Some Small Good News From Iraq

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DanS
The US won't pull out, given the current Level 1 activity. Implicit in Bush's comments yesterday was that this kind of activity wouldn't push us out.

Well what's the dead treshold? 500? 1000? 5000?

[uh Clem]

Well what's the dead treshold? 500? 1000? 5000?

That's up to the voters.

[The Mad Monk]

The voters, in all likelyhood, will not be moved by trickle casualties for a long, long time.

Anyone know what our current recruitment numbers are like?

[Jac de Molay]

The voters, in all likelyhood, will not be moved by trickle casualties for a long, long time.

I wouldn't be so sure. I've seen anywhere from 10 to 15% drop in polls gauging the success of the operation since May 1. People are starting to get antsy, especially families of the soldiers.

On top of that, a number of very unflattering media portrayals of the current situation.

[Uncle Sparky]

Actually, I don't see it as good news.

I'm cheering for the free Iraqis now.

According to American propaganda,the US the occupying force. Bush has already made it clear Saddam's regime is no longer a threat or a consideration. The US didn't even go to the trouble of installing a pro American figure head as they did in Afghanistan.

I think we should support the Iraqi freedom fighters.

[DanS]

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, I'm only saying that putting an insurgency in nice neat stages might bear no reflection to reality.

Bingo! You win the prize. Insurgency by its nature is rather ill-disciplined in terms of tight adherence to doctrine and rigorous C&C. You'll have different people trying things different ways all the time, but all tending toward small unit tactics.

And we can talk about how the terrain is inhospitable. But in the end, we just don't know these things to be true until proven repeatedly.

Desert terrain isn't that inhospitable when strictly groundfighters are involved. What appears "flat" to the average civvie, or even the average supply REMF, generally has little depressions and rises that provide decent cover.

The real trick is weather - when it's relatively clear and the winds don't kick up much sand, we can fly drones at night to pick up IR signals, and by day as well, although carefully concealed individuals, in up to squad strength, are hard to find that way.

Maybe they'll learn a thing or two from this ambush and be successful in the next ambush, for instance, which will help disprove the theory.

IMO, they don't need to graduate to larger actions than the type that have been successful. In order to really rebuild things, we'll need civilian contractors all over the country - and they're going to be reluctant to come, and tough to escort, if the bad guys are regularly plinking at the good guys.

Another point is that snipers wear on morale disproportionately, and the frustration level translates to hostility towards the locals, leading to more tension and a breakdown in on-the-ground relations between ordinary occupiers and ordinary locals. That sort of simmering resentment doesn't lead to a big welcome for pro-US Iraqi leaders or for much faith on the local's part in American goodwill. And we have to get out of this mess with a friendly government which isn't too obviously our lackey.

[DanS]

The vast majority of the populated country is not in the hands of the insurgents and never will be. It's Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle that is the problem--that's where all of the soldiers are being plinked. That's where it continues to be tough to provide basic services, which would help to reduce tensions. We can do an awful lot in the friendly areas to keep them friendly, even with civilian contractors worried about their safety, and even if Baghdad continues in a state of near-anarchy. We'll get a disproportionate amount of bad press, however. All the reporters are (perhaps rightly) focusing on where the problems are at.

I don't agree with you that the current level of low-intensity conflict will throw us off of our game--the criteria I would use to describe the insurgency as a success. At least 60% of the country is friendlies, even more are borderline hostiles but we have a good chance of making friendly, because it doesn't rely on anything in the Sunni triangle (Mosul, for instance) and it would take a series of monumental screw-ups on our part to change this fact. Don't put this possibility past us, though!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
The vast majority of the populated country is not in the hands of the insurgents and never will be. It's Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle that is the problem--that's where all of the soldiers are being plinked. That's where it continues to be tough to provide basic services, which would help to reduce tensions. We can do an awful lot in the friendly areas to keep them friendly, even with civilian contractors worried about their safety, and even if Baghdad continues in a state of near-anarchy. We'll get a disproportionate amount of bad press, however. All the reporters are (perhaps rightly) focusing on where the problems are at.

The Kurds are our boys for the time being - the question is how long will their hospitality remain when they find they still have no hope at independence. Right now, the Kurds are better off in the present situation than they will be in a post-US Iraq, where at best they'll go back to a semi-protected minority group.

The Shiites have other agendas. Some pro-US, some wait and see, some pro-Shiite fundamentalist, but it doesn't do them any good to join in the plinking - what would they gain?

The Sunni center is unfortunately the political, economic, industrial and agricultural center of the country, so we have to control it, even moreso than anything else other than the oilfields and pipelines.

I don't agree with you that the current level of low-intensity conflict will throw us off of our game--the criteria I would use to describe the insurgency as a success.

It slows down the process, and time isn't on our side.

At least 60% of the country is friendlies, even more are borderline hostiles but we have a good chance of making friendly, because it doesn't rely on anything in the Sunni triangle (Mosul, for instance) and it would take a series of monumental screw-ups on our part to change this fact. Don't put this possibility past us, though!

The problem is that they're friendly, in the assumption we're going to make things improve at a fairly rapid pace. Things like delays in interim Iraqi administration, improving standards of living across the board, etc. are important, and to the extent the insurgents draw resources to deal with them, they take away resources from everything else.

I still think we can win this, and do an excellent job, but IMO it will take a much larger commitment of forces, and a much larger commitment of money for rebuilding, etc. And we have to stop screwing around with delaying an Iraqi interim administration.

[DanS]

The administration is supposed to be in place around the middle of this month. Here's an article on it.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030705_731.html

The Shiites have other agendas. Some pro-US, some wait and see, some pro-Shiite fundamentalist, but it doesn't do them any good to join in the plinking - what would they gain?

Yes, this is true. I guess when I mean "friendly", I mean that most are willing to work with us and not plink our troops. They are not worried about Saddam coming back either. For all they care, the Sunni triangle could burn down--some might even cheer it. With the proper application of money for rebuilding and further organizational help, it just seems like it's on a reasonable course in the South. Most are complaining about security, but they have near 24-hour electricity, which appears to be viewed by the people who live there as a miracle.

The Sunni center is unfortunately the political, economic, industrial and agricultural center of the country, so we have to control it, even moreso than anything else other than the oilfields and pipelines.

I think we should disentangle this. Political center, yes. Industrial center, yes. Agricultural center yes. But economic, no. Even though it might be diversified more than some other ME countries, it is still an oil country. Most things economic revolve around oil. And that's the province of Basra and Kirkuk. You could make the argument that Mosul has some sway over this as well, since they could sabotage the pipelines.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DanS
At least 60% of the country is friendlies, even more are borderline hostiles but we have a good chance of making friendly, because it doesn't rely on anything in the Sunni triangle (Mosul, for instance) and it would take a series of monumental screw-ups on our part to change this fact.

It's only a matter of time until a good part of the shiite population has enough of your occupation regime. Your presence is also an invitation for every nutty fundie to target your troops.

What I wonder again, how many Americans do they have to kill to make you withdraw.

[Uncle Sparky]

Iraqis are already killing collaborators. Will setting up a Vichy government work?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
But economic, no. Even though it might be diversified more than some other ME countries, it is still an oil country.

Herein lies the problem. IF you don't mind a Norway-style socialism, where most people are subsidized off the oil export revenues in a welfare state, then you're right. But how much do you want to bet our good Republican friends want to set that up as the model for their free-market Iraqi democracy?

(Actually, I think it would be a good idea at first)

The oil sector doesn't provide that much employment, so you need to redevelop much of the domestic economy to get people busy and productive (so they're less inclined to plink us) and buying stuff. That will center around the population, so that's your Baghdad and center of the country environs again. The Iraqi redeveloped industrial/commercial base should enhance the direct economic position of the center of the country so you really have two economic poles if you want - the foreign currency earning one, and the employment/domestic economy one. Once you get back the Iraqi aerospace, biotechnology and petrochemical sectors, er, um... Nevermind, oil-based welfare state seems the way to go.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
What I wonder again, how many Americans do they have to kill to make you withdraw.

We can't withdraw.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We can't withdraw.

Without a doubt.

What would you have your additional troops doing over there Mtg?