What is really going on in Iraq?

Was watching a little of a Dispatches documentary last night on UK Channel 4. It seemed to shed some light on what is going on there, and why the situation has been so hopelessly mismanaged.

The current Iraqi government are now majority Shia like the country. And the interior ministry are co-opting Shia milita groups into the police and secret police forces. These groups are effectively state-run and supplied death squads who target Sunnis, round them up, kill them and dump the bodies.

In response to this, the Sunnis use car bombs to blow up Shia areas/mosques/etc. The administration is forced by the chaos to co-opt militia groups but it can't control them.

The US is in a ridiculous position of trying to stabilise Iraq by supporting a government who's survival is based on co-opted milita, supported themselves ideologically by the US' enemy Iran.

Yes, it's all a mess.

20,000 extra soldiers isn't enough.

Yeah but are those troops to stop the government death squads? To attack the Sunni insurgents? The former would be impossible, the latter would be impossible to do without creating an Iranian-centric Iraq.

If you have enough soldiers then you don't need to support anybody...

However, they will never have that many. I have no idea what they will do. Several politicians need to be tried for treason over this. There was no way it was accidentally bungled this badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

If you have enough soldiers then you don't need to support anybody...

However, they will never have that many. I have no idea what they will do. Several politicians need to be tried for treason over this. There was no way it was accidentally bungled this badly.

---

Oh yes it could. We have done almost as badly in other conflicts. The main difference is that we learned from our errors and corrected them before it became the overriding issue. This time the politicans have placed themselves in a quandry of their own making. They want to maintain power so they can not take the actions necessary to actually place more troops into the theather.

As Tribesman might say - they completely mucked it up because they are politians first and foremost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

As Tribesman might say - they completely mucked it up because they are politians first and foremost.

---

Except Tribesman would have used several dozen laughing smilies. :wink:

Surely behaviour, incompetant or otherwise, which damages your country's interests, results in the deaths of soliders, and aids the enemy, is treason.

Saddam was an effective dictator -- as this legacy proves.

He so effectively squelched anybody who even seemed to be a source of threat or resistance that few "leader types" are left. Nobody has the charisma/charm/power to take the lead and cross ethnic/ideological lines to establish a stable Iraq.

The largely Sunni government is trying to co-opt the militias and I am sure that the stated goal is to "pull the teeth" of the threat by making it part of the solution. May even be working to some extent. As the death squad thing shows, however, the strategy as a whole hasn't worked.

Like it or not, we are going to end up with (de facto if not de jure) a tripartite Iraq that is one country only for: sporting events & UN membership purposes. The interesting and unresolved question is just how much independence the Shia segment of the new Iraq will have from Iran's ayatollahs.

The USA is not willing to pay the price in blood, treasure, and bad press to truly subjugate Iraq and start over from a basis of relative stability. Since, given the size of the militias that would need to be suppressed and disarmed along with the insurgencies, you're talking about 1-1.5M coalition troops, the lack of political will isn't too surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The USA is not willing to pay the price in blood, treasure, and bad press to truly subjugate Iraq and start over from a basis of relative stability. Since, given the size of the militias that would need to be suppressed and disarmed along with the insurgencies, you're talking about 1-1.5M coalition troops, the lack of political will isn't too surprising.

---

Do you think it could have been done if the US went in with 400K from the start as Shinseki suggested?

More soldiers won't work either. The more American soldiers the more the people get pissed off. They prefer being killed by "their own". Seeing foreigners only makes it worse. If there's no foreign troops they have only one place to channel their attacks --> on themselves.

Lot of Fragonies in Iraq. (lol)

I think a lot of this could have been avoided if we hadnt disarmed and decommisioned the Iraq army - since we have tried to rebuild it from scratch it is nowhere near as complete as it was before

at this point i dont think there is anything we can do - the country has reached critical mass and will only get worse from here on in

Tyranny of the majority is often a problem in Democracy.

Why the US planners didn't see this coming is beyond me.

PS- Moody, where did you get the images in your sig. Me likey!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

I think a lot of this could have been avoided if we hadnt disarmed and decommisioned the Iraq army.

---

Give the man a prize! For bonus credit, what were the two other unpardonably stupid things we did at the beginning of the CPA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

20,000 extra soldiers isn't enough.

---

Fortunately, we're creating a second surge in Afghanistan ...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bush Commits One Additional Troop To Afghanistan

January 29, 2007 | Issue 43•05

WASHINGTON, DC—In an effort to display his administration's willingness to fight on all fronts in the War on Terror, President Bush said at a press conference Monday that American ground forces in Afghanistan will be aided by the immediate deployment of Marine Pfc. Tim Ekenberg of Camp Lejeune, NC.

"I want the American people to know that I have not forgotten that our battle for freedom began in Afghanistan, rooting out the extremists of al-Qaeda and the Taliban," Bush said. "Today, I am ordering the deployment of the 325th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Private Tim Ekenberg, to the embattled Kandahar region."

"We will take whatever measures necessary to win," Bush added. "Isn't that right, Tim?"

Ekenberg is scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan on Friday. His duties include providing full military support for the still-tenuous democratic government, resolving potential conflicts between rival warlords, gathering intelligence for his superiors, delivering humanitarian relief to millions of Afghan citizens displaced by factional warfare, and maintaining a high level of personal physical fitness.

Ekenberg's most vital assignment, however, will be to patrol approximately 1,200 square miles of volatile territory on the Afghan–Pakistani border and conduct search-and-destroy missions on the estimated 40,000 caves where U.S. intelligence sources believe Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives could be hiding.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, 2nd Lt. Jon Pinard, said that Ekenberg will be a valuable addition to his existing military assets.

"Our Marines are the best-equipped and best-trained in the world, and I have it on good authority that Tim is an especially well-trained Marine," Pinard said. "We have requested that he receive full logistical support while deployed in this theater. We've been told that his body armor will be arriving within six months of his reporting for duty, budget permitting."

"We welcome the 325th and have plenty of work for him over here," he added.

The troop surge also seemed to boost morale among the thousands of servicemen and -women already on the ground in Afghanistan, who said they hoped Ekenberg would relieve some of the psychological pressures of being outnumbered by unknown and unidentifiable combatants in a foreign land far from home.

"I can't tell you how great it will be to have someone riding with me in the APC," said Lance Cpl. Amy Patterson, the 117th Light Armored Division, referring to her M113 armored personnel carrier. "We were beginning to think America had forgotten about us. I'm glad to see I was wrong."

While reception of Bush's announcement was generally positive, a small number of Republicans accused the president of shifting much-needed funding away from active forces in Iraq, particularly the 11,000-member 212th Army Communications and Dietary Services Brigade, now stationed outside Tikrit.

Some prominent Democrats have expressed cautious support of Ekenberg's deployment. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) applauded the Bush administration for "at least meeting [our] demands 1/20,000th of the way."

"This is where we should have been sending troops all along," Clinton said. "It's a promising sign that the president is finally willing to unleash on Afghanistan the full force and military might of the United States Marine Corps Private Tim Ekenberg."

Although the 325th is forbidden from disclosing specific details of the upcoming assignment, his father spoke to reporters from the brigade's childhood home in North Carolina shortly after Bush's announcement.

"Even if you disagree with our commander in chief, I ask that your prayers go out to Tim and that we continue to remember the sacrifices that are being made out there," Dean Ekenberg said. "Please, support our troop."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Do you think it could have been done if the US went in with 400K from the start as Shinseki suggested?

---

It would have had a greater chance of success, being that enough boots were on the ground to do the mission. It still could of easily been screwed up if the military leadership began to play politics instead of fulfilling the mission. I stated this view here at the.org when the invasion started that three divisions were not enough to accomplish the mission. While I agree with the necessity of the operation being conducted, it does not mean I agree with the way it has been conducted. THe United States should of went with 10 divisions - but that would of required delay because of Afganstan and the call up of the National Guard. Two options that the political leadership decide were not necessary.

Part of the muck up also is that the senior leadership of the military have been playing politics versus soldiering and leading their troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Saddam was an effective dictator -- as this legacy proves.

He so effectively squelched anybody who even seemed to be a source of threat or resistance that few "leader types" are left. Nobody has the charisma/charm/power to take the lead and cross ethnic/ideological lines to establish a stable Iraq.

The largely Sunni government is trying to co-opt the militias and I am sure that the stated goal is to "pull the teeth" of the threat by making it part of the solution. May even be working to some extent. As the death squad thing shows, however, the strategy as a whole hasn't worked.

Like it or not, we are going to end up with (de facto if not de jure) a tripartite Iraq that is one country only for: sporting events & UN membership purposes. The interesting and unresolved question is just how much independence the Shia segment of the new Iraq will have from Iran's ayatollahs.

The USA is not willing to pay the price in blood, treasure, and bad press to truly subjugate Iraq and start over from a basis of relative stability. Since, given the size of the militias that would need to be suppressed and disarmed along with the insurgencies, you're talking about 1-1.5M coalition troops, the lack of political will isn't too surprising.

---

Iran's influence is crystal clear. They own the Shia groups in Iraq. It's not more complex than that. Considering that Hizbollah won the war against Israel, it's a pretty desperate situation.

This means in the tripartite Iraq there is an extremely powerful probability that a majority Shia element owned by Iran. And in Palestine, Hamas and Hizbollah hold the reigns. The power struggle between the Fatah and Hamas is obviously going to be a major victory for Hamas. They will try to kill whatever Fatah leaders they can, those who are not in the spotlight. When I say owned by Iran I mean they will do exactly what the Iranians tell them to do. Imagine what bricks the Soddies (saudis) are defecating. They must be drinking oil to alleviate their constipation.

More troops from the start would have definitely helped. 400 thousand is a far cry from ~130(?) thousand or so.

It's simple really, once the initial invasion of Iraq was over and the coalition assumed the role of regional policeman the movers and shakers behind the invasion refused to even recognize the notion that the conventional force which blew through Iraq's armed forces would be inadequate for such a role. They failed to take a page from the playbook of America's larger cities that have successfully tackled widespread crime (i.e. NYC). Basically more cops walking the beat in bad neighborhoods and engaging in aggressive policing means there will be fewer opportunities for criminals to do their dirty work unhindered (i.e. insurgents planting massive roadside IED ambushes in Iraq).

The Neo-Cons played this one like a 20th century Democrat tribute band and it has blown up in their faces (literally and figuratively). By following in the footsteps of the Truman and Johnson administrations and interfering with the generals' planning and execution of the invasion and occupation they have set themselves up for a nasty and bloody third act. It is foolish to say Iraq is a complete failure but I think it's safe to say our horse isn't going to finish first.

Our aversion to killing and our enemy’s inability to do anything else is what has screwed our efforts in Iraq. More troops will help but the real trick is having a civilized people that want democracy and can agree to work it as their system. It seems that most of Iraq wants the benefits of democracy but only if their party is dominant, and if it is not, it’s fighting time, not voting time.

I saw the same programme. ******* me, what a mess. No disrespect to Redleg, but if there has been a foreign policy disaster this bad before I can't think what it was. Not using force to prevent the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, maybe. But that wasn't stupid, more naive.

If anyone can see a solution other than partition, they are more far sighted than me. And "partition" might mean "complete expulsion of the Sunnis to Saudi" I guess. Its that or a failed state.

Lemur...err, debaathification and the somewhat "lax" approach to basic financial controls? I mean, there is so much, how are we supposed to choose.

Quote:

---

the real trick is having a civilized people that want democracy and can agree to work it as their system.

---

Yeah. Next time we should invade Iceland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah but are those troops to stop the government death squads? To attack the Sunni insurgents?

---

Both apparently. It seems that the Iraqi PM had a serious case of denial(perhaps deliberately turning a blind eye) when it came to Shiite militias running around and murdering Sunnis in cold blood.

From what I've read, US intelligence showed him undeniable evidence of Shiite militia involvement in what was basically tantamount to genocide against Sunnis. Supposedly, he could no longer keep his head buried in the sand afterwards and is beginning to take some meaningful steps towards disarming militias and arresting ringleaders. Now, will he go weak-kneed again and look the other way after a few token gestures? Perhaps. But seeing that Al Maliki has already taken at least some action even before the new US troops are deployed in Baghdad, I'm cautiously optimistic for the moment. Just Al Maliki recognizing the Shiite militias as a problem would be a huge step forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Give the man a prize! For bonus credit, what were the two other unpardonably stupid things we did at the beginning of the CPA?

---

Too many to name, but telling Iran "We don't talk to evil" while simultaneously leaving the Iranian (and Syrian) borders wide open certainly qualify as two unpardonably stupid things.

I know I'm getting more cynical by the day, but I'm starting to wonder if the administration actually tried to keep the insurgency going for a while, then found it was beyond their ability to control any longer....

Quote:

---

Fortunately, we're creating a second surge in Afghanistan ...

---

I think it speaks volumes about my confidence in the administration's ability to prosecute the war that I was actually pounding on my desk and shouting at my monitor before I thought to check the source (i.e., the Onion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Give the man a prize! For bonus credit, what were the two other unpardonably stupid things we did at the beginning of the CPA?

Fortunately, we're creating a second surge in Afghanistan ...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bush Commits One Additional Troop To Afghanistan

January 29, 2007 | Issue 43•05

WASHINGTON, DC—In an effort to display his administration's willingness to fight on all fronts in the War on Terror, President Bush said at a press conference Monday that American ground forces in Afghanistan will be aided by the immediate deployment of Marine Pfc. Tim Ekenberg of Camp Lejeune, NC.

"I want the American people to know that I have not forgotten that our battle for freedom began in Afghanistan, rooting out the extremists of al-Qaeda and the Taliban," Bush said. "Today, I am ordering the deployment of the 325th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Private Tim Ekenberg, to the embattled Kandahar region."

"We will take whatever measures necessary to win," Bush added. "Isn't that right, Tim?"

Ekenberg is scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan on Friday. His duties include providing full military support for the still-tenuous democratic government, resolving potential conflicts between rival warlords, gathering intelligence for his superiors, delivering humanitarian relief to millions of Afghan citizens displaced by factional warfare, and maintaining a high level of personal physical fitness.

Ekenberg's most vital assignment, however, will be to patrol approximately 1,200 square miles of volatile territory on the Afghan–Pakistani border and conduct search-and-destroy missions on the estimated 40,000 caves where U.S. intelligence sources believe Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives could be hiding.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, 2nd Lt. Jon Pinard, said that Ekenberg will be a valuable addition to his existing military assets.

"Our Marines are the best-equipped and best-trained in the world, and I have it on good authority that Tim is an especially well-trained Marine," Pinard said. "We have requested that he receive full logistical support while deployed in this theater. We've been told that his body armor will be arriving within six months of his reporting for duty, budget permitting."

"We welcome the 325th and have plenty of work for him over here," he added.

The troop surge also seemed to boost morale among the thousands of servicemen and -women already on the ground in Afghanistan, who said they hoped Ekenberg would relieve some of the psychological pressures of being outnumbered by unknown and unidentifiable combatants in a foreign land far from home.

"I can't tell you how great it will be to have someone riding with me in the APC," said Lance Cpl. Amy Patterson, the 117th Light Armored Division, referring to her M113 armored personnel carrier. "We were beginning to think America had forgotten about us. I'm glad to see I was wrong."

While reception of Bush's announcement was generally positive, a small number of Republicans accused the president of shifting much-needed funding away from active forces in Iraq, particularly the 11,000-member 212th Army Communications and Dietary Services Brigade, now stationed outside Tikrit.

Some prominent Democrats have expressed cautious support of Ekenberg's deployment. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) applauded the Bush administration for "at least meeting [our] demands 1/20,000th of the way."

"This is where we should have been sending troops all along," Clinton said. "It's a promising sign that the president is finally willing to unleash on Afghanistan the full force and military might of the United States Marine Corps Private Tim Ekenberg."

Although the 325th is forbidden from disclosing specific details of the upcoming assignment, his father spoke to reporters from the brigade's childhood home in North Carolina shortly after Bush's announcement.

"Even if you disagree with our commander in chief, I ask that your prayers go out to Tim and that we continue to remember the sacrifices that are being made out there," Dean Ekenberg said. "Please, support our troop."

---

A second surge in Afghanistan should not be nearly as controversial as one in Iraq. I was always under the impression we went to Afghanistan purely to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and eliminate Al Qaeda's presence or viability there. I could care less what happens to Afghanistan once that mission is complete. Afganistan's ultimate fate is irrelevant as it has zero geopolitical value when compared to Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

I saw the same programme. ******* me, what a mess. No disrespect to Redleg, but if there has been a foreign policy disaster this bad before I can't think what it was. Not using force to prevent the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, maybe. But that wasn't stupid, more naive.

---

I can think of a couple - the immediate reconstruction period after the civil war comes to mind, but that did not generate near the crisis that our mishandling of events in Iraq. My point was that earlier screw ups were fixed as the mistakes were realized. In this instance the mistakes are not being fixed they are only being compounded upon. So in essence I did agree with the orginal premise.

I just placed an additional qualifier on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

If anyone can see a solution other than partition, they are more far sighted than me. And "partition" might mean "complete expulsion of the Sunnis to Saudi" I guess. Its that or a failed state.

---

Without years of further bloodshed there is probably no other solution. When you consider that the Iraqi state was a British Mandate and not a real nation anyway it makes a lot more sense. The only entity holding the whole thing together for the last 30 odd years was the Ba'athist regime, with it's collapse it has basically ceased to exist.

Quote:

---

What is really going on in Iraq?

---

Kukri the Pessimist thinks His Bushyness, George III, is looking for a quick way out of this mess, that leaves him and his party (strike that; he and his dwindling backers) some room to say: "It wasn't our fault. If Iraq had cooperated...". In other words: he, too, thinks it's a lost cause, and he's committed 20K troops as window-dressing for the final act (of abandonment). The fate of the Iraqi people is of little concern to him, and a continuing insurgency/civil war (especially one that doesn't include us as combatants) is preferable to an Anschluss of Greater Iran.

Kukri the Optimist thinks that the new US boss in Iraq (General Petreaus) might surprise even his bosses low expectations, and find a way through to a stable Iraq. He's gonna have to break some rules ("Don't talk to evil", etc) to do it, but he has in the past shown enough gumption to try "anything that works", despite 'official policy'. I don't think he's even in-country yet, and the bulk of the 20K is still enroute (my re-deployed-to-Iraq son, and his Brigade, are sitting on-base, 20 miles north of Baghdad).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Give the man a prize! For bonus credit, what were the two other unpardonably stupid things we did at the beginning of the CPA?

---

Michael Ledeen's description of the neocon doctrine of "creative destruction" seems to sum it up quite well.

"Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically...it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."
- Michael Ledeen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Fortunately, we're creating a second surge in Afghanistan ...

---

"The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, 2nd Lt. Jon Pinard, said that Ekenberg will be a valuable addition to his existing military assets."

:laugh4:

When has Iraq ever been a happy, self governing country without the man on top cowing everyone to get along or else?

Same in the Balklands. As soon as the overlords were gone the whole area blew up with the same problems that had been around for the last 1,000 years.

Iraq can be forced to coexist, but it is not a "natural" country. If it desintegrates so be it. A powerful Iran will worry countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as much as us. Why do we always have to be the bad guys?

~:smoking:

Well, can anybody tell me the difference between 1 Iraq with the Sunnis and Shiites killing each other versus a Sunni Iraq and a Shiite Iraq, only one with oil and the weapons that can buy duking it out? Don't forget, Baghdad has sites holy to both of them. The Shiites won't stop just because they get their own borders. And if the Kurds get their independance, the Turks are going to go nuclear. This whole thing stinks from start to finish. We should have either come in with twice the number of men and arms we thought we'd have needed, not 1/4, and made it clear from the get-go they had no option except to get along or we should have stayed the hell out. Allowing this to fester and grow like it has is despicable. I think the administration started with the right intentions, though I disagreed with them. But because they either didn't understand what they were doing or they did and milked it to gain political advantage, the administration has screwed this situation up royally.

I will pray for peace over there, and I will pray for it's last, best hope, General Petreaus. May he be more knowledgable then any of the clowns sending him orders from Washington, and may he be wise enough and strong enough to ignore them.

Only solution for Iraq is separation in three states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

Only solution for Iraq is separation in three states.

---

So that the 3 can be gobbled up by Turkey, Syria and Iran? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

So that the 3 can be gobbled up by Turkey, Syria and Iran? ~:confused:

---

It is public secret that Iran had influence in Shiite Iraqi Government. :yes: