Iraq- the next steps

now that BHO is the new president, i wonder whats going to happen with iraq.
obama stated that he plans an 18 month withdrawal plan or s/t (as i am told my by liberal friends).
my concern with this, as any timetable, is that the terrorist also have a timetable. all they have to do is hide in their holes for the next 18 months, then once were out of there, they come in like a whirlwind, destroying the new government there.
im in favor of withdrawing, but i dont think it should be publicized until were actually out of there, so the terrorists never really know when were going to be out.
idk if thats realistic, but thats just what i think.
:sweatdrop:

What would you exxpect anyway? Once US forces will leave Iraq, the upcoming civil war is just a matter of time. Why prolong the inevitable?

Elections are over, which withdrawal ~;) Not possible Obama isn't nuts, some of his supporters may be but if you really expect a withdrawal now that things are finally shaping up, leaving will be harder to organize then staying anyways, imagine the chaos it would mean a massacre the minute you left.

What's next for Iraq is really a matter of what can be hammered out in the form a status of forces agreement between the two countries. Remember, the UN mandate making the US presence legal is due to expire soon and the US needs an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. Though there is a draft of an agreement in place a lot of Iraqis are asking/demanding changes to it before it becomes finalized.

What the agreement ends up being will largely bind Obama to the agreement unless he starts negotiating with the Iraqis to amend once he is inaugurated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

What's next for Iraq is really a matter of what can be hammered out in the form a status of forces agreement between the two countries. Remember, the UN mandate making the US presence legal is due to expire soon and the US needs an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. Though there is a draft of an agreement in place a lot of Iraqis are asking/demanding changes to it before it becomes finalized.

What the agreement ends up being will largely bind Obama to the agreement unless he starts negotiating with the Iraqis to amend once he is inaugurated.

---

That's how its currently framed. However, I believe you will find that Iraq asks the UN to extend things as is until June of 2009 so that they can negotiate with the new administration. Gives them another few months at current deployment levels but lets them negotiate for a better deal with someone who has a vested interest in minimizing U.S. MILITARY involvement in Iraq. Ch-ching.

Seamus , if it does indeed play out that way (and lets face it the existing SOFA draft has very little chance of getting through the cabinet approval stage let alone parliamentary approval) what chance do you think there is of getting the UN mandate extended as it currently stands ?
Especially since both Britain and America have been doing some pretty serious breaches of the existing terms of the mandate and Putin is on a power rush .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Elections are over, which withdrawal ~;) Not possible Obama isn't nuts, some of his supporters may be but if you really expect a withdrawal now that things are finally shaping up, leaving will be harder to organize then staying anyways, imagine the chaos it would mean a massacre the minute you left.

---

I think you forgot about a little country called Vietnam. It took 60 thousand American dead, the Tet Offensive (which despite the initial shock, wiped out the Viet Cong & decimated the NVA), an unpopular draft and a bloated war budget for the country to finally scream enough and insist on a timely withdrawal from Vietnam. In order to salvage something out of the war Nixon pulled out the bulk of America's troops but stepped up the aerial campaign to unprecedented heights, only to have the public continue to scream for a withdrawal. When he did so his public opinion rating soared.

Fast forward to 2008 and we have the mob and politicians still screaming for us to pull out of Iraq even though we've suffered a fraction of the losses and actually have the situation under control. It is obvious modern America does not have the same patience and constitution it did 40 years ago. Whether Obama is crazy enough to pull the trigger is not the question. When confronted with an economic recession and a laundry list of big government items on their to-do list the Democrats will need to make some tough choices. So a timely withdrawal from Iraq is still very likely. As to the aftermath... well hey, we threw Vietnam & millions of refugees to the dogs, why not Iraqis?

But in the end is it really up to Obama? Eventually the Democratic controlled Congress is going go come to terms with the fact that in order to pay for these expensive social programs (or that additional mortgage bailout bill aimed at borrowers) they're going to be forced to print more money or take money currently assigned to other endeavors (i.e. Defense spending & Iraq). Congressman Barney Frank has been unabashedly open about his desire to raise taxes and cut defense spending by 25%... You can bet your lowlands buttocks that a timely, measured pullout from Iraq will help free up a ton of money sooner than later. I'm sure House & Senate Democrats will forcefully present their case to Obama and given that he's never voted against his party he'll tow the line and rubber stamp it... albeit with a modest, token protest to keep his 'hope & change' credibility intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Fast forward to 2008 and we have the mob and politicians still screaming for us to pull out of Iraq even though we've suffered a fraction of the losses and actually have the situation under control. It is obvious modern America does not have the same patience and constitution it did 40 years ago.

---

A waste is a waste.

Bloody hell spino ....."actually have the situation under control" ????????

Last month half of the remaining Christians in Mosul were driven out of their homes by the pershmerga , in Kirkuk Turkomen militia killed 25 and injured 200 Kurds who were trying to burn down their politicians office , the Iraqi army is in an armed standoff with the pershmerga who won't let them deploy against the PKK who are routinely getting bombed and shelled in Iraq by a country that is your ally (not of course forgetting the villages in Iraq held by the JDEM which regularly get shelled by Iran which isn't your ally)
Under control my arse , 40% of the population still don't have clean drinking water and cholera outbreaks reached a new peak in September .

What is so valuable about Iraqi lives? America has not been concerned about "collateral damage" recently. I can understand that preserving the oil is important, but since that is in the south and the north there is a large part of Iraq that can be left to it.

And let's not pretend that America or the West in general is particularly concerned about the sanctity of human life. Africa sheds lives every day through several civil wars, uprisings, border disputes and the tried and tested starvation, malnutrition and disease.


So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

~:smoking:

---

so by that reasoning, we should build heavily fortified bases around the oil drills, then leave the rest of iraq to destroy itself? :grin:

so by that reasoning, we should build heavily fortified bases around the oil drills, then leave the rest of iraq to destroy itself?

Rory is practical and emotionless to the extreme (i mean it as a compliment, its something i admire about your consistent political stance)

I have an open mind on Iraq, i was vehemently opposed to the war, for all kinds of reasons and i was basically right on my reasoning.... but i think once america and the uk went into iraq we had a responsibility to fix the mess we made, my position was closer to McCains than Obamas on Iraq...

what i can't decide is

1) how winnable is iraq, can we really stabilise the country from its current situation with troops and rebuilding ?

2) by having the troops there are we actually making the situation worse ?

3) if it is winnable... is it affordable ? can we keep enough troops in iraq and put enough money into rebuilding to make it successful

any answers appreciated, i have an open mind on the issue of staying or leaving being a good idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What is so valuable about Iraqi lives? America has not been concerned about "collateral damage" recently. I can understand that preserving the oil is important, but since that is in the south and the north there is a large part of Iraq that can be left to it.

And let's not pretend that America or the West in general is particularly concerned about the sanctity of human life. Africa sheds lives every day through several civil wars, uprisings, border disputes and the tried and tested starvation, malnutrition and disease.


So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

~:smoking:

---

Well see there's this thing called 'world opinion' which is currently the obsession of American politicians who have maintained an anti-war position since things took a turn for the worse in 2004 and a turn for the better in 2007 after the Surge was implemented. If the US pulls out before Iraq's government & military is ready (which doesn't appear to be anytime soon) it is a safe bet to say that the country will literally get ripped apart by internal and external forces. If you thought world opinion of the US was low now, just wait until they blame us for the bloody aftermath that will follow our withdrawal. See, the Vietnam the war was raging years before the US got involved so as much as our involvement hurt our image most people believed our intervention was a fool's errand to begin with. But with Iraq... regardless of the fact that we deposed a murderous dictator we are single handedly responsible for the current conditions on the ground, both good and bad. We opened Pandora's Box and our pulling out and leaving the Iraqi people exposed to its terrible contents is going to heighten anti-American sentiment to previously unimagined heights.

Now I personally don't care about world opinion or the fate of the Iraqi people but I DO care about the message this sends to our enemies. Expect a marked increase in our enemies' less savory activities once Iraq is thrown to the dogs.

If the current Shiite dominated government won't accommodate/share resources/include the Sunni minorities, and so far they have only payed lip service to that, then withdrawing US troops will lead to civil war. Coalition forces do more for the Sunni enclaves providing utilities, medical care,police protection, etc... than their own government.

Spino and Hosa , you both miss that its gonna happen if you pull out next year or in 10 years time .
Its as inevitable now as it was on the day of the invasion .

I don't see what security our 10 billion a month we sink in Iraq can provide that Iraq shouldn't be able to provide on its own with its 79 billion dollar surplus per year. If they can't do it now, I don't see why they would be able to do it in 3 years or 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I don't see what security our 10 billion a month we sink in Iraq can provide that Iraq shouldn't be able to provide on its own with its 79 billion dollar surplus per year. If they can't do it now, I don't see why they would be able to do it in 3 years or 5 years.

---

They lack the will to do it, not the means. Tribesman is correct that if the Shiites refuse to reconcile and choose to punish the Sunni instead then civil war is inevitable. I just choose to be less pessimistic is all and hope they come to their senses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

1) how winnable is iraq, can we really stabilise the country from its current situation with troops and rebuilding ?

2) by having the troops there are we actually making the situation worse ?

3) if it is winnable... is it affordable ? can we keep enough troops in iraq and put enough money into rebuilding to make it successful

any answers appreciated, i have an open mind on the issue of staying or leaving being a good idea...

---

Things in Iraq are back to front: the local government having little control over a foreign force, but at the same time not having to pay for the force.

As has been pointed out, Iraq now is accruing money from oil wealth, enough to pay for the reconstruction and troops.

The situation should be that the Iraqi government asks for military expertise and assistance from America / UK / elsewhere, and it pays for the expertise. Thus the control is with the Sovereign state. The current one-size-fits-all clearly doesn't.

Although the above is merely a change of view the effects could be striking:

As the government is in control of the situation and dictates what is done where the feeling of occupation would lessen; if the government tried to do things independently odds are it would make a complete mess of it and then ask for help - but would then be grateful for the help.

This ensures that the war is affordable as most cost is on Iraq.
If troops are thought to make things worse there is the option of paying for troops from other countries to assist, which might help the current tension.

But the most crucial point is that this requires the government to be strong enough to hold the country together. I think that this is in some ways a good thing: if the country can not hold itself together either monetarily, logistically, culturally or militarily, well, there isn't really a country there in the first place.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Tribesman is correct that if the Shiites refuse to reconcile and choose to punish the Sunni instead then civil war is inevitable.

---

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

I was opposed to the war, I think it was unnecessary and based on a collection of lies. That said, I support Obama’s plan on Iraq. He said the removal of the troops would be “responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government”. I think the time table is not set in stone. The 16 months troops removal is what the military experts he has used to base his decision on have said. Now, if the commanders on the ground say differently, I’m sure he would change his decision in order to suit their needs.

I think the US cannot afford the money they are spending in Iraq while Iraq makes billions on oil. In my opinion, no country can survive with an economic crisis and two wars going on at the same time. Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works (I’m not so sure), it will work just as well in Afghanistan. Actually, it should work even better because they will have to commit forces for trying to protect Osama bin Laden. Yeah, it’s easier to find a man if you are looking in the country where he’s hiding. I think Obama wants to move resources to where they are now really necessary. If the theory works, maybe any terrorists that may have shown up in Iraq after the US invasion (because they weren’t there before), will follow the US troops out of there and to Afghanistan.

Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works

That theory is crap (i know your not the one pushing it) the basic premise that all the terrorists currently in Iraq would be in america right now blowing things up, i ask you where were these terrorists before the iraq invasion ?

What actually happened is the iraq invasion created a bunch of terrorists, sure there were AQ members who went to iraq who may have gone elsewhere instead, but the crucial thing is AQ decided to go to iraq because they saw an excellent oppurtunity handed to them, the chance to convert a generation of young muslims infuriated by the foriegn policy of the US, the fact is iraq created a whole bunch of terrorists we wouldn't have had to deal with otherwise and gave an excellent recuiting tool to the ones already in AQ, to think that iraq was a secular state before we went there, it really was foolish to pursue iraq instead of AQ...

Ohh and another thing, im fairly sure OBL is dead, i can't know personally, but i really don't see the guy diving in and out of caves well hooked up to a machine (thats right i gave up spelling the word... i kept coming up with dailysis... which doesn't seem right at all....)

Quote:

---

Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works

---

I can't even count how many in-real-life Republicans I've heard the sentiment from that our war in Iraq is like.... a "shield", and that when we leave, it will be "shields down." Or, like Bill Maher jokes, that the terrorists don't know how to use mapquest and will figure out where America is by following our withdrawing troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

---

Now my mind is foggy over this but, a remember reading on the BBC (yes I know) that the majority of Iraqis still wanted to be Iraqis and that country should stay together.

Actually having thought about it, perhaps they really mean, WE will be the IRAQIS and We will keep IRAQ, all those other bastards can bugger off...

Bugger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I can't even count how many in-real-life Republicans I've heard the sentiment from that our war in Iraq is like.... a "shield", and that when we leave, it will be "shields down." Or, like Bill Maher jokes, that the terrorists don't know how to use mapquest and will figure out where America is by following our withdrawing troops.

---

The Shield metaphor limps a bit.

Certainly by providing them with a nearby and obvious target on traditionally muslim terrain, we have focused jihadi attention on that target and probably discouraged other avenues of attack by encouraging a commitment of personnel and resources more "locally."

It is important to evaluate whether or not we have enhanced jihadi recruiting and resource donation so much that they will be able to fight the "local" struggle AND resume long range attacks (results since 2004 indicate a provisional "no.") OR if we are winning the war of attrition and forcing them to expend resources and lives faster than they can be recouped.

I don't know that we have clear answers for that, at least not in the public sphere.

The death rate of fanatics is minuscule. The outrage spans the entire Muslim world which is over 1 billion people.

The powers that help the insurgents have n interest in attacking the US mainland. This will only increase support for the wars and further surveillance. The current plan allows tying up masses of troops for the cost of almost obsolete equipment.

~:smoking:

Surprise.... Surprise... Obama is considering advice from his future generals who advise him against a 16 month pullout due to it being physically impossible:


http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Will Obama Have to Adjust His Timetable on Iraq?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Senior U.S. military officials will likely advise Barack Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. While promising a 16-month timetable for getting all U.S. fighting forces out, Obama repeatedly insisted on what he calls a "responsible" withdrawal. Pulling nearly all U.S. troops and equipment out of Iraq in 16 months is "physically impossible," says a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq. That schedule would create a bottleneck of equipment and troops in the south of Iraq and Kuwait where brigades repair, clean and load vehicles and weapons for the trip home, said the official. Others say the U.S. could conceivably pull out on that time scale, although that would require leaving more equipment behind. A more important concern for officers is that the security gains in Iraq would be put at risk if troops were withdrawn before the Iraqi security forces are in a position to protect their own communities and borders.

Already, the drawdown of troops is accelerating. The Pentagon announced Wednesday that a brigade of the 101st Airborne division will rotate out of Iraq before Christmas, as much as two months ahead of schedule, bringing the total number of combat brigades in Iraq down to 14 from its late 2007 peak of 20. But there is a limit to how quickly U.S. soldiers can depart the country while maintaining the current level of security. Although security has improved dramatically in many neighborhoods in Baghdad over the past year, the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently and effectively, while improved, remains inconsistent. Iraqi forces have yet to shift their focus from counterinsurgency operations to defending Iraq's borders. The Iraqi air force, for example, announced this week that it has ordered French- and American-made fighters, but its planned 32 squadrons won't be fully up and flying until 2015. The former insurgents who joined the "Awakening" movement or neighborhood watch programs are being partially integrated into the Iraqi security forces, but this remains a point of tension amid continuing mutual mistrust between these Sunni groups and the Shi'ite-dominated government. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, meanwhile, continues to find sanctuary in and around the northern city of Mosul.

In an interview with TIME, Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno said the numbers of U.S. troops can and will go down. "We don't have to do it with 150,000; we can do it with less," Odierno told TIME, without specifically addressing Obama's campaign pledge. But the drawdown will have to be done "slowly, in a deliberate way, so we don't give back the gains we've had."

The Iraqi government, for its part, has asked that all U.S. troops be pulled out of Iraqi cities by June 2009 and out of Iraq by 2012. That remains part of the Status of Forces draft agreement currently being renegotiated between Washington and Baghdad, to create a legal framework for the operation of U.S. troops in Iraq when their current mandate expires on January 1. Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshiyar Zebari, says he is confident that the Obama administration will not pull U.S. troops out of Iraq too quickly. Obama has agreed to "consult with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military in the field," Zebari told BBC television on Wednesday. And Obama himself has indicated that he's willing to revisit his 16-month withdrawal schedule. He acknowledged over the summer that it may be necessary to "slow the pace because of the safety of American troops," he said. "I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account." (See pictures of life inside a Baghdad prison.)

Obama received his first on-the-ground briefing in Iraq on the morning of July 21 at a military base adjacent to the Basra airport. During the briefing, said a senior U.S. military official, then-Senator Obama seemed "receptive" and "asked good questions." The hope among senior officers in Iraq is that President-elect Obama will make good on another promise he's made over an over again from the stump: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Surprise.... Surprise... Obama is considering advice from his future generals who advise him against a 16 month pullout due to it being physically impossible:

---

I fully expected him to contact Ronald McDonald when the subject of troop withdrawals comes up, not generals. srsly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I fully expected him to contact Ronald McDonald when the subject of troop withdrawals comes up, not generals. srsly

---

I was thinking Big Bird and Cookie Monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I was thinking Big Bird and Cookie Monster.

---

Big Bird should be in charge of health and human services. The Cookie Monster should be in charge of agriculture.

Quote:

---

Surprise.... Surprise...

---

Wow kush A is not possible because Bis not possible B is not really possible because Cmay not be possible C might be hard but D would be even harder
If

Quote:

---

D

---

doesn't work then talking about Ais errrrr..........what exactly ??????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Or to look at it another way , your article says noone really said nothing to anybody about anything...but....errrrr....lets fill the page with typeface:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

“we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory

---

Honestly, I think that if any sizeable group of terrorists tried to launch a ground op here in the States we would kick there asses from the Tri-state all the way to Los Angeles.

I'm not exactly sure but my gut tells me we have more National Guard here than we have deployed right now, and 70 million civilians own guns here.

For example, when Admiral Yamamoto was asked in 1941 why he didn't attack california after Pearl Harbor, he said

"I lived in the US. Most people own guns."

they wouldnt stand a chance, because we know the terrain here WAY better than they would. For example, (for the people who live here) when you were a kid, didnt you know tons of shortcuts to get places faster, you know, little cut-throughs and alley ways and such? Picture somebody during a ground invasion cutting through one of those with his dads 30-06 rifle and sniping a bunch of tangos, withdrawing through the alley, cutting through a backyard, climbing a tree, and sniping more. Now imagine that same thing with 500+ civilians, supported by Natl. Guard.

I honestly believe that on our own turf nobody in the world is better than us @ guerrila warfare.
(this is also one of the reasons we are having trouble in Iraq, because they know their terrain better than we do.)

I think you don't really understand how people work? Do you honestly believe that if Al-Qaeda would launch an invasion (which they would never do) that everyone would team up to repel the invaders?

No. If you eliminate the leaders, the followers would merely fight inbetween themselves.

Quote:

---

I honestly believe that on our own turf nobody in the world is better than us @ guerrila warfare.

---

Right, is that the turf that was stolen from the Indians? Because, IIRC, they weren't as successfull at guerilla warfare.

Like in my first post i said it shortly. I cant see anything US and its alliance can do to leave Iraq as a healthy and united country, what ever the date of withdraval might be. There are three groups of people hostile to one another inside the country and also neighbouring countries are hostile towards one of them.
We have the Shiia majority, which is supported and also partially controlled by Iranian interests, while there is also a drift between the different Shiia groups, while others embrace the Iranian support and influence others reject it. Shiias are hostile more or less both to Sunni´s and to lesser extent the Kurds.

Next we have the Sunnis, who are the ex leaders of Iraq, supported by Mainly Syria and lesser extent by other Sunni Arab states. Sunnis and Shiias are extremely hostile between each other.

Last we have the Kurds, who have had their own state more or less since the first gulf war, controlled by few major groups in Northern Iraq. There are larger or smaller Kurdish minorities also in all neighbouring countries mainly in Turkey, but also in Iran and Syria. While Syria and Iran has some interest in supporting the Kurds in order to lessen the Turkish influence in Northern Iraq, both countries have their problems with Kurdish minorities, so in the end the Kurds are facing a hostile neighbour in North in form of Turkey, while they are not getting much support from anywhere.

In that kind of situation, the civil war seems inevitable incase the alliance leaves Iraq and escalating of the war, by neighbouring countries either supporting their interests or attacking groups inside Iraq in order to stabilize their own internal situation is more then likely. The simple truth is that Iraq simply cant exist as democratic country. It was kept together by force by a dictoriship of Saddam Husseins regime, but there simple is no true will for any of the groups controlling various parts of Iraq to live peacefully together under a single regime, since their interests differ so much.

So likely if and when US lead alliance will leave Iraq. Turkey will invade Northern Iraq, which will most likely lead into a prolonged guerrilla war in Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey. And either the Sunnis or Shiias will take control of the rest of Iraq by force, depending which group will get more support from the neighbouring countries. In any case the chaos is just behind the door.

Yeah, the country is divided in ethnic and sectarian lines with wounds that seem to be impossible to heal. But I think the troops have to be withdrawn. That’s the wish of many Iraqi people in the country. Of course, as Obama said, the removal of the troops must be done wisely and in consultation with the Iraqi government. I think (hope) this means that, in the meanwhile, Obama will commit his administration to correcting Bush's mistakes. The point is that the country needs factories, bridges, roads, schools and hospitals to put unemployed Iraqi parents to work. Resources must be used to take care of the army of impoverished Iraqis and Iraqi orphans instead of shipping sophisticated warplanes and heavy artillery.

I’d like to see Obama putting real pressure on the government and Iraqi political and ethnic factions for a real compromise and not coddle them as Bush has been doing so that they would sign a hugely unpopular security agreement. Obama should really try to work with all Iraqis groups and stand at the same distance from all of them and favor only those who are loyal to their own country and support them to lead. Obama should give a real helping hand to the millions of Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries and elsewhere, encouraging them and supporting them to return to a safe Iraq.

I know this is just my wish list and I certainly do not expect Obama to have it all fulfilled. But my expectations come from the same principles of democracy that helped an African American win the presidential elections in the world’s mightiest country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wow kush A is not possible because Bis not possible B is not really possible because Cmay not be possible C might be hard but D would be even harder
If doesn't work then talking about Ais errrrr..........what exactly ??????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Or to look at it another way , your article says noone really said nothing to anybody about anything...but....errrrr....lets fill the page with typeface:2thumbsup:

---

Nope. :idea2:

Wow Kush thats a frigging brainstorming assesment , any chance of any possible spiderweb thin threads that you can get enmeshed in that would support your "nope" ?
Not bloody likely :yes:
I am getting quite sick of numbnuts talking about the situation when they clearlly havn't got the faintest grasp whatsoever in the slightest by a long stretch of the magination on a wet wednesady what the situation is ...and Kush is just the latest in a long line of people who are clueless (Apparently I cannot call clueless people muppets anymore, not of course suggesting that Kush as he is cluelress could be described as a muppet as that would certainly not do and I of course would not say it)

Can any of the usual vocal supporters of the idiocy in Iraq offer any comment apart from "less American troops are getting killed because we are paying $300 a month per terrorist so that the terrorists don't shoot at us quite so much anymore for a short while" ???
Though for the fun of it I colud ask again of Xiahou what the status of the current unadopted draft of the disputed proposed status of forces agreement is ?...but that might be flogging a dead horse and I would most likely get the reply that the unwritten final legislation has indeed been passed long ago and is an example of how Iraq is a wonderful project:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wow Kush thats a frigging brainstorming assesment , any chance of any possible spiderweb thin threads that you can get enmeshed in that would support your "nope" ?
Not bloody likely :yes:
I am getting quite sick of numbnuts talking about the situation when they clearlly havn't got the faintest grasp whatsoever in the slightest by a long stretch of the magination on a wet wednesady what the situation is ...and Kush is just the latest in a long line of people who are clueless (Apparently I cannot call clueless people muppets anymore, not of course suggesting that Kush as he is cluelress could be described as a muppet as that would certainly not do and I of course would not say it)

Can any of the usual vocal supporters of the idiocy in Iraq offer any comment apart from "less American troops are getting killed because we are paying $300 a month per terrorist so that the terrorists don't shoot at us quite so much anymore for a short while" ???
Though for the fun of it I colud ask again of Xiahou what the status of the current unadopted draft of the disputed proposed status of forces agreement is ?...but that might be flogging a dead horse and I would most likely get the reply that the unwritten final legislation has indeed been passed long ago and is an example of how Iraq is a wonderful project:idea2:

---

You just don't get it, do you? :whip:

Kush , events would suggest that you don't get it at all and havn't got it for a long time .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I think you don't really understand how people work? Do you honestly believe that if Al-Qaeda would launch an invasion (which they would never do) that everyone would team up to repel the invaders?

No. If you eliminate the leaders, the followers would merely fight inbetween themselves.



Right, is that the turf that was stolen from the Indians? Because, IIRC, they weren't as successfull at guerilla warfare.

---

An understanding of history would do a world of good for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

IRight, is that the turf that was stolen from the Indians? Because, IIRC, they weren't as successfull at guerilla warfare.

---

Actually, many of the tribes were quite good at guerilla warfare. All the classic advantages of intimate knowledge of local terrain, no need for formal lines of supply, using the enemies weapons against them wherever possible...

One of the truths about guerilla warfare is that, for the guerillas, it is often a losing proposition unless the bigger/better equipped force gets discouraged and quits OR they develop the capability to meet the bigger/better force in the "open" field (through alliances, outside support, and/or internally developed resources).

Terrorism, though sharing many of the typical characteristics of asymetrical warfare, is somewhat different as the terrorist force often has a fundamentally different goal having nothing to do with control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I think you don't really understand how people work? Do you honestly believe that if Al-Qaeda would launch an invasion (which they would never do) that everyone would team up to repel the invaders?

---

Seems likely. Look how it was immediately after 9/11. People didn't bicker over little differences any more. We unified for a time. Sure, it crumbled, but I think if it was larger scale, like an invasion, we would stay unified.

Quote:

---

Right, is that the turf that was stolen from the Indians? Because, IIRC, they weren't as successfull at guerilla warfare.

---

They would be on our side now. I never said Native americans couldnt do Guerilla warfare. They're the best, and we learned it from them, which makes us just as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Kush , events would suggest that you don't get it at all and havn't got it for a long time .

---

What's wrong? You still dont understand? :laugh4:

Not surprising

Gentlemen,

"You don't get it."
"No, you don't get it."
"You still don't get it."

Not exactly a scintillating exchange of ideas that the rest of us plan to take time off from work just to log in and catch the next enthralling counterpoint, is it?

Please let's raise our game or retire from the field.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Though for the fun of it I colud ask again of Xiahou what the status of the current unadopted draft of the disputed proposed status of forces agreement is ?...but that might be flogging a dead horse and I would most likely get the reply that the unwritten final legislation has indeed been passed long ago and is an example of how Iraq is a wonderful project:idea2:

---

i may be wrong, but i believe it's well on its way to being agreed as per the news this morning....... :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

---

This is a telling point. I was reading a bit of AP wire on Iraq the other day and it became obvious to me that, at the least, M. Al Sadr will make a bid for power. Tribes' is almost certainly correct that he will not be alone in this effort and that wars -- the plural -- is the likely scenario.

We need to take as a given, for planning purposes, that once US forces draw down and exit Iraq for Kuwait and points elsewhere, there WILL be civil war in Iraq.

For me, the question is: will a longer stay provide the "central" government time enough to develop forces, credibility, and connections between groups sufficient to allow it to survive and, eventually, marginalize the various "players" in revolt.

All we are currently proving is that the world's best military, using a ridiculous amount of resources, can impose security while, and for as long as, we're willing to continue to expend the same level of resources and effort. Iraq, totally propped up in terms of force structure, is doing better and better on its own. But does it have a hope of riding once the training wheels come off? A fall or two is inevitable, but it only works if they're willing to get up afterwards. I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

For me, the question is: will a longer stay provide the "central" government time enough to develop forces, credibility, and connections between groups sufficient to allow it to survive and, eventually, marginalize the various "players" in revolt.

---

The problem is that the central government is largely Shia dominated. It is supported (for now, and because they don't wish to take on the US) by at least two Shia factions in the direct employ of Iran. The Sunni are less troublesome of late because of the Awakening Councils and the large scale bribery by the US forces. The Kurdish north is still itching for further autonomy and hopeful of independence - and is also riven with factions biding their time.

It is hard to see an "independent" Shia government continuing to pay the kind of money over to the Sunni that is being doled out right now. If that is downgraded, or favourites played, the warlords (still there, taking advantage of relative peace to develop the forces, credibility, and connections between groups needed for what they know is coming) will start flexing their muscles. The Al Sadr Brigades will re-arm swiftly as will the Badrist rivals. At some point, al-Sistani will die and the restraining influence will have gone.

As has been pointed out before, the military surge has only served as a lid for the pressure cooker. The underlying heat has not been addressed, certainly not turned down. Buying off combatants and facilitating community segregation is sensible from a short-term US perspective, but does nothing to reduce tensions.

There are too many conflicting nationalisms and religious fault lines for anything but imperial force to keep them quiet. The US discovered this by having just a holding force for several years, until a proper imperial force was deployed. Even then, it has just solved the attacks on the imperium, and merely reduced those on the now fully segregated communities of the ruled.

I have always maintained that a civil war would be inevitable, and it would be better to let it happen sooner than later. Many more resentments have built up these past few years. I would, I should say, be very happy for my analysis to be utterly wrong - the history of empire however, tells me I am not.

Real, lasting democracies solve their problems through negotiation and disappointment. They have to learn to do this from inside, by accepting that disappointment is best handled peaceably. This learning is tough to impose.

Quote:

---

They would be on our side now. I never said Native americans couldnt do Guerilla warfare. They're the best, and we learned it from them, which makes us just as good.

---

Well, yeah, this is my point exactly. You're not even slightly interestedin talking. It's either your side, or their side.

Quote:

---

i may be wrong, but i believe it's well on its way to being agreed as per the news this morning.......

---

yes you would be wrong :2thumbsup:

Well isn't it amazing , who would have thought that the vote on the SoFA would make the Iraqi parliament delay their holidays twice and still be making changes to it .

So now if it does get voted on tomorrow , then goes to a referenda next year and passes, and then makes it past the tri-presidential veto proceess after that doesn't it mean that as of the end of this year coilition forces have no legal standing in Iraq until the process is finished .
Would this have gone easier if the October elections had gone ahead ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

As has been pointed out before, the military surge has only served as a lid for the pressure cooker. The underlying heat has not been addressed, certainly not turned down. Buying off combatants and facilitating community segregation is sensible from a short-term US perspective, but does nothing to reduce tensions.

There are too many conflicting nationalisms and religious fault lines for anything but imperial force to keep them quiet. The US discovered this by having just a holding force for several years, until a proper imperial force was deployed. Even then, it has just solved the attacks on the imperium, and merely reduced those on the now fully segregated communities of the ruled.

I have always maintained that a civil war would be inevitable, and it would be better to let it happen sooner than later. Many more resentments have built up these past few years. I would, I should say, be very happy for my analysis to be utterly wrong - the history of empire however, tells me I am not.

Real, lasting democracies solve their problems through negotiation and disappointment. They have to learn to do this from inside, by accepting that disappointment is best handled peaceably. This learning is tough to impose.

---

Would a common enemy have helped to unite the fractured Iraq? I floated the idea, strictly theoretical as it had no chance of being put in practice, of the US making itself enough of a bogeyman to make it more hated than anyone else, then giving someone, anyone who isn't a total loon, the chance to "defeat" it. It would be humiliating for the US, but the whole point is to allow itself to be humiliated. However, would the victorious Iraqi leader have enough credibility to unite the country, as the chap(s) who expelled the hated invader? Or has the idea of Iraq disappeared so completely that it would fracture anyway into a post-occupation power struggle?

I have heard the idea before (did you write it somewhere on the .org ?)

Two problems i see with it mainly...

1) how bad would america have to be to unite iraqi's against it ? we have had the abu gahrib incident, gauntanamo bay, these are considered quite horrific acts by american standards and it has caused little in the way of unity, i think you need to be the kind of conquerer hitler and stalin were to thier provinces

2) would they even get behind one leader in the first place or would they just consider they're own struggle for independance, i can imagine the sunni's and the kurd's not really caring for shia freedom or lack of, they would probably just form 3 different local resistances...

Hmm.... Iraq.

Things can be made right in Iraq wihout the U.S. presence, but that would involve killing a whole bunch of people. As much as Sunnis and Shias hate each other's guts, they hate the Kurds even more. To make things even more complicated, Sunni Kurds hate Shia Kurds, and everyone hates the Yezidi Kurds. And of course there are Christians caught in the mess powerless to do anything. When we leave, we should take the Christians with us. Kurdistan can be pressured not to secede, and it will be wise for them to maintain the status quo. I'd hate to see another war break out there, considering that it's actually a functioning democracy, and I'd hate to see that go up in flames. As for the rest of Iraq, it'll depend on whether Kurdistan secedes. In the Kurds stay put, and our boys are out of Iraq, most of the local crazies would lose whatever popular support they might have now. As long as Shia government doesn't crush too many toes and treads lightly when it comes to Sunnis, Iraq should see some improvement in security.
Now, if Kurds decide to break free, it'll definitely unite the Arabs. Arab military who will be *eagerly* aided by the Turks (and porbably by Iran as well) will move in, crush the Kurds on two (possibly three) fronts, and revert Iraq back to a unitary state. has too many enemies to make it out alive as a free state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I have heard the idea before (did you write it somewhere on the .org ?)

Two problems i see with it mainly...

1) how bad would america have to be to unite iraqi's against it ? we have had the abu gahrib incident, gauntanamo bay, these are considered quite horrific acts by american standards and it has caused little in the way of unity, i think you need to be the kind of conquerer hitler and stalin were to thier provinces

2) would they even get behind one leader in the first place or would they just consider they're own struggle for independance, i can imagine the sunni's and the kurd's not really caring for shia freedom or lack of, they would probably just form 3 different local resistances...

---

I suggested it before in the Backroom, so that's probably where you saw it. The idea comes from Britain's decolonisation efforts, where the natives were sick enough of our occupation to form anti-British movements, and we made peace with the leader of the opposition who commanded substantial enough support, yet who weren't too out there, so we could spin victory speeches to our respective audiences, and swear undying friendship, as long as we didn't see each other too soon or too often. On 1), mountainous arrogance, perhaps aided by treating the Iraqis as a barbarous bloc to be vigorously oppressed, might be the first thing to try, even without needing any signal atrocities. The beauty of the internet means people are more touchy than ever, as long as one presses the right buttons. Come to think of it, I seem to be advocating trolling as a foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Now, if Kurds decide to break free, it'll definitely unite the Arabs.

---

Nah, they sunni/shi'ah conflict is a religious one, kurds are a tribal thingie.

What next for Iraq?

1. Divide the country in two halves. The Northern one for the Kurds and the Sourthern one of the Assyrians. Then use the American army to forcibly convert all Muslims in the Southern half of Iraq to Catholicism or Assyrian Christianism like they did 1000 years before. Invade Syria together with the Lebanese Christians, topple the Assad Government and quickly defeat Hezbollah with the IDF and the Syrian and Lebanese Christian Militias, then forcibly convert the Syrian and Lebanese Muslims to Catholicism or Orthodoxism. Invade Israel and Palestine with Lebanese and Syrian Christian militias and the Assyrian army and convert all Muslims and Jews to Catholicism. Create the Great Kingdom of Jerusalem from the territories of Israel, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.
2. Wake up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

What next for Iraq?

1. Divide the country in two halves. The Northern one for the Kurds and the Sourthern one of the Assyrians. Then use the American army to forcibly convert all Muslims in the Southern half of Iraq to Catholicism or Assyrian Christianism like they did 1000 years before. Invade Syria together with the Lebanese Christians, topple the Assad Government and quickly defeat Hezbollah with the IDF and the Syrian and Lebanese Christian Militias, then forcibly convert the Syrian and Lebanese Muslims to Catholicism or Orthodoxism. Invade Israel and Palestine with Lebanese and Syrian Christian militias and the Assyrian army and convert all Muslims and Jews to Catholicism. Create the Great Kingdom of Jerusalem from the territories of Israel, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.
2. Wake up.

---

is #2 really necessary?

Good point. >_>

On 1), mountainous arrogance, perhaps aided by treating the Iraqis as a barbarous bloc to be vigorously oppressed, might be the first thing to try, even without needing any signal atrocities. The beauty of the internet means people are more touchy than ever, as long as one presses the right buttons. Come to think of it, I seem to be advocating trolling as a foreign policy.

I was thinking on it not long after writing it, i guess you wouldn't so much need atrocitys, when you think of all the controversy caused by the mohammed drawings, implied insults towards iraqis could do a lot of work by itself, also a change of rhetoric, simply put talk as if your an imperial force spreading your empire and as if you are just out to get iraqi resources...

purely theoratical of course but an intresting idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I was thinking on it not long after writing it, i guess you wouldn't so much need atrocitys, when you think of all the controversy caused by the mohammed drawings

---

That is nothing compared to the conflict between the shia's (or whatever) and the sunni's it is a most fundamental conflict, shia's will never side with Kurds because they aren't arabs they don't recognise the non-arabian islamic dynasties.

Quote:

---

shia's will never side with Kurds because they aren't arabs

---

Which is that main kurdish group that is backed by a Shia theocracy ?
Then again that theocracy isn't arab is it .~:doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which is that main kurdish group that is backed by a Shia theocracy ?
Then again that theocracy isn't arab is it .~:doh:

---

While of any use, tribal thing, Tribesman.

This is a lengthy and typically thoughtful analysis of the tensions in Iraq, from The Economist.

Most interesting for me is the apparent emergence of al-Maliki as a hard man. But in summary, there are so many fault lines repressed by the American presence, no-one is at all sure what will happen.

In short, the new establishment of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds sorely needs to build a sense of nationhood. The withdrawal agreement means that it will soon be for the Iraqis alone to define their destiny. For the next few years the Americans may yet find themselves holding the ring. But once the occupiers have left, the chances that the Iraqis will entrench and cherish a stable, federal, pluralist democracy must still be rated at less than even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

For example, when Admiral Yamamoto was asked in 1941 why he didn't attack california after Pearl Harbor, he said

"I lived in the US. Most people own guns."

---

I don't know if he said that, however, I do know he said this:

"Behind every blade of grass would be a(n American with a?) rifle"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

I don't know if he said that, however, I do know he said this:

"Behind every blade of grass would be a(n American with a?) rifle"

---

That's actually a major malus for the USA if an opposing country tries to use subversion as a method of inner fighting. Since the majority of the people have guns, in a period of war, if the USA is losing and there is unrest and dissent, it is much easier to create armed militias using subversive tactics then in any other country in the entire world.