Open Iraqi election thread

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Like Mosul. Where the election went off successfully on Sunday. They couldnt even stop it in Mosul. MAYBE something is happening?

Yet the insurgency continued with their merry death-dealing afterwards. You gotta understand, the security was really tight. They even stopped vehicle traffic in large areas to make car bombs impossible.
Even if the insurgency has weakened, election day can't prove it either way. A guerrilla campaign relies on the impossibility of constant everyday security, and this was an extraordinary event by all accounts.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



the population of Iraq is 25 million. About 5 million are Sunni arabs. About half of them, 2.5 million express moral support to the insurgents. About 200,000 give material support to the insurgents, and about 20,000 ARE insurgents. The new Iraqi govt needs to reach out the 5 million. They need to reach out to the 2.5 million. They emphatically DONT need to reach out to the 20,000 - those are people who will make no reliable deals.

A popular insurgency replenishes itself. During the Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan, it was estimated that for every loss incurred on the guerrillas, several were ready to take their place. The mechanism is the same here. Enraged relatives pick up arms as their family members are killed, actual insurgent or "collateral damage".

This means you basically have two choices - either remove the popular support or repress the relevant part of populace so heavily that they're too shell-shocked to resist. Since the US isn't big into genocide, the first option is what you gotta do.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The Viet Cong were worn down by 1969. They were replaced by North Viet Namese regulars. Who will provide the NVA regulars this time around?

Iraq isn't Vietnam. I didn't expect I'd have to tell this to anyone on the pro-war side.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jaakko


For starters, the US stops stomping around like a bull in a china shop. No 500 pound bombs in urban areas, strict RoE. Bleed for the Iraqis sake, don't make the Iraqis bleed for your sake.

Go Iraqi whenever humanely possible when dealing with insurgents. Be willing to negotiate and make deals, treat them like they're legit, because they are the people who you'll want to stop fighting and join the political process. Toughness will be needed sometimes, but don't sacrifice the strategic objective for transient tactical advantage.

Agree to a timetable for troop withdrawal and honour it, seeing as how it'll give big boost to the credibility of an Iraqi government. If you want a real country and not a puppet regime, respect the will of its people.

Inject lots and lots of money into Iraq. Create those make-work projects I talked about, rebuild and keep rebuilding even if insurgents bomb something. The cost will be high, the wastage will be high, but you need to have results that stick on the ground to lure investors into the country.

How does that sound?

Bad.

Unless you can prove otherwise, then we are not carpetbombing civilians with 500 pound bombs. Neither are military actions done in such a way that it's Iraquis killed before own troops - quite opposite, just take Fallujah.

Please tell how you argue sanely with a suicide bomber. How do you negotiate with someone who you first are aware of when he triggers the bomb he is carrying ?

Withdrawal is a fine and good thing and will be done, but doing it before there are a stable government would not do anything than start a civil war. You want that we shall respect the voice of the Iraqui people, well, why not let them speak for themself as the have done in the election instead of the "voice" of suicide bombers.

I don't think money are the big problem when you talk about investment in Iraq, the problem is that the people nessecary to carry out these projects don't like to get their throats slit by maniacs. I admit that there was a big screwup initally - not enogh was done to rebuild water and power infrastructure, but still, thats history and can't be undone.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Bad.

Unless you can prove otherwise, then we are not carpetbombing civilians with 500 pound bombs. Neither are military actions done in such a way that it's Iraquis killed before own troops - quite opposite, just take Fallujah.

Please tell how you argue sanely with a suicide bomber. How do you negotiate with someone who you first are aware of when he triggers the bomb he is carrying ?

Withdrawal is a fine and good thing and will be done, but doing it before there are a stable government would not do anything than start a civil war. You want that we shall respect the voice of the Iraqui people, well, why not let them speak for themself as the have done in the election instead of the "voice" of suicide bombers.

I don't think money are the big problem when you talk about investment in Iraq, the problem is that the people nessecary to carry out these projects don't like to get their throats slit by maniacs. I admit that there was a big screwup initally - not enogh was done to rebuild water and power infrastructure, but still, thats history and can't be undone.

Houses are routinely blown up with 500 pound bombs (about 90kg of explosives), with a lethal shrapnel radius of about 400 metres. The dynamics are different in an urban area, but you can be sure that it's doesn't discriminate.
These actions are undertaken often under shady intel obtained through Iraqi informants, without pre- or post-attack recon to determine who was actually hit. In one case, an USAF spokesman told of how they had bombed a kebab restaurant that was suspected of being a insurgent meeting place. How can you not hit large numbers of civilians with those methods?

Regarding negotiations, you make the assumption that the insurgency is comprised of some kind of fanatic robots that can't be reasoned or bargained with. You seem to think that you can just disregard the usual dynamics and psychology of these kinds of situations, as if the insurgents weren't humans like the rest of us.

As for withdrawal, it should be screamingly obvious that the American occupation is not popular, regardless of how people regard the insurgency. The vast majority of Iraqis think they can handle things themselves. The Iraqi president himself came out recently and expressed this very sentiment. In other words, you have absolutely no basis for dismissing talk of US withdrawal as the voice of suicide bombers.

Finally, on the subject of money and reconstruction. The Iraqis are perfectly willing to risk themselves for a worthy cause if given the chance, as evident from the elections. Why would you believe they'd hide and allow the insurgents to scare them away from rebuilding, if given ample resources and US commitment?
Besides, what other choice is there? The US has been trying to kill off the insurgency for two years now without success. Israel has been at it for 50 years, if we go for a foreign comparison. Although Lebanon would be a better comparison.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


A popular insurgency replenishes itself. During the Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan, it was estimated that for every loss incurred on the guerrillas, several were ready to take their place. The mechanism is the same here. Enraged relatives pick up arms as their family members are killed, actual insurgent or "collateral damage".

This means you basically have two choices - either remove the popular support or repress the relevant part of populace so heavily that they're too shell-shocked to resist. Since the US isn't big into genocide, the first option is what you gotta do.

You remove SOME popular support, AND you repress those who cant be reconciled. These work in tandem - the more you reconcile - the easier it is to get the baddies, cause now you have folks who will inform on them. While by killing the baddies you IMPROVE popular reconciliation, since you make possible more reconstruction, jobs, etc.

Look at Afghanistan today - Kharzai reconciled important Pashtun elements, including tribal heads who had been aligned with the Taliban, while continuing to fight the Taliban itself (with American help, with ever growing Afghan participation) That would seem to be the model for Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Iraq isn't Vietnam. I didn't expect I'd have to tell this to anyone on the pro-war side.

Odd that you thought viet nam was a good comparison, when you thought it told in your favor, but no longer think so.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You remove SOME popular support, AND you repress those who cant be reconciled. These work in tandem - the more you reconcile - the easier it is to get the baddies, cause now you have folks who will inform on them. While by killing the baddies you IMPROVE popular reconciliation, since you make possible more reconstruction, jobs, etc.

Look at Afghanistan today - Kharzai reconciled important Pashtun elements, including tribal heads who had been aligned with the Taliban, while continuing to fight the Taliban itself (with American help, with ever growing Afghan participation) That would seem to be the model for Iraq.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any of that reconciliation. I'm seeing half-assed see-sawing that just frustrates and angers the populace.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


The Iraqi president himself came out recently and expressed this very sentiment..

"Iraq President Says Foreign Troops Needed
As Votes Are Counted, Discussion Over Future of Occupying Force Debated

Cameron W. Barr, Anthony Shadid and William Branigin
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 1, 2005; 12:33 PM

BAGHDAD, Feb. 1 -- As election workers began compiling vote tallies from Sunday's landmark elections, Iraqi leaders Tuesday raised the issue of the foreign military presence in the country, with Iraq's current president saying a pullout now would be "nonsense," and a top Shiite Muslim politician indicating that the matter could be taken up by the new Iraqi government. "

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Odd that you thought viet nam was a good comparison, when you thought it told in your favor, but no longer think so.

What, the bodycount thing? That's a well-known facet of the Vietnam war, where the brass used bodycount estimates as a metric of success, in denial of the actual the political situation. The exact same thing is happening in Iraq, as evidenced by the statements coming out glorifying bodycounts in Iraq fighting. That's how far I'll go with a Vietnam comparison, because that's what I can back up.

Now let's see you back up the "Iraqi insurgency being eradicated just like the VC".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


What, the bodycount thing? That's a well-known facet of the Vietnam war, where the brass used bodycount estimates as a metric of success, in denial of the actual the political situation. The exact same thing is happening in Iraq, as evidenced by the statements coming out glorifying bodycounts in Iraq fighting. That's how far I'll go with a Vietnam comparison, because that's what I can back up.

but we're NOT denying the actual political situation. This whole thread has been about the political situation. And BTW, i didnt focus on bodycounts alone, but on the loss of the sanctuary at Fallujah, and the capture of several insurgent leaders (some of whom seem to have been caught with info from locals, a very good sign).

And at the heavy Iraqi involvement in securing the elections.

[Pyrodrew]

edited - see above posts.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



"Iraq President Says Foreign Troops Needed
As Votes Are Counted, Discussion Over Future of Occupying Force Debated

Cameron W. Barr, Anthony Shadid and William Branigin
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 1, 2005; 12:33 PM

BAGHDAD, Feb. 1 -- As election workers began compiling vote tallies from Sunday's landmark elections, Iraqi leaders Tuesday raised the issue of the foreign military presence in the country, with Iraq's current president saying a pullout now would be "nonsense," and a top Shiite Muslim politician indicating that the matter could be taken up by the new Iraqi government. "

My bad, it was the leader of SCIRI that said it.
The Iraqi prez does hope for a withdrawal by the end of 2005, though, which was missing from your quote.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Houses are routinely blown up with 500 pound bombs (about 90kg of explosives), with a lethal shrapnel radius of about 400 metres. The dynamics are different in an urban area, but you can be sure that it's doesn't discriminate.
These actions are undertaken often under shady intel obtained through Iraqi informants, without pre- or post-attack recon to determine who was actually hit. In once case, an USAF spoke how they had bombed a kebab restaurant that was suspected of being a insurgent meeting place. How can you not hit large numbers of civilians with those methods?

Have not heard about such routine actions - please document - if that should be the case I can assure you that Danish support would dissapear as smoke in the air.

Regarding negotiations, you make the assumption that the insurgency is comprised of some kind of fanatic robots that can't be reasoned or bargained with. You seem to think that you can just disregard the usual dynamics and psychology of these kinds of situations, as if the insurgents weren't humans like the rest of us.

As far as I know, no politcal organisation has stated that they are responsible of the killings. And no, you can't negotiate or bargain with a suicide bomber convinced that he is doing gods work.

As for withdrawal, it should be screamingly obvious that the American occupation is not popular, regardless of how people regard the insurgency. The vast majority of Iraqis think they can handle things themselves. The Iraqi president himself came out recently and expressed this very sentiment. In other words, you have absolutely no basis for dismissing talk of US withdrawal as the voice of suicide bombers.

No. It is not screaming obvious that there are military units from several countries making securty possible. And no, I don't think that the Iraquis think they are able to handle the situation by themselves yet. And no, I don't belive that a Iraqui president has stated that - actually, as far as I know they says quite the opposite.

Finally, on the subject of money and reconstruction. The Iraqis are perfectly willing to risk themselves for a worthy cause if given the chance, as evident from the elections. Why would you believe they'd hide and allow the insurgents to scare them away from rebuilding, if given ample resources and US commitment?
Besides, what other choice is there? The US has been trying to kill off the insurgency for two years now without success. Israel has been at it for 50 years.

If anyone are to put money into iraq, then it will be a natural thing to send people to the area, not just to send money.

As far as I know, Israel is thriving fine while Palestine is in deep **** because of their lack of fighting back the militant organisations.

[Ned]

Jaakko, what do you make that 8 of Sunday's homicide bombers were Saudis, and the other an Iraqi. I believe the Iraqi had Down's syndrome and was duped.