Calls for calm as crowd stones Iraqi PM

Reuters ^

[Steel Wolf]

This is the fatal flaw of this particular argument. Vallely and others that I have heard issue this warning are retired. All have commanded in Iraq/Afghanistan and what they have in common is their deeply held belief that the islamofascists will follow us home and any precipitive pullout from Iraq will surely render Iraq as pre 9/11 Afghanistan.

Likely due to a little thing called legacy. When I was in basic training, many moons ago, my drill sergeants made disparaging comments about someone called Westmoreland, a general who served before I was born. It seems that the legacy of defeat is one that follows generals beyond their time.

The fact that retired generals continue to toe the party line after they retire, about an operation still in progress that they had a hand in, is hardly surprising. To do otherwise would open them up to some uncomfortable questions. So long as we win in Iraq, the ifs, maybes and couldas won't really matter, and that's what they're betting on.

Again, why should I ignore their collective wisdom for yours? We both know, as much as the grunt has friction with the officers, that the commanders have a vastly superior knowledge of the macro situation on the ground.

I'm not terribly concerned that you ignore or listen to what I'm saying. My career gave me a passing familiarity with said 'vastly superior information', so I know that this 'collective wisdom' is not quite what it's cracked up to be. Some people in my line of work like to bear good news, others like to be right. I like to be right. That tends to make me unpopular in some cases, but I get by.

Counterterrorism analysts will be more illuminating than generals, as far as understanding the threat of Islamic extremists. I've learned far more from them than I ever had from a guy with a star on his shoulder.

I have yet to see one reason from you disabusing me of the notion that the islamonuts won't stop hating us and trying to kill us.

That's nowhere near my point. 'Islamonuts' come in a lot of different packages. We could all go home and convert to Islam, and some Islamonuts from another sect would still want to kill us. There really is no escape from ALL Islamowhackjobs.

What exactly gives you confidence that withdrawing from Iraq will appease these fellows?

It won't appease all of them, of course. We were attacked before we set foot in Iraq, and we'd be attacked if we left. The difference is that some fighters in Iraq are al-Qa'ida whackjobs who hate us, period, and some are Arab partisans that just want us off their land. If we left Iraq, the Arab partisans (most being gulf Arabs, but some of which traveled from as far as Morocco, Sudan and Pakistan) would go home.

As far as the al-Qa'ida types? They hated us before Iraq, and they hate us now. But they're numerically weak without a local cause to help bolster their ranks. They piggybacked on the Taliban, they piggybacked on the Iraqi insurgency, and they're trying to do the same in the tribal regions of Pakistan. AQ is a parasitic organization, and we need to decide if attacking the host is preferable to separating it from the parasite. In some cases, the latter is preferable, in others, the former.

In my somewhat educated opinion, beating the host (Iraq) is making the parasite weaker in Iraq, but stronger worldwide. We're decreasing the chance the a terrorist attack will come out of Iraq, but increasing the chance it will come out of somewhere else. The foiled UK airliner attack is a great example. Dozens of Pakistani Britons who have never set foot in Iraq are suddenly motivated to become suicide bombers to strike down American aircraft for al-Qa'ida. (And that's just the tip of the iceberg). AQ wants to generate a feeling that there is a global war between Islam and America, and we unwittingly play into that storyline.

[MrNatural]

Just had a thought ... there has been mention of the 'worst-case' final result where Iraq subdivides into three small states defined by its three ehnic groups. But suppose it's only two? Suppose the Shia (Al-Sadr) take control of the central government and the Kurds then go their own way.

The resultant Iraq would be stable and Kurdistan will be stable. The Kurds will actively want us to have bases in their new country, and I should think even the new Iraq would grudgingly admit the need for a US base or two on their territory to keep external enemies at bay. Or we can twist their arm and bribe them.

We are then out of the 'Iraq Government' business; the Shia can suppress the insurgency (Sunnis) a lot more easily without us hanging on their gun arm. We declare that Iraq is now stable and move out to our desert bases; no more US patrols available to be attacked. No more US casualties.

We are then at the endgame position we want (right?), and can draw down to 40k (or whatever) deployed and the rest of the alliance can clear out.

I also like the idea of an independant Kurdistan as an agressive move against Iran and Turkey. The one is an active enemy and the other is certainly no friend. Let's make them work a little harder to keep the lid on their Kurdish populations, who should become a lot more restive with the realization that their dream of a united Kurdish homeland has now got a solid foundation to build on.

[vbmoneyspender]

No, but General Conway has. Do you have more experience in Iraq than General Conway.

[Steel Wolf]

But suppose it's only two? Suppose the Shia (Al-Sadr) take control of the central government and the Kurds then go their own way.

It won't happen. If the Kurds leave, there's no point in keeping up a pretense that Iraq is a real country anymore. The Sunnis surely aren't going to hang around when there's no way to affect the balance of power with the Shia. It would be like a white plantation owner and three recently freed slaves voting over who gets the plantation. The Sunnis liked being in charge, and the Shia want a taste of power.

So, they won't stay if there's no Kurds to help counterweight the revenge reflex. For that matter, the Sunnis won't hang around if a Shiite cleric takes over the country, regardless of what the Kurds do.

[vbmoneyspender]

Following up, this is what zarf said in his first post on this thread.

It's time to leave Iraq.

Is that what you think? That we should immediately be withdrawing from Iraq?

[Future Snake Eater]

I guarantee you I have more experience outside the wire in Iraq than GEN Conway. Does he see more of the larger picture? Yeah, but it's colored by a State Dept., political lens, not the raw realism of day-to-day operations in the country.

Is he right about what he said? Yes, and that's the only reason any of us keep going and doing this crazy crap. We'd all much rather fight them here than fight them on American soil. However, as more of our friends and peers are being killed in a seemingly neverending low-intensity conflict, and higher-ups "comfort" us by telling us to be nice to the locals...it gets harder and harder to justify our mission here.

[George W. Bush]

And so how do you explain Iraq and Afghanistan? The people DO want American Democracy. We learned, I think, from Vietnam, the importance of assisting in removing dictators and assisting in having genuine Representatives of the Will of the People in these lands in a position of power.

Well, even America in the usual role as Great Satan (a favorite of the mullahs) doesn't look so bad compared to the Taliban. Literally, they decided the devil was better than their preachers. Even there, though, it's hardly a done deal. Too many Talibanis would like to return to power. Too many patriarchal types would like to go back to traditional ways. If we actually restricted their bumper crops of poppy for producing heroin, I think you'd find they'd turn on us rather quickly. Currently, we've created a narcotic growers paradise there. Business has never been so good. So why should they object greatly to us?

I think you have a great confidence in Muslims that I don't share. The history of Turkish democracy really makes you think twice about Muslim countries becoming truly democratic with meaningful liberties and democracy.

Ancient theocracies in backward cultures are very very hard to change.

America proposes that Iraq/Afghanistan join in on the benefits of the 21st century. Pretty hard to argue with that. People in these countries WOULD like access to clean water, fair justice, medicine, trade, a safe life style. Even if they are nomads and isolationists. They'd prefer, I've no doubts, to not have family members "disappeared" for merely insinuating that the "king is a thug".

No doubt all true. But will they actually learn the necessary lessons? We've shed some blood on their behalf and some of their own patriots have died in the fight. I tend to think they will quickly return to someone a lot like Saddam running things. Someone brutal enough to keep the peace. Probably two Saddams, one in the south and one in the center. I think we can hold onto the Kurds who really were good prospects for democracy, having suffered so horribly and so long under Saddam. Given that they know the threat from Iran and Turkey is too great for them to withstand, they have good cause to stay pro-American. So I think they might become a Muslim democracy.

Hurrah!, Vietnam!

Exactly. I'm just not sure how we take the credit for our war there resulting in an eventual rejection of Marxism and a turn toward capitalism.

Your post is well intentioned, I've no doubts, but given the gang and horrible activities in many of the US large cities, the "gang culture" doesn't want to be like America; it rejects the American way of life. ... And the "US" keeps attempting to intervene in these hostile zones. For shame, huh? We should just let the thugs in these cities destroy each other and innocents, too? And while these gangs propose threats to the places you and I live and work in? No.

Actually, that's about what we do. Of course, we hold down the violence somewhat and send some to prison. But it's difficult to say we make large progress against gang culture and their violence. The War On Drugs can't be called much of a success and it is an underlying cause.

[MrNatural]

..It won't happen. If the Kurds leave, .. The Sunnis ... won't stay if there's no Kurds to help counterweight the revenge reflex ... the Sunnis won't hang around if a Shiite cleric takes over the country, regardless of what the Kurds do.

Got it. Thanks.

But it appears that a Shiite cleric, or marionette of same, is likely to take control, and in the near future. If the Sunnis split, that would seem to be an irresistible cue for the Kurds to do the same. Should we now realistically be expecting three separate states as the likeliest outcome, whether we think it's a good idea or not?

[Future Snake Eater]

Is that what you think? That we should immediately be withdrawing from Iraq?

Yes, but not the region. We must maintain a presence in the area. Kurdistan, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar can help us to accomplish that. Iraq proper is seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to wipe itself out through a mixture of sectarian violence and governmental corruption. Mosul is about as pacified as a large city is going to be in Iraq, I fear, and that's just b/c the sectarian violence hasn't spread up here yet.

Is there any hope? Yeah, if we stop pussy-footing around. I'm tired of taking in known AIF and having to worry about "chain of evidence" and "chain of custody" and medical inspections of whether he's been treated well, when, instead, we should've been allowed to put a bullet in him right away. Another example is the continuing reign of Muqtada Al-Sadr. A known terrorist with American blood on his hands, to say nothing of his fellow Iraqi's he's had murdered. Why is he still alive? Why are we playing nice? Who knows?

I see it from the tactical level, and it's honestly lost on me. All I know is, I go outside the wire every single day and take my life in my hands for a group of people who may or may not celebrate if my Stryker was destroyed by an IED and my dead body paraded around by terrorists/insurgents. Is there any measurable difference from when we got here? The IA have become more effective, but they're Kurdish, which is not the case in the rest of the country. Arabs are known to be untrustworthy, and they make up the majority of the country's ISF population. Will any progress in their capabilities remain once we've finally turned over the country to them? Will they just finally abandon their posts and join up with whatever sectarian militia they please? Nothing is impossible with these people. Something as basic as devotion to duty as we have in the US Military is difficult to come by here. It's just a completely different thought process.

I'm afraid we've projected too many American virtues onto the population here, and I'm afraid we're not reexamining that approach.

[George W. Bush]

For instance, why would anyone buy a NYT? That company should be bankrupt. It is morally bankrupt.

Because they are large and well-connected. When anything happens, the first paper they call is NYT. It's like CNN. For some things, the smaller operations do well. But if you need foreign reporting or on-the-spot immediate coverage most places in the world, it's CNN and NYT.

Being the big fish in the pond has some advantages and the system works automatically to create a big fish in the pond. That's just how it is.

Our goal should not be to destroy NYT or CNN because there will always be a big fish. It's how the pond works. Our goal should be to make them so unprofitable that they change their editorial and ideological content to a center-right perspective instead of the hate-America Leftist bilge they tuck into every article possible.

[Mr_Tiki]

Angry fellow Shi'ites stoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's motorcade

This is very ironic. Back in December 2005, during the Iraqi elections campaign, former PM Allawi visited Najaf and was also stoned by Sadr's fans. Maliki's coalition supporters were delighted to see their secular opponent being humiliated, and made a big thing out of it at the time. So I guess now they are at the receiving end of Sadr's mob violence!

[jwalsh07]

I'm not terribly concerned that you ignore or listen to what I'm saying.

And rightfully so because you remain throughly unconvincing. You claimed my statement, supported by many fine men with countless years of service to this country, that Islamofasicts would follow us home was "absurd".

I've given you a chance to back that up. Not only haven't you backed it up, you somewhat now agree that that is a likely outcome.

And just between the two of us, when you make statements like the "absurd" thing, it diminshes whatever credibility you have or want to have. A cursory look at recent history makes that patently obvious.

So since you're not "terribly concerned" whether I or others ignore or listen to what you have to say and I find what you had to say vis a vis islmaonuts following us home absurd in and of itself, I'd say we are done.

Adios!

[bray]

Good point. Some of this killing is vigilantism which is a good thing in that world. The problem with these people is that they enjoy killing Christians and Jews more than themselves.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Alia]

In Afghanistan, more and more fields are being turned from opium production to soy production. This "war on drugs" is good in that by producing and selling soy on the open market, a legal, and civil country stands a far better chance at becoming a player in the larger world.

But OTOH, enter the "legalize drugs" argument, as a means to rid the underworld, black market. This opens a whole other dimension. The better economic path for Afghanistan is the production of soy products.

[Oberon]

What a shellfish thing to say.

[Chgogal]

Your observations are very interesting. I once had an Iraqi taxi driver. Before ending up in the US he lived in Europe. I asked him what the difference is between Americans and Europeans. His answer, "An American six old has more problem solving skills in his little finger...". We Americans are brought up to solve problems and to question authority. Most of the world's population is taught to follow.

I really would like to know who is responsible for the Rules of Engagement. As a simple minded civilian, my only request of our Soldiers is to maximize their probability of survival and likewise the death of our enemies when suitably provoked. Something went wrong with our "problem solving" talents since WW2. What caused this change in philosophy?