No, I said people.
You’d better start over; I can’t tell where you’re talking about Muthanna, and where you’re talking about some area in Baghdad that you haven’t specified, AFAICT.
Well, now! If only one-fourth of Iraq is fucked, then that means that three-fourths of Iraq is, uh…
Sand!
And hummus!
Or something.
Well heck, if significant amounts of violence against innocent Iraqis are acceptable as long as the government’s firmly in control, then why didn’t we just keep Saddam? He was firmly in control, he kept the government and infrastructure at least minimally functional, and most of the time he tortured and killed a lot fewer people than are being tortured and killed now.
I have always respected the position of war supporters that it was necessary on humanitarian grounds to get rid of Saddam, even if I disagreed with them about the legitimacy or feasibility of successfully imposing regime change through invasion. But the more excuses I see from war supporters about how current levels of conflict and Iraqi suffering are “irrelevant” or “inevitable”, the less respect I have for their alleged humanitarian justifications for the war.
Ryan_Liam, you can rationalize with the best of them. It’s apparent to just about everyone else – including America’s point man in Iraq – that things in Iraq are abysmal, with a fair chance of getting worse. If, three years after removing Saddam, the Americans can’t even keep the lights on in Baghdad, how on earth do we think we can make broad societal and political changes to make Iraq a functioning society?
As I’ve said before, I’m regularly struck by the broad disconnect between the “spreading democracy” justification (“we’re bringing freedom and prosperity to the poor oppressed Iraqi people”) and the “flypaper” justification (“we’re making the country a shithole to attract terrorists so we can fight them there instead of here”), and that it somehow does not cause the war’s defenders physical pain to manage to cram these two beliefs into their skull at the same time.
I’m not stating Iraq should of have kept Saddam, I’m just stating that in countries with sectarian strife, there can still be a government with control over the country, and an ability to limit the violence they can carry out, I don’t know where that comes in with a justification with such violence, only that it’s expected since Iraq is witnessing it. Besides, when the US leaves Iraq, the sectarianism will be still there, the only difference is the way in which we’re able to build up a government with the ability to counter such violence and be still left standing after we’re gone. That’s what I’m getting at. And if the Government of Iraq succeeds in not collapsing, or giving way to insurgent/sectarian violence, then the insurgents have lost, regardless of how many people they kill.
We set the foundations onto which they can steer the country into a democracy and representative country, it’s upto Iraqis in the political sense to keep momentum, all we can do is support them.
Well alright then, given the population of Iraq, and given the amount of influence and power the government exercises over those people, what percentage do you reckon it is counter to the militias and insurgents?
Paragraph 19: "Staff members say they daily assess how to move safely in public. Often, if they must travel outside their own neighborhoods, they adopt the clothing, language, and traits of the area. In Jadriya, for example, one needs to conform to the SCIRI/Badr ethic; in Yusufiya, a strict Sunni conservative dress code has taken hold. Adhamiya and Salihiya, controlled by the secular Ministry of Defense, are not conservative. Moving inconspicuously in Sadr City requires Shiite conservative dress and a particular lingo. Once-upscale Mansur district, near the Green Zone, according to one employee, was an “unrecognizable ghost town.” (My hand transcription from PDF; apologies for any typos.)
http://billroggio.com/flashplayer.php?media=anbarcampaign&w=800&h=600
Well of course, it will all boil down to Iraqi government ability to curtail violence so that some semblence of normality can return to some sections of the population and then building up from that.
Or that combine that with the fact that many in Iraq see that joining the security forces will eventually help stabilise the country, but let’s ignore that, no one in Iraq has a sense of patriotism or a willingness to defend their country right? :rolleyes:
Yes it does, it’s only being challenged by the various militias and insurgent forces in and around the capital.
Violence not from Kurds, but insurgents intent of heightening the ethnic flare up. As for differing to ‘respects’ to what’s fair, I think it only fair that Kurds have Kirkuk handed back to them.
I suppose I agree with you, even to the extent that I now think it is obvious it was a bad idea to attempt to remove Saddam in the way it was done (ie. US and UK invasion, poor follow-up, mismanaged restructuring etc.). Up until now I had been questioning whether it was better for the population of Iraq to be scared of torture chambers, or of electricity shortages, no hospitals, and insurgent attacks. It now seems that the population of Iraq is now scared of both, and things are going to get worse.
However, given that, what is the next move? Would withdrawl of American troops make a difference? Have they, as the OP seems to suggest, now become part of the problem, not the solution?
To the contrary, there are many such people in Iraq. We call most of them “insurgents.”
I’m not sure I even understand the question. I find this true with your comments a lot lately. Could you really concentrate on writing intelligibly?
Your point being??
Seriously, since this is a followup to another of your incoherent comments, I asked you to start over. And that’s what I meant; I’m not going to trace back through our exchange to figure out what exactly you’re trying to rebut here.
Folks, you’ve gotta see this!
Apparently Rian_Lyam’s ‘cite’ that the insurgents have been driven out of Anbar is a flash-animation map on a site called billroggio.com.
It’s really kinda cute. Everybody should watch it.
And if they don’t have that ability?
This is another of your presumptuous assumptions. If more Iraqis join the security forces, will that eventually help stabilize the country? You simply assert that, as if saying it made it true.
I won’t even get into the issue of the 227,000 quality Iraqi forces that they already have, that haven’t been able to quell the violence.
That’s spin; you’ve got no new facts.
More stuff from the cable:
Seems the mysterious groups in the neighborhoods aren’t challenging the government in any meaningful sense; they’re terrorizing the people who live the neighborhoods. The government is seemingly unable to stop them.
Yeah, the Kurds are just politely and unthreateningly inviting Arabs to leave Kirkuk. And the Arabs in question, despite having no homes elsewhere, are leaving Kirkuk for no other reason than because the Kurds are asking so politely that they can’t say no.
Off topic I know, but what’s the theme music for that animation?
It puts me in mind of Kelly’s Heroes, an excellent movie btw, but that can’t be right, can it?
No idea, but if it doesn’t make you want to masturbate furiously, you’re not a True American.
That’s strange I thought it was ‘the valid elected government of Iraq’
Given the population of Iraq, give me a percentage of how much the Iraqi government has influence over them as opposed to the militias and insurgents.
A control of an area by a certain group gives you the example of what would follow if they controlled the country. Since the minstry of Defence controlled said areas, it gives you an example of how the Government would run Baghdad if properly secured.
:rolleyes:
Missing the point once again, the insurgency in Iraq lost much of the battlespace it owned in the Anbar province due to an increased Iraqi Army and MNF force projection into the area. Adding to the fact that the former head of Al Queda stated that most of his operations would be centred on Baghdad, it’s one of the reasons as to why the Capital is suffering extraordinary amounts of violence.
Then it fucks up, then I’m wrong, and you can be happy, but I don’t see that situation coming.
No I don’t, putting words into my mouth won’t help. We all know Iraqis joining the armed forces need large amounts of training, which takes time and energy to accomplish, there’s also the need to follow up on this with adequate weapons and supplies readily available for them to fight to the best of their abilities. All in which after 3 years, will take some time before it becomes a viable independent force which doesn’t need MNF help.
That’s because of the issues of leadership and weapons, a soldier is only as good as the commanding officer leading them, not to mention good supply and ability to project force into troubled areas. Yet the Iraqi Army is able to field upto 111 divisions into counter terrorism operations, of which 63 are able to take the lead.
Other than the fact 70,000 Iraqi troops, police forces backed up by MNF forces set up in the Capital?
Because the people in those neighbourhoods are the ones who’ll eventually decide whether or not to rally around the government they elected. I don’t think the Government is ‘seemingly unable’ to stop them since they’re carrying out countless counter terrorism operations throughout the country every day.
In counter insurgency, the decision comes to whether to focus intelligence on serious challenges to the government, and ignore localised terrorism in neighbourhoods for the time being whilst this is being dealt with, or to concerntrate force projection into those neighbourhoods, knowing full well that without accurate intelligence, you can anger the population further with random arrests and attacks.
Now that you mention it.
Serious abuses of this type committed by Kurdish forces and armed Kurdish civilians diminished significantly as U.S. forces consolidated control over Kirkuk and began acting against Kurdish abuses. It is also likely that the Kurdish leadership itself acted against the abuses, fearing an international outcry.123 When Human Rights Watch revisited Arab neighborhoods in Kirkuk in mid-June 2003, the Arab residents claimed that the situation had stabilized and that they were no longer receiving threats to abandon their homes. Many were, however, considering selling their homes, as explained by one resident: “Now, the situation is good but we are cautious. So many families are selling their homes and moving to their original areas. For the past months, our situation has been very unstable—there is no transitional government formed, there is no law, and we don’t know what will happen to us.”124
The abuses committed by armed Kurdish elements, while inexcusable, were of a limited nature and it is unclear whether they were formally sanctioned by Kurdish leaders. The fact that only a limited number of killings and other abuses were reported strongly suggests that the Kurdish leadership—probably under pressure from their American allies—took strong steps to prevent wider abuses by their forces. However, it is clear that Kurdish leaders are under tremendous pressure to rectify the historic injustices faced by their supporters, and may not be able to control indefinitely the demands for redress by their supporters.
Strangely enough, the insurgents (those who actually come from Iraq) also seem to think of themselves as patriots, defending their country. You know, defending it from a foreign occupying force. Like the French Resistance, or the Mujahedin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Thinking and actually being are not one in the same thing. The Iraqi Government is the legitimate representative of the people of Iraq, it was duly elected by the people it governs. Neither the Afghan Parchams or the Vichy Government were elected, nor were they represenative. So using michael moore-esque comments of them being ‘minutemen’ is laughable.
But that doesn’t prove they’re not representative, only that they aren’t representative of a majority of the population. Since when is patriotism only a factor of the majority? I don’t believe you could deny they have the support of a significant amount of the population; they at the least have support from their own group and groups such as theirs.
Thinking about it further, you can’t even say they don’t have the support of the majority. Voting for elected officials and support for terrorist/freedom fighter groups aren’t mutually exclusive.
Well because you’ll be implying the 80% of the people who voted in 2005 for the Iraqi National Assembly for parties their leaders endorsed as ‘traitors’ to their own coutry?
Terrorising a population so that they cannot effectively counter their actions without being killed for it doesn’t = support. Sure some sections of the populace support their actions, but the majority doesn’t support attacks against Iraqi government targets.
Of course they are not, but then that would be co-opting the groups to give up their guns for the political process, a process which the MNF and Iraqi exiles/elected groups within Iraq created.
Could you walk me through that thought process please?
What about foreign targets?
Again, could you explain this, please? Sorry, i’m just not understanding what you’re saying here.
I’ll believe the new Iraq government is not a Coalition puppet when it votes to repudiate some of the sweetheart contracts granted to U.S. and British corporations by the CPA, and makes it stick.