Iraqis have faith unlike F Kerry

[FishForLunch]

AFTER the horrific March 2 bombing that killed 170 at Shi'a shrines in Baghdad and Karbala, one Iraqi had an answer for those in the West who wonder if such tactics can work. His words speak to the horror of the events in Spain last week and in Baghdad on Wednesday.

His name is Ali and his Web log said this about the terrorists and their allies: "They are spitting in the face of the wind."

One of the interesting developments in post-Saddam Iraq is the appearance of amateur Web sites, where Iraqis are taking advantage of modern technology to give voice to their newfound freedom. One such site shows Iraqi women demonstrating against Resolution 137, passed by the Iraqi Governing Council, which threatened women's rights.

These women - who were exercising their right of free speech to demonstrate for women's rights - were dressed in very conservative Muslim fashion. Yet, as one of them put it: "We didn't wait all these years without the most basic rights to be denied them now."

An Arab reporter asked if she were Sunni or Shi'a. She snapped: "I'm an Iraqi citizen first and foremost, and I refuse to be asked such a question."

In increasing numbers, likeminded Iraqi women - and men - are making it clear they expect basic rights. People are listening. Not only did this pressure force the repeal of Resolution 137, but, when the new Iraqi interim constitution was signed March 8, it contained assurances of equal rights - and substantial representation - for women.

It also provides for other fundamental pillars of true democracy, including separation of powers and an independent judiciary, rule of law, fundamental civil rights and civilian control of the military. That's a significant step forward that came from heated and healthy political debate - debate that would have been impossible a year ago.

While such debates do show that Iraqis disagree among themselves, they demonstrate - more importantly - that Iraqis can debate those issues openly and democratically. Significantly, in a recent opinion poll of Iraqis, 56 percent said things were going better today than a year ago; 71 percent said they thought they would be better off a year from now.

LAST March, Iraqis were suffering under the thumb of one of the most brutal dictatorships of the last hundred years - a regime that industrialized brutality, tortured children to coerce their parents and raped women to punish their relatives. A U.S. Army commander in Iraq told me last July about the excavation of one mass grave where they discovered remains of 80 women and children - with little dresses and toys.

Today, Iraq's era of systematic savagery is over. Thanks to the dedication and courage of American and Coalition military and civilians, the support of the U.S. Congress and the American people, life in Iraq is improving steadily:

* Electricity reached pre-war levels last October, and is on track to reach 150 percent of pre-war levels, despite an infrastructure devastated by Saddam.

* Oil production has reached 2.5 million barrels per day, well ahead of projections.

* Funding for public health care is up 26 times the level under Saddam.

* All 22 universities, 43 technical institutes and colleges opened on time last fall.

* Some 72 million new textbooks will go to primary and secondary schools by the end of this school year, so children will no longer learn arithmetic from books that say "2 Saddams plus 2 Saddams equals 4 Saddams."

ONE of the most important developments is the increasing role played by Iraqis in providing for the security of their country. Since Baghdad was liberated, Iraqi security forces went from almost none to the 200,000 who currently serve in various security roles.

Today, Iraqis who are fighting and dying for the "New Iraq" are numerically the largest member of the Coalition. While they are not as well-trained or equipped as American forces, they have many advantages because they know the country and the language. They're the "home team" and enjoy tremendous popular support - to the terrorists' frustration.

It is altogether appropriate that Iraqis should fight to defend their country, and it is heartening that they continue to volunteer in large numbers despite the enemy's attempts to frighten them.

A few weeks ago, after an attack on a police station in Fallujah, when the U.S. offered Iraqi Civil Defense Corpsmen help in subduing the attackers, they said, no thanks - we want to do this job ourselves so people will know we can.

Ali, the Iraqi blogger, put such attacks into a larger perspective: "Some people still wonder what would be the relation between the liberation of Iraq and [the] war on terrorism. I think that the fact that nearly all the terrorists are gathered on our land to fight so fiercely should be more than enough explanation." He added: "We are . . . showing [other Arabs] what they can achieve once they are free . . . I see these evil powers show their true and ugly face and play their last card - surer than ever that we are winning."

WHEN 9/11 changed everything, it was that same determination that led America to take up our own fight against terrorists. Perhaps no one understands better than New Yorkers just how much changed that day. What happened in lower Manhattan, at the Pentagon and in Shanksville meant we could no longer allow the world's most brutal tyrants to traffic with terrorists - or allow the Middle East to breed terrorists on a massive scale.

Today, nothing is more important to world security than fighting these terrorists where they live. Or sustaining progress in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Winning in both countries is imperative. But it is only part of the larger war on terrorism. It won't be over with one victory in Afghanistan or another in Iraq - important as they are. It won't be over when we capture or kill Bin Laden.

The recent homicide bombings in Spain - a country that has taken a courageous lead against global terrorism - warn us that every free and open society is vulnerable. Free nations must remain united in fighting for freedom against a threat that is as evil and as dangerous as the totalitarian threats of the last century.

It's an enormous job. In Iraq alone, as the president often reminds us, it won't be quick and it won't be easy. Saddamist killers and foreign terrorists are doing all they can to stop progress. However, a recently intercepted letter from Abu Masab al-Zarqawi - a major terrorist mastermind in Iraq - to his al Qaeda associates in Afghanistan suggests that he is getting discouraged: The geography is unfriendly and Iraqis are too, the writer laments. Every time they mount an attack to drive Iraqis apart, they come together instead.

"Democracy" in Iraq, he writes, "is coming," and that will mean "suffocation" for the terrorists. Zarqawi says his best hope is to start a Shi'a-Sunni civil war by killing Shi'a.

DEMOCRACY is coming to Iraq. And we'll be there to see it. When sovereignty is handed over to Iraqis on July 1, our engagement will change. But our commitment will not. We'll stay in Iraq until our job is done.

Last July, an American Army colonel in the 101st Air Assault Division told me that he explained that job to his soldiers like this: He told them that what they're doing in Iraq is every bit as important as what their grandfathers did in Germany or Japan in World War II or what their fathers did in Korea or in Europe during the Cold War.

Those soldiers are changing history in a way that will make America and the world safer. Our soldiers are making it possible for people to build free and stable governments that will join the fight against terrorism - and our children and grandchildren will be safer for it.

Someday, Iraq will be one of these free and prospering nations. As Ali put it so well: "It's just a matter of time."

Paul Wolfowitz is the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense.

[Mavdog]

Wolfowitz certainly wants the affair to end with the Iraqi's having a free and democratic society (as we all should) primarily because he is one of the architects of the flawed Bush Doctrine which was relied upon to legitimize the Iraq War.

I'd suggest that the most important element that the average Iraqi wants today tho is not a free election, but security. Freedom from violence, and freedom from the fear of being a victim of terrorism.

It would be interesting to hear what Wolfowitz says about he and the others who promulgated the invasion of Iraq failure to adequately plan for the post war Iraq that we now are experiencing, one of insecurity and violence for the ordinary Iraqi. The state of affairs in post war Iraq would have been much more manageable with an international composition of the forces there IMHO, and Wolfowitz is one of those responsible for that scenario not occurring.

[dude1394]

Well I don't quite know how many more countries you want in there. I just heard bush's speach and he listed at least 15 countries that have lost folks in Iraq. If you want to say that the bush administration underestimated the post-war requirements, okay. But that's monday morning quarterbacking in my mind. They had to shift to nation building really quickly versus dealing with WMDs, oil fires, scuds over israel etc.

they sort of also had to win a war, so they just didn't have their policeman quite ready to go, dig.

I think the average iraqi sort of values not having their tongues cut out, wives/daughters raped or children imprisoned or being on of the hundreds of thousands being dug up in unmarked graves as well. You know, little insignificant things like that probably make them feel somewhat better. But what do I know.

[Mavdog]

Well I don't quite know how many more countries you want in there. I just heard bush's speach and he listed at least 15 countries that have lost folks in Iraq.

sure, if one includes the UN personnel and NGO's who have fallen victim to the terrorism, there would most likely be that number. I'm sure you would agreee the vast majority of troops are American ...

If you want to say that the bush administration underestimated the post-war requirements, okay. But that's monday morning quarterbacking in my mind. They had to shift to nation building really quickly versus dealing with WMDs, oil fires, scuds over israel etc.

These people are responsible for planning for the post war situation, that's their job! It certainly is NOT "monday morning quarterbacking" to expect that those who pushed for the war also took the time and devoted the resources to plan for AFTER the invasion was complete. To not plan for that time was a HUGE mistake.

BTW, it may have missed your newspaper but there were no WMD discovered or scuds launched over Israel in this conflict.

they sort of also had to win a war, so they just didn't have their policeman quite ready to go, dig.

The point is they SHOULD have had a plan for "their policemen [to be] ready to go", and an International group (which could have included other muslim countries) would have been able to assist. See, a good plan looks at the present and the future...they forgot to plan for the later.

I think the average iraqi sort of values not having their tongues cut out, wives/daughters raped or children imprisoned or being on of the hundreds of thousands being dug up in unmarked graves as well. You know, little insignificant things like that probably make them feel somewhat better. But what do I know.

Look, it's clear that there were many instances of human rights abuses, of torture, of murder during the Hussein time. The average Iraqi now doesn't have those thugs to worry about...but now they have other thugs and security worries that we, as an occupying force, need to address, needs that should have been better planned for by those who put together the war strategy and specifically the post war strategy.

They are still in harm's way and it is a legitimate question to ask why the planners didn't better prepare for such a chaotic situation.

[dude1394]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Well I don't quite know how many more countries you want in there. I just heard bush's speach and he listed at least 15 countries that have lost folks in Iraq.

sure, if one includes the UN personnel and NGO's who have fallen victim to the terrorism, there would most likely be that number. I'm sure you would agreee the vast majority of troops are American ...

Geezz MD, what do you honestly expect? The vast majority of EVERY armed conflict involving the UN or the US since WWII has been american troops? The euros can't even get their troops there. And your point about NGOs is that there are NOT at least 15 countries in this coalition?

Let's see:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.

I know your beloved France/Germany/Canada/Mexico isn't in there but I don't remember France/Germany being in the last Allied Coalition of WWII either. So I'm pretty comfortable with this one although the golden-throated Kerry has decided that they are a sham, nice diplomacy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in544517.shtml

These people are responsible for planning for the post war situation, that's their job! It certainly is NOT "monday morning quarterbacking" to expect that those who pushed for the war also took the time and devoted the resources to plan for AFTER the invasion was complete. To not plan for that time was a HUGE mistake.

It IS monday morning quarterbacking to believe that a government ANY government should totally anticipate the future accurately. It's NEVER been done? Didn't clintoon say we would be out of Bosnia in a year, but 10 years later not. I know you don't like the policy but I would expect you to appreciate the difficulty of the endeavor. But maybe not in an election year.
I have no issue to be honest with the griping/criticism as long as it's constructive. But if the statement is that it wasn't planned for adequately therefore the whole thing is a disaster, that's naive. The first goal was to win the war(you know kill bad guys), protect the infrastructure hopefully while doing it. Secondarily was to be ready to respond to a humanitarian/environmental crisis with emergency foodstuffs. Then being re-building the country, etc..

BTW, it may have missed your newspaper but there were no WMD discovered or scuds launched over Israel in this conflict.

Well yeah... That's my point.. THAT's what they had to plan for first and foremost, not a political solution in the first 90 days.

The point is they SHOULD have had a plan for "their policemen [to be] ready to go", and an International group (which could have included other muslim countries) would have been able to assist. See, a good plan looks at the present and the future...they forgot to plan for the later.

We just keep going around on this one. My opinion ( and of course you ARE disagreeing with it) is that they had more important priorities to worry about first. Security for our troops as well as making sure that the conflict didn't expand. Again I have no problem with even criticizing their post-war planning, but to hear you talk that was paramount, sort of like the "looting" of the museum was paramount. It's media talk, good for the moment, but not well thought out.

Look, it's clear that there were many instances of human rights abuses, of torture, of murder during the Hussein time. The average Iraqi now doesn't have those thugs to worry about...but now they have other thugs and security worries that we, as an occupying force, need to address, needs that should have been better planned for by those who put together the war strategy and specifically the post war strategy.

I hope you aren't equating the two? Maybe you do and that's part our vehement disagreement. Sure the iraqi's are living in the result of a war zone, where muslim terrorists have no problem with blowing up other muslims at prayers. Unfortunately that's something the islamic countries are going to have to live with for a while until THEY THEMSELVES begin to turn them in to the authorities.

They are still in harm's way and it is a legitimate question to ask why the planners didn't better prepare for such a chaotic situation.

No problem again if this is an honest criticism with some concrete proposals I would like to have heard them. For example how many of the folks allocated for grabbing and keeping the scuds bottled up should have not been there in lieu of cops. Also how many of the folks allocated to put out oil wells, and keep them from getting blown up should have not been there in lieu of cops. Or possibly you are saying we should have gone in a lot slower so we could have another hundred thousand american soldiers at risk of WMD attack in the theatre. I don't honestly think you are thinking through this. Maybe you have, I wouldn't mind hearing it if so.

[Mavdog]

Take a look at the list of countries ID'd as involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom and almost all are either a) providing overflight clearance or b) naval support/vessels.

OIF webpage

I can't see how the figure is what is tossed around (22K ?) unless it includes sailors out at sea.

There are multiple stages in the conflict, and they dropped the ball on the post war part.

I never called the current situation "a disaster" but it clearly is more chaotic than it could be if there had been better planning. Wolfowitz (and others in the current admin) is responsible for this lack of planning.

In that there were no WMD, nor any scuds to take care of, those items aren't issues that would prevent a plan for post war Iraq from being put into action. Those are straw man arguments...

The plan should have been to have a multi nation "police" prescence ready to hit the ground as soon as the armed forces were through with their attack, which would have been about 10 months ago. This should have included muslim and non muslim personnell so that there was NO perception that they were occupiers but rather that the world was ready to help Iraq. I know that we are trying to help Iraq, you know it too, but I'd expect to the average Iraqi fed disinformation by their government for decades they aren't entirely sure.

All it would have taken is for a more deft diplomatic plan for post war Iraq...but then diplomacy clearly isn't the strong suit of this administration.

[FishForLunch]

The only people you can secure Iraq is the Iraqi people, with help from the US/coalition military to provide protection for the Iraqi government until such time that the Iraqi Armed forces and National Guard are trained in sufficient numbers. If you think the UN and Nato forces can provide more security just look at the current Kosovo situation.

All this takes time

[FishForLunch]

Here is Kerrys Statement on the aniverssary of the Iraq War
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry, the Democratic rival to President Bush, issued the following statement on the one year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Today marks the one year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. It is an important day to recognize the courage and enormous skill of the United States military. Our men and women in uniform are the best and the brightest the nation has to offer, and their efforts to defend Democracy should be honored each and every day. We also must remember those that have given their lives in the fight for freedom.

"Before the war started, I repeatedly called on the President to build a genuine coalition to reduce the military and financial burden on the United States, to go to war only as a last resort, and to have a plan to win the peace. I voted to give him the authority to go to war only when he promised me and other members in Congress that he would do these things. He broke those promises.

"He misled the American people in his own State of the Union Address about Saddam's nuclear program and WMD's, and refused - and continues to refuse - to level with the American people about the cost of the war. Simply put, this President didn't tell the truth about the war for the beginning. And our country is paying the price.

"It's time for George Bush to start being consistent on Iraq. It's time for him to finally find the right policy for Iraq. It's time to take the target's off the backs of U.S. soldiers, reduce the burden on America's taxpayers, and finish the job in Iraq."

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Take a look at the list of countries ID'd as involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom and almost all are either a) providing overflight clearance or b) naval support/vessels.

OIF webpage

I can't see how the figure is what is tossed around (22K ?) unless it includes sailors out at sea.

Well ok but you gotta do a little bit more than that to fuel your cynicism. There is at least 10K britsh and I believe ~2k polish, 1.5k spanish, japanese etc. It doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me.

I never called the current situation "a disaster" but it clearly is more chaotic than it could be if there had been better planning. Wolfowitz (and others in the current admin) is responsible for this lack of planning.

Well I find it hard to argue with that statement. My garden would be better if I had better planning to.

In that there were no WMD, nor any scuds to take care of, those items aren't issues that would prevent a plan for post war Iraq from being put into action. Those are straw man arguments...

Why do you wear a seat belt when you drive? You didn't have a wreck the last time did you, so why did you spend the effort and resources to buckle up. Since you didn't have a wreck you didn't need it. It's far from a strawman, it had to be planned for and resourced. The "rolling" start was predicated on their being WMDs there. Why do you think guys were wearing chem suits anyway. It was a more important task (imho) than worrying about the post-war. First goal was to win it. Since we were in a "quagmire" 5 days into it, it was not at all certain that it would last less than 30 days or so.

The plan should have been to have a multi nation "police" prescence ready to hit the ground as soon as the armed forces were through with their attack, which would have been about 10 months ago. This should have included muslim and non muslim personnell so that there was NO perception that they were occupiers but rather that the world was ready to help Iraq. I know that we are trying to help Iraq, you know it too, but I'd expect to the average Iraqi fed disinformation by their government for decades they aren't entirely sure.

All it would have taken is for a more deft diplomatic plan for post war Iraq...but then diplomacy clearly isn't the strong suit of this administration.

You "MAY" be right, but I'm not convinced. Even with a "police force" in place they would still have had to contend with tanks, soldiers for example. The one thing I can see that jumps out at me was the firing of the iraqi military. That might have been a mistake. But it looks like an honest one that I would have probably made.

As far as the average iraqi's, the latest polls from that region show t hat they understand our motives much better than the people who read our media do. For example the iraqi muslims in britain for example have a much lower opinion of the effort than the local iraqis do. And it's no wonder with the BBC blaring out their anti-war drum.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Here is Kerrys Statement on the aniverssary of the Iraq War
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry, the Democratic rival to President Bush, issued the following statement on the one year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Today marks the one year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. It is an important day to recognize the courage and enormous skill of the United States military. Our men and women in uniform are the best and the brightest the nation has to offer, and their efforts to defend Democracy should be honored each and every day. We also must remember those that have given their lives in the fight for freedom.

"Before the war started, I repeatedly called on the President to build a genuine coalition to reduce the military and financial burden on the United States, to go to war only as a last resort, and to have a plan to win the peace. I voted to give him the authority to go to war only when he promised me and other members in Congress that he would do these things. He broke those promises.

"He misled the American people in his own State of the Union Address about Saddam's nuclear program and WMD's, and refused - and continues to refuse - to level with the American people about the cost of the war. Simply put, this President didn't tell the truth about the war for the beginning. And our country is paying the price.

"It's time for George Bush to start being consistent on Iraq. It's time for him to finally find the right policy for Iraq. It's time to take the target's off the backs of U.S. soldiers, reduce the burden on America's taxpayers, and finish the job in Iraq."

Typical, he doen't provide one positive, constructive thought here.

[FishForLunch]

Here is fellow liberal Kennedys Statement. Only thing missing is praise for the troops. Poor Kennedy he was mislead too. I guess Kennedy is of the opinion that we should have waited until 2009 after Saddam had a nuclear weapon to go to war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's Distortions Misled Congress in Its War Vote


COMMENTARY

By Edward M. Kennedy
A year ago, the United States went to war in Iraq because President Bush and his administration convinced Congress and the country that Saddam Hussein was an urgent threat that required immediate military action. The nation has paid a high price for that decision ever since.

The case for war was based on two key claims: that Hussein was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, and that he had close ties to the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the atrocities of Sept. 11. Both claims proved to be demonstrably false.

We can only speculate about the real reasons we went to war. What is known, however, is that, at the time the decision was being made in the summer of 2002, Osama bin Laden was still at large, the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan had entered a troubled phase, our economy was reeling from recession, the president's approval rating in the Gallup Poll had declined from its peak of 90% after Sept. 11 to 63% by Labor Day 2002, and control of the Senate and House was at stake in the critical congressional elections in November that year.

Karl Rove, the president's political advisor, made it clear early on that the war on terrorism could be used politically. At a Republican National Committee meeting on Jan. 19, 2002, he said, "We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."

The decision on Iraq was made in August, but the administration announced it in September. As White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. explained on Sept. 7, "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

For maximum political impact, the administration insisted that Congress vote to authorize the war before adjourning that year for the November elections.

The president, as principal cheerleader for war, said on Sept. 25, 2002, "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." On Oct. 2, he said the issue "is a threat of unique urgency." On Oct. 7, he said, "facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." On Oct. 10, the House approved the war resolution 296 to 133; the Senate approved it 77 to 23 the next day.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly to authorize the war; the Democrats were deeply divided. A mushroom cloud. A threat of unique urgency. No distinction between Hussein and Al Qaeda. These were the administration's reasons, and none of them was true. The GOP prevailed in the 2002 elections and regained control of Congress, but it was a hollow victory.

Presumably, the administration felt it could not persuade Congress to authorize the war on the basis of chemical and biological weapons alone, since Hussein's arsenal had been successfully contained for years. The case for war depended on hyping the nuclear threat and ties to Al Qaeda. In fact, the intelligence community had poured cold water on both the nuclear threat and the Al Qaeda link before the war began. CIA Director George J. Tenet stated in a speech last month that the agency told the administration before the war that "Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."

The ties to Al Qaeda were just as dubious. Before the war, the intelligence community found no cooperative relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda. It had low confidence even in the prospect that, in desperation, Hussein might share chemical and biological weapons with Al Qaeda. In February 2003, FBI investigators said they had been baffled by the administration's insistence on a solid link. "We just don't think it's there," said one official.

The truth was there to see, but the administration refused to see it. America went to war in a dishonest way that alienated key allies, divided and weakened the United Nations, outraged the world community, made us more hated in the world and made the war on terrorism more difficult to win.

The decision on war or peace is the most important decision any president ever makes. The prime minister of Spain paid a high price Sunday for supporting us in the war, and for misleading the Spanish people. President Bush is likely to pay a similar high price in November.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, is the senior senator from Massachusetts.

[dude1394]

No both kerry's and kennedy's position was that we should have just left him alone when he invaded kuwait. That'll teach him, let HIM try nation building!!

Although I think he would probably had had the security the libs/dims wanted going in the first week or so. After he killed a couple 10-20 thousand they would have quieted right down.