Iraq rocket fire 'falls sharply'

[Berzerker]

I guess the question becomes: have the ethnic cleansers won or have we?

[Winston]

It's going to be another Switzerland!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CrONoS

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E23A78E5-0B4B-4BE6-B8F4-5BCB7A1C93B9.htm

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=280108621532510

Propaganda or reality?

I wish this is reality for the Iraqi's, the world and the american army.

Propaganda. Deaths have fallen from 1100 a month to 700 a month. Hard;y a 90% reduction in violence. Since the main goal of most of the violence in Baghdad was to convert mixed areas into either solidly Shia or solidly Sunni, and that by and large that has been accomplished, the sectarians won the battle of Baghdad. There's no reason to continue fighting there.

Meanwhile, in order to buy ourselves some peace from the Sunnis, we're arming them for the civil that will occur later. Al Qaeda in Iraq, the tiny, 10% of the insurgency that was all we ever heard about, overplayed its hand and pissed off its Sunni allies, trying to start ordering them around. So they got their asses handed to them by their former allies.

The M$M calls it victory.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Since the main goal of most of the violence in Baghdad was to convert mixed areas into either solidly Shia or solidly Sunni,

You know for a fact what the goal was? I think the goal of AQ was to bring down the govt, and of the Mahdi army to give them dominance in the govt. AQ failed dismally, and the situation wrt to the Mahdi army is complex. The RESULT was to ethnically balkanize Baghdad (to some degree - there are still mixed areas iiuc) that doesnt mean it was the goal.

Meanwhile, in order to buy ourselves some peace from the Sunnis, we're arming them for the civil that will occur later.

Hope springs eternal. Its not at all clear thats what the Sunni factions want, or that it will come. Certainly the Kurds dont want it, and seem to be making compromises in Kirkuk. Its not clear how much the Shiite parties will give up to avoid a civil war - theres also evidence that the Shiite parties are losing popularity, and wouldnt fare so well if a new election were held.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, the tiny, 10% of the insurgency that was all we ever heard about, overplayed its hand and pissed off its Sunni allies, trying to start ordering them around. So they got their asses handed to them by their former allies.

AQ by all accounts has caused a much larger percentage of the key violent acts, including most of the success against US forces, and acts like the destruction of the shrine at Sammarra that triggered the worsening of conditions.

The M $M calls it victory.

Thats hardly been my impression.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The escalation is almost over and soon the troops will begin rotating home. As everyone predicted from the very beginning the guerrilla forces are laying low during the increased military presence and/or attacking areas which have easier targets but they are not pacified and will pop up again as soon as the troop numbers decline. Does this really surprise you? It's classic guerrilla strategy to avoid superior forces and attack weaker targets. This exactly what most people predicted and it is exactly what has happened.

A big concern. Some of the political changes in the Sunni community will hopefully be hard to reverse. One hopes for improvement in Iraqi army forces, but thats been a false hope too many times. And while there have been small signs of political progress the big issues havent been settled.

[lord of the mark]

[Addled Platypus]

maybe they worked the rockets into IED's ???

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Since the main goal of most of the violence in Baghdad was to convert mixed areas into either solidly Shia or solidly Sunni,

You know for a fact what the goal was? I think the goal of AQ was to bring down the govt, and of the Mahdi army to give them dominance in the govt. AQ failed dismally, and the situation wrt to the Mahdi army is complex. The RESULT was to ethnically balkanize Baghdad (to some degree - there are still mixed areas iiuc) that doesnt mean it was the goal.

Given that AQ, at best, accounted for 10% of the insurgents at their height, it's rather irrelevant what they hoped to do. The Shia militias stated aim was to make the mixed areas solidly Shia as much as possible. They succeeded. Sunnis moved out of mixed areas, either to Sunni areas in the capital, to Sunni areas outside the capital, or out of the country altogether. Four million people, or slightly more than seven percent of the population of Iraq, have been displaced. If your goal is separation, that's an unqualified success.

Meanwhile, in order to buy ourselves some peace from the Sunnis, we're arming them for the civil that will occur later.

Hope springs eternal.

They say confession is good for the soul. Kudos on taking that first step. Honestly, LotM, you want this to succeed so badly you only focus on the happy propaganda and tend to largely ignore the messy reality.

Its not at all clear thats what the Sunni factions want, or that it will come. Certainly the Kurds dont want it, and seem to be making compromises in Kirkuk. Its not clear how much the Shiite parties will give up to avoid a civil war - theres also evidence that the Shiite parties are losing popularity, and wouldnt fare so well if a new election were held.

When we speak of Sunnis as a faction in Iraq, it is shorthand for Sunni Arabs. So discussion of what the Kurds want is not germane. What the Kurds want is their own country, with Kirkuk as its capital.

As to what the Shia's are willing to give up to avoid a civil war, well, I think that if they were willing to give up much, we'd have seen some movement in that direction. They have little to fear from a civil war, since they'd almost certainly be the winners.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, the tiny, 10% of the insurgency that was all we ever heard about, overplayed its hand and pissed off its Sunni allies, trying to start ordering them around. So they got their asses handed to them by their former allies.

AQ by all accounts has caused a much larger percentage of the key violent acts, including most of the success against US forces, and acts like the destruction of the shrine at Sammarra that triggered the worsening of conditions.[/q]

You are carefully choosing your words. It's true that AQ has played a key role in destabilizing the country, but the vast majority of those fighting the US weren't AQ. The majority of Iraqis believe that violence against American troops is acceptable in poll after poll.

The much ballyhooed "return" of exiles has more to do with money running out and people being expelled than people voluntarily returning to Baghdad. The numbers aren't vetted, and include people returning to pick up property or relatives, people being extradited, business trips, etc.

There is a slightly lull, but I highly doubt it will be permanent. Given I've been largely correct about the situation over the years while you've been largely wrong about Iraq over the years, I don't hold out any hope that things will go your way.

[Kuciwalker]

When we speak of Sunnis as a faction in Iraq, it is shorthand for Sunni Arabs. So discussion of what the Kurds want is not germane. What the Kurds want is their own country, with Kirkuk as its capital.

You're misreading him; he was speaking of Kurds as distinct from the Sunnis, not as a subgroup.

[lord of the mark]

Given that AQ, at best, accounted for 10% of the insurgents at their height, it's rather irrelevant what they hoped to do.

You keep harping on that figure. Its an estimate of the number of insurgents. As such, its meaningless. What was the US share of troops fighting Japan in 1943, as opposed to KMT China? The fact is that AQ, with its suicide bombers, its dedication, its sheer violence, has been much more important in keep Iraq off balance than the rest of the Sunni insurgents combined.

The Shia militias stated aim was to make the mixed areas solidly Shia as much as possible.

Cite, please. Who speaks for the shiite militias, anyway.

They succeeded. Sunnis moved out of mixed areas, either to Sunni areas in the capital, to Sunni areas outside the capital, or out of the country altogether. Four million people, or slightly more than seven percent of the population of Iraq, have been displaced. If your goal is separation, that's an unqualified success.

However there are still considerable mixed areas.

Meanwhile, in order to buy ourselves some peace from the Sunnis, we're arming them for the civil that will occur later.

Hope springs eternal.

They say confession is good for the soul. Kudos on taking that first step. Honestly, LotM, you want this to succeed so badly you only focus on the happy propaganda and tend to largely ignore the messy reality.

You misread me, as I should have realized you would. Its was a snarky attack on YOUR belief in an an eventual civil war.

Its not at all clear thats what the Sunni factions want, or that it will come. Certainly the Kurds dont want it, and seem to be making compromises in Kirkuk. Its not clear how much the Shiite parties will give up to avoid a civil war - theres also evidence that the Shiite parties are losing popularity, and wouldnt fare so well if a new election were held.

hen we speak of Sunnis as a faction in Iraq, it is shorthand for Sunni Arabs. So discussion of what the Kurds want is not germane. What the Kurds want is their own country, with Kirkuk as its capital.

as kuci saw, you misread me. I was listing Sunnis (implicitly Sunni arabs) Kurds, and shiites, in sequence.

And Ive read that the Kurds have been negotiating fairly fruitfully with Sunni Arabs in Kirkuk.

to what the Shia's are willing to give up to avoid a civil war, well, I think that if they were willing to give up much, we'd have seen some movement in that direction. They have little to fear from a civil war, since they'd almost certainly be the winners.

Not if the Sunnis are stronger now. Also, the Shiites are not united.

Given I've been largely correct about the situation over the years while you've been largely wrong about Iraq over the years, I don't hold out any hope that things will go your way.

I have largely avoided discussing Iraq here, and I have not declared that I think things WILL go well now. In fact my comment on Oerdins post agrees with his concerns. I think I may still correct things that I believe are incorrect. If the difficulties in Iraq mean that any voice that suggests a possibility of a positive outcome is to be automatically silenced, than surely we will not achieve success there.

[CrONoS]

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf

Things look a lot better for Iraqis!!

[CrONoS]

[Kidlicious]

Things are very bad in Afghanistan though. The're going to have to make a surge there. If they pull troops out of Iraq to do that things could get bad there again.

[Darius871]

WTF ever happened to LOTM BTW? I see he still posts at Other Games ATM, but he's AWOL from the OT?

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Things are very bad in Afghanistan though. The're going to have to make a surge there. If they pull troops out of Iraq to do that things could get bad there again.

Which will maybe happen, by using coalition troops au lieu of US troops.

Barack Obama will ask Britain to contribute thousands more troops to Afghanistan if he wins the election, according to a US military official. When Britain pulls its remaining troops out of Iraq next summer it will be requested to contribute to a new 'surge' against the Taliban. Other European allies will also be expected to help more in the post-Bush era.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/sundaypapers,1581,the-first-post-digest