“The Advisor” 2 September, 2006

Download the_advisor_2_september_2006.pdf

This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “The Advisor” 2 September, 2006

  1. arbogast says:

    It is a horrific tragedy that Casey could have said this: “the Iraqi people ‘aren’t going to have the security that they want until the Iraqi security forces are the primary and dominant providers of security in the country. That won’t happen until all militias and insurgents are disbanded.’”
    By far the best reporter on the ground in Lebanon and Iraq is Le Monde’s Cécile Hennion. The following article (in French) gives us an idea about how soon militias, in this case in Lebanon, will be disbanded…and who really cares for the impoverished, victimized, and ignored population of Southern Lebanon.
    Au Liban sud, le Hezbollah impose sa loi et sa légitimité
    Article paru dans l’édition du 23.08.06
    Au sud du fleuve Litani, l’étendard national libanais a disparu sous le flot des drapeaux jaunes du Hezbollah. Les portraits de son chef, Hassan Nasrallah, règnent. Les routes sont jalonnées des effigies des 1 284 combattants chiites morts pour libérer le Sud de l’occupation israélienne (1978-2000)…

  2. Michael Murry says:

    Given that the American military assumed responsibility for Iraq’s security three-and-a-half years ago — and has provided steadily less of it with each passing day — it remains for someone to explain the basis upon which General Casey presumes to lecture anyone on the subject.
    The New York Times editorial board, for example, seems confused about Iraq’s so-called “security forces” and asked only the other day (09/01/2006): “Which Iraqi Army?” Some question seems to have arisen — due to an outbreak of recent inter-militia fighting — about whether the Shiite militia army of Moqtada al-Sadr or the Shiite militia army of SCIRI actually controls the southern part of the country through which logistical supplies, such as food and fuel, must travel north from Kuwait to reach a precariously exposed American Army. Dien Bien Baghdad, anyone?
    Also a bit confused on the topic of security, the Washington Post published an Associated Press report by Robert Burns (Friday, September 1, 2006) noting how General Casey’s own Pentagram says that “sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003. … In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon reported that illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.”
    Now, it would seem obvious to the casual observer that “providers of both security and basic social servies” sounds a lot like what most people associate with “government.” So, since these various provincial, city, and neighborhood militias provide the only resemblance to anything like a “government” in Iraq, why does General Casey suppose that the Iraqi people would abandon them in return for nothing more than empty rhetoric emanating weakly from the beseiged Baghdad Green Zone Castle? Wouldn’t that leave the Iraqi people with no “government” or “security” at all?
    An old adage maintains that “free advice is worth what you pay for it,” and since the Iraqi people do not seem inclined — or even able — to pay General Casey for his unsolicited advice about the “security” he cannot provide them, then perhaps the good general would have the good grace to stop offering it.

Comments are closed.