Skip to main content

View Diary: Joementum in Iraq (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see (none)
    a poorly trained, ridden with ethnic strife and compromised Iraqi military force to ever militarily replace 150,000 well-trained US/Allied troops and state of the art military equipment.
    •  you're absolutely right (none)
      How is the Iraqi army supposed to level a city the size of Fallujah on their own?

      "we have to work... the dark side, if you will"
      -Vice President Cheney, as quoted in Newsweek

      by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:46:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •   a little story... (none)

      There was a fox chasing a rabbit, and the rabbit got away. When the fox was asked why he couldn't catch his quarry, he replied "I was only running for my supper, he was running for his life."

      The same thing applies here. The iraqi military will be fighting for their country, for the chance to actually have a decent place to live. They will fight very hard, when it comes down to it, or they won't, and they will reap the rewards either way.

      It is unlikely the insurgents will be as gung-ho about killing Iraqis as they are about killing US troops. In addition, the modern weaponry isn't very useful in urban combat. The result of all these thigns is that the Iraqi forces can probably do fairly well on their own, though it will surely be a bumpy ride.

      In either case, they were given a chance, now they need to seize it, or they will return from whence they came. That, is the end result of this little exercise.

      •  However, we are not training (none)
        Iraqi armies, we are training Iraqi militias. Shiites are not going to fight for Kurds and vice-versa. They'll fight for their regions in a divided Iraq. Problem with your analysis is that you are dividing parties into 3 groups-

        1. US/International troops.
        2. Iraqi Army.

           with 1 and 2 aligned against the 3.

           The actual alignment is-

        1. US/International troops.
        2. Kurdish/Peshmerga.
        3. Shiite forces-
           a) sadr's militias
           b) AlBadr and allied militias.

        1. Ba'athists.
        2. Al-Qaeda elements.

             1) is allied with 2) and 3). The alliance between 2) and 3) is very shaky. Sadr has absolutely no love for Kurds. None. 4) and 5) are allied together. The dynamics are wholly different than what you implied. Shiites and Kurd forces won't get ANY support in Sunni areas and likewise for Ba'athists in Northern and Southern Iraq. If it was simply Iraqi forces and people versus insurgents dream scenario, I might agree with you but ground reality is very different.


        •  I like your analysis... (none)
          here is the abbreviated plan and analysis I put forward last week. What do you think?

          Daily Kos

          the problem is that the Shiia are basically in control and the Sunni's don't feel like they have a stake in the government.

          Furthermore, you have the Syrians training and funding the insurgency, because they fear that a Shiia dominated Iraq aligned with Iran will overrun them in the future.

          In my view, the only way to create a half-way stable Iraq is to talk the Shiia into letting some Bathists into the government and to find a way to get the Sunni's greater representation in the government.

          Furthermore, it would be helpful if other countries like Saudi Arabia would participate in brokering a deal.

          Finally, the reason why there are so many people willing to support the insurgency or join the opposition is because they have been tortured or a family member tortured by US troops or a family member killed at a checkpoint or suffered some other form of indignity. Raw story ran a great story on this last week.

          If we are to encourage lawful behaviour and promote justice and the rule of law we ourselves must lead by example and adhere to the rule of law and act in a proper way and that means strictly adhering to the Geneva Conventions.
          Long-standing army regulations required adherence to the third convention for enemy soldiers and we should honor the protections found in the conventions.

          Furthermore, we need to try to turn checkpoints over to Iraq's and reduce our presence as much as possible and we need to bring in other middle eastern countries to try to help stablize the country as well.

          The problem I see is that we have lost the moral high ground as militias are doing their own thing and no one is really adhering to the rule of law and we have lost some credibility with the new government.

          We might be able to turn the situation around but "staying the course" is not going to get it done. It seems to me that Bush is so stubborn that he would rather go down in flames than make proper changes that would increase the probability of success. Sending out talking points to the right wing disinformation machine to scream about Dems wanting to "cut and run" does not do anything to move the debate forward.

          One other thing; I would like to see the administration support Abdul Mahdi for Prime Minister instead of that rat Chalabi. From what I have read I think Mahdi is best suited to bring everyone together. Just my observation from a distance.

          "When the government fears the people, that is Liberty. When the people fear the government, that is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

          by RichardG on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:40:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (56)
  • Elections (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Media (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Environment (21)
  • Culture (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Economy (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Bernie Sanders (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site