Direct from Ron Davies at 10:10 AM – 26th July

Ron Davies Point 1: - (Ron here operating in his Strategic Advisor Capacity)
"Petraeus had no idea, as most people did not, that al-Qaeda would be as consistently stupid as it has been--and that their vicious barbaric "Moslem Puritanism" would cause the huge revulsion in the Sunni population that it did. He may be very intelligent but his crystal ball is not perfect, just as Mudcatters are not always correct in foretelling the future."

This piece of arrant nonsense defies what was said and commented upon shortly after elections were held and the Interim Iraqi Government took over from the Coalition Provisional Authority, something that many here said would never happen. That was when the Arab Sunni leaders started to feel short changed by the Ba'athist insurgents and Zarqawi's Jihadists. They found themselves almost completely out of the loop – On the outside of the tent pissing in, I believe is how it's described – but enough Sunni Arabs did vote to give them some representation, in fact percentage-wise a damn sight more than normally turn out to vote in Scottish General Elections.

Ron contends that Sunni backlash against the insurgents and Jihadists could not be predicted – complete and utter rubbish – it was bloody obvious from summer of 2004 what was going to happen.

Hey Ron as you are fond of "quoting me" try this one:

"Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:17 AM

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.

Again that was to be expected in the run-up to 30th June. The CPA was brutally frank in their predictions and warnings on this subject. The number of attacks should also be viewed alongside the nature of those attacks and their selected targets to determine the purpose behind them. They will prove to be as effective in Iraq as they have been in Palestine. Again due to the existence of a sovereign Iraqi government it will not take long for the bulk of the Iraqi people to turn against those carrying out those attacks. A new Iraqi government holds out and offers the people of Iraq hope - the "insurgents" offer them nothing except the prospect of civil war and the continuation of the misery they have endured for decades - It will not take long for the people of Iraq to recognise that."

If it was obvious to me on 6th July 2004 Ron, you can bet your boots that it was equally evident to the likes of General Petraeus and his Australian advisor Lt. Col. David Kilcullen who have made a lifetimes study of "counter-insurgency" campaigns. My own study period on it was a damn sight shorter, but I'd bet it was a more relevant than your own.

Ron Davies (aside Point)
(But many Mudcatters and Obama predicted many of the problems which have occurred as a result of the Iraq war--in contrast to the fools who beat the drum for war-- on Mudcat and elsewhere.)

And all those Mudcatters have studiously ignored the questions relating to the problems that would have occurred had Saddam not been removed from power? I'll pointlessly ask it once again. Had Saddam remained in power exactly what would the UN have done to enforce their disarmament requirements and what would have been Saddam's reaction to Iran's nuclear programme? By the bye all you many mudcatters who objected to US/UK intervention, depending upon which source you take as being his "average tally", Saddam and his son's would by now have killed between 300,000 and 550,000 of his own subjects. Personally I believe it might have been a great deal higher as I believe that by 2002 UN sanctions would have been lifted and we would now be into either the second or third year of the Second Iran/Iraq War.

Ron Davies Point 2: - (Ron switches now to Military Genius and Tactician)
"As a prudent military man, Petraeus felt he wanted to maximize his forces. But, as it turns out, it was not necessary."

Not necessary according to who Ron?? The reason General Petraeus asked for the 30,000 additional troops was to ensure that the troops he already had deployed in Iraq could continue the tasks already set them without interruption, while the additional troops could come in and operate in targeted areas alongside newly operational Iraqi Army Units.

"To say that the current success in Iraq is due to the " surge"--more troops--is the post hoc fallacy." – A Classic RONISM

Ron Davies Point 3: - (Ron now as eminent historian and philosopher)
"One more thing: There is nothing inherently wrong with being a Sunni. Just as there is nothing inherently wrong with being a Shiite. There is obviously something wrong with being a Nazi.   Teribus' parallel of Nazis and Sunnis is only dead wrong but pernicious---as is his further dehumanization of Moslems by talking of the "9 old gits"-- since it leads to completely wrong policies.   This sort of attitude exemplifies the worst of Western cultural blind arrogance--but it's not surprising to see in Bush supporters."

Now let's see what Ron omits to mention:
•        Ba'athist Party inspired by the German Nazi Party
•        Saddam did not trust the Iraqi Armed Forces, and therefore formed a second tier organization within Iraq's Military called The Republican Guard – To be a member of this Republican Guard (Best pay, best training, best equipment) you had to be a Sunni Arab. Again inspired by the Nazi's who had the regular German army the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS.
•        Not quite happy with The Republican Guard who kept watch over the Iraqi Army, Saddam formed a second additional formation – The Special Republican Guard – they watched the Police and the civilians – Now to be a member of the "Special Republican Guard" not only did you have to be a Sunni Arab but you had to come from Tikrit, Saddam's home town

See any sort of trend for preferential treatment creeping into the picture here?

By the bye Ron it's "12 Old Gits" – Ruling Council of Iran, if that expression is dehumanizing of them and derogatory all well and good, they continue to fail miserably in Iran and I am sure that the general population would love to see the back of them, along with such quaint practices of ritual public executions (stoning to death) and child hangings. With such a track record Ron, it hardly needs me to do anything to "dehumanize" them.

And direct from Ron Davies at 10:19 AM – 26th July, 2008

Ron Davies Point 4: - (Ron switches back to Military Genius and Tactician)
"Also: "marooned in "Kurdistan". More tripe. Who's going to attack well-fortified bases in Kurdistan? ( And the Kurds would be quite happy to have such American bases there). The Turks would not attack. Nor would the Iranians-unless the US is criminally stupid enough to attack them."

Talking of tripe, let us examine what Ron Davies imagines is going to happen:

•        The US under the masterful plan for "Change" that Obama will bring in will withdraw US Forces from the Central and Southern Sectors of Iraq. Obama believes that what the Iraqi people, the Iraqi politicians and the Iraqi Government wants is for the US Forces to leave Iraq and he wants to take advantage of this desire for Iraqi's to be more "masters of their own destiny". Great so far, now tell us Ron, how does Obama convince the Iraqi people, the Iraqi politicians and the Iraqi Government that an armed "US Colony" in the Northern part of Iraq is to everybody's advantage?

•        As to being "Marooned" Ron, have you ever had a look at a map of the area?

•        You have withdrawn from the rest of Iraq they don't want you there so nothing comes into your little Kurdistani enclave that way.

•        You are actually confronting a fellow NATO Member Turkey so you cannot supply your Kurdish enclave from there.

•        Air access over Iranian airspace would be unlikely, as would a similar arrangement with Syria

Attack a well fortified base? Hell Ron you wouldn't have to attack it just sit there and starve them out. And when they go they make you a present of all their wonderful toys.