posted
By the way, according to the Atlantic,one of the largest reasons that we have failed isn't so much because of lack of soldiers as it is that we haven't protected what we secure. That is, we take over a village, promise protection, then leave. Insurgents come in, shoot the mayor and police as an example of what happens to collaborationists.
The reason the soldiers have left these villages is, if I remember correctly, because of political objectives of chasing down high profile figures, not because they needed to leave.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I totally agree about corruption being a problem. 60 minutes profiled some of that corruption last night, to the tune of abouta billion dollars or so.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, when I've outlined my plans in more detail, rearranging priorities are involved. I was focusing above on the assets that would be required.
The military in Iraq and around the world is stretched as far as it can go without creating a political storm in the US -- that is, it would involve calling up far more members of the national guard, and sending troops on longer deployments instead of the shortest-feasible rotations they aim for now.
As to the national guard, this seems to me to be so obvious, I don't understand why it hasn't been done already. So, I'm kind of suspicious about whether or not it can be done without going below some minimum level of home/international defense or something.
I like your plan, but I think the political storm would be such that I wonder if it would be feasible. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have just done a Germany on Iraq and just said that we're going to be there for the next 60 years mimimum, and if things are stable, then, we'll go home, if not, another 60 years. I do think a lot of things could have been solved if we had just done that.
If only Europe would send more troops. I know, I make me laugh sometimes, too. :/
quote:Except their not doing that, are they. They're spending three times as much effort - maybe 10 times as much - to kill each other.
And you're basing that on what? The fact that more Iraqis are dead than Americans? It's harder to cut a pineapple than a stick of butter with a knife. The terrorists are knives, we're pineapples, the civilians are butter. They're getting cut to ribbons by gunmen, and many of them don't have guns, and don't patrol wearing kevlar vests with ceramic armor inserts, and they don't have M-16s or drive in armored Bradleys.
I've seen zero evidence, numbers, or even suggestions from anything resembling an official that the insurgents are expending more resources attacking civilians than soldiers. There's less of us, more of them, we're heavily armed and protected, they're soft targets who get blown up in markets.
As for your second and third points, I disagree with the second, and the third, I wasn't referring to Lalo specifically, I was just musing in general.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, there's a book, and a summary of the plan was in the October 2006 issue of Harper's (which is where I read it). Some Googling turned up this, which purports to be a summary of the summary.
Lyrhawn, I posted a link to some data near the bottom of the previous page.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you're basing that on what? The fact that more Iraqis are dead than Americans? It's harder to cut a pineapple than a stick of butter with a knife. The terrorists are knives, we're pineapples, the civilians are butter. They're getting cut to ribbons by gunmen, and many of them don't have guns, and don't patrol wearing kevlar vests with ceramic armor inserts, and they don't have M-16s or drive in armored Bradleys.
You shouldn't have assumed that was my reason before wasting your effort refuting it.
To start with, in their choice of targets. The insurgents target U.S. troops more than they target Iraqis. However, the insurgents make up a minority of the factions in Iraq. Sunni-Shiite violence is high. The Shi'a have target the U.S. very little. They are fighting each other far, far more than they are fighting us. Also, a large number of Iraqis fight on the same side as us.
The issue is whether they are unified against us. It's clear they aren't. If two sides spend significant efforts to kill each other, and only of those sides attack us, there's no credible way to claim unification against us.
quote:I've seen zero evidence, numbers, or even suggestions from anything resembling an official that the insurgents are expending more resources attacking civilians than soldiers.
If the premise "the insurgents are expending more resources attacking civilians than soldiers" mattered to my claim, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
The group being considered is not "the insurgents." It's Iraqis as a whole. Many fight on our side, many fight those fighting us and don't fight us themselves, and others fight us and others. That ain't unified against us.
quote:As for your second and third points, I disagree with the second,
You disagree that there are significant pro-American contingents in the middle east?
posted
Side issue: "they are killing each other." In some cases -- armed conflict between militaries and gang warfare -- "they" really are killing "each other." When a terrorist kills an innocent bystander, this isn't an "each other" deal; the bystander wasn't killing anyone.
I think it matters. "They're killing each other" is often used as a justification for turning compassion away from those who are merely unlucky.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
This sideargument has already gone on a half dozen posts longer than it should have, and I honestly just don't care enough to respond. So, you win. Congrats.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: To start with, in their choice of targets. The insurgents target U.S. troops more than they target Iraqis. However, the insurgents make up a minority of the factions in Iraq. Sunni-Shiite violence is high. The Shi'a have target the U.S. very little. They are fighting each other far, far more than they are fighting us. Also, a large number of Iraqis fight on the same side as us.
While I agree with your larger point to an extent, the data I posted at the bottom of page one includes attacks against Iraqi civilians. Up until July (again, I haven't found more recent data), attacks against Iraqis (including both security forces and civilians) were less common than attacks against the coalition. However, the definition of an "enemy-initiated" attack is unclear. If someone blows up a car full of Iraqis, but it's unknown whether the perpetrator was an insurgent (and how do you tell that, anyway?), does it count as an "enemy-initiated" attack?
If you have data handy supporting your "far, far more" claim, I'd like to see it, because I've been looking for it myself and haven't found it. Don't waste time hunting around if you don't have it on hand, though, because I'm sure I'll manage to hunt something down eventually.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal.
Why doesn't this mythical international force help out now?
quote: It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws....
I don't mean to offend, but this part really did make me rofl in real life.
Chaotic armed bands of gunmen are going to evaporate in the presence of a decreased military power because of lack of public support? Who do these guys think they are, politicians to go away when the polls are down?
Otherwise, some good ideas in the link. As I've already agreed with Fugu, independent auditing is a good thing.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This sideargument has already gone on a half dozen posts longer than it should have, and I honestly just don't care enough to respond. So, you win. Congrats.
Wow. What the hell was that about. You seem to be angry that I continued to discuss something you also continued to discuss.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just making a quick point to begin with, I didn't want to start a lengthy debate, and here we are doing point counterpoint over something I never really cared about enough to put forth my own opinions on to begin with, so I'm done arguing on behalf of the merits of someone else's.
Not your fault, I should've kept quiet before I even started.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal.
Why doesn't this mythical international force help out now?
If they did, they would be tarred with the same brush as U.S. troops, and thus attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws....
I don't mean to offend, but this part really did make me rofl in real life.
Chaotic armed bands of gunmen are going to evaporate in the presence of a decreased military power because of lack of public support?
"Evaporate," no. I don't agree with them that it would be immediate. However, I do think it wouldn't take all that long. The insurgency continues because the people support it. The government wants you there; the people want you gone, as evidenced by both polls and attacks. I think the continued presence of American troops in Iraq is far and away the single most aggravating factor in the ongoing violence.
Obviously there's a real risk that Iraq could descend fully into civil war, though I don't think that's a foregone conclusion as others seem to. In either case, however, I don't think there is a number of American troops that can realistically be deployed to Iraq that could prevent the outbreak of civil war in the face of determination to wage one by sufficient numbers on both sides.
I don't think the McGovern-Polk withdrawal plan is a wonderful thing, but at the moment I'm tentatively calling it the least bad of the realistic options I can see.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal.
Why doesn't this mythical international force help out now?
If they did, they would be tarred with the same brush as U.S. troops, and thus attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now.
Why wouldn't they become the new U.S. and attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now?
quote: quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws....
I don't mean to offend, but this part really did make me rofl in real life.
Chaotic armed bands of gunmen are going to evaporate in the presence of a decreased military power because of lack of public support?
"Evaporate," no. I don't agree with them that it would be immediate. However, I do think it wouldn't take all that long. The insurgency continues because the people support it.
A lot of the people support it because they fear for their lives and their loved ones lives, or did you not believe me when I posted about 'insurgents' murdering officials in various villages to make a point?
Do you genuinedly think that people want the U.S. gone because of what the U.S. has done to Iraqis? (edit: because we are worse than the alternative?)
Your argument seems to be that the presence of the U.S. induces in various groups in Iraq and elsewhere a kind of super nationalism to kick the U.S. out, and that once the U.S. (the enemy) is gone, they will coexist peacefully.
This is not true.
All the polls that I've seen have indicated that support has gone from high to low, not because the U.S. is the U.S., but because we can't provide security and people want order and security, no matter who can give it to them.
The reason there is chaos in Iraq is because there is not enough force to force order and quell those that are promoting chaos. WE are not promoting chaos, WE are promoting order.
Taking away force is only going to increase the ability of 'insurgents' to sow chaos and kill each other. As others have mentioned, many groups in Iraq are killing, raping, and molesting each other with cheerful abandon because they can. People turn to the various Islamist and warlords and whatnot for protection, not out of some hatred of the U.S.
quote: Obviously there's a real risk that Iraq could descend fully into civil war, though I don't think that's a foregone conclusion as others seem to.
Why not? If we leave, I will bet any amount of money you like the Kurds are going to split off and form their own state. How do you think Turkey is going to react to that?
If we leave, you think Iran is going to say, well, the U.S. is gone, I guess now that it's easier to have a friendly puppet country next door and bolster our security and power, we'll just stand down and bring our agents home because anything else would just be wrong. Yep.
quote: In either case, however, I don't think there is a number of American troops that can realistically be deployed to Iraq that could prevent the outbreak of civil war in the face of determination to wage one by sufficient numbers on both sides.
With international help, we can quell the violence. The choice to me is clear, the world can get is hands dirty and help the U.S. impose--yes, I said impose--order on Iraq, or it can stand by and watch it burn with clean hands.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why wouldn't they become the new U.S. and attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now?
Because, as the plan suggests, they would be Arabs. The overarching emphasis in the plan -- and what I think makes it the best of a sorry set of options at this point -- is on Arabs helping one another and them -- our -- selves.
quote:Do you genuinedly think that people want the U.S. gone because of what the U.S. has done to Iraqis?
No, though I do think that's part of it. Part of it is also the fear tactics that you describe.
quote:If we leave, I will bet any amount of money you like the Kurds are going to split off and form their own state. How do you think Turkey is going to react to that?
They might well do that, though I doubt it would be immediate since they're already essentially autonomous. The probable reaction of Turkey is one reason why they might be less inclined to separate in the near term.
quote:If we leave, you think Iran is going to say, well, the U.S. is gone, I guess now that it's easier to have a friendly puppet country next door and bolster our security and power, we'll just stand down and bring our agents home because anything else would just be wrong. Yep.
No, I don't think that.
(Smiley intended to denote friendliness, not snarkiness.)
quote:With international help, we can quell the violence.
I don't think this is true, and the international community's track record on this is not exactly stunning -- this is only tangentially related, but I'm reading about what's happening in the Congo these days and it honestly makes me want to cry.
I think as long as there are Western (especially U.S.) troops in Iraq, there will [for various reasons] be an insurgency, and it will be bloody.
I don't think your argument is unreasonable, and I can respect the position espoused by you and others who favour increased troop deployments from the U.S. and others. What I would essentially like to see from you is acknowledgement that you at least partially understand my position, even if you don't consider it to be reasonable, rather than the incredulity and sarcasm you've applied so far. I'm not trying to persuade you, and I'm not looking to be persuaded -- at least, not in this thread -- in a large part because my opinion is not yet fully formed. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you genuinedly think that people want the U.S. gone because of what the U.S. has done to Iraqis?
I think a very big factor is that somewhere around 70% of the Iraqi populace say that they don't believe that the U.S. is going to leave, no matter what the government says. There's a big difference between a single country (more or less) having troops on the ground and avoiding setting any definite conditions for leaving and a multi-national force who are in with a definite plan.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I would essentially like to see from you is acknowledgement that you at least partially understand my position, even if you don't consider it to be reasonable, rather than the incredulity and sarcasm you've applied so far. I'm not trying to persuade you, and I'm not looking to be persuaded -- at least, not in this thread -- in a large part because my opinion is not yet fully formed. [Smile]
I understand your position. I believe that you are a man of integrity and are proposing what you think is best for Iraq. My snarkiness is totally unwarranted.
I take full responsibility for getting angry and being snarky in this thread. I am ashamed to have brought those things to this thread, mostly because you have done nothing to deserve it. Please accept my sincere apologies.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I agree with your larger point to an extent, the data I posted at the bottom of page one includes attacks against Iraqi civilians. Up until July (again, I haven't found more recent data), attacks against Iraqis (including both security forces and civilians) were less common than attacks against the coalition. However, the definition of an "enemy-initiated" attack is unclear. If someone blows up a car full of Iraqis, but it's unknown whether the perpetrator was an insurgent (and how do you tell that, anyway?), does it count as an "enemy-initiated" attack?
I'm pretty sure that "enemy-initiated attacks" are targeted more at the coalition. But there are multiple Shiite and at least some Sunni's who are involved almost exclusively in the sectarian violence - i.e., attacks on each other.
So you have insurgent attacks on Iraqi forces/officials, insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians, and non-insurgent attacks (which are against other Iraqis). This is the universe of attacks - the denominator.
And you could probably just quote the article in the thread, it only shows a sentence of it without a subscription.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said I was done arguing on behalf of the merits of someone else's point. Doesn't mean I still can't ask questions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you have insurgent attacks on Iraqi forces/officials, insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians, and non-insurgent attacks (which are against other Iraqis).
You said Shiite on Shiite attacks are insurgent, but there you said that attacks on other Iraqis are non insurgent attacks? Or did you mean Shiite militia on Shiite Militia?
Why don't attacks on civilians count as insurgent?
What about Sunnis/former Baathists? What about non-native Iraqis? What about any of those groups' attacks on coalition soldiers (which I would assume are automatically insurgent)?
Honest questions, the term insurgent is bandied about a lot all over the place, and it'd be nice to settle on a definition, which by the standards of our government means pretty much ANYONE who is attacking ANYONE over there that isn't government sanctioned.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You said Shiite on Shiite attacks are insurgent
I did?
quote:Why don't attacks on civilians count as insurgent?
Um, how do you get that from "insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians"?
quote:Honest questions, the term insurgent is bandied about a lot all over the place, and it'd be nice to settle on a definition, which by the standards of our government means pretty much ANYONE who is attacking ANYONE over there that isn't government sanctioned.
Insurgents are those who want to overthrow the current Iraqi government, at least how I'm using it. There are definitely unsanctioned militia groups not classified as insurgents - there's a current program to try to convert them to regular Iraqi army, something not being offered to insurgents.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, apparently they have to be card carrying members of a militia group in order for them to register on your roster of insurgents. My bad.
quote:Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite.
Okay, so, non Shiite militia attacks don't count as insurgent attacks, and "other Shiite" means...what?
And what does "Non-insurgent attacks (against other Iraqis)" mean?
And what about Sunnis/Baathists?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, apparently they have to be card carrying members of a militia group in order for them to register on your roster of insurgents. My bad.
Lyrhawn, please lose the attitude. You've misquoted me several times now, and it's old. I did not say anyone had to be a card-carrying anything.
There are armed, violent groups that want to overthrow the government and groups that don't. I've called the former insurgents. It was a classification in order to list the types of people committing violent acts over there. I'm not sure why you're so hot about it, and I'm not sure why you keep misstating my position.
quote:Okay, so, non Shiite militia attacks don't count as insurgent attacks, and "other Shiite" means...what?
Those would be the people other than the police being attacked by the Shiite militias that were the subject of the sentence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Misquoted? I'll cop to the sarcasm, but every quote in my last lost is exactly what YOU said. So you're either blind, or you're pretty ridiculous for calling me a liar.
I'm not misstating your opinion, I don't understand your opinion.
You're making contradictory statements one after the other, and they don't mesh. You've limited it to Shiites, or else you aren't, and just haven't mentioned the other groups involved, so I'll leave that as an undecided on your part rather than assigning a position to you.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You said that the insurgency was "Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite."
You didn't mention the Sunni and or Baathist parties involved with the insurgency, so I wanted to know if they are included in your definition, or if you are excluding them, and why you are doing so. Is that not a reasonable question?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You said that the insurgency was "Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite."
No, I didn't. I said the article was about Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite.
quote:So you're either blind, or you're pretty ridiculous for calling me a liar.
I really don't get this. I did not limit the insurgents to Shiites only. I have no idea why you think this. I don't know why you keep insisting on it
"Why don't attacks on civilians count as insurgent?" clearly implies that I have, at some point, said that attacks on civilians count as insurgent. I haven't. You said I said that they have to be card carrying members of a militia group in order for them to register on your roster of insurgents. I haven't.
I have not contradicted myself once. I'd like to see you show me where I have with my own posts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You asked me to provide the text of the article. I gave you a way to read it yourself (with bugmenot) and summarized it for you. I did not say that was how I was defining insurgents.
Sheesh. I know they were MY WORDS. I never introduced those words as the definition of insurgent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. Misunderstanding. I thought your first sentence was a way to read the article, and the second and subsequent posts are your definition and clarifications.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was more surprised than hurt. I'm actually considering buying the McGovern-Polk book now, because I'm curious to read a more robust version of their rationale. It's only about CDN$15 at Amazon.ca, so I figure I'll pick it up when I have something else I want from there.
What's happening in Iraq concerns me on two levels. First, as someone with Arab background and with Iraqi friends, it's hard to see such horrific events there (and elsewhere in the region). Second, the action currently being led by Canadian, British, and (IIRC) Dutch forces in Afghanistan seems to be developing in an eerily similar way, and our new minority Conservative government is responding in a similar way to your own government (that is, stepping up the rhetoric).
Dagonee:
quote:So you have insurgent attacks on Iraqi forces/officials, insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians, and non-insurgent attacks (which are against other Iraqis). This is the universe of attacks - the denominator.
Yes, I agree with this summation. I'm going to continue looking for more robust and more recent data, insofar as I think it exists.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
twinky, I'd like to see it. BTW, the first category includes coalition forces (as representatives of the Iraqi government) as targets, something I meant to clarify.
I'm also distinguishing between attacks targeting forces and encounters either initiated by Iraqi/coalition forces against insurgents or initiated by insurgents against other targets but leading to an encounter with Iraqi/coalition forces.
I have no illusions that each encounter could be perfectly classified.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
