PDA

View Full Version : U.S. faces latest trouble with Iraqi forces: Loyalty


Taco John
03-06-2006, 08:05 PM
U.S. faces latest trouble with Iraqi forces: Loyalty
By Edward Wong The New York Times

MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2006


BAGHDAD For much of the war in Iraq, U.S. military commanders have said their most important mission here was to prepare Iraqi security forces to take over the fight against the Sunni- led insurgency. But with the threat of full-scale sectarian strife looming larger, they are suddenly grappling with the possibility that they have been arming one side in a prospective civil war.

Now, they are making it a central goal to weed out ethnic or religious loyalties from the Iraqi forces, particularly in the police, which is controlled at the highest levels by Iranian-backed religious Shiite parties. Militiamen loyal to conservative clerics have flooded the police ranks in Baghdad and the south, and reports of uniformed death squads have risen sharply in the past year.

The U.S. military risks alienating religious Shiite leaders with its efforts, but could win some favor among recalcitrant Sunni Arabs, further drawing them into the political process. It is trying an array of possible solutions, including affirmative action programs for Sunni Arabs in police academies, firing Shiite police commanders who appear to tolerate militias and deploying 200 training teams composed of Americans who had been police officers or military policemen to Iraqi police stations around the country, even in remote and risky locations.

For example, U.S. commanders say they have ensured that a new academy class of 1,200 paramilitary recruits is virtually all Sunni, to shift from Shiite dominance. Recently, U.S. advisers in Baghdad had a Sunni replace a Shiite paramilitary commander who appeared to tolerate Shiite militiamen. The new commander purged the ranks. Now, Shiite officers in that unit no longer openly display stickers of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, on their guns or cars, the U.S. advisers say.

Several of the initiatives, like the overhauling of the sectarian makeup of some academy classes, have been going on for months but are now being done on a larger scale. Others, such as the deployment of the new police training teams, are just getting started on any significant level.

There is no quick fix, senior military officials acknowledge: Besides resistance from Shiite politicians, cleansing the police forces could take years because sectarian loyalties have become so entrenched and because police officers are rooted in their communities.

The police came under harsh criticism during the violence following the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra on Feb. 22. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, as mobs led by Shiite militiamen attacked dozens of Sunni mosques and left hundreds dead, many police units stood aside out of confusion or sectarian loyalties, according to Iraqi witnesses. Iraqi security forces asserted their presence only after clerics called for calm.

General George Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Friday that police officers allowed militiamen through checkpoints in eastern Baghdad, where much of the violence occurred.

The Iraqi Army poses less of a problem than the police, because the U.S. military has direct operational control over it and because the Americans took more care in building it up.

The military's efforts to revamp the police are taking place alongside a strong push by the U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, to get Iraqi politicians who are forming the new government to appoint a nonsectarian figure as head of the Interior Ministry, which controls the police.

"When you're forming a government, you can't form it with any kind of sectarian element," said Major General J.D. Thurman, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, charged with controlling Baghdad. "That's got to be put aside, particularly with military forces."

Officials at the most powerful Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, which oversees the Interior Ministry, have sharply lashed out at the Americans, arguing that the majority Shiites have the right to control security because Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government used security forces to abduct, torture and kill Shiites on a mass scale.

"The Shiites were beheaded by the security forces before and we are not ready to be beheaded again," said Hadi al-Amiri, leader of the Badr Organization, Sciri's militia trained in Iran. "We can relinquish any part of the government except for the security forces."

The attempts to erase sectarianism dovetail with a broader U.S. initiative to strengthen police training by diverting more resources from mentoring the Iraqi Army. The military hopes to have 200,000 Iraqi police officers in place by early next year. The development of the police is in some ways more crucial than that of the army, because the Americans want the police to handle all security inside Iraq.

The units believed to be most plagued by militia recruitment and sectarian loyalties are the police paramilitary forces, which have a total of 17,500 fighters, the U.S. military says. The regular blue-uniformed police force numbers 89,000. But there are serious doubts about whether anyone has an accurate overall tally.

The paramilitary forces are divided three ways: the commandos, the public- order brigades and a mechanized brigade that will soon be shifted to the army.

The Interior Ministry is accused of sponsoring death squads in police or paramilitary uniforms. Khalilzad has been outspoken in his criticism of the interior minister, Bayan Jabr, and hinted last month that the Americans may withhold financing if sectarianism continues to dominate the security forces.

U.S. commanders say recent scrutiny of the public-order brigades, which were expanded after Sciri took control of the Interior Ministry in early 2005 and whose 7,700 members do light infantry duty, showed that virtually all the members were Shiites.

"When we stood them up, we didn't ask, 'Are you Sunni or are you Shia?'" Major General Joseph Peterson, the U.S. officer overseeing police training, said in an interview at a base in Taji, as he was visiting incoming soldiers assigned to advise the Iraqi police. "They ended up being 99 percent Shia. Now, when we look at that, we say, 'They do not reflect the population of Iraq.'"

No accurate census of Iraq exists, but the country is believed to be about 60 percent Shiite Arab, 20 percent Sunni Arab and 20 percent Kurdish (most Kurds are Sunni). The Americans have pushed the Interior Ministry to diversify the forces. All recruits in the public- order brigades have to go through a six- or seven-week training course, with 1,200 in each class. The Americans ensured that the last three classes enrolled greater numbers of Sunni Arabs: The first of those was 42 percent Sunni Arab, the second 92 percent Sunni and the third, which is just starting, is virtually all Sunni, Peterson said.

U.S. officers say that when they try to talk to Iraqi commanders about the religious or ethnic breakdown of the forces, the commanders tend to shy away from those conversations, as most Iraqis do, saying they prefer to think of themselves as one people rather than in terms of sect.

Colonel Gordon Davis, the top adviser to the public order brigades, said the senior commander of that force, a Shiite Arab from the old Iraqi Army, addresses the issue only with much reluctance. "'You shouldn't be talking like this,' he tells us," the colonel said in an interview at the Iraqi command base in Kadhimiya, a Baghdad neighborhood.

Davis said his advisers have no qualms about removing Iraqi commanders if it becomes evident they have sectarian loyalties.

For much of last year, the 2nd Public Order Brigade had a particularly bad reputation. It was accused by many Iraqis, especially Sunni Arabs, of torture and illegal killings. Its ranks were filled with men recruited from eastern Baghdad who were loyal to Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric who has led two rebellions against the Americans.

The head of the brigade was the former police chief of Nasiriya, a southern city under the sway of hard-line Shiite parties, and was "rumored to tolerate" militias, Davis said. The Americans replaced him with a Sunni Arab commander in December, who then fired 160 people below him, presumably because he suspected those men of ties to militias, the colonel said.

Davis said that having the Sunni Arab in charge proved helpful during the militia-driven violence the day of the shrine bombing. The brigade was dispatched to guard Sunni mosques around Baghdad. While the Sunni commander spoke to Sunni imams to calm them, his Shiite officers tried to placate the raging Shiite mobs.

Matthew Sherman, a former Interior Ministry adviser, though, said the commandos also have significant numbers of Shiites loyal to Sciri. Major General Adnan Thabit, a Sunni Arab, is head of the commandos in name only, he said, having ceded control to Shiite partisans. "They've just taken a more kind of political bent over the past 10 months or so," Sherman said.
.

alanm
03-06-2006, 10:08 PM
Is it me Taco or do you always find the longest most boring articles to read
. :)

Taco John
03-07-2006, 12:26 AM
Yeah, I like to try and break past the sound-byte level considering people are dying over this and all.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2006, 05:56 AM
But, we were told there were 150 Battalions we could rely upon just a short time ago...

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 08:28 AM
But, we were told there were 150 Battalions we could rely upon just a short time ago...

Uh, you do realize we’re discuss’n the Police, not the Military, right? :shrug:

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 08:32 AM
Is it me Taco or do you always find the longest most boring articles to read
. :)

I liked it. Didn’t try and lead to too many conclusions, just presented the information allowing the reader to form their own opinions. Good article Teej. :thumb:

Taco John
03-07-2006, 10:48 AM
That's pretty much why I liked it too... Painted as unbiased a picture as possible and just stated what was happening.

Ugly Duck
03-07-2006, 11:53 AM
Uh, you do realize we’re discuss’n the Police, not the Military, right? :shrug:Well... kinda - if you wanna call the paramilitary of the Interior Ministry that do light infantry duty mere "police."

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 11:58 AM
Well... kinda - if you wanna call the paramilitary of the Interior Ministry that do light infantry duty mere "police."

And they account for what percentage of the Police Force? :shrug:
Still part of the “Police Force”, though, if I’m not mistake’n. :hmmm:

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 12:00 PM
Well... kinda - if you wanna call the paramilitary of the Interior Ministry that do light infantry duty mere "police."

How’s ‘bout this, do you consider SWAT to be “military” or still part of the “police force”? :shrug:

go bowe
03-07-2006, 12:27 PM
well, swat takes orders from the president, so it must be military...

or, a swat is not a killing move, so they must not be military...

or, oh what the heck...

go bowe
03-07-2006, 12:29 PM
How’s ‘bout this, do you consider SWAT to be “military” or still part of the “police force”? :shrug:i think i read somewhere (probably on this forum) that a part of the paramilitary "police" are going to be transferred to the iraqi army...

i'm sure i read that at least the armored brigade is going to the army....

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 12:40 PM
well, swat takes orders from the president, so it must be military...

or, a swat is not a killing move, so they must not be military...

or, oh what the heck...

SWAT=Special Weapons And Tactics.
They’re a sub-organization of police forces.
But this is all digressing from the point that when AH mentioned "150 battalions" he’s referring to the Military and the Police are different from that.

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 12:42 PM
i think i read somewhere (probably on this forum) that a part of the paramilitary "police" are going to be transferred to the iraqi army...

i'm sure i read that at least the armored brigade is going to the army....

I’d assume “armor” belongs with the “military” also.
Though, they (the police) should probably keep ‘round some APC’s (Armored Personnel Carriers) for special circumstances.

go bowe
03-07-2006, 12:46 PM
SWAT=Special Weapons And Tactics.
They’re a sub-organization of police forces.
But this is all digressing from the point that when AH mentioned "150 battalions" he’s referring to the Military and the Police are different from that.yes, 150 would have to be the military...



and i know what swat means, i was trying to be stupid - looks like i succeeded... :( :( :(

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 12:50 PM
and i know what swat means, i was trying to be stupid - looks like i succeeded... :( :( :(

Don’t be down, dude. I know you’re kid’n ‘round. ;)

go bowe
03-07-2006, 12:53 PM
I’d assume “armor” belongs with the “military” also.
Though, they (the police) should probably keep ‘round some APC’s (Armored Personnel Carriers) for special circumstances.i think that was the idea, to provide armor support for police paramility forces when they attack whomever they end up attacking...

iirc, the idea is to put nationalist-minded officers in charge and try to weed out the infiltrators from either insurgents or shia militias...

the nationalist-minded officers thing is an effort to disorganize the shiite control and membership of most of the interior ministries paramilitary forces...

again, iirc, the police paramilitary are essentialy shiite militiamen in pretty government issued uniforms...

and the coalition wants to try to change that into an integrated force (with sunni and kurds, as well as shiites) controlled by the central government, not by any one sect...

which seems to be a very good idea...

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 01:09 PM
i think that was the idea, to provide armor support for police paramility forces when they attack whomever they end up attacking...

iirc, the idea is to put nationalist-minded officers in charge and try to weed out the infiltrators from either insurgents or shia militias...

the nationalist-minded officers thing is an effort to disorganize the shiite control and membership of most of the interior ministries paramilitary forces...

again, iirc, the police paramilitary are essentialy shiite militiamen in pretty government issued uniforms...

and the coalition wants to try to change that into an integrated force (with sunni and kurds, as well as shiites) controlled by the central government, not by any one sect...

which seems to be a very good idea...

Agreed, the article makes it sound as though problems are being recognized and changes are be’n made on the fly. That’s a good thing, IMO.
Course I’d wish they would be more proactive than reactive, but not everyone can be as flawlessly perfect as you and I. ;)

go bowe
03-07-2006, 01:17 PM
more proactive?

wouldn't that require that the administration to "anticipate" problems?

i hear they don't anticipate things very well, like levees breaking in a category 3 or 4 storm with it's attendent storm surge and heavy rainfall over a relatively long period... :p :p :p

Radar Chief
03-07-2006, 01:39 PM
more proactive?

wouldn't that require that the administration to "anticipate" problems?

i hear they don't anticipate things very well, like levees breaking in a category 3 or 4 storm with it's attendent storm surge and heavy rainfall over a relatively long period... :p :p :p

Well of course. That’s just add’n to the evidence that teh Debil isn’t as perfectly flawless as you and I. Nothing better should be expected from someone of’is ilk. ;)

Lurch
03-07-2006, 02:31 PM
Set a timeline for a reasonable pull-out of troops. Keep a small number in the country, unless a large scale civil war breaks out --in which case we cut our losses and get out of Dodge. We've given them the chance. It's theirs to use, or to piss down their leg at this point.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2006, 04:44 PM
Radar Chief, I see "paramilitary" as a military adjunct of a police force, similar in role to the former Soviet MVD, or KGB Border Guard Batallions. That's the impression I've gotten from articles commenting on the organization of Iraqi forces.

I also see "Loyalty" as an issue of great concern with the local Iraqi forces, be they civil, military, or some hybrid thereof (like the case mentioned above).

JMO.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2006, 04:47 PM
Set a timeline for a reasonable pull-out of troops. Keep a small number in the country, unless a large scale civil war breaks out --in which case we cut our losses and get out of Dodge. We've given them the chance. It's theirs to use, or to piss down their leg at this point.

I couldn't agree more.

go bowe
03-07-2006, 09:21 PM
Well of course. That’s just add’n to the evidence that teh Debil isn’t as perfectly flawless as you and I. Nothing better should be expected from someone of’is ilk. ;)ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Logical
03-07-2006, 09:59 PM
Set a timeline for a reasonable pull-out of troops. Keep a small number in the country, unless a large scale civil war breaks out --in which case we cut our losses and get out of Dodge. We've given them the chance. It's theirs to use, or to piss down their leg at this point.That is what I have been saying for months, it is time to minimize our losses. To much has already been lost on this pit with no forseeable return benefit.

Ugly Duck
03-07-2006, 11:28 PM
That is what I have been saying for months, it is time to minimize our losses. To much has already been lost on this pit with no forseeable return benefit.Talk that talk, Vlad! Lets not forget that we were sold on this war to destroy WMDs and to keep Soddom from helping Al Qeda. Although we now know that the WMD thing wuzza farce and that Sodom wuzzn't in cahoots with AQ, the friggin' mission was accomplished. This diversion to the "free the Iraqi people" nation-building thing is a lame excuse for continuing the occupation - no way would America have bought this war if that was presented to us instead of the WMD scare. We keep calling this a "war" but these daze its just an occupation where we skirmish with insurgents and the occasional foreign jihadist. Eventually, inevitably, it'll come down to them doing their democracy thing in their own Iraqi way. We don't need to wait for election time here at home to suddenly announce victory - lets announce it now.

Loki
03-07-2006, 11:35 PM
That is what I have been saying for months, it is time to minimize our losses. To much has already been lost on this pit with no forseeable return benefit.

certainly you can imagine the regional "ripple effect" if democracy DOES
take hold in iraq. i guarantee you that old f*ckass khomeini is SQUIRMING
at the very though...

Logical
03-07-2006, 11:39 PM
Talk that talk, Vlad! Lets not forget that we were sold on this war to destroy WMDs and to keep Soddom from helping Al Qeda. Although we now know that the WMD thing wuzza farce and that Sodom wuzzn't in cahoots with AQ, the friggin' mission was accomplished. This diversion to the "free the Iraqi people" nation-building thing is a lame excuse for continuing the occupation - no way would America have bought this war if that was presented to us instead of the WMD scare. We keep calling this a "war" but these daze its just an occupation where we skirmish with insurgents and the occasional foreign jihadist. Eventually, inevitably, it'll come down to them doing their democracy thing in their own Iraqi way. We don't need to wait for election time here at home to suddenly announce victory - lets announce it now.

I wonder how many people like me who supported the start of the war would have been against it had they known we were setting the stage for another Al Quaida base of operations? I certainly would not have. Perhap Iraq eventually would have become a base of operations under Saddam but I bet it would have taken much longer than what has already happened.

Loki
03-08-2006, 12:21 AM
I wonder how many people like me who supported the start of the war would have been against it had they known we were setting the stage for another Al Quaida base of operations? I certainly would not have. Perhap Iraq eventually would have become a base of operations under Saddam but I bet it would have taken much longer than what has already happened.

i take it you don't think those douchebags operating in their neighbor's
backyards (blowing up their family, friends, children, schools, mosques,
etc) instead of abroad (where it's less personal and more acceptable to
the average joe muslim) has any negative effect on their overall
perception and/or support base?

i really don't agree with your assessment that we have "set the stage
for another al-quaida base of operations".

i can assure you that average iraqi joe muslim is fully PISSED about
the foreign terrorists and insurgents in their nation. intel (GOOD intel)
has been coming in off the streets to our troops for a while about foreign
fighters and their location(s). they're either being arrested, or taking dirt
naps.

Ugly Duck
03-08-2006, 01:28 AM
i really don't agree with your assessment that we have "set the stage
for another al-quaida base of operations".

i can assure you that average iraqi joe muslim is fully PISSED about
the foreign terrorists and insurgents in their nation.
Vlad may be righter about this than you give him credit for. Remember this Iraqi opinion poll? Kinda makes you wanna send them more of our tax money, eh?:

BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

Remember this CIA assessment?:

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

Ugly Duck
03-08-2006, 01:45 AM
Another neocon agrees with Vlad and smaks the cabal (Time Magazine):

What I Got Wrong About the War
As conservatives pour out their regrets, I have a few of my own to confess
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

Posted Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006
Was I wrong to support the war in Iraq? Several conservatives and neoconservatives have begun to renounce the decision to topple Saddam Hussein three years ago. William F. Buckley Jr., as close to a conservative icon as America has, recently wrote that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." George F. Will has been a moderate skeptic throughout. Neoconservative scholar Francis Fukuyama has just produced a book renouncing his previous support. The specter of Iraq teetering closer to civil war and disintegration has forced a reckoning.

In retrospect, neoconservatives (and I fully include myself) made three huge errors. The first was to overestimate the competence of government, especially in very tricky areas like WMD intelligence. The shock of 9/11 provoked an overestimation of the risks we faced. And our fear forced errors into a deeply fallible system. When doubts were raised, they were far too swiftly dismissed. The result was the WMD intelligence debacle, something that did far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than many have yet absorbed.

Fukuyama's sharpest insight here is how the miraculously peaceful end of the cold war lulled many of us into overconfidence about the inevitability of democratic change, and its ease. We got cocky. We should have known better. The second error was narcissism. America's power blinded many of us to the resentments that hegemony always provokes. Those resentments are often as deep among our global friends as among our enemies--and make alliances as hard as they are important. That is not to say we should never act unilaterally. Sometimes the right thing to do will spawn backlash, and we should do it anyway. But that makes it all the more imperative that when we do go out on a limb, we get things right. In those instances, we need to make our margin of error as small as humanly possible. Too many in the Bush Administration, alas, did the opposite. They sent far too few troops, were reckless in postinvasion planning and turned a deaf ear to constructive criticism, even from within their own ranks. Their abdication of the moral high ground, by allowing the abuse and torture of military detainees, is repellent. Their incompetence and misjudgments might be forgiven. Their arrogance and obstinacy remain inexcusable.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169898,00.html

Eye Patch
03-08-2006, 08:46 AM
'We are brothers': U.S. transfers control of much of Baghdad

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, March 7, 2006

BAGHDAD — The U.S. Army has handed over the security of a major part of Baghdad to Iraq's military.

In what was termed one of the largest transfers of operations, the U.S.-led coalition handed over security responsibility for several parts of Baghdad to the Iraq Army. The areas where Iraqi authorities would assume responsibility were identified as western Baghdad and eastern Abu Ghraib.

The handover was conducted by the U.S. Army's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. In a ceremony on March 2, the Iraq Army's Sixth Division, 3rd Brigade, assumed security responsibility, Middle East Newsline reported.
"We are comrades," Iraqi Brig. Gen. Aziz Noor, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, said. "The Iraqi army and the American forces are brothers. We bleed together. We shed tears over the same fallen comrades."

Officials said the transfer of security responsibility was one of the largest since 2004. They said western Baghdad and Abu Ghraib contained key facilities and marked a major test of the Iraqi security forces.

"The American forces are giving freedom back to the people of Iraq, just as they did in Japan, Germany and Korea," Aziz said. "We are receiving this area of responsibility and the job to protect it. God willing, we will be able to do so."

The Iraqi and U.S. brigades have been patroling Baghdad since mid-2005. The U.S. 1st Brigade helped train and mentor the Iraqi 3rd Brigade.

"Never have I seen a group of soldiers learn so quickly and advance so efficiently," U.S. Army Col. Jeffrey Snow, 1st BCT commander, said.

Loki
03-08-2006, 09:38 AM
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01



i take it you didn't check the dates on your "supporting" articles.

old news dude.

but i can't really fault you as most of this news comes from returning
troops, and not the biased fishwrap you're quoting.
apparently, the newsmedia doesn't feel that POSITIVE news
out of iraq is a good thing... :shrug:

DanT
03-08-2006, 10:14 AM
Another neocon agrees with Vlad and smaks the cabal (Time Magazine):

What I Got Wrong About the War
As conservatives pour out their regrets, I have a few of my own to confess
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

Posted Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006
Was I wrong to support the war in Iraq? Several conservatives and neoconservatives have begun to renounce the decision to topple Saddam Hussein three years ago. William F. Buckley Jr., as close to a conservative icon as America has, recently wrote that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." George F. Will has been a moderate skeptic throughout. Neoconservative scholar Francis Fukuyama has just produced a book renouncing his previous support. The specter of Iraq teetering closer to civil war and disintegration has forced a reckoning.

In retrospect, neoconservatives (and I fully include myself) made three huge errors. The first was to overestimate the competence of government, especially in very tricky areas like WMD intelligence. The shock of 9/11 provoked an overestimation of the risks we faced. And our fear forced errors into a deeply fallible system. When doubts were raised, they were far too swiftly dismissed. The result was the WMD intelligence debacle, something that did far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than many have yet absorbed.

Fukuyama's sharpest insight here is how the miraculously peaceful end of the cold war lulled many of us into overconfidence about the inevitability of democratic change, and its ease. We got cocky. We should have known better. The second error was narcissism. America's power blinded many of us to the resentments that hegemony always provokes. Those resentments are often as deep among our global friends as among our enemies--and make alliances as hard as they are important. That is not to say we should never act unilaterally. Sometimes the right thing to do will spawn backlash, and we should do it anyway. But that makes it all the more imperative that when we do go out on a limb, we get things right. In those instances, we need to make our margin of error as small as humanly possible. Too many in the Bush Administration, alas, did the opposite. They sent far too few troops, were reckless in postinvasion planning and turned a deaf ear to constructive criticism, even from within their own ranks. Their abdication of the moral high ground, by allowing the abuse and torture of military detainees, is repellent. Their incompetence and misjudgments might be forgiven. Their arrogance and obstinacy remain inexcusable.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169898,00.html

Neither the Bush Administration nor anyone else in favor of a war with zero moral or legal justification ever was on the moral high ground. The moral high ground is where the 10 Commandments, which includes prohibitions against killing and bearing false witness, was handed down from God.

Worshipping the state as an idol and ascribing to the state such ridiculous powers as Mr. Sullivan confesses to above is not something that happens on the moral high ground. That's for the gutter.

nomad
03-08-2006, 11:41 PM
It's criminal that our leadership couldn't figure out that once Saddam was gone Iraqi society would be de-stabilized by neighbor Arab nations and sectarian loyalities would trump any attempt at democracy.

Bushco couldn't have been THAT ignorant could they?

(RHETORICAL)