From none other than the Guardian, comes this article: Iraqis to control security by end of year. It's actually not badly written and is not overwhelmingly negative in tone – not at all like a lot of Guardian articles I have read over the past few years.
The new Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, today said Iraqis could be in control of security by the end of the year in all of the country apart from Baghdad and Anbar province.
Mr Maliki, appearing at a news conference with Tony Blair, who is visiting Baghdad, indicated that he expected the Iraqi government to begin taking over control of some of the more peaceful provinces from the multinational forces from next month.
The article does go on to say all is not perfect over there but doesn't belabor the point. It has some good quotes from Tony Blair:
Mr Blair stressed that the timetable for troop withdrawal depended upon the security situation in Iraq and that the formation of a new democratically elected Iraqi government marked a "new beginning" for the country.
Mr Blair's visit to the capital's heavily fortified green zone had been shrouded in secrecy, as deadly violence continued to provide the backdrop to the new administration – only agreed after months of bitter wrangling between rival factions.
Mr Blair said it was a privilege to be in Iraq to see the "energy, enthusiasm and determination" of the new government.
"It has been three years of struggle to get to this point and has been longer and harder than any of us would have wanted it to be but this is a new beginning," he said.
He told reporters he wanted to see the Iraqi people take charge of their own destiny and "write the next chapter of Iraqi history".
"For the first time we have a government of national unity that crosses divides. It is there for a four-year term and it is there elected by the votes of millions of Iraqis," Mr Blair said.
"There is no vestige of excuse for people to carry on terrorism or bloodshed."
I think that shows where the Iraqis are heading. There is no longer any legitimate excuse for the "insurgency" and I think the new policies the Iraqis themselves will enact and carry out will start taking a serious toll on any holdouts. These are good signs all around. One thing caught my eye. It may be an oddity in British use of the English language, but the reporter chose what to me is an odd word to describe the return of troops to Britain:
He stressed that was not a timetable for troop withdrawal, and was not necessarily heralding the swift repatriation of large numbers of British troops.
I have personally never seen that particular word ever used in this context. Normally it is used to describe the return of prisoners (which is actually the example given in the Merriam-Webster on-line edition). Maybe that's the way the reporter thinks of it, maybe it's just an oddity of usage.
>There is no longer any legitimate excuse for the “insurgency”
> and I think the new policies the Iraqis themselves will enact
> and carry out will start taking a serious toll on any holdouts.
Ask your son if the insurgents are fighting just the occupation forces, or if they now mostly fighting each other. The ethnic hatred between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds predates our occupation. I don’t understand how democracy will alleviate this conflict.
Jim
Actually, before Saddam there was a pretty fair lull in the sectarian stuff from what I understand.
That lull resulted from total Sunni dominance of Iraqi society. The Shiites and Kurds could either accept second class participation under Saddam or be killed, or imprisoned. There was a lull all right, but it was based on fear and intimidation, not consent.
A Kurd I met in college back in the late 70′s told me that if he tried to fly into Iraq, Iran, or Turkey he would never get out of the airport alive. He had a PhD in English literature and was also fluent in French, Arabic, and Farsi. His student visa was set to expire and he didn’t know what to do. I suggested he give the CIA a call.
No, I meant before Saddam and the Baathists.