Truths concerning the War in Iraq

[Objective Voice]

Rarely do I watch the DirecTV publically donated station LinkTV, but last night my wife and I decided to watch the American/English translated version of Al Jazeera news. Afterwards, a documentary called Iraq's Secret War Files came on. What it detailed is shocking!

The level of civilian deaths at the hands of American and coalition forces, and Iraqi insurants not to mention the sheer volume of the insurgancy...hunderds of thousands of civilians killed, tortured, mammed, bodies unidentified, entire neighborhoods lay in ruin. The details of the severity of damage done in Iraq, the number of deaths and some of the killing methods used, the conflicting stories the American public was told - all are part of a huge collection of SECRET classified documents deciphered from the WikiLeaks files.

Now, to be fair, some (if not a great many) of the suicide bombers where children, as well as a few women and handicapped personnel. (Yes, insurents used the handicapped to carry out some of their suicide attacks.) So, I can certainly understand how members of our Armed Forces would become so jittery and cautious as to shoot children who happen to be digging up tree roots but are mistaken to be children laying IEDs as children were being used to lay them. I can also understand many of the civilian casuaties because as the video shows some drivers purposely ran their cars up against American Humvees or other armored vehicles while driving down major roadways. I can also understand because with the insurgents blending in among the civilian population and using civilians to carry out their dirty work, I can see why our military shot first and asked questions later. Still...

You'll have to see the video before passing judgement, but it's pretty eye-opening stuff they reveal. It would also be helpful to read the book, "The War Within," by Bob Woodward to get the full perspective on the decison making events from the Bush Administration between 2006-2008. It, too, will leave you wondering why they either didn't take proper steps to secure the people as forewarned before engaging in the war, or why they didn't take steps sooner do the things they knew had been successful in other parts of Iraq.

Combined, the video and the book will give you an entirely new perspective on the War in Iraq.

 

[RoccoR]

Objective Voice, et al,

You will have to excuse me for coming into this so late. I've just returned from the Middle East assignment.

Rarely do I watch the DirecTV publically donated station LinkTV, but last night my wife and I decided to watch the American/English translated version of Al Jazeera news. Afterwards, a documentary called Iraq's Secret War Files came on. What it detailed is shocking!

(COMMENT)

As a general rule, the media and the US Government (USG) has a love hate relationship. The outlet known as al-Jazeera has enjoyed a very poor reputation dating back to Gulf War I and the bashing it received from "Stormin Norman" (General H. Norman Schwarzkopf). To be honest, I was one who believed that al-Jazeera was an anti-American Media Outlet; but have come to think differently in recent years.

The media in general, is both used by the USG and exploited by the media. Today, it is not uncommon to hear Department of State (DOS) and Department of Defense (DOD) personnel refer to CNN as the "Communist News Network." Both DOS and DOD love the media when it is on their side; and despise it when it publishes an opposing view. When CNN and FOX portrayed General Tommy Franks and General Norman Schwarzkopf as figures larger than life, DOD loved them.

... conflicting stories the American public was told - all are part of a huge collection of SECRET classified documents deciphered from the WikiLeaks files.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the WikiLeaks story is a complex drama; with more unanswered questions than might first image.

Like the Abu Ghraib story, there were many unanswered questions, and parts of the story never told.

I can also understand because with the insurgents blending in among the civilian population and using civilians to carry out their dirty work, I can see why our military shot first and asked questions later. Still...

(COMMENT)

The missing piece here is that the conflict never had to happen.

Once a fight starts, it turns into ugly business.

You'll have to see the video before passing judgement, but it's pretty eye-opening stuff they reveal. It would also be helpful to read the book, "The War Within," by Bob Woodward to get the full perspective on the decison making events from the Bush Administration between 2006-2008. It, too, will leave you wondering why they either didn't take proper steps to secure the people as forewarned before engaging in the war, or why they didn't take steps sooner do the things they knew had been successful in other parts of Iraq.

(COMMENT)

Yes, but here is the kicker. No one wants to be anti-military as a result of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. No one wants to repeat the post conflict phase like Vietnam.

All these conflicts are being accentuated by Congress.

No reasonable person can look at the ground truth and believe that we are going to recover even a portion of the investment made.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Dittohead not!]

The missing piece here is that the conflict never had to happen.

Once a fight starts, it turns into ugly business.

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it, whether we're talking about Iraq, Afganistan, or Vietnam.

It's always best to avoid a military conflict if at all possible, as it was possible in all of the above examples, but then go all out to win if there is no other alternative.

And only if there is no other alternative.

maybe we've learned this time around.

 

[RoccoR]

Dittohead not!, et al,

Agreed!

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it, whether we're talking about Iraq, Afganistan, or Vietnam.

It's always best to avoid a military conflict if at all possible, as it was possible in all of the above examples, but then go all out to win if there is no other alternative.

And only if there is no other alternative.

maybe we've learned this time around.

(COMMENT)

Usually, armed conflict (war) is a result of either a very poor national security decision making process or a diplomatic failure.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yes, the WikiLeaks story is a complex drama; with more unanswered questions than might first image.

Like the Abu Ghraib story, there were many unanswered questions, and parts of the story never told.

To me, Wikileaks has been handled in a completely biased way in the US press.

For example, they would tout it whenever anything released mad ethe US come off in a bad light. However, there were also Wikileaked documents confirming the discovery of WMD caches, torture and executions of civilians by insurgent groups, even mass grave discoveries.

But for some reason, those were never found to be newsworthy. I still love when some parrot goes "There were no WMDs in Iraq", then I pointed them to several reports from Wikileaks that stated caches found, how much and what kind of agent was found. Suddenly it is not reliable then, but in every case they want to prove something it is 100% proof.

I largely ignore the media nowadays, because it is all biased. I do have respect for Fox, if only because they are at least honest and admit their bias. All the others try to claim they are neutral and unbiased, when it is more then obvious they have very clear agendas.

 

[RoccoR]

Oozlefinch, et al,

I think you are under some misconceptions.

However, there were also Wikileaked documents confirming the discovery of WMD caches, torture and executions of civilians by insurgent groups, even mass grave discoveries.

(COMMENT)

All of the WikiLeaks documents were at the collateral SECRET level. Many of the tactical IIRs were preliminary reports. I can absolutely assure you that NO (REPEAT) NO WMD weapon caches were found. Believe me, if the Administration had found even a single WMD manufactured after 1991, they would have put it on display on the Washington Mall. But absolutely nothing was found.

There were a few Iran-Iraq vintage battlefield remnants found, but most of then were dormant over time.

Yes, there was plenty of "torture and executions of civilians by insurgent groups, even mass grave discoveries."

But for some reason, those were never found to be newsworthy. I still love when some parrot goes "There were no WMDs in Iraq", then I pointed them to several reports from Wikileaks that stated caches found, how much and what kind of agent was found. Suddenly it is not reliable then, but in every case they want to prove something it is 100% proof.

(COMMENT)

The media outlets publish things because:

• It sells and raises viewer/readership.
• Because of the sensationalization of the event.
• Because they were promised something in return.
• Because it fits there agenda.

No one in the Media, especially the US Media, is in it for the reason of protecting America, or keeping the nation informed. They do it for the same reasons as politicians lie. It is for notoriety, fame, power and influence.

I largely ignore the media nowadays, because it is all biased. I do have respect for Fox, if only because they are at least honest and admit their bias. All the others try to claim they are neutral and unbiased, when it is more then obvious they have very clear agendas.

(COMMENT)

yeah, you are probably right. The media is a bit more honest than a Used Car Salesman. However, a politician, especially those from the White House and Congress, are utilitarian - working in their own best interest.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Objective Voice]

I've been meaning to get back to this thread for quite some time, but current events have shifted my attention elsewhere.

To RoccoR and all other servicemembers, active or currently inactive who have served abroad in either Iraq or Afghanistan: As one military veteran to another, I want to thank you for your service in defense of this nation, its national security interest abroad and for the protection of its citizens. Furthermore, I want to commend you for your bravery in coming forward and speaking against the misteps our government leaders have taken throughout these wars whether they be in the White House or in country beside you. I think our servicement and women need to speak candidly about what truly happened "over there" so that not only will the American people come to know the truth, but so that our goverment leaders can make the necessary corrections to our operational tactics and our foreign policies, where applicable.

Just to show the difference in tactics between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, from the book, "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward (who, btw, also wrote the book, "The War Within" which outlined the decision making process for combating insurancy in Iraq between 2006-2008):

On September 3, 2008, the Bush Administration authorized an air strike in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) - a mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan where known Taliban and Al-Qaeda insurgents were known to hide out. This was a covert operation using SpecOps Navy-SEALS. The operation, being poorly planned and coordinated, went terribly wrong resulting in civilian casualties. President Bush was "extremely upset about the civilian casualties and said America would not do that again. In the Bush Administration, there would be no more groud operations into Pakistan, period."

The above is a paraphrase from the text in the book, but the quoted text were taken directly from the book (page 8). Anothere example that illustrates the differences between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration as far as military tactics and use or resources are concerned can be found in the use or Predator drones. In 2008, there were only 4 authorized air strikes using these unmanned aerial vehicles inside Pakistan. As this MSN.com article dated January 29, 2009 clearly illustrates, President Obama stepped up the use of Predator drones in the FATA region:

There have been 38 drone attacks in Pakistan since August – mostly in North and South Waziristan – more than three times as many as during the previous year.

Going out one-year later, from the Christian Science Monitor dated February 2, 2010:

Several US unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, fired a volley of missiles at houses in a village in Pakistan's northwest on Tuesday and killed roughly 16 alleged Taliban militants, news agencies reported. Information on civilian casualties, if any, was not immediately available.

Agence France-Presse cited an unidentified Pakistani security official as saying that about 18 US missiles were fired at targets in the village of Dattakhel. Earlier news reports put the death toll at about 10. A later report by CNN claimed 29 killed.

The attack is just the latest confirmation of the commitment President Barack Obama has made to the assassination campaign inside Pakistan -- a close US ally -- that began under his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

The Long War Journal, a blog that focuses its coverage on the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been tracking US drone and other air power attacks in Pakistan for some time. Using open-source information, the blog tallied five US aerial attacks in Pakistan in 2007 and 36 in 2008, most of those in the last half of that year.

In 2009, President Obama's first year in office, the tempo of such attacks in Pakistan increased 47 percent, to 53. The vast majority of these have been carried out with drones.

Tuesday's strike brought this year's tally to 12, with just over 100 fatalities. That's just under a quarter of last year's total. If that pace were matched for the rest of the year, there will be 134 US attacks inside Pakistan.

I realize the focus of the thread is on military activies in Iraq, but I wanted to illustrate the differences in military strategy and tactics between both Administrations. Former President GWBush may have shifted gears late in how to deal with Iraq just prior to leaving office, but I'll give him credit where credit is due. After much critizism, he finally took the advice given by Sec of State Powell when he said:

Petroleum is interesting. Electricity is interesting. But Mr. President (referring to GWB), none of this makes any difference unless there's security...Security is all that counts right now.

What Powell was referring to was security the boarders of Iraq and the population at the local level. When the decision was made to disarm and disband the Iraqi military and local police forces, U.S. and coalition forces became the army and local police force for the entire country. We could not defend the country's boarders AND maintain law and order among the locals because there simply was not enough security forces to go around. This, above all else, was the single most critical mistake made by the Bush Administration because it forced our military into a 3-pronged "police state": defend the country from insurgency, security local cities and communities, act as "peacekeepers" among the locals. It's no wonder American military over time became viewed as "occupiers" rather than the "liberators" we sought to be.

As much as I had to admit it, there was some good that came of the WikiLeaks scandal as far as lifting the vail of secrecy on our government's underhandedness in how it dealt with certain situations in Iraq. While there clearly are some details I think should have remained secret, i.e., the names of hard targets or informants, the truth had to come out concerning some issues. Nonetheless for what it's worth, I applaud the Bush Administrations efforts for turning things around.

So, again, I thank you, RoccoR and all other servicemen and women who have served abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your bravery on and off the battlefield is commendable.

 

[RoccoR]

Objective Voice, et al,

Thank you for your kind words; but, totally unnecessary.

Just to show the difference in tactics between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, from the book, "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward (who, btw, also wrote the book, "The War Within" which outlined the decision making process for combating insurancy in Iraq between 2006-2008):

(COMMENT)

The fact that Iraq was going to be a non-military solution was known by the Senior leadership for a long time (early on). They were just in denial.

Petraeus also stressed national reconciliation. “You have to give Sunnis a reason to support the new Iraq,” he said. “Iraq is a civil-military challenge.” He said, as he had often in public, that Iraq could not be solved militarily. It had to be solved politically.

Woodward, Bob (2008). The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008 (p. 45). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

(COMMENT)

What amazed me was the fact that they, ultimately, tried to impose a military solution anyway.

The political piece was failing dramatically. Iraq was a non-sectaran station prior to the invasion; a government that did not espouse any one particular religion in how develops policies. It was a dictatorship.

But after the invasion and occupation, it became sectarian; an Islamic State, like that is what the US really needed in the region to help reduce extremism.

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

• A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
  
• B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
  
• C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.​

Already, this little time bomb is making its importance known. As Iraq moves closer in relationship to Iran, and with the help of Moqtada al-Sadr, Nouri al-Maliki is still in power.

The soft spoken Qassem Suleimani, Iranian Commander, al-Quds Force (Revolutionary Guards), is routinely visited by the emissaries of the Iraqi PM's Office. There is an asymmetric struggle between Iran and the US influence over Iraq. As the Iraq government moves ever closer to the Iranians, it becomes more obvious each day how stanch the relationship between Qassem Suleimani and Iraqi legislators.

While America believes that the US engagement will end soon, what they don't realize is that the US Mission will be doubled as the military withdrawals. It will desperately try to neutralize the al-Quds Force.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Objective Voice]

Objective Voice, et al,

Thank you for your kind words; but, totally unnecessary.

Presuming you served honorable, I think it very necessary. I may have served 16 years active duty (Navy), but you were in a war zone. Trumps my non-combat service every time. And so, I thank you for your willingness and commitment to serve under fire or for atleast being in theater even if just in a support role.

The fact that Iraq was going to be a non-military solution was known by the Senior leadership for a long time (early on). They were just in denial.

Already, this little time bomb is making its importance known. As Iraq moves closer in relationship to Iran, and with the help of Moqtada al-Sadr, Nouri al-Maliki is still in power.

The soft spoken Qassem Suleimani, Iranian Commander, al-Quds Force (Revolutionary Guards), is routinely visited by the emissaries of the Iraqi PM's Office. There is an asymmetric struggle between Iran and the US influence over Iraq. As the Iraq government moves ever closer to the Iranians, it becomes more obvious each day how stanch the relationship between Qassem Suleimani and Iraqi legislators.

While America believes that the US engagement will end soon, what they don't realize is that the US Mission will be doubled as the military withdrawals. It will desperately try to neutralize the al-Quds Force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Hmmm...an intriguing religious paradigm for sure, not to metion the questionable "partnership" between two former enemies. A weakened Iraq will likely mean a "parental-America" keeping an eye on Iran for some time. The only good news here is we've sandwiched Iran in with an American presence on both sides. It's likely the reason Iran hasn't made an overly aggressive move right now. Still, all it would take is one wrong move and we're right back to being deeply involved in Middle-Eastern affairs in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and who knows what will happen then.

My advice for U.S. foreign policy: tread lightly, but be confident in whatever decisions are made concerning Middle-Eastern foreign policies.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Rarely do I watch the DirecTV publically donated station LinkTV, but last night my wife and I decided to watch the American/English translated version of Al Jazeera news. Afterwards, a documentary called Iraq's Secret War Files came on. What it detailed is shocking!

The level of civilian deaths at the hands of American and coalition forces, and Iraqi insurants not to mention the sheer volume of the insurgancy...hunderds of thousands of civilians killed, tortured, mammed, bodies unidentified, entire neighborhoods lay in ruin. The details of the severity of damage done in Iraq, the number of deaths and some of the killing methods used, the conflicting stories the American public was told - all are part of a huge collection of SECRET classified documents deciphered from the WikiLeaks files.

Now, to be fair, some (if not a great many) of the suicide bombers where children, as well as a few women and handicapped personnel. (Yes, insurents used the handicapped to carry out some of their suicide attacks.) So, I can certainly understand how members of our Armed Forces would become so jittery and cautious as to shoot children who happen to be digging up tree roots but are mistaken to be children laying IEDs as children were being used to lay them. I can also understand many of the civilian casuaties because as the video shows some drivers purposely ran their cars up against American Humvees or other armored vehicles while driving down major roadways. I can also understand because with the insurgents blending in among the civilian population and using civilians to carry out their dirty work, I can see why our military shot first and asked questions later. Still...

You'll have to see the video before passing judgement, but it's pretty eye-opening stuff they reveal. It would also be helpful to read the book, "The War Within," by Bob Woodward to get the full perspective on the decison making events from the Bush Administration between 2006-2008. It, too, will leave you wondering why they either didn't take proper steps to secure the people as forewarned before engaging in the war, or why they didn't take steps sooner do the things they knew had been successful in other parts of Iraq.

Combined, the video and the book will give you an entirely new perspective on the War in Iraq.

It's kind of sad that you're only just *now* learning of any of that. . . where were you over the last decade?

But I guess coming ot know facts is a necessity better late than never.

But - you must keep in mind - the facts in this particular situation are always questionable. Between our broken command strings, their bias and multiple factions - it's hard to pick out what is 100% fact and what is inferred, what is most likely and what is rumor. Very hard

 

[Objective Voice]

It's kind of sad that you're only just *now* learning of any of that. . . where were you over the last decade?

But I guess coming ot know facts is a necessity better late than never.

But - you must keep in mind - the facts in this particular situation are always questionable. Between our broken command strings, their bias and multiple factions - it's hard to pick out what is 100% fact and what is inferred, what is most likely and what is rumor. Very hard

I've been here since April 2008 sounding the alarm against the War in Iraq from the start. Not my fault if folks failed to listen not only to myself but others who have been against that "invasion" right from the beginning. Don't get me wrong; I believed Saddam needed to go, but it wasn't our job to do that. Just as with Libya, it should have been a NATO-led mission since it was a NATO-related problem, i.e., civil brutality and genocide and Iraq's NBC capability and hiding prove of same. Neither had a direct impact on the U.S. To be sure, neither does Libya BUT atleast this was a charge lead by the European Unit and had the backing of NATO and the Arab League. If you believe the recent WikiLeaks infor that recently came out, you know that the primary pusher for this Libyan civil war is once again oil, but again atleast this one was formulated without the U.S. being out front and center taking the lead.

As far as the information stream or the lack thereof coming out of Iraq as far as what really went on there, all I can tell is to do as I've done which is not to rely so much on mainstream new sources for my information. I read ALOT and try to stay informed as best I can. I visit several websites that cover the issues from various angles, and I try to find books that don't lean too far right or left. (My wife can attest to my personal library growning 3-fold since the housing bubble burst). I mix it up and bounce what I've learned from my reading to what I hear in mainstream media. What doesn't hold true I try to share my findings and opinions within this forum, as well as what I believe to be the truth of a matter. I'd like to think I've been closer to the truth than presenting mere speculation.

To that, I appreciate your support in my brining these such matters to light.

 

[RoccoR]

Objective Voice, et al,

There are multiple components to this discussion. Often, we inadvertently mix them. There are political facets, military positions, consequences involving the intelligence, outcomes of decision making processes, and --- the appearance of patriotism and valor. All these invoke a measure of emotion and color the perspective of reality.

I've been here since April 2008 sounding the alarm against the War in Iraq from the start. Not my fault if folks failed to listen not only to myself but others who have been against that "invasion" right from the beginning. Don't get me wrong; I believed Saddam needed to go, but it wasn't our job to do that. Just as with Libya, it should have been a NATO-led mission since it was a NATO-related problem, i.e., civil brutality and genocide and Iraq's NBC capability and hiding prove of same. Neither had a direct impact on the U.S. To be sure, neither does Libya BUT atleast this was a charge lead by the European Unit and had the backing of NATO and the Arab League. If you believe the recent WikiLeaks infor that recently came out, you know that the primary pusher for this Libyan civil war is once again oil, but again atleast this one was formulated without the U.S. being out front and center taking the lead.

(COMMENT)

The outcomes that we have experienced in the greater (or expanded) region (zones of troubled areas), that being Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon along the coast to Gaza (including Palestine), Syria, the events of North Africa, and the garden spot of Yemen, have triggered an involvement by the United States.

There are latent questions, behind the involvements; questions of the proper role of the United States: - if there is one? And if there is a role, what is the complexion of that role?

The US is an evangelistic nation when is comes to spreading the "concept of democracy." But it is a "brand of democracy" - one in which the US approves, not the "brand of the people" governed. The US has a distinctive view of what it believes (politically) is best and what the people (that are governed) want. This, we have to understand; because it is a political facet. It is a facet that systemically affects decisions. It is a complex discussion.

As far as the information stream or the lack thereof coming out of Iraq as far as what really went on there, all I can tell is to do as I've done which is not to rely so much on mainstream new sources for my information. I read ALOT and try to stay informed as best I can. I visit several websites that cover the issues from various angles, and I try to find books that don't lean too far right or left. (My wife can attest to my personal library growning 3-fold since the housing bubble burst). I mix it up and bounce what I've learned from my reading to what I hear in mainstream media. What doesn't hold true I try to share my findings and opinions within this forum, as well as what I believe to be the truth of a matter. I'd like to think I've been closer to the truth than presenting mere speculation.

To that, I appreciate your support in my brining these such matters to light.

(COMMENT)

You are a valued contributor. And while I may not (necessarily) agree with your every perspective, I have come to appreciate each writing.

There is, inevitably, a measure of "speculation" in these discussions. We each see the events, as they unfold, with our unique vantage point. Our education and experiences shape these views. And you are right, sharing them is what the discussion is all about.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Epilog:

Increased Violence
These transitions are being executed against the backdrop of an increasingly violent Iraq. This quarter, Iranian-backed Shia militias launched deadly attacks on U.S. troops, and the International Zone (IZ) came under multiple indirect-fire attacks. In one attack, 11 rockets struck the IZ—the highest number for a single day in more than two years. Attacks continued against GOI personnel, with several large bombings targeting Iraqi police. Scores of senior officials, including judges, generals, and mayors, were assassinated or wounded this quarter.
SOURCE: http://www.sigir.mil/files/quarterlyreports/July2011/Highlights_-_July_2011.pdf#view=fit

Negotiations continued this quarter between the U.S. government and the Government of Iraq (GOI) on the possibility of a continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq after December 31, 2011. While Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is open to that possibility, the fractious Iraqi political situation—and the ominous opposition of Muqtada al-Sadr and his restive supporters—have made it difficult to forge support for an extension within the GOI.
SOURCE: http://www.sigir.mil/files/quarterlyreports/July2011/Highlights_-_July_2011.pdf#view=fit

I thought these would be two added insights for the discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Up-Date on Happenings in the Liberated Iraq

et al,

Offered for your consideration as we evaluate our success:

et al,

Epilog:

I thought these would be two added insights for the discussion.

Iraq orders Voice of America, 43 other media outlets to close: Posted Sunday, June 24th, 2012 See differing views @:

• Iraq orders Voice of America, 43 other media outlets to close - World News
• Iraqi Regulators Order 44 Media Outlets to Close « VOA Breaking News
• Iraq cleric: Government reforms need PM's ouster | Fox News

Also see a different perspective @:

• Commentary: Waking from the Democratic Dream | The National Interest Waking from the Democratic Dream by Robert W. Merry | June 25, 2012
  The time has come for the United States to give up on the notion of democracy in the Middle East.
  
• New Dawn 2012: An Aborted Democracy | SLDInfo NEW DAWN 2012: AN ABORTED DEMOCRACY 6/7/12: By Richard Weitz
  As of mid-2012, instead of law and order, the new Iraq is marked by corruption and chaos.
  Justice is perverted because the law has become an instrument to hobble political rivals and exploit opportunities for corruption. Political parties are weak while clan, sectarian, and especially family ties are strong, resulting in family fiefs and nepotism throughout the bureaucracy.

Most respectfully,
R

 

[cpwill]

Wait- Al Jazeera is anti-Iraq war? OMG Stop the Presses!



:roll: seriously, this is news to anyone?

 

[reefedjib]

Wait- Al Jazeera is anti-Iraq war? OMG Stop the Presses!



:roll: seriously, this is news to anyone?

You mean Al Jazeera is US sponsored to provide both radical Islamists AND secular liberals equal air time? So they earn credibility in the ME by being anti-American? Big ****ing deal....

 

[Oozlefinch]

You mean Al Jazeera is US sponsored to provide both radical Islamists AND secular liberals equal air time? So they earn credibility in the ME by being anti-American? Big ****ing deal....

It is not US Sponsored, it always has been a Quatari company. However, of course the AJ English is a softened down version, much as the RT network is softened down for it's programs aimed at the West.

 

[reefedjib]

It is not US Sponsored, it always has been a Quatari company. However, of course the AJ English is a softened down version, much as the RT network is softened down for it's programs aimed at the West.

Doesn't the US 5th fleet have its headquarters in Qatar?

Edit: oops, sorry HQ is in Bahrain.