Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
Sign in to follow this  
Sed

A 'Long War' Against Whom?

Recommended Posts

"the long war" might not be so long after all. Self-serving, uncompromising, greedy, stubborn, sectarian, nepotistic, and corrupt Iraqi politicians are quickly turning the stomach of american voters. These are the people that Iraqis chose to lead them. Americans don't neccessarily have to follow. If Iraqi choose to have a pile of shit for government then I don't particularly see why that has to be America's problem.

 

Four more years.

 

If they elect another batch of suck-ass leaders in four years, then I say frig-it. We gave them shovels and they decided to build barricades instead of irrigation canals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moron99,

 

Self-serving, uncompromising, greedy, stubborn, sectarian, nepotistic, and corrupt Iraqi politicians ...These are the people that Iraqis chose to lead them

 

Would you please explain and give concret example on each of the above ineresting qualifications of Iraq new born political system "ignorant people that ellect bad representatives"!..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moron99,

 

Self-serving, uncompromising, greedy, stubborn, sectarian, nepotistic, and corrupt Iraqi politicians ...These are the people that Iraqis chose to lead them

 

Would you please explain and give concret example on each of the above ineresting qualifications of Iraq new born political system "ignorant people that ellect bad representatives"!..

I think what "moron" is hinting at is the "30 minute" government workout we in the west witnessed not long ago. :blink:

 

As was mentioned in the western media, the Iraqi government adjourned 30 minutes after comming to order. :angry:

 

this must not be allowed to happen again. <_<

 

Americans do support the Iraqi people. We've spilled our blood and voted to "stay the course" in 2004. We didn't abandon the Iraqi's then,we still support them but

we are not a crutch for the Iraqi government officials to lean on as a right to exist. The Iraqi people have to stick a red hot poker into the elected government officials.

There are a few very important seats left to be filled.

 

Those seats will be very powerful.

 

...and nobody wants to give up power after they have tasted it. ( I think that is what the problem is )

 

Somebody has to get the government to sit down and get the process of taking responsibility for what has been happening the past several years, what must be done to fix it and who is going to take charge of the counrty and see it gets done.

 

This must be done as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a story that won't get musch air time in the west. It shows that the media concentrates on the bad and ignores the good.

 

U.S. Military Asserts Most of Iraq Peaceful

 

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer

42 minutes ago

 

 

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military spokesman in Iraq asserted Thursday that major violence is largely confined to just three of the country's 18 provinces,

but fighting there raged on with at least 58 people killed in execution-style slayings, bombings and gunbattles.

For the third straight day, Sunni insurgents hit a major police and jail facility — this time with a suicide car bombing that killed 25 in central Baghdad.

...

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

 

More at the link.

 

Are the freedom fighters losing?

If they are attacking Iraqi police stations and blowing up jails.....they ( Iraqi police) must be catching the real trouble makers.

So, if the insurgents want to bust people out of jail...

maybe their insurgent numbers are shrinking ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how accurate this blogger, "Iraq the Model" is with what the next step for Iraq is but it is a story that never gets any coverage.

I posted most of the blog entry;

 

Thursday, March 23, 2006

 

Entering stage three.

 

 

It's time again to go back to the political process in Iraq and shed some light on the latest developments regarding the discussions for forming the new government.

 

Today, newspapers in Baghdad brought many relevant reports and statements given by politicians in the past day or two and most of them indicated that next Saturday will mark the beginning of what they called "the third stage" of the negotiations with a warm-up meeting scheduled for Friday (to eat some more lamb) and get ready for the next stage which is expected to be final and decisive.

 

Leading figures from the four major blocs pointed out that earlier discussion had led to an agreement on 23 points (out of 26) from the suggested program of the government which according to Abbas al-Bayati from the UIA is largely a summation of 3 work papers presented by the UIA, Accord Front and the Kurdish Alliance.

 

One of the most critical points that were agreed upon was the suggestion of establishing a 'national security committee' formerly referred to as the 'council of elders'. Adnan Pachachi from the Iraqi list and Nadeem al-Jabiri of al-Fadheela Party spoke in detail about the structure of this committee; the committee will be headed by the president and will have 19 members distributed as follows:

The president and his two deputies.

The prime minister and his two deputies.

The chairman of the parliament.

The president of the supreme federal court.

The president of Kurdistan region.

The heads of the major parliamentary blocs.

 

And to further breakup the allocations:

 

9 seats will go to the UIA.

4 seats to the Kurdish Alliance.

3 seats to the Accord Front.

2 seats to the Iraqi list (Allawi).

1 seat to the Dialogue Front (al-Mutlaq).

It seems that the structure of this committee is already accounted for,

yet the responsibilities, jurisdictions and mechanism of work are not as clear because while Pachachi said that "decisions will be made by a 2/3 majority from the members of the committee and decisions will be later submitted to the parliament [if requires a legislation] or to the cabinet [if requires execution] and all decisions made by this committee will be obligatory to its members as well as the permanent government"

al-Jabiri said "it will not be only an advisory board or a coordinating entity but it will not be the highest authority in the country because that would be against the constitution…the decisions of this committee will be political and not constitutional in their nature".

 

On the other hand AbdulKhaliq Zangana from the Kurdish bloc that these points are still being discussed and will not have a definite shape until negotiations resume next Saturday.

....

.....

 

Again, a lot of expected to come out from the next stage which starts on Saturday and the political editor at al-Sabah wrote this morning that "an informed source from the Accord Front told us that politicians will decide the name of the parliament's chairman will be decided by Saturday or Sunday and the next step will be discussing the nominations for presidency where there's a preliminary agreement on giving this post to Talabani…"

The politicians here are trying to respond to internal public pressure and international pressure and above all, time pressure but this response still does not rise to the level of the challenge, which are least described as enormous.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to "Iraq the model" and to Airdale for refering to that briefing that saved me time in high lighting the tremendous work by Iraqi ellected politicians to bring up a mainframe governing the comming new era.

 

What Airdale, moron99 had brough up is nothing but to share a lot of critism by Iraqis to the "slow" process of reaching a common understanding and agreement to the governemnt agneda and priorities. Most Iraqis that I know are under the impression that such delay is worsening the security situation and a strong unified goverment is a must to get out of the situation. They loss their patiance paying the high price every day.

 

However, I would go bit differently. What we are seeing today is the real outcome of democratic building process. We ,in Arab world, used to have goverment decided by dictators over night, it is democracy that makes such process more complicated. Let me give example, how long it takes for the main two parties in USA to come up with a unified strategy to fight back the fatal terrorist threats? We saw how the democrate were showing some odd doings that might encouraged the killing of both Iraqis and Americans in iraq by giving the wrong messages that America is devided and that the more the terrorist do in Iraq the more might be impact on the will of the American adminstaration. This is happening in a matured democracy, just imagine the case with a newly born democracy facing one of the most brutal enemy humanity ever knows.

 

Iraqi factions have a real deep untrust feelings "but not hatred" and need time to come together with a unified vision and governemnt , a governemnt that serve all and be agreed on by all. Shia and Kurds might be able easily to establish the governemnt, they refused to do so without the Arab Sunni parties participation because they insist that the next Iraqi model need to be inclusive.. The issue of Kirkuk that Shia and Kurds are failing to agree on is indeed an Arab Sunni sensative one. Shia Rep can easily show soft stand to win the needed votes of the Kurds, but prefer to go for the long shot in order to convince the Sunni. Today Adnan Aldulaimee , the head of the Sunni religous parties "44 seats" was on a news confrence with other slates leaders and he was very pleased to confirm a very big progress on their demand for the Security council forming"similar to Bremer's Governing council" which Airdale detailed in above posting . This council was orginaly suggested in conflict to the consdtitution by establishing a new authority over the goverment.. Kurds and Alawee supported the suggestion with a push from the American embassy which affriad the emerging power of radical Alsader and wanted to put more constrains on the Jaafree government. I was very worried that such violation to the constitution would be a very bad message. The first decision by ellected rep under first constitution, is to violate the constitution.!

A lot of Iraqis were wondering , why we sacrified our lifes to vote for a constitution when it would end up with an appointed non constitutional council.! Then five days ago the hard negotiation came with this briliant exit to the dead lock. The council will have no obligotory on those who don't accept it and will not be more that a consultancy board.. I think this exit has many benifits, Firstly it will keep the key players together rather than looking to each other as opponents, second it will not break the constitution.

Today, Talabani in the same news confrence, confirmed that tomorrow the next step of governemnt forming will start..

 

As for the security sitaution , prematurly formed governemnt will not be better than current governemnt in dealing with it. I think the current worsening of the violant situation had indirectly helped the process. Terrorist wanted to stop and diversify the current negotiation, but what had happened was completely the other way.Americans felt the seriousness of playing with factions to push one against the other, the moderate Shia felt the impact of keeping soft stand in front of the embassy's calls to weakening the Iraqi police and that they loss ground to radical clerics who start to fill the gap in protecting people.Sunni Arab minority and for first time, felt the real threat of what damage playing with civil war might cause to them. Kurd too felt that sitting and watching Arab fighting each other and collect benefits would not bring them what they dream of, Iranians too took it seriously, Arab governemnt had same concerns.. In brief these thugs of Sadamists and Qaeda terrorists are helping Iraqis by show them that they face a real one enemy that don't diffrentiat between people when a car or suicider hit.

 

We all are in hurry , but doing it perfectly is much better that half solution.. This is a long process that Iraqis need to pay high price for and I am sure they will be up to it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a sige of retreat the Zarqawee Qaeda organization in Iraq announced it's submission to an Iraqi led consurtuim of Mujahdeen. The announcement came in very low profile announcement on the Interenet which also added that Zarqawee is no longer the leader.. This need to be confirmed but it looks to me that the Sadamists are feeling the impact of igniting a sectarian war that Zarqawee was talking about. After the Show off of Mehdi militia last month they were sure that this would be a total loss one.

 

On other front, one lesson that Iraqi politicians and American empassy need to grasp is that blocking the government from having it's duty , under any excuse , would only push people to bring back justice their way..

I am noticing more Iraqi Shia no longer trust that the goverment or the Americans are able to protect them, they feel that the empassy is playing a central role in marginalizing the government heavy hand on fighting the terrorists. Unfortunately they start to look to others to protect them. Almehdi Army is now their last unwellcomed resource. It is well known in baghdad and srounding areas that for a Shia who got threatened by Sadamists and Zarqawee thugs ,the only choice is to pay a visit to the nearest office of Alsader and they would take care of the criminals not the government ! this is a very serious development and I think it is a simple outcome of the recent American embassy policy of puting sticks in the wheel of Iraqi police.

 

THis policy might have it's own reasons but let us think seriously here, we don't need to have Hamas excersize happens in Iraq. When you don't let moderates move freely, you should expect radicals to take over. At the end ,people need some one to protect them. I found much more Shia iraqis feeling more safe having Almehdi army around . Same people who were very happy seeing government firm stand against Alsader two years ago.. This need to be looked at carefully..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching the Iraqi government since almost two years ago and have seen two administrations.

 

I am unsure if Alawi gave power to people he knew were thieves or if he just inherited a legacy of corruption. Having witnessed the looting, I tend to think that Iraqi people needed to go through a phase where they took back some of what Saddam stole and this extended into the realm of politics where there was/is a period of "grab it while you can". Nonetheless, Alawi as a leader was strong but fair. He was Iraqi first and sectarian second. When forced to choose he would chosse Iraq the nation over his tribe or sect.

 

Then the UIA came into power and the desire seemed to move away from looting and towards revenge. As Jafari's government was called upon to make choices they consistently refused to share power with Sunni or make any effort to reintegrate the baathi. I still believe that this path will lead to many more years of sufferring. The government of Saddam was not one man. In a nation of 25 million he would need at least 250,000 loyal followers, another 250,000 complicit agents, and another 1 million who found his regime favorable to their interests. A government who seeks vengence and distributes distrust with a broad brush will find no peace simply because it has 1.5 million enemies. The best they can hope for is to brutally supress the 1.5million until their house is complete. I think "revenge" is another phase that Iraq must pass through in order to purge themselves of Saddam's stain. However, I think the most of the Iraqi people have passed through this phase and are ready to move on. The actions of UIA however, indicate that they are not. If they are to be true leaders then they must put more value upon being Iraqi than they place upon being Shia. They must go to the table and ask the Sunni - "what would it take for you to join us in peace?". It is a simple question that I have never once seen them express an interest in asking. Instead, they embrace the idea that since they won the most votes then everyone must bend to their will. It is a formula for four more years of car bombs, assasinations, and death squads.

 

My conclusion is simple. The people of Iraq may not want war but they are unwilling to make the compromises required for peace. If you choose to reject peace, then war is the natural outcome (whether you want it or not). It does not matter to me whether or not Iraqi people or leaders accept the responsibility of their choices. If they choose to reject the conditions for peace then I do not see why America should keep spending her blood and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moron99,

Let me first confirm that I used and still to defend Alawee from any responsibilty of wrong doing of his government ministers. It was clear responsibilty of Mr. AlIbrahimi of UN who supervised and appointed them, including Alawee. So Alawee was not PM but more like a secretary. UN with long history of corruption is to blam, and there is no surprise in that.

 

At same time I don't agree with you with your assesment of Aljaafree government. By all standards this is one of best acheivments governement in Iraq history considering the huge inherited corruption and disturbances .. It secceefully supervised two voting processes, constitution writing, Telaafar and west of Iraq operations, and most important the economic corruption reforms.. Iraqi centarl bank was in debt by about 7 billion dollars before Aljafree's. During Jaafrees goverment nine months role , the central bank reserves is in the postive cash. That is in dispite of the forgnier help dry out.

 

As for your point of the governement intention to revenge. I don't know from where you got it. Indeed Jaafree's goverment's main acusation is that it is not very firm with terrorists. Among hunderds of Sadamists and Qaeda criminals who were captured kiiling Iraqis, only few nunber got the hight punishment as per Iraqi court. Not mentioning the Bathists who get back to their jobs based on no criminal record against them. Indeed they also paid their full missing salaries while sitting at home. The only exception is that regarding those higher rank baathists "about 40 thousands" who had the choice of get retirement or get into a special training and education by debaathification administartion.

 

As for your estimations to the numbers of baathists , I found it too aggresive. We need to remember that Alawaee party couldn't get more than four seats "among his 29 seats wide".. Having in mind that most of the baathists voted for him would give some idea about the real numbers.

 

I would agree on the point of Alawee as strong man. However, this is might be his weakness as a leader in the new Iraq. Iraqis had suffered the strong leadership and this might expalin why Alawee got so poor results.

 

As for fair and Iraq first , I can't tell. he was never tested for the job. All his real life job experiences are couple of years practicingas physician, and then most of rest of his life as a broker gent to oil companies!

 

At the end , the new Iraq's key to leadership is the poll box results , any candidate needs to pass that barrier before being elligibale for the job.. From your analaogy , i can assume that you don't believe in the good judgment of the crazy people of the horrific purple finger who had risked cutting it three times in one year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the people of Iraq want security. I believe that security is their top concern whatever color their finger. I further believe that the Iraqi politicians are talking with a forked tongue when it comes to the security file. The people of Iraq are more willing to accept peace than thier leaders. But each of these leaders has a group of loyal followers who will breach the security interests of all in order to increase the power of their group. 90% of the Iraqi people are caught in the middle and sufferring poor security because of the leaders (both within and oppossed to government) and their 10% following. Iraq needs a leader who is for the interests of all iraqis regardless of sect. You will probably arrive at your destination either way, but a leader who is for the people and of the people will leave far fewer dead bodies in his wake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

I don't know how a leder represent less than 5% of voters would bre considered as the only one representing the whole Iraq and cbe considered as a solution to Iraq complex political system, while some one who represent at least 50% of voters is not. !

You might say Alawee is not factionist and that is why he got such small voters, I agree but that will lead us to a starnge conclution of saying: Iraqis are not ellegable to decide for them self. Is that what you want to say..

It is true that Iraqis have their security as priority one, but this is just like Any other democratic society such as the Americans , not on the expence of secrifying the only one positive great achievment that they got over the last two thousands years, to be free to chose and rule them self.. When the Americans chose President Bush for the second run under sever threat by terrorist to hit again, it was clear that there is Nader who ran for less than 5% votes.. American might as well chose Nader to keep them self away from be divided.

 

You might say that nader is not strong as Alawee is.. I would argue on that. Alawee strenght is not based on support of iraqi people but on returning back the old regime figures to manage the security.. It is a reciepy just to comply with what the sadimist say every day, there is no way to get out without getting the old regime..In other word to cancell the only achievment and to betreat all sucrifices by both Americans and Iraqis!

 

Eight months of Alwaee roling proved that.. Till now Iraqi security forces are working to cleaning the police from the most corrupted double agents that were pentrated into it by Alawee miss judgment and policy..Have a look to the death squads and you can tell! I know you might say these are Bader or Mehdi militia thugs.. Who know they might be the new emerged "The special Iraqi forces " just announced by the Americans .. Things are so mixed, we in Iraq no longer know who is who. I am sure it not the leader any more, Iraq in the last three years got changed so much into a very complex system that black and white thinging and analysis is no longer the best tool to look to it through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mustefser

http://www.sotaliraq.com/articles-iraq/nieuws.php?id=29220

 

In Arabic .. An article by known writer Abdul Khalik Husain.. Talking about anti Iraq democracy groups.. He listed couple of them

The Sunni Arab factionist , the Shia radical , the Arab natiolist and Islamic parties. Finally the libral and left groups in the west. He ellaborated more on the last ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest,

 

The founding principle of modern democracy is that all people are created equal and that the purpose of government is to serve and protect all citizens equally. The elected government does not have the right to treat those who voted against it with any less respect than those who voted for it. The process of voting selects leaders but it does not usurp constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom. The elected government bears equal responsibility to protect baathists as badrists as kurds as sunni as shia as christian as jew. For democracy to work the government must seek to serve all citizens. If it seeks to serve the interests of only those who voted in its favor then civil war becomes unavoidable.

 

Specifically, the responsibility of UIA is to all of Iraq. Once they take the oath of office they are no longer servants of those who voted for them. When they take their chairs they must become bigger people and serve the nation as a whole. UIA has not done this. They do not see themselves as servants to all of Iraq. As such, I think that they will perpetuate war with ex-baathi and sunni. If they embraced democracy as a way of governance rather than a way to power then they would reach out to their enemies and seek compromises that value all citizens equally. I have not seen this in the past and I do not see it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...