This Guy Gets It--Long

[GG]

Reread my original reply in this thread. I never said any such thing. The original post is making the usual mistake of assuming that the entire insurgency in Iraq is to do with militant muslims wanting to take over the world. I was pointing out that a substantial part of the insurgency (and I used the word "many" not "most") was made up of secular Baathists and Iraqi nationalists who have very different motivations from those of Al-Qaeda. And yes, a major motivation is the removal of foreign forces from Iraq which is why talks with insurgent groups (which are happening all the time) usually break down on the issue of a definite timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, whether they are negotiating with the Iraqi goverment or the US.

714749[/snapback]

 

I won't disagree with you that the vast majority of the insurgency is not made up of AQ nuts. However, I would argue that the real goal of the insurgents is to drive out the US.

 

To test that theory, ask yourself, "Would insurgents put down their guns & bombs if the US left tomorrow? Or would violence escalate more, as the tribalism would take deeper root?"

 

I thought that the talks with insurgents break down over amnesty issues, not timeline of US troops' withdrawal.

[chicot]

I won't disagree with you that the vast majority of the insurgency is not made up of AQ nuts.  However, I would argue that the real goal of the insurgents is to drive out the US. 

 

To test that theory, ask yourself, "Would insurgents put down their guns & bombs if the US left tomorrow?  Or would violence escalate more, as the tribalism would take deeper root?"

 

I thought that the talks with insurgents break down over amnesty issues, not timeline of US troops' withdrawal.

714834[/snapback]

 

If the US left tomorrow, some insurgents probably would put down their weapons. Of course, many (maybe most) would carry on fighting to try to bring down the government, but I fail to see what that proves. It is entirely possible for the insurgents to be fighting both to drive out the US and to bring down the government, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if you regard the occupation as illegitimate then then it's not entirely illogical to regard the current government as illegitimate also, even though it was elected, since it was established during the occupation.

 

I understand what you're saying - that the insurgency is made up, to a large degree, of Sunni muslims and that Sunni-Shiite tensions are what is causing the violence. That is true, to a certain degree. However, you cannot ignore the fact that the Sunni community has good reason to resent the occupation, since de-Baathification, as well as the wholesale dismissal of the army, caused many of them to lose their jobs. Heavy-handed US tactics in the early days of the occupation also caused deep resentment in the Sunni provinces (something that the US admitted and did try to change). These things have little to do with Sunni-Shiite tensions but everything to do with the occupation.

[erynthered]

even though it was elected, since it was established during the occupation.

 

 

715833[/snapback]

 

So the election was a fraud?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So the election was a fraud?

715892[/snapback]

 

Doesn't matter if it was or not. The perception will be that it was.

[chicot]

So the election was a fraud?

715892[/snapback]

 

Not to me, but, as the monkey points out, it will be perceived as such by many.

[GG]

I understand what you're saying - that the insurgency is made up, to a large degree, of Sunni muslims and that Sunni-Shiite tensions are what is causing the violence. That is true, to a certain degree. However, you cannot ignore the fact that the Sunni community has good reason to resent the occupation, since de-Baathification, as well as the wholesale dismissal of the army, caused many of them to lose their jobs. Heavy-handed US tactics in the early days of the occupation also caused deep resentment in the Sunni provinces (something that the US admitted and did try to change). These things have little to do with Sunni-Shiite tensions but everything to do with the occupation.

715833[/snapback]

 

So the proper avenue to channel the resentment against the US is to blow up fellow Iraqis? Using your logic, shouldn't Shiites & Kurds harbor greater resentment towards Sunnis for dominating (occupying) the Iraqi political landscape since 1920s?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What GG said.

 

If you watch the news any more, it's no longer reports about roadside bombs killing our soldiers, it's about carbombs in markets or mass graves or death squads. This is no longer about resisting the occupation, it's about reprisal and retribution.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What GG said.

 

If you watch the news any more, it's no longer reports about roadside bombs killing our soldiers, it's about carbombs in markets or mass graves or death squads. This is no longer about resisting the occupation, it's about reprisal and retribution.

716113[/snapback]

 

No, it's still about resisting the occupation. Much of the "anti-Muslim" violence is against the Shi'ia...who are seen largely as puppets of the occupation.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No, it's still about resisting the occupation.  Much of the "anti-Muslim" violence is against the Shi'ia...who are seen largely as puppets of the occupation.

716123[/snapback]

 

Convoluted logic, that. They certainly aren't going to scare us off by killing civilians.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Convoluted logic, that. They certainly aren't going to scare us off by killing civilians.

716126[/snapback]

 

Sensible logic. The occupation removed the Sunni minority from power. Attacking the Shi'ia majority - who, in a democratic process, are likely to wield far more power than they did - works to discredit the new government and thus the occupation that put it in place.

 

And it's not just about getting the US out of Iraq - the easiest way to do that would be to STOP blowing things up. It's about the Sunni minority feeling disenfranchised, marginalized...and holding an 800-year old grudge against the Shi'ia for helping the Mongols sack Baghdad. The Shi'ia are not infrequently seen as traitors to true Islam (which, as far as I can tell, is "Arab" Islam in this case); I've read statements saying that the Shi'ia are "again selling out" to a foreign power, "just like" they did to the Mongols.

 

Yeah, it may not make sense to us, as Americans. But we have a 200 year old country. What the !@#$ do we know about holding an 800-year old grudge?

[Chilly]

Convoluted logic, that. They certainly aren't going to scare us off by killing civilians.

716126[/snapback]

 

I'd think the intent would be to scare other Iraqi's into being on their side, not to scare us away.

 

CTM said it better than I did. Damn!

[chicot]

What GG said.

 

If you watch the news any more, it's no longer reports about roadside bombs killing our soldiers, it's about carbombs in markets or mass graves or death squads. This is no longer about resisting the occupation, it's about reprisal and retribution.

716113[/snapback]

 

There are still dozens of attacks daily on foreign troops. Just because the media has got bored with reporting it, don't assume that it is no longer happening.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'd think the intent would be to scare other Iraqi's into being on their side, not to scare us away.

 

CTM said it better than I did.  Damn!

716133[/snapback]

 

I'm sorry, but if some yahoo blows up my brother while he's at the market, I'm not going to do ANYTHING but try to even the score.

 

As for CTM's logic, yeah, it's likely a product of the Sunnis no longer being in power. IMO, we should arm the shia to effectively put down this Sunni nonsense.

[Chilly]

I'm sorry, but if some yahoo blows up my brother while he's at the market, I'm not going to do ANYTHING but try to even the score.

 

As for CTM's logic, yeah, it's likely a product of the Sunnis no longer being in power. IMO, we should arm the shia to effectively put down this Sunni nonsense.

716163[/snapback]

 

I meant it more as to make them think that the government isn't working (through fear) because they can't protect anything, more or less on the lines of what CTM was saying.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm sorry, but if some yahoo blows up my brother while he's at the market, I'm not going to do ANYTHING but try to even the score.

 

As for CTM's logic, yeah, it's likely a product of the Sunnis no longer being in power. IMO, we should arm the shia to effectively put down this Sunni nonsense.

716163[/snapback]

 

Yeah, disenfranchise the Sunnis even more. That'll calm things down.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yeah, disenfranchise the Sunnis even more.  That'll calm things down. 

716167[/snapback]

 

Yeah, well, the Sunnis haven't shown a capability to act in a civilized or rational manner, have they?

 

It's a better alternative than continually allowing the Sunnis to wreak wanton destruction on the Shia majority.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yeah, well, the Sunnis haven't shown a capability to act in a civilized or rational manner, have they?

 

It's a better alternative than continually allowing the Sunnis to wreak wanton destruction on the Shia majority.

716168[/snapback]

 

Wreaking wanton destruction on the Sunni minority is better than letting them wreak wanton destruction on the Shi'ia majority? Is there a published scale of "wanton destruction" somewhere that explains what's good and what's bad?

 

And never mind the paradox of reducing violence by increasing it (which isn't really a paradox anyway)...let's just question the strategic sense of feeding the grievances of people who are committing violence for those grievances already. Explain to me precisely how disenfranchising the Sunnis even more advances our strategic goals - again, I stress, strategic goals - in Iraq and the Middle East.

[chicot]

I'm sorry, but if some yahoo blows up my brother while he's at the market, I'm not going to do ANYTHING but try to even the score.

 

As for CTM's logic, yeah, it's likely a product of the Sunnis no longer being in power. IMO, we should arm the shia to effectively put down this Sunni nonsense.

716163[/snapback]

 

Problem is that the US wants the Sunnis to be more involved, not less. A shiite-dominated Iraq which is a strong ally of Iran's is definitely not what the US wants.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And never mind the paradox of reducing violence by increasing it (which isn't really a paradox anyway)...let's just question the strategic sense of feeding the grievances of people who are committing violence for those grievances already.  Explain to me precisely how disenfranchising the Sunnis even more advances our strategic goals - again, I stress, strategic goals - in Iraq and the Middle East.

716170[/snapback]

 

Our strategic goals are best served by empowering the Iraqis to stabilize their country on their own. Barring that, split the damn country up and put an end to this. Their grievances? THEIR GRIEVANCES? Their grievance is that they're no longer considered "special". Their grievance is that they no longer have the power to suppress the Shia and Kurds.

 

Their grievance isn't a real grievance in my opinion. The Shia and Kurds....now THEY have legitimate beefs toward the Sunni Arabs.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Problem is that the US wants the Sunnis to be more involved, not less. A shiite-dominated Iraq which is a strong ally of Iran's is definitely not what the US wants.

716171[/snapback]

 

And yet, the Sunnis bomb us and the Shia. Go figure. What do they hope to accomplish by getting rid of us? We leave, they have NO protection and NO hope of ever winning a majority.

 

But yeah, the resitance is logical.