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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247943)	11/10/2007 5:12:50 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Nadine, re my question of; "First, what was it that the "Sunni insurgency" was (is) fighting for, or against?" You answered: "They were fighting to regain what they lost, the rule over Iraq to which they felt entitled." That's close but it's too simplistic. I'm sure that various Sunni factions would have preferred to "rule" Iraq but you don't have to stretch that far to find a far more compelling reason for their insurgency. Their fundamental reason for fighting against the "democratic" rule in Iraq that we, and the Shiites, were trying to impose was that the Sunnis understood from the outset what you and Bush have so belatedly begun to acknowledge; the Sunnis knew that rule by a brutal, violent Shiite majority would leave them in misery and poverty, and would leave many of them dead. They could not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES tolerate that result. I'll address the next question in my next post. Ed

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247943)	11/10/2007 5:20:32 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, with respect to my second question, i.e.; "Second, if you have any dim notion of an answer that question, then what do the recent developments of the Sunnis accepting arms and money from the US in return for cutting back on killing our troops have to do with those "insurgency" goals?" You answered: "They have to do with positioning themselves for the ethno-sectarian struggle for power that is Iraq today. Paradoxically, as Shia power established itself in the central government, Americans became de facto allies of the Sunnis because only the American have a strong interest in not seeing the Sunnis driven out of Iraq entirely, which would be a-okay by most of the Shia and Kurds. Situations change and develop. In their own ways. So there we have it. The Sunnis ARE currently accepting our "help" in order to strengthen themselves so that they can effectively resist the will of the majority of Iraqis...the Shiite Iraqis. Their goals have not changed, the thing that changed was that instead of attempting to crush their resistance to a "democratically ruled Iraq" we are now busy aiding them in their efforts to resist the rule of the majority in Iraq. And, in return, their response has been to stop fighting us and to accept our help. (Help means not only that we're not killing them but that we're providing arms, money, training and rebuilding in Sunni areas.) So there you have it, their "insurgent" goals have not changed. What has changed is the goals of the "US." As I said in an earlier post; they didn't join us so much as we joined them. Or maybe you don't remember my analogy to the essential arms dealer who's supplying both the rebels and the government. So, spin it all you want as an end to the "Sunni insurgency" but your own post shows that you know better. I'll address the "we beat Al Queda" assertion in my next post. Ed

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247943)	11/10/2007 5:37:27 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It seems that after having built up Al Queda as such a big threat to take over control in Iraq you now have to spin the collapse of that "powerhouse Al Queda" house of cards. Let's start with your admission that you "said that our leaving would leave Iraq at a big risk of being controlled by Al Queda?" That sets the primary question, i.e., was Al Queda the kind of power in Iraq that had the potential to EVER take over the country? That potential would indicate a powerful presence of Al Queda in Iraq. A presence potentially capable of overcoming the tribal powers and the power of the clerics. What actually happened when the Sunnis decided that we were offering more to their insurgent aims than Al Queda was that without fanfare, without a major battle, and without substantial bloodshed we went from attributing almost every damage in Iraq to Al Queda to stating that Al Queda in Iraq had been defeated, or nearly so. So what happened to that powerhoust Al Queda that you posited? Well, either they were a lot smaller and weaker than you thought or the Sunnis were a lot more in control than you thought. But, instead of recognizing how quickly and easily the small Al Queda radical element was purged from the Sunni strongholds through, primarily, the actions of the Sunnis, you state: "Now that we DID stay and we DID beat them, contrary to your wishes, you claim that they can never have been a threat on no evidence whatsoever, but the fact that we DID beat them. AQI controlled most of Al Anbar and parts of the other Sunni provinces for three years and more." It's nice spin Nadine, but it's just spin. The real world leaves traces of facts and there are no traces of facts to support either that it was primarily our victory or that they were ever the formidable power you posited. All the spin you want to put on any of these events does not change the fact that the great chasms that divide the various political and religious factions in Iraq are not lessening, portend more suffering in the future and are not amenable to our "help." It is what it is. Ed