Iraq: The Policy Dilemma

[KenHigg]

Any thoughts on this?

(Please don't turn this into a bash... )

Part 1

Iraq: The Policy Dilemma
By George Friedman

>Deleted<

 

[Pauldohert]

I only read the bit about the ratio of soldiers to population as compared to New York.

To compare these two and make some conclusion about what the comparison means I thought was stretching things. I notice that other nations troops were ignored in this, as well as the police force in Iraq itself. So the comparison is based on completely misleading figures anyhow, as well as extremely disrespectful to the efforts and sacrifices of others.

At this point, I didn't think it worthwhile continuing to read.

One point however - I think the US may find a solution easier - If it wasn't so US centric as demonstated above.

 

[ColinEssex]

I'm shocked!!!

Here's Me and Rich, been on our best behaviour this week, playing along nicely, not causing any problems - nobody has mentioned (dare I say) Iraq, US military and hardly mentioned GWB. We've played in the pictures thread, we've done loads in the Access threads - absolute models of membership.

Then suddenly on Friday afternoon. . . . . . bang. . . . . along comes Ken (a moderator) and posts all that I don't know what to say

Col

 

[KenHigg]

I'm shocked!!!

Here's Me and Rich, been on our best behaviour this week, playing along nicely, not causing any problems - nobody has mentioned (dare I say) Iraq, US military and hardly mentioned GWB. We've played in the pictures thread, we've done loads in the Access threads - absolute models of membership.

Then suddenly on Friday afternoon. . . . . . bang. . . . . along comes Ken (a moderator) and posts all that I don't know what to say

Col

That's what I thought... Never mind.

 

[ColinEssex]

That's what I thought... Never mind.

Back to normal then from Monday I presume?

Col

 

[Rich]

That's what I thought... Never mind.

How are we supposed to answer if the thread's been deleted

 

[ColinEssex]

How are we supposed to answer if the thread's been deleted

It was basically two massive posts about how the USA is the only country fighting in Iraq, and it was gloryfying the US military by saying that it is purely because of their presence that things are as stable as they are. It had a bash against Iran and the fact that Iran is solely after oil control. Of course the USA is not.

Sadly there was no mention as to how things were much happier and well controlled prior to the US invasion. No mention of other countries involvement, no mention of the 25,000 civilians killed, or the 3,000 US soldiers sent to their death, no mention of the trillions of dollars being wasted there - a small part of which would sort out New Orleans - oops, thats a US home issue and GWB doesn't care about those as they have no international importance.

Still, the main thing being, is that Ken (the moderator) has demonstrated that its ok to pick up where we left off, by posting about the USA's military, President and strategy.

Col

 

[Rich]

It was basically two massive posts about how the USA is the only country fighting in Iraq, and it was gloryfying the US military by saying that it is purely because of their presence that things are as stable as they are. It had a bash against Iran and the fact that Iran is solely after oil control. Of course the USA is not.

Sadly there was no mention as to how things were much happier and well controlled prior to the US invasion. No mention of other countries involvement, no mention of the 25,000 civilians killed, or the 3,000 US soldiers sent to their death, no mention of the trillions of dollars being wasted there - a small part of which would sort out New Orleans - oops, thats a US home issue and GWB doesn't care about those as they have no international importance.

Still, the main thing being, is that Ken (the moderator) has demonstrated that its ok to pick up where we left off, by posting about the USA's military, President and strategy.

Col

Thanks for the clarification, however I should point out that Bush, strategy and Policy are oxymorons. I see that something like 75,000 innocent people have now lost their lives as a result of the war on "terror" I wonder how many are needed before the lust for revenge is satisfied

 

[KenHigg]

Too bad we can't have a level headed discusion around here. Not to worry Col and Rich, I'll make sure I don't try that again, you'd think I'd learn

BTW - Thanks for your opinion Paul - I think can understand how you as a Brit would feel that way.

 

[Rich]

Too bad we can't have a level headed discusion around here. Not to worry Col and Rich, I'll make sure I don't try that again, you'd think I'd learn

You deleted the post to start with not me, how the hell then can anyone comment directly on the Report?
How does that song go again, "please don't tease"?

 

[KenHigg]

Rich - Sorry, Col went off the deep end with it. As I'm quite sure you would as well so I did what I thought would be a favor to everyone and deleted it. Would you care to read it? Or do you think I should just delete this entire thread?

 

[Rich]

Rich - Sorry, Col went off the deep end with it. As I'm quite sure you would as well so I did what I thought would be a favor to everyone and deleted it. Would you care to read it? Or do you think I should just delete this entire thread?

No I'd like to read it, please.

 

[ColinEssex]

Rich - Sorry, Col went off the deep end with it.

I did not go "off the deep end" if you don't mind. If you think that is going "off the deep end" then you need to get out a bit more

I merely pointed out how well behaved we'd been by not mentioning certain topics, then with almost your first thread start as a moderator you stirred it all up again.

Col

 

[KenHigg]

Ok. Just an fyi - In posting this I wasn't trying to stir up any trouble, I simply thought it gave some interesting opinions as to this pickle we're in with war thing and he gave some thoughts as to how things may play out. That's all.

Here's about the first half of it. Let me know if you have the stamina to digest it all (Paul didn't )

Iraq: The Policy Dilemma
By George Friedman

U.S. President George W. Bush now has made it clear what his policy on Iraq will be for the immediate future, certainly until Election Day: He does not intend to change U.S. policy in any fundamental way. U.S. troops will continue to be deployed in Iraq, they will continue to carry out counterinsurgency operations, and they will continue to train Iraqi troops to eventually take over the operations. It is difficult to imagine that Bush believes there will be any military solution to the situation in Iraq; therefore, we must try to understand his reasoning in maintaining this position. Certainly, it is not simply a political decision. Opinion in the United States has turned against the war, and drawing down U.S. forces and abandoning combat operations would appear to be the politically expedient move. Thus, if it is not politics driving him -- and assuming that the more lurid theories on the Internet concerning Bush's motivations are as silly as they appear -- then we have to figure out what he is doing.

Let's consider the military situation first. Bush has said that there is no civil war in Iraq. This is in large measure a semantic debate. In our view, it would be inaccurate to call what is going on a "civil war" simply because that term implies a degree of coherence that simply does not exist. Calling it a free-for-all would be more accurate. It is not simply a conflict of Shi'i versus Sunni. The Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other, and all of them are fighting American forces. It is not altogether clear what the Americans are supposed to be doing.

Counterinsurgency is unlike other warfare. In other warfare, the goal is to defeat an enemy army, and civilian casualties as a result of military operations are expected and acceptable. With counterinsurgency operations in populated areas, however, the goal is to distinguish the insurgents from civilians and destroy them, with minimal civilian casualties. Counterinsurgency in populated areas is more akin to police operations than to military operations; U.S. troops are simultaneously engaging an enemy force while trying to protect the population from both that force and U.S. operations. Add to this the fact that the population is frequently friendly to the insurgents and hostile to the Americans, and the difficulty of the undertaking becomes clear.

Consider the following numbers. The New York Police Department (excluding transit and park police) counts one policeman for every 216 residents. In Iraq, there is one U.S. soldier (not counting other coalition troops) per about 185 people. Thus, numerically speaking, U.S. forces are in a mildly better position than New York City cops -- but then, except for occasional Saturday nights, New York cops are not facing anything like the U.S. military is facing in Iraq. Given that the United States is facing not one enemy but a series of enemy organizations -- many fighting each other as well as the Americans -- and that the American goal is to defeat these while defending the populace, it is obvious even from these very simplistic numbers that the U.S. force simply isn't there to impose a settlement.

Expectations and a Deal Unwound

A military solution to the U.S. dilemma has not been in the cards for several years. The purpose of military operations was to set the stage for political negotiations. But the Americans had entered Iraq with certain expectations. For one thing, they had believed they would simply be embraced by Iraq's Shiite population. They also had expected the Sunnis to submit to what appeared to be overwhelming political force. What happened was very different. First, the Shia welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein, but they hardly embraced the Americans -- they sought instead to translate the U.S. victory over Hussein into a Shiite government. Second, the Sunnis, in view of the U.S.-Shiite coalition and the dismemberment of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army, saw that they were about to be squeezed out of the political system and potentially crushed by the Shia. They saw an insurgency -- which had been planned by Hussein -- as their only hope of forcing a redefinition of Iraqi politics. The Americans realized that their expectations had not been realistic.

Thus, the Americans went through a series of political cycles. First, they sided with the Shia as they sought to find their balance militarily facing the Sunnis. When they felt they had traction against the Sunnis, following the capture of Hussein -- and fearing Shiite hegemony -- they shifted toward a position between Sunnis and Shia. As military operations were waged in the background, complex repositioning occurred on all sides, with the Americans trying to hold the swing position between Sunnis and Shia.

The process of creating a government for Iraq was encapsulated in this multi-sided maneuvering. By spring 2006, the Sunnis appeared to have committed themselves to the political process. And in June, with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the announcement that the United States would reduce its force in Iraq by two brigades, the stage seemed to be set for a political resolution that would create a Shiite-dominated coalition that included Sunnis and Kurds. It appeared to be a done deal -- and then the deal completely collapsed.

The first sign of the collapse was a sudden outbreak of fighting among Shia in the Basra region. We assumed that this was political positioning among Shiite factions as they prepared for a political settlement. Then Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), traveled to Tehran, and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army commenced an offensive. Shiite death squads struck out at Sunni populations, and Sunni insurgents struck back. From nearly having a political accommodation, the situation in Iraq fell completely apart.

The key was Iran. The Iranians had always wanted an Iraqi satellite state, as protection against another Iraq-Iran war. That was a basic national security concept for them. In order to have this, the Iranians needed an overwhelmingly Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and to have overwhelming control of the Shia. It seemed to us that there could be a Shiite-dominated government but not an overwhelmingly Shiite government. In other words, Iraq could be neutral toward, but not a satellite of, Iran. In our view, Iraq's leading Shia -- fearing a civil war and also being wary of domination by Iran -- would accept this settlement.

We may have been correct on the sentiment of leading Shia, but we were wrong about Iran's intentions. Tehran did not see a neutral Iraq as being either in Iran's interests or necessary. Clearly, the Iranians did not trust a neutral Iraq still under American occupation to remain neutral. Second -- and this is the most important -- they saw the Americans as militarily weak and incapable of either containing a civil war in Iraq or of taking significant military action against Iran. In other words, the Iranians didn't like the deal they had been offered, they felt that they could do better, and they felt that the time had come to strike.

(cont)

 

[ColinEssex]

Too bad we can't have a level headed discusion around here.

Hang on a minute - lets just check this out. You post a huge report by a biased US person. I comment about the posting - and you're saying that as if its my bloody fault??

I did read part 1 and part 2 actually.

Col

 

[KenHigg]

I did not go "off the deep end" if you don't mind. If you think that is going "off the deep end" then you need to get out a bit more

Sorry Col. My point in saying you went off the deep was driven from the fact that instead off making relevant / non-rant / non-bash comment on some part of context of the post you seemed to turn it into an attack on me...

I merely pointed out how well behaved we'd been by not mentioning certain topics, then with almost your first thread start as a moderator you stirred it all up again.

Col

How is my responsibility to delete spams, etc on the forum members behalf supposed to prevent me from soliciting enlightened opinions from other posters on topics like the war in Iraq?

 

[ColinEssex]

Sorry Col. My point in saying you went off the deep was driven from the fact that instead off making relevant / non-rant / non-bash comment on some part of context of the post you seemed to turn it into an attack on me...

merely quoting my surprise at the very subject being approached, being as 99% of the Americans on here blame Rich and I for the absence of some members

How is my responsibility to delete spams, etc on the forum members behalf supposed to prevent me from soliciting enlightened opinions from other posters on topics like the war in Iraq?

1) I thought you may set an example now and 2) I was under the impression it was a no-go topic (as was most things USA because of the sensitivity by some members). Glad its back to normal now though - as the song says "Things can only get worse"

Col

 

[KenHigg]

merely quoting my surprise at the very subject being approached, being as 99% of the Americans on here blame Rich and I for the absence of some members

My quess would be 99% of the forum members period. Sorry

1) I thought you may set an example now and

Sorry. I thought I was. I'll try to bring it up a notch just for you.

2) I was under the impression it was a no-go topic (as was most things USA because of the sensitivity by some members). Glad its back to normal now though - as the song says "Things can only get worse"

Col

fyi - 'Normal' may be a 'glad' thing for you - I don't have the resilience to endure any more of your sarcasim

 

[FoFa]

Consider the following numbers. The New York Police Department (excluding transit and park police) counts one policeman for every 216 residents. In Iraq, there is one U.S. soldier (not counting other coalition troops) per about 185 people. Thus, numerically speaking, U.S. forces are in a mildly better position than New York City cops -- but then, except for occasional Saturday nights, New York cops are not facing anything like the U.S. military is facing in Iraq.

OK, OK, why is this even in there then? Looks like just useless trivial information.

 

[KenHigg]

OK, OK, why is this even in there then? Looks like just useless trivial information.

Seems he did wastes a little ink on that one - Ask the troops if they think they're in 'mildly better position'?