Guest Patriot Games Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:IFDAh.3360$5M1.952@trndny01... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:U55Ah.10340$Yn4.334@trnddc03... >>>> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian >>>> government. The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's >>>> ONE side. The legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone >>>> else falls into ONE of these categories: >>>> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens. >>>> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals. >>>> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals. >>> The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and >>> commands death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the >>> government and the criminals are intertwined. >> I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to >> negotiate with? > The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party. > As far as who exactly the people are, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly > accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups > are willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate. And everybody else will magically become law-abiding Iraqis? But I like your idea. Its an excellent sting. We put up a big sign that says Insurgent Negotiations Here and we arrest everybody who shows up... >> Sadr has already said he has stood down. > I haven't heard that. I heard that in January he and some cohorts had > decided to end their boycott of Parliament. I believe other members have > ties to violent groups, and I can try to find reporting on such ties if > you are interested. Apparently Sadr went home - TO IRAN. > Actually, I overlooked a point that might be more important. Iraq's > Parliament is hardly functioning because so few members are showing up, > out of fear or out of a sense of futility. The government barely exists, > practically abdicating the legitimacy conferred upon it by the elections. > The vacuum gets filled partly by death squads, and partly by fairly > legitimate local governments just making do without a central authority. > I suppose these local authorities would also have to be involved in any > negotiations. They're gonna need a really big table... > I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the > negotiations. I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we leave, they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're gonna negotiate then we don't need to be there? > You rightly point out that groups and their leaders aren't necessarily > recognizable and easy to communicate with, and they may not wish to > identify themselves. This is a problem that is not necessarily > insurmountable. If the call goes out for negotiations to begin, the > groups can make it known whether they wish to participate. Not all groups > have to participate, that just means they won't have any say in the > negotiations. The negotiations will be conducted by whomever shows up, > and if too many groups abstain than the negotiations would be irrelevant. > If the negotiations are productive, there will be some new understandings > between the groups that could lessen the bloodshed. The negotiations > might not be productive, but it seems like a worthwhile gamble. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for an election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the population votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do this? >> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not >> participating in this alleged anarchy... > A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in > order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a legitimate > government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's neighborhood, > no matter how few villains there are. Silly or inaccurate? >> Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case) >> arrive on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to >> mediate a negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE >> YET? >> If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked.... > Assuming there is something fishy, what do you think Syria's intentions > might be...? A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the legitimately elected civilian gov't. Syria supports the side of the criminal minority (as does Iran). Their intentions are to usurp the will of the people who voted and create unearned influence over Iraq. > ...and how would they do any harm? I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is plenty of harm. Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:B9IAh.6043$4_5.5178@trnddc05... > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:IFDAh.3360$5M1.952@trndny01... >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:U55Ah.10340$Yn4.334@trnddc03... >>>>> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian >>>>> government. The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's >>>>> ONE side. The legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone >>>>> else falls into ONE of these categories: >>>>> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens. >>>>> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals. >>>>> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals. >>>> The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and >>>> commands death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the >>>> government and the criminals are intertwined. >>> I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to >>> negotiate with? >> The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party. >> As far as who exactly the people are, >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly >> accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups >> are willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate. > > And everybody else will magically become law-abiding Iraqis? Away with your strawman. Those who come to the table become the supporters of Iraq's new society, those who don't become its enemies. It will be up to those at the table to decide how to deal with those who aren't there. This is of course assuming those at the table can reach some consensus, which I do not actually think likely. I'm only saying it's worth a gamble. > But I like your idea. Its an excellent sting. We put up a big sign that > says Insurgent Negotiations Here and we arrest everybody who shows up... Actually, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. The fighting would probably continue if we did that. >>> Sadr has already said he has stood down. >> I haven't heard that. I heard that in January he and some cohorts had >> decided to end their boycott of Parliament. I believe other members have >> ties to violent groups, and I can try to find reporting on such ties if >> you are interested. > > Apparently Sadr went home - TO IRAN. It does look that way. Okay, so Sadr's gone. >> Actually, I overlooked a point that might be more important. Iraq's >> Parliament is hardly functioning because so few members are showing up, >> out of fear or out of a sense of futility. The government barely exists, >> practically abdicating the legitimacy conferred upon it by the elections. >> The vacuum gets filled partly by death squads, and partly by fairly >> legitimate local governments just making do without a central authority. >> I suppose these local authorities would also have to be involved in any >> negotiations. > > They're gonna need a really big table... How big a table does the Iraqi Parliament have? The table might be smaller if groups were willing to team up together, putting their collective clout behind shared representatives. >> I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the >> negotiations. > > I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we > leave, they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're > gonna negotiate then we don't need to be there? I'd sure like to get out. At least we could know that we weren't directly causing any ongoing fighting. Again, I'm not actually optimistic that this big meeting in Syria would work, but maybe enough groups to matter could be coaxed into making a go of it. And if Iraq continues to fall apart, the question is how much we should care. I hate watching people fight, but that might be preferable to having our troops there. That last comment of yours actually seemed tinged with optimism. Was that sincere, or was I failing to pick up on your sarcasm? >> You rightly point out that groups and their leaders aren't necessarily >> recognizable and easy to communicate with, and they may not wish to >> identify themselves. This is a problem that is not necessarily >> insurmountable. If the call goes out for negotiations to begin, the >> groups can make it known whether they wish to participate. Not all >> groups have to participate, that just means they won't have any say in >> the negotiations. The negotiations will be conducted by whomever shows >> up, and if too many groups abstain than the negotiations would be >> irrelevant. If the negotiations are productive, there will be some new >> understandings between the groups that could lessen the bloodshed. The >> negotiations might not be productive, but it seems like a worthwhile >> gamble. > > Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for > an election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the > population votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do > this? Well, in this case, there wouldn't be accountability to voters. Some of what the Iraqis elected would be at the table, but also the insurgents would be there, not because they've been democratically legitimized, but because they have military power, and have proven themselves strong enough threats to civil society that they need to be negotiated with. The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections. These hypothetical negotiations would be to see if any compromises could be reached with the various insurgent groups. >>> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not >>> participating in this alleged anarchy... >> A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in >> order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a >> legitimate government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's >> neighborhood, no matter how few villains there are. > > Silly or inaccurate? Not sure what you're getting at. Were you trying to make a point about Iraq's anarchy being the fault of a few? I wouldn't call the "silly" point "inaccurate," I'd just say it seems to miss the point. Or maybe you meant "accurate" instead of "inaccurate." Regardless, as long as a tiny minority wants anarchy and is not successfully put down, anarchy happens. >>> Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case) >>> arrive on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to >>> mediate a negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE >>> YET? >>> If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked.... >> Assuming there is something fishy, what do you think Syria's intentions >> might be...? > > A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the > legitimately elected civilian gov't. There are many loud, violent. minority groups ("criminal" has limited meaning in a country with a limited government) (not that I'm against limited government, I'm just against a government that can't keep insurgents from taking over a city). > Syria supports the side of the criminal minority (as does Iran). I don't know how many of the groups have the support of Syria or Iran. All I'm reasonably sure of is that Iran supports Sadr's Mahdi Army. But according to the chart in the Wikipedia article, some guy named Abu Deraa formed his own offshoot Mahdi Army. Maybe Iran supports them too, I dunno. It's a mess. > Their intentions are to usurp the will of the people who voted and create > unearned influence over Iraq. The will of the people has already been usurped by circumstance, by the weakness of the elected government and the strength of the insurgency. >> ...and how would they do any harm? > > I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is > plenty of harm. I mean, what methods would Syria use to pursue its goals? If Syria is that much of an enemy to Iraq, I would think Iraqis by and large would not show up, in which case little harm is done. It would be nice if the US could play arbiter, but Iraqis don't much trust us. I have no idea if they trust Syria. Ideally some country would come forward that a meaningful number of Iraqi groups would accept as a host for negotiations. If we haven't already, I think we're about to run up against my basic ignorance of history and politics. I don't know enough about multi-party negotiations to know whether anything like Syria's suggestion has ever come close to working. On the other hand, I don't know of any precedent to make us think that Syria could use this opportunity to dominate Iraq. If anyone could suggest some relevant historical info, I'd love to see it. _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:tHsBh.74$tQ.47@trndny07... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:B9IAh.6043$4_5.5178@trnddc05... >>> The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party. >>> As far as who exactly the people are, >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly >>> accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups >>> are willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate. >> And everybody else will magically become law-abiding Iraqis? > Away with your strawman. Those who come to the table become the > supporters of Iraq's new society, those who don't become its enemies. It > will be up to those at the table to decide how to deal with those who > aren't there. So, best outcome is fewer insurgents? That's not so bad... > This is of course assuming those at the table can reach some consensus, > which I do not actually think likely. I'm only saying it's worth a > gamble. I doubt it too. >> But I like your idea. Its an excellent sting. We put up a big sign that >> says Insurgent Negotiations Here and we arrest everybody who shows up... > Actually, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. The fighting would > probably continue if we did that. Geez... I was just joking.... >> Apparently Sadr went home - TO IRAN. > It does look that way. Okay, so Sadr's gone. It would be an excellent time to storm his Mosque, kill as many of his followers as possible and see how that affects the overall Insurgency.... Sorry, that's just my old-fashioned way wanting to win... >> They're gonna need a really big table... > How big a table does the Iraqi Parliament have? Beats the shit out of me! > The table might be smaller if groups were willing to team up together, > putting their collective clout behind shared representatives. Didn't they have that chance during elections? >>> I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the >>> negotiations. >> I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we >> leave, they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're >> gonna negotiate then we don't need to be there? > I'd sure like to get out. At least we could know that we weren't directly > causing any ongoing fighting. Again, I'm not actually optimistic that > this big meeting in Syria would work, but maybe enough groups to matter > could be coaxed into making a go of it. And if Iraq continues to fall > apart, the question is how much we should care. I hate watching people > fight, but that might be preferable to having our troops there. I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we either declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're on your own and begin to pull back... > That last comment of yours actually seemed tinged with optimism. Was that > sincere, or was I failing to pick up on your sarcasm? I'm the littlest bit optimistic. Just a little bit. My personal #1 concern is that we leave with honor having done a damned good thing for them. Having said that I hope we can do that AND they are working out their differences within the boundaries of their legal system and with political weapons. Its important for us to not be visibly there. We didn't cause the Insurgency but we are the magnet for the foreigners (Al Qaeda) which can't be good fo the Iraqis. >> Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for >> an election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the >> population votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do >> this? > Well, in this case, there wouldn't be accountability to voters. Some of > what the Iraqis elected would be at the table, but also the insurgents > would be there, not because they've been democratically legitimized, but > because they have military power, and have proven themselves strong enough > threats to civil society that they need to be negotiated with. I hate the sound of that.... > The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the > framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections. But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes? Did we forget to teach them that when we were helping them with a Constitution and elections and such? > These hypothetical negotiations would be to see if any compromises could > be reached with the various insurgent groups. I got that part. I'm having trouble with why we don't kill the criminals... >>>> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not >>>> participating in this alleged anarchy... >>> A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in >>> order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a >>> legitimate government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's >>> neighborhood, no matter how few villains there are. >> Silly or inaccurate? > Not sure what you're getting at. Were you trying to make a point about > Iraq's anarchy being the fault of a few? I wouldn't call the "silly" > point "inaccurate," I'd just say it seems to miss the point. Or maybe you > meant "accurate" instead of "inaccurate." Regardless, as long as a tiny > minority wants anarchy and is not successfully put down, anarchy happens. So what is the difference between basic anti-gov't criminal behavior and anarchy? What/where is the line and when did we cross it? >> A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the >> legitimately elected civilian gov't. > There are many loud, violent. minority groups ("criminal" has limited > meaning in a country with a limited government) (not that I'm against > limited government, I'm just against a government that can't keep > insurgents from taking over a city). So, is the Insurgency that strong or is the gov't (with our help) that weak? >> Syria supports the side of the criminal minority (as does Iran). > I don't know how many of the groups have the support of Syria or Iran. > All I'm reasonably sure of is that Iran supports Sadr's Mahdi Army. Agreed. >> Their intentions are to usurp the will of the people who voted and create >> unearned influence over Iraq. > The will of the people has already been usurped by circumstance, by the > weakness of the elected government and the strength of the insurgency. We'll see... If you're correct then what really needs to happen is a truce and new Elections. >>> ...and how would they do any harm? >> I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is >> plenty of harm. > I mean, what methods would Syria use to pursue its goals? Funding one or more insurgent groups. Alternatively, they could fund one or more candidates. That would suck but still be better than civil war in the streets. Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rMmCh.832$CG5.722@trnddc03... > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:tHsBh.74$tQ.47@trndny07... >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:B9IAh.6043$4_5.5178@trnddc05... >>>> I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the >>>> negotiations. >>> I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we >>> leave, they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're >>> gonna negotiate then we don't need to be there? >> I'd sure like to get out. At least we could know that we weren't >> directly causing any ongoing fighting. Again, I'm not actually >> optimistic that this big meeting in Syria would work, but maybe enough >> groups to matter could be coaxed into making a go of it. And if Iraq >> continues to fall apart, the question is how much we should care. I hate >> watching people fight, but that might be preferable to having our troops >> there. > > I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we > either declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're on > your own and begin to pull back... I fault supporters of the war for feeling justified in saying "just give it this one last chance." The war has gone for almost four years and pretty steadily gotten worse. It's not exactly VietNam, but it's kind of a small one. Maybe it wouldn't even be as bad as it is under different leadership, but I think the best time to make a difference was at the beginning. For about three years now the insurgency just seems to get stronger. If our military were able to defeat the insurgency, it should have done so by now. We had Operation Forward Together in the summer, which was a smaller troop increase than the new one, but why didn't that one work? There will always be something else Bush can try. Maybe a different leadership could implement a very different counter-insurgency strategy, but that's not even on the table. I hope the surge works, but I don't think it will. >>> Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for >>> an election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the >>> population votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do >>> this? >> Well, in this case, there wouldn't be accountability to voters. Some of >> what the Iraqis elected would be at the table, but also the insurgents >> would be there, not because they've been democratically legitimized, but >> because they have military power, and have proven themselves strong >> enough threats to civil society that they need to be negotiated with. > > I hate the sound of that.... It's hard to refuse to negotiate with someone you can't beat. Whether the insurgents have any real legitimacy is irrelevant. Mere survival imparts something like legitimacy. Iraq's national government has a legitimacy partly based in America's military might. If negotiations don't offer any acceptable compromises, then you can keep fighting. The risk then is that the compromises might start to look better. >> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the >> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections. > > But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes? I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers. > Did we forget to teach them that when we were helping them with a > Constitution and elections and such? Our attempt to set up a government has been a partial failure. Some reject it as an American creation, or as an institution at odds with their respective ethnic groups or their ideologies. And these opinions would be irrelevant but for the fact that the insurgency survives. Many of the insurgents probably have visions for Iraq that are totalitarian, but maybe they can accept compromises. Maybe they would accept democracy if they could be guaranteed less influence by foreign interests, or more autonomy for provinces or ethnic groups. >> These hypothetical negotiations would be to see if any compromises could >> be reached with the various insurgent groups. > > I got that part. I'm having trouble with why we don't kill the > criminals... I've touched on why they aren't necessarily criminals, so I'll assume you are aware of that perspective. Regardless, we haven't killed the criminals because we can't. At least, not comprehensively enough to end the insurgency. Don't bother arguing the rightness of something you're incapable of. Choose from the results you can actually achieve. Killing the criminals might be easier if we want to sacrifice a lot of non-criminals, but that would be bad. >>>>> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not >>>>> participating in this alleged anarchy... >>>> A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic >>>> in order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a >>>> legitimate government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's >>>> neighborhood, no matter how few villains there are. >>> Silly or inaccurate? >> Not sure what you're getting at. Were you trying to make a point about >> Iraq's anarchy being the fault of a few? I wouldn't call the "silly" >> point "inaccurate," I'd just say it seems to miss the point. Or maybe >> you meant "accurate" instead of "inaccurate." Regardless, as long as a >> tiny minority wants anarchy and is not successfully put down, anarchy >> happens. > > So what is the difference between basic anti-gov't criminal behavior and > anarchy? What/where is the line and when did we cross it? That's a pretty important question, and I am not positive it has an answer. But I think the distinction lies not in the behavior but in the nature of the society. Terrorism and slaughter are met with different responses by a strong government than by a weak one. I think an insurgency can only really survive when the current order doesn't have enough to offer to the people. That means the society is either brutal tyrany or anarchy. >>> A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the >>> legitimately elected civilian gov't. >> There are many loud, violent. minority groups ("criminal" has limited >> meaning in a country with a limited government) (not that I'm against >> limited government, I'm just against a government that can't keep >> insurgents from taking over a city). > > So, is the Insurgency that strong or is the gov't (with our help) that > weak? I'd say both. The government might not have to be as strong if it weren't for the dissatisfaction with security and infrastructure following the invasion, but the frustration has contributed to insurgent groups that the government can't put down. >>> Their intentions are to usurp the will of the people who voted and >>> create unearned influence over Iraq. >> The will of the people has already been usurped by circumstance, by the >> weakness of the elected government and the strength of the insurgency. > > We'll see... If you're correct then what really needs to happen is a > truce and new Elections. I fear that Iraqis might accept a less democratic framework at this point. But negotiations seem so unlikely that it is irrelevant. However, I don't know what I actually predict happening. We will leave at some point in the next few years, and Iraq then will look like it does now. I don't know what happens to Iraq then. >>>> ...and how would they do any harm? >>> I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is >>> plenty of harm. >> I mean, what methods would Syria use to pursue its goals? > > Funding one or more insurgent groups. I guess they may already be doing that. > Alternatively, they could fund one or more candidates. That would suck > but still be better than civil war in the streets. They probably would do that. You didn't really address my original question, or what I attempted to ask, which was how Syria implements some nasty plan under the pretext of hosting negotiations between Iraqi groups. _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:mGPCh.10012$SR.5252@trndny06... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:rMmCh.832$CG5.722@trnddc03... >> I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we >> either declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're >> on your own and begin to pull back... > I fault supporters of the war for feeling justified in saying "just give > it this one last chance." The war has gone for almost four years and > pretty steadily gotten worse. Not really. Everything was going very well until the Insurgency started. > If our military were able to defeat the insurgency, it should have done so > by now. We had Operation Forward Together in the summer, which was a > smaller troop increase than the new one, but why didn't that one work? Beats me. > There will always be something else Bush can try. I don't think so. I think this is it. > I hope the surge works, but I don't think it will. We'll see. >> I hate the sound of that.... > It's hard to refuse to negotiate with someone you can't beat. Whether the > insurgents have any real legitimacy is irrelevant. Mere survival imparts > something like legitimacy. Iraq's national government has a legitimacy > partly based in America's military might. That's true. > If negotiations don't offer any acceptable compromises, then you can keep > fighting. The risk then is that the compromises might start to look > better. Why not just hold a new series of elections? >>> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the >>> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections. >> But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes? > I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers. Of course they are more than that. They were the former's dictator's pet and they LIKED IT THAT WAY. >> Did we forget to teach them that when we were helping them with a >> Constitution and elections and such? > Our attempt to set up a government has been a partial failure. Some > reject it as an American creation, or as an institution at odds with their > respective ethnic groups or their ideologies. And these opinions would be > irrelevant but for the fact that the insurgency survives. Many of the > insurgents probably have visions for Iraq that are totalitarian, but maybe > they can accept compromises. Maybe they would accept democracy if they > could be guaranteed less influence by foreign interests, or more autonomy > for provinces or ethnic groups. I think it would be a betrayal of the Iraqi people who voted to make concessions and compromises on their behalf. >> I got that part. I'm having trouble with why we don't kill the >> criminals... > I've touched on why they aren't necessarily criminals, so I'll assume you > are aware of that perspective. I'm aware of that perspective but I consider it invalid. > Regardless, we haven't killed the criminals because we can't. At least, > not comprehensively enough to end the insurgency. Don't bother arguing > the rightness of something you're incapable of. Choose from the results > you can actually achieve. > Killing the criminals might be easier if we want to sacrifice a lot of > non-criminals, but that would be bad. Elections are better than concessions. >> So what is the difference between basic anti-gov't criminal behavior and >> anarchy? What/where is the line and when did we cross it? > That's a pretty important question, and I am not positive it has an > answer. But I think the distinction lies not in the behavior but in the > nature of the society. Terrorism and slaughter are met with different > responses by a strong government than by a weak one. I think an > insurgency can only really survive when the current order doesn't have > enough to offer to the people. That means the society is either brutal > tyrany or anarchy. I think an insurgency is a small violent criminal anti-gov't group activity. And anarchy is a large violent criminal anti-gov't national movement. However, if a gov't is so utterly weak it can make an insurgency look like anarchy. >> We'll see... If you're correct then what really needs to happen is a >> truce and new Elections. > I fear that Iraqis might accept a less democratic framework at this point. Which is why I don't concessions. > But negotiations seem so unlikely that it is irrelevant. > However, I don't know what I actually predict happening. We will leave at > some point in the next few years, and Iraq then will look like it does > now. I don't know what happens to Iraq then. >> Alternatively, they could fund one or more candidates. That would suck >> but still be better than civil war in the streets. > They probably would do that. > You didn't really address my original question, or what I attempted to > ask, which was how Syria implements some nasty plan under the pretext of > hosting negotiations between Iraqi groups. Anything anybody puts on the table that is acceptable to the insurgents is going to be popularized and pretty much must then be accepted by the gov't. Syrians could advance almost any proposal... They could offer to put 10,000 troops in Baghdad if the US leaves, the Insurgents could agree, we'd leave, violence is greatly reduced - and Syria now controls the Iraqi gov't.... Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ZB1Dh.1761$h8.543@trnddc05... > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:mGPCh.10012$SR.5252@trndny06... >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:rMmCh.832$CG5.722@trnddc03... >>> I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we >>> either declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're >>> on your own and begin to pull back... >> I fault supporters of the war for feeling justified in saying "just give >> it this one last chance." The war has gone for almost four years and >> pretty steadily gotten worse. > > Not really. Everything was going very well until the Insurgency started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_insurgency#Rate_of_attacks_and_casualties Look at that chart. It gives the numbers of attacks per month against "the Coalition and its Iraqi Partners" beginning in May 2003, the second complete month after the March 20 invasion. When would you say the Insurgency started? The attacks drop around January each year. We need more Januaries in Iraq. >>>> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the >>>> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections. >>> But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes? >> I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers. > > Of course they are more than that. They were the former's dictator's pet > and they LIKED IT THAT WAY. The people you describe are, of course, only a part of the insurgency. _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:eZpDh.5839$lG6.2922@trndny08... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:ZB1Dh.1761$h8.543@trnddc05... >> Not really. Everything was going very well until the Insurgency started. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_insurgency#Rate_of_attacks_and_casualties > Look at that chart. It gives the numbers of attacks per month against > "the Coalition and its Iraqi Partners" beginning in May 2003, the second > complete month after the March 20 invasion. When would you say the > Insurgency started? Look at the difference between attacks on the coalition and attacks on Iraqi civilians, when that upsurge of attacks on Iraqi civilians begins to show, right after the January election, is when the real Insurgency began. (My opinion.) > The attacks drop around January each year. We need more Januaries in > Iraq. Can't argue with that. >>>>> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the >>>>> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections. >>>> But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes? >>> I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers. >> Of course they are more than that. They were the former's dictator's pet >> and they LIKED IT THAT WAY. > The people you describe are, of course, only a part of the insurgency. I know, everybody has an excuse.... Basra is the test. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.