Surging Into The Quagmire

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2003
2,701
142
48
North Missisippi
It’s fairly plain to most clear thinking Americans.

It now looks like the administration has adopted the surge strategy as its mantra. Simply put it means no new political road map for Iraq in place of the “national unity government” formula that has so far failed (has not delivered on the insurgency but has managed to alienated the Shias, and has actually caused more rather than less sectarian violence since the U.S. adopted it); going it alone (ignoring ISG’s recommendation to talk to the neighbors); and putting more boots on the ground. This last item deserves special attention. The language of the administration suggests that the surge will be used to fight radical groups and sectarian militias—Sunni ones and especially Shia militias and death squads associated with Muqtada al-Sadr. But listen closely; what they mean is that surge is in fact meant to finish off Sadr. And there lies the danger.

New troops will be in Iraq not to police the streets and hold the line against the creeping violence, but to expand the war by taking on the Shia militias. This is an escalation strategy. Will it work; maybe, maybe not. But it runs the risk that it may very well provoke a Shia insurgency—something Iraq has not so far witnessed. Thus far the U.S. has faced a Sunni insurgency (which by most estimates continues to account for 80% of U.S. casualties), and sectarian violence in which Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. Shia militias are violent, destructive and radical, but Shia militias are a very different problem from the Sunni insurgency. Shia militias, unlike te insurgency, are not targeting American troops. But it looks like the administration is set to change that. Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani. Anti-Americanism has grown in Shia ranks as they accuse U.S. of favoring Sunnis by focusing on Shia militias rather than Sunni insurgency. By going to war with the increasingly popular Sadr Washington runs the danger of losing the Shia altogether.

Wrong-headed military and political steps provoked the Sunni insurgency in 2003-04, and then more mistakes helped fuel sectarian violence in 2005-06. Another set of mistakes can turn 2007 into the year that U.S. provoked a Shia insurgency. That may prove to be the mother of all mistakes. Hell in Iraq will come when the Shia south—accounting for 60% of the country’s population, largest urban areas, oil, supply lines to Kuwait, and only gateway to the Persian Gulf—rises up against the U.S. Then we either have to get out of Iraq altogether and very quickly, or we will have to commit to many more troop surges to deal with the problems created by the first one.

More:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/dec/21/surging_into_the_abyss


I didn’t have much confidence that you might understand “abyss” but I was certain that you might dig “Quagmire”.

Psychoblues
 
It’s fairly plain to most clear thinking Americans.

It now looks like the administration has adopted the surge strategy as its mantra. Simply put it means no new political road map for Iraq in place of the “national unity government” formula that has so far failed (has not delivered on the insurgency but has managed to alienated the Shias, and has actually caused more rather than less sectarian violence since the U.S. adopted it); going it alone (ignoring ISG’s recommendation to talk to the neighbors); and putting more boots on the ground. This last item deserves special attention. The language of the administration suggests that the surge will be used to fight radical groups and sectarian militias—Sunni ones and especially Shia militias and death squads associated with Muqtada al-Sadr. But listen closely; what they mean is that surge is in fact meant to finish off Sadr. And there lies the danger.

New troops will be in Iraq not to police the streets and hold the line against the creeping violence, but to expand the war by taking on the Shia militias. This is an escalation strategy. Will it work; maybe, maybe not. But it runs the risk that it may very well provoke a Shia insurgency—something Iraq has not so far witnessed. Thus far the U.S. has faced a Sunni insurgency (which by most estimates continues to account for 80% of U.S. casualties), and sectarian violence in which Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. Shia militias are violent, destructive and radical, but Shia militias are a very different problem from the Sunni insurgency. Shia militias, unlike te insurgency, are not targeting American troops. But it looks like the administration is set to change that. Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani. Anti-Americanism has grown in Shia ranks as they accuse U.S. of favoring Sunnis by focusing on Shia militias rather than Sunni insurgency. By going to war with the increasingly popular Sadr Washington runs the danger of losing the Shia altogether.

Wrong-headed military and political steps provoked the Sunni insurgency in 2003-04, and then more mistakes helped fuel sectarian violence in 2005-06. Another set of mistakes can turn 2007 into the year that U.S. provoked a Shia insurgency. That may prove to be the mother of all mistakes. Hell in Iraq will come when the Shia south—accounting for 60% of the country’s population, largest urban areas, oil, supply lines to Kuwait, and only gateway to the Persian Gulf—rises up against the U.S. Then we either have to get out of Iraq altogether and very quickly, or we will have to commit to many more troop surges to deal with the problems created by the first one.

More:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/dec/21/surging_into_the_abyss


I didn’t have much confidence that you might understand “abyss” but I was certain that you might dig “Quagmire”.

Psychoblues

Don't worry---Democrats can now stop the president from taking any action that they deem "bad".
 
I don't agree. The boychild CIC has been given authority to which he will exploit to any measure he deems appropriate. Trouble is that his view of "appropriate" is semantical and only good for students which he is certainly not.


Psychoblues


Don't worry---Democrats can now stop the president from taking any action that they deem "bad".
 
I don't agree. The boychild CIC has been given authority to which he will exploit to any measure he deems appropriate. Trouble is that his view of "appropriate" is semantical and only good for students which he is certainly not.


Psychoblues

don't worry .... in just two years you will be able to impliment "the plan" to make the whole world love us a again.....
 
I don't agree. The boychild CIC has been given authority to which he will exploit to any measure he deems appropriate. Trouble is that his view of "appropriate" is semantical and only good for students which he is certainly not.


Psychoblues

By whom?
 
Military advisors, intelligence officials, foriegn leaders, the U.N. and many Democratically inclined told him his WAR ON IRAQ was not a good idea before he ever DECIDED to go in anyway. In other words, it was all a very "bad" idea. So now you attempt to place the burden of his very predictable failures on the backs of those that warned against it?

Shame on YOU.

Psychoblues


Don't worry---Democrats can now stop the president from taking any action that they deem "bad".
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top