Insurgents in control

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Ergo its best not to panic when some small town in upper Anbar is under insurgent control.

I'd wouldn't call a town with a population of 90,000 'small'. Maybe things are bigger in the USA.

I just don't have your optimism. This isn't case of the insurgents being pushed back; this is a case of them establishing strongholds. Kidnapping and murder are rife in the whole country, and the Iraqi forces are virtually useless. When they're not celebrating Saddam's birthday, they're scattering before the insurgents.

I would like to say that this was a preventable disaster. But I don't think it was. Creating a beacon of democracy in the Middle East was simply beyond the abilities of the American military and its current political masters.

[GePap]

Creating democracy is beyond military power, period. You can;t hold a gun to someones head and declare to them that you are now a democratic citizen, so go vote in those free elections, OR ELSE.

That is the great mistake of the neo-cons-thinking military power can be used to install values.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sandman

I'd wouldn't call a town with a population of 90,000 'small'. Maybe things are bigger in the USA.

Yup, its a small town. its not even the second largest city in Anbar province.

I just don't have your optimism. This isn't case of the insurgents being pushed back; this is a case of them establishing strongholds.

We're NOT pushing them back along some kind of conventional front line. We dont yet have enough Iraqi forces to hold all the cities and towns in Anbar province. Thats been clear for some time.

Kidnapping and murder are rife in the whole country,

From what ive read, the kurdish provinces, and most of the Shiite provinces are relatively quiet.

and the Iraqi forces are virtually useless. When they're not celebrating Saddam's birthday, they're scattering before the insurgents.

In fact in many places they have been fighting insurgents with little coalition help. The scattering before the insurgents is what the untrained troops and police did in April 2004.


Look, in April 2004 we were in deep trouble. The insurgents held Fallujah, and largely held Samarah, Ramadi, the rest of Anbar, Samarra, and other parts of the Sunni triangle. The Sadrist insurgency dominated several cities in the Shiite south. There was actually considerable difficulty getting convoys into Baghdad.

Since then the south was brought under control. Falluja was brought under control, and Mosul, and (IIUC) Samarra.

The insurgency can still get suicide bombers into Baghdad, and thats VERY big problem, and will take awhile to solve. but things are far better than they were in April 2004.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Creating democracy is beyond military power, period. You can;t hold a gun to someones head and declare to them that you are now a democratic citizen, so go vote in those free elections, OR ELSE.

in the January election Kurds and Shiites voted en masse without a gun being held to their heads.

Currently Sunni arabs are registering in large numbers, with the support of the Sunni Arab parties, in order to gain more power in the future rounds of elections.

Some folks are of course trying to hold guns to their heads to PREVENT them from voting.

[alva]

Bin Laden and Co. are right, I fear; the West is weak and doesn't have the stomach for even a slightly difficult fight.

Also known as "civilised".

If that is the price we must pay for world peace, then so be it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


If what you fear is international Salafist terrorist gaining a foothold from which they can operate in Iraq as the great danger of Iraq descending into chaos, then yes, yes it is, cause the neighboring autocracies will be much more effective in killing those they dislike, and AQ is not that popular.

The neighbors will decide whether to intervene depending on the costs of intervention exceed the threat from AQ. AQ is quite capable of offering to refrain from attacks against particular neighbors, in order to lessen that incentive. If AQ has ever attacked Iran, it certainly hasnt done so recently. Iran if it intervened would be more likely to do so to make gains in the south, not to go into the sunni triangle. Jordan and KSA dont have the resources to occupy the Sunni triangle. Turkey and Syria have problems of their own.

If there IS an intervention, its likely to result in far bigger mess, with more negative consequences for US interests, than staying a few more years.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


in the January election Kurds and Shiites voted en masse without a gun being held to their heads.

Currently Sunni arabs are registering in large numbers, with the support of the Sunni Arab parties, in order to gain more power in the future rounds of elections.

Some folks are of course trying to hold guns to their heads to PREVENT them from voting.

Sorry to break it you you LoTM, but elecitons do not a democracy make. Jesus, you still act as if the January elecitons were some grand accomplishment, while the assembly they created with those elections had to give itself a one week extension in order for its mandate not to run out and hosw itself a failure with its one appointed task.

As for Sunni's registering in large numbers, that is what they have to do in order to stop any constitution that includes calls for widespread federalism, since failure of the charter in 3 provinces means the charter is not approved, and Sunni's are a majority in 4 provinces.

Jesus, how can you not want Iran to have nukes if by your obviously low standards Iran is a heaven for democracy?

[Drake Tungsten]

Also known as "civilised".

If that is the price we must pay for world peace, then so be it.

It's sad that someone would actually consider weakness in the face of evil to be a trait of civilized people. A mark of decadent people perhaps, but certainly not civilized ones.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Sava
no way, republicans like dans (more specifically known as chicken-hawks) want others to fight their wars

I wonder if Sava want the govenment to fight criminal activity, and if as a result he is joining the police?

Insurgents having control of one town hardly means failure. I think some of y'all are way too eager to celebrate an American defeat.....

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



The neighbors will decide whether to intervene depending on the costs of intervention exceed the threat from AQ. AQ is quite capable of offering to refrain from attacks against particular neighbors, in order to lessen that incentive. If AQ has ever attacked Iran, it certainly hasnt done so recently. Iran if it intervened would be more likely to do so to make gains in the south, not to go into the sunni triangle. Jordan and KSA dont have the resources to occupy the Sunni triangle. Turkey and Syria have problems of their own.

If there IS an intervention, its likely to result in far bigger mess, with more negative consequences for US interests, than staying a few more years.

AQ is not the issue. If Iraq were to be invaded by neighbors the issues in the table would be the secterian and power balance in the ME, not something as minor and transiatory as AQ.

Turkey has every reason to block and independent Kurdistan, and so do the Syrians and Iranians. What might ver well happen in Iran providing the Shiites the power to crush the sunni and keep them under wraps, and then together with Turkey crush an independent Kurdistan. This would piss off KSA to no end, but I doubt they would be able to do much about it. A real occupation would crush the insurgency, specially once neighbors like Iran and Syria no longer found it in their interests to back insurgents, which they do now because of the US precence.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


I wonder if Sava want the govenment to fight criminal activity, and if as a result he is joining the police?

I don't recall being a major hawk of police policies...

but having said that...

if I were allowed to go around shooting child molestors



a rather pathetic attempt to justify your own chickenhawkery!

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Sorry to break it you you LoTM, but elecitons do not a democracy make.

Sorry to remind you, but YOU were the one who mentioned holding guns to peoples heads and forcing them to vote. If what you MEANT was that its easy to get people to vote, but hard for them to accept the kinds of compromises and attitudes that democracy requires, we could have discussed that. I cant read your mind, and so I respond to the actual content of your posts. Im sorry if you have a problem with that.

Jesus, you still act as if the January elecitons were some grand accomplishment

They were.

, while the assembly they created with those elections had to give itself a one week extension in order for its mandate not to run out

Ive had enough experience with negotiations to know that they sometimes drag out.

and hosw itself a failure with its one appointed task.

Its task was to institute the first elected govt in Iraq, and to move to the next point in the process. It was always know there was a chance of failure, which is why there is a mechanism, specificed in the transitional administrative law, for what to do if a constitution is not reached, or if it loses in the referendum.

As for Sunni's registering in large numbers, that is what they have to do in order to stop any constitution that includes calls for widespread federalism, since failure of the charter in 3 provinces means the charter is not approved, and Sunni's are a majority in 4 provinces.

But they could have had an even larger impact if they had registered in January. At that time the Sunni Arab parties opposed the entire process. Now they are trying to USE the process to get what they want. Thats a big difference. It means either A. They are more confident in the mechanism or B. They despair of stopping it with boycotts.

Jesus, how can you not want Iran to have nukes if by your obviously low standards Iran is a heaven for democracy?

Well first of all, who said I wanted Iraq as currently constituted to have nukes? Second, Iraq is in the first baby steps, only 2 years removed from a totalitarian regime. The Iranian revolution is 25 years on.

[Sandman]

Pointing to April 2004, the worst month of the war, and saying 'we're doing better than then' isn't very convincing, lotm.

Besides, Fallujah wasn't brought under control, it was destroyed.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Sandman
Besides, Fallujah wasn't brought under control, it was destroyed.

"Pacified" please.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Pointing to April 2004, the worst month of the war, and saying 'we're doing better than then' isn't very convincing, lotm.

Besides, Fallujah wasn't brought under control, it was destroyed.

tell that to the people living there now.