Iraq and it's Al-Queda problem

[Argus]

Evil has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousnads of Iraqi citizens.

Saddam has not been responsible.

Only US propagandized lemmings would disagree on the real facts.

I haven't quite decided if you're a troll, or the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine anyone who grew up in Canada could continually post as astonishingly ignorant comments as yours. On the other hand, we do have holocaust deniers and 911 truthers here.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Argus

[GostHacked]

I haven't quite decided if you're a troll, or the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine anyone who grew up in Canada could continually post as astonishingly ignorant comments as yours. On the other hand, we do have holocaust deniers and 911 truthers here.

We also have people that believe in man made global warming. But I do agree with the first part of your assessment.

But back to the topic ...

[monty16]

I haven't quite decided if you're a troll, or the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine anyone who grew up in Canada could continually post as astonishingly ignorant comments as yours. On the other hand, we do have holocaust deniers and 911 truthers here.

Well maybe I can help you decide by once again telling you that this isn't about me.

[monty16]

I just don't understand how some people can't come to understand that any attacks on the US are justified as being revenge attacks. I welcome hearing anyone arguing that though. If the US doesn't want another attack that will make 9/11 look like kids playing with fire crackers then it needs to stop killing people over there. It tends to encourage killing over here!

[Big Guy]

The disintegration of the Iraq army is no surprise to those who understand the culture of the area.

"Iraq" is a series of lines drawn by the West. The region is in reality aligned according to tribes and religion. The natural affiliation of those individuals works in progression: family, religion, tribe, region, commerce.

In Iraq right now, a bunch of individuals in the American purchased uniforms of "Iraq" see opposition soldiers coming towards them. They have no loyalty to "Iraq". If they are Sunni they will not shoot at Sunni and if they are Shia they will not shoot at Shia. If they are not sure, they ditch their "Iraqi" uniforms, put on civilian clothes and take their armaments back to their villages to protect their families.

Most of us folks in the West really do not have a clue as to their culture, what they want, what their priorities are or what they need.

We view them and their culture through our arrogant prism of Christianity, Western norms and capitalistic philosophy - and then we wonder why they do what they do.

Five thousand years before Columbus stumbled on to the shores of North America there was a thriving civilization existing in Mesopotamia. That was the cradle of civilization. Meanwhile, we pretend that we are the superior culture.

We just don't get it. And we keep paying the price.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Big Guy

[monty16]

The disintegration of the Iraq army is no surprise to those who understand the culture of the area.

"Iraq" is a series of lines drawn by the West. The region is in reality aligned according to tribes and religion. The natural affiliation of those individuals works in progression: family, religion, tribe, region, commerce.

In Iraq right now, a bunch of individuals in the American purchased uniforms of "Iraq" see opposition soldiers coming towards them. They have no loyalty to "Iraq". If they are Sunni they will not shoot at Sunni and if they are Shia they will not shoot at Shia. If they are not sure, they ditch their "Iraqi" uniforms, put on civilian clothes and take their armaments back to their villages to protect their families.

Most of us folks in the West really do not have a clue as to their culture, what they want, what their priorities are or what they need.

We view them and their culture through our arrogant prism of Christianity, Western norms and capitalistic philosophy - and then we wonder why they do what they do.

Five thousand years before Columbus stumbled on to the shores of North America there was a thriving civilization existing in Mesopotamia. That was the cradle of civilization. Meanwhile, we pretend that we are the superior culture.

We just don't get it. And we keep paying the price.

The only thing you missed mentioning is that the Iraqis who put on a uniform did it for the pay they would receive from the US occupiers. They have no loyalty to the US except on payday. Or maybe you did say that in a different way.

In any case, why would they want to shoot at the force that is coming to liberate Iraq from the US puppet Maliki?

Also, I would caution you from seeing Iraqis through Western eyes. That is, seeing them as insects as some of the ignorant self-professed war experts are trying to do. Your comment about them having no loyalty to Iraq is a bit worrying.

[Derek 2.0]

Well it was bound to happen. I agree with Ghost on his last post.

If we learned anything from Mao TseTung, its that the tactics he created to win his war and take control of China, and then what the Viet Cong did using his play book is that when you send in a conventional army to fight terrorists or "guerillas" it does not work.

Conventional armed forces require logistics and those logistics as well as their equipment makes them slow and loud and a sitting duck for terrorists.

You can't win by occupying a country with a conventional army. Those soldiers are turned into prison guards and they are not good at that. Soldiers are created to fight a visible enemy not terrorists who hide in civilian disguise .Conventional soldiers don'tlike being security guards or playing hide and seek.

This is not true, from antiquity with Roman Legions to modern times with British Paras and SAS, a conventional force can “win” an occupation against an insurgency. What separates victory from defeat is the methods employed by said conventional force.

[Derek 2.0]

I think that the biggest difference between a terrorist or a freedom fighter is if you end up on the winning or losing side.

Never heard that one, good point!! The terrorist/freedom fighter nexus is certainly a subjective point of view, well clearly defined by ones own personal politics, dogma, religion etc.

[On Guard for Thee]

Never heard that one, good point!! The terrorist/freedom fighter nexus is certainly a subjective point of view, well clearly defined by ones own personal politics, dogma, religion etc.

Sounds like a pretty gutless opinion to me. Under this POV everybody that picks up a bag of C4 is valiid.

[Big Guy]

It has been reported that those few thousand ISIS "insurgents" are moving at an unprecedented speed across Iraq. The only way that small a force could be "capturing" and holding areas is if they were getting support and encouragement from the local population.

We have a civil war going on here.

[Derek 2.0]

Sounds like a pretty gutless opinion to me. Under this POV everybody that picks up a bag of C4 is valiid.

So, for example, you would suggest the French and Dutch resistance were “invalid” ? What of the IRA? Good or bad? And in relation to this topic, in your view, with this internal conflict in Iraq, who is in the “right”?

[Derek 2.0]

It has been reported that those few thousand ISIS "insurgents" are moving at an unprecedented speed across Iraq. The only way that small a force could be "capturing" and holding areas is if they were getting support and encouragement from the local population.

We have a civil war going on here.

Or the local population fears them.......remember at the peak of the insurgency against the Americans, it was estimated that the insurgents numbered less than 20k members…..yet they survived and stung the world’s most modern military, as such, the ~5k ISIS "insurgents" should clearly have no problem with the Iraqi army and police services.

[GostHacked]

Never heard that one, good point!! The terrorist/freedom fighter nexus is certainly a subjective point of view, well clearly defined by ones own personal politics, dogma, religion etc.

You've not heard that before? It's only something that has been said here many MANY times. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Derek 2.0]

You've not heard that before? It's only something that has been said here many MANY times. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

That’s not what he said……his musings are more along the lines of the victor writing history.

[GostHacked]

That’s not what he said……his musings are more along the lines of the victor writing history.

That point has already been posted many times here as well. History is written by the winners. Not who was right.

[Derek 2.0]

That point has already been posted many times here as well. History is written by the winners. Not who was right.

I never said different, but in the context used, that is something new for myself, as I've never heard it put that way.

[monty16]

It has been reported that those few thousand ISIS "insurgents" are moving at an unprecedented speed across Iraq. The only way that small a force could be "capturing" and holding areas is if they were getting support and encouragement from the local population.

We have a civil war going on here.

I'm a little prone to not trusting your analysis even though it sounds right. Can you back it up? Is there a possibility that you are taken in by the propaganda efforts of the US? If a few thousand insurgents are moving so fast then it indicates to me that they have no opposition. That doesn't sound like the makings of a civil war. It sounds more like there's no resistance to their progress. And that sounds like the insurgents are really just representing the Iraqi people who are opposed to US occupation and plans to exploit Iraqi oil resources.

In fact, if we look more closely at history we find that the amount of unrest in Iraq under Saddam had declined to negligible levels. Or even if some aren't willing to accept that, to levels that were far less than the current killing of differing factions.

The current US stand on the issue is confused to say the least. They have no idea on how to deal with it. They see a great danger in propping up Maliki because he's not amenable to power sharing. Yet he's their puppet and without him the US is going to be relinquishing any control they have.

The best answer the US has at the moment is to keep an eye on the situation and make sure that American heads don't get chopped off. And beside that, many in the US are now predicting another possible running away with their tails between their legs, Ho Chi Minh city style in helicopters.

Obama is buying time by sending some ships to the region. Neither he or the US congress knows what to do with them when they get there.

My best guess is that they will have to prop up Maliki because there's really nothing else they can do. This will cause the exact problem that they 'claimed' to have wanted to prevent in the first place. The illusion of Saddam's onesided government which never really did exist.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm a little prone to not trusting your analysis even though it sounds right. Can you back it up? Is there a possibility that you are taken in by the propaganda efforts of the US? If a few thousand insurgents are moving so fast then it indicates to me that they have no opposition. That doesn't sound like the makings of a civil war. It sounds more like there's no resistance to their progress. And that sounds like the insurgents are really just representing the Iraqi people who are opposed to US occupation and plans to exploit Iraqi oil resources.

Isn’t that along the same lines as what Big Guy posted? ISIS receiving local support and such...

[GostHacked]

I never said different, but in the context used, that is something new for myself, as I've never heard it put that way.

I highly recommend watching the video I posted in the update a couple days ago. The Pentagon's New Map. I read his book back in 2004, and seems to be the most accurate in describing the current global Geo-policital structure. It's about 90 mins and would not be a waste of your time. I read the book at watched several of Barnett's lectures. Top US military officials listen to him, I think we should too.

[GostHacked]

Isn’t that along the same lines as what Big Guy posted? ISIS receiving local support and such...

If ISIS is the only group providing security in that area then they will get support from the local population.

[Derek 2.0]

I highly recommend watching the video I posted in the update a couple days ago. The Pentagon's New Map. I read his book back in 2004, and seems to be the most accurate in describing the current global Geo-policital structure. It's about 90 mins and would not be a waste of your time. I read the book at watched several of Barnett's lectures. Top US military officials listen to him, I think we should too.

I've already read the book....

[monty16]

Isn’t that along the same lines as what Big Guy posted? ISIS receiving local support and such...

Big guy suggested civil war and it doesn't sound like that at the moment. In a civil war ISIS would be seeing resistance and wouldn't be moving so swiftly and easily. Would you not agree?

If ISIS is receiving support from the local people, which I would agree they must be, then where's the civil war?

That could develop in the future when it's the Kurds' turn. And without US support it's not going to be much of a civil war in my opinion. I'm even wondering if the Kurds will attempt to stand up against the rest of Iraq, or will they just turn tail?

[GostHacked]

I've already read the book....

I would be interested in your thoughts on it. You are the first person I have encountered so far that read that book. To me, it played out exactly how things are today. More of a prediction really.

[Derek 2.0]

Big guy suggested civil war and it doesn't sound like that at the moment. In a civil war ISIS would be seeing resistance and wouldn't be moving so swiftly and easily. Would you not agree?

If ISIS is receiving support from the local people, which I would agree they must be, then where's the civil war?

That could develop in the future when it's the Kurds' turn. And without US support it's not going to be much of a civil war in my opinion. I'm even wondering if the Kurds will attempt to stand up against the rest of Iraq, or will they just turn tail?

I can’t speak for Big Guy, but I would suggest the “civil war” will begin once the Shia population comes into direct conflict with the Sunni/ISIS fighters…..then, devoid of outside intervention, I suspect the conflict will devolve along the same lines as that in Syria.

[monty16]

I would be interested in your thoughts on it. You are the first person I have encountered so far that read that book. To me, it played out exactly how things are today. More of a prediction really.

Why don't you give us a nutshell analysis and save us the trouble? It's better than getting into something blind and just hearing more US propaganda and wishful thinking.

Fwiw, we all know how Wesley Clarke blew the whistle on US plans to run roughshod over Syria before doing Iran. We all should have known that the US intended on supporting any opposition to Assad's government so that they could eventually see a sympathetic US government installed in Syria. Thereby isolating Iran. It's all gone awry and it's too after the fact to waste time on now.