Iraq- the next steps

[AlexanderSextus]

“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.)

[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.

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Guildenstern]

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.

[Ice]

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 ??????
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

Nope.

[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
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

[Ice]

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
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

You just don't get it, do you?

[Tribesman]

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

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[AlexanderSextus]

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.

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.

[Ice]

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?

Not surprising

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[JR-]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Hax]

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.

[Tribesman]

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

[Tribesman]

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 ?

[Pannonian]

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?

[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...

[rvg]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[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.

[rvg]

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?

[Jolt]

Good point. >_>

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[Fragony]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .