Tweet
You're totally missing the point. The leaders of the insurgency are able to keep the support for the insurgency high by denying themselves representation, and saying "see, this is what you get under Shia rule." The insurgents would've been much weaker today if their boycott were unusuccessful.
-
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon -
So what the hell is the point of the insurgency besides maintaining the insurgency. That is the only end you have attached to their cause, and if this is the case they will take care of themselves."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
The insurgents are fighting to take over the country, or at least prevent Shia governance over them.
The point of the boycott was to maintain the insurgency."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
ZOMFG BRING IT ON!!!!111Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
WE ARE TURNING THE CORNER!!!1We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham LincolnComment
-
But it's actually encouraging that the admin has grown a damn brain for once and is actually open to *GASP* diplomacy??????
Instead of just hunting down and killing "TEARAHRISTSS"
The dumbasses started the whole thing by disenfranchising most of the Sunni population, well duh of course they are going to be pissed off.We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham LincolnComment
-
-
OMG DID YOU SEE JON STEWART PWN TUCKER CARLSON?!?!?1//!?!?1?!Originally posted by Ted Striker
ZOMFG BRING IT ON!!!!111Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
WE ARE TURNING THE CORNER!!!1The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.
The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.Comment
-
Allawi has been trying to talk to elements in the insurgency since he took power back in June of 2004. Apparently with little succes, apparently cause the insurgents thought they were winning. certainly not because of the influence of Chalabi, which was at its nadir at that point.
Now some insurgents are talking, per Time.
Explanations
1. Time is wrong (i would give this a high probability)
2. They really do think theyre losing - elections, attrition, Iraqi forces growing, etc.
3. The US is trying hard to make a deal, afraid that if a deal isnt made now the new UIA alliance will be incapable of it.
While sharing the general reluctance to declare a corner turned, and acknowledging the limited direct impact of the elections on the Sunni Arab community, explanation number 2 doesnt seem thoroughly implausible - there was also another statement today or yesterday of a number of tribal leaders urgently trying to negotiate a role. OTOH weve heard that before. I really think there simply isnt enough public source info to sort the wheat from the chaff here."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
The insurgency has no central control and is basically a bunch of unemployed and disgruntled guys with nothing better to do. You can negotiate with a few individuals but those people only have control of insurgents in their village or portion of the city. There will be no break through like the Japanese surrendering or the Communist Chinese agreeing to a cease fire.
A better analogy would be the German government slowly hunting down key members of the Red Army Faction and getting them to rat each other out.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
IIUC alot of those unemployed are paid by the insurgency, as are some criminal types. Without the flow of funds theyd go home, or at least become less active. Also they rely on caches of weapons, many planted by the former regime - the locations being known to former regime elements. IIUC there are people high enough up that if they turned they could reveal alot about that caches, funds flows, etc.Originally posted by Oerdin
The insurgency has no central control and is basically a bunch of unemployed"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
I wonder the extent of the centralization of the insurgency. At a minimum, I would expect tribal leaders to have some sway over the actions of tribal members. Is this expectation correct?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Allawi has been trying to talk to elements in the insurgency since he took power back in June of 2004. Apparently with little succes, apparently cause the insurgents thought they were winning. certainly not because of the influence of Chalabi, which was at its nadir at that point.
Allawi isn't the same thing as the US; I don't think we were doing anything like this in June '04. And I certainly didn't mean that only Chalabi has been responsible for that, I was referring the strong element in our gov't, particularly in Defense, that has refused to compromise with the insurgents."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
BTW, if a President Kerry was doing this, the Repukes would be attackign him for it.To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
second point first - the nadir of Chalabi coincided with the takeover of Iraq policy by State/NSC from DoD. my impression is that the victory of UIA over Allawi may be seen by some as DoD's revenge.Originally posted by Ramo
Allawi has been trying to talk to elements in the insurgency since he took power back in June of 2004. Apparently with little succes, apparently cause the insurgents thought they were winning. certainly not because of the influence of Chalabi, which was at its nadir at that point.
Allawi isn't the same thing as the US; I don't think we were doing anything like this in June '04. And I certainly didn't mean that only Chalabi has been responsible for that, I was referring the strong element in our gov't, particularly in Defense, that has refused to compromise with the insurgents.
first point - I doubt Allawi wasnt working with the US when he negotiated, and i have no evidence that current US negotiations arent coordinated with Iraqi authorities. I will have to read the article - it matters what level this is - after all US commanders in the field have been negotiation with local tribals for sometime I think - it would be quite logical for them to negotiate a surrender - I dont see how they could be authorized to negotiate political concessions wrt to Iraqi politics - thats almost out of US hands, more now than pre-election - and to negotiate a withdrawl would requite VERY high level involvement."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
second point first - the nadir of Chalabi coincided with the takeover of Iraq policy by State/NSC from DoD. my impression is that the victory of UIA over Allawi may be seen by some as DoD's revenge.
I don't know if State entirely took over, though. Negroponte and Allawi were important victories for them, granted, but I thought Fallujah for instance was more Defense's dawg than State's. As for Allawi, I thought Defense pretty much fell in line ever since the choice was made (certainly, neo-con critiques of Allawi have been sparse), but it is an amusing thought that a massive victory for Islamists could be considered a victory for Defense.
first point - I doubt Allawi wasnt working with the US when he negotiated
That may be the case, but I haven't seen any evidence that the US particularly committed itself to the process.
, and i have no evidence that current US negotiations arent coordinated with Iraqi authorities.
True, I'm not saying otherwise."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
Comment