Jump to content

Iraqi's take two cities


Recommended Posts

Although this isn't exactly what the military wanted it is going to prove beneficial.


In "asymetrical warfare" such as Afghanistan and now Iraq the military has effectively used a new strategy that some of them call "Bait and Burn." They send out or post small numbers of troops in areas where insurgents may be present and wait for the froop loops to come out in the open and attack. Then, when they do show themselves in an attack on the smaller US force the military calls in air support to fry the attackers.


It's worked well in Afghanistan on many occasions, and was being employed in more remote areas of Iraq recently.


Like I said, I'm sure this recent insurgency wasn't planned, but it will bear out to be very beneficial as the US forces will be able to identify and nuetralize large numbers of insurgents while they are formed in consolidated gruops and are easily identified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is Iraq isnt Afhganistan. You are no longer fighting a bitterly hated foreign to the nation enemy who asymettrically hides in the mountains. You are fighting an enemy of the people.


This is only going to get worse. When they started this thing they really really thought it was going to be a simple we get the bad guys and all the "Iraqis" except a few hardasses would be supportive and eventually they would accept the Constitution and Iraq would be like the US part 2. The problem is no longer with the Sunni Baath resistance(essentially a minority support for Hussein) which suprisingly managed to sustain itself long enough to accomplish what it wanted to accomplish. This resistance knew it couldnt beat the massive coalition forces in any way. They knew they had to wait and simply agitate. Now that moment has come for them. The problem is with the people of Iraq now.


The problem in Iraq is that it has naivley been defined by those who see only in terms of black and white and good and evil. Yes we knocked out an extremley oppressive regime but we took very little into account of how we would deal with the eventual political situation and soon to be crisis. That is something which 1 million troops cannot alter. We left a power vacuum and really foolishly believed that the mere removal of Hussein would make everyone happy and smile and everything would be ok with however we filled it.


The problem is the Iraqis are composed of various groups. Iraq is not post WW2 Germany or Japan. When we set up the new governmental structure, we had to deal with the interests of many groups. The Kurds, the fundamentalists Shia, the moderate Shia, the IGC, and numerous other minorities. All these groups may have hates Saddam and we thought that that unified hate would get them to join together. We thought they they would all join together under the guide of "democracy" and never be mad at America because we brought them "democracy." Once again I go back to that naive thought process that led us here in hte first place. We come under this general term of creating "democracy" but democracy is so complex and often actually fails miserably. Sadly we only know of our own nations experience and foolishly believe it will always succeed. Well things are a lot more complex in Iraq than we thought it would be.


When we set up a Constitution to fill the power vacuum and the governmental structure with the IGC, we had no choice but to try to find a tenious balance of power to create this democracy that we fancied in our mind. In doing so, we gave certain minority groups a considerable amount of power in their given veto because they demanded it. That and other things we set up has seriously irritated the Sadrists fundementalists. Others also dislike how we have set things up but the Sadrists have gotten the ball rolling. They have felt left out of this to a certian degree and now their young leader is stirring up trouble. Now they dont like how we have set things up and they are getting angry. They have stirred up a movement to get us out. So now we have two enemies we deal with.


Now the Sadrists and their leader Moqtada al-Sadr , like the Sunnis, dont want to beat us. They know they cant beat the great US army(btw therein lies the dumbest belief in this country. The sizes and strengths of armies are losing their value). All they have to do is cause enough trouble and get enough people on their side to cause all hell to break loose. Will they accomplish that? Lets just say this is not going in the right direction. The IGC(Iraqi governing counsel) has absolutley no power. The Shiites majority whom Hussein silenced dont follow governmental leadership. They follow religious clerics. The person with the most power is Grand Ayatollah Sistani who is essentially the religious leader of most Iraqis. Now although he doesnt yet support the Sadrists and the trouble they cause and he has outrightly asked the people to not get violent, he has denounced the actions of the US. His moderate stance is getting weaker.


Now as the Sadrists and al-Sadr cause more and more trouble, we are going to have to respond. The problem is how we respond. If we strike with force, we play into al-Sadr's hands. The more aggressive we get, the more Shia die and the more the moderate Shia get alienated. They will look to Sustani who says do nothing and support the US and they will see a leader who in their eyes becomes a puppet. If this happens they will look at al-Sadr and see a young cleric willing to fight against the US forces. Who will they turn to? al-Sadr will attain more and more support and once he gets the majority Shia support, we have officially lost the Iraqi people. Or what could happen is Sustani sees this and decided he will turn on the US which leads to the same result. If you think this is farfetched, why do you think we are trying so hard to "negotiate" our way out of this mess. We know this is not the direction to take but we reap what we sow. A third option is a massive civil war which is also possible.


If this results and the Shia massive majority turns against us and the Sunnis are already against us, then what exactly are we in Iraq for? If the whole nation wants us out and we stay, we have essentially become Saddam.



The Sadrists and al-Sadr are trying to destroy the transitional process because they dont like it. We foolishley believed that everyone would be fine with the way we set up government and now we are learning a harsh lesson. You see people just didnt understand how complex and chaotic things really can be. Now the average person is going to start the idiotic "stupid Iraqis. we helped them and they are ungrateful." Ive already seen one news anchor say it. So if things do go to hell, eventually we will be forced to leave or else lose any moral authority. Once that happens, Iraq could become much worse than Afghanistan. That is what people were afraid of when the US invaded. People were afraid that we simply didnt appreciate what could happen. The majority of Iraqis are grateful and dont care who leads. But there will be a battle for power and it will affect the majority and will not look good for the US. A lot of innocent people will die.


The Shiite radicals and Sunni resistance will unite and then we are f***ed. Thats essentially Iraqies vs. the US.


Now Bush is going about it all wrong. He stuck to his Texas cowboy mentality of good vs evil instead of using intelligent diplomacy. He cant turn around and use diplomacy now since he already has set his ways and he will look like the fool he is if he changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...