US arming Sunni dissidents

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Capt B. Phart]
We’re not talking about Iran declaring war on America, then cruising over the border flying flags and tooting trumpets
The idea up-thread was that the US could stand off and do it’s fighting indirectly by arming/supporting Sunni factions :-
[/quote]

No the idea was arming Sunni factions, the US removing involvement was not really a necessary part to it, at least I didn’t think we were arguing from that assumption.

I think that if Iran overstepped it’s borders the two carriers sitting off of their coast would thrash them for a week.

Strategic destabilization. Killing Al Qaeda is the official version, when they know full well these weapons will be used mostly against the Shia. The point is to arm both sides of a civil war to keep both sides weak and avoid letting a dominant victor rise to power in the region. We don’t want any credible Middle-Eastern empires emerging, and for what it’s worth, neither does Europe, China, Russia or India. As far as the Muslims go, the Arabs don’t want a Persian Empire and the Persians don’t want an Arab Empire. One of the reasons it was a good thing that Iraq had a big Shia population is that it kept Iran weak, they would be a lot more powerful if they had that oil rich land.

62

Wolcotts blog brings up the destruction of the bridges and the impact they will have on our operations. This mess was gradually falling apart. Now its decaying rapidly. We have gone increased the bombing again. Why . Aren’t we making great progress.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott

63

[QUOTE=mswas]

I think that if Iran overstepped it’s borders the two carriers sitting off of their coast would thrash them for a week.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but the coalition would be out of Iraq a week later (starting with the UK troops in the main Shia areas) - every Shiite in the region would be trying to kill their troops
Iran is weak in conventional warfare as you point out. The US and coalition are plain useless at asymmetric warfare

Shock and Awe II? The “moderates” in Iran would try hard to avoid that, sure, but the fanatics? - I imagine they’d welcome that with Churchill’s reaction to Peal Harbour “Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful." - they’d have the total support of the Shia population in Iran and Iraq for a long long time

Not that I think any of this is likely
Back to the OP – I wish I could believe the arming of the Sunni group was part of the US finally learning to fight an asymmetric war:- responding flexibly to a local situation with innovative thinking – a cynical temporary alliance is the sort of thing insurgents themselves use all the time effectively
Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised

64

[QUOTE=Capt B. Phart]
Maybe, but the coalition would be out of Iraq a week later (starting with the UK troops in the main Shia areas) - every Shiite in the region would be trying to kill their troops
Iran is weak in conventional warfare as you point out. The US and coalition are plain useless at asymmetric warfare

Shock and Awe II? The “moderates” in Iran would try hard to avoid that, sure, but the fanatics? - I imagine they’d welcome that with Churchill’s reaction to Peal Harbour “Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful." - they’d have the total support of the Shia population in Iran and Iraq for a long long time

Not that I think any of this is likely
[/quote]

Well it would be the end of one of their financial support networks. Sure they’d have more partisan guerillas in the hills, but they wouldn’t have a functional nation-state backing them.

Yeah, I don’t see it as innovative at all. I see it as reverting to cold war tactics when they don’t know what else to do.

65

[QUOTE=mswas]

Yeah, I don’t see it as innovative at all. I see it as reverting to cold war tactics when they don’t know what else to do.
[/QUOTE]

Sadly, I think you’re probably right

It may help win a battle or three - but IIRC the US won every battle in Vietnam and lost the war, France won every battle in Algeria and lost that war
At some point the west needs to find ways of dealing with non nation-state problems that isn’t just the old “bigger gun” solution that worked pretty well against other nation-states

66

[QUOTE=Capt B. Phart]
Sadly, I think you’re probably right

It may help win a battle or three - but IIRC the US won every battle in Vietnam and lost the war, France won every battle in Algeria and lost that war
At some point the west needs to find ways of dealing with non nation-state problems that isn’t just the old “bigger gun” solution that worked pretty well against other nation-states
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.

One of the things I most admire about American culture is the ‘can-do’ attitude. But sometimes you have to understand there are limits. There are some goals no amount of money, charm or brute force can reach. And sometimes it is best to leave well alone.

And sometimes, when you have just a single shot at something, you really have to make it your best shot, not assume ‘Hey, everything will be okay somehow. We’re big, lovable galumphing puppy Americans. How could it not?’

Although in the case of Iraq I can’t help but feel the completely negligent way things were done and the utter incompetence displayed points to intent to create just the sort of Middle East chaos we see now as an act of malignant real-politick exploiting the gullible stupidity of Bush as frontman.

On other days I think - ‘Yes, they really are all that dumb.’

67

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Without being a win/win (there are no win/wins in Iraq), it’s at least a strategy that makes a certain amount of sense in the short term. But it’s unlikely to make any real difference in the long term. And there’s the danger: we begin to think, “Ah, we’ve finally the turned the corner!” when all we’ve done is win a temporary and highly local victory.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t really mean ‘win/win’ in that context. I have no illusions (or delusions for that matter) about the overall or even long term effect…there will be no corner turning from this, though I suppose its possible that it could help somewhat, long term.

What I meant was, if we actually get either some good will OR we get some AQ or other foreign fighter types wacked from this, its a ‘win’ for the US from the perspective that its better than nothing. If we get nothing from this at all its still a ‘win’ in the sense that it shouldn’t overtly hurt us one way or the other (as I said, nothing we are giving them with the exception of the body armor is not something they couldn’t get the equivalent of on their own pretty much anywhere in the region…and in much bigger quantities and availabilities).

[QUOTE=mswas]
xtisme I don’t know that sounds a little too pat to me. While I agree that they will never run out of bullets, some people will and others won’t. Rockets and RPGs are another story. That’s why IEDs are so popular in that part of the world. Being better armed does make a difference. The entire history of the 20th century US foreign policy has been about arming both sides and then having a crisis develop out of the winner, so I remain dubious. All this does is help facilitate the ethnic cleansing that the good Captain illustrated above.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t agree that this helps in the least to facilitate ‘ethnic cleansing’…and I certainly haven’t seen any conclusive evidence myself that it has (or will). Or even any COMPELLING evidence that it will. The weapons are ALREADY available to any group sufficiently organized to go out and get them…hell, for any individual out there who really wants them. The US introducing a few more into the equation is pissing in the sea…especially since we aren’t talking about weapons orders of magnitude more capable (which we aren’t).

As for RPG’s, do you have any evidence that there is some kind of shortage of the things in Iraq??? Because afaik they are still used all the time. IED’s are used heavily because Iraq is awash in explosives (which makes them easy to make for one thing) and because the TACTIC of there use has been effective for the insurgents (its a lot more risky to attack someone directly than to plant a bomb on the side of the road and wait for someone to wander up). However, in just about every insurgent action I’ve read about RPG’s were used…and there seems to be no shortage of the things.

Even if there was (in Iraq), the things are dirt cheap in the ME…and there is no REGIONAL shortage of either those or ammo for any other mass produced Soviet system. And honestly, were I an insurgent? I’d MUCH rather have Soviet made equipment. Its MUCH more reliable in the field. The RPG is so simple a child can literally fire it…and you’d have to work at making an AK NOT fire.

-XT

68

[QUOTE=xtisme]
As for RPG’s, do you have any evidence that there is some kind of shortage of the things in Iraq???
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they were soliciting donations of RPGs for ZigguratCon. What?

69

xtisme More weapons is significant. Ammunition runs out. There isn’t a magical cornucopia of rockets in Iraq. The more often they shoot the faster they run out, until replenished by a foreign power. Those foreign powers selectively choose who they sell weapons to based upon their own interests. So if we don’t give weapons to certain people, those people may not get those weapons. How we disseminate our resupply can and does affect the balance of power. In fact, affecting the balance of power is the entire point of giving them more weapons. If the people we were planning to arm were awash in weapons as you say, then there would be no benefit to giving them weapons, and we wouldn’t, because it costs us money to arm them. Your argument works better as a reason NOT to supply them. “They are already awash in weapons, why waste our effort giving them more?”, but the reality is that not everyone is awash in weapons, some people are and some aren’t. But, even those who are can always benefit from having more weapons.

70

[QUOTE=mswas]
There isn’t a magical cornucopia of rockets in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

What evidence to do you base this on? I’ve seen estimates that there are literally millions of the things in the region. Even if you think that there are 10’s or even hundreds of thousands of insurgents in Iraq ( :dubious: ) there should be plenty for everyone…not even counting the stuff flowing in from, er, other countries. Do you have some kind of cite that there is a shortage of RPG-7 rockets in Iraq?

[QUOTE=mswas]
The more often they shoot the faster they run out, until replenished by a foreign power.
[/QUOTE]

Well, thats true enough, and pretty much makes the point I was making. Anything WE give them is going to be hell to replenish…as they are either going to have to pay through the nose for it on the black market or come BACK to us to get it. I seriously doubt that we will be giving them equivalent stockpiles of ammo as what Saddam managed to squirrel away throughout the country prior to the invasion (cache’s of which we, as opposed to the insurgents, STILL find from time to time). Do you? So…even assuming that the insurgent types do managed to run through all of the ammo in country ( :dubious: ), they can get it cheaper and easier right next door than they can resupply anything WE give them…which we won’t be doing if they are running about doing all that ethnic cleansing stuff.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Those foreign powers selectively choose who they sell weapons to based upon their own interests.
[/QUOTE]

Who cares? EVERYONE sells old Soviet weapons and ammo. I remember reading you could get an RPG-7 in sub-Sahara Africa for like $200…and rockets for something like $25 a piece (US). And an AK-47 (or variant) for less than a hundred dollars (with ammo being literally dirt cheap). You don’t NEED the Iran’s or Syria’s of the world to officially give you stuff when you’ve got arm’s dealers all over the place to sell em to you for rock bottom prices.

[QUOTE=mswas]
How we disseminate our resupply can and does affect the balance of power.
[/QUOTE]

Or its pissing in the ocean as I said earlier. We aren’t talking about giving out weapons and ammo on anywhere close to the same scales as the stuff thats ALREADY THERE! We aren’t giving them the equivalent of a load out for an entire frigging army corp here…or even for a division. We are giving them company level load outs man! The stuff thats THERE is the equivalent of the load out for SEVERAL army corps for gods sake. The frigging Soviets gave this stuff away like it was candy…and there are so many knock offs (like what the Chinese make for example) that you probably can’t throw a rock in Iraq or any other country in the region without hitting a Soviet/Copy weapon.

[QUOTE=mswas]
But, even those who are can always benefit from having more weapons.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, its a benefit…but its a small scale benefit. Look, lets take a step back here. Do you have any kind of cite that you are basing your assertions that either the RPG ammo (or any of the other standard ammo the insurgent types are using) is in any way running out in Iraq? Or that the Sunni (who I’ll remind you were the one’s both in power AND with the most access to the data of where these cache’s of Saddam’s all are) don’t have equivalent access to what the Shi’a do? Because afaik there IS no shortage of weapons OR ammo in Iraq, and the two sides are pretty well equally well equipped for mayhem…and the stuff we are talking about giving some Sunni groups is pretty much a drop in the bucket.

-XT

71

Here’s a very depressing tale from 2004.

Reporter sees insurgents loot depot.

72

[QUOTE=tagos]
Here’s a very depressing tale from 2004.
[/QUOTE]

Depressing? Its pretty fucking scary if you ask me. That aspect of this whole mess has been an absolute cluster fuck. I remember reading a report that there were hidden depots out there (the one in your cite was actually one of the ‘official’ ones) scattered all throughout the desert for everything from rifle and pistol (and RPG of course :)) ammo…to fucking artillery and tank rounds! And gods know what else.

-XT

73

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Depressing? Its pretty fucking scary if you ask me. -XT
[/QUOTE]

I’m British old chap. A report of a looming extinction level asteroid strike would rate as ‘a tad alarming’. :wink:

74

:stuck_out_tongue: Quite.

-XT

75

xtisme, you seem to be saying that the primary benefit of giving the weapons to the Sunni insurgents is generating good will with them, everything else would be icing, and not terribly likely. However, I think we can agree that some of these weapons will eventually be used against us. It may not make much of a military difference and they may have acquired plenty of weapons by other means but I think that it is inevitable we will see some of these bullets head our way.

What will happen in a propaganda and morale sense when the first news reports come out of an American patrol being hit, with several soldiers killed, and they find “Made in America 2007” stamped on the insurgents equipment?

The administration had damn well better hope that none of the moms of those soldiers bears any resemblance to Cindy Sheehan.

76

Scenario: Muktada al Sadr (or some other Shia heavyweight) gets whacked by a Sunni dissident, who is found to be armed with a weapon obtained from Americans. Shia shrug and say “Hey, no biggy, bless their hearts, they mean well…”

77

Actually, this could work to our advantage: we plant explosives in mosques of both sects, and simultaneously detonate the charges. In sending thousands to their reward, they immediately accuse the other side! We sit back, and watch the fireorks-and when its over, we identify the stragglers (and "liquidate’ them). Result; a secular country, with no more fundamentalist crazies!

78

I don’t think that good will factors into this in any way whatsoever. It’s irrelevant. They expect us to arm both sides, it’s the American way, it’s the way we always work in these kinds of situations and most of the rest of the world knows it. It’s only really the odd American that doesn’t seem to know that we sell weapons to anyone and everyone, including our enemies.

xtisme I think you are missing the point entirely. It only takes a single bullet to kill someone. You are making it sound like there is an AK in every pot in Iraq. Certainly there are a lot of weapons in a lot of hands, but if we are giving away weapons then clearly there is a need. The only evidence required about running out of ammo is knowing that once it’s fired it’s depleted, and has to be reloaded, so you have one less rocket.

As for your cites about prices:

  1. $ 25 is a lot for an Iraqi.
  2. AKs I have heard are generally lower in price than 100, significantly. I've heard figures as low as 6.

I don’t really understand your compulsion to blow it off. Whether it’s a drop in the ocean or not, why are we pissing in that ocean? If it’s not needed then why would they even want our weapons? Clearly there is a need that is being fulfilled or there wouldn’t be a transaction occurring.

79

Either I’ve done a worse job of explaining myself or folks just aren’t reading what I wrote.

[QUOTE=flight]
xtisme, you seem to be saying that the primary benefit of giving the weapons to the Sunni insurgents is generating good will with them, everything else would be icing, and not terribly likely. However, I think we can agree that some of these weapons will eventually be used against us. It may not make much of a military difference and they may have acquired plenty of weapons by other means but I think that it is inevitable we will see some of these bullets head our way.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t seem to get what I’m saying at all. No, the ‘primary benefit’ to giving them weapons isn’t the generate good will. The ‘primary benefit’, such as it might be, is IF they use them against AQ insurgents and other foreign fighters. After all, that IS the supposed reason for giving them aid.

However, thats not exactly my point either. My main point is simply that the risk of them turning these weapons against us is ridiculously low…from the perspective of this mattering. Oh, I have no doubt that the possiblility that they will do so (or that the groups we give aid too might bite the hand that feeds them) is high…just that whatever we give them will be a drop in the bucket to what they already have or can easily get. If we get ANY benefits (wacked AQ operatives or foreign fighters, perhaps generate some good will for a change with certain Sunni factions, ect) the small risk is worth it…IMHO.

[QUOTE=flight]
What will happen in a propaganda and morale sense when the first news reports come out of an American patrol being hit, with several soldiers killed, and they find “Made in America 2007” stamped on the insurgents equipment?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it will have as big an impact as you think it will…even if it happens, which I doubt. Oh, as I said, these groups could and probably will turn on us eventually. Its just that the arms and munitions we give them are such a small amount compared to what they have access too that the odds of them using our own weapons against us is…small. And I doubt it will have much propaganda value myself…dead is dead after all, and we’ve certainly been killed with enough weapons stamped ‘Made in the Soviet Union’…and probably some stamped ‘Made in France’ and ‘Made in China’ (and probably other countries I can’t think of off the top of my head).

-XT

80

[QUOTE=mswas]
xtisme I think you are missing the point entirely. It only takes a single bullet to kill someone. You are making it sound like there is an AK in every pot in Iraq. Certainly there are a lot of weapons in a lot of hands, but if we are giving away weapons then clearly there is a need. The only evidence required about running out of ammo is knowing that once it’s fired it’s depleted, and has to be reloaded, so you have one less rocket.
[/QUOTE]

I’m missing the point? :stuck_out_tongue:

So you don’t have any evidence except this ‘logic’? Ok…certainly once you fire a weapon, that bit of ammo is gone. If you only have 10 rockets in your pile then now you only have 9 left. Thats definitely a problem. However, if I have a million rockets and I fire one then I still have 999,999 left…not so much of a problem. In order to make your case you’d need to put forth a cite showing that there were closer to those 10 rockets in Iraq…than the million. Otherwise its pure speculation on your part. And to be honest, from the things I’ve read about the vast cache’s of weapons AND ammo that we’ve found (not to mention the obvious vast one’s we haven’t) I’m not going to buy this argument without without some kind of solid proof.

I don’t think we can draw any conclusions at all from the fact we are giving them weapons and other support…except that from our perspective it ties them to us logistically…at least to some small degree. From their perspective it gives them access to what are probably superior weapons and body armor, and probably more importantly intelligence. But we are talking about small amounts here, not vast resources that could be use, as you put forth, for ethnic cleansing of all Shi’a…or even to make any kind of real, material difference against us either.

Again, the risks are outweighed by the possible benefits. IMHO anyway.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I don’t really understand your compulsion to blow it off. Whether it’s a drop in the ocean or not, why are we pissing in that ocean? If it’s not needed then why would they even want our weapons? Clearly there is a need that is being fulfilled or there wouldn’t be a transaction occurring.
[/QUOTE]

Compulsion?? I have no compulsion to blow it off. Its a tempest in a tea cup. It will make no real difference materially to these folks capabilities wrt us.

Why piss in the ocean? Again, did you READ the OP? WHY are we arming these folks again? Because we want them to fight AQ and other foreign fighters FOR us. The weapons, body armor and (I speculate) more importantly the intelligence we can provide are the carrot we are holding out…the bribe to get them to do what we want them to do.

Seriously…why is this so hard to understand?

-XT