U.S. arming some Sunni groups

[kuzadd]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/11/frontpage/strat.php

With the four-month-old "surge" in U.S. troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight Al Qaeda-linked militants who have been their allies in the past.

The commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province and have held talks with Sunni groups suspected of prior assaults on U.S. units, or of links to groups that have attacked Americans, in at least four other areas where the insurgency has been strong.

In some cases, the commanders say, these groups have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and other supplies.

U.S. officials who have engaged in what they call "outreach" to the Sunni groups say the groups are mostly ones with links to Al Qaeda but disillusioned with Al Qaeda's extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. In exchange for American backing, these officials say, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on U.S. units. Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps. But critics of the strategy, including some U.S. officers, say it could amount to the Americans arming both sides in a future civil war.

but then, if you arm both sides, you can always be on "the side that is winning"

doesn't this serve the US well, foment civil war and "justify staying the course"

Divide and conquer.?

[buffycat]

SOP Kuzadd! SOP!!

Does this surprise you?

[kuzadd]

not in the least.

[Figleaf]

So, let me get this straight. US forces are dying in Iraq to preserve the "legitimate" government from "insurgents" armed by the US?

It makes perfect sense, really.

'Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.'

[buffycat]

Figleaf:

'Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.'

***

Yes, I've maintained we could solve all the worlds energy problems by hooking up a turbine to orwell's spinning corpse!!

(It must have reached warp 10 by now!!!)

[kuzadd]

what is interesting is usually "Al Queda" is Sunni Muslims,

and ironically the "legitimate" government of Iraq, is largely Shiite??!!

sensing a problem there?

I say, fuel the civil war, continue to justify the occupation. Divide and conquer!

Control the oil and the strategic positioning, who knows, increase the troops, reinstate the draft??

Think of all the benefits to the US/Brit big oil conglomerates, who have that sweetheart deal going on for Iraqi oil, pipeline construction.Then of course US imperialism, the launch of future attacks, what with all those permanent military bases.

All the while the civil war rages on, soldiers die, civilians die, the "legitimate" government, will never govern anything.

And the flag wavers regurgitate the mindless mantra "support the troops"

[bush_cheney2004]

...Control the oil and the strategic positioning, who knows, increase the troops, reinstate the draft??

Think of all the benefits to the US/Brit big oil conglomerates, who have that sweetheart deal going on for Iraqi oil, pipeline construction.Then of course US imperialism, the launch of future attacks, what with all those permanent military bases.

Psssstt....let's not forget those Canadian oil services contracts at Himrin Field outside Kirkuk, doing their share to get the "benefits"....LOL!

[jbg]

Bush-Cheney, don't bother with people who simply want the West to lose. Maybe they couldn't spout such nonesense in the North Korean or Islamic paradise they invision.

[kuzadd]

...Control the oil and the strategic positioning, who knows, increase the troops, reinstate the draft??

Think of all the benefits to the US/Brit big oil conglomerates, who have that sweetheart deal going on for Iraqi oil, pipeline construction.Then of course US imperialism, the launch of future attacks, what with all those permanent military bases.

Psssstt....let's not forget those Canadian oil services contracts at Himrin Field outside Kirkuk, doing their share to get the "benefits"....LOL!

Sorry BC, I can never forget Canada's lackey role, thanks for reminding me.

There with US/Britian in Africa too, for the oil, gold and more, but, that's for another thread.

[kuzadd]

Bush-Cheney, don't bother with people who simply want the West to lose. Maybe they couldn't spout such nonesense in the North Korean or Islamic paradise they invision.

What does this statement have to do with the subject?

So you are OK, with the US arming, the insurgency?

Which in turn will see, more iraqi civilans die

More soldiers die

foment civil war

Your good with that, OK?

This isn't about the 'west winning' or in rhetorical language, that you can understand, this ain't about the "good guys vs bad guys."

It's about control of resources and control of land, for future invasions etc., Get it?

There are bigger fish to fry, then in your simplistic concepts of "right and wrong" "good and evil"

[BC_chick]

Bush-Cheney, don't bother with people who simply want the West to lose. Maybe they couldn't spout such nonesense in the North Korean or Islamic paradise they invision.

That's fantastic, did you come up with it all by yourself? Really, the way you just managed to clear the air about the US funding "terrorist" insurgents and providing a perfectly plausible scenario for this mayhem.

Of course. I'm convinced. The people who bring these things up want the west to lose. US did no wrong.

[myata]

I'm starting to have second thoughs. Really. After all the history of direct and second hand meddling, and all the blowbacks it brought back (pun not intended), one would think it's time to stop and rethink. Bring in fresh policies and approaches. Build credibility and trust. Mean (and do) what you say.

But no. Here's from the recent list only: arming Shia against Sunnies (Sunnies against Sunnies) in Iraq; Fatah against Hamaz in Palestine; Ethiopia against Islamic Courts in Somalia; helping regimes in Uzbekistan and Pakistan; etc, feel free to add.

I mean it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the strategy isn't working (examples: Palestine; war on terror). Results in creating new and greater problems than the original one. Without solving the original problem in the first place. Could it be just so to stay a "challenge on the intellectual side"? Or something stronger than that, like an interest? I dunno. Generally, I'm not an adept of global conspiracies and such. But it's starting to look less convincing as simple "miscalculations" or "bungled strategies".

[jbg]

I'm starting to have second thoughs. Really. After all the history of direct and second hand meddling, and all the blowbacks it brought back (pun not intended), one would think it's time to stop and rethink. Bring in fresh policies and approaches. Build credibility and trust. Mean (and do) what you say.

Let's not forget how it started:

1. Afghanistan - September 11, 2001
   
2. Iraq
   1. 
      
   2. Funding of suicide bombers;
      
   3. invasions of neighboring countries;
      
   4. making sick joke of UN post-Kuwait inspections;
      
   5. oil-for-food scandal;
      
   6. possible WMD acquisitions and/or attempts
      

Maybe the chosen strategy of "occupy and hold", in retrospect, was a bad idea. Maybe trying to create democracy was a bad idea. Maybe a Dresden-style attack would have been bettter. A good turn never goes unpunished.

[Remiel]

Let's not forget how it started:

1. Afghanistan - September 11, 2001
   
2. Iraq
   1. 
      
   2. Funding of suicide bombers;
      
   3. invasions of neighboring countries;
      
   4. making sick joke of UN post-Kuwait inspections;
      
   5. oil-for-food scandal;
      
   6. possible WMD acquisitions and/or attempts
      

Maybe the chosen strategy of "occupy and hold", in retrospect, was a bad idea. Maybe trying to create democracy was a bad idea. Maybe a Dresden-style attack would have been bettter. A good turn never goes unpunished.

Can anyone say " Willfull ignorance of 20th Century History " ?

[Figleaf]

...I've maintained we could solve all the worlds energy problems by hooking up a turbine to orwell's spinning corpse!!

What I can't figure out is how the geniuses behind the policies can stand themselves. Not ethically, but intellectually ... how can people make blunder after blunder without ever coming to think of themselves as stupid. (Particularly when their initial motivation is to be such clever-dicks.)

[myata]

Let's not forget how it started:

[*]Afghanistan - September 11, 2001

Did you mean to say, US funding, supplying and training of Taleban and Al-Qaeda insurgents while under Soviet occupation? I doubt it really "started" there (history of US interference in the region goes way back before that), but it definitely contributed to the conundrum.

[*]Iraq

[*]Funding of suicide bombers;

Funding of who and by whom? Perhaps some evidence of that?

[*]invasions of neighboring countries;

[*] making sick joke of UN post-Kuwait inspections;

[*] oil-for-food scandal;

There was a way to manage this legally via international institutions as it was done for awhile. US strategy to force military invasion, bypassing international security institutions and international law, only exacerbated the matters.

[*] possible WMD acquisitions and/or attempts

Now if only there was any evidence of that. Or maybe it's OK with you if someone's house was bombed by the police on a suspicion of "possible" drug "acquisions and/or attempts"?

Maybe the chosen strategy of "occupy and hold", in retrospect, was a bad idea. Maybe trying to create democracy was a bad idea. Maybe a Dresden-style attack would have been bettter. A good turn never goes unpunished.

Or maybe the chosen strategy of interference and supporting one fraction against another was wrong?

[Black Dog]

Maybe the chosen strategy of "occupy and hold", in retrospect, was a bad idea. Maybe trying to create democracy was a bad idea. Maybe a Dresden-style attack would have been bettter. A good turn never goes unpunished.

You really have a thing for that particular event, doncha? One imagines you have this as your screen saver.

[kuzadd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Divide and Rule or Divide and Conquer

"In politics and sociology, divide and rule (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

Effective use of this technique allows those with little real power to control those who collectively have a lot of power (or would have much more power, were they able to unite)."

The strategy was used to great effect by administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who would play one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. (this is the strategy in iraq, it is not stupidity, it is shrewd , it is intentional) The concept of 'Divide and Rule' gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. The British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, caste etc. The British took control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Examples of Divide and Conquer strategies:

United States

* Many people view the increasing polarization of voting blocs by wedge issues as being an example of "Divide and Rule." Examples include abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. The key idea is that these issues prevent the public from thinking about, let alone addressing, potentially more objectively important issues, such as global warming, the erosion of civil liberties under the Patriot Act, and the negative effects of lobbying on issues such as campaign finance reform and corruption.

the non-important issues, while bigger issues, like Patriot Act, NAU, get little attention, when they require lots of attention

The Caste divide

The Race Issue

eg:

Through their methods of administration, divide and rule policies, census taking methods and mandatory declaration of one’s ‘Race’ on official documents, The British Governors forced the Sri Lankan population of diverse ethnic origins to become either Sinhalese or Tamils based on the language they spoke in the 19th century.

Africa

Western countries have used the divide and conquer strategy in Africa during the colonial and post-colonial period.

* Germany and Belgium both ruled Rwanda and Burundi in a colonial capacity. Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the Tutsi minority in positions of power. When Belgium took over in 1916, the Tutsi and Hutu groups were rearranged according to race rather than by occupation. Belgium defined "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose, while "Hutu" meant someone with less than ten cows and a broad nose. The socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus continued after independence and was a major factor in the Rwandan Genocide.

divided they are all easier to pit against each other.

This is also prevelant here, amongst posters, who use "left", "loony left", etc. all the time

They have bought into the conquer and divide strategy wholheartedly, and are willingly participating in it, though UNWITTINGLY.

This is the reason I refuse to buy into the racial divide/left/right/christian vs muslim, it's all bogus crap.

The minute you fall into it, you have given your power away.

This is intentional policy in Iraq, it;s not incompetence, it's not a mistake, it's policy.

it legitimizes the occupation.

it legitimizes the plunder

[ScottSA]

Maybe the chosen strategy of "occupy and hold", in retrospect, was a bad idea. Maybe trying to create democracy was a bad idea. Maybe a Dresden-style attack would have been bettter. A good turn never goes unpunished.

You really have a thing for that particular event, doncha? One imagines you have this as your screen saver.

Too cool. I'm going to plaster my walls with copies. Thanks.

[buffycat]

Maybe the chosen strategy of "occupy and hold", in retrospect, was a bad idea. Maybe trying to create democracy was a bad idea. Maybe a Dresden-style attack would have been bettter. A good turn never goes unpunished.

You really have a thing for that particular event, doncha? One imagines you have this as your screen saver.

Too cool. I'm going to plaster my walls with copies. Thanks.

I understand, or at the least hope, that you are being sarcastic when you made this remark wrt the dead of Dresden.

Never mind, you're probably serious. (ly sick)

[jbg]

Can anyone say " Willfull ignorance of 20th Century History " ?

Unfortunately, history going back a lot further. But the Muslims are not, I repeat not, going to get exclusive dominion of the earth, or even their "ummah". It they get the latter, we're perfectly with our rights to expel them from our midst. I.e. our ummah, their ummah.

[Black Dog]

Unfortunately, history going back a lot further. But the Muslims are not, I repeat not, going to get exclusive dominion of the earth, or even their "ummah".

File this under "the blindingly obvious." Which leads me to wonder why so many people are working their way through pack after pack of Hanes by existing in a constant state of incontinent worry.

[ScottSA]

Unfortunately, history going back a lot further. But the Muslims are not, I repeat not, going to get exclusive dominion of the earth, or even their "ummah".

File this under "the blindingly obvious." Which leads me to wonder why so many people are working their way through pack after pack of Hanes by existing in a constant state of incontinent worry.

Tell me, why is this obvious?