Surge Succeeds

Cycloptichorn wrote:

To get back to the original point, I have not seen many pundits who have accurately described the extensive work - years of work, decades - that will be necessary to create an Iraq which could exist independent of our support, if at all. This point is continually glossed over, as it means not only thousands more American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, but at the end of the day, arming and supporting an ally of Iran.

Before 1920, no one was stupid enough to attempt to make these people live together. The Osmanli Turks did not try to do it, administering three separate regions from Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. It was only after Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill created the political abortion which is Iraq that the attempt was made--and it was disaster for the English in the 1920s, as well. The English put a Hashemite King on an Iraqi throne, Faisal. They then fought a bloody insurrection for a decade, complete with Arthur Harris ("Bomber" Harris of World War II) bombing "Arab" villages to instill terror in the population--and completely failed to overawe the population and put down the insurrection. Iraq became independent in 1932, and Faisal died the following year. His brother succeeded, and he, Ghazi, determined to end the strife between the civilian government (majority Shi'ite) and the armed forces (pan-arabist and majority Sunni) by taking over the government in a military coup (even though King, he was a figurehead, and backing the military coup was about the only effective political act of his life). He died in 1939, and was succeeded by his son Faisal.

But the real villain of the piece was Nuri as-Said, who was involved in the 1919 Paris Peace conference as "the man behind the throne" to Prince Faisal. He was appointed Prime Minister in 1930 during the British Mandate, and he was responsible for the agreement with the English which resulted in Iraqi independence in 1932. He was the PM of Iraq more than a dozen times, and easily made the transition to militarist rule--so long as he protected British oil and other economic interests, he had friends in Whitehall, which made him safe in Baghdad--until 1958. The coup in 1958 which resulted in the assassination of the King had been a product of a failed attempt to unite Iraq and Jordan, and to put the "Free Officers" in control in Baghdad, as had been done in Egypt (Nasser, Sadat and Mubarek). The Communists and the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party were the most powerful force in Sunni society then, with the Ba'athist holding the balance of power in the military. Nuri attempted to escape Baghdad disguised as a woman, and was murdered.

The "government" of "Iraq" has only ever worked, for as much as it could ever have been said to work, because an Arab Sunni minority held the reins of power, and used the police and the military to stay in power. There has never been an independent Shi'ite government in Iraq. No one knows if it would work, and anyone who thinks that there wouldn't[/u] be civil war would be a fool. A friend of Iran is the only probable outcome, even if we spend decades there.

0 Replies

I am in part referring to the 'domino theory.' This is the exact same theory as is thrown around today, with words such as 'caliphate' and 'islaamic radicals' replacing 'communist' and 'socialist.' I do not believe that this theory is one which will come to pass, as I haven't seen any evidence that people who have been warring for thousands of years, will put aside their differences at the drop of a hat.

Will there be a regional war? Probably. I feel that is unavoidable no matter what course of action we take from this point. There is ample evidence that our presence in Iraq is exacerbating the sectarian tensions there, and also drags in more and more sentiment from foreign countries with the passing of time. We are occupying Iraq, something that the Islaamic Radicals warned the moderates we intended to do, in order to destroy their society and way of life. We are currently fulfilling the predictions of the radicals. This is detrimental to our cause as a nation.

You didn't address my post from last page or the one before it, in which I discussed the specific problems we face in Iraq, the ones which I feel are continually glossed over. The Iraqi government and Iraqi army aren't even close to being able to stand on their own. They will not be close for years and years. This essentially equates to a further investment of time and money by us, to the order of Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and that's if greater war doesn't break out. Can you address the struggles we face, and tell me why you believe that a) it's worth it, and b) why you think it's even possible at all?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm sure you will agree "intellectual process of examining possibilities.." is an oxymoron with Bush.

Yes I will agree, but examining possibilities is at the heart of the legislative process, and my concerns rest there, not in the hopeless and senseless situation in the White House.

Quote:

That leaves us with the next 18 months and how to treat our 160,000 troops in Iraq. From my POV, they are burned out and over-exposed to the quagmire in Iraq. Are you asking them to stay for how much longer?

I am not asking them to stay at all. All I have been trying to is to say that the possibility exists based upon both the history of the region and statements reported in the press of what Saudi Arabia and Syria have said about what they would do if the Sunni minority in Iraq is targeted and attacked by the Shiite majority following a pullout of US forces and what Iran has said if what it will do Saudi Arabia intervenes directly in Iraq. To ignore this as part of the pullout calculus would be both reckless and irresponsible.

Quote:

You say "fear of joy or any other emotion do not play any role in the process..." tell that to the families of our soldiers. We are losing 2+ soldiers every day we are in iraq. How many more are you willing to sacrifice for a goal that's now unknown and not articulated?

Fear or emotion do not and should not play any role in the evaluation of possible post withdrawal scenarios. I did not say or imply that the families of those service members deployed to Iraq are not emotional involved and affected by what goes on there. I have not, I am not, and I have no intention of sacrificing anyone. I would like to see all of the soldiers deployed in Iraq home today if possible. Let me turn the question around. Do you think it is a good idea to withdraw our forces from the Middle East as rapidly as possible without evaluating possible negative consequences of such an action?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Before 1920, no one was stupid enough to attempt to make these people live together. [ . . . ]

An excellent post. Based on your historical knowledge you will probably know the answer to this question, but I don't. Wasn't the reason behind the Brits actions to unify the area under one government to simplify the process of getting petroleum from the region?

0 Replies

photowriters wrote:

Do you think it is a good idea to withdraw our forces from the Middle East as rapidly as possible without evaluating possible negative consequences of such an action?

absolutely!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Iraqi government and Iraqi army aren't even close to being able to stand on their own.

Civil war is inevitable, in my never humble opinion. Before the First World War, the Turks garrisoned Mosul, because of the Kurds, with whom they've been at war off an one for nearly 1000 years (the great "Arab" hero Saladin was actually a Kurd, whose uncle Ayyub had defeated the Turks to create the Ayyubid "Empire," which Saladin spread across the middle east--it fell before the Mongol invasion). They also garrisoned Basra, as being the most important port in the region--it served not only "Iraq," but Persia, as well. In a sense, Iraq is the home of Shi'ism, in that Ali, the fourth Caliph, and the cousin and son-in-law to the Prophet, was the founder of Shi'ism. But it had really taken hold when Ali lead the conquest of Persia, before he ever became Caliph. When he became Caliph, he moved his capital from Medina in Arabia to Kufa in what is now Iraq. Ali was assassinated, and a later Caliph moved the capital to Baghdad. Most of the Shi'ites of Iraq are likely the descendants of Persians who moved to Basra and southern "Iraq" because of the significance of trade through Basra. So, the Turks garrisoned Basra because of its economic significance, and there was not then any basis for strife between the Sunni Arabs of the Baghdad district and the Shi'a, other than their traditional contempt and hatred for one another.

The one part of the region in which the Turks used local levies was in Baghdad. These troops, such as they were, turned on their Turkish masters in the Great War. By the time the British arrived to take up their mandate, the only veteran troops in Iraq other than the British were the Sunni Arabs who had been their allies in the war, and who became the police and the army in the puppet state they set up with their Hashemite King. This was the army which Faisal backed in their coup against the government in the last year of his life. This army, Arab and Sunni, was also the source of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party and the Free Officer movement which were the product of the pan-arabist movement of the 1930s, -40s and 50s. The army in Iraq has always been in Sunni hands.

The new Iraqi Army is the first time in the history of that nation when there have been exclusively Shi'ite units, and the first time that Shi'ites have held positions of responsibility in the army. The first fully-trained, equipped and organized brigade in the Iraqi army was disbanded last year, and broken up to form other units precisely because of accusations that that brigade was the source of Shi'ite "death squads" which were killing Sunnis. Breaking up the brigade and sending the members off to other units will likely have the same effect as that which occurred in Russias Tsarist regime in the Great War, when Bolesheviks who were ferreted out in the factories were sent to the front, where they spread the Bolshevik message in the army. It is very likely that the Shi'ite thirst for vengeance is spreading through the Iraqi army. At such time as we leave, the likely consequence is that we will have trained and armed Shi'ites with more than 80 years of grudges to settle.

0 Replies

I don't see much positives in trying to help the Iraqi government according to Set's comments, above.

0 Replies

And, I must point out that all of this was entirely predictable beforehand. There's no aspect of the current situation which was confounding to students of history.

Emotional arguments shouldn't play any role in policy decisions, yet there is a great deal of emotion present in the Republican recalcitrance to leave Iraq; it isn't that they fear a regional war, or loss of oil resources. They fear losing itself. To admit that they were wrong, that they were wrong all along about many different things, and that many others were right; is beyond what their egos can take. People are going to keep dying for their egos.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

photowriters wrote:

Wasn't the reason behind the Brits actions to unify the area under one government to simplify the process of getting petroleum from the region?

Rather a mild way of putting it. Before the Great War, Winston Churchill had been First Lord of the Admiralty. In league with his brilliant First Sea Lord, Jackie Fisher, Churchill had overseen the change of the Royal Navy from coal-fired, reciprocating steam engines to oil-fired steam turbine engines. After the war, the French (rather naively) agreed to let the English draw the lines of influence in the middle east. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 would have left France in control of Mosul, with the British holding Baghdad and Basra. The new commission was headed by Arthur Balfour, who was, however, an old man in his 70s at the time. He had succeeded Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1915, and when Churchill was seconded to Balfour's commission, there was little problem with convincing Balfour of the wisdom of re-drawing the Sykes-Picot map. BP, which was originally APOC (the Anglo-Persian Oil Company), had first gotten a concession in Persia in 1901, and had been incorporated as the APOC in 1909. They were ready to move in promptly. Churchill and Balfour then created Iraq, which united the then known oil reserves of Mosul and Basra via Baghdad. Yes, the object was very definitely to secure the petroleum reserves necessary to fuel the Royal Navy. When Iraq became "independent" in 1932, it was after Nuri as-Said had come to an understanding with the English, and had already signed an agreement to protect British commercial interests (read: oil) in the region.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And, I must point out that all of this was entirely predictable beforehand. There's no aspect of the current situation which was confounding to students of history.

Yup . . .

Word.

0 Replies

On November 12, 2002, when there were fewer than 10,000 posts at this site, i wrote, among other things:

An occupation would be a nightmare, because the likely scenario will be a competition for power such as occurred in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, with a much more murderous and bitter struggle likely. You have the tribal rivalries of central Iraq, among Sunni muslims, who hate the Shiites of the south and the Kurds of the north, all of whom cordially hate and mistrust one another.

Exactly one month later, on December 12, 2002, i wrote:

If you are as well informed as you say, then you know that what Saddam has done to members of his clan is nothing compared to what other Iraqis will do to them if they can get their hands on them, which is the point i was making about his clan surviving or falling with him. I hope i am wrong about the likely scenario--but the history of the middle east for more than 1000 years suggests that bloody reprisal will be the lot of any of Saddam's followers if he is driven from power--and they will stand by him for no other reason than that from their perspective he is the lesser evil. However they may despise and fear him, they'll get no mercy from their opponents and they know it. You state that you have studied Arab history in college--in that case, perhaps you'll remember just how difficult it was for Lawrence to form the tribal coalition he wanted to drive the Turks back into Anatolia, and how fast it all fell apart after the Arabs took Damascus. You must certainly have learned that in the power vacuum which arose from a complete lack of unity and constant tribal and clan warfare after the end of that war, the English and French stepped in and carved up the middle east to their own liking--specifically, that Winston Churchill and Arthur Balfour drew the new map of the middle east in 1921-22. You'll know, in that case, that the Hashemite monarchies of Jordan and Iraq were created at that time, and that the people of Mesopotamia, now the "nation" of Iraq, never accepted that monarchy as the final word on power in their region. You'll know that Iraq is an artificial construct which seeks to unite the "un-unitable"--Shiite muslims of slightly Arabic and mostly Farsi (Persian) descent in the south; Sunni muslims with a tinge of Arabic blood, but mostly descended from Turkic speakers in the central part of the country; and Kurds in the north who have fought all comers for more than 1000 years to preserve their ethnic identity. You'll know that the tribes of the central region only unite in so far as they see their neighbors to the north and south as enemies--Sunni muslims who kill their southern neighbors because they're Shiites, and quasi-Arabs who kill their northern neighbors, even though the Kurds are Sunni muslims, precisely because they are Kurds.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am in part referring to the 'domino theory.' This is the exact same theory as is thrown around today, with words such as 'caliphate' and 'islaamic radicals' replacing 'communist' and 'socialist.' I do not believe that this theory is one which will come to pass, as I haven't seen any evidence that people who have been warring for thousands of years, will put aside their differences at the drop of a hat.

I must have missed it. I have not seen a current parallel to the Domino Theory rationale behind not withdrawing from Vietnam. The only parallel I can see from what I read and see today and what I read, saw, and experienced back then is that there is a group for immediate withdrawal and a group against it.

Quote:

Will there be a regional war? Probably. I feel that is unavoidable no matter what course of action we take from this point.

If that is the case, then we should withdraw immediately and start building our economy and military for the possibility of another world war growing out of that regional conflict.

Quote:

There is ample evidence that our presence in Iraq is exacerbating the sectarian tensions there, and also drags in more and more sentiment from foreign countries with the passing of time. We are occupying Iraq, something that the Islaamic Radicals warned the moderates we intended to do, in order to destroy their society and way of life. We are currently fulfilling the predictions of the radicals. This is detrimental to our cause as a nation.

It is to early to tell for sure, but the aggravation multiplier of our presence on the sectarian violence may be ebbing with the surge. If that is the case, the anti-American sentiment in other Islamic nations should begin to ebb as it becomes obvious that we are helping to reduce the violence.

Quote:

You didn't address my post from last page or the one before it, in which I discussed the specific problems we face in Iraq, the ones which I feel are continually glossed over.

I did not discuss it because I thought you had made an accurate assessment of the task. Perhaps I should have made a statement to that effect.

Quote:

The Iraqi government and Iraqi army aren't even close to being able to stand on their own. They will not be close for years and years. This essentially equates to a further investment of time and money by us, to the order of Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and that's if greater war doesn't break out.

I am reminded of several oft repeated wisdoms:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"Never poke a stick into a hornet's nest."
"Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it." (paraphrase of Georges Santayana in his Life of Reason)

The first two apply to the our involvement in Iraq in the first place and the last to our current situation in Iraq. History has taught us over and over that if we fail to finish the job, that it causes even larger problems in the future. I was not happy when we invaded Iraq and I am not happy with the situation today, but if the surge is working (and that is open to further evaluation), we should not abandon it prematurely.

Quote:

Can you address the struggles we face, and tell me why you believe that a) it's worth it, and b) why you think it's even possible at all?

First, I am convinced that our real struggle is with radical Islam and it is a struggle where our national identity, way of life, and, ultimately, our survival as a nation are at stake. I am also convinced, as I was before the invasion, that our involvement in Iraq has made matters worse rather than better. Frankly I am not sure that we can prevail in Iraq even if we limit our definition of prevailing to the defeat of al Qeada in Iraq regardless of the size or duration of the surge. I am convinced, however, that withdrawing precipitously from Iraq will not have a positive impact on the war on terror and al Qeada that many apparently believe that it will.

All I am advocating is that Congress needs to evaluate the possible consequences of its actions in regards to getting the troops out of Iraq. The only justification that I can offer for letting the surge continue without either threatening or effecting a troop withdrawal before the on scene diplomats and military commander report to the contrary is that it is the prudent thing to do.

If the surge does not bring the desired increase in effective action by the Iraqi government, then I believe that we should disengage from Iraq as rapidly as possible and gird our loins for the possible consequences.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And, I must point out that all of this was entirely predictable beforehand. There's no aspect of the current situation which was confounding to students of history.

O boy! Do I agree with that!

That said, I gotta take a break from this topic and this forum. If'n I don't, I'll be in dutch with my better half.

0 Replies

photowriters: It is to early to tell for sure, but the aggravation multiplier of our presence on the sectarian violence may be ebbing with the surge.

What makes you think this ebbing is permanent? The surge is temporary at best, so what's to keep the insurgents from coming back after our troops are reduced to pre-surge levels? Doesn't it make more sense that they're just waiting for the 30,000 troops to go home?

0 Replies

photowriters wrote:

Quote:

I am aware of ADM Mullen's testimony, and it does not contradict what I said. Please note that he didn't say that it could not be done, but that he did not want to do it. Frankly I sympathize with his reasons. I've been extended involuntarily both in a combat zone and on active duty. Neither occurrence did anything positive for my morale.

What part of "break the forces" don't you understand?

Quote:

He said that exceeding the current deployment ratio of 15 months in Iraq and 12 months at home would "break the forces."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

What makes you think this ebbing is permanent?

Absolutely nothing. I never said that I thought it was permanent. What I said was or at least what I thought I said was that it did not make sense to pullout until the diplomats and our military team made their reports. It also doesn't make sense to pullout when the trend is downward.

Quote:

[ . . . ]what's to keep the insurgents from coming back after our troops are reduced to pre-surge levels?

Absolutely nothing but the Iraqi themselves. We will see what happens. Personally I don't have much confidence.

Quote:

Doesn't it make more sense that they're just waiting for the 30,000 troops to go home?

Of course it does, but doesn't it make a much sense to see if that is the case before committing to a withdrawal?

0 Replies

photowriters, You evidently don't know about the previous surges used in Iraq. They didn't work eitther.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

What part of "break the forces" don't you understand?

Quote:
He said that exceeding the current deployment ratio of 15 months in Iraq and 12 months at home would "break the forces."

The same part of "it can be done if you we are willing to accept the degradation in other areas" that some seem to have difficulty understanding. Personally I am not willing to accept any more degradation than we have suffered over the past five years unless there is some significant improvement. FWIW, I do not consider the recent improvement in the metrics to be significant enough.

The real question we should be asking ourselves is what as individuals and as a nation will we be willing to do if the region dissolves into a wider war and we are drawn back in because of either our commitments to other nations or our own national security issues.

0 Replies

This is all I can find in the search engine, but I remember reading about the past surge. For some strange reason, the page has been "discontinued."

Past troop surges in Iraq produced mixed results - Nation/Politics ...The Washington Times Nation/Politics: Past troop surges in Iraq produced mixed results.
washtimes.com/national/20070110-112455-5914r.htm - 47k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

As we know now, the past surge did nothing to improve the situation in Iraq for the Iraqis or our soldiers. They keep on getting killed by greater numbers. That's a failure in anybody's book. History repeats itself.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

photowriters, You evidently don't know about the previous surges used in Iraq. They didn't work eitther.

Any improvement in the metrics in Iraq is due as much if not more to the change in strategy than a simple increase in troop levels. As I understand it, the increased troop levels allows the new strategy to work and mature.

Good Night All.

0 Replies

Surge Succeeds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know