Tuesday, December 26, 2006
|
|
Lt. General Mattis on Iraq
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:00 AM
|
|
Marine Corps General James Mattis gave an extensive interview last week on the situation in Iraq. General Mattis is commanding general of Camp Pendleton's I Marine Expeditionary Force and commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command. Read the whole thing. Key excerpts:
Our strategy approach to this remains pretty much the same. This is the U.S. approach: Get the security situation under control, the violence down. Get the Iraqi security forces trained and picking up more of the load. And third, assist and facilitate the Iraqi government becoming capable of meeting needs of the people. These things happen fast.
But if there's one point I would make strongly, it is this, Mark: that violence and progress can and do coexist. You see the blasts, you see the IEDs, you see the cameras on them out there. And that is a legitimate point.
But it is interesting to see in the background people driving by, looking at it the way we look at a car accident. Kids with backpacks on their backs walking by and looking at the blast site, but life is going on.
The enemy, Mattis notes, has successfully denied Western media the opportunity to cover the war:
I was talking to a lieutenant in Haditha, he told me that because they are now all connected nowadays in their FOBs, he could read stories about Haditha. He said, 'I guarantee you there has not been a reporter in Haditha in my last two and a half months here.'
We're seeing, I think, an unwitting passing of the enemy's message, uncritical, unwitting passing of the enemy's message because the enemy has successfully denied the Western media access to the battlefields.
I'm not sure what Lloyds of London is charging now, I think it's over $5,000 a month insurance for a reporter or photographer to go in. But the murder, the kidnapping, the intimidation means that, in many cases, we have media folks who are relying on stringers who are Iraqi.
Now you can have any kind of (complaint) about the American media or Western media you want, but there is at least a nod, an effort toward objectivity. The stringers who are being brought in, who are bringing in these stories, are not bringing that same degree of objectivity.
So on the one hand, our enemy is denying our media access to the battlefield, where anything perhaps that I say as a general is subject to any number of interpretations, challenges, questions, but the enemy's story basically gets there without that because our media is unable to challenge them. It's unwitting, but at the same time, it can promote the enemy's agenda, simply because there is an apparent attempt at objectivity.
|
|
You snide SOB. Read it again, but take off your cool-aide colored glasses. One thing he's saying is that the Iraqis are living with it; and that it's still the so-called American media who are wetting their pants over every little explosion.
You can retutrrn to your NY Times editorials now.
Richard |
|
|
reporting what he sees on the ground outside the Green Zone, and it doesn't look very good. But he's Australian, isn't he? |
|
Briggsy 1, Richard 0. Now I suppose we'll hear from all the Generals about how they've changed their minds about sending in more troops: yeah, now I think it's a good idea. It's really the answer. Sounds like a plan.
The hard part about it all has nothing to do with the coverage of the war. It's the political perception that the USA might "lose", and so can't leave without winning. Murphy's law is well underway: 1. If things can go wrong, they will. 2. If they do, they'll get worse.3. The more you try to fix them, the worse they get. |
|
Who Might Be Shooting at Both Sides?
http://www.controlcongress.com
This is a very interesting article sent to me about Iraq. I would suggest reading this and comment.
Thirteen groups that favor chaos in Iraq
AW-by Jon Basil Utley
It’s strange that little of the news coverage of Iraq addresses this question. Doesn’t it seem obvious that some groups are fomenting the chaos? Getting tribes to fight each other is often easy. Most of them have some past injustice to avenge. The British Empire ruled much of its colonial world in this way, balancing off or favoring different tribes to rule others. In most of the Old World, tribes hated their neighbors more than foreign conquerors. See “Tribes, Veils, and Democracy.”
Some 28 years ago I was in the Middle East with my mother, author of Will the Middle East Go West? [.pdf]. In Beirut we met John Cooley, the well-known and long-respected reporter for the Christian Science Monitor. The civil war in Lebanon was just getting started, and cooler heads were trying to head it off. Cooley then told us that every time there was a cease-fire some shadowy elements appeared to be shooting at both sides in an effort to get the fighting started up again. They succeeded, and the subsequent war nearly tore the nation apart.
Today there is a similar situation in Iraq. Much of the slaughter doesn’t make sense among neighbors and friends. Peter Beinart of The New Republic wrote an excellent study of the past history of Iraq describing the unity of Sunnis and Shi’ites – indeed, the first Ba’athist leader was a Shia, though we think of Ba’athists, the party of Saddam, as all being Sunnis. But suppose some of the horrendous murder was being done by outsiders wanting to destroy Iraq by getting Sunnis and Shi’ites to wreak vengeance on each other. Tribal societies are particularly vulnerable to this kind of disruption.
With hindsight, one can argue that it was vital for Washington to prevent such a situation from occurring when the Army first occupied Baghdad, that the turning point was when the looting and chaos first started and U.S. forces did nothing to stop it. But today, for Washington to adopt a realistic policy, America must face the facts on the ground. Wishful thinking only brings disaster.
Let’s look at all the groups with an interest in continuing the chaos.
1. First, of course, there is al-Qaeda. Bin Laden must be laughing every day to see America’s Army being hollowed out as the Army chief of staff describes. Further, every picture of Arabs being killed by Americans furthers bin Laden’s objectives. There are too many ways bin Laden is “winning” to describe here; for details, see “36 Ways U.S. Is Losing the War on Terror.”
2. Iraq’s neighbors. Neoconservatives and Bush virtually threatened that Syria and Iran were the next in line to be attacked by America. This stupidity gave them every reason to want to see America tied down and weakened in Iraq for as long as possible.
3. The Likud Party in Israel. Although most Israelis want peace, their electoral system gives overwhelming power to their aggressive minorities. It is not hard to imagine that many want Arabs to fight and weaken one another. Israeli agents are very active with the Kurds, even training them. The U.S. occupation brought in Israeli advisers to teach American soldiers how to suppress Arab resistance. Israel has Arab speakers who can easily “mix in,” as well as other resources. Dividing one’s enemies is the oldest strategy in the book. Some Israelis would like to see a massive Sunni-Shia war spread to other Muslim nations.
4. The Kurds. They want a divided and weakened central government so they can gain their independence and take over the oil wealth of northern Iraq.
5. Shia and Kurdish militias benefit greatly from being trained and supplied by America. The so-called Iraqi army and police are mainly composed of Shia and Kurds. The longer the strife continues, the better equipped they become for an eventual showdown against the Sunnis, who also bear the brunt of American “pacification.” Meanwhile, the Shia are gradually “ethnically cleansing” Baghdad of Sunnis.
6. Mercenaries, some paid as much as a thousand dollars a day. They want a good business to continue.
7. The Beltway Bombers and companies set up in Washington to hire retired commandos, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs. They have gained hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts from the Pentagon to help out in Iraq. There are indeed a reported 100,000 or so bodyguards, non-military consultants, advisers, support staff, etc., mostly paid by the U.S. Treasury.
8. Other oil-producing nations. All are happy to see most Iraq oil production off the market, which helps to keep the price of oil high. Russia certainly would benefit the most if other Mideast oil producers had “troubles,” too.
9. Weapons manufacturers in many lands selling millions and paying big commissions to all sides in wars.
10. Gangster elements in Iraq, criminals who are thriving on the lawlessness, from petty thieves to big-time smugglers of oil and weapons.
11. All the nations that want to see the U.S. weakened and humiliated. Russians are no longer friendly to America, and many fear us. The Chinese were once on notice from powerful Washington interests that they would be next, once America finished with the Muslim world. The Chinese understand that manufacturers of warships, missiles, and planes need a “real” nation with vast resources to justify spending for their products; fighting shoeless guerrillas in caves and cellars won’t cut it.
12. The Armageddon lobby in America, which sees chaos in Iraq as helping along their fantasies of hurrying up God to fulfill His prophecies (as they see them) to kill most of the human race while giving them a quick pass to Heaven.
13. Finally, there are smaller tribal elements in Iraq itself with their own agendas, which are almost impossible for Washington to discern.
This gives some idea of what America is up against. The electoral system foisted on Iraq by the early occupation authorities that divides power and establishes an almost dysfunctional government, e.g., favoring ethnic voting blocks, even without outside threats. The American objectives of pacification and “victory” look very difficult in view of all the above.
|
|
News Flash! Baghdad is not Iraq.
The typical journalist goes to Iraq, hunkers down in the most comfortable (and safe) spot in Bagdad he can find, sucks up anything he can get from "locals," reports on every IED, shot and mortar blast contributed by any militant maniac, and the MSM calls it news. This situation could have been, in fact was, scripted by the Islamic media advisors and is being followed to the letter by our so-called journalists - including the AP. Meanwhile, the remaining 80-90% of the country is largely ignored except for casual mention of some big military action. This is effectively what the General said. What part of the picture is so hard to grasp? |
|
You are right Baghdad is not Iraq. Yet it represents the problem with sectarian violence. We have little problems in regions separated by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
That is why Biden bipartisan plan makes sense.
http://www.controlcongress.com
FACT SHEET: Biden-Gelb Plan for Iraq
Senator Joe Biden has a long list of bipartisan support for his plan. I do think this is the most logical plan I have seen to contain Iraq. We also most add a Marshal Plan to get off Middle East oil in less than 5 years. If any of you saw me speak in public about Iraq I made similar point to this plan for over a year. I hope all of you have time you read the plan and comment.
President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. Meanwhile, the frustration of Americans is mounting so fast that Congress might end up mandating a rapid withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives.
There is a third way. The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority and women’s rights and the creation of a jobs program. It would require a regional non-aggression pact, overseen by the U.N. Security Council. And it would allow us to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007.
The new, central reality in Iraq is that violence between the Shiites and Sunnis has surpassed the insurgency as the main security threat. . In last December’s elections, 90 percent of the votes went to sectarian lists. Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Massive unemployment is feeding the militia and criminal gangs. Sectarian cleansing has forced 200,000 Iraqis to flee their homes in recent months. At the same time, Al Qaeda is now so firmly entrenched in Western Iraq that it has morphed into an indigenous jihadist threat. As a result, Iraq risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for radical fundamentalists.
There is no military solution to the sectarian civil war. The only way to break the vicious cycle of violence – and to create the conditions for our forces to responsibly withdraw — is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires a sustainable political settlement. That’s where my plan comes in.
This plan is not partition – in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq. This plan is consistent with Iraq’s constitution, which provides for Iraq’s 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions. This plan is consistent with a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.
The example of Bosnia is illustrative. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croatsand Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their central government, and disbanding their separate armies.
The course we’re on leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan is designed to head that off. I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country. The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?
A Five Point Plan for Iraq
1. Establish One Iraq, with Three Regions
• Establish three largely autonomous regions with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad
• Put the central government in charge of border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
• Form regional governments — Kurd, Sunni and Shiite — responsible for administering their own regions
2. Share Oil Revenues
• Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by giving them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues – an amount roughly proportional to their size – to make their region economically viable
• Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, which would attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community’s interest in keeping Iraq intact
3. Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program
• Provide more reconstruction assistance, but clearly condition it on the protection of minority and women’s rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs
• Insist that other countries make good on old commitments and provide new ones – especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries
4. Engage the Neighbors, Maintain Iraq’s Territorial Integrity
• With the U.N., convene a regional security conference where Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran, pledge to respect Iraq’s borders and work cooperatively to implement this plan
• Engage Iraq’s neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it
• Create a standing Contact Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq’s neighbors and enforce their commitments
5. Drawdown US Troops
• Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007
• Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force – perhaps 20,000 troops – to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq’s neighbors honest and train its security forces
|
|
|
|
So our totaly left biased media is accepting biased stories from their terrorist fed stringers.
No real surprise there.
No need to risk your life getting anti-American BS when you can get it direct from the enemy.
Personal injury lawyer on a banana peel?
http://www.givemetheinfo.com/blog/blogger.html |
|
|
|