Open Iraqi election thread

[Jaakko]

What I want to know is, why didn't the US create a massive make-work program to get all those angry young men off the streets. Had they then used the program for rebuilding, the Sunni insurgency would be a shadow of itself. When you've got something to lose you're less likely to listen to extremists.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jaakko
What I want to know is, why didn't the US create a massive make-work program to get all those angry young men off the streets. Had they then used the program for rebuilding, the Sunni insurgency would be a shadow of itself. When you've got something to lose you're less likely to listen to extremists.

Yeah, and at any time for at least a year they could have recalled the Army. If they simple stationed the troops on bases, it would have kept them off the streets.

[lord of the mark]

reality check folks. The $80 billion for Iraqi reconstruction was opposed by many as it was (an BTW, we have done reconstruction projects that have hired iraqis, and the iraqi security services have provided employment) spending even more an additional make work program would not have been popular.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
reality check folks. The $80 billion for Iraqi reconstruction was opposed by many as it was (an BTW, we have done reconstruction projects that have hired iraqis, and the iraqi security services have provided employment) spending even more an additional make work program would not have been popular.

IIRC, only about 15-20 billion from that 80 was destined for actual reconstruction. Not that they used it or anything, except for the 9 billion that Bremer is somehow unable to account for. I guess the whole occupation was doomed from the start by half-assedness.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


I guess the whole occupation was doomed from the start by half-assedness.

Ok, you get the finger

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Ok, you get the finger

Now, see, this is what I don't get. We have an election, yeah, but it's not a silver bullet that magically makes everything all right. Nothing has changed on the ground. The US troops are still attacked daily, they still conduct air strikes on urban areas. The insurgency is no less potent than it was before people got ink on their fingers, nor have the tensions eased any. We don't even know whether the Shiites will have the patience to not shaft the Sunnis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Now, see, this is what I don't get. We have an election, yeah, but it's not a silver bullet that magically makes everything all right. Nothing has changed on the ground. The US troops are still attacked daily, they still conduct air strikes on urban areas. The insurgency is no less potent

LOTM - thats not at all clear. I ask again, where the hell were the insurgents?


than it was before people got ink on their fingers, nor have the tensions eased any.

LOTM - i suggest you read more about the Iraqi elections. Millions are joyous.

We don't even know whether the Shiites will have the patience to not shaft the Sunnis.

LOTM - theres growing reason for optimism on that account, though time will tell.


But I was responding your "doomed" comment. There are still problems, but I refuse to believe that such courageous people are doomed. The will to freedom will conquer.

[Jaakko]

The security for the elections was extremely heavy, which meant that the insurgents could do only limited damage (20-30 dead). It does NOT mean that they suddenly lost all their capabilities. They wait until they can go after viable targets again, because it's impossible to sustain such security as was present during election day.

As for tensions, yes there were millions joyoys Iraqis, but other, unhappy millions remain. The Sunni/Shiite rift is real and an extremely serious matter.

I too believe courageous people will eventually prevail, but that won't prevent a civil war from erupting in the meantime and killing thousands and further wrecking Iraq's ramshackle infrastructure.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko
The security for the elections was extremely heavy, which meant that the insurgents could do only limited damage (20-30 dead). It does NOT mean that they suddenly lost all their capabilities. They wait until they can go after viable targets again, because it's impossible to sustain such security as was present during election day.

LOTM - not suddenly. They were hurt in Fallujah in November. Theyve lost thugs in Mosul. Theyve been hit in the area just south of Baghdad. Several Zarqawi lieutenants have been capture. I see a gradual wearing down.

And BTW, half of that "heavy security" was provided by Iraqi forces, whom we were told only a couple of months ago were worthless.

As for tensions, yes there were millions joyoys Iraqis, but other, unhappy millions remain. The Sunni/Shiite rift is real and an extremely serious matter.

I too believe courageous people will eventually prevail, but that won't prevent a civil war

It just might.

[Jaakko]

"They're being worn down" has been the mantra of the US occupation for the duration of the insurgency, and has been consistently wrong as the situation has deteriorated month after month. The destruction of Fallujah only moved the battles to other cities. It's downright laughable to prop up these new battles as an improvement. It's bodycount logic in the best tradition of Vietnam, in other words utter rubbish.

I'd much rather see some concrete plans to bring the Sunnis back into the fold. The very basis of democracy is consensus and compromise instead of violent conflict to determine policy. The new Iraqi govt might pull it off, but it doesn't even exist yet so it's entirely premature to go celebrating now. The US occupation, well, they still seem to think that people will like them if they bomb them enough.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jaakko
The security for the elections was extremely heavy, which meant that the insurgents could do only limited damage (20-30 dead). It does NOT mean that they suddenly lost all their capabilities. They wait until they can go after viable targets again, because it's impossible to sustain such security as was present during election day.

As for tensions, yes there were millions joyoys Iraqis, but other, unhappy millions remain. The Sunni/Shiite rift is real and an extremely serious matter.

I too believe courageous people will eventually prevail, but that won't prevent a civil war from erupting in the meantime and killing thousands and further wrecking Iraq's ramshackle infrastructure.

You seem to be an expert on this issue, so will you please tell us what to do. And no, youn aren't allowed to say that we never should have liberated the Iraqui people, that's done - now we are looking at the future.

Please enlighten us.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by BlackCat


You seem to be an expert on this issue, so will you please tell us what to do. And no, youn aren't allowed to say that we never should have liberated the Iraqui people, that's done - now we are looking at the future.

Please enlighten us.

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?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko
"They're being worn down" has been the mantra of the US occupation for the duration of the insurgency, and has been consistently wrong as the situation has deteriorated month after month. The destruction of Fallujah only moved the battles to other cities.

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

[lord of the mark]

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.

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko
"They're being worn down" has been the mantra of the US occupation for the duration of the insurgency, and has been consistently wrong as the situation has deteriorated month after month. The destruction of Fallujah only moved the battles to other cities. It's downright laughable to prop up these new battles as an improvement. It's bodycount logic in the best tradition of Vietnam, in other words utter rubbish.

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?