Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[Diana]

Below is an interesting article I found. It is a year later in Iraq. A Constitution have already been signed, and according to the latest polls, a majority of the Iraqis are optimistic about the future of their country.
--------------------------------------------

IRAQ, ONE YEAR LATER
Fri Mar 19, 3:32 AM ET

As Americans prepared to mark the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq (news - web sites) war, hopes were rising yesterday that Pakistani forces had caught a "high-value" al Qaeda asset.

Though the situation - and the identity of the "asset" - was unclear, signs suggested that it was Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who'd been nabbed. If true, it would mark a turning point in the War on Terror.

And would come - like so many events in this war - on an auspicious day: One year ago today, American and allied forces began to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s tyranny.

Undertaken little more than a year after the destruction of the Taliban/al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan (news - web sites), Operation Iraqi Freedom was a daring manifestation of the Bush administration's revolution in American foreign policy: the pre-emptive neutralization of threats presented by rogue states and terrorists.

In conventional military terms, the gamble paid off - immediately, efficiently, magnificently.

The cruel Ba'athist regime - which had slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, initiated two brutal wars against its neighbors and long threatened regional peace and stability - was destroyed in just weeks.

Where the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) saw about 100 allied combat deaths, Coalition losses in the 2003 war turned out to be a third of that.

This amazing statistic - and the fact that it took so little time to overrun Iraq - made the war an almost unprecedented feat of conventional arms.

Yes, some projections by the allied war planners turned out to be off the mark:

* The Shias of southern Iraq, remembering allied forces' cruel failure to support their 1991 rebellion, didn't rise up in support of the 2003 invasion (though they welcomed it nevertheless).

* The Iraqi army did not use chemical or biological weapons to slow down the allied assault as expected.

However, the predictions of the anti-war crowd were astonishingly wrong:

* Iraqi cities did not turn into Stalingrads or Groznys. There was no huge refugee crisis, no mass starvation - indeed no humanitarian or environmental catastrophe of any kind.

* It didn't require weeks of bloody house-to-house fighting to take Baghdad.

* Despite systematic violations of the laws of war by Iraqi forces (like wearing civilian clothes, driving in civilian vehicles and siting military outposts in civilian areas), civilian deaths were remarkably low relative to other major military conflicts - and the critics' predictions.

* The "Arab street" did not burst into flame, causing the overthrow of allied regimes in the region.

* Israel was not drawn into the war.

* The globe's billion-plus Muslims did not unite against America and its allies.

* Despite division, there was no irreparable breach with France, Germany, Canada or other Western allies that refused to support Saddam's ouster.

Some press coverage sought to depict attacks by Saddam Fedayeen and Ba'athist militias during - and, especially, since - the war as popular resistance to the Coalition. Yet the salient fact of the war was the disintegration of Saddam's armies and the remarkable lack of civilian hostility to the allied troops.

Apart from the speed of victory, of course, the two biggest surprises were the Coalition's failure to find weapons of mass destruction and - to some degree, offsetting that - the discovery of more mass graves than anyone ever imagined.

Weapons of mass destruction may yet turn up; as the Kay report noted, Saddam clearly had WMD programs, if not the weapons themselves.

But it now seems that the Bush administration and American intelligence were indeed misled about Saddam's stockpiles.

Then again, so were former President Clinton (news - web sites), Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the governments of France and Germany - and U.N. chief inspecter Hans Blix.

And maybe even Saddam himself.

Anyway, the invasion was unambiguously legal: Iraq was in violation of the letter and the spirit of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions - and of the Gulf War ceasefire of 1991.

Those resolutions demanded that Iraq declare and surrender WMD stocks and programs. America didn't need to prove anything; it was up to Saddam to comply with Security Council Resolution 687.

Passed in 1991, it placed the burden on the Iraqi regime to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision," of its WMD stocks and programs.

And this it did not do. Ever.

But the presumed existence of WMDs was neither the sole nor the strongest argument for regime change.

Saddam had given sanctuary to murderous terrorists, threatened neighboring states and demonstrated both the willingness and ability to commit mass murder on a genocidal scale.

His overthrow was a boon to the Iraqi people - and to the entire Middle East.

There are no guarantees, of course, but it seems clear that the allied project in Iraq is indeed working - despite the inherent difficulties of building a stable representative democracy in a land that has long known tyranny.

And which has become a primary target for ruthless Islamist terrorists.

Despite missteps by the Coalition Provisional Authority, continued guerrilla attacks by Ba'athists in the Sunni Triangle and terrorist outrages that have cost hundreds of innocent lives, things are getting better in Iraq.

According to the latest polls, the Iraqi people know this. And they appreciate it.

Meanwhile, toppling Saddam has had - and continues to have - a beneficial effect in the region.

An obvious example is the sudden capitulation of Libya's Moammar Khadafy, who abandoned a WMD program that was much more extensive than foreign intelligence services had believed.

The salutary effects of Saddam's removal can also be seen in the increased ferment in Iran, in calls for human rights and Kurdish self-determination in Syria - and in the new cooperativeness of Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf in matters of nuclear proliferation and the extirpation of al Qaeda.

Yes, Osama remains at large.

And yes, Iraq is a nation in transition.

But President Bush (news - web sites) laid it all on the line in speaking to the nation a year ago tonight: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment."

Now the overriding question is: Does America have the staying power to see it to a proper conclusion?

The answer will come in November.

For the moment, both the region and the world are, on balance, safer.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=106&e=2&u=/nypost/20040319/cm_nypost/iraqoneyearlater

[Excalibur]

to be well informed is a question of reading news among differents media

Is the world a safer place?
A year after the start of the US-led invasion of Iraq, the BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner looks at the repercussions of that war on the international security situation.

One of the criticisms of the was in Iraq is that it has made the world a more dangerous place. Is this correct?

In the short term, yes. The US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of a sovereign Arab country has provided a rallying point for those who see the West as neo-colonialists bent on oppressing Muslims and controlling Arab oil reserves.


While this is by no means a universal viewpoint in the Arab world, such suspicions have helped al-Qaeda's recruiting and extended their support base.
On the other hand, the war has removed any possibility that Iraq could have become a nuclear nation in the future with Saddam Hussein and his brutal sons having their fingers on the button.

Can we be sure we are seeing al-Qaeda's hand behind the attacks in Iraq?

No, we can't, although it looks increasingly likely that there is some cooperation between Islamist militants who fought in Afghanistan and local Iraqis violently opposed to the US military and its Iraqi allies.

There have also been a number of statements purporting to come from al-Qaeda which claim responsibility for major attacks in Iraq, and which threaten more.

What does this mean for the Middle East as a whole?

Arab regimes, especially those in the Gulf, generally dislike instability. This is why they were so concerned at the potential consequences of a US invasion of Iraq.

Now, one year on, they face several problems. These include small sections of their youth wanting to volunteer to fight the Americans in Iraq, and those young men, in turn, making links with local Islamists sympathetic to al-Qaeda; enormous pressure from Washington to reform and democratise; and a revival of old Sunni-Shia rivalries given the latter's newfound powers in Iraq.

One year on, what can we say about the success or otherwise of the "war on terror"?

It's a misleading term, because due to the ideological nature of the al-Qaeda movement this is not a war that can ever be definitively won or lost.

The West's early successes in depriving al-Qaeda of its physical bases in Afghanistan in 2001, then freezing suspect bank accounts, have given way to a growing realisation that the global threat of terrorism could be with us for decades.

Counter-terrorism intelligence co-operation between and within nations has improved enormously. But the bombings in Istanbul and Madrid prove that Islamic militants, whether linked to al-Qaeda or not, still have the capability to inflict massive death tolls.

Is there another way, or other ways, to prosecute this "war"?

The Pentagon, which is the main driving force behind the US-led "war on terror", has naturally tended to focus on military successes, including the killing or capture of key al-Qaeda figures.

But nearly every analyst agrees that not enough is being done to tackle al-Qaeda's popularity, which stems from a widespread Muslim disenchantment with both the US and its government allies in the region.

The lost opportunity of not planning properly for a swift victory over Saddam Hussein has had disastrous consequences for the West. Iraq is still a dangerous mess and Arabs blame the West.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3550189.stm
_________________
I could dance with you till the cows come home...On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows when you came home

[Diana]

Since the US-led war in Iraq, things are starting to change especially in the Middle East where most of the terrorists are from. The results show:

1. Saudi Arabia who wasn't very serious in cracking down on terrorism is now serious about it especially after two bombings in the country.

2. People in Iran have been protesting and demanding reforms from their government after the US-led war in Iraq.

3. Two dictorial regimes - the Taliban and Saddam - are now out! Saddam has been captured and his two sons are dead. The less dictators in the world, the BETTER - and this is a proven fact.

5. Iran and Libya have suddenly decided to cooperate with the UN weapons inspection after seeing what happened to Iraq. As Saddam defied the UN for 12 years, no country took the UN seriously. Now, after seeing what happened to Saddam, lo and behold, Iran and Libya have suddenly changed their song and dance.

6. Syria is now seeking for a peace treaty with Israel and the US after the US has threatened sanctions. Syria is also opening up its country to UN weapons inspection. In fact, the Syrian dictator said in a news report that he will do whatever America says.

7. About 75% of Al-Queda leaders are either killed or captured. That's good news. Bin Laden and his gang are now on the run and in hiding! Or do you prefer that Bin Laden and Al-Queda remain under the protective custody of the Taliban? I prefer that they remain on the run, hunted down, and exterminated like the rabid dogs they truly are.

8. Democratic reforms are taking place in Afhganistan and Iraq. A constitution have already been developed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

9. According to the latest polls taken on March 2004, a majority of the Iraqis stated that life is better now than under Saddam. The polls showed that 71% of the Iraqis are optmistic of their country's future. The Iraqis have read the letter published by Zarqawi, who is an Al-Queda leader. His letter translated in English is found in the weblink below:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040212_zarqawi_full.html

This is what the Iraqis have read, and as they can see, Zarqawi hates BOTH Sunni and Shi'ite muslims. The Iraqis understand that unity is what will defeat the enemy because the enemy cares only about themselves. Al-Queda failed to bring about a civil war between the Sunnis and Shi'ite muslims. Also, according to recent polls, 85% of the Iraqis support the continued missions of the Coaltion in Iraq.

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

Iraqis are now getting into the Internet and expressing how they feel. The weblink I posted above is one of the Iraqi blogsites.

10. There is also a change taking place in the Middle East. People in the Middle East are now having serious discussions about the US-led war in Iraq. According to Osama al-Ghazali Harb, a top figure at Egypt's semiofficial Al Ahram center for strategic studies, the most important think tank in Egypt, who published an article in the country's leading political quarterly, Al Siyassa Al Dawliya, in which he chastised those Arab commentators who argue that the way in which the U.S. captured Saddam was meant to humiliate Arabs.

Al-Ghazali Harb stated in his article: "What we, as Arabs, should truly feel humiliated about are the prevailing political and social conditions in the Arab world � especially in Iraq � which allowed someone such as Saddam Hussein to . . . assume the presidency. We should feel humiliated that Saddam was able . . . to single-handedly initiate a number of catastrophic policies that transformed Iraq, relatively rich in natural, human and financial resources, into the poorest, most debt-ridden country in the Arab world, not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed and displaced. We should feel humiliated that some of our intellectuals, supposedly the representatives of our nations' consciences and the defenders of their liberty and dignity, not only dealt with Saddam, but also supported him. . . . The Arabs should have been the ones to bring down Saddam, in defense of their own dignity and their own true interests."

There are many more articles like this now appearing all over the Middle East including Saudi Arabia who did not take terrorism seriously until AFTER the US-led war in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/opinion/19FRIE.html

11. There has not been any major terrorist attack since September 11th on US soil so far. The US have sent a strong message to Al-Queda that they will remain resolved and determined to defeat them. Therefore, Al-Queda has turned to attacking America's weaker allies and Iraqi citizens. Fortunately, the Iraqis also turned out to be strong. They did not give in to Al-Queda's goals.

Having a free and democratic Iraq is what the terrorists fear the most! They are against democracy! Why do you think they have now turned from attacking US soldiers to innocent Iraqi people who are trying to rebuild their country into a democratic one? Why do you think they are trying to undermine "reconstruction?"

[Excalibur]

[Diana]

[Excalibur]

[Diana]

Not taking out Saddam in 1991 was a great mistake of the United States and the coalition forces. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UN demanded that he withdraw from Kuwait. Since he refused, the US and its coalition went to war and succeeded in getting Saddam to withdraw. When the Iraqi people rose against Saddam at the encouragement of the US, they were hoping that the Iraqi people would be able to take out Saddam without any outside help. As we now know, that proved to be a mistake because the Iraqi people were unsuccessful. It was also a mistake for the UN, the international community, as well as the US and its coalition forces to stood by and do nothing while Saddam brutally slaughtered his own people in 1991 and buried them in mass graves. If the US had intervened in 1991, the Americans would not be in Saudi Arabia for 12 years containing Iraq, and more Iraqi lives would have been saved. The only thing I can not say is whether Iraq would have been a democracy in 1991 with Saddam out. There is a possibility that Iraq would resort to an undemocratic state probably similar to Iran in 1991. Today, however, polls show that most Iraqis favor a democracy.

Another mistake committed is allowing Saddam to continually defy the United Nations. Because of his defiance, other countries did not take the United Nations seriously. Saddam was given too many chances, and it made the UN look weak to the rest of the world as Saddam constantly succeeded in defying the UN for 12 years.

[Excalibur]

[Excalibur]