the globe are historical fact, and some current issues are directly related to our previous actions.

Thanks Bizarro, I'll back off. Others are welcome to their personal opinion. Mine is that Bush came into office looking to reassert U.S. might & wanting to "ride high in the saddle". He was busy peddling "missile defense" systems (like he is again doing) instead of paying attention to PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings) like the one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside United States" that he was briefed on in July or August 2001. "Now you've covered your ...[CYA]" Bush told the CIA briefer. So 19 guys with box cutters, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, none of whom were from Iraq, breached poor U.S. airport security & brought down 4 airliners & the WTC complex killing 3,000 innocent Americans. The entire world sympathized with United States. Bush vowed to bring bin Laden to justice. Nobody protested when Bush pursued Al Qaeda, but he let OBL escape in the Tora Bora mountains in Dec 2001. Winning a war on the tactic of terrorism must be an international effort not a unilateral U.S. military action. It requires sharing information with international police agencies & acting in a coordinated, targeted fashion. Invading & occupying countries is counterproductive to the stated objectives of eliminating terrorists & keeping us safe. United States is still in the early stages of getting itself politically, economically & militarily defeated in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I see, those Generals and Admirals who oppose the current war effort are the experts and those who support it are idiots. Makes perfect sense in Cain's world. General Petraeus is an expert on counterinsurgency and that is the type of war we are currently fighting. The current numbers of US and Iraqi Forces in Iraq are well within the range of successful insurgencies. I would trust the war fighting to someone who actually knows counterinsurgency and, in fact, applied it in Mosul when he commanded the 101st Airborne there. General Odom, on the other hand, may be a good person to talk to about the Soviet Union but on issues concerning terrorists? Well, we all remember his great advice to President Carter during the Iranian Hostage Crisis! So, thanks for offering General Odom as an expert we should listen to Cain, but no thanks.

a peace summit sounds like a wonderful idea! i want to try my new oatmeal & pipe dream cookie recipe - i think everyone will just love it. afterwards, we can hold hands and talk about how nice the world will be now that we've had a peace summit.

Cain, I think this last post is perhaps one of your most cogent arguments and I agree that Bush was already planning to invade Iraq. I agree we are chasing an organization and not a state, and winning this war will have to be an international effort. I think blindly defending Bush and making excuses for America's past mistakes will not help us to become a better nation and prevent us from screwing up again. It is not hate America but make America better. Now don't think I still won't rag on you my friend, but it is nothing personal (just my own character flaw).

The Last Word, Gen. Petraeus may be an expert in counterinsurgency warfare, but that doesn't mean he is also the U.S. military's best expert on how the U.S. war in Iraq affects the entire region. Bypassing several layers of the U.S. military's chain of command and having the top ground commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, call all the shots is fraught with potential pitfalls. Crocker knows the diplomatic angle, but Petaeus by himself doesn't know every military angle involved in this complex area of the world. Putting all our eggs in one basket and relying on the judgment of one man isn't wise policy IMHO.

Funny jaschild! I recommend Hash Brownies for peace negotiations. I was gonna start a war, but I got high and forgot. Lets talk peace, whatever man that's cool. What were we talking about??? Come think of it, it may work.

You all can (and DO) Monday-Morning-Quarterback this thing to death. In the end, the blame game and name calling need to be put aside and a course of action needs to be put in place that will allow our military to finish their work, stabilize Iraq and come home. In that order. Whether you agreed, agree or disagree with the beginning, middle or end of this whole situation is irrelevant. Nobody involved in this almost daily back and forth bickering does anything to further a solution. They only point out to anyone with an internet connection and a desire to find out just how divided our country is that their belief that if they just keep killing us, we'll give up and go away is a goal worthy of pursuing.

prettyb0x, The idea that all we must do is "allow our military to finish their work, stabilize Iran & come home" is absurd. President Bush has been given EVERYTHING he has asked for over the last 5 years & the U.S. Institute of Peace says the U.S. is no closer to its objectives than it was a year ago. The only rationales left for staying have been reduced to "If we leave Iran will take over" & "If we leave a genocide will happen". I submit that United States military occupation of Iraq is part of the problem not part of the solution. Soldiers who are sent on more than 2 tours of duty in Iraq have a 27% incidence of PTSD. This war is bankrupting our treasury & bleeding our young people. The U.S. Army is severely stressed. War leads to deficits leads to debt leads to inflation leads to recession. That is where we are now, maybe headed into a severe recession & stuck in Iraq. It is time to change course. The U.S. military has done the job asked of it, but this is a political war which does not have a military solution. Iraq will never be pacified or stabilized while under U.S. military occupation or under U.S. imperial aegis as a subservient client state. This is real time, prettyb0x.

The editorial staff may well be misinformed but, as usual, Cain, you mistake an opposing opinion for misinformation. I am sure if we trolled through your pages of comments in the Chronicle we would find accusations against Maliki for not doing enough. Maliki leads an offensive against the militias and you complain because he ran into resistance and had to call in for air support and help from the US. That's why we are there. Fighting the militias, by the way, is one of the benchmarks that your crowd said remained unmet last year when Gen Petraeus testified on the progress of the Surge. In reality, Al Sadr controls very few militias. He influences several but many other groups have splintered off from his militias over the years. According to Cain, "Maliki's govt sought the help of Iran in brokering a cease-fire with Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army militias." Wrong - Maliki's representatives went to Iran to meet with the commander of the Quds Force, the real leader of the most violent militias and gangs in Iraq. 30,000 Iraqi Security Forces were involved in the offensive but the Iranian-backed militias were well fortified. US air support took care of that. -Continued-

Exactly what happened in Basra is unknown - with no Western journalists to report what happened, news agencies had to rely on Iraqi "stringers" many of of whom are connected to the militias. What we know is that Maliki is taking the fight to the militias & gangs & may have secured the port of Basra, which had been under the control of criminal gangs & supporting the militias monetarily. So, all in all, it was a good week for Maliki & Iraq. Iraq has proven to be the most committed ally we have in the war of terror.

I have to agree with Cain that we need to leave Iraq, but just for different reasoning. Regime change was the goal and a complete success with little loss-Great! The police action that has ensued to "stabilze" the area has cost us too much money and too many lives-terible!. The Iraqi's are dicking us around (I apologize for the euphemism but it fits). We have helped them establish a govt (pitiful as it maybe), they have had an election, given them boat loads of cash-job done let's leave. We cannot arbitrate "their" differences. Either they will unite against the invading Iranians and learn to live together or they will fight each other and the Iranians will overtake them. If the Iranians do said action then we could probably generate alliances
(and U.N. approval) to blow them into the stone age in conventional warfare-the ole Neocon war machine Cain talks about. It is the deadliest force on earth hands down. I think the better part of valor would be to exit and live to fight another day. I don't know how you measue "success" when we spend so much money and lose so many lives for a police action of trying to nanny them into statehood. Time to get off the tit and do it on your own.

So we should throw our hands up in the air, take our stuff and go home because it's too hard to finish what we started? Say we're going to do something and then leave before the whole thing, unintended consequences and all, is finished? I say THAT'S absurd, not to mention irresponsible and inhumane.

No I am saying we performed all the legal requirements of law and ethics in regime change. We cannot arbitrate their differences. They need to do it and I think it is time to let them do it. Do you really want to stay there another five to ten years. That's insane. Patience to let it fester and either heal itself or become a wound we surgically (war) address. It is not giving up it is just good sense to let things run their course. I have no doubt that we may have to return but we can achieve our goals with little loss of life with a conventional war. We kick butt. "Inhumane" is obviously just a relative term as I have seen no note of humanity in any humanity. Why is there suffering.

prettyb0x, Iraq Prime Minister on Jan 25 2008 promised a "final" showdown with AQ in Iraq in the northern city of Mosul. That didn't happen. Then Maliki impetuously ordered an offensive against "rogue" (read Moqtada al Sadr's but there are others) militias in Basra. Again Maliki swore he would not negotiate & he would not back down. He issued a 3 day ultimatum. Then he backed down. You think backing Maliki is a winning strategy? The Last Word, Tony Snow, Bill O'Reilly & FOX News are doing Monday morning quarterbacking by trying to spin Maliki's loss in Basra into some kind of gain. It won't wash. The Iraq govt army has NEVER stood up despite years & years of training, scores of billions spent by United States on their training & billions squandered by the corrupt & weak Iraq govt. There is no sucker in the world like an arrogant American sucker! Bizarro is right. Iraqis are playing Americans for the fools they are. Cowboy diplomacy did not work. Bush at al are babes in the woods when it comes to Middle Eastern intrigue. We understand almost nothing of the political undercurrents in Iraq & we are arrogant enough to think we can direct their fate. Notgonnahappen in a million years!