Iraqi PM Appeals For Reconciliation

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

(CBS/AP)  After a one-day lull, bloodshed surged again in the capital Saturday, with at least 17 people dead in attacks and 27 probable victims of sectarian killings found dumped in the streets as Iraq's prime minister launched a fresh appeal for reconciliation.

Violence has escalated sharply in Baghdad over the past week, except for Friday, when only three killings were recorded — two Iraqis shot to death and a U.S. soldier killed by a bomb.

Saturday's toll raised the city's violent deaths to more than 180 just since Wednesday — either slain by bombs and gunfire or tortured and shot before being dumped, a hallmark of reprisal killings being waged between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

Appealing again to Iraq's divided sects, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged Iraqis to put aside their sectarian, ethnic and political differences and embrace his reconciliation plan.

“National reconciliation is a correct way of thinking and carries a high feeling of responsibility,” al-Maliki said. “To succeed in this today, we have to embrace the culture of dialogue and reconciliation.”

In other developments:

The Arab League's representative to Iraq has submitted his resignation, citing slow progress on the Pan-Arab organization's efforts to foster reconciliation among Iraqis and insufficient funding, Arab diplomats said Saturday.

U.S. officials say they have not written off Iraq's troubled Anbar province — the country's largest, and one of its most violent — but neither are they sending more U.S. troops there to battle the insurgents. In fact, they have shifted some troops from Anbar to Baghdad this summer, not because security conditions are improving in the western province but because they are deteriorating even more in the capital area.

A U.S. soldier was missing Friday after a truck driven by a suicide bomber exploded near an Iraqi power substation about 12 miles west of Baghdad. The soldier "has been reported as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown," the military said, without elaborating.

Iraq has become one of the most violent conflict areas in the world, although it has been overshadowed in recent months by other crises in the Middle East, the top U.N. envoy in Iraq said Thursday. "In many parts of the country, insurgent, militia and terrorist attacks, as well as gross violations of human rights, have continued to inflict untold suffering, particularly on innocent civilians, most notably women, children and minorities," Ashraf Qazi told the U.N. Security Council.

Al-Maliki's plan is intended to bridge the communal animosities fueling Iraq's violence. Among its 24 points, it offers amnesty to members of the Sunni Arab-led insurgency not involved in terrorist activities and calls for disarming primarily Shiite sectarian militias.

But no major Sunni insurgent group has publicly agreed to join the plan, and no steps have been taken to rein in Shiite militias. Since the plan was unveiled in late June, car bombings, mortar attacks and shootings have killed hundreds of Iraqis.

Continued

• 1
• 2
• Next

©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam

• Photos Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
• Photos Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
• Photos Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28

Latest in Iraq After Saddam

Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq

Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq

Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next

See all 175 Comments

by carla45 August 9, 2006 11:27 AM PDT

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.

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 12, 2006 11:15 PM PDT

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".

Reply to this comment

by tomflint69 August 13, 2006 6:12 PM PDT

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

Reply to this comment

by book54552134 August 18, 2006 2:59 AM PDT

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.

Reply to this comment

by gryphonryder August 19, 2006 3:44 PM PDT

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.

Reply to this comment

by duffyn August 20, 2006 3:21 PM PDT

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?

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 21, 2006 3:37 AM PDT

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.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 22, 2006 3:41 PM PDT

... 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.

Reply to this comment

by August 23, 2006 4:25 PM PDT

Most intelligent satement I've read recently

Reply to this comment

by August 23, 2006 4:32 PM PDT

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

Reply to this comment

by dry_rain-2009 August 25, 2006 12:02 AM PDT

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.

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 25, 2006 12:33 AM PDT

--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.)

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 25, 2006 12:34 AM PDT

--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?

Reply to this comment

by cbsnuser August 25, 2006 3:47 AM PDT

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.

Reply to this comment

by cbsnuser August 25, 2006 3:55 AM PDT

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.

Reply to this comment

by cbsnuser August 25, 2006 3:58 AM PDT

One of the key points that Khalilizad made about the "Battle for Baghdad" was from quoting polls of Iraqi public opinion. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis support a unity government representing all sects and ethnic communities, and want to live in peace, AND they need help to win against those who would impose a narrow vision of hatred and oppression.

Some more of Khalilizad's details on the 3 parts of the Baghdad Security Plan :
1) included redeployment of forces to Baghdad, setting up checkpoints and patrols to restrict movement and haven for "sectarian killers", targeting leaders of "death squads" with the help of "cross-sectarian neighborhood committees", BUT ALSO having the national police undergo intensive evaluation wih possible replacement as well as re-training focused on countering "violent sectarianism"

2)includes forces continuing to hit staging areas for "terrorists and death squads" in zones outside of Baghdad

3)includes funding for vocational training and to create jobs (especially for men 17-25), to foster support for services such as medical care, trash and debris removal, and build local capacity to protect and provide for citizens)

Reply to this comment

by jms_cheung August 25, 2006 7:36 AM PDT

Whatever big plan like `Battle for Badghdad' is of no value unless at least the 3 major groups of people (Sunni/Shiite & Kurds) are EQUALLY REPRESENTED IN THEIR SO-CALLED PARLIAMENT. Normal Democracy of the US or EU just CANNOT work in a society fully controlled by Islamist philosophy and way of life. The proof is clear -- Now the Shiites-majority elected by the people becomes the real government, and the result is chaos & bombings fuelled by terrorists. Another example recently, the Palestinians voted in the terrorist group HAMAS, and what happened ? they started to challenge the might of Israel just because they have the military support from Syria & Iran...What happended ? the people suffered! In such Islamist society, democracy just cannot work, but it only needs UNIVERSAL MORAL CODES AND PHILOSOPHY as adopted by the United Nations .

Reply to this comment

by grazinggoat August 25, 2006 9:26 AM PDT

Please listen to this 90-some minutes documents. It s in French but subtitles in English. It is all what you want to know about the biggest lie right-wing-Zionists and Neo-Conservatives of the US have ever lied at the Freedom-seeking Americans.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7972265312224141763

Would anybody find the equivalent in English, this document must become a cornerstone of the freedom-fight of the American People, against this tyrant Of the Bush Family. Allegations of Bush family ties to the Nazis... great document.

Reply to this comment

by grazinggoat August 25, 2006 10:12 AM PDT

Have you ever heard of presidentmoron.com?
This is a nice way to getting refreshed despite the deprssing state of having a freedom-stealer patriot-act over Americans' head.

http://www.presidentmoron.com/

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 25, 2006 11:09 AM PDT

"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

That's just false. We have never done anything even remotely resembling that. Gassing a village in order to kill tens of thousands of people because they practice a particular religion is off the scale evil, and any comparison to what we're doing is a real stretch. Personally, I think we should have removed that ****** the next day, but Europe apparently wanted to discuss it with him over croissants and tea. I really wish I knew why we didn't go in and finish him then, but at least we did it now. And if his supporters wish to fight to the death to regain power, then any blood is on their hands, not ours. Do you understand that the terrorists campaign is actually designed to get civilians killed? I mean if Poland bombed Nazi headquarters and accidentally killed a few Jews, you'd criticize Poland too? No. Those lives would be on Hitler. So how long would you have waited to take on Hitler anyway? Imminent threat to America? I think sometimes you have to stand up for someone else just because it's right, not because you get some benefit out of it.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 25, 2006 11:09 AM PDT

My favorite Iraqi opinion poll question: What's your biggest fear? And right there at the top of the list ... that America will leave. Spin that.

Reply to this comment

by grazinggoat August 25, 2006 11:37 AM PDT

I stress again watch this document and you'll have a drastically different view of what has happened. Iraq invasion was planned longtime before even the first Gulf War.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7972265312224141763

All the arguments we're bringing regarding this illegal invasion of Iraq, is useless. An honest way about how to handle the actual, out of hand, situation should be found by the ones who have usurpated the ligitimacy of intervention by US army, in justified-intervention causes, and made-beleive the justice behind this invasion.

Once you watch it you'll understand why we should put pressure on this president to resign, impeach him if possible, but never vote for him again, nor the team and hawks who are supporting him

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 25, 2006 12:03 PM PDT

If it makes you happy, I promise I'll never vote for George Bush again.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 25, 2006 12:19 PM PDT

The first 15 minutes of that video consists of people who disagree with the president calling him stupid. Find a video made by an adult, and I'll watch the whole thing. If the alternative to George Bush is someone who thinks we should just berate our enemies with insults, I'd prefer to keep looking for an alternative.

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 25, 2006 11:43 PM PDT

RonnieHM-- You seem a person of conscience, because you are indignant that US tactical strikes in Iraq might be careless or avoidable. But you are outnumbered in your opinion by those already there-- our soldiers. While they know mistakes happen, they know also limits do not apply. Countless times a hapless civilian has been wasted because there was no way or time (or, sadly, sometimes even no interest) to check him out.

When the military thinks a target is within reach, God help the civilians. The military unloaded a JDAM on an apartment complex in a rich Baghdad neighborhood simply because someone had tipped them Saddam had gone into one of the front doors. For a US military unit to take fire from *any* housing complex writes a death warrant for people inside. Fifty-cal rounds go through brick, and travel until spent.

Is mine an argument never to return fire? No, but a clear reminder much of US military lethality, both in heat of battle and without, has been often-- too often-- thoughtless and uncontrolled. Most vets can tell you of at least one incident they heard about or experienced, first-hand.

Even Bush recently acknowledged 30,000 civilians dead, while stats from Iraqi ministries and hospitals put the figure at more than 50,000 civilians dead. This does not even mention the wounded and maimed for life.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 26, 2006 1:01 AM PDT

I'm certainly aware that civilians are a big part of a guerilla war, as that is essentially the definition of guerilla warfare. And I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of war we wanted, but it's the war we've got. Why? Because it's the war our enemy wanted. Why? So people in America will feel as you do. Personally, I think losing this war or even not fighting it at all would result in far more deaths than winning it. I think there plenty of examples in history to support that -- Vietnam being the most recent.

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 26, 2006 9:37 PM PDT

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 26, 2006 9:37 PM PDT

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 26, 2006 9:39 PM PDT

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 26, 2006 9:39 PM PDT

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 26, 2006 9:47 PM PDT

Apologies once again to readers. I submitted comment, and nothing happened. I thought I had failed to click the button properly, so I did it again. Over the next few minutes, the screen simply stalled, with no indication whatsoever where the process had gone.

I logged off, and reentered. And there was my latest post-- four times over. Some other users may even have noticed that when they attempt to make two comments in the same session, they are reminded to log in and supply a password-- exactly as though they already were logged off.

Needs more work, CBS, though obviously all of us are happy to have the feature. The CBS blog server goes belly-up under the slightest demand, stalling with no screen response for minutes on end. CBS needs to address the active system load the new blogging feature imposes.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 27, 2006 12:56 AM PDT

"Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911?"

No. Certainly not directly, and probably not even remotely. For some of us, though, 911 proved that someone finally needs to take out the world's trash. I can think of at least a dozen reasons to remove Saddam, and imminent threat isn't even one of them. And if al Qaeda is against removing Saddam, well, that sure seems like a ringing endorsement to me. Funny how al Qaeda sees a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, but we're not supposed to mention them in the same sentence. True, they may not be on the same team, but they sure seem to be playing by the same rules.

Reply to this comment

by clestes-2009 August 28, 2006 12:27 PM PDT

RonnieH

the only reason Iraq is "playing by the same rules" as Al Qaeda is because Bush stupidly invaded Iraq, to remove Saddam, who was NO THREAT to us, and started the whole insurgency/civil war debacle, all for the goal of getting their oil cheap.

The reason we are hated in the Middle East is very simple. For the last 60 years the US has consistantly meddled in their political affairs. In 1953 we overthrew the democratically elected prime minister because he was going to nationalize the oil industry. They put in place the Shah who was a brutal dictator and hated by everyone. We imposed sanctions that killed 100,000 babies. We emcouraged the Shiites to rebel during the Gulf was then did nothing to support them when Saddam slaughtered them.

If Iraq had done the same things to the US as we have done to Iraq, you would be the first one in the street fighting.

When are people going to realize that this nothing to do with our "freedoms" and "democracy" but everything to do with our foreign policy of the last 60 years.

Try reading this "All the Shah's Men", for the real truth instead of listening to the Bush's administration mouthful of lies and the blathering of the Iraq prime minister, who clearly does not have a clue as to what is happening. The violence is increasing not decreasing. If he does not believe this, then try going outside the green zone.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 28, 2006 1:47 PM PDT

As if Iran was all sunshine and flowers before 1953. That place fell apart long before we got there. Who were we supposed to support? The Nazis or the Communists? And you read that book and accuse AMERICA of trying to steal the oil supply??? That's some selective reading. And which sanctions? The ones CLINTON imposed? I mean how do you lay all that on Bush's lap? He's supposed to ignore a brutal dictator because we helped a guy overthrow a brutal dictator and he himself became a brutal dicator 10-20 years later? OK sure but HUH??

Reply to this comment

by drgoodwin12 August 28, 2006 3:35 PM PDT

I propose that we send the idiots who got us into this war by false,fabricated intelligence? into battle let them and their sons and daughters fight and die for Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to us nor was it aligned with Al Qaeda. It did not have the capabilities to even hit Israel. Now Saddam was never a nice guy,but neither was Tito,the Shah of Iran and the list goes on and on.We have to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that they have to get their act together or else we will send them President Bush,VP Cheney, Rumsfield and all the other cronies to run their goverment. How much worse could they do running it than they have running our country into the ground. Let's make sure they are all sent to wipe out the millitas and are on the front lines in Anbar Province.Then let's impeach them and put them in real jails where they belong.

Reply to this comment

by bob_bob2 August 28, 2006 4:58 PM PDT

I think things are going great over there; every day there are less Iraqis alive. That means less people to carry ak-47s and car bombs. Once we get through all the men, women, and finally children of this generation; things there should settle down.

You see they just dont get it, we are there to free them and we will use our guns to do it. All they have to do is give up, and vote for the canidates we pick. Then we can get to plundering their resources.

They made a wasteland and called it peace, Tacitus

Reply to this comment

by clestes-2009 August 28, 2006 6:10 PM PDT

RonnieH

My point is: we have caused enough problems. I don't blame gw entirely. BUT he has had several chances to make the Middle East situation more stable and instead of that, he has chosen to go down a path to perputuating violence. AND when confronted with the enormous problems he has refused to accept responsiblity and blindly goes on. Pretty stupid for a man suppose to be a leader.

AND of course its about oil. I don't care what excuses anyone gives about US involement, it has always been about money. Do you think we would really care about the Middle East if it wasn't packed with oil.

Wake up and smell the money.

Reply to this comment

by three-o-six August 28, 2006 6:36 PM PDT

We should back off - move our troops into the kurdish areas (they have been our friends in that area anyway), 'let' the shiites and the sunis slug it out, then arm the kurds to go in and mop up what is left. The kurds would get their homeland and could quit bugging turkey and we would all live happily ever after.

Reply to this comment

by alphaa10-2009 August 28, 2006 7:55 PM PDT

RonnieHM was asked--"Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911?"
And he said-- "No. Certainly not directly, and probably not even remotely. For some of us, though, 911 proved that someone finally needs to take out the world's trash. I can think of at least a dozen reasons to remove Saddam... "

You are well-informed about the lack of a plausible connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the war, which is a rarity among those supporting the invasion. That said, while I support your spirited optimism about the future of the world, I do not believe all routes lead to peace.

"Taking out the trash", as you put it, is simply military conquest and adventurism under a different name. Pre-emptive war is never a way to realize world peace, when any state can justify its attack on another with the first pretext it finds (and a false pretext, as it turned out with Iraq).

We Americans have a grand tradition of never attacking, unless attacked first. That is why we think of ourselves as a peace-loving nation. Yet, Bush left his mark by attacking Iraq in the first instance, ever, of "preemptive war" and it is a scandal which will blacken his reputation in the pages of American history. Under Bush, this country shows an increasing tendency to the very behaviors it once condemned in European autocrats, back when the United States was a fledgling state.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 28, 2006 9:49 PM PDT

I guess I should have mentioned that of the many reason I think Saddam had to be removed, one was his failure to abide by the agreement he made at the end of the first Gulf war. I'm sure you know the details, but basically his failures came down to the inhibition of weapons inspectors and his attempts to bring down our planes in the no-fly zone. For this reason, I have never considered our invasion of Iraq to be completely pre-emptive. It's perfectly legitimate to see it as a continuation of our response to his invasion of Kuwait.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 28, 2006 10:12 PM PDT

clestes, if you want to call Iraq an over-reaction to 9/11, I could buy that. I mean the guy was in office less than a year, and we got whomped. I can certainly see myself playing the over-protective father part too if I were in his position, and I might even do some things that others would call stupid, but it wouldn't be for anything but the best intentions. You could argue that. But for oil? That just doesn't hold water. You could just as easily argue that countries rich in oil are simply more prone to breed tyrannical rulers. In fact, I think I might be on to something. How pathetic is it for these countries to accuse someone of trying to monopolize the oil supply when they're the ones monopolizing the oil supply?

Reply to this comment

by aliyaaali August 29, 2006 7:41 AM PDT

Ronnie, it appears you have shifted web-page, I suggest you and Hawk go back and try to find a rebuttle to Reuben on the Nasrallah page. It looks like you have been comprehensively outclassed once again.

Nobody is suggesting that toppling Saddam one way or another wasnt a good outcome. It was though, the only good outcome. Thugh that outcome is now nullified because 300 die each day which mean at least 600 are injured, more than the carnage Saddam caused.

Your media's favourite word these days appears to be terrorism. You bemoan it, you show unflinching support for Israel because of it. You forget, an Israeli went on a gun-rampage in Gaza, after the withdrawl, and killed 4 building workers. You forget that he felt powerless, he felt as though his Government had failed him and his nation. Why do you fail to understand that a lot of oppressed muslims can identify with him. Oil exports have risen 186% from Iraq to America in 20 months. Why is it inconcievable that the US are not wanted on Iraqi soil, and that it is their presence that allows terrorism to gather momentum.

cont...

Reply to this comment

by aliyaaali August 29, 2006 7:52 AM PDT

cont..

Thank God it isnt easy for terrorists to strike in the West, as long as there is a US presence in the Middle-East, terrorists will cause mayhem in Iraq. Peoples mothers and sisters are being raped in front of them, bread-winners are being slain. Prisons such as Abu Ghuraib are a breach of all morality. The US will stay until it secures more oil. You talk of playing a protective father-figure...I ask you, what was Afghanistan about?Did you find Osama? But hey Halliburton consequently did well. I think individuals like yourself ought to experience war, of this kind to appreciate the level of unecessary devastation that is being caused.

I ask you this, why if you truly back the US as a moral entity, do they not, first scrap oil contracts that go to the US based Oil companies and let Iraqi politicians decide. Why doesn't the US withdraw and allow a multinational peacekeeping force to be introduced? The answer is greed, and mallice.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 29, 2006 9:16 AM PDT

"Thank God it isnt easy for terrorists to strike in the West, as long as there is a US presence in the Middle-East, terrorists will cause mayhem in Iraq. "

I agree with that part. The rest is just nonsense.

Halliburton made money? The only firm in the world that specializes in work of this kind? Stunning. More deaths now than under Saddam? Bull. Not wanted on Iraqi soil? Yet the number one fear of Iraqis according to poll after poll is that we'll leave. Abu Gharib is a breach of all morality? Making prisoners strip and walk like dogs is a breach of all morality? It's not nice but is that supposed to equal a beheading? Mothers and sisters are being raped? You're comparing isolated incidents to Saddam's rape rooms?

Ok, I agree with one other thing you said. Removing Saddam was a good outcome. But nullified by the fact that a minority of Iraqis think it was a bad outcome? Come on. And just because we use more oil from one country than from another isn't proof of anything. You apparently think we will spend billions of dollars in order to save millions of dollars. That's what you're saying if you think we went to war for oil. Does the math of your accusation make sense? Cost of war vs oil savings. I'll give you time to find your calculator.

Reply to this comment

by aliyaaali August 29, 2006 10:03 AM PDT

Abu Ghuraib isn't nice but better than beheading. Apperently the western world is suposed to be a beacon of civilised peoples. Does Abu Ghuraib illustrate this? Oil isn't being embezzled? I think not. It is, the stats will show you. The US economy loses out if the US goes to war? Again I think not, what you have is a multiplier effect as trillions of dollars are dispersed in the hands of arms dealers, in fact War benefits the economy. Plus much of the dispensed funds are recovered through corporation tax. Oil is just a bonus. Perhaps you ought to gt a calculator. The current US adminstration has made more money than any other to date, whilst being at war for almost its entirity. Perhaps you ought to ponder.

Furthermore, consider the term investment..what you do is put down a lump sum to make gains on that lump sum over time. The USA, is now tied to the full reconstruction of a very wealthy state, that will bring financial rewards over time. Thats for sure. Halliburton is the only firm of its kind, come on. Many nations use similar services without contacting Cheney.

Are you going to base your agument on a poll that is circulated in the US? Furthermore could you address my question please. What is the objection to an impartial international force taking over?

Saddam's Rape Rooms, read that over. Saddam's rape rooms, you can expect such a thing from scum like him. Of US troops, thats another issue.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 29, 2006 10:36 AM PDT

"What is the objection to an impartial international force taking over?"

If one would, I'd be fine with that. What is the objection to an Iraqi force taking over? That's what we'd prefer.

If you feel like it, you could also try to name another firm that does that same work as Halliburton (a company whose stock rose more under Clinton than under Bush, by the way).

And yes, I'm going to use a poll that is circulated in the US ... and conducted in Iraq by groups other than the US ... many times ... by different groups ... all revealing the same thing. The number one fear of Iraqis is that America will leave.

Reply to this comment

by clestes-2009 August 29, 2006 12:02 PM PDT

RonnieH

Why shouldn't they monopolize their oil. It is, after all, their natural resource. So Saddam was a bully and a tirant. Do you really think that the Iraqi people are better off now?

In any case, I think that Bush and Co should have consulted with the other nations that had interest in the Middle East and found a solution that work the best for everyone and did not leave the Middle East in flames. Impossible you say? Well his cowboy style foreign policy of go it alone and *** to anyone else sure isn't getting the job done.

Reply to this comment

by clestes-2009 August 29, 2006 12:08 PM PDT

And at this point, of course they are afraid. We have put them in that intolerable situation. But I don't want the sacrifice any more US guys to this stupid and dangerous situation. We need to get out, not all at once but a little bit at a time. That is the best course for now. Staying there is not an option. It causes too much resentment to America and puts us in even more danger.

I heard Bush say "We are not leaving while I am president." How many more lives are going to be cut short because of this refusal to see any other options.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 29, 2006 1:37 PM PDT

"We need to get out, not all at once but a little bit at a time. That is the best course for now. Staying there is not an option."

I agree. At some point, US soldiers should start tapping Iraqi soldiers on the shoulder and say, "You're it. Bye."

"I heard Bush say "We are not leaving while I am president.""

He never said that. He probably said we're not going to abandon Iraq while he's president. That would be more in line with what he usually says. I support that.

Reply to this comment

by ronniehm August 29, 2006 1:38 PM PDT

"In any case, I think that Bush and Co should have consulted with the other nations that had interest in the Middle East and found a solution that work the best for everyone and did not leave the Middle East in flames." Too many influential countries were dependent on the oil-for-food scandal for that to work. But you're basically right. With the support of the UN, a better way would have been possible. Corruption took that option off the table though.

"Well his cowboy style foreign policy of go it alone and *** to anyone else sure isn't getting the job done." Other options? Anything? Surely you're watching the European troops stroll over to Lebanon like they want to be fashionably late for a dinner party. I'm sorry, but I just don't think European apathy and corruption should control American troops. It was absolutely appropriate to remove Saddam Hussein, and if it's more difficult that it should be, it's because we could use a lot less criticism and a little more help from Europe. But let's see how they do in Lebanon. It may turn out that what you see as a disaster in Iraq would be even worse with the UN involved.

Reply to this comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next

See all 175 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements or commercial links

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[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.

[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".

[tomflint69]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

Most intelligent satement I've read recently

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

[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.

[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.)

[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?

[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.

[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]

One of the key points that Khalilizad made about the "Battle for Baghdad" was from quoting polls of Iraqi public opinion. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis support a unity government representing all sects and ethnic communities, and want to live in peace, AND they need help to win against those who would impose a narrow vision of hatred and oppression.

Some more of Khalilizad's details on the 3 parts of the Baghdad Security Plan :
1) included redeployment of forces to Baghdad, setting up checkpoints and patrols to restrict movement and haven for "sectarian killers", targeting leaders of "death squads" with the help of "cross-sectarian neighborhood committees", BUT ALSO having the national police undergo intensive evaluation wih possible replacement as well as re-training focused on countering "violent sectarianism"

2)includes forces continuing to hit staging areas for "terrorists and death squads" in zones outside of Baghdad

3)includes funding for vocational training and to create jobs (especially for men 17-25), to foster support for services such as medical care, trash and debris removal, and build local capacity to protect and provide for citizens)

[jms_cheung]

Whatever big plan like `Battle for Badghdad' is of no value unless at least the 3 major groups of people (Sunni/Shiite & Kurds) are EQUALLY REPRESENTED IN THEIR SO-CALLED PARLIAMENT. Normal Democracy of the US or EU just CANNOT work in a society fully controlled by Islamist philosophy and way of life. The proof is clear -- Now the Shiites-majority elected by the people becomes the real government, and the result is chaos & bombings fuelled by terrorists. Another example recently, the Palestinians voted in the terrorist group HAMAS, and what happened ? they started to challenge the might of Israel just because they have the military support from Syria & Iran...What happended ? the people suffered! In such Islamist society, democracy just cannot work, but it only needs UNIVERSAL MORAL CODES AND PHILOSOPHY as adopted by the United Nations .

[grazinggoat]

Please listen to this 90-some minutes documents. It s in French but subtitles in English. It is all what you want to know about the biggest lie right-wing-Zionists and Neo-Conservatives of the US have ever lied at the Freedom-seeking Americans.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7972265312224141763

Would anybody find the equivalent in English, this document must become a cornerstone of the freedom-fight of the American People, against this tyrant Of the Bush Family. Allegations of Bush family ties to the Nazis... great document.

[grazinggoat]

Have you ever heard of presidentmoron.com?
This is a nice way to getting refreshed despite the deprssing state of having a freedom-stealer patriot-act over Americans' head.

http://www.presidentmoron.com/

[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

That's just false. We have never done anything even remotely resembling that. Gassing a village in order to kill tens of thousands of people because they practice a particular religion is off the scale evil, and any comparison to what we're doing is a real stretch. Personally, I think we should have removed that ****** the next day, but Europe apparently wanted to discuss it with him over croissants and tea. I really wish I knew why we didn't go in and finish him then, but at least we did it now. And if his supporters wish to fight to the death to regain power, then any blood is on their hands, not ours. Do you understand that the terrorists campaign is actually designed to get civilians killed? I mean if Poland bombed Nazi headquarters and accidentally killed a few Jews, you'd criticize Poland too? No. Those lives would be on Hitler. So how long would you have waited to take on Hitler anyway? Imminent threat to America? I think sometimes you have to stand up for someone else just because it's right, not because you get some benefit out of it.

[ronniehm]

My favorite Iraqi opinion poll question: What's your biggest fear? And right there at the top of the list ... that America will leave. Spin that.

[grazinggoat]

I stress again watch this document and you'll have a drastically different view of what has happened. Iraq invasion was planned longtime before even the first Gulf War.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7972265312224141763

All the arguments we're bringing regarding this illegal invasion of Iraq, is useless. An honest way about how to handle the actual, out of hand, situation should be found by the ones who have usurpated the ligitimacy of intervention by US army, in justified-intervention causes, and made-beleive the justice behind this invasion.

Once you watch it you'll understand why we should put pressure on this president to resign, impeach him if possible, but never vote for him again, nor the team and hawks who are supporting him

[ronniehm]

If it makes you happy, I promise I'll never vote for George Bush again.

[ronniehm]

The first 15 minutes of that video consists of people who disagree with the president calling him stupid. Find a video made by an adult, and I'll watch the whole thing. If the alternative to George Bush is someone who thinks we should just berate our enemies with insults, I'd prefer to keep looking for an alternative.

[alphaa10-2009]

RonnieHM-- You seem a person of conscience, because you are indignant that US tactical strikes in Iraq might be careless or avoidable. But you are outnumbered in your opinion by those already there-- our soldiers. While they know mistakes happen, they know also limits do not apply. Countless times a hapless civilian has been wasted because there was no way or time (or, sadly, sometimes even no interest) to check him out.

When the military thinks a target is within reach, God help the civilians. The military unloaded a JDAM on an apartment complex in a rich Baghdad neighborhood simply because someone had tipped them Saddam had gone into one of the front doors. For a US military unit to take fire from *any* housing complex writes a death warrant for people inside. Fifty-cal rounds go through brick, and travel until spent.

Is mine an argument never to return fire? No, but a clear reminder much of US military lethality, both in heat of battle and without, has been often-- too often-- thoughtless and uncontrolled. Most vets can tell you of at least one incident they heard about or experienced, first-hand.

Even Bush recently acknowledged 30,000 civilians dead, while stats from Iraqi ministries and hospitals put the figure at more than 50,000 civilians dead. This does not even mention the wounded and maimed for life.

[ronniehm]

I'm certainly aware that civilians are a big part of a guerilla war, as that is essentially the definition of guerilla warfare. And I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of war we wanted, but it's the war we've got. Why? Because it's the war our enemy wanted. Why? So people in America will feel as you do. Personally, I think losing this war or even not fighting it at all would result in far more deaths than winning it. I think there plenty of examples in history to support that -- Vietnam being the most recent.

[alphaa10-2009]

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

[alphaa10-2009]

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

[alphaa10-2009]

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

[alphaa10-2009]

RonnieHM-- Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the al Qaeda people Bush should have pursued with intelligence, planning and vigor. But Bush let them escape in the mountains of Afghanistan to turn his attention to Iraq and his invasion plans. Bush even pulled US combat units out of active pursuit of bin Laden, merely to send them to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Bush had his priorities totally pooched. With his typical penchant for inventing disaster, Bush turned Iraq-- a marginal threat to any definition of US regional security-- into a huge and distracting sideshow, undercutting the mandate given him under AUMF by congress to bring the war to bin Laden in his lair. Mission not accomplished!

Therefore, Iraq, itself, and winning Iraq, however you might wish (with emphasis on "wish") to define victory, has gone from Rumsfeld's blithe assurances about crowds in the streets "celebrating freedom" to a full-blown insurgency in about three years.

Al Qaeda is "now* in Iraq, thanks to chronic inability of US forces to control the borders and contain the threat, and al Qaeda regards Iraq as its showpiece of Islamic jihad against the West. Iraq in 2003 was sidelined, not an active adversary, but Iraq today has compromised even the pursuit of al Qaeda. Mission not accomplished!

[alphaa10-2009]

Apologies once again to readers. I submitted comment, and nothing happened. I thought I had failed to click the button properly, so I did it again. Over the next few minutes, the screen simply stalled, with no indication whatsoever where the process had gone.

I logged off, and reentered. And there was my latest post-- four times over. Some other users may even have noticed that when they attempt to make two comments in the same session, they are reminded to log in and supply a password-- exactly as though they already were logged off.

Needs more work, CBS, though obviously all of us are happy to have the feature. The CBS blog server goes belly-up under the slightest demand, stalling with no screen response for minutes on end. CBS needs to address the active system load the new blogging feature imposes.

[ronniehm]

"Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911?"

No. Certainly not directly, and probably not even remotely. For some of us, though, 911 proved that someone finally needs to take out the world's trash. I can think of at least a dozen reasons to remove Saddam, and imminent threat isn't even one of them. And if al Qaeda is against removing Saddam, well, that sure seems like a ringing endorsement to me. Funny how al Qaeda sees a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, but we're not supposed to mention them in the same sentence. True, they may not be on the same team, but they sure seem to be playing by the same rules.

[clestes-2009]

RonnieH

the only reason Iraq is "playing by the same rules" as Al Qaeda is because Bush stupidly invaded Iraq, to remove Saddam, who was NO THREAT to us, and started the whole insurgency/civil war debacle, all for the goal of getting their oil cheap.

The reason we are hated in the Middle East is very simple. For the last 60 years the US has consistantly meddled in their political affairs. In 1953 we overthrew the democratically elected prime minister because he was going to nationalize the oil industry. They put in place the Shah who was a brutal dictator and hated by everyone. We imposed sanctions that killed 100,000 babies. We emcouraged the Shiites to rebel during the Gulf was then did nothing to support them when Saddam slaughtered them.

If Iraq had done the same things to the US as we have done to Iraq, you would be the first one in the street fighting.

When are people going to realize that this nothing to do with our "freedoms" and "democracy" but everything to do with our foreign policy of the last 60 years.

Try reading this "All the Shah's Men", for the real truth instead of listening to the Bush's administration mouthful of lies and the blathering of the Iraq prime minister, who clearly does not have a clue as to what is happening. The violence is increasing not decreasing. If he does not believe this, then try going outside the green zone.

[ronniehm]

As if Iran was all sunshine and flowers before 1953. That place fell apart long before we got there. Who were we supposed to support? The Nazis or the Communists? And you read that book and accuse AMERICA of trying to steal the oil supply??? That's some selective reading. And which sanctions? The ones CLINTON imposed? I mean how do you lay all that on Bush's lap? He's supposed to ignore a brutal dictator because we helped a guy overthrow a brutal dictator and he himself became a brutal dicator 10-20 years later? OK sure but HUH??

[drgoodwin12]

I propose that we send the idiots who got us into this war by false,fabricated intelligence? into battle let them and their sons and daughters fight and die for Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to us nor was it aligned with Al Qaeda. It did not have the capabilities to even hit Israel. Now Saddam was never a nice guy,but neither was Tito,the Shah of Iran and the list goes on and on.We have to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that they have to get their act together or else we will send them President Bush,VP Cheney, Rumsfield and all the other cronies to run their goverment. How much worse could they do running it than they have running our country into the ground. Let's make sure they are all sent to wipe out the millitas and are on the front lines in Anbar Province.Then let's impeach them and put them in real jails where they belong.

[bob_bob2]

I think things are going great over there; every day there are less Iraqis alive. That means less people to carry ak-47s and car bombs. Once we get through all the men, women, and finally children of this generation; things there should settle down.

You see they just dont get it, we are there to free them and we will use our guns to do it. All they have to do is give up, and vote for the canidates we pick. Then we can get to plundering their resources.

They made a wasteland and called it peace, Tacitus

[clestes-2009]

RonnieH

My point is: we have caused enough problems. I don't blame gw entirely. BUT he has had several chances to make the Middle East situation more stable and instead of that, he has chosen to go down a path to perputuating violence. AND when confronted with the enormous problems he has refused to accept responsiblity and blindly goes on. Pretty stupid for a man suppose to be a leader.

AND of course its about oil. I don't care what excuses anyone gives about US involement, it has always been about money. Do you think we would really care about the Middle East if it wasn't packed with oil.

Wake up and smell the money.

[three-o-six]

We should back off - move our troops into the kurdish areas (they have been our friends in that area anyway), 'let' the shiites and the sunis slug it out, then arm the kurds to go in and mop up what is left. The kurds would get their homeland and could quit bugging turkey and we would all live happily ever after.

[alphaa10-2009]

RonnieHM was asked--"Is it still news to you Iraq was not the "enemy" behind 911?"
And he said-- "No. Certainly not directly, and probably not even remotely. For some of us, though, 911 proved that someone finally needs to take out the world's trash. I can think of at least a dozen reasons to remove Saddam... "

You are well-informed about the lack of a plausible connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the war, which is a rarity among those supporting the invasion. That said, while I support your spirited optimism about the future of the world, I do not believe all routes lead to peace.

"Taking out the trash", as you put it, is simply military conquest and adventurism under a different name. Pre-emptive war is never a way to realize world peace, when any state can justify its attack on another with the first pretext it finds (and a false pretext, as it turned out with Iraq).

We Americans have a grand tradition of never attacking, unless attacked first. That is why we think of ourselves as a peace-loving nation. Yet, Bush left his mark by attacking Iraq in the first instance, ever, of "preemptive war" and it is a scandal which will blacken his reputation in the pages of American history. Under Bush, this country shows an increasing tendency to the very behaviors it once condemned in European autocrats, back when the United States was a fledgling state.

[ronniehm]

I guess I should have mentioned that of the many reason I think Saddam had to be removed, one was his failure to abide by the agreement he made at the end of the first Gulf war. I'm sure you know the details, but basically his failures came down to the inhibition of weapons inspectors and his attempts to bring down our planes in the no-fly zone. For this reason, I have never considered our invasion of Iraq to be completely pre-emptive. It's perfectly legitimate to see it as a continuation of our response to his invasion of Kuwait.

[ronniehm]

clestes, if you want to call Iraq an over-reaction to 9/11, I could buy that. I mean the guy was in office less than a year, and we got whomped. I can certainly see myself playing the over-protective father part too if I were in his position, and I might even do some things that others would call stupid, but it wouldn't be for anything but the best intentions. You could argue that. But for oil? That just doesn't hold water. You could just as easily argue that countries rich in oil are simply more prone to breed tyrannical rulers. In fact, I think I might be on to something. How pathetic is it for these countries to accuse someone of trying to monopolize the oil supply when they're the ones monopolizing the oil supply?

[aliyaaali]

Ronnie, it appears you have shifted web-page, I suggest you and Hawk go back and try to find a rebuttle to Reuben on the Nasrallah page. It looks like you have been comprehensively outclassed once again.

Nobody is suggesting that toppling Saddam one way or another wasnt a good outcome. It was though, the only good outcome. Thugh that outcome is now nullified because 300 die each day which mean at least 600 are injured, more than the carnage Saddam caused.

Your media's favourite word these days appears to be terrorism. You bemoan it, you show unflinching support for Israel because of it. You forget, an Israeli went on a gun-rampage in Gaza, after the withdrawl, and killed 4 building workers. You forget that he felt powerless, he felt as though his Government had failed him and his nation. Why do you fail to understand that a lot of oppressed muslims can identify with him. Oil exports have risen 186% from Iraq to America in 20 months. Why is it inconcievable that the US are not wanted on Iraqi soil, and that it is their presence that allows terrorism to gather momentum.

cont...

[aliyaaali]

cont..

Thank God it isnt easy for terrorists to strike in the West, as long as there is a US presence in the Middle-East, terrorists will cause mayhem in Iraq. Peoples mothers and sisters are being raped in front of them, bread-winners are being slain. Prisons such as Abu Ghuraib are a breach of all morality. The US will stay until it secures more oil. You talk of playing a protective father-figure...I ask you, what was Afghanistan about?Did you find Osama? But hey Halliburton consequently did well. I think individuals like yourself ought to experience war, of this kind to appreciate the level of unecessary devastation that is being caused.

I ask you this, why if you truly back the US as a moral entity, do they not, first scrap oil contracts that go to the US based Oil companies and let Iraqi politicians decide. Why doesn't the US withdraw and allow a multinational peacekeeping force to be introduced? The answer is greed, and mallice.

[ronniehm]

"Thank God it isnt easy for terrorists to strike in the West, as long as there is a US presence in the Middle-East, terrorists will cause mayhem in Iraq. "

I agree with that part. The rest is just nonsense.

Halliburton made money? The only firm in the world that specializes in work of this kind? Stunning. More deaths now than under Saddam? Bull. Not wanted on Iraqi soil? Yet the number one fear of Iraqis according to poll after poll is that we'll leave. Abu Gharib is a breach of all morality? Making prisoners strip and walk like dogs is a breach of all morality? It's not nice but is that supposed to equal a beheading? Mothers and sisters are being raped? You're comparing isolated incidents to Saddam's rape rooms?

Ok, I agree with one other thing you said. Removing Saddam was a good outcome. But nullified by the fact that a minority of Iraqis think it was a bad outcome? Come on. And just because we use more oil from one country than from another isn't proof of anything. You apparently think we will spend billions of dollars in order to save millions of dollars. That's what you're saying if you think we went to war for oil. Does the math of your accusation make sense? Cost of war vs oil savings. I'll give you time to find your calculator.

[aliyaaali]

Abu Ghuraib isn't nice but better than beheading. Apperently the western world is suposed to be a beacon of civilised peoples. Does Abu Ghuraib illustrate this? Oil isn't being embezzled? I think not. It is, the stats will show you. The US economy loses out if the US goes to war? Again I think not, what you have is a multiplier effect as trillions of dollars are dispersed in the hands of arms dealers, in fact War benefits the economy. Plus much of the dispensed funds are recovered through corporation tax. Oil is just a bonus. Perhaps you ought to gt a calculator. The current US adminstration has made more money than any other to date, whilst being at war for almost its entirity. Perhaps you ought to ponder.

Furthermore, consider the term investment..what you do is put down a lump sum to make gains on that lump sum over time. The USA, is now tied to the full reconstruction of a very wealthy state, that will bring financial rewards over time. Thats for sure. Halliburton is the only firm of its kind, come on. Many nations use similar services without contacting Cheney.

Are you going to base your agument on a poll that is circulated in the US? Furthermore could you address my question please. What is the objection to an impartial international force taking over?

Saddam's Rape Rooms, read that over. Saddam's rape rooms, you can expect such a thing from scum like him. Of US troops, thats another issue.

[ronniehm]

"What is the objection to an impartial international force taking over?"

If one would, I'd be fine with that. What is the objection to an Iraqi force taking over? That's what we'd prefer.

If you feel like it, you could also try to name another firm that does that same work as Halliburton (a company whose stock rose more under Clinton than under Bush, by the way).

And yes, I'm going to use a poll that is circulated in the US ... and conducted in Iraq by groups other than the US ... many times ... by different groups ... all revealing the same thing. The number one fear of Iraqis is that America will leave.

[clestes-2009]

RonnieH

Why shouldn't they monopolize their oil. It is, after all, their natural resource. So Saddam was a bully and a tirant. Do you really think that the Iraqi people are better off now?

In any case, I think that Bush and Co should have consulted with the other nations that had interest in the Middle East and found a solution that work the best for everyone and did not leave the Middle East in flames. Impossible you say? Well his cowboy style foreign policy of go it alone and *** to anyone else sure isn't getting the job done.

[clestes-2009]

And at this point, of course they are afraid. We have put them in that intolerable situation. But I don't want the sacrifice any more US guys to this stupid and dangerous situation. We need to get out, not all at once but a little bit at a time. That is the best course for now. Staying there is not an option. It causes too much resentment to America and puts us in even more danger.

I heard Bush say "We are not leaving while I am president." How many more lives are going to be cut short because of this refusal to see any other options.

[ronniehm]

"We need to get out, not all at once but a little bit at a time. That is the best course for now. Staying there is not an option."

I agree. At some point, US soldiers should start tapping Iraqi soldiers on the shoulder and say, "You're it. Bye."

"I heard Bush say "We are not leaving while I am president.""

He never said that. He probably said we're not going to abandon Iraq while he's president. That would be more in line with what he usually says. I support that.

[ronniehm]

"In any case, I think that Bush and Co should have consulted with the other nations that had interest in the Middle East and found a solution that work the best for everyone and did not leave the Middle East in flames." Too many influential countries were dependent on the oil-for-food scandal for that to work. But you're basically right. With the support of the UN, a better way would have been possible. Corruption took that option off the table though.

"Well his cowboy style foreign policy of go it alone and *** to anyone else sure isn't getting the job done." Other options? Anything? Surely you're watching the European troops stroll over to Lebanon like they want to be fashionably late for a dinner party. I'm sorry, but I just don't think European apathy and corruption should control American troops. It was absolutely appropriate to remove Saddam Hussein, and if it's more difficult that it should be, it's because we could use a lot less criticism and a little more help from Europe. But let's see how they do in Lebanon. It may turn out that what you see as a disaster in Iraq would be even worse with the UN involved.