I think you were the only one who was exposed in that last thread. In fact, I know it.
**Well, it has been seven hours and no response, so maybe you did have a moments hestitation? I can only hope. **
Sorry. I think a diplomatic solution is the only option. I would add however, that you have to also include the other regional countries, namely Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon in the discusssion, but Iran is the key player, they are the Middle East power whether we like it or not.
What I wanted to get at is that while getting Iran and Syria involved in talks regarding Iraq is probably a good idea, it is double edge sword, and the U.S. will have to tip toe on the knife edge.
No argument there. No one said this will be easy and I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one doing it but until we talk with those who actually live in the region, we will get nowhere, as the last 3.5 years has proven.
While I am not quite sure of the Syrian Islamic preference, I am guessing that they are Sunni as well.
Syria is predominantly Sunni.
**Iran on the other hand, is definitely Shiite. Thus, inclusion of Iran and Syria will present another degree of difficulty in balancing Sunni-Shiite tensions and conflicts beyond those already present inside Iraq. **
Yeah, to be honest, I don’t quite understand how Iran and Syria are always grouped together.
I think a regional diplomatic effort is required because of the Shiite majority in Iraq. If the death squads keep going unchecked, you can be sure that the Sunni populations in Turkey , Syria and Saudi Arabia will come to the aid of the Sunnis in Iraq. If the Sunni militias continue to try and annihilate the Shiites, you will get Hezbollah, Iran involved.
I think Lebanon is also a key player. At this point the Sunni government is friendly to our interests but Hezbollah is making a lot of noise lately and yesterday accused their own government of aiding Israel in their recent conflict. The fiery accusations are a throwback to the civil war days there, and look like they could be troubling.
We are the one group that does not belong and yet we are the ones with all the power, that will never work out.
I think McCain is really hurting his Presidential aspirations by actually calling for more troops, as if throwing more soldiers in harms way is the answer. The Iraq Study is full of problems and optimism and it remains to be seen if it is realistic but we are on the wrong path if we think we can solve these issues by force.
“I think you were the only one who was exposed in that last thread. In fact, I know it.” - Yahey
Make up your mind shithead.
And make yourself useful and let your mate slowguy in on which thread. Suddenly it’s become a mystery to him and he’s come down with amnesia. How many years did you live in France for? Someone told me that Yahey has that Yahey licence plate on his car, but I said, “Even he can be that ridiculous.” How are you going to retain your three stooges team when MattinSF has suddenly gone AWOL from here? Maybe the IRA has called him up to active duty.
Yeah, to be honest, I don’t quite understand how Iran and Syria are always grouped together.
I think one is suppose to look at them as bookends. They border Iraq to the East and West, respectively. Saudi Arabia to the South is Sunni, and already understood to be supporting Sunnis in Iraq. Turkey to the north seems to be very reluctant to do much for fear of making their Kurdish population more restless or empowering them via improving the Iraqi Kurds situation. I think Saudi Arabia is consulted on a regular basis, but in a low key, below the radar approach. We seem to be tied to them because of the U.S. oil interests, for better or worse (and let’s not open that can of worms in this discussion). I coudn’t say anything more about how much Turkey is involved or how much deeper they are willing to get involved.
If the death squads keep going unchecked, you can be sure that the Sunni populations in Turkey , Syria and Saudi Arabia will come to the aid of the Sunnis in Iraq.
I think Syria and Saudi Arabia are already doing as much. There is a long AP story on Saudi civilian support for Sunnis: Saudis Reportedly Funding Iraqi Sunnis By SALAH NASRAWI (Associated Press Writer) From Associated PressDecember 08, 2006 6:03 AM EST I’ll post the article if you can’t find it. I read it through earthlinks’ browser. I think Iran is also doing as much to support the Shiites in Iraq. I think Lebanon is also a key player. At this point the Sunni government is friendly to our interests but Hezbollah is making a lot of noise lately and yesterday accused their own government of aiding Israel in their recent conflict. Hezbollah has pretty much marginalized the Lebanonese government. Hezbollah and Syria seem to call most of the shots in Lebanon. When Isreal went in a few months back, it was Hezbollah that responded, not Lebanon. The government may be Christian (not Sunni) and somewhat sympathetic, but they don’t have much pull in their own country. I don’t see them impacting the actions of others, let alone Iraq.
“And make yourself useful and let your mate slowguy in on which thread. Suddenly it’s become a mystery to him and he’s come down with amnesia”
Sorry if I’m not keeping a running tally of which threads you’re yammering on about at any particular time. I don’t read half your posts, because I dismiss anything with emoticons, so I don’t remember you “exposing” anyone. I guess you’re talking about the Iran thread. I’m still not sure what the point was in you bringing it up in this thread though. I guess I’ll just write it off as your normal stupidity.
(
yammerring …
) - Slowguy … 
roo
I hate acting the grownup here, as I am not realy qualified, but could you and Kangaroo start your own thread and continue your pissing contest there? Continue on to your hearts’ content, but please do it somewhere else.
Thanks.
I heard an interesting interview on WLS this morning. This individual was an obvious right leaner as well as the host.
First thing he said was, everything slightly paraphrased from memory; “The study group was doomed from the start as they answered the wrong question. Instead of trying to answer the question “How do win in Iraq” they answered “How do we get out of Iraq””.
Oddly enough I’d have to agree with that assessment. Either you win a war or you lose a war. IMHO, winning this war means leaving the country when the government and infrastructure that is in place there can keep the control under control and protect itself from insurgents.
A few other facts, and take them FWIW as I said he was obviously a right leaner.
69% of the Suicide bombers are Saudia Arabian. 81% of the insurgent forces are paid mercenaries. These people are being paid by Syria and Iran. Studying the detonators on the road side bombs indicates they are manufactured in Iran. The insurgent forces are only 10-12K people I listened to a good portion of the press conference yesterday on the report and personally think it contains some good ideas and some not so good ones.
I still think saying we are going to withdrawal troops by XX date is a BAD idea. I have no problem “talking” to Iran and Syria. But I have a problem bending over and kissing their arses. They are at least part of the problem here.
Setting “milestones” and deadlines are a good idea. Making a plan good idea. Saying “Hey if you don’t get “X” done by “Y” time we are out of here…bad idea”.
Training Iraqi troops great idea. However training Iraqi troops doesn’t just mean turning out 100,000 foot soldiers. That can be done fairly easily. Training the commanders, setting up infrastructure, chain of command etc takes many many years. You don’t turn out a general in an 18 week boot camp no more than you can turn out a brain surgery with a 6 month online degree. More US aid, as long as it’s not getting stuffed into the pockets of big business in overinflated contracts I don’t have a problem with it to a point. I do wonder why a country that is flush with oil needs so much “Aid” though. If anything I say we approach Saudia Arabia and ask them and other OPEC countries to cut production and allow Iraq to fill the gap by producing more in the short term. As has been stated by many, seems to me we need to actually “Fight the war”, which means killing people, blowing things up and yes even civilian casualties. 10-12K people aren’t all that much. Increase troop levels if necessary to secure the country and kill the insurgents, by any means necessary. Problem as I see it is that the American people can’t stomache death and destruction anymore…well unless we’re doing it to our own population. I was not a proponent for going into Iraq as I felt the premis was entirely wrong. But after we went in I knew there was no good that could come from getting out before a stable, self reliant and long term government was in place. I also knew that that would mean a LONG term commitment. Not modern day microwave American long term, but WWII long term.
OK I’m done now…happy Friday
~Matt
"I hate acting the grownup here, as I am not realy qualified, but could you and Kangaroo start your own thread and continue your pissing contest there? Continue on to your hearts’ content, but please do it somewhere else. "
No pissing here. Just not real sure what Roo was talking about. I can’t help what he posts in response.
It is impossible to stop replying to Ranger Roo. It’s like watching a bad car wreck - you have to stop and stare at it and wonder how someone can be so stupid.
Good post, thank you.
It seems like there has been some form of goal creep with respect to Iraq. The intial war was with Saddam, and that was over in three weeks. The next phase was to get the new government stable and to get out. But this insurrgency business escalated. I also thought, as you have mentioned, that it was very few Iraqis in the insurgency. So, in essence, the war has become a conflict with Saudi Arabian, Syrian and Iranian elements along with some of the more radical Iraqi militias.
"It seems like there has been some form of goal creep with respect to Iraq. The intial war was with Saddam, and that was over in three weeks. The next phase was to get the new government stable and to get out. But this insurrgency business escalated. I also thought, as you have mentioned, that it was very few Iraqis in the insurgency. So, in essence, the war has become a conflict with Saudi Arabian, Syrian and Iranian elements along with some of the more radical Iraqi militias. "
That depends on how you frame the original goal. If we accept that the goal was to install stable government in Iraq, certainly the continued insurgency is a threat and impediment to the accomplishment of that goal.
Call me wierd but I always wondered why the adminstration didn’t release a huge Microsoft Project file with the projected goals and time frame in Iraq. Simply release the plan, sans any sensitive or vunerable operations, and state “Plans subject to change”. Almost every project manager in the world has to do something like this I fail to see why the government should be held to a different standard. Seems to me that time frames for training of troops, installing police, infrastructure, government, schools, roads etc etc, woudl be the way to go. When some jack ass in the Iraqi parliment decides they want to argue about some minutia , not unlike here, they can see how this will hold up thir people getting fresh water and more money from oil etc etc.
Hell as far as that goes I’d like to see something like that from our government. Every year I want a “Project” for what they plan on accomplishing in that session. Everytime they miss a deadline I want to know why they missed and what they’re going to do about…sorry jumped the track…
~Matt
That depends on how you frame the original goal. If we accept that the goal was to install stable government in Iraq, certainly the continued insurgency is a threat and impediment to the accomplishment of that goal.
No, and I think that shows my point of, let’s call it “objective creep”. Iraq had a stable govenment before we went in. The problem was the suspicions of WMD and possible/probable support of terrorists. The original objective was to turn Saddam out and remove any of the WMD and/or technology. Well we did turn Saddam out, and everyone knows how the WMD went. By default, I think we were obligated to help establish an Iraqi established government. The U.S. installing a government certainly wasn’t an option.
But, in a manner somewhat analogous to Blackhawk Down, we were now committed to staying in one place for a significant period of time, allowing the organization and actions of an opposing force. These insurgents weren’t present at the start of the war. But they are significantly interfering in rebuilding the Iraq and establishing order. In essence they have multiplied the required objectives.
Or, maybe think of it as the U.S. inheriting additional objectives derived from the centuries old conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. These two groups seeing the power vacuum present in Iraq after the removal of Saddam and before the new government is established, may have realized a golden opportunity to establish their form of Islam over all of Iraq. Sunnis trying to retain the power they held before even though they were the minority, Shiites wanting to turn the tables after many years of suppression. Gee, it sounds awfully familiar, ala Republicans and Democrats.
The “insurgents” aren’t the issue any more, so those dubious statistics are irrelevant. They are not behind the sectarian violence that is the main problem. Training commanders and foot soldiers, and establishing infrastructure won’t do a damned bit of good if the sectarian militias are still armed and effective and looked upon by their various constituencies as the sole source of security (however misguided and ultimately self-defeating that view may be).
There is no unifying “Iraq first” mindset in Iraq that will cause the various factions to put aside their personal/tribal/religious grievances and work towards what we call the common good of their country.
The question now appears, to me, to be “What role does the US play in a civil war in Iraq?”. Which side does our military take when Sunni and Shiite militia and corrupt government groups are battling it out?
You want to “win in Iraq”? Pour 300,000 US troops there for 5 years. Provide security for everyone, and totally disarm the various militia. Be the police. Take lots of casualties. To do this, you’re gonna have to change the culture and mindset of the Iraqis. Good luck getting that to happen.
I still say there is one thing, which, if addressed, would lead to an ultimate solution to the whole Middle East mess: the reliance on oil. But that’s another (several) threads.
**** Sunnis trying to retain the power they held before even though they were the minority, Shiites wanting to turn the tables after many years of suppression. Gee, it sounds awfully familiar, ala Republicans and Democrats.
Now, if we could just get them to do it with ballot boxes and not guns and bombs…
All this is summed up nicely by Zymurgy’s First Law of Evolving Systems Dynamics, a collarary of Murphys’ Law. It states: Once you open up a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can.
Note to self: Never drink a beer that Parkito made.
klehner, now I am accusing you of thread expansion creep. (Mostly jusst kidding.)
All the problems you cited are real and far from easily solvable. But, the question of this thread is about the Baker Report, and specifically, one of the key concerns, involving the Syrians and the Iranians.
My questions are: What does everyone think in terms of what the U.S. should expect to get from the participation of Syria and Iran? What do you think it will cost the U.S. in terms of concessions for Syrian and Iranian participation? How much would you be willing to give up in concessions? How close will public intentions match private goals is probably the key question anlong with how much trust do you put into commitments by Syrian and Iran?
Now, if we could just get them to do it with ballot boxes and not guns and bombs…
Hmmm, I dunno. Hanging Chads, electronic voting machines, could be a bigger can of worms.
Note to self: Never drink a beer that Parkito made.
Thankfully, and for myself in particular, I have none of those skills. The beer drinking world remains safe in that regard.