The Insurgents' Bellwether

"The city has been seized," Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told the Washington Post on November 15, 2004. "We have liberated the city of Fallujah."

Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi called the US siege "a clear-cut victory over the insurgents and terrorists."

The first raid of Falluja undertaken by the US military, following the brutal killing of four private security contractors by insurgents in April, 2004, left 40 marines and hundreds of Iraqis dead. Insurgents quickly regrouped after the cease-fire, using the city as a launching point for escalating attacks. The November siege, dubbed Operation Phantom Fury, killed 70 Americans and 1,000 insurgents.

"The purpose of the Falluja campaign was to pacify the strategic Sunni triangle in time for the elections planned for January," wrote a Nation editorial at the time. Instead, the American incursion hardened the insurgency elsewhere, alienated key Sunnis, decimated hospitals and devastated the city. Almost 150,000 civilians fled to displaced person camps to avoid the fighting. Most insurgents left the city before the battle. Now they're returning.

"With the normal citizens coming back, you're going to have some insurgents too," State Department representative John Kael Weston told the Los Angeles Times. "They ran this city. I don't think they're going to forget what a safe haven they had. If Falluja turns into a green zone for bad guys again, then what will all this mean?"

The charred, rubbled city is certainly still prime recruiting territory for anti-occupation fury. US soldiers, Falluja residents told journalist David Enders, "are killing one or two of us everyday." Virtually every night a firefight breaks out between US troops and insurgents, with civilians trapped in the crossfire. Only 20 percent of the compensation money promised by Allawi has reached the city.

"Even civilian people will change to be fighters," says Ahmed, a doctor at the Central Health Center, which US forced bombed in November. "We regard Falluja as a large prison." The two new Iraqi army brigades operating in the province are composed primarily of Shiites from southern Iraq; "when the US tried recruiting Fallujis to fight in Falluja, they turned their guns on the US or turned them over to guerrillas," Enders reports.

Falluja's mayor, Dari Ersan, asks a Marine officer for a pistol so that he can make it home safely one night. After the fall of Saddam, Falluja was known as one of the calmest areas in the country. Now more Americans have died there than in any other Iraqi city except Baghdad. As goes Falluja, so goes Iraq.

Comments (94)

1. Falluja is now a symbol of the destruction brought by the U.S. on Iraq. This brings to mind the famous line by a U.S. officer in the Vietnam War: "We had to destroy the village to save it".

   Posted by philbq at 08/11/2005 @ 10:11am

2. Nationalism can be a real driving force to kick out an invading army.

   Yes Virginia; regardless of the spin that Bush and his supporters put on the Iraq War, we are invaders of that country.

   As invaders, we contribute to the phenomenon that Bush likes to describe as a 'hatred of our freedoms, liberties and culture'. We would hate invaders of our country and probably respond in the same manner as the Iraqis, or more aggressively.

   Lastly, the Iraqis did not attack us on 9-11; however, it is the average Iraqi citizen who is suffering the most in this "war on terrorism", or whatever it is labeled nowadays by the Bush Administration.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/11/2005 @ 10:14am

3. "We had to destroy the village to save it".

   Or better, MaCarther who said "No one ever won a war by dying for thier country, you win a war by getting the other dumb son of a bitch to die for his country."

   We most deffinitely still have more terrorists willing to die for their country/countries, so until we kill them all I'm thinking this war will continue.

   todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/11/2005 @ 11:17am

4. Of course, now that no WMD were found (as the UN said would happen), we are invading Iran to liberate them from an oppresive dictator.

   I wonder how the US would have responded if a foreign country had invaded the southern states in the 1850's to liberate the blacks from their oppresive slave owners.

   Posted by OldHenry at 08/11/2005 @ 11:19am

5. regardless of the spin that Bush and his supporters put on the Iraq War, we are invaders of that country.

   And also, occupiers. When some head-in-the-sand Bushie in a previous blog stated that we weren't occupiers, I simply posted the definition of "occupier", which of course, proved my point; and he, in typical Bushie fashion, ignored it, no doubt chalking it up as another of those "inconvenient facts" that are a Bushie's worst enemy.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/11/2005 @ 12:21pm

6. A somewhat disturbing comparison of this occupation to the US occupation of Cuba by Howard Zinn here [zmag.org] (please note that this is not the entire focus of the article). The line "if we do not study history, we are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind.

   Posted by thejman at 08/11/2005 @ 12:37pm

7. Thanks for the link to zmag, Jman. That's a great essay.

   I think it has become a safe bet with this administration that when they say they know something, they do not know; and when they say they don't know or can't remember something, sumpin's up.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/11/2005 @ 12:56pm

8. Below is an excerpt from Khaled Farhan's article, "Shi'ites demand autonomy as Iraq awaits charter":

   NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - With four days left until Iraq's leaders have promised a draft constitution, powerful Islamist leaders made a dramatic bid on Thursday to have a big, autonomous Shi'ite region across the oil-rich south.

   The head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) spelled out his demands to tens of thousands of chanting supporters in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf.

   But minority Sunni and secular opponents, as well as rival Shi'ite Islamists in the coalition national government, swiftly poured cold water on an idea that fueled fears about sectarian battles over oil and Iranian-style religious rule in the south. Source: Yahoo News

   It seems that the Iraq War is spreading something to the Middle East, but it may not be democracy. We might be fomenting civil war in Iraq and in the process, providing an opportunity for a resurgence of 'Persian' influence via Islamic fundamentalism and potential nuclear power.

   It never ceases to amaze me that when things start out based on a lie that they get progressively worse.

   mali principii malus finis

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/11/2005 @ 1:03pm

9. oksportsguy,

   I could be wrong (often am, just ask the wife) but I believe the qoute you used was from George S. Patton, not Douglas MacArthur. It remains, however, a perfectly relevant statement.

   Posted by Bill Arnett at 08/11/2005 @ 1:18pm

10. ZERO(you hero): I used that example already on another blogCindy Sheehan). But you are so right - if the mayor of the capital city of the country,Baghdad, can be thrown out of office by thugs for the Shiite Governor, then the situation is total anarchy. And the U.S.does nothing! In Afghanistan, the U.S.-puppet president ,Karzai,only controls Kabul, but at least he controls the capital city!There is going to be civil war soon. And just yesterday, Rummie is on the tube stating that everything is on track.(!!!) It is bizarre how much this echoes Vietnam.

    Posted by philbq at 08/11/2005 @ 2:07pm

11. The "Please step away, nothing to see here" lines are getting old. The Iraqi occupation is now just a way to have forces on both sides of Iran when we invade them.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/11/2005 @ 2:24pm

12. Bush and his administration keep advocating "Stay the course! Finish the job!" So I ask all you Bush/war supporters out there, if we keep doing the same thing we have been for over two years, do you expect a different outcome eventually? I mean, if we keep shooting ourselves in the foot, will our foot eventually get well? Will more bullets put the toes back on?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 2:28pm

13. PHILBQ so right you are and what lessons did we learn in Nam 1) You cannot defeat insurgent forces who are defending their homeland or in this case their religious idealism, they have unlimited time on their side. 2) Politicians have no business running a war, their self interests or the interests of their doners keeps getting in the way.

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/11/2005 @ 2:41pm

14. ILOVEPHYSICS

    Good point.

    That reminds me of a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results".

    Posted by thejman at 08/11/2005 @ 2:42pm

15. THEJMAN,

    Another great quote of Einstein is "You cannot solve a problem with the same level of knowledge that created it." I often think about that when George W. tries to tell me that the terrorist hate america because of our freedoms. Certainly terrorists don't care one wit about the internal workings of some country on the other side of the world, but you will never hear anyone in this administration taking an honest look at the root causes of terrorism.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 2:51pm

16. ILP "Stay the course! Finish the job!" "MIssion Accomplished" why is time the common factor here or lack of. Flallujah's Sunni populism will never give up the only way this will be settled is with a civil war or the intervention of the global community. The big question for the oil interests is weather or not their oil contracts are safe. Check this site for more on big oils interests in Iraq. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/01surface.htm

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/11/2005 @ 2:52pm

17. THANK GOD ALMIGHTY YOU SILLY NUTTY LIBS WERE NOT IN CONTROL DURING WW2. WE WOULD ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN NOW. IRAQ WILL BE A SUCCESS DESPITE YOUR UNPATRIOTIC YEARNINGS FOR FAILURE

    Posted by aludra at 08/11/2005 @ 3:01pm

18. Aludra,

    Why don't you join up and help fight in Iraq?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 3:04pm

19. By the way, Aludra, liberals WERE in charge during WWII!! President Roosevelt, the greatest liberal of all time, led us to victory.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 3:05pm

20. We should all thank the New Dealer, Franklin Roosevelt, for leading us to victory in WWII, plus saving the economy from the Republicans after the Great Depression. Thanks, FDR, for making the US great!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 3:06pm

21. ALUDRA's just a square-piece-through-a-round-hole type guy who's willing to waste every bit of energy he has to make the little bastard fit.

    Posted by BSF at 08/11/2005 @ 3:09pm

22. "President Roosevelt, the greatest liberal of all time, led us to victory"

    FDR WAS NOT A PANSY PACIFIST LIKE YOU NUTTY LIBS ARE. HE WOULD BE ROLLING OVER IN HIS GRAVE RIGHT NOW IF HE COULD SEE WHAT THE ONCE GREAT DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS PATHETICALLY TURNED INTO...HE WAS NOTHING LIKE YOU PEOPLE WHATSOEVER

    Posted by aludra at 08/11/2005 @ 3:12pm

23. I often think about that when George W. tries to tell me that the terrorist hate america because of our freedoms.

    That's always been his cookie-cutter response to this, without ever going into relevant detail. bin Laden doesn't hate Americans in general but American policies; big difference. The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War is what initially set him off, the U.S.'s undying support for Israel is also a factor, too. And, of course, the U.S. trained and funded bin Laden during the Afghanistan/Russia war; our "creation" has since turned on his makers. This is why Bush & Co. spew that "he hates our freedoms" stuff, because it conveniently sidesteps implicating certain U.S. policies that are the actual things that fuel al Qaeda's fire.

    But don't expect Bushies to pay attention to any of this. They're much more content sticking their heads in the sand and blindly believing everything their flip-flopping little boy king tells them.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/11/2005 @ 3:22pm

24. Aludra, you braindead nutcase...you realy walked into one this time!!! And ILOVEPHYSICS hit the ball out of the park! FDR was the greatest liberal ever and he guided the nation back from the Great Depression, and through WWII. You have made a fool out of yourself!

    Posted by philbq at 08/11/2005 @ 3:24pm

25. ALUDRA

    If anything FDR would be rolling over in his grave because of the hostile direction many powerfull people in this country have take against the poor and underpriveleged. I don't think he'd be too upset that there are quite a few of us that don't support a fringe jingoist as president.

    Posted by BSF at 08/11/2005 @ 3:25pm

26. Schizophrenia: Is it applicable to our nation's leadership?

    Schizophrenia affects approximately one in one hundred. The disease affects men and women about equally and its onset is usually in the late teens or early twenties.

    Schizophrenia is a thought disorder, where there is a disturbance in thought patterns and processes. People with schizophrenia usually have several of the following symptoms:

    1. disconnected and confusing language

    2. poor reasoning, memory and judgment

    3. high level anxiety

    4. eating and sleeping disorders

    5. hallucinations-hearing and seeing things that only exist in the mind of the consumer

    6. delusions-persistent false beliefs about something, e.g. that others are controlling their thoughts

    7. deterioration of appearance and personal hygiene -tendency to withdraw from others

    Source: Mental Health Association of Orange County, California

    ********

    Symptoms 1, 2, 5 and 6 could be applicable to our nation's leadership.

    Does having 4 of the 7 symptoms of Schizophrenia make you schizophrenic?

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/11/2005 @ 3:30pm

27. Just having a mere two of them on a regular basis can qualify one as schizophrenic.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/11/2005 @ 3:35pm

28. Aludra,

    Why won't you join up and help fight in Iraq?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 3:37pm

29. Hey everyone, I know who Aludra is - it's Zel Miller!!! The former Dem senator who endorsed Bush for pres. Hey, Senator, nice of you to join us :-)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 3:39pm

30. ILOVEPHYSICS

    I stand my my original guess that ALUDRA is John Alvarez, the guy who started the hilarious, for all the wrong reasons, organization PABAAH.

    Posted by BSF at 08/11/2005 @ 3:52pm

31. BDF, I am new to this site so I didn't see your original guess. Obviously my guess is a joke, but if you've ever listened to Zell Miller speak you might see why I'd make the comparison

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 3:54pm

32. ILOVEPHYSICS

    Oh I knew it was a joke and Zell Miller was a fantastic guess. But I think one visit to www.pabaah.com might change your mind.

    Posted by BSF at 08/11/2005 @ 3:56pm

33. ILOVEPHYSICS: The type of people who read The Nation back in the days of WWII did not support war against Hitler until Stalin told them to. Also, since FDR was so great, I assume you approve of the internment of Japanese-Americans and would approve the same treatment of American Muslims?

    Posted by RonS at 08/11/2005 @ 3:57pm

34. RONS,

    I doubt that is the case. One of the most celebrated men in American history, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave owner (owned 187 slaves, according to his personal records. Some were inherited at the death of his wife). To his credit, he condemned the British crown for sponsoring the importation of slavery to the colonies (see here [en.wikipedia.org] for more on that). Many of us consider him to be a man who did great things for this country (you know, helping found it and all). That doesn't mean that we support slavery.

    Posted by thejman at 08/11/2005 @ 4:20pm

35. BUSH HATE SPEW...WORTH ABOUT....ZERO

    Posted by aludra at 08/11/2005 @ 4:33pm

36. .

    As goes Falluja, so goes Iraq.

    One more arm chair general. One more jerk.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 08/11/2005 @ 4:43pm

37. Bush's Texas 'ranch' is where Bush and company do their best group-thinking. So, you can't fault them for wanting to be isolated on 'the ranch' where there is a semblance of thinking taking place, and away from any really critical thought.

    Surely you remember that it is at 'the ranch' where the genesis of the idea for going to war in Iraq took hold.

    But then, maybe the President shouldn't take his vacations at 'the ranch'.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/11/2005 @ 4:52pm

38. RONS,

    You assume incorrectly. The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was wrong, as would be the internment of any group singled out for their race, religion, etc. No one is perfect and even FDR made mistakes.

    Another example: Look how long it took Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, or the fact that he restricted civil liberties during the Civil War. It doesn't change the fact that Lincoln is the greatest Republican president of all time.

    If you are looking for perfection in a president, I suggest you move to outer space where you belong.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 4:54pm

39. oh my! aludra managed something halfway clever! ( you know id swearaludra is really a leftwinger cause the arguments he/she makes are tailor made to be picked apart)

    yeah bush goes off to the ranch and tries so hard to have us forget hes a conneticut partician. i mean just go stay in the hamptons or marthas vinyard man we know those are your people your not really fooling us.

    Posted by la volte at 08/11/2005 @ 4:55pm

40. To settle a bet I have, does anyone have a link that shows how many days Bush has spent at Crawford (or the "Western White House," as his aides apparently call it) since taking office?

    Thanks. Sorry to interrupt the discussion.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/11/2005 @ 5:41pm

41. The month-long vacations would be less irritating if we didn't hear stories of bike rides, tv and ballgame watching, etc. It seems the real reason for a vacation is the Congressional recess and the subsequent lull in lobbying activity in DC. Without the lobbyists in town, who will tell the adminsistration which way is up?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/11/2005 @ 6:47pm

42. I know this is off-topic--my apologies. But did you see the video a few days ago of Bush in his pick-up. Wonder what the fuel mileage is? And I laughed at the size of the tool chest in the bed. As if! What on earth could be inside of it that our blueblood president might know how to use? The brush clearing, of course, does demonstrate his manhood. Heck, he's outmanlying my 87 year old grandmother, who just this summer decided to pay someone to mow and weed her yard.

    No more substanceless rants today. I promise.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/11/2005 @ 6:53pm

43. ILOVEPHYSICS: You guys have been bashing Bush from day one, but with anyone else, don't look for perfection, everyone makes mistakes. So Lincoln's restriction of civil liberties during the Civil War is OK, but the Patriot Act is another example of the evil from thugs like Bush.

    Posted by RonS at 08/11/2005 @ 6:59pm

44. RONS,

    I haven't posted anything about the Patriot Act.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 7:09pm

45. And another thing, I didn't say it was OK - read the post again. I cited it as a mistake that Lincoln made.

    Please pay attention.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 7:11pm

46. "Bush's Texas 'ranch' is where Bush and company do their best group-thinking."

    Wow Dubya is thinking now...all by hisself? You'd think that, in and of itself, would make the news. And BTW...does Cheney know about this?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/11/2005 @ 7:13pm

47. ILOVEPHYSICS: When I start out saying "you guys" it should be apparent that I am talking about the usual left wing, anti-Bush statements posted here. 'Nuff said.

    Posted by RonS at 08/11/2005 @ 7:20pm

48. RONS,

    I am not the "usual left wing," I think for myself. Or look at it another way: Shall I group you in with what Aludra says? Perhaps now you see my point...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 7:25pm

49. I just reread some of the posts. Did NACL call the American Public "arm chair generals" and "jerks"? When reality and political bluster are in conflict, the only thing standing in the way of maniacs like Rumsfeld and the destruction of our military and its soldiers is us. Just because some want to do the "please move away--there is nothing to see here act" doesn't mean we have to obey when there is clearly something to see.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/11/2005 @ 8:28pm

50. LeftofCenter states:

    Wow Dubya is thinking now...all by hisself? You'd think that, in and of itself, would make the news. And BTW...does Cheney know about this? LeftofCenter

    Left - the emphasis is the group part of group-thinking; not that Bush, or any one else in his group is doing any critical thinking. If they were doing any critical thinking at all, we wouldn't be in the Iraq War mess in which we find ourselves.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/11/2005 @ 9:11pm

51. ILOVEPHYSICS -- I'll grant you your point. A lot of us here, on the Right and Left, you and me included, often tend to make kneejerk reactions at time, just because of all of the harrassment out here. I recently posted a comment criticizing the Right and Left for relying on the power of the gun, and then got attacked because of my "ideological" allies in the Bush Admin. To add to your original comment, I think a lot of people out here, on the Right and Left, confuse liberal and progressive, as well as the different definitions these terms have had historically. JFK has more in common with Bush on foreign and domestic issues than he would have had with Teddy; FDR and Truman would have little in common with Ralph Nader or Barbara Boxer. I actually wish we had more liberals like Truman and JFK.

    Posted by RonS at 08/11/2005 @ 9:31pm

52. While I will be the last person on the planet to try to make the case that we fought WWII (or any other war, for that matter) for altruistic or even moral reasons (we fought WWII for the same reasons EVERY other war is fought... not over religion... not over race... over wealth and the control of wealth), I must say that based on the Nuremburg Laws, the US is, as a nation, guilty of waging aggressive war against Iraq. It's a simple cas of attacking a country which did not first attack us, or have any intention of attacking us. Furthermore, if you guys really want to get a sense of what's really going on in this nutty world, and why I think this whole argument over liberal vs. conservative is a chimera, do yourselves ALL a favor, Aludra especially, and go read the Lugano Report. While it is fiction, it is only fiction in so far as it was compiled and written by someone who did not intend it to be taken as face value, a la Jonathan Swift and his A Modest Proposal, or Voltaire's Candide. I will tell you that those are the sorts of ideas being bantered about by the supernational power elite. The bottom line is simple. The earth cannot sufficiently support the level of population that we currently have, with the sort of consumption we currently have, or what we are projected to have 10, 20, 30 years down the road. So the powers that be (and I am talking about the people who get W. et al elected, not Bush himself) would like nothing more than to see much of the 2nd and 3rd world go up in flames, in war, famine, and disease, so that they can maintain the sustainability of the global capitalist structure. It has nothing to do with Nationalism, or religion, or even class, as many Marxists, neo-Cons, and fundamentalists of all stripes would deny. It is more an issue of sustainable control over available resource capital. So the whole point of this is, stop looking at the symptoms... look at the disease. And then let's look for a cure.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/11/2005 @ 11:57pm

53. Anyone know what a bellwether is?

    Posted by jonb at 08/12/2005 @ 12:16am

54. A wether is a male sheep which was castrated at a young age. Prior to developing secondary sexual caracteristics.

    Posted by jonb at 08/12/2005 @ 12:16am

55. They tend to have a certain assertiveness, and will tend to be leaders of the flock. The sheep follow them.

    (Intact males are often kept away from the flock for obvious reasons)

    They are sometimes provided with a bell. Wherever they go, you can hear the bell. And the sheep follow them.

    Posted by jonb at 08/12/2005 @ 12:18am

56. oh well.

    So Iraq follows the lead of Fallujah.

    Probably.

    Posted by jonb at 08/12/2005 @ 12:19am

57. I do hope that the insurgency gets a clue pretty soon.

    If they stop fighting for a while, the americans will gladly go away.

    Then they can start again, relatively unopposed.

    But I doubt if they are that smart.

    Posted by jonb at 08/12/2005 @ 12:21am

58. It appears that the result of this war will be Iraq will be like Beirut. Only bigger.

    If that is the case, the blame will be largely with Iraqis themselves, as well as with their neighbors.

    They couldn't prevent the invasion, obviously. But if they had reacted intelligently (on the whole) the americans would be gone by now.

    And the good services of the jihadis are viewed as a blessing by the folks in iran, syria and saudi. Because it weakens and destroys their previously hostile neighbor. And it gets the radical element focused on somebody else. And it embarasses the americans, making them less likely to attack anyone else.

    I know that there are those who would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

    it is too bad.

    If things keep on as they are, the country will be in civil war for 30 years.

    It won't hurt the repubs in the midterms tho. And GWB's sucessor will get a fresh start, politically.

    The americans will keep lowering their standard for withdrawl, until they just all leave, and whatever happens, happens.

    The war will be viewed as a sucess, or a failure, depending on which side you happen to be on.

    Posted by jonb at 08/12/2005 @ 12:33am

59. PHILBQ:

    You are correct in saying the situation in Iraq is total anarchy, and I'm afraid that the civil war has already begun. It's quite sad, the Iraqi people and our troops didn't deserve this. Perhaps if we had the troop strength of several hundred thousand that Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said would be needed in postwar Iraq, the mayor of Baghdad would not have been thrown out of office and there would have been less casualties. Thing might have been better! However, Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said the estimate of troop level by Shinseki was "wildly off the mark." What does this tell you? Very, very sad.

    And sadly, and I pray I'm wrong, the body count will eventually reach 2,000 and the mendacity, it will continue unless we hear loud and clear from the American people, that they have had enough! Otherwise this administration will continue with it's mantra of "Stay the course". You heard Bush yesterday didn't you? And once again where was the (liberal) media! They didn't ask one hard question. They're not going to either! Bush just stood there with that covetous smirk on his face, pretending to grieve for the fallen. Those were crocodile tears! And don't forget, he was just recently re-elected. He has a mandate! Hence, Iran.

    One last note, as Dycel8R asked: Whether the oil contracts are safe? You had better DAM well believe they are!!! We're sure as heck not in Iraq for the Democracy!

    Posted by Munich at 08/12/2005 @ 01:25am

60. Ok, believe it or not.. I actually sat here and read thru all these comments and even though I'd want to respond to all of them I'll only point out a few that haven't been touched.

    JORCHEIM - WW2 was not a battle of wealth. America wasn't a super power until after the war, and probably would never have been had FDR been lucky enough WW2 got us out of the Depression. The New deal had very few success stories that lasted long term, how's that Soc. Security he made for us working?

    RONS- Made a good comment about FDR's Japanese camps being today's Gitmo. Except that the only people at Gitmo are people who we caught while in a war, not average Joe citizens.

    JONB- Went on a posting binge, but after sifting thru the crap you mentioned that 'Iraq will be in a civil war for 30 years.' I found that hard to believe because the Sunnis are less than 1/3 of the country. Sunnis had Saddam, Shi'ites have democracy.

    MUNICH- The Liberal media keeps a running body count of dead American Soldiers. Over 40,000+ people die per year of car crashes alone, where's that running body count on that?

    And to the person who is going to ask 'why arn't you in Iraq' or why didn't you sign up for the military? Why didn't you sign up? 1 of my brothers is in Iraq, 1 was in Somalia. I'm not in Iraq because I'm in college but have considered joining.

    How about we let the troops decide if they want to stay or go?

    Posted by biggenshsc at 08/12/2005 @ 07:24am

61. Today(Friday Aug.12) the leading Shiite cleric involved in the negotiations for the drafting of the Iraq constitution reveiled that he is pushing for an autonomous Shiite region in the south encompassing the rich oil fields. His reasoning is that if the Kurds can have self-government in the north, then the Shiites should have the same status in their southern region. It is becoming clear that the country is breaking up, and there will be civil war. Without a unified central government, Iraq will fragment into separate Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd areas. This means civil war, as I and others have been predicting. The U.S. invasion has let the genie of factionalism out of the bottle. The breakup of Iraq is underway. The unified, democratic, secular Iraq sold by Bush was only a pipedream.

    Posted by philbq at 08/12/2005 @ 08:06am

62. PHILBQ,

    Dare I say this? Forgive me if this is your point & I missed it, but isn't it funny (for lack of a better word) how the country seems to be headed for civil war & the America friendly Shiites "are pushing for an autonomous Shiite region in the south encompassing the rich oil fields" (to quote your post)? The boys at Exxon/Mobil must be giddy as little school boys over this. It seems that we have all underestimated this administration. If they are after Iraq's oil (as I, as well as others, suspect), then the war seems to be going exactly to plan.

    Posted by thejman at 08/12/2005 @ 08:26am

63. Biggenshsc wrote:

    "And to the person who is going to ask 'why arn't you in Iraq' or why didn't you sign up for the military? Why didn't you sign up? 1 of my brothers is in Iraq, 1 was in Somalia. I'm not in Iraq because I'm in college but have considered joining.

    How about we let the troops decide if they want to stay or go?"

    College can always wait. The Iraqis need you now. The afghanis need you now. Bin Laden is on the loose, hunt him down.

    As to your letting the troops decide. That's sheer lunacy. Once you sign up for the military you've signed away your right to decide what's right and wrong, that'll be Uncle Sam's decision for you. Actually, the troops can decide, by deserting. But then they'll be in some trouble for going against their military oath to obey the chain of command. They may be fighting to spread "democracy" and "freedom" but the institution soldiers are a part of is not democractic at all, it's monarchical.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/12/2005 @ 11:34am

64. Biggenshsc,

    Letting the troops decide is way too close to decision-making by the military, which you will find as you travel along the road to military dictatorship.

    I am just as much a citizen of this country as any soldier in Iraq, and I am not ready to give up my vote any time soon, or change the constitution any time soon.

    Amendment XXVI 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

    One person, one vote, and it is up to our ELECTED representatives to decide, not "the troops."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/12/2005 @ 12:51pm

65. YOU DETESTABLE LIBS PRAISED THE 9/11 COMMISSION AND TRASHED BUSH FOR NOT SUPPORTING IT. NOW WE FIND OUT THEY DIDNT KNOW SH*T ABOUT ANYTHING AND LEFT OUT CRITICAL INFORMATION.(PROBABLY IN SANDY BERGERS PANTS)LOOKS LIKE ONCE AGAIN BUSH WAS RIGHT. BUT WHAT DO YOU SCREWBALL LEFTIES COMPLAIN ABOUT......CLINTON LET 9/11 HAPPEN PERIOD. YOU NUTTY LEFTIES HAVE PROVEN YOU CAN NEVER EVER BE TRUSTED WITH POWER AGAIN. WAIT TILL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET A LOAD OF THIS CRAP....THANK GOD ALMIGHTY WE HAVE ADULTS FINALLY RUNNING THE SHOW

    Atta Details Omitted From Sept. 11 Report

    * Sign In to E-Mail This * Printer-Friendly

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: August 12, 2005

    Filed at 7:50 a.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday.

    Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the commission's follow-up project called the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, had said earlier this week that the panel was unaware of intelligence specifically naming Atta. But he said subsequent information provided Wednesday confirmed that the commission had been aware of the intelligence.

    The information did not make it into the final report because it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks, Felzenberg said.

    The intelligence about Atta recently was disclosed by Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees. The Pennsylvania Republican has expressed anger that the intelligence never was forwarded by the military establishment to the FBI.

    The discourse project, Pentagon and at least two congressional committees are looking into the issue. If found accurate, the intelligence would change the timeline for when government officials first became aware of Atta's links to al-Qaida.

    According to Weldon, a classified military intelligence unit called ''Able Danger'' identified Atta and three other hijackers in 1999 as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City. Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the unit's recommendation that the information be turned over to the FBI in 2000.

    According to Pentagon documents, the information was not shared because of concerns about pursuing information on ''U.S. persons,'' a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners legally admitted to the country.

    Felzenberg said an unidentified person working with Weldon came forward Wednesday and described a meeting 10 days before the panel's report was issued last July. During it, a military official urged commission staffers to include a reference to the intelligence on Atta in the final report.

    Felzenberg said checks were made and the details of the July 12, 2004, meeting were confirmed. Previous to that, Felzenberg said it was believed commission staffers knew about Able Danger from a meeting with military officials in Afghanistan during which no mention was made of Atta or the other three hijackers.

    Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, Felzenberg said.

    Felzenberg sought to minimize the significance of the new information.

    ''Even if it were valid, it would've joined the lists of dozens of other instances where information was not shared,'' Felzenberg said. ''There was a major problem with intelligence sharing.''

    Weldon on Wednesday wrote to Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, and Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman, asking for information to be sought that would look at why the information was not passed on by Pentagon lawyers to the FBI.

    His letter also asks the commissioners to find out why the panel's staff members did not pass the information about Able Danger onto commission members and provide full documentation.

    Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and his House counterpart, Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, are looking into the issue.

    Posted by aludra at 08/12/2005 @ 1:06pm

66. Ari really needs to use a different picture of himself for this blog. He looks like a snotty nosed, stuck up, 12 year old brat.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/12/2005 @ 1:25pm

67. LOL

    Posted by aludra at 08/12/2005 @ 1:27pm

68. Aludra...forgive me if I am incorrect, but were there not also "righty" repuplicans on the 9/11 commission? And anyway, 9/11 is really besides the point when discussing Iraq. Obviously you will never agree with this point because you are too busy worshiping your talking bush doll to use your head and figure out that the Iraq government under Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And another point to be made is that many of us "Libs" did not praise the 9/11 commission. I for one thought that it was a half-hearted effort aimed at not stepping on too many toes. If it had been truly radical and acted in a spirit of dissent then they would have released the portion of the report on Saudi Arabia in protest against bush's ill conceived policies.

    Posted by kraigah at 08/12/2005 @ 1:29pm

69. " but were there not also "righty" repuplicans on the 9/11 commission"

    OF COURSE THEY WERE . BUT THEY ARE WRONG TOO...BUT YOU DODGE THE POINT THAT JAMIE GORELICK THRU SANDY BERGER UP TO CLINTON KEPT CRITICAL INFORMATION FROM BEING SHARED, WE KNEW THOSE BASTARDS WERE IN OUR COUNTRY UP TO NO GOOD A WHOLE YEAR BEFORE 9/11. CLINTON WAS TOTALLY ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH OR OCCUPIED WITH OTHER MORE IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES.

    PROUD OF YOUR PERFORMANCE RULING THE ROOST??

    Posted by aludra at 08/12/2005 @ 1:44pm

70. Usapride:

    Didn't your parents ever teach you, that if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, DON'T say anything at all?

    An you have the audacity to use the letters USA, and the word pride in your name? You seriously need to grow up!

    To the ignore list with you!

    Posted by Munich at 08/12/2005 @ 2:45pm

71. Ari may look like a 12 year old in his picture but some of you act like them.

    Posted by proudlib at 08/12/2005 @ 2:57pm

72. aludra--go to mediamatters.org to learn that the Clinton administration did not oringinate the "wall" and that the bush administration expanded it. Also bush was on vacation prior to 9/11 even after the 'Bin Laden determined to strike America' memo from the daily briefings was told to him. talk about asleep!!!

    Posted by jrs at 08/12/2005 @ 3:03pm

73. MUNICH: Is that you ARI?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/12/2005 @ 4:58pm

74. As far as I can tell, there's no "ignore" list here. Why else would we be treated to Aludra's shouting?

    Posted by proudlib at 08/12/2005 @ 5:24pm

75. I'm sure that Ari has long since stopped bothering to sift through the semi-literate and irrelevant ravings by rightwing cranks on this site.

    On the off chance that he is still paying attention, I thought I would congratulate him for his superb piece in this week's Nation.

    Those who are interested in what how the bipartisan, pro-war Washington consensus established itself and is being maintained will find a great deal of food for thought there.

    Thanks very much for your excellent work, Ari.

    Posted by john.halle at 08/12/2005 @ 8:21pm

76. Thanks John. And no, I don't post undercover on my own comments section.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 08/12/2005 @ 9:07pm

77. hmmm

    Actually, dividing Iraq would make a lot of sense.

    The shia get the south, which has oil.

    The kurds get the norty, which has oil.

    The sunnis get the middle, which has reasonable agriculture, and at leas used to have some industry.

    The each get self government.

    This would make the turks mad as hornets.

    but it makes good sense.

    They might fight with each other, but that isn't quite the same as civil war.

    each group could have border security.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 01:04am

78. I thought that was the onmly way to get buy in from all parties in the first place.

    The sunnis are the losers, but there is a certain justice in that.

    Iraq as a single nation is a british invention, anyway, as far as I can tell.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 01:06am

79. By the way, I was looking, and I think I got one of my posts removed.

    And it was a relatively nice one.

    It was just true, I suppose.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 01:07am

80. (Not on this thread)

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 01:07am

81. nope.

    I'm wrong.

    I was just looking in the wrong place.

    Can't decide if I should be disappointed.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 01:11am

82. Do you guys think it would be harder to craft an exit strategy from an Iraq that was partitioned along those lines?

    My speculation is that most Iraquis would prefer it.

    Possibly, a loose federal structure, including sharing of oil revenue and common defense, could be worked out.

    Though I think that might break down pretty quickly.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 01:16am

83. JONB: you are coming around to my position : get foreign (U.S.) troops out, let Iraqis decide what kind of nation or nations they want.

    Posted by philbq at 08/13/2005 @ 02:36am

84. "Does having 4 of the 7 symptoms of Schizophrenia make you schizophrenic? Posted by ORAIBI1952 08/11/2005 @ 3:30pm"

    oraibi, no it does not. and i'm not sure what's going on with the california dept of mental health, but saying that schizophrenia is a thought disorder, is misleading. whereas a thought disorder can be part of a schizophrenic's mental functioning, the hallmark of the illness is psychosis. psychosis, is: a disturbance not of thought, but of perception.

    the only reason i'm gettting my undies in a bunch about his is that (i've posted about this before) if we are to diagnose our (clearly) mentally ill president, his compatriots, and his followers, it's important to get it right. the diagnosis is sociopathy. they do not hallucinate, they do not have delusions in the way a psychotic person would--their misguided thoughts are based in a nuerotic character pathology. normally people who suffer from this have been abused as children, in one way or another. see the book: "bush on the couch".

    Posted by dabar at 08/13/2005 @ 10:46am

85. I was not suggesting that the US leave, and let the iraquis decide if they want 3 countries or one.

    The decision making process, in that case, would be what is commonly called "civil war".

    In fact, because of their resouces, left over from the previous administration, and also imported from their neighbors, the sunnis would soon take over and rule the whole thing again most likely.

    I was proposing it as a reasonable strategy for occupation.

    I don't doubt the occupation will continue.

    It would allow the US to pull troops out of the sunni areas, though; IF (and this is a big if) a puppet government of some sort could be constructed.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 10:57am

86. it usually isn't profitable to "shrink" people, especially political figures.

    Because the diagnosis is usually only intended as an insult.

    And really, there are people who display many of the characteristics of various mental disorders who frequent these pages.

    And making these conditions insults does not help them. Nor does it help the discussion.

    I have worked a good deal with schizophrenics. In my experience, theirs is a difficult life.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 11:18am

87. It isn't helpful either, to diagnose people we disagree with as being "sick", as opposed to merely disagreeing with us.

    This is often the opening of the door to incarcerate people who disagree, and treat them with pschotropic meds.

    And beware!

    If the right ever got ahold of that idea, they might conclude you have a thought disorder, and hospitalize you.

    Fortunately, this sort of thing has so far only been practiced by the far left, mostly in "re-education camps" in communist china and other places.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 11:25am

88. jb,

    i did not argue for the diagnosis of schizophrenia, but the rather under axis II = antisocial personality disorder. take it as an insult or not, the criteria has been met. stay cool babe.

    Posted by dabar at 08/13/2005 @ 1:04pm

89. the author's credentials are beyond reproach.

    as for forcing meds? never fear. antisocial symptoms are really not treatable with anything other than therapy. therapy requites some form of acknowlegment on the part of the patient. bush, nor any of his minions see a problem...so that's out. oh, and forcing meds on people is not evidence of life in a totalitarian society--those that think so show nothing more than a complete ignorance about mental illnes.

    but to the point of this thread: congrats to bush!! he has succeeded in giving complete control of the region to iran. great idea!!! youse non believers just wait....

    Posted by dabar at 08/13/2005 @ 3:44pm

90. Dabar

    I didn't say you did suggest the President was Schizophrenic.

    Someone earlier brought the "Bush is a schizophrenic" line into play, and I was responding to that.

    Same as you, though differently.

    Actually, The President looks to me to be fairly well in the norman range in most respects.

    That he holds his positions in the political arena forcefully, even stubbornly, does not appear to be evidence of delusion.

    It is unrealistic to expect The President, a politician, to behave himself with the naieve simplicity of a small child.

    Politicians, without regard to party or ideology, do not act in that way.

    Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 8:13pm

91. "Actually, The President looks to me to be fairly well in the norman range in most respects.That he holds his positions in the political arena forcefully, even stubbornly, does not appear to be evidence of delusion."

    delusions are not a criteria for antisocial personality disorder. i do not belive he is delusional in the clinical sense. his stubborness brings about DELUDED thoughts, which are quite different from a psychotic symptom (clinical delusions are psychotic beliefs that are specific to the disorder of schizophrenia and sometimes bipolar disorder.)

    "It is unrealistic to expect The President, a politician, to behave himself with the naieve simplicity of a small child."

    incredible. you're wrong and right all at once. his thougts are on the level of a spoiled, narcissitic, infantile brat who cannot see the complexities of the world and act like an adult. children have a tough time admitting mistakes, being honest, and ultimately being thoughtful. so quite the opposite--as was stated by every talking dipship on tv when he was put in offce back in 00; "his simplicity is his strength" ... oh sure. yeesh.

    "Politicians, without regard to party or ideology, do not act in that way."

    you grant them too much due. they certainly can.

    Posted by dabar at 08/14/2005 @ 01:14am

92. Let us be honest about the ethnic/political realities of this entity called Iraq.(I hesitate to use the term"nation" or "country") The majority Shiites want a fundamentalist Islamic government ruled by sharia religious law, the Sunnis minority who ruled by force but were fairly secular, and the Kurds, who really don't want to be part of any Iraq, but instead want their own Kurdish nation, encompassing Kurd territory now in parts of Syria and Turkey. Since these three groups basically can't stand each other, the U.S. is desperately trying to impose some kind of powersharing structure in the proposed constitution that would satisfy all groups. It seems an impossible task. The Bush rhetoric of a democratic, secular state with equal rights for women and a strong central government has now become empty words. Who knows if Bush ever believed his own words?(There are some fools in the U.S. who still believe them) Sage observers of the Middle East predicted that once Saddam was removed, Iraq would dissolve into its factions. And now we see this coming to pass. Only people like Aludra still believe in Bush's words.

    Posted by philbq at 08/14/2005 @ 07:57am

93. UPDATE: It is Monday, the U.S.-imposed deadline for the new Iraq constitution. The deadlock is between Sunnis, who still cling to the previous U.S. model of a secular democracy, with a funtional central government and equal rights for all, including women, and Shiites, who want an autonomous Islamic republic, governed by Islamic law, with no rights for women. The Sunnis contend that allowing autonomous regions in the Kurdish north, and in the Shiite south, with each controlling its own oil reserves, will mean the end of Iraq. The Bush govt., desperate for a P.R. victory, is eager for any kind of constitution, even if it sacrifices the stated principles of the proposed Iraqi democratic government. The secular, united Iraq trumpeted by the Bush govt. and its supporters is now being overcome by the predicted realities of Iraqi ethnic and political factions. The breakup of Iraq seems imminent.

    Posted by philbq at 08/15/2005 @ 10:21am

94. Just like the reasons for going into Iraq were changed monthly by the bush admin., so will the expectations be lowered that will define a victory in Iraq. it does seem a breakup of Iraq is certain and that the true winners of our incursion is Iran. they now become the regional power. remember axis of evil anybody?

    Posted by jrs at 08/15/2005 @ 12:24pm