If you're saying we destroyed their oil industry by military action, I'd have to ask you why saving their oil industry was such a high priority in both wars. Remember the rush to keep SH from blowing up
Iraqi wells? That's taking care of your people, eh?
As for the US boycott... hmmm... what was that about the UN "oil for food program"? Seems like the UN was the one controlling the Iraqi oil sales in the post GW1 period. Oh..wait.. let me guess.. THAT was a US deal that we made the UN agree to do, right? Because if it's a "good" UN thing, all credit goes to the UN. If it's a "bad" UN thing, all blame to the US. "Good" and "bad" being a relative thing that can change in a moment, depending upon the intent of the poster I guess.
As for militias, I think you're not digging deep enough into the news. This is simply incorrect; incredibly so, but I guess it
sounds good even if it's totally false:
Originally posted by Pongo
The militias that are disbanding to join the Iraq army are the very forces that the US has been fighting full bore for the last two months. So all these guys are enemies one day and then allies of the US the next.
There's been one major element, Sadr's militia, that we have been fighting the last two months. Note that the new Iraqi government is not including that one in the deal.
CNN says:
...The agreement excludes the Mehdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which launched an uprising against coalition forces two months ago...
...Al-Sadr's army will officially be outlawed Monday afternoon, according to a senior coalition official. His militia wasn't approached to take part in the new arrangement...
So your statement is just plain wrong.
I don't think of it as capitulation, either. From what I've read, the Marines were ready to clean out Fallujah while admitting it would have cost lives on both sides. However, the decision was made by the politicos to allow the Iraqis to try to solve the problem themselves with our help. Looks like that's working. Further, that's exactly what's needed. The Iraqi "government" need to start taking control of their country and their citizens. It has to establish itself as "authority" before free elections can be held.
And before you go on the "freedom fighter uprising" trail, do a bit of research on that too. Generally, Sadr's militia is/was viewed by the Iraqis in Fallujah and Najaf as a "thug" outfit on the order of the Al Capone Mafia. They shakedown merchants with "protection rackets" and kill the local competition. The have their own kangaroo courts and jails. I think what you're seeing here is Iraqis finally saying "enough!" Shiites in Najaf protest marched against Sadr just a few weeks ago.
Check this one out:
Fighters Loyal to Radical Cleric Start Pullout From 2 Iraq Cities ...At the same time, Mr. Sadr met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, according to widespread reports. The meeting suggested that Mr. Sadr was being given a face-saving gesture by appearing with Ayatollah Sistani, whose prestige across Iraq far exceeds that of Mr. Sadr...
Sadr's about done in; and he did it all by himself. He's a PITA to the common Iraqi and he can't make it like that.
You view it as capitulation. I suggest that's because it fits your views of "failure".
I view it as moving down the road to a free and independent Iraq.
The idea that we were "losing" to Sadr is ludicrous. Compare the casualty reports. What's clear to me is that we were staying our hand for political purposes.
There IS NO DOUBT that we could have removed Sadr and his militia militarily. It might have taken a full scale military operation but we took down SH's entire military in a rather short time if you recall.
Nope. This is a necessary step on the road to Iraq's true independence. They have to start taking over their own problems. Sadr the thug is one of those and it looks like progress has been made.
