----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > why would you suggest that attacks by some people > > indicate that most people are worse off? > > I didn't suggest that. I suggested that those people, as well as the hundreds > of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are saying > that they would be better off it we left. But, the question was whether the people in Iraq was better off. Why make this arguement if it wasn't relevant? I googled for that demonstration, and saw multiple quotes that put anti-US demonstrators in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. That immediately suggested who was behind it, and what was the political motivation...it was people on the outside of the present government trying to put that government in a bind. That government knows it is not prepared to provide security, so it doesn't want the US to leave immediately. It has said so. Yet, the US soldiers are resented. What is interesting is that the organizers could only get one middle size demonstration going. I think that the word went out from influencial figures (such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani) that these type of demonstrations were not useful. Everything that I see indicates that Sistani could get millions on the street by sending out the word. > Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni. That was my point -- these are the > people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam. If the Shiites, of > all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there? The elected government for one. Ayatollah Sistani for another. They both wants us out, but not right now. Heck, _we_ want us out, but not right now. >They're the ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000 people on the > streets on April 9th. I tend to doubt the 300,000 number for an anti-American demonstration. I looked it up at multiple places and didn't get that number. A good example of what I read is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40509-2005Apr9.html you see that Sadr, the one who's millita fought the US for a month around a year earlier, organized that demonstration. Personally, I think the change from fighting at the shrine of Ali for a month to a one day demonstration is a hopeful one. > > You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself has decided to work politically > > instead of militarily. Everything that I see indicates that the > > attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni. > > First, so what if Sadr is working politically? That is no indication of > whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed off > even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people are > following him, lots of people. As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr > directly to the violence in Sadr City. He's a cleric, not a soldier. You don't remember the big fight in Najaf of about a year ago? It was with _his_ militiamen. They have stood down, and he has chanced tactics from military to political. He now organizes demonstrations, instead of gun battles. > Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one of the > most dangerous places in the country for our troops. I don't think anyone > questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely were > happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam sentiment. > Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from the > only incident there. Which was during the time that Sadr was fighting US troops. Since his militamen have stood down, what fraction of attacks have been by Shiites and what fraction by Sunnis? > What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of > power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are killing our > troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave? I think that there are a few things involved. First, occupation troops are never popular, even if they are simply providing security. Second, we really screwed up both security and infrastructure. I think the average Iraqi cannot believe Americans are that inept. Third, the politics in Iraq is complicated. I wouldn't doubt that Sadr would call for US troops out _now_. Its a smart political move. The government knows it cannot maintain any semblance of stability without US help, so it cannot comply. He can turn resentment of the US into support for him in the future. The person I've been watching _extremely_ carefully for the past two years is Ayatollah Sistani. He is clearly a far more influential figure than Sadr....although no part of Baghdad is named after his dad. :-) During the fighting near the shrine of Ali, he happened to have a medical condition that required that he travel to London. That is subtle. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
