Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Falluja, Najaf and the First Law of Holes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 12:55 PM
Original message
Falluja, Najaf and the First Law of Holes
Edited on Sun Apr-25-04 01:19 PM by WilliamPitt
Edited to reflect some of the suggestions made below. Thanks everyone!!!

===

Anyone who believes that April has been the cruelest month of this Iraq war - 111 Americans killed with the total dead now at 718, hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqi civilians killed - should gird themselves for the reality that the worst, the very worst, the unimaginably awful, is still yet to come.

It is bad enough that this second Bush war in Iraq has yielded nothing of what was promised by George and his merry crew. There are no weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection between the deposed Hussein regime and al Qaeda, there was no connection between Hussein and September 11, there will be no democracy for Iraq, and the Iraqi people have most definitely not welcomed us with open arms.

Instead, Bush has mobilized anti-American sentiment to such a staggering degree that Shi'ite and Sunni, enemies for generations past counting, have united to fight us. The invasion and occupation has spurred an al Qaeda recruitment drive that has swelled the ranks of that organization. A lot of people are dead, American and British and Spanish and Polish and Iraqi alike. Nine Americans and 28 Iraqis were killed this weekend alone. The light at the end of this tunnel is an oncoming freight train.

That's not the worst part, however. The worst part is yet to come, in two cities called Falluja and Najaf. Americans paying attention to the spiral of violence in recent weeks will recognize those names, for they have been at the center of heavy combat since the month of April began. Bush administration officials, rocked back on their heels by the eruption of death there, were forced at one point to sue for a cease fire with the 'insurgents' they had supposedly defeated last May, when the mission was declared accomplished and the end of major combat operations was declared over during a photo-op on an aircraft carrier several time zones away from the violence.

The cease fire has failed, and American forces are at this moment surrounding Falluja and Najaf with the intention of invading these cities and routing the 'insurgents.' A showdown is coming, and nothing good will be made of it.

U.S. military planners have spent many years now studying about and training soldiers for the realities of urban combat. The city of Falluja should be the first chapter in the urban combat strategy binder titled "Worst Terrain Imaginable." The city has nearly 300,000 residents and is made up of a dizzying maze of narrow streets, wide boulevards and back alleys. Most of the apartments have porches that will serve Iraqi snipers and RPG-toting helicopter hunters well. Every neighborhood has a mosque, a school, markets and clinics which, if struck by an errant American bomb, will deliver horrible numbers of civilian casualties.

The politics of the looming Falluja incursion are another thing again. Hajim al-Hassani, of the Iraqi Islamic Party, sits on the American-compiled Iraqi Governing Council, but has little credibility among the people in Falluja. He is seen as not having been able to stop American forces from fighting in that city, and the Iraqi Islamic Party itself has been accused of collaboration with America. The mayor of Falluja, Mahmoud Ibrahim, is disliked by many of the city's residents. He informed officers of the American forces a few days ago that he had no control over Jolan, Hayal Askeri and Shuhada, three sections of the city which make up half its area. In other words, both representatives for this town are basically useless in any effort to call a halt to the attack.

The religious aspect is easily the most explosive element in this matter. Falluja is a Sunni town. Through the almost mystical bungling of the Bush administration, it has become tied to the holy city of Najaf, a Shi'ite stronghold. This city, like Falluja, has been surrounded by American forces and faces imminent attack. If an attack against Najaf is indeed undertaken, the consequences for Iraq, and indeed for the entire Middle East, will be unimaginable.

Najaf is the site of the tomb of Ali, the most important Shi'ite saint. It is a holy city, like Mecca and Medina, and is the symbolic capital for Shi'ites all around the world. If American forces attack Najaf, every Shi'ite on the planet will have a dog in the fight. Iran, a Shi'ite-controlled nation, will surely become involved. Shi'ite religious leaders will issue fatwas demanding massive numbers of suicide attacks against Americans.

Do the math.

American forces attack Falluja, and become ensconced in a brutal street-to-street fight within the confines of that maze-like city. 300,000 civilians will be caught in the crossfire, and the resulting carnage will enflame the Iraqi people to a degree not yet seen. American forces will absorb brutal casualties. If the U.S. decides to avoid troop casualties by bombing Falluja in a repeat of Shock and Awe, the loss of civilian life will be beyond severe.

Simultaneously, American forces attack Najaf, a holy city central to the spiritual lives of millions of Shi'ites around the world. An explosion of rage will engulf the Middle East. Iran, which has something resembling a real army, could very well drive across the border to engage American forces that are already stretched. This war, already a ridiculous mess, will become an unmitigated catastrophe.

Anyone who thinks Iraq is a bad situation now should reserve judgment until the end of this week. George W. Bush and his crew have clearly forgotten the First Law of Holes: When you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging. If this is what Bush meant when he talked about "changing the world" in his recent prime-time press conference, we are all in a great deal of trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Faced with this analysis, and knowing an attack will be SOP....
I would assume an aerial assault to limit casualties to US GIs on the ground.

Shock and Awe, take 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. SHOCK-N-AWE - * "good thing we got plenty of MOABs"


thanks, will :toast:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Agree with all of it
except the part about Iran having a real army.

Iraq basically "won" the Iran-Iraq war in spite of the latter having three times its population and the benefit of the Iran-Contra arms trade facilitated by Poppy and Ollie.

Remember that Henry the K once said he wanted to keep the war going so as to kill off more in both countries. Iran-Contra came about in the mid-1980s to help keep Iran from being defeated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Iran's rolling armor has not been depleted by 12 years of sanctions
and rumor has it they have WMDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capt_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Very good essay but I believe Iran will just sit back and watch
the shitstorm hit the US troops spread across Iraq.

The US has no realistic option of invading Iran anytime near BUT
it could destroy Iran's military bases with airstrikes thus
weakening Iran's hand in the future, should the US then have a go
at it.

Furthermore I might be wrong but these days Iranians are very much
aligned with the Kremlin. Putin's game is quietly sitting back and watch
the US military overextend and overspend itself into oblivion.
That is what he is whispering in the Mullah's ears and I believe
he holds a lot of influence with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. quietly sitting back and watching...
isn't something i suspect putin is doing... giving off that imperssion, sure, but don't kid yourself there are many busy actors behind the scenes, with more growing by the blunder.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capt_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I agree with you
but what I meant is that anyone that has scores to settle with the US
will not openly confront it until it is vulnerable enough for them
to go for the kill.

Meanwhile they are working in the backstage in order to weaken the
american position and to ready themselsves for the eventual showdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. our ego maniacs got us stuck in 2 afghanistans
while we loose troops and allies daily.

so many opprotunities for proxy wars i would hate to be working intel right now.

we have to STOP the neoCONs before they get us all killed.

:hi:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capt_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Absolutely right!
Edited on Sun Apr-25-04 02:38 PM by Capt_Nemo
This all seems so reminescent from the 80's USSR.

on edit: specialy the propaganda in the mainstream media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I agree with bpilgrim....
Russia is very involved in Iran...Even before the invasion, that was reported. Putin is about as reliable friend as Prince Bandar. Neither can be trusted. Wonder if Bush told his friend, Pooty, about his plans to invade Iraq, also??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Human Waves
thats why we sold them WMDs, to deal with it.

Iraq certainly didn't win that war, please post a link to any analysis that says it did and let us be the judge.

our policy was to let them kill each other off though the bulk of our aid went to saddam especially after the revolution in iran.

:hi:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IranianDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. With all do respect you are completely wrong.
Iran CLEARLY won the Iran-Iraq war, defeating the iraqi army which was backed by the whole world. We only had an army in dissaray since it was directly after the revolution and most of the Shah's generals defected. We won because we had will, and God helped us strike deep within the heart of the enemy.

BTW if this isn't a real army then I don't know what is...

http://www.iribnews.ir/video/01/09/12/p7541.wmv
http://www.iribnews.ir/video/01/09/12/p7542.wmv
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. ID, do you think Iran would get involved militarily?
Would a destructive assault on Najaf be sufficiently provocative to impel Iran to take military actions to 'liberate' Shia shrines and population centers?

And you're right, from what little history I know, the Iranians were ferocious fighters in the Iran-Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. Whatever
I put "won" in quotes because I think the only real winners were Kissinger and Associates.

I think it ended in some sort of cease-fire agreement and I remember representatives of both countries debating who was at fault on "Nightline" in the late 1980s.

You can fill me in on the details. It was described as a stalemate and since Iraq started it and at one time held three provinces of Iran or something like that, I suppose the fact that Iran got them back could be described as a victory of sorts.

I have also heard two sides of who actually used the chemical weapons. Mostly we hear that Iraq did because that has been the designated U.S. "enemy" for the last 14 years, but there have also been reports from some sources such as the Army War College, IIRC, that Iran used chemical weapons.

I don't think we will ever find out if Iran is any good in land combat against the U.S. If Chimpy were to "go bananas" and order an assault at this point, I think it would precipitate the long-awaited military coup in D.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. chilling assessment

and the bushies are insane enough to do it.

'changing the world'

* got that right.

just too depressing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. As Usual, Pitt does the assessment well. Should some minion of the Bush Co
read this thread and report its contents back to the Head Staff, they will only laugh and go ahead with whatever plan they have. It appears, however, the plans the Bush Guys have re this mess, is on a stamp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. instead of saddam being our proxy
we will have to do it ourselves this time round.



peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Acute evaluation.
Edited on Sun Apr-25-04 01:09 PM by JHBowden
Well written, as always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Trillion Dollar Question: Who wants a Holy War?
Osama bin Laden has outright asked for one.

Ariel Sharon is suspected of wanting one. How about Hamas? Iran?

Could the PNACers want one?

Does BushCo want one?

And, if the last two do, when do they want it - before or after the election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. all of the above
and i'd say they got it

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
43. And before the election....
Here we go...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. Some minor nitpicks
"when the mission was declared accomplished and the end of major combat operations was declared over during a photo-op on an aircraft carrier several time zones away from the violence." - "the end of major combat operations was declared over" reads kinda funny.

"A showdown is coming, and nothing good will be made of it." - Maybe it's just me but I think it would flow better as "nothing good will come of it"

"sits on the American-compiled Iraqi Governing Council" - I'm thinking there has to be a better word than "compiled"

That said, I think the analysis is spot-on, brilliant as usual honey...if we attack those 2 cities we are fucked.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. The Bush Folly may turn out to be one of the great military blunders....
in history. And, at the same time, they want us to fear the type of leadership that John Kerry might provide. Dick Cheney is making speeches this very morning about how can we trust John Kerry to protect our nation....The audacity in the face of such a disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Reminds me of Krugman depicting them like the Roadrunner above the
Edited on Sun Apr-25-04 02:17 PM by robbedvoter
cliff - still running for a while, unaware that they are in the air....(during his appearance on Franken's show)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. No doubt about it Kentucky!
This has got to be the dumbest of all moves ever made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
20. Is Syria predominately Sunni or Shiite?
Because if they got into it I doubt Israel would sit back and watch. And if Israel gets into it, Egypt, Jordan, and I'd think the Saudi's would be right behind.

What kind of armed forces does Jordan wield?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capt_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Sunni
Edited on Sun Apr-25-04 02:41 PM by Capt_Nemo
the only arab country with a shiite majority is Iraq.

Iranians are persian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Iranians are Shiites
Shia are the majority in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capt_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
44. yes that is their religion but they are persians, not arabs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capt_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. From those countries Jordan is the weakest in military terms
But since 40% (maybe more) of the population consists of palestinian refugies
guerrilla warfare could be even deadlier there than in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. This could easily start WWIII
And people STILL back Bush. It boggles the mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. How long will sharon wait to unleash his nukes?
Not very damn long I think. So long boys it's been nice to know ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sufi Marmot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
25. Another unknown variable: Azerbaijan...
Edited on Sun Apr-25-04 02:55 PM by Sufi Marmot
Azerbaijan is a predominantly Shia Muslim country bordered by (among others) Iran and Russia, and it is the nexus of competing foreign interests in the Caspian Basin. We have substantial oil and gas interests there, and there was considerable civil unrest and violence there after the recent elections, which many considered rigged. If we are heavy handed in Najaf, it's not inconceivable that it would inflame religions/political tensions there, particularly since the new president is relatively young and inexperienced.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav021104.shtml
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav030204.shtml

-SM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
26. Just wondering here...
Wasn't one of these cities - maybe Fallujah itself - originally a Shiite town and therefore, has holy shrines and stuff in it, that are Shiite, but immigration made it a Sunni place?

Two for the price of one, perhaps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
28. "almost mystical bungling"
Suweeet. Beautiful phrase and captures it nicely.

btw, a decades-long friend of mind, who I haven't even bothered to discuss politics with since the coup (because I value his friendship and I thought he was beyond hope on Smirk) e-mailed me your latest truth-out article on Iraq, with comments indicating that he agrees with you. You coulda knocked me over with a feather. I didn't even know he knew the site and certainly never would have thought he would spend five seconds there.

My hat is off to you. A beautifully turned phrase or two, hard-hitting, precise writing and factual data converted someone I never thought could be converted.

Your writing is more powerful than perhaps you even imagined.

And thank you for the hard work and passion. It may help save us all yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Thanks, Jacobin
I'm glad to hear that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Mystical bungling, was my favorite phrase too. Keep it in.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. I hadn't considered Iran. Thanks for the excellent detail.
Do you suppose the Bush cabal aims to deliberately draw Iran into open warfare with our troops in order to justify their original plan to widen the war to include another accused member of George's 'axis of evil'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
34. back up there!
another must read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
retread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
35. "Almost mystic bungling.." It's the stuff of legends isn't it?
*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
36. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
37. Iran: More please...
"Iran, which has something resembling
a real army, could very well drive across the
border to engage American forces that are already stretched."

I think engaging Iran IS the plan Will-
would love to see more about that topic as
it relates to the situation and the BIG neocon agenda.
GREAT commentary, as usual :D!
BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
38. Juan Cole's comments about Iran
Iranian Diplomat Says a US attack on Najaf will Lead to Widespread Crisis throughout Iraq

From the ISNA website, via by BBC World Monitoring:

Iranian charge d'affaires to Iraq, Hasan Kazemi-Qomi made several statements at the Iranian Students News Agency site on 23 April:

' "If the occupying forces disregard the internal political, social and security situation in Iraq and launch military operations in the holy cities, including Najaf, then this will only lead to increasing clashes and the present crisis will only escalate. In fact, this will also lead to the emergence of serious popular resistance and will confront the occupying forces with serious problems. In that case, one can only predict the increasing lack of security in Iraq and the crisis will escalate to all the other parts of Iraq." ' . . .

' Another achievement of the visit was that Iran expressed its readiness to contribute in any way possible to the restoration of calm, stability and security in Iraq. This was welcomed. However, the fact of the matter is that the bellicose policies of the occupying forces and their irrational response to the people's demands have increased and escalated the clashes on the domestic Iraqi scene. ' . . .

' Kazemi-Qomi stressed that the international community, the governing council and Iraq's neighbours should exert pressure on the occupying forces to prevent them from continuing to use force and resort to violence. '

' As we saw today, some coalition forces, such as Spanish and Honduran forces, are no longer prepared to cooperate within the framework of the coalition. . . For various reasons, these forces are no longer interested in staying in Iraq. That is because, firstly, those forces have come to Iraq to contribute to reconstruction and the establishment of security, not to deal with the crisis and oppose popular forces. Secondly, the policies that America is currently implementing are incompatible with the policies of other coalition forces in Iraq. In fact, one can even see differences of opinion between political and military sectors in America . . . Public opinion in countries that are members of the coalition have been exerting pressure on their governments and they are not prepared to sacrifice the lives of their own people so as to enable others to achieve their aims. Another reason is that coalition forces have taken account of their own future in Iraq. If they oppose the demands of the people of that country, they will jeopardize their own national interests in Iraq. . . If the crisis continues to escalate, then more countries will try to leave the coalition. '

Source: ISNA web site, Tehran, in Persian 0932 gmt 23 Apr 04

What comes across here is that actually many Iranian officials want Iraq to be a stable neighbor, and are worried that the US is mishandling it and that trouble will spread across the border to Iran. They were perfectly happy to offer their good offices to help resolve the current standoff at Najaf, but clearly no major party to the dispute was interested in having them do that, including especially Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Ledeenist drumbeat on the Brownshirt side of the Republican Party that Iran is behind the recent instability in the Shiite south is directly contradicted by Iranian actions and by Muqtada al-Sadr's refusal to see his supposed patrons. In fact, I suspect Ahmad Chalabi gets more money from Iran than Muqtada does. And, it seems obvious that the US administrators are the ones who provoked the clashes, which were not spontaneous but came in response to a US attempt to arrest Muqtada.

http://www.juancole.com/

I remember reading something quite a while ago about Chalabi going to Iran right before we invaded Iraq. I believe it was written by his daughter who accompanied him on the trip. I'd love to know more about his involvement in that country.

Also Will, I've always read it as Fallujah with an "h"....excellent piece, as always. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #38
45. I went with the NYT spelling, which has no 'h'
Thanks for the Iran data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
are_we_united_yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
39. I agree Will
Bush and Cheney put new meaning into putting out a fire with gasoline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sal Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
40. 2nd Law of Holes:
You have to put the dirt someplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-04 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
41. William, have you read Chalmers Johnson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
48. Very compelling
Edited on Mon Apr-26-04 11:46 AM by Amaya
I'm printing this out and sending it to my repug brother. Maybe it'll give him something to think about.

Thanks, Will

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
49. Is it worth throwing in the fundie angle?

  • Many within the Dubya administration view (as revealed by the occasional Freudian slip) the war as a Crusade
  • the change in policy concerning Israel has enraged the Arab world
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Bush is in dire need of another trifecta
Edited on Tue Apr-27-04 08:22 PM by Zan_of_Texas
No jobs -- make that negative job creation. No WMDs. Weakened support for the wars. The dollar could plummet anytime. Europe is begin to rally against the U.S. Media starting to murmer embarrassing things about Dubya's religious views. Condi calling him her "husb---". Commissions and investigations out the kazoo -- 9-11, Cheney and Energy Task Force, now Memogate re theft of 4,000+ Dem's judiciary memos, Tom DeLay's funneling money in what may have been illegal channels..... And, the parade continues of former Republicans or current Republicans or Bush appointees -- Paul O'Neill, Kevin Phillips, Richard Clarke -- crying foul and crowding the bestseller list. With more to come -- Joe Wilson and David Brock have books coming.

So, here's how they fix everything. Bear in mind that peace and health and living human beings is not on their radar of good things.....

Sharon continues on his rampage, further inflaming passions and chaos.

Explosions in Syria today are the start of something there. Somehow, the missing WMD (which Bush referred to at least three times in his recent press conference) turn up in Syria, which supposedly gives us the go-ahead to attack Syria.
Emotions are raised to fiery peaks by US attacks on Falluja and Najaf (we are beating bee hives with a stick here).

Sooooooo, that will have to be the "reason" the US or some other giant symbol gets a big attack.

Can't just have another 9-11 attack without a "reason", doncha know.

So, the trifecta would be:

(1) Bush gets to invade Syria, the next domino,

(2) Bush finds the WMD (yeah right -- WMD are to USE WHEN YOUR COUNTRY IS INVADED, as in the past twelve months, not HIDE for crying out loud),

(3) and the escalation of hostilities "creates" another 9-11. Which affords all the rights and privileges thereof to our leader, like more repression at home and everybody suddenly forgetting everything they ever knew.

I don't like to be wrong, but I hope I'm wrong. Real wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC