Comments on: Iraq War Now Peacekeeping Mission?

By: scott ryan

scott ryan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:16:00 +0000

Iraq government wants American troops out of Iraq, al-maliki wants the American troops out ASAP,
Why is that,,,,,
What would you do if all the American troops left and you where in power, do you think that al-maliki wants to become the next saddam Hussein, or does he just wand to rule Iraq.
American troops have to stay in Iraq for at least the next 20-30 year to have a democratic Iraq, and al-maliki knows this.
If America left Iraq would you see al-maliki trying to run Iraq, why does he want American troops out ASAP,,, is that because he wants to hold onto power, and would be forced to have far elections if American troops where still there in big numbers.
even if he did not want to do that, all you have to do is look back in time.
Look at Germany, after ww1 Britain did not stay around to put it right, and what happened,,, Hitler, I am not saying he will be a Hitler, but look at how easy evil will take back over, and there are a lot of evil men in Iraq and Iraqis government.
There is no way that American troops can just leave Iraq 4 months after the government of Iraq has started to take back control of Iraq,, that would be nuts.
no matter what, American troops must stay in Iraq for at least 20-30 years, and must hold 80% of there air support, then they could just leave 25,000- 30,000 troops on the ground and could
Stop a uprising of power.
You can never invade a country and put a new government in place within 5 years and leave it in power, let alone a government that has had power for 4 months really,,, to think it will work you would be crazy,,
I do not see how al-maliki can say that they should leave Iraq after really holing some power after 4 months,,,,,,,,, It makes me wounder what al-maliki and his government really wants to do.

By: scott ryan

scott ryan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:13:25 +0000

the Iraq war is over,,, it does not matter about Mahdi Army / sadar ceasefire,,, it can never turn back into massive sectarian fighting and that’s why sadar/ Mahdi army had the ceasefire,, do you no why,,, that’s because the cement wall around sadar city,,
the cement walls was put up all the way around sadar city,,, that is because after you build a cement wall all the way around the city, they can not get any more ammo or rockets into the city,,, so if they where to keep on fighting, they would of run out of weapons after 2- 4 months, that is why they cooled a ceasefire,,, they new it would cut of there weapons supply,,,
so now that the cement wall is in place they go door to door with sniffer dogs and take away all weapons and have 100% stoped sadar people once and for all ,,,,,...
this is why the sadar and Mahdi army can never make violence like that ever again.
Iraq war is over and the next thing to do is withdraw 70,000 troops and send 60,000 to Afghanistan and win that war with them tactics used in Iraq with new tactics for a country like Afghanistan.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:17:34 +0000

Tojo wasn't running for President.

By: c. wagener

c. wagener — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:32:54 +0000

You mean the same Mahdi army who was instructed by al-Sadr to stand down and not fight?

Didn't Tojo also instruct his army to stand down and not fight? Tojo didn't run off and hide in Iran, however. This guy is an incompetent pseudo warlord with a third rate military operation. Don't build him up to be superman.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:24:11 +0000

Given that a great deal of these defeats have recently been delivered by the Iraqi army, it just doesn't seem like the Mahdi army is a viable threat.

You mean the same Mahdi army who was instructed by al-Sadr to stand down and not fight? Sadr has made it clear that he's giving the October election a chance. But if Maliki keeps moving down the intimidation and power consolidation path, the aftermath of the October elections could be very, very bloody.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:19:06 +0000

Maybe we need to just declare victory in the Balkins and shift those 1,000 US troops over to Afghanistan. At least if Bush declares that Iraq is now just "a peackeeping mission" then we can be stuck in this administration's apparently never ending mission.

By: c. wagener

c. wagener — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:13 +0000

It seems that the history of the Mahdi army (rogue elements, or otherwise) would create some optimism. They have consistently been beaten badly every time they attempt to cause trouble. Given that a great deal of these defeats have recently been delivered by the Iraqi army, it just doesn't seem like the Mahdi army is a viable threat. The Iraqi army appears to be up to the task alone, but if combined with undistracted U.S. forces I would guess they would be quickly destroyed.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:12:36 +0000

The thing is, there are five major obstacles to stability that still exist in Iraq: 1) al-Sadr's coalition is still out there, and I wonder if it's ceasefire will survive the October elections--I have my doubts. 2) The Sunni tribes that we have, essentially, paid to stop fighting. What happens when we stop paying or they decide to fight again? Again, October is key here. 3) The Kurds, who are essentially a quasi-independent nation and have announced their willingness to declare such if they feel like the national government isn't serving their interests. 4) Maliki's own governing coalition, which is using the army as less of a national security force and more of a political party security force. Maliki is clearly moving things in a direction of using intimidation to ensure his party's victory in October, which, given #s 1-3 above, definitely poses a problem. 5) Local strongmen--some with U.S. backing who exist pretty much independent of the national government and will almost certainly be a problem down the road. One thing of note--there's not much that our forces can do about any of these problems.