Obama Will Raise Troop Level In Iraq To 3,000

(This image of U.S. soldiers patrolling near the Baghdad airport is from LJWorld.com.)

"Mission creep" continues to grow in Iraq. When things got hot again in Iraq (with the Sunni vs. Shiite religious civil war growing), President Obama promised Americans that he would not put American "boots on the ground" in that country. He almost immediately violated his promise by sending 300 soldiers to Iraq (saying they were just to advise the Iraqi troops). Then he upped the total, saying that troops were needed to guard the embassy and the Baghdad airport. Now there are around 1400 to 1500 American soldiers in Iraq.

Now the president seems to be completely abandoning his promise. He has authorized the sending of another 1500 troops to Iraq, which will double the number of U.S. soldiers in that country (and be 10 times the number he originally sent). It is now just a sick joke to say there won't be "troops on the ground" -- and the only question left is how many more troops will be sent there (5,000?, 10,000?, 50,000?, more?).

The truth is that we shouldn't have any American soldiers in Iraq. Both parties in Congress, and the president, are trying to paint the Sunni insurgents as posing a threat to the United States. That is a fallacy. They pose no military threat to this country -- and if there is a terrorist threat, this is the wrong way to handle it. Terrorism is a law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic problem -- not a military problem.

The situation in Iraq is a religious civil war -- fought by Sunnis and Shiites, both of whom want to control that country, and neither of which is an ally of the United States. Sending American troops to take sides in that religious war may seem smart to U.S. politicians, but it just looks like another christian "crusade" against muslims to those who live in the Middle East -- and it just creates more enemies for this country (and embroils our soldiers in a conflict they cannot win).

Re-engaging in Iraq is an insane policy. We should be bringing the troops there back home -- not doubling their number.

Second Poll Verifies Public Support For The Iraq Bombing

A few days ago, I presented a survey showing a majority of the American approves of the U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq. Now that has been verified by a second poll. This time it's the ABC News / Washington Post Poll -- conducted between August 13th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,025 adults, with a 3.6 point margin of error. The survey shows 54% of Americans support the bombing of the Sunni insurgents.

But while they support the bombing, a majority (51%) do not approve of President Obama's handing of the Iraqi conflict. I would have to assume that while the public doesn't mind killing Iraqis, they don't want to endanger any American soldiers while doing that. They oppose Obama's decision to put American troops back into Iraq -- more than 500 so far (supposedly to train and help with planning by Iraqi government forces, and to protect the American embassy and the airport).

The public support for the bombing has to mean that many Americans see the conflict as being between the "good" Iraqis (who must be defended) and the "bad" Iraqis (who must be killed). I think that is a rather naive view. There are no "good" or "bad" forces in Iraq -- only two religious groups that hate each other. And neither of those groups is a real ally of the United States.

Neither side is fighting for freedom or democracy. It is a religious civil war, being waged by politicized Sunnis and politicized Shiites -- and all either group wants is the ability to impose their own particular religious dogma on the country as a whole.

Most people see the Sunni insurgents as anti-American, and that is probably true. But the Shiites currently in control are no better. Their closest ally is Iran (which still consider the U.S. to be the "great Satan"), and while they make the appropriate noises to keep getting American money and arms, if push came to shove they would side with the Iranians against the U.S. -- and use the training and arms we have supplied against us.

We could not solve this religious crisis the first time we engaged in a war in Iraq (even though by invading we created the crisis), and we won't be able to solve it by re-engaging in their civil war. This can only be solved by the Iraqi people themselves. The best thing the U.S. could do is to stay out of the conflict -- and then try to establish normal relations again once it is over. Re-engaging in the religious conflict can only create more enemies for this country (on both sides).

The bottom chart shows the demographic breakdown of the public support for the bombing. Whiel the majority supports the bombing, that support is not universal. Women are split on the matter, and both young people and Hispanics show a plurality opposing the bombing.

Iran And al-Queda Hate Each Other

Bush, Cheney and McCain like to lump all the Middle Eastern groups that don't like us into one big group called terrorists. McCain has shown several times that he has trouble telling the players apart in that part of the world. But the real situation is a lot more complicated than that.

The fact is that many of the players in the Middle East hate each other as much as they hate us. That was made clear again yesterday, when one of al-Queda's biggest leaders launched a verbal assault on Iran.

Ayman al-Zawahiri (pictured above), al-Queda's leading voice since the virtual disappearance of Osama bin Laden, has put out a tape attacking Iran. He accused Iran of trying to marginalize al-Queda by blaming Israel for 9/11. He angrily claimed all responsibility for 9/11 for his group. He also accused Iran of helping the United States in their attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The charges being traded back and forth by both groups are ridiculous. Israel had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iran did not help the United States in Afghanistan. But the arguments do show how much the groups hate each other.

Iran is composed mainly of Shiites, while al-Queda is a Sunni group. Zawahiri and his group are afraid they are being marginalized in Iraq. It's becoming pretty clear that the Shiites will probably take over once the United States withdraws from Iraq. If they do, it would mean the end of al-Queda in Iraq.

In a strange twist of fate, al-Queda is being protected in Iraq by its sworn enemy -- the United States. While Bush claims to be fighting al-Queda in Iraq, the truth is that the only reason al-Queda can remain in Iraq is because we are holding back the Shiites. As long as we stay there, al-Queda can stay there also.

The easiest way to get al-Queda out of Iraq would be to withdraw our troops. Once the Shiites are freed to act, they will quickly get rid of al-Queda. So we are not in Iraq to fight al-Queda.

The only reasons we are still occupying Iraq and getting more of our troops killed, is for the Iraqi oil and for Bush's pride. Neither is worth the life of a single American soldier.

We need to withdraw our troops and let the Iraqis take care of al-Queda.

Myth Of al-Queda In Iraq

George Bush and his clone, John McCain, are still trying to convince Americans that the biggest threat in Iraq is al-Queda. They'd like for us to believe that if we leave Iraq, al-Queda would either take over there or at least be able to use Iraq as a base for their nefarious activities. The truth is there is absolutely no chance of either happening.

Let's look at just who the groups are that are vying for power in Iraq. First we have the Kurds, who inhabitat the northern part of the country. They are not interested in any part of Iraq except their northern homeland, and they are probably strong enough to control that whether we stay or leave Iraq. They don't like al-Queda, and al-Queda is unable to operate in that area of Iraq.

That leaves four groups vying for control of the rest of Iraq -- the Shiites, the Sunnis, the puppet government we installed and al-Queda. The strongest group is the Shiite militias, the largest of which is controlled by Sadr. This is the group most likely to take over in Iraq when we leave. If they do, they will install an Iranian-style theocracy.

The Shiites hate al-Queda (who are Sunni) and there is no way they would allow them to operate in Iraq. If the Shiites take over, al-Queda will be exterminated or run out of the country in short order.

The Sunnis are the second most powerful group in Iraq. The Sunni militias, called the "Awakening Movement", do not like al-Queda either. They consider them foreigners and trouble-makers. If the Sunnis came to power, they would not treat al-Queda any better than the Shiites. In fact, they are already fighting al-Queda with arms supplied by us. They certainly wouldn't provide a haven for them.

The third group is the puppet government installed by the Bush administration. There is no way they will survive once we leave. Their troops are not capable of fighting any of the other groups without our help. I expect these troops will desert and join either the Shiite or Sunni militias after the U.S. troops withdraw, and the government will quickly fall.

That leaves al-Queda, who is actually the weakest of the four groups. They do not have the numbers to engage in real military actions anymore. The only way they can fight is through terrorist actions -- suicide bombers and roadside bombs. The only reason they still exist in Iraq is because we are still occupying the country.

Once we leave, they will be unable to recruit new members there. Our presence is the only reason they can recruit anyone there at all. They will be left with a few foreign fighters, who will quickly be killed or kicked out by the Sunnis and Shiites who hate them.

Would there be a bloodbath if we leave? It's possible, but it would not be al-Queda doing it. The Sunnis and the Shiites will vy for power, and it might be a bloody civil war. But it might not. A majority of the Arab world believes these groups could come to an understanding, if we would just get out of the way.

So, staying in Iraq is not the way to get rid of al-Queda there. It's only our presence that allows them to even exist there. If we were really serious about fighting al-Queda, we would leave Iraq and go where they really have some power -- Afghanistan and Pakistan. All our occupation of Iraq is doing is allowing the real al-Queda forces to grow stronger in these two countries.

I am in favor of fighting al-Queda, and I have been since they attacked us on 9/11. The group should be crushed and it's leaders brought to justice. But staying in Iraq will never accomplish that.

Panel Says No Progress In Iraq

Both George Bush and John McCain would like for Americans to believe that they are making some progress in the Iraq War. In fact, McCain has actually said on the campaign trail that we are winning in Iraq. Unfortunately, that is just not true.

According to a report by the U.S. Institute of Peace, there has been no progress. The report was written by a panel of experts who advised the Iraq Study Group. It states, "The U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago. Lasting political development could take five to 10 years of full, unconditional U.S. commitment to Iraq."

The report did say that some minimal improvement in security had been achieved, but did not give Bush's troop surge credit for it. Instead, it credited the Sunnis who turned against al-Queda and the Shiite militia that has been obeying a truce declared by its leader.

The report also said that an immediate withdrawal could lead to more violence, and should be accompanied by an increase in U.S. troops stationed in neighboring countries. They are probably correct on all counts.

But I disagree with a couple of recommendations. It's not going to help the U.S. to increase troop strength in the area. The reason that the terrorists are angry with us in the first place is because we have troops stationed on Arabic soil. Increasing troop levels will only exacerbate the situation with the terrorists.

And it is probably best for us to get out of the way so the Iraqis can settle their differences. If we leave, the violence may well increase for a while. There is a civil war going on, and peace will not come until it is settled. Civil wars are violent affairs (as was our own), and all our occupation is doing is putting off the resolution of the civil war -- it is NOT helping to settle it.

Meanwhile, the supposedly safe "green zone" in Baghdad was attacked with rockets and mortars. Two American soldiers were killed and 17 were wounded. In southeastern Baghdad, another soldier was killed and 14 more wounded. That makes a total of 4018 American soldiers killed -- 115 this year since the supposedly victorious surge.

Our continued presence in Iraq is accomplishing nothing, except the killing of more American soldiers and the delay of an Iraqi solution. We need to bring them all home now.

64 Americans Die Needlessly In Iraq In September

Last month in Iraq, 64 more Americans died. This brings the total of American troops killed in the Iraq war to 3,807 as of Monday. Of course, the Bush administration is trying to frame it as a good thing. They want you to believe that the surge is working since this is the lowest number of Americans killed in four months.

Frederick Kagan, one of the architects of the "troop surge", says that U.S. troops have now secured most of the troubled areas in Baghdad, and that is why American deaths are lower. That's pure crap.

First of all, American deaths are not that much lower than the last two months. The website icasualties.org puts the number killed at 66 instead of 64. There were 84 killed in August and 78 killed in July.

That doesn't sound like that much of a drop to me, and 64-66 deaths is still far too many Americans to die when nothing is being accomplished. Nothing, that is, except to help our enemies to win the civil war in that country.

The tiny drop in American deaths had nothing to do with the surge. The real reason is because Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr (pictured above) has ordered his troops to stop fighting. Sadr, who is an ally of Iran, has decided to sit on the sidelines and let us fight the Sunnis for him. He knows that when we leave he can overthrow the puppet government and establish a Shiite state allied with Iran, because Shiites are the majority population and are well-armed.

So while we fight the Sunnis and Americans die, Sadr just waits in the wings to establish his Shiite theocracy. Does it make any sense that Americans are dying to give Iran a powerful new ally in the region? Thanks to Bush, that's exactly what we're doing and there's little we can do to prevent it.

If the Shiites are going to take over (and it looks like they will), they should have to do it on their own. We should not do it for them. Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis are our friends, and neither is worth more American deaths.

It is time to withdraw our troops -- the sooner the better. It is time our government realized that the puppet government will not survive no matter which side wins the civil war, and neither side will let us have the oil that Bush covets so much.

None of the possible outcomes is worth the life of a single American soldier.

Has Bush Gone Completely Insane ?

The only thing I can figure is that Bush has gone completely insane. Why else would he be arming the Sunni insurgents?

It seems that recently the Sunni insurgents have had a falling out with al-Queda. So Bush has begun to give them arms to help them to fight al-Queda. Evidently he believes the old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He still hasn't realized that we have NO friends in Iraq.

These are the same Sunni insurgents that have been primarily responsible for the IEDs that have killed and maimed thousands of American troops. Just because they are arguing with and fighting al-Queda, doesn't mean they will stop trying to kill American soldiers!

It doesn't matter how much the Sunnis, Shiites and al-Queda hate each other. The fact remains that all three groups hate our troops as much as they hate each other. There is absolutely no doubt that these same weapons that we give them will be turned on our troops.

It was bad enough that the weapons we gave the Iraqi police and army were turned on our troops far too often. But to give arms directly to the insurgents boggles the mind. After all, there is a good reason they are called "insurgents".

This latest ridiculous action by Bush shows that he has no idea what he is doing in Iraq. We must cut off the war funding and force him to bring our soldiers home now, before he does something even crazier.

Bush has repeatedly proven he cannot be trusted with the power to wage war.