Is it time to pull out of Iraq regardless?

[tagos]

Insurgents targeting and fighting foreign occupiers, particularly those torturing and as the news shows, killing innocent civilians and their own allies just in case there might be a threat (not to mention shelling and bombing cities), are directly comparable with yanks fighting the British or French resistance fighting the Germans and the Quisling govt. Are you saying Iraqi’s have no right to fight back against forces occupying their country and causing such death and destruction? On what basis have they lost that right?

A reasoned answer with logic, not a rant please.

[Debaser]

@elucidator

The suggestion that base motivations, whether real or imaginary, have some relevence to the validity of an argument is the very definition of ad hominem. You could look it up.

I was not using your motivations as a reason to attack the validity of any argument. I was simply calling a spade a spade. You didn’t make an “argument”. You made a couple of wild assumptions about my beliefs that I simply clarified.

While I was at it I questioned your motivations. One can do this and not have it be part of an ad-hominem fallacy, you know.

[Debaser]

Hi Tagos! Thanks for joining in.

Let me get you straight here: Not only are you saying that it’s reasonable and constructive to compare the terrorists in Iraq to the American revolution, but you seem to be actually taking their side against the coalition troops?

[XT]

@tagos

Insurgents targeting and fighting foreign occupiers, particularly those torturing and as the news shows, killing innocent civilians and their own allies just in case there might be a threat (not to mention shelling and bombing cities), are directly comparable with yanks fighting the British or French resistance fighting the Germans and the Quisling govt. Are you saying Iraqi’s have no right to fight back against forces occupying their country and causing such death and destruction? On what basis have they lost that right?

I think he was pretty clear in stating he’s talking about the (not so) recent shift by the 'insurgent’s, a.k.a. glorious freedom fighters similar to our American revolutionaries, to attacking civilian targets…you know, deliberately killing non-combatant men, women and children. Not incidental fire or civilians who just happened to be in the way of a roadside bomb aimed at Americans, but those glorious insurgents who drove car bombs or strapped explosives to themselves and walked into busy markets or a crowded mosque. It takes a brave man to kill a bunch of women and children deliberately in a mass attack ehe?

How exactly is such behavior justified? Because American soldiers raped and tortured, or allowed members of the Iraqi military to do so, that means you can deliberately target women and children? I suppose you could then say that the US/Iraqi soldiers who tortured, murdered and raped were justified…after all, Saddam did it…right? “A reasoned answer with logic, not a rant please.”

-XT

[XT]

Saw this article today talking about the current state of the Iraqi military. Its just a brief article but it goes with the thread:

Watching the ‘live-fire’ exercise by an Iraqi military commando squad, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander charged with training Iraq’s security forces, nodded in approval: “They’re good. These are the guys who are going to get us home.”

The Iraqi units are on the front lines of a U.S. effort to build up Iraq’s fledgling military and police forces so they can operate without American support — the key to enabling Washington to begin sending its soldiers home next year.

Iraq has made progress in building up its security forces, estimated at about 77,000 soldiers and 94,000 police. But the process has been plagued by the challenges of an increasingly intransigent insurgency.

A recently released Pentagon assessment found that only one-third of Iraq’s 100 army battalions are fully capable of operating against insurgents — and those only with U.S. support. Meanwhile, Iraq’s police battalions have suffered from inadequate recruiting and have been susceptible to infiltration by insurgents.

This week, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari surveyed the country’s training efforts, touring Iraq’s military academy for the first time and visiting Iraqi special forces, counterterrorism units and police SWAT teams.

Addressing an auditorium filled with a couple hundred clapping cadets, al-Jaafari acknowledged the huge challenge facing them — security forces are regular targets for insurgent attacks. Underscoring that concern, photographers and television camera operators were not allowed to film the faces of any cadets.

“This war is not a traditional one. It’s a war against terrorism and terrorism may attack in any place — a market, a school, a hospital. … Our sons in the armed forces have to be ready to confront this enemy in all places,” al-Jaafari said.

Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, who accompanied al-Jaafari and Petraeus on the tour, freely admitted the obstacles: “It’s very difficult to fight and establish your army at the same time. Very difficult.”

The country’s army and police forces were disbanded after the April 2003 fall of the former regime, and Iraq has struggled to rebuild its security forces from scratch.

A year ago, it had only two trained army battalions; that has increased to more than 100 battalions today. But their capacity to function without U.S. support remains highly limited — only a handful of battalions are capable of operating against insurgents on their own, according to a recent Pentagon assessment.

Iraqi police units have faced even greater troubles. Infiltration by militants is a clear problem, and recruitment centers and police stations are becoming popular targets for suicide attacks.

Despite the obstacles, Iraqi forces are steadily building their strength, said Petraeus, who is finishing his stint by the end of the summer. He will be replaced by Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who commanded the 1st Armored Division in Iraq.

“There’s been huge progress in the face of a tough fight. But clearly an enormous amount needs to be done,” Petraeus said. “You have to resist the temptation to rush. This takes time.”

At the newly refurbished Iraqi military academy, in the southeastern Baghdad suburb of Rustimiyah, some 300 cadets are being trained as army officers during a one-year course that began in March. Shorter training courses began last September.

Iraqi special forces units and counterterrorism units get even more specialized training. Under the heat of a midday sun, more than a dozen uniformed soldiers crouched outside a dusty compound, waiting to storm it.

Three loud explosions later, the soldiers dragged a screaming terrorist outside as colleagues pull up in armored vehicles — a flawless exercise by rapid reaction forces.

“That was completely Iraqi planned and executed,” said Petraeus. “They can do it on their own. We just need to give them time.”

Iraq’s future security will rest on the success of these troops, al-Jaafari said. “Expediting their training means expediting the withdrawal of U.S. troops.”

Time…thats what we are buying for Iraq. Time to prepare themselves to stand or fall on their own after we leave. If we pull the props out now they will surely fall. If we give them time to get their shit together, they may still fall…but at least they will have a fighting chance. It takes time though to re-constitute an army from scratch, to re-build and re-train it…and thats not even factoring in the constant harrassment from insurgents who are targetting the Iraqi military and police forces. It would be helpful if NATO was more active in helping with the training (they initially promissed more support in assisting in the training of the Iraqi military/police IIRC), but I guess its understandable why they aren’t…no one wants what happened in London to happen to them if they can help it. Still, it means that things take longer than they might otherwise have.

-XT

[RedFury]

Security incidents in Iraq, July 27

• TAJI - Seven Iraqi soldiers were killed north of Baghdad on Tuesday when about 20 insurgents in four cars attacked them with assault rifles, the Ministry of Defence said.

The soldiers were guarding a water pump station in the town of Taji that feeds most of the capital with drinking water. It has been a regular target for saboteurs, causing severe water shortages in Baghdad.

• BAGHDAD - Four U.S soldiers were killed on Tuesday evening when a roadside bomb was detonated near their vehicle in south- western Baghdad, the U.S military said on Wednesday.

• BAGHDAD - Three Iraqi civilians were killed and 37 injured when a mortar round fell onto Baghdad’s main bus station, the Ministry of Interior said. The large ‘Alawi station’ in central Baghdad is usually crowded with travellers during the day.

• BAIJI - Two Iraqi soldiers were killed when gunmen fired on their patrol near the northern Iraqi town of Baiji, security sources said.

• MOSUL - Iraqi police arrested 40 suspected insurgents and confiscated weapons found in western Mosul on Tuesday, the U.S military said in a statement.

• BAGHDAD - The director of communications at Baghdad International Airport, Mahir Yassin, was kidnapped along with two other airport employees in Baghdad’s Mansour district, an Interior Ministry source said. (Reporting by Amer Salman in Tikrit and Mussab Al-Khairalla, Faris al-Mehdawi in Baghdad)

Let’s break then down, shall we?

Four attacks, one kidnapping, four of the incidents on legitimate targets of the resistance.

Apparently, people like you, are only willing to read about the terrorists and/or suicide bombers that carry out indiscriminate acts of murder. What’s not apparent but rather obvious, is that the latter group is but a minor part of the insurgency:

US plans Iraq troop cuts as revolt rages

The insurgents continue to enjoy excellent intelligence that enables them to attack Iraqi security forces and even massacre them at large gatherings. They remain able to kill officials in the new state structure at will around the country.

<snip>

The sources did not dispute Gen Jack Keane, a former deputy chief of staff of the Army, who claimed at a meeting Monday of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that U.S. forces had killed or imprisoned 50,000 insurgents over the past seven months. But they cautioned that this figure included thousands of detained suspects as well as confirmed insurgents and that **the insurgency among the 30 percent or so Sunni Muslim minority in central Iraq continued to enjoy massive popular support and extensive, decentralized organization.

U.S. military analysts believe that only 5 to 10 percent of the insurgents are of foreign origin. And although this number includes most of the suicide bombers**, it does not include the gunmen who continue to operate at will, carrying out assassinations around the country, they said.

“We’re not making forward progress,” he said. “The insurgency has great untapped resources. The insurgency isn’t defeated. It just isn’t so. The overall trend is up.”

There you have it. For all your huffing and puffing, the resistance is hardly limited to “terrorists blowing up children” but rather a largely decentralized group of Iraqi citizens resisting an invading force and their collaborators through rather classical guerrilla warfare means.

Careful though, you keep reading/responding to my posts and you might – gaaasp! – even if inadvertently, learn something other than to parrot Neocon talking points.

It’s called “Reality.” With a capital R.

Enjoy.

[Squink]

This is just more cake-walk talk:

“If the political process continues to go positively and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going, I do believe that we will be able to make some pretty substantial reductions after these elections in the spring and summer of next year,” Gen. George Casey said Wednesday in Baghdad.

[New_Iskander]

@Fear Itself

…unlike you, I have no illusions about the consequences.

Your allusion to my illusion is result of your delusion.

[Fear_Itself]

@New Iskander

Your allusion to my illusion is result of your delusion.

Really? Where in your timeline do you include the Iraq civil war?

[New_Iskander]

@xtisme

If we pull the props out now they will surely fall. If we give them time to get their shit together, they may still fall…but at least they will have a fighting chance.

I think significant reduction of US troops is already in the works for next year. However, I also think US will keep 30 or 40,000 contingent in Iraq for quite a long time. That’s about as many troops as were stationed in West Germany for 40 years to keep Soviets in check

[Debaser]

@RedFury

Four attacks, one kidnapping, four of the incidents on legitimate targets of the resistance.

From your own cite you have terrorists cutting off the water supply to Bagdad. That is going to result in civilian deaths. Is this what you mean by a “legitimate” target? Or did you mean the bus station they were bombing as legitimate? What do you mean by legitimate anyway? The Iraqi government is legitimate. It was elected by the people and is a sovereign nation. Any attacks on it, the US soldiers helping it, or the civilians there is not “legitimate” in my book.

There you have it. For all your huffing and puffing, the resistance is hardly limited to “terrorists blowing up children” but rather a largely decentralized group of Iraqi citizens resisting an invading force and their collaborators through rather classical guerrilla warfare means.

I never said or implied that the “resistance” as you call it is only attacking children. This is an obvious and rather silly straw man for you to construct.

---

Are you a US citizen? I’ll never understand why some Americans, and others around the world can’t seem to figure out who the good guys are in Iraq. Your hatred of the current administration has you twisted around so much that you are actually on the side of ruthless, murdering terrorists who deliberately target civilians in thier desperate struggle to plunge their own country into chaos and lawlessness. It’s pathetic.

[David_Simmons]

@Debaser

@RedFury

Resist an invading force and by some bizarre definition you’ve become a “terrorist, blowing-up children.” No guerrilla methodology distinctions required nor necessary.

I’m not accusing them of blowing up children because they are resisting an invading force. I’m accusing them of blowing up children because, well, they are blowing up children!

Dozens of them in the last two weeks alone.

cite

How many children did George Washington’s army deliberately blow up per week during the revolution?

Hey guys, this could be a sensitive subject with some of us who have participated in the deliberate destruction of cities that were known to contain mainly women, children and the elderly.

[XT]

@David Simmons

Hey guys, this could be a sensitive subject with some of us who have participated in the deliberate destruction of cities that were known to contain mainly women, children and the elderly.

Did you deliberately targets women, children and the elderly? Are you talking about WWII by any chance?

-XT

[David_Simmons]

@xtisme

Did you deliberately targets women, children and the elderly? Are you talking about WWII by any chance?

-XT

I don’t want to hijack this, but yes. Cities were deliberately attacked, as cities. cite

From the cite: “Charles Portal of the British Air Staff argued for a change of policy. He advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. When Air Marshall Arthur Harris became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted”

“By the end of 1944 the Allies had obtained complete air supremacy over Germany and could destroy targets at will. On 3rd February, 1,000 bombers of the United States Army Air Force killed an estimated 25,000 people in Berlin.”

I’m not in any way equating this to blowing up a bomb where US troops were handing out candy to children. However, in both Europe and Japan (B-29 night incendiary raids on cities) cities were deliberately attacked for the purpose of destroying the city and those in it. And it was pretty well known that the population in the cities was civilian with a ow percentage of eligibles.

It just seems to turn out that once you are engaged in a war you do whatever you think you must. As demonstrated by US troops in Iraq shooting first and asking questions later and seldom, if ever, having to defend such measures.

[David_Simmons]

@David Simmons

And it was pretty well known that the population in the cities was civilian with a ow percentage of eligibles.

I’ll swear that sentence ended as “… a low percentage of military eligibles.” when I sent it. The hamsters are getting sophisticated.

[The_Highwayman]

@xtisme

Time…thats what we are buying for Iraq. Time to prepare themselves to stand or fall on their own after we leave. If we pull the props out now they will surely fall. If we give them time to get their shit together, they may still fall…but at least they will have a fighting chance. It takes time though to re-constitute an army from scratch, to re-build and re-train it…and thats not even factoring in the constant harrassment from insurgents who are targetting the Iraqi military and police forces. It would be helpful if NATO was more active in helping with the training (they initially promissed more support in assisting in the training of the Iraqi military/police IIRC), but I guess its understandable why they aren’t…no one wants what happened in London to happen to them if they can help it. Still, it means that things take longer than they might otherwise have.-XT

You assume an awful lot in spouting this oh so typical bullshit. First you assume that these forces are loyal to the Iraqi government as it now stands and not to some Shi’a or other partisan ideology. You assume that all the the members of the force are actually dedicated to the to purpose defending a democracy and their ranks are not infiltrated by the insurgents, which anyone with half a brain knows they are.

Let me tell you what I think is going to happen once we leave. There are going to be better terrorists and stronger armies in the Middle East who may or may not be allied with us. The most idiotic thing that we could possible do is to teach our enemies modern warfare techniques. Middle Eastern armies, in modern times, have lacked these skills and the disipline in a fight to be effective. Why would we teach them this? Do you think for one minute that some of the Iraqi Shi’a who have been thus instructed won’t act as force multipliers in places like Iran? Do you think that Sunni will not disperse across the Middle East to places like Syria selling their skill to the highest bidder? If I was Israel, I would be pissing my pants right about now.

Once we leave, the best we could hope for is a partition of the country and a long draw out engagement between the Sunni and Shi’a worlds, with Iran on one side and Saudi Arabia and Syria on the other. This MAY occupy these countries and the terrorists for, I would hope, a long time. The morality of this is very harsh when one thinks of the amount of civilians will be killed.

The downside of our pullout would be a civil war and a insurgent/terrorist friendly regime rising to the top. Their next target would be Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia would then be forced to raise the price of oil in order to combat this new threat. The price of oil, as we have learned, is greatly linked to our economy. Now depending on the size of the problem, we might be headed for economic catastrophe.

You want to win this war? End our dependency on oil from the region. That’s somewhat hard when you have oilmen and women running the government. This is a huge mess that is going to haunt us for years and years. Our president has not made us stronger but has made us weaker. Our pullout will be seen as a lose. Our credibility in the world is damaged. Our dependence on oil has not abated. The terrorists are stronger and more determined. How the fuck has George W. Bush made us safer?

[XT]

@The Highwayman

You assume an awful lot in spouting this oh so typical bullshit. First you assume that these forces are loyal to the Iraqi government as it now stands and not to some Shi’a or other partisan ideology. You assume that all the the members of the force are actually dedicated to the to purpose defending a democracy and their ranks are not infiltrated by the insurgents, which anyone with half a brain knows they are.

Bullshit ehe? You don’t have some cites to back up your own pearls of wisdom by any chance do you? Something to indicate that the reforming Iraqi military is sectarian and will fragment when/if we leave?

As for the rest, did I mention democracy anywhere? I don’t think I did. If you want to point out to me where I did though I’ll gladly retract it. I think (since you asked so nicely) that the Iraqi military will be ‘loyal’ to Iraqi nationalism and to whatever government eventually emerges…sort of like they were before under Saddam (you know those tribal groupings existed then too, right?). If you have data to the contrary trot it out instead of insults or assumptions of my position, m’kay?

My own cite (where was your’s again) made the point that insurgents have certainly infiltrated both the police force and the military btw.

@The Highwayman

Let me tell you what I think is going to happen once we leave. There are going to be better terrorists and stronger armies in the Middle East who may or may not be allied with us. The most idiotic thing that we could possible do is to teach our enemies modern warfare techniques. Middle Eastern armies, in modern times, have lacked these skills and the disipline in a fight to be effective. Why would we teach them this? Do you think for one minute that some of the Iraqi Shi’a who have been thus instructed won’t act as force multipliers in places like Iran? Do you think that Sunni will not disperse across the Middle East to places like Syria selling their skill to the highest bidder? If I was Israel, I would be pissing my pants right about now.

:dubious: You seriously think anything we could teach the Iraqi’s is going to make them into a force that can take on Israel? Or that they will be able to somehow convince the other (hostile) arab nations to suddenly see the light and change to our style tactics?

We aren’t teaching the Iraqi’s better terrorist tactics (I think the terrorists are developing and exporting those on their own, and they have been refining them long before the US invaded Iraq…see Afghanistan) here but our own style of fighting. Thats not exactly going to be useful to the terrorists as if they attempt to fight a stand up set piece battle with ANYONE they will have their asses handed to them…in small bloody fragments. Their style is successful by avoiding large scale engagements.

We taught the Shaws forces everything we knew AND gave them advanced weapons systems…and they still degenerated into trench warfare after we left. The Soviets equiped and trained the Iraqi’s (and the Syrians and Egyptians) with similar results. Speculating for a moment that the US is forced to pull out and the Iraqi’s go Taliban, what makes you think they would be able to either maintain their training and weapons systems after we go OR that they will be able to export our methods to other hostile ME nations? Seems pretty implausable to me.

@The Highwayman

You want to win this war? End our dependency on oil from the region. That’s somewhat hard when you have oilmen and women running the government. This is a huge mess that is going to haunt us for years and years. Our president has not made us stronger but has made us weaker. Our pullout will be seen as a lose. Our credibility in the world is damaged. Our dependence on oil has not abated. The terrorists are stronger and more determined. How the fuck has George W. Bush made us safer?

You are making an awful lot of assumptions about my positions…which seem to all be wrong. I don’t have any desire to ‘win this war’…I just want to avoid a blood bath that I envision will happen if the US pulls out before the Iraqi’s have a fighting chance for SOME kind of cohesion. What their eventual government will turn out to be is anyones guess…my own is probably not a democracy, at least not one of our making. As to the rest your rant is falling on deaf ears I’m afraid…none of that bullshit are close to my own positions and Im’ not attempting to defend any of them. Next time unload your ‘GW Bush fucking sucks’ tape recorded rant on an actual Bush supporter, ok?

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

I just want to avoid a blood bath that I envision will happen if the US pulls out before the Iraqi’s have a fighting chance for SOME kind of cohesion.

Civil war and partition are a certainty, the only question is when and how many Americans will die before it happens. The fate of those poor devils was sealed when we invaded; our’s is not.

[XT]

@Fear Itself

Civil war and partition are a certainty, the only question is when and how many Americans will die before it happens. The fate of those poor devils was sealed when we invaded; our’s is not.

Obviously I disagree. What do you base this ‘certainty’ on btw?

-XT

[RedFury]

@Debaser

From your own cite you have terrorists cutting off the water supply to Baghdad. That is going to result in civilian deaths. Is this what you mean by a “legitimate” target?

Questions first. Do you have any idea what guerrilla warfare entails? Hell, I’ll take that query one step further and ask, do you have any idea what a war requires? Because by the tenor of your replies you seem to have a noble notion of indiscriminate killing that has little or nothing to do with reality.

Answer: again, if you had the slightest of clues about guerrilla tactics, and/or war in general, you wouldn’t be asking such an idiotic question in the first place.

You hit your enemy where you think it is most vulnerable. Period.

Read Mr. Simmons’ comments for further enlightenment on the matter. Or else ask yourself the real meaning behind the much vauted campaign of Shock and Awe. Or flattening Fallujah in order to save it while we’re at it.

Or did you mean the bus station they were bombing as legitimate?

Reading for comprehension doesn’t seem to be your forte, for as is clear to anyone but you, I specifically excluded said incident from the list of legitimate attacks.

What do you mean by legitimate anyway?

The right of resistance to foreign invaders. Duh.

The Iraqi government is legitimate. It was elected by the people and is a sovereign nation.

The Iraqi Government is legitimate in so far as it reflects the Shiite majority in Iraq. Other than that, the “legitimacy” of holding “elections” under the watchful eye of an invading/ruling force is more than enough of a reason to question said results.

But don’t take my word for it, ask the insurgents.

Any attacks on it, the US soldiers helping it, or the civilians there is not “legitimate” in my book.

Bawhahahhaha! Thanx for the laugh. Honest.

My apologies, but that’s downright zany. For what Iraqi gives a shit what you think/feel? Last I read, it’s their country, not yours.

I never said or implied that the “resistance” as you call it is only attacking children. This is an obvious and rather silly straw man for you to construct.

Not my fault you suffer from Alzheimer’s and I don’t.:

The terrorists were running the country before the invasion! They didn’t need to blow everybody up in frustration and rage. It’s now that they are out of power that they are lashing out with attacks

Commiserations.

---

Are you a US citizen?

No, I am not.

I’ll never understand why some Americans, and others around the world can’t seem to figure out who the good guys are in Iraq.

You’ve made your lack of understanding quite obvious throughout this thread. Were I in your place, it’s not something I’d be proud of.

Thankfully, I am not.

Your hatred of the current administration has you twisted around so much that you are actually on the side of ruthless, murdering terrorists who deliberately target civilians in their desperate struggle to plunge their own country into chaos and lawlessness. It’s pathetic.

What’s “pathetic” is your mindless support of a clearly misguided, murderous, and extremely inflamatory foreign policy put in place by your current so-called “leaders.” It is precisely said insane policy that’s plunged Iraq into “chaos and lawlessness.”

Again, enjoy it while you still can.