There seems to be something of a debate raging amongst the blogosphere as to whether the insurgency is in its "death throes" or whether the sky is falling and it's only a matter of time until the US is thrown out of Iraq by the kind of mass revolution that a lot of the more short-sighted opponents of the administration were having wet dreams about during the height of the Sadr Uprising.
I myself tend to be in something of a middle ground on this, in large part because I think that a lot of the Iraqi insurgency should be seen within the context of a broader regional campaign that includes events in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Pakistan.
So when I read Greg Djerejian's post explaining that the Iraqi insurgency isn't dead yet my reaction is, to put it quite bluntly, "No s--t, Sherlock!" There is a difference that needs to be understood, however, between the insurgency being dead and it being defeated.
To employ once again over-used World War 2 analogies, the Germans were beaten by 1944 but they still managed to kill quite a few people over the next year and a half.
Similarly, the Iraqi insurgency proved that it could never succeed in its ultimate objective (evicting US troops from Iraq and reestablishing some kind of Sunni hegemony over the country) on January 30 in which they utterly failed to expand their attack zone outside the Sunni Triangle area. That's where the vast of majority of the fighting and terrorist attacks were taking place on January 30 and that's where it's still taking place today. So in that sense, nothing has changed except for the ever-increasing disregard for innocent life among the insurgents.
Anybody notice all the car bombs that are going off in Tikrit these days? Not to mention the drivers being taped or tied to their vehicles?
Moreover, dare I say it, I think a lot of the problems we're dealing with now are a direct consequence of the decision to let Zarqawi and the rest of the al-Tawhid wal Jihad crew set up a safe zone in Fallujah that was then used as a base from which to spread insurgent cells throughout the majority of the Sunni Triangle while we were busy dealing with Muqtada al-Sadr. There are two other insurgent bases of which I am aware, one in eastern Syria made up of former Baathists and another in Iran consisting of the Ansar al-Islam/Jaish Ansar al-Sunnah cadres under the protection of the Qarargah-e-Ramezan subdivision of the IRGC.
As a result, the Bad Guys had between April to November 2004 to set up a robust infrastructure in the Sunni areas of Iraq and network them together to form a semi-unified bloc that stretches across central Iraq and includes the "rat lines" that we most recently attempted to shut down in and around the al-Qaim area as well as the Ansar al-Islam elements operating further north in the Mosul and Kirkuk areas.
And that's just Zarqawi's gang, whose numbers of include a growing amount of North Africans, such as members of the GSPC that most recently carried out a major attack on a Mauritanian military base. This went widely unnoticed, despite the implications that what had previously been an Algerian insurgent group is now capable of fighting (and winning) against conventional African militaries. Possibly as a result of the experience its cadres picked up in Iraq, fighting US troops.
So here again, we need to readjust our paradigm to view Iraq as part of a regional campaign, especially when considering the implications of what's going on there.
Greg also laments the fact that the nature of the US political debate has made it nearly impossible to have a constructive discussion on the problems with our current strategy on Iraq. With all due respect, Greg, welcome to my world.
The result of the US debate over Iraq, whether it be the pre-war intelligence, how to deal with the insurgency, de-Baathification, democratization, etc. has basically been the equivalent of defecating in the water hole as far as serious foreign policy discussions are concerned. Even assuming that everything turned out all sunny and happy in Iraq tomorrow, there is no way in hell that the kind of US foreign policy and popular consensus that existed when it came to the decision to go to war in Iraq, even if Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia announced tomorrow that they were openly involved in orchestrating 9/11 or supporting the Iraqi insurgency.
This strikes me as being quite dangerous because it provides a window within which our enemies can act. Anybody who doesn't see a danger in that needs to reassess their priorities.
I'm not suggesting that we all just suspend our differences, or engage in some kind of "beyondist" clap-trap in which I suggest we all move "beyond" the debate by accepting my positions. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice how bad the current status quo is.
UPDATE: Dave Schuler replies with the story of the 6 Blind Men and the Elephant, plus excerpts from Iraqi blogs and his own analysis.
UPDATE YET AGAIN: I see Greg was nice enough to add an addendum to his post on the subject of the Iraqi insurgency, but I fear he's misunderstood my intentions here.
He writes:
Let's quit this silly rhetorical jousting about whether the Iraqi insurgency has been defeated or is dead (I could just have easily titled my post the "Iraqi Insurgency Is Not Defeated" if that would make Dan happier--as Wretchard's post almost made it sound like all was well in Iraq now that the EU Constitution had gotten the heave-ho and Kofi is feelin' the blogospheric heat or such). Am I supposed to applaud the fact that we will no longer have Sunni hegemony over Mesopotamia--perhaps with Saddam himself coming out of prison (with fresh undies to boot) to preside over a neo-Baathist Round II tutelage of Ye Olde Glorious Preserve?
I'd consider it a pretty positive development, myself. Keep in mind that post-election, the Bad Guys haven't been able to strike outside their geographic base in the Sunni Triangle - that certainly wasn't the case beforehand. If Iraq had in fact Balkanized the way that a lot of people were saying, the Sunnis might easily have been able to crush the constituent elements one after another, whether or not they got Saddam out of jail to lead them. Keep in mind, they did pretty much the same thing after the first Gulf War ...
No, of course the insurgents cannot force our troops out of the country for the foreseeable future if ever and, no of course the Shi'a are now going to run the show in the main so that Sunni hegemony won't be restored anytime soon. But the goal of our intervention, WMD aside, was not just to unseat Saddam and screw the Sunnis. It was to create a viable, democratic Iraqi polity (with minority rights protected) to serve as a show-case and inspiration for the region at large.
I agree, in large part because I don't think it's necessary to "screw the Sunnis" in order to accomplish our objectives in Iraq. Neither do the Sunnis either, judging from the fact that many of them appear willing to work with us. After all, who do you think makes up the majority of the security forces who are routinely being shot or blown to pieces in the Sunni Triangle? However, the fact remains that the Sunnis can't hope to defeat us or even expand their "terrorist para-state" beyond its current borders. In that sense, they can't hope to win and the goal of the main insurgency as far as it goes has been defeated.
Surely an embittered Sunni para-state embroiled in terrorist/insurgent activity for another decade isn't what Ken Adelman had in mind?
I doubt it, which is why I used my 1944 analogy. The fact that Hitler couldn't win at the beginning of the year didn't mean that we should have just left the Nazis to sit back and regroup in their Fortress Europe, yes?
Or a stagnating nation-state negatively impacted by a protracted civil insurrection, increasingly hobbled by the real risks of a civil war if we can't bring the Sunnis into the political process better (and better beat back the insurgents), with near constant carnage in its capital city and other key population centers. Is this what it means for the insurgency to have been defeated? If we are going to define down the goals of our Iraq intervention so bloody low then, hell--yes, we've won.
I probably should have explained this better, but my main point was that Iraq, while still fragile, has largely contained the insurgents to a regional phenomenon. That's good, because once they're contained (if loosely) we can start dismantling the insurgent networks that were set up between April and November 2004, which is what I think was accomplished at least in part with the recent action in al-Qaim.
No, the insurgents aren't "dead." But they've been "defeated" all right! Bravo. Saddam isn't coming back, and the Sunnis are gonna get the short-end of the stick. Sweet! Next stop Iran (or Syria), yes? Faster, please--lest us unsophisticates not grasp the "regional" implications at play (Darling: "we need to readjust our paradigm to view Iraq as part of a regional campaign.") But of course. I await this panoramic tour d'horizon with alacrity. But I hope the "paradigm" sketched out begins in places like Anbar Province and Baghdad Dan, because we are quite busy indeed in such locales just now.
It has to, Greg, because those are where the Bad Guys who are actively seeking to kill us are right now. Those networks have to be dismantled before we do anything, and I mean anything else for reasons of sheer logistics if nothing else. I would also point out (in vain?) that I do not support military action against Iran. My point when I said regional campaign was that we need to understand that the Bad Guys are not operating in a vacuum and that they have safe zones and assets across the border that we are going to have to at least accept the existence of as we formulate our counter-insurgency strategies if we want to succeed. The operation in al-Qaim, aimed at cutting off the insurgents and their foreign allies coming in from Syria, was a very hopeful sign in this regard and I hope it continues.
If you think we're bad off, how do you think Schroeder and Chirac are feeling? And Putin? And Assad? And those 5,000 Saud Princes and Princesses?
About the only figure of merit you can get from the news is bombing stories (because that's all they report on excepting a soldier being killed).
But in this regard they can be counted on to report bombs. In the last 3 weeks, I have noted there has been a noticeable reduction in the daily bombing stories. There have been repeated cases of no bombings for 2 and even 3 days. Something seems to have turned. We shall see.
nahncee:
I don't really care what Putin or Schroeder or Chirac are feeling, they aren't the ones trying to kill us. As for the people that are, Assad is still scrambling to try and salvage his utter debacle in Lebanon while the Saudis basically have a breather as long as we're tied down in Iraq and oil prices remain as they are.
spaceman:
And many of those bombings are focused on the Sunni areas, there hasn't been a major strike in southern Iraq for quite some time since the election. As long as the insurgents remain limited and fixed to a single geographic area they can't hope to win against the US, something it appears as though many of the smarter Sunnis are starting to figure out.
You will recall, Dan, that going into Iraq, a major theme of those critics of the war was that the Shiites would be unmanageable. And yet, the Shiite region is among our success stories. When someone harps on the theme that there was inadequate advance planning for the post-invasion phase of Iraq, I wonder if in fact the US did a pretty good job on the top problems and is being criticized for not solving the second dozen problems on its list.
The suicide bombs show up when ISF in an area are either recruiting or beginning to become effective.(Track back 18 months onto how many times a police force was set up in Sammarra, only to fall apart a couple of weeks later after they got attacked by a car bomb, I count at least three)
Absolutely no sense in using up suicide bombers on a non existant or "see no evil/hear no evil" police force.
The question then becomes whether the April/May suicide bombing campaign was effective in demoralising those Iraqi forces that were targeted. Operation Lightning would that the Suicide bombing campaign was ineffective.
Problems with some Shi'ite militias aside, I'd say that by and large the majority of the Shi'ite population has done pretty well. Part of the problem as far as "expert" opinion of the Iraqi Shi'ites are concerned is that so far the majority of the research that has been conducted has been done on Iranian rather than Iraqi Shi'ites and there are major differences between the two.
I'm still remembering the mass Shi'ite uprising that was supposed to occur if the US ever set foot into An Najaf. In the end, it was the Najafi tribal leaders and the ad-hoc Army of Thulfiqar that helped us to defeat Sadr and the Mahdi Army.
Arab armies and forces are always good at things that are strong in their cultures, manuever, deception, ambush, tribal forces.
They are very BAD at the things that Western Armies are good at, logistics, non-com leadership, turning into ambushes to defeat it, combined arms, technical skill, unit cohesion, mass shock attacks to destroy the enemy in the open.
If you believe Hanson and others, it's always been this way, suggesting the way to defeat the various tribalist banditry (which is what is going on Iraq) is to fight our Western battles and destroy them utterly, and avoid their strengths which is ambush and manuever. This would suggest a much bigger force including a "National" Iraqi Army comprised of Shia and Kurds avoiding the tribalism of the Sunnis and simply killing everyone of fighting age. Ugly but probably effective. Soviets used that to kill the Nazi werewolves in their occupation zone.
Maybe I'm blind, but I do not see how the Sunni Arab segment of Iraqi society (roughly 20 percent of Iraq) can win through sheer violence, if winning is defined as the complete restoration of their former primacy.
The various Sunni Arab insurgent groups have completely failed to disrupt the political transition, prevent the recent deployment of capable Iraqi security forces (chiefly in Baghdad, where such forces seem to be concentrated), or score any battlefield successes worthy of the name.
If they and the foreign fighter element keep killing Shiite Arab civilians as they have, they might end up provoking mass retaliation on a scale shocking even to Middle Eastern sensibilities.
From a strategic perspective, one could argue that the Sunni Arabs merely aim to wear out American patience and provoke a U.S. withdrawal sooner than later, thus leaving the Shiites and Kurds ripe for the re-plucking.
However, such a withdrawal is not likely to occur this year, though it's likely to be a hot topic during the 2006 general election.
It's possible that the Bush Administration might agree to some kind of explicit withdrawal plan next year if the congressional Republicans get nervous. But even if this comes about next year, we're still looking at a substantial U.S. military presence in Iraq through 2006 and beyond.
From a strategic perspective, what do the Sunni Arabs gain by continuing the violence? Not enough to justify their current course.
They will have to endure at least two, and probably more, years of the U.S. "beatdown" treatment, meaning the war will remain concentrated in their cities and neighborhoods while the formerly oppressed Shiites and Kurds grow stronger and perhaps even more united than they are presently.
The smart Sunni Arabs probably realize that every month the Shiites and Kurds remain united, by unrelenting Sunni violence, no less, both groups will decide that they really don't need Sunni Arabs to help run the country.
Of course, all of this would be highly problematic for U.S. goals if it were to come about. But it would be even worse for the long-term interests of the Sunni Arab community in Iraq.
Either they wise up, or they'll end up walking the way of pain and humiliation for a very long time. Maybe this realization is what's driving the recently reported willingness of some insurgent groups to negotiate with the government. Time will tell.
I think the challenge is to convince enough Sunni leaders that half a loaf is better than none.
Dan,
Point in fact we are looking at a terrorist invasion of Iraq that has local support from Ba'athist Party dead enders.
Iraq is part of a regional war between America and the Islamists. The Islamists control the Iranian regime and a significant fraction of the Al-Saud regime. Their access to oil funds allows them to bribe the Syrians to support the so-called insurgency in Iraq.
Iraq will not be secure until the regimes in Tehran, Syria and Riyhad are changed.
Syria will likely fall of its own accord with Iran taken out via a US military ground invasion.
Saudi Arabia was tagged by the CIA has having a 50-50 chance of surviving the next five years in 2004.
Yes we can all agree that, given how over 80 U.S. troops were killed lass month alone, the insurgency is not dead.
It has however made 0 ground in gaining more support from the Iraqi public. Neither however, has the American presence, and furthermore, optimism and faith in the new Iraqi gov't it suffering due to the recent stalemate of the drafting of an Iraqi constitution.
Similarly, the Iraqi insurgency proved that it could never succeed in its ultimate objective (evicting US troops from Iraq and reestablishing some kind of Sunni hegemony over the country)
Those are two objectives. The Sunni hegemony is IMHO just a fantasy which they themself don't really believe. But being evicted out of Iraq is something that will happen if the country doesn't fall into civil war. Or the Sunni's will do it or the Shiite's will just say piss off if the Sunni's are defeated.
The bargaining power of the Sunni's will be greatly increased if they are succesfull in defeating the US and as such i don't believe that they will end it. If i'm not misstaken they always demand that the US leaves Iraq when the Sunni insurgants negotiate over peace.
About two years ago, Armed Liberal asked how we'd know we were winning the occupation campaign. Trent and I replied that this would be determined by our relations with Iraq's Shia. I said they were the center of gravity of the occupation campaign.
We won.
Now the Sunni Arab aka Baathist holdouts have the choice of becoming reconciled, becoming gone, or becoming dead. And it is starting to look like a civil war is starting among the Sunni Baathists. Some want reconciliation with the Shia majority and some don't. They have not agreed to disagree.
Sunni arabs are tribal/clan oriented. After that they are Sunni muslim oriented. The clan/tribe comes first, then the sect. Only the outsiders value the Sunni jihad above all else.
Capture the tribes and the outsiders have no refuge. The tribes will kill them all in a bloody fashion.
There's a decent debate on Tim Russert's Meet the Press focused on this issue. I have a lot of time for Russert, and the panel was bipartisan (Biden, Weldon).
"Greg also laments the fact that the nature of the US political debate has made it nearly impossible to have a constructive discussion on the problems with our current strategy on Iraq. With all due respect, Greg, welcome to my world. "
Well, this seems more like a truism than actual reality. We've been having this debate daily since before the war. Sure it devolves into namecalling and charges of treason on not so rare occasion, but for all that just about every aspect has been hashed out ad nauseum. I think what Greg as well as a lot of the loyal opposition in America is really lamenting is that their criticisms arent being channeled into Bush policy. That doesn mean the debate isnt happening, it means you're losing it. Heck, i've been screaming at the Bush administration since a month after the invasion to get the power turned on by any means necessary, instead of treating the reconstruction like a pothole filling project on I-80. That should have been the democrats focus since day one, to lean on the president for not taking Iraq seriously enough. Thats a debate they could win.
You dont like being shouted down on occasion and called names by the bomb throwers? Welcome to the big leagues, thats how politics work these days. You think Bush feels any better about being accused of supporting Alzhiemers disease because he opposes federal stem cell funding?
Personally i laugh uproariously at anyone who tries telling me im disloyal or helping our enemies for making criticisms. That many Bush opponents are so hurt by such nonsense seems to indicate some personal insecurities they may wish to examine. If the welfare of your country is less important than the possibility of being slandered by some jackass i dont have much pity for your movement.
I dont think Dan and Greg are really that far apart. I think the apparent disagreement is due to:
If you focus on Juan Cole, and the lefties who mindlessly parrot him, as a strawman, its easy to show how well things are going in Iraq.(as Dan has done)
If you focus on Dick Cheney, Wretchard, and some others, its easy to show how badly things are going in Iraq.
But, on reflection, it is Dick Cheney who holds a very powerful position in the US govt, NOT Juan Cole. And Dick Cheneys whose statements set expectations. I think that is at the root of Gregs concern, and I dont think Dan has clearly addressed that.
Especially with Wolfowitz and Feith out of the Pentagon, I also fear Rummy IS leaning toward just the Jacksonian position that Greg identified. The good news is that Rice, to my surprise at least, seems to be really commited to the democracy strategy.
Don't get credit for not mentioning Cole this time around?
As far as Cheney is concerned, I'm far more interested of hearing the assessment from someone like Abizaid (who shares my view on the danger posed by the foreign fighters) who is actually there on the ground and is relatively unincumbered by this asinine political debate.
I do agree with Greg on the points of his that I didn't directly challenge, particularly the "rush training" that is currently taking place.
Regarding Comment #17, Charles Krauthammer wrote a while ago: "It is an axiom of political life that you never raise expectations, whether in a political or military campaign, because your defeats are magnified and your victories discounted."
About two years ago, Armed Liberal asked how we'd know we were winning the occupation campaign. Trent and I replied that this would be determined by our relations with Iraq's Shia. I said they were the center of gravity of the occupation campaign.
We won.
Wrong, you gave in to the Shia, they won. You are trying to claw back that victory by fueling a civil war.
a.,
Please be more specific.
What have we lost that the Shia have won from us?
How is the US deliberately fueling the civil war as strategy?
Why would a civil war be in the interests of the US?
If we manage to claw our way back to this "vistory" that you speak of, what would it look like? How would we recognize it when if it happens?
"whether the sky is falling and it's only a matter of time until the US is thrown out of Iraq by the kind of mass revolution that a lot of the more short-sighted opponents of the administration were having wet dreams about
during the height of the Sadr Uprising. "
"Don't get credit for not mentioning Cole this time around?"
:) Its possible to set up Juan Cole (or someone very like him) as a strawman, without actually mentioning his name, as you did so well above :)
No offense LH, but that perception goes far beyond the Nutty Professor. Indeed, the Terriblevision is now informing me that a GOP congressman is now basically saying pretty much the same thing.
However, you're right to point out that those criticisms are not Greg's and I probably shouldn't have associated my reply to him with them.
"Wrong, you gave in to the Shia, they won. You are trying to claw back that victory by fueling a civil war. "
Why is it bad that the Shiia 'won', and why does that mean the US has lost? How in gods name is civil war in our interest? Oh, and despite your fondest fantasy the Shiia apparently are going even further out of their way to to be moderate regarding Islam:
"Shiite legislators have decided not to push for a greater role for Islam in the new Iraqi constitution out of concern that the contentious issue will inflame religious sentiments and deepen sectarian tensions. "
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=6961
So much for Iran part 2.
The only outrage here is that the Sunni are demanding nearly half of the seats on the Constitutional panel, even though they are 20% of the population. Thats ridiculous, what the Shiia are offering is already more than the share they deserve by pure numbers.
It is bad because the Shiite who won the election are fundamentelist who are anti Israeli, for nationalisted oil, like Iran, like Hezbollah, really like the fact that the US betrayed them in 91, want high oil prices, don't want American bases in their country, don't like the Saudi royal family etc.
If there is a civil war Iraq can not become a powerfull state who is against American influence in the Middle East and you are fostering civil war by using Kurds and Shiite to put the Sunni rebellion down.
So according to "a", we'd only have "won" if the Iraqi's had elected a pro-Israel, avowed atheist, libertarian government that immediately privatized the Iraqi oil industry.
Now that is setting some bizarre exit conditions. And obviously draws on a rather obscure Iraqi power base. Other than science fiction, where would that come from?
a.,
bq. It is bad because the Shiite who won the election are fundamentelist
This is incorrect. The Shites in the government are moderates
This war wasn't about oil. If it was all about oil, we could have bought it from Saddam with a lot less trouble, just like the French, Germans, and Russians were already doing. I bet with the right "persuasion" Saddam would have been happy to cancel his contracts with France and Russia in favor of BushCo. None of this happened, thus providing proof that oil was at the top of the agenda in Iraq.
.bq like Hezbollah,
The Iranian Shite Imans consider the Iranian Mullahs to be heretics. Why would accept or give support to their Hezbollah lapdogs?
.bq really like the fact that the US betrayed them in 91,
This would seem to give them motive, but it doesn't seem to be happening. The Kurds and the shites, the groups that the US "betrayed" in 91, are the must peaceful in Iraq today and provide the LEAST amount of support to the insurgency and had the highest rates of participation in the elections. How can you not know this stuff?
.bq want high oil prices,
The market sets the oil prices. Any seller will want the highest possible price for his goods. Iraq will do the same. Americans understand the concept of free trade. Perhaps you don't understand.
.bq don't want American bases in their country,
I don't know about that. What is your source for this information? I'm not even sure that the US wants permanent bases. Do you have a source saying that we do?
.bq don't like the Saudi royal family etc.
Can you show me anyone that likes the Saudi royals?
.bq If there is a civil war Iraq can not become a powerfull state who is against American influence in the Middle East
We want Iraq to become a powerful democratic state in the Middle East. It's at the heart of the Bush doctrine for the War on Terror. Perhaps you are listening to too many conspiracy theories?
.bq and you are fostering civil war by using Kurds and Shiite to put the Sunni rebellion down.
The Kurds and the Shites are fighting with us for their own reasons. The US can't force them to fight if they don't want too.
It seems that they are mostly interested in defending themselves from Baathists, Sunni Arabs, and foreign Jihadists than in prosecuting any civil war.
If you'd been paying the smallest amount of attention, you'd realize that instigating a Civil War is the stated goal of those who oppose the US. How can you get this all turned around backwards to the point that you believe that's it's the US doing it? Dude, where are you getting your news from?
We would have won if the Iraqi goverment wouldn't be fundamentalist and friendly to Iran. In other words what we had with Saddam. Lets be honnest we all wish he was still in power
We do?
a.,
No. I wanted Saddam gone and I still do. Thankfully, Bush has met my requirements in that respect.
a., It's starting to look like you are 1) either totally ignorant, or 2) a complete troll.
Is it #1 or #2 ?
"a", you seem to be rueing that the Iraqi people don't want Saddam back in power. And frankly, I find that a little creepy.
It seems that my comments on the reasons for the Iraq War are finally getting currency. They were basically the comments of www.denbeste.nu three years ago. The #1 reason for the war in Iraq was to screw the Sunnis overall in the Middle East. It is meant, of course, political Sunni Islam. Now the reason for NOT attacking Syria now is that the Sunnis have a majority there. We will need the good Sunnis in Iraq to get the upper hand before helping the good Sunnis in Syria to overthrow both the Allawite Baathists and the Jihadist Sunni militants. The reasons for not attacking Iran openly...is hopefully that we are attacking Iran secretly...with hopefully about 20,000 Iranians trained by us to take region by region by region until we are all surprised by the fall of Tehran.
But the continued power of the Shiite Mullahs in Iran actually gives us leverage over the Sunni insurgency....except the Shiite Mullahs know that and are helping that insurgency...it gets very complicated. It is chess.
Lurker, they are fundamentalists and only if you compare them to extremist can you claim that they are moderates
For instance Jaffari has very good relationships with Hezbollah. (ps. if you call Hezbollah an Iranian lapdog than the Shiites are Iranian puppets, their leadership have lived there long enough)
Why help a man when he is killing your enemy, wait until his back is turned to you and stick a knife in his back
The market sets the oilprice just like during the first oil boycot. Claiming that big producers have no influence over it is simply untrue.
I envy you. There is no other way to describe your ability to not read anything that doesn't fit your point off view like the fact that Iraqi's don't want American bases. I guess that longtime marxist training most Neocons have had is paying off.
Bush seem to like the Saudi royal family
If you mean american vazal with democratic than yes, America wants a strong Iraq. But it is very unlikely that Iraq will become a vazal. It really seems to become a democracy and with it comes the want of the population for a strong country which expels foreign powers like America out of it region of influence (read the Middle East)
That is why the don't run away if they fight in the Sunni triangle cough
The Kurds and Shiites don't want civil war. It is America that wants/need civil war. Without civil war there wouldn't be a reason to be there.
The stated goal of the rebelion is a peoples rebelion against the invaders. That is not the kind off civil war i'm talking about.
"We would have won if the Iraqi goverment wouldn't be fundamentalist and friendly to Iran. In other words what we had with Saddam. Lets be honnest we all wish he was still in power"
The Iraqi government isnt fundamentalist. Didnt you read the quote i just posted? The Iraqi constitution will be at least as mild as the current temporary one. Friendly to Iran? Perhaps friendly to the Iranian people. Which would be potentially a marvellous thing, if the democratic Iraqis influenced the Iranians to overthrow the Mullahs. Or do you prefer the tyrants with their hands on the whip in Iran as well?
Wish we had Saddam back. No a, you are simply channeling. You clearly want him back, because you 1.want Bush proved wrong more than anything else in the world and no matter the cost 2.prefer a tyrant actively against us then democrats potentially against us (how does that make sense?) 3.seem to like the cut of Saddams jib.
I have to agree, creepy is about the only word to describe it. I for one would take an anti-american but democratic Iraq over a friendly totalitarian state any day of the week. The same goes for every nation in the region.
"Indeed, the Terriblevision is now informing me that a GOP congressman is now basically saying pretty much the same thing."
Is Mr Roggio reading this? :)
"The market sets the oilprice just like during the first oil boycot. Claiming that big producers have no influence over it is simply untrue."
A country like Saudi Arabia that can afford to withhold production can manipulate the market, to some degree (though I think even they have far less power over it than they did in 1973) The govt of Iraq is NOT trying withhold production, they are trying to produce and export as much as they can.
Jennifer Petersen...
Kurds are Sunnis--did you know that?
Wahabbism and Salafism are the more problematic sects, not the Sunnis.
The real problem is Fundamentalists in Islam, in general.
Not the Iraqi people want Saddam back. We, the west, would rather see Saddam than Jaffari in power. Atleast if we're honnest but that is something people rarely are.
Iraq was attacked because America wanted to take revence for 9/11. That is the most logical answer even if it doesn't make sense
"Lurker, they are fundamentalists and only if you compare them to extremist can you claim that they are moderates"
Arent fundamentalists extremists? Has not the Iraq government repealed the anti-alcohol laws? Have they not agreed not to introduce any more Islam into the constitution? Have they not bent over backwards to accomidate the Sunnis? Is not a Kurd the president of Iraq?
a, the facts simply dont fit your theory. Care to try to back up your ideas with any, well, actual actions taken by the government?
"For instance Jaffari has very good relationships with Hezbollah. (ps. if you call Hezbollah an Iranian lapdog than the Shiites are Iranian puppets, their leadership have lived there long enough)"
I dont know that that is true and i'd love to see a link if you have it. I do know for a fact that Hussein was one of the most prolific support of Hamas and Jihad. So even assuming you are correct how are we worse off?
"I envy you. There is no other way to describe your ability to not read anything that doesn't fit your point off view like the fact that Iraqi's don't want American bases."
Pot, meet kettle. Strange i havent seen the Iraqi parliment tell the US to leave, or even not to make permanent bases. Care to explain how this is relavent? Or why it matters to the US in the long run?
"Bush seem to like the Saudi royal family"
So?
"It really seems to become a democracy and with it comes the want of the population for a strong country which expels foreign powers like America out of it region of influence (read the Middle East)"
How can Iraq expel the US from the ME? Why is it necessarilly a bad thing that the US is asked to leave Iraq itself? I thought you wanted us out of Iraq? Which is it?
"That is why the don't run away if they fight in the Sunni triangle cough"
Who? I thought we were talking about the Shiia? You are completely confusing me.
"The Kurds and Shiites don't want civil war. It is America that wants/need civil war. Without civil war there wouldn't be a reason to be there."
Huh? How does a civil war benefit us? If we dont want the Shiia dominating, why did we.. allow them to dominate? We want the Sunni in charge? Why didnt we put them in charge? How does a civil war help us?
"That is not the kind off civil war i'm talking about."
Does anyone have a clue what he is talking about?
Dan,
Did you see my comment on Gregs site? Id say that part of what gets his goat is the "1944" analogy. Id say January 1943 would be better. Or even say, fall of 1942. Midway has happened, but the slog in Guadacanal is just begun. Rommel is beaten, but still active. Paulus is surrounded, but hasnt surrendered yet. After Fallujah, and the January elections, but with a month of bombings in Baghdad (a week with bombing shifted elsewhere is good, but do we really want to generalize from a single week?) no major deal with any sunni groups yet, a slow (if more or less steady) political process, a still shaky Iraqi force (albeit showing the first glimmers of hope) - well Id say - on the one hand this looks more like October 1942 than like March 1968 - but also alot more like October 1942 than like January 1944.
"a", your comment doesn't make sense at all. We didn't attack Iraq for "revenge" for 9/11.
The Iraqi government isnt fundamentalist.
:-)
The problem with Iran is not the Mullahs but the fact that they have oil and different wishes than the US. It doesn't matter which goverment is in power in Iran because it will always have different wishes than the USA and they will fight the ex-hyperpower because they are the strongest power in the region.
And, Khomeni and company are certainly fundamentalist Shi'ia.
What is "a"'s definition of a fundamentalist?
An extremist?
For what reason was Iraq attacked than?
why was Iraq attacked -
1. WMD's. Yup. A recently released secret memo says the Army was very worried about lack of planning for the IRaq war, including lack of adequate planning for a chemical-biological attack. Bad planning - boo Rummy. But they clearly DID think Saddam had WMD's.
2. Grand Strategy of Democracy - clearly Wolfie beleived in it. Its not clear if Condi did, or if shes just signed on as the best alternative given where we are now.
3. Show how tough we are - the Jacksonian reason - After 9/11 it was no longer possible to allow an open enemy of the US (which Saddam certainly was) and someone who supported Islamic terrorism (even if provably only the anti-Israel variety)to remain in power. This MAY be the Cheney motivation. Its NOT the same as revenge. Since its based not on emotion, but on strategic considerations, though of a different kind than 1 or 2.
LH:
I didn't prefer 1942 (though 1943 was considered) because at that point the Axis still had a very real chance of pulling off an actual victory, an option that is currently unavailable to Zarqawi and his associates. The 1944 analogy was intended to represent that the Bad Guys are limited by geography in what Greg turns their terrorist para-state but still have to be dealt with.
"The problem with Iran is not the Mullahs but the fact that they have oil and different wishes than the US. ".
I thought supporting Hezbollah was a disaster for the US? The Mullahs are hezbollah. You are completely contradicting yourself.
"We, the west, would rather see Saddam than Jaffari in power. Atleast if we're honnest but that is something people rarely are."
Again, you are only speaking for yourself. If that was true, why dont we put him back in power?
" For what reason was Iraq attacked than?"
First of all, reasons, plural. I dont play the silly game of having to have exactly one rationale for invading Iraq and no others. Secondly, we've discussed it blue in the face. Revenge for 911 is new a grant you. Go google 40% of WOC discussion in the last 2+ years if you dont recall the reasons. The only one whos reasons have changed is you, about 5 times in this thread alone.
Aren't Kurds muslim.
Saddam was one of the biggest supports of the Christians in Lebanon. Aoun fought Syria with Iraqi paid weapons.
The shiia run away when they fight in the triangle
Huh? How does a civil war benefit us?
Shiite power severly curtailed by civil war. They can not expand to Oil region of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Dubai. They need American help.
It also helps the US to re-establise connections with Sunni Arabs (See for example Lebanon were Syria started out as friend of the Christian terrorists)
You have two kinds of civil war. One is the kind were the local people fight against outside forces and the other kind is were the people fight against each other. Poland '44 is an example of the first while Bosnia and Rwanda are more an example of the latter. What is happening in Iraq at the moment is mostly civil war of the first kind but the US hopes that it can change that into civil war of the second kind
a.,
I disagree. Did you follow the link?
Hezbollah is not the same thing as Shite. It is a subset of Shite's that is all. Iran provides much of the funding to Hezbollah and their influence would drop significantly if it was removed., hence Iranian lapdog.
They won't have to stick a knife in our backs. If the Iraqi government, once it has been properly constituted, asks us to leave then we will leave.
The only way for Iraq to raise the global price of oil would be to restrict supply. To restrict supply, thay would have to pass up offers to buy their oil. If they pass up these opportunities to sell their oil then they lose money unless they can coordinate with other global suppliers. Oil is a fungible commodity you know.
Iraq needs money very badly. If they cut back oil production, then how are they going to keep their economy going? Considering these facts, do you think it is more likely that they will try to sell more or less oil?
If a demoncratic Iraqi governemnt asks us to leave, then we will leave. I'm confused about what you think it is that I'm not reading...
How do you know this? His position is probably way more nuanced than can be described simply as "like". Have you ever heard of the old saying: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
The US doesn't want a vassal. That's not what I said. You really need throw away that imperialism prism you see everything through.
Good. We agree on this. This is our goal.
Have you seen the latest surveys showing that around 75% of Iraqis want us to stay?
I'm not sure who you mean. if you mean the insurgents, then they seem to be killing more Iraqis than Americans.
You are confusing me again... Weren't you one of the folks commenting here about how the US is now bogged down in Iraq, and it's a quagmire, etc.?
How can you reconcile your previous position with your new position that the US is now manipulating a civil war so we can STAY in Iraq? Why would we want to stay bogged down in a quagmire?
Can't you anti-american types at least keep your story straight? I'm down right embarrassed for you.
What people? The 10% of the insurgents who are Baathist remnants? Or the 90% who are foreign Jihadists?
Now I am more confused. What other civil war could you be talking about?
Again, "a", you are inventing fantasy claims without evidence. You have zero evidence that the US hopes a civil war would break out - especially since we've worked hard against the very conditions that would ignite it.
#45
WMD was a causi belli. I serious doubt that any intelligent agancy believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and chemical weapons are very nasty but not more dangerous than high explosive.
Grant stategy of democracy is the grant strategy for the idiots. The Arabs are not a problem because they are not democratic but because we need things from them which are impossible with a democratic Arabia. A democratic Arabia + Israeli's shooting at schoolkids (which is normal behaviour for them) = No gas to drive to work
the Jacksonian reason
so you admit i'm right
"a", again your claims are factually false. Many intelligence agencies believed that Iraq was still working on a nuclear program. And chemical and biological weapons are not merely high explosive as you would learn if you had done any reading in the subject. There are some astonishing casualty rates if such weapons are used against unprotected populations.
Is there any particular reason to continue to treat your comments seriously?
bq. A democratic Arabia + Israeli's shooting at schoolkids (which is normal behaviour for them) = No gas to drive to work
Now there's an interesting formulation ...
"Shiite power severly curtailed by civil war. They can not expand to Oil region of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Dubai."
And what exactly is the mechanism for this? Invasion? Mass conversion? Are you serious? YOu have any idea how many more Sunnis there are than Shiia in the world?
"It also helps the US to re-establise connections with Sunni Arabs (See for example Lebanon were Syria started out as friend of the Christian terrorists)"
By killing a bunch of them? You seem to be confused about who's "side" we are actually on. Your ability to completely ignore object reality is breathtaking. We befriending the Sunnis by allowing the Shiia to take power in Iraq, fighting the Sunni insurgents for 2 years, wrecking half their towns, and building the Shiia an army?
"You have two kinds of civil war. One is the kind were the local people fight against outside forces and the other kind is were the people fight against each other."
You clearly dont know what civil war means.
liberhawk,
in comment #35, you said:
Please elaborate because frankly I just don't get it. If you are implying I should be shocked that a GOP congressman should be above criticism, I'll state again that I have no loyalty to the Republican Party other than their strong stand on foreign affairs, and GOP congressmen are just as likely to be idiots as Democratic ones. If you ar saying the GOP should castigate him for making moonbat statements, I would agree, but the difference is this is outside the norm for the party, unlike the Democratic party where this rhetoric is the party line (see Howard Dean, Pelosi, Ried, Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, etc.)
Also, "a" is more than just "a little creepy". He/she is downright disturbing.
Note that I wrote that I found "a"'s expressed fondness for Saddam creepy. I wasn't applying the term to "a" himself as that would be rude of me.
"If you ar saying the GOP should castigate him for making moonbat statements, I would agree, but the difference is this is outside the norm for the party, unlike the Democratic party where this rhetoric is the party line (see Howard Dean, Pelosi, Ried, Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, etc.) "
Im not merely saying that they should castigate him, but that failure to do so brings in to question their real commitment to winning in Iraq. thats the standard you hold Hillary to, and thats the standard you should hold Frist, Delay, et al to. Politics is no excuse for letting this guy off the hook, is it? And I ask again for a cite where Harry Reid calls for a timetable for withdrawl. Or Pelosi, for that matter.
And of course its not the norm for the GOP. Many of them who probably would take this stand IF we had a Dem president, dont out of loyalty to th Administration. Some Dems probably supported Kosovo who wouldnt have otherwise. Cause ya see, politics is always with us.
"I didn't prefer 1942 (though 1943 was considered) because at that point the Axis still had a very real chance of pulling off an actual victory"
You need to spend some time at a Usenet group called "soc.history.what-if" The axis had minimal chance of pulling off a victory at any time past September 1939 - maybe not zero, but not significantly greater than Zarqs chances now. and whatever chance they DID have vanished in the snows of Moscow in Novemeber 1941. Certainly after Midway, El Alamein, and the first Soviet victories in the Stalingrad campaign an Axis victory is not in the cards.
LH:
Touche and duly noted. Perhaps I should spend more time there ...
liberahawk,
You confuse a minor member of the GOP with the leadership of the Democratic party. Therein lies your error. The GOP is not viewed as a defeatist party because the leadership and overwhelming rank and file support the policy, or have the common sense to keep their mouths shut and not regurgitate moonbat theories if they do not. The Democratic Party is viewed as weak on national security because the a majority of leadership and a majority of the rank and file turned on Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as it was politically expedient. Some things trancend politics, and this is one of these issues.
And I 'm not referring specifically to withdrawal from Iraq (which I stated in a prior thread and you conveniently ignored). Its the self flagellation of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, comparisons with Vietnam, etc. Dissent is perfectly fine with me as I have issues with some aspects of our policy, however I happen to think the rhetoric used by the Democractic party goes well beyond that of a responsible loyal opposition (not treasonous, however).
liberalhawk.
You have no clue about military decision making.
After 9/11, the think tank guys came up with a threat matrix to determine where the next greatest threat to American was. Risk and threat assessment is a SCIENCE. Uncle Saddam topped the list. They used what intel was available at the time--maybe it wasn't the greatest--but hey, it was all we had, largely due to that idiot Clinton's buy-the-world-a-coke-and/or-cut-and-run foreign policy.
That's why Iraq.
And also Clinton's "peace dividend". 'Member that? That's where your intel went. feh.
"The GOP is not viewed as a defeatist party because the leadership and overwhelming rank and file support the policy, or have the common sense to keep their mouths shut and not regurgitate moonbat theories if they do not."
I believe that the idea that US withdrawl from Iraq would actually lessen the intifada is wrong. I have stated here and elsewhere why I think so. OTOH, I dont see that its "moonbat" The idea that the CIA was responsible for 9/11 was moonbat. The idea that an occupation can worsen insurgency is not all that farfetched, though wrong in this specific instance. tossing around terms like Moonbat lightly does not contribute to reasoned debate. Which is the point, to villify hawkish dems, who share your policy views, but are unwilling to personally attack those in their party who hold other views.
The Democratic Party is viewed as weak on national security because the a majority of leadership and a majority of the rank and file turned on Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as it was politically expedient.
I dont know what you mean by "turned on Iraq and afghanistan" I know of no single prominent Democrat who calls for withdrawl from Afghan. And I still see no evidence that the majority of the leadership has called for such from Iraq. And many of those who HAVE turned, like Kennedy and Byrd, were either never there, or turned out of real conviction. Come, do you think Kennedy needs this to be reelected?
Some things trancend politics, and this is one of these issues.
Taking the right stand on Iraq transcends politics. Cause the wrong stand will cost lives. Hilary, Joe, and many others have done so, and taken the right stand. Castigating Ted Kennedy transcends politics? Why? You think if Hilary attacks Ted that will save American lives? How? It just makes it more likely that a dove gets the Dem nomination in 2008. I can see how that helps the GOP, but i cant see how it helps the US of A. For those who dont identify the two.
And I 'm not referring specifically to withdrawal from Iraq (which I stated in a prior thread and you conveniently ignored).
Im sorry, but I cant spend 24 hours a day responding to you.
Its the self flagellation of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, comparisons with Vietnam, etc.
Some folks, and not only Dems, think that failure to address the problems of the interrogation system is unpatriotic. I would point to Andrew Sullivan, Belgravia Dispatch, Daniel Drezner, etc. I dont always agree with them on it, but I hardly think this is a sign of irresponsibility. as for making comparisons with VN, its only natural to compare with our last major war. I personally am optimistic, and think this will end better than VN. But I hardly see comparisons to VN as "moonbat" Heck ive seen comparisons of Iraq to WW2, the US civil war, etc. (hell we just did some of that right here) theyre just as inapt - are they moonbatty?
"The GOP is not viewed as a defeatist party because the leadership and overwhelming rank and file support the policy, or have the common sense to keep their mouths shut and not regurgitate moonbat theories if they do not."
I believe that the idea that US withdrawl from Iraq would actually lessen the intifada is wrong. I have stated here and elsewhere why I think so. OTOH, I dont see that its "moonbat" The idea that the CIA was responsible for 9/11 was moonbat. The idea that an occupation can worsen insurgency is not all that farfetched, though wrong in this specific instance. tossing around terms like Moonbat lightly does not contribute to reasoned debate. Which is the point, to villify hawkish dems, who share your policy views, but are unwilling to personally attack those in their party who hold other views.
The Democratic Party is viewed as weak on national security because the a majority of leadership and a majority of the rank and file turned on Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as it was politically expedient.
I dont know what you mean by "turned on Iraq and afghanistan" I know of no single prominent Democrat who calls for withdrawl from Afghan. And I still see no evidence that the majority of the leadership has called for such from Iraq. And many of those who HAVE turned, like Kennedy and Byrd, were either never there, or turned out of real conviction. Come, do you think Kennedy needs this to be reelected?
Some things trancend politics, and this is one of these issues.
Taking the right stand on Iraq transcends politics. Cause the wrong stand will cost lives. Hilary, Joe, and many others have done so, and taken the right stand. Castigating Ted Kennedy transcends politics? Why? You think if Hilary attacks Ted that will save American lives? How? It just makes it more likely that a dove gets the Dem nomination in 2008. I can see how that helps the GOP, but i cant see how it helps the US of A. For those who dont identify the two.
And I 'm not referring specifically to withdrawal from Iraq (which I stated in a prior thread and you conveniently ignored).
Im sorry, but I cant spend 24 hours a day responding to you.
Its the self flagellation of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, comparisons with Vietnam, etc.
Some folks, and not only Dems, think that failure to address the problems of the interrogation system is unpatriotic. I would point to Andrew Sullivan, Belgravia Dispatch, Daniel Drezner, etc. I dont always agree with them on it, but I hardly think this is a sign of irresponsibility. as for making comparisons with VN, its only natural to compare with our last major war. I personally am optimistic, and think this will end better than VN. But I hardly see comparisons to VN as "moonbat" Heck ive seen comparisons of Iraq to WW2, the US civil war, etc. (hell we just did some of that right here) theyre just as inapt - are they moonbatty?
"You have no clue about military decision making.
After 9/11, the think tank guys came up with a threat matrix to determine where the next greatest threat to American was. Risk and threat assessment is a SCIENCE. Uncle Saddam topped the list. "
Interesting - citation, please?
And Im not sure how this contradicts my comment, which explicitly said that the military DID think Saddam had WMD.
liberalhawk.
citation, please?
work experience. ;)
Snaps! and here i thought the title of your comment was "why was Iraq attacked -"
use commonsense, dude--those guys weren't sitting around formulating policy--they were trying to stop the next 911 in the pipeline.
#52
Many intelligence agencies were saying what their bosses wanted to hear but that is something else than believing it. Iraq couldn't have build nuclear weapons when American planes could have bombed any site they wanted to.
#66 The military thought he had chemical weapons which is only a WMD if you use massive amounts but every weapon is a WMD if you use it in massive amounts. I have never seen proof that the military thought that Saddam owned real WMD (atom bombs).
Not that matters much because the US would have neutralized them in the secret war predating the official Iraqi war. Though it makes it hard to justify attacking somebody for something he not longer owns.
"a", again you are making these claims without any foundation. And your understanding of the threat of chemical weapons is foolish.
No one was claiming that Saddam Hussein had assembled nuclear weapons. That's an invention by you.
#54
Kuwait is very small (Dubai too) and the oil region of Saudi Arabia & Dubai is majority shiite
Civil war is flued. It will take 5 years or so of civil war before the US can hook up with the Sunni's. Also the US is not building a Shiite army. It is faking the building of an Iraqi army because if the Shiite had an army they would kick the Americans out (and still not fight the Sunni's as long as the Americans are in Iraq)
So what is your definition of civil war which makes sense in the context of Iraq.
None who looked at it seriously believed that Saddam was trying to make nukes either. (Dreaming about yes, but most states do that)
Another false claim by you "a", without any foundation. Saddam had a very large program to develop nuclear weapons - the only debate is how much success was going into the program after 1998.
He had a very large program in 91. None in 2003
Re: Congress Critters on the tube. I have some links and some words:
Sunshine Patriots
Tubes that every expert says can't be used for it.
Uh, a,
How 'bout a 4CX1500? One of my favorites. I have 2. Low emissions. Got them free if I promised to only use them as desk ornaments.
But seriously.
You need to read more. Especially about stuff you want to converse about. It might not improve your theories, but some spiffing up of the fact base couldn't hurt.
4CX1500,, thats an 8877 you missing a zero ?
Really large tubes are a pain, 1500 watts for the filament are typical for 25,000 watts n up..
Raymond,
No it is just a 1.5KW job.
Two of them made up a 1KW (output) military transmitter (2-30MHz). I put a microprocessor (8051 I believe) inside that environment. The inside of the transmitter had RF voltages of about 10 V per inch.
Nasty.
Interestingly enough I trained on that transmitter in the Navy. I was trained in COMS before I became a Naval Nuke.
a -
In the late 90s and early 2000s a buddy used to listen to Radio Baghdad on shortwave. They were always threatening all sorts of nasty stuff against the US. Claimed they caused the UK's Mad Cow too.
Whenever some bug hit the US they claimed they caused it. Any major fires they claimed. The radio would go on and on about gentic research to wipe out the use with Ebola modifications...
So... When all parts of a system including propaganda radio speak nasty bs... whom are you going to believe?
Might just be easier to remove them from the equation?
Getting back to the insurgency...
A simplistic but, I think, reasonable measure of how strong or weak the insurgency is, is the number of US troops killed per day. You could argue all sorts of failings in this (e.g. that attacks are now more common against Iraqis than coalition troops) but I think it'll do as a first order approximation.
You can see how this has progressed over the last couple of years at http://icasualties.org/oif_a/Lunaville.htm. I find it difficult to draw many conclusions from that other than that the insurgency got rather stronger after the first year and is now ticking along at more or less the same level.
What do others think?
Edward.