The implication here is that it would do the same for the Shiite groups. Thus all sectarian “groups” would become part of one security force/army etc. Is this what you think is possible? Would the US allow it to happen in any other way. It would seem there is no chance for unity doing it any other way.

In fact al-Maliki has said he plannes to disband all militias.

Not only have I not heard Maliki call for the disbandment of ALL militia's..............with the real power of the central government, a call for that has all the relativity of Miss America calling for world peace.

I don't believe that a 'folding in' of these disparate militia's into the ISF would be a workable plan no matter who governs the IZ. The Sunni CLC's represent a semi-legitimate and armed threat to Shia power. The central government will continue to resist the US calls to incorporate them into the ISF, and will continue to marginalize them.

You may “not have heard” but he has been saying it since 2006. The real question is when/if it will ever get done.
http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2...vernment711.htm
He added that the groups would also not be allowed to have any infrastructure, such as a headquarters building, that would give them long-term legitimacy.
"We absolutely reject that," al-Obaidi said.
The government has pledged to absorb about a quarter of the men into the predominantly Shiite-controlled security services and military, and provide vocational training so that the rest can find jobs. Integration would also allow Sunnis to regain lost influence in the key defense and interior ministries.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/22/1...nd-sunni-groups

The Surge in Baghdad was a great idea,on paper.It sounded great,more troops quickly to end the war faster,but it didn't end the war faster.All it acomplished was rasing American casulties.We need to pull the Surge troops out because obviously it didn't work.They haven't made progress any quicker than the original troops.

The surge will continue to work because Al Sadr extended his cease fire.

However, now that neighborhoods have cement walls separating them from each other with heavily guarded checkpoints, the recent sharp rise in casualties will require a new public relations solution.

I wouldn't be so sure that the extension is any kind of panacea, the JAM Special Groups have already increased their attacks in defiance of the surge. And threat reporting indicates an possible resurgence of AQI and other Sunni groups in Baghdad with the US facilitated and paid for Sunni control of many neighborhoods. They've already attacked Shia pilgrims observing Ara'been.

But your assumption is correct I believe, that the public relations machine will have to work ever harder to prop up the administrations line that the surge was a success.

According to this article, it's not going to matter. When I got finished reading this article, I felt a little stick to my stomach - literally. DTOM, maybe you could point out some inconsistencies or half truths in this article because I can't believe this is true.

Basically, they say the neighborhoods that used to haven for Al Qaida (a term used loosely in Iraq as a "scare word") are clear and more peaceful because basically, we've bombed them back to the stone age and those areas are uninhabitable.

But the party of principle - the party of limited government - the party of fiscal responsibility - is basically handing out cash by the truck loads to purchase as much peace as they can. They are paying our enemies not to fight us while we slip into a recession here at home.

But even now, this is starting to unravel. We've bought as much peace as possible, the government does not exist outside the green zone, and the factions are growing more restless. The violence is increasing. If the surge has been successful, how is that possible?

I would if I found any. I hadn’t seen this article, thanks for sharing it. It was especially interesting, because it talked about my slice of Baghdad. In all, I didn’t find any inconsistencies whatsoever and would hope it gets a wide audience, especially among our more fervent war supporters.

Rolling Stone summed up the entire situation better than I have, when on page 2 the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia wrote: “We are essentially supporting a quasi-feudal devolution of authority to armed enclaves, which exist at the expense of central government authority. Those we are arming and training are arming and training themselves not to facilitate our objectives but to pursue their own objectives vis-a-vis other Iraqis. It means that the sectarian and ethnic conflicts that are now suppressed are likely to burst out with even greater ferocity in the future."

The entire article goes on to highlight the problems that I have been talking about for months. Armed conflict between the Iraqi Security Forces which are Shia dominated and Sunni ‘Concerned Local Citizens’ now known as Son’s of Iraq (SoI). The ISF are our ‘allies’ due to the Shia dominated central government, but many are pursuing their true allegiance in Badr or JAM. The SoI’s are our ‘allies’ as long as we continue to prop up their footholds in Baghdad and as long as we continue to pay them. But many are pursuing their own agenda by maintaining an armed presence to protect their neighborhoods from Shia, and many are indeed AQI members or sympathizers. It’s amazing how fast some insurgents can go from ‘terrorists’ or ‘evil-doer’s’ to ‘standing with us’. I understand how propaganda works, but it’s especially humorous when it has absolutely no depth whatsoever.

We have imposed the ‘Baghdad Security Plan’ on the Iraqi’s, which translates into a maze of concrete walls that virtually lock residents in their neighborhoods, save a few passages. The unintended consequences of this security plan are that it inhibits any sense of security at all. The avenues of travel are now channelized to such an extent that traffic backs up, creating logistical and security nightmares at checkpoints; the barriers give more cover to insurgents (Sunni insurgents simply lobbed hand grenades over a wall to kill Shia pilgrims just a couple days ago); and it has actually expanded the real estate that can be used to plant IED’s. The latest technique is to bore through the concrete from the non street side, allowing a thin veneer to conceal them, or to place them on top where they are angled to hit the more vulnerable top of vehicles.

The concrete maze also continues to enable the war zone mindset. It’s awfully hard to drive around Baghdad and think that the surge was a success. Some individual neighborhoods have markets that flourish, but a primary reason for that is the homogeneous nature of that area.

As I wrote in another thread, ALL of the Iraqi’s that I talk with believe that the US presence is the focal point of the violence in Iraq. They see a sorting out between Shia and Sunni as inevitable, and the US presence is only prolonging that from occurring, not preventing it. The case can be made in their eyes [and I tend to agree] that we are causing more Iraqi casualties by staying.

In other propaganda, the oft touted De-Ba’athification Bill, one passed benchmark of many that are not, could actually make things worse. Many mid-level civil servants will be forced out of work, and the National Police Commander of the Baghdad Security District would be forced to resign, if the bill is enforced. The potential of sectarian abuse is huge.

So for my part, post-surge and as I pack my gear to leave Iraq, I am left with this question: How have we positively influenced events in Iraq? Assuming as I do that we should not have invaded to begin with, but since we are here, what positive actions have occurred here since I came to Baghdad? Are Iraqi’s any more free? Not really. Are Iraqi’s any more secure? Not really. Has democracy been advanced? Not a chance.

As I prepare to retire this fall, my career is not ending on the positive note that I had hoped for. Some of my last memories of being a Soldier will be explosions, deaths of my brothers, killing Iraqi’s who were my enemy for no other reason than I was occupying their nation and time separated from my little girls. My personal cost-benefit analysis makes this episode fall catastrophically short, as does the national cost-benefit analysis.

Sorry if I rambled, posting here is one of the few ways I find any catharsis.

Good article! I hadn't seen it though I've followed Nir Rosen throughout the war. He is an independent journalist who tells it like it is at great risk to his own personal safety. One can't help but conclude that the Administration's sole aim (with corporate media assistance) is to hold things together long enough for them to explode in face of the next President. They may not be so fortunate!

I have always thought that this was the real barometer of progress, or the potential of it. If most Iraqi's believe we are there for good, then we could achieve success (by whatever definition). If most Iraqi's don't believe that, then success becomes near impossible. If, as you say, almost ALL Iraqi's think we should go, then they'd all need to convinced otherwise for there to be a chance of success. The whole 'hearts and minds' thing. This is probably made even more important in a country such as Iraq where sectarian violence has been the norm for millenia.



<sigh> So, basically, no one in government there has either learned anything from past mistakes, or they simply don't care and are pursuing their own agendas, further backing up your point above.

Allow me to clarify. Literally every Iraqi that I talk with, to a person, believes that for peace to ever come to Iraq, the US and any other western power has to leave. I am sure that there are Iraqi's who wish us to stay. But if I was a pollster, the results of my sampling would be unanimous.

When you say “they” who do you mean. Clearly if we pull out one side – Shia, will dominate and in fact can suspend the gains made in oil sharing or anything else and just take dictatorial control. So who is the”they” you talk to who think it will be all peachy if we just pull out since we are the "focal point of the violence".

We may be the focal point but certainly not the reason for the violence. imo pulling out will allow for vastly increased violence - not less.

Yes Ted, we are the reason the violence continues. Just as we are the reason AQ is in Iraq.

As I wrote earlier, the Iraqi's that speak with see a sorting out between Shia and Sunni as inevitable, and the US presence is only prolonging that from occurring, not preventing it. They believe that we are causing more Iraqi casualties by staying. Violence and casualties will increase when we pull out, but the consensus that I have found is that this will occur no matter when we pull out.

I have dealings with both Shia and Sunni, and while they agree on little else, they agree on this point.

Certainly not the prevailing view that I see on TV with interviews of leaders in the provinces – esp. Sunni leaders.

Ted, that's because the Sunni Awakening bloc is playing both sides. They want us to stay longer than the Shia do, because they're the minority group and they're trying to consolidate their power for the inevitable struggle. As I've been saying all along, they are still insurgents:

Nevertheless, by the end of 2007 it had become clear the Sahwa were dominated in many places by the Sunni insurgent groups, and US specialists were openly acknowledging it. The 1920 Revolution Brigades, a major Sunni armed resistance organization, is the primary element in the Sahwa in Diyala province as well as in parts of al-Anbar province. One commander of the Brigades, Abu Marouf, brought 13,000 of his fighters into the Sahwa in Anbar. His background as an insurgent commander is well known locally but has never been acknowledged by US officials.

Meanwhile, the 1920 Revolution Brigades also continues to wage war against US forces. In March 2007, it announced the creation of two separate military "corps", one of which, the "Iraqi Hamas", was clearly intended to continue military operations against the US in Diyala and other Sunni provinces.
Link

Does it make you feel all warm and patriotic inside to know that we pay the salaries of the very enemies that continue to fight against us?

Any chance you could let us know where we can find those interviews with leaders in these provinces you referred to? Anything on YouTube?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/07/...-Iraq-Anbar.php

An interesting article Ted. Where can I find these interviews on TV you saw with them stating these views themselves?

Have no clue. I saw them on FOX – which I presume you do not watch. Is the printed word not good enough for you? Certainly if you are interested you could look it up further.

Just the fact that Al Qaeda is getting their butts kicked in Anbar where they once had major influence tells us a lot doesn’t it.

You presume wrong. Fox is the first channel I turn on when I get home from work or when I get out of bed on the weekends. I watch Brit Hume's show everyday and FOX all morning on Saturdays.

Ted, I'm a limited government, fiscally conservative, pro-life republican who did his time in the USMC. I have more in common with conservative values than you do any day of the week. So, it should be no surprise to you that not only do I watch FOX, I listen to Rush from 12 to 3 everyday and listen to Sean Hannity from 3 until 5:30 everyday as well. My conservative principles are different from yours - I have them, you don't.

So, please explain these multiple TV shows you saw. Just tell me enough about them in detail and I'll do a search for them on YouTube or wherever.

Ted, do you ever attempt to interject any sort of context in your thoughts before you post them? You're a drive by poster.....you throw a molotov and a link and leave.

What Anbar tells us is that AQI was pushed out of a region that due to geography and AQI's menacing of the Sunni clans, was unsustainable for insurgent operations. If AQI were getting 'their butts kicked', there likely wouldn't be that pesky rise in suicide attacks by AQI.

Clearly we know AQI Iraq has lost their foothold in Anbar and other provinces. Certainly they have not given up and will continue to wire up anyone willing to die and some unknowing incompetent women. IMO their power in Iraq is greatly diminished.

Ted, do you have any idea of what's left of Anbar? The place is uninhabitable for most people because it's been practically leveled. Your claim is like saying the Japanese army lost their foothold in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the the war in the Pacific.

Is there something you can add that is factual instead of a talking point?

You want to post something but one liners with no backup? What you are saying is not accurate – even last year.


http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001517.html


“For most of the last five years, parts of route Michigan have been completely closed, which is understandable since it was arguably the most dangerous strip of asphalt on the planet. Later, it was a "coalition only" lane - a tactic used to separate military and civilian traffic, hopefully reducing the number of cars that disappeared into flaming clouds of death next to American convoys. This was only somewhat effective, however, because while the bad guys might be cowards, they aren't stupid. They adapted their tactics to keep on killing.
But then the surge happened. And as Erick Stakelbeck reported yesterday , things have improved markedly. Nowhere has this progress been more apparent than Anbar, which has gotten so much better that Marines are now pulling out of bases there.”

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/328937.aspx

Ted, nobody here is arguing that AQI had been pushed out of Anbar, by and large. What has been and is continuing to be argued, is how much of a success and what impact it has had on overall operations in Iraq.

I can understand why Republicans latch onto Anbar as a symbol of success. There’s been precious little else to cheer about. And it’s great that Anbar is far quieter than it once was, but pro-troop rah-rah’ing aside, it was due in larger part to the fact that Anbar is not geographically suitable for long term insurgent operations Basic military science. It is also due to the very real fact that AQI’s attempt to subjugate the Sunni clans in the region inspired them to rise against AQI and create the ‘Awakening’ movement.

I am continually amazed at how basic facts and common sense are pushed aside for partisan rhetoric.

It is more then one Province in Iraq. Who would have ever dreamed Fallujah would be peaceful.

AND political progress at the central level is being made – finally.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/200...i_politic_4.php


http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/...date/Handovers/

http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-englis...s0.6973993.html

http://jewishpoliticalchronicle.org/jan06/Our%20troops.pdf

Thought I'd link to this on this thread, since it seems topic-related. Here is the most recent Iraq opinion poll, for those interested.

Edited to add: Washington post article describing what is happening in Sadr City. Iraqi units hang back and let the Americans do the hard fighting. It's an old story, no? Wonder how many times our troops will have to relive it....

The antiwar libertarian, Justin Raimondo, posted a column trying to make sense out of why the US has consistently supported the most pro Iranian factions over the more nationalistic ones. (See Justin Raimondo)



And quoting from his own earlier column,



I have not quite reached this level of cynicism but do wish someone would explain why we are backing Iranian allies while threatening Iran and attacking nationalists who want our troops to go home?

I doubt any Iraq war supporter will give you any explanation. It would cause their entire argument about Iraq and democracy to go into a tailspin. Meanwhile Bush gives a speech in Dayton, Ohio......and says that Iraq is returning to 'normalcy'. Those words highlight exactly what kind of intellect and proaganda we're dealing with here.

Meanwhile in 'normal' Iraq, Iraqi police are walking off of the job, in some cases merely taking their weapons to the side that they always had loyalty to, MAS. In other parts of Bahgdad, Iraqi Army checkpoints are being overrun by JAM fighters, and ironically this is giving AQI a chance to regroup and refit.

Once again, Bush moved the goalposts.

The surge was supposed to be a means to an end. The Iraqis said they couldn't move forward politically because security was so bad. So, they've had that security over the past few months. It was the best security money could buy. And as usual, the Iraqis did nothing. The Iraqis refuse to defend or govern themselves and no matter how much you cross your fingers, hold your breath, and stomp your feet, it's not going to happen.

These people in the middle east have been acting like uncivilized thugs for 8000 years. Violence is the answer to their problems much like money is the answer to ours. It's pretty pretentious to believe we will somehow reverse thousand of years of ideology in our lifetime. And it's absurd to think we can force them into western ideals. It's no accident that dictators rule the countries in that area.

So, since nothing was done during this period of reduced violence, security became the goal instead of the means to reconciliation. Once again, we are oh-for-five years in getting things right. And if you want to know why, you really need to view the Frontline: Bush's War series to understand it. It doesn't matter what type of information Bush has at his disposal, he will go with his gut. And not once has his "gut" ever been right. This has been pointed out before Bush even got elected. He's been the skipper of the U.S.S. Failboat in every venture he's ever been involved in. When the CIA and Pentagon warned Bush of all the things that are happening now regarding Iraq, Bush ignored those warnings and went with the idealogical beliefs of Cheney and himself - trumping all the resources he had at his disposal. This is clearly criminal negligence. There's a difference between getting some things wrong and getting all things wrong. You can't accidentally get it all wrong.

So, the success of the surge has been labeled the victory as if political reconciliation would have been a bonus. What other play do we have now? Throw more money and lives at the problem to make it go away? Dig into the bucket of hope and see how much is left?

I don't know anyone that wants us to fail in Iraq - none. But if you are not going to "win" with overwhelming force, get out. If these 4,000 lives and trillions of dollars would have been lost entirely in Afghanistan, anti-war protesters would be a fringe element. Most American are willing to make the sacrifices to defend ourselves from the people who attacked us and have shown their ability to export terrorism. In fact, if Bush would have instituted a draft to meet the challenges in Afghanistan, he would have had an easy time doing it.

Our only role in Iraq is to provide enough money - our tax dollars - to purchase as much stability as possible. Nothing else is being done to secure Iraq in a long term sense. Now, we are rapidly running out of resources. We are printing money as fast as we can to pay for a war that is helping to devalue our dollar. We are running out of troops because we can't replenish what we have even after lowering the standards to what some would believe is a dangerous level.

This is the post-surge era. Iraq is fracturing and Bush calls this "normal". This statement will join the ranks of "last throes", "dead enders", and "mission accomplished". And to his supporters, just another small thing Bush got wrong.

Is the surge working?
Yes. The surge was supposed to give lawmakers breathing room to reconcile. They have.

McClatchy reports lawmakers spent the weekend in Iran's holy Qom city, where Sadr is taking up religious classes. The Iraqi delegation went there to get the support of Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani (Qods Force commander). As an intermediary (no small honor in the Middle East) Suleimani signed an agreement with Sadr to halt military operations in Iraq.

Maliki has said there won't be negotiations, but he's probably saying that for our benefit and doesn't mean it.

Just a reminder: QF has been designated a terrorist organization.

Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?
Yes, until Iraq becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran with our help.

This battle with and between Shiite militia was bound to happen and it looks like the fighting has ended for the time being. The Iraqi government has at least shown it can take on the factions and if they fail to bring this to a conclusuin over the next few months Maliki will be in deep ……..

Obviously Iran wants to foment as much turmoil as possible to help install Obama rather than McCain.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/...d047627687.html

Sadr is far smarter than the administration gives him credit for. With a word about defending themselves, his Jaysh Al-Mahdi nearly seized the strategic city of Basra and a large portion of Baghdad, and with another word.........they pull back and wait, intact. He flexed his muscle and reminded everyone who wields power in Iraq.

Without US intervention, Basra would have fallen.



Since they're either 'with us or against us'..........Bush should designate the Iraqi Ministry of Interior / Badr as a terrorist organization also.

No doubt – and this is exactly why we need to stay and push this government to make the accommodations necessary to bring all factions together – and failing that have the power to crush them if they want to play hardball.

And yes they need the US to help do this for some time to come.

Ted, by advocating the propping up of a pro-Iranian [some would argue Iranian vassal] government against Iraqi nationalists, and if you consider Iran to be the 'enemy'........aren't you guilty of advocating a treasonous foreign policy? Do the virtue's of self determination and liberty that our nation was founded on [but sadly fails to offer it's own citizens anymore] not extend the the citizens of other nations who we have invaded and occupied in the name of freedom and democracy?

Just as in foreign debacles of the past, you would support the corrupt, puppet government of occupation instead of the will of the people.........how democratic....

Did you read Lesly's link right above yours? Iran is apparently largely responsible for the ceasefire. I'm sure Iran wants us to go as soon as possible. I can't blame them, I wouldn't want to see Iranian planes making flight patterns along our borders like we do to them. It's one thing Iran, the majority of Iraq, and the majority of Americans seem to be pretty much in agreement on.



You realize that we are only there at the behest of the Iraqi government, and they can withdraw that approval at any time? They probably won't as long as we pay off the militias not to fight, and take out politically inconvenient targets for them, but not if we push them. And attempting to 'crush' the government that we've publicly claimed sovereign and legitimate (again and again and again) certainly wouldn't bode well for our future in the ME (or anywhere else in the world). We would annihilate our economy by playing that sort of game and you've already mentioned that you think our economy is worth just about any cost.

Makes sense since they are no doubt responsible for the violence as well.. Little doubt they are testing the Iraqi government to see wat they can get away with Certainly that faction would have loved to hold Basra.



What I meant here is that the Shiite factions are probing, with encouragement from Iran, to take control of areas of Iraq. If the Iraqi government allows this and asks us to leave the ball game is over.

I don’t see that happening. If it does the country immediately descends into chaos as the Sunnis and other Shiite factions go to war. Certainly if Maliki is to preserve his “representative” government he cannot allow any faction to take military control or Basra or any other area. He has moved against the militia and they have backed down – the other shoe should drop soon. Either they disarm as demanded or ………………………….

You missed the point of the last week's events. Maliki launched an operation to prosecute 28 targets in the Basra province. Sadr in response, flexed and proved who wielded more power in Iraq. Jaysh Al-Mahdi will not disarm.

I would say JAM will be running the country soon, one way or the other, whether we leave or not DTOM, does that sound about right from your POV? With his refusal to disarm, but "pulling his fighters out of the streets" while holding off the Iraqi advance- I think he did a pretty bang up job of (unfortunately) of showing the nation who is in control.

Will Maliki even survive an Ameircan withdrawal, In your honest opinion DTOM

Correct. And JAM is still out there and able to strike elsewhere. If maliki releases his people now it will be a major blunder.

Some say this is the first skirmish in preparation for the Provincial elections this year and Sadr won this round – what do you think?

The political situation as a whole, and the latest confrontation present interesting dynamics, that unless fully understood, will lead to continued ignorance by the GoI, the Bush administration and its supporters.

The Maliki decision to prosecute Sadarist targets in Basra is derived largely from the fact that provincial elections have finally been approved by the Iraqi CoR. Maliki’s Dawa Party, with support from the ISCI and Badr; stand to lose by a landslide in the southern provinces, which heavily favor Sadr and Sistani as spiritual leaders. Thus, the Sadarist’s would gain immeasurable control of the GoI due to those elections, and would probably re-seat its delegates after the walkout last fall.

So in essence, Maliki’s decision is political in nature. And this is what Americans are dying for, to prop up political power struggles between armed camps.

Iran is actively playing both sides against each other to promote an atmosphere of controlled violence and chaos that in their hopes will persuade the Americans that any further military endeavors in the Persian Gulf region will be fruitless. Regardless of the outcome, Iran will emerge as the winner. Nothing we do in Iraq will change that. As I’ve posted before, supporting the ruling Dawa Party and its affiliated Badr Organization, is supporting the Government of Iran. Supporting Jaysh Al-Mahdi is supporting the Government of Iran. The Sunni’s by and large refer to the Shia as ‘Iranians’. Only the truly blissfully ignorant believe that Iran is the enemy of the current Iraq, and that by propping up the ineffective central government, we are taking a stand against Iranian influence. Nothing is further from the truth.

Sadr has issued a 9 point plan for cessation of hostilities:

Based on my responsibility and to avoid shedding the sacred Iraqi blood, and to maintain the reputation of the Iraqi People and its unity and to prepare for its liberation and freedom from all armies of darkness, and in order to turn off the fire of discord between Iraqis that the occupier wants to ignites between all faithful people of Iraq Therefore I call upon all Iraqis to be responsible for stopping the Iraqi blood shed to keep Iraq and its nation safe.

The following has been decided:

1. Ceasing all armed appearances in the streets in Basra and all other provinces.
2. Stopping all indiscriminate and random raids and arrest campaigns,
3. Requesting the GoI to implement the amnesty law and the release of all detainees who were not proven guilty especially those from the Sadr Trend.
4. I disavow all those who carry weapons targeting the Security forces, the governmental offices, Service offices, and headquarters of political parties.
5. Cooperating with the ISF and the governmental entities in enforcing the law and denouncing the criminals according to legal means.
6. We confirm and emphasize that the Sadr trend does not possess any heavy arms.
7. Working to return all those who were displaced from their homes due to the recent security operations back to their homes.
8. We ask the GoI to respect all Human Rights in all of its measures.
9. Working to complete Essential Services projects and reconstruction plans in all provinces.

But the GoI is unlikely to concede to Sadr’s demand of releasing all JAM detainees who have not yet been charged, nor especially the expulsion of American forces from Iraq. Sadr’s offer to lay down arms is likely meant to portray himself as the populist committed to the welfare of not only the people of Basra, but also of Iraq, while providing him a degree of plausible deniability..…this is an attempt to improve his image internationally as well.

Meanwhile, Maliki publicly stated that “Jam was worse than Al Qaeda”. Additionally, in the spirit of vague statements issued by Sadr, Hasan al-Zarqani (Sadrist Foreign Affairs Committee) stated “There is a mix up with Sadr’s message; weapons are only to be handed over to a government that contributes to remove the occupation.”

And this is what we're dying for.

Here is a commentary from The Nation pointing out the humiliation of both the Maliki Government and the Bush Administration from recent events in Basra and elswhere in Iraq.

.

Which cannot sduceed in a representative government where all get to vote. Yes the Shiits have a majority and yes some are aligned with Iran but they are factions and cannot even agree among themselves – whereas the Sunni’s are more “together” and can be a balance to the Shiite factions and Iran.

Unless the constitution goes down the drain in bloody conflict the country can still move forward. That is precisely why we need to stay to insure no “faction” can size power – especially one that is closely tied with Iran.

Ted, the Shia [the 'Iranians'] control the GoI. Whether they be Badr, ISCI or JAM....the Sunni bloc in the GoI is small and ineffectual. What more needs to happen to convince you that we are propping up an Iranian proxy? Why do you support the very entity that this administration claims is an enemy and in the axis of evil?

HERE is the Senate testimony of retired General William Odum on the subject of the failed surge and need for rapid withdrawal. General Odums was Director of the National Security Agency under Reagan. (See this Wikipedia bibliography).

DTOM
A hell of a lot. The thugs fighting for control are not the “people” of Iraq which I don’t believ have any love for Iran. The Shiites are not a monolith as you know and the Sunnis make up 40% of the population. Hardly small.

Iran will never “control” a free Iraq – ever. If we leave they certainly will – as they have said “fill the vacuum”.

That is reason enough to stay and make sure it never happens.

Well Ted, I'm waiting for your evidence that the GoI is not heavily influenced by Iran, and that the Ministry of Interior is not part and parcel [including the Minister] of the Badr Organization, which until 2003 was one of four subordinate commands of the IRGC-Quds Force, who has been labeled by this administration as a 'terrorist organization'.

I'm sure you know of course that the Iraqi Police and the National Police are part of the Ministry of Interior. So what exactly [besides cartoonish Bush Administration propaganda] leads you to believe that Iran has not already filled the vacuum? Since Iraq is not currently 'free', it's hard to disprove one of your statements, but then again, you have consistantly failed to prove it.

Your countrymen are dying and being maimed to prop up a regime that is far more beholdened to a nation that has been labeled as our 'enemy'. Why don't you support the troops Ted?

Influence is not control and you know it. 40% of the population is not going to let Iraq become a “client state” of Iran even if every single Shiite loved Iran – which is also not the case.

Since Iraq is not currently 'free', it's hard to disprove one of your statements, but then again, you have consistently failed to prove it.

Iraq is one hell of a lot “more free” than Iran and I believe Iraqi’s know it. You forget that the majority is not part of the gangs and thugs now fighting each other and that GoI has the potential to not only represent all Iraqi’s but to put an end to the gangs. They are heading in that direction imo.

I will say it for the last time – our strongest self interest in the world today is in the Middle East and if we leave we are fools. IMO not one of the candidates including Obama will run from Iraq – not one.

So I can mark you down as not supporting the troops? Your delineation between influence and control is only as pertinent as your belief in the administration.

If the Sunni population will not allow Iraq to become more of a client state than it already is, that negates your previous statement that your fear will be realized if we pull out of Iraq.

You can say all that you want 'for the last time', I care not a whit for what the mainstream front runners will or will not do; I'm not voting for them. I care for what is right; I care for my brothers not dying as actors in a political charade.

I have no doubt that you will disregard any advise from me, but I would suggest educating yourself on the geo-politics, demographics and current situation on the ground. That would of course mean disregarding the propaganda from George "things are returning to normal in Iraq" Bush.

If America can't control Iraq, what makes you think Iran will be able to, if we leave? Don't they hate each other? The only reason Iran is making any headway with Iraqis is because Iraqis resent our presence there even more.

Besides, it's impossible to prop up a government that has neither the support of their own people nor the goons to bully them into submission. Has it ever worked?