The problem is that many of you are believing the notion that the objective is to “install a democracy and yadda yadda” in which case the present policies make no sense. To me it is clear the objective is to build an occupy military bases in Iraq for a long time and that is what the Iraqis are fighting so there is no possible compromise. One side will win and one will lose. The objective is not peace and get out where both sides win. The objective is to remain there which cannot be done without the Iraqis losing. It will be a military defeat, either for the Iraqis or for the USA. There is no other way.
A new team (don’t hold your breath) could make a difference to our capacity for pulling things off. Especially if Iraqis were in charge.
I’m still not convinced that there is all that much need for “us” to be pulling things off. I think Iraqis are great at pulling off their own things.
Although surely there might be many things that Iraqis would ask us to help them pull off.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
… These guys seem to be completely entrenched in their POV. QUOTE]
No doubt about it. GW, Rummy, Wolfie, et al seem to have unlimited faith that there is a military solution to everything. I think using a conventional military force against worldwide terrorism leads to killing the dragon whose teeth then scatter and sprout 10 more dragons/tooth.
It tells me exactly what was said - they want the violence to stop. I don’t think they meant anything more than that.
I’m glad you know a Middle Eastern saying.
We aren’t pushing people to make any choices. Being apart of the transitional authority does not make you completely pro-American. Only shooting at us will make you an enemy.
The people are sitting on the fence, watching for which side will win. The police, army and civil defense units haven’t attacked us, so no, they haven’t switched sides.
Clearly millions? Cite please.
We don’t exactly need their hearts and minds now, just stability, because we’re passing off the country’s decision-making authority. It’s too early to tell whether or not the violence is going to spin out of control.
That’s what I’m saying.
The whole country is not fighting us - maybe 1 percent, and you’re letting them tear down everything we’ve worked for.
I’ve already addressed this above.
It’s still too early to tell.
We haven’t lost militarily yet, but we aren’t exactly doing well, either, if you haven’t noticed.
[/QUOTE]
I need a cite supporting the claim that our military can’t handle it. What I’ve heard is that there’s been a series of cease-fires and negotiations and that if opposition continues to shoot at us, we will kick their ass.
If we leave, we’ll still be bad guys. If we leave, we’ll be considered inept, easy targets. Better to stay and try to change that view when we still can.
It’ll be easier for them? Where did you get that idea? We’ll probably get the trouble stated in my first post in this thread.
You don’t know that.
I think Bremer didn’t teach them enough of a lesson. Like that article that was linked to before, military action should accompany certain political decisions (closing Sadr’s paper). I think there was a wide consensus among the military and the civilian administrators that it was better to go on the offensive than to let those problems fester; they chose the lesser of two evils.
Ouch. That hurt. Really. Could you please play nicely?
I think you fail to appreciate the fact that it’s more than just Americans causing damage and the context the damage is done in. I would appreciate it if you could stop attributing arrogance and stupidity to Americans. I would much rather that you refer to the administration the next time you make those kind of remarks.
Maybe I’m too patient a person, but I think it’s too early to tell.
If we leave, there’ll be civil war. The Iraqis won’t be getting anything done if that happens.
I wouldn’t say permanent military bases is the primary objective. I think what the administration wants to do is to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Japan, which is much more than just a permanent military base, and much better for the world.
It will be a military defeat either for the insurgencies, or the USA. The common Iraqis, unfortunately, will be caught in between. I would much rather prefer a mid-east Japan than another Iran.
I’m mostly with SimonX - that there needs to be some changes with how the administration is being run.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt or to suggest that anybody on this thread had the characteristics I mentioned.
You’re completely right. All of what you say is just what I meant to refer to. Including that bit about context. The combination of all those circumstances in that particular context causes the undesired end results that we are seeing in Iraq. Again, I apologize for my poor formulation.
There’s a lot of daylight between “we want you to stop shooting at Iraqis now” (the IGC’s position) and “we’re gonna go kill the insurgents, and then the violence will stop” which is the US government’s.
You can take or leave its insights as you will.
Exactly. From the perspective of those we’re shooting at, they’re the ‘us’ being shot at by the Americans, which makes the Americans the enemy. Ditto if the Americans are shooting at your relatives, your friends, your neighbors. But even if you’re a bit more distant, if the furriners are shooting large numbers of your countrymen, it’s definitely a push towards choosing a side.
Many of them, I’m sure. But it isn’t even a balanced ‘on the fence’. Few if any of the fence-sitters are ultimately going to take up arms for us against their own countrymen, but many of them might well wind up taking up arms against us.
Shall I start listing the cities that are resisting us? The Sadr City section of Baghdad has 2 million residents, I understand. I won’t assume that all of them are against us, but if half are, there’s a million right there. Suffice it to say that Sadr City is the core demographic, so to speak, of al-Sadr’s support: it’s a Shi’ite slum. Juan Cole, summarizing wire service reports, yesterday noted that Sadrists continued to contrul Kufa, Najaf, East Baghdad, much of Karbala, and probably a good chunk of Kut. And of course Fallujah is up in arms against us, but the opposition there is Sunni. And there have been major clashes in other cities: Basra, Nasiriyah, Ramadi, the Kadhimiyah sector of Baghdad, Amara, Diwaniyah, Baqubah, al-Anbar province, and even Mosul.
IOW, shit is breaking out all over. How many people do you think it takes to keep all this going, and how many more are on their side, but haven’t yet borne arms against us?
We needed their hearts and minds in order to have stability. If enough of them hate our guts, then there will be no stability. Like now.
Just what constitutes ‘out of control’? If there are a number of cities we daren’t enter, is that ‘out of control’? If there are large sectors of Baghdad we’ve abandoned, is that ‘out of control’? I mean, right now it sure looks to me like it’s out of control, and you’re like the guy at the end of Animal House shouting, “Remain calm! All is well!” while chaos reigns around him.
You think 1% cause this much havoc??
Nope, they did that last week, when we were being real hardasses, or trying to at least.
Which is why the insurgents control Najaf, Kufa, Fallujah, Sadr City, etc. Sure, we’ve requested cease-fires, but what does that mean if we do so while they control things? It means they’re winning.
And sure, we can kick their asses anytime we want. We can turn Iraq into one big radioactive crater if we want. The problem is, we came here to rescue the Iraqi people, not to fight them. And we can only kick ass if we’re willing to accept, um, ‘collateral damage’, i.e. deaths of noncombatants. Which turns more fence-sitters into enemies, and so it goes.
Which is why we can’t fight our way out of this.
Yeah. And that way, Al-Jazeerah TV will show the Arab world all the civilian casualties resulting from our ‘toughness’.
What I said was, it would be easier for them to liberate themselves from us if we just leave. Seems self-evident.
I don’t, I’ll admit it. I’m just going on the Bush track record, which is to only get rid of subordinates if they disagree with you publicly.
If this was the “lesser of two evils”, I’d hate to see the greater one. We would have been really fucked then.
I think that what most people don’t realize is that the “insurgence” is not just a minority group around Baghdad. There are several armed groups in the north and south of Iraq that are roaming around and have not been contianed - some are aligned with Sadr, some aren’t. They have been attacking towns, trying to establish their own law, and attacking industrial sites and the like.
Here is a heartwarming story of life in freedom-enhanced Iraq.
Um, pardon me for butting into your discussion, but this is exactly what is wrong with the situation.
The cease-fires that are happening now is not a straightforward thing. Combining the Islamic holiday that is bringing over a million people to Karbala, the IGC’s opposition to the fighting, the fact that they haven’t been winning as easily as they thought they would, the growing dissenters… well, it isn’t a general amnesty. There are a lot of levels to it.
I’m sure our military can “handle it.” The problem is this - not every problem has a military solution. Sometimes, sending in the military just makes matters that much worse. This is one of those times. Going in to “kick their ass,” as you put it, will not make things better. We’ve been “kicking their ass” for a week, and we’ve killed 400-650 civilians, including over 150 children. All that has gotten us is resentment from the other Iraqis and the international community.
The goal of police work is not to shoot everyone who breaks the law in the face. The goal is to subdue the resistence in the most neutral way possible. What we are doing in Iraq is more LAPD than anything else. A hail of gunfire at anything that moves (in many cases, quite literally). That is NOT good police work. That is NOT how you fight an urban war.
This is America’s other problem in the region; we’re wandering in like cowboys to clean up town. What we have to be very careful in considering is that this is a very, very different culture than we are used to. They don’t respond to violence and atrocities in the same way. They don’t expect the same things out of the military, and the react differently when pressed.
This is where all those stupid people who took humanities courses in college come into play. We may not know log functions by heart, but we damn well know not to show the bottom of our shoes to people, or charge into a mosque wearing boots. For that reason, our policies would allow people to get along with the local population; military policies only piss people off.
The way a military approaches a bunch of baddies inside a holy site is this: If there are baddies in it, it is a valid target. They blow it up. The entire time this is happening, us sociology types are screaming silently at the TV or computer screen. You’re swatting at the gnat in front of your face, but ignoring the tiger that is stalking up behind you.
You have to take shit like their “little sayings” seriously. You have to know how they will react to everything you do. You have to understand their society and customs - or you will always be the foreign invader. I don’t understand why people don’t get that.
"Six months of work is completely gone,’’ said a State Department official working in southern Iraq. "There is nothing to show for it.’’
The above quote explains our feelings more than anything else. WHY did this happen? HOW could this have happened? WHO let this happen? This is… STUPID.
That is a rather sad way of stating it. The people who are not fighting are not sitting on the fence waiting to see who will win - they may be terrified to act on any side, because they think whoever wins will kill them - they may oppose the American presence, but simply are not taking an active role - they may have families or businesses to protect. These people aren’t indifferent opportunity seekers waiting for one side to win. In fact, if any of those people were pro-American, they would be taking action against the rebels - however, even the people we’ve convinced to serve in the new IAF refuse to take action against them.
Do not mistake inaction for indifference.
I know there’s a difference, but I think you can conclude that it’s not a call to war, rather, the opposite. That was my point.
I’ve heard many sayings - American, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, Arab and I’ve learned that they’re pretty much the same in diversity. What I’m saying is that no one is beyond building trust as long as you communicate effectively.
It’s up to them. Once we see pretty much everyone shooting at us we’ll leave.
Only if we let the opposition look like a formidable force for too long.
eek. How do you get this stuff 
You still haven’t provided a cite.
I don’t know. I’m not in a position to know. Are you?
Let me give you my perspective. If I were to fix an analogy upon you it’d be this: You’re in high school and you’ve dropped out because you failed one course. You got too much shit from the teachers, your peers and your parents so you gave up. You didn’t get expelled; the school didn’t think too highly of you, but you weren’t leaving if you had decided to stay.
What’s your estimate in terms of percentage in arms against us.
No, we’re listening to the plea of those who wanted the fighting to stop by the governing council and there’s that holiday.
The faster we get in there, the faster the fighting ends, the less people die.
Fixing Iraq is the only chance we have to prevent the Arab world from homogenizing into one giant anti-American entity. A pro-US and free (they have to go together) Iraq could give birth to another large MENA media outlet. If we leave now - same shit. That TV station will still be a pain. A pro-US and free Iraq can counter that. Leaving now will make the situation the same as leaving later, leaving the same situation behind. We should stay on course.
[/QUOTE]
What I said was, it would be easier for them to liberate themselves from us if we just leave. Seems self-evident.
[/QUOTE]
If you call civil war liberation, ok. If you want another threatening regime in the middle east, ok.
Yup. It’s not as bad as it could be.
I agree, though I do dispute the claim that we’re not doing very well militarily.
We’d have to do it sooner or later.
So what do you propose? We go in there with police cars and give people speeding tickets?
That’s right. They will always be enemies if we leave with a bunch of angry people behind. It is imperative that we salvage the situation, even if that means tough politics for several years. I would rather not have another Iran.
You’ve taken a humanities course. I’m living abroad. I understand you have to be culturally sensitive. I think our military is trying to be culturally sensitive. It’s hard in a war though, don’t you think?
I heard that the closest a holy site has ever been blown up is when they dropped a 500-pound bomb on a wall. Yeah, that’s pretty bad. Good thing they didn’t blow up the mosque.
It’s hard enough to know how people living in the same culture as you react. It’s not as simple as conforming to customs. I bet you can conform to customs right at home and still piss people off, even when you have good intentions. I wonder, though, how much a humanities student knows about how the military juggles cultural sensitivity with security. Enemies are holed up in a mosque. What would you do? Would you let people go in and out freely? Would you leave town? What do you do with the town? Would you let people go in and out freely? Would you leave the country? What do you do with it? Would you let people go in and out freely?
My feeling is this: let’s fix it with those questions in mind.
Yeah, but a meaningless one. Nobody here has claimed the IGC is advocating war on the U.S. My point is that their substantial disagreement with us, given that they depend on us for their legitimacy, tells you how much hope they have that our course of last week (which apparently we’re finally trying to back away from) was the right one.
It kinda depends on what’s happened before, doesn’t it? If you kicked my friend in the teeth the other day, there’s no amount of effective communication you can do to make me trust you for a long time to come.
And if you recall, we’ve killed hundreds of Iraqis in the past ten days, only some of whom had taken up arms against us.
It’s weird when the conservatives start sounding more airy-fairy than liberals used to. But you’ve managed.
You realize that makes no sense at all. But be careful what you ask for.
Well, we tried last week to stop it, by force of arms, from looking like a formidable force. And all we did was make it look more formidable. Next idea?
The Whiskey Bar blog has been invaluable in pulling together a lot of the American coverage this month. For starters, go to his archive and read through the April entries. Juan Cole, a U-Mich history prof with expertise in Middle Eastern studies, has a blog that’s focused strictly on that part of the world. In his LJ, Collounsbury includes a lot of foreign press about Iraq that we never see here.
These incidents have been reported in the press. If there’s one you’re wondering about, I’ll dig up a cite. But I’m not going to provide cites for a whole pile of stuff you should have already heard about if you’re involved in a debate over what happened in Iraq last week.
The obvious answer is, a lot.
Speaking of cites, you mentioned a ‘less than 1%’ figure pertaining to the insurgency. That seems to need a cite too, and it depends on what you mean. I’m sure way fewer than 250K Iraqis have actually taken up arms against the US in the past two weeks. But that’s more than enough, since (just like in any similar movement) they represent an extreme, a tip of the iceberg. For each one of those, there’s likely a much larger number of Iraqis that are cheering them on, and providing aid and comfort. Then you’ve got your fence-sitters. In an environment like that, it doesn’t take a million rifle-toting Iraqis to send us home. A much smaller number will suffice, if they have the support of a goodly chunk of the population.
The history books say about one-third of the American colonials were in favor of the Revolution, and of course a much, much smaller number was bearing arms against the Brits. But we sent them packing. And there wasn’t even a cultural gap there.
Well, the analogy would have to make sense and relate to something.
The IGC’s plea changes the facts on the ground how??
We tried that last week. Worked really well.
We’ve done a good job on that already. I doubt that last week helped much.
You know, we can’t make a free Iraq be pro-US, even though that seems to be the neoPygmalicons’ wet dream. If they’re free, we don’t get to make their decisions.
And remember which one of us was stressing the importance of not losing Iraqi hearts and minds, and which one was pooh-poohing the importance of doing so.
Ah, it’s all about television. Okay. So we should have Iraq spout our propaganda to the Middle East, rather than do it ourselves.
That’s a pretty weak justification for a war and occupation.
I don’t think it’s okay; I just don’t see that our presence is leading to anything better any longer.
So? It never will be, until the heat death of the Universe arrives.
I know the following were not addressed to me, but since I’m here:
If this were April 12, 2003, we’d be doing quite well militarily: no Saddam, no WMDs, and many of the cities are pacified.
The trouble is, it’s a year later. Instead of a situation where the only people dead set against us are a handful of Sunnis who know they’re going to lose out in an Iraq that’s no longer Sunni-dominated, we’ve managed to piss off a good chunk of the Shi’ite majority too. And they’ve managed to isolate us, because it’s dangerous for Iraqis to do business with us. We’re vulnerable, and they know it. We know we can’t count on any friends, and we’ve got a lot more enemies than we thought we did. Yet we’re here to help them, but increasingly we’re fighting them, lashing out at the larger population when we can’t find those who killed the Blackwaters.
This sorta thing may play well on Fox, or on right-wing radio, but it’s a pretty dumb thing to say here.
Like it or not, this is (or was; the game may be over now) about hearts and minds. If you can’t go after the actual criminals, you can’t just shoot whoever is close. The Germans did that in WWI, even, when the locals were uncooperative. For some reason, that didn’t make the locals more cooperative. If you can’t round up the actual transgressors, you’re just SOL. Unless you want to be at war with the locals. If we are, it ends our justification for being there.
Neither would I, but it’s not really our right to stay until they like us. It’s their country.
That it has once again become a war is the problem. It was a war a little over a year ago; we were fighting Saddam’s army. That army is gone. If it’s a war now, who are we fighting?
We were occupying and policing Iraq. Now that we turned it into a war last week, exactly how do we go back? There’s no returning to the status quo ante; people remember.
Hence the need for cultural sensitivity. Apparently Muslims regard the entire enclosure as ‘the mosque’, not just the building; worshippers don’t always all fit in the building. The key thing for us here is not how we make the distinctions, but how they do - in Iraq itself, and throughout the Arab world.
The best way to have juggled sensitivity and security was to not invade Iraq in the first place; that way, our soldiers wouldn’t have Iraqis trying to blow them up.
But we went in allegedly to help them. If our goal is their well-being, our soldiers’ security will ultimately be dependent on their seeing their interests being furthered by our presence. IOW, winning the hearts and minds. Ultimately, we need a lot of people who are glad we came, and practically all the rest willing to grit their teeth and tolerate us for awhile. It doesn’t take a large minority hating us enough to bear arms against us to make things untenable.
Depends. Whose enemies are they? If they’re not the enemies of the other locals, but they’re our enemies, it’s obviously different from what you do with a group of people who are terrorizing the locals. At any rate, you’ve got your goals - to help these people - and if you shoot people you’re trying to help when it’s not exactly necessary, you’re no longer trying to do what you said you’re trying to do. Your credibility disappears, and your chances for success with it.
Link:
Who knows what the true counts are, but as long as Iraqis think we’ve been killing civilians, we can’t exactly reverse the damage that’s been done. People who hate us will still hate us; we can’t win them back in the sort of timeframe we’ve got. We’ll find out whether there is still a critical mass of Iraqis who are willing to work with us. But I suspect we might do better by turning power over to our ‘enemies’ on June 30.
If we last that long. The linked article mentions something that kinda leaked out last week without being officially announced: we’re having problems keeping our supply lines open.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt is one of the biggest assholes I’ve ever seen. For instance, he actually had the cajones to utter this:
Cite?
I know you think everyone who disagrees with you is a dirty liar and it is all peechy keen to slaughter people if you call them all insurgents and all, but seriously.
In context, the quote makes a bit more sense. Kimmitt is just warning against swallowing up the anti-American propaganda that spews out of Al Arabia (and company), that the weak of mind tend to lap up. As to the rest of your crap, you have been shown to lie, so I really don’t see what you could be complaining about.
Hey, doesn’t matter who films and shows the Americans killing women and children- they still did it.
Shouldn’t you be waving a flag over a pile of dead “insurgent” kiddies and their mommies?
Yeah, do you have a link to where you retrieved this quote?
Wow!!! What debating skill!!
:rolleyes:
I believe he already did that. Here it is again.
Thanks.
I saw that after I posted.
Here’s an article on the aftermath of Fallujah and how it might be expected to affect Iraqi attitudes about the occupation.
This is why the naivete of skarf’s notion that we can simply better communicate with the Iraqis to regain their trust stuns me. How can better communication possibly undo the damage done?