Mickey Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The lesser degree than appears of violence part of your statement is hard to fathom. Where are you getting your info. My cousin, an intelligence officer over there now, before he actually crossed into Iraq was stationed in Bahrain and could hear the explosions regularly from there and now is in the green zone and it is a regular occurence. Other soldiers that I have talked to express the same experiences about the violence. Granted my info is recent statistics that have upticked as a result of the sectarian violence and the annectdotal info that I have heard from soldiers. What they say that is being underreported is the violence from all the fighting going on between U.S. raids and groups fighting them. But I do agree with your conclusion about a line of tolerance. Just think that it is going to take a lot more work or serious change in tactics to achieve that goal. I don't think we should underestimate the difficulty in achieving that worthy goal. 613363[/snapback] I don't think there is less violence than there appears to be, that was bib's point. Mine is that whatever the level, the question is whether it is enough to make the country ungovernable. That is certainly the case now and if it were not so, if the government could govern and survive on its own, we would be gone already. There is no bright line on that determination but the continued presence of our troops is not just for fun. They are needed and the reason they are needed is that the violence is beyond the government's ability to effectively or at least acceptably control. Thanks for the extra information from your friends. It is going to take a lot more work and a serious change in tactics but that won't happen if the people in charge can't admit that its broke and needs fixing. The Bush administration is calling the shots and the only people they are ever going to listen to are their own fellow republicans and conservatives. It doesn't matter what Hillary or Schumer says, they aren't in charge. The people I want to hear from are the so-called moderate republicans. If they don't find some gumption, it is going to be more and more of this "stay the course" and "we'll stand down as they stand up" stuff which doesn't appear to be working. *Edit: Here is a link about just how violent the sectarian violence over the last week has been, 1,300 dead: Violence in Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 No, that's not my point. There's a lot of violence. It is also, to a degree regional. A lot of places are pretty placid. Forget the "5%" figure, that was tossed out there at random. I still don't think the majority are blowing up each other, I think the majority are trying to keep from being blown up. My point there was that if conditions for the average citizen get improved to at least and hopefully better than the standard of living they "enjoyed" under Sadaam, it would reduce frustrations and give some credence to our " a better way through freedom" rhetoric. The sectarian stuff has been stifled for a lot of years, some people have been waiting for the opportunity and now they have it. Once again, I don't get that this is the majority opinion. Iraq under SH was not by any stretch an overtly religious system. But now, in the Mid East Islamic model, the fight is between not only the sects, but the individual leaders of various congregations. Politics and church are the same thing to them. Jihad is not "Holy War". Jihad is the only principle of Islam that has a commonality between peoples. Everything else is the individual and their responsibilities. I'm going by memory, and not a theocracy person, but aren't there 7 main devotions that are individual and just one to the common to advance Islam? Anyway, as there is no seperation of church and state to most middle eastern religious leaders, I would appeal to the secular side of human nature as another "tactic" in getting this under control. I think Iraq has some unique situations going on, and the jockeying for power is often very regionalized, to the point of neighborhoods and has little to do with ideology. A 20 year old guy with no job that can't watch TV and the toilet don't flush is more likely to blow stuff up than the reverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 No, that's not my point. There's a lot of violence. It is also, to a degree regional. A lot of places are pretty placid. Forget the "5%" figure, that was tossed out there at random. I still don't think the majority are blowing up each other, I think the majority are trying to keep from being blown up. My point there was that if conditions for the average citizen get improved to at least and hopefully better than the standard of living they "enjoyed" under Sadaam, it would reduce frustrations and give some credence to our " a better way through freedom" rhetoric. The sectarian stuff has been stifled for a lot of years, some people have been waiting for the opportunity and now they have it. Once again, I don't get that this is the majority opinion. Iraq under SH was not by any stretch an overtly religious system. But now, in the Mid East Islamic model, the fight is between not only the sects, but the individual leaders of various congregations. Politics and church are the same thing to them. Jihad is not "Holy War". Jihad is the only principle of Islam that has a commonality between peoples. Everything else is the individual and their responsibilities. I'm going by memory, and not a theocracy person, but aren't there 7 main devotions that are individual and just one to the common to advance Islam? Anyway, as there is no seperation of church and state to most middle eastern religious leaders, I would appeal to the secular side of human nature as another "tactic" in getting this under control. I think Iraq has some unique situations going on, and the jockeying for power is often very regionalized, to the point of neighborhoods and has little to do with ideology. A 20 year old guy with no job that can't watch TV and the toilet don't flush is more likely to blow stuff up than the reverse. 613404[/snapback] My understanding of the political situation over there is the same as yours, but what I understand is still a huge undiscussed problem and is due to outside influences along the borders with Syria and Iran...no surprise there, and is not being discussed by the media...darn lemmings. ---Not you, the press! Just for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 No, that's not my point. There's a lot of violence. It is also, to a degree regional. A lot of places are pretty placid. Forget the "5%" figure, that was tossed out there at random. I still don't think the majority are blowing up each other, I think the majority are trying to keep from being blown up. My point there was that if conditions for the average citizen get improved to at least and hopefully better than the standard of living they "enjoyed" under Sadaam, it would reduce frustrations and give some credence to our " a better way through freedom" rhetoric. The sectarian stuff has been stifled for a lot of years, some people have been waiting for the opportunity and now they have it. Once again, I don't get that this is the majority opinion. Iraq under SH was not by any stretch an overtly religious system. But now, in the Mid East Islamic model, the fight is between not only the sects, but the individual leaders of various congregations. Politics and church are the same thing to them. Jihad is not "Holy War". Jihad is the only principle of Islam that has a commonality between peoples. Everything else is the individual and their responsibilities. I'm going by memory, and not a theocracy person, but aren't there 7 main devotions that are individual and just one to the common to advance Islam? Anyway, as there is no seperation of church and state to most middle eastern religious leaders, I would appeal to the secular side of human nature as another "tactic" in getting this under control. I think Iraq has some unique situations going on, and the jockeying for power is often very regionalized, to the point of neighborhoods and has little to do with ideology. A 20 year old guy with no job that can't watch TV and the toilet don't flush is more likely to blow stuff up than the reverse. 613404[/snapback] I wasn't taking that 5% as a big deal bib. Whatever the amount of violence is, whether its a lot or a little, whether it is being done by a majority or minority, isn't the key factor. The primary issue is whether the amount of violence is enough to keep the government from governing. I think you are saying close to the same thing and you are also offering an explanation as to why the violence is what it is. The people of Iraq are not going to support or defend a government that can't keep the lights on and the mosques safe. The government just won't survive if the violence is beyond a certain level. What the level is and how you quantify it is pretty difficult to determine. It is safe to say though that what is going on now is "too much". Three + years and it is still too much for the government there to control and, without us, survive. Thus we stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Also a very, very difficult style of enemy to fight. The only real good defense is through excellent intell. I'd rather fight tanks - when you see one coming it's pretty cut and dried what's up. I have heard that the amount of tips coming into both the Iraqi security forces and the US troops are increasing, which is a good sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Also a very, very difficult style of enemy to fight. The only real good defense is through excellent intell. I'd rather fight tanks - when you see one coming it's pretty cut and dried what's up. I have heard that the amount of tips coming into both the Iraqi security forces and the US troops are increasing, which is a good sign. 613506[/snapback] That is a good sign. On terrorism, here is a scary thought: Israel has dealt with this for a long, long time and they have never been able to either end terrorism or make themselves immune from attack. I have an enormous amount of respect for them and their abilities. They have as much or more experience fighting terrorism as a free society than anyone anywhere. And yet, they have not "won" their war against terrorism. Is it realistic for us to think that we will succeed where they have failed? Tell me it is so I can sleep tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 A year or so of intense selected Iraqi police and military build up and training that is loyal to the current government. Then turn the interior of Iraqi over to them, pull back to the Iraqi boarders seal them with the help of real time surveillance technology and Counter the foreign influence with elite special forces when they pop up in the interior. Let the true Iraqis fight it out without Iran and Syria getting involved. I know it’s far from perfect but what the hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 The lesser degree than appears of violence part of your statement is hard to fathom. Where are you getting your info. My cousin, an intelligence officer over there now, before he actually crossed into Iraq was stationed in Bahrain and could hear the explosions regularly from there and now is in the green zone and it is a regular occurence. Other soldiers that I have talked to express the same experiences about the violence. Granted my info is recent statistics that have upticked as a result of the sectarian violence and the annectdotal info that I have heard from soldiers. 613363[/snapback] This sounds fishy. Bahrain is about 350 miles from Basra, the closest major Iraqi city. Couldn't hear anything from that far away unless it was a nuclear blast. He is an intelligence officer and he's telling you all this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 This sounds fishy. Bahrain is about 350 miles from Basra, the closest major Iraqi city. Couldn't hear anything from that far away unless it was a nuclear blast. He is an intelligence officer and he's telling you all this stuff? 614573[/snapback] Sorry it was probably Basra, my wife took the call. Got my bs messed up, should've checked the geography to make sure I had it right. It was a couple of month ago. P.S. He is a Korean, and Chinese interpreter, just got out of DMZ to get some more training in Chinese and afterward they sent him to Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts