The Surge Is Working, The Surge Is Not
Some chicken-hawks are already claiming that the "surge" is working.
Chicken-hawks proclaim that even though United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon was nearly killed alongside the Iraqi Prime Minister the other day, and even though the deputy Prime Minister was nearly assassinated the following day that the surge is indeed working. Okaaay...
So violence in Baghdad is slightly down. Violence outside of Baghdad is reportedly up. So why is violence in Baghdad slightly down?
Well, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has a somewhat shady alliance with Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr who has a lot of control over the Mahdi Army who slipped into hiding when they were tipped off that a security crackdown was about to begin.
How is that any kind of victory? They'll be back. They are just laying low, making it more difficult to track them down. It certainly doesn't indicate the "surge" is working, it indicates that the Shia militants are being more clever than their Sunni enemies. In other words, they lay low, let the US kill the Sunni insurgents, and it saves Mahdi Army a lot of trouble.
But what happens the minute the "surge" ends? Mahdi Army is on the streets again, only this time without the pestilence of many of the Sunni insurgents who by that time may be partially deposed, paving the way to a Shia dominated insurgency to go right along with the Shia dominated government. Which will only add to Sunni animosity and fears of ethnic cleansing.
So I don't really see how the "surge" is working yet, especially when all I am hearing about it the capturing and killing of Sunni insurgents but nill on the capturing and killing of Shia insurgents, when, isn't is supposed to be the Shia who are being funded by Iran ... But oh well, who cares, it's not like were trying to win this war or anything.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
United States Won't Call Ahmadinejad's Bluff
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday offered to shut down it's nuclear facilities, if the United States agreed to do the same.
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities." Ahmadinejad stated on state run television.
When asked about Iran's offer White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" according to Reuters India.
In the war of rhetoric between Bush and Ahmadinejad tensions have been rising, and to answer Tony Snow - no, I don't think Ahmadinejad is serious because he knows the United States will never shut down it's nuclear facilities and this fact does not escape the Iranian President.
What Ahmadinejad suggestion seems to indicate is that he believes his nuclear program is as legitimate as the United States and that he is as likely to abandon his nuclear aspirations as the US is.
This news comes as CNN reports that for several months Iranian boats have increasingly crossed into Iraqi waters but "the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday offered to shut down it's nuclear facilities, if the United States agreed to do the same.
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities." Ahmadinejad stated on state run television.
When asked about Iran's offer White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" according to Reuters India.
In the war of rhetoric between Bush and Ahmadinejad tensions have been rising, and to answer Tony Snow - no, I don't think Ahmadinejad is serious because he knows the United States will never shut down it's nuclear facilities and this fact does not escape the Iranian President.
What Ahmadinejad suggestion seems to indicate is that he believes his nuclear program is as legitimate as the United States and that he is as likely to abandon his nuclear aspirations as the US is.
This news comes as CNN reports that for several months Iranian boats have increasingly crossed into Iraqi waters but "the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf."
Thursday, February 15, 2007
War With Iran Imminent, Or A Distracting Red Herring?
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Attack On Iran Would Have "Disastrous Consequences"
Three former United States Generals have published a letter in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper, warning of the consequences of military action against Iran.
The drumbeat for war with Iran is growing, and the war hawks may soon have their way, ushering in an age of greater destruction and instability - not only for the middle east, but for the world.
BBC reports that "Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran."
Lt Gen Robert Gard, Gen Joseph Hoar, and Vice Adm Jack Shanahan wrote that diplomatic measures "would serve the interests of the US and the UK and potentially could enhance regional and international security," and warned that military force against Iran could result in "disastrous consequences".
But will the suggestions of these former Generals cause the hawks in Washington, London or Jerusalem to reconsider their plans for the new Armageddon? Or will they fall on deaf ears?
A war with Iran now seems inevitable, maybe only months or even weeks away. One can hope something can be done to change this, but as pointed out in the video below by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, the rhetoric President Bush is using to describe Iran, is eerily similar to the rhetoric the President used shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
FOX News (?) pundits have been caught proclaiming that an Iran attack would not be a bomb and run expedition but a full ground invasion, like Iraq was and is.
If a war with Iran is indeed inevitable one has to consider where the troops and resources will come from. In reality the United States never did have enough troops in Iraq, so in reality where would troops for an Iran invasion come from?
A draft? How would the young people of American, already so thoroughly disgusted with the war and with George W. Bush react to a draft? My guess (as an elder of 25), is with anger and noncompliance.
Hypothetically, let's imagine the United States invades Iran, either under the context that Iran is building "the bomb" or Iran is funding/arming insurgents in Iraq.
What will the President say then? "Trust us, we are right this time. I know we were wrong about the WMD's in Iraq -- but that was then, this is now, this is the real bogeyman I have been telling you about, the real threat to liberty and democracy, I found 'em, and we gonna smoke 'em out, this time I promise."
I certainly don't trust Ahmadinejad and what his aspirations may or may not be. But I certainly don't trust Bush either.
It is not that I don't "have the stomach" for war, because I do. But I don't have the stomach for any more wars based on loose intelligence. What I really feel like I don't have enough of for the war is money. War is expensive for most and lucrative for a few.
I am not convinced a war with Iran would in any way benefit the United States. I see where it benefits Israel, I see where it benefits terrorist and defense contractors, but I don't see where it benefits the United States or anyone else in the world.
On the contrary it is likely a war with Iran will strain or eliminate or tedious relationship with the former Iran exiles who now run Iraq's government and further contribute to instability and bloodshed in the region.
If there were no nuclear weapons in Iran the United States would be in a situation precariously similar to Iraq, the credibility of the United States would be further diminished and our allies would be reconsidering their relationship with us, viewing us as an imperialist force that may be dangerous to the world.
The insurgency that would grip Iran shortly thereafter which would include pro-government militias, foreign fighters and domestic dissidents. All would be fighting each other and all would be fighting the occupying US troops and the endless line of greedy defense contractors eager to "rebuild" Iran.
All of this would be happening, as we were still in Iraq battling an insurgency.
This would leave our country spread even further, economically and militarily, and still our country would be no safer, it would just be more vulnerable.
Three former United States Generals have published a letter in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper, warning of the consequences of military action against Iran.
The drumbeat for war with Iran is growing, and the war hawks may soon have their way, ushering in an age of greater destruction and instability - not only for the middle east, but for the world.
BBC reports that "Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran."
Lt Gen Robert Gard, Gen Joseph Hoar, and Vice Adm Jack Shanahan wrote that diplomatic measures "would serve the interests of the US and the UK and potentially could enhance regional and international security," and warned that military force against Iran could result in "disastrous consequences".
But will the suggestions of these former Generals cause the hawks in Washington, London or Jerusalem to reconsider their plans for the new Armageddon? Or will they fall on deaf ears?
A war with Iran now seems inevitable, maybe only months or even weeks away. One can hope something can be done to change this, but as pointed out in the video below by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, the rhetoric President Bush is using to describe Iran, is eerily similar to the rhetoric the President used shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
FOX News (?) pundits have been caught proclaiming that an Iran attack would not be a bomb and run expedition but a full ground invasion, like Iraq was and is.
If a war with Iran is indeed inevitable one has to consider where the troops and resources will come from. In reality the United States never did have enough troops in Iraq, so in reality where would troops for an Iran invasion come from?
A draft? How would the young people of American, already so thoroughly disgusted with the war and with George W. Bush react to a draft? My guess (as an elder of 25), is with anger and noncompliance.
Hypothetically, let's imagine the United States invades Iran, either under the context that Iran is building "the bomb" or Iran is funding/arming insurgents in Iraq.
What will the President say then? "Trust us, we are right this time. I know we were wrong about the WMD's in Iraq -- but that was then, this is now, this is the real bogeyman I have been telling you about, the real threat to liberty and democracy, I found 'em, and we gonna smoke 'em out, this time I promise."
I certainly don't trust Ahmadinejad and what his aspirations may or may not be. But I certainly don't trust Bush either.
It is not that I don't "have the stomach" for war, because I do. But I don't have the stomach for any more wars based on loose intelligence. What I really feel like I don't have enough of for the war is money. War is expensive for most and lucrative for a few.
I am not convinced a war with Iran would in any way benefit the United States. I see where it benefits Israel, I see where it benefits terrorist and defense contractors, but I don't see where it benefits the United States or anyone else in the world.
On the contrary it is likely a war with Iran will strain or eliminate or tedious relationship with the former Iran exiles who now run Iraq's government and further contribute to instability and bloodshed in the region.
If there were no nuclear weapons in Iran the United States would be in a situation precariously similar to Iraq, the credibility of the United States would be further diminished and our allies would be reconsidering their relationship with us, viewing us as an imperialist force that may be dangerous to the world.
The insurgency that would grip Iran shortly thereafter which would include pro-government militias, foreign fighters and domestic dissidents. All would be fighting each other and all would be fighting the occupying US troops and the endless line of greedy defense contractors eager to "rebuild" Iran.
All of this would be happening, as we were still in Iraq battling an insurgency.
This would leave our country spread even further, economically and militarily, and still our country would be no safer, it would just be more vulnerable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
