Those dang British memos. Don't they know how to run a tight ship over there?

quote:

US postwar Iraq strategy a mess, Blair was told Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor Tuesday March 14, 2006 The Guardian Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos. John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth". That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded. The memos were obtained by Michael Gordon, author, along with General Bernard Trainor, of Cobra II: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, published to coincide with the third anniversary of the invasion. The British memos identified a series of US failures that contained the seeds of the present insurgency and anarchy. The mistakes include: · A lack of interest by the US commander, General Tommy Franks, in the post-invasion phase. · The presence in the capital of the US Third Infantry Division, which took a heavyhanded approach to security. · Squandering the initial sympathy of Iraqis. · Bechtel, the main US civilian contractor, moving too slowly to reconnect basic services, such as electricity and water. · Failure to deal with health hazards, such as 40% of Baghdad's sewage pouring into the Tigris and rubbish piling up in the streets. · Sacking of many of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, even though many of them held relatively junior posts. Mr Sawers, in a memo titled Iraq: What's Going Wrong, written on May 11, four days after he had arrived in Baghdad, is uncompromising about the US administration in Baghdad. He wrote: "No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis." He said the US needed to take action in Baghdad urgently. "The clock is ticking." Both Mr Sawers, who is now political director at the Foreign Office, and Gen Whitley see as one of the biggest errors a decision by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and General Tommy Franks, the overall US commander, to cut troops after the invasion. Mr Sawers advocated sending a British battalion, the 16th Air Assault Brigade, to Baghdad to help fill the gap. Although the US supported the plan, Downing Street rejected it weeks later. The British diplomat is particularly scathing about the US Third Infantry Division, which he describes as "a big part of the problem" in Baghdad. He accused its troops of being reluctant to leave their heavily armoured vehicles to carry out policing and cites an incident in which British Paras saw them fire three tank rounds into a building in response to harmless rifle fire. Mr Sawers, who had been British ambassador to Egypt before being sent to Iraq and is at present on a shortlist to be the next ambassador to Washington, sent the memo to Mr Blair's key advisers, including Jonathan Powell, the No 10 chief of staff, and Alastair Campbell, head of the Downing Street press operation at the time. Mr Sawers, in later memos, welcomed the replacement of Gen Garner with Paul Bremer, a US diplomat. But in a memo written in June 25, Mr Sawyer concluded that, despite Mr Bremer's arrival, the situation was getting worse. In that memo, Mr Sawers expressed opposition to further troop reductions. "Bremer's main concern is that we must keep in-country sufficient military capability to ensure a security blanket across the country. He has twice said to President Bush that he is concerned that the drawdown of US/UK troops had gone too far, and we cannot afford further reductions," Mr Sawers said. Throughout his time in Iraq, however, Mr Sawers remained optimistic Mr Bremer would make a difference. His views in the memo are echoed in a note by Gen Whitley, who says that while Gen Franks took credit for the fall of Baghdad, he showed little interest in the postwar period. "I am quite sure Franks did not want to take ownership of Phase IV," Gen Whitley wrote. He added that Phase IV "did not work well" because the concentration was on the invasion. "There was a blind faith that Phase IV would work. There was a failure to anticipate the extent of the backlash or mood of Iraqi society." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor....html?gusrc=rss

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Hehe right ... nope no danger of a civil war breaking out. Rusmfeld and Abizaid seem a whole lot less sure of that.

quote:

U.S. Sets Plans to Aid Iraq in Civil War Security Forces Would Bear Brunt By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 10, 2006; Page A01 The U.S. military will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down a civil war in that country if one breaks out, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers yesterday. Sectarian violence in Iraq has reached a level unprecedented since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and is now eclipsing the insurgency as the chief security threat there, said Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, who appeared with Rumsfeld. U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing on the Supplemental Budget Request for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite a surge in sectarian violence in Iraq, the process of creating a stable government is proceeding satisfactorily. "The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the . . . Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to," Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee when pressed to explain how the United States intended to respond should Iraq descend wholesale into internecine strife. If civil war becomes reality, "it's very clear that the Iraqi forces will handle it, but they'll handle it with our help," Abizaid said later when asked to elaborate on Rumsfeld's remark. The sobering assessment of sectarian tensions in Iraq shows the extent to which the Feb. 22 bombing of a holy Shiite shrine, and the ensuing revenge attacks that left hundreds of Sunni and Shiite Muslims dead, has shifted military calculations on a range of fronts, including what constitutes the top security challenge and prospects for further reductions in U.S. troop levels this year. Yesterday's statements suggested that the imperative to curb sectarian violence, and the risk that it will evolve into civil war -- a risk commanders have long warned was real, if remote -- has now emerged as a central consideration for U.S. strategy in Iraq. "There's no doubt that the sectarian tensions are higher than we've seen, and it's a great concern to all of us," Abizaid told the Senate committee, adding that the situation in Iraq is "changing [in] nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence." Asked about that comment after the briefing, Abizaid said that "sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency." Abizaid and Rumsfeld voiced the belief that Iraq is not currently engulfed in a civil war and expressed confidence in Iraqi security forces, saying they had performed generally well after the recent wave of sectarian unrest. The country "is not in civil war at the present time, by most experts' calculations," Rumsfeld said. The key to averting a civil war, they told lawmakers, is the quick formation of a unified Iraqi government that is broadly representative of the main Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish religious and ethnic groups. "The situation, to the extent that it's fragile and tense, is as much a governance issue as it is a security issue," Rumsfeld said. "The need is for the principal players in the country to recognize the seriousness of the situation and come together to form a government of national unity that will govern from the center and do it in a reasonably prompt manner," he said. "That will be what it will take, in my view, to further calm the situation." Rumsfeld's testimony included some tense exchanges with Democratic senators, who pressed to know what the latest violence in Iraq would mean for the presence in the country of U.S. troops, who currently number about 132,000, down from 138,000 earlier this year. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) repeatedly asked Rumsfeld whether 2006 will be a year of transition to Iraqi security forces, allowing the withdrawal of significant numbers of U.S. troops by the end of the year. Rumsfeld declined to discuss troop levels, saying it would be "ill-advised for me to make a prediction," but he said that Iraqi security forces are "doing a good job" and that Iraqi leaders are taking responsibility for conflict in the country. "Proof positive the Iraqi security forces are as good as you say is when American troops can come home," Durbin responded. "That's proof positive. Every year we hear about growing numbers and growing capabilities, and yet . . . our best and bravest are still there in danger today." Other Democrats called "unrealistic" Rumsfeld's decision to rely primarily on Iraqi security forces in an outbreak of civil war. "The real issue here is, where will those security forces place their loyalties, and will we be caught in the middle of a situation in which it's unclear to us who the enemy is," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said after a closed Senate briefing on Iraq operations by Abizaid and Rumsfeld after the public session. Reed, Durbin and other Democrats urged Rumsfeld to tell the Iraqi leadership that the United States would soon begin to withdraw troops, as a means of gaining leverage to compel the Iraqis to form a compromise government. "If that real government doesn't materialize, we might be stuck" taking sides, Reed said in an interview. In Baghdad, tit-for-tat sectarian attacks continued yesterday, with a bomb targeting a Sunni mosque and killing five civilians. In all, car bombs killed 16 people in the capital. Another car bomb targeting a police patrol killed nine civilians, news agencies reported, citing police. Iraq's government announced the hanging Thursday of 13 people convicted as terrorists. The hangings marked the first court-ordered executions of insurgents, although three other people -- convicted murderers -- have been legally executed since Iraq reinstated the death penalty in 2004. The Cabinet statement that announced the hangings identified only one of the condemned, Shuqair Fareed, a former Mosul police officer. State television had trumpeted Fareed's confession last year in about 90 killings, including the shooting of two colleagues as they gave him a ride home from work one day. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6030900280.html

And what calculations go into the equation for determining civil war? What's going on in Iraq looks remarkably similar to what was happening to Lebanon around 1975.

Personally I like this Rummy quote the best:

quote:

"Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side," he said. "It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues ..."

Hmm we could stop right here and we wouldn't know whether this quote was referencing the media or this administration.

___________________
Retro ...

okay what can you two frikken geniuses agree upon, since you're as thick as theives.

is it a civil war? not a civil war? quasi-Lebonese? which is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo okay what can you two frikken geniuses agree upon, since you're as thick as theives. is it a civil war? not a civil war? quasi-Lebonese? which is it?

I'd call it pretty damn close, if they aren't there yet already. Seems like it's been there for some time, but our troops and the Shiites/Kurds have managed to keep the cap on the bottle for the most part (some Sunnis have contributed as well). But it seems like there's more and more bubbles underneath the cap as more shit gets stirred up, and it continues to leak out here and there.

There's just only so much pressure that can be sustained before this whole thing blows to hell, and I for one do not want to see our men and women caught in the middle of this mess when it does blow.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo okay what can you two frikken geniuses agree upon, since you're as thick as theives. is it a civil war? not a civil war? quasi-Lebonese? which is it?

It's not a civil war yet. But reading upon other civil wars and the incidents that have set them off it's getting very close. Remember about a month ago where I mentioned that there was a change in Bush's rhetoric that seemed to absolve his responsiblity for an Iraqi descension into civil war? You asked for concrete evidence and I pointed out a specific Bush speech? I said that it seemed like it was a noticeable change in rhetoric that seemed to transition to a different set of talking points?

Well, well, now we have Rummy and field commanders who are openly making plans for civil war, we have the top field commander saying the greatest threat is no longer the insurgency but sectarian violence and looky here ... Bush is setting timetables for a "transition" (we can all read between the lines as to what a withdr ... oops transition means) of forces, something he has explicitly stated he would not do in the past as it would embolden the enemy or whatever.

quote:

Bush Sets Target for Transition In Iraq Country's Troops to Take Lead This Year By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 14, 2006; Page A01 President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence. Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory. While acknowledging grim developments on the ground, Bush declared "real progress" in standing up Iraqi forces capable of defending their nation. The president made no commitments about withdrawing U.S. troops, but he repeated his general formula that Americans could come home as Iraqis eventually take over the fight. He also used the speech to urge Iraqis to form a unity government three months after parliamentary elections, and he accused Iran of providing explosives to Shiite militias attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. The beginning of a new campaign to rally Americans behind the war effort nearly three years after the U.S.-led invasion comes at a time of deepening public misgivings about the campaign in Iraq and Bush's leadership of it. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll this month, 34 percent of Americans surveyed said they think the president has a plan for victory in Iraq, six percentage points lower than in December and the lowest level recorded by that poll. By contrast, 65 percent said Bush has no Iraq plan. How meaningful or achievable the president's new goal is seems uncertain. In the speech, Bush said Iraqi units today have "primary responsibility" over 30,000 square miles of Iraqi territory, an increase of 20,000 square miles since the beginning of the year. As a country of nearly 169,000 square miles, Iraqi forces would need to control about 85,000 square miles to fulfill Bush's target. What constitutes control, however, depends on the definition, since no Iraqi unit is currently rated capable of operating without U.S. assistance. And vast swaths of Iraq have never been contested by insurgents, meaning they could ultimately be turned over to local forces without directly affecting the conflict. Bush said 130 Iraqi battalions are participating in the battle with radical guerrillas, with 60 units taking the lead, an increase from 120 battalions and 40 in the lead when he last delivered major speeches on Iraq at the end of 2005. But Democrats pointed out that a Pentagon report last month showed that the number of Iraqi units rated "Level 1," or fully independent of U.S. help, has fallen from one to zero. Democratic leaders hammered away at the president's latest effort to win public support for the war. "Instead of launching yet another public relations campaign, President Bush should use his speeches this week to provide a strategy to bring our brave men and women home safely and soon," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in a statement. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.) said: "It is time for President Bush to stop the spin and start telling the truth about the harsh realities we are confronting in Iraq." Others praised Bush for committing to a specific target, if not a comprehensive timeline. "This was a step in the right direction," Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.), a centrist Democrat invited to the speech, said in an interview afterward. "Benchmarks set clear, defined goals, and if we see more and more Iraqis being trained and put on the ground, then that means we can bring more Americans home." In his speech at George Washington University, Bush focused on the threat of improvised explosive devices, called IEDs by troops, and said his administration has increased funding to fight them from $150 million in 2004 to $3.3 billion this year. In stark language, he also accused Iran of helping the bomb makers. Just last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to conduct unspecified operations. "Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today include components that come from Iran," Bush said. Such actions, along with Iran's nuclear program, he said, "are increasingly isolating Iran, and America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats." After a deadly spasm of sectarian conflict last month sparked by the bombing of a Shiite shrine, the president presented a dour forecast of continuing mayhem. "I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth," he said. "It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come." But Bush said he saw hope in the fact that the country has not fallen into civil war, as some had forecast. "The Iraqi people made their choice," he said. "They looked into the abyss and did not like what they saw." Bush vowed not to retreat in the face of violence, reading a letter from the mother of Sgt. William S. Kinzer Jr., who was killed last year. "Don't let my son have given his all for an unfinished job," she wrote, according to Bush. "I make this promise to Debbie and all the families of the fallen heroes," he said. "We will not let your loved ones' dying be in vain. We will finish what we started in Iraq. We will complete the mission." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6031300785.html

In other words, this ISN'T just media exagerrations. This is a very real developing threat as evidenced by the actions of the administration you're trying to absolve of all wrongdoing. But you seem like a frikken genius who can tell us why you DON'T think Iraq is in any danger of a civil war so what have you got for us in terms of evidence? And by all means if you see fault with the information we've provided feel free to thoroughly critique it. Feel free to use your posse of theives too.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Mar-15-2006 at 07:03

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It's not a civil war yet. But reading upon other civil wars and the incidents that have set them off it's getting very close. Remember about a month ago where I mentioned that there was a change in Bush's rhetoric that seemed to absolve his responsiblity for an Iraqi descension into civil war? You asked for concrete evidence and I pointed out a specific Bush speech? I said that it seemed like it was a noticeable change in rhetoric that seemed to transition to a different set of talking points? Well, well, now we have Rummy and field commanders who are openly making plans for civil war, we have the top field commander saying the greatest threat is no longer the insurgency but sectarian violence and looky here ... Bush is setting timetables for a "transition" (we can all read between the lines as to what a withdr ... oops transition means) of forces, something he has explicitly stated he would not do in the past as it would embolden the enemy or whatever. [QUOTE] And by all means if you see fault with the information we've provided feel free to thoroughly critique it. Feel free to use your posse of theives too.

okay. i think you said something when you compared Lebanon. it's erie almost, the comparison. On the surface it's like a really condensed timelined version of it. there are key differences. if you and i know anything about the Lebanese conflict is that it didn't involve enough oil to make all parties think twice about heading down a backward path. it didn't involve new ways of thinking how an Arab model should exist in countries with similar backgrounds and resources. and no Christians.

that and i think Arab countries learn from lessons past better than people give them credit for.

as for your Rumsfeld rhetoric i could give a shit that you can read into a newspaper article "read between the lines" of the WaPost. IMO a fine periodicle.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'd call it pretty damn close, if they aren't there yet already. Seems like it's been there for some time, but our troops and the Shiites/Kurds have managed to keep the cap on the bottle for the most part (some Sunnis have contributed as well). But it seems like there's more and more bubbles underneath the cap as more shit gets stirred up, and it continues to leak out here and there.

i agree. but i don't think it's as close as you think. (i must remain consistent)

it all boils down to "what exactly is shit hitting the fan?" and does "shit hitting the fan" have some sort of emotive tangibility that we can all embrace...and smell...together?

quote:

and I for one do not want to see our men and women caught in the middle of this mess when it does blow.

a Newtonian-physical imposibility.