Showing posts with label occupation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label occupation. Show all posts

Saturday, January 16, 2010

First wave of US forces leave Iraq

Remember all the people who praised the "resistance" and complained that without "resistance" the US would be in Iraq forever?

"Among the first troops to invade in March 2003, and the first to help turn enemy insurgents into allies, the Marines will be the first major wave of American forces to go as the U.S. military begins a withdrawal to be completed by the end of next year. For them, as for the rest of the U.S. military, this has been the longest war since Vietnam.

At their peak in October 2008, an estimated 25,000 Marines were in Iraq, mostly in the country's western Anbar province. Now only about 4,000 remain. They, too, will be gone shortly after the Marines officially hand over responsibility to the Army on Saturday."

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

The Arabs and "Ummah" never cared about Iraqis

The more I read other Arabs' and Muslims' comments praising "resistance" and condemning "occupation" and "traitors" the more I wonder if they really care about Iraqis. It also compels me to think about the history of Iraq and the Middle East and I want to learn more. In a comment, a self-proclaimed Muslim told me "The target is the occupation, and whoever aligns with them. If zero Iraqis ally with them, then zero Iraqis are the target. If 12 million Iraqis ally with them, then 12 million Iraqis are target. This is completely up to them."

Also she said "The first time I ever heard of Saddam Hussein was in 1990. Iraqi internal goings-on are a separate matter from this Crusade today."

I responded:

Meanwhile in the House of Islam, Saudis and other khaleeji jarab have been aligning themselves with Americans since 1973. The mentally handicapped "Ummah" mass murders Iraqis as Muslims drink lattes at Starbucks in Mecca and as Americans plan their "crusade" from their HQ in Doha, Qatar.

Saddam's crimes of the 80s and 90s are separate from today's "Crusade" but I remind people of the history of Saddam's crimes to show that the Arabs and 'Ummah' did not care about the mass murder of Iraqis back then. They didn't care about how many bombs the Crusaders dropped on Iraq in 1991. They cared only about Sunni domination.

The hypocrisy is incredible. At least to me it is.

The Shia now have control of Iraq, and that is what the 3arab jarab got truly pissed about. The retarded Arabs and "Ummah" have never cared about Iraqis.

I should have added that zero American soldiers died in combat in Iraq last month. Most victims of bombings have been Iraqi civilians, and most of them have nothing to do with politics or "occupation".

Friday, December 25, 2009

WSJ Reports: Sectarian Violence Continues in Iraq

Sectarian Violence Continues in Iraq

"Attacks in the capital and the southern town of Hilla killed at least 26 in Iraq on Thursday and Friday, with religious-tinged violence ticking up as Christmas coincided this year with one of Shiite Islam's most important observances.

Ashura, a 10-day commemoration of the death of the Prophet Mohammed's grandson, one of Shiite Islam's most revered figures, culminates Sunday. Hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims stream to the Iraqi cities Karbala and Najaf, providing a convenient target for sect-based violence."

Meanwhile the Arabs continue their KABOBfest and they continue to complain about US "occupation" and "imperialism".

Friday, December 18, 2009

Angry and Stupid

As'ad Abu Khara (Happiest Father of Shit) warns: "Interpreting for the occupation may be bad for your health"

Do people understand why I dislike this guy so much?  Even intellectuals among the Arabs who condemned Saddam seem to be mentally retarded when discussing Iraq and unwilling to condemn the "resistance" that fights "occupation" by killing Iraqis.

LA Times:
After the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military discovered that rebuilding the country and confronting an insurgency required a weapon not in its arsenal: thousands of interpreters.

To fill the gap, the Pentagon turned to Titan Corp., a San Diego defense contractor, which eventually hired more than 8,000 interpreters, most of them Iraqis.

For $12,000 a year, these civilians served as the voice of America's military, braving sniper fire and roadside bombs. Insurgents targeted them for torture and assassination. Many received military honors for their heroism.

At least 360 interpreters employed by Titan or its successor company were killed between March 2003 and March 2008, and more than 1,200 were injured. The death toll was far greater than that suffered by the armed forces of any country in the American-led coalition other than the United States. Scores of interpreters assisting U.S. forces in Afghanistan also have been killed or wounded.'


Arabs and Arab Americans don't seem to care about US efforts to help Iraqis to rebuild their country.  Arabs like As'ad Abu Khera seem to care only for the "resistance" that fights "occupation".  Do these schmucks read Iraqi blogs other than Layla Anwar's?


Iraq Pundit:  

The man said young people don't know that Iraq was a good country before it was destroyed by Saddam. "Remember the invasion of 2003?" the man asked. "Iraqis welcomed the Americans and threw flowers at them." He stood up to make his point. "Do you know anyone who would welcome an invader?" I don't know. "A people would have to be reduced so much in order to throw flowers at invading troops."

So who will the man vote for? "I don't know," he said. "But at least I have a choice."

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

White House condemns Baghdad bombings

'The White House on Tuesday condemned the coordinated bombing attacks in Baghdad that killed more than 100 people.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Iraqi leaders who recently passed an elections law are moving the country in the right direction, and that ''there are clearly those who are threatened by that.''

The coordinated attacks struck Baghdad Tuesday, including two suicide car bombers and another vehicle that blew up near government sites. At least 118 were killed and hundreds wounded in the worst wave of violence in the capital in more than a month, authorities said.'

Iraqis eagerly await condemnation from our Arab brothers.

Meanwhile, the Angry Arab is angry about the alcohol ban and occupation, but I haven't heard him call Sistani a puppet in a few days, and I don't hear Arabs encouraging "resistance" in Iraq these days. That is considered progress in the Arab world.

Monday, November 30, 2009

The "resistance" prolonged the occupation

I have argued before that the "resistance", with their attacks that led to civil war in Iraq, only prolonged the presence of US troops in Iraq. I also remember many people claiming that the US would be in Iraq forever and that "resistance" was the only way to expel the invaders.

'American troops did not expect to play a role in stabilizing Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a key adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday.

David Manning, who served as a Blair's top foreign policy aide before being appointed ambassador to Washington in 2003, told a British inquiry into the Iraq war the American military did not believe peacekeeping was their responsibility.

"The American military thought that they were fighting a war and when the war was over they were expecting to go home," he said.'

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Angry Arab points out sectarianism in Tikrit

Kudos to Professor As3ad Abu Khalil for pointing out the sectarianism in Saddam's home town:
"Tikrit University in US-occupied Iraq rejects a PhD dissertation because it deals with a poet who is Shi`ite born, atheist and communist."

However, instead of stating that Tikrit is Saddam's home town and discussing the history of persecution of Iraq's Shia, he says that Tikrit is in US-occupied Iraq, as if the US presence in Iraq is somehow relevant to the sectarianism in Tikrit University. The implication, I suppose, is that there is injustice in Iraq because it is occupied by the US. No mention of unfairness towards Iraqi Shia before the US "occupation".

The sectarianism would of course exist in Tikrit without the US presence, and if Iraq was not "occupied" by the US, the professor would probably ignore the sectarianism out of Tikrit, as most Arab and Arab American intellectuals did before 2003.

PS: The Tikrit Uni PhD student who was brave enough to base his dissertation on a Shiite communist atheist poet deserves much praise.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Iraqi on US long-term presence: “I find it in Germany and that’s a strong country. Why not in Iraq?”

A good article about Iraqis' feelings towards Barack Obama. Thanks IraqPundit!

In Iraq, Mixed Feelings About Obama and His Troop Proposal

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: July 17, 2008

BAGHDAD — A tough Iraqi general, a former special operations officer with a baritone voice and a barrel chest, melted into smiles when asked about Senator Barack Obama.

“Everyone in Iraq likes him,” said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. “I like him. He’s young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president.”

But mention Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.

“Very difficult,” he said, shaking his head. “Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don’t have that ability.”

Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.

There was, as Mr. Obama prepared to visit here, excitement over a man who is the anti-Bush in almost every way: a Democrat who opposed a war that many Iraqis feel devastated their nation. And many in the political elite recognize that Mr. Obama shares their hope for a more rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

But his support for troop withdrawal cuts both ways, reflecting a deep internal quandary in Iraq: for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war. Many Iraqis also acknowledge that security gains in recent months were achieved partly by the buildup of American troops, which Mr. Obama opposed and his presumptive Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, supported.

“In no way do I favor the occupation of my country,” said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, “but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point.”

Like many Iraqis, Mr. Ibrahim sees Mr. Obama favorably, describing him as “much more humane than Bush or McCain.”

“He seems like a nice guy,” Mr. Ibrahim said. But he hoped that Mr. Obama’s statements about a relatively fast pullout were mere campaign talk.

“It’s a very big assumption that just because he wants to pull troops out, he’ll be able to do it,” he said. “The American strategy in the region requires troops to remain in Iraq for a long time.”

It is not certain exactly when Mr. Obama will arrive here or whom he will meet. Such official trips are always shrouded in secrecy for security reasons.

But as word spread of the impending visit — Mr. Obama’s first as the presumed Democratic nominee for president — there were fresh reminders of the country’s vulnerability. In the past two days, around 70 Iraqis were killed in suicide bomb attacks, despite recent gains in safety that Mr. Obama uses as one argument for withdrawal.

And despite those improvements, street interviews remain risky in Iraq. For this article, 18 people were interviewed about their opinions of Mr. Obama, in Baghdad, in the northern city of Mosul, in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, and in the Sunni suburb of Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad.

Even as some Iraqis disagreed about Mr. Obama’s stance on withdrawal, they expressed broad approval for him personally as an improvement over Mr. Bush, who remains unpopular among broad portions of Iraqi society five years after the war began. No one interviewed expressed a strong dislike for Mr. Obama.

Saad Sultan, an official in an Iraqi government ministry, contended that Mr. Obama could give a fresh start to relations between the Arab world and the United States. Mr. Obama has never practiced Islam; his father, whom he barely knew, was born Muslim, but became a nonbeliever. Mr. Sultan, however, like many Iraqis, feels instinctively close to the senator because he heard that he had Muslim roots.

“Every time I see Obama I say: ‘He’s close to us. Maybe he’ll see us in a different way,’ ” Mr. Sultan said. “I find Obama very close to my heart.”

Race is also a consideration. Muhammad Ahmed Kareem, 49, an engineer from Mosul, said he had high expectations of Mr. Obama because his experience as a black man in America might give him more empathy for others who feel oppressed by a powerful West. “Blacks suffered a lot of discrimination, much like Arabs,” Mr. Kareem said. “That’s why we expect that his tenure will be much better.”

But Mr. Obama also frames the sometimes contradictory feelings Iraqis have about America as the withdrawal of troops has moved closer to the political mainstream in both countries. Already, the units brought in for the so-called surge last year have left, and the Bush administration has in recent days acknowledged the need both to transfer troops from Iraq to an ever-more-volatile Afghanistan and to recognize that a broader withdrawal is an “aspirational goal” for Iraqis.

Mr. Obama has advocated a withdrawal that would remove most combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Despite some fears about such a departure, that stance is not unpopular here. Many Iraqis hate American forces because soldiers have killed their relatives and friends, and they say they want the troops out.

“Of course I want the American forces to leave Iraq,” said May Adnan Yunis, whose sister was killed, along with a female and a male co-worker, when they were gunned down by American soldiers while driving to work at Baghdad International Airport three weeks ago. “I want them to go to hell.”

After the killings, a statement by the American military describing the three employees as “criminals” who shot at the soldiers inflamed Iraqi officials even more. In a rare public rebuke of the American military, the Iraqi armed forces general command described the American soldiers’ actions as crimes “committed in cold blood.”

For General Hiti, who commands a swath of western Baghdad, the American military is a necessary, if vexing, presence. He ticks off the ways it helps: evacuating wounded Iraqi soldiers, bringing in helicopters when things go wrong, defusing bombs, getting detailed pictures of areas from drone planes.

But the issue of withdrawal is immensely complex, and some of the functions mentioned by General Hiti would not be affected under Mr. Obama’s plan. The senator is calling for the withdrawal of combat brigades, but has said a residual force would still pursue extremist militants, protect American troops and train Iraqi security forces.

In negotiations on the future troop presence, both sides were initially focused on concluding a long-term security agreement. But the Iraqi government is now rejecting that and has focused solely on a temporary agreement to begin next year after the United Nations mandate that serves as the legal basis for the American military presence expires.

For weeks American officials had insisted that widespread Iraqi objections to the long-term pact were merely overheated words from Iraqi politicians. Now, they acknowledge that they underestimated Iraqis’ fears of acquiescing to what the Iraqis see as a colonial relationship that would allow American forces to indefinitely operate permanent bases under special laws.

“The Iraqis have a real political issue here,” said one American official, who said the Iraqis viewed any deal that would replicate the broad powers Americans now have “as a scarlet letter.”

But for some Iraqis the American presence remains the backbone of security in the neighborhood. Saidiya, a southern Baghdad district, was so brutalized by violence a year ago that a young Iraqi television reporter who fled thought he would never come back. But a telephone call from his father in December persuaded him to return. An American unit had planted itself in the district, helping chase away radicals. The family could go out shopping. They could drive their car to the gas station.

“The Americans paved the way for the Iraqi Army there,” said the young man, who married this year. “If they weren’t there, the Iraqi forces could not have taken control.” Even so, he agreed with Mr. Obama’s plan for a faster withdrawal. American forces “helped the Iraqi Army to get back its dignity,” he said. “They are qualified now.”

But Iraq is now a complex landscape. Some areas are subdued, and others are still racked by violence and calibrating troop presence will be tricky.

Falah al-Alousy is the director of an organization that runs a school in an area south of Baghdad that was controlled by religious extremists two years ago. Former insurgents turned against the militant group, but local authorities still rely heavily on Americans to keep the peace; the Iraqi Army, largely Shiite, is not allowed to patrol in the area, Mr. Alousy said.

“Al Qaeda would rearrange itself and come back, if the Americans withdraw,” he said. As for Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawal, “It’s just propaganda for an election.”

Most Iraqis dislike the fact that their country is occupied, but a few well-educated Iraqis who have traveled abroad say they would not oppose a permanent American military presence, something that Mr. Obama opposes. Saad Sultan, the Iraqi government official, said his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. “I have no problem to have a camp here,” he said. “I find it in Germany and that’s a strong country. Why not in Iraq?”

Thursday, January 17, 2008

When should the US get out of Iraq?

Below is a series of interviews by Terry Gross, in which she asks her guests when and how should the US get out of Iraq.  I think that Kanan Makiya gave the best answers.  I also like Journalist Lawrence Wright's response: we should get out of Iraq when the Iraqis want the US to leave, and Iraqis do want the US to leave, but not now.  Thanks Datta for sending me the link.

Iraq: What Next for the U.S.?

A Fresh Air Conversation

In this wide-ranging Fresh Air series on the future of the Iraq occupation, Terry Gross talks to military leaders, prominent Iraqis, journalists and policy analysts — asking when America should get out of Iraq and how we should go about doing it.

Ex-Diplomat Lawrence Wilkerson

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson was chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell; he became an outspoken critic of the Bush administration after leaving the State Department in January 2005.

'Weekly Standard' Editor William Kristol

Editor and cofounder of the conservative Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard, and an opinion columnist for The New York Times, William Kristol is a neoconservative voice on the Iraq war; he was among those who advocated for the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power before Sept. 11, 2001.

Author and Journalist Lawrence Wright

Lawrence Wright is an author, screenwriter, playwright and a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. He sits on the Council on Foreign Relations, and he won a Pulitzer Prize for his book The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 .

Iraqi Women's-Rights Activist Yanar Mohammed

Baghdad-born activist Yanar Mohammed directs the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq. She left Iraq in 1993, but since 2003, she has divided her time between her home country and her home in Canada. Mohammed's organization works to stop atrocities against Iraqi women and defend their rights; her activism has made her the target of death threats.

Defense Analyst Carl Conetta

Carl Conetta co-directs the Project on Defense Alternatives, a defense-policy think tank. Earlier, he was a research fellow at the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies; he served for three years as editor of their journal, Defense and Disarmament Alternatives, and of the Arms Control Reporter.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. John Nagl

Lt. Col. John Nagl commands the 1st Battalion, 34th Armor at Fort Riley, Kan. He served in Operation Desert Storm and was the operations officer of a tank battalion task force in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He helped author the Army's Counterinsurgency Field Manual.

Former Iraqi Official Ali A. Allawi

Ali Allawi served as minister of trade and minister of defense under the Interim Iraqi Governing Council from 2003 to '04, then was minister of finance in the Iraqi Transitional Government between 2005 and '06. He teaches at Oxford University and is author of The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace.

Former U.S. Ambassador Peter Galbraith

A former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and a senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Peter Galbraith is author of The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End .

Professor Kanan Makiya

Iraqi-born professor Kanan Makiya teaches Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at Brandeis University, outside Boston. He is one of the leading Arab intellectuals who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein; he also advised the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq.

Retired British Army Gen. Sir Michael Rose

Gen. Sir Michael Rose was best known as the commander of the U.N. Protection Force in Bosnia in the 1990s. In 2006, he called for the impeachment of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair for leading England into war in Iraq under false pretenses.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

When occupation is a good thing

In an excellent analogy to Iraq, Anand wrote about his fellow Bengalis in an email to me: "Bangladesh, an 89% Muslim majority country with 160 million people, frequently requests the temporary occupation of their country by US occupation troops to help with flooding and other national disasters (sometimes by tens of thousands of US occupation troops.)  At Bangladesh's request, the US navy and Marines are currently occupying the country to help with the national flooding disaster.  Bangladesh is a free democracy and the third largest majority Muslim country in the world. Does Bangladesh have the right to frequently request the occupation of their country by America and other nations? Are Bangladeshis dishonoring Islam or themselves by making this request? Has Bangladesh and its elected leaders dishonored and delegitimized itself (themselves) by their frequent actions? Should the Muslim Ulema attack and kill the Bangladeshi collaborators with foreign occupation? Should the international community assist the Bangladeshi resistance?"
 
I would much rather be occupied by Americans than terrorized by Al Qaeda or hardcore Baathists.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Sectarian War Prolongs the Occupation

Even leaders of the 'legitimate' resistance agree!

'For Zarqawi, the aim was to start a civil war. This would not only confound state-building but also weaken the Shia position and force the United States to leave Iraq withouta positive political outcome. In September 2005, after US and Iraqi troops launched a major offensive against insurgent forces along the Iraq-Syria border, Zarqawi retaliated with three days of mayhem, during which suicide bombings and assassinations killed and maimed hundreds of Shias, including clerics and government workers. The attacks were followed by a posting on an al-Qaeda-affiliated website that called for a "full-scale war on Shiites all over Iraq, whenever and wherever they are found."

Zarqawi's extremist posture also found reflection in the angry rejection of occupation and Shia empowerment by Iraq's Sunni clerics, especially those who gathered in the more militant and also broadly popular Association of Muslim Clerics (Hay'at al-Ulama al-Muslimin). The association was important in giving the insurgency religious sanction. In particular, some of its leaders, such as Ayyash al-Kubaisi, openly endorsed the insurgency as a legitimate jihad. The association also reflected the sectarian bias of the insurgency's Salafi sentinels. Some of its ulama had maintained ties with Saudi Arabia, from which they received financial and moral support. Some of the association's leaders who had recently returned to Iraq after the fall of Saddam, such as its spokesman, Muthanna Harith al-Dhari, who was also an important link between the association and the insurgency, had studied in the kingdom. These ulama favored Hanbali law, associated with Ibn Tayamiya and Wahhabism (and thus a strong anti-Shia posture), over the Hanfali law that has long been the traditional creed of Iraq's Sunni Arabs.

The Shia understood the rage and the roots of the violence that was perpetrated against them. As one Shia cleric put it, "The killers of today are the same killers as yesterday." Still, Shia leaders and their flock, victims and bystanders, all repeatedly chose to blame outsiders for the violence against them. It was almost as if there was great fear in identifying neighbors and countrymen as those responsible. But even if this were true, and if the Shia genuinely believed it, then the question would remain: Who were the outsiders? They were Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, and most of all Saudis - all Sunni extremists who had come to Iraq to fight Americans and kill Shias. Their national identity would cast them as outsiders to Iraq, but they were still Sunni Arabs. They shared Sunni religious, Arab ethnic, and in some cases even tribal identities with Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and shared a Salafi ideology that guided their actions.

The notion of insider and outsider had little meaning when broader identities such as Shia and Sunni, Arab and non-Arab were defining the conflict. This point was made clear by Ayatollah Ahmad al-Safi, a close aide of Ayatollah Sistani's and his representative in Kerbala. Safi reacted to the Kazemiya stampede by calling on the ulama of al-Azhar in Egypt - symbolizing the Sunni world - to break their "negative" silence and condemn the insurgency, just as he called on Shias to maintain their "positive" silence and refrain from responding in kind to the violence. Other Shia leaders more directly criticized the country's Sunni clerics for not forcefully denouncing the insurgency's anti-Shia violence.

When Zarqawi declared "full-scale war on Shiites," the association's Abu Bashir al-Tartousi objected, criticizing this brazen call to arms in a tract entitled "About Sectarian War in Iraq"25 Tartousi argued that Shia civilians did not bear responsibility for the actions of the Shia-led government or US forces and should not be the object of war. However, he prefaced his criticism by validating the general thrust of Zarqawi's sectarian rhetoric, saying that "although sectarian war in Iraq may have been provoked and sparked by the Shia, perceived to be major allies of the occupation forces; and although it is right of the Muslim mujahid [one who undertakes jihad] to defend himself, his honor, and his cities against the crusader invaders and whoever is allied with them, killing according to sectarian affiliation is not justified by Islamic Law." Tartousi saw the victims as responsible for the violence. The insurgents were justified in their anger at the Shia and should merely refrain from "taking justice into their own hands." It was a matter not of the Shia's guilt - Tartousi took that for granted - but of the kind of justice that they should face and from whom.

Tartousi was also less concerned with the morality of killing Shia civilians than with its implications for the success of the insurgency. He wrote in detail on this theme: "Sectarian war is [in] the crusader's interest, aimed at dividing the efforts of the mujahideen...[and] gives grounds for a longer occupation...and causes the legitimate Iraqi resistance to lose its credibility in the eyes of the Islamic world." Tartousi's argument was also reflected in the veiled criticism of Zarqawi by Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric, Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, who objected to sectarian war because it would "serve the aims of enemies conspiring against Islam." This hardly amounted to the kind of condemnation that the Shia had demanded from Sunni clerics.' --Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival

Thursday, February 22, 2007

"Iraq: Two Voices"

IraqPundit has just published a good post about two Iraqi women with very different views on the occupation.

Guess who this is: "You lost," the blogger tells America. "You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile."

Now, one could pause to footnote many of these assertions. Were all the people cheering the fall of Saddam really "imported, American-trained monkeys"? Who dubbed Saddam's botched execution as being America's "biggest accomplishment"? Weren't Iraq's current rulers elected by Iraqis? But we're not here to argue. Rather, let's bring on our contrasting voice.

It belongs to Jabria Jassim, an Iraqi-American who teaches in the Chicago area. Prof. Jassim recently spent time with family members in her native Baghdad, and has since written a description of what she saw and heard there. (I should note that I found Prof. Jassim's piece because it was recommended by none other than Juan Cole.)

"My heart aches," writes Prof. Jassim, "for all of the military and families who have become caught up in this fire of hate on behalf of my people. I know the media here [in the US] is doing a great job reflecting the hate of the insurgents and the terrorists toward the American troops. What they don’t show is the reality of millions of Iraqis praying to God to protect the soldiers who are fighting for their freedoms from the clutches of these ruthless criminals and murderers.

"Believe me," she continues, "I was there when people in my neighborhood were happily spreading the good news and congratulating each other when America troops kicked off doors in the Haifa neighborhood, one of the safe-havens for terrorists. The operation lasted a whole day. I, myself, wanted to hug the soldiers and convey to them the gratitude of the Iraqis; but it was impossible to even leave the house that day."

Thursday, February 15, 2007

No Violence = No Occupation

Proof that most US troops would have been out of Iraq by now had the 'resistance' not been so violent. The 'resistance' should have listened to Sistani.

Iraq war plan projected just 5,000 US troops in 2006

Mike Sheehan
Published: Thursday February 15, 2007

Newly obtained documents reveal that U.S. war planners expected only a small number of American troops would remain in Iraq by the end of 2006.

Meeting slides prepared by Central Command for a White House briefing in 2002 show CentCom's projection that "the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006," Joyce Battle and Thomas Blanton write for the National Security Archive.

The Associated Press reported that about 140,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq by early December 2006.