Everyone and their mother seem to have an idea about how well the “surge” is working; I think someone should ask the Iraqis what they think. I wonder how they would rate their personal security. Is resentment against the Americans up or down since the “surge” began?


But on second thought, when has any of this been about what they want.:)

I saw the results of a poll of Iraqis published last week, and it was negative toward America's efforts. Sorry, I can't give you a link.

I saw the results of a poll of Iraqis published last week, and it was negative toward America's efforts. Sorry, I can't give you a link.
I’ve seen a number of different purported results from polls out there revolving somewhere near 40 to 60% one way or another, but in my wildest imagination I can’t see where any sane person living there would be happy with the situation.

I’m becoming more and more disgusted with the inept way this Machiavellian approach has all played out. America has usually at least had somewhat of a puppet government in place before overthrowing a government; a least a somewhat supported band of rebels.

I expect to see the large demonstrations begin before spring if things remain as they are.


:eek:

Crow, after Bush's speech a couple of days ago, serious opposition must begin in the streets and everywhere. The man is incompetent and vain, plus a liar and Constitution destroyer just like Nixon. There are still many stupid people who don't pay attention to foreign policy; marching in the street will get their attention. Since Impeachment is impossible now, the people have to make their will known... NO ENDLESS WAR...

We are the "invaders and occupiers" according to the left, and the Sunni insurgents are the "resistance". But now that the former Sunni insergents are largely aligned with us against al Qaeda, does that make them occupiers or does it make us the resistance?

But now that the former Sunni insergents are largely aligned with us against al Qaeda, does that make them occupiers or does it make us the resistance?
The Sunni sheiks are very shrewd. They see that opposition to Al Qaeda is a way to get weapons and legitimacy from the US and put themselves in a stronger position for the inevitable "mother of all battles" with the Shiites. Thus do we add fuel to the fire under the pressure cooker and guarantee an even more violent explosion when the lid finally does blow.

Sorry if this is off topic, but something I really don't understand. Sunni, Shiites, Al Qaeda, are they not all Muslims? Freely killing each other. I know, or at least based on the Islam leaders actions, Islam has a problem with the rest of the world, but all the infighting amongst themselves?

Is this like Catholics and Christians killing each other. Or like Catholics and Episcopalians killing each other? I am familiar with English and the Irish killing each other, Protestant against Catholic, but more for political reasons than differences in which god is better.

I thought I seen that Islam is one of the, or is the religion, with the most population. Seems that the groups fighting is a very small percentage of the overall population, if I am correct in my understanding. Are these groups that the remaining population really don't care about, evident by the fact that they do or say absolutely nothing to stop the fighting?

Seems Al Qaeda is an equal opportunity murdering group, they don't seem to care who they kill. And the vast members of Islam sit back and don't say boo.

Why was it fine for USA to go and help the Muslims in Bosnia, but not here? Am I correct that Bosnia was not an Islam group against each other, but an attempt at genocide against the Muslims, and off we go, let USA go help the underdog, preserve the right for Muslims to exist in that part of the world, get no help from other Muslims, but on the other hand did not get any disapproval either.

Again, USA goes in to help the underdog, remove the Baath party (is this a religion or a political group, who the hell knows), to allow 24 million people the chance to live as we do, as best we can anyway, we are certainly not perfect, what with the killings we have here, and the people left to prosper then split up into teams and fight against themselves.

While I believe that USA, and Bush truly believes we can help others live in harmony and relative comfort, perhaps we should find politicians that will finally realize that we should just mind our own god damn business, stay home, and let the rest of the world fight amongst themselves and let the best group, party, religion, country, whatever, win. Survival of the fittest.

Think of the savings in American lives and money we can save.

Even in Palestine they kill each other. And the vast population of Islams have no problem with this, only with the Jews. Appears to help Israel, perhaps that is what their plan is, sit back and let them kill each other. Seems to be the path of least resistance for the underdog in this conflict, Israel, what with being surrounded by Islam.

Except for Christian Lebanon, that does not like Israel either. I guess Lebanon's Christians did not get the memo that the Christians here in the USA are helping Israel.

Again, sorry if this a different path of discussion, if so, delete or move this post. But I truly would like to know the answers to the questions I posed.

Sunni, Shiites, Al Qaeda, are they not all Muslims? Freely killing each other. I know, or at least based on the Islam leaders actions, Islam has a problem with the rest of the world, but all the infighting amongst themselves?
People who love to fight, and are quick to take offense at every slight or insult to their "honor" will never lack for justification. Al Qaeda is primarily Sunni, but is now being fought by the Sunni tribes in Anbar province. In Basra, where it's all Shiite, there are multiple competing militias fighting each other for dominance. In Kirkuk, it's Arabs against Kurds.

It isn't really about religion. It's about money and power and vengeance for outrages and insults that go back into the dim mists of the past. Anybody who understood even a little bit of this culture and history would have seen how foolhardy it was to create a power vacuum, add lots of weapons and money and stir the pot, hoping for a benign outcome. GWB and his neocon minions had not a clue going in, and they apparently haven't learned a thing from all the chaos they've unleashed.

People who love to fight, and are quick to take offense at every slight or insult to their "honor" will never lack for justification. Al Qaeda is primarily Sunni, but is now being fought by the Sunni tribes in Anbar province. In Basra, where it's all Shiite, there are multiple competing militias fighting each other for dominance. In Kirkuk, it's Arabs against Kurds.

It isn't really about religion. It's about money and power and vengeance for outrages and insults that go back into the dim mists of the past. Anybody who understood even a little bit of this culture and history would have seen how foolhardy it was to create a power vacuum, add lots of weapons and money and stir the pot, hoping for a benign outcome. GWB and his neocon minions had not a clue going in, and they apparently haven't learned a thing from all the chaos they've unleashed.
It is a religious war according to George W. Bush:

“George W. Bush plumbed the deepest place in himself, looking for a simple expression of what the assaults of September 11 required. It was his role to lead the nation, and the very world. The President, at a moment of crisis, defines the communal response. A few days after the assault, George W. Bush did this. Speaking spontaneously, without the aid of advisers or speechwriters, he put a word on the new American purpose that both shaped it and gave it meaning. "This crusade," he said, "this war on terrorism."”

“Here is the deeper significance of Bush's inadvertent reference to the Crusades: Instead of being a last recourse or a necessary evil, violence was established then as the perfectly appropriate, even chivalrous, first response to what is wrong in the world. George W. Bush is a Christian for whom this particular theology lives. While he identified Jesus as his favorite "political philosopher" when running for President in 2000, the Jesus of this evangelical President is not the "turn the other cheek" one. Bush's savior is the Jesus whose cross is wielded as a sword.”

Bold added by me.

Tomgram: James Carroll on Bush's war (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1781/james_carroll_on_bush_s_war)

Crow, after Bush's speech a couple of days ago, serious opposition must begin in the streets and everywhere. The man is incompetent and vain, plus a liar and Constitution destroyer just like Nixon. There are still many stupid people who don't pay attention to foreign policy; marching in the street will get their attention. Since Impeachment is impossible now, the people have to make their will known......NO ENDLESS WAR......
WOAH, WOAH, WOAH, I don't like bush that much either, but who else do you think can fix this, a democrat? Another republican? an independent? Fact of the matter is no matter who the hell is in charge, there is still bound to be screw ups by all parties. Animal farm is a good example of this.

The religious war is by international jihad. I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that basic fact.

Besides an inadvertent reference misspoken about a crusade where is James Carrol's basis for his mischaracterization of President Bush's faith ?

Ordinaryguy; were the Sunni sheiks equally as shrewd when they sheltered and fought along side the foreign jihadists ? I think it more likely that they see our efforts as honest ;that we do not intend to remain "occupiers " . They are backing the right horse .


The under reported news is the shia have learned a lesson form this and this bottom up support for stability is taking root in some of the areas controlled by extremist shia like al -Sadr.

The under reported news is that even though the Parliament have not forged formal oil revenue sharing that in fact it is happening without the law that our Congress is hot for them to pass.

the religious war is by international jihad. I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that basic fact.

Besides an inadvertent reference misspoken about a crusade where is James Carrol's basis for his mischaracterization of President Bush's faith ?


I believe Carroll would answer that he was not suggesting that Bush was the originator of American fundamentalism; far from it. To get at the answer of whether American fundementalism is a factor in this war on terror I think we need to answer the question, “ What is the mark of a fundamentalist mindset?

Ordinaryguy; were the Sunni sheiks equally as shrewd when they sheltered and fought along side the foreign jihadists ?
Well, no. It took them awhile to find out that the foreign jihadis were less useful to their cause than the US, but they've known all along that the real fight would be with the Shiites and Kurds, and they're doing what they think will give them the greatest advantage in that fight.

I think it more likely that they see our efforts as honest ;that we do not intend to remain "occupiers " . They are backing the right horse . The right horse? In whose race? Do you think that the presence of foreign jihadis is all that's keeping them from making nice and settling down to build a stable multi-cultural democracy?


The under reported news is the shia have learned a lesson form this and this bottom up support for stability is taking root in some of the areas controlled by extremist shia like al -Sadr.

The under reported news is that even though the Parliament have not forged formal oil revenue sharing that in fact it is happening without the law that our Congress is hot for them to pass.
Oh, yeah, everything's coming up roses. It must be the liberal media's preference for violence that keeps them from reporting on all the peace and harmony that's flooding the land. Bwa ha ha ha!!

As the USA remains the only "superpower" there will be resentment.
Resentment of our freedoms, military and economic power.

Do we deserve a large portion of it - yes. - look at our culture and hypocrisy, but no nation or individual is perfect.

Does the world's opinion of us really matter to the average American?
To me, just a little.

I certainly would not suggest following whatever the UN says, in order to gain a higher world opinion of us.

Oh, About "turning the other cheek" - is that a personal choice or meant for nations?
And while we are on religious analogies,
did not Jesus use His power to defeat sin and evil, to give His followers freedom?
If the US uses its power to give the Iraquis freedom, isn't that similar.



Grace and Peace

As the USA remains the only "superpower" there will be resentment.
Resentment of our freedoms, military and economic power.

Do we deserve a large portion of it - yes. - look at our culture and hypocrisy, but no nation or individual is perfect.

Does the world's opinion of us really matter to the average American?
To me, just a little.

I certainly would not suggest following whatever the UN says, in order to gain a higher world opinion of us.

Oh, About "turning the other cheek" - is that a personal choice or meant for nations?
And while we are on religious analogies,
did not Jesus use His power to defeat sin and evil, to give His followers freedom?
If the US uses its power to give the Iraquis freedom, isn't that similar.



Grace and Peace
“Go forth and teach all nations,” Jesus commands. This commission is implicit in Americas war to establish democracy—or “freedom”—everywhere. When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life.

Apparently we are selling weapons to Iraq? To the tune of $1.6 billion with the possibility of up to $1.8 billion more??

Petraeus is quoted as saying that the arms sales are an important part of the initiative to keep the Iraqis "rapidly expanding their security forces." Of course, these U.S. arms might help the Iraqi security forces for the short term, but isn't there a chance that the U.S. military could lose control this entire initiative?--weapons we sold turned on us or on each other in a civil war?

DC:

Theological freedom is from sin, and is individual. This is what the great commission is about. There is no recognition of racial or national identity.




Quite different from the American freedom to express ones self, vote, have consumer choices, etc...

Which is still better than having to think, act, believe as the powers that be want you to.






Grace and Peace

DC:

Theological freedom is from sin, and is individual. This is what the great commission is about. There is no recognition of racial or national identity.




Quite different from the American freedom to express ones self, vote, have consumer choices, etc...

which is still better than having to think, act, believe as the powers that be want you to.
Grace and Peace
I am referring to Fundamentalism:
To read texts for their theological meaning rather than for their historical literalness would undercut the whole affirmation of the religion. The next thing, you'd be saying that Jesus didn't rise from the dead on the third day.
Scripture can't make a mistake, right? It has to be read literally.

"You know, you look back over our history, and it doesn't take you long to realize that our people have shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world.''

-- Fred D. Thompson

That my friend is American fundamentalism

"You know, you look back over our history, and it doesn't take you long to realize that our people have shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world.''

-- Fred D. Thompson

That my friend is American fundamentalism
Hi Tom

Or is it just Politics... I’m for Fred either way.:) the claim - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801862_pf.html)

“A grandiose claim that is hard to justify no matter how you define "other people's liberty." Let's begin by looking at U.S. casualties in foreign wars. (Domestic conflicts such as the Revolutionary War and the Civil War are excluded.)”

Petraeus is quoted as saying that the arms sales are an important part of the initiative to keep the Iraqis "rapidly expanding their security forces." Of course, these U.S. arms might help the Iraqi security forces for the short term, but isn't there a chance that the U.S. military could lose control this entire initiative?--weapons we sold turned on us or on each other in a civil war?

Indeed that could happen . It would not be the first time that American weapons in the hands of former allies were turned on us . We have become close allies with former enemies and enemies of former allies before . The best example of this would be the Lend Lease program ,arming the Soviet Union during WWII .

There is no chance of a stable Iraq emerging without an Iraqi security force to take over the role that our forces have assumed. That means they have to be properly armed.

DC ; the anonymous author of the Washington Compost blog dares to compare the sacrifices of the US troops liberating Western Europe to the Soviet expelling the Germans from Russia and then enslaving all of Eastern Europe ?

The broader point that Thompson makes is that the US did not fight for territorial gain in the 20th Century(I will take license and put the Spanish-American War in the 19th Century :) ) but in the cases mentioned in the article , the US fought for the cause of freedom. If Thompson in making that case is jingoistic then so be it. I would like for more of our leaders to be so .

Is resentment against the Americans up or downHello DC:

The fact is, we're the good guys. Are we ALWAYS the good guys? No. But, my measure isn't a short term one. The responsibility for letting the world know about us, rests with our government. And, the government failed miserably. Call it PR or Diplomacy, we didn't do it. We're STILL not doing it.

So, resentment is up.

excon

Now, Now, Tom, you got to know I'm not going to let you create some straw-man here.

“The broader point that Thompson makes... ”

What Fred did was make a great sounding political statement, but not a factual statement; and that is OK, it goes with the job. :D

Hello DC:

The fact is, we're the good guys. Are we ALWAYS the good guys? No. But, my measure isn't a short term one. The responsibility for letting the world know about us, rests with our government. And, the government failed miserably. Call it PR or Diplomacy, we didn't do it. We're STILL not doing it.

So, resentment is up.

excon
Hi excon

As I see it there is an underlying problem and that is that one faction of the Republican Party believes we can give the people of other countries liberty, when in fact each generation here must fight to keep its own liberty. :p

Resentment of our freedoms, How does someone hate someone else's freedom? What does "hate our freedom" even mean? If they envied the freedom of another place then they are admiting they they are not free where they are and would abandon fighting in the name of their current ideology.

There is no chance of a stable Iraq emerging without an Iraqi security force to take over the role that our forces have assumed.
And what role is that, exactly? Referee? Jailer? Employer? Arms supplier? Banker? Enforcer? Mediator?

Whatever anybody might think their "role" is, the actual position our troops are in is smack dab in the middle of MANY armed groups and factions, all the way from fundamentalist sectarian militias to gangs of outlaws, thugs, and robbers, to foreign jihadis, to remnants of Saddam's "security" machine.

While none of these people like us much, they really, REALLY hate each other, based on a centuries-long history of animosity and outrage. So even though none of them really want us there, they are all perfectly willing to use and manipulate us in any way they can to give their faction an advantage over its rivals. This is a no-win position that no military person should be put in.

So where is this Iraqi security force that transcends these societal divisions going to be recruited from, do you think? And how can it possibly be expected to "take over the role that our forces have assumed"? No Iraqi force can take on the role of "foreign enforcer/dupe", which is what we are in Iraqi eyes.

Does the presence of US troops in the middle of this tinder box delay all-out civil war? Maybe for awhile. Prevent it? Probably not.

I think the threat of civil war peaked last year when al-Qaeda was attacking Shia interests ;especially after the Samarra mosque bombing. Is there a risk still ? Probably but it diminishes with the increased security . The threat is not existential to the Iraqi government since it is Shia dominated .The Sunni have come to understand that the message of al-Qaeda and Zarqawi did not serve their best interests ; Neither did their general boycotts of the political process.

But talk of civil war does serve the interests of the American war opposition and progress in Iraq does not. The truth is Iraq is getting better, and the opposition to the war is starting to shift away from the “war is lost” mantra to“stabilizing the government over time would not be worth the cumulative cost in American lives and treasure.”That is certainly worth a debate. But at least admit that Iraq is stabilizing . You should at least take comfort in the fact that the security situation has improved enough that even the President is suggesting troop reductions.

Probably the same or up slightly. I would not had gone about this war the same way our President chose. However, we are resented and criticized, usually out of ignorance. And while our international savvy has dwindled and we do appear arrogant at times, those same people that would criticized us from afar would dearly love to immigrate and become part of the US.


Bobby