Article: Why not state the plain facts about the genocide in Iraq?

The article "Joint force weighs move on Sadr City" at click here is aptly summarized by its sub-heading "The vast Baghdad slum harbors a key militia but a sweep could backfire."

Looking at it from the Sunni perspective Ammar Wajuih, a leader of the Iraqi
Islamic Party, the country's main Sunni political organization said "We think that much of the ... violence that comes as a result of operations emanating from Sadr City will be remarkably diminished if they crack down."

Would the US general populace be happy if they realized that W is sanctioning the 80% solution, which allows 20% of Iraq, roughly 5.2 million Sunnis, to become sitting targets of the Iraqi Shiite and their sub-contractors in death, the US? Usually sub-contractors get paid for their work, but the ever shockingly stupid W has us paying in both the bloodshed of our US military and in our treasure for the gruesome task of slaughtering Iraqi Sunnis. Worse, these jihadists, or Baathist dead-enders, or insurgents--or whatever phrase W wants to slap on them who we are fighting in Iraq now are just proxies for the predominantly Sunni Middle East, which doesn't want the Iraqi Shiites, who are mere stooges for the hated by all Iranians, to have power in Iraq.

This representative article states "U.S. and Iraqi forces have moved aggressively in the last week to combat Sunni Arab insurgents in neighborhoods across the capital and to establish a stronger presence in religiously mixed districts long plagued by sectarian violence.

But as the new security crackdown enters a second week, they face their most sensitive challenge: whether, when and how to move into the Shiite-dominated slum of Sadr City, stronghold of the Al Mahdi militia."

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who is being propped up by Sadr, isn't going to hurt his benefactor, no matter what phony phrases he uses. Remember in August of 2005 the US military had Sadr backed into a corner and was ready to snap him up, but just as with bin laden, W's boys allowed him to go free. Why? The article notes the paradox of this as "U.S. troops took heavy casualties when they tried to storm Sadr City in the spring and summer of 2004. For the Americans, the grueling street fights with black-clad teens holding AK-47s while running down the streets represented a nadir few want to relive.

Rather than crush the Al Mahdi, the U.S. wound up bolstering Sadr's street credibility and undermining the popularity of then-Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who was pro-American."

Ironically, the haven for the Shiite Death Squads, Sadr city can be described as one of the few success stories in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Sadr city thrived despite the daily atrocities in the rest of Iraq as it "pulses with commerce and youth, even as huge stretches of Baghdad fade into ghost towns."

The neo-con thugs are now afraid. Why weren't they before they invaded Iraq? The Oval Office Cabal knew Iraq to be a hell-hole ruled by the evil Hussein, who 43's daddy, 41, allowed to remain in power due to fear that the Middle East would destabilize, as is happening now.

The article continues "Any new move into Sadr City remains controversial among military experts. Army Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff, and military analyst Frederick
Kagan, who were among the most influential advocates of the current Bush administration plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 21,500, have warned that a push into Sadr City would unnecessarily unite the country's now-splintered Shiite leadership.

"Attempting to clear Sadr City would almost certainly force the [Al Mahdi
militia] into [a direct] confrontation with American troops," they wrote in a January report for the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

"It would also do enormous damage to [Maliki's] political base and would probably lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government."

If Maliki's government is to remain in power--a phony accomplishment for W to crow about, the US must help the Shiites to decimate the Sunnis! Pretty bleak reasoning isn't it!

We are giving Sadr a free pass "But Sunnis insist on action. After years of watching their communities be targeted aggressively by local security forces and U.S. troops, Sunni leaders and officials insist that the success or failure of the security plan and possible reconciliation between sects hinges on whether Sadr City is treated like the hive of militants they consider it to be."

The US soldiers are committing savage atrocities against the Sunnis as --U.S. troops start their raids at night during the curfew hours in a way that is against human rights and international standards," said Nasser Saidi, one of at least 30 pro-Sadr members of parliament. "They often lead raids on the wrong houses."

The US soldiers are also losers in this and know it as "Several U.S. soldiers, some of whom have grappled repeatedly with the question of Sadr during their second or third tours in Iraq, blamed politics for the failure to enter Sadr City full-force and said it had been a mistake not to move against Sadr previously.

"I think if we grabbed Sadr, all this ... would die down," one U.S. soldier said.

"He's the problem," Army Pfc. Nathan Bratager added. "Until he's dead or captured or in prison, this will keep happening."

The US has allowed the biggest rats in Sadr's group to escape as "While it was unclear whether the U.S. would arrest Sadr if the opportunity arose, many say that any plan to squelch the Al Mahdi has already been compromised by weeks of warnings that a crackdown was coming."

So the US is seeing the effects of inadequate planning by W in Baghdad. Are the
Iraqis, the people after all who have to live in Iraq, cooperating with the US in other areas of Iraq?

No, as the article "Beyond Baghdad, Grass-Roots Security" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001468_pf.html states "This is a large part of the Baghdad security plan because this helps disrupt [al-Qaeda in Iraq] movement and foreign fighter movement into Baghdad," said Maj. Chad Shields, a company commander. "It's about getting to the level of detail where you understand the town that you're operating in, and you know the people you're operating among."

If the Iraqis aren't helping us who are they helping? The US is allegedly in Iraq to bring it freedom and democracy, but "Although the security plan has been cast as an Iraqi-led mission, no Iraqi police operate around Ibrahim bin Ali. And Lt. Col. Kurt Pinkerton, the battalion commander, said he could not persuade Iraqi army commandos to assist.
"They didn't return my calls," he said.

Some Iraqis are just not cooperative, but others are openly hostile as " Any individual on Earth values his country and refuses occupation. I am hoping this is not an occupation," Hassan Ali Hamid Hassan, 27, a recent graduate in Arabic literature from Baghdad University, told Larsen. "Jihad is a duty. Jihad was within our power since the beginning to protect our women, our property, our way of living. Jihad is cited in the Koran."

Now we are almost entirely alone in this Iraq atrocity. England has all but completely left the coalition and what do we hear from W's crew? That England's plan to pull about 1,600 troops out of Iraq was proof of progress, while the top House Democrat said it "confirms doubts" about W's stupid surge plan.

How can the US support both pulling troops out, by England, and another group's, unfortunately the US' policy to send more troops in? That doesn't adhere to the principles of logic. Where do they get the unmitigated audacity to spew propaganda such as White House spokesman Tony Snow saying the situation in Basra, which allows W's greatest ally, England, to abandon W is "ultimately the kind of thing we want to see throughout Iraq."

There is the adage that the first casualty in war is the truth but the CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES newscast titled "War in Iraq Creating More Terrorists?" which is included at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/20/acd.01.html states "From the day after 9/11 to the day before the invasion of Iraq, there were fewer than 30 terror attacks a year worldwide. After the invasion, that jumped to 200, a sevenfold increase. Before the invasion, there were 501 terror-related deaths a year. Now there are nearly 1,700 annually," according to a new study from New York University's Center on Law and Security.

W's spinners have" argued previously that such numbers are climbing because coalition troops are engaging the enemy. But, even if you don't count the terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, worldwide terrorism blamed on jihadists is still rising dramatically."

W's government has ignored any reality other than what they have created out of lies but, "The study meshes with the government's own assessments. A national intelligence report last October found that Iraq is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives, jihadists who are honing their skills by fighting in Iraq, but who will eventually go home to their own countries."

Why not state the plain facts about the genocide in Iraq? The US is contributing to the genocide of the Sunnis in Iraq. The Islamic world knows it and consequentially sympathy and identification for the jihadists is increasing. W's stupid policies regarding GWOT are perpetuating GWOT.