US arming Sunni dissidents

[flight]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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]
Let me clarify. You have stated here and above that this might bag some AQ, but we have no guarantees of that. It seems to me that the generation of at least some small amount of good will is inevitable, if perhaps short termed. Thus, I was stating that the guaranteed benefit was the primary one and the potential benefit was secondary. Either way this is beside my point.

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).

I disagree on a few issues here. First I think some weapons will be used against us almost immediately. From what I have seen there is little in the way preventing them from falling into the hands of those who would do us harm, and some of those people would, I guess, relish the chance to use our own weapons against us.

I agree with you that it is not very likely for them to be found on insurgents who just killed some Americans, at least for a while. Firstly, you are right that they will be a very small percentage of the weapons out there, making them a small percentage of the weapons used on us. Secondly, one of the insurgents or terrorists with the that weapon must be killed or captured. Thirdly, there must be someone present who will both recognize where the weapon came from and report that fact at large. I would not expect all of these to come together for a while, and even then for it to take a significant coincidence.

I disagree on the political fallout if this does occur though. Imagine a burglar shoots a homeowner during the burglary. That would make the local news. Suppose, however, that the police had recently instituted a controversial program to give guns to the members of one local gang with the idea that they may take out the really dangerous criminals in the area. Now suppose the same murder-during-a-burglary takes place but the police find that it was one of the guns that they handed out that killed the homeowner. In both cases the homeowner is just as dead, and the burglar would probably have found another gun to use from somewhere, but how different do you think the stories would be represented in the press? What do you think the family of the homeowner would say about the police to the press at every chance they got?

I admit the chance of this coming to pass is not huge, but I sure as hell wouldn’t take the risk.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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?
[/QUOTE]

I might be daft but I fail to see how arming them to fight a foe that they are more ideologically aligned with than they are with us is an effective strategy. I fail to see the logic in arming Sunni terrorists to fight Sunni terrorists. I think these weapons will be turned on Shia, US troops, Christians, Kurds and the occasional Sunni political rival. I doubt there will be some sort of groundswell of support against Al Qaeda if we give them these weapons. Essentially, I see it as giving weapons to Al Qaeda, or at least having a high potential to be giving weapons to Al Qaeda.

Also, our intelligence in the region has been pisspoor that’s one of the reasons we are having so much of a problem. Too many resources dedicated to big guns, not enough to good intel. Certainly firing homosexual Arabic translators did not help that any.

As for proof, there is no way for either of us to know what weapons are there and who has them. Just because there are a lot of weapons that doesn’t mean everyone has them.

I think the logic is flawed at every level.

[XT]

[QUOTE=mswas]
I might be daft but I fail to see how arming them to fight a foe that they are more ideologically aligned with than they are with us is an effective strategy.
[/QUOTE]

No…you aren’t daft. You just have a tenuous grasp of history, as this strategy has been used numerous times in the past (sometimes successfully, sometimes not). In addition, you are making a rather large assumption here…that in fact the Sunni in Iraq are more closely alligned with AQ and ObL, ideologically, than they are with us. Do you perhaps have some kind of cite or some bit of logic that says WHY you think that, just because both groups are nominally ‘Sunni’ that this means they have IDEOLOGICAL common ground? Or do you REALLY think things are that monolithic there? I seem to recall that I’ve already asked this question of you actually…and haven’t gotten a very satisfactory response.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I fail to see the logic in arming Sunni terrorists to fight Sunni terrorists.
[/QUOTE]

Whats so hard to understand here? if the ‘Sunni terrorists’ we are arming are in conflict with the ‘Sunni terrorists’ we want killed, it seems reasonably logical to me that by arming them we facilitate the outcome we are after…i.e. having one group of potential enemies wack what we consider a more threatening group for us (and of course soak up casualties while doing so, potentially killing two birds with one stone). Seems reasonably logical to me.

Again, you have to look at…what are the potential risks. Well, the group of ‘terrorists’ we give the weapons too might just, what? Go back to killing us instead? News flash…they are ALREADY doing that. The level of weapons we are giving them isn’t going to really make them any more effective at doing this than THEY ALREADY ARE! Its not going to motivate them to kill us any more THAN THEY ALREADY ARE!

Assuming for a moment that these guys really are just playing us to get weapons and body armor, and don’t actually have any beef at all with all these foreigners who have ALSO invaded their country, blown up their markets and friends, etc, I have to ask myself…why? Is getting US made weapons (that you won’t be able to logistically support for very long without continued US support…support you won’t be keeping if you start using said weapons against US forces) and body armor (which you could probably get either off dead or captured US or Iraqi forces or even steal from Iraqi armories) REALLY that important? To me THIS seems pretty illogical…whats the point? They are ALREADY killing us after all. So…why bother? I’m not seeing the whole propaganda thingy of killing us with our own weapons as being a motivation. You have been singularly unconvincing, cite wise, of your argument that somehow the Iraqi’s are running out of ammo for their Soviet made weapons. So…why?

[QUOTE=mswas]
Also, our intelligence in the region has been pisspoor that’s one of the reasons we are having so much of a problem. Too many resources dedicated to big guns, not enough to good intel. Certainly firing homosexual Arabic translators did not help that any.
[/QUOTE]

I was watching a show the other day on the History Channel called ‘Killing Pablo’, about the hunt and ultimate killing of a drug lord in Columbia. One of the things they were talking about was how the CIA and NSA was passing on intelligence to paramilitary types in country. This wasn’t intelligence that was firm enough for US to use, mind…but it was great stuff for the paramilitary types. In fact, these guys, while being no fans of the US, were pretty much saying that it made a HUGE difference in the fight.

Now…I’ve already said that its pure speculation on my part that in fact one of the things we would give these folks is intelligence data. I have no cites to back that up…just based on reading and stuff like watching that show on the History Channel (never a solid place for facts :)). However, I think its a fools bet to say that the CIA and NSA (and other intelligence gathering organs) don’t have SOME useful intelligence they could give to groups such as are being talked about in the OP. If you want to think that they have nothing to offer…well, I have nothing to prove you wrong. Think what you like.

[QUOTE=mswas]
As for proof, there is no way for either of us to know what weapons are there and who has them. Just because there are a lot of weapons that doesn’t mean everyone has them.
[/QUOTE]

That wasn’t what I asked you to cite.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I think the logic is flawed at every level.
[/QUOTE]

And it seems pretty solid to me. So there you go. C’est la vie I guess…

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=flight]
I disagree on a few issues here. First I think some weapons will be used against us almost immediately. From what I have seen there is little in the way preventing them from falling into the hands of those who would do us harm, and some of those people would, I guess, relish the chance to use our own weapons against us.
[/QUOTE]

They could always just pick up weapons (and body armor) from fallen or captured US or Iraqi troops if that was their intent. Why bother to go through all these elaborate hoops?

As for using our weapons against us immediately…well, sure, its possible. So what? They are ALREADY killing us with the Soviet stuff. Do you suppose our stuff hurts more or something?

Its a risk, no doubt. So, one has to say…does the risk outweigh the possible reward? How big is the risk realistically? How will it change the current equation (or will it even change it)?

[QUOTE=flight]
I disagree on the political fallout if this does occur though. Imagine a burglar shoots a homeowner during the burglary. That would make the local news. Suppose, however, that the police had recently instituted a controversial program to give guns to the members of one local gang with the idea that they may take out the really dangerous criminals in the area. Now suppose the same murder-during-a-burglary takes place but the police find that it was one of the guns that they handed out that killed the homeowner. In both cases the homeowner is just as dead, and the burglar would probably have found another gun to use from somewhere, but how different do you think the stories would be represented in the press? What do you think the family of the homeowner would say about the police to the press at every chance they got?
[/QUOTE]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree…and then wait and see the outcome (since we should actually know if they go ahead with this program…this isn’t a theoretical excersize after all). Myself, I think that the potential reward outweighs what I see as a minimal risk. And I have serious doubts that even if American’s are killed by some of our own weapons its going to be the propaganda blow up you are implying. I respect your opinion however and concede it could very well work out the way you are saying.

Time will tell on this one. If it works out the way you are saying then revive this thread if you like and I’ll gladly eat all the crow you like.

[QUOTE=flight]
I admit the chance of this coming to pass is not huge, but I sure as hell wouldn’t take the risk.
[/QUOTE]

And for my part I think that the risk is worth the potential pay off. If we can get even one of these groups to go after AQ or some of these other foreign fighter types in Iraq in a more systematic or serious way then it will be worth it even if all the other groups turn our own weapons on us. After all…how will the situation have changed? They are ALREADY doing that, just with Soviet (or improvised) stuff. The only thing that will have changes is that things just got a bit hotter for AQ and some of the foreign fighter groups in Iraq.

-XT

[Chessic_Sense]

Now who said we were arming “Sunnis”? We’re arming some Sunnis. They aren’t all bad, you know. There are plenty of groups out there that have brokered peace deals with us in the past, and only attack Al Qaeda. Would they turn on us? That’s too vague of a question right now, as is your premise of “arming Sunnis”. Let the record show that I’ve spent considerable time in country dealing w/ the Sunni population.

[flight]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
They could always just pick up weapons (and body armor) from fallen or captured US or Iraqi troops if that was their intent. Why bother to go through all these elaborate hoops?

As for using our weapons against us immediately…well, sure, its possible. So what? They are ALREADY killing us with the Soviet stuff. Do you suppose our stuff hurts more or something?

Its a risk, no doubt. So, one has to say…does the risk outweigh the possible reward? How big is the risk realistically? How will it change the current equation (or will it even change it)?
[/quote]

Note that I am only making the statement in order to setup a later one. While the weapons should not make a dramatic difference, I still find the concept of arming people who will likely be shooting at our troops distasteful.

As to why they would bother to “jump through hoops” for them, they are free high quality weapons. If you can get the weapons, then you can likely continue to get ammo and parts, and even if you can’t you can then sell the weapon to by more ammo for your AK. I don’t care for guns, but if they are giving them away I will take one and sell it so I can buy something I want.

Also, they aren’t exactly lying around on the street. You cannot claim too many from fallen Americans as most of our troops die from IEDs where there might not even be an insurgent around when it goes off, and soon afterward the area will be flooded with our soldiers.

Oh, and you mention they are already killing us with old Soviet stuff. They could kill us with sticks or perhaps bananas too, but they can do a hell of a lot more of it with old AKs, and even more with more modern weapons. Just because we know criminals can get guns in this country doesn’t mean there is no problem in handing them out at the corner.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree…and then wait and see the outcome (since we should actually know if they go ahead with this program…this isn’t a theoretical excersize after all). Myself, I think that the potential reward outweighs what I see as a minimal risk. And I have serious doubts that even if American’s are killed by some of our own weapons its going to be the propaganda blow up you are implying. I respect your opinion however and concede it could very well work out the way you are saying.

Time will tell on this one. If it works out the way you are saying then revive this thread if you like and I’ll gladly eat all the crow you like.

I hope you are right, at least in that it will not get more of our guys killed. I hope I am right about the political fallout though. Then it can get us out of this nightmare faster.

And for my part I think that the risk is worth the potential pay off. If we can get even one of these groups to go after AQ or some of these other foreign fighter types in Iraq in a more systematic or serious way then it will be worth it even if all the other groups turn our own weapons on us. After all…how will the situation have changed? They are ALREADY doing that, just with Soviet (or improvised) stuff. The only thing that will have changes is that things just got a bit hotter for AQ and some of the foreign fighter groups in Iraq.

It would take a lot to convince of your estimation of the risk/reward for this plan. If I was a soldier I imagine it would take a whole lot more. As for how the situation would change, I seem to remember that maybe half a year or so ago the insurgents started getting a lot more sophisticated with their IEDs. They started using shaped charges and better explosives and there was a corresponding increase in body counts. If they started getting more and better RPGs and other equipment I would expect to see a similar result. They will still be killing us, but they will be killing more of us. More dead soldiers is worse than fewer dead soldiers.

[mswas]

xtisme You’re gonna have to come up with a cite that there is a groundswell of Sunni insurgents who are pissed off at Al Qaeda, because I have not seen any articles about that, or if I did perhaps I didn’t give them a fair shake thinking they were merely propaganda. It feels to me like you are asking me to prove a negative. “Prove that Sunnis don’t want to kill Al Qaeda.”, I would argue that the burden of proof in this case would be on you, as I can’t prove a negative.

I think one uniting theme among insurgents Shia or Sunni is their dislike of the United States occupying forces. I do not see the relevance of statistical insiginificance. If a single American soldier is killed with these weapons it was too high a price to pay. I have a better idea, how about lets not arm them since they are already armed anyway, and cut taxes by that proportion, or gear the money toward something more worthwhile. Somehow I feel like the cost-benefit analysis is coming up short that we should pay millions to arm people with the chance that those arms may contribute to a loss of life or material resources on our side.

I think it’s pissing in the wind to think that these weapons will create a Sunni turf war between two different Sunni factions. It’s not about being ideologically monolithic, only I fail to see how it adds up in the cost/benefit analysis, the risks seem to outweigh the rewards, even if the risk is slight, I see the reward as non-existant.

Comparing this to having paramilitaries kill a drug lord is completely different. Certainly we can hire contractors to kill specific enemies, and we can pay them in weapons. As it goes this tactic blows up in our face as often as it is effective.

To answer your question as succinctly as I can. I do not think the Baathist insurgents are organizationally aligned with Al Qaeda, I am just dubious that they are that opposed.

[XT]

[QUOTE=mswas]
xtisme You’re gonna have to come up with a cite that there is a groundswell of Sunni insurgents who are pissed off at Al Qaeda, because I have not seen any articles about that, or if I did perhaps I didn’t give them a fair shake thinking they were merely propaganda. It feels to me like you are asking me to prove a negative. “Prove that Sunnis don’t want to kill Al Qaeda.”, I would argue that the burden of proof in this case would be on you, as I can’t prove a negative.
[/QUOTE]

I’m going to have to come up with no such cite. Nor did I ask YOU to prove any such thing. Look, if you can’t read what I write and won’t back up what you say then there is no point continuing this. Especially as badly as I’m feeling atm…I just don’t have the patience for this.

[QUOTE=mswas]
To answer your question as succinctly as I can. I do not think the Baathist insurgents are organizationally aligned with Al Qaeda, I am just dubious that they are that opposed.
[/QUOTE]

This isn’t the question I asked…nor does ‘Baathist insurgents’ = ‘Sunni’…i.e. again you are attempting to shoehorn in an entire religious group into a narrow category of people (in this case ‘Baathists insurgents’…in your early example ‘Al Queda’). These two FACTIONS represent some non-zero percentage of all Sunni…and not a MAJORITY faction in either case (or even combined). Do you understand that? You don’t seem to be getting it.

-XT

[elucidator]

Have you any statistics on such percentages that you would deem reliable?

[mswas]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m going to have to come up with no such cite. Nor did I ask YOU to prove any such thing. Look, if you can’t read what I write and won’t back up what you say then there is no point continuing this. Especially as badly as I’m feeling atm…I just don’t have the patience for this.
[/quote]

You asked for a cite on something that you know the information is unavailable for. It’s that simple.

This isn’t the question I asked…nor does ‘Baathist insurgents’ = ‘Sunni’…i.e. again you are attempting to shoehorn in an entire religious group into a narrow category of people (in this case ‘Baathists insurgents’…in your early example ‘Al Queda’). These two FACTIONS represent some non-zero percentage of all Sunni…and not a MAJORITY faction in either case (or even combined). Do you understand that? You don’t seem to be getting it.

I never said all Sunnis are Baathists, I said Baathists are Sunni, and I inferred that they are the bulk of the insurgency in Iraq the country that was until recently ruled by the Baath party. The military of which constituted hundreds of thousands of people. Not all Sunni insurgents are ex-Baathists, but a significant percentage of them are. If John Robb is correct in his book “Brave New War”, Saddam specifically trained his military to fight a long term insurgent war against the US after his experience in Gulf War I. So the likelihood of Sunni insurgents in Iraq being former members of its Sunni ruling party is quite high, particularly since we excluded ex-Baathists from the government, when we set it up. The Baathists are ‘most likely’ the majority share of insurgents, as a lot of them are trained soldiers. The Baathists have been running the Sunni insurgency from the beginning, because of their exclusion from the government. So while Al Qaeda probably represents an extreme minority within the insurgency ex Baathists do not. I am assuming that they are arming insurgents and not you know Bakers and Taxi drivers who are trying to keep their heads down and eke out a living for their families. If you count those Sunnis, then no the Baathists are probably not a majority. Iraq has a population around 27m people. 60% of those are Shia, 40% are Sunni, give or take. So 40% of 27m would be around 10-11 million. Of those consists somewhere between half a million and a million ex-Baathists soldiers. This does not account for ex-Baathist bureaucrats. Iraq under Saddam was a one party dominated state. Most if not all of those people in that party were Sunni. Do the math.