|
|||
|
No, Thank You—Don’t Come AgainPosted on Sep 11, 2011
Moqtada al-Sadr, who is either the sharpest thorn in the side of U.S. forces in Iraq or the linchpin of an Iraqi parliament frequently on the verge of coming apart—or both—has ordered his followers not to attack U.S. troops in order to make sure the occupiers leave as quickly as possible. The U.S. military is officially unwelcome in Iraq after Dec. 31, but there are negotiations aimed at allowing some troops to remain for an additional period. If that happens, al-Sadr says his “military operations will be resumed in a new and tougher way.”
Advertisement Previous item: Video Game Companies Cash In on Tax Tokens Next item: Concern in New Egypt as Police Raid Al-Jazeera New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By drbhelthi, September 12, 2011 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
“Last month, Iraqi leaders began negotiating with US officials to keep at least several thousand troops in Iraq to continue training the nation’s shaky security forces.”
Please support this statement with a citation by reps. of Moqtada al-Sadr - - .
The message of Moqtada al-Sadr does not obtain parity with the idea of Iraqi officials negotiating to keep >at least< several thousand US troops to train Iraqi security forces. However, that US officials are finagling to keep a large footprint in Iraq makes more sense. Like, maybe not 45,000, but rather, a huge reduction, down to only 40,000 ? Then, what about the 50,000 US operatives and US civilian employees, plus embassy staff ? Do they also get to remain?
Report thisBy tolstoy, September 12, 2011 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
Clearly, the US wants to keep a foothold in Iraq as part of its “garrison the globe” overall policy. This is a mistake, unless we want another war in Iraq. Al Sadr must not be underestimated. He commands an enormous army which was largely responsible—by NOT becoming involved militarily—for the success of the so-called “surge” acclaimed by Bush some years back. We should get out and let Iraq deal with its own problems. Note how slanted this AP article is to keeping US troops on hand. Wider analysis is needed on whether Iraq can deal with its security issues, other than from the POV of the biased Kurds. But US “garrisoning the globe” policy will determine what happens. Continued war, continued war policies of the last 10 years likely.
Report this