« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
I think everyone can agree that if you go to the trouble of organizing an Iraqi political reconciliation conference, it's generally a bad sign if a number of key players don't even show up.
The idea behind the conference pushed by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki was to have a national "dialogue."
The largest Sunni bloc, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party, and a prominent minority party of Shiites and Sunnis all boycotted the conference. No representatives of the insurgency (either Baathist or militia members) were there. Supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr walked out of the conference, as did a prominent Sunni tribal leader who's been key to the so-called "Anbar Awakening."
Typical of Iraq, the boycotters don't even concur on their reason for boycotting. The New York Times focuses on pique by some blocs that they didn't get a proper invitation (Maliki's people say everybody got an official invitation). The AP reports that one Sunni bloc "said they would not participate in the conference until Shiite lawmakers address their political demands" -- so they won't talk reconciliation until their grievances are reconciled. And then there's a more direct explanation from that Anbar tribal leader, who's quoted in The Los Angeles Times (under the headline "A no-reconciliation conference"):
The organizer noted that Sunni tribes, which have revolted against Al Qaeda in Iraq, attended the conference. But one of their main leaders, Sheik Sulaiman, decided to lead his delegation out of the conference."I didn't stay any longer than it took me to smoke my cigarette. It was a total failure, because the Iraqi politicians are a failure," Sulaiman said.
This is why even Gen. David Petraeus says that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation."
Happy 5th Anniversary, everybody.
Josh
Zachary
I note that Bush has yet to mention this in his speech at the Pentagon . . .
March 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because, Richard, that would be reality-based. That's just not how the Bushies roll.
March 19, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the footnote pointing out that a suicide/homocide bomber killed 25 while Darth Cheney was touting the wonderously fabulousness of Operation Iraqi Liberation . . . And the increase of the price of oil from $34 to over $100.
March 19, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So?
March 19, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps if Rumsfeld had showed up it would have gone better. I'm sure he would have been greeted with roses.
OK - how are we now defining success in Iraq?
March 19, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iraqi Surge.....The Failure That Republicans Are Calling A Success
The point of the so-called "surge" was to provide time for "political" reconciliation. Since "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.", aren't Bush, Cheney, McCain and their Republican cohorts ALL LYING when they say that the "surge" has been a success? Aren't they ALL KNOWINGLY MISLEADING the American people? Aren't they ALL blatantly FULL OF SHIT!
March 19, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do they hate freedom too? Or just each other's freedom?
March 19, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this new? I mean the LYING. They think we are mushrooms. Keep us in the dark and feed us bullshit. This is how the war started. With bullshit. That is how the war has been run, with bullshit. EVERYTHING this administration has done in all agencys has been bullshit. Mostly religious bullshit.
March 19, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The surge may not have worked in that political reconciliation is still agonizingly slow...but it has worked in improving overall security in the country...good NYT Op-ed this weekend shows some of the progress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09ohanlon.html?scp=3&sq=Iraq+progress&st=nyt
In addition, some recent polls have shown more Iraqis to optimistic about the future than ever.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/17/iraqis_optimistic_poll_says/2067/
But, and it is a BIG BUT....there still seems to be a very long way to go to achieve any lasting political compromise that can be defended adequately and fairly by IRAQI's, not American soldiers.
So the larger issue really is: where do we go from here? Or in the context of this upcoming election, how does the Dem. nominee advocate withdrawal from Iraq and also have a plan for its future? Right now, I hear talk about how the Bush startegy has failed, and Iraq is still a mess, costing trillions, etc., etc. ALL TRUE. But, so what? Bush is not up for re-election. It will hopefully be Obama or Clinton's war in less than a year, and a withdrawal with no plan for protecting the gains we have made is just assisnine....If the Dem. nominee goes ahead with withdrawal as a strategy, without elucidating a plan to keep the peace there after we leave, MCain and the Repubs will bludgeon us to death as "waving the white flag" of surrender, and leaving Iraqi's who have helped America over the years to suffer a terrible fate at the hands of extremists....
I want out of Iraq as much as anyone else. But as Obama has said, I would like to use as much sense in getting out as we lacked getting in....(paraphrased badly). Saying you will have the troops out in 16months sounds like a time-table, and time-tables don't make much sense, unless actual gains are made, and sustained.
It may be that there is no good option, and we just need to get the heck out of there as soon as possible. Maybe so, but I need to hear the candidates say it, clearly, and explain where we go from here.
March 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wondered why he had to have secret service at the Pentagon. That was weird.
Notice how he snorted at least once, and read the speech.
But on substance, the phrase that pays was when he said, the war was costlier and harder than anticipated. He didn't have to go on after that. This will define his presidency, poor judgement. My way or the highway is what he ran the war and the country.
Everytime he mentioned all the Saddam atrocities, in my mind I countered, Abu Gharib and his policies on torture. He of course didn't mention those.
Even Gen. Patreus remarks that the escalation didn't work, didn't change the president's remarks.
March 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, dorn76 if you throw enough money at anything for long enough you can claim a degree of success, but the reality is that this war is being waged at a huge cost to us citizens. We have to borrow 12 billions to throw at this hell hole. It wasn't supposed to be that way, if you may recall.
It was supposed to pay for itself and it hasn't.
Sure, I want stability in the Middle East, but all the generals said and Bush didn't listen that a coaliton of nations needed to fight the war on terra because it was a global problem. It began that way, but was soon abandoned by the coalition countries because they saw it for the quagmire that it is/ was.
March 19, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree totally about the costs of this war in the blood and treasure of the US....But just how the hell do we extricate ourselves, and keep Iraq, and the Middle East, from boiling over?
I had the good fortune to speak with a 24yr old soldier recently, recovering from a head wound sustained in an IED attack outside Baghdad. I asked him if he was President, what would he do. He said the only thing to do is to kill all the "bad" guys....but he quickly added that was impossible, because in doing so he understood that we would create a million more "bad" guys. So a simple soldier understands our predicament apparently better than our own Administration. Sad. Even the "brilliant young" Gen. Petraeus has said military success is happening, but the Surge needs to be permanent to make it stick. He also notes the lack of political reconciliation, which was the ultimate measure of success for the Surge...
I am not supporting the war, but am still waiting for a real answer as to our exit strategy.
March 19, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
mind you, realistically, the US will NEED and has planned to have its presence in the Middle East FOREVER. period. As much as I hate to admit it, McCain is RIGHT and Obama or Hillary have to capitulate on that
think about the largest embassy in the world being built in Baghdad. That tells the story. We're there for a very long time.
The next president will have to do the grunt work of diplomacy that has been absent in this administration and again try to bring more countries to share the effort and the SPOILS. That is going to be a very tough sell, but maybe a new leader can convince them. but realistically the US created this, and now we own it, like Colin Powell told GWb in the beginning. All the president can say now, 5 years later is that it was costlier and harder than anticipated. More truer words he's not spoken
March 19, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear dorn76,
There is no good answer for an exit strategy. We invaded Iraq. We destroyed the political and social infrastructure. We have failed abyssmally at rebuilding the technical infrastructure (power, water, sewer) which we destroyed.
As long as we occupy Iraq, there will be no real rebuilding of a political infrastructure necessary to support a functioning state. We could leave today. We could leave in 10 years. We could leave in 100 years. No matter when we leave there will be tremendous upheaval, violence, death and destruction. It will not be good.
It doesn't matter when we go. The result will still be the same. Iraq will go through the hell of establishing itself as a functioning state.
In the meantime, no real progress will occur in Iraq. There may be some changes, but nothing of any permanance or meaning. Iraqis will continue to live in limbo as long as we contine to occupy their country.
It doesn't matter what our exit strategy is as long as we do exit.
March 19, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clear headed answer. I think I have avoided thinking of it as an "occupation"...I guess hoping we could become partners with the Iraqis in rebuilding their country. But as long as 150,000 Americans are running around in the heart of the Middle East...well, that just isn't good.
Can we limit the damage somehow when we do leave? Can we offer protection/asylum to those that have helped us?
Is political progress possible in Iraq? Or will extremists and warlords rule?
March 19, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the good old days when Dick Cheney assured us all that the Iraqi Insurgency was; "In it's last throes"?
I have been clinging to that Cheney, Light at the end of the Tunnel, promise, up until,......
John McCain has now explained that "in it's last throes" can last at least a hundred years. Damn last throes must be the longevity champions of the universe!.
March 19, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul,
It almost seems like you are the last man waving the Muckraker's flag. You've been the author of practically all of Muckraker's articles lately. Hope things are going well, and keep marching with that flag.
March 19, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post has nothing to do with Polls. Can you stop posting that inane ad. all over this site?
And Jim. You're right, it will be a nasty situation when we do withdraw, probably not the kind of hopeful story the candidates want to be telling on the campaign trail....But, I just want to hear a real conversation about it, in order to deflect the ridiculous charges of "surrender" that are already being leveled by the other side.
March 19, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink