Home
U.S. expert: Politics source of bad news in Iraq
WASHINGTON - "arenas of liberation"
Policy in Iraq is the perfect place if you want to look for bad news in Iraq, and if the country has witnessed an improvement relative steady over the past years, the policy in that country has seen a noticeable decline, it remained the files stuck and stalled government partnership and increased foreign intervention, according to see what an American expert.
The Director of Defense Research on the initiative of the twenty-first century at the Brookings Institution, Michael Ouhanlun, in a study published, the current month, at the site of The National Interest, said that Iraq is still far less violent than before. Of course, everyone knows that the levels of violence in Iraq is much less than it was in 2004, and until the year 2007. But with the high-profile attacks during the summer of this year, some people have the impression that things had worsened significantly, and contributed to confusion in the press, sometimes by talking about a major upsurge in violence that seems to have undermined much of the gains of the past four years.
Director of research at the Brookings Institution, Michael Ouhanlun
There was no such escalation in the violence. Even when U.S. troops left Iraq's cities in 2009, and even when the Iraqis went to the polls in early 2010 and the expiration of some of the rest of the year to try to form a coalition government, and even when he returned about one hundred thousand U.S. troops to their country and dropped many American troops six brigades only "advice and assistance" at the end of the summer last year, the course of the deaths of civilians went down to the decline. Obviously if you look at the charts after a bad day or bad week, the data raise immediate concern. But there was a sustained period - say a full season - aggravated by the poor conditions steadily since 2007.
Reflect this fact, among other things, the balance achieved by the Iraqi security forces have increased their numbers grew and the strength and professionalism. And replaced by Iraqi forces to replace U.S. forces withdrew. Do not deny that Iraq is still a dangerous place, but in terms of statistical Iraq is more secure 95 per cent of what it was in 2006. And 2011, somewhat better than the year 2010, which was itself somewhat better in 2009. And provides all that a reasonable basis for hope.
The policy in Iraq, in contrast to the security situation, he fell backwards. Which is the right place if you want to look for bad news, a place to worrying developments and serious matter. And Ken Pollack and writes convincingly about a political system that experienced a dilemma, the concept of forming a coalition government, a big mouth does the trick of it as everyone hoped. An Iraqi leaders do not speak to one another and exchange contempt.And still Hakepta interior and defense ministers from without in the coalition government formed in late 2010.
Iraq's Sunnis notice again the hands of Iran (as well as hearts filled with revenge) in the agendas of political parties, dominated by Iraqi Shiites. The Kurds still aspire to expand the Kurdistan region to include the control of the disputed territories in the south, such as the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and its environs. Sadr's movement, which is part of Maliki's coalition and his fellow Shiites, is a terrible force in Iraqi politics. There are two terrorist groups, complement disorders Icheaha al Qaeda, which is expected he still retains a thousand of his fighters in the country (compared with less than 100 currently in Afghanistan). Fortunately, oil prices means that there is money received by the central government, and relieve some of the anger that can be exacerbated other than that, but the civil war in Iraq that took place a few years ago can not be considered definitively expired.
As a result, the survival of three thousand U.S. troops in Iraq is a very small number. We learned in the first days of September September that the Obama administration proposes a plan for the survival of three thousand troops in Iraq in 2012, if agreed by Baghdad. To be fair, that the number of three thousand soldiers is more than approved by Iraq so far, and will be better than nothing.This group can assist in supervising the training of Iraqi forces, and provide communication links intelligence, and provide guidance on arms sales, and to a limited extent, assist in the operation of military equipment not owned by the Iraqi forces so far, such as unmanned aircraft.
However, what can not be done three soldiers carrying a large sign on the ground. It can not they have to shove themselves into the tense areas. May not be able to participate in confidence-building missions in volatile areas, which need to reassure the various parties. And can not get out of those soldiers in joint patrols and joint checkpoints with members of the Iraqi army and police forces as well as the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in those parts of northern Iraq, which is still a disputed territory. In short, the small number of troops it can not help win more time for Iraq, at the time of the telemedicine wounds, and time to build trust and establish individual relationships across different organizations and sectarian groups, and perhaps help solve even the cause of a major political relationship (such as the future status of Kirkuk, which supposed to be decided through a referendum) or at least defuse some of the conflicts in part.
A strong U.S. forces ranging between ten thousand to 20 thousand that the above-mentioned tasks in Iraq. If those troops remained, for the transfer of more than three years, they may cost us a total of 30 to 40 billion dollars. A small price to consolidate the gains achieved by investing a trillion dollars in Iraq, which is one of the countries of the Middle East's most pivotal. The Obama administration reconsider the number of troops remaining in Iraq, and we hope that the Baghdad government do the same thing as well.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
WASHINGTON - "arenas of liberation"
Policy in Iraq is the perfect place if you want to look for bad news in Iraq, and if the country has witnessed an improvement relative steady over the past years, the policy in that country has seen a noticeable decline, it remained the files stuck and stalled government partnership and increased foreign intervention, according to see what an American expert.
The Director of Defense Research on the initiative of the twenty-first century at the Brookings Institution, Michael Ouhanlun, in a study published, the current month, at the site of The National Interest, said that Iraq is still far less violent than before. Of course, everyone knows that the levels of violence in Iraq is much less than it was in 2004, and until the year 2007. But with the high-profile attacks during the summer of this year, some people have the impression that things had worsened significantly, and contributed to confusion in the press, sometimes by talking about a major upsurge in violence that seems to have undermined much of the gains of the past four years.
Director of research at the Brookings Institution, Michael Ouhanlun
There was no such escalation in the violence. Even when U.S. troops left Iraq's cities in 2009, and even when the Iraqis went to the polls in early 2010 and the expiration of some of the rest of the year to try to form a coalition government, and even when he returned about one hundred thousand U.S. troops to their country and dropped many American troops six brigades only "advice and assistance" at the end of the summer last year, the course of the deaths of civilians went down to the decline. Obviously if you look at the charts after a bad day or bad week, the data raise immediate concern. But there was a sustained period - say a full season - aggravated by the poor conditions steadily since 2007.
Reflect this fact, among other things, the balance achieved by the Iraqi security forces have increased their numbers grew and the strength and professionalism. And replaced by Iraqi forces to replace U.S. forces withdrew. Do not deny that Iraq is still a dangerous place, but in terms of statistical Iraq is more secure 95 per cent of what it was in 2006. And 2011, somewhat better than the year 2010, which was itself somewhat better in 2009. And provides all that a reasonable basis for hope.
The policy in Iraq, in contrast to the security situation, he fell backwards. Which is the right place if you want to look for bad news, a place to worrying developments and serious matter. And Ken Pollack and writes convincingly about a political system that experienced a dilemma, the concept of forming a coalition government, a big mouth does the trick of it as everyone hoped. An Iraqi leaders do not speak to one another and exchange contempt.And still Hakepta interior and defense ministers from without in the coalition government formed in late 2010.
Iraq's Sunnis notice again the hands of Iran (as well as hearts filled with revenge) in the agendas of political parties, dominated by Iraqi Shiites. The Kurds still aspire to expand the Kurdistan region to include the control of the disputed territories in the south, such as the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and its environs. Sadr's movement, which is part of Maliki's coalition and his fellow Shiites, is a terrible force in Iraqi politics. There are two terrorist groups, complement disorders Icheaha al Qaeda, which is expected he still retains a thousand of his fighters in the country (compared with less than 100 currently in Afghanistan). Fortunately, oil prices means that there is money received by the central government, and relieve some of the anger that can be exacerbated other than that, but the civil war in Iraq that took place a few years ago can not be considered definitively expired.
As a result, the survival of three thousand U.S. troops in Iraq is a very small number. We learned in the first days of September September that the Obama administration proposes a plan for the survival of three thousand troops in Iraq in 2012, if agreed by Baghdad. To be fair, that the number of three thousand soldiers is more than approved by Iraq so far, and will be better than nothing.This group can assist in supervising the training of Iraqi forces, and provide communication links intelligence, and provide guidance on arms sales, and to a limited extent, assist in the operation of military equipment not owned by the Iraqi forces so far, such as unmanned aircraft.
However, what can not be done three soldiers carrying a large sign on the ground. It can not they have to shove themselves into the tense areas. May not be able to participate in confidence-building missions in volatile areas, which need to reassure the various parties. And can not get out of those soldiers in joint patrols and joint checkpoints with members of the Iraqi army and police forces as well as the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in those parts of northern Iraq, which is still a disputed territory. In short, the small number of troops it can not help win more time for Iraq, at the time of the telemedicine wounds, and time to build trust and establish individual relationships across different organizations and sectarian groups, and perhaps help solve even the cause of a major political relationship (such as the future status of Kirkuk, which supposed to be decided through a referendum) or at least defuse some of the conflicts in part.
A strong U.S. forces ranging between ten thousand to 20 thousand that the above-mentioned tasks in Iraq. If those troops remained, for the transfer of more than three years, they may cost us a total of 30 to 40 billion dollars. A small price to consolidate the gains achieved by investing a trillion dollars in Iraq, which is one of the countries of the Middle East's most pivotal. The Obama administration reconsider the number of troops remaining in Iraq, and we hope that the Baghdad government do the same thing as well.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
