... by 'actual', I take you mean in genuine uniform, with formal command and control structure, backed by controlled population, etc ... stiff definition, very unbecoming of any wishing to exhibit common sense, but OK, we will work with that, and watch the progression.
That's generally the definition we used during military exercises at Fort Polk.. You have "LIC", them "MIC", and if the enemy (who generally represents a neighboring foreign power) is successful, then it may escalate to High Intensity Conflict with a direct invastion by that neighbor.
Thus, by that definition, Iraq remains in Low-Intensity Conflict, where the insurgents can manage attacks upon the local populace and authorities, and assert local control for brief periods of time, but they cannot yet muster sufficient force to directly undermine the existing government.
And one more thing about this insurgency in Iraq.. It's really not that these groups will EVER have sufficient power to directly threaten the existence of the existing Shi'a dominated government. They just don't have the population or economic means that would permit the resurgence of such control as it currently stands. Now there might be a scenario where other Arab Sunnis located in Jordan and Syria might elect to escalate this insurgency to a larger level and directly intervene in Iraq, but I don't find that likely at the moment.
I noticed you used the word 'yet'. An astute choice of framing.
Of course I use "yet", because NOTHING about Iraq, or the middle east is settled.. Hell, I can't tell you 2 years down the road whether Iraq is going to choose to remain democratic, or whether the various sides will elect to go their own way, and/or be engaged in full scale war with each other. But I do know that it's important that we attempt to prevent that from occurring.
... so, we agree, no pure motives on all sides.
No.. just pure interests. We have an interest in preserving the flow of oil from Iraq and denying its revenue from falling into the hands of terrorists. And we have an interest in attempting to alter the political environment in the region by promoting democratic reforms. Hopefully we won't again have to be faced with dismantling a totalitarian regime in order to unleash liberty. I would rather prefer that liberty be unleashed internally, and in an orderly manner. But one in which opposing ideas are permitted to be marketed so long as those ideas do not advocate violence.
Some would say that, on Sudan, it is an forced issue, caused in part by USA choice, when it refused to honor the USD offered for oil companies. Spin can be used all different ways, especially when they have an element of truth.
Well, not quite what offer you're referring to, but I can suggest that China bears a direct AND SHAMEFUL responsibility for permitting the genocide to continue in Sudan while it focuses solely upon securing oil reserves for its economy.
This is a fool-hardy policy that is not far removed from the nature of US support for the Shah.
The reaction, I suspect, will be equally predictable, and will be disciplined as opposed to disciplining.
What's that supposed to mean, "discipliined as opposed to disciplining"?
I'll tell you what your troops will do.. You'll capture insurgents and exercise some of your own "special methods" for the very same purpose of extracting information from them as to who is behind the attacks upon your personnel.
That's what you'll do, and that's no different from what has been applied in Iraq.
Hawk |
