"war in Iraq can still be won" Yay! - wait a minute - can still be won?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The US/UK, as the dominate military powers, get to dictate terms to the Iraqis. If they don't like it then hostilities resume. We found Saddam's murdering of Shi'as and Kurds to be unacceptable thus we tacked on new requirements to the cease fire. If Saddam didn't like it that's just tough.

The question is, was it legal? Probably not. Could we do it? Yes. Two very different questions. We are arguing legality, not capability.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW Here's what's going to happen in Iraq. The elections will be held next month dispite a very large and conserted effort by insurgents to prevent it. Turn out will be in the 60%-70% region and Shi'a will win just about everything except for a few minor spots held by Kurds. Fox News will declare it a great victory, the insurgents will claim the results were illegitimate because not everyone voted (they won't want to talk about the reason many people didn't vote is because insurgents said they'd kill people who did), little will change on the ground and terror attacks will continue.

Insurgents realize their supporters represent about 10%-15% of the population thus they know they don't stand any chance at all in winning a democratic election. Thus they will attempt to disrupt elections as much as possible so that they can claim the election results are illegitimate. "Why help have elections you're going to lose?" is the question they will keep asking each other. You see the truth is each Iraqi faction only wants to win and isn't the slightest bit interested in democratic processes unless those processes are rigged in their favor so not much will change after the elections.

But really, with far less than 10% of the people supporting them, both the Dems and Repubs control who will be nominated.

I can see why the Sunni's would be pissed that they don't get to decide the nomination process, but instead, the US does... ...at least in the Sunni perspective.

[techumseh]

Insurgents outnumber coalition troops - Iraqi Spy Chief

Blistering attacks threaten Iraq election
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website


While the world's attention has been on the disaster in Asia, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated so much that the insurgency has developed into near-open warfare.

The killing of Baghdad's governor is another example of violence


The head of Iraq's intelligence service Gen Muhammad Shahwani now puts the number of insurgents at 200,000, of which 40,000 are said to be the hard core and the rest active supporters.

These figures do not represent an insurgency. They represent a war.

Questions therefore now have to be asked about what happens after the election on 30 January if the fighters, mainly Sunni Islamists and nationalists, continue their attacks.

If they do, they and the likely winners of the election, parties representing the majority Shia population, could come into conflict. This in turn could lead to a possible civil war.

Shia leaders have called for talks with Sunni representatives in the hope of averting such a scenario.

Nobody has as yet openly called for the withdrawal of US troops as the price of ending at least the nationalist part of the insurgency. But the idea could arise at some stage.

Matters post-30 January would be made worse if there was a low turnout in the Sunni areas because there would then be at best only a weak voice for a powerful section of Iraqi society and the one supporting the current fighting.

Calls for delay

A leading Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, is boycotting the vote. Elder statesman Adnan Pachachi has again called for a delay and a few more voices have been added to his chorus.

This does not mean that the vote will in fact be delayed. The Shias would not accept that. It does mean that people are worried about what happens afterwards.

Defence Minister Hazem Shaalan said he had asked Egypt to approach Sunni leaders and urge them to participate.

MOUNTING VIOLENCE
3 January 2005: More than 20 people killed in a day of violence across Iraq
2 January 2005: At least 23 Iraqi soldiers killed by a car bomb in Balad
27 December 2004: 13 die in a Baghdad car bomb targeting a top Shia political leader
21 December 2004: Suicide blast in a US military base in Mosul kills 22 people
19 December 2004: More than 60 die in twin suicide car attacks in Najaf and Karbala

"We want to give our Sunni brothers another chance even if this means delaying the vote," he said.

Iraq's UN ambassador Samir al-Sumaidaie had earlier proposed a delay of two or three weeks and suggested reserving some seats for the Sunnis for later selection, in an interview with the Washington Post.

The power of the insurgents was demonstrated again on Tuesday with the assassination of the governor of Baghdad Ali al-Haidri - the latest in a blistering series of attacks.

Many of these have targeted the Iraqi security forces which just do not have the ability to fight back effectively.

An example of this also came on Tuesday. A tanker loaded with explosives and driven by a suicide bomber - of whom there appears to be an unlimited supply - blew up at an Iraqi interior ministry commando headquarters in Baghdad, killing eight commandos and two civilians.

These commandos were formed as a special unit to target insurgents and to help make up for the ineffective regular police and national guard. Instead they are the target.

Loss of control

Until recently, the US military has talked of there being about 25,000 fighters in Iraq.

Gen Shahwani has not just upped the estimate, but has put it into the wider context of the active guerrilla support which perhaps gives a truer picture. There are 150,000 US troops.

Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington commented: "The Iraqi figures do... recognise the reality that the insurgency in Iraq has broad support in Sunni areas, while the US figures downplay this to the point of denial."

Mr Cordesman has for months pointed out the weakness of the local Iraq forces, saying recently that they were basically unprepared and "sent out to die."

The level of attacks is now so intense and sophisticated that it is not surprising that the former British representative to the former Coalition Authority, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said recently that the insurgency was "irremediable" and "ineradicable" by US and other foreign troops alone.

"It depends on the Iraqis. We have lost the primary control," he said.

Recent events indicate that Iraqis have lost the primary control as well.

It doesn't look like it can still be "won".

[Alexander's Horse]

One thing about the conflict is while the opposition seems to able knock leading figures in the interim government, its not the same for the leadership of the insurgency.

The public hasn't even been told who is running the insurgency and all the indications are it is a sophisticated operation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
One thing about the conflict is while the opposition seems to able knock leading figures in the interim government, its not the same for the leadership of the insurgency.

The public hasn't even been told who is running the insurgency and all the indications are it is a sophisticated operation.

I wonder if the only way we will know what kind of leadership they have will be if they ever successfully gain control of the country.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You are living in a fool's paradise. Israel never consults anyone when it attacks other countries.

Where did I say they did?

[Ted Striker]

I think the elections HAVE to go on at the planned date.

Otherwise the violence will just keep getting worse.

Not good news that the Baghdad governor was assassinated today, his deputy died in November.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Where's the joke? Israel is by far the most dangerous of all those states with a proven track record of attacking its neighbours and taking their territory.

You North Americans live in a kind of bizarre dream world where the Middle East is concerned. You think of Israel in some sort of idealised way like in a Leon Uris novel.

Its the double standard which kills US efforts to make friends in the Middle East. Israel can do what it likes. This is why Coalition forces have had no credibility with Iraqis as "liberators'.

The point was exaggerated, but still a good point indeed.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
One thing about the conflict is while the opposition seems to able knock leading figures in the interim government, its not the same for the leadership of the insurgency.

The public hasn't even been told who is running the insurgency and all the indications are it is a sophisticated operation.

Horse,

Who do you think is doing it? Former Iraqi Army commanders? Surely they are involved at some level. A bunch of guys who are good at killing people and breaking things, all of them fired, and are probably just a LITTLE pissed off after being humiliated two times in a row.

[Alexander's Horse]

The attacks that are really hurting the coalition, the well executed assasinations, IED's, convoy ambushes, mortar and rocket attacks, are clearly the work of well trained military officers with sophistated command and control, which means they are answering to higher command elements and working to a plan. You can tell by the siting of attacks that they aren't just falafel munchers who happened to pick up an AK47.

The suicide bombers are just cannon fodder and big name terrorists are colour and movement. People like Al Zaquawi are not in charge. They screen the real brains. Probably ex Iraqi army - I think the worst mistake the coalition made was to purge the government and disband the Iraqi army. It left a lot of trained people with a grudge, no income and time on their hands.

Thats my take on it anyway from what I see from TV images.

It may be the coalition does not want to admit that community leaders are backing the fighting. I find it hard to believe their intelligence is so poor they don't know who they are fighting, but its possible. I would be staggered if the coalition doesn't have some clue who they are fighting. It suits the coalition for the public to think a rag bag bunch of evil "terrorists" are running the war.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think the worst mistake the coalition made was to purge the government and disband the Iraqi army. It left a lot of trained people with a grudge, no income and time on their hands.

[techumseh]

No, an underground network of Basthist, military and intelligence officers. This was planned before the invasion. The Iraqi government proclaimed it to the world. I remember the TV images of people dressed in white outfits parading in Baghdad.

And do you really think that the only motivation for people to fight the Americans is because they lost their jobs? Maybe their family was killed at a checkpoint, or in Fallujah. Or maybe they object to a foreign country attacking and occupying their country? Just a thought.

[Ted Striker]

duh

That's what we just said.

[KrazyHorse]

We need to get Tecumseh into an argument with Fez.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by techumseh

And do you really think that the only motivation for people to fight the Americans is because they lost their jobs? Maybe their family was killed at a checkpoint, or in Fallujah. Or maybe they object to a foreign country attacking and occupying their country? Just a thought.

Its not the only motivation but fundamentally if people believe they have a stake in the interim authority succeeding then the insurgency would subside. If they feel like losers from the changes they will support the insurgency. Then all those things you mention just fuel the opposition.

The idea that this was all planned before the war is not supported by the pattern of the insurgency. There was a long period of relative peace after Saddam fell where people seemed to wait and see. Unfortunately the Coalition dithered and lost that opportunity. The Coalition also showed in that period that a lot people were going to lose out from the changes i.e. by "de Baathification" and disbanding the army. They might as well have handed people guns and told them to fight.