|
|
|
|
#1
02-01-2007, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
[ QUOTE ]
For your history buffs, correct me if im wrong but advisors to the american president during ww2 suggested 3 million troops to occupy germany. It doesn't take a genius to see that Rumsfeld left out a couple of 0's in terms of how many troops where needed for the Iraq war. [/ QUOTE ] I've heard multiple local politicians (e.g. Senator Jon Kyl among them) bemoan the half-assed effort regarding Iraq, i.e. doing enough to placate the American public, not enough to get the job done. Akin to dipping a foot into the pool without jumping in - how much difference could it make? FWIW I'm glad this thread hasn't devolved into total partisan stupidity yet, I've enjoyed it, but it seems that if it goes on long enough something like that is inevitable. 
|
|
#2
02-01-2007, 02:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#3
02-01-2007, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
[ QUOTE ]
Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders. [/ QUOTE ] Probably not a great analogy, because the two groups really were split along religious lines, but the India-Pakistan debacle provides some historical context.
|
|
#4
02-01-2007, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders. [/ QUOTE ] Probably not a great analogy, because the two groups really were split along religious lines, but the India-Pakistan debacle provides some historical context. [/ QUOTE ]I don't understand this analogy at all. Pakistan was created out of thin air as the home to the subcontinent's Muslims. Entire populations relocated in order to populate the country. Then East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan broke in a bloody war of secession, with considerable Indian involvement. How does this analogize with the situation in Iraq?
|
|
#5
02-02-2007, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders. [/ QUOTE ] Probably not a great analogy, because the two groups really were split along religious lines, but the India-Pakistan debacle provides some historical context. [/ QUOTE ]I don't understand this analogy at all. Pakistan was created out of thin air as the home to the subcontinent's Muslims. Entire populations relocated in order to populate the country. Then East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan broke in a bloody war of secession, with considerable Indian involvement. How does this analogize with the situation in Iraq? [/ QUOTE ] Hence, I said it's not a great analogy, nor a direct analogy. But by splitting Iraq into three nations--presumably a Shia, Sunni, and Kurd nation--you will set up a de facto relocation debacle. Which still won't settle resentments between the religious sects regardless of an arbitrary border on a map. Turkey isn't going to sit still for it, either.
|
|
#6
02-01-2007, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
02-01-2007, 03:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#10
02-02-2007, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
Washington Post
Cliffs notes: A National Intelligence Estimate (the summary conclusion of the US intelligence agencies) concludes the following: [ QUOTE ] - an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration - But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption. - The document emphasizes that while Al Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi conflict as the main source of violence and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has accused of supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a central focus. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
