Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Iraq - The Civil War That Hasn't Happened Either
Peters:
AS a result of its nationwide success, the Iraqi army gained tremendously in confidence. Its morale soared. After all the lies and exaggerations splashed in your direction, the truth is that we're seeing a new, competent, patriotic military emerge. The media may cling to its image of earlier failures, but last week was a great Iraqi success.
Much has been discussed about Iraqi elections and the creation of a constitutional democracy in Iraq, and these are important steps forward in the aftermath of the tyrannical, psychopathic Saddam era. However, the establishment of permanent and stabilizing institutions to support this political structure is vital, and the military is at the vanguard. For Iraq as it is organized to succeed, it must have a capable and functioning military to support the government, that can maintain domestic security and protect Iraq's borders.
This seems increasingly to be the case. Lt. General Abdul Qadir:
"Not one unit had sectarian difficulties," he stressed. "Not one. And when we canceled all leaves after the mosque bombing - we expected trouble, of course - our soldiers returned promptly to their units. Now it is as you see for yourself: Iraqis are proud of their own soldiers
Who knows? Maybe this General will be their George Washington.
Thanks again to Ralph Peters for doing what few others in the MSM care to do. Tell it like it is, rather than how they would like it to be.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Mar 07, 02:06:00 PM:
The wildly divergent perceptions about how the war is going are pretty fascinating. It’s one thing to have conflicting opinions on issues. But whether we’re making reasonable progress or not should be something that one can determine with reasonable certainty via an objective assessment of facts on the ground. Not so in this conflict – there are no objective facts on the ground. Everything depends on whose spin you choose to believe.
Mr. Peters attributes the pessimism about the war to a reflexively hostile media that ignores good news to avoid imputing any credit to Mr. Bush. I don’t doubt there’s an element of that at play in what some reporters choose to cover. But I don’t think Mr. Peters offers a completely objective portrait either – he seems just as agenda-driven as Robert Fisk, in my opinion. What makes me think that? Well, first-hand accounts from people who don’t seem to have a stake in the US being discredited, for one. (The Iraq the Model blogger comes to mind.) Personally, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Interestingly, even the people who are there and in close proximity to one another have entirely different experiences of what passes for reality in Iraq. I had two family members stationed there with the military awhile back. Their tours overlapped for much of the time, and their descriptions of what was going on couldn’t have been more different, as are their present opinions.
By 
Cassandra, at
Tue Mar 07, 02:56:00 PM:
The view is always different from up close, and not likely to be entirely accurate despite our best efforts.
I very much doubt we're going to have the right view of Iraq for years now. We're too close to events. Our passions get in the way, and the sheer clamor and fury of events sways us no matter how we try to be objective. I know: I try like hell and it's well-nigh impossible when people you love are dying.
Part of you says that nothing can be worth this awful sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach day after day.
Nothing.
Part of you says, how can we give up when so many have died to bring about what we have achieved so far? What will we say to their shades?
What did they die for?
The one truth that stands out in all of this, above the partisan blather and the blatant bullshit, is that even the Iraqis don't want us to leave them in the lurch. Yet that is exactly what so many over here are advocating. And we have made promises: to them, and to our recruits, that what they fought and bled for was a commitment we meant to honor. If we did not mean it we never should have embarked on this. Adults don't get half-way through major enterprises and then get the willies and say "Ummm... nevermind... survivor Vanuatu is on at 8 and I am *so*, like, out of here.".
Promises used to mean something. Even Arab nations like Iran, who are no friends to us, don't want us to leave Iraq so long as the Iraqis want us to stay.
That is what infuriates me about this whole thing and the way some people have politicized it. And "Shochu", the military are not some monolithic entity who speak with one voice, nor are we automatons. Don't patronize us.
There have been far more nuanced opinions given on our progress all along, but that also is something that people love to mischaracterize when it suits them to portray the military as a bunch of mindless idiots who only follow orders. The services are highly distinct in culture as well as leadership.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Mar 07, 03:09:00 PM:
Schochu -
I never suggested things were proceeding swimmingly. What war proceeds swimmingly? Ridiculous concept. Merely mentioning imparts spectacular ignorance.
However, the New York Times pronounced the beginning of a Civil War and said that political negotiations were "in ruins." That, it turns out, was untrue. Factually incorrect. It was not all the news that's fit to print. It was the news that they created to suit their agenda.
The premise of Ralph Peters report is that there was internal civil conflict in Iraq -- so he isn't suggesting it is as easy as swimming either. But he is saying that the Iraqi forces managed the situation effectively and successfully.
That's the point Schochu. I also think it is instructive to see the difference between Murtha, a politician gone loony, and General Myers, the JCS Chairman. Murtha, a hero to the antiwar crowd, flatly accuses Myers and the military of lying. Sort of what you did in flimsy, limp kind of way.
Let's be dead clear. I trust Ralph Peters judgment and General Myers judgment far more than yours and the NYT. Got it?
By , at
Tue Mar 07, 03:57:00 PM:
Peters is a tool. He rides around with the US military and then declares there is no civil war.
Why doesn't Peters go out in the middle of the night, unembedded, and see what is really going on? Why? Well, because he would get killed. That's why.
Of course Peters doesn't even mention the fact that the general who commands the Baghdad division of the Iraqi army was assasinated yesterday in broad daylight. Peters simply will not report anything - anything - that conflicts with his agenda.
The only thing worse than a reporter is a "reporter" who claims to have some special insight on the truth that no one can see.
If you want a better handle on what's going on from a decent journalist who has been in Iraq on and off since the war began, go to Back to Iraq blog. If you want propaganda, read the New York Post.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Mar 07, 04:52:00 PM:
"Why doesn't Peters go out in the middle of the night, unembedded, and see what is really going on? Why? Well, because he would get killed. That's why."
Of course, that's true of Washington D.C. too...
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Mar 07, 05:13:00 PM:
Just read the first "Ralph Peters" post By TigerHawk at 3/05/2006 07:55:00 PM.
"Peters is a tool. He rides around with the US military and then declares there is no civil war."
Please explain how riding around alone would make one more likely to come across 'civil war' related violence than riding with soldiers who are expected to respond to and stop it?
Second, the assassination of a military officer is not linked to the (fictional) Iraqi civil war. That kind of thing has been happening off and on for 2 years now in drive by shootings, car bombs, suicide bombs, et cetera. But because it happens now you imply that it is linked? Maybe he didn't report it because it's become a nearly routine occurrence, or because it doesn't have anything to do with his current topic.
I don't know Ralph Peters. I'd never even heard of him until about 10 minutes ago. But if you want to refute someone, at least use logic and evidence rather then rhetorical questions and unqualified claims.
By PeterBoston, at
Tue Mar 07, 05:39:00 PM:
No Iraq military unit has defected from the central government to any party, no Iraqi military or police units are known to have mowed down any civilian types.
Both those things would be happening 24x7 in a civil war. The civil war did not happen and with each passing day it becomes even more unlikely.
Some folks are very disappointed to hear that.
By , at
Tue Mar 07, 07:28:00 PM:
"Please explain how riding around alone would make one more likely to come across 'civil war' related violence than riding with soldiers who are expected to respond to and stop it?"
You answered your own question. Do you think the Iraqis are stupid? Do you think they are more likely to kill their enemies in the absence of US troops, or in their presence? Is your question some kind of joke?
Why do criminals commit crimes when the police are not around, instead of when they are driving by?
"Second, the assassination of a military officer is not linked to the (fictional) Iraqi civil war."
Says who? In a civil war, you kill military officers. Either he was killed by Sunni guerillas who are at war with the Shia dominated government, or he was killed by Shias, who are attempting to consolidate power by killing Sunni military officers. Given the precision of the shot that killed him, he was in all likelihood NOT killed by random violence or by regular criminals.
"But if you want to refute someone, at least use logic and evidence rather then rhetorical questions and unqualified claims."
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
By , at
Tue Mar 07, 07:37:00 PM:
"No Iraq military unit has defected from the central government to any party, no Iraqi military or police units are known to have mowed down any civilian types."
You get the award for the most baseless, uninformed assertion of the day. The US government knows that the Shia government is dominated by Shia militas who owe their allegiance to clerics, not to any national government. No one debates this anymore. Only the extent of the problem is subject to debate.
Attitudes like yours are why American troops are getting killed. Why do you hate the troops?
Read on:
"We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a former military commander in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The failure to understand that the civil war is already taking place, just not necessarily at the maximum level, means that our counter measures are inadequate and therefore dangerous to our long-term interest.
"It's our failure to understand reality that has caused us to be late throughout this experience of the last three years in Iraq," added Nash, who is an ABC News consultant.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Mar 08, 03:35:00 PM:
Wow, this got stupid fast.
"You answered your own question. Do you think the Iraqis are stupid? Do you think they are more likely to kill their enemies in the absence of US troops, or in their presence? Is your question some kind of joke?"
You didn't even listen to what I said you rude son of a whore. What part of "soldiers who are expected to respond to and stop it" did you not understand?
'Bravo 6, this is Bravo 7. We've got a shootout on Bakkalakka Street, likely sectarian violence, request you send two platoons over to calm things down. How copy? Over.'
'Loud and clear, Bravo 7. Willco.'
Oh outstanding. So, the General in the Shia dominated government could have been killed by a Shi'a for being Sunni, OR killed by a Sunni for being Shi'a. And you say this in the same breath, without so much as a theory as to why this dead officer would be any different from the others of the past few years? That was my point, you know. And the only two possibilities you mention (surprise) support your idea of a civil war. I guess it couldn't possibly be a tribal revenge killing, or islamists, or an Iranian agent, or a pissed off underling...
"You obviously don't know what you are talking about."
You must be new here. Yes, I, Dawnfire, Special Agent for US Army Intelligence, with degrees in International Relations and Middle Eastern Studies, OBVIOUSLY don't know what I'm talking about, which you just so eloquently proved by talking PAST everything I said. Jackass.
Palcewski: Maybe you saw above where I mentioned that I'm a Special Agent. That is, one of my responsibilities is rooting out spies and traitors. You're obviously strongly anti-Bush. I just called up both the FBI and Secret Service and tipped them off. Thanks for that weblink. We've got a name/alias for you, several pictures, memoirs, a location (Forio d' Ischia, Italy), hobbies, interests, associates, email addresses, locations of academic records, et cetera. You'd better not ever come back to the USA, because you'll be arrested for revolutionary activity and probably executed. Or maybe we'll just have a talk with the Italians and grab you ourselves. After all, they let us grab others.
But of course, none of that is true. Because this is not a fascist, imperial country. It's a republic, that just happens to be run by people you don't like.
Your use of the words 'fascist' and 'imperial' pretty much prove that you have no understanding of what those words mean. I figured that living in Italy would have given you a good idea, since both concepts were birthed there. That, or you don't care; after all, you have a political agenda to accomplish.
Think about this. If this *were* a Fascist, Imperial country with a destroyed Constitution, you'd be fucked. I could pull enough information off that cute little website of yours to start tracking you down, and probably have your exact location in less than 30 days. Why weren't you quaking in fear? Why weren't you terrified that the men in black will appear and take you into the night, or maybe just kill you?
Because in your heart, you know that everything you say is true is bullshit.
And you top it off by deciding that anyone who votes for the party you don't like is a TRAITOR? Who's the fascist now?
Maybe *that's* why you moved to Italy.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 08, 04:28:00 PM:
DF 82 - My team.. You're on my team.
