hamburger wrote:as i stated earlier , when WW II ended , the british forces provided for the security , law and order in the british occupied zone of germany .
german citizens didn't have to fear reprisals by renegade nazis , and they didn't have to fear the british forces either .
from what i've seen happening in iraq , the united states are not able to provide security , law and order for the citizens of iraq .
i can't see how the united states will be able to win 'the hearts and minds' of the iraqis unless they can provide such security .
surely , the u.s government must have had plans to adequately look after the citizens of iraq , or am i wrong here ?
hbg
You are right! Perhaps the following comparison will explain why there is a significant difference in the difficulty of keeping order in Iraq now than in Germany in the 40s.
Apparently the number of renegade nazis who were determined to wage war on non-renegade nazis (i.e., German civilians) was not a significant problem back there in the 40s. Infiltration of renegade Nazis into Germany from other countries was not a significant problem. Also, those renegade nazis that did exist were apparently not inclined to suicidal murder of German civilians. Furthermore, the German government surrendered unconditionally to the allies.
The Iraq governent did not surrender unconditionally to anyone, nor did the domestic Iraqi terrorists or the infiltrating Iraqi terrorists surrender unconditionally to anyone. The number of terrorists in Iraq who are determined to wage war on Iraqi civilians is a significant problem. The number of terrorists in Iraq that are inclined to suicidal murder of Iraqi civilians is a significant problem. The number of terrorists in Iraq that infiltrated and are infiltrating from other countries is a significant problem.
I read it!
There's considerable difference of opinion on how to rescue the situation in Iraq.
Some say change our tactics.
Some say pull out.
Some say Bush refuses to recognize reality.
Some say wait until after the November elections.
You alreay know what I say.
blatham wrote:Containment is working. Ican is not posting elsewhere.
...
:wink:
Here: THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.
and
There: ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?
ican you're just not keeping your nose up, pay attention!
ican wrote :
"The Iraq governent did not surrender unconditionally to anyone, nor did the domestic Iraqi terrorists or the infiltrating Iraqi terrorists surrender unconditionally to anyone. The number of terrorists in Iraq who are determined to wage war on Iraqi civilians is a significant problem. The number of terrorists in Iraq that are inclined to suicidal murder of Iraqi civilians is a significant problem. The number of terrorists in Iraq that infiltrated and are infiltrating from other countries is a significant problem. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i would still think that it is the responsibility of the united states government - as the occupying force - to provide for the security , law and order of the iraqi civilians .
surely , the united states government must have been aware of the difficulties it might encounter in trying to occupy iraq and therefor would have had a diversity of plans on how to deal with a difficult situation .
i have difficulty understanding how slogans such as "winning hearts and minds" and "mission accomplished" were brought forward but apparently never implemented .
it seems to me that president bush senior and his administration had a good idea that a "frontal attack" on iraq would not be very successfull .
recalling the months before the occupation started , saddam and his army (if one can even call it an army) were already decimated .
i have trouble understanding what the occupation/invasion of iraq at that point in time was to accomplish .
my - uneducated - guess is that saddam h would have disappeared from the scene before too long .
now there is the sorry spectacle of saddam h's trial that seems to turn into a farce - and even though iraqi judges are present at the trial , i doubt that the people of the middle-east will allow the americans to disassociate themselves from it .
i also recall seing newsclips of iraqi soldiers that were being sent home , being given rifles and ammo - i could never understand why that was being done .
(i can't recall german soldiers being given rifles as they were being released from POW camps and sent home).
i think this is a very sorry affair , not only for the united states and the iraqi people , but for the whole world .
well , i have rambled on for far too long - my apologies !
hbg
ican711nm wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn, it should be relatively easy for you to outline the tactics neccessary to accomplish your plan. Why do you not do so?
I'm too busy watching Texas-OU football right now, hold yer horses
Cycloptichorn
hamburger wrote:ican wrote :
"The Iraq governent did not surrender unconditionally to anyone, nor did the domestic Iraqi terrorists or the infiltrating Iraqi terrorists surrender unconditionally to anyone. The number of terrorists in Iraq who are determined to wage war on Iraqi civilians is a significant problem. The number of terrorists in Iraq that are inclined to suicidal murder of Iraqi civilians is a significant problem. The number of terrorists in Iraq that infiltrated and are infiltrating from other countries is a significant problem. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i would still think that it is the responsibility of the united states government - as the occupying force - to provide for the security , law and order of the iraqi civilians .
surely , the united states government must have been aware of the difficulties it might encounter in trying to occupy iraq and therefor would have had a diversity of plans on how to deal with a difficult situation .
i have difficulty understanding how slogans such as "winning hearts and minds" and "mission accomplished" were brought forward but apparently never implemented .
it seems to me that president bush senior and his administration had a good idea that a "frontal attack" on iraq would not be very successfull .
recalling the months before the occupation started , saddam and his army (if one can even call it an army) were already decimated .
i have trouble understanding what the occupation/invasion of iraq at that point in time was to accomplish .
my - uneducated - guess is that saddam h would have disappeared from the scene before too long .
now there is the sorry spectacle of saddam h's trial that seems to turn into a farce - and even though iraqi judges are present at the trial , i doubt that the people of the middle-east will allow the americans to disassociate themselves from it .
i also recall seing newsclips of iraqi soldiers that were being sent home , being given rifles and ammo - i could never understand why that was being done .
(i can't recall german soldiers being given rifles as they were being released from POW camps and sent home).
i think this is a very sorry affair , not only for the united states and the iraqi people , but for the whole world .
...
hbg
I agree with everything you wrote except:
Quote:my - uneducated - guess is that saddam h would have disappeared from the scene before too long .
Here follow my reasons
Charles Duelfer wrote:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.
Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
This is long but extraordinary. I have never understood until now how what happened in Hadditha could have happened.
War is Hell
ican
So there was no reason for us to invade Iraq. She had no WMD's. It mattered little if Saddam wanted sanctions lifted because wanting and getting are two different things.
Saddam was a counterweight to Iran. Saddam was fighting Shiite insurgents that were being armed and trained by Iran. Iraq main focus was on her principle enemy, Iran. With a no-fly zone in the north and south; being prevented from sending troops into Kurd territory and the threat of any of Iraq's armed forces being bombed to pieces in the south Iraq posed a threat to no one.
A close alliance to Al Qaeda is ridiculous. Saddam was a secular leader. Al Qaeda were religious fanatics. The two had a mutual distrust and dislike for one another. Religious fanatics hate secular people, both in the Muslim and Christian religion. If anything Al Qaead would have liked to see the overthrow of Saddam and its government replaced with a Teliban style of government. Instead they got a major training ground for their terrorist, thanks to Bush.
Saddam was an asset for us. His ability to contain Iran prevented it from becoming more powerful. When Bush overthrew Saddam and allowed a Shiite government to take what little control they have of Iraq Bush played into the hands of Iran. With Saddam gone Iran has a new ally in Iraq. This can only make Iran and the Shiites stronger in the region. This strength can, in the future, lead to new and potentially more dangerous conflicts in the Middle East, with far more serious consequences for us than if Saddam were still in power.
Saddam was, like Tito, a heavy lid on a boiling pot. Bush removed the lid and didn't know what to do with the boiling pot. Now there are serious suggestions within the Defense Department, that Iraq should be broken up into three separate federations or countries. If this occurs the oil of southern Iraq and Iran will be controlled by the Shiites. The northern oilfields will involve a war between the Kurds and Sunnis to determine who will get their revenues.
The police and military we have trained can't be trusted as they are more interested in working for their own factions rather than Iraq as a whole. Hence we find Shiite police aiding militias and many troops refusing to serve outside of their factions area.
Senator Warner is right. A new direction must be taken if there is no improvement in the near future. Bush has shown that he is incapable of change. To do so would admit he was wrong. This is something he has refused to admit to in the past and, most probably, will not in the future, no matter how many American soldiers have to die for his stubborn mistakes.
Cut and run is not the option among the majority of Democrats but doing something other than what we are doing now is. Removing Rumsfeld and replacing him with someone like Warner, who is close to the military, is an option the Democrats would support. Bush, so far, has not. He can't accept the fact that what he is doing is wrong.
Bush's invasion of Iraq has opened up a Pandora's box of war and conflict that will last for many years to come. It will involve the deaths of many more Americans and will be a burden on our economy. None of this need to have happened. Keeping the Sunnis in power in Iraq was the best option for us as it prevented the unification of the Shiites.
"G.O.P.'s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change "
---------------------------------------------------------------
that seems to be something that needs to be done - "talking to the enemy" .
a pretty serious obstacle seems to be that now there is not ONE enemy but MANY .
every tribe and clan seems to have its own leader and they seem to be at war with each other .
nevertheless , talking to the 'enemy' - whoever it is - is something that needs to be done , not just to try and see if peace can be achieved in iraq , but to try and prevent mayhem from spreading throughout the world .
i have not much doubt that north-korea took advantage of the weakened position of the united states to carry out the atomic test.
hbg
ps. it remains to be seen if cheney , rumsfeld and others will be willing to go along with it .
i wish secretary baker all the luck in the world - he'll need it !
Baker
The most interesting part of Baker's public comments is that I believe he is acting as a surrogate for Bush 41's opinions about his son's performance. Poppy can't say publicly that his son is an incompetent ninconpoop front for the real presidents, Cheney and Rumsfeld. So he trots out Baker instead.
BBB
hbg said : "i wish secretary baker all the luck in the world - he'll need it ! "
i'll add : "...he'll need it for all the people of this earth !"
hbg
Re: Baker
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:The most interesting part of Baker's public comments is that I believe he is acting as a surrogate for Bush 41's opinions about his son's performance.
Have you considered the possibility that Baker is quite willing and able of being his own man? If so, why did you dismiss it?
Re: Baker
Thomas wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:The most interesting part of Baker's public comments is that I believe he is acting as a surrogate for Bush 41's opinions about his son's performance.
Have you considered the possibility that Baker is quite willing and able of being his own man? If so, why did you dismiss it?
I didn't dismiss Baker's comments. In fact, I find them helpful. He is repeating the same solution as offered several months ago by Democrat Senator Joe Biden.
My point was to show Baker is not only speaking for himself. He's also speaking for Bush's dad as several other good friends have done, including Brent Skocroft.
I don't agree with Baker's politics but at least he is not stupid and is well informed as to foreign policy, something sorely lacking in the Bush administration.
BBB
here is what the 'washington post' has to say about secretary baker's possible mission .
hbg
...SECRATARY BAKER"S MISSION...
but :
"But Schmitt added: "People can worry about what Baker is going to say, but the president has a way of doing what he is going to do. There could be a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the older Bush crowd that the son got into trouble and now he's going to listen to Baker the strategist."
Publicly, the administration is supportive, though inside the foreign policy apparatus there appears to be skepticism that the Iraq Study Group will come up with any breakthroughs. At first, the administration was divided about whether to cooperate with the panel. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave her support only after being assured by officials with the federally funded U.S. Institute of Peace, under whose aegis the group was formed, and other think tanks involved in the project that the venture would be a forward-looking exercise and not an examination of past mistakes, according to people familiar with the project. "
HB
HB, the major problem with the Iraq federation idea of both Baker and Biden is Turkey. Turkey will go ballistic if the Kurds are given an independent country based on their current portion of Iraq. The risk is war expansion is the region.
The Media often does not present their proposal accurately, implying that it would be a partition similar to India and Pakistan, which is not correct. What Biden proposes is a Federation similar to the United States. Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites would each have their own State with self-government under an umbrella Iraq constitution.
The difficulty in creating state federations is to find appropriate state borders between the religious antagonists and how to allocate oil operations and revenue.
But this solution may be the only one with any possibility of reasonable peace in the region.
BBB
Re: HB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:HB, the major problem with the Iraq federation idea of both Baker and Biden is Turkey. Turkey will go ballistic if the Kurds are given an independent country based on their current portion of Iraq. The risk is war expansion is the region.
The Media often does not present their proposal accurately, implying that it would be a partition similar to India and Pakistan, which is not correct. What Biden proposes is a Federation similar to the United States. Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites would each have their own State with self-government under an umbrella Iraq constitution.
The difficulty in creating state federations is to find appropriate state borders between the religious antagonists and how to allocate oil operations and revenue.
But this solution may be the only one with any possibility of reasonable peace in the region.
BBB
The Kurds pretty much have a federation already.
