Posted on 03/24/2006 11:24:15 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
After June 30 (2004) , what next in Iraq?
***********************************AN EXCERPT***********************
United Press International
Washington, DC, Jun. 22 (UPI) -- In less than a week Iraq will reclaim its sovereignty, but this does not mean the end of U.S. involvement. Like it or not, the United States is stuck there for years, and will continue to feel the burden of its actions.
Daniel P. Serwer, Director of Peace and Stability Operations at the United States Institute of Peace, told United Press International that the U.S. campaign in Iraq has been marked by "too little planning, too little experience and knowledge of local situations, too little attention to security issues. Maybe a bit too much money, maybe a bit too much talking and not enough listening."
Newsweek writer Eleanor Clift, in a phone interview, characterized the U.S. occupation in Iraq as "a dismal failure."
Brookings Institute foreign policy scholar Michael O'Hanlon is not particularly optimistic either. In a paper written for a June 16 conference on the U.S. in Iraq, he stated that the security situation and Iraqi attitudes toward America are "simply not promising."
"We must view Iraq as a genuine strategic crisis of our day, not just a problem that can be solved with a little more patience and a few more resources, as much recent Bush administration commentary would seem to suggest," said O'Hanlon.
Serwer told UPI that Iraq is better off now than it was a year ago. But the country's fragile situation requires the United States to remain there at least until the new government is established and Iraqi security is tighter.
"The new government needs protection, and doesn't have anyone to give it to them," he said. "This is a fundamental problem of the future."
Security is the most important issue for Iraqis -- even more so than the economy, said Jeremy Rosner, senior vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc. and former senior staffer in the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.
"We're being looked to as the primary way to sustain a secure environment," he said in a phone interview. Pulling out of Iraq is an option favored by a slim minority of Americans at this point, the pollster said.
If the role of the United States in Iraq all comes down to security, how will this "fundamental problem" be solved? What is the role of the United States now, and what will it be after June 30?
"We need to be guarantors that whatever constitution is enacted would be followed," American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin told UPI. "Our goal should be to make sure that Iraq stays secure from external enemies and, at the same time, that no general with a gun takes over the government."
When asked how long the United States should remain in Iraq, Rubin defined "how long" two different ways: the amount of time U.S. troops should occupy the state ("as short as possible"), and the amount of time the United States should remain in Iraq in a non-military capacity ("I think we're talking years").
**********************************************
See link for the rest of the article.....brings back memories.....MSM still talking the same game!
Russia (Putin) is really starting to tick me off.
Dow Jones newswire now saying Russia got the info from US Central Command. This is treason.
ROFL!
Feed it to Pelosi and Reid.
( DJ ) 03/24 03:24PM *DJ Russia Gave Saddam Info On US Iraq Invasion Plan -Report
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
03-24-06 1524ET
Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
oops...this is the new news.
( DJ ) 03/24 03:26PM *DJ Russia Got Info From Sources Inside US Ctrl Command-Report
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
03-24-06 1526ET
Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
No surprise....here....
The Russians are still Soviet at heart. The recent poll where over 50% wished they still had communism proves that. Plus, an Ex(sure, right)-KGB officer is president. Again, sure, right. He is a communist. What do you expect from the democrats best friends?
Read that sentence again. It appears that the Russian intelligence helped us in a deception effort. In other words, what Sadaam expected was not what he got?
All signifacant military victory is based on deception.
The noob calls Bush a "BOZO" in this thread and called Limbaugh a "BOZO" on another thread. I think he has a clown fixation.
I didn't catch it all so don't take it as gospel, but Brett Baer on Fox News was just reporting that the Pentagon released info to him that came - as I understood it - from Iraqi memos. The memos said the Russians received the information about troop numbers from a source inside "Centcom."
Baer's report, at least, suggested to me they were talking about a spy for the Russians.
Ah baloney.
Why didn't Putin just tell Saddam that he would join our coalition? Or would that have not gone over well with the rest of the Russian client states in the ME?
Saddam's former general also said that Russian Spetsnaz troopers helped spirit away the prohibited weapons to Syria. Perhaps his statements were true after all.
Also our European 'allies' were providing high tech weaponry to Saddam even after the UN Sanctions. Our troops have found state of the art Belgian P90 submachineguns and French missiles in stockpiles over there.
Not just Saddam's former general ... I posted quotes with links a couple of days ago if you want to check out all the people who have made the accusation or claimed to have knowledge of evidence that WMDs went to Syria.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601210/posts?page=27#27
bump
Read about the equipment they sent to Saddam immediately before the invasion here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82018,00.html
Some of us have even longer memories than yours, such as the Russians upgrading and resupplying Iraqi SAM sites throughout the 90's. Keep in mind they were shooting at US aircraft on a near weekly basis. Remember Putin is exKGB and antiwestern in his nature.
Probably Rmzaj work. http://www.google.ru/search?hl=en&q=ramzaj+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search
U.S. officials believed Iraq would set its oil wells on fire as part of a scorched-earth policy, and the invasion plan was constructed in ways meant to get U.S. troops to the southern oil wells before they could be torched.
The new report said, however, that while captured Iraqi documents show that there were plans made at the regional or local level to destroy the northern and southern oil wells, Saddam had expressly forbidden it.
Now I see. Bush lied about the burning oil fields too but it was because his Generals made the huge mistake of not reading Saddam's mind before they launched their attacks.
It is appropriate that AP is "Associated" with Yahoo. They are just a bunch of yahoos themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.