VS winnen oorlog in Irak niet

[Kpl1JV]

Aha oke, bedankt voor de correctie rob .

[KapiteinRob]

Persoonlijk ben ik blij dat Nederland daar weg is.

Volgens mij hebben we nog wat collega's in Bagdad zitten. "We" zijn dus nog niet helemaal weg....

[ronjhe]

Kortom, Irak wordt een 2e vietnam.
Ze hebben daar helemaal niks meer te zoeken.
Persoonlijk ben ik blij dat Nederland daar weg is.
Amerika graaft zijn eigen graf daar als ik heel eerlijk ben.
Correct me if i am wrong.

ik denk dat je gelijk hebt hierin. Dat wordt een nog groter drama daar. Zeker nu Saddam  dood is en veel van zijn aanhangers niets meer te verliezen hebben.

[Kpl1JV]

Kortom, Irak wordt een 2e vietnam.
Ze hebben daar helemaal niks meer te zoeken.
Persoonlijk ben ik blij dat Nederland daar weg is.
Amerika graaft zijn eigen graf daar als ik heel eerlijk ben.
Correct me if i am wrong.

[Lex]

VS-commandanten in Irak willen troepenuitbreiding

anp | Gepubliceerd op 23 december 2006, 17:32

WASHINGTON -  De Amerikaanse militaire leiding in Irak wil dat het aantal militairen in het Arabische land wordt opgeschroefd. De topcommandanten zullen dat adviseren aan president George Bush, meldde de krant The Los Angeles Times zaterdag op gezag van een hoge defensiefunctionaris.

De beslissing is belangrijk omdat Bush heeft gezegd dat hij bij het bepalen van een nieuwe militaire strategie voor Irak sterk zal luisteren naar het oordeel van de commandanten in Irak. Bush wil voor de jaarwisseling zijn plannen presenteren. Eerder zouden de chefs van staven in het Pentagon hebben geadviseerd tot een troepenuitbreiding.

Voor het artikel in LA Times, zie:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops23dec23,0,2095230.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Ros]

Bush krabbelt terug in Irak-debat


WASHINGTON - De Amerikaanse president George Bush heeft voor het eerst publiekelijk gezegd dat de VS de oorlog in Irak niet aan het winnen zijn. In een vraaggesprek met The Washington Post zegt Bush letterlijk: "We winnen niet, we verliezen niet".

Deze toon is uiterst opmerkelijk voor Bush, die kortgeleden nog zei over Irak: "Absoluut, we winnen!". 

Bush' gewijzigde taalgebruik volgt op een zeer kritisch rapport van een onderzoekscommissie over de situatie in Irak en op de steeds kritischere houding van het Amerikaanse volk. Ook de nieuwe minister van Defensie, Robert Gates, gaf kortgeleden toe dat de Amerikanen niet aan de winnende hand zijn in Irak.

Militairen

Bush zal waarschijnlijk volgende maand een aanpassing van het Irak-beleid aankondigen. Hij zou gaan aandringen op een tijdelijke forse uitbreiding van het aantal Amerikaanse militairen in Irak, tegen de publieke opinie in.

www.nu.nl

[Lex]

Overstretched U.S. Forces Are 'Losing' in Iraq, Powell Says

By BRIAN KNOWLTON
December 17, 2006
New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 — Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that badly overstretched American forces in Iraq were losing the war there, and that a temporary increase in troop levels probably would not help.
But, he quickly added, "we haven't lost."
The situation could be reversed, General Powell said in one of his most extensive commentaries on the Iraq war since leaving office. He urged an intense effort to train and support Iraqi security forces and strengthen the government in Baghdad.
General Powell was deeply skeptical about proposals to increase troop levels in Iraq, an idea that appears to have gained ground as President Bush reconsiders the United States' strategy there.
"There really are no additional troops" to send, General Powell said, adding that he agreed with those who say that the United States Army is "about broken."
General Powell said he was unsure that new troops could successfully suppress sectarian violence or secure Baghdad.
He urged the United States to do everything possible to prepare Iraqis to take over lead responsibility; the "baton pass," he said, should begin by mid-2007.
"We are losing — we haven't lost — and this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around," General Powell said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."
Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide Mr. Bush with options for increasing American forces in Baghdad by 20,000 or more, and there are signs that the president is leaning in that direction.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the incoming Democratic majority leader, said today that he would "go along with" an increase in troops in Iraq if it were clearly intended to lead to an ultimate troop withdrawal by early 2008.
Mr. Reid supported the proposal of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to undertake a broad regional effort to gain diplomatic support for a peaceful Iraq.
General Powell endorsed a related study group idea: opening talks with Syria and Iran.
The general has kept a low public profile since leaving office in January 2005, but he has emerged at crucial points in the growing debate over Iraq to weigh in, as when he said that Iraq was now embroiled in civil war.
An increase in troop strength, he said today, "cannot be sustained." The thousands of additional American troops sent into Baghdad since summer had been unable to stabilize the city and more probably could not tip the balance, General Powell said. The deployment of further troops would, moreover, impose long-term costs on a badly stretched military.
While Mr. Reid suggested that he would support a troop increase for only two or three months, Gen. Jack Keane, one of five Iraq experts who met with Bush last Monday, called that schedule "impossible."
General Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff, asserted that Iraq could not be secured before mid-2008. "It will take a couple of months just to get forces in," he said on the ABC News program "This Week."
The president's request to military planners and White House budget officials to provide details of what a troop increase would mean indicates that the option is gaining ground, senior administration officials said.
Political, training and recruiting obstacles mean that an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive, the officials said. The increase would probably be accomplished largely by accelerating scheduled deployments while keeping some units in Iraq longer than had been planned.
General Powell said this meant it would be "a surge that you'd have to pay for later," as replacement troops became even harder to find.
The current strategy stresses stepping up the training of Iraqi forces and handing off to them as soon as possible.
Senator Reid made clear that his support for a troop increase depended on its being linked to an overall withdrawal plan. "We have to change course in Iraq," he said on the ABC News program "This Week." But in the meantime, Mr. Reid said, Democrats would "give the military anything they want."
General Powell, who as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff helped lead an earlier American-led coalition that forced Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991, said that he was unsure this time whether victory could be achieved.
"If victory means you have got rid of every insurgent, that you have peace throughout the country, I don't see that in the cards right now," he said. But it was possible to install a certain level of order and security.
General Powell said the Iraq war had left Americans "a little less safe" by curtailing the forces available should another major crisis arise. But, he added, "I think that's all recoverable."
He supported the call for talks with Syria and Iran, although the latter, he said, would be more difficult.
"I have no illusion that either Syria or Iran want to help us in Iraq," General Powell said. But there were times, he said, when difficult contacts can be productive.
Before he visited Damascus as secretary of state, General Powell said, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel asked him not to go. But Mr. Sharon then added that it would be helpful if General Powell should ask Syrian leaders to stop Hezbollah militants in Lebanon from firing rockets into Israel.
"The rockets stopped," General Powell said.

[Lex]

Iraq premier appeals to Saddam's army

Al-Maliki reaches out to all groups at national reconciliation conference

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:06 a.m. ET Dec 16, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's army has "opened its doors" to all former members of Saddam Hussein's army, the prime minister said Saturday at a national reconciliation conference boycotted by one of his main Shiite allies, a major Sunni group and Iraq's exiled opposition.

Despite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's effort to reach out to Iraq's Sunni Arabs and some former members of Saddam's outlawed Baath Party, the gathering was overshadowed by rising sectarian tensions and political divisions.

The radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, one of al-Maliki's key political backers — refused to attend the meeting, as did a major Sunni group and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite.

The U.S. military raided the Shiite slum of Sadr City — a stronghold for the Mahdi Army militia that is blamed for some of the worst violence against Iraq's Sunnis — and detained six suspects. The raid and airstrike left one fighter dead and another wounded.

"We firmly believe that national reconciliation is the only guaranteed path toward security, stability and prosperity. The alternative, God forbid, is death and destruction and the loss of Iraq," said al-Maliki, whose time in office have been defined by a surge in sectarian violence and failure to end an insurgency, improve services or reduce high crime and unemployment rates.

Some Baath Party members not linked to the Sunni-led insurgency, as well as former army officers, were among the delegates, organizers said.

Setting conditions for army
Al-Maliki reached out to the officers and soldiers who lost their posts after the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam nearly four years ago.

He imposed few conditions on the return of former military personnel, only cautioning that those allowed to serve in the new army should be loyal to the country and conduct themselves professionally.

He also said the size of the army might limit the number accepted but those unable to join would be given pensions.

Two aides to al-Maliki, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to disclose information to the media, said Saddam-era officers could apply to be reinstated regardless of their rank. But they said admission would depend on their professional and physical suitability for service as well as the extent of their links to the Baath Party.

The government had previously invited former officers up to the rank of major to join the new army. The outreach and pension offer were apparent concessions to a long-standing demand by Sunni Arab politicians who argue that the neglect of former army soldiers was pushing them into the arms of the insurgency.

The criticism was echoed in remarks by Saleem Abdullah, a spokesman for the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front.

"This conference can be successful if its participants have the spirit of reconciliation and the honest desire for unity," he said, warning that the conference will end in failure "if the practical reality remains the same."


'De-Baathification' reviewed
L. Paul Bremer, Iraq's former U.S. governor, dissolved Iraq's 400,000-strong army soon after American forces overthrew Saddam's regime in April 2003. The decision is widely seen as a mistake because it drove many into opposition.

"The new Iraqi army has opened its doors for members of the former army, officers and soldiers, and the national unity government is prepared to absorb those who have the desire to serve the nation," al-Maliki said.

He said the government needed "their energies, expertise and skills in order to complete the building of our armed forces."

Al-Maliki also called on parliament to review the "de-Baathification" clauses in the constitution adopted last year to ensure what he called the rights of the families of those fired from government jobs for their membership in the party.

Conference boycotted by many
The two-day conference is being held at the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, home to the Iraqi government offices as well as the U.S. and British embassies. Nasir al-Ani, a spokesman for the conference, said "very few" of the opposition leaders living in exile and invited to attend showed up.

Al-Sadr's bloc also boycotted the conference, complaining that it included Baathists and Sunni extremists.

"There is no point in holding these conferences.... Because the situation is getting worse," said Firas al-Mitairi, a spokesman for the bloc.

Al-Maliki also reiterated his plans to disband Shiite militias said to be behind much of the sectarian violence. Foremost among these is al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, whose militiamen fought U.S. troops for much of 2004.

"There must be a solution to this problem and the militias must be disbanded and integrated into various state institutions," said al-Maliki, who has so far resisted U.S. pressure to take concrete measures against the militias.

The raid earlier Saturday in the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City was aimed at capturing a leader of an illegally armed group of more than 100 people believed responsible for kidnappings, killings, illegal checkpoints, rocket attacks and bombings against security forces and civilians in northeastern Baghdad.

The U.S. military did not identify the target further. It said no civilians or Iraqi or coalition forces suffered casualties and minimal damage was caused to the area.

At least 14 people also were killed or found dead in Iraq, including a Christian car mechanic who was shot to death in the northern city of Mosul.

[Lex]

Bush rejects most dramatic Iraq options

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
16 december 2006 1.32pm ET

President Bush has taken the most dramatic options off the table as he tries to change direction in Iraq, leaving him with a list of modest military and diplomatic moves to announce in the new year.
Bush probably will ignore the boldest suggestions from a bipartisan commission that studied U.S. options in Iraq, adopting some of the group's lesser prescriptions alongside those drafted by his civilian and military advisers.
The White House National Security Council has compiled recommendations from several agencies as the administration's internal reassessment of Iraq policy nears an end. Bush plans to address the nation in early January, two months after heavy Republican losses in congressional elections.

A look at some of the president's options:

On the military front, there are various ways to "go big," by adding 10,000 to 20,000 troops to the approximately 135,000 U.S. forces in Iraq. Bush has gotten competing advice about how many troops to add, whether to define their mission as temporary or long term and whether to add troops at all.
Some military officers doubt that the results from any increase would be worth the damage to the Army's readiness. Others advocate adding forces and launching an offensive against Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr while increasing industrial and economic aid to civilians.
Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., has said the U.S. should send five to 10 more brigades of combat soldiers, translating to 15,000 to 30,000 additional troops. The current U.S. force includes about 15 combat brigades made up of 50,000 to 60,000 soldiers. Bush has been told that adding up to 20,000 troops would be fairly easy to arrange and a short-term surge of up to 50,000 could be done with difficulty.
The additional troops would be assigned primarily in Baghdad, where sectarian killing has surged out of control in the past 10 months. Some could go to Anbar province, where U.S. forces have been unable to dislodge the Sunni-led anti-government insurgency.
Another element of the "go big" idea is increasing the total size of the military. The chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps want to expand the size of their services, although departing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld opposed it. He cited an estimated cost of $1.2 billion a year for each 10,000 extra troops. The Army also wants the ability to mobilize Guard and Reserve troops more frequently than is now allowed; some in Congress are likely to resist such a change.
Bush probably will reject the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to pull back most combat forces by early 2008. Proposals before him include integrating or embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi Army units to provide guidance on tactics and leadership. The long-term goal would be a shift away from a primarily combat role, which some advisers say consigns U.S. forces to a defensive posture as they await the next attack by insurgents.
No matter how it is calibrated, this "go long" shift would reinforce the administration's recognition that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years to come. Bush has rejected any suggestion for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces, as some lawmakers recommend, and probably will not set a firm exit timetable. He is likely to endorse the basic idea recommended by the commission and others to condition at least some U.S. military and economic engagement to the performance of Iraq's government. Economic steps could include a significant jobs program. Unemployment in Iraq is estimated at between 20 percent and 60 percent.

Diplomatic options include expanding the U.S. outreach to various centers of power in Iraq and engaging Iraq's neighbors to help in a more vigorous and formal way — the "go wide" strategy. Bush probably will endorse elements of this approach while ruling out a new overture to U.S. adversaries Iran and Syria.
The State Department has recommended the U.S. keep supporting the shaky government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki but "diversify our portfolio," as one official put it. Seeking common ground with leaders in and out of government would help protect U.S. interests if, for example, al-Maliki were to lose power.
The starkest choice for diplomacy is one Bush is almost certain to reject: stop trying to recruit greater Sunni participation in a unified government and cast U.S. fortunes with the Shiite and Kurdish majority. Sunnis make up about 20 percent of the population but are blamed for fanning insurgent violence that accounts for most U.S. casualties.
A competing plan would woo the Sunni elite by guaranteeing them a share of oil revenue and reversing the previous policy of "de-Baathification," which purged ex-members of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-led Baathist rule from the top layers of government institutions.
Bush is weighing plans for a more structured network of Arab nations with a goal of clamping down on the violence in Iraq. This regional forum could become an expanded version of an existing State Department-backed initiative, offering a framework for countries to discuss Iraq and meet with Iraqi leaders.
Such a partnership presumably would have to include Iran and Syria. Those countries, which share borders with Iraq, hold great influence inside Iraq. U.S. diplomats would participate alongside Iranian and Syrian representatives but Bush probably will not endorse direct negotiations with them, as the Iraq Study Group recommended.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said both nations would probably use direct talks to seek unacceptable "compensation" from the United States. If Iran and Syria see it as in their interest to help Iraq they will do so on their own, she suggested to reporters last week.
Bush also is likely to endorse a renewed effort to resolve other Middle East conflicts as a means to an end in Iraq.

[ronjhe]

Ik hoop toch echt niet dat die extra 20.000 troepen er komen... want ik ben bang dat het niks zal helpen en alleen maar als een rode lap op een stier zal werken en dus meer geweld zal veroorzaken. Of de troepen moeten Iraakse troepen die nu aan de grens zijn gelegerd vervangen zodat die naar de steden kunnen worden overgebracht. Dat lijkt me wel een goede zet. Want Iraakse soldaten zullen minder agressie oproepen dan de Amerikaanse.

[Lex]

U.S. preparing surge of troops into Iraq?

Brigade's upcoming deployment may mark short-term boost in troops

The Associated Press
Updated: 5:32 a.m. ET Dec 16, 2006

WASHINGTON - After one of the deadliest months yet for American troops in Iraq, the U.S. military could be preparing for a short-term surge of forces to stabilize the violence.

The 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division is expected in Kuwait shortly after the new year, a senior Defense Department official told The Associated Press on Friday. The official requested anonymity because the plans had not yet been announced.

The 2nd Brigade, made up of roughly 3,500 troops, is based at Fort Bragg, N.C., and would be deployed in Iraq early next year if needed, the official said. The move would be part of an effort to boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq for a short time, the official said. The plan was first reported by CBS News.

Senior administration officials say the option of a major surge in troop strength is gaining ground as part of the administration's strategy review, The New York Times reported on its Web site Friday night. Military planners and budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing U.S. forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more, the newspaper reported.

More than 50 Americans have been killed in Iraq in December, nearly half of them in the volatile Anbar province west of Baghdad.

National reconciliation conference
In a half-hour video conference with Bush on Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlined plans for the national reconciliation conference taking place in Baghdad on Saturday. Al-Maliki cited the desire of many people in Iraq for a larger core of Iraqi political leaders to come together for the common objective of stabilizing the country and promoting the rule of law, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in describing the conversation.

Al-Maliki also talked with Bush about providing greater security, in particular in Baghdad, by going after all sources of violence, including insurgents and militias, Johndroe said. Bush reiterated his support for al-Maliki and said he was encouraged by the meetings he had recently with Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, and with the leader of the largest Shiite bloc in Iraq's parliament, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim.

In assessing the state of the war in Iraq, Bush has been meeting this week with top generals and other advisers. The military options being considered include an increased effort to train and equip Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, the commander of U.S. forces in the strife-ridden Iraqi province of Diyala said Friday that tribal leaders and some political groups in the province are turning to terrorists and insurgents for protection rather than trust Iraqi soldiers and police.

"This sort of unity only worsens the sectarian divide and encourages further violence," said Col. David Sutherland, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. He spoke to reporters at the Pentagon by a satellite video connection from his headquarters near the city of Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad.

[Ros]

"Pouring in more troops" is niet de oplossing, en zeker niet uit de  VS of uit andere westerse landen. Aanvulling van de coaltitie troepen zou m.i. meer moeten komen van de omliggende buurlanden en in ieder geval uit de Islamitische hoek. En dan ook nog primair gericht op de opbouw van de Irakese politie en defensie.

Het is denk ook wel duidelijk dat de rek er een beetje uit is bij de VS om meer en meer mensen en materiaal te leveren.

[Lex]

Army chief seeks more forces, reserves

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
posted 5.30 pm ET

As President Bush weighs new strategies for Iraq, the Army's top general warned Thursday that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.

Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years.

Though he didn't give an exact number, he said it would take significant time and commitment by the nation, noting some 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year.

Officials also need greater authority to tap into the National Guard and Reserve, long ago set up as a strategic reserve but now needed as an integral part of the nation's deployed forces, Schoomaker told a commission studying possible changes in those two forces.

"Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand ... is placing a strain on the Army's all-volunteer force," Schoomaker told the commission in a Capitol Hill hearing.

"At this pace ... we will break the active component" unless reserves can be called up more to help, Schoomaker said in prepared remarks.

Schoomaker's comments come as Bush continues his assessment of the Iraq war. Bush held three days of urgent meetings with top generals and other advisers. Over that time, Bush gathered advice from former and current commanders, including those in Iraq, as well as chiefs of the military services and other top Pentagon leaders.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to characterize Bush's response to Schoomaker's suggestion, but said Bush "takes seriously any of the requests from the service branch chiefs."

Speaking to reporters afterward, Schoomaker said Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, is looking at several military options for the war, including shifting many troops from combat missions to training Iraqi units. However, Schoomaker said, the military is more interested in getting the Iraqi security forces up to speed than anything.

Above all else, the military is looking at "how we generate Iraqi output," he said.

The Army in recent days has been looking at how many additional troops could be sent to Iraq, if the president decides a surge in forces would be helpful. But, officials say, only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because it would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat.

Further, many experts warn, there is no guarantee a surge would work to settle the violence.

"We would not surge without a purpose," Schoomaker told reporters. "And that purpose should be measurable."

He even heard from outside advisers who suggested he remove Marine Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to an official familiar with the meeting who asked not to be named because the discussions were private.

A number of administration officials have suggested privately that — while Bush has considered the possibility of a short-term troop increase — there is no consensus from the military on the wisdom of injecting a large number of additional troops.

Another option under discussion is increasing the number of U.S. troops who are placed inside Iraqi army and police units as advisers, providing a kind of on-the-job training that the senior military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, told reporters is already paying notable dividends.

The military has said that any adjustments in troop levels would be fruitless without accompanying improvements on the political and economic fronts, to reconcile the rival sectarian factions and to put young people to work.

Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, meanwhile, called on the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At a news conference in Washington, al-Hashemi, a Sunni leader who met with Bush earlier this week, said the timetable should be "flexible" and depend on development of a capable Iraqi security force.

"You've done your job," he said at the United States Institute of Peace, a U.S.-financed think tank.

Currently, however, he said, "There is across-the-board chaos in my country," with roaming bands of murderers.

[Northside]

Don Shepperd for president.

Aardige analyse, aardige aanzet voor oplossingen. Maar zoals ook Elzinga als zegt... welke onderstromen spelen er allemaal in de politiek met tegengestelde belangen?

[ronjhe]

Even in het kort hoe de Generaal (bd) Shepperd het zou aanpakken naar aanleiding van de aanbevelingen door de Iraq Study Group.

Niet onaardig plan.... op het gemakshalve bagataliseren van de leugenachtige aanzet van de inval in Irak na dan. Probleem is alleen dat daar nu juist het probleem ligt. De inval in Irak was volgens mij helemaal geen foutje achteraf, omdat men niet vond wat men vooraf dacht dat er wel was (de WMD). Men wist wel degelijk, dat die er niet waren. Maar ging toch tot de aanval over omdat er andere belangen en redenen speelden. De vraag is of de groep actoren die deze belangen vertegenwoordigen en nastreven inmiddels net zo aangeslagen en verzwakt zijn als het avontuur in Irak zelf. Ik heb het verontrustende voorgevoel, dat dit nog wel eens niet zo zou kunnen zijn. En deze actoren nu hun wonden likken en druk bezig zijn nieuwe plannen te maken om de door hen ingezette weg, waar zij welhaast heilig in geloven, met vernieuwde kracht voort te zetten. De reactie van Bush en Blair op het rapport was al een verontrustend voorteken. Dat is voor mij dus nu de centrale vraag... waar zijn deze groep actoren nog toe in staat?