Dude, Where's my civil war?

[Mickey]

It is not a civil war, Iraq has just fallen victim to an unusually lethal epidemic of domestic disturbances which includes death squads, exploding mosques and armed rival factions killing each other. I think everyone here who thinks Iraq is going just swell should move there and set up house outside the greenzone from which they can send out daily posts telling us of the paradise we have built that the media ignores.

[Scraps]

It is not a civil war, Iraq has just fallen victim to an unusually lethal epidemic of domestic disturbances which includes death squads, exploding mosques and armed rival factions killing each other.  I think everyone here who thinks Iraq is going just swell should move there and set up house outside the greenzone from which they can send out daily posts telling us of the paradise we have built that the media ignores.

618931[/snapback]

 

Keep this up and you might pass me on the liberal totem pole.

[Mickey]

Keep this up and you might pass me on the liberal totem pole.

618934[/snapback]

It is just ridiculous. As if calling the violence in Iraq something other than "civil war" would change reality. Violence at a level which makes the government unable to govern, to deliver the basics, is the issue. No government is going to survive for long that can't keep the lights on, the hospitals open and enough peace to enable society to function. Whether that violence is the product of an unacknowledged civil war or the insurgency or whatever, the result for us is the same, we stay the course. Understanding the precise causes and all is vital to figuring out ways to improve the situation but in the grand scheme, uncontrolled violence is what is doing us in. Its like all that mad looting that happened in the early days. Only it's violence instead of theft. Keeping the peace is the most basic of all basic governmental functions, without it you do not have a functioning government.

 

Liberal? Republicans and some conservatives are saying the same thing.

[Scraps]

It is just ridiculous.  As if calling the violence in Iraq something other than "civil war" would change reality.  Violence at a level which makes the government unable to govern, to deliver the basics, is the issue.  No government is going to survive for long that can't keep the lights on, the hospitals open and enough peace to enable society to function.  Whether that violence is the product of an unacknowledged civil war or the insurgency or whatever, the result for us is the same, we stay the course.  Understanding the precise causes and all is vital to figuring out ways to improve the situation but in the grand scheme, uncontrolled violence is what is doing us in.  Its like all that mad looting that happened in the early days.  Only it's violence instead of theft.  Keeping the peace is the most basic of all basic governmental functions, without it you do not have a functioning government.

 

Liberal?  Republicans and some conservatives are saying the same thing.

618991[/snapback]

 

Some people just don't get sarcasm.

[ASCI]

It is not a civil war, Iraq has just fallen victim to an unusually lethal epidemic of domestic disturbances which includes death squads, exploding mosques and armed rival factions killing each other.  I think everyone here who thinks Iraq is going just swell should move there and set up house outside the greenzone from which they can send out daily posts telling us of the paradise we have built that the media ignores.

618931[/snapback]

I know you don’t think Al-Qaeda is involved . I don’t think anyone really knows to what extent Al-Qaeda is involved how do you know and should I be calling the FBI?

[chicot]

I know you don’t think Al-Qaeda is involved .  I don’t think anyone really knows to what extent Al-Qaeda is involved how do you know and should I be calling the FBI?

619464[/snapback]

 

? I'm not quite sure what, if anything, that has to do with the post that you replied to.

[Mickey]

I know you don’t think Al-Qaeda is involved .  I don’t think anyone really knows to what extent Al-Qaeda is involved how do you know and should I be calling the FBI?

619464[/snapback]

How do you know I don't think AQ is involved?

Define "involved"? Do you mean "responsible for"?

 

Do you think that if there were no AQ in Iraq, zero, that there would be no violence, no insurgency? Here is a hint: The reason that the only way Iraq could be governed was by a murderous nutcase was because Iraq, given its ethnic and religious tensions could only be governed by a murderous nut case. Iraq has a history long before this war which predates AQ by a long shot. It has been a problem and would be a problem with or without AQ.

 

Define for me precisely what needs to be achieved in Iraq before we can withdraw and how those achievements will be measured. How long will we stay if those goals are not met before we admit failure and leave? 2 years? 5 years? 25 years?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How do you know I don't think AQ is involved? 

Define "involved"? Do you mean "responsible for"? 

 

Do you think that if there were no AQ in Iraq, zero, that there would be no violence, no insurgency?  Here is a hint:  The reason that the only way Iraq could be governed was by a murderous nutcase was because Iraq, given its ethnic and religious tensions could only be governed by a murderous nut case.  Iraq has a history long before this war which predates AQ by a long shot.  It has been a problem and would be a problem with or without AQ.

 

Define for me precisely what needs to be achieved in Iraq before we can withdraw and how those achievements will be measured.  How long will we stay if those goals are not met before we admit failure and leave? 2 years? 5 years? 25 years?

619508[/snapback]

 

Wait...you're not saying the situation on the ground is actually complex, are you?

 

[Mickey]

Wait...you're not saying the situation on the ground is actually complex, are you? 

 

619515[/snapback]

No, no, no, no, no. Trust me on this one. There are bad guys, you know, evildoers. Then on the other side there are good guys, I call them "gooddoers". We need to help the gooddoers do good by doing in the evildoers who are doing evil so they can't do any more evil. Simple, see?

[ASCI]

How do you know I don't think AQ is involved? 

Define "involved"? Do you mean "responsible for"? 

 

Do you think that if there were no AQ in Iraq, zero, that there would be no violence, no insurgency?  Here is a hint:  The reason that the only way Iraq could be governed was by a murderous nutcase was because Iraq, given its ethnic and religious tensions could only be governed by a murderous nut case.  Iraq has a history long before this war which predates AQ by a long shot.  It has been a problem and would be a problem with or without AQ.

 

Define for me precisely what needs to be achieved in Iraq before we can withdraw and how those achievements will be measured.  How long will we stay if those goals are not met before we admit failure and leave? 2 years? 5 years? 25 years?

619508[/snapback]

Yes, that’s just it; I don’t know just how involved AQ is, neither I bet do you. Very important question don’t you think? Like you said these people don’t know how to govern themselves because of all the years of oppression. They may be replacing the one nutcase ruler (Saddam) with another (the AQ influence). I do think it would be a lot easier to pacify all the different factions in Iraq without the interference from AQ.

 

As far as the short long term, I think we should disengage from direct contact and full military operations with the combatants, concentrate more on the boarders and intelligence, continue training and advisement, and conduct Special Forces intervention operations went needed. We leave or scale down when the Iraqi government/military can do the above operations. I doubt anyone could tell you exactly how long that will take.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No, no, no, no, no.  Trust me on this one.  There are bad guys, you know, evildoers.  Then on the other side there are good guys, I call them "gooddoers".  We need to help the gooddoers do good by doing in the evildoers who are doing evil so they can't do any more evil.  Simple, see?

619584[/snapback]

 

I still don't get it. Can you explaining it using a clown analogy, or maybe in terms of salmon swimming upstream to spawn?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I still don't get it.  Can you explaining it using a clown analogy, or maybe in terms of salmon swimming upstream to spawn?

619674[/snapback]

Article was in the NY Post, nuff said...makes the Washington Times look liberal. Kinda like listening to Al Franken on the other side...that good enough for your and do you need me throw in some size 33s and makeup?

[Mickey]

Yes, that’s just it; I don’t know just how involved AQ is, neither I bet do you.  Very important question don’t you think? Like you said these people don’t know how to govern themselves because of all the years of oppression.  They may be replacing the one nutcase ruler (Saddam) with another (the AQ influence).  I do think it would be a lot easier to pacify all the different factions in Iraq without the interference from AQ. 

 

As far as the short long term, I think we should disengage from direct contact and full military operations with the combatants, concentrate more on the boarders and intelligence, continue training and advisement, and conduct Special Forces intervention operations went needed.  We leave or scale down when the Iraqi government/military can do the above operations. I doubt anyone could tell you exactly how long that will take.

619624[/snapback]

What are the "above operations"? Full military operations? What does that mean? I still don't understand precisely what we must achieve before we can leave and how it will be measured.

 

If you are saying we can leave when the Iraqi's can do what we haven't been able to do, pacify the country, then I don't think we are ever leaving.

 

I am not so sure that the make-up of the insurgency is such an unknown:

 

Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division said in November 2003, “I want to underscore that most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not foreign forces.” Swannack said that only a small number of the 500 - 600 insurgents his forces had captured were non-Iraqi. Gen. John Abizaid, overall commander of U.S.forces in the Middle East region has said "I am confident that there is no flood of foreign fighters coming in [to Iraq]."

 

Major General Joseph Taluto has said "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis.

 

After the battle for Fallouja in November 2004, of the 1,000 or so enemy captured, only 15 were foreign. At the time, it was reported that "American commanders said their best estimates of the proportion of foreigners among their enemies is about 5%." And further, "The overwhelming majority of insurgents, several senior commanders said, are drawn from the tens of thousands of former government employees..."

 

As of July 2004, of the 17,700 security risks which had been detained by coalition forces over the previous year, only 400 or 2%, were foreign. At about the same time, in Ramadi, where Marines had fended off coordinated attacks by hundreds of insurgents, the fighters "are all locals," said Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. "There are very few foreign fighters."

 

Last January, General Swannak said "I think there are some criminal attacks out there on soft targets. But the majority of targets directed against us, coalition forces and probably Iraqis who support coalition efforts, are done by former regime elements still today."

 

Swannak has also said "We are not fighting foreign fighters coming across the border in significant numbers, we are fighting mostly former regime locals."

 

No doubt there is a foreign element in Iraq but it doesn't appear that they have played a large role in the insurgency we have been unable, thus far, to stop.