Dimitry = Timidry

Smoke w/o substance

The apprentice of diversion and deception...

The Communist Cookie master...

Still building go-kart frames?

==Dimitry = timidiity==

That sounds like the 8th deadly sin!

Why don't you respond to what I already written, PF?

Hiding behind authority figures again?

//Sadly, PF, the quality of your recent posts have deteriorated even further from their already low standard achieved previously.\\ -Dimitry

As usual, you are all smoke and no substance. Isn't it soo easy to sit back and criticize others comments and offer none of your own so that you can recieve criticism.
Dimitry = timidiity

On the next blog page, it is about "Obama's Missile Defenses"; subjects that have value with you - missile dude. Why don't you write a post and I will promise not to be too critcal of you.

=='nuff said...==

Indeed. Your "authority figure" is an ignoramus talking to super-ignoramuses. An oldest trick is to draw an arbitrary historic line, usually recently enough that a TV watching dufus might still remember something of it, then use some event which was played up by the US media as "the start of their attack against us", painting everthing else as "our noble response against their aggression". Very Goebbels-like - why, the old man would be proud that his ideas live on well in the future. He did say that the form of government has very little to do with effectiveness of propaganda on the dumb population - and he was correct.

Sadly, PF, the quality of your recent posts have deteriorated even further from their already low standard achieved previously.

//John Brown: Did you know that many Americans and some still do, considered him an terrorist? Was he wrong to fight for social justice, when the US Government was on the wrong side?\\ -The Rev

John Brown was shown -historically- to be correct for his time; but his case, his motive, was to stand up against the evils of slavery. The inauguration of Lincoln was the sure start of the Civil War; John Brown's actions were the attention to the coming dilemma/showdown of slavery. The Civil War took both of their lives. John Brown wasn't a terrorist; he was a martyr, it is a tenuous assertion - at best - to equate these two concepts.

Islamic terrorism is a guise - a tool - of Muslim oil mob bosses (eg: Saudi Arabia, Iran) by sacrificing unwitting subordinates to commit acts of terrorism for the supposed cause of Islam. Not only are they not martyrs, they are stooges, patsies and the decieved. These 'martyrs' believe (in their minds) what they are doing is correct; but they have indeed become pawns of the Muslim power brokers.

You didn't think that the US is the only source of brokers - did you? I know that you are aware of this little-discussed aspect of the GWOT. And if this side of the GWOT aspect isn't brought to the table and not discussed at the same time, it would be naturally assumed the we are the only ones throwing such power, but in truth that is hardly the case.

The only problem with your arguement, is that your time line of events is skewed. They act against us; then we respond.
Plainfacto

I see it differently. America, I believe drew first blood.

John Brown: Did you know that many Americans and some still do, considered him an terrorist? Was he wrong to fight for social justice, when the US Government was on the wrong side?

//Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours\\ -Gen Ralph Peters

'nuff said...

==They act against us; then we respond.==

They started it first! They did! I didn't do nothin'!

plainfacto: "The US has reacted to terrorism by inaguerating a policy of pre-emption since terrorist..."

"Terrorists? Why they are people lacking (been stripped of) identity... They are seeking to be noticed, to be heard" --Marshall McLuhan (after one of the seminal airline hijackings/terrorist acts in the early 60s)

I wonder who stripped them of their identities that would cause them to seek to reclaim it?

It COULDN'T be western industrialized society's impingement on their cultures through the process of resource LOOTING (That means if you get in the way you die!) so you can drive your Bummer down to the corner market for a sixer and some ciggies.

IOW, we are our own worst enemy, but will NEVER admit it until America is destroyed, and then we'll STILL be looking for a scapegoat for our sociological failures.

Looks like we stepped in a pile of shiite....

The last thing Saddam heard before the rope tightened around his neck; Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada.......

Put a Muslim Army on or near U.S. soil. See if your perspective changes. You conservative hypocrites would be the first planting IEDs, straping on the bomb vests and attacking the evil Muslim occupiers.
And the irony is the Muslim people would have a legitimate reason to do so.We actually do threaten their natiional security. We are the ones with a dangerous, unpredictable, wreckless leader and weapons of mass destruction.

Hey Rev:

The only problem with your arguement, is that your time line of events is skewed. They act against us; then we respond.

The US has reacted to terrorism by inaguerating a policy of pre-emption since terrorist acts are unpredictable; otherwise we would fail to properly defend our own citizens. That would be a failure of gov't if we didn't.

Aren't you making the mistake of accepting foreign rhetoric as opposed the your own gov'ts efforts to protect itself and defend its freedoms?

//You mean like the US did to the southern part of the US, The native tribal lands...\\ -unknown

What does that have to do with the potential Iran crisis?

I wouldn't call YOU a moron; just a pseudo-liberal.
Actually, that is worse to some people...

Do not be decieved or blindsided by Iranian BS artists.

Anonymous,

Thank you for your condescension which I choose to ignore. And don't worry, we won't make the mistake that you have obviously been making for some time now.

You have obviously been deceived by American BS.

Man is neither the measure of all things, nor is the USA! That is the problem with you and too many of America's blind pseudo-patriots.

Not only does our Defense Budget exceed the defense budgets of the majority of the nations of the world combined, the United States BS equivalency quotient, exceeds that of all nations of the world combined. I will not be duped by the other side, nor by the liars on this side!

Most Americans, like America's leaders, have lied to themselves for so long that they wouldn't accept the truth if it smacked them in the face. And that is the problem with 'the American Idol' - it lies too!

The folks overseas are not always innocent, and most of the time we are not innocent either! America created its own enemies, and it will apparently create many more before its done with!

Ergo, the other side has the sames rights as America has to defend itself!

That would be all right - if the enemies of the US did the same thing. But they do not.

Anonymous,

That is a circular argument. The fact is that the nations that the has turned into enemies, as well as the so-called enemy combatants have only reacted to the prolonged evil policies, actions and misbehaviors of the United States (nearly a century now).

If any other nation were to behave as we have been doing, the USA and its citizens would be screaming bloody murder, and a UN resolution would have been passed shortly after 1950!

A defense policy that is in place in order protect ones well being, or the well being of their families and their nation is not immoral.

The unjustified pre-emption (policy of the USA) is unjustified, and is askew of the moral center in the opinion of most of the fair-minded people of the world!

Posted By: "He first annexed part of it (the Sudetenland) before he invaded the rest of it."

You mean like the US did to the southern part of the US, The native tribal lands...

I could go on... but the level of exceptionalism you exude is so astounding as to leave me 'typeless'.

Comparing Iran to Hitler's Germany...

Moron.

Signed,
One pissed off hebe who has relatives with tattoos on their arms (and they ain't pictures)

//Some of us would like to bring this nation to a moral center, where it can live up to those marvelous platitudes that were expressed when the nation was founded.\\ -The Rev

That would be all right - if the enemies of the US did the same thing. But they do not.

There is nothing good about war -except its ending. But between these two points it is a battle for victory that is lined with suffering and horror. Gen. Robert E. Lee once said "It is good that war is terrible; lest we grow too fond of it." As the miseries of the Civil War raged on during Gen. Sherman's 'March to the Sea' campaign, the South realized that its forces would never rise again due to the total destruction wrought by Sherman. It was his entire plan to do it just this way; he said that without whipping the beloved South, they may wish to try again. And they did not.

We have not exerted our full capability to do battle in Iraq - because we deem it unnessesary thus far. If the Iranian leadership divides and conquers Iraq through al Sadr - ultimately depriving the West of oil - it may be that the US will unilaterally re-invade southern Iraq and invade Iran.

If Iran's leaders choose to fight us through economic means - they would be ultimately responsible for our actions.

The UN may condemn us, many countries may deride us for it, but it will not deter us. Economics has often led many countries - throughout history - to follow such a course. If the Iranians are counting upon it, they have misjudged our resolve or our intent.

If Iran feels safer now, because thay have Russia and China as powerful allies to take their side if they should take such action against us - it could turn into a extremely deadly and bloody affair. More bloody and deadly than any previous WW has seen.

The chances we are taking now to ensure than Iraq follows a more democratic form of govt., and one that is open to free trade, the better that outcome may be. The alternative is both unthinkable and undesireable.

Do not be decieved or blindsided by Iranian BS artists. Remember that Hitler used similar tactics with regard to Czechoslavakia. He first annexed part of it (the Sudetenland) before he invaded the rest of it. The creeping friendliness of Iran, and the same motive of regional hegemony, should be suspect for the same reasons.

'Da Buff' provided a link to the concept of Iranian regional hegemony; but it best to understand its' fullest implications -if it should be allowed to go that far. This should not be allowed or to be seen as acceptable; the consequences are undeniable...

plainfacto: "Petreaus has his act together and has a measured success."

If you measure success by what's good for the Pentagon... Not the people of Iraq we claim to be concerned with (Well, maybe the Pentagon is concerned for the few western related Iraqi construction contractors who make their livings building blast walls for other western Iraqis with black market priced concrete & rebar)

That said, It doesn't take a genius to know what's good for the American goose (almost cooked) is also good for the global gander.

That is, if the US expects to last long enough as a viable nation (with a viable economy) to learn to 'play well with others' when the 'others' have different ideas of what to do with their own natural resources including availability to the rest of the world and price.

No one heard any bit*hing from the rest of the world when the U.S. decided to cap off most of it's Gulf of Mexico wells, but what do you suppose the U.S. might do if... Saudi Arabia (f'rinstance) decided it liked it's oil in the ground more than it needed hard currency and western-presence fueled extremists.

Pfft... Saudi Arabia becomes a sheet of radioactive glass (easy to punch holes in, and contains those pesky environmentally damaging spiils), or at least we threaten to do so.

That's not global business, that's global blackmail, and the rest of the globe will slit the blackmailers (economic) throat at the first opportunity.

Poignancy!

Okay Plainfacto, break out the tissues and the violions. I am going to say
something that might bring tears to your eyes - blind patriots won't
understand what I am about to say.

There are some of us who love America too, perhaps more than those Americans who will allow America to slip down the proverbial slippery slope, and behave like an insane madman who is going about and shooting up the world, and who in the end will commit suicide (implode) himself.

Some of us would like to bring this nation to a moral center, where it can live up to those marvelous platitudes that were expressed when the nation was founded.

Since that time, if not before, all anyone has witnessed from the USA is duplicity and double-speak. Personally, I believe that those other nations of the world that we have been discussing, have the right 'not to be unjustly interfered' or dictated to by the United States of America.

A strong and fortified U.N. would have told the USA a long time ago, to stand down.

There are crimes going on in my community. If I were to decide to become a vigilante, get out my UAV go handle the matter myself, I would not be celebrated as a hero by the American government.

On the other hand I would be arrested - just as the USA should be arrested for its continued pursuit of power (even more of it) through class and military struggle.

If the USA won't be subject to the Rule-of-Law, how can it demand that any other nation be subject to the outlaw USA's Rule-of-Law? The US government cannot have it both ways.

Some American citizens have already admitted that with respect to social anomie and their own aberrant behavior, that they have only behaved as their own government has behaved and is behaving in and around the world.

I don't believe in blind patriotism. Some citizens of Austria and Germany apparently did so, and to the detriment of millions of innocent people who needlessly lost their lives.

Blind patriots just look the other way and say, LAWD have mercy, the government is right whaever it does - they are cowards in my book. For often time the government is wrong - just ask the average black American how blind a so-called color blind government can be! Ours took 200 years to see the light!

I believe in calling 'a spade a spade', and that is whether it is a white spade or a black one!

Al-Sadr and company are going to come out on top in this matter, in the world of court opinion. I take that back, they already have come out on top. The American approval rating, not just GB's, is somewhere down around 30 degrees celsius. Or, is that farenheit?

The only ones who agree with our jaundiced and unscrupulous leadership and foreign policy, represent about 2% of the world's population. How arrogant!

Did you see 'the ray gun' that the USA perfected! Our nation has two aims, and it appears to be to make money and kill peopl!

Dumping on the USA?

And how much tonnage has the USA 'dumped' on Iraq and Pakistan lately?

There is a different between dumping on the USA and being truthful about any other nation including the U.S.A. As a black American, I have had my turn being the evil one - when it was America that was dumping one me.

I have a keen and personal understanding of what the American propaganda and killing machine is doing on the other side of the world. And let's just say that if all of the Middle-East and Pakistan et al..., cowed down to the USA tomorrow - the USA would move on to its next target!

It is sad that we cannot get those Americans who can and will readily point out the real or imagined faults of of all others nations, to be honest about American indescretions.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the USA has been dumping on the United Nations, The Soviet Union when it existed, China, the DPRK, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Chavez, Castro... and my God (minus the Soviets) all of that has been going on during the past 4 years.

We have sabre-rattled and threatened other nations with harm. If the USA can't take a little criticism, certainly the USA and its sycophants should stop dishing it out. We are reportedly a Republic, our government represents us and frankly some of us are unabashed in terms of our right and devotion to speak up when our 'paid hirelings in DC', and are fellow citizen acomplices are not listening to reason!

Poor America (all alone in the world) - even our allies are saying, it's enough!

I assume that the USA have no intention to leave Iraq. See the "enduring bases", the supersize "embassy", the (only postponed) plan to attack Iran, McCain's speaches. I also assume tht H. Clinton has no intention to fulfill her promise to get out, and that a President Obama will not be allowed to fulfill his (more credible) promise. It's the OIL, stupid.

So Al-Sadr's strategy makes longterm sense: First build up a formidable, practically invincible power, which cannot be only a military one. Hezbollah is the model, as you say, Mr. Arkin. The Sadrists may be strong enough in about 10 years, not only to rule Shiite Iraq, but also to inflict so much harm on the US occupation force that it will be forced to leave. As the US will side with the Sunnites then, the Mahdi army will also have to fend off the assaults of this enemy.

So it's an ambitious and longterm project which Al-Sadr started.

I wonder whether in 10 years or so the Chinese will also play a direct role in Iraq ... on the side of the Shiites, backing intervention from Iran, if necessary, for example ...

But possibly the US economy will suffer a heart attack before, and then there will be no more money to continue Operation Oilgrab.

Whatever one's opinion of Hizbullah, it is difficult to argue with it's a "success". By combining force with social programs, it has won the support of the Shia population in Lebanon and successfully defended Lebanon's borders. Hamas has also had that combination, which, no doubt, contributed to it's election victory in the PA. It's defensive capabilities have yet to be fully tested, and we can only hope that test will not be viewed as necessary by either Israel or Hamas. Hamas is Sunni, and Hizbollah is Shia, but both have used the same methods. These policies are appropriate to insurgents, militias,, counter insurgent operations, or, in more peaceful circumstances, political parties and nations. Hopefully, the latter two examples will not include the use of force. Inclusive organizations, societies, or governments are more likely to be successful.

Leave it to 'Che' to raise a red herring - as far as the subject ot this blog is concerned...

I'm here; I just don't see what you do - as far as the 'genius' of Da Buff is concerned!

Petreaus has his act together and has a measured success. Sadr is consolidating his power; at one time the US sought to capture him after his inditement for murder.

If you guys get off by being radicals and dumping on the US - it doesn't surprise me or influence me - whatsoever. You have the right to speak. I can read without respoding - y'know.

I thought the piece 'tThe Twelve Myths of 21st Century War' by Gen. Peters on the previous blog - still satisfactorally answers any anti-war sentiments that I have read on Arkins blog - or anywhere - so far to date...

da Buffalo,

You are a genius! BTW what happened to Plainfacto? He must have been circumscribed, for he would never let me get away with what I have written.

Based upon my own research and America's past history, America will get in bed with anyone that will help America to secure 'its interests'. And when they are no longer needed, America will either hang, dump or imprison them (whass up General Noriega?) Or can you say rendition?

THE USA treated Noriega so badly, that in the aftermath he gave his life to Jesus!

Someone accused me of sounding like Osama a week ago. On the other hand, just how many dictators, autocrats, despots, murderers... have and is the USA in bed with today for that matter?

Perhaps what the gov't is trying to say is, that it is not axiomatic, that if you do not agree with the policies of the USA, that you are a bad person or nation! Or on the other hand perhaps there are good dictators, warlords and Osama's?

how much is the bush-cheney team paying al sadr to leave general petrayus and our us troops alone? does this make the surge look like it is working? r.miller

how much is the bush-cheney team paying al sadr to leave general petrayas and our troops, just so the surge looks good? r.miller,

Wasn't it Gerald Ford who said "I could fit all my black friends in the trunk of my car and still have room for the Republican elephant"?

Da' Buffalo,

Or, that some of my best friends are black like my maid, butler and chauffeur?

The fact that America has never learned to live peaceably and responsibly with other people in the world who happen to be of a different hue, by and large has to do with the fact they have never never learned to live honestly and responsibly with certain individuals back home.

They will listen to us sing, or watch us play basketball - but teachers? And frankly we could teach them how to get along in the world without killing other foreign nationals! I think they enjoy killing, myself!

Rev: "I can still remember the day when President George H.W. Bush invited the Reverend Jesse Jackson to join the Republican Party"

Wasn't it Gerald Ford who said "I could fit all my black friends in the trunk of my car and still have room for the Republican elephant"?

The Rev: "let's face it, if some other nation was doing to our nation right now, what the USA is doing to Iraq, I would be the Reverend Al Sadar and the rest of you would be considered insurrectionists and terrorists by the invaders."

To extend that concept out a bit... why we should NOT allow Iraqi military collaborators (quaintly called 'interpreters' to seek refugee status in the U.S.:

If the Iraqi army invaded the United States and was repelled, what would become of the American collaborators, informers, and traitors?

Would Americans want them to escape unscathed to Iraq, or would American justice be demanded?

What if they were also responsible for questioning resisting Americans after brutal torture techniques were applied by... whomever?

I would like to think they would be hanged, or stood in front of a firing squad, in a manner and tenor similar to the trial outcomes for the internal security war criminals of Germany at Nuremberg.

The open letter which follows was a comment posting (slightly elaborated upon) rejected by the moderator @ Juan Cole's Informed Comment for the article:

Informed Comment Saturday, March 01, 2008

Walleser Guest Editorial on Imperilled US Allies among the 4 Million Iraqi Refugees

Sorry.

I DO NOT support bringing Iraqi military collaborators with the west here.

I did NOT support the invasion, the rationale for the invasion, or ANYONE who may have assisted that illegal immoral act in ANY WAY, and I won't willingly do so at any point in my life.

Apparently you intentionally or unintentionally support another 50 year low intensity war against whatever remains of Iraq, it's culture, and society much in the manner of our ongoing attempts to destabilize Cuba and much of Latin America.

If it makes it harder to find such collaborators in the future who would help the cretins in power within the U.S. government persecute another nasty little war like Iraq, so much the better... Maybe America's foreign policy actions will slowly be restored to something resembling respect for the global community.

In full: http://leighm.net/wp/2008/03/01/openresponse2walleser_jcic/

American Civil Rights Worker Terrorists?

Ah, this is a common practice for the U.S. government, particularly when it is being run by [con-swerv-a- tives].

First you're a terrorist and then you're a buddy.

I can still remember the day when President George H.W. Bush invited the Reverend Jesse Jackson to join the Republican Party.

Who knows one day Osama and George W. may sit and have coffee together at the Oval Office with President Bush! Osama and Al Sadr weren't categorically wrong, and neither was George and the 'con-swerv-a-tives', always right! So why not be friends! Rememeber Qadafi?

Just off Da' Buffalo's news feed.

Here's why the current full-time demonization campaign against al Sadr, from MERIP:

"Some of the sharpest debates in post-Saddam Iraq concern federalism -- how much power will be devolved from the center to outlying regions and what the nature of those regions will be. One Shi'i religious party, the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, aspires to create a super-province encompassing all nine of the majority-Shi'i governorates south of Baghdad. But this project is strongly opposed by a cross-sectarian coalition of what might be called "centrists," comprising factions who want a restoration of Baghdad's robust power and also groups with a more moderate vision of federalism than the Supreme Council's. With the federalism law coming into effect in April, the stakes are high."

Sistani's people, which for the un-informed is where al Sadr's loyalties and religious affiliations lie, Vs the 'centrists'

It might be considered a political battle between ethno-federalists and 'centrist' federalists.

I might suggest at this juncture that the U.S. butt out of Iraqi politics and let them make their own government in their own manner, but GW isn't listening.

For those interested in other issues surrounding Iraq than the cost of gasoline next summer, it's a quite detailed article about the current state of federalism in Iraq.

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero031008.html

The 10,000 number is a vast underestimate.

The numbers I've seen lately speak of 70,000.

100,000 fighters in varying degrees of preparedness who are familiar with the theater and speak the language is one good motivation for not 'making any bull moves'.

" Although the Mahdi Army's current size is unclear, it is widely believed to number more than 10000 fighters, including former soldiers from..."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/13/mahdi_army_patrols_shiite_neighborhoods/

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.com
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Who did order to kill Miss Bhutto? It was the ISI(Inter-Services Intelligence).

Benazir Bhutto claimed three senior allies of Pakistan's president General Musharraf were out to kill her in a secret email to Foreign Secretary David Miliband written weeks before her death.

Astonishingly, one of them is a leading intelligence officer who was officially responsible for protecting Miss Bhutto from an assassination.

The second is a prominent Pakistani figure, one of whose family members was allegedly murdered by a militant group run by Miss Bhutto's brother.

The third is a well-known chief minister in Pakistan who is a long-standing opponent of Miss Bhutto.

Miss Bhutto told Mr Miliband she was convinced that the three were determined to assassinate her on her return to the country and pleaded with him to put pressure on the Pakistan government to stop them.

The disclosure is bound to lead to questions as to whether the Foreign Office did enough to safeguard Miss Bhutto.

Her return was organised in close co-ordination with the UK and US governments, which saw her as the best hope of restoring democracy in Pakistan while preventing it from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists.

The email concerning the three alleged would-be killers identified by Miss Bhutto emerged as rival political factions in Pakistan continued to dispute the details surrounding her assassination.

The Pakistan government said she was killed by Al Qaeda, but her People's Party dismissed that as "a pack of lies" and insisted General Musharraf's regime was implicated.

Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's former High Commissioner to the UK and a British-based adviser to Miss Bhutto, said: "She sent an email to the Foreign Office before she returned to Pakistan naming certain people.

"In the email, she said, 'The following persons are planning to murder me and if any harm comes to me they should be held responsible.'"

Miss Bhutto wrote her prophetic email to Mr Miliband in September, shortly after she met him to discuss her return to Pakistan. She named the same three individuals in a letter to General Musharraf in October.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=94&contentid=4875&page=2

Al Sadar and Freedom Fighting Americans...

let's face it, if some other nation was doing to our nation right now, what the USA is doing to Iraq, I would be the Reverend Al Sadar and the rest of you would be considered insurrectionists and terrorists by the invaders.

THE USA might as well compromise, it got what it wanted. We took down yet another once free nation in the world - and the whole world stood by and watched it happen!

And despite all conventional wisdom to the contrary, if you check behind the scences you wil find out that the USA had a plan in place to takedown Al-Sadr and the Mahdi
Army.

So why did we back away from that plan? Answer: Motive!

al75 is right, Buffalo. Read more carefully - what troubles him is that we are getting deeper into debt, and our military is getting closer to exhaustion, with no end in sight. Sounds like a good analysis of the problem to me...

al75: "What troubles me is that while players like al-Sadr..."

Why exactly does Muqtada al Sadr 'trouble' you? Or Arkin?

I have 2 guesses.

1) Because he's not a westernized Iraq and is not particularly caring what the west wants (Iraqi oil), any more than you might care if Iraq is being socio-culturally destroyed even as I type this.

2) Maybe you don't like the fact that he can actually bring order to areas he controls and it would mean we should leave Iraq now whether or not you have gas for your Hummer next year.

Please elaborate, or else my guesses would continue towards defining arrogant callousness.

Heres one plan for immediate withdrawal:

A "one month plan" for extraction of ALL U.S. ground troops from Iraq - Stan Goff, Feral Scholar

Stan Goff, Feral Scholar, Ex-Special Forces:

"Declare intent and a unilateral ceasefire. Open discussions for coordination immediately with major militias who enjoy local popular support. Prepare Kuwait with transient tent city for a BIG influx of troops and vehicles next to the airport.

Throw out the embedded press (they will turn it into a circus of perceived US humiliation).

Orders to leave everything non-essential. Prepare to destroy-in-place lethal armaments that are not carried. Begin pre-positioning convoy support."

Set up tactical air support corridors from base to base leading south, and run serial convoys with massive force (base to base) to Kuwait, reprovisioning at each base from pre-positioned logistical stores.

Vehicles that break down for more than two hours would be destroyed-in-place with thermite (an incendiary that melts the engines).

Airlift the remaining troops from the bases into Kuwait. Airlift all from Kuwait to the US. Establish airlift security at each base with whichever militia enjoys the most local popular support.

Whole process: one month to get into Kuwait, a couple more to complete the redeployment out of Kuwait."

In Full: http://leighm.net/wp/2008/02/13/tothedoor_goff/

This is what happens when we are loosing the war. instead of pulling out we think wishfull thoughts about fations etc. I guess its realy painfull to admit loss.

Another in a string of on-target pieces from Arkin.

What troubles me is that while players like al-Sadr are biding their time, consolidating power under a fig-leaf of "alliance" with the US - we are getting deeper in debt, our military closer to exhaustion.

The US strategy only works if there's an end point, when we can "stand down". But there's no end in sight - only a slow bleed while the Iranians, Al-Sadr, the Kurds, the Sunni (former?) insurgents -- all get stronger.

Back to the future!

Does that mean the 'Awakening Councils' ARE NOT thoroughly infiltrated with former AQ fighters?

last Friday (AL Syeed) Al Sader had expressed his frustration because he couldn't kick out the (invaders) or he couldn't establish an Islamic Society in Iraq (out of his gangs). For most Iraqi's Shia, muqtada was a burden' achildish young man who made them lose their golden chance of establishing a new modern government by letting all Iraq enemies to use him Including Baathist , wahabies ,al Qaieda and finaly Iran.

i evaluate US invasion of iraq as a success, i.e., success for the ruling class. w. just 4000 deaths and thousands maimed, US obtains a valuable piece of property. yes, those who h. sent young people to their graves, do praise them. but their grieving parents grieve nevertheless. let's face it folks: the planet USA is getting poorer daily and maintainance/increase of wealth can only come from the orb. money's root of much evil; there's not much the ruling class (ab. 10% of US' pop) wouldn't do in order to control it. h. we forgt'n hironagi? by the way, shouldn't h. the crew of enola committed suicide as the bombs hied down killing in minutes ab. 150,000. and suicide killings by pals a crime of much greater severity?? next in line for conquest iran and syria. thank u.

I think the article is pretty much correct and the struggle within Iraq is between the pro shia factions trying to stamp its authority on Iraq as a whole, and stop the partition. No doubt the pentagons recent arms deal to 'friendly' Arab nations is with regard to this ultimate settlement of Iraq.
Unfortunately, I think that once again the policies of the US are misguided. The beleaguered 'friendly' Arabs are losing the popular backing at home from their people and the entire situation could change dramatically against the US if these forces begin to influence and possibly overthrow any of these regimes, which is becoming a stronger reality everyday.
If I were a betting man, I would wager that the best outcome for the US was to change its policies visa-v Iran. The influence Iran has on the whole region is far greater than the friendly Arab states which are propped up like a deck of cards, a sudden wind could bring the whole deck down. Lateral thinking could transform the US's image across the region and create an extremely strong alliance that will be much needed for the US and EU interests in the region instead of continued support for undemocratic despotic leaders. This could also potentially help restore the Palestinian and Israeli situation. Why support Regimes that have very little influence over a final settlement and have no legitimacy with the people of the region? Despite the concerns the West has about Iran, there is popular support for change in the country that will only ever be acted on when the threats are removed.

al Sadr isn't the 'radical' element.

Our own bought and paid for 'Awakening Councils' are... al Qaeda fighters.

But exactly WHEN DID AQ stop working for the Pentagon anyway? Their NATO hired 'people mover' Viktor Bout worked for the US as recently a 2 years ago (when he lost 1/4 million AK47s for the CPA and Petraeus wrote it off as a simple 'bookkeeping error'.