Comments on: Iraqi PM Appeals For Reconciliation

But Bloodshed Surges, Raising Bagdad's Death Toll To 180 In 4 Days

[cbsnuser]

First there's the Baghdad Security Plan with 3 parts: 1) stabilizing Baghdad zone by zone 2) continuing to disrupt support zones; and 3) enabling civic action and economic development.

The first 2 parts are primarily military although the first involves reevaluation and retraining of the police force, and the targets confronted increasingly emphasize "sectarian extremists" than diminished al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The third part is about how after a neighborhood is secured, a sufficient force will be left in place, having a plan to support economic revitalization.

At the same time there is a larger program for National Reconciliation that Maliki's government wants to help get started, in a couple ways.

1)By helping Sunni and Shiite forces come to political understanding, INCLUDING those currently with unauthorized forces INVOLVED in sectarian conflict. (Some groups signed an agreement to swear off violence, some said they would not protect their members who participated)
2) By getting Sunni and Shiite religious leaders to come to a moral agreement to ban and delegitmize the sectarian killings.

Longer term plans are to get insurgents and militias to lay down arms by demobilizing unauthorized groups and reviewing the de-Baathification plan to reconcile those who did not commit crimes.

[cbsnuser]

It seems irresponsible of CBS to take the quote by Zalmay Khalilizad, US Envoy in Iraq, completely out of the context of his 8-23-06 op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal. Your article leaves the impression that Khalilizad's "Battle of Baghdad" is just the military redeployment of 12,000 American troops to Baghdad in support of Iraqi security forces, or that the recent successes that Gen Abizaid and Gen. Casey list are all the result of a military "crackdown". Part of the news in CBS's article seems to be of skepticism that the General's are once again going back to making rosy statements about progress and optimism. CBS simply ignored the possibility Khalilizad expressed, that there was a bigger plan in place that was beginning to work, and perhaps working because it involved the Iraqi government and was speaking to the needs and wishes of the Iragi people.

Khalilizad's op ed piece announced and explained recent efforts and initiatives taken by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi National Unity government, that made security in Baghdad a top priority. While the military is getting tough, a disciplined and comprehensive approach was outlined, and overall, the "Battle for Baghdad" is framed as a "realization" of a political solution. As ambassador, Khalilhis message is directed to both Iraqi and American audiences, to explain and encourage others to believe in how this is all meant to work. Its a shame CBS gave Khalilizad's presentation such short shrift.

[alphaa10-2009]

--1
Gens. Abizaid and Casey claim their remarks about an Iraqi civil war were misinterpreted. Their behavior is also known as "scrambling back from the edge, after a phone call from Washington." But you hardly can blame them-- civil war already has visited Baghdad streets. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/278798_iraq26.html)

A senior Iraqi official himself said "If this isn't civil war, I don't know what is." Neighborhoods are dividing all over Baghdad into armed, sectarian camps, just like Beirut a generation ago. Al Maliki's "iron fist" against militia violence shattered nothing but its own vain hopes.

RonnieHM-- the same horrific scene of Saddam bombing Kurdish innocents is repeated time after time by US tactical strikes all over Afghanistan and Iraq. Careless? Almost certainly some of the time. Avoidable? Almost certainly some of the time. When no area of Iraq (except the Green Zone) is off limits to US bombs, what do you expect?

[alphaa10-2009]

--2
The claim "Saddam was bad" is completely insufficient as a basis unilaterally to invade Iraq. The real purpose of the "Saddam was bad" argument is to escape the nasty topic of how Bush and his neocon gang lied, lied and lied again to the American people about a fictitious Saddam theat, all to stampede the public (and panic congress into the AUMF).

Saddam was indeed bad, but linking that to a "preemptive strike" on Iraq is unsound and false logic. For example, if the PRC is bad, and the regime there has murdered millions, are you going to lead the unilateral strike tomorrow to remove these bad guys? Or, maybe I should ask, also, if Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei is nuclear evil, incarnate, should Bush launch an attack? (Pssst! Don't give away any Pentagon plans in your answer-- you never know who might be watching and listening, these days.)

[dry_rain-2009]

Iraq under Saddam Hussein never posed a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. This erroneous war continues to drag on because President Bush refuses to admit any wrongdoing. Enough of our soldiers have died and it's time for Mr. Bush to stop playing politics with people's lives.

ref. book54552134 at 02:59 AM Enough is enough??? that happened when we left there the first time and Hussein went on a spree killing Kurds. We leave there now, the current government or what is trying to be government is history, there will be a HUGE Civil War. in comes Iran and then it would be a bigger mess than it already is. there is but one solution...QUIT MESSING AROUND AND DO WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY

Most intelligent satement I've read recently

[ronniehm]

... The court heard a survivor of the campaign testify how his village of Balisan was bombed by chemical weapons.

""I saw eight to 12 jets .... There was greenish smoke from the bombs. It was if there was a rotten apple or garlic smell minutes later. People were vomiting ... we were blind and screaming. There was no one to rescue us. Just God," Ali Mostafa Hama told the court. " ...

How much do you have to hate Bush to say we should have left Saddam Hussein in power? Removing him was the right thing to do, and no casualty count or dollar amount will suddenly make it the wrong thing to do. As far as I'm concerned, every wasted life and dollar is on the hands of those nations who put oil-for-food money before what's right. With their support, we would have been done by now. Look at how many European nations are stepping up to help separate Israel and Lebanon. No wonder the fighting continues there and in Iraq. It looks like no one gives a $hit except America ... well, half of us. The other half appears to be more interested in winning elections, as evidenced by the fact that most of you agreed that Saddam was evil until Bush actually did something about it. Now I'm hearing the same rhetoric that we heard in 2004. "We're making enemies." Yes, you are. You're making the enemies; we're killing the enemies. Must be an election year.

[alphaa10-2009]

GryphonRhyder said "Just another example of why we have to win this war."

Before talking about what have to do, we first should soberly note what is happening. Iraq is possibly the worst political decision of any president (except Johnson, and even he knew better), a "perfect storm" of miscalculations laying bare the incompetence of the very people who propose to lead us. Meanwhile, Iraq projects its chaos into the entire MidEast-- do you want a wider engagement, or say, war with Iran? We lack, first of all, a realistic, ethical reason for being there. (Not surprising, since Iraq invasion was a massive fraud on the American people and their trust.)

As a nation, we should have spent the last five years building for the future, but Iraq is not even an outpost of our future. Instead, on the appeal of one very limited man, we have wasted opportunities for peace in the MidEast, created enemies where none existed, confirmed our worst failings to our enemies, and entered a situation too few in Washington appear to understand.

An Americanized Iraq is simply impossible and a foolish objective, but had Bush intended anything else, he would have recognized the authority of the UN on this matter. "Winning" is an empty slogan filled with vain ambition, and delusions of power we do not have. It is also a formula for ruin, political code for "Don't bother me with the bad news while we are winning in Iraq.

[duffyn]

grphyonrider talks about "they". Who they? Who they? That is the problem. With a policy like that you make enemies faster then you kill them. And, you become like what you are fighting, then what are you fighting for? There's got to be a better way. If there were bad guys in your neighborhood - would you want to lunch everyone in your neighborhood?

[gryphonryder]

Just another example of why we have to win this war. Why do they say all is fair in love and war? because unless your willing to loose needless lives you've got to do what it takes to stop the enemy. Let the soldiers do their job, it's what they're good at. The enemy pokes at us - we clobber him. Some times not-so-bad guys die too, it's war. They should'nt have attacked us, chopped off heads on tv, hung blackwater mercs from bridges or brutally murdered their own people for the past 30 years. If you hate this war thank those people who abhor violence and the military. Responding with love and compassion to a ruthless enemy does nothing but give them access to our juglar quick.

[book54552134]

Enough is enough in Iraq. Enough deaths, (nearly 3,000 American, nearly 150,000 Iraqi), enough wounded, (nearly 20,000 American, nearly half a million Iraqi), enough money spent (nearly a quarter of a trillion, so far.) Time to get out.

[tomflint69]

We need not worry because U.S is there to help suffering people. Surely it will give peace to everyone.

[alphaa10-2009]

Unless the 4th cordons off Baghdad, proper, these terror elements will fade away and then pop back when the heat is off. Gen. Thurman can do local sweeps all week, but the clean areas persist like the sand castles they are-- here today, gone tomorrow. Few natives trust the "security" a sweep or two might seem to bring.

The various militas operate exactly like terror squads, not army units. Their strength is flexibility, mobility and intimate knowledge of the area and its residents, and apparently they have no weakness obvious to the troops searching for them.

Pathetically, American generals and troops already realize this is Fort Apache, and the only way to begin to control the streets is with more troops. Yet because US elections are just weeks away, Bush has told the Joint Chiefs he will not increase troop levels-- the last thing Bush wants to do is reveal his Iraq debacle is spiraling out of control.

As Washington struggles to hide its anxiety, it so constrains American military units, they must borrow troops already heavily engaged in the north-- all to give the appearance growing violence is only passing instability. In Vietnam, exactly the same deception was waged, only back then, they called it "body count".

[carla45]

so what are they saying, that The Christian Science Monitor and its people are more inportant then those who had there heads cut off on tv. are they working just as hard to find them.