Britain to Pull 1,600 Troops Out of Iraq, Blair Says

ALAN COWELL
"LONDON, Feb. 21 — In sharp contrast to the American troop buildup in Baghdad, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain announced today that up to 1,600 of the roughly 7,100 British troops in southern Iraq will begin withdrawing in coming months." Consequently, the Danish and Lithuanian troops are also considering removing the troops that they have there from Iraq. He decided that it would be better for both the welfare of British troops (who were under constant fire from insurgents) and for the rising governmental and army power in Iraq that they remove themselves from southern Iraq. They are going to keep troops near the Iranian border, however. The White House supports this decision by Blair and endorses the removal of troops to continue through July as planned.
This is both good news and bad news for the American army. It means, of course that there are people going home, which may lead to the future removal of American troops as well; however, it also means that for the time being, they are on their own in these areas. Hearing this raises my optimism about the war, and thoughts that perhaps they will come up with a solution faster that they have seemed to be finding one in the past. If the next few weeks are not worse than the past few, perhaps there is some hope of bringing some men home soon.

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON? A GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING FOR CEO's

This is an article that was forwarded to me from my Dad. If anyone is interested in reading the whole thing (Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping political,
economic and world events. These transformations have profound implications
for American business owners, our culture and our way of life.) Email me on oncourse or at allenka@indiana.edu and i will forward it to you. It is really very interesting for those who are interested in International relations and/or culture studies.

This article is about the roots of the Middle East/Western conflicts and the reasons for the hatred today. It discusses an early battle between the two (ironically on September 11) and suggests reasons for the continuing conflict today. I can't help but think if we could analyze these reasons more thoroughly and with more understanding/ willing acceptance we could come up with a reasonable solution to the problems between the regions. Here is the Iraq portion of the article, as the rest talks about other issues of globalization:

by HERBERT MEYER* (Reagan administration CIA - see below)
1. The War in Iraq

"There are three major monotheistic religions in the world: Christianity,
Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and Christianity
reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars found a
way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion remained at the center
of life, church and state became separate. Rule of law, idea of economic
liberty, individual rights, human rights, all these are defining points of
modern Western civilization. These concepts started with the Greeks but
didn't take off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and
Christianity found a way to reconcile with the modern world. When that
happened, it unleas hed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring
of art, literature and music the world has ever known.

Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts millions of Moslems
around the world who are normal people. However, there is a radical streak
within Islam. When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks Western
civilization. Islam first attacked Western civilization in the 7th century,
and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from
the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of Vienna. It was in
Vienna that the climactic battle between Islam and Western civilization took place.

The West won and went forward. Islam lost and went backward. Interestingly, the date

of that battle was September 11. Since them, Islam has not found a way to reconcile

with the modern world.

Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by radical
Islam. To deal with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things. First, units
of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the world hunting down
terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very little publicity.
Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are
covered relentlessly by the media. People can argue about whether the war
in Iraq is right or wrong. However, the underlying strategy behind the war
is to use our military to remove the radicals from power and give the
moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over time, the moderates will find a
way to bring Islam forward into the 21st century. That's what our
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about.

The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of
people can kill a large number of people very qu ickly They can use
airplanes, bombs, anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with a
first-rate intelligence service (which the U.S. does not have), you can't
stop every attack. That means our tolerance for political horseplay has
dropped to zero. No longer will we play games with terrorists or weapons
of mass destructions.

Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from the Middle East.
That's why we have thought that if we could knock out the radicals and give
the moderates a chance to hold power, they might find a way to reconcile
Islam with the modern world. So when looking at Afghanistan or Iraq, it's
important to look for any signs that they are modernizing. For example,
women being brought into the workforce and colleges in Afghanistan is good.
The Iraqis stumbling toward a constitution is good. People can argue about
what the U.S. is doing and how we're doing it, but anything that suggests
Islam is finding its way for ward is good."

Assault on American combat outpost north of Baghdad

MARC SANTORA

"...suicide bombers drove one or more cars laden with explosives into the compound on Monday, while other insurgents opened fire in the ensuing chaos, according to witnesses and the American military." An effective attack, there were 2 deaths and at least 17 injuries to American soldiers. Shortly afterwards, there were gun battles and injury evacuations by the military. They believe the attack to be the work of Al Qaeda members from Mesopotamia. "A family of 13 was killed on the road leading to Falluja, and were dragged out of a minibus, lined up and shot. The bodies remained on the highway for hours because people were afraid they would be ambushed if they collected the dead, witnesses said." The increase in fear around Baghdad is strongly preventing the progress of the American army to quickly alleviate the violence in Iraq, and recent events have continue to dissuade Iraqi trust in the soldiers.
This bombing is just a continuation of the events that have been causing Iraqi animosity towards American soldiers. The occupying force that is supposed to be helping them form a more stable way of life is allowing more death and destruction recently than it has been deterring. While American forces are doing a good job of trying to set up ways of safely forming stable society and government in Iraq, they need to think of a way that includes all sides of the conflict if they ever want the violence and distrust to end.

Response paper #2

Zakaria and Friedman both make points about the possibility of democracy in the middle east. Some of these points are better supported than others (such as the fact that lower oil prices would make for a more democratically inclined society) and some make fine points for multiple options. Zakaria says that it is more likely for the Middle East to have not become democratic because of the Arab heritage, and NOT because it is primarily Muslim. He backs this up with the explanation that the Koran never says anything about democracy one way or the other. Interestingly enough, neither do the old or new testaments of Judaism and Christianity.
The economy is a big part that is also questioned by both Zakaria and Friedman, although Zakaria makes a good point that the price of oil is almost directly connected to the amount of influence that democratic ideas can have on the Middle East. Knowing both positions on the matter, I feel like it is safe to agree more with Zakaria's idea about the economy playing a big part on the amount of influence (and therefore possibility of installment) of democracy in that part of the world; consequently, it is going to mean a long time for the eventual change in Iraq to occur, and a lot of things will have to go right (ie change in us demand for oil, greater economic stability, a reliable system of government, and the acceptance from the people) for the change to democracy to occur successfully.
As for Iran, it is more likely that the resistance lies much more in the economy than was the case for Iraq (where ethnicity also played a huge role). The US and other countries will have to find an oil substitute and decide to use it along with the oil that they already use from Iran so that the demand for said oil will decrease, otherwise the price will remain the same, and the economy (zakaria's opinion) will continue to flourish on the money received from it ruling out the need for a more democratic society.

Us blamed for bombing

Yesterday, the New York Times published an article online that was began with "A growing number of Iraqis blamed the United States on Sunday for creating conditions that led to the worst single suicide bombing in the war, which devastated a Shiite market in Baghdad the day before." The new American security plan in Baghdad has left more Shiite villages open and vulnerable to attacks from Sunni militants and other such anti-Shiite forces. As these forces (such as the Mahdi Army) have recently felt that their power and influence has been threatened will do what they can to take advantage of these opportunities. It was this that led to the worst suicide bombing in the war so far: a truck bomb that killed around 135 and wounded close to 300.
I understand that this war is at a period where everyone is still trying to work out what they are going to do to ameliorate the situations in Iraq, but if America is going to try and help people, they need to make sure their "help" does not leave a group helpless!~~