CLC’s in Iraq
January 28th, 2008 at 09:14am Mark Noonan
It stands for Concerned Local Citizens - and they’ve been busy:
Sixteen IEDs, cache turned in by CLCs
CLCs contribute to finding enemy weapons
MND Soldiers, Iraqi Police conduct combined operation with CLCs in support of Operation Phantom Phoe
As can be seen from one of the headlines, being a Concerned Local Citizen can be quite dangerous - and yet the locals are doing this, again and again and again. A civil society is building in Iraq - a society of people who want to be free, who want law and order, who want to live and build rather than kill and destroy. These are the people we are fighting for in Iraq - and these are the people who will build a new Iraq and, eventually, a new Arab/Moslem world…an Arab/Moslem world which will at peace with us and allied with us to advance freedom and decency.
And yet…the Democrats still say they want us out. In one of Obama’s commercials out here in Nevada, he intones that he is the man who “will end this war”. This war? This war…not America’s war, this war…as if it were something being done by Martians, not by Americans. I wonder, Senator, just what do you propose to do about the CLCs? I mean, they aren’t privy to American political debates…all they know is that an American army showed up in 2003 and since then has stated again and again that we wouldn’t abandon them…and now that they are sticking their necks out in the cause we say we support…you’re saying that we’ll abandon them. Or, if that isn’t right, then what is? What do you propose to do? This isn’t the stuff of political gamesmanship - this is the lives of people who joined America in the fight. No George Bush - they didn’t join George Bush, they joined America…it is America’s fight, not Bush’s…it is America’s war, not this war.
I mean this, by the way - the Democrats say they want us out. How? When? What happens to the Iraqis who joined up with us, and now will be left hung out to dry? Unless the Democrats can answer this, with precision, then all they are doing is grandstanding on defeatism and using it as a means of winning a domestic political battle - in other words, unless they can clearly spell out how they’ll leave Iraq while also honoring our national promises to Iraq, all they are doing is dancing on the graves of Iraqis and American soldiers.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, President Bush, War on Terror
36 Comments
1. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am
>>>Unless the Democrats can answer this, with precision, then all they are doing is grandstanding on defeatism and using it as a means of winning a domestic political battle<<<<
Mark,
They can’t answer that question, which is just one reason why they will lose come November. They also campaign on fiscal responsibility, but have proposed an entitlement program for nearly every American, except of course for those Americans that actually produce.
2. Magnum Serpentine | January 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am
If we had sent all our troops to Afghanistan, we would had captured osama by now and the so-called war on terror would be over.
3. searp | January 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Boy, I’d sure like to know, “with precision”, about our national promises to Iraq. Are you talking about a tactical commander? A treaty? Meaningless blather from the most unpopular president in history?
Please enlighten.
4. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Furthering the ignorance on the left in regards to terrorism is Magnums comment. Evidently the left believes that terrorism begins and ends with UBL.
The left does not belong in power!!
5. anarchist | January 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am
This is actually a contentious between the al-Maliki government and the occupying forces. These are sunni para-military groups that are armed and payed salaries by the US. They may be loyal while the US is paying their salaries, but if we want to leave Iraq in the next 10 years, arming a bunch of tribal militias not totally allied with the federal government may not be a good long term strategy.
6. anarchist | January 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
a contentious issue between
somehow i forgot a word… =/
7. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am
The denigration and negative spin in terms of the Iraq conflict and the Iraqis themselves, continues. Thank you anarchist.
They’re so good at building allies.
8. Kahn | January 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am
How Magnum? Thats not where he is.
9. Magnum Serpentine | January 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Neocon…
Say what?
“… The world wonders.” Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, Pacific Theater, 1945
10. Casper | January 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
This isn’t necessary a winner for the GOP. According to Rasmussen, 57% of Americans, still want us out of Iraq within a year.
11. Plainjane | January 28th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
CLAC Concerned Local “American” Citizen Today’s headline from Iraq 1/28/2008 BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — A roadside bombing killed five U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq on Monday, the U.S. military confirmed. Only thing I know for sure the five were not one or all of the five Romney sons as they are safely helping their country fight terrorism by campaining on the Florida beaches.
Gave the Iraqis five years our our finest best. Time to bring them home and reuite them with their familiies 1/20/09
12. John Ryan | January 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Umm
It might be a bit late to think about the Iraqis we left behind, I think this might have been considered BEFORE we went in to Iraq.
We did see what happened to the people we allied with in Afghanistan after we left. They attacked us.
13. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
So, lets see - in a thread about Iraqis stepping up, we get a whole bunch of negativity from the left, entirely unrelated to the subject of the thread.
Typical.
How about you guys answer the question: if we pull out of Iraq, what happens to the CLCs?
14. Casper | January 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
‘How about you guys answer the question: if we pull out of Iraq, what happens to the CLCs?”
I don’t know. But I also don’t know what will happen if we stay. It could be good or bad ether way.
Maybe Mark, the question should be; If they are stepping up, why aren’t we coming home? Wasn’t that the way it was suppose to work?
15. Joe | January 28th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
How about you guys answer the question: if we pull out of Iraq, what happens to the CLCs?
Well… will the US stop paying these people at that time? If so, then I am betting that the US just armed bad people that could wreak havoc.
I think that buying their support is great for short term success, but awful for long term success.
The next question is… did anyone think of the consequences of what happens when we stop paying these people for one reason or another?
16. sleepygene | January 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
If we pull out of Iraq the CLCs will fight the Maliki backed Sadr army for control of the country. The Sadrists will slaughter the CLCs because of sheer numbers but because we have been paying the CLCs who have been stockpiling weapons the battle will be bloodier and longer. The sunnis won’t even fly the new flag because they feel it disrespects them. These people have a deep seeded animus that is seething underneath the surface and will boils over once we leave. Staying longer IMHO is not going to change that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080126/wl_nm/iraq_flag_dc
17. Diana Powe | January 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Mark,
I note with continued interest your frequent use of the notion that Americans, in general, made “national promises” to Iraqis after invading their country. This concept is the centerpiece of your comparison between Iraq and Vietnam in the idea you’ve pushed that the United States suffered in our relations with other countries after we left Vietnam because we were no longer seen as “honoring our commitments”. In this scenario, you want to imagine that Iraqis (here referred to by the military’s public relations arm as Concerned Local Citizens) who, in the complex real world, have any number of motives for their acts, are only acting because they trust that we won’t abandon them in some repeat of our departure from Saigon in 1975.
Of course, the complex real world doesn’t help the facile comparison because the world isn’t formulaic as you wish it to be. Almost thirty-three years on, the dangers imaginary and real in 1975 are all radically different. The fall of Vietnam was not in the first of a set of Communist dominoes across Southeast and South Asia. The Communist Vietnamese stopped Communists in Cambodia and repelled a Communist incursion by the Chinese before spontaneously instituting the economic reforms which lead to them being our trading partner today. The Soviet Union is gone. The People’s Republic of China (no longer “Red China”, the normal usage for conservatives for decades) changed its economic activities and now sells us a vast and unending torrent of consumer products, competes with us for industrial raw materials, including oil, and invests heavily in our budget deficits.
Are there Sunni CLCs and Shi’a CLCs or just CLCs? What is the monolithic CLC view towards the announced state visit to Iraq by the end of March by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Do all CLCs view closer relations between Iraq and Iran as a good thing or a bad thing? If all CLCs view it as a good thing then are they all seeking the destruction of Israel as called for by President Ahmadinejad who, we are often-told, represents the views of all Iranians? Do all CLCs perhaps view a nuclear-armed Iran as a counterbalance to Saudi Arabian influence? Are CLCs secularists or do they yearn for a theocratic Iraq? How does Americans handing out cash to the “fake sheiks, little sheiks and big sheiks” (as one Marine was quoted by the New York Times as describing the competing interests for our money) relate to the CLC’s motivations?
18. Dr.Vinny | January 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
CLC is just the newest role out of euphemistic code words and ancroynims used by Iraq invasion supporters in an effort to spin and deflect the real failure of US policy in regards to Iraq. A CLC is a militia that is now being paid by the United States in order to reduce violence in Iraq. They are not, by any estimate a bellweather of liberal democratic progress in that disfunctional country. Quite the contrary. They are an indication that chaos has now become institutionalized with the help and assistance of the US because of the failed vision of GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc etc etc.
Mark Noonan is once again trying to pull the wool…so to speak…over his sheeps eyes by introducing a “new” term over a dead issue.
As if that reincarnated concept will somehow change reality.
I say that Mark better get used to the new world order and it does not include any faith based policy as attempted by GWB.
His father and friends DID know better.
19. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I can’t help but be amused by the liberal assault on anything constructive from Iraq. They are so invested in defeat that they are quick to denigrate the integrity of the Iraqi citizens after a report of those citizens helping in securing their country.
One roadside bomb from an insurgent and the left quickly issues statements on how the insurgents have the upper hand. Yet, normal Iraqi citizens finding weapon caches and helping elminate the insurgents is met with scorn and skepticism from our idiot liberals. I have a hard time believing tyey even know how to feed themselves.
They offer up two of the most unqualified candidates for POTUS ever, strictly based on gender and race, with no executive experience, and a desire to abandon our global neighbors with a zeal to add yet another massive entitlement program to our budget. These people need therapy and should never hold public office.
They just don’t have the intelligence or integrity and are just too emotional and sensitrive when crafting policy. In a word, they’re children.
Here’s some more bad new for the Democratic candidates. The Dems will lose big time in November.
Monday, 28 January 2008
WASHINGTON — Plans to withdraw four Army brigade combat teams and two Marine battalions by July are “on track” …………Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said the scheduled withdrawal will reduce the number of troops at the height of the surge by one quarter, or roughly 42,500.
20. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Diana,
How about “human beings who have joined up with us - for whatever reason - and will suffer horribly if we abandon them”? Does that work better for you? Or is it that you are just throwing a mass of verbiosity at an issue hoping that your fellow liberals will be impressed with bulk over thought?
21. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Casper,
See neocon’s comment.
22. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Democrats can talk the talk, but never walk the walk.
They’re quick to decry poverty and have waged a 40 year verbal battle over poverty with little constructive result.
They’re quick to decry terrorism but want to hastily abandon any combatant measures to defeat it.
They’re quick to decry spending, but have offered no solution to earmarks and want to add yet another massive entitlement program.
They’re quick to decry our “moral” standing in the world, but given a chance they’ll abandon our global neighbors in the middle of conflict.
They’re quick to decry our dependence on foreign oil but will never allow additional exploration or the building of new refineries.
In a word, they’re children.
23. anarchist | January 28th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“human beings who have joined up with us - for whatever reason - and will suffer horribly if we abandon them” - Mark Noonan
Well you can always continue to support them with your effort, just quit advocating the government confiscate our money through the IRS, or take out loans from china in our name and use that to support them. Antiwar people aren’t callous, they just have other opinions about what they think the government should do. I’m sure most of them would support you defending helpless Iraqis through your own effort.
Why do you think Iraq will suffer so horribly if the American government doesn’t continue to impose it’s political wisdom about democracy on them by military force? Do you have that little faith in the people of Iraq to develop their own political system?
24. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
anarchist,
I wont make you pay for the war as long as you don’t maske me pay for UHC, or food stamps, or PP. Deal?
And incidentally, we’re imposing democracy, millions of Iraqis voted on that of their own free will. But your denigration of their will is duly noted.
See my children comment. You exemplify that.
25. anarchist | January 28th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Deal. Notice my name’s anarchist, not liberal.
That’s why I also disagree with the concept that some majority, which wasn’t anywhere near an absolute majority(11m out of 24m and only those that voted for the winner), that their “will” is simply enough to “govern” everyone else, including confiscatory taxation, religious laws, buisness laws, ect…, all backed up by the threat of police violence. Democracy is far from a perfect political system, it’s just a nicer mob rule.
The US is arming and paying these CLC Sunni militias because they can’t get federal police or army into these areas. Should these Sunni areas have the right to sucession, or more political autonamy? I don’t know. But the US government shouldn’t be deciding these people’s political systems either. They have complex issues that span a long history, and they don’t really concern the US government. Terrorist groups that are threaten the US should be attacked by the government, not random Arab nations.
26. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
anarchist,
If you truly want chaos and mob rule, try anarchy. You think it’s bad now.
What areas in Iraq are you talking about? The ISF just went into Mosul, the last stronghold of AQ. And incidentally the ISF is now over 350,000 strong. So your argument is not supported by facts.
What a shock.
27. Rich | January 28th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“If we had sent all our troops to Afghanistan, we would had captured osama by now and the so-called war on terror would be over.”
Very naive statement. If you knew anything about the terrain in Afghanistan, you would know that simply sending a large amount of troops to the area is futile. We toppled the Taliban by using a small number of our own forces and the local population. Sending in more of the right troops (ie. marines, predator drones, special forces) is a good idea for obvious reasons, but you are talking about a huge, very dangerous area. I think your “sending all our troops” statement is just political hyperbole. Then again maybe you do believe we should have pulle dour troops off the Korean peninsula and from Europe. What would you have the Coast Guard do in Afghanistan?
28. Diana Powe | January 28th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Mark,
How precisely, outside your imagination, did any Iraqis “join up with us”? Where do you get all of your astounding transoceanic insight into the personal motivations of people who, in many cases had been killing members of our military until a few months ago, but have been subject to a variety of motives since then including the motive of American cash? The “Anbar Awakening” has fostered this warm glow among American war fans as they imagine the Iraqi people suddenly (after five years) realizing that America actually rode to their rescue and that they can now don the Iraqi versions of tri-corner hats and “fight for freedom”.
However, those same fans don’t even have the most basic answer as to what percentage of the population of Iraq even considers loyalty to a nation of Iraq as particularly relevant as opposed to loyalty to their tribal and/or religious identity. What about all those Shi’a Iraqis who are fighting “with us” to have Iraq have the freedom to become closely aligned with Iran?
How many times in human history have people ever done things that were expedient at the time despite their actual desires? The fact is that we’re not even supposed to be at this point because we were going to “greeted as liberators”. Then, courtesy of the incompetence of the Administration in leaving Iraqi Army weapons and munitions stores subject to looting and creating a vast number of disaffected Iraqis by purging all Baath Party members willy-nilly from their bureaucratic positions running the country we got a two-fer. A dysfunctional country filled with people who could use looted artillery shells as improvised explosive devices to kill the occupiers.
You want a warm and fuzzy narrative about people fighting for freedom because it fits what you want. If that can be real then it will somehow justify the fiasco that America created. However, just because it’s what you want doesn’t mean that it’s real.
29. Mark Noonan | January 29th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Diana,
You really need to pay attention - I know what you’re doing. You’re throwing a lot of words out there in order to avoid the issue, seem like you’re saying something, and keep the thread off subject.
Won’t work, I’m afraid - at least not with me. Answer the bloody question, or keep quiet.
30. Mark Noonan | January 29th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Anarchist,
Lets just say I have no faith in Anarchism.
31. Diana Powe | January 29th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Mark,
I’m telling you that your question is a false one…blah, blah, blah I don’t want to talk about a hard subject I don’t have a liberal-talking-point answer for. (Ed. Note - I believe it was rather clearly stated to you to answer the bloody question, or keep quite).
32. plainjane | January 29th, 2008 at 8:03 am
13. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
So, lets see - in a thread about Iraqis stepping
How about you guys answer the question: if we pull out of Iraq, what happens to the CLCs?
When the American cash dries up, just like Vietnam they will open trade to sell the world old unaccounted for U.S army equipment.
33. Diana Powe | January 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Mark,
It’s your blog so you can do what you want with it…blah, blah, blah I still don’t want to answer the question, so I’ll pretend you’re being unfair to me for insisting that I play by the rules (Ed. Note; is this getting tiresome, yet? Then get with the program…)
34. Mark Noonan | January 30th, 2008 at 12:29 am
plain,
That would only be correct if you take the view that people in foreign lands don’t want to be free, or are incapable of being free…this, of course, is a racist view of the world, but you’re welcome to it, if you like.
35. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 12:41 am
I don’t know, Mark, is my getting tired of blah, blah, blah I want to change the subject, dammit, and you’re not letting me!!!
36. Tractatus | January 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Wow, Diana must really be destroying Mark considering he can’t even let her posts stand now. Don’t be so afraid, Mark.