|
11 Jun 07 - 10:38 PM (#2074319) Subject: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ebbie Why does this remind me so powerfully of antidotes that get out of hand? I think this strategy is appalling. The Good Guys vs. the Bad Guys |
|
11 Jun 07 - 11:44 PM (#2074364) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Bill D "Hey...let's sell rifles to the Commanches...maybe they will use 'em against the Apaches!" |
|
12 Jun 07 - 12:35 AM (#2074393) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Q (Frank Staplin) Sunnis- It is their country too. Either they are accepted or the country must be split or continue in chaos. Look at a map of the distribution of Sunnis and Shias. Shias occupied only about 1/4 of the country, the rest split between Sunnis and Kurds. The country was created out of the stupidity of the WW1 peace settlement when the Ottoman Empire was torn up, and Iraq put together by bureaucrats with a pencil, thinking only of their 'areas of influence'. Kurds were split, part of their territory in Iraq, the rest in Turkey; Sunnis were split, losing their connections with Syria and Arabia; Shias lost contact with their Iranian home (and Iranians lost their Shia holy places which are mostly in Iraq). A sure formula for continued chaos. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 01:39 AM (#2074402) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ebbie Q, I am under no misapprehension as to the rights of Iraqis in their own nation. Perhaps you are missing the nuances of risk inherent in issuing rifles to a group of militant people who are this far from all out civil war against another militant group who has as much right in their nation as they- all in the name of pledging allegiance to a very recently-sworn enemy. OK- suppose they rid the country of the influence of al Quaeda - who here is sure that they will now go peacefully into their homes? Who is not quite sure that they will turn on the infidel occupiers of their land? Who understands a single word I said? Not me. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 01:49 AM (#2074408) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: GUEST,dianavan You're making sense to me, ebbie and it sounds like Bill D. also gets it. This has been referred to as the "Lets try anything" plan. It is by far the most obscene tactic that the U.S. has used so far. How do you expect a fledgling democracy to survive while arming the opposition? I thought the U.S. wanted to strengthen the Iraqi military? By arming the Sunni militias, the U.S. is supporting civil war. Stupid and disgusting. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 07:43 AM (#2074597) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: JohnInKansas An article on the subject appeared yesterday at the MSNBC giving a slightly different slant on this than the "this is stupid" rant linked above. The article is no longer posted at MSNBC and does not appear in the list of articles by the writer at the Washington Post site where it originated. On the assumption that it could only have "been disappeared" if it violated "national policy" and/or yellow journalism editorial policies, I have assumed it must be important and have posted it at: Soldiers in Baghdad give police powers, guns to former insurgents Suggested reading for extra credit. John |
|
12 Jun 07 - 08:32 AM (#2074638) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: The Fooles Troupe Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. In Afghanistan the Yanks gave away shoulder fired missiles. What in God's name are they going to give away this time? Nuclear Weapons? |
|
12 Jun 07 - 09:08 AM (#2074665) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Keith A of Hertford al Qaeda in Iraq are mostly foreign fighters. Invaders if you like. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 09:09 AM (#2074666) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Bee-dubya-ell The idea that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," never works in the long range. As soon as the "common enemy" is no longer a threat, the erzatz allies simply resume doing battle with each other. For alliances to endure, they must be based upon a common desire to create, not merely a common desire to destroy. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 12:54 PM (#2074904) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: McGrath of Harlow This is more or less how Al Qaeda got started... ................................... I would think that the recipients of these weapons will make use of the same kind of definition of Al Qaeda as the US has these last few years - anyone who looks like an enemy. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 01:09 PM (#2074919) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ebbie I've been listening on television to news shows where most of the participants are aghast at the implications of the new strategy. When or if the time comes, how does one turn off the faucet? The official word is that 'we' will not arm or sign up fighters who we know have "American blood on their hangs". I'm not sure how they will tell the difference. Incidentally, a comment was made as to "the Maliki government is corrupt to the core." |
|
12 Jun 07 - 01:31 PM (#2074939) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: McGrath of Harlow Presumably you'd send someone who won't have their prints or whatever on record to actually sign for the stuff. A new recruit or some senior bloke who always had someone else do the dirty work for him. Or you could be really crafty - send a woman supporter and really confuse the Yanks. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 02:49 PM (#2074990) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: JohnInKansas Although it's been quite a long time, I think I recall some complaints that when we attacked Iraq we immediately demolished all civil police and military units. Anyone recall something different? Attempts have been made to set up new army and police forces, under the supposed "control" of a fragile "government" that hates us. There is ample evidence that elements of the "new army" and "new police" have used the weapons and the organization for their own purposes of "ethnic cleansing." Every "tribe" in Iraq appears to have its own military organization. To call them "militia" in any sense of the term as used in US history is nonsense. They vary from "Tribal Armies" to "street gangs." The country is divided by religion into two camps, but within both camps there are those who want to attack us and those who think if they ignore us we'll leave sooner. The country is also divided between those who give lip service to supporting the "government" and those (warlords) who are - sometimes violently - opposed to the "government. Within both of these factions, there are many willing to attack us and others who thus far prefer to let us die off at the hands of others. Essentially, we have no "friends" in Iraq. If there are any who can "be trusted" we are apparently unable to identify them. Giving weapons to any Iraqi is potentially arming someone who well later shoot you in the back. Giving limited weapons, adequate for defensive purposes, to anyone who comes forward with help - no matter how temporary - makes as much sense as arming the Iraqi military or police with their known corrupt and infiltrated memberships. Ideally, we would convince them all that we are their friends and have only their best interests. Shouting it on the street corners hasn't worked. Perhaps defending them, whether friend or enemy, from "our other friends" on the other three sides may have some effect on changing at least a few, from blindly hating and indiscriminately attacking us to "repectfully trying to blow us away." No matter how you split them up, according any preconcieved division of beliefs or politics, or any other arbitrary dividing factor, the safest assumption is that everyone in Iraq considers us the enemy. Being there is the risk that should never have happened. Impartially assisting and defending anyone who's not attacking us today, and who gives us help in preventing an attack (today) by someone else, may be the best we can do. At least the negotiating of what support will be given does get a few of them to talk to us. ... ... I've seen nothing indicating an intent to provide massive assault weapons to any of them. Does someone have a more specific summary of this "new plan?" John |
|
12 Jun 07 - 02:56 PM (#2074994) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ebbie See, John, it works like this: If arming them - after making them promise they won't turn on us - doesn't work out, we will take the next bold step. We will give them BIG weaponry. |
|
13 Jun 07 - 01:37 AM (#2075464) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: GUEST,dianavan It seems clear to me that the U.S. is arming the Sunnis so that they can overthrow the newly formed government of Iraq. At least that's probably the long term goal. Bush would much rather deal with Sunnis. A Shiite dominated govt. was never what he had planned. First they'll rid the country of al Qaeda, then they'll revolt against the government, then they'll turn on the Americans. Hey, we're right back where we started! |
|
13 Jun 07 - 02:39 AM (#2075475) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ebbie This evening I watched a Frontline documentary titled 'The First Year' or something like that. It detailed from point one to point infinitum naive, shortsighted plans, warring factions, inept and calamitous policies. What a lack of understanding- of human nature, of causes, of consequences. Your Uncle Joe or your drunken neighbor down the street could have done as well. |
|
13 Jun 07 - 07:32 AM (#2075612) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ron Davies Dianavan-- "Bush would rather deal with Sunnis". Mind providing any evidence for this assertion? What's interesting to me is that while we obviously don't have any leverage to cut down on violence by convincing the Maliki government to purge the Shiite militias from the police, we're very good at increasing violence by arming Sunnis who appear, at this point, to hate us less than they hate al Qaeda. |
|
13 Jun 07 - 07:59 AM (#2075630) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: The Fooles Troupe What puzzles me, is how anyone expects a minority in a state in a state of civil war to be able to control the situation - wasn't that the problem in many other places, Vietnam, for one - how about Africa, Bosnia, etc? |
|
13 Jun 07 - 12:59 PM (#2075962) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: McGrath of Harlow Well, supporting the Sunni minority did actually work for quite a few years in Iraq, from the setting up of the state in the wake of the Great War right up until Saddam misunderstood the USA ambassador's green light for an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait as representing US government policy. |
|
14 Jun 07 - 03:40 AM (#2076520) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Big Al Whittle those Nissans, they have a have cd players and a thing to put your drink on, as well! |
|
17 Jun 07 - 02:30 PM (#2079388) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ebbie "In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Maliki gave the first indication his government disagrees with the U.S. military policy of arming and equipping Sunni Arab tribes to fight al Qaeda militants under a model first used in Anbar province. "We want to arm some tribes that want to side with us but on condition that we should be well aware of the tribe's background and sure that it is not connected with terror," Maliki said. "Some (U.S.) field commanders make mistakes since they do not know the facts about people they deal with. I believe the Coalition forces do not know the background of the tribes," he told Newsweek on Friday." Who You Gonna Believe? |
|
17 Jun 07 - 04:11 PM (#2079430) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: GUEST,dianavan Ron - There is alot of evidence that Bush would prefer to deal with Sunnis than Shias. Bush needs an Arab Sunni U.S. coalition to counter the influence of Iran in the Middle East. Bush is more interested in economic ties than 'so-called' democracy in Iraq. His worst fear is that the Shia movement will spread. He will do whatever it takes to make sure that the elite of Israel, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia maintain economic control. Shia politics isn't so much about religion as it is about giving voice to the underclass and fighting the influence of capitalism in the region. If the Sunnis rule Iraq, it means that Arabs dominate and the economic ties between the Arab, U.S., Israeli elite are well known. |
|
17 Jun 07 - 04:23 PM (#2079436) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Q (Frank Staplin) Minorities? Sunni and Shia are about 40 and 60 percent respectively so speaking of minorities doesn't really apply. Kurds are Sunni mostly, but belong to a different branch, the Shafi'i, but also Sufis who are less strict. Shia are predominantly in the south including Baghdad; Sunnis in the central and northern areas. Although the military under Saddam was Sunni-controlled, almost three-fourths of the lower ranks were Shia. The Ottomans had three districts in what became Iraq, but Sunnis had the most power. The British continued Sunni dominance. The flip to Shia majority rule in the government erected by Bush only continued the frictions in a different direction; central control much weakened. With or without the U. S., the strife will continue until massive relocation and massive refugee movements reduce the contact between the contending groups. Talk of a 'democratic' government is nonsense when religion dominates. |
|
18 Jun 07 - 02:26 AM (#2079676) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: GUEST,diana Q - Read what I said. I did not refer to Shia as the minority, I referred to them as the underclass (which they were thanks to years of Baathist rule). You have confused the terms. A Shia dominated Iraqi government is a democratic government because the Shia are the majority. In a democracy, majority rules. Unfortunately, Bush has decided that the majority (Shia rule) is a threat to the Middle East and he will attempt to undermine it. |
|
18 Jun 07 - 08:47 AM (#2079845) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: McGrath of Harlow Every time I see this thread title I get a vision of a bunch of genteel blokes in long white robes being invited along to a tea-party at the Embassy, and being offered their pick of military hardware alongside the cucumber sandwiches. |
|
18 Jun 07 - 09:04 AM (#2079866) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: George Papavgeris So, which aspect of American strategies in Iraq in the last 20 years is it, that should fill me with confidence that this new strategy will succeed? |
|
18 Jun 07 - 12:44 PM (#2080061) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Ebbie lol, McGrath. |
|
18 Jun 07 - 02:42 PM (#2080164) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: Q (Frank Staplin) I only see one post by guest Diana; I don't know what she is talking about and doubt she does either. Several posts mention minorities. Shias are dominant in central Iraq (For the political division called Iraq I took the figure 60% from a fairly trustworthy source, but others have it 55-45 or even closer), and in Iran, with outposts in central Afganistan and Yemen. Overall, however, they are a minority, Middle East money is on the side of the Sunnis. It is impossible to convert the Sunnis into an 'underclass' and the Shia into an 'uberclass,' this only promotes the strife with Iran supporting Shia and Syria, Arabia, Jordan, etc. supporting Sunni. Pushing one group at the expense of another will always fail in the Middle East; 'country' boundaries such as Iraq's and Afganistan's are artificial and lack reality where there are strong divisions based on religious divisions. Talk about majority, democratic rule in the western sense is nonsense in the Middle East and is laughable for Iraq with its three groups. Only the gun will enforce rule. Turkey is poised to invade Kurdish Iraq once the U. S. leaves; they know that a 'Kurdistan' would keep the militants among the Kurds in Turkey active and working to join their brother Kurdish Sunnis. |
|
18 Jun 07 - 03:22 PM (#2080193) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: McGrath of Harlow There is nothing intrinsically impossible about the idea of democracy in Iraq with its different religious groups any more than there is about in Northern Ireland. But, as in Northern Ireland it would need to be organised in a way that took account of divisions in the community, and worked out between the different sections of the community. There is no reason to think that this couldn't have been achieved in time if it hadn't been for invasion and its totally botched aftermath. Whether it is possible now, and in what time scale, is much more doubtful now. And it seems unlikely that the people responible for bringing chaos to Iraq can realistically play any significant role in the process. |
|
18 Jun 07 - 09:23 PM (#2080583) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: GUEST,dianavan Q - I have never believed that democracy could be imposed on the people of Iraq but technically, the present govt. is a democracy and was voted for by the majority of Iraqis. This was, afterall, the so-called goal of the invasion. Now that the Shia dominated government is in power, Bush seeks to undermine the Iraqi military by arming Sunni militias. They say its to wipe out al Qaeda but what do you think they will do with the guns when al Qaeda is gone? |
|
19 Jun 07 - 04:38 PM (#2081414) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: dick greenhaus The enemy of my enemy is most likely my next enemy. |
|
19 Jun 07 - 09:30 PM (#2081660) Subject: RE: BS: Arming Select Sunnis From: The Fooles Troupe ... once I've wiped out the current one, Dick.... |