Who Wants to Own a Somalia With Oil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Don't conflate the two wars, it weakens your argument.

---

What is my argument? The two relate both to my post and Banquo's. Am I violating a psychological boundary in your mind?

So the answer for you is: No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What is my argument?

---

Excellent question. Upon re-reading your post, I can't say that you're making any cohesive argument at all. However, this thread was begun with a discussion of Iraq, and all of the posts have been on that subject. If you're going to drag Afghanistan into the mix without so much as an introduction, you'll just have to pardon me for pointing out that the two are not the same, never have been and never will be, and that rhetoric based on conflating the two is likely to be false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Excellent question. Upon re-reading your post, I can't say that you're making any cohesive argument at all. However, this thread was begun with a discussion of Iraq, and all of the posts have been on that subject. If you're going to drag Afghanistan into the mix without so much as an introduction, you'll just have to pardon me for pointing out that the two are not the same, never have been and never will be, and that rhetoric based on conflating the two is likely to be false.

---

So is that a white or red oak?

I'm sure you're a good guy Lemur but you don't think things through here (.org). It's hard for me too given time constraints. What is the larger strategic significance of Iraq? What can it be? Did I say they were the same or you assuming that I am. You're also assuming that the intent was to form an argument.

Were you trying to form an argument? What two countries are more similar: Iraq and Somalia or Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the strategic significance of Somalia? You derailed the thread before you made the first post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

So is that a white or red oak?

I'm sure you're a good guy Lemur but you don't think things through here (.org). It's hard for me too given time constraints. What is the larger strategic significance of Iraq? What can it be? Did I say they were the same or you assuming that I am. You're also assuming that the intent was to form an argument.

Were you trying to form an argument? What two countries are more similar: Iraq and Somalia or Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the strategic significance of Somalia? You derailed the thread before you made the first post!

---

I won't try to answer all of the excellent questions posed by you here, but only the Strategic signifigance of Somalia and Iraq. I found an intersting article here:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=vi...&language_id=1

This paragraph seems to sum it up as far as Somalia goes:

Quote:

---

With a population estimated at approximately 10.5 million people, a predominantly pastoral economy, no strategic resources and a rudimentary industrial base that has been decimated by civil war, Somalia's strategic significance resides in its close proximity to Arabia across a stretch of the Red Sea. Given its geographical position, Washington and European powers have in interest in stabilizing Somalia, primarily because its fragmentation has provided the opportunity for Islamic revolutionary movements, including al-Qaeda, to gain a foothold in weakly governed areas. An additional cause of concern is the appearance of domestic Islamist movements and of Islamic courts with their own militia that have arisen in response to the authority deficit. [See: "Do Al-Qaeda's East Africa Operations Pose a Threat to U.S. Interests?"

---

This link seemed a good one to look at Iraq's strategic imprtance, at least to the Bush Administration:

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hipj/iraq%20leaflet.doc

The first paragraph makes it fairly succint:

Iraq’s Strategic Significance: the real reason we went to war

Quote:

---

Iraq’s oil reserves are the second largest in the world and have the potential to challenge Saudi Arabia as a guarantor of world oil price stability, if the proper infrastructure is developed to tap into these reservoirs. The Iraqi oil supply can be used to promote the interests of U.S. multinational corporations and the government’s economic agenda as long as they have control and access over it. Bush often proclaims Iraqi oil is for the Iraqi people – but even if oil revenues did return to Iraqis, this would be less significant for global economic leverage than who has control and access. By invading Iraq and constructing a government sympathetic to U.S. interests, the Bush administration invests in power over oil price fluctuation – and establishes bases for a stronger military presence in the region.

---

This all ties in well with the established views of the Neoconservative think tank effort known as The Project for the New American Century, whose members included Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Dick Cheney during the previous Bush administration, and then following into the current administration until his appointment in the World Bank. Although Somalia is not as important for the same reasons, it is a part of the overall strategic goal of discouraging any competitors from seeking a larger influence in the Persian Gulf region-another of the stated goals of the Former Secretary of Defense, know known as Vice President Cheney.

PS: I think that the real point of this thread is to point out the similarities of Somalia and Iraq being ruled by malitia backed thugs, whose primary interests are very narrow minded and parochial.

Quote:

---

More than 140,000?

---

Which militia gas those numbers Geoffrey ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You derailed the thread before you made the first post!

---

If I believed in siggies, I would use that one. A truly impeccable example of rhetoric defying all logic and sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What two countries are more similar: Iraq and Somalia or Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the strategic significance of Somalia?

---

And you are reacting far more to the thread title than the opening post or the linked article, which I sincerely doubt you even read. The author proposed a best-case/worst-case outcome for Iraq, and suggested that the American public hasn't really considered the likely outcomes. He also draws in some interesting factoids from other fields.

It's a good article, and I think you'd enjoy reading it, even though it does not conform to your neo-con worldview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

you'll just have to pardon me for pointing out that the two are not the same, never have been and never will be, and that rhetoric based on conflating the two is likely to be false.

---

Sort of like Somalia and Iraq. ~:idea:

A can of worms is can of worms, no matter from which perspective you look at it.Now i dont claim to be expert in situation in Iraq, but my humble view is that there really are not any kind of good paths to take.
First we have the three main factions in Iraq, The Sunni, The Shiia´s and the Kurds. Two of them are ethnically speaking Iraqi, while separated by religion and the third, the Kurds are a different people all together. The Shiias are backed by Iran, while it suits Iran´s interest to keep Iraq weak and separated. Correct me if im wrong, but im under the impression that the Iraqi Shiias also have little to none desire to be ruled by the Persians, no matter if the religion is the same, so basicly the relationship between Iraqi Shiias and Iran is forced one to the Iraqi Shiias, since there is no one else who support them.
Next we have the Sunni, who used to rule Iraq under Saddams regime. Both Shiia´s and Kurds have beef with them because of the past and now that Saddam and his regime are goners, they dont have means to take control in Iraq again.
Third we have the Kurds in northern Iraq, who have minorities in many middle east countries, including Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. So their growing as the main power in Iraq, would cause all the neighboring countries to interfere in the situation in Iraq, so the Kurdish movements would not spread to their own countries.
So who from these should west back up? Go into unholy alliance with Iran and back Shiias? Take the side of Sunnis, who are the main force behind the insurgent situation? Or maybe back the Kurds and loose main allies in middle east like Turkey?
I dont see any viable options, there, but then i thank God i dont have to resolve this mess.
Basically in a situation where there is nothing to win a withdrawal would sound like a viable option, but then does the west want to take the risk that a civil war could spread to surrounding countries? Turkey has already used military power in the north and in case a hypothetical civil war would start and Shiias would get the loosing card, how would west react in a possible intervention by Iran? Also if the Sunnis would get the smackdown, would Syria and other arab states interfere?
Like i said can of worms.:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Many of our European allies long for the day when Bush will say, out loud, "I was wrong, you were right; Saddam should have been kept there to keep a lid on the cesspool."

a remorseless chorus of "I told you so's"

---

I think the diplomatic stance about this topic is polite silence, not "I told you so's". Told-you-so's concerning Iraq are way past their expiration date, and are misplaced in the current transatlantic climate.
(Incidently, personally would call the invasion of Iraq a failure, but not necessarily a mistake...)

Quote:

---

Should the USA's European allies commit fully to peace-keeping efforts

---

I think Banquo thoroughly overestimated the chances of this option happening when he guessed it as 'no change in Hell'.

Although more European* troops for Iraq won't happen for at least the foreseeable future, there is another option. It is to commit more troops to Afghanistan (*waves at Lemur* ~;) ) by European partners, as was decided at the NATO summit two weeks ago. This eases the burden of the countries who are committed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It could be considered indirect support for a prolonged or increased presence in Iraq.

*Upon re-reading, I notice that I equated Europe with France here. This is, come to think of it, not correct. Europe is made up of lots of peninsulas attached to the French mainland, plus several islands off of her coast. The natives of this outer rim are known to often have wildy differing opinions compared to us.

Quote:

---

Should the USA's allies assume that a bloody civil war is inevitable and necessary and push aggressively for a very fast withdrawal from Iraq

---

Up until, what was it, somewhere last year, this was indeed the expected course in French diplomatic circles as far as I can tell. Currently, however, there are promising signs that the situation in Iraq has stabilised. There could yet be a 'soft landing'.
I for one am no longer in favour of a withdrawal asap. I wish the democratic candidates would change their opinion about this too. Abandoning the hapless people of Iraq to a bloody civil war must be avoided if it all possible. A somewhat stable and workable solution seems no longer unfeasible, and is worth giving a shot.

I no longer believe that the American presence is only prolonging the inevitable civil war and breakup. For much the same reason, I am oppossed to installing Saddam 2.0. If only a strongman can keep Iraq together, then another Saddam will only prolong this inevitability as well, and we'll have the same problems again in twenty years time. Better would be, to find some sort of workable solution. Together with Iran and whatever other devils are necessary if need be.

Up until a year ago it looked likely that the country would collapse in an orgy of violence within a year. It still looks likely that will collapse in an orgy of violence, but not so soon. The state has had a such a dysfunctional birth that it will eventually disintegrate like other artificial countries held together by ethnic and tribal compacts and/or outside patronage and/or constant military force, just like Yugoslavia, Zaire, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Up until a year ago it looked likely that the country would collapse in an orgy of violence within a year. It still looks likely that will collapse in an orgy of violence, but not so soon. The state has had a such a dysfunctional birth that it will eventually disintegrate like other artificial countries held together by ethnic and tribal compacts and/or outside patronage and/or constant military force, just like Yugoslavia, Zaire, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc, etc.

---

If this is the case, which is probably true, than perhaps it is time to consider the dividing of Iraq into seperate states, or zones along political/ethnic lines.
(The old divide and conquer method) It would be difficult to do at first, but much easier to administrate afterwards, not to mention making it more difficult for the various malitias and insurgent groups to operate with impunity.
I would divide the oil and tax revenues proportionally among them (only as each group agrees to sit down peacefully in the parliment), and police the borders heavily between the zones.

Finally we must police all the G---d---- Ak 47's that everyone and their brother seems to own! For goodness sake, what are we thinking about letting this go undone. It's the first thing that the Romans would have done, and they were masters of the hostile take-over.

Quote:

---

It's the first thing that the Romans would have done, and they were masters of the hostile take-over.

---

Of course the Romans .... whatever happened to them ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Of course the Romans .... whatever happened to them ?

---

Hmm...let's see. Well...after around close to a thousand years of ruling the then known world the empire collapsed from a combination of external forces and inward corruption and decay. Of course this is the eventual fate of all empires in the end as nothing lasts forever. Still, one must admit that they set the standard for the modern world as far as empire building goes. I say that if the US wants to try its hand at the game, we may as well take a few paragraphs from the old pros. If not then we should quit trying to run with the big dogs and stay on the porch. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Hmm...let's see. Well...after around close to a thousand years of ruling the then known world the empire collapsed from a combination of external forces and inward corruption and decay. Of course this is the eventual fate of all empires in the end as nothing lasts forever. Still, one must admit that they set the standard for the modern world as far as empire building goes. I say that if the US wants to try its hand at the game, we may as well take a few paragraphs from the old pros. If not then we should quit trying to run with the big dogs and stay on the porch. :clown:

---

In modern world, if US wants to have an empire, they should win the economical race, not conquer middle east countries. Money is the deciding factor and when it comes to making money, if im not wrong China passed you in exporting goods last year while EU is number one currently in that game. So maybe sitting on your porch actually might be very good option, compared to the unilateralist policy the Bush administration tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

In modern world, if US wants to have an empire, they should win the economical race, not conquer middle east countries. Money is the deciding factor and when it comes to making money, if im not wrong China passed you in exporting goods last year while EU is number one currently in that game. So maybe sitting on your porch actually might be very good option, compared to the unilateralist policy the Bush administration tried.

---

I totally agree with you, both in substance and in principal. Perhaps the Bush/Cheney led industrial complex see this as a way of insuring the ability to control oil prices-through the control of the oil of a "friendly democratic Iraq" By such control they may believe that this can be used to slow down the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, which is becoming ever more dependent on oil. These oil reserves also represent a strategic "ace up their sleeve" in case it should ever come to conflict. This was learned the hard way during WWII when the supplies of Persian Gulf oil were disrupted, causing the US to have to dig into its own strategic oil stockpiles, resulting in severe shortages back home.

Surely we could have found a better way than this poorly run preemptive war. That was the point of my last post I guess. I only think that if we were going to take such a drastic measure, than we should quit deceiving ourselves into thinking that the majority of the world view this as some sort of liberation. It is just another case of the "Strong doing what they may, while the weak do what they must" (Ancient Greeks). So if we are going to do as the romans did, than we may as well do it right and get this behind us quickly. Otherwise, as Von Rundstedt once told the German High Command, "Make peace you fools!"

I trust everybody has heard about this.

The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

Just wondering Lemur , since the Iraq fiasco is already a very costly waste did someone really have to spend the time and money writing a paper just to state the obvious about it ?

It's very important to the credibility of their country that all measures be taken to make sure George W Bush doesn't put up another "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Lemur,
That was a very timely post. I enjoyed that article enormously. Especially this part:

Quote:

---

Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."

---

I would personally like to make this into a banner, roll it very tightly, lubricate it with some crude oil, and "shove it where the sun don't shine" up the "right honorable" keesters of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Evidently all that alleged education that these two "wunderkinden" have had didn't include military history-or else they just slept through it. Right George W......it's really a well done.

Debacle Accomplished!

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so? I don't know that many of us could've predicted such a thing, yet it seems to be happening.

A few highlights:

Quote:

---

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, assured visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he will not back down in his confrontation with Shiite militias, even as mortar shells fired from Shiite areas struck the U.S.-protected Green Zone.

In a sign of that resolve, Iraqi soldiers took control Sunday of the last stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the southern city of Basra, where an Iraqi offensive last month triggered the current wave of Shiite fighting.

---

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, al-Sadr appears increasingly isolated politically, as major Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish parties have rallied behind al-Maliki in his showdown with the militias.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Finally we must police all the G---d---- Ak 47's that everyone and their brother seems to own! For goodness sake, what are we thinking about letting this go undone. It's the first thing that the Romans would have done, and they were masters of the hostile take-over.

---

I think trying to do that would be both a waste of time and just a bad idea. Most US casualties are due to explosives, not AK47's. And even if they did gather them up, they'd be quickly replaced by shiny new one's from Iran. It's much simpler and better PR just to let households keep an AK47 as some modicum of protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so?

---

IIRC Tribesman has been making the point all along that it's not a matter of simplified religious divides, but more of factions. I certainly remember reading in Iraqi blogs (way back in 2003) about the tensions and conflicts between the Badr brigade and the Mahdi army, both of which were Shi'a. The recent government crackdown can be seen as an extension of that, with al-Maliki (whose main Iraqi backers are apparently Badr leaders) coming down on the Mahdi army.

Quote:

---

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so? I don't know that many of us could've predicted such a thing, yet it seems to be happening.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Who would have thought it ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
just about anyone with a functioning brain:dizzy2:

Oh sorry its clearly too hard for you to have thought of .
Here have some simple steps to follow ...
Lots of parties lots of militias .
Some parties and militias become friends .
Some friends upset each other and are no longer friends .
They have a little fight and all the parties and militias that are either no longer friends or have never been friends support the move .

Simple isn't it .
Then again since I cannot recall anytime when you have been able to see even the most obvious events in this fiasco as what they are I can see why you have difficulty understanding anything relating to the debacle .

Tell you what Xiahou why not try another "good news from Iraq" topic ...you could go with this little episode ...perhaps along the lines of ...
"Long term Iranian backed militia turns up the heat on short term Iranian backed upstart to keep him in order":yes:

These divisions and rivalries have always existed. The only people who would be surprised at this are the clods who thought the country was governed by such simple communitarian relationships that if they gave a bunch of ministries to Shi'ites, a bunch of ministries to Sunnies and a bunch of ministries to Kurds they would all get along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so? I don't know that many of us could've predicted such a thing, yet it seems to be happening.

---

I suppose some people might think that this is good news. I tend to take the view that it's more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic

Quote:

---

I think trying to do that would be both a waste of time and just a bad idea. Most US casualties are due to explosives, not AK47's. And even if they did gather them up, they'd be quickly replaced by shiny new one's from Iran. It's much simpler and better PR just to let households keep an AK47 as some modicum of protection.

---

That's all fine and good, unless you are one of the people being shot at by thsoe AK-47s. A "modicum of protection" is a handgun, hunting rifle, or a shotgun. Ordinary Iraqi citizens owning fully automatic weapons should be outlawed as it is in most civilised countries. I agree with you that the majority of casualties are caused by explosives, but most of those explosions happening in a firefight begin with the firing of AK-47s followed by an RPG or two. Taking these types of weapons out of homes would send a clear message to Iraqis-if you are caught with them after such a measure is taken, you will be considered as an insurgent at worst, or as a criminal at best. Finding out who is behind the illegal selling of tham would then be made much easier, as the weapons would be considered illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Who would have thought it ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
just about anyone with a functioning brain:dizzy2:

---

Guess that rules you out then. :wink:
Better go back and read some of your own posts.

Quote:

---

Guess that rules you out then.
Better go back and read some of your own posts.

---

Go on Xiahou , be a devil , quote me :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

As regards illegal groups, it's small arms that are the basis of their stranglehold on much of the population. Saying that small arms don't matter because bombs are the biggest killer of American troops, as though that were the sole factor determining the stability of the country, evinces a very narrow view of the conflict. However the fact is that confiscating weapons from ordinary people probably wouldn't achieve much because the various gangs of thugs will, in places that they control, already have confiscated the weapons or forced people pay for a "licence".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

As regards illegal groups, it's small arms that are the basis of their stranglehold on much of the population. Saying that small arms don't matter because bombs are the biggest killer of American troops, as though that were the sole factor determining the stability of the country, evinces a very narrow view of the conflict. However the fact is that confiscating weapons from ordinary people probably wouldn't achieve much because the various gangs of thugs will, in places that they control, already have confiscated the weapons or forced people pay for a "licence".

---

Good point. Preventing these "thugs" from being able to intimidate the people depends on how well one can secure an area after it is initially cleared. Clear and Hold is an effective strategy, and the only one that has had any real success IMO. The problem is that it can't be accomplished in a coutry the size of Iraq with 140-160,000 soldiers, many of whom are mere force protection for the 200-300,000 civilian contractors over there. We've already seen how efficient the alleged Iraqi security forces are; curruption is rampant within this organization, not to mention the problem of divided loyalties.

As much as I hate to admit it, Senetor McCain is right about one thing. It will take an ever increasing commitment on the part of the US to win this conflict. Commitment means more soldiers able to give the Clear and Hold strategy a chance to work. If we aren't commited as a nation, than we must withdraw, admit defeat, and prepare for a real "Somalia" to happen in Iraq-a civil war that will be the mother of all bloodbaths.