Surgin

cantdog

Waybac machine
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Posts
10,791
Found an article by a conservative which is NOT about the usual flap, but addresses, of all things, one of the issues.

That's the war and how to fix it.

In their usual manner, this administration misrepresented the Surge as some kind of magical effect which a few more troops was supposed to have, when the real change in policy lay elsewhere. Imagine. Opacity, from the Cheney administration!

What we have done is buy several Iraqi militias-- fund them, supply them. Some breath of this did indeed filter through into the press, but the phrase "Awakening" isn't exactly on everyone's lips.

Excerpt:

The sectarian divisions in a country that is majority Shi'ite should have suggested two possible policies to the American proconsuls who ruled the country after the invasion in 2003. Divide and rule, the old British colonial policy, would have meant a continuation of the Ba'athist dominance by the minority Sunnis. The Sunnis would have had a vested interest in preserving the status quo and would have served as surrogates for the occupiers, but, as the United States had gone to war to oust Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath regime, such an option was considered to be unacceptable. The alternative was the establishment of a "democratic" regime in which the majority Shi'a would prevail. This was tried at first, but the Shi'a proved to be fractious and the effective disenfranchisement of the Sunni and the Kurds made the situation unstable. A constitution that guaranteed minority representation finally emerged as the preferred solution, but it too has delivered less than expected, leaving Iraq increasingly divided into three communities that have been ethnically cleansed.

The surge has attempted to exploit community differences to reduce the Sunni resentment that has fed the insurgency. Empowering the Sunnis has been accomplished through the creation of so-called "Awakening Councils" in the Sunni-dominated regions. The process, which was supposed to exclude former insurgents, has nevertheless basically taken Sunni fighters and turned them into a kind of national guard by giving them weapons, money, and recognition. Not surprisingly, they have accepted what has been offered, as it has permitted them to grow stronger, even protecting them against attacks by U.S. and Iraqi government forces, without changing their basic agenda to drive out the Americans. The loser in the arrangement has been al-Qaeda, which had sheltered among the Sunni insurgents but has now found itself increasingly isolated and no longer needed. The Sunnis turned on al-Qaeda, and it currently survives in only a handful of areas within the Sunni-dominated zone. That would appear to be good news for the United States military, which is now concentrating its efforts to finish off the group once and for all, but the impact of al-Qaeda between-the-two-rivers was always overstated. Its demise does little to defang the Sunni insurgents and the Shi'ite militias, both of which are hostile to the multinational force's presence.

The winner in the convoluted process has been everyone who wants to see a civil war. The intelligence analysts who are warning that the United States is now arming and otherwise subsidizing all three major groups in Iraq believe that the house of cards is likely to fall down as soon as one group feels either strong or frisky enough to assert itself. The conflict could start over any number of issues but a confrontation over oil resources is viewed as the most likely scenario. No one in Iraq except possibly the American Ambassador Ryan Crocker actually believes that an arrangement to share oil and gas revenue will work. The Sunnis, who are not sitting on any oil fields, have had a presence in Kirkuk in spite of ethnic cleansing by the Kurds. If they find themselves being squeezed without any access to oil revenues, they will likely try to assert that claim. The Kurdish army and the powerful peshmerga militia would immediately get dragged into the fighting, and it is unlikely that the Shi'ites would stand by.

The United States would inevitably find itself in an untenable position, with U.S. forces being targeted by all parties and only able to defend themselves by inflicting massive civilian casualties. While the torching of the monstrous U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone would undoubtedly be a relief to many, it would also represent another billion dollars from American taxpayers wasted in support of a crazed imperial fantasy. And then there is the problem of how to get the American forces safely home. All in all, a tough nut for the next president, who hopefully will not be named McCain.


http://Link
 
"They note somewhat dyspeptically that the United States is now supporting all three major communities in Iraq with arms and money, a formula that will ultimately lead to disaster. One analyst refers to it as a 'Grapes of Wrath' policy." --Philip Giraldi

Wow. If one was inclined to be paranoid, one might think our Government was actually out to create a large(r) crisis. That's silly, of course, because no one would conscientiously arm all sides of a heated "argument." Right? No one could possibly still be naive about the cultural differences of that region compared to, say, the US.

This writer--and his credentials and info--are suspect, especially coming from this site rather than from other, less polarized sources. I refuse to believe this until the news media begins screaming about a mad-dog policy (this particular one, that is). Our almost-lame-duck administration is watched too critically for this to be so low-key. Right?




PS--The other reason I quoted this was for his use of a cool word. ;)
 
Nah, I've seen this elsewhere. We really are supporting selected Sunni militias, selected Kurd ones, and selected Shi'i ones. It makes them not the enemy, on a certain level. Weird, innit? Google Awakening Councils.

You can't get most of your audience to hold still long enough to understand or care, so the soundbite-oriented television press hasn't said much about it. It's been in magazines and newspapers, though. Internet.
 
Selling arms makes money.

If US corporations didn't do it, others would.

Anyone want a few thousand Chinese copies of the AK47?

Or Pakistan made ones?

Og
 
I've assumed that the apparent success of "the surge" is at least in part due to exhaustion on the part of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia. Even prolonged periods of bloodletting - like our civilization's 30 Year War - consist of a succession of episodes of bleeding, not a steady outpouring.

Revulsion at the 30 Year War and cognate conflicts (like the English Civil War) were what in our civilization generated the Enlightenment and liberal principles like religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The analogies both hopeful and horrifying for Islamic civilization today need no elaboration.
 
I've assumed that the apparent success of "the surge" is at least in part due to exhaustion on the part of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia. Even prolonged periods of bloodletting - like our civilization's 30 Year War - consist of a succession of episodes of bleeding, not a steady outpouring.

Revulsion at the 30 Year War and cognate conflicts (like the English Civil War) were what in our civilization generated the Enlightenment and liberal principles like religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The analogies both hopeful and horrifying for Islamic civilization today need no elaboration.

I don't agree with your assumption. World War 1 on the Western Front had daily and steady bloodletting, punctuated by insensate floods of blood. That didn't prevent World War 2, nor Korea nor Vietnam nor the UK's constant dribble of dead troops every year except one in the 20th century.

Politicians and religious fanatics always seem too willing to sacrifice young men in war. Nothing has changed since the Middle Ages except that now young women, civilians and babies also die daily. Up to World War 2, killing civilians usually accidental except for rare atrocities such as Guernica.

Og
 
It's hard to know what a "reasonable" policy would be. Every one of these groups has inflicted, and has suffered, unspeakble atrocities at the hands of the others. Of course, the US is getting sucked right into the atrocity business.

But, isn't this exactly what the US was doing with the Iran Iraq war -- arming boths sides, letting them slaughter each other, and gaining some leverage with Hezbollah in the process?

Of course, we need a way to get our own troops out of the line of fire. That being accomplished, a bloody civil war among the Moslems, maybe even one that pits the crazies in Saudi Arabia against the craizies in Iran -- wouldn't that be a triumph of realpolitik?
 
I've assumed that the apparent success of "the surge" is at least in part due to exhaustion on the part of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia. Even prolonged periods of bloodletting - like our civilization's 30 Year War - consist of a succession of episodes of bleeding, not a steady outpouring.

Revulsion at the 30 Year War and cognate conflicts (like the English Civil War) were what in our civilization generated the Enlightenment and liberal principles like religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The analogies both hopeful and horrifying for Islamic civilization today need no elaboration.

I don't think it is so much exhaustion as self-interest. When al-Queda came in to help the Sunni insurgency, they were welcomed as help to get rid of the US. A few years of al-Queda attacking Sunnis for not being pious enough convinced the tribal leadership that they should be careful who their friends were.

The Sunnis are realizing now that they need to organize themselves if they are going to have any power in the current government and they need to get rid of al-Queda. Right now, we are using each other. We get the Sunni to stop attacking us and start fighting our enemies. They get money, weapons and legitimacy that make them more powerful. Best case is that a balance of power keeps all sides behaving.
 
I don't agree with your assumption. World War 1 on the Western Front had daily and steady bloodletting, punctuated by insensate floods of blood. That didn't prevent World War 2, nor Korea nor Vietnam nor the UK's constant dribble of dead troops every year except one in the 20th century.

Politicians and religious fanatics always seem too willing to sacrifice young men in war. Nothing has changed since the Middle Ages except that now young women, civilians and babies also die daily. Up to World War 2, killing civilians usually accidental except for rare atrocities such as Guernica.

Og

Not necessarily any disagreement. I suggested exhaustion as cause for the relative less bloodshed currently, and cited the 30 year war as a caveat that this doesn't mean it's over.
 
Not necessarily any disagreement. I suggested exhaustion as cause for the relative less bloodshed currently, and cited the 30 year war as a caveat that this doesn't mean it's over.

The news from Basra today and the call by the Mahdi Army for demonstrations leading possibly to civil insurrection suggests that this was the lull before the storm.

I hope not.

Og
 
The news from Basra today and the call by the Mahdi Army for demonstrations leading possibly to civil insurrection suggests that this was the lull before the storm.

I hope not.

Og

Why the Iraqi "government" would attack the Mahdi army is Basra is such a mystery -- are they deliberately trying to stir up trouble? The cease fire by the Madhi army has been one of the keys to the success of the surge -- breaking that truce is unbelievably stupid.

There is no way these militias are going away any time soon -- the only road to some stability is to figure out how to make peace with them.

That also means making peace with Iran, which I know is an unpleasant thought.
 
But, but, what will the U.S. use for enemies then?

I mean enemies that it will be easy to kick the shit out of and have oil. ;)
 
The surge never had any effect outside of Baghdad. You flood Baghdad with cops and of course you're going to reduce the violence there. It was PR, not strategy.

I firmly believe that the administration's strategy now is simply to pass the buck. They want to keep things quiet through the election and then let Iraq be someone else's problem, only time's already run out on that. The Mahdi army is threatening to pull out of a truce agreement and violence broke out in Basra and Baghdad today with Mahdi fighters exchanging fire with US and Iraqi troops. 50 people were killed.

The Mahdi army seems to be in conflict with other armed Shia elements supporting the government. The Sunni and Kurds haven't even stirred yet and there's no reason for them to, but should the Sunni's decide this is a time to address their oil grievances or the Kurds decide it's time to deal with the Sunnis in their midst, this could be the shit hitting the fan.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top