Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

There are some interesting documentaries about the Werewolves in Germany, who were basically the true beleiver nazis-for-life. They caused a decent amount of havoc for about 3 years after the end of the war, then finally faded away.

Interesting thing is the Japanese were probably more brainwashed than the Germans, but once they were told to lay down by their Emperor, they pretty much all did as a society. Very different approaches to authority between cultures.

These guys in Iraq are scarier because they're made up of (a) Al Queda who seem to be even more hardcore in their beliefs, and (b) ex-Baathists and Sunnis for whom the worst-case scenrio if they lose could be annihilation of Sunni society. Also most of the Baathists have now been converted to fundamental Islam. Not sure how much that will take once their marriage of convenience with Al Queada is over.

Do people in the know generally think that the baathists could have somehow been kept in the power structure more, or was this inevitable?

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
A Shia state will be nothing more than a puppet for Iran.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't Iran and Al Sadr mortal enemies, or do I have that wrong? When everyone hates almost everyone else, it's so hard to keep track.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line I think this is a very good step. Even if Sadr intends to bide his time and start up again later, if this lull is combined with strong law enforcemen operations against his troops and a decrease in the level of violence in this country, he may find it impossible to drum up support for a revival of his war against the US and the Iraqi government.



[/ QUOTE ]

All bets are off as soon as israel tries to de-nuke iran.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

So why don't we just kill this guy? Are we trying?

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
So why don't we just kill this guy? Are we trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we don't even go into neighborhoods he controls.

The surge is designed to fix one problem in Baghdad. We go in and clear out insurgents..but we have no local presence in that area and thus once we leave the insurgents come back---same thing that is happening in Afgan.

So now we'll have boots in those areas to stay there and make sure they don't come back.

Two main problems
1. Baghdad is not Iraq...its just a city in Iraq.

2. This is most likly being done so that things will quiet down for a bit and hopefully the problem can be passed on to the next President and his/her administration.

We will know by probably mid summer whether Iraq is headed for consistent turmoil or full scale epic disaster civil war

Fingers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Part of me feels like this is one of the most important things our country is involved in, both from a geopolitical perspective and from an internal "impact on American sentiment" perspective, and because of that I should have an awareness of the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]What I have learned from studying the art of the pickpocket is that more important, much more important than having light fingers, is mastering misdirection. A person will not realize his pocket is being picked by the clumsiest of pickpockets if the latter is a master of misdirection.

I don't know why I suddenly remembered this.

Mickey Brausch

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]


A Sunni state will become a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda.

A Shia state will be nothing more than a puppet for Iran.

A Kurd state might have the same outcome as a Shia state.

[/ QUOTE ]You believe that an independent Kurdistan will become the puppet of ...Iran? And not be an ally of the United States, as loyal as currently are, for example, Albania and Poland?

Mickey Brausch

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

There will be no independent state because Turkey has already said they will intervene militarily if this happens. Then we will have to decide whether or not to fight a NATO ally.

My concern is that we have no morally reputable Iraqi ally to support in Iraq. The Mehdi Army (Al Sadr) and the Badr Brigade (SCIRI- an Iranian backed Shia group) are as blood thirsty and violent as the Sunnis. They are the major powers in the Interior Ministry, the Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi Police and they run the death squads. It's likely it was Iranian Shia groups that infiltrated the military base in Karbala(?) and killed numerous Americans and Iraqi civil servants, possibly with the help of the Iraqi Police.

I believe we are inadvertently carrying the water for Al-Sadr. The recent raid in Najaf killed several hundred fighters of a previously unknown, but ascendant, Shia splinter group that might have eventually threatened Al Sadr's power.

Is this what we should be doing in Iraq? I think not.

We should pull back into Kuwait and Turkey, and to the borders with Iran and Syria and try to seal off the country. Let the Iraqis sort out what's what. If we get intelligence of Iranian agitators or Al-Queda we should send in special forces or surgical air strikes. After the dust clears, if the winners are amenable, we can move in with reconstruction money, material, and manpower.

We really should have more troops in Waziristan in western Pakistan. The intelligence community sometimes refers to this region as "Jihadistan."

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Iran won't stand for an independent Kurdistan either- they have a large Kurd population as well.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Iron81,

Why would you not post this in your own forum?

Just curious.