PDA

View Full Version : Iraq: Permanent U.S. Bases Unacceptable



ali_ababa
12-15-2007, 01:42 PM
Iraq will never allow the U.S. to keep permanent military bases on its soil, the government’s national security adviser has said.
"We need the United States in our war against terrorism, we need them to guard our border sometimes, we need them for economic support and we need them for diplomatic and political support," Mowaffaq al-Rubaie said.
"But I say one thing, permanent forces or bases in Iraq for any foreign forces is a red line that cannot be accepted by any nationalist Iraqi," he said, speaking to Dubai-based al Arabiya television in an interview broadcast late Dec. 10.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3242165&C=mideast

To be honest with you - i think this is all crap. Mowaffaq al-Rubaie just said this in order to be on more 'friendly' terms with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. In fact, it has worked since the UAE and Saudi Arabia will reopen diplomatic missions etc. in Baghdad which will lead to embassies.

As an Iraqi, I would love Iraq to host American military bases in Iraq so that it deters Iraq's neighbours from invading (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.).
Also, it means Iraq will remain democratic and no more dictatorships.

A friendship that America has with Germany, South Korea and Japan i hope will happen to Iraq as well.

tulanealum
12-15-2007, 03:54 PM
You might want that, but most Iraqis don't. I'm not saying it would be beneficial for Iraq, but for now, it just isn't a good idea...as a matter of fact, we SHOULD be echoing Rubaie's thoughts...we've never reached out to the Iraqis and said why we're in Iraq other than democracy, etc. Stating that we don't want to stay in Iraq forever and reinforcing this attitude could help...it certainly can't hurt.

The goal is not to set a timetable in the short-term, but to explain that we are not planning on being there 20 years from now if things have improved and there is no longer any war...we will leave quicker through peace than through fighting.

JeffC
12-15-2007, 04:50 PM
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3242165&C=mideast

To be honest with you - i think this is all crap.

As an Iraqi, I would love Iraq to host American military bases in Iraq so that it deters Iraq's neighbours from invading (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.).
Also, it means Iraq will remain democratic and no more dictatorships.



Speaking of "crap", why would an authentic Iraqi citizen, as you claim to be, choose to use Wikipedia as a reference for his signature quote commemorating "Iraq's True Leader Abdul Karim Qassim" when there must be hundreds of authentic cultural references to choose from?

The short answer is, he wouldn't. Only a person creating a sock identity to post to an Internet forum would make that kind of mistake, "Ali Ababa".

Ken White
12-15-2007, 06:36 PM
Speaking of "crap", why would an authentic Iraqi citizen, as you claim to be, choose to use Wikipedia as a reference for his signature quote commemorating "Iraq's True Leader Abdul Karim Qassim" when there must be hundreds of authentic cultural references to choose from?

The short answer is, he wouldn't. Only a person creating a sock identity to post to an Internet forum would make that kind of mistake, "Ali Ababa".

that's an attack on the poster, not his comment. We try to refrain from that. Thanks.

JeffC
12-15-2007, 07:16 PM
that's an attack on the poster, not his comment. We try to refrain from that. Thanks.

If the poster isn't genuine, meaning he is pretending to be something that he's not, it isn't an attack, Ken. I simply don't believe that this poster is real, and I'm saying it as simply and directly as I know how. If calling the poster on it is not allowed, then what is the preferred method, because I really don't think that it's in anyone's interest to tolerate fictional characters as members, do you?

If Ali Ababa can demonstrate to a moderator, via a qualified email address or in some other way, that's he's an Iraqi citizen, then I'll be happy to apologize for my mistake and I'll make a donation of US$50 to the International Red Crescent in his name.

http://donate.ifrc.org/

Ron Humphrey
12-15-2007, 08:07 PM
If the poster isn't genuine, meaning he is pretending to be something that he's not, it isn't an attack, Ken. I simply don't believe that this poster is real, and I'm saying it as simply and directly as I know how. If calling the poster on it is not allowed, then what is the preferred method, because I really don't think that it's in anyone's interest to tolerate fictional characters as members, do you?

If Ali Ababa can demonstrate to a moderator, via a qualified email address or in some other way, that's he's an Iraqi citizen, then I'll be happy to apologize for my mistake and I'll make a donation of US$50 to the International Red Crescent in his name.

http://donate.ifrc.org/

thats the reason I chose to try questioning the overall intention of his first post ref the IP was for this type of thing. If someone is trying to muddy the water then one of the best ways to counter might be to add more water thus lessening the dilution or by point / counter point. I think this will always show whats what in the end.

Just my take though, so take it for what it's worth.

Ken White
12-15-2007, 08:35 PM
If the poster isn't genuine, meaning he is pretending to be something that he's not, it isn't an attack, Ken. I simply don't believe that this poster is real, and I'm saying it as simply and directly as I know how. If calling the poster on it is not allowed, then what is the preferred method, because I really don't think that it's in anyone's interest to tolerate fictional characters as members, do you?

If Ali Ababa can demonstrate to a moderator, via a qualified email address or in some other way, that's he's an Iraqi citizen, then I'll be happy to apologize for my mistake and I'll make a donation of US$50 to the International Red Crescent in his name.

http://donate.ifrc.org/

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I'd point out that you have no proof of your accusation and his ability to disprove it may be limited by circumstances of which we are not aware -- or even no desire to respond which is his right. The owners and operators of this Board are entitled to establish rules as they wish and it behooves us who post here with their permission to heed those rules.

We'll have to differ on your first sentence, above. You correctly provided that all important caveat of "If." That's the point, it's not known and yet you accused.

You offer is generous but moot and no apology is required. While there are admittedly folks all over the internet using pseudonyms and providing false backgrounds, the position here is take posters at face value. If it's an overriding issue for you, you could send him a polite Private Message as an inquiry. Please address your comments on the open board to the comment made, not the individual who made it.

Thanks again and we should just move on.

SWCAdmin
12-16-2007, 03:23 AM
Thanks again and we should just move on.

Sage advice in two posts from Ken White, only the tail end of which is quoted here. FYI, the red and yellow cards next to the offensive posts are infractions and indicate moderator interventions.

We do not vouch for ali-ababa's credentials or position, and do not object to JeffC's basic questioning of them, but the absence of tact and elegance in so doing is not welcome here. This is not a UFC Smackdown.

Ron Humphrey
12-16-2007, 04:09 AM
I can't imagine this ever not having been an expectation both from the HN or US sides after going in.

To me it seems to make sense that from the perspective of the Coalition you don't invest the time, money, and resources most importantly human and otherwise and not expect to make sure it wasn't all in vain or at least in long term benefit to yourselves. And from the HN side why would you not want those who helped you get where you are to stick around long enough to keep everybody else from taking advantage of your weakened state.

As far as the populace go I would guess as long as things continue changing in one form or another they will act based on how it affects them at their local levels more than based on any large scale changes.

As time goes by I could see them caring more about the upper echelon leaders.

selil
12-16-2007, 04:43 AM
While there are admittedly folks all over the internet using pseudonyms and providing false backgrounds, the position here is take posters at face value.

People aren't using their real names or they use pseudonyms? Where? Oh wait that would be me....

Obscured identities do serve the purpose of allowing people to be more truthful even if the anonymity is not as deep as they expect. You have awesome advice Mr. White that promotes understanding. I prefer to have my assumptions challenged through the mediation of the Internet rather than find them flawed on the battle field (metaphorically of course since I'm scared of conflict). Courtesy in debate regardless of the topic engenders reason even in the face of abject ignorance. One of the things I've respected and honored about SWC is the clarity of reason and purpose that professionals in the art of arms bring to the scholarship of conflict.

Ken White
12-16-2007, 05:19 AM
People aren't using their real names or they use pseudonyms? Where? Oh wait that would be me...

ergo your pen name is one of those sudo-whatchamacallits in name only...

Hmmm. Something wrong with that sentence... :confused:

My MOS used to be 00XY; Small Unit Coward, Non-tactical -- so obviously I share your dislike of violence and conflict. :eek:

JeffC
12-16-2007, 06:57 AM
I can't imagine this ever not having been an expectation both from the HN or US sides after going in.

To me it seems to make sense that from the perspective of the Coalition you don't invest the time, money, and resources most importantly human and otherwise and not expect to make sure it wasn't all in vain or at least in long term benefit to yourselves. And from the HN side why would you not want those who helped you get where you are to stick around long enough to keep everybody else from taking advantage of your weakened state.


I don't think we can leave Iraq until we've fixed what we broke. I can't imagine a single history of this event being written that doesn't reflect badly on the actions of the U.S. government going in. As far as I can tell, the only saving grace left to us is how we exit. And as far as keeping a permanent base is concerned, that's a certain way to keep us at the top of the al Qaeda recruiting posters.

Sean Osborne
12-16-2007, 02:51 PM
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3242165&C=mideast

To be honest with you - i think this is all crap. Mowaffaq al-Rubaie just said this in order to be on more 'friendly' terms with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. In fact, it has worked since the UAE and Saudi Arabia will reopen diplomatic missions etc. in Baghdad which will lead to embassies.

As an Iraqi, I would love Iraq to host American military bases in Iraq so that it deters Iraq's neighbours from invading (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.).
Also, it means Iraq will remain democratic and no more dictatorships.

A friendship that America has with Germany, South Korea and Japan i hope will happen to Iraq as well.

I agree with you in large measure Ali Ababa.

But in consideration of the point of origin of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie's statement, I don't think it is all crap, rather that it reflects a significant amount nationalist fervor. I tend to think in this statement that he was reacting to the agreement between Bush and al-Maliki (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001648.html)would would establish a bilateral pact after the UN mandate expires - a long term defense pact between the United States and Iraq not unlike that preiously concluded with Germany, Japan, South Korea.

With history as a guide and knowing the threat posed by other bordering states, I think such a long-term pact might be essential in the interests of Iraq and the U.S. It could be similar to what as the U.S. has agreed to with Kuwait. The U.S. military support and infrastructure facility at Arifjan, Kuwait is as about as "permanent" as they come.

Ken White
12-16-2007, 06:07 PM
I don't think we can leave Iraq until we've fixed what we broke. I can't imagine a single history of this event being written that doesn't reflect badly on the actions of the U.S. government going in. As far as I can tell, the only saving grace left to us is how we exit. And as far as keeping a permanent base is concerned, that's a certain way to keep us at the top of the al Qaeda recruiting posters.

there are many more who think that some of the actions of the US government on going in (bad effort at explaining why; poor performance by an unprepared Army) will be justifiably placed in a bad light but that many others will be more fairly judged and there'll even be a few accolades. We'll have to wait about 15-20 years and see.

I'd also suggest that the exit will be a long time coming, perhaps not even occurring by that 15-20 year mark and that the effect of staying atop AQ recruiting posters is of little to no concern.

JeffC
12-16-2007, 10:27 PM
I'd also suggest that the exit will be a long time coming, perhaps not even occurring by that 15-20 year mark and that the effect of staying atop AQ recruiting posters is of little to no concern.

Which is one of many reasons why the so-called War on Terror is doomed to last forever. We don't address the underlying causes for terrorism to flourish.

It's also a good example of why it took so long to figure out a COIN strategy that worked; a strategy that should have seemed obvious at the outset. We're making the same mistake in the GWOT. Where's our COIN strategy for that "war"?

Sean Osborne
12-16-2007, 11:23 PM
Which is one of many reasons why the so-called War on Terror is doomed to last forever. We don't address the underlying causes for terrorism to flourish.

Nah, it's not the underlying causes of Islamic terrorism that's the issue.

It's the ideological source of the jihadist's terror and the abject failure to correctly identify the enemy instead of his tactic.

Ken White
12-17-2007, 12:39 AM
attempt to compress five to six generations worth of change at a 'normal' pace or using the flawed idea of containment and / or diplomatic processes into two or three generations by forcing accelerated change.

Those are ME generations of around fifteen years. So you're looking at 30 to 40 years, six of which have already passed. I'd expect another three to five years of low to moderate conflict -- the ME doesn't so major conflict well and will try to avoid it and then a gradual tapering to an acceptable level.

Some success should be obvious within the next three to five years and much of that will be achieved in the efforts that are going on behind the scenes that most people are unaware of. Cutting funding networks, pressure on the Islamic nations to disavow terrorism; the low key law enforcement and intelligence stuff that must by nature (and is) hidden from view and that has been successful to a fair degree thus far and that goes on every day. Friend of mine's been working those issues an he's been in nine countries in the last six years. A lot of that is missed because many are focused on Iraq and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

Thus the long war strategy is there -- and Iraq was and is just a small part of that strategy; it's just the most visible. By design, I'm pretty sure. The strategy is working, its practical application just isn't visible.

The COIN strategy was visible to many in the Armed forces at the outset -- and even before. Obviously you've never tried to turn the behemoth bureaucracy around and may be missing the political correctness that pervades DoD. Sanchez was put in place, custom and the PC effect meant he had to remain in place for the first year or so, regardless of screwups. He was a senior General raised through the PC Army who had absorbed the "Big War" mantra. He was replaced by another, similarly minded General. Took 18 month to recognize the screwups (far better than the seven years it took in Viet Nam) and another 18 months to turn the elephant in a new direction (far more than it took in Viet Nam because the institution had absorbed another 30 year of Bureaucracy building). Then it took about 18 months to get those changes embedded (about the same time as it took in Viet Nam). The Army deserves praise for figuring it out, changing the training regimen and getting down to business.

That PC effect also is the element that seems to obscure the identification of the real motivator. It known, just unstated for a variety of really excellent reasons. If it weren't known, we wouldn't be where we are doing what we're doing. If you cannot seal the borders and guarantee no strikes in this huge, diverse nation with very leaky borders, then you must go to the source of the problem and work on the root issue. To work on root issues, you have to be where the roots are located.

JeffC
12-17-2007, 01:06 AM
attempt to compress five to six generations worth of change at a 'normal' pace or using the flawed idea of containment and / or diplomatic processes into two or three generations by forcing accelerated change.

OK, I exaggerated a bit with "forever". You got me. :)



Obviously you've never tried to turn the behemoth bureaucracy around and may be missing the political correctness that pervades DoD.

Not DOD, but in the private sector, yes. It's not only a depressing exercise, but in the near future it's a serious problem in getting up to speed in cyber warfare.


That PC effect also is the element that seems to obscure the identification of the real motivator. It known, just unstated for a variety of really excellent reasons. If it weren't known, we wouldn't be where we are doing what we're doing.

Oh, Ken. Please don't tell me that you believe that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorists.

Ken White
12-17-2007, 01:15 AM
. . .
Oh, Ken. Please don't tell me that you believe that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorists.

We're looking for roots, not terrorists. Iraq just happens to be easy and a centrally located place from which to look...:D

JeffC
12-17-2007, 01:58 AM
We're looking for roots, not terrorists. Iraq just happens to be easy and a centrally located place from which to look...:D

Well, I guess the weather is better there than Afghanistan.

Ken White
12-17-2007, 02:32 AM
Well, I guess the weather is better there than Afghanistan.

is not in the ME; Afghans don't do international ops and they don't do suicide bombings nor do many if any of them harbor delusions of grandeur. No roots and not close enough to them.

Iraq OTOH is centrally located in the ME and is important in the minds (remember that) of those who do international ops, encourage suicide bombing and find locals willing to partake. It is also directly adjacent to several folks who have delusions of grandeur. Thus its closer to the fertilizer of those roots -- it also offered the advantage of not being in Afghanistan where some hoped and planned for us to go

Afghanistan for many reasons is a virtual backwater and will remain so; Iraq for more reasons has the prospect of being a dominant local power -- certainly of being an effective counter to some who would aspire to that role.

Plus Afghanistan was and is in no position to effectively allow the insurance of continued world oil supply from the entire ME, an item of some strategic importance to us; we really want China and India to have all the oil they need and yes, the weather is a little better. :D

JeffC
12-17-2007, 03:41 AM
is not in the ME; Afghans don't do international ops and they don't do suicide bombings nor do many if any of them harbor delusions of grandeur. No roots and not close enough to them.

Iraq OTOH is centrally located in the ME and is important in the minds (remember that) of those who do international ops, encourage suicide bombing and find locals willing to partake. It is also directly adjacent to several folks who have delusions of grandeur. Thus its closer to the fertilizer of those roots -- it also offered the advantage of not being in Afghanistan where some hoped and planned for us to go

Afghanistan for many reasons is a virtual backwater and will remain so; Iraq for more reasons has the prospect of being a dominant local power -- certainly of being an effective counter to some who would aspire to that role.

Plus Afghanistan was and is in no position to effectively allow the insurance of continued world oil supply from the entire ME, an item of some strategic importance to us; we really want China and India to have all the oil they need and yes, the weather is a little better. :D

Afghanistan is where al Qaeda and bin Laden operate from, along with the Taliban who support them; the planners of 9/11, and the original focus of our war on terror.

Yet we've abandoned that part of the world, the Taliban are on the brink of re-taking Kandahar, and bin Laden and al Qaeda continue to operate out of there in spite of our un-matched military and several hundred Billion dollars spent.

Imagine what kind of "street credibility" that gives the Taliban and al Qaeda?

Ken White
12-17-2007, 04:16 AM
Afghanistan is where al Qaeda and bin Laden operate from, along with the Taliban who support them; the planners of 9/11, and the original focus of our war on terror.

Was it the original focus -- or merely the first step in the global strategy implementation.

Is AQ or the Taliban the be all and end all for international Islamic terrorism or are they one of many players -- and relative latecomers and inept ones at that?


Yet we've abandoned that part of the world, the Taliban are on the brink of re-taking Kandahar, and bin Laden and al Qaeda continue to operate out of there in spite of our un-matched military and several hundred Billion dollars spent.

We have abandoned it? Do the US Embassy or the 30K troops we have there know this? Does NATO know it? More importantly, do the Tailbs and AQ know it?

Do the Canadians know the Taliban are on the brink of retaking Kandahar. My suspicion is 3 R22eR is not aware of this...


Imagine what kind of "street credibility" that gives the Taliban and al Qaeda?

After six years of failure, not much.

selil
12-17-2007, 04:58 AM
I read a pundit quip a couple months back that the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to have a staging point to attack Pakistan. In the same article (wish I remembe where I read it but was likely on here), the pundit said the reason we attacked Iraq was to attack Iran... Ok I laughed the first time, but now y'all are scaring me... Next thing y'all will be telling me there is not Santa.

Norfolk
12-17-2007, 04:58 AM
We have abandoned it? Do the US Embassy or the 30K troops we have there know this? Does NATO know it? More importantly, do the Tailbs and AQ know it?

Do the Canadians know the Taliban are on the brink of retaking Kandahar. My suspicion is 3 R22eR is not aware of this...

Probably not. Yesterday the VanDoos were too busy counting 45 dead Taleban and AQ bodies (unusual for AQ these days to be in the field alongside the Taleban) well to the south-west of said town, to take much notice.

Ken White
12-17-2007, 05:20 AM
Thanks for the update.

Ken White
12-17-2007, 05:30 AM
I read a pundit quip a couple months back that the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to have a staging point to attack Pakistan. In the same article (wish I remembe where I read it but was likely on here), the pundit said the reason we attacked Iraq was to attack Iran... Ok I laughed the first time, but now y'all are scaring me... Next thing y'all will be telling me there is not Santa.

Get the important point out of the way real quick. ;)

Pakistan and Iran have never really been in the picture barring a major malfunction. METT-T and all that. Too hard box and guauranteed to disrupt world oil supply which we do not want to do.

Afghanistan was the Arm for an Arm of the WTC Fly-in. Iraq was for bases and also an Eye for Eye for attacks on US interests around the globe. Think about the corollary. Remember the ME is strong on retribution and he who does not respond in kind is looked on as a coward and a target. They're specific in their retribution. From OBL / Afghanistan to NYC and DC -- and right back atcha from DC to Afghanistan. They understood that.

They also understood they've been attacking us around the world for 20 years and we did little or nothing about it. Then came Iraq. Most westerners couldn't understand that, too many still don't because of the loopy way the admin pitched it. However, the ME understood it -- they said they didn't and tried to forestall it because of the consequences -- but they understood...

JeffC
12-17-2007, 05:41 AM
Was it the original focus -- or merely the first step in the global strategy implementation.

Is AQ or the Taliban the be all and end all for international Islamic terrorism or are they one of many players -- and relative latecomers and inept ones at that?

As long as 9/11 is the rallying cry for the GWOT, then the criminals behind 9/11 should be our first priority.



We have abandoned it? Do the US Embassy or the 30K troops we have there know this? Does NATO know it? More importantly, do the Tailbs and AQ know it?


You should visit IntelFusion (http://www.intelfusion.net). I've listed two reports (one from last November and one for last month) that are pretty shocking in terms of what the Taliban are accomplishing.

And in spite of that, the Chairman of the JCS has advised Gates to deny the movement of 15,000 Marines into Afghanistan to help out. I'd like to hear the military justification for that, if there is one. More likely, there's a political justification instead.

JeffC
12-17-2007, 05:55 AM
Probably not. Yesterday the VanDoos were too busy counting 45 dead Taleban and AQ bodies (unusual for AQ these days to be in the field alongside the Taleban) well to the south-west of said town, to take much notice.

It's a bit more complicated than that:

U.S. Notes Limited Progress in Afghan War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/25/ST2007112500076.html)
Strategic Goals Unmet, White House Concludes

NEW Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22934596-31477,00.html)says the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless NATO and its close allies change tactics, overhauling military and civil programs designed to bring stability to the country.

Ken White
12-17-2007, 06:16 AM
It's a bit more complicated than that:

U.S. Notes Limited Progress in Afghan War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/25/ST2007112500076.html)
Strategic Goals Unmet, White House Concludes

NEW Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22934596-31477,00.html)says the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless NATO and its close allies change tactics, overhauling military and civil programs designed to bring stability to the country.

on political maneuvering in national capitals in the west. Last first; Fitzgibbon is the new governments defense minister -- they would like to get out of the ME totally but do not want to overtly hack us off in the process. That just begins the disengagement effort. Thus, no surprise there.

On the first item, you might wish to note two things; the author is Karen De Young, Tom Ricks understudy as the WaPO defense guru. I'd recommend careful scrutiny of her writing and mild skepticism. Secondly, note the 'issue is that there's a disconnect between the miltary and the intel community on what's what. No surprise there, usually is. We may differ on who's been correct most often...

See also the post I just placed on the Security and Stability in Afghanistan Thread.

Sean Osborne
12-17-2007, 02:12 PM
We're looking for roots, not terrorists.

Roger. As a civilian I am capable of saying... the roots ARE the ideological source of the jihadist terror. That source is the reason for the political correctness within our prosecuting (read: warfighting) instutions (and leadership) which have abjectly failed to correctly identify the enemy vice the tactic and its executors.

Being in civilian attire has its advantages.


Iraq just happens to be easy and a centrally located place from which to look.

One of several in the CENTCOM AOR.

PhilR
12-17-2007, 07:19 PM
Iraq sees need for foreign troops for 10 years (Reuters, Dec 17)
BAGHDAD - Iraq will need foreign troops to help defend it for another 10 years, but will not accept U.S. bases indefinitely, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

"Of course we need international support. We have security problems. For 10 years our army will not be able to defend Iraq," Dabbagh told the state-run al-Iraqiya television in an interview broadcast late on Sunday.

"I do not think that there is a threat of an invasion of Iraq, or getting involved in a war. (But) to protect Iraqi sovereignty there must be an army to defend Iraq for the next 10 years," he said.

"But on the other hand, does Iraq accept the permanent existence of U.S. bases, for instance? Absolutely no. There is no Iraqi who would accept the existence of a foreign army in this country," he said. "America is America and Iraq is Iraq."

The United States now has about 155,000 troops in Iraq, formally operating under a U.N. Security Council mandate enacted after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Iraq has asked the Security Council to extend the mandate for what it says will be a final year to the end of 2008, and conditions for U.S. troops to stay on beyond that date are to be negotiated in the next few months.

Violence has subsided after the United States dispatched 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year, and Washington now says it will bring about 20,000 home by mid-2008. Troop levels for the second half of the year are to be decided in March.

ali_ababa
01-02-2008, 10:40 PM
JeffC,

Your comments made me laugh! - and their true

I am not an Iraqi citizen since my iraqi passport expired and i just couldn't be bothered to renew it. I'm not in a hurry to become an iraqi any time soon :D

I am just pro-western by nature.

Regards

P.S: If you can find me any cultural websites on Abdul Karim Qassim i would be grateful if you can post them.

Happy new year.