Study: Iraqi security forces not ready

[East Street Trader]

The implication is that the Iraqi army is not sectarian.

Which, if true, amazes me.

I wonder how on earth that has been achieved?

The more practical question is to whom does it owe allegiance?

For now, I guess, the answer must be to whomsoever it is among the US occupiers that direct it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
The implication is that the Iraqi army is not sectarian.

Which, if true, amazes me.

Why? After all, a non-sectarian military is what brought Saddam to power in the first place.

I'd find the irony of Iraq eventually being stabilized by non-sectarian military rule -- and no doubt repressive rule, headed by a meglomanaical strongman -- delicious, if it weren't for the thousands of lives and billions of dollars we would have wasted getting back to Square One.

[Chemical Ollie]

- I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, oil and tears. This is the beginning of the beginning.

[East Street Trader]

Saddam rose to power through the Baath party not the army.

Before him King Faisal was deposed by a group of non Baathist army officers led by General Qassim. But they only lasted three or four years before Baathist army officers tortured and killed Qassim - an event broadcast on Iraqi TV.

That is not suggestive of a non sectarian military.

Subsequently twenty to thirty years of Baath party rule has exacerbated sectarian and tribal divisions rather than bringing people together.

My expectation is that a soldier in the Iraqi army would owe his first loyalty to his tribal leader and his secondary loyalty to the larger groupings of Sunni, Shi'ite or Kurd.

[Patroklos]

Army units will always be less sectarian because they are by their very nature seperated from the ties that forment sectarian loyalty. Then chances of you operating in an area you have any connection to in the Army is small. Police forces are by their nature local operations.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
It wouldn't be so bad if our presents was just attracting terrorists. Our presents is actually creating them.

Please explain this. I have heard this statement a lot, but don't understand it. To me this is like saying we should just let people get away with whatever they want because if we fight them they'll fight back.

[Arrian]

It's pretty simple. We invade an Arab country and occupy it. That alone provides all sorts of propoganda opportunities to organizations like A-Q. It helps them recruit.

That doesn't, in and of itself, mean that we shouldn't have gone in. There were several other much better reasons to avoid this mess.

Some predicted 100,000 coalition deaths and even defeat at the hands of the world's 4th largest army. The invasion went great.

Yeah, and you were cheerleading the invasion and posting "dancing in the streets!" threads and spitting venom at anyone who cautioned that the real challenge was the aftermath. So your prediction skills are roughly the same as those 100k casaulty folks.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Saddam rose to power through the Baath party not the army.

Before him King Faisal was deposed by a group of non Baathist army officers led by General Qassim. But they only lasted three or four years before Baathist army officers tortured and killed Qassim - an event broadcast on Iraqi TV.

That is not suggestive of a non sectarian military.

It's not suggestive of a sectarian military either. I don't think the King and the General were desposed of because of their sectarian loyalty, rather their alliances and politics.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


Please explain this. I have heard this statement a lot, but don't understand it. To me this is like saying we should just let people get away with whatever they want because if we fight them they'll fight back.

Most Americans don't consider inaction an option.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


Please explain this. I have heard this statement a lot, but don't understand it.

When a country is invaded, many of its people resent it, Shrapnel.

You are a patriot. Imagine how you will feel if the USA is invaded during your lifetime.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Subsequently twenty to thirty years of Baath party rule has exacerbated sectarian and tribal divisions rather than bringing people together.

And yet the Baath Party itself was non-sectarian, as was Saddam's military; that was really my only point. Non-sectarian doesn't necessarily mean unifying.

My sense right now is that Iraq is a scramble for power first, a game of tribal loyaties second. Tribal loyalty serves the struggle for power, since the tribe is a base from which to seek power. But the military is an even better base from which to seek power, making tribal loyalty irrelevent. And that, I suspect, is what non-sectarian means in this context.

My sense remains that the restoration of order is Iraq is going to happen under a dictator who greatly resembles Saddam -- in world view, in tactics, and in ruthlessness. And, since he'll be sitting on a boatload of oil as well as on Iran's border, we'll eventually be the ones to arm him.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Lancer]

Imagine if the Brits burned Washington again, wouldn't that be upsetting.

[Patroklos]

And yet the Baath Party itself was non-sectarian, as was Saddam's military; that was really my only point. Non-sectarian doesn't necessarily mean unifying.

The Republican Guard, that bastion of equal oportunity

[East Street Trader]

I believe the Baath party believes that each arab state is simply a province of the greater arab whole; is secular; and was originally socialist. It originated in Syria and is the largest party there.

In Iraq I think it came to be dominated by Sunnis.

Anyway I agree that the emergence of a strong man - which necessarily means a brutal man - is a very likely way for the current power vacuum to be filled. Also that gaining the allegiance of the army (or a significant portion of the army) would be an excellent route for a candidate to take.

Fragmentation - into a Sunni mini state, a Shi'ite mini state and a Kurdish mini state - might be another possibility. Except that it is hard to see Iran and Turkey failing to do something violent at some point during a fragmentation.

Annexation by Iran is another possibility. Although it is hard to see the USA sitting for that.

Easy to see why a US politician might perpetuate the present situation (at whatever cost to the USA and to Iraq) and throw dust in the air by talking about terrorists.

[Shrapnel12]

It's pretty simple. We invade an Arab country and occupy it. That alone provides all sorts of propoganda opportunities to organizations like A-Q. It helps them recruit.

See that's my problem with the previously made statement. People think that the terrorists wouldn't hate us if we didn't invade Iraq. They're full of it. Al-Queda doesn't really need to use propaganda to get other radicals to want to kill us. And to clarify, we are talking terrorists, not just people rising up because we invaded their country. That's not terrorism unless they are kidnapping citizens and lopping their heads off, or killing their own people in markets and such (I'd like to believe that not all insurgents do that but I could be wrong).