I can't say that the US did no harm in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, even could have changed things of Iraq. But, things could have been done with a bit more diplomacy. Sure Bush was surprised with his administration.
Yeah, it's always surprising when an invaded people resists. Usually folks that are invaded throw cakes and flowers at the invaders. Can't understand it myself :|
Many Americans welcome the French occupation between 1778 and 1783. France welcomed the American occupation in 1917-1919, and in 1944-1950s.
It's too bad 3arab jarab resist by blowing up markets.
Iraq has a very flawed democracy. People usually think just because there's elections its a democracy, but the form of government is much more than that. It is also not a government based upon institutions. It's more about individuals such as Maliki or specific ministers or officers in the armed forces. Most importantly, Iraq is not a country ruled by law. The parliament passes all kinds of laws that are never enforced. It misses deadlines it sets for itself all the time. You can pay bribes to get out of crimes. The criminal justice system does not work. There are thousands being held without charges, they still rely upon beatings and torture, the prisons are overcrowded and bad, they rely too much on secret informers, which you shouldn't have in a democracy. There's widespread corruption especially at the top. Maliki also uses the security forces repeatedly to go after his opponents, namely the SOI off and on, to confront the Kurds, and against the Islamic Party, which is happening right now in Diyala. Democracy also needs stability and peace, something Iraq doesn't have.
Iraq is at the beginning level. It has elections, it has a press. The Islamic Party is trying to turn the parliament into a check on Maliki's power, but it's not apparent whether this has worked or not. That would be a huge move forward. Basically Iraq has got a long way to go, and it's not clear whether it'll work out in the end. It's up in the air right now.
anand said:
Many Americans welcome the French occupation between 1778 and 1783. France welcomed the American occupation in 1917-1919, and in 1944-1950s.
---------------
Yeah except those weren't occupations. Simply having foreign forces in another country is not an occupation. Occupation means control or possession of an area by an outside power. The French did not control the U.S. when they helped in the revolution, and the U.S. didn't do that when we were fighting in WWI. Same thing with WWII. France set up a provisional government in 1944. They were in power until 1946. In 1947 the 4th Republic was formed.
Exactly motown67, Iraq is not a real democracy. Which raises the question: Why do American morons refer to it as a democracy? Answer: because their personal definition of democracy is: 'a subservient client state under their boot.'
Motown, what exactly are you refering to by Maliki going after political opponents via the ISF?
And how is the US controlling Iraq? Did we put a gun to their head and demand they not let us establish any permanent bases in the country?
The fact that so many are held without charge is a natural (and of course unfortunate) product of civil war. Lincoln suspended the Habeas Corpus during the American Civil War and Reconstruction. Obviously it came back.
He has used the security forces several times since 2008 to go after his political opponents. The most blatant was the July 08 and this summer 09 when he sent the Army into Diyala and went after the SOI and Islamic Party there. Those 2 formed an alliance in 2007. In the summer of 08 the army shut down all the SOI in the provincial capital and arrrested about 100 SOI and Islamic Party members. They arrested 2 SOI that were going to register to run in the 09 provincial elections the day before the registration deadline and then released them the next day. He also sent the counter terrorism force and arrested the security chief for the council who was a main coordinator with the SOI and the head of the Baquba University. This year Maliki issued arrest warrants right after the new provincial council was named for 6 Islamic Party/Accordance Front members, etc.
For more on the July 08 crackdown see:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co...-in-
diyala.html
For more on this year's crackdown see:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co...-in-
diyala.html
He's also used the army to confront he Kurds in places like Diyala, Ninewa and Tamim.
For more see:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co...ld-lead-
to.html
Motown, Maliki wants the IA and IP to have a 100% monopoly on the use of force and the implementation of law and order inside Iraq.
I think the abuses that you mention will decline as security inside Iraq continues to improve. I am more sympathetic to Maliki's perspective than you are.
PS. Last week violence in Iraq hit a new all time lows (measured by the number of violent incidents inside Iraq.)
"those weren't occupations. Simply having foreign forces in another country is not an occupation. Occupation means control or possession of an area by an outside power." Motown, could you describe actual historical occupations by your definition? For example, when in your opinion did the occupation of Iraq end? June 2004? April 2005 (Jafari became PM)? June 2006 (when Maliki took over)? Or in late 2006 when the IA Joint HQs, IGFC (which commands all ground operational IA), Baghdad Operations Command, and division HQs took the lead?
Amanda, there's no connection between attacks and casualties in Iraq. There have been back to back months in Iraq where the month with fewer attacks had more casualties than one with more attacks. Mass casualty bombings are one of the better indicators. This month looks to be about the same or more than June.
Sorry my phone did an auto spell and messed up your name.
Mowtown, it is important to delineate between the resistance (which is mostly attacks against the IA and IP . . . which fell last week to a new all time low as per Gen Petreaus), and terrorist attacks against Iraqi population centers. Iraq's insurgency is over. Iraq has a terrorist problem.
Motown, Maliki wants the IA and IP to have a 100% monopoly on the use of force and the implementation of law and order inside Iraq.
I think the abuses that you mention will decline as security inside Iraq continues to improve. I am more sympathetic to Maliki's perspective than you are.
Then why has he gone after the Islamic party? Why did he create the Tribal Support Councils which were not part of the Iraqi security forces but a series of armed organizations that were responsible solely to him?
The government should have a monopoly on power and I can completely understand Maliki doing that, but then there are the examples above which point to other motivations as well.
As far as law and order I would not be surprised if 10-20 years from now the Iraqi police are still beating and abusing people to get them to confess.
"those weren't occupations. Simply having foreign forces in another country is not an occupation. Occupation means control or possession of an area by an outside power." Motown, could you describe actual historical occupations by your definition? For example, when in your opinion did the occupation of Iraq end? June 2004? April 2005 (Jafari became PM)? June 2006 (when Maliki took over)? Or in late 2006 when the IA Joint HQs, IGFC (which commands all ground operational IA), Baghdad Operations Command, and division HQs took the lead?
------------
When Iraq has de facto control of its territory it will have complete sovereignty and the occupation will be over. I mean the SOFA went into affect on Jan. 1 but how many Iraqi jets are in the sky protecting its airspace?
Mowtown, it is important to delineate between the resistance (which is mostly attacks against the IA and IP . . . which fell last week to a new all time low as per Gen Petreaus), and terrorist attacks against Iraqi population centers. Iraq's insurgency is over. Iraq has a terrorist problem.
-----------
I think the insurgency has been beaten back and decimated, but it's still alive in Mosul.
Also the number of attacks leveled off in Nov. 08 and hasn't really changed since then yet the number of deaths in Iraq have gone up and down. Therefore I don't think it's really useful.
As I've said before the number of mass casualty bombings (10 or more casualties) seem to track the level of deaths better than anything else. Here are the numbers from the last couple months up to July 13. July looks to be very a bloody month.
April 2009
Bombings: 20
Deaths: 197 + 32 Iranians
Wounded: 488 + 105 Iranians + 10 Americans
May 2009
Bombings: 9
Deaths: 111
Wounded: 262
June 2009
Bombings: 14
Deaths: 174
Wounded: 517
July 1-3, 2009
Bombings: 16
Deaths: 106
Wounded: 353
Motown, the number of violent incidents (against IA + IP + MNF + Iraqi civilians) was 1200 to 1800 per week at the peak in late 2006. They have been between 70 and 105 attacks per week over the last 7 months. Recently incidents have been close to 70 per week. Last Wednesday Gen Petraeus mentioned that in the last week the number of violent incidents were the lowest on record.
In my mind, insurgency means organized attacks on the IA and IP. That no longer exists, although I think the capacity to do it still exists in Mosul (thanks to the flow of foreign fighters and support from Syria), though it is masked by a deliberate decision to maintain a low profile for the moment. The ANP and some ANA in Mosul are far too complacent and are not doing sufficient foot patrols (they are citing low violence as the reason for this.) MNF advisors are disquieted by this.
Motown, you are right that the large majority of violent deaths in Iraq are caused by terrorist attacks (versus ordinary and organized crime, militia violence and attacks on the ISF/MNF.)
I, and some of my friends use to maintain spreadsheets on Iraqi violence.
"When Iraq has de facto control of its territory it will have complete sovereignty and the occupation will be over." Is your definition of sovereignty = PIC by province? Once a province has PIC, all security is the responsibility of the IP. The IA can only conduct operations if the Governor requests it. MNF cannot conduct operations unless the PM requests it. By this definition Iraq assumed full sovereignty over its provinces starting in Muthanna in July 14, 2006:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.ph...d=740&
Itemid=18
The process completed on June 30, 2009.
"how many Iraqi jets are in the sky protecting its airspace?" By this definition, very few countries have capable air forces, let along the ability to defend their air space. The US plays a major direct role in protecting Canadian air space, and a major de facto role in protecting Mexican air space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mex...xican_Air_Force
11,770 men, 107 combat aircraft and 71 armed helicopters (mostly obsolete.)
The reason that the IZAF has had to significantly delay its aircraft procurement is because the Iraqi government and parliament has refused to fund them. So has the US congress.
"the large majority of violent deaths in Iraq are caused by terrorist attacks"
American bombings?
Drive -by shootings that don't get reported?
Throwing people off bridges?
I'll bet.
Anand,
I think insurgencies go through phases so just attacking the security forces would not be a good definition. The Iraqi insurgency has obviously been retarded and is going back to something like a beginning level with bombings, terrorist attacks, assassinations, etc. But you can still call it an insurgency.
As for when will the U.S. occupation of Iraq end, probably when the U.S. is only in an advisory role. That process has already begun but it's not complete yet.
P.S. I think I just read that on avg. one policeman a day gets killed in Mosul.
Commenting by HaloScan
