Kissinger says Iraq not winnable

[Ramo]

That point has long since past.

It's relatively genteel at this point. I mean a full-blown civil war.

[Ramo]

And the other Gulf states.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's relatively genteel at this point. I mean a full-blown civil war.

Who do you think was supplying all of our intel when we put the beatdown on Sadr's group the first time? Now we're seeing lots of action in Basra, f.e.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo


Relatively speaking, but it still would be devastating for everyone involved.

I don't know. The war might be "regional", but it would play out in Iraq. IN that sense it could be like the Congo war. None of the other African powers that sent troops into Congo suffered any devastation you can really speak off, though their economies would be threatened by the higher military costs.

While all the neighboring powers would have an incentive to send forces to determine the new Iraq, I fail to see the likelyhood of any major neighbor invading the others, or even launching major attacks. That would place all of them in far greater danger even at home. Ther is a difference between everyone fighting to divy up Iraq or strengthen their friends there and any Arab coolition going into Iran, or Iran trying to invade the gulf states, or Turkey going anywhere other than Kurdistan, so forth. Such as war would without a doubt force foreign powers to come in to secure the oil fields.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


I cross-posted with che (was originally responding to Dan) so it wasn't meant to sound quite that arrogant... But the idea that Kurdistan's going to be safe when all hell breaks loose elsewhere else is an absurd idea.



The Shia gov't has an even stronger patron than Iran right now, and there's no end in sight. Complicating matters is that SCIRI and the Sadrists are probably gonna come to blows at some point.

It's not about "appeasing" the Sunnis, but to come up with a settlement where there isn't, you know, a ****load of violence. That won't happen if the Sunnis are left with a dirt-poor state.

1. No prob. Wondered that after I reread the thread.

2. (first and second para): both have the fallacy of the excluded middle. you think you can prove A, by showing that your opponent has not proven "not A". Seen this from you before. And this situation has middle written all over it. No clear answers, btw.

3. The question is whether we should stay and prevent the violence or leave and allow it to occur. Not an easy question. But not settled either.

[TCO]

Of course, the Shia religion is sacriliigeous. And Sunni is true Islam. Surprised no one has pointed this out as a relevant factor.

[Ramo]

I don't know. The war might be "regional", but it would play out in Iraq. IN that sense it could be like the Congo war. None of the other African powers that sent troops into Congo suffered any devastation you can really speak off, though their economies would be threatened by the higher military costs.

I was thinking more in terms of manpower losses and disruptions to the economy than raids into Tehran. But I do think that the battlefield potentially extends into some of the Gulf states, in terms of Iranian support for proxies particularly in KSA.

Who do you think was supplying all of our intel when we put the beatdown on Sadr's group the first time? Now we're seeing lots of action in Basra, f.e.

You mean April of '04? The SCIRI and the Badr Corp are basically foreign institutions (we imported them from Iran), so it'd suprise me if they deeply penetrated into the Sadrist hierarchy at that point...

2. (first and second para): both have the fallacy of the excluded middle. you think you can prove A, by showing that your opponent has not proven "not A". Seen this from you before. And this situation has middle written all over it. No clear answers, btw.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The simple point here is that a partition would leave Sunni Arabs with basically nothing to lose and every reason to continue the insurgency.

3. The question is whether we should stay and prevent the violence or leave and allow it to occur. Not an easy question. But not settled either.

I didn't address that question...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
I was thinking more in terms of manpower losses and disruptions to the economy than raids into Tehran. But I do think that the battlefield potentially extends into some of the Gulf states, in terms of Iranian support for proxies particularly in KSA.

One thing all states in the ME save Israel have is enough men to thow to the meat grinder.

If things in Iraq escallated the Iranians might try to stir up the Shiites in the gulf states, but only if things were oing badly in the little proxy war.

In terms of foreign powers coming in directly into Iraq, Turkey and Iran acting against the Kurds seems the most likely to me, if only because the Kurds have the strongest militia, while the forces in the rest of the country are weak in comparison, and sending in regular forces there might be too provocative.

[TCO]

Ramo:

1. Excluded middle. Look it up.

2. The point is...to what extent should we exert ourselves to protect the Sunni's. It is not a given that we should protect them.

3. The thing that they would have to lose would be getting their asses kicked. That is probably what is needed to settle things once and for all.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Elok
Still, I'd like to thank Oerdin for finally quoting someone whose opinion is worth caring about in this, his latest political thread. This is a good sign, I think.

As for the thread topic, it's nice to see Kissinger saying what most of the western hemisphere has been thinking for months now.

The Iraq war does involve politics but it is primarially a war so this is a war thread.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
2. The point is...to what extent should we exert ourselves to protect the Sunni's. It is not a given that we should protect them.

Ramo is not talking about protecting the Sunni. He is talking about making sure that none of the three main goups are given a material reason for continuing to fight, which is why he talks about making sure the Sunni middle have access to oil revenue since they have no access to the main oil fields, assuming the Kurds would get their hands on Kirkut.

3. The thing that they would have to lose would be getting their asses kicked. That is probably what is needed to settle things once and for all.

If one side of the Shia/sunni devide getting beaten once actually settled anything, there would be no fighting in Iraq, now would there?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Who wins a war between egypt and iran?

Neither has the force projection ability to fight a real war far from home. Not that Egypt would ever waste its resources on another foreign war. That has been Mubarrak's policy since 1980. He keeps saying Egypt kept spending its money on wars to free Palestine but never got anything for it so now Egyptian money will be used to improve Egypt. It's going slow but at least Egypt isn't getting poorer like some countries.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


Ramo is not talking about protecting the Sunni. He is talking about making sure that none of the three main goups are given a material reason for continuing to fight, which is why he talks about making sure the Sunni middle have access to oil revenue since they have no access to the main oil fields, assuming the Kurds would get their hands on Kirkut.



If one side of the Shia/sunni devide getting beaten once actually settled anything, there would be no fighting in Iraq, now would there?

a. same thing.
b. Why should we exert ourselves (or to what extent should we) for the Sunnis?
c. What makes you think "access to oil" will do anything for the Sunnis? They have access right now in the current situation (as part of Iraq) and they've been busy causing problems. What would make them happy is being back in charge. But tough...they ain't getting that. They are the minority. In a democratic Iraq, they will be ass out. It's kind of irrelevant if they are just minimized in a Shia dominated non-partitioned Iraq or if they are partioned with crap land.
d. I'm not a fan of partition actually. But once we leave, the Shia are going to take off the kid gloves with the Sunnis.

[TCO]

Beating down seems to settle things more then political solutions. But even if it doesn't...well things aren't settled now, are they? Are you proposing more of the status quo? If so, make a clear argument for it. Here are the costs...here are the benefits. THat kind of argument.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
b. Why should we exert ourselves (or to what extent should we) for the Sunnis?

Because we dislike the Iranian Regime more than the Saudi or Egyptian Regimes.

c. What makes you think "access to oil" will do anything for the Sunnis? They have access right now in the current situation (as part of Iraq) and they've been busy causing problems. What would make them happy is being back in charge. But tough...they ain't getting that. They are the minority. In a democratic Iraq, they will be ass out. It's kind of irrelevant if they are just minimized in a Shia dominated non-partitioned Iraq or if they are partioned with crap land.

There is a distinction between being a minority with rights in a state with the abilty to become more prosperous, and having a state with no real economic viability that can then becomes a nice house of anarchy.