Heh, if they dont tell you truth WHY US is there - it doesnt mean they dont know it themselves
Really, you believe too much in publicly spoken official words.
Counter-Insurgency Warfare
- Thread starter driftder
- Start date
- Status
Really, you believe too much in publicly spoken official words.Atilla [TR]
New Member
Kurdistan is not fact! When you make comments like that it makes me believe that you support the terrorists. May I remind you that PKK is listed as a terrorist state in U.S, and E.U. And over the 20 years of fighting 30 000 people have died. May I also add that while the terrorists keep on trying to make something that is only in there dreams happen, they are killing innocent civilians , they are killing children and even innocent babies. While Turkish soldiers are trying to help Kurdish people hurt or in need the terrorists attack them. Please think before you write comments like that.
Atilla [TR]
New Member
Grey Wolfs have not done 1/10 of what Pkk has done. But yes they are not that great either they did there bad things, but not even close to what PKK has done and most there attacks where focussed on PKK members. And the neo nazi's in your country do not fare any better when they burn Turks homes.
Last edited:
Cletus Wilbury
New Member
This seems to be slipping under the radar (shoot, I can't post links yet, you'lll have to google it):
Opening Summary to the Senate Armed Services Committee (Washington, D.C.)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Washington, D.C. Thursday, April 10, 2008
Opening Summary to the Senate Armed Services Committee (Washington, D.C.)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Washington, D.C. Thursday, April 10, 2008
Traitor?
If saying it as it is is makes you a traitor, then I guess he is.
Reading into this statement it seems that he did'ent anticipate the surge policy as he was looking to implement a disengagement policy.
"It was my hope 16 months ago that I could help forge a bipartisan path forward in our Iraq policy that would sustain a steadily lower – but still adequate and necessary – level of commitment for the years needed to yield an Iraq that is an ally against extremists and can govern and defend itself. I continue to harbor this hope for a bipartisan path and will continue to work for it"
Does he anticipate the failure of the surge policy? or is he future proofing himself.
"But I do fear that understandable frustration over years of war and dismay over sacrifices already made may result in decisions that are gratifying in the short term but very costly to our country and the American people in the long term."
Now is this a warning against adventures in Iran or and premature withdrawal from Iraq. Or both.
Its like reading tea leaves..
Some of you need to take a cold shower.
Thread closed for a couple of days so that some navel gazing can happen.
Thread closed for a couple of days so that some navel gazing can happen.
thread re-opened.
if it's abused again then any offenders will incur a one week ban automatically...
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Merocaine i agree with you completly on this point. Allthough some tactical progress has made US policy does not seem to be aimed at achieveing any clear goal, apart from the vauge notion of an iraq that can defend itself. Mid term security improvement seems to be the only clear objective, and apparantly strategic contradictions are being tollerated in order to achieve that. This is not a long term soloution IMHO, & without a set of clear strategic aims tactical sucsess alone is virtually irrelevent.
This seems to be a failure of policy rather than tactics, which is consistent with the wider war on terror. COIN campaigns are allways fundimentally political/economic in nature I guess this is the biggest lesson we all need to learn.
Permit me to disagree, at least to a certain extent.
The stated aim has been to create a self-governing Iraqi state based upon democratic systems. Security - that is the ability of the elected government to provide security for both itself and its population - has always been a secondary aim. The basis of this objective is that (a) democracies rarely go to war against other democracies and (b) if it could be made to function well, its example to other Arabic populations might be expected to inspire democratic movements in other middle-eastern states - which might, in turn, give certain despotic governments something else to concentrate on , rather than the exporting of terrorism.
This has been clearly stated, and sounds good in theory. In practice, the Iraqis now have a constitution for which they have voted in a referendum, and a government elected in two referendums which were well-supported as far as voter turn-out is concerned. This must be regarded as positive progress towards the goal, and it is quite possible that the time required to create a functioning state of this nature has been under-estimated, particularly by sections of the media and those who forget that it took the English-speaking world the best part of a millennium to arrive at our current state of relative political stability. History does not support the argument that a democratic state will either happen quickly, or not at all. Quite possibly it will take a generation.
One can argue that we have to start somewhere.
As said, the security issue is secondary, but vital. If an elected Iraqi government is to be respected by its citizens, it must be capable of meeting their needs. This includes security.
If it is to be stable, then the sub-sections of the Iraqi population must be convinced that their best interests lie in working with the elected government, rather than fighting against it. Quite obviously, neither of these secondary objectives has been adequately met so-far.
I agree that not all decisions by the US administration and military commanders have, over the past 5 years, been particularly prudent or helpful in achieving these aims,,,,, but the aims have always been there.
Regards.......... Peter
IrishHitman
New Member
There are only three methods of effectively stopping paramilitary activity in an occupied area.
1. Remove the reasons for insurgency (Northern Ireland for example).
2. Flood the occupied area with troops (Japan, Germany post-WW2, Kosovo)
3. Mass killings (Marius & the Romans vs Teutones, and other Germanic tribes)
1 is the most politically acceptable method, but can be slow to work.
2 depends on the willingness of the occupier to commit troops, and may not be effective in removing resistance without 1.
3 is by far the least politically acceptable method, and the least humane, but is by far the most effective. German resistance in Roman controlled areas was removed completely by this method + 1. However, advocating this position today would be sickening.
1. Remove the reasons for insurgency (Northern Ireland for example).
2. Flood the occupied area with troops (Japan, Germany post-WW2, Kosovo)
3. Mass killings (Marius & the Romans vs Teutones, and other Germanic tribes)
1 is the most politically acceptable method, but can be slow to work.
2 depends on the willingness of the occupier to commit troops, and may not be effective in removing resistance without 1.
3 is by far the least politically acceptable method, and the least humane, but is by far the most effective. German resistance in Roman controlled areas was removed completely by this method + 1. However, advocating this position today would be sickening.
I suggest that the three things that you suggest may be a part of, but by no means the only ways to demonstrate one simple principle.
It is more to your advantage - you will get more of what you want more quickly - if you work with us, rather than fighting against us.
Peter
IrishHitman
New Member
The US is already doing 1 + 2 in Iraq, although probably not enough of both.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Well, originally WMD was stated to be the strategic aim, but i digress on the first line.
Since the start of the "occupation" (I hope that word is not too provocative) the objective of a "self governing Iraqi state based on democratic systems" is anything but a CLEAR strategic goal. Who defines what a functioning democracy in the iraqi social structure looks like? Who defines what a democracy within the Iraqi ethnic structure looks like? Who defines what some sort of victory constitutes? All of these questions are vital in strategic and tactical decision making. i.e. Is a Sunni Majority a democracy? How is a democratic state really going to work were there is little political communication amongst the populous? How is a democracy going to work in a tribalistic social structure? None of these questions were adressed before the invasion, or have been since.
Now after the successful invasion and the installation of a constitution, supported by a "popular vote", the shortcomings of applying "conventional' democratic systems to Iraqi conditions on the ground have become painfully obvious. The large voter turn out supriseingly voted along tribal allegiance and a sunni majority was elected, which the went about persecuting ethnic/religious minorities. Thats hardly a functioning democracy.
Ever since that election the coalition has consistently taken actions to improve the short-mid term security conditions, sometimes at the expence of long term political goals. A good example raised by merocaine is the backing of the Islamic Council of Iraq and the Bader Brigades, who advocate an ethnic break up of the nation. An action that would improve the short-mid term security situation, but seem to be at odds with the whole united democratic Iraq thing. A strategic contradcition that has been tollerated in order to improve the security situation. Short-mid term security has been the only driveing factor in the last 2-3 years, simply because if it did not improve the US would have been forced to withdraw last year.
These contradictions have been tolerated because the coalition has no real idea of what their goal is, beyond a "free and democratic Iraq". Is an Iraq segregated along ethnic lines into 3 individual states acceptable or not? All of the statements made by the Bush administration says no, but their actions on the ground say yes. Thats the difference between having some vague objective and a CLEAR strategic goal, and something as imprecise as a "democratic iraq" is not sufficient IMHO, which was my original point.
I'm on my holidays at the moment, so i'll be brief!
One of the key battles the Adminstration has had to fight has been convincing congress to continue the occupation.
To do this they had to show a drastic improvement in security, for american forces and for the Iraqis. They have been able to implement this because of two main factors.
1/ The rejection of Al Queda by the Sunni Tribes, due mainly to there inhumanity, rather than any love of the US.
2/ The nutralisation of Sadr, this achived by backing of the current Iraqi Goverment, remember there was a time 6 months ago when most commentators thought that the Prime minister was finished. This did'ent happen due to one main reason, Sadr.
This is the short termism in American Policy.
They have abandoned the more idealistic Democratic objectives for a certain kind of secterian confessionalism.
As I can make out the US has two objectives, the creation of a situation where they can declear victory.
And the neutralisation of Iranian influence in Iraq.
Fine, thats valid enough, its the tactics I don't agree with.
I do believe that if they continue on this path it will result in the dismemberment of the country and allow the rump to be even more open to Iranian influence.
One of the key battles the Adminstration has had to fight has been convincing congress to continue the occupation.
To do this they had to show a drastic improvement in security, for american forces and for the Iraqis. They have been able to implement this because of two main factors.
1/ The rejection of Al Queda by the Sunni Tribes, due mainly to there inhumanity, rather than any love of the US.
2/ The nutralisation of Sadr, this achived by backing of the current Iraqi Goverment, remember there was a time 6 months ago when most commentators thought that the Prime minister was finished. This did'ent happen due to one main reason, Sadr.
This is the short termism in American Policy.
They have abandoned the more idealistic Democratic objectives for a certain kind of secterian confessionalism.
As I can make out the US has two objectives, the creation of a situation where they can declear victory.
And the neutralisation of Iranian influence in Iraq.
Fine, thats valid enough, its the tactics I don't agree with.
I do believe that if they continue on this path it will result in the dismemberment of the country and allow the rump to be even more open to Iranian influence.
Hi OB.
While WMD - and more precisely, Saddam's continued refusal to comply with programs and UN resolutions designed to ensure that he didn't have them - were one of the justifications of the invasion of Iraq, the conversion of Iraq to a functional democracy was a stated aim before the invasion commenced.
It is so stated in the Resolution passed in October 2002, by the US Congress authorising the invasion
I won't argue too much that the use of the term "occupation" is inappropriate, although it is not one in the usual sense as (a) The legitimate and elected Iraqi government wants it to continue for the time being and (b) a number of surveys indicate that the majority of the Iraqi people want it to continue in the short term. (A bit like having the the Yanks here in WW2.... a pain in the neck, but better than having the Japanese here.
)Where I disagree with you, and it is more in the semantics than the practicalities, is in that you confuse the process with the goal. A popularly supported constitution, an elected government and Having Saddam tried and sentenced according to the rule of law are all indications of progress.
I suggest that we need not get carried away with the notion that peace must be perfect in order to declare the "occupation" a success. There is no known country in which there is zero violence and zero political dissension. In a country with a tradition of tribalism and conflict, I suggest that "success" will be a popularly elected government which is able to maintain itself against the efforts of those who would depose it by force of arms. When the Iraqi government says to the US, "We can handle this! Thankyou and goodbye...." the "occupation" can be said to have ended successfully. If,,, when,,, and how this comes to pass are separate debates.
Respectfully....... Peter
IrishHitman
New Member
Partition is usually not a good option.
History has shown this. India and Pakistan for example, or my own country.
"Three individual states" on Iraqi soil wouldn't survive more than 10 years.
At that point, they'd be absorbed by Turkey, Iran, and Saudi-Arabia (or Jordan). And even before that point, they'd become a hotbed for contestion between these three nations.
That's not even considering the ethnic cleansing that would ensue before and after a separation.
At that point, they'd be absorbed by Turkey, Iran, and Saudi-Arabia (or Jordan). And even before that point, they'd become a hotbed for contestion between these three nations.
That's not even considering the ethnic cleansing that would ensue before and after a separation.
- Status