Petraeus recommends partial troop withdrawal

[CommunityEditor]

Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next summer.

In long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter’s buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives “in large measure.”

As a result, he told a congressional hearing and a nationwide television audience, “I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level ... by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve.”

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House’s bidding, he said firmly, “I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress.”

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly the number last winter when President Bush decided to dispatch additional forces.

Petraeus said a decision about further reductions would be made next March.

Using charts and graphs to illustrate his points, Petraeus conceded that the military gains have been uneven in the months since Bush ordered the buildup last winter.

But he also said that there has been an overall decline in violence and said, “the level of security incidents has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June of 2006.”

Petraeus also said the Iraqi military is slowly gaining competence and gradually “taking on more responsibility for their security.”



Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...traeus_070910/
Testimony: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/...ny20070910.pdf

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

[i]Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next summer.

So "success" as defined by Mr. Bush is "Hey, we aren't in any worse shape than we were 18 months ago (and I only have four more months in office before I can start collecting my pension - I can do that standing on my head).".

General Petraeus stated that he prepared his comments to Congress without any assistance from the Administration. I do consider our military leaders as honorable men; however, they may, underscore may, be influenced by their civilian bosses. For good example being Gen Pace going along with the Tricare premium increases last year. I also imagine the President's visit to Iraq to meet with the Gerneral last week was also a reminder of the President's loyalty to the General and his satisfaction with the General's performance. He surely did not do very much else during that brief trip.

I doubt I was the only person to think that the General would stick behind our "staying the course" or "we cannot accept defeat". We will continue on our present course till we elect a new Republican or Democrat President. Anybody that hasn't come up with that conclusion needs to take his head out of the hole. I wish I had a solution, but then again, the big boys in charge don't have the answers, which is very evident.

My Father was a NAVY PILOT in WWII, what BushCo has LIED US INTO, will eventually come back to HAUNT US. Have You Found That WMD yet ????

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._iraq_swindle/

WATCH THE MONEY, IT WILL FLOW TO SENATE< CONGRESSIONAL< PRESIDENTIAL etc., etc. et al ELECTIONS for the next DECADE or TWO !!!

After all these SLOBS are bent on GLOBAL DOMINATION
W's New Order

Judson

The Great Iraq Swindle

The Great Texas Bank Job the Continuing Saga of Corruption and Looting GOP style - Judson
How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
--From Issue 1034
Page 1 2 3 4 5
How is it done? How do you screw the taxpayer for millions, get away with it and then ride off into the sunset with one middle finger extended, the other wrapped around a chilled martini? Ask Earnest O. Robbins -- he knows all about being a successful contractor in Iraq.

You start off as a well-connected bureaucrat: in this case, as an Air Force civil engineer, a post from which Robbins was responsible for overseeing 70,000 servicemen and contractors, with an annual budget of $8 billion. You serve with distinction for thirty-four years, becoming such a military all-star that the Air Force frequently sends you to the Hill to testify before Congress -- until one day in the summer of 2003, when you retire to take a job as an executive for Parsons, a private construction company looking to do work in Iraq.

Now you can finally move out of your dull government housing on Bolling Air Force Base and get your wife that dream home you've been promising her all these years. The place on Park Street in Dunn Loring, Virginia, looks pretty good -- four bedrooms, fireplace, garage, 2,900 square feet, a nice starter home in a high-end neighborhood full of spooks, think-tankers and ex-apparatchiks moved on to the nest-egg phase of their faceless careers. On October 20th, 2003, you close the deal for $775,000 and start living that private-sector good life.

A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to house and train at least 4,000 police recruits. But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning police academy but one of the great engineering clusterfucks of all time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that its walls and ceilings are literally caked in shit and piss, a result of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.

You've done such a terrible job, in fact, that when auditors from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction visit the college in the summer of 2006, their report sounds like something out of one of the Saw movies: "We witnessed a light fixture so full of diluted urine and feces that it would not operate," they write, adding that "the urine was so pervasive that it had permanently stained the ceiling tiles" and that "during our visit, a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an assessment team member's shirt." The final report helpfully includes a photo of a sloppy brown splotch on the outstretched arm of the unlucky auditor.

When Congress gets wind of the fias*co, a few members on the House Oversight Committee demand a hearing. To placate them, your company decides to send you to the Hill -- after all, you're a former Air Force major general who used to oversee this kind of contracting operation for the government. So you take your twenty-minute ride in from the suburbs, sit down before the learned gentlemen of the committee and promptly get asked by an irritatingly eager Maryland congressman named Chris Van Hollen how you managed to spend $72 million on a pile of shit.
You blink. Fuck if you know. "I have some conjecture, but that's all it would be" is your deadpan answer.

The room twitters in amazement. It's hard not to applaud the balls of a man who walks into Congress short $72 million in taxpayer money and offers to guess where it all might have gone.
Next thing you know, the congressman is asking you about your company's compensation. Touchy subject -- you've got a "cost-plus" contract, which means you're guaranteed a base-line profit of three percent of your total costs on the deal. The more you spend, the more you make -- and you certainly spent a hell of a lot. But before this milk-faced congressman can even think about suggesting that you give these millions back, you've got to cut him off. "So you won't voluntarily look at this," Van Hollen is mumbling, "and say, given what has happened in this project . . . "

"No, sir, I will not," you snap.
". . . 'We will return the profits.' . . ."
"No, sir, I will not," you repeat.

Your testimony over, you wait out the rest of the hearing, go home, take a bath in one of your four bathrooms, jump into bed with the little woman. . . . A year later, Iraq is still in flames, and your president's administration is safely focused on reclaiming $485 million in aid money from a bunch of toothless black survivors of Hurricane Katrina. But the house you bought for $775K is now *assessed at $929,974, and you're sure as hell not giving it back to anyone.

"Yeah, I don't know what I expected him to say," Van Hollen says now about the way Robbins responded to being asked to give the money back. "It just shows the contempt they have for us, for the taxpayer, for everything."

Operation Iraqi Freedom, it turns out, was never a war against Saddam *Hussein's Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush's war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take at his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq the lines between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity -- to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they fuck things up.

And just maybe, reviewing this appalling history of invoicing orgies and million-dollar boondoggles, it's not so far-fetched to think that this is the way someone up there would like things run all over -- not just in Iraq but in Iowa, too, with the state police working for Corrections Corporation of America, and DHL with the contract to deliver every Christmas card. And why not? What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureauc*racy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profit*eering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.

It was an awful idea, perhaps the worst America has ever tried on foreign soil. But if you were in on it, it was great work while it lasted.

Page 1 2 3 4


Widespread Election Fraud in Cleveland? | Democrats.com
... hope that readers will examine the data with as much scrutiny as Dr. Hayes has. ... From: Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. Date: November 19, 2004 ...
blog.democrats.com/node/812 - 31k - Cached
SUPREME COURT STATE OF OHIO - - - (PDF)


OHIO 2004 : ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION
THE CASE FOR HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS. ADDRESS TO WE COUNT CONFERENCE ... HACKING THE VOTE IN MIAMI COUNTY. ANOMALOUS PRECINCTS IN DELAWARE CITY ...
web.northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm - 4k - Cached


CD Baby: RICHARD HAYES PHILLIPS: Street Songs
... Factory here, Richard Hayes Phillips looked positively elfin ... Dicky," Dr Richard Cuts To The Heart. And you thought Peyote was good !! Judson Witham ...
www.cdbaby.com/rhp5 - 26k - Cached

[CommunityEditor]

Update: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...ocrats_070912/

Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday rejected the call by the top U.S. general in Iraq for a reduction of up to 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by next summer, saying it does not go far enough.

“This is unacceptable to me, it’s unacceptable to the American people,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

He's a crook.

The reduction in ethnic killings is not due to the surge. The reduction in ethnic killing is either because Iraqis moved to neighborhoods that better suit their ethnicity which are thus safer or because they are already dead.

Suckers.

Working in medical field I have seen many injured US military men and women. Many young men that are only the age of my younger brother death. President Bush is playing a political game that will have the end result be placed on the incoming officials. All so he can avoid farther scrutiny about his incompetence in handling a war whose outcome was oblivious to his father, and his advisors.

The insinuation by the administration that this "troop withdrawl" is tied to security is disgusting. THe fact is, this "troop withdrawl" is simply a rotation of forces. The fact that the surge troop will not be replaced is predicated by the fact that replacement forces for them are not in the hopper in sufficient readiness to able to take on the mission.
Gen. Shinseki had it right at the onset...he recommended a very large occupational force (much larger that what is in Iraq now) to handle the securtiy and stability operations that would ensue after the initial air and ground campaign had been waged. Of course, he was in the minority and his opinions were cast to the winds. Guess that had something to do with Rumsfeld, but then that is an assumption - no facts to base that on.
The bottom line is that the US Forces will be in Iraq for a long time to come. Korea is the model being used, but the cultural aspects are not the same. Historically, the Middle-East has been in a struggle for religious dominance since the late 600AD's. This fact seemingly has been lost on the current administration that cannot understand that so long as the US is aligned with Israel, we will never achieve our objectives in the region. Since that alliance is likely to not change in the forseeable future, the best we can ever hope for is neutrality - and that is doubtful.
The only options that congress is truly fighting for are the options of re-election. It is very easy to sit in a comfortable chair and espouse the difficulties faced by the troops and the hardships that they endure, but the fact is, they could care less. If it would get them re-elected, most politicians would fight for puplic executions and beheadings.
"Joe Public" knows little about the military, and even fewer know a servicemember, yet we continue to hear this "support the troops" crap. If they really support the tropps, they would get off their dead butts and write letters to their elected officials on what they want to happen. Since we Americans are generally lazy, it is much easier to spout off at the mouth than the pen, so those letters will probably never happen.
Troop reduction will not equal troop withdrawl, even if the elected officials get their way and are able to force a reduction beyond the scheduled troop rotation planning. If you believe that they would be successful, then you probably also believe that forced 18-24 month deployments wouldn't happen, either.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Judson Witham

My Father was a NAVY PILOT in WWII, what BushCo has LIED US INTO, will eventually come back to HAUNT US. Have You Found That WMD yet ????

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._iraq_swindle/

WATCH THE MONEY, IT WILL FLOW TO SENATE< CONGRESSIONAL< PRESIDENTIAL etc., etc. et al ELECTIONS for the next DECADE or TWO !!!

After all these SLOBS are bent on GLOBAL DOMINATION
W's New Order

Judson

The Great Iraq Swindle

The Great Texas Bank Job the Continuing Saga of Corruption and Looting GOP style - Judson
How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
--From Issue 1034
Page 1 2 3 4 5
How is it done? How do you screw the taxpayer for millions, get away with it and then ride off into the sunset with one middle finger extended, the other wrapped around a chilled martini? Ask Earnest O. Robbins -- he knows all about being a successful contractor in Iraq.

You start off as a well-connected bureaucrat: in this case, as an Air Force civil engineer, a post from which Robbins was responsible for overseeing 70,000 servicemen and contractors, with an annual budget of $8 billion. You serve with distinction for thirty-four years, becoming such a military all-star that the Air Force frequently sends you to the Hill to testify before Congress -- until one day in the summer of 2003, when you retire to take a job as an executive for Parsons, a private construction company looking to do work in Iraq.

Now you can finally move out of your dull government housing on Bolling Air Force Base and get your wife that dream home you've been promising her all these years. The place on Park Street in Dunn Loring, Virginia, looks pretty good -- four bedrooms, fireplace, garage, 2,900 square feet, a nice starter home in a high-end neighborhood full of spooks, think-tankers and ex-apparatchiks moved on to the nest-egg phase of their faceless careers. On October 20th, 2003, you close the deal for $775,000 and start living that private-sector good life.

A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to house and train at least 4,000 police recruits. But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning police academy but one of the great engineering clusterfucks of all time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that its walls and ceilings are literally caked in shit and piss, a result of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.

You've done such a terrible job, in fact, that when auditors from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction visit the college in the summer of 2006, their report sounds like something out of one of the Saw movies: "We witnessed a light fixture so full of diluted urine and feces that it would not operate," they write, adding that "the urine was so pervasive that it had permanently stained the ceiling tiles" and that "during our visit, a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an assessment team member's shirt." The final report helpfully includes a photo of a sloppy brown splotch on the outstretched arm of the unlucky auditor.

When Congress gets wind of the fias*co, a few members on the House Oversight Committee demand a hearing. To placate them, your company decides to send you to the Hill -- after all, you're a former Air Force major general who used to oversee this kind of contracting operation for the government. So you take your twenty-minute ride in from the suburbs, sit down before the learned gentlemen of the committee and promptly get asked by an irritatingly eager Maryland congressman named Chris Van Hollen how you managed to spend $72 million on a pile of shit.
You blink. Fuck if you know. "I have some conjecture, but that's all it would be" is your deadpan answer.

The room twitters in amazement. It's hard not to applaud the balls of a man who walks into Congress short $72 million in taxpayer money and offers to guess where it all might have gone.
Next thing you know, the congressman is asking you about your company's compensation. Touchy subject -- you've got a "cost-plus" contract, which means you're guaranteed a base-line profit of three percent of your total costs on the deal. The more you spend, the more you make -- and you certainly spent a hell of a lot. But before this milk-faced congressman can even think about suggesting that you give these millions back, you've got to cut him off. "So you won't voluntarily look at this," Van Hollen is mumbling, "and say, given what has happened in this project . . . "

"No, sir, I will not," you snap.
". . . 'We will return the profits.' . . ."
"No, sir, I will not," you repeat.

Your testimony over, you wait out the rest of the hearing, go home, take a bath in one of your four bathrooms, jump into bed with the little woman. . . . A year later, Iraq is still in flames, and your president's administration is safely focused on reclaiming $485 million in aid money from a bunch of toothless black survivors of Hurricane Katrina. But the house you bought for $775K is now *assessed at $929,974, and you're sure as hell not giving it back to anyone.

"Yeah, I don't know what I expected him to say," Van Hollen says now about the way Robbins responded to being asked to give the money back. "It just shows the contempt they have for us, for the taxpayer, for everything."

Operation Iraqi Freedom, it turns out, was never a war against Saddam *Hussein's Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush's war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take at his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq the lines between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity -- to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they fuck things up.

And just maybe, reviewing this appalling history of invoicing orgies and million-dollar boondoggles, it's not so far-fetched to think that this is the way someone up there would like things run all over -- not just in Iraq but in Iowa, too, with the state police working for Corrections Corporation of America, and DHL with the contract to deliver every Christmas card. And why not? What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureauc*racy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profit*eering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.

It was an awful idea, perhaps the worst America has ever tried on foreign soil. But if you were in on it, it was great work while it lasted.

Page 1 2 3 4


Widespread Election Fraud in Cleveland? | Democrats.com
... hope that readers will examine the data with as much scrutiny as Dr. Hayes has. ... From: Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. Date: November 19, 2004 ...
blog.democrats.com/node/812 - 31k - Cached
SUPREME COURT STATE OF OHIO - - - (PDF)


OHIO 2004 : ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION
THE CASE FOR HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS. ADDRESS TO WE COUNT CONFERENCE ... HACKING THE VOTE IN MIAMI COUNTY. ANOMALOUS PRECINCTS IN DELAWARE CITY ...
web.northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm - 4k - Cached


CD Baby: RICHARD HAYES PHILLIPS: Street Songs
... Factory here, Richard Hayes Phillips looked positively elfin ... Dicky," Dr Richard Cuts To The Heart. And you thought Peyote was good !! Judson Witham ...
www.cdbaby.com/rhp5 - 26k - Cached

Are we to assume that the war in Iraq is not going well? That the bush administration is corrupt to the core?
That the big guys are making obscene profits with OUR money? Please sir, don't be daft, we are fighting for democracy and freedom. If you don't believe me just listen to some of our president's speeches at any military compound and you'll be hard pressed to deny the fact that victory is at hand.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The insinuation by the administration that this "troop withdrawl" is tied to security is disgusting. THe fact is, this "troop withdrawl" is simply a rotation of forces. The fact that the surge troop will not be replaced is predicated by the fact that replacement forces for them are not in the hopper in sufficient readiness to able to take on the mission.

And the fact that "The Surge" was - essentially - the replacement of troops from Mr. Bush's "Coallition of the Willing" who were no longer willing with American troops also seems to have escaped 99.999% of the American public.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Gen. Shinseki had it right at the onset...he recommended a very large occupational force (much larger that what is in Iraq now) to handle the securtiy and stability operations that would ensue after the initial air and ground campaign had been waged. Of course, he was in the minority and his opinions were cast to the winds. Guess that had something to do with Rumsfeld, but then that is an assumption - no facts to base that on.

Actually there are "facts to base that on", you just have to do a bit of research into what the replaced officers have said happened.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The bottom line is that the US Forces will be in Iraq for a long time to come.

Well, they will certainly be in Iraq until FEB 09 at any rate, and probably longer as long as they can prop up a regime that won't tell them to go home.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Korea is the model being used, but the cultural aspects are not the same. Historically, the Middle-East has been in a struggle for religious dominance since the late 600AD's.

Do you mean like when the Christians tried to implement "The Final Solution To The Muslim Problem"?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This fact seemingly has been lost on the current administration that cannot understand that so long as the US is aligned with Israel, we will never achieve our objectives in the region.

Quite a good point. On the other hand, the Arabs aren't saying that they want to wipe out the Jews, only that they don't think that there should be a country "Israel" on what they consider to be their traditional lands.

Remember, Israel is the solution arrived at by "Christians" to deal with the "Jews" by giving them some land that didn't belong to any "Christians". That's like Bob taking money from Bill to pay off Pete and then wondering why Bill is upset. After all, didn't Bob pay off his debt to Pete?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Since that alliance is likely to not change in the forseeable future, the best we can ever hope for is neutrality - and that is doubtful.

Doubtful is being rather too kind. Remember, the government of the United States of America has a pretty strong need to have Israel in existance. Without Israel then the government of the United States of America would have to use Americans to run the weapons systems used to deliver American ordnance onto Arabs.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The only options that congress is truly fighting for are the options of re-election.

And this comes as a surprise to you? Why?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It is very easy to sit in a comfortable chair and espouse the difficulties faced by the troops and the hardships that they endure, but the fact is, they could care less. If it would get them re-elected, most politicians would fight for puplic executions and beheadings.

Like hell they would. There isn't a hell of a lot of money to be made in public executions and beheadings. The politicians would be fighting to have them televised.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"Joe Public" knows little about the military, and even fewer know a servicemember, yet we continue to hear this "support the troops" crap.

I'm sorry, but here we have to part company. "Support the troops." is never crap - not even when it was pronounced "Die Truppen stützen." and uttered by Herr Goebbels.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If they really support the tropps, they would get off their dead butts and write letters to their elected officials on what they want to happen.

Unfortunately what "they" want to happen is BOTH (A) All of our troops to come home safely and soon. AND (B) Iraq to be a peaceful, law respecting, society with no internal tensions that is a model democracy - just like the United States of America.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

We Americans are generally lazy, it is much easier to spout off at the mouth than the pen, so those letters will probably never happen.

Actually the letters are happening. They just aren't being responded to any more concretely than

"Dear _____________

Congressman ____ thanks you for your letter. Congressman _____ is always glad to hear the views of his constituants and is working constantly for the best interests of his constituants. For the past ____ years, Congressman _____ has done his best to ensure that his constituants receive their fair share of the benefits of being Americans and he will continue to do so for as long as he has the support of concerned and actively patriotic voters like yourself. Unfortunately Congressman ____'s busy schedule did not give him a chance to telephone you personally and express his personal thanks for the interest that you have shown in the nation's best interests but he has assured me, personally, that he will be addressing the concerns that you set out in your letter at his earliest opportunity.

Yours truly

F.L. Unky

PS

The next time I see Uncle ____, I'll be sure and remind him that he promised you that he'd get right to your concern."

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Troop reduction will not equal troop withdrawl, even if the elected officials get their way and are able to force a reduction beyond the scheduled troop rotation planning. If you believe that they would be successful, then you probably also believe that forced 18-24 month deployments wouldn't happen, either.

You are being too cynical. Once the "goals" have been "rationalized" the US government will be able to withdraw American troops quite rapidly. Whether the Iraqis "back slide" after being handed their peaceful and democratic country on a platter will, of course, be solely the fault of the Iraqis.

Does the term "Iraqization" have any meaning to you?