The US must stay the course in Iraq

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


I like the three state idea as well. Other than Turkey's objection to a free Kurdistan, I don't know that any other ME government would have a problem with it (Other than the standard Pan-Arab argument). Plus, Turkey had their chance to have a helping hand in Iraq and walked away from it...

Well. lets see:

Turkey, Iran and Syria would all work against an independent Kurdish state that may then act in ways, or act as a pull for their own Kurdish minorities.

Saudi Arabia and all the Gulf principalities, ruled by Sunni princes, would object to an independent Shi'ite state that could threaten them, with regards to their Shi'a minorities, or mayorities.

The Sunni of iraq would not take lightly to being given a rump state-and the Shi'ites would not want to lose control of the capital Baghdad

so in fact, the only people in Iraq who would want a split and work for it are the Kurds, and that would be a massive mess.

[Vanguard]

Say, Saddam Hussein is still available, isn't he? He did a good job maintaining order in Iraq.

Too funny.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by GePap


Germany was physically devastated yes, but the burocrats were there and were put back to work without too much lagtime. So overall, the Nazi state did not collapse utterly like the Saddam regime, AND many of the arms of the Nazi state were in fact much older systems under the Republic and Empire.

As for "crushing the sunni triangle" HOW? Without enough troops? and how exactly do you crush those you just liberated? And then, of course, you set up massive Sunni grievences against the new regime, just adding an underlying rift waiting to rear its ugly head.

The Sunni Triangle is the support for Saddam, everybody keeps saying it is only a few in this area doing the damage, I don't think that is so, way too much support in this area, Saddam treated the people in this area much better than the north or the south so I believe they blame us for their collapse of their leader.

[lord of the mark]

GePap. given the ovewhelming support both on the governing council and from even such figures as Ayatollah Sistani, for the continued presence of Coalition forces, it is virtually certain that any new sovereign Iraq provisional govt will negotiate a status of forces agreement. This is NOT controversial.

What remains controversial is the exact makeup of the new govt. It is generally agreed that it will be an expanison of the current IGC, but it is not generally agreed by how much or by what method. That is something Lakhtar Brahimi of the UN is currently helping to negotiate with political groups in Iraq.

Your point about the status of forces agreement is a red herring. I know of NO serious commentator on Iraq who expects that to be an obstacle.

Clearly what is required is a commitment to stay the course both for the next 3 months, AND after (per a status of forces agreement with the transitional govt) The key question now is NOT international legality, but coalition, and especially American, willpower in the face of challenges on the ground in Iraq.

On this I am optimistic. The virtually certain Democratic nominee, John Kerry, has made statements on the necessity of staying the course and winning in Iraq. This not only enables George Bush to stay the course, but makes in very difficult for him to do otherwise.

Congratulations to Sen. Kerry.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Defiant


The Sunni Triangle is the support for Saddam, everybody keeps saying it is only a few in this area doing the damage, I don't think that is so, way too much support in this area, Saddam treated the people in this area much better than the north or the south so I believe they blame us for their collapse of their leader.

Yes, they did benefit form Saddam, and one wonders why the amdin. did not seem to think perhaps they would not appriciate being liberated as much as other iraqis.

But again, how would we "crush them"?

[lord of the mark]

Note, Anthony Cordesmann, a leading critic of the neo con strategy in Iraq, notably the decision to keep US forces low, has stated that the insurgency is supported by a minority of Sunni Arabs. He estimates about 6% of the total Iraqi population. Sunni Arabs make up about 20% of the population of Iraq - ergo less than a third of all Sunni Arabs in Iraq.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
GePap. given the ovewhelming support both on the governing council and from even such figures as Ayatollah Sistani, for the continued presence of Coalition forces, it is virtually certain that any new sovereign Iraq provisional govt will negotiate a status of forces agreement. This is NOT controversial.

Who said it was?

What remains controversial is the exact makeup of the new govt. It is generally agreed that it will be an expanison of the current IGC, but it is not generally agreed by how much or by what method. That is something Lakhtar Brahimi of the UN is currently helping to negotiate with political groups in Iraq.

This is what Sistani disapproves of, and given that the interim government has no real democratric base, it wopuld be interesting to see how it fared under elections.

Your point about the status of forces agreement is a red herring. I know of NO serious commentator on Iraq who expects that to be an obstacle.

How many have brought the point up? So it will be the US ambassador giving orders to US troops about taking operations in Iraqi cities? Yeah, says much about the authority of the new interim government....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, they did benefit form Saddam, and one wonders why the amdin. did not seem to think perhaps they would not appriciate being liberated as much as other iraqis.

But again, how would we "crush them"?

Of course not all Sunni Arabs benefited - some were themselves the victims of torture, murder, etc.

Some tribes and clans benefitted more than others, apparently. Meanwhile some Sunni Arabs have done relatively well under the coalition, while others have done worse.

How do we crush the insurgents - the methods the Marines are adopting in Fallujah is to cordon off the city, then proceed a section at a time, looking for weapons, and insurgents. Meanwhile we should improve conditions in cities OTHER than Fallujah, showing the benefits to communities that cooperate. And more broadly we need a political arrangement that will give Sunni arabs a stake in the new Iraq, so at least those who benefitted relatively little under Saddam will support the new regime.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, they did benefit form Saddam, and one wonders why the amdin. did not seem to think perhaps they would not appriciate being liberated as much as other iraqis.

But again, how would we "crush them"?

Literally, you bring in the Abrams in and locate throughout the city, one rock throwing, any armed civilians you turn loose the chain guns, if an area is hot like parading civilians against the US presence you call in an air strike on the parading civilians. If the leader of Falluja says we are targets, you kill him, if there is an uprise you suppress it with firepower, they will give up or there won't be many left.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Of course not all Sunni Arabs benefited - some were themselves the victims of torture, murder, etc.

Some tribes and clans benefitted more than others, apparently. Meanwhile some Sunni Arabs have done relatively well under the coalition, while others have done worse.

How do we crush the insurgents - the methods the Marines are adopting in Fallujah is to cordon off the city, then proceed a section at a time, looking for weapons, and insurgents. Meanwhile we should improve conditions in cities OTHER than Fallujah, showing the benefits to communities that cooperate. And more broadly we need a political arrangement that will give Sunni arabs a stake in the new Iraq, so at least those who benefitted relatively little under Saddam will support the new regime.

In Falluja, I don't think they are insurgents, I believe it is the people of Falluja.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

"What remains controversial is the exact makeup of the new govt. It is generally agreed that it will be an expanison of the current IGC, but it is not generally agreed by how much or by what method. That is something Lakhtar Brahimi of the UN is currently helping to negotiate with political groups in Iraq. "

This is what Sistani disapproves of, and given that the interim government has no real democratric base, it wopuld be interesting to see how it fared under elections.

It seems that Sistani may be willing to accept a transitional govt that ISNT too democractic, since such a govt would be more explicitly PROVISIONAL, and would be less likely to make permanent laws. In any case that is being discussed currently. Of coruse the negotiations are difficult - this is a complex political situation. I fail to see how this relates to the point of staying the course.

Your point about the status of forces agreement is a red herring. I know of NO serious commentator on Iraq who expects that to be an obstacle.

How many have brought the point up? So it will be the US ambassador giving orders to US troops about taking operations in Iraqi cities? Yeah, says much about the authority of the new interim government....

Does the current Afghan govt give orders to US forces in Afghanistan? No. Of course it will be better when the Iraqi govt can take full security responsibility - but what does this have to with "staying the course"?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Defiant


Literally, you bring in the Abrams in and locate throughout the city, one rock throwing, any armed civilians you turn loose the chain guns, if an area is hot like parading civilians against the US presence you call in an air strike on the parading civilians. If the leader of Falluja says we are targets, you kill him, if there is an uprise you suppress it with firepower, they will give up or there won't be many left.

I am sorry, but I can onyl laugh at something so ridiculous! Oh yes, we went to war to Liberate, and lest back that up by committing massive war crimes, crushing all decent, and trying to best Saddam at his own game, only further north! Cause it shows how much better the US is morally!

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Does the current Afghan govt give orders to US forces in Afghanistan? No. Of course it will be better when the Iraqi govt can take full security responsibility - but what does this have to with "staying the course"?

I expect better annalogies from you.

Sorry, BUT US forces are there mainly to hunt AQ and the Taliban, not to provide security nationwide. There are about 12,000 US troops in afghanistan, with most security provided by the nacent Afghan army, OR by local militias.

We have 100,000 troops in Iraq-a HUGE difference.

[lord of the mark]

From AFP


[q[This is the first step in this long journey, which God willing, will lead, in the end, to the formation of this (interim) government on schedule," Brahimi said after a meeting with the US-installed Governing Council.


He hoped his efforts would also lead "to the well-prepared elections which will enable the Iraqi people to have a government that is elected through transparent, democratic elections."


Brahimi said he was received with a "warm welcome and... (in a) brotherly atmosphere... and we had a long talk about the mission which we are undertaking."


"This mission is... to assist in the formation of the administration, which will take over responsibility on the occasion of the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people, and to cooperate with the parties in preparations for elections due to be conducted early next year."


Massud Barzani, current president of the Governing Council, said "discussions with the United Nations focused on the question of elections and the transfer of power."


"This was an initial meeting, Mr Brahimi will need some time to conduct consultations with all the parties both in the Governing Council and outside the Governing Council," he said.


"We welcome... Brahimi and his delegation, and the Iraqi people welcome him as well," he said.


"The Governing Council has been listening to his valuable observations. There will be close cooperation between the Governing Council specialized committees and Mr Brahimi and the accompanying delegation." [/q]

[Defiant]

Originally posted by GePap




I am sorry, but I can onyl laugh at something so ridiculous! Oh yes, we went to war to Liberate, and lest back that up by committing massive war crimes, crushing all decent, and trying to best Saddam at his own game, only further north! Cause it shows how much better the US is morally!

What war crimes, it is a war and we are losing lives, I suppose we should have been brought up on war crimes when we bombed Germany and civilians died. If they are parading against and mutilating our bodies, it is a combatent and response should be just as deadly.
The moral is lost when they start multilating our bodies and killing our soldiers, if it is a war, then it is a war.
We are not liberating the supporters of Saddam, GePap and that's who these people are.