The Fakery of General Petraeus: What Iraqis Think About the Surge

By PATRICK COCKBURN

At first sight the Petraeus report looks as if it is going to be one of those spurious milestones in the war in Iraq, (like the Iraq Study Groupâ??s report last December), heavily publicized at the time, but not affecting the political and military stalemate in the country.

Unfortunately, the propaganda effort by the White House now underway may have a more malign impact than most propaganda exercises. It claims that victory is possible where failure has already occurred. It manipulates figures and facts to produce a picture of Iraq that is not merely distorted but substantively false.

The â??surgeâ??, the dispatch of 30,000 American reinforcements, was announced by President Bush on January 10 as a bid to regain control of Baghdad and reduce the level of violence. But the achievements are more apparent than real. The Interior Ministry in Baghdad says that 1,011 people died violently in Iraq in August, but an official at the ministry revealed to the US news agency McClatchy that the true figure for the month is 2,890 killed.

The truest indicator of the level of violence in Iraq is the number of people fleeing their homes because they are terrified that they will be murdered. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees the number of refugees has risen from 50,000 to 60,000 a month and none are returning.

Iraqi society is breaking down. It is no longer possible to get medical treatment for many ailments because 75 per cent of doctors, pharmacists have left their jobs in the hospitals, clinics and universities. The majority of these have fled abroad to join the 2.2 million Iraqis outside the country.

The food rationing system on which five million Iraqis rely to stay alive is also breaking down with two million people no longer being fed because food cannot be distributed in dangerous areas. Rice and beans are of poor quality and flour, tea and baby formula are short. Unemployment is 68 per cent of the workforce, so without a state ration and no jobs, more and more Iraqis are living on the edge of starvation.

No wonder then that what Iraqis believe is happening to them and their country is wholly contrary to the myths pumped out by the White House and the Pentagon. The opinion poll commissioned by ABC news, the BBC and Japanese Television NHK and published yesterday shows that 70 per cent of Iraqis say that their security has got worse during the last six months when the US increased the number of its US troops in Baghdad and surrounding provinces. A solid 57 per cent believe that attacks on coalition forces are acceptable. Some 93 per cent of Sunni approve such attacks and 50 per cent of Shia also back them.

Interestingly, 46 per cent of Iraqis believe that full-scale civil war would be less likely if the US withdrew before civil order is restored. Some 35 per cent say it would be more likely to occur.

There are some other telling statistics showing the differences between the Shia and Sunni communities. Some 30 per cent of Shia Arabs say the security situation in their neighborhood has become better in the last six months and 21 per cent say it is getting worse. But more than half the Sunni -- 56 per cent -- say their security is worse and only 7 per cent say it is better. These figures confirm the belief that the Sunni are being pushed out of Baghdad or into small enclaves within the city.

Ever since the summer of 2003 the US has never admitted the political and military consequences of the lack of support for the occupation outside Kurdistan. The latest poll shows that 79 per cent of Sunni and 59 per cent of Shia have no confidence at all in the US and UK forces.

This basic lack of support for the occupation undermines the elaborate tactics which Gen David Petraeus is supposedly carrying out in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. The US and Britain have been training Iraqi forces for four years now without producing Iraqi units willing to fight alongside them. The difficulty is not equipment or training but legitimacy and loyalty.

At the start of yesterdayâ??s Congressional hearings congressmen asked how it was that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was unable to produce a power sharing government. The answer is that he was not elected to do so. He was elected because the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shia parties, won the greatest number of seats in the December, 2005 general election and formed a government in alliance with Kurdish nationalist coalition. Some 54 per cent of Shia Arabs now support the government and 98 per cent of Sunni Arabs disapprove of it.

The Shia know they are 60 per cent of the population and are suspicious that the US is endlessly trying to find ways of robbing them of the power they were denied for centuries under the domination of Sunni Arabs who are only 20 per cent of Iraqis. They are deeply worried that the US is in effect creating a Sunni militia under US control by turning the Anbar Sunni tribes against al Qaida in Iraq.

The Shia leaders also notice that President Bush visited Anbar and not Baghdad earlier this month (though he may also have been seeking to to avoid the mortar bombs which rain down on the Green Zone these days to greet visiting foreign dignitaries).

Essentially there is a political and military stalemate in Iraq which the US â??surgeâ?? has not changed. The departure of Mr Maliki under pressure from the US would produce no more benefits than the sacking of his predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafari last year. So-called moderate politicians like Iyad al-Allawi have limited local support though he has been heavily backed by the Sunni Arab states.

All the players in the Iraq tragedy who were present at the beginning of the surge in January are still there. Thanks to the US there are more militias than there used to be. General Petraeus might make a case for saying that the US position in Iraq is not much worse, but it is certainly no better.

I agree, it's all smoke and mirrors. The coalition authority has been reducing the number of deaths in Iraq since the beginning. Their official total of Iraqis killed since the beginning is something like 60,000, while independent sources have put the total at between 600,000 and 1,200,000. This a clusterfuck of the highest order, even makes Viet-Nam look like a walk in the park.

Its a dog and pony show i dont think this surge was meant to end i think they wanted to have more troops on the ground period.Now that they are there they are not leaving and its just a matter of time before they send an additional 25 30ooo troops.Because the Iraqis or whoever will never stop killing your guys until you leave and i hope to God you dont bomb Iran then the shit will hit the fan.3500 dead American soldiars will seem like wishfull thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

The majority of these have fled abroad to join the 2.2 million Iraqis outside the country.

---

I wonder how hard it is for terrorist recruiters in those refugee camps? Like selling ice water in hell?

Anyone who wants a closer look at the situation read Grag Pallast's Armed Madhouse..
The General is there too push figure's around. Iraq is a hell hole and all those who try too defend
the invasion should go live there for six months and tell us how peaceful and back together its getting....I beleave there will be no pull out there will always be a us base in Iraq.
It is too do with oil simple as that. Power and control neither of which the swine will give up on easyly.......

Peace Drought

This is an ironic topic, from a certain point of view. When I was in the UK in 2005, I had the opportunity to have dinner and several bottles of wine with the daughter-in-law of the then interim Iraqi prime minister. You know what she said? She felt it was unfair how the US media reports what is going on in Iraq, and that in her experience the majority of the people feel they are and will be better off now that Saddam has been removed. She said regardless of the why behind our presence there, the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLane

This is an ironic topic, from a certain point of view. When I was in the UK in 2005, I had the opportunity to have dinner and several bottles of wine with the daughter-in-law of the then interim Iraqi prime minister. You know what she said? She felt it was unfair how the US media reports what is going on in Iraq, and that in her experience the majority of the people feel they are and will be better off now that Saddam has been removed. She said regardless of the why behind our presence there, the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

---

HELL YEAH! But just try to get the left wingers to believe it........it's the only straw they have in the "08" elections to hold onto.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLane

This is an ironic topic, from a certain point of view. When I was in the UK in 2005, I had the opportunity to have dinner and several bottles of wine with the daughter-in-law of the then interim Iraqi prime minister. You know what she said? She felt it was unfair how the US media reports what is going on in Iraq, and that in her experience the majority of the people feel they are and will be better off now that Saddam has been removed. She said regardless of the why behind our presence there, the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

---

This all fine and good. But the fact is that Iraq is ungovernable by Westerners and will not be controlled by Westerners.

So, we got rid of Sadaam - now it's time to get our asses out and turn the military operations over to other Arabs. This really isn't such a hard concept to understand and it is the only solution that has been historically proven to work.

Another thing we should do is make the Iraqi gov't agree to reimburse us for every penny we spend on their miserable country. If this war were costing the Iraqis A billion dollars a week they'd be a whole lot more motivated to solve their problems.

JMO

PC :pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

HELL YEAH! But just try to get the left wingers to believe it........it's the only straw they have in the "08" elections to hold onto.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Don't you believe this for a second P4B. The Demorats are counting on the Hispanic vote (legal or illegal - doesn't matter much to them) in 2008 and well into the future. They plan on destroying this country with a shamnesty and then riding the hispanic vote to power for generations to come. What's funny is that the current politicians don't seem to understand that hispanics, once in power, will make it their first task to vote their Anglo/African asses out of office and install corrupt hispanics in their places.

Look, I hate this war and I hate neo-cons. But anyone who thinks the Demorats are any better has their head in the sand. Right now, if I were in the Senate/House and had control of the purse strings, I obviously couldn't just cut off funding for the troops, but I could sure as hell take control of the war away from those who have fucked it up so badly (Bush et al) and turn control over to a military/political group that could come up with something better than a stupid grin and "Stay the course."

Do you know that the Demorat presidential contenders refused to debate on Fox because they say it is too politicized, and yet they debated on Univision - the Spanish language TV network devoted primarily to illegal aliens?

PC :smokin:

hispanic, white or black... bullshit is bullshit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLane

This is an ironic topic, from a certain point of view. When I was in the UK in 2005, I had the opportunity to have dinner and several bottles of wine with the daughter-in-law of the then interim Iraqi prime minister. You know what she said? She felt it was unfair how the US media reports what is going on in Iraq, and that in her experience the majority of the people feel they are and will be better off now that Saddam has been removed. She said regardless of the why behind our presence there, the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

---

but what has it done for America besides skyrocket our national debt and piss of radical groups of jackasses who don't like us? and what happened to osama bin laden?

The cure is deadlier then the disease.......... Our government lied about WMDs, about Bio Attacks that were about to occur in the USA, lies about lies, no truth can ever come from this ill-fated war(or from our government), which has cost almost 4000 of our american men & women, wounded over 30,000, displaced millions of Iraqis, lord knows how many Iraqis been murdered, its a total shame Gw has to hide behind a general, the general being a lil sock puppet for the Liar in crimes regime....

Still tryin to sell the Iraq war, the only people buying it now are the true loyalist...You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on-gw

The loss of our troops does not have a thing to do with this. They signed up, voluntarily, and knew what they were getting into. When I joined the USMC they told me 3 times before I signed that I am signing for the US military, I can and most likely WILL be called to fight, and I am at a high risk of being killed in action. They also said I may be called to fight for something I may not believe in, and that I had no choice but to follow orders. Then they asked, 3 times, do you agree to this? Do you accept these terms?

Do I care about those that died? Absolutely. Do I feel their deaths should be used as a political tool? Hell no. Honor them, don't trivialize their deaths by turning them into corrupted tools of politicians.

To the rest of you, I agree that we cannot rule a middle eastern country. No doubt about it. At the same time, they are not yet prepared to rule it themselves. We are responsible for their country right now, and will be for quite some time.

The "lies" concerning WMDs etc. are irrelevant, really. The end result is all that matters, and the end result has been positive. People can say what they want, but spending a billion dollars a week is preferable to letting a country live under the rule of a psychotic dictator with no regard for humanity. I'd much rather pay higher taxes and know that we are doing something to better the world than to help keep gas cheap so we can feed our inefficient, blinged out vehicles. I'd rather the money went to something meaninful - fuck money and fuck those who prioritize it to the point that nothing else has any meaning next to it. Believe it or not there are quite a few things in this world that are much more important than money, indeed, much bigger and more important than our insignificant little selves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

The cure is deadlier then the disease.......... Our government lied about WMDs, about Bio Attacks that were about to occur in the USA, lies about lies, no truth can ever come from this ill-fated war(or from our government), which has cost almost 4000 of our american men & women, wounded over 30,000, displaced millions of Iraqis, lord knows how many Iraqis been murdered, its a total shame Gw has to hide behind a general, the general being a lil sock puppet for the Liar in crimes regime....

Still tryin to sell the Iraq war, the only people buying it now are the true loyalist...You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on-gw

---

Mary Jane you think there is positives coming from Iraq like what?The people there are worse of now than they ever were under Saddam.The only people who are better off in Iraq are the ruling class who have pocketed millions of American tax payers money.As far as Saddam being a psychotic dictator he is no worse than the other dictators in this world right now and i dont see America trying to get rid of them.Maybe because they dont have a shit load of oil.Yes there are things more important than money how about spending 1-2 billion dollars a week on education,health care,fixing your infrastrucure instead of a pointless war........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PharmaCan

Don't you believe this for a second P4B. The Demorats are counting on the Hispanic vote (legal or illegal - doesn't matter much to them) in 2008 and well into the future. They plan on destroying this country with a shamnesty and then riding the hispanic vote to power for generations to come.

---

So did they steal this idea from GW, or did he steal it from them?

I believe that over time their country will be better off. The industrial revolution didn't happen overnight. Nor the enlightment etc.

Unfortunately your statement concerning other dicators is true, and most likely the oil in the area is strongly influencing where we direct our military resources. It's very sad really, but it is still better than doing nothing anywhere.

I'd rather spend the billions on healthcare, education, infrastructure as well. Don't misunderstand what I was saying about the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

Mary Jane you think there is positives coming from Iraq like what?The people there are worse of now than they ever were under Saddam.The only people who are better off in Iraq are the ruling class who have pocketed millions of American tax payers money.As far as Saddam being a psychotic dictator he is no worse than the other dictators in this world right now and i dont see America trying to get rid of them.Maybe because they dont have a shit load of oil.Yes there are things more important than money how about spending 1-2 billion dollars a week on education,health care,fixing your infrastrucure instead of a pointless war........

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

So did they steal this idea from GW, or did he steal it from them?

---

Actually, Bush is a globalist. He believes that multi-national companies should be able to exploit both the infrastucture that was built by American taxpayers and the American consumers, with no responsibility to anyone other than their shareholders. Profit is his god and to him there is nothing more important than corporate profits. He cares nothing about destroying the American middle class, just so long as, in doing so, he increases the profits of the multinationals.

Part of his globalist philosophy is an open border that supplies endless streams of cheap labor. He honestly couldn't care less which party is in power, since the wealthy don't suffer from the decisions of the party in power, they are the party in power, regardless of which party that might be.

PC :smokin:

I for one will never forget the lies they told us about Iraq, its its almost the same crap they're pulling on us about Iran....Oh where oh where are them WMDs, not under his desk said GW.. thats one sick man....................How many Iraqis will it take to make a postive outcome in iraq another 100,000, another 3000 american men - women fighting for oil err i mean freedum......This government needs to be checked, fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

I for one will never forget the lies they told us about Iraq, its its almost the same crap they're pulling on us about Iran....Oh where oh where are them WMDs, not under his desk said GW.. thats one sick man....................How many Iraqis will it take to make a postive outcome in iraq another 100,000, another 3000 american men - women fighting for oil err i mean freedum......This government needs to be checked, fast.

---

word

and word to PharmaCan

This is an ironic topic, from a certain point of view. When I was in the UK in 2005, I had the opportunity to have dinner and several bottles of wine with the daughter-in-law of the then interim Iraqi prime minister. You know what she said? She felt it was unfair how the US media reports what is going on in Iraq, and that in her experience the majority of the people feel they are and will be better off now that Saddam has been removed. She said regardless of the why behind our presence there, the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

I'm sorry, but what a joke. I'm sure life is just fine for the daughter of the "interim Iraqi pm." I've read countless blogs from Iraqi's about how at least with Saddam they had things like running water, electricity, and not complete total fucking chaos. Yes, Saddam was a prick and yes, people would see their neighbors occasionally snatched up for having certain religion books, but compared to the shit that's going on now? 5 year old being taken from their homes doused in gas and burned? Bombs going off daily killing hundreds by the day. NO ORDER whatsoever? At least with Saddam there was some semblance of order and I can tell you now, life for the next 20 years for the average Iraqi is going to be hell of the worst kind.

I mean was she fucking joking or what? Yeah sure Iraq might be better off in the LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG run, but not anytime fucking soon!

the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

sorry, gonna emphasize this one again. makes me wonder if this bitch has ever really even been to Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Jack Sparrow

I've read countless blogs from Iraqi's about how at least with Saddam they had things like running water, electricity, and not complete total fucking chaos.

---

Sure, the Sunni's had running water, electricity, etc....but what about the other 80% of the population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Jack Sparrow

Yes, Saddam was a prick and yes, people would see their neighbors occasionally snatched up for having certain religion books, but compared to the shit that's going on now? 5 year old being taken from their homes doused in gas and burned? Bombs going off daily killing hundreds by the day. NO ORDER whatsoever? At least with Saddam there was some semblance of order and I can tell you now, life for the next 20 years for the average Iraqi is going to be hell of the worst kind.

---

And with Saddam they had peoples hands cut off for running the wrong currency, the boys taking school girls and raping them, the gassing of the Kurds, the genocide of the Shiites not to mention the water cut off for their agricultural region. If we're going to talk of Saddams accomplishments lets cover them all. The Kurds and Shi-ites at least have a chance now.....80% of the country. Seems that the Sunni's in the Anbar province are also on board now. One step at a time..........

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Jack Sparrow

and that in her experience the majority of the people feel they are and will be better off now that Saddam has been removed. She said regardless of the why behind our presence there, the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

I'm sorry, but what a joke. I'm sure life is just fine for the daughter of the "interim Iraqi pm." I've read countless blogs from Iraqi's about how at least with Saddam they had things like running water, electricity, and not complete total fucking chaos. Yes, Saddam was a prick and yes, people would see their neighbors occasionally snatched up for having certain religion books, but compared to the shit that's going on now? 5 year old being taken from their homes doused in gas and burned? Bombs going off daily killing hundreds by the day. NO ORDER whatsoever? At least with Saddam there was some semblance of order and I can tell you now, life for the next 20 years for the average Iraqi is going to be hell of the worst kind.

I mean was she fucking joking or what? Yeah sure Iraq might be better off in the LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG run, but not anytime fucking soon!

the end result, which was the removal of Saddam, has been positive and has benefitted Iraq more than it has hurt it.

sorry, gonna emphasize this one again. makes me wonder if this bitch has ever really even been to Iraq.

---

If the Iraqi's wanted to get rid of Saddam bad enough they should have revolted and deposed him. It was not our responsibility to do so. They chose to sit on their dead asses and be ruled by a dictator, not us. As it has turned out, we can now see why Iraq was ruled by a dictator. The Iraqis are uncivilized savages who are incapable of ruling themselves.

Neo-cons like to repeat the mantra, "The world is a better place without Saddam." I say, "No it's not." I invite anyone to provide imperical evidence - as opposed to hyperbole - that the world is a better place without Saddam. I defy anyone to show imperical evidence that Saddam was a direct threat to the USA."

PC :smokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PharmaCan

I defy anyone to show imperical evidence that Saddam was a direct threat to the USA.

---

Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Ask and you shall receive.....:D

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Ask and you shall receive.....:D

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Here's the rest asshat.

Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks.

It came a day after US President George W Bush insisted there had been links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

He disputed the preliminary findings of a US commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York that found no "credible evidence" of a relationship between the two.