Article

2006-11-24 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-11-24 10:25|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Et le combat cessa, faute de combattants.
Le Cid-Corneille.
And the combat ceased, for want of combatants.

Posted by SwissTex 2006-11-24 10:40|| 2006-11-24 10:40|| Front Page Top

#2 So stay away from the mosques and you'll be safe.

Posted by Sleaper Thraviter2776 2006-11-24 11:03|| 2006-11-24 11:03|| Front Page Top

#3 They attacked four mosques with rocket-propelled grenades Wonder if there were any large secondary explosions.

Posted by GK 2006-11-24 11:20|| 2006-11-24 11:20|| Front Page Top

#4 Related story. Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

Posted by GK 2006-11-24 11:25|| 2006-11-24 11:25|| Front Page Top

#5 I believe yesterday's bombings are the pivot point of their civil war. alQ has, for all intents and purposes, doomed the Sunnis. These people really will go medieval - they've been stuck at that point since Mohammed, so it's nothing new.

Posted by .com 2006-11-24 11:34|| 2006-11-24 11:34|| Front Page Top

#6 Wasabi popcorn.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-11-24 11:38|| 2006-11-24 11:38|| Front Page Top

#7 As the thoughtful observers noted early this year, the "civil war" started when Sunnis suddenly were victims of terrorist violence. But that observation isn't just about the appalling Sunni bigotry and moral inversion in the region and the world media - the Coalition's incompetence is also highlighted.

The slaughter of Shi'a innocents (a la the Sadr City bombs, which are simply more of what's been going on steadily for over two years) was allowed to proceed as though it wasn't worth stopping (might retard the independent development of Iraqi security forces by 2.5 weeks, oh no! can't do that) and wouldn't have consequences (let's see, where did this pesky militia problem come from? why have the pre-war militias been joined by much bigger and more problematic groupings? it's like they feel the need to defend themselves or something - boy, these Iraqis are primitive).

While the entire enterprise begins to collapse around them (and their political base at home has already largely collapsed), the leadership no doubt continues to cling to its twin delusions that the only important thing is not to take any action to help hold things together, lest it delay full Iraqi capacity by a few days, and that the Sunnis can be incorporated into a new Iraq before their violent resistance or collaboration with same has been utterly crushed.

I was present as an observer at initial meetings on ways to maximize the impact of the Baghdad security plan, phase one. The first moment of the first meeting said it all - the operations chief of the maneuver unit in charge told a stunned and deflated group over a teleconference that the bold, all-out effort to get control of Baghdad once and for all was in fact another leverage operation, involving limited resources, and that some US and Iraqi units would be moving out of town within the first 10 days to perform other tasks in Diyala and somewhere else. What followed actually contained some useful, long overdue elements (Dora district was substantially cleaned up) - but clearly it wasn't a serious operation (defined as one that ramps up the severity and scope of the impact on the target communities until you achieve your short-term objective).

None of this is easy, and some mistakes are to be expected and don't reflect any lack of capability - but clear-eyed US soldiers and just about any Iraqi who will talk have been pointing out for over two years that everything must start with sufficient subjugation of the Sunni community such that it is no longer the base for attacks on other Iraqis and the Coalition. We have tried everything except that - with unsurprising results.

A measure of the madness is that many true-believing DOD and uniformed folks will now respond, quite naturally, that "it's not our war to win" when one points out the precariousness of the situation. Nice perspective, that: the whole Iraq enterprise teeters on the brink of failure in almost every sense (primary goal of regime removal is in the bag), with potentially grave implications for our regional standing and global campaign, and "it's not our war to win". Perhaps this inexplicable viewpoint "explains" the otherwise incomprehensible passivity and attachment to irrelevant methodological principles that have seen us struggle against one of the weakest enemies we've ever faced.

Posted by Verlaine 2006-11-24 11:53|| 2006-11-24 11:53|| Front Page Top

#8 As Shiite and Sunni beat the Shiite out of each other, kindly explain to me why, with the exception of the grateful, democratic (by regional standards at least), pro-American Kurds, we are expending blood and treasure for these lunatics?

Let Iraq be Iraq, even if that means wholesale slaughter of each other.

Edmund Burke was right about the relationship between historical, cultural links to a potential for rational governance. Iraq simply does not have the basis for a transition to democractic, rational governance.

Demonstration elections, wherein probably half of the voters are as dimwitted as ours, is no substitute for the established rule of law, an independent judiciary, ordered liberty, and a military-police force capable of and willing to enforce the law in an objective, neutral manner.

Forget this Iraq mess, and instead build more B-2 Stealth bombers, increase the fleet, create more Special Forces units, and definitely increase the number of Middle Eastern language, cultural, religious, and history specialists for our military and intelligence communities respectively. That's the path to victory over radical Islamist-driven Jihad.

We're losing time and more importantly, grinding our active duty and reserve military into the ground, and for what end? So that Shiites and Sunnis can slaughter each other in the name of tribal, ethnic, and religious differences. What a bargain!

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-11-24 11:59|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com] 2006-11-24 11:59|| Front Page Top

#9 It's just too bad the PM is a weak pushover.

One thing that really stands out is how incompetitant these police are.

I believe as good human beings, we can't let them kill each other off without trying to save the innocent ones. How? I don't know.

Posted by Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-11-24 12:06|| 2006-11-24 12:06|| Front Page Top

#10 How is exactly right, JE. You answered your dilemma when you chided the Iraqi Police for incompetence. It's worse than that, often they are the killers!

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-11-24 12:09|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com] 2006-11-24 12:09|| Front Page Top

#11 Verlaine,

I take it you are firmly in the 'stop Sunni terrorism first' camp.

If this is correct, do you think the coalition should have allied itself with the Shiite militia to implement the 'stop Sunni terrorism first' policy?

Posted by mhw 2006-11-24 12:20|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2006-11-24 12:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Verlaine - Greetings, bro. Wow... so much to say...

As you know, I used to care, had hopes, the works. Now, I don't. Only the Kurds have truly deserved our efforts - and possibly that may be as much geography as not.

As you point out so eloquently, we never have given the Sunni Triangle the "thumping" it so desperately deserves. I used to harp on this regularly, but it was pointless to keep it up - it was never going to happen. Pure politics. This is my quickie recitation of the points along the curve...

From Turkey's back-stabbing, to calling off Fallujah I, to letting Sistani stop us in Najaf and Sadr City, to the soft-power model in the south, to the blowing up of the Golden Dome Mosque... It became a half-hearted game of grab-ass a long time ago. You've reported the screw-ups and they have led to this moment. A lot of our people and a huge number of civilians, far and away primarily Shia, have paid the price. And the logical eventual political turn came with the Shia Govt and the IM of Jabr - Shia Death Squads in police uniforms.

I think from the point where we decided we would support sovereignty over security, the game was over. Certainly, IMO, everything since Jaafari has been entirely predictable.

Posted by .com 2006-11-24 12:24|| 2006-11-24 12:24|| Front Page Top

#13 "From Turkey's back-stabbing, to calling off Fallujah I, to letting Sistani stop us in Najaf and Sadr City, to the soft-power model in the south, to the blowing up of the Golden Dome Mosque... It became a half-hearted game of grab-ass a long time ago. You've reported the screw-ups and they have led to this moment. A lot of our people and a huge number of civilians, far and away primarily Shia, have paid the price. And the logical eventual political turn came with the Shia Govt and the IM of Jabr - Shia Death Squads in police uniforms."

Ditto. Or instead of a soft-hearted game of grab-ass, it became this:

A Dangerous Game of Whack-a-Mole

Note the date when published!

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-11-24 12:33|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com] 2006-11-24 12:33|| Front Page Top

#14 Wow, LOD... I'm only about halfway through it, but it's ringing true. Thx!

Posted by .com 2006-11-24 12:39|| 2006-11-24 12:39|| Front Page Top

#15 .com:

No military expertise here, just a lot of reading, talking with veterans, having had family members who served (WW II), and so forth.

If little ole humble me could spot our problems in Iraq as far back as Spring 2004 (see my other commentaries on Iraq), what the hell does that say about the West Point, Harvard, and other Ivy League "best and brightest" ~~ruining~~ running the war effort?

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-11-24 12:54|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com] 2006-11-24 12:54|| Front Page Top

#16 Another example:

Two days ago, five car bombs rigged to go off one after the other, helped kill 212 Shiites.

After all the overwhelming evidence of the need to implement no-driving, no-car zones and occasional car bans, why do Coalition and Iraqi security forces permit cars and other vehicles (motorbikes also have been used as bomb-delivery systems) anywhere near crowded markets, shops, apartments, and worst of all, police buildings?

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-11-24 12:57|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com] 2006-11-24 12:57|| Front Page Top

#17 To answer mh's question: no, I'm not talking about allying with any irregular force, I'm talking about the need to have subdued the Sunni community (from which 95% of the violence that mattered emanated, either through active support/collusion/intimidation)ourselves first, as a pre-condition for further development. Instead, we've proceeded as though Iraq wasn't Iraq, but some other place on which we would perform our experiment of 1% power, 99% finesse, fancy-footwork, and leverage.

Lancasters touches on the implication of my main point: we focused on a few crude if impressive milestones of political development like elections. In fact, our operations were mostly limited to setting the conditions for those events. What was needed was much simpler, but much more arduous: establishing basic security by subduing the elements that prevented such security, who are almost entirely in the Sunni camp.

It would be a difficult mix of killing foreigners and local hard-cases, intimidating others, and giving the rest the impression that we were the winners, and that they'd better change their ways. It might have involved isolating whole communities, putting them on UN food rations, and ending their normal lives until they broke. It certainly would have involved systematic isolation of such communities to some extent (one car bomb comes from a town, that town is sealed off until they get the message - attempt to make them love us). The entire road network in certain areas should have been systematically controlled and limited since the get-go. Economic impact? Yes, it's hard to boost an economy while fighting a vicious nasty war - because doing so is not the objective and not needed.

It probably goes back to the quick sovereignty model: in general there's nothing wrong with the whole idea of a quick turnover of sovereignty and a focus in all things on getting the locals to take over. But IT MUST BE CONDITIONS-BASED. In Iraq it obviously hasn't been. The emphasis on political development and inclusion as weapons has been disastrous, given Iraq's specific history and human landscape. We turned over sovereignty before they were even close to ready to discharge their responsibilities - and before the Sunni community was sufficiently isolated, subjugated, or transformed to avoid major security problems.

We actually did, for limited purposes on a few occasions, take decisive action: Fallujah II, Tal Afar, Najaf and Karbala, a slew of very small and under-reported operations in the west, north, and east. But they were never part of a pattern, they were episodes.

A much tougher approach, putting reconstruction back in distant second place where it belongs, aimed at breaking the will of the Sunni community and impressing the rest that the future will be different, would be much better suited to Iraq's history and human reality. But this has never been tried, at least not in a comprehensive and sustained manner. Easier said than done, but not even trying is not much of a start.

AQ in Iraq swims in the Sunni sea. By pretending that the participation of some Sunnis in the new political structure was sufficient, we've essentially abandoned the priority mission of making sure that community is no longer the base for major violence.

The Baghdad security plan (various phases), launched in June 2006, merely confirms most of what I say: if it was the right move in June of this year, it probably would have been the right move long, long before that (and a much more serious version of it, at that). We have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into sometimes still half-a**ed versions of operations that were clearly urgent for months or years. Baghdad is just one example: it approaches gross incompetence to have taken until last spring to notice that Baghdad was a center of gravity in every sense - security, political, media - and that dramatic action was required.

Our military (particularly the Army, at least based on my view of parts of the elephant), with civilian approval, has been trying to make water run uphill in Iraq for over two years. We've tried to achieve victory in perhaps the most vicious, dysfunctional, hobbesian environment on Earth through quaint counter-insurgency experiments and negligible military operations. Not surprisingly, the primary enemy has endured and wrecked our little experiment.

None of this is as easy as it looks, and I don't blame anyone for almost any approach that proves to be ineffective, but the refusal to adapt and try different methods or to remain on top of the situation has been inexcusable.

Posted by Verlaine 2006-11-24 13:12|| 2006-11-24 13:12|| Front Page Top

#18 One quick add: Lancasters, exactly! Far as I know, there has never been a serious and systematic change in the way business is done (limiting vehicle movement and access) in reaction to what is a friggin' war. Whole sections of the country should have been on some sort of lock-down since the early phases. I still recall a print story from the time of the April 2004 Fallujah incident - the immediate reaction had included cutting the town off, and some street vendor in Baghdad had remarked to a reporter that it was about time this was done, and pointed to the sudden decrease in car bombings in Baghdad as a direct result. That's sort of the representative image for me: a street vendor points out an obvious tactical change that our leadership had refused to implement for reasons that passeth understanding.

War without warfare, I have called it. I wonder if the Iraq experience will cure our military and civilian leadership of this odd pathology.

Posted by Verlaine 2006-11-24 13:20|| 2006-11-24 13:20|| Front Page Top

#19 Verlaine - What do you think will be the effect on the Sunni faction when Saddam finally gets his neck stretched?

(disillusionment? renewed sense of vigor? whatever...)

Posted by eLarson 2006-11-24 13:34|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-11-24 13:34|| Front Page Top

#20 Have no idea, eLarson. Seems to me the various Sunni factions, both domestic and foreign, are playing for their own set of goals. Given that the parties are locked in serious mayhem, I wonder if Saddam's situation will have much impact on anyone.

Posted by Verlaine 2006-11-24 13:43|| 2006-11-24 13:43|| Front Page Top

#21 How about, while their fighting each other, we just steal their oil and leave.

Posted by Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-11-24 14:00|| 2006-11-24 14:00|| Front Page Top

#22 Great thread here, folks. Lots of mind food. When I look back at the events since Saddam was deposed, I see our military being hobbled by bad leadership at the top, both civilian and the generals.

We played footsie with Sistani and his little Tater and the tots.
We did not go medevil with Fallujah in the beginning when the four security contractors were burned to death.
We did not make any significant covert ops against Iran and Syria, who actively enabled the influx of terrorists and materiel into Iraq.

In short, there were few consequences to the enemy for their actions, so why not keep up the same behaviors? They work. Sow discord, mayhem, anarchy, death. The playbook works.

The way to curtail terrorist activities is to cut off their resource base, and that leads to Iran and Syria. They have to feel the pain for their dirty little business.

We have the best military in the world: We have the hardware, the logistical chain, and the best, most highly educated and motivated people we ever had.

But we do not have the leadership that is willing to let the military do what they need to do. And this lack of leadership is at the top levels of the administration AND the military.

Now we are in a hell of a pickle. We have a PM in Iraq that plays footsie and more with Iran. Both Iran and Syria are in a stronger position now, due to our WEAKNESS, not because they are strong.

We also have a Dem majority in congress that wants negotiations with Syria and Iran! And we have a weak, uncentered ally in Israel. The MSM is cranking out defeatist propaganda at high throttle to demoralize the effort. We are also trying to run this war now by political committee.

The problems in Iraq are very serious. Very serious, indeed. But as big as they are, they are just a symptom a much larger problem, and that is the malaise and lack of leadership in this country. THAT is the big nut to crack. Deal with that, and the solutions to the other problems will fall into place. Wallow around like we have been doing, and Iraq AND other places will continue to turn to sh*t.

I have this horrible, but persistant feeling that we all will have to stare into the abyss before we can do what is needed to save ALL OF US from the abyss, including the muzzies themselves. The problem is that we are running out of time. The NORKS and the Iranians are continuing on with their nuclear programs, and nobody is stopping them. It's getting to be crunch time.

In short

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-11-24 14:11|| 2006-11-24 14:11|| Front Page Top

#23 The way I see it, Iraq has been divided, and we conquered, but we still haven't finished the old leadership. I think we're doing terrible on human intelligence.

Sun Tzu always always helps me think.

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
- Sun Tzu

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.
- Sun Tzu

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.
- Sun Tzu

Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.
- Sun Tzu

"The art of using troops is this:
......When ten to the enemy's one, surround him;
......When five times his strength, attack him;
......If double his strength, divide him;
......If equally matched you may engage him;
......If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing;
......And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him,
..........for a small force is but booty for one more powerful."
- Sun Tzu, the Art Of War

Posted by Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-11-24 14:55|| 2006-11-24 14:55|| Front Page Top

#24 muck4doo solution. Make a seperate Kurd state. Give the rest of Iraq to Iran in exchange for giving up their nuke program, and give them a few nuke bombs as added incentive. (Secretly have them them programed though to hit Tehran, Moscow, Beijing, Paris, Mecca, and Hoboken New Jersey if ever launched.)

Posted by Thoth 2006-11-24 15:04|| 2006-11-24 15:04|| Front Page Top

#25 Spot on Alaska Paul.

Question for Verlaine tho - you make a good case for the crack down on the Sunnis but what will really happen in the long run if the Sunni's are neutralized? Shiite dominance maybe? One big Iran possibly? Scary to ponder the possibilities. I'm in the "let them hash it out" camp. These kinds of things fester forever if one side doesn't kick the sh*t out of the other. Look at the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It will NEVER end until Israel either (1) takes the gloves off and decimates them or (2) gets decimated by them (via Iranian nuke, etc.)

One idea before a pullout:
1. Move our forces to secure bases in and around Iraq
2. Use our forces for border control (Mainly Syria and Iran borders)
3. Let them "hash it out"
4. Try the government establishment thing again after most of the aggressive element has eliminated each other. Probably the 3 region idea looks best. Screw the Turks if they don't like living next to an independent Kurdistan.

Just a thought from a non-Harvard, non-West Point type of guy.

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2006-11-24 15:22|| 2006-11-24 15:22|| Front Page Top

#26 Reminder that what we have today is a result of Turkish intransigence and betrayal: not letting our 4th ID roll into Sunni-ville from the North on Day 1 was the biggest error they made. And its the crux of the whole problem we now face; we didn't hit the triangle and left it to fester instead of flattening it. Thats where the insurgency bred and the Sunnis started pushing this until the Shia snapped on them.

I can hardly balme the Shia for going bozo on the Sunni. Were someone to do that to me and mine just because we were Catholic, I'd fight - and fight nasty (c.f. Catholic Ireland and the Protestant Scottish/English Plantations in the N - and several hundred years of vicious combat).

One thing to not overlook: we do have a true ally inthe area.

Having dealt personally with the Kurds, they are American in spirit and outlook. They basically just want to be left the hell alone and live freely, conduct business and raise their families. No they arent't Americans and are still Muslin in some ways, but the "get it". Ask people who have been there in the north.

They are the only bunch I ran into that deserve unquestioned support an allegiance - after all, they gave that to us and are continuing to do so.

I say build 2 PERMANENT airbases and 2 US Army brigade size bases, and in those house a stryker brigade active (and an attached tank battalion, active) and a brigade of prepositioned heavy armor equipment and a stryker brigade of preconfigured unit sets. Let the Kurds and EVERYON in the region kow we are dead serious about being there and protecting our friends.

Encourage the Kurds to push for liberty for their brothers in Iran and Syria. Train and arm them (and let the Kurds themselves resupply them). Losing Homs could topple the Alawite Syrian government (Leaving Baby Assad to a firing quad), and Homs is a major Hezbollah logistics area - right on the edge of they Kurdish area in NE Syria.

Tabriz becomes an immediate battle area for the Kurds. And its a dagger at the heart of the Theocrats in Iran: for the Iraqi border to the Caspian sea are the major Iranian links with Europe, and a lot of oil. The language and the culture there are NOT Persian/Farsi, they are Aberjainian/Kurdish. Plus in the 20th, Tabriz was known as the center of democratic rebellion in Iran.

Ideal place to start a revolution if you ask me. Take the western half for the Kurds, the city of Tabriz and the area to the east for the Azerbaijanis, and a chunk of the far north to the Armenians in majority there.

As for the Turks, screw em. If they set one foot in Kurdistan, we ought to deliver US air-strikes on their formations, and blow them back into Turkey.

Payback is a bitch - and Turkey deserves far more payback than they have been given. If they want to be an ally of the West, then they better act like it - that includes recognizing and apologizing for the Armenian genocide, allowing plebiscite and more independence for Kurds, including rolling back laws that make it illegal to teach Kurdish language and culture, and releasing the political prisoners they hold now.

Dems are good at screwing our allies; let's let them loose on thr Turks -- I can hardly image a set of peopel that deserved each other any more than those.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-24 16:31|| 2006-11-24 16:31|| Front Page Top

#27 Correction: Not Homs, but Al Hasakah is in the Kurdish area of Syria. Homs is a C&C are for Helbollzh, Al Hasakah is an overland logistics choke point from Iran.

Hell if th Kurds coudl reach Homs they'd have cut Syria in half. Thats how you can tell if Israel is serious about knocking Syria out versus jsut smacking it. Hit Damascus, you;'re rattlign the cage. Hit Homs and you are dismembering Syria.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-24 16:41|| 2006-11-24 16:41|| Front Page Top

#28 I like the strategy outline, OS, but a major problem would develop: if the Kurds were to strike out at Syria and/or Iran to re-unite their brethen Kurds in these countries, the Turks will become exceedingly nervous. After all, the PKK would become increasingly bold, and it would be difficult for the Turks to believe that while the Kurds are going to reunite Syrian and Iranian Kurdish lands to the mother Kurdistan, they have no designs at all on the largest chunk of Kurdish land outside of Iraq.

So while the Turks might be mollified/bought off to accept a Kurdish state strictly confined to present-day Kurdish Iraq, no way in hell they'll sit still for Kurdish expansion in any direction. I don't think the Turks would accept the Kurds getting Mosul, so I can't see them allowing the Kurds to get Al Hasakah.

If you have a solution for the Turkish issue that doesn't involve all-out war (which is what I think the Turks would resort to if the Kurds expanded), I'd love to hear it.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-11-24 16:58|| 2006-11-24 16:58|| Front Page Top

#29 Putting the Turks in a hard spot is a feature not a bug. They deserve it for what they did in the run-up to Iraq.

The Kurds need a port. Iskenderon looks good.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-24 17:13|| 2006-11-24 17:13|| Front Page Top

#30 Latakia, I think is historically Kurdish.

Posted by Shipman 2006-11-24 17:19|| 2006-11-24 17:19|| Front Page Top

#31 That'd work too. I didn't realize they were that far south.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-24 17:23|| 2006-11-24 17:23|| Front Page Top

#32 Steve, if we guarantee the freedom of the Kurds in their own state, the Turks would simply have no choice but to either alter the conditions on the ground (i.e. start acting like a western democracy and allow the Kurds to run their own lives without the fascistic interference of their central state) or else face rebellion in their east. Its something that time will have happen, sooner or later.

The Turks gave us no choice, fair enough to not give them one other than a hard one.

Time for the Turks to accept the last spin-off of the ottoman empire: eastern Turkey belongs to the Kurds, Azerbaijani's and Armenians. Its not Turkey anymore.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-24 17:34|| 2006-11-24 17:34|| Front Page Top

#33 Latakia is very decidedly mixed.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-24 17:35|| 2006-11-24 17:35|| Front Page Top

#34 Brings up somethign interesting: Offer the Turks the job of "Stabilizing" northern Syria excluding the Kurdish areas, but to include Latakia.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-24 17:36|| 2006-11-24 17:36|| Front Page Top

#35 OS, I do not have a problem with your solution, but it comes back to leadership to make it happen, or anything short of a disaster happen. We cannot get there by the moron dems et al coming up with moron solutions to Iraq by committee. The Republicans and the President need to grow a spine. They are acting like tire tubes with leaks. Pump em up and they deflate in time. We either need lots of patches or some new tubes. Which way is the question, and how do you do it?

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-11-24 17:49|| 2006-11-24 17:49|| Front Page Top

#36 AP, I agree moreorless with OS and in answer to your question. Let the Iraqis/Kurds do it themselves. The mistake is to try and stop them (by trying to control the process and outcome). All the US should do is guarantee Iraq's borders. Sure the Sunnis will take a hammering, but that's been inevitable for a while

Posted by phil_b 2006-11-24 19:00|| 2006-11-24 19:00|| Front Page Top

#37 All of the above commentaries (mine humbly excluded) are among the best threads I've ever read on the Rantburg.

Excellent job Verlaine, .com, OldSpook, Alaska Paul, and everyone else.

If the GOP had a fraction of the insights and intelligence displayed here, Nancy Pelosi would just be another leftist hag from San Fran rather than *gasp* incoming Speaker of the House.

But for mishandling Iraq, the GOP would have secured Congress. Instead it got a well-deserved comeuppance.

Grand Old Party Gets A Grand Old Comeuppance

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-11-24 21:49|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com] 2006-11-24 21:49|| Front Page Top

#38 good comments and ideas RBees...

Posted by RD 2006-11-24 22:03|| 2006-11-24 22:03|| Front Page Top

#39 Lancasters (great name, by the way), you are very generous in your praise. I second it when it comes to the others - in my case, there's just great frustration at seeing the last two years go by without any change in our determination to win this through magic tricks instead of blood and toil. There are places in Iraq where any number of approaches make sense - that's not the point. The point is, the key problem that was never addressed is Sunni violence and chauvinism.

A miscalculation was made to attempt to co-opt that community before subduing it. Much was made of splits that were opened up by the political process - irrelevant, as it turns out, since AQ and home-grown Sunni extremists have had no problem operating out of a "split" community. If the Sunnis "engaged" so skillfully by the embassy and its able political team had organized to fight the foreigners, Ba'athists, and domestic extremists, we'd be in a different place today. But these Sunnis for whatever reason have been unable to deliver their community to the new Iraq project. Long past time to recognize that, protect some reliable leaders who are sincerely on the right side, and make the community's life unbearable until submission occurs.

I would not be concerned by Shi'a dominance, which in any situation short of brutal tyranny will be the situation. Iran naturally has inroads via the Shi'a, but I think people great over-estimate that, and under-estimate TRUE Iraqi nationalism (not the Sunni desire to dominate, steal the country blind, and/or evade justice for all the blood on their hands - this is called "nationalism" by both the media and many in MNF-I, astoundingly). The Najaf hawza view Iranian mullahs as rivals, and lower on the totem pole, and besides that (I believe) there is little support for Iran's historically anomalous mixture of religion and state (vilayet e faqih). On top of this, the Arab/Persian divide is robust, and I think sufficient to ensure that Iran's ambitions would be checked.

I think the Kurds want to keep Iraq intact, for now, and it's their best option. Too much power in Turkey, and chaos or uncertainty in Syria and Iran, for an Iraqi dissolution to be the percentage move any time soon. A functional Iraq is the Kurds' best bet. Their pro-US sentiment and availability to cooperate in any of our nefarious schemes will endure, no rush ....

Posted by Verlaine 2006-11-24 22:29|| 2006-11-24 22:29|| Front Page Top

#40 Thanks, gents. I learned a lot tonight.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-11-24 23:17|| 2006-11-24 23:17|| Front Page Top

23:40 gorb
23:35 Mark Z
23:31 Mark Z
23:28 gorb
23:27 Mark Z
23:21 gorb
23:20 gorb
23:18 Seafarious
23:17 gorb
23:17 Seafarious
23:17 gorb
23:14 Mark Z
23:09 gorb
23:06 gorb
22:59 wxjames
22:57 C-Low
22:48 Zenster
22:44 rjschwarz
22:42 Zenster
22:42 gorb
22:40 Verlaine
22:37 Zenster
22:32 Zenster
22:29 Verlaine