summarized article by Ernesto Londoro, Washington Post Staff Writer
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked to President Bush today concerning the new security plan that has been established in Baghdad and around Iraq to help quell the rash of recent sectarian violence "has achieved fabulous success." The three-day old measure involves a coalition of Iraqi and U.S. that have been sweeping through the city to root out the insurgents and bring back a sense of order. Little resistance has been offered to this point in those missions, and other aspects of the mission include more enforcement of civilians possessing weapons and making the borders more strict between Iran and Syria. U.S. Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, was much more cautious in his approach towards the new plan, saying that the enemy could be taken a break from militant action in an effort to size up where the new gaps are in the security of Iraq. From what it sounds like, Maliki is trying to save face here and be very upbeat about the situation to bring more positive sway to his side of the Iraq fight. The move is very smart because it starts to instill confidence in the civilians on the ground, but you have to really hope that his claims are legitimate. The U.S. General sounds much more realistic about the situation, but that could just be a result of his fear at what could happen next.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq Injured in Clash, Official Says
By Ernesto Londono, Washington Post Staff Writer
According to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, the current leader of al-qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was injured and one his aides was killed in an incident yesterday. Masri took over for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after he was killed in 2006 by a U.S. airstrike. The aide was considered a "personal escort" to Masri, but questions were raised concering whether the Iraqis had identified the right person as Masri was rumored not be even in the region. From this incident, it looks like the US/coalition forces are still focusing on eradicating al-Qaeda from Iraq despite the rapid rise of violence not associated to the terrorist group led by Osama Bin Laden. The conflicting reports about Masri's whereabouts in this case also create a question within me. Is this story being embellished or fabricated? Is this just a ploy to intill confidence? It'd be nice to have some real solid evidence in this case.
According to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, the current leader of al-qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was injured and one his aides was killed in an incident yesterday. Masri took over for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after he was killed in 2006 by a U.S. airstrike. The aide was considered a "personal escort" to Masri, but questions were raised concering whether the Iraqis had identified the right person as Masri was rumored not be even in the region. From this incident, it looks like the US/coalition forces are still focusing on eradicating al-Qaeda from Iraq despite the rapid rise of violence not associated to the terrorist group led by Osama Bin Laden. The conflicting reports about Masri's whereabouts in this case also create a question within me. Is this story being embellished or fabricated? Is this just a ploy to intill confidence? It'd be nice to have some real solid evidence in this case.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Iranian's Aid Militants, Bush Alleges
summarized article by Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
President George W. Bush announced yesterday that according to intelligence within Iraq, Iran is aiding the militants who are behind many of the attacks oon both civilians and US military interests. Bush was quick, however, to indicate that this statement was not an indication that the US was planning to go to war with Iran. He also stated that he has no direct evidence that the government in Tehran is providing the orders. Bush also touched on the Iraq situation in the press conference asking for Congress not to cut funding or set timetables for pulling out the troops due to new progress he felt has occured within Baghdad. Speaking on condition of anonymity, higher-ups in the US administration in Iraq claimed that this involvement from Iran comes from "high levels" of the Tehran government. Without a doubt, Bush needs to tread cautiously here as his credibility is already very very skewed due to the inaccurate intelligence he offered in the run up to the Iraq war. I would hope, with American lives on the line, that Bush is actually going to be intelligent about this situation and look for diplomacy, not violence.
Washington Post Staff Writer
President George W. Bush announced yesterday that according to intelligence within Iraq, Iran is aiding the militants who are behind many of the attacks oon both civilians and US military interests. Bush was quick, however, to indicate that this statement was not an indication that the US was planning to go to war with Iran. He also stated that he has no direct evidence that the government in Tehran is providing the orders. Bush also touched on the Iraq situation in the press conference asking for Congress not to cut funding or set timetables for pulling out the troops due to new progress he felt has occured within Baghdad. Speaking on condition of anonymity, higher-ups in the US administration in Iraq claimed that this involvement from Iran comes from "high levels" of the Tehran government. Without a doubt, Bush needs to tread cautiously here as his credibility is already very very skewed due to the inaccurate intelligence he offered in the run up to the Iraq war. I would hope, with American lives on the line, that Bush is actually going to be intelligent about this situation and look for diplomacy, not violence.
Armed Iraqis Way of Security Plan
summarized article by Ernesto Londoño and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Iraqis, used to carrying pistols and other weaponry on the streets of Baghdad since the invasion, will now face strict policies forbidding them in public places. The new rule comes as a result of a new security plan that is slowly being implemented as part of a massive effort to curtail raging violence in the country. Many Iraqi's, including the shop owner featured in this article, feel that carrying a pistol is neccesity for protection in everyday life inside the limits of Baghdad. "We don't like guns, but we have to have them. I think every house should have a gun," said one civilian. The new plan is expected to be bolstered by the 21,500 troops arriving from the US from now until May. Efforts are currently underway for this movement, nicknamed "Operation Law & Order", to increase checkpoints in Baghdad and solidfy the Iraqi border. A major US general was quoted as saying that this entire process of getting the Iraqi army to an efficient state will likely take more than 2 years. I can definitely see both sides to this story, because personal security in Baghdad and Iraq is at a very low point and the desire to protect yourself would be overwhelming. The right to possess weapons is a natural right in America, but there are obvious regulations as to how you can carry a gun in public. If this move proves to be successful and limits violence, then yes take the guns away, but if personal attacks and bombings keep increasing then personal security will not only be granted but will be taken into the hands of civilians. Hindsight is 20/20, however.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Iraqis, used to carrying pistols and other weaponry on the streets of Baghdad since the invasion, will now face strict policies forbidding them in public places. The new rule comes as a result of a new security plan that is slowly being implemented as part of a massive effort to curtail raging violence in the country. Many Iraqi's, including the shop owner featured in this article, feel that carrying a pistol is neccesity for protection in everyday life inside the limits of Baghdad. "We don't like guns, but we have to have them. I think every house should have a gun," said one civilian. The new plan is expected to be bolstered by the 21,500 troops arriving from the US from now until May. Efforts are currently underway for this movement, nicknamed "Operation Law & Order", to increase checkpoints in Baghdad and solidfy the Iraqi border. A major US general was quoted as saying that this entire process of getting the Iraqi army to an efficient state will likely take more than 2 years. I can definitely see both sides to this story, because personal security in Baghdad and Iraq is at a very low point and the desire to protect yourself would be overwhelming. The right to possess weapons is a natural right in America, but there are obvious regulations as to how you can carry a gun in public. If this move proves to be successful and limits violence, then yes take the guns away, but if personal attacks and bombings keep increasing then personal security will not only be granted but will be taken into the hands of civilians. Hindsight is 20/20, however.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Response #2
Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom" and Thomas Friedman's "Petropolictics" both offer insightful views on why democracy has yet to flourish in its ideal form in the Middle East and other oil-laden countries. Friedman offers that there is a direct correlation between the ability for democracy to succeed in a country whose pockets are lined deep with oil revenues. Zakaria tends to focus more on how democracies are set up in countries, arguing that democracies can only succeed is the rule of law and constitution are set prior to elections, rather than vice-versa.
Friedman's argument begain when he noticed how a single country -- Bahrain -- was the only one to begin a full-fledged fair democracy in the middle-east. He noted the connection between it's dwindling oil supplies and revenues as contributing factors. Upon further review, nearly every other middle-eastern country had failed to support a working democracy because their oil-wealth allowed the government at hand to acheive complete control. It also allowed for a complete failure of building an otherwise sustainable economic system in the country because oil profits could trump any other neccessity. Friedman's argument really doesn't finger ethnicity or the Islamic religion as a whole because of his additional comparisons to Venezuela and African countries whose primary religion is not Islam. Friedman's conclusions on how oil affects politics and the economy do not hold an explicitly positive outlook for the future of Iraq because they are another country that benefit heavily for its massive oil supply. Iran is in the same boat because before oil prices elevated to the $40-60 range, Iran had been pushing economic reform and for a better society, but today that progress has been directly impeded by the amount of green the leaders in Tehran are seeing.
Zakaria's approach to the situation doesn't as much deal with the factor of oil in the equation as it does to the way the original structure of the government is founded. He essentially builds on Freidman's theory. Zakaria has concluded that the incorrect way to create a stable working democracy is by providing elections first and then a rule of law second. According to Zarkaria, he feels that the odds of these newly elected leaders in countries where democracy is a foreign ideal will never work because it becomes an illiberal democracy. Sure, the leaders are or were voted to office, but they have no stipulations to follow once they are there. Zakaria believes that people should draft the rule of law prior to the election of leaders because then it provides accountability and a greater understanding on how their leaders should operate within a checks and balances system. Again, Zakaria does not single out Islam or ethnicity as the primary motive as to why this order is needed in establishing government, but he rather points at human nature and instinct as to why the system does not operate efficiently. For these very reasons are why Zakaria is opposed to the way Bush has handled the situation in Iraq, and it's hard not to agree with him. The Constitution of Iraq still doesn't have a deep meaning to it's people and their leaders aren't true believers either, which coordinates to create a situation where democracy has a very slippery slope to reach the top. Iran again is the same way as there are elections, but the President in Tehran is not held to standards set forth in a democratic constitution.
It's hard to find faults in either system that Friedman and Zakaria outline because they both have real-life tangible examples of how their theory has or has not worked in the world today. I have to agree with both principles as it's very easy to realize that democracy is not happening in the countries where these situations are present, but it other countries where the Constitution took hold or the oil reserve is dwindling, practices are changing and democracy and liberalism are finding stepping stones to the top.
Friedman's argument begain when he noticed how a single country -- Bahrain -- was the only one to begin a full-fledged fair democracy in the middle-east. He noted the connection between it's dwindling oil supplies and revenues as contributing factors. Upon further review, nearly every other middle-eastern country had failed to support a working democracy because their oil-wealth allowed the government at hand to acheive complete control. It also allowed for a complete failure of building an otherwise sustainable economic system in the country because oil profits could trump any other neccessity. Friedman's argument really doesn't finger ethnicity or the Islamic religion as a whole because of his additional comparisons to Venezuela and African countries whose primary religion is not Islam. Friedman's conclusions on how oil affects politics and the economy do not hold an explicitly positive outlook for the future of Iraq because they are another country that benefit heavily for its massive oil supply. Iran is in the same boat because before oil prices elevated to the $40-60 range, Iran had been pushing economic reform and for a better society, but today that progress has been directly impeded by the amount of green the leaders in Tehran are seeing.
Zakaria's approach to the situation doesn't as much deal with the factor of oil in the equation as it does to the way the original structure of the government is founded. He essentially builds on Freidman's theory. Zakaria has concluded that the incorrect way to create a stable working democracy is by providing elections first and then a rule of law second. According to Zarkaria, he feels that the odds of these newly elected leaders in countries where democracy is a foreign ideal will never work because it becomes an illiberal democracy. Sure, the leaders are or were voted to office, but they have no stipulations to follow once they are there. Zakaria believes that people should draft the rule of law prior to the election of leaders because then it provides accountability and a greater understanding on how their leaders should operate within a checks and balances system. Again, Zakaria does not single out Islam or ethnicity as the primary motive as to why this order is needed in establishing government, but he rather points at human nature and instinct as to why the system does not operate efficiently. For these very reasons are why Zakaria is opposed to the way Bush has handled the situation in Iraq, and it's hard not to agree with him. The Constitution of Iraq still doesn't have a deep meaning to it's people and their leaders aren't true believers either, which coordinates to create a situation where democracy has a very slippery slope to reach the top. Iran again is the same way as there are elections, but the President in Tehran is not held to standards set forth in a democratic constitution.
It's hard to find faults in either system that Friedman and Zakaria outline because they both have real-life tangible examples of how their theory has or has not worked in the world today. I have to agree with both principles as it's very easy to realize that democracy is not happening in the countries where these situations are present, but it other countries where the Constitution took hold or the oil reserve is dwindling, practices are changing and democracy and liberalism are finding stepping stones to the top.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Bombs Kill 70 in Iraqi Capital
Summarized article by Joshua Partlow, Washington Post Foreign Service
Yet another suicide attack in the capital city of Baghadad today serves as a chilling reminder -- one that happens on at least a weekly basis right now -- of how the Iraq situation is progressing. Shortly after noon, a series of explosions rocked a market with nearby mosques and churches killing at least 70 civilians. The toll included mostly Shiites and engulfed a warehouse leaving a black cloud of smoke over the city. The explosions occurred as thousands of Shitte Muslim citizens rallied for peace in Baghdad. There is little direct explanation for the attacks, although 3 people were arrested in connection -- including one Iraqi. The Shiites have habitually been striking back with masked gunmen attacks, however, there have been none lately after an apparent order from Shiite militia head Moqtada al-Sadr to work for reconciliation.
--
It was interesting in yet another report about the common suicide attacks in Iraq to come across names that had been mentioned in our textbook, The Prince of the Marshes. Moqtada al-Sadr's name was dropped in connection with appears to be a positive step in the situation, as he has called off retaliation attempts by his militia over the bombings of his fellow Shiites. Sadr even had a member of his army quoted as saying that they have direct "orders not to intervene" although they were very upset by the attacks. In addition, the member continued in saying that they are "focusing on national reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites." This could definitely be a postitive step from within Iraq because of the apparent power that Sadr has in Iraq following the demise of the Baathist party once led by Saddam.
Yet another suicide attack in the capital city of Baghadad today serves as a chilling reminder -- one that happens on at least a weekly basis right now -- of how the Iraq situation is progressing. Shortly after noon, a series of explosions rocked a market with nearby mosques and churches killing at least 70 civilians. The toll included mostly Shiites and engulfed a warehouse leaving a black cloud of smoke over the city. The explosions occurred as thousands of Shitte Muslim citizens rallied for peace in Baghdad. There is little direct explanation for the attacks, although 3 people were arrested in connection -- including one Iraqi. The Shiites have habitually been striking back with masked gunmen attacks, however, there have been none lately after an apparent order from Shiite militia head Moqtada al-Sadr to work for reconciliation.
--
It was interesting in yet another report about the common suicide attacks in Iraq to come across names that had been mentioned in our textbook, The Prince of the Marshes. Moqtada al-Sadr's name was dropped in connection with appears to be a positive step in the situation, as he has called off retaliation attempts by his militia over the bombings of his fellow Shiites. Sadr even had a member of his army quoted as saying that they have direct "orders not to intervene" although they were very upset by the attacks. In addition, the member continued in saying that they are "focusing on national reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites." This could definitely be a postitive step from within Iraq because of the apparent power that Sadr has in Iraq following the demise of the Baathist party once led by Saddam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)