Dec 19 2006

Knocking Down Tall Poles In Iraq

Published by at 9:22 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

Those who do not have to deal with complex and difficult problems never seem to understand that one must deal with a line up of challenges, knocking them down one-by-one on the path to success. This has been the untold story in Iraq because the media don’t have a long view on anything. Their attention span and business cycle is less than a day, usualy on the order of hours. So when a new tall pole pops up in Iraq to take its place at the head of the list, they cannot grasp what is going on:

Armed militiamen affiliated with radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr pose the gravest danger to the security and stability of Iraq, surpassing Sunni Arab insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorists, a new Defense Department report to Congress says.

The finding represents the military’s strongest characterization of the danger posed by Sadr and is among the conclusions of a quarterly report to Congress that chronicles the instability in Iraq and record level of sectarian violence.

In the last three months, the number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians rose 22%, and the number of U.S. casualties grew 32%, the Pentagon assessment says.

Classic tall pole whacking. We took out Saddam and then the Sunni’s stepped in to take their turn at control. We deal with the Sunni’s, making them allies and Al Qaeda takes their turn. With both those groups being dealt with reasonably well the Shiites try their hand. The interesting thing is the solutions become clearly and more achievable. The Shiites are in no position to risk their new found freedom and Shia leader Sistani has been a force for good in Iraq. So yes, the next tall pole has shown up. But that is the nature of tough problems and why it takes stamina and will to break through all the challenges to get to the needed objective.

The handwringers will be out in force again, demonstrating for the umpteenth time why they cannot be called upon to do anything of import. They see these situations and do their Chicken Little dance. Those familiar with tacking tough problems see the long view and the fact that it was not so much the Shia have become stronger, it is simply they look stronger with the two other more dangerous groups now on the wane.

56 responses so far

56 Responses to “Knocking Down Tall Poles In Iraq”

  1. gil says:

    Answer to enforcement.

    Is not that my sentences are not comprehensible ….. Is just that you don’t know how to read.

    By the way. Before my blog was deleted I was kindly offering you a job for you to become my next Secretary (Hope you have better legs than Barbara) . But first you need to learn to read, to comprehend what you are reading, and most importantly….. TO CORRECTLY JUDGE what you are reading.

    You see, in your judgement Bush, our President does not have a problem saying things like; ” I am the commander- see , I don’t need to explain- I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being President”…… Or , ” Our enemies are innovative and resourcefu, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we” or…. I can go on for hours with his incoherence’s….

    And that’s were our individual capacity for JUDGMENT comes about…. You have the Judgemnt of a… (Let’s not piss Mr. Aj starta only you can call me an idiot on his rule book)….therefore, as I was saying you have the judgment of a very slow individual that has either a considerably low IQ utilized for the most part to use the speller on your computer to pretend that you know how to spell, or you simply are giving me more importance than you give Mr. Bush…. So, yes the bar should be higher with me than with Bush… I know I am smarter than he, so there…. Question my spelling, and don’t question Bush’s stupidity…. After all we all know what he is.

  2. gil says:

    Answer to Barbara.

    Dear…. Since Mr. AJ Starta does not permit bad language on his blog, I guess you are just going to have to stop calling me an idiot…. And therefore you will now become mute… Bcause that is the extent of your “debates”.

    As for Iraq Barbara, let’s just say that you, and your crowd have absolutely none, cero, zip, silch, nada, not a thing of credibilty left…. I would have hoped you still had some shame left, but in that department you and your crowd again have none, silch, nada, cero left.

    So let’s just pretend that we are “debating” how to best get us out of the mess your crowd created … Is my good did for Christmas… That is to say; to pretend that you, or Enforcer actually have the brain power and un-bias opinion to actually have an opinion… When it was your “opinions” that got us in the quagmire from hell that Iraq is.

  3. gil says:

    Answer to Ken.

    Thank you.

  4. gil says:


    I needed to comments for you.

    First. I know what Bush’s job approval in Iraq is….. In the 20’s. That is to say ABISMAL. I was making a parody when i said single digits…. Do you know what a parody is my friend…. Is RIDICULING what your guy is and stands for by exagerating…. Now that we are clear here that the record SUCKS….

    Let’s move on to the pilot thing… Fact is the guy was a declared alcoholic… When he went non-flyight status it was the extent of his “medical” problem….. So cut it out will you.

    I tought you wanted to debate Iraq…. So …. when is Al-Malaki desarming the Shiite militias???? I mean we don’t want to delay your “victory” here right?? so do you know of a SINGLE militia being “disarmed” by Al-Malaki??? I am all ears.

    I don’t know about you, but when I grew up I found out that when some one keeps on talking, and not PRODUCING … Chances are that he/she is a B.S. artist. And like I said, You should not be surprised if after four years people will find your crowdTALK lacking a bit of credibility to put it mildly.

  5. Ken says:


    I lay out the anti-American Shia factions aligned against America
    and “Enforcer” thus accuses me of being for al Qaeda. You’re dealing with bombastic anonymous political illiterates here.

  6. gil says:

    Answer to Ken.

    They are predictable, and take the talking points from Bush’s propaganda machine.

    Their perspective is: Let’s not talk about the details… Lets just say We are for victory, and you for defeat!!! Now that’s really smart… Problem is IT DOES NOT WIN A WAR. It never has and it never will. What wins wars is pragmatism, realism, acceptance of mistakes, learning from mistakes, and most importantly understanding that in a war you either have the leader(s) that can UNITE a nation in a cause, or you don’t …. If you don’t then your leader is to blame and we will only loose if we continue. The Right tought that they could “win” in Iraq by attacking the rest of America and calling US cowards, instead of uniting us they divided us, as a political ploy. This last November they were reminded where their place was…. In the MINORITY. Time to look for another political ploy guys. Iraq exploded in thieir face, and if they had any shame they will just walk away from this one… But they are too arrogant and dumb to understand when is time to fold a policy that has become the biggest Foreign Policy disaster in our nation’s history.

    I say let them continue. The total ruin of the GOP is ahead if they are stupid enough to continue to try and “win” a war with 28% approval ratings by “firing” talking points at their enemies at home and abroad.

    These crowd has tried for years to win a war by trowing talking points to our enemies… The Shiite Militias, the Sunni Dead squads, the Al-Quaida nut cases do not look impressed so far….. But they are impressing the hell out of themselves I ‘ll give tem that.

    These people actually believe that we can win a victory by “helping” and “standing shoulder to shoulder” with the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq….. While ignoring that the “Government ” of Iraq came to be as a result of purely Sectarian vote, and it’s very exsistance today depends of the continuing support of the very militias (Al-Sadr Shiite Militia Army ) they are supposed to disarm!!

    Now that is beyond naive… I would consider that as simply taking a pass on reality.

    The Right ignores these inconvenient facts, and use the good old political trick of using patriotic sounding all encompassing declarations, or words that in the end only makes them look more delusional.

  7. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, you said:
    which perhaps if FE’s identity were made public he wouldn’t
    dare to utter?

    My identity is well known, I thought you knew it. anyhow just for you, it’s “For Enforcement”
    And I have no problem uttering what I want to. I’m not a racist, I’m not a Jew Hater, I’m a conservative. There what is it you didn’t think I would utter with my identity known.

  8. For Enforcement says:

    Gil, I would respond to you but you wouldn’t understand it. You write on about a kindergarten level and I’ve already demonstated to you where your reading comprehension level was somewhere around first grade. The gibberish you and Ken both spout sounds like two peas in a pod. You deserve each other, so go ahead and backslap each other a coouple more times.
    Just for the record Gil, you stated at one point that I called you an idiot. While I did refer to you as a troll, which isn’t a bad word, If you read where I said you were an idiot, then you just can’t read. But, I’m not asking for an apology from you. I consider anything you call me to be an honor. Because it only means you want to demean me down to your level and I can tell you, that ain’t gonna happen.

    Tell you what, talk to your buddy Ken about all the people on this blog, we will all enjoy your aimless ambling.

    By the way, Starta’s name is spelled Strata, since it’s his blog, you might want to know that.

    Don’t respond to this, it would be a waste of time.

  9. Ken says:


    FE and Strata are not traditional Rightists-they are neocon fellow travellers and neocons are dominantex Trotskyites with a heavy Zionist overlay. They are more closely liberal world-improvers
    echoing Woodrow Wilson. And of course if you criticise support for Israel, you are a Jew-hater to these buffoons.

  10. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, for the record, I’ve already defined neocon for you, Short memory is another one of your problems also, huh?
    Most neocons are over 70 years of age and I don’t fall in that category.
    I’ve been a conservative since in the 60’s so I’m certainly not new at it.

    Trotskyites=progressives=some liberals=chomskyites=berkeleyites=Ken

    criticise? Is that French for criticize?
    travellers? Is that French for travelers?

    Hmm, Do you ever get anything right?

  11. Ken says:

    Richard Perle is well under 70. So is Wolfowitx and Feith.

    You’re simply an ignorant hapless fuddy-duddy who belongs in a rest home,not posting on American political factions of which you have no

  12. Ken says:

    But thank you for giving me a segue to promote a revealing book on the Israel-first neoconservatives of whom uneducated
    fools have no knowledge. Essential reading above.

  13. Ken says:

    for those who wish a short,condensed definition of neoconservatives , & some names of key neocons who manuvered America into war to protect Israel, check out this link.

  14. For Enforcement says:

    Another liberal rag link. You haven’t learned a thing.

    A neoconservative is a person that was something else prior to 1960, such as a progressive( formerly communist or socialist) that became a conservative in the early ’60s. That is the definition, so if a person was not ‘something else’ prior to 1960, then he can’t be a neocon.
    Anyone becoming a conservative after the early sixties, would by definition be a later con, not a neocon. The fact that you call Wolfowitz a neocon, does not make him a neocon. Remember, calling a Pepsi a Coke, does not make it a coke.

    You need to check the definition of neocon, then you’ll see why you are wrong. By the way, if you weren’t wrong for that reason alone you would be wrong for some other reason. See, you have never been right about anything (with one minor exception, when you agreed that 60% is more than 40%. umm, or was it when you agreed you were a moron?)

    Don’t they write anything except liberal rags in English, or is that the French version you are linking to?
    I don’t read liberal rags.

  15. Ken says:

    Go to Hell with your Liberal” bullcrap.

  16. Ken says:

    My guess is , Strata allows your bull out of a misplacedhonor of your former service. But you are a crank par excellence who re-defines words simply because you don’t approve of the common usage of them—-the neocons, SAY they are neocons and their opponents call them neocons, —but a retired and out of touch crank who had initially never heard of the term, says they all should abide by his
    senile wordplay on a site on which the owner bears undue allowance to inanities of this sort and hence vitiates the quality of that site markedly.