Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (129905)	4/23/2004 4:05:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The fact is that I cannot think of a single modern instance where a foreign nation has been able to "put down" an insurgency when there exists at least a minimum of popular support for the insurgents Even that's not true; the British put down some pretty big insurgencies in Kenya, for example. The Arab Revolt in Palestine had support but it was over by 1939, put down by the British. Second, there is going to be an Iraqi face on this government quite soon; and the Iraqis will determine how much that means. Third, even in cases where there is considerable popular support for the insurgency, it can be fought for a long time, and a win for the insurgency is not a forgone conclusion. You tend to hear more about the insurgency victories; but I'm sure I could find lots of non-successes without trying too hard where the people got tired of the fighting and stopped suporting the insurgents. Look at the Tamil Tigers for instance. Much depends on the which way the Shia jump. Until now, Sistani has been a quietist, pressing for early elections but not opposing the occupation. A number of observers have pointed out that if he seemed slow to condemn Al Sadr's uprising, it's because he is not displeased to see Al Sadr impale himself on American and Brit guns. Al Sadr is a rival to him, and a thug who needs putting down. Better the Americans should do it, eh? By all accounts, Sistani is a very clever fellow. The Sunni triangle is unlikely to be pacified for some time. Our best answer is to work all out at training - proper training, which takes months if not years - the Iraqi army, and let them have a go. Throwing more billions and more lives into the meat grinder that Iraq has become, and will continue to be, will not change reality. This is a vast exaggeration. Iraq is nowhere near being a meat grinder, or a full scale combat zone, or anything like that. There is a bunch of low grade hit & run stuff going on; that is a different scale entirely, though it gets viewed through a disorted lens of the media. If the Shia really rose against us, that would drive us out. But they haven't & Sistani is too smart to encourage it - why should he, when he will be the winner from the elections? We need to do that thing the Bush camp seems so incapable of; we need to negotiate a way out that salvages something "negotiate"? fine. "cut and run"? not fine. There is a difference, one that can only be made evident to everybody by a willingness to put American lives as well as dollars on the line. We have spent 20 years convincing the Middle East that we are soft and unwilling to fight; we must unteach that lesson for our own safety. In your arguments I don't hear that you understand the difference.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (129905)	4/23/2004 4:33:46 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<In the triangle we already KNOW that the population is sufficiently pro-insurgency or anti-occupation to support an active insurgency. Rumsfeld's way of admitting this is to say that we need "better intelligence" regarding the identities, plans and locations of the insurgents. What he means is that we are not getting the help of the locals. >>> The citizens of Fallugha are now discussing their fate with the help of some out-of-towners. So the insurgents are hiding their weapons, denying they have any, turning in junk in hopes of deceiving our troops. IMO they just cant face the truth, cant stop argueing,cant stop lying. Therefore I assume we are not sitting around wasting time while they dig in, but are moving in equipment like tanks, bulldozers, mine detectors, needed to disassemble the town and finish the job. Perhaps the meetings will end with the Iraqis deciding (or recommending) that Iraqi police forces move in and disarm the insurgents. The typical delaying tactics. And the insurgents may agree to it, as they could probably buy-off their freedom from fellow Iraqis, keep some hidden weapons to use later. The typical delaying BS known to every politician. Thats not going to work , even if Saddam got away with it for 12 tears Sig