"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." -William F. Buckley

  • Thread starter Zardoz
  • 56 comments
  • 1,774 views
danoff
I'm not talking about quality of strategy here, don't mistake strategy for organization. I'm talking about structure, I'm talking about everybody belonging to the same group with basic strategy practiced by all. Terrorism is splintered, yes they have to do some rudimentary planning to accomplish terrorist acts, planning like getting your bomb ahead of time and deciding which target to hit. Maybe even some strategy - but that's not centrally organized, it's split off into cells which makes the most sense for terrorism but it doesn't make for a war. Especially since it isn't an armed combat AGAINST the opposing force. It's armed combat against civilians for the most part.
You do make a very good point, but what happens when an army uses thoes same tactics to disrupt the foundations of their enemy's country, faction ect. I don't see that as a defining factor. Your point about the structure also imo only applys to an army, if it's structured as a whole them it's an army. You don't need an army to be a side in a war. Though your point is very good, at this point in time, I'm going to dissagree.

I'll repeat myself, terrorism is about intent not magnitude. If the intent is to disrupt social order and use fear to erode the support of the established power - then it's terrorism. That doesn't necessarily make it bad, but it usually is highly immoral.
Yes, but terrorism tactics have been used many times in real wars through history to accomplish the same things terrorists hope to accomplish with them in our day.

There you go right there, your quoted definition requires organization - it's a conflict between organized entities - NOT between a cell and the general population, and not with end goal of inciting anarchy.
No it doesn't, the term organised parties wasn't in that quote. Without having organised in the definition, the term parties is very broad.

Only if they have a single sturcture and are massive enough. Otherwise it's unrest.
If all the rebels are under a single command unbrella so to speak, then they simply become a rebel army. Though your point is taken regarding the numbers involved. However, I have no figures to show the numbers involved in Iraq, and also not to start another line of argument, I'm just curious to your opimion on this. But how many would you say need to be involved before it turns ionto a war and what makes you think that? Like I said, I'm not asking this to come back at you, I'm just curious.

Also a last min edit question, but how do you view the term, "war on terror"?
 
The terms "war", "terrorism", and "anarchy" are all applicable now:

Baghdad blasts kill at least 50

"In other developments:

"The bodies of nine Iraqis, including a Sunni Arab tribal leader, are found, riddled with bullets, in Tarfaya, south of the city of Baquba

"Five defence ministry workers die when their convoy is hit by a roadside bomb in eastern Baghdad

"Two British soldiers are killed and another is injured by a roadside bomb on the outskirts of Amara, in southern Iraq

"A US soldier is killed by small-arms fire in the west of Baghdad"
 
live4speed
You do make a very good point, but what happens when an army uses thoes same tactics to disrupt the foundations of their enemy's country, faction ect.

Armies can commit terrorist acts. It is possible for one side in a war to use terrorism as a strategy.

You don't need an army to be a side in a war.

One can't go to war with individuals. One can't go to war against gangs, or even terrorist cells. One can only go to war against a "side", that "side" must be unified by some kind of organizational structure or it isn't a side. The enemy we face in Iraq is not centrally organized, it isn't unified, it consists of terrorist cells and is classified as unrest.

If they were to organize into a "side" that we could go to "war" against, we'd slaughter them, which is why they remain "insurgents".

Yes, but terrorism tactics have been used many times in real wars through history to accomplish the same things terrorists hope to accomplish with them in our day.

Terrorism isn't limited to cells, but in this case the terrorists are not an entity that we can go to war against.

I'm just curious to your opimion on this. But how many would you say need to be involved before it turns ionto a war and what makes you think that? Like I said, I'm not asking this to come back at you, I'm just curious.

That's a grey area. Obviously the US cannot declare war on Bob, or on Bob and his posse... Until the entity becomes sufficiently large as to be recognized as an "organization" or "party" that we're "at war" with, it isn't war. I'd say that in order to be "at war" with another entity, they have to hold your numbers in high enough regard to consider the feeling mutual.

Also a last min edit question, but how do you view the term, "war on terror"?

As a misnomer.
 
I'm going to give you that, mainly because of your point on the size of the opposing force. I'd thought about the number of insurgents, and that definitely qualifies, but I overlooked the number of insugrents in each cell or faction thats working on thier own, which although I don't have any numbers, would presume to be not that mant per cell or faction or whatever that particular group would be classed as. My opinion of war is probably still a lot broader than yours, but in this instance I'm saying well done, you've put across your point well.
 
live4speed
I'm going to give you that, mainly because of your point on the size of the opposing force. I'd thought about the number of insurgents, and that definitely qualifies, but I overlooked the number of insugrents in each cell or faction thats working on thier own, which although I don't have any numbers, would presume to be not that mant per cell or faction or whatever that particular group would be classed as. My opinion of war is probably still a lot broader than yours, but in this instance I'm saying well done, you've put across your point well.

Woah! What happened!?!

👍 We don't see responses like these too often in this forum, so "well done" to you too.
 
It is a funny thing about the Blair admins and the Iraq operations, if it had been a Conservative cabinet under Thatcher or Heath they would have gone into Iraq w/ their eyes opened to an Occupation w/ insurgents. That's how N.I panned out during the Troubles; you cannot have Policing w/out huge technological investment in Military re-inforcement w/ it's concomitant emphasis on 'curfews' , 'zones' and Emplacements.
The files of those conservative governments would certainly indicate a Longterm occupation w/ anti-guerilla tactics if you plan to 'birth' a democracy on which the reliability of sectarian differences and the constant wage of slaughter that that implies if this democracy were to 'fail', after the battery runs out.
BTW, Zardoz the William F.Buckley Wikipedian Link that you have in the Thread Post points to a null or erased article, Strange? or just wikihassles, hmmmn.
 
danoff
This is getting frustrating. These words have actual meanings, not just whatever it feels like to you.

Wikipedia:

"War is armed conflict between states, organizations, or relatively large groups of people"

Unrest in wikipedia refers to rebellion:

"A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. Those who participate in rebellions are known as "rebels". "

War requires organization. Unrest does not require rest to exist.


We're not talking about "war", in general. "Civil war" is a very different animal, I'm sure you would agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

A civil war is a war in which the parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

Ultimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage.


Many definitions of "civil war"

Here's one of them: A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country or empire. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.

That certainly applies to Iraq, doesn't it?

Finally, here's a take on the situation by an Arab writer, from last September:

Middle East International

“What’s happening in Iraq is a multidimensional conflict... But the civil war is the central part of it — the violent contest for power inside the country,” Pavel Baev, of the Centre for the Study of Civil War at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, told the Christian Science Monitor.

No, we're not going to see Condoleeza Rice call a press conference and declare that the mess in Iraq is officially a civil war. But as it escalates, and the death toll climbs, the world view will develop and evolve into calling it exactly that.
 
Zardoz
No, we're not going to see Condoleeza Rice call a press conference and declare that the mess in Iraq is officially a civil war. But as it escalates, and the death toll climbs, the world view will develop and evolve into calling it exactly that.

..and they'll be wrong. I'm not going to base my assesment of what's going on over there on the popular opinion of the world. Your own definitions quoted there described organized parties on both sides. The insurgency is not organized. There is no chain of command, no central leadership, no organizational structure or coherency. Plus, they're not fighting for control of the country, they're fighting for anarchy.

No, I'm afraid civil war is not an appropriate term for what's going on over there.... and it won't be until we leave.
 
Precisely, danoff. Though I don't think the insurgents are fighting for anything besides the fact that they're too stupid to think of quiting.:lol:
 
danoff
..and they'll be wrong...The insurgency is not organized. There is no chain of command, no central leadership, no organizational structure or coherency...

...that can be perceived from the outside, and that's by clever design, of course. It makes it pretty much impossible to defeat, doesn't it? We don't know who they are, where they are, or who's in charge. We're chasing shadows.

danoff
...Plus, they're not fighting for control of the country, they're fighting for anarchy...

That's just silly. Why would you say such a thing? Of course they're fighting for control of the country. That's what it's been about from the very beginning.
 
Zardoz
That's just silly. Why would you say such a thing? Of course they're fighting for control of the country. That's what it's been about from the very beginning.

You think these people want to run Iraq? They're fighting our influence or our perceived influence the only way they can. This isn't about who is in control of Iraq, it's about the US NOT being in control.


Edit: Alright, maybe some of them want a particular political party in power. Maybe some of them are fighting democracy in general. Regardless, they're not fighting anyone in particular, just killing random people as often as possible.
 
American troops want swift pull-out from Iraq

Most American troops in Iraq believe the US should withdraw within the next year, according to the first poll of US military personnel there...

...a Zogby International/Le Moyne College poll found that only 23 per cent of US troops believed they should stay “as long as they are needed”.


That's no surprise, but this sure is:

Although Mr Bush has acknowledged that Iraq played no role in September 11, 85 per cent of the troops said the US mission was mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks”.

What the bloody hell is going on here!?!? Our troops in Iraq are THAT misinformed??? How can they think that? Who's feeding them that crap? Is it part of their "indoctrination"?
 
There is no CIVIL WAR in Iraq . There is unrest and violent protest on a SMALL level relitive to the size of the population..we are talking about hundreds and a few thousands ..here and there ....the rest of the friggin country is doing what it can to grow to build and to try and make a better life for themselves . Their is an insurgency ..its on a ridiculously small and feeble level . There are ONLY 125.000 to 140,000 US troops in thee country.
There are ....

Iraq: Location, Population, Religion, Membership, Currency

Location: Iraq shares borders with Turkey, Iran, the Gulf of Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. There is also a neutral zone between Iraq and Saudi Arabia administrated jointly by the two countries. Iraq´s portion covers 3522 sq km. The country´s main topographical features are the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, which flow from the Turkish and Syrian borders in the north to the Gulf in the south.
Capital: Baghdad

Area: Iraq has an area of 438,317 sq km (169,235 sq mi).

Language: The official language is Arabic - 80%. 15% Kurdish.

Religion: 45% Sunni Muslim, 50% Shi´ite Muslim, with Druze and Christian minorities.

Population: The population of Iraq (1997 estimate) is 22,219,289. The estimated overall population density is 51 persons per sq km (131 per sq mi). The density varies markedly, with the largest concentrations in the area of the river systems. The population is 75 percent urban.

Membership: Iraq is a member of the UN and Arab League, OPEC and Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Currency: Iraqi Dinar (IQD) of 1000 fils.

Time Difference: GMT + 3 ( GMT + 4 in summer)

no reasons a force the size of the US and coaltion could possibly survive if this countrys population decided to remove them .

A few thousand insurgents and AL queda idiots do not a war make .

And a CIVIL WAR ? WTF kind of drugs are you taking ? This country isnt even close to wanting a civil war . THE PEOPLE of Iraq have proved it for the last friggin year if any one has paid even an inch of attention .

Do the math . A small segment of the population is making it bad for the rest of the country...after the mosque bombings it wont be long before the IRAQI people decide its time to hang " insurgents" and " terrorist " from poles...you dont see american or British soldiers killing Iraqi citizens and bombing mosques...I think the average Iraqi knows who the enemy is and they seem to be pointing them out to the coalition in increasing numbers when they are not actualy putting a few hundred bullets in them and lining them up in the street on their own .
An Insurgency or a guerilla type war is impossible without the support of the civilian population.....the insurgency's days are numbered and the bombing of a historic holy site as a last desperate act ....that DID NOT WORK as intended is the beginning of the end for the insurgents and the terrorist in Iraq.

Wake up and smell the coffee .
 
Wake up and smell the coffee... hmm... to make a point:

A few thousand armed combatants is a big thing in a country of over 20 million other people without guns. Americans aren't used to thinking in terms of third world numbers... a successful coup d'etat for a struggling government in a Banana Republic (like mine) with over 50 million people doesn't take more than ten or twenty thousand men.

It's not like everyone else in the country just happens to have a semi-automatic weapon tucked under their bed, like in the US. In countries like these, at times like these, the most the rest of the country can do is stay at home and pray that the violence never reaches them.

The only people killing people and lining them up on the street are those with a bone to pick with the other side... not justice seeking vigilantes. Of course, if they have justice seeking posses, I'd be happy... until, of course, they start abusing their powers.

While I agree that civil war is not a current threat, the tension between Sunni and Shi'ite doesn't seem to be abating... and those few thousand men with guns and bombs are making things very uncomfortable for everyone else. Uncoordinated mobs killed a bunch of our boys in Somalia. Now, those soldiers are facing insurgents, terrorists and mobs... they're not very happy with the prospect.

Not a civil war, maybe, but a great setback to the process of stabilization in Iraq. My personal prediction was ten years... add another five or so to that. :(
 
Zardoz
We can nit-pick the semantics all we want, but the reality is that a bloodbath is going on
Indeed - excellent point...

Zardoz
and nobody has a clue about how we're going to make it stop.
... true, and that's too depressing for words.
 
Sure... this is the US we're talking about. Y'know, the guys who use laser-guided bombs and cruise missiles to assassinate single opponents. :indiff:

@Zardoz: I did argue the semantics card myself a page or two ago... :)

Now US Commanders are starting to wise up and are stating in their press briefings that insurgents are trying to make the attacks appear more widespread than they really are.

I'll reserve judgement of that until we know how many of these are really the work of insurgents and how many the result of factional violence.

Either way, the resurgence of insurgency (pun-intended humour, sorry) is worrying either way, whether or not factional division continues.
 
(This story will disappear behind a paywall tonight, so I won't bother posting a link.)

From the Los Angeles Times:


Envoy to Iraq Sees Threat of Wider War

He supports the White House view that an early pullout would backfire, but he is bleak about the Sunni-Shiite conflict and says it could spread.

By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer

March 7, 2006


BAGHDAD — The top U.S. envoy to Iraq said Monday that the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime had opened a "Pandora's box" of volatile ethnic and sectarian tensions that could engulf the region in all-out war if America pulled out of the country too soon.

In remarks that were among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the "potential is there" for sectarian violence to become full-blown civil war.

For now, Iraq has pulled back from that prospect after the wave of sectarian reprisals that followed the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, he said. But "if another incident [occurs], Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time, in my judgment," Khalilzad said in an interview with The Times.

Abandoning Iraq in the way the U.S. disengaged from civil wars in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Somalia could have dramatic global repercussions, he said.

"We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" Khalilzad said. "The way forward, in my view, is an effort to build bridges across [Iraq's] communities."

Khalilzad's central message that the United States cannot immediately pull out of Iraq jibed with Bush administration policy. But he offered a far gloomier picture than assessments made in recent days by U.S. military spokesmen.

On Sunday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a televised interview that things in Iraq were "going very, very well, from everything you look at."

Khalilzad's comments came just before key U.S. decisions are expected on whether the situation in Iraq has improved enough to allow for a reduction in U.S. forces this year.

Army Gens. John P. Abizaid, who heads U.S. Central Command, and George W. Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, plan to meet with President Bush as early as this week to make recommendations on troop levels.

Military officials must decide this month whether to cancel deployments of several Army combat brigades — a cancellation that would lead to a reduction in the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq by midyear, from about 130,000 to about 100,000. For nearly a year, Casey has said that a "substantial reduction" in troops could occur in 2006, and cited spring as the time when the critical decisions would be made.

A reduction would signal the administration's confidence in progress in the country. On Friday, however, Casey said that war planners would take the recent violence as "certainly something that we will consider in our decisions."

Without touching on the issue of troop reduction, Khalilzad described a highly combustible atmosphere in Iraq that dates at least to the polarizing Dec. 15 legislative elections, which handed Shiites a dominant role in the government.

"Right now there's a vacuum of authority, and there's a lot of distrust," said the diplomat, who is among the architects of the U.S. plan to reshape the political balance of the Middle East after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Samarra bombing and the subsequent outbreak of violent reprisals by Shiites against Sunni Muslims demonstrated that insurgents fully understand Iraq's fragility and will seek to exploit it, Khalilzad said.

"It indicates that they recognize this vulnerability of Iraq or this problem in Iraq, which they have tried to fan," he said. "There is a concerted effort to provoke civil war. The guys who want to start a civil war are there looking or considering other things they could do."

Khalilzad, who is actively and publicly involved in Iraq's government talks, repeated his weeks-long assertion that the best way to prevent civil war or large-scale sectarian violence is to form a government drawing from all of Iraq's disparate groups as a way "to build trust and narrow the fault line that exists" between Shiites and Sunnis.

"Once a national unity government is formed, the effort to provoke a civil war will face a huge obstacle," he said.

Shiite leaders loudly objected last week to Khalilzad's involvement in government talks, saying he was improperly taking the side of the Sunni minority.

"I have gotten some negative reaction," Khalilzad said, adding that he had not tried to intervene on the Sunni side. He said he had called for nonsectarian figures to run key ministries. "Sectarian Sunnis are as bad as sectarian Shias," he said.

In any case, Khalilzad said the U.S. has little choice but to maintain a strong presence in Iraq — or risk a regional conflict in which Arabs side with Sunnis and Iranians back Shiites, in what could be a more encompassing version of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, which left more than 1 million dead.

The ambassador warned of a calamitous disruption in the production and transport of energy supplies in the Persian Gulf. He described a worst-case scenario in which religious extremists could take over sections of Iraq and begin to expand outward.

"That would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play," said Khalilzad, an American of Afghan descent who served as U.S. envoy to Afghanistan before taking on the post in Iraq.

The U.S. vision for a broad-based government "reflects the aspirations of the [Iraqi] people," he said. "If we were at variance with the aspirations of the people, we'd be in trouble."

Khalilzad said U.S. officials had tried to enlist the support of governments of neighboring countries, even exploring "modalities of setting up a meeting" with Iran. He named Iran and Syria as two nations that had been "particularly unhelpful" in Iraq.

On Monday, Iraqi politicians continued to wrangle over the composition of a new government. Interim President Jalal Talabani announced a decision to convene parliament on Sunday, only to be quickly countered by Shiite political leaders who asked him to postpone the session.

Shiites have nominated interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari to serve a full term. Kurds and Sunnis have pushed to derail his candidacy.

Khalilzad described such day-to-day political jousting as healthy. "They are bargaining. They are shadowboxing," he said. "This is a much better way than with guns."

Still, the politics of the gun spoke loudly Monday.

Violence, much of it with sectarian overtones, left at least 18 Iraqis dead across the country as multiple car bombs exploded. One U.S. soldier was reported killed in a combat incident in western Iraq.

Maj. Gen. Mubdar Hatim Hazya Duleimi, commander of the Iraqi army in Baghdad, was killed in western Baghdad, the U.S. military announced.

He was killed by a single bullet while driving in a long convoy shortly after 5 p.m., said Mohammed Askari, a Defense Ministry advisor.

Duleimi, a Sunni, commanded a force that is seen by many as a counterweight to that of the Interior Ministry, whose Shiite-dominated police and commando units have been accused of extrajudicial killings.

The U.S. military reported Monday that a U.S. soldier had died Sunday as a result of "enemy action." The soldier was killed in rural western Iraq, although much of the insurgent violence in the country has shifted to religiously diverse urban areas, said a U.S. official who requested anonymity.

A car bomb in a crowded market in downtown Baqubah, a religiously mixed provincial capital about 35 miles northeast of the capital, killed at least six people, including two children, and injured 21. The bomb exploded as police and passersby gathered near the scene of a slaying, one of three fatal shootings reported in Baqubah.

Gunmen killed three Shiite laborers in the Sunni town of Hawija, near the northern city of Kirkuk. A roadside bomb targeting a U.S. patrol in Mosul killed an Iraqi civilian.

At least two car bombs and sporadic mortar fire shook the capital. A car bomb near a bank killed one person and injured five in the Dora district.

A car bomb on the road to the Industry Ministry injured five. Another car bomb struck a police commando patrol in the Mustansiriya district, though there were no reports of injuries.

Yarmouk Hospital officials reported receiving at least three unidentified corpses from Sunni neighborhoods.

Gunmen kidnapped a prominent university professor. Ali Hussein Khafaji, dean of the engineering college at Mustansiriya University, was taken by two carloads of men as he left home.
 
If you pull out to early you will be miserably disatisfied and embarrassed, but if you pull out too late, well, you got problems. The government should have worn a condom. Or do they have a morning-after war-control pill?

It seems as though I've conributed nothing to this topic but the truth.
 
keef
...It seems as though I've conributed nothing to this topic but the truth.

More and more people are coming to agree with you:

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low

70 percent of Republicans feel that civil war will break out in Iraq? Oh, my.

We can only imagine what the mood is around the White House. They certainly must be very much aware that things are moving to the point where, if an impeachment movement gets rolling, Bush, and Cheney as well, could be vulnerable enough that it could actually happen.

The key is how much of a liability the Republicans in the House and Senate feel those two will become. We could see a wave developing where the Republicans feel their own personal careers depend on them getting rid of Bush and Cheney.

If that happens, its a much-deserved retirement for the both of them.
 
Impeachment? Is that even possible?

So they offer up Bush and Cheney as sacrificial goats and hightail it out of there? I don't want to believe that's possible. :nervous:
 
niky
...So they offer up Bush and Cheney as sacrificial goats and hightail it out of there?

Safe to say, it seems, that it all depends on how much worse things get:

Car bombs kill at least 46 in Sadr City

I heard a report on NPR that said Al-Qaeda in Iraq has far more suicide-mission volunteers than they can possibly orchestrate operations for. They have what amounts to an ever-increasing manpower source. They will never run out.
 
Very true… They're more likely to run out of vehicles then bombers it would appear. It's becoming more and more clear that this entire campaign in Iraq is quickly becoming something of another Viet Nam, minus the drafts that went on to keep that conflict going.

This is somewhat unrelated, but I think it applies. It’s from “Apocalypse Now” and I’m using it in conjunction with the comment that was made a few posts ago to the effect of “It not about who runs the country, it about making sure the US does not”. This is a bastardized rendition of the movie quote but some of you will remember what I’m talking about. “We went into a village to inoculate the children for polio. We had finished the inoculation and continued on to the next village. On our way back, there in the middle of the courtyard was a pile of little arms where we had administered the drug. The men on the village had hacked off all of the arms for spite. That was the first time I fully realized that we were going to loose this war. Can you imagine the will it takes.” This is the same kind of will that the US is facing, that the Russians and even the Crusaders faced for centuries. These people simply won’t give in and their will is too strong. They love their children and families as much as any of us; the only difference is they’re fighting for their families and their country and will not hesitate to do what they feel needs to be done. No matter what the cost. The US is fighting a war with children who do not what to be there, fighting for something they don’t believe in or care about, who simply want to go back home as soon as possible. Weighing the two combatants in this conflict, it’s easy to see where the chips lay. We can only hope that this ends before many many more people die.
 
Back