BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

So Much For The �Iraqis Need Us There� Bullshit

MONDAY NOVEMBER 19 2007 9:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Iraq, Sadr, Shiites, British, Basra, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq

One of the big arguments for the pro-war crowd is that we just can�t leave those Iraqis alone after invading and setting off a world of chaos. They believe that if we were to leave Iraq, the country would immediately fall apart and many people would be killed. They, of course, never address the fact that people in Iraq are dying all the time and our presence seems to be doing little to stop the violence and some have even argued that a US presence actually encourages violence because our favoritism creates more tension. I agree with the latter.

Now comes some interesting evidence that maybe the �lets keep the troop in Iraq forever� crowd is completely wrong. In September, British troops pulled out of Basra and moved to an airport near the city. Some may find the results surprising, I don�t because it makes complete sense.

Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters.

"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.

Well, there you go. The British believed � and have been proven right � that having their troops patrolling only caused more violence because people were trying to kill them. They theorized that if you took out the guys everyone was trying to kill, then less people would try to attack. Pretty simple.

Iraqis now patrol the center of the city and the British rarely enter. The situation is much different in Baghdad because Basra is a Shiite city, while Baghdad is a mix of Sunni and Shiite, who have been fighting for centuries. Pulling troops out might not have the same effect as in Basra, although even the British have been surprised at the incredible drop in violence.

British officials expected a spike in such "intra-militia violence" after they pulled back from the city's center, and were surprised to find none.

The British have been in talks with the most powerful Militia in Basra, the Sadr militia, in an attempt to lure them into being part of the political process. They hope, in the end, that the militia will support the Iraqi security forces.

In other parts of the country, the US has backed the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq over Sadr, even though Sadr has stronger support among the Shiite masses. The ISCI has been losing support due to its ties with the US government and Iran, as well as a reputation for being corrupt and employing death squads. Basically, the US backed the wrong horse and the British example is the way to go for peace. But it is not surprising because the ISCI represents upper class Shiites, while Sadr represents the lower class. We know who the US always chooses in that situation.

As long as the U.S. remains in Iraq, its alliance with ISCI will help entrench the party in the country�s governing, security and intelligence institutions. Its only true challenger remains the Sadr militia, which despite its ruffian credentials and bloody role in sectarian reprisals enjoys broad support among Shiite masses. Their rivalry now takes the form of a class struggle between the Shiite merchant elite of Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI and the Shiite urban underclass.

This struggle, more than the sectarian conflict or confrontation between Anbari sheikhs and al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters, is likely to shape the country�s future. The most plausible scenario is a protracted struggle for power between these two movements, marked perhaps by temporary alliances, such as is presently in force.

Unlike the British, we have selectively chosen the weakest and least popular of the two forces. In the end, it simply won�t work. The best solution would be to engage both Shiite groups, instead of picking a side. The worst solution is to back the group that does not have the support of the street and create even more resentment between the organizations. Right now the two forces have called a truce to fight the surge.

Of course, none of this takes into account the Sunnis, which the US has been arming to fight al Qaeda. That is also pissing off the Shiites. Each day our policies are creating more and more tension and anger and we are throwing extra weapons in as a bonus. Ugh. Acceptance and negotiation or willful ignorance with force? It sounds like we have taken a completely different approach than the British.

77 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

NOV 19, 2007 05:31 PM

SockPuppet said:

coyotemike said:

Zarth said:

coyotemike said:
I can't get why ANYONE is surprised that there is sectarian violence in Iraq. It has only been a united country for what, 100 year? Maybe 150? Before that, most of the country was cut along tribal lines, except for the major trading cities. It is sheer arrogance on the part of the US to think we can stop millenia of tribal violence because ole Bushy-Boy wants to play Wyatt Earp.

Actually, for most of the last five thousand years, Iraq possessed one of the two most advanced civilizations on the planet. It's true it's slid downhill a lot since then, but to speak of "millennia" of tribal violence is inaccurate.

With that caveat, your statement isn't otherwise particularly problematic, though.

Ahh. My mistake. I think I confused it with some of the Post-British Empire forced-together countries. I apologise.

You're not entirely wrong; Iraq became a country as a result of the post-WW1 sorting-out of the (dead) Ottoman Empire into countries, by (in large part) the British and French Empires. The US had a hand in it, IIRC, but it was not a large one.

Exactly. Iraq's history is long and complicated. It was the center of Sumerian and Babylonian civilization for about two-and-a-half thousand years, though, before being subsumed by the Persian Empire in various incarnations till the coming of Islam, when again it emerged as the center of the Sunni Caliphate for a few centuries before being turned into the chew-toy of the Mongols, and later on, the Turks. That marked its last decline into tribalism, after which it was, as SockPuppet observes and as you yourself assumed, squished together out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire.

Minceir

Australia

September 2004

NOV 19, 2007 05:31 PM

Actually the British have been doing that for awhile now. Where everytime there is a bust up in a town there the british just go back to there camps and wait it out till everything is settled down then go back to doing their jobs. they figure it is best to let the Iraqis sought out the problems themselves rather going in with guns blazing.

gisimism

Columbia, VA

October 2007

NOV 19, 2007 05:52 PM

I'm typing this from Iraq right now and yes I agree we don't need to be here, long ago that point was reached. We screwed up by not leaving and backing the wrong people at the wrong times. Now however things really seem to be calming down, say what you will but that's what it is. It would be logisticly impossible to just get up and leave at this point anyway with all the money being dumped into fixing this mess. And the British were in a region where it may not have been fuck'n peaches 'n' cream but altogether wasn't that bad. The sooner this is done the better, the Bush Administration has been a complete dissaster once again I agree, but what exactly was the point you were trying to make? England is different than the US, ok, and by different you must have meant smaller and less involved in the war.

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 19, 2007 07:14 PM

gisimism said:
I'm typing this from Iraq right now and yes I agree we don't need to be here, long ago that point was reached. We screwed up by not leaving and backing the wrong people at the wrong times. Now however things really seem to be calming down, say what you will but that's what it is. It would be logisticly impossible to just get up and leave at this point anyway with all the money being dumped into fixing this mess. And the British were in a region where it may not have been fuck'n peaches 'n' cream but altogether wasn't that bad. The sooner this is done the better, the Bush Administration has been a complete dissaster once again I agree, but what exactly was the point you were trying to make? England is different than the US, ok, and by different you must have meant smaller and less involved in the war.

Nope My point was that they make sensible decisions based on the actual facts, instead of basing decisions on what one hopes will happen.

trapper

Neffs, PA

July 2007

NOV 19, 2007 08:56 PM

Reaper, if you get your facts from ass-holes,well, your gonna' look like an asshole. Believe it or not, I'm only here for the Posts. I love ya', but you are such a leftist tool !I have many friends serving and the good they are doing never make it to the news papers. Instead of reading a news paper, next time sit next to a Marine Co. as I did tonight. He served 2 years and is ready to go back, because he believes in what he's doing. Can't prove it, but he says the children grab his leg for safety. Try to find that in your news papers.

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 19, 2007 09:20 PM

trapper said:
Reaper, if you get your facts from ass-holes,well, your gonna' look like an asshole. Believe it or not, I'm only here for the Posts. I love ya', but you are such a leftist tool !I have many friends serving and the good they are doing never make it to the news papers. Instead of reading a news paper, next time sit next to a Marine Co. as I did tonight. He served 2 years and is ready to go back, because he believes in what he's doing. Can't prove it, but he says the children grab his leg for safety. Try to find that in your news papers.

Well, seriously, who gives a shit? Soldiers always want to go back.

Do you want to talk about why their suicide numbers are so incredibly high? Is that because things are so awesome?

In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces. That's 120 each and every week, in just one year.

Sounds good. See, I don't listen to a soldier on the ground, because, #1, if they don't believe in what they are doing good, they will go crazy or blow their brains out.

And second, the numbers don't bear out all of this rosy talk. Sorry. Electricity is scarce, the Shiite government employs death squards, on and on.

That kid who grabbed your friends leg could just as easily try to kill him in five years after a bomb kills his dad.

The only reason the killing is down now is because Ayatollah Sistani told everyone to knock it off and to focus on driving the US out. He is the man everyone listens to.

I take being a left wing tool over an ignorant right wing hick anyday.

Rafi

Santa Monica, CA

January 2003

NOV 19, 2007 10:32 PM

FearTheReaper said:

Do you want to talk about why their suicide numbers are so incredibly high? Is that because things are so awesome?

In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces. That's 120 each and every week, in just one year.

No way FTR, trapper's singular experience completely trumps your objective statistics.

See, what you don't realize is: when a US soldier speaks, the words, as they leave his mouth, depart the realm of anecdotal observation and are magically transformed into pure, conclusive hard data. It's science!

trapper

Neffs, PA

July 2007

NOV 19, 2007 10:43 PM

WOW, you really need to grow up . They don't believe in what they are doing ?? Why do you say I'm a hick ? Oh I know- when against a wall- go for the kill. Again grow up ! But guess what, the kid that grabbed my friends leg didn't blow him up, he thanked God he was there.Twist it any way you want Ted Kennedy.

trapper

Neffs, PA

July 2007

NOV 19, 2007 11:01 PM

Do you know how many service men and woman died for your freedom ? I can't believe you would say such a thing.

mingol

Singapore

July 2005

NOV 19, 2007 11:09 PM

trapper said:
Twist it any way you want Ted Kennedy.

Oooh, burn.

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN

OLD SKOOL

NOV 19, 2007 11:15 PM

Do you ever post sober?

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 19, 2007 11:23 PM

trapper said:
Do you know how many service men and woman died for your freedom ? I can't believe you would say such a thing.

In my life time. ZERO.

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 19, 2007 11:25 PM

trapper said:
WOW, you really need to grow up . They don't believe in what they are doing ?? Why do you say I'm a hick ? Oh I know- when against a wall- go for the kill. Again grow up !

RIght. This is you in your previous post "grown up."

trapper said:
Reaper, if you get your facts from ass-holes,well, your gonna' look like an asshole.

Nice work.

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA

April 2005

NOV 19, 2007 11:25 PM

trapper said:
Do you know how many service men and woman died for your freedom ? I can't believe you would say such a thing.

Come on. Enough of this "I support the troops" bullshit. It's a cop-out of a legitimate discussion and speaking as somebody who has served on active duty for 8 years, it's complete bullshit. I'm so sick of the "soldiers died for your freedom"; it's been diluted to nothing more than a catch-phrase. What about the journalists who have died in war zones, to bring the atrocities to light? Didn't that person contribute just as much as the troops who died during WWII defending America and Europe from fascism? What about the aid workers? The Peace Corps? Yet, most people who spout the "support our troops" rhetoric would be the same type to mock such people.

To blanket the members of such a vast organization as the US military as simply bad or good is foolish.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

NOV 19, 2007 11:27 PM

KUNGFOO said:

trapper said:
Do you know how many service men and woman died for your freedom ? I can't believe you would say such a thing.

Come on. Enough of this "I support the troops" bullshit. It's a cop-out of a legitimate discussion and speaking as somebody who has served on active duty for 8 years, it's complete bullshit. I'm so sick of the "soldiers died for your freedom"; it's been diluted to nothing more than a catch-phrase. What about the journalist who died in a war zone, to bring the atrocities to light? Didn't that person contribute just as much as the troops who died during WWII defending America and Europe from fascism? What about the aid workers who have died caring for the oppressed and the poor. Yet, most people who spout the "support our troops" rhetoric would be the same type to mock such people.

To blanket such the members of such a vast organization as the US military as simply bad or good is foolish.

Well put.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6