This is not from a source I would consider propagandized. It's from the BBC.
The Iraqi government has promised to give $25m (£12.5m) to help neighbouring Syria and Jordan cope with about two million Iraqi refugees.
The United States has agreed to accept 20,000 of the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees for resettlement.
The offers came at a UN conference in Geneva, which ended on Wednesday.
In all there are an estimated four million displaced Iraqis, nearly two million of whom remain in Iraq, forced to move by the violence in the country....
The United States has agreed to accept 20,000 of the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees for resettlement.
The offers came at a UN conference in Geneva, which ended on Wednesday.
In all there are an estimated four million displaced Iraqis, nearly two million of whom remain in Iraq, forced to move by the violence in the country....
In the map above it is noted there is an influx into Syria of over one million refugees from Iraq. General Patraeus' only mention of Syria was some form in interference in Iraq's police and military. In other words, the General spoke of Syria as an enemy of the USA. How could any country absorbing that volume of refugees from a war the USA instigated be an enemy to the USA or Iraq. I'd like someone to explain that. Additionally, there is nothing like invading still another sovereign country on the basis of pre-emption when it has absorbed the refugees from Iraq. That is not only increasing the danger of genocide of the Iraqis now fleeing for their lives, but, also places them in double jeopardy as there is no Iraq to go home to when the war migrates into Syria.
Iran is no different in their commitment to Iraq. It currently allows and encourages any and all Iranians whom care to, to bring humanitarian relief to the people of Iraq, as a result there are camel caravans and vehicle caravans that bring food and medical supplies to those in need in Iraq. There is no mention by Iran of refugees, but, I believe Iran opts to prevent any refugee crisis by sending supplies into Iraq.
The answer to General Petraeus' misguided depiction of Syrian and Iranian involvement in weapons supply to Iraqi extremists is, what did you expect? These countries are inundated by people fleeing in fear of their lives; without diplomatic efforts by the USA and USA assistance in handling refugee issues these countries are left in the realization of sheer horror of the crisis and only seek to facilitate the end to suffering no matter form that takes including sending arms to Iraq along with the humanitarian supplies and then there is the issue of 'getting' the supplies to the people. I sincerely doubt General Petraeus sends USA military to escort Iranian and Syrian convoys into Iraq. So, therefore, I am sure the humanitarian caravans are armed and very dangerous, just as Iraq currently is.
General Petraeus needs to be grateful for any and all humanitarian relief the neighboring countries currently are sending as if eight million dead Iraqis result he has a lot of answering to do and it won't just be to the USA Senate either. He along with his bosses.
Then there is this article in the Lebanon Daily Star:
By Safa A. Hussein Commentary by Monday, September 17, 2007
In 2005, a violent conflict started between Albu Mahal and Al-Karabla, two major Sunni Arab tribes populating the remote area around Qaim in Anbar Province. One of these tribes supported Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Both tribes were hostile to the Americans and to the Iraqi government. The Americans and the Iraqi government assessed this to be a normal tribal conflict. Later developments revealed that neither Al-Qaeda in Iraq nor the Iraqi government nor the Americans recognized that it reflected a drastic change in the political dynamics that would shape the new phase of the Iraqi conflict.
Only a few months later, Al-Qaeda in Iraq assassinated tribal leaders in Anbar and Kirkuk provinces because they called on their followers to join the Iraqi security forces. In a letter from a local Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he described those assassinations as having the anticipated intimidating effect. Al-Qaeda in Iraq went further by carrying out a suicide attack against a police recruiting station, killing dozens of recruits. It was at this point that the Americans made up their minds to support the tribes against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi government followed up on this effort. However, even then Arab countries did not anticipate the potentially significant political outcome of the conflict between the Anbar tribes and Al-Qaeda in Iraq....
Only a few months later, Al-Qaeda in Iraq assassinated tribal leaders in Anbar and Kirkuk provinces because they called on their followers to join the Iraqi security forces. In a letter from a local Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he described those assassinations as having the anticipated intimidating effect. Al-Qaeda in Iraq went further by carrying out a suicide attack against a police recruiting station, killing dozens of recruits. It was at this point that the Americans made up their minds to support the tribes against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi government followed up on this effort. However, even then Arab countries did not anticipate the potentially significant political outcome of the conflict between the Anbar tribes and Al-Qaeda in Iraq....
Now if those reading the article can put aside the propaganda of the last week and realize the dynamics to these outcomes always existed and the final outcome would be the same anyway, it's easy to realize the USA is not needed in Iraq.
It would seem the USA caused a 'hell on Earth' for the Iraqis. With the USA invasion the Iraqi people of all ethnicities were turned loose to find a way to protect themselves because the USA could not. That in turn manufactured an economy for struggle of domination of land and resources and invited the emergence of a terrorist network within Iraq that would seek to capture a government infrastructure, namely al Qaed in Iraq. The invasion created the circumstances in An Albar so let's not now state we are experiencing success in An Albar. The fact of the matter is An Albar is finally working out it's kinks to whom exactly is going to dominate the infrastructure there, and the terrorist network lost the fight. It would have happened eventually anyway. The fight between the Sheiks and al Qaeda was always there, the Americans and Bush's Iraqi government just put a different face on it.
Al Qaeda in Iraq was an opportunist network trying to secure a place within a sovereign nation to attempt a coup of sorts. To that end it was financially supported by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, but, it had nothing to do with bin Laden's network. It doesn't have anything to do with bin Laden's network now. It's an autonomous entity that was never going to be tolerated anyway. So while Bush's military ran around Iraq removing weapons caches' and attempting to protect themselves from the tribal disputes they were never needed. The American participation in Iraq was more an annoyance to the tribes already conducting wars due to anarchy.
The American presence in Iraq was and is nothing more than an attempt to protect the nation building within the Green Zone. It has absolutely nothing to do with the tribal issues except for any political agenda that would bring raids to Iraqi towns. In the meantime, Baghdad was being ethnically cleansed by the Shia, including those elements 'embedded' in the Iraqi police. The 'image' put before the American people was one of orderly maneuvers to 'take down' any and all networks of insurgents in Iraq. What was transpiring were daily searches of homes and towns without any direction except to 'get the job down' on the own without any real intelligence to their daily deployments. The purpose to these American missions were to make it safe for Americans.
The larger attacks that destroyed Mosques and cause greater tribal tensions was instigated by Al Qaeda in Iraq in hopes it would cause a war within a war and allow them more control rather than less. Al Qaeda in Iraq was as much a rebel group as any insurgent group except they had big bombs and more funding, so much for the theory of Syrian and Iranian involvement. Al Qaeda no matter where they are, cannot match a sovereign country's ability to deploy weapons. I am quite confident that if the Iranians and Syrians wanted to send in weapons to destroy American presence it would already be done. Hello? If there are weapons dealers in Iraq selling weapons to the tribes crossing the borders from Syria and Iran then they learned the 'idea' of exploiting war for profit from their American counter parts.
None of the weapons in Iraq that came from outside the country of Iraq were ever sanctioned by any other neighboring country. Quite the contrary, the neighbors to Iraq wanted to avoid any conflict that would bring the American war over their borders. The weapons in Iraq from foreign sources come from dealers that Petraeus can't stop and neither can the neighboring countries of Iraq.
The only purpose the USA military serves in Iraq is to enforce the directives of Bush to maintain a nation building friendly to American oil contracts. That is the only reason why the USA is in Iraq and the exact reason we need to leave. The USA is creating the possiblity of greater war due to their own priorities and adding to the issues the tribes have to deal with when faced with multipling insurgent groups when people feel their tribal leaders don't have control. The reason things have settled down in An Albar is because the USA is backing the tribal Sheiks and allowing them their clout in restoring order to their hamlets. That is all this is. There is no revolutionary Petraeus victory here. Not at all. It's simply the USA allowing the status quo to take hold, without American interference or priorities. Petraeus ain't all that folks.
