For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.
[...]
<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=546763
>
===================
"Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told."
A careful reading of even mainstream news sources shows this to be the situation. The country is dividing right before our eyes (or at least the eyes of those who care to see).
This prompts a re-visitation of the argument over 'troops out now' vs. 'troops in to maintain security'.
On this list a debate over what to demand from Washington has waxed and waned - mostly waned in recent months as the occupation settles into a seemingly endless, dare I say West Bank-esque style of daily and predictable violence.
But now it's time to think again. US troops are retreating - as military savvy folks have been predicting from the start - into defensive 'green' zones, leaving much of the rest of the country a no go zone for American troopers. These no go zones are not places where US forces can provide security - even if doing so was their order.
It seems the call for 'US troops out now" has received significant assistance from the facts on the ground. The multi-faceted guerrilla campaign is able to strike weak points at will - hitting American military when convenient (i.e., supporting armor and air cover is not on hand or through remotely triggered improvised explosive devices), striking supply convoys with impunity, destroying oil pipelines, kidnapping, and sometimes executing foreigners, killing Iraqis judged to be collaborators...the list goes on. This is now a full scale effort and pretending otherwise is foolish.
140,000 US soldiers do not have a snowball's chance in hell of bringing this to an end - indeed, their presence and actions are a cause for a fair percentage of it all. They can show up, direct devastating fire and force surviving fighters to retreat, but they cannot hold territory or depend upon their Iraqi surrogates to act according to Washington's will on their behalf.
And so they go on search and destroy missions from their defensive positions, or bring air delivered death but are always compelled to fall back. There are too many cities and small towns, too many people, too much territory.
A list member, months ago, wrote that the Iraqi resistance (which, as I recall, was placed in quotations to show disdain for the Jihadi elements) didn't have a prayer because, unlike the Vietnamese, there was no major backing for its efforts by a US rival. I believe we now see how wrong this thinking was. The major rival is internal - a critical mass of Iraqis who violently oppose the US. You can cheer or you can wish they'd peacefully march (as some have done) hold signs and do sit-ins instead but violence begets violence so we shouldn't be surprised things are ugly.
But to return to the point...
So where are we now on the question of "troops out now"? Are there still opposing viewpoints based upon the notion of preventing civil war and 'providing security'?
.d.