Setting the Anbar record straight
By Steve Benen Thursday Aug 23, 2007 5:15pmThere's National Review's spin:
The fact is that the surge is President Bush's policy, and one that he implemented over the vociferous opposition of Democrats who thought the best strategy against al Qaeda in Iraq was to begin to leave. Now the surge has helped turn Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, advancing the goal that nearly everyone in the U.S. notionally shares of routing the terror group from Iraq.
And then there's reality.
This. Is. A. Lie. The Sunni tribes began turning against AQI nearly a year ago. They did it on their own, not as part of any American military plan. They did it before the surge started. They did it before Gen. Petraeus was even a gleam in George Bush's eye. Here's the truth....
The Anbar Awakening is genuinely good news, but (a) it had nothing to do with the surge, (b) it's happening only in homogeneous Sunni areas, and (c) it involves arming and training Sunni forces who are almost certain to turn against both us and the Shiite central government as soon as they've finished off AQI. Pretending otherwise is simply fraudulent.
Login or Register to post comments.
GOP slogan: In Fraud We Trust.
Yuppers. God forbid you're a Shite caught in Anbar.
Notice how Washington Monthly is clear in saying "AQI" (Al-Qaeda in Iraq), and not conflate Iraqi "insurgents" with all of Al Qaeda the way the National Review and the Shrub admin do. Shrub and Co. should be called on that little propaganda ploy every time they use it.
I wonder what Buckley thinks of his magazine now that the people who run it are so incredibly fucking stupid.
what al qaeda? there ain't no al qaeda anywhere. if you think there show us some evidence...
I've always admired and respected Brzezinski's accurate grasp
of foreign affairs. Now he has slammed Hillary for only wanting to talk to countries you agree with. That's nailing it right on. The whole idea of diplomacy (as opposed to outright pre-emptive war) is to try and reach some understanding with those countries and persuade them closer to your point of view, somthing Bush and now Hillary just don't understand.
Obama he says has a better understanding of that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070824/pl_bloomberg/ank76qu5lafs_1
Let's not forget the over-riding fact: Hillary voted for the Iraqi invasion and she was wrong no matter what spin she likes to put on it. Obama DID vote against the invasion.
Vote for Hillary and you vote for more of Bush.
End of story. End of debate. Vote for Hillary and you vote for more of Bush.
One wonders where the Sunni fighters came from: Ba'athists, Republican Guard perhaps?
I have been wondering for some time if any improvements in Iraq may be related to the fact that they realize we are seriuosly considering leaving. When the Dems took control of congress, that became much more likely.
we should know by now that if a message comes from the white house it's not true. None of them have been and I don't see any signs of it changing in the future.
sox05 @ 8:
That is ... Until the Democrats funded the surge.
bushi...
wondering where the Sunni fighters came from?????
do you know anything of the history of this area ???
the Sunni's have been fighting the Shia's since the death of Muhammad
mystic @ 6:
why do people say obamma voted against going into iraq ?????????why ? obamma wasnt even in the house or senate when they voted on iraq?
Anbar province is one of the better arguments for troop withdrawl. Once the Iraqi realize that they are better off handling their own problems, they are perfectly capable of doing the job. I always thought that Republicans were big on personal responsibility, and solving your own problems without government interference. So why don't they insist on getting the Iraqis off of U.S welfare so they can stand on their own feet.
I think people ... sorry ... are simply nuts.
Do you understand that you are discussing the tactics of military based hegemony as if there were a right way to do that?
1) Wars of opportunity are international crimes. The US subscribes to this via treaty, therefore wars of opportunity are crimes in the US. The US has committed international and US federal crimes.
2) Torture is an international crime. The geneva convention is accepted by treaty by the US which makes torture a US federal crime. Internationally, the Taliban and Al Qaida were aknowledged as being covered by the Geneva Convention. The US has committed torture on both, therefore committing international and US federal crimes.
3) ... and more ...
Do you understand that the discussion SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT MILITARY TACTICS OR TROOP LEVELS. You are discussing the best way for a criminal to stay alive and succeed after committing a home invasion. The criminal will argue that he is there and there is no point discussing how he got there. The police would argue that is the actual point - how did he get there. The answer to that question will result in criminal charges.
Do you see? The US committed crimes - internation and federal - by pursuing this war, acts of torture and more. They want to start history AFTER those events, just like the criminal in the home invasion example. They must be denied. The clock MUST start at the time of the crimes. You are having discussions as if the original crimes never occurred. Crimes were committed. All that follow the commissions of those crimes are crimes as well.
Will a surge work? Are you an idiot? Put 2 million troops in Iraq and I promise you Iraq will get peacefull REALLY QUICKLY. But ... so what? What about the original crimes? Does a forcefully subdued Iraq justify the original crimes? Bush, Cheney, McCain, Clinton, Lieberman and on and on would tell you ... yes.
I say no .... in fact ... HELL NO.
It wouldnt matter if the criminal who invaded your home painted your bedrooms, he would still go to jail for home invasion.
The US is an unprosecuted criminal state. We must correct this.
[...] Clark Setting the Anbar record straight » This Summary is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Friday, August 24, 2007 This [...]
bushisaliar @ 11:
Simply no. There has been no fighting during the whole era of Ottoman rule and even before that nothing that is comparable to the fighting between Catholics and Protestants. The whole eternal Sunni/Shia-struggle is a byproduct of the propaganda surrounding the ethnic conflict between Arabs and Persians and was picked up by american media to explain the situation in an easy way. Same with the Sunnis being the ruling class in Saddams Iraq, his clan was the ruling class and it was Sunni by accident. Other than that, he was an equal-opportunity oppresor and murderer.
The Anbar Sunnis simply told the Qaeda Sunnis to take their fight against America and the Shiites to Shiite areas.
For that, we armed the Sunnis in Anbar and consider them allies.
For that, they laugh their asses off behind our backs at how gullible and stupid Americans are and continue to kill our soldiers and fight the Shiite government elsewhere in Iraq.
The fact that the Sunni's despise Al Qaeda just emphasizes the fact that Saddam despised them just the same -- and that there was no Hussein Qaeda connection before or after 9/11.
Hussein was a secular leader vehemently opposed to a theocracy -- he prided his religious belief in Islam but did not support the Islamic state..i.e. Iran. Hence the deep conflict.
Al Qaeda sought and seeks a theocracy based on Islam.
Sunnis are an extension of the secular but devout Muslims in every country -- the fact that Americans do not understand this basic point dramatically emphasizes their ignorance and explains exactly why most Americans have no understanding of the root stupidity that casts all Muslims in the same net.
Hussein saw Al Qaeda as enemies to his state -- so do his tribal Sunnis. This has nothing to do with the "surge." It has everything to do with the Sunni understanding of a very basic and American tradition -- the separation between church and state.
there is no al qaeda...shut the hell up with the moronics...
Login or Register to post comments.