The Pentagon Papers, Iraq Edition

[Ramo]

When they are in control, how is that different from everyone else? People generally discriminate based on distance, the greater the distance, the more blatant the discrimination. So what is a nationalist? Someone who discriminates based on distance - the greater distance being that of the foreigner compared to the countryman. Me, my family, my friends, my neighborhood and town, my state, my country...foreigners come last.

There are different nationalisms. People, even of the same ethnicity or same state, may identify with different nations. As I said, the Sunni Arabs identify with a common Arab nation, the Sunni Kurds identify with a common Kurdish nation, and the Shia generally identify with a common Iraqi nation.

Do you mean "hadn't much to do with Saddam's gov't"?
The Sunnis were his base of support, obviously not all Sunnis were equally supportive because they're a product of tribalism too which goes back to the distance and discrimination thing...

I mean, now. The Arab Nationalist (i.e. Sunni) insurgents' goals aren't to put Saddam's gov't back in power.

The Shia problem is dissipating because of Sistani, it's escalating among the Sunnis for stated reasons.

It was created in the first place in fear of a Shia majority (not Saddm loyalism). It's escalating due to our actions, particularly the extraordinarily reckless military and police tactics on our part.

And most of the people in those cities don't want to be involved, just a hunch... But what are they going to do, vote out the insurrectionists? A gang moves in and the locals no longer have much of a say.

That's not the nature of the groups in Sadr City or Fallujah. It was the case in Najaf, and they was visible opposition to the Sadrists there - and it was retaken in part due to the lack of suppor for them in the cityt.

Thanks for agreeing, but their country was already ****ed up, had been ever since it was created. Thank the Brits for that

But we ****ed it up a lot more.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Berz, if it were only 15,000 who oppose us militantly, they wouldn't be able to take control of major population centers. Fallujah and Sadr City (the latter is Shia BTW) would be under our control.

We aren't using chegitz numbers? How many then?

Further, the vast majority of Iraqis think we've totally screwed up, and want us out and an elected Iraqi gov't in ASAP (like Sistani).

What are we debating? The question is not whether Iraqis think we screwed up, the question is about the number of insurrectionists and the strength of their support.

That doesn't mean these people support the insurrection, which is an important distinction.

That's what I said...

And you're misunderstanding a key point. That the insurrections are run by nationalists of varying sorts does not mean that the insurrection is about promoting the Iraqi nation.

Obviously, the Sunnis are leaning away from a united Iraq because of "democracy" and a brutalised majority waiting to storm the gates. That's what I've been saying all along.

Iraqi nationalism is really prominent only among the Shia, and for their militants (the Sadrists) other priorities eclipse it.

Only now that they may be getting a majority rule system as opposed to a Sunni dictator. The Shia were wanting us to overthrow "their" nation just a few years back, so nationalism is a rather pointless term - most everyone is nationalistic when they have some power in the form of nationhood.

I never said that that that wasn't a reason why they're fighting.

Calling it a nationalistic insurgency is saying they have no other relevant or dominant motive, they do have one, their existence...

However the Sunni insurgents are by and large Arab Nationalists. That's their ideology. So it's an element in their resistance.

Nevermind, I'm not getting through

[Berzerker]

There are different nationalisms. People, even of the same ethnicity or same state, may identify with different nations.

Because tribalism comes before nationalism when discriminating.

As I said, the Sunni Arabs identify with a common Arab nation, the Sunni Kurds identify with a common Kurdish nation, and the Shia generally identify with a common Iraqi nation.

Which means they are all nationalistic to varying degrees. I said that already

I mean, now. The Arab Nationalist (i.e. Sunni) insurgents' goals aren't to put Saddam's gov't back in power.

Of course not, they want the power to deter revenge.

It was created in the first place in fear of a Shia majority (not Saddm loyalism).

Saddam wasn't even alive when Iraq was created. And how did the Brits suppress that majority? By creating a country with 3 primary factions to keep them at war while the Brits got the oil.

It's escalating due to our actions, particularly the extraordinarily reckless military and police tactics on our part.

Of course it's escalating, the Bushies told us it would months ago as the handover of power proceeded.

[Alexander's Horse]

Basically America is in denial about the war, which is lost.

What I don't understand is why Americans think it's okay for their army to be hung out to dry the way it is over there now.

[Berzerker]

To act as a magnet for terrorists

[GePap]

The poor prospect for Iraq is not purely based on the current insurgencies, but the deeper political realities. After the elections a real constitution needs to be in place-that will test the ability of the Shiia, who see this as their time for power and thus seek as little federalims as possible, against the Kurds, who will seek as much Federalism as possible, and finally the Sunni will remain intransigent.

We haven't even gotten to those political questions.

[chequita guevara]

Does anyone else think that the Administration asking to move $3+ billion from reconstruction to military is a bad idea. It's not just the American presence that is pissing off the Iraqis. It's also the lack of power and drinking water and everything else they lost with the invasion (not so muh drinking water, which was already in short supply).

[Alexander's Horse]

Just forget it - the experts said it would be a disaster, they are still saying it, it is a disaster.

Its only an equation now of deaths over time before the withdrawal and probably a handover to some sort of UN force.

[debeest]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Still, was the US a party to a ceasefire or were they not? Was Saddam honouring the terms of said cease fire, or was he not.

You said, 'lack any real justification'. Some would say getting rid of Saddam was justification enough. The fact that he wasn't honouring ceasefires is all that is/was needed.

Are you aware that the U.S. bombed Iraq about once a week throughout most of the period between the two Gulf wars? It's hard to claim that Hussein dishonored the ceasefire as much as we did. But it's pretty clear that almost all of the death, injuries, illness, and property damage was suffered by Iraq, not by the US.

[Agathon]

Its only an equation now of deaths over time before the withdrawal and probably a handover to some sort of UN force.

Have you started polishing your gloating shoes yet?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by debeest


Are you aware that the U.S. bombed Iraq about once a week throughout most of the period between the two Gulf wars? It's hard to claim that Hussein dishonored the ceasefire as much as we did. But it's pretty clear that almost all of the death, injuries, illness, and property damage was suffered by Iraq, not by the US.

Once a week, you say? Really? What were the targets of these bombings?

[chequita guevara]

Generally radar sites and other military installations.

[notyoueither]

Following what sort of incident?

[Agathon]

Hard to tell, since we only have our side's word for it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Following what sort of incident?

When Iraqi radar locked on Coalition planes flying over their territory.

Note, we do not bomb China or North Korea or other countries that lock onto our planes, even when we aren't flying over their territory.