They Did What !

A source that seems to understand the Iraq culture actually has suggestions, based on that understanding.

In the January 1, 2007, Washington Spectator, Dilip Hiro, London-based journalist and author, wrote that the Iraq Study Group Report

“… overlooked a monumentally important fact of recent history: The presence of non-Muslim forces in a Muslim country inevitably engenders a jihadist movement among the occupied Muslims and their co-religionists abroad.�

According to Hiro, this belief is borne out by recent polls showing:
78% of Iraqis feel the presence of coalition troops provokes more violence than it prevents.
58% of Iraqis think if the U.S. withdraws the violence will decrease within six months.
92% of Iraq Sunnis and 62% of Iraq Shiites are in favor of attacks on U.S. led forces.

Hello! If both the Sunnis and Shiites are OK with attacking us, who are we fighting for?

Hiro goes on to point out that peacekeepers rather than combat troops would be more likely to help stabilize Iraq. The suggestion is to use the Arab League, made up of 22 members and the Islamic Conference Organization (ICO) with 57 Muslim-majority countries. He suggests,

“Washington should turn to the U.N. Security Council to provide a stabilization force, and the Security Council should then approach the Arab League and the ICO for help. With a U.N. mandate, Arab troops would become internationally sanctioned peacekeepers in Iraq.�

This is not a new idea. In 2004, six of the ICO countries volunteered troops for such an undertaking. Unlike Iran and Syria none were immediate neighbors of Iraq and therefore were seen as free of personal agendas. Their armies are made up of both Sunnis and Shiites. The presence in Iraq of troops that are reflective of their own population, would be less likely to arouse the antagonism that non-Muslim troops arouse. The proposal was rejected because then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, insisted the troops be under U.S. rather than U.N. command.

Why are we not revisiting this idea? It seems to make sense on so many levels, it is difficult to understand why we are not hearing it loudly discussed as a viable alternative to the “either/or� choice of withdrawing or surging.

Perhaps there can still be success in Iraq if we stop trying to make it an American success and allow other countries to help Iraq become its own cultural version of democracy.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 04:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are so many Senators and Representatives speaking out about the troop surge in Iraq. Some support it, some strongly oppose it. That seems to be the main content of their rhetoric – support or opposition. The few explanations offered consist of statements about military or political strategy.

Why aren’t any of them talking about the culture of Iraq and why that culture makes this strategy likely to succeed or fail? Remember the saying “Know thy enemy.� That step seems to have been skipped in this war.

There was a very informative article in the January 14, 2006 San Jose Mercury News Perspective. It was written by Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian studies at the University of Michigan.

Cole points out that the might and wealth of our country cannot win this war because we are not fighting against the wealth and might of another country, we are fighting a guerrilla movement. The guerrillas understand Iraq in a way that we do not. They know, Cole says,

“Iraq is a country of clans and tribes, of Hatfields and McCoys, of grudges and feuds. The clans are more important than religious identities such as Sunni or Shiite. They are more important than ethnicities such as Kurdish or Arab or Turkmen. All members of the clan are honor-bound to defend or avenge all the other members. They are bands not of brothers but of cousins. The guerrillas mobilized these clans against the U.S. troops and against one another.�

These guerrillas are not outsiders, they live in the very cities in which they fight and therefore the “clear and hold� tactic touted by President Bush is based on a misunderstanding of who we are fighting.

That is a pretty basic bit of information to be lacking when making the decision to risk the lives of 20,000 more Americans.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Senators and Representatives:

Most of you are now in Washington because we, the people, spoke in the mid-term elections. Did you hear what we said?

We said:

We do not want more business as usual.
We do not want the divisive partisan politics that have been so pervasive in Washington.
We do not want the governance of our country directed by corporations and big money.
We do not want egos and bank accounts to determine the actions of our elected officials.
We do not want our elected officials to set agendas that are not in the best interests of the people.
We do not want any “one group" to have enough power to undo the established checks and balances built into our system of government.

What we do want is:

Government of the people, by the people, and most important, for the people.
Government that uses the power of America first and foremost to do no harm.
Government based on common sense and moral values that puts integrity and the common good before personal gain.
Government that offers aid to other countries that is in the best interests of their people as well as ours.
Government that represents the best qualities of America and its people to the rest of the world.

If you did not hear this last November, please hear it now. Be you Democrat, Republican or Independent, understand that our country is at a cross roads and you bear the responsibility for choosing which way we go and the consequences of that choice will rest on your shoulders. You will answer to history and eventually to God for what you do so please choose carefully, thoughtfully and ethically.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When the 109th Congress adjourned, all I could say was, “Good riddance!� This Congress leaves with a record of accomplishing very little of value. It seems incongruous to give good salaries, extraordinary benefit packages and regular raises to people who spend their time on mundane matters while the important issues remain untouched.

There were 383 bills signed into law by this Congress. Something they apparently considered important was the naming of federal buildings because over 25% of these laws dealt with naming or renaming such buildings.

This Congress also passed an immigration bill to build a 700 mile fence, but the bill did not include funding. Were they simply incompetent when it came to good legislation or was this just an attempt to appear to be accomplishing something while actually doing nothing about the problem?

There are many more examples of inaction and incompetence in this and past Congressional sessions. So why are we paying outrageous retirement packages to these officials? Big profitable corporations are bailing out on their pensions and benefit plans claiming they can no longer afford them. With the deficit our country is carrying maybe we need to borrow that idea and cancel or at least radically reduce the pensions and benefit plans of elected officials. If it is good enough for the corporations, it should be good enough for the government.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)