Iraqi president Maliki defies US military. Is this progress in Iraq?

Question

Yahoo News:
"U.S. and Iraqi forces raided the stronghold of a Shiite militia led by a radical anti-American cleric in search of a death squad leader in an operation disavowed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Maliki, who relies on political support from the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said the strike against a figure in al-Sadr's Mahdi militia in Sadr City "will not be repeated."

The defiant al-Maliki also slammed the top U.S. military and diplomatic representatives in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Answer 1

I think it's time to come home.

I don't there is anything more that can be done.

It's just lives lost, and nothing more accomplished if we stay longer.

Answer 2

I'm just starting to get hints at what a mess Iraq is becoming. America started out with a noble goal in mind: arrest Sadaam and bring democracy to the Iraqis. President Bush was going on the theory that everybody wants to enjoy freedom. Freedom as in a constitution and plenty of civil liberties. But the schisms are too great to patch over I'm afraid. There are two primary fault lines. On the Iraqi side it's Sunnis and Shias. On the American side it's the military and the civilians. The military must be subordinate to the civilians. Unfortunately the American civilians who are in control over there think they know more about running things than the American military. The job of the military is to control hostile factions through the sanction of deadly force. Something the militants understand. Knock a few heads and the rest fall into line. The American civilians seems to think that negotiations are the way to solve the problems. You can't negotiate with criminals. They'll just exploit your humanitarian impulses til the cows come home. For an example, see how General McArthur ruled occupied Japan. He was so successful at what he did at the head of a military government, that the Japanese still maintain his office as a museum. The Japanese revere his memory. But he had to hang a few bad guys to get everyone's undivided attention. How is Iraq any different in that respect?

Answer 3

Obviously the Iraqi governments course of action vastly differs from that of the U.S. government. So why are continuing to spend billions over there? To continue to train Iraqi Armed forces and stabilize a government that does not wish to be stabilized? Beyond that, if we were to leave would our conscience stand it if their "Civil war" erupted into full scale genocide? There are no good answers to Iraq, but it IS known that the omnipresent American Soldiers are not helping the situation--maybe it's time that we hand this over to the U.N. I think they would be considered more of a neutral force, and much of the violence could be contained with U.N. forces. Unfortunately, the mentality of many of these people do not permit a peacable solution, and I don't think any type of lasting peace is a viable option.

Answer 4

The mistake here was letting al-Sadr out of Najaf. It should've ended there.

Answer 5

Have you ever conducted a war before? I think there are a lot of adjustments to be made along the way. There will be disagreements and mistakes. And also...this is the media's take on the situation. They are known to spin the news to suit their political, liberal agenda...

Answer 6

Oh so when the Iraqi President is doing what the American military says this will be progress?

Answer 7

So, why are we there? I thought we had support?

Answer 8

nuke 'em