400,000

[Bungee Jumper]

The insurgency is unfortunately only one aspect.  They are feeding on the disorder and chaos created by the Sunni minority/Shiite majority and the various conflicts and issues surrounding the split.  If that could ever be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties (yeah, I know, and if the kick was 3 feet further left), the insurgency would lose steam in a hurry, Iranian or Syrian support be damned.

827052[/snapback]

 

I was being vague, though, in lumping all the violence under the umbrella term "insurgency". It's not literally correct...but literally, all the vioilence can be lumped under the term "asymmetric warfare", so my analysis still holds for the factional violence. I highly doubt the Sunni and/or Shi'ia death squads are operating in a vacuum; someone on the outside has to be supporting them.

 

Which just illustrates another fallacy of the occupation: simply occupying Iraq is a joke of a plan at this point (not that it ever wasn't...but that's outside the scope of our discussion). If outside forces are fostering internal instability, it's no longer intranational, but a regional issue, and you'd have to work out the issues to the satisfaction of THOSE parties as well.

 

Considering that one of those parties is a country we're trying to force sanctions on for their nuclear pursuits...good luck with that. In fact, actively supporting ANY insurgents (i.e. asymmetric fighters) in Iraq is good strategic sense for Iran: it's virtually the only means they have of strategically projecting power against the US, and probably does more to shield their nuke program from US interference than anything else they could manage.

[bills_fan]

Considering that one of those parties is a country we're trying to force sanctions on for their nuclear pursuits...good luck with that. In fact, actively supporting ANY insurgents (i.e. asymmetric fighters) in Iraq is good strategic sense for Iran: it's virtually the only means they have of strategically projecting power against the US, and probably does more to shield their nuke program from US interference than anything else they could manage.

 

No question, the mullah's worst nightmare is a free, democratic, peaceful Iraq.

 

From my limited understanding, the Iraqi Shiites are sick of the daily violence and the Iraqi Sunni's are afraid of being overwhelmed due to their low numbers and past support for Saddam. Add to the simmering conflict extremists on both sides and watch it explode. Furthermore, the foreign insurgents, simply there to fight exacerbate the problem.

 

Which just illustrates another fallacy of the occupation: simply occupying Iraq is a joke of a plan at this point (not that it ever wasn't...but that's outside the scope of our discussion). If outside forces are fostering internal instability, it's no longer intranational, but a regional issue, and you'd have to work out the issues to the satisfaction of THOSE parties as well.

 

If the Shiites and Sunnis could at least work out some small measure of compromise, the outside parties (read Iran, Syria etc.) would have much less of a say against a united Iraq. In fact, I'd argue that both groups would tell Iran/Syria and to a point even the US that Iraq is better left alone. At that p[oint, they'd be right and we could deal with the mullahs.

[Bungee Jumper]

No question, the mullah's worst nightmare is a free, democratic, peaceful Iraq. 

 

From my limited understanding, the Iraqi Shiites are sick of the daily violence and the Iraqi Sunni's are afraid of being overwhelmed due to their low numbers and past support for Saddam.  Add to the simmering conflict extremists on both sides and watch it explode.  Furthermore, the foreign insurgents, simply there to fight exacerbate the problem. 

If the Shiites and Sunnis could at least work out some small measure of compromise, the outside parties (read Iran, Syria etc.) would have much less of a say against a united Iraq.  In fact, I'd argue that both groups would tell Iran/Syria and to a point even the US that Iraq is better left alone.  At that p[oint, they'd be right and we could deal with the mullahs.

827089[/snapback]

 

That would require, though, that said demographics act as unified bodies. It's not accurate, for example, to say that "Shiites" are sick of daily violence...clearly some aren't, since Shiite death squads are running around.

 

So the real question then becomes: how much of a violence-committing minority does it take to completely !@#$ things up? Sadly, I think you'll find it only requires a very small minority (Castro at one point was down to five people)...and if they're supported from outside in the manner I outlined earlier, they become very hard to combat.

 

And all this is still oversimplifying things. The moderate Sunnis, for example, are still politically weaker than they otherwise would be because of their own short-sighted tactics (specifically: boycotting the parlimentary elections a year-plus back and ensuring their own lack of participation in the government.) So are Sunni "insurgents" (sic) true political insurgents, sectarian death squads, or moderate Sunnis desperately playing catch-up for their short-sighted earlier policies?

 

The bottom line, though, is that no matter what, outside forces (specifically, Iran, Syria, and radical Islamists of the al-Qaeda sort) will always court the fringe groups no matter how well you get the moderates to agree, and the fringe groups will always achieve a minimum level of effectiveness (i.e. simple existence) because of the outside support.

[IBTG81]

The bottom line, though, is that no matter what, outside forces (specifically, Iran, Syria, and radical Islamists of the al-Qaeda sort) will always court the fringe groups no matter how well you get the moderates to agree, and the fringe groups will always achieve a minimum level of effectiveness (i.e. simple existence) because of the outside support.

827125[/snapback]

 

And that is why we need to turn Iran and Syria into dust.

[Chilly]

And that is why we need to turn Iran and Syria into dust.

827189[/snapback]

 

Which would lead to other countries supporting the people that are against us.

[IBTG81]

Which would lead to other countries supporting the people that are against us.

827197[/snapback]

 

Oh, god forbid Uzbekistan hate us.

 

So, according to you, we should now base our policy on what other countires think?

[Chilly]

Oh, god forbid Uzbekistan hate us. 

 

So, according to you, we should now base our policy on what other countires think? 

827201[/snapback]

 

No, what I'm saying is just blowing up two countries because they are supplying terrorists against the United States will lead to other countries doing the same exact thing.

[IBTG81]

No, what I'm saying is just blowing up two countries because they are supplying terrorists against the United States will lead to other countries doing the same exact thing.

827214[/snapback]

 

 

The way you worded that suggests other countires will blow up Iran and Syria too!? Hoo-rah!

[Chilly]

 

The way you worded that suggests other countires will blow up Iran and Syria too!? Hoo-rah!

827250[/snapback]

 

"same exact thing" as other countries supporting the people that are against us

[smokinandjokin]

I believe a scenario occurred earlier in this thread where bills fan and Bungee Jumper engaged in a point-counterpoint discussion on facts and events, of both the past and present, and even managed to work in a few non-judgemental opinions about what this means for the future, ALL while civilly discussing and occasionally debating said events.

 

Please close this thread or move it out of PPP immediately, unless bills fan or Jumper want to chime in and call the other one a !@#$ tard. Then it can stay.

[PastaJoe]

You don't have enough faith in our troops to traion, support and equip the Iraqis to take care of there oun country. It may take 10-15 years but we will get the job done given the support is there to achieve it. This can't be another vietnam where the Democrats gave up on freedom and liberty

826847[/snapback]

 

The troops aren't the issue or the answer. This isn't a military problem, it's a political problem. If the various factions don't want to work together for a political solution, they can't be made to do it. I have faith that the troops will do what they're told; I have no faith in their civilian leaders who tell them what to do. And I believe it was a Republican president who ended our participation in Vietnam.

[Bungee Jumper]

I believe a scenario occurred earlier in this thread where bills fan and Bungee Jumper engaged in a point-counterpoint discussion on facts and events, of both the past and present, and even managed to work in a few non-judgemental opinions about what this means for the future, ALL while civilly discussing and occasionally debating said events. 

 

Please close this thread or move it out of PPP immediately, unless bills fan or Jumper want to chime in and call the other one a !@#$ tard.  Then it can stay.

827306[/snapback]

 

That can actually happen, when neither person involved is actually being a !@#$tard.

 

It's rare...usually because we only get people like catchescannonballs or Joey Balls over here. But it does happen.