| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Formerly an epicenter of the Iraqi jihad.
Endgame: "Iraqi troops take control of Anbar province," from CNN, September 1 (thanks to Jean de Florette):
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Coalition troops formally handed over security control of Iraq's Anbar province to Iraqis on Monday.The transfer of what was once the hub of the country's Sunni insurgency is a "major progress" for all of Iraq, said Brigadier Gen. David Perkins, the spokesman for the Multi-National Force in Iraq.
The transfer ceremony took place in Ramadi, the capital of the western province, and was attended by Iraqi officials and U.S. military brass.
"We are all well aware of what the security situation was in Anbar even a year ago," Perkins said. "And the fact that that has been able to be turned around, that the Iraqi citizens that live there want to stand up on their own, [that] they want to take control of the province on their own ... it's a major progress not only for Anbar, but for all of Iraq."
More than 25,000 U.S. troops serve in the sprawling Anbar province west of Baghdad; most of them Marines. They will remain for the time being but will shift their mission to supporting Iraqi forces, when needed.
Anbar is the 11th of Iraq's 18 provinces to revert to local security control, but is the first Sunni-dominated one....
Posted by Robert at September 1, 2008 8:34 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Great news! Now, let's turn our backs, shall we? Let's walk away, forget Anbar exists, and leave its fate to its own citizens--forever!
We owe it no "aid" in any form. Efforts in "nation building" have proven to be futile everywhere it has been tried, so let's skip that, too. Let's also forgo any missionary work.
We're done there. Finished. Period.
Posted by: Abscedere![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Let's see how long the Sunnis in the "Awakening" movement tolerate being ordered to disarm, or ordered about in other ways, by what they correctely perceive as a Shi'a-dominated government, with a Shi'a-dominated army and police. Not all at once. Not some kind of huge and obvious flare-up. No. Little by little by little. Here, and then there, and then everywhere.
Posted by: Hugh at September 1, 2008 9:13 AM
I say Thank God the Father Almighty.
And for all those who never returned from Anbar I pray,
Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord. And let perpetual light shine upon them. May their soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace. Amen.
at September 1, 2008 10:16 AM
The one consistent thing about muslims is that they are consistent in their inconsistencies.
We will see how Anbar behaves without a baby sitter.
It's about time the sitter left anyway, there are other babies to sit...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 1, 2008 11:10 AM
Let's walk away, forget Anbar exists, and leave its fate to its own citizens--forever!
Posted by: Abscedere at September 1, 2008 9:10 AM
So, why did Bush (not "we") invade Iraq in the first place? Anyone?
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280000-1&showVid=true
at September 1, 2008 11:31 AM
Alert - 'Cause it was there?
Not a hot idea in hindsight, since the real terrorist powers are Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Notice the Israeli strategy - go after any military threat and don't try to "occupy" an area with a Muslim population. Works for me.
at September 1, 2008 11:42 AM
Notice the Israeli strategy - go after any military threat and don't try to "occupy" an area with a Muslim population. Works for me.
Posted by: tanstaafl
Works for me too. (I might bomb the hell out of them a little more.)
Posted by: Spot on at September 1, 2008 11:46 AM
Alert,
I haven't a clue, which is to say, I don't remember. At the time the war began I was so freaked out and confused, it's a wonder I was able to tie my own shoes, every day. I live in what would be called a target rich environment, as cities go. I was a little nervous.
I remember something about WMD's, but I don't recall whether or not that was the reason for the initial invasion.
I remember UN inspectors being barred from certain facilities. And, silly as it may sound, I believe Saddam was hiding such weapons.
Anyhow, when I think back to 2001-2002, my mind is a collage of anthrax tainted letters, bomb threats, threats by Osama, and the almost daily rants of his spokesman, plus nearly ending up with Gore as President.
Posted by: Abscedere at September 1, 2008 1:55 PM
tanstaafl ?
Israel can't occupy any other country, they are simply too small and diplomatically isolated to pull that off. With allies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and even Sudan, who needs enemies?
at September 1, 2008 5:10 PM
We did kill a lot of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Yeah, they keep recruiting more Pakis for their ranks, but we have actually taken out more Al Qaeda in Iraq than there were believed to have been in total in 2003. We also had no reason to believe that Saddam Hussein hadn't bought nukes from AQ Khan, who was selling nuclear technonlogy to everyone under the sun at the time. That's how China, N. Korea, and Iran got the technology. So when Saddam kicked out our weapons inspectors that time, violating 12 UN resolutions, we saw fit to not be having it anymore.
I still think Iraq was the right thing to do. I also think that we should let the Iraqis finish the rebuilding. We've brought the infrastructure back up to where it was before and now we're trying to go above and beyond for people who don't deserve it, who can't handle civilization anyway, and who will just re-ghettoize it all as soon as they can due to their Muslim 'work ethic.' But had we not gone to Iraq and not humiliated Al Qaeda and Saddam, we would have far less leverage for carrying out weapons inspections in other countries. Now the world knows not to mess with us. Now the Arabs know who 'the strongest tribe' happens to be.
Like Hugh says, we should be isolationist in our dealings with the Muslim world, but we still have to keep their weaponry in check. We are in a much better position to do that now. Plus we tied up Al Qaeda over there so that we wouldn't have to fight them here. I love hearing Bin Laden on YouTube with his ever-weakening message. First he was sure he could resurrect the Caliphate in Iraq, then he just wanted to tie us up in another Vietnam, then he just wanted to maintain his few strongholds, now where is he?
Going to Iraq was the right thing to do. Afghanistan is more arguable, especially since it seems like Pakistan is the problem more and more. But we need to let them finish rebuilding their own country with their own oil money. And if the Sunnis and Shias want a civil war, fine with me. It's not like we can keep Muslims from cannibalizing, and it's certainly not in our best interest to do so.
Posted by: jdamn at September 1, 2008 9:47 PM
Going to Iraq was the right thing to do.
Posted by: jdamn at September 1, 2008 9:47 PM
I have always felt the same. That is, invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Reason? To depose Saddam, who was a danger to the neighbors. But this is not the reason Bush invaded Iraq. It is becoming quite clear that Bush invaded Iraq to save his distant relatives Al-Sauds, in Riyadh, from Saddam. In his zeal to cover-up the real reason, Bush fed lies about:
- Iraq has WMDs.
- Iraq is sponsoring terrorism.
- Iraq is involved in 9/11.
Needless to say, not finding any link between Saddam and terror, 9/11 or WMDs led to an embarassing "rebuilding", costing America billions of tax-payers hard-earned dollars, American blood and lies. This is where, Bush's lies have cost America dearly. No, not invading Iraq, but the reasons for invading Iraq were faulty. But that is not what Americans can see. That is why, Americans always were and till today, are divided on "Was invasion of Iraq justified?" The answer is "yes". "What is/are the reason(s) to invade Iraq" is the real question, which should have been debated. Neutralizing Saddam was the right reason. Terror, 9/11 and WMDs, wrong reasons!
Bush got lucky and hence, got some support in invasion of Iraq. However, since the reasons, goals and objectives were immoral, illegimitate and unjustified, the everything after capturing Saddam went wrong, leading to billions of tax-dollars, American blood and lives. It is this fabrigated reasons/lies that makes Bush responsible for first degree murder of Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45f1Riv_z1I
This is exactly what Vince Bugliosi has based his legal case against Bush on.
Not that Bush invaded Iraq, but that Bush invaded Iraq 'based on lies'!
Just my $0.02.
at September 1, 2008 11:34 PM
Alert:
Bush did not lie about WMD. Everybody in the western world, including the Clinton administration, France, and Germany thought he had WMD. Your canard about Bush lying makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously, even if your other points have merit.
Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism, and yes, Iraq had ties to AQ.
Bush NEVER said Iraq was involved in 9/11.
If you know anything about logic, you understand the idea of a subset:
Terrorism
AQ
9/11.
9/11 attackers are a subset of AQ. AQ is a subset of terrorism. Thus, Iraq can be a sponser of terrorism without being a sponsor of 9/11.
9/11 influenced the decision to attack Iraq because Iraq was motivated to provide weapons to terrorist groups. Bush NEVER said Iraq caused 9/11.
The reasons to invade were sound, but the reasons to rebuild Iraq were not.
at September 2, 2008 10:54 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)