Comments on Informed Comment: Over 55 Killed, Including 25 in Sadr City Bombings...

I don't think it follows that the Ba'athists want ...

2006-07-11T20:33:00.000-04:00

I don't think it follows that the Ba'athists want a civil war to kick the US out and put them back in. If they're responsible for the insecurity, is anyone going to trust them for security? I blame the worsening situation on a number of other factors, like the various groups jockeying for control and each reprising the other.

You keep repeating that belief as to the Ba'athist strategy, but I'd really like to see some proof or explanation of it. Is it mentioned in their communiques or their English and Arabic videos online?

"I don't know how the US expects the Iraqis to acc...

2006-07-11T15:05:00.000-04:00

"I don't know how the US expects the Iraqis to accomplish anything if they don't have any better equipment than the guerrillas."

They don't expect them to, and that is the whole point of not doing it. Time to wake up and smell the coffee of what the Bush administration has planned of Iraq.

"Iraq will ask the United Nations to remove the im...

2006-07-11T14:16:00.000-04:00

"Iraq will ask the United Nations to remove the immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts now enjoyed by US troops in Iraq."

I wonder if the US will threaten to remove monetary aid to Iraq if the USMIL is not allowed to run carte blanche. God knows holding money and aid as a tactic was used on several different countries in the run-up to war in Iraq, as the US attempted to undermine the power of ICC. With no immunity, will Pentagon officials finally be compelled to hold themselves and their subordinates to an international standard the US essentially proclaims it already upholds?

Perhaps one of the outcomes of removing USMIL immunity will surface in the form of a more stabilized Iraq. If the accusations prove true that members of the USMIL raped and murdered a little girl and her family and then tried to blame it on "terrorists" -one must at least entertain the idea of just how many of these seemingly mindless assaults against the Iraqi people are being conducted by the US foot soldier and subsequently blamed on the Iraqi population.

In the meantime, female Army soldier, Army Specialist Suzanne Swift, claimed her AWOL was because her "...superiors repeatedly sexually harassed her while serving in Iraq...." (command rape)

Women and African-American soldiers show the highest drop in enlistment and re-enlistment over the last five years.

There is a call for more "cultural sensitivity" if the US and its military intends to "win" its wars. Perhaps the best way to obtain "cultural sensitivity" is by first examining the "culture" of the military institution (which is certainly touted as a representative of US "culture" as a whole).

Where are the "real military men"? Even the poster boy of American Militarism, John McCain -right up to his 2000 election- referred to the Vietnamese as "Gooks".

If you think Al-Zarqawi was anything but a Pentago...

2006-07-11T14:04:00.000-04:00

If you think Al-Zarqawi was anything but a Pentagon psy-ops phantasm, you have no legitimacy. "Al-Queda in Iraq?" Piffle.

Appreciate your including the Jordanian poll. One ...

2006-07-11T10:15:00.000-04:00

Appreciate your including the Jordanian poll. One of my main learnings from a recent trip to the region was the extent of the pressures generated on Jordan trying to get by between Israel/Palestine and occupied Iraq. Jordanians are close to their wits end about the developing Iraqi refugee crisis which seems unlikely to abate as long as the U.S. stays and the civil war gets hotter. The Jordanians we talked with were pessimistic about Iraqis solving their internal differences as long as the U.S. remained -- and pessimistic in general.

"David Kaiser has some sobering thoughts about the...

2006-07-11T07:46:00.000-04:00

"David Kaiser has some sobering thoughts about the likely consequences of a US strike on Iran...." (re: Hersh article in the current New Yorker)

A protracted military disaster in Iran starting in Sept-Oct would give the Bushists a "new-war" boost in the mid-term elections and a possible "state of emergency" scenario for postponing/canceling/suspending the 08 Pres. elections if their chances look bad... I put nothing beyond these people...and...I hope I'm completely wrong!

"the prospect of any genuine pan-Islamic union aga...

2006-07-11T06:58:00.000-04:00

"the prospect of any genuine pan-Islamic union against the US military presence has receded enormously in the past two years since I broached the possibility. The guerrilla movement, which is mainly led by secular Arab nationalists, ex-Baathists or post-Baathists in the main, has been trying to set Sunnis and Shiites at each other's throats as a way of making the country ungovernable and forcing the US out. They seem to be on track to succeed in the former, at least. They won't like their success."

Indeed. But surely it was the Sunni islamist section of the resistance, epitomised by Zarqawi, that led the way in attacking Shia targets, as far as we know, rather than the secular nationalists? To what extent, if at all, do you think the US has been complicit in this (ie in the sectarian terrorism element of the Sunni resistance)?

From the remarkably convenient timing of Zarqawi's death, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the US could have killed him beforehand, but allowed him to continue because his actions suited them.

Against this, you could argue that the US wanted Iraq to settle down for US political reasons (or, if you are particularly naive, so that they could "go home"), and that the goal of "making Iraq ungovernable" was indeed, as you have it here, a guerilla objective and not a US one.

However, against this are two points. First, we know that al Qaeda disliked Zarqawi's sectarian approach (rightly, imo, from their point of view). Secondly, the greatest threat to the US presence was always a pan-Islamic (or at least, pan-Arab Sunni and Shia) resistance. This would also have suited the secular nationalists, who presumably believed that once the US had been driven out they would have a much better chance of regaining power - precisely why Sistani has (in effect) collaborated with the US occupation. There was a period in 2004 when it looked as though this might come about, between the Mahdi Army and the Sunni resistance.

Is your faith in the US regime sufficient to rule out that they might have allowed or even assisted a campaign of sectarian terrorism to destroy this possibility? Mine isn't, based upon the history of past US counter-insurgency campaigns.

However, actual evidence is lacking. Probably we will never know the truth.