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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

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

---

Newsflash: Sky is blue. What has either of these 'secrets' got to do with partitioning Iraq into three states?

Would 400k initially have done it? NO -- but the hole dug for us in the initial aftermath/"mission accomplished" phase wouldn't have been as severe.

We needed to have the 10 divisions Redleg suggests, quickly supplemented by another 5-10, plus all of our coalition allies.

You need lots of boots for a proper subjugation.

Return army units to barracks and disarm immediately but demobilize in a controlled fashion. Separate the bad eggs from the good ones, keep as many of the latter as possible as cadre. As it was, we just let them fade away...:dizzy:

Establish rigorous control over water, power, transportation and commo infrastructure. Develop plans to improve and extend all of these services.

Maintain existing civilian control structures in place with coalition "watchdogs," gradually collecting info on who needs to be: promoted, kept, let go, or shot.

Hammer the crap out of any nascent insurgency efforts using slightly more force than is required.

THEN you begin the road toward democracy. Democracy can emerge from chaos, but this is rare. Most culture groups are more likely to move towards it when moving from a physically -- if not politically/culturally - secure basis.


So far, the USA hasn't shown itself willing to undertake that kind of arduous -- and messy and occasionally repressive -- task in hand for some time. Like, about 60 years.



Additionally, the central player in the drama that embraces everything between the Tigris and Islamabad hasn't been brought openly onto the stage. The only intelligent reason for taking on Iraq when we did was to put Iran in a box between a somewhat secular, democratic Iraq and a somewhat secular, democratic Afghanistan. Our unwillingness -- mostly for political reasons as Redleg asserts -- to commit the resources necessary to make that happen in Iraq has allowed Iran to wage war against us "on the cheap" with no repurcussions.


There was a time when the USA, with its soldiers deployed in the field in an action sanctioned by Congress -- don't let me get off on their abrogation of Constitutional responsibility, would have responded much differently to clear evidence of foreign support for -- and tactical leadership of -- insurgents who were killing U.S. soldiers. Do the words Casus Belli ring a bell? That time is apparently long past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

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).

---

You've missed the point here. The Sunni insurgents are fighting Shia militia, Shia secret police death squads and the US forces. To compare it to the law and order problem in US cities is frankly laughable.

So what do you purpose we (or the US) do to rectify the situation ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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.

---

That is extremely niaive. When you have armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soliders and secret police, you aren't going to be that impressed by a concerted leaflet campaign by you prospective parliamentary candidate :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

So what do you purpose we (or the US) do to rectify the situation ?

---

Accept that you can't have a US-centric and controlled Iraq and start dealing directly with Iran and Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

So what do you purpose we (or the US) do to rectify the situation ?

---

We need to kick out the media, decide who we want to be the bad guys and then kill them; you can’t win a war by allowing your enemies to live. Who can we get along best with? Pick them and kill everyone else. Make Iraq the 53 state (after the Virgin Islands and Porta Rico) and have cheep enough oil that we can have afford free fricking health care (offering the health care is the only to get the left behind it). Once established as a state, control everything in Iraq so that the only way to receive anything (food, water, medicine, etc.) is with a token that can only be obtained by turning in an Iranians head. This way we control the Iraqis animalistic blood lust by focusing their aggressive needs on our nuclearly deprived “evil” enemies. Smidgen of sarcasm in every bite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

There was a time when the USA, with its soldiers deployed in the field in an action sanctioned by Congress -- don't let me get off on their abrogation of Constitutional responsibility, would have responded much differently to clear evidence of foreign support for -- and tactical leadership of -- insurgents who were killing U.S. soldiers. Do the words Casus Belli ring a bell? That time is apparently long past.

---

Perhaps, but isn't most of the support coming from Saudi and Jordan to the Sunni insurgents who are doing most of the damage? Isn't it the case for at least a decade now that most of the funding for anti-American actions has come from US allies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

That is extremely niaive. When you have armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soliders and secret police, you aren't going to be that impressed by a concerted leaflet campaign by you prospective parliamentary candidate :laugh4:

---

You are strengthening my point. If the “armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soldiers and secret police” were civilized people that were working within the system it wouldn’t be a problem, but instead their “party” is not dominant so they strike out with violence. The “Why vote for something you don’t like when you can just blow it up.” attitude makes a democracy impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.

---

@ Pannonian:

Possibly true. Certainly true if you consider private Saudi funding that hasn't been effectively squelched by the Saudi government to be a violation.

I'm just a little tired of leadership that wants to fight a war without declaring war; that wants to project power without accepting the price of that projection; that pretty much always tries to have its cake and eat it too -- even when history tells us that only is successful once in a very blue moon. Most insurgencies fail -- a simple lesson of history -- they win only when they cease to be an insurgency and win or at least hold their own in the "open field" or when the dominant power they face decides to quit. The USA has become prone to quitting. Despite the best military on the planet, we could arguably be viewed as a collection of candy-asses. This would be far less of a problem if we were in our old isolationist mode, but it's a pretty stupid way to do business if you're going to be a world power.

One of my favorite stories is a profile in political courage is Jeanette Rankin. That lady was one of only 49 representatives to vote against our entry into WW1. She was ousted in the next election. She finally managed to return to Congress 20 years later in 1940. She was the only person to vote against our declaration of war upon Japan. She was ousted again.

I don't like her politics -- she was a pacifist and socialist and quasi-communist -- but I have always admired her grit. We have few political leaders today who are willing to take a stand and pay the price as did she. I think we'd be better off if we had a few more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

Newsflash: Sky is blue. What has either of these 'secrets' got to do with partitioning Iraq into three states?

---

Repartitioning Iraq into the old Ottoman Vilayets of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra and creating independent states from these, would probably be the same as effectively handing them over to their interested neighbours yes. But what other solution is there that doesn't involve countless more deaths and increased militancy for decades to come?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

One of my favorite stories is a profile in political courage is Jeanette Rankin. That lady was one of only 49 representatives to vote against our entry into WW1. She was ousted in the next election. She finally managed to return to Congress 20 years later in 1940. She was the only person to vote against our declaration of war upon Japan. She was ousted again.

I don't like her politics -- she was a pacifist and socialist and quasi-communist -- but I have always admired her grit. We have few political leaders today who are willing to take a stand and pay the price as did she. I think we'd be better off if we had a few more.

---

We have a whole bunch of them: hardline leftwingers who oppose any war, rightwing xenophobes who like nothing more than to give foreigners a good kicking, left and right wingers who want an isolationist Britain of differing models. All of them are regarded as lunatics whom the electorate wouldn't want to see in power in a thousand years. Yet they are constantly re-elected, because their lack of prospects for cabinet power means they have time to be extremely good constituency MPs. And you know what, despite their wildly opposing political views, they are often good friends with each other, not only because of their political convictions, but also because their "eccentricity" makes them interesting company, sharing a drink as they sneer at the middle ground which they refuse to occupy.

Look up the career of Glenda Jackson, who has pursued an unrelenting feud against Blair ever since she was sacked from a junior ministry for refusing to toe the Blairite line (she's an unrepentant socialist). She's one of a group of troublemakers who can be relied on to vote against anything that smacks of New Labour. Their antics can be quite entertaining.

One of the major problems with how the Us went about the war is this.

The US Army does not listen to anyone at all, they were messing things up a lot and not training the troops for what they would be doing whilst over there, but wouldnt listen to anyone who said so.

The lack of training meant that scared kids got trigger happy and kill a lot of people for no reason, by the time the fresh troops got to understand the AOO they would be shipped off as the tours were too short (6 months i think) with little to no phase out, i.e some of the current solders stay to help ease the next bunch in.

The army was not equipped for the job at hand, Hmvee's were not fitted out as they should be. for example.

Arty was used on civilians.

Services are still not reliable.

The CPA did not spend any time training locals.

the contracts for recontrustion were a complete sham. they should of be opened up and to international companies.

Iran and the saudis should of been brought in to help with the oil constructions


the baathist should of been giving positions in the new structures of governance

the Iraqi army should of been put under joint iraqi/us control and spent to areas out of the cities to test them out and as a process of trust building.




On a big side note; does it take a man like Saddam to control the messy brood in Iraq? and if it does, was he such a bad man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

One of the major problems with how the Us went about the war is this.

The US Army does not listen to anyone at all, they were messing things up a lot and not training the troops for what they would be doing whilst over there, but wouldnt listen to anyone who said so.

The lack of training meant that scared kids got trigger happy and kill a lot of people for no reason, by the time the fresh troops got to understand the AOO they would be shipped off as the tours were too short (6 months i think) with little to no phase out, i.e some of the current solders stay to help ease the next bunch in.

The army was not equipped for the job at hand, Hmvee's were not fitted out as they should be. for example.

Arty was used on civilians.

Services are still not reliable.

The CPA did not spend any time training locals.

the contracts for recontrustion were a complete sham. they should of be opened up and to international companies.

Iran and the saudis should of been brought in to help with the oil constructions


the baathist should of been giving positions in the new structures of governance

the Iraqi army should of been put under joint iraqi/us control and spent to areas out of the cities to test them out and as a process of trust building.




On a big side note; does it take a man like Saddam to control the messy brood in Iraq? and if it does, was he such a bad man?

---

You realize how naive about the military your initial part of the post sounds. Three divisions on the ground destroyed the Iraqi Military with abosolutely no problem. Criticize the United States Military's ability to conduct an occupation and your dead on. Critizing the ability for the military to fight battles against other armed forces and your going down the wrong track.

Fighting battles the US military is good at, keeping the peace and performing occupation duty we suck. We can not handle the political aspect of doing so. We don't train for it, and we don't learn lessons from other nations in regard to that. Our political appratus within the military often gets itself in trouble,

Care to guess how long a man can function in a combat environment before they should be rotated out? Several studies by different militaries have been done in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You realize how naive about the military your initial part of the post sounds. Three divisions on the ground destroyed the Iraqi Military with abosolutely no problem. Criticize the United States Military's ability to conduct an occupation and your dead on. Critizing the ability for the military to fight battles against other armed forces and your going down the wrong track.

Fighting battles the US military is good at, keeping the peace and performing occupation duty we suck. We can not handle the political aspect of doing so. We don't train for it, and we don't learn lessons from other nations in regard to that. Our political appratus within the military often gets itself in trouble,

Care to guess how long a man can function in a combat environment before they should be rotated out? Several studies by different militaries have been done in this regard.

---

No one ever doubted that the biggest military in the world could destroy the Iraqi army, by all reports it (the iraqi army) was not that strong after all. the point i was making was, that fighting armies is the easy bit, reaching bad-dags is the easy part. staying there and sorting out the god-forsaken mess that it creates is hard part and thats the part where things went seriously wrong.

The politics is another area where things went very wrong, both the administration and also the armies ability to handle the local population, blend in a little and not being seen as all that different from the locals. also not arresting people for no reason would of help as well.

the point with the 6 months rotations is that the locals and the soldiers start to understand each other and things start to almost become a state of "normal" then the solders up and go and the locals need to get shot to bits while the new guys get used to it all over again... this was not very well thought through at all, and could of saved a lot of ill will towards the army. This is something that the british and even better the australians do very very very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

No one ever doubted that the biggest military in the world could destroy the Iraqi army, by all reports it (the iraqi army) was not that strong after all. the point i was making was, that fighting armies is the easy bit, reaching bad-dags is the easy part. staying there and sorting out the god-forsaken mess that it creates is hard part and thats the part where things went seriously wrong.

---

Then you should of stuck with your point. Oh by the way the United States military is not the biggest in the world. At least one other nation has that honor.

Your previous attempt like I stated was naive, this is much better.

Quote:

---

The politics is another area where things went very wrong, both the administration and also the armies ability to handle the local population, blend in a little and not being seen as all that different from the locals. also not arresting people for no reason would of help as well.

---

Have you ever been there? Do you realize how much an American Serviceman or woman stands out compared to the local population. Give you a hind blending in was not an option? What the United States planners failed to take in consideration was how many soldiers it would take to successfully occupy a country. Give you a hint - we would have had to take all our forces both Active and National Guard to do a proper occupation. So we where short from the get-go.

Then again you won't want to hear what soldier's state needs to be done to sort out the occupation, its rather simple and effective. But the politicans won't want to even get close to going there. So its rather a simple fact as someone alreadly mentioned. Bush is looking for a way to have an exit, which isn't going to happen until some type of agreement is struck with Iran - one that will surely be broken as soon as the United States withdraws.

Quote:

---

the point with the 6 months rotations is that the locals and the soldiers start to understand each other and things start to almost become a state of "normal" then the solders up and go and the locals need to get shot to bits while the new guys get used to it all over again... this was not very well thought through at all, and could of saved a lot of ill will towards the army. This is something that the british and even better the australians do very very very well.

---

Again your mis-informed the rotations are one year. Your point about getting to know the population is valid - but once again how long can a man maintain is sanity in a combat zone? I see you avoided answering the question. Are you so sure about the brits and the aussies - I have heard that they also rotate out every year.

The USA does not have the political will to do in Iraq what was done in the Phillipines. Unfortunately, I think half-measures are less than adequate.

I think the entire American view on occupation is screwy, no offense. The British go through three stages.

Peace Keeping

Peace Enforcment

War Fighting

The US forces, by accounts from British senior servicemen and their American counterparts do not understand the first, have trouble with the second and then default to the third. It is not a question merely of manpower, but of handling the situation.

Question: In Bosnia what were the two things that came out of every Warrior when it stopped?

Redleg: I believe breaking point is 140-180 days by US studies from WWII. That's about six months, which is what British troops spend in theatre, and twice what Americans did in Vietnam.

Alright bear with me hear, lets see how i go.

to highlight the point i am making about fitting in with the local population, i don't mean dress in local drab, live in huts and eat goats. I mean making concerted efforts to establish good relations with the local community, this takes a little bit of understanding and a little understanding local customs. A great example of the difference is by this. In the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan an Australian SAS patrol lived with the various villages around the area, making a concerted effort to understand the locals and getting the locals to trust them, so if things were happening the locals would be the eyes and ears for the patrol. the area in question is huge. after several months the 8 Australian SAS men were replaced by 1000 US marines, who built a huge base and never once tried to relate or build trust and understanding with the locals, the locals in turn stopped providing any information to them. the 1000 marines failed where 8 sas had done so much. boots on the ground does no one any good if you turn the local popultion against you due to over-whelming force, the pointless killing of innocent civilians and bad policy like arresting people based of nothing more then accusations of rival families or tribes.

Of cause bush is looking for an exit, he has 2 years to turn iraq into a non-issue for the elections or the republicans will loose the power they had dreamed off through the Clinton era. The republican party is basically now looking ahead to the next election and will be only doing things or saying things that give it a chance in 08.

The rotations were changed in the 2nd year of the war weren't they? as well as the rule of how many tours soldier's could do, as well as calling up any newly retired service personnel? and my point is not the the soldiers shouldn't be rotated but it is that they should be phased, so that the new guys learn from some vets until they ease into it. this was not done at the start at least.


FYI. My experience that i use to make most of my comments comes from the time i spent in East Timor during the UNMISET. I was there as a contractor teaching, instructing and reporting. i know quite a few Australian SAS who had/have/are working in Afghanistan, Iraq and timor. i have read a fair bit about all things iraq/Afghanistan and indo. whilst not a serviceman i would consider myself well-enough versed to comment on issues involved in nation building, peacekeeping, occupation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I think the entire American view on occupation is screwy, no offense. The British go through three stages.

Peace Keeping

Peace Enforcment

War Fighting

The US forces, by accounts from British senior servicemen and their American counterparts do not understand the first, have trouble with the second and then default to the third. It is not a question merely of manpower, but of handling the situation.

Question: In Bosnia what were the two things that came out of every Warrior when it stopped?

Redleg: I believe breaking point is 140-180 days by US studies from WWII. That's about six months, which is what British troops spend in theatre, and twice what Americans did in Vietnam.

---

Yes indeed you have referenced the study that I was refering to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

Alright bear with me hear, lets see how i go.

to highlight the point i am making about fitting in with the local population, i don't mean dress in local drab, live in huts and eat goats. I mean making concerted efforts to establish good relations with the local community, this takes a little bit of understanding and a little understanding local customs. A great example of the difference is by this. In the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan an Australian SAS patrol lived with the various villages around the area, making a concerted effort to understand the locals and getting the locals to trust them, so if things were happening the locals would be the eyes and ears for the patrol. the area in question is huge. after several months the 8 Australian SAS men were replaced by 1000 US marines, who built a huge base and never once tried to relate or build trust and understanding with the locals, the locals in turn stopped providing any information to them. the 1000 marines failed where 8 sas had done so much. boots on the ground does no one any good if you turn the local popultion against you due to over-whelming force, the pointless killing of innocent civilians and bad policy like arresting people based of nothing more then accusations of rival families or tribes.

Of cause bush is looking for an exit, he has 2 years to turn iraq into a non-issue for the elections or the republicans will loose the power they had dreamed off through the Clinton era. The republican party is basically now looking ahead to the next election and will be only doing things or saying things that give it a chance in 08.

The rotations were changed in the 2nd year of the war weren't they? as well as the rule of how many tours soldier's could do, as well as calling up any newly retired service personnel? and my point is not the the soldiers shouldn't be rotated but it is that they should be phased, so that the new guys learn from some vets until they ease into it. this was not done at the start at least.


FYI. My experience that i use to make most of my comments comes from the time i spent in East Timor during the UNMISET. I was there as a contractor teaching, instructing and reporting. i know quite a few Australian SAS who had/have/are working in Afghanistan, Iraq and timor. i have read a fair bit about all things iraq/Afghanistan and indo. whilst not a serviceman i would consider myself well-enough versed to comment on issues involved in nation building, peacekeeping, occupation.

---

Teaching as a civilian is different then combat operations - you should be able to get that answer from your SAS friends. It effects everyman different. Some handle the stress with ease, other crack. Hince the reference to the study.

Try it sometime its a lot more difficult to be a soldier facing combat then a civilian in a war zone. And the rotations are phased if one looks at the actually deployment cycles

Here try this site it links a lot of information to include the troop deployment announcements.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nstruction.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

We need to kick out the media, decide who we want to be the bad guys and then kill them; you can’t win a war by allowing your enemies to live. Who can we get along best with? Pick them and kill everyone else. Make Iraq the 53 state (after the Virgin Islands and Porta Rico) and have cheep enough oil that we can have afford free fricking health care (offering the health care is the only to get the left behind it). Once established as a state, control everything in Iraq so that the only way to receive anything (food, water, medicine, etc.) is with a token that can only be obtained by turning in an Iranians head. This way we control the Iraqis animalistic blood lust by focusing their aggressive needs on our nuclearly deprived “evil” enemies. Smidgen of sarcasm in every bite.

---

You try and disguise this drivel by claiming at the end that there is some sarcasm in your post. Of course in order to cut yourself free from this schoolboy nonsense you can claim that it was all sarcasm. You get the option of presenting cloud-cuckoo stuff without really having to intellectually defend it.

From your other posts we can make a reasonable assumption that you do believe the basic thrust. That some how all that is needed is to find "bad guys" and kill them. Like life was some kind of video game. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your government shares this same kind of thinking.

In your other post you say how the problem is that Iraqis aren't civilised. That after the US kindly and generously came and blew up much of the country, starved it with sanctions for 10 years then blew it up again and removed all functions of the state; that it is the Iraqis basic brutal nature to rove around a lawless country in militia bands.

Son, come back in 20 years when you've learnt a little about life :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Who can we get along best with? Pick them and kill everyone else.

---

Probably, on balance, the Sunnis were your better bet. What you should have done was pick a secularist strong man from amongst the Sunnis. Someone who could keep a lid on things but keep the oil flowing. Someone who we can deal with but who will act as a bulwark against Iran.

http://encyclopedia.quickseek.com/im...m_rumsfeld.jpg

:laugh:

Doh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Probably, on balance, the Sunnis were your better bet. What you should have done was pick a secularist strong man from amongst the Sunnis. Someone who could keep a lid on things but keep the oil flowing. Someone who we can deal with but who will act as a bulwark against Iran.

http://encyclopedia.quickseek.com/im...m_rumsfeld.jpg

:laugh:

Doh!

---

indeed an ups! moment.

wasn´t saddam supposed to have a bunch of look-a-likes?

maybe they can find one of them...tell everyone it´s the real Saddam and the guy who died was a fake....hey...maybe it´ll work.....with the way things are going over there it doesn´t look like such a bad plan anymore :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

Newsflash: Sky is blue. What has either of these 'secrets' got to do with partitioning Iraq into three states?

---

Because Iraq obviously can be ruled only by dictator, or divide people how can't live together in democratic conditions.

The same was with former socialist Yugoslavia. :thumbsdown: There is still "multicultural and multi ethic" Bosnia were foreign rule only can guarantee peace among Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Serbs want to unite with Serbia, Croats with Croatia, and Bosniaks who want to assimilate the first two (currently they do it to Croats).

Only solution for Iraq is three separate states or loose federation with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish parts.

Problem with Iraq is that Bush (short version of word idiot) expected that there will be society ideal like American. People who feel national identity, don't have real fairth (by real I mean strong) and complety without big social connections.
Then they noticed that people of Iraq is completely different. That they can easy organise themselves and they want fight in the name of god. So that they established "iraqui autonomic government" - count mostly from Iraqui emigrants.
Bush forgot to check who are those emigrants - actually big part of them were drug dealers. So we had corrupted government and american soldiers without any respect for culture and tradition of Iraq. And when they started torturing people into Abu Graib, they became nice targets :)
Americans should do better into 2002 - they should establish new government on tribal and religious leaders. That would help them control society because family connections would be supported by respect of religion.

Now Americans have to smile when Juba shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You try and disguise this drivel by claiming at the end that there is some sarcasm in your post. Of course in order to cut yourself free from this schoolboy nonsense you can claim that it was all sarcasm. You get the option of presenting cloud-cuckoo stuff without really having to intellectually defend it.

From your other posts we can make a reasonable assumption that you do believe the basic thrust. That some how all that is needed is to find "bad guys" and kill them. Like life was some kind of video game. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your government shares this same kind of thinking.

In your other post you say how the problem is that Iraqis aren't civilised. That after the US kindly and generously came and blew up much of the country, starved it with sanctions for 10 years then blew it up again and removed all functions of the state; that it is the Iraqis basic brutal nature to rove around a lawless country in militia bands.

Son, come back in 20 years when you've learnt a little about life :laugh:

---

Drivel? That’s a fun little cha cha cha! Of course it is all a bunch of nonsense, nothing I said is realistic (Porta Rico would surly be a state before the Virgin Islands). The US or any western country hasn’t got the guts to kill (not since WWII) and if they did, killing all the enemies in Iraq… would leave the country completely empty.

Want me to intellectually defend something, look back to my earlier post like you mentioned where I call the Iraqis uncivilized. Sure the US fought with them (Iraq) but why? Because they wouldn’t play nice and we are brash suckers, we helped Saddam out and he repaid us by opposing us every chance he had, breaking UN rules, rewarding terrorists, taunting us with the threat of WMDs, etc. He had power over the country, he didn’t need to demonize the US to maintain his authority, he could have stayed our “friend” but he was an egotistical maniac who suckered us into destroying him and making the biggest military blunder in memorable history (the occupation of Iraq). Now with Saddam removed from power and given the opportunity to have a free country with a desired democracy some Iraqis have shown a great desire to make their new democracy work but others cant accept a “new” civilized government where blowing things up doesn’t get you control of the country. They are not grasping the civilized idea of forming a party and running for election, even of a small area (town/village) they wish to control. Democracy is civilized, voting is civilized, protecting your family rather then bringing danger to them is civilized… “armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soldiers and secret police” is NOT civilized. Maybe civilized is the wrong word, perhaps stupid is or insane. Isn’t the definition of insane something like repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Seems like they have been in a pattern of violence with each other and opposing the US for sometime and it has only given them the same results. Maybe to break their pattern, they should ignore other puppet masters like Iran and ally themselves with and embrace the ideas of a prosperous country that respects life and enjoys freedom and relative peace. Oh, but wait, that would be too civilized for a bunch of stupid, insane, religious zealots that cant see they are ruining everything for everyone else in their country.

Defend the Iraqis and paint the US as the bad guys all you want. Tonight I am going to have dinner with my family without worrying about were the food will come from or if I am going to be blown up, on Sunday I will go to one of the dozens of different churches in my area without worrying about being blown up and next election I will vote fore for my favorite candidate and when they loose, I am not going to try and blow them up. I am going to give to charity, send my child to school, have a productive job and not at the cost of blowing up my neighbors for giving to different charities, attending different schools or working at different jobs. I wish the Iraqis could understand that they could have those same civilized options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Drivel? That’s a fun little cha cha cha! Of course it is all a bunch of nonsense, nothing I said is realistic (Porta Rico would surly be a state before the Virgin Islands). The US or any western country hasn’t got the guts to kill (not since WWII) and if they did, killing all the enemies in Iraq… would leave the country completely empty.

---

It's not about guts, it's about the fact that mass slaughters and major wars of conquest are ultimately counter-productive, as a basic reading of history would show you.

Quote:

---

Want me to intellectually defend something, look back to my earlier post like you mentioned where I call the Iraqis uncivilized. Sure the US fought with them (Iraq) but why? Because they wouldn’t play nice and we are brash suckers, we helped Saddam out and he repaid us by opposing us every chance he had, breaking UN rules, rewarding terrorists, taunting us with the threat of WMDs, etc. He had power over the country, he didn’t need to demonize the US to maintain his authority, he could have stayed our “friend” but he was an egotistical maniac who suckered us into destroying him and making the biggest military blunder in memorable history (the occupation of Iraq).

---

What a bizzare version of events. I don't think there is a single clause in there that I would agree to. Beyond crass generalisation and on the rocky road to sophistry

Quote:

---

Now with Saddam removed from power and given the opportunity to have a free country with a desired democracy some Iraqis have shown a great desire to make their new democracy work but others cant accept a “new” civilized government where blowing things up doesn’t get you control of the country. They are not grasping the civilized idea of forming a party and running for election, even of a small area (town/village) they wish to control. Democracy is civilized, voting is civilized, protecting your family rather then bringing danger to them is civilized… “armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soldiers and secret police” is NOT civilized. Maybe civilized is the wrong word, perhaps stupid is or insane. Isn’t the definition of insane something like repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Seems like they have been in a pattern of violence with each other and opposing the US for sometime and it has only given them the same results. Maybe to break their pattern, they should ignore other puppet masters like Iran and ally themselves with and embrace the ideas of a prosperous country that respects life and enjoys freedom and relative peace. Oh, but wait, that would be too civilized for a bunch of stupid, insane, religious zealots that cant see they are ruining everything for everyone else in their country.

Defend the Iraqis and paint the US as the bad guys all you want. Tonight I am going to have dinner with my family without worrying about were the food will come from or if I am going to be blown up, on Sunday I will go to one of the dozens of different churches in my area without worrying about being blown up and next election I will vote fore for my favorite candidate and when they loose, I am not going to try and blow them up. I am going to give to charity, send my child to school, have a productive job and not at the cost of blowing up my neighbors for giving to different charities, attending different schools or working at different jobs. I wish the Iraqis could understand that they could have those same civilized options.

---

:book: Hmm.. interesting. I wonder if it is because the American people and their government are this misguided that they have been making so many blunders in foreign policy over the years?

That cunning guy Saddam stated that he'd no weapons, and america was fooled into fabricating evidence into pre-emptive defence and invading the country.

Again, trust an American to ignore the 600 odd years of history in the area. If this is the average view at the top, we are in BIG trouble...

~:smoking:

Edit: Let us not resort to trolling, please. - Dariush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The USA does not have the political will to do in Iraq what was done in the Phillipines. Unfortunately, I think half-measures are less than adequate.

---

You do realize that, despite all the brutality and other oppressive stuff, it took decades fighting in the Philippines against a bunch of men with sticks on the islands, right?

Iraq is a desert, with very, very long borders; with a lot of people, usually with AK-47, going in and out; and quite a few countries sharing said borders have interests in actually allowing, if not downright sponsoring said people with AK-47's, to bother the occupation process. It might as well just take a little longer than, you know, decades, to do the same crush-them-beneath-our-boots thing.

Quote:

---

You do realize that, despite all the brutality and other oppressive stuff, it took decades fighting in the Philippines against a bunch of men with sticks on the islands, right?

---

Whats even funnier about when people use the Phillipines as an example, apart from the fact that even though they declared victory several times they still ended up fighting again and again , is that the people they were fighting were the people they claimed they were liberating in the first place .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Whats even funnier about when people use the Phillipines as an example, apart from the fact that even though they declared victory several times they still ended up fighting again and again , is that the people they were fighting were the people they claimed they were liberating in the first place .

---

much like now, ain't it ?

Two things spring to mind. First, that it is absurd to treat Iraq as a modern nation-state; the various ethnic and religious groups are too distinct in character to allow this and make it impossible to treat Iraq as a single country, just like it would have been impossible to do so to most European countries several hundred years ago. Unfortunately this is exactly how Iraq was viewed and approached. Secondly, it was a major mistake for the US to go it alone, a small coalition notwithstanding. It left too few available troops, too many critics blocking effective peacekeeping, and ultimately too little credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It's not about guts, it's about the fact that mass slaughters and major wars of conquest are ultimately counter-productive, as a basic reading of history would show you.

---

You are right it is not about guts, it’s about desire and if the US had the desire we would have the guts but we don’t have the desire for anything other than establishing a mildly stable area (Iraq) that doesn’t treat us like Saddam did, so we can do business (oil) with them. Additionally major wars of conquest are how and why there is a coast to coast USA and how Japan was unified, there are probably as many examples of conquest resulting in good things as there are bad or failed ones, the bad just get talked about more. The US hasn’t tried to conquer anyone since the Indians, if you recall the killing and conquering rant was just my nonsense. :elephant: YesDachi’s rants are not the views of the United States of America and therefore should be taken as lunacy at lease as often as they are taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

What a bizzare version of events. I don't think there is a single clause in there that I would agree to. Beyond crass generalisation and on the rocky road to sophistry

---

Well then your interpretation of the events must be bizarre, because it reads (although simplified and generalized) true to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

:book: Hmm.. interesting. I wonder if it is because the American people and their government are this misguided that they have been making so many blunders in foreign policy over the years?

---

Blunders in foreign policy!?!? Like the US has that market cornered (dozens of examples rush to mind of euro headlines from the past year):laugh4: . Saddam is the all time poster child for foreign policy blunders IMO. Any text book on foreign policy from now on should have an entire chapter dedicated to not doing what Saddam did. Sure we have more debt and another smear on our “reputation” but he is dead and his country is a disaster, and the US… thriving! Imagine if other countries were as misguided as us Americans! ~:eek: They would be able to live in peace without fear of being blown up too.:fainting:

This is more along the lines of what i was getting at...the command structure of the military just don't listen.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...02DBF961CC.htm

The current American military is a product of the post-Vietnam era, with a belief that just because they lost there they never should have gone.

As a result they have to convince themselves they are winning in Iraq or else they'll lose their stones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

The current American military is a product of the post-Vietnam era, with a belief that just because they lost there they never should have gone.

As a result they have to convince themselves they are winning in Iraq or else they'll lose their stones.

---

According to some enlisted soldiers I know - the main problem with the Senior Leadership of the military is that they have gotten to interested in politics versus warfighting.

Something that I would of agreed back in 2000 when I left the military.

When generals are more worried about their career after the military they make poor decisions concerning the troops. :no:

Rather like the Romans. Their dominance is so great that the need for a decent commander goes, and in their place you get politicos. :no:

~:smoking:

I think the main criticism of the "plan" for Iraq is that although a lot of the options or changes the command/administration is making/made are coming /have come about 18 months too late. By the time someone listens to what the 'experts' or forces are saying and it sinks in, then they act it is past the point where the things they are trying will work... i.e the Surge should of happened feb 2006, around the time of the bombing of the golden mosque...it might of stopped the sectarian bloodletting...

what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Rather like the Romans. Their dominance is so great that the need for a decent commander goes, and in their place you get politicos. :no:

~:smoking:

---

Too damn apt a comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

... i.e the Surge should of happened feb 2006, around the time of the bombing of the golden mosque...it might of stopped the sectarian bloodletting...

what do you think?

---

I think you are correct (except "should of" should read: "should have").

Hindsight is always 20:20. But it's not unreasonable to expect our leadership (military and civilian) to have anticipated this.

So, assuming they did, one can only conclude that today's condition in Iraq was intended.

Consider: Iraq fails.

Iran, Syria and Turkey (remember, we're pissed at them for their '03 noncooperation) take actions to protect/project their interests. Washington points accusatory fingers, and unleashes a new 'shock and awe' aerial campaign, debilitating Iran's nukes, Syria's barracks, and Turkey's border incursions.

The conflict spreads to (check your maps) Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and (inhale) Pakistan.

Now it's the year 2008. What next?

signed, Conspiracy Brother

Full disclosure: this post was constructed under the influence.

Some rather incoherent and ill thought out fragments. Accept with fistfuls of grains of sand.

I am not sure any poster in the 1st and 3rd pages of this thread have allowed the Iraq war the scope it deserves. You are not to be blamed, of course. Most of you come from a Western background with a Western perspective of things which, IMHO, is thoroughly insufficient, at least at this stage, of the Iraqi Civil War. A good understanding of Islam (the religion) and Muslim societies (Arab, Persian and other) is a must. I think I can address that issue slightly better.

I consider Iraq, at this point, and rather oversimplistically, the HRE of the Reformation period over which various others fight. There are too huge a number of variables involved for naive neo and theocons in Washington to salvage anything from this situation. For what it is worth, I have little anger for Bush, more pity.

The problem, at this point, is mostly religious and neighbor-geographic. The Arab suicide-nihilism (with religious, but foremost, societal variables) and Persian obstinance and grudge-holding must stop either by a reformation of the fragmented Islamic faith or sheer brutal force (for which USA or EU has no stomach), both long term solutions. I see no short term solutions, at least, no realistic short term ones.

Much to the pity. This has been, is, and will be, a HUGE bloodbath. It is even sadder, ironic, and perhaps infuriating, that the West, more specifically the USA, has so thoroughly failed. So much for democratic and moral superiority, eh (I am not trying to gloat, BTW, just frustration)? The USA now has at stake a total loss of its superpower status, in addition to being despised (in the Middle and South Eastern Asian hemispheres) or ridiculed (Far East, portions of Latin America) or considered naive (EU, portions of Latin America). Just lessons, I say.

This sheer incompatibility from the supreme leaders of the world's greatest nation can not be explained, however much the other variables can be.

Welcome MonwarH, to the Backroom. ~:wave: You bring interesting perspectives and insights. We look forward to more.

We do, however, not allow f-bombs. At your earliest convenience, please read the Backroom stickies for language guidance.

And welcome, again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonwarH

Some rather incoherent and ill thought out fragments. Accept with fistfuls of grains of sand.

I am not sure any poster in the 1st and 3rd pages of this thread have allowed the Iraq war the scope it deserves. You are not to be blamed, of course. Most of you come from a Western background with a Western perspective of things which, IMHO, is thoroughly insufficient, at least at this stage, of the Iraqi Civil War. A good understanding of Islam (the religion) and Muslim societies (Arab, Persian and other) is a must. I think I can address that issue slightly better.

---

I think we're all aware of the divisions in Iraq, and also of the Religious issues, including the imcompatability of the various sects. Much of the current problem stems from the American administration overriding the American and British planners, the latter having dealth with just such issues in Northern Ireland.

Quote:

---

I consider Iraq, at this point, and rather oversimplistically, the HRE of the Reformation period over which various others fight. There are too huge a number of variables involved for naive neo and theocons in Washington to salvage anything from this situation. For what it is worth, I have little anger for Bush, more pity.

---

We had this disscussion a month or so ago, quite a few people were willing to adhere to the Iraq = HRE comparrison.

Quote:

---

The problem, at this point, is mostly religious and neighbor-geographic. The Arab suicide-nihilism (with religious, but foremost, societal variables) and Persian obstinance and grudge-holding must stop either by a reformation of the fragmented Islamic faith or sheer brutal force (for which USA or EU has no stomach), both long term solutions. I see no short term solutions, at least, no realistic short term ones.

---

I find this dubious in the extreme. To charactarise the Arabs or Iranians in this way is very short-sighted and simplistic. The Persians are also known as great traders always willing to make a deal. You might as well say the English are Imperialist swine who do nothing but conquer others, enslave them and steal their countries resources. Everybody is aware of the problems however nobody has any solutions, and I'm not just talking about "The West" here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonwarH

Some rather incoherent and ill thought out fragments. Accept with fistfuls of grains of sand.

---

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonwarH

I am not sure any poster in the 1st and 3rd pages of this thread have allowed the Iraq war the scope it deserves. You are not to be blamed, of course. Most of you come from a Western background with a Western perspective of things which, IMHO, is thoroughly insufficient, at least at this stage, of the Iraqi Civil War. A good understanding of Islam (the religion) and Muslim societies (Arab, Persian and other) is a must. I think I can address that issue slightly better.

---

Just so you know, while it appears in this thread a prevailing sense of apathy and what you might read as simplification and adherence to "Western-only" perspectives, this is actually merely an expression of exasperation by most people: most of us know very well the degree of complexity of the Iraq War, the focus of the world, the perspectives of different countries...it is merely that we are quite literally sick of it that the responses only keep getting snappier, more self-centered, more careless, less thought-out, and with an increasing dose of cynicism all mixed and matched together. Even the most ardent supporter of the Bush administration out there is getting less and less ardent in his declaration of anything positive about the whole ordeal. Most of us are perfectly aware that "the Americans" mean less and less in the Iraqi civil war that they sparked by the removal of the Baathist regime, and more and more an explosion of held-up tensions and sectarian hatred that had long been the monopoly of the Baathist forces and their supporters.

Also, please be careful with generalizations like "you are not to be blamed...[because you are West, lacking in our perspectives"]. There are quite a few characters out in this wild that are not of US, UK, or even European origin. I'd have to personally welcome you, though; and hope your perspectives will only add to the existing ones!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonwarH

I consider Iraq, at this point, and rather oversimplistically, the HRE of the Reformation period over which various others fight. There are too huge a number of variables involved for naive neo and theocons in Washington to salvage anything from this situation. For what it is worth, I have little anger for Bush, more pity.

---

What exactly do you mean by "theocons?" Also, while the comparison is interesting, no one yet -- even in the old thread Wigferth spoke of -- offers to me a perspective on what kind of lesson should we learn from the confusing, near-continuous struggles that last from Luther's trial to the Peace of Westphalia. Nothing except "stay the hell out," which sadly isn't particularly useful in the situation of today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonwarH

The problem, at this point, is mostly religious and neighbor-geographic. The Arab suicide-nihilism (with religious, but foremost, societal variables) and Persian obstinance and grudge-holding must stop either by a reformation of the fragmented Islamic faith or sheer brutal force (for which USA or EU has no stomach), both long term solutions. I see no short term solutions, at least, no realistic short term ones.

---

And what exactly is the "suicide-nihilism?" I dispute this apparently careless use of the term "nihilism," and the unfair generalizations of Arabs as being suicidal in nature, or Persians as grudge-holding people. There are too many aspects of the many cultures there for such generalizations to be useful. Heck -- isn't the subcontinent pretty infamous for its "traditional values" that sounds very much to me like tribal traditions of grudge-holding and the like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonwarH

Much to the pity. This has been, is, and will be, a HUGE bloodbath. It is even sadder, ironic, and perhaps infuriating, that the West, more specifically the USA, has so thoroughly failed. So much for democratic and moral superiority, eh (I am not trying to gloat, BTW, just frustration)? The USA now has at stake a total loss of its superpower status, in addition to being despised (in the Middle and South Eastern Asian hemispheres) or ridiculed (Far East, portions of Latin America) or considered naive (EU, portions of Latin America). Just lessons, I say.

---

For some reason, I seriously think you exaggerate the importance of the Iraq War. The USA will recover alright; except that the timing of this increasingly plausible "defeat" sucks. Once Bush is gone the next President's real job is to rebuild the diplomatic connections and formerly cordial relationships -- an entirely possible job. You of course are aware of China's straight dragon ride upwards to superpower status: the temporary loss of what is essentially a modicum of diplomatic hegemony and global goodwill that has been acquired by the "victory" of the Cold War is going to leave a gaping hole somebody's would be most willing to fill. Someone big and rich, with a big, big economic leverage...

And, as a person who used to live in Southeast Asia, your assertion that they will despise America is rather ludicrous. More like, they hate Bush -- it's fashionable; everyone hates Bush -- and that China will increasingly dominate the region, the latter point being rather inevitable considering the historical Chinese expansion tendencies and the proximity to the People's Republic, with or without the Iraq war. Besides, frickin' half the people on the mainland are Chinese in some way -- the King of Thailand is of Chinese descent, so is more than half Bangkokians, me included. Big deal if cousins tend to favor each other more.

The EU has been conflicted about its relationship with their former (and still, in a way) protector across the pond since De Gaulle, if not earlier. If the Iraq war hastens the process of abandoning romanticizing the USA and finding their own position in the global village then that's nothing particularly sad or new. They'll be friends at the end of the day in any case.

And by Latin America, you mean Chavez, of course. ~;) In any case, some of them have well nigh legitimate reasons to despise the USA without Iraq either: the Cold War meant quite a few unpopular, massacre-happy scums got put up to oppose the Red Menace. No doubt the ones who had to deal with said scums would be angry with the USA. Again, with or without Iraq.

Now, the Middle East... :shame:

And I'd challenge your position on the superiority of the tradition of Enlightened Democracy! It is by far superior to anything the world have had, especially comparing to your overall warlordism, feudalism, fascism (and other military dictatorships), communism (yeah, not real communism), monarchism/nepotism, and all that crap.

The term suicide-nihilism has most recently been coined by Thomas Friedman in the NYT (barely a week old perhaps). I find it a rather convenient term to describe the rightmost Saudi-line Salafis, who seem to dominate Sunni Arabia (or at least Sunni Arabia that matters in the case of Iraq; to be even more specific, at least the relevant portions of North East peninsular Arabian Sunnis, and perhaps some North and North East African Arabs). I get your point AntiochusIII, and at face value this is blatant generalisation, but, to be honest, I don't mean the whole of it. I thought that was obvious, but in any case, its my mistake of communication, sorry. While we are at it, do excuse some of my rather weird 'terminology' though, I make up too many words and phrases whimsically, with little care for communicability.

I intentionally do not address some of the other questions which the previous two posters raise because to me some of them are self explanatory, or a wikipedia search away, and with some of those I do not agree, and have little energy to argue and convince. :)

Thanks for the welcomes.