- ‹ previous
- 2248 of 2716
- next ›
Mosul
MOSUL....For years, Iraq observers have been warning about the ongoing tensions in Kirkuk between Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds. That tension is now in danger of exploding into outright war, but it turns out the initial flashpoint isn't Kirkuk after all. It's Mosul:
The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani.
...."It's the perfect storm against the old festering background," warned Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, who oversees Nineveh and Kirkuk Provinces and the Kurdish region. Worry is so high that the American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as the United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle their own problems. If the Kurds and Iraqi government forces fight, the American military will "step aside," General Thomas said, rather than "have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker."
I don't blame Thomas for taking this attitude. At the same time, if American troops aren't there to keep the peace, what are they there for?
There are (and have always been) three major reasons for the troops' presence:
1. To serve as a base for missions against Syria, (see the news today) and Iran, among others in the area.
2 To act as a money sponge for the favored Bush/ Repub cronies
3. The oil.
All other "reasons" have been bogus nonsense from the start.
If I read the memo on this correctly, the mission of US soldiers in Iraq is to serve as flower vases.
rational @ 8:19, one thread back,
Your nome de plume is well chosen. I noticed the contrast, was in a rush, and didn't mean offense. For myself, I'm very much out of my depth with the dynamic behaviour of markets, and as a result I think that our moods on the roller-coaster have oscillated in opposition.
I do think that once we get past the current wild swings and settle down, we will accept the market reality and return to happy, productive lives.
Here here.
But...but the Surge worked! Therefore none of this is happening.
As I recall it, the program was: (1) increase troop levels (2) to reduce the violence to make space for (3) political reconciliation that will provide the foundation for (4) a reduction in violence not dependent on American troops (5) that will enable us to gradually withdraw without having to worry about whether Iraq will blow up again.
We never got past step 2. Now the reckoning.
On NPR this morning there was a report of Iraqi Christians leaving Mosul in droves as well.
...the American military will "step aside,"
So, what are we still doing in Iraq? Guarding the oilfields? Waiting around for unbid contracts that will never be signed? Why do we need to wait 18 months to get out when we could start leaving right now, seeing as how We. Don't. Have. Any. Money.
Hurry up and get into to office Obama, I'm tired of this daily GOP Bushshit.
At the same time, if American troops aren't there to keep the peace, what are they there for?
I hate to be cynical about it but if they're still taking orders from Bush and Cheney they're making sure everyone is well armed and supplied enough for a major civil war as soon as let's say February.
I'd say M. Carey nailed it.
Anybody have the video of James Baker saying something like, "People used to come up to me, all the time, and ask, "In the first Gulf War, why didn't you proceed to Baghdad?" Well (and Baker veritably spits this part out) they don't ASK! me that anymore!!"
if American troops aren't there to keep the peace, what are they there for?
Haven't you been listening to the strategic genius who sent them all there? They are in Iraq to complete the mission. It is not necessary to ask, What mission? The Commander in Chief is too smart to tell us what he plans to do.
(Psst! There is answer to your question, but it's conditional: They're waiting for a president with enough common sense to bring them home. Failing that, they're waiting for a Congress with enough common sense to compel the president to rein in the killing and maiming.)
if American troops aren't there to keep the peace, what are they there for?
To occupy a strategic platform from which to (what they call) "project American influence in the Region," which is a very elegant way of saying "put every square meter of the region under a US bomb-sight..."
Since Bin Laden drove "Us" out of Saudi, that has been the single, over-riding strategic objective...
I'd agree with M. Carey, and add:
4. Demonstrate the size of GWB's penis.
At the same time, if American troops aren't there to keep the peace, what are they there for?
Israel.
In addition to the very-well-taken comments upthread, I'd add that this was always a concern of those who opposed the "surge" in the first place, and who pointed out that many of the techniques that accompanied the "surge," (notably buying temporary peace by supporting the development of de facto independent militias) were undermining the possibility of long-term political stability and thereby putting US troops directly at risk.
In short, we've temporarily damped the flames by smothering them in tinder, but now the whole thing is getting ready to blaze up again, and we're still very close to the bonfire.
What an incredible cluster-fuck. And all because the belligerent ignoramuses were able to get themselves a couple of well-funded mouthpieces, and not enough people spoke up in response.
Jape, no problem. Thanks for the clarification.
They're there to protect the oil and "Exxon". All the rest, as they say, is commentary.
A fair reaction, in other
A fair reaction, in other countries Monetary Policy and Bank Regulatory or financial sector regulatory are under different entities, e.g. Bank of England and Financial Services Authority. Regardless, your bizarre balkanised system is clearly a bad approach.