"Omrow" wrote:

Quote:

His alternative formulation: "Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government."

I'd like to see the media abbreviate that.

ELIGs?

Don't think it'll catch on.

"100man" wrote:

Not really. The new government is very eager for troops to stay. Whether there is a lot of terrorism in the South or not, the troops are keeping the country secure from jihadis while a secure democracy is implemented

Oh I see.

You're gonna do the old "Its a war between islamo-fascism and democracy in Iraq".

Some of us prefere the truth.

Even some people who supported the war seem to.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/04/wirq0...

Don't guess my position, or slander me, and to claim that yours is the position of 'the truth' is idiotic. I am saying that if the troops quit they leave the country to the wolves. Are you suggesting the 'insurgency' would die down? Do you really believe there is no need for the troops?

"100man" wrote:

Don't guess my position, or slander me. I am saying that if the troops quit they leave the country to the wolves. Are you suggesting the 'insurgency' would die down? Do you really believe there is no need for the troops?

Well my point was specifically about British troops in the South.

In terms of leaving the country to the wolves American troops seem to not be standing greatly in the way of this. Everyone has their own militia. I doubt America leaving would make a great deal of difference. If any faction were to gain total power in Iraq as a result of a troop withdrawl it would most likely be the one that's in government now not the guerillas.

Quote:

Recruitment from within is not indicative of popular support.

I never claimed they had popular support. Statistically speaking they can't because they come from the minority already. The article said they had popular support in the sunni areas. I don't know if that's true or not.

Quote:

In fact usually terrorists move to failed or failing states to recruit and subvert. So "jihadist" - though striking me as somewhat inflamatory - or rather its contemporary sinister synonyms are not applied incorrectly to this situation.

Also i'm not precisely sure what "islamo-fascism" is I personally have always associated that with attempts to restore "the Caliphate" and I don't understand how you are using it here.

Some people try to frame the war as a struggle between democracy and islamism or islamo-fascism or as 100 likes to jihadism.

I'm just saying that this is an incorrect characterization.

I consider it a mark of our country's integrity that having said our troops are there to implement democracy we do so as efficiently as possible. If we are successful in that, questions remain about how the war has been fought and how it was portrayed, but those are significantly lesser issues than the situation of Iraqis. The consequences of success would be tremendous, as no dictator could point to a 'quagmire' to justify continuing to rule a corrupt, superstitious and self-serving oligarchy.

"Constantine" wrote:

Salaf - if there aren't enough troops [i]now[/i] with militias, a national army, the US army, and Britain - I don't see how you can justify the argument that our withdrawl won't make a difference.

It's not numbers thats the problem.

The situation is unwinable which I think is why the US and UK governments are so ambigious on what the objectives are there.

I disagree that a 10-1 ratio is necessary, it seems like an arbitrary figure with no accounting for strategy.

"100man" wrote:

I consider it a mark of our country's integrity that having said our troops are there to implement democracy we do so as efficiently as possible.

Implement democracy?

Isn't democracy meant to be the will of the people.

You're also assuming that the presence of British troops is some how making southern Iraq more democratic. There was a programme on by some guy from the Spectator a few weeks ago who showed that British troops basically don't do anything in the South. Which isn't suprising considering there is very little terrorism there as I said.

"100man" wrote:

I disagree that a 10-1 ratio is necessary, it seems like an arbitrary figure with no accounting for strategy.

The British defeated the communist guerillas in Malaysia with far fewer troops because they were better trained. They also weren't resented by the locals because Britain was gradually withdrawing from Malaysia.

"salaf" wrote:

"100man" wrote:

Isn't democracy meant to be the will of the people.

Yes, it is.

Quote:

You're also assuming that the presence of British troops is some how making southern Iraq more democratic. There was a programme on by some guy from the Spectator a few weeks ago who showed that British troops basically don't do anything in the South. Which isn't suprising considering there is very little terrorism there as I said.

:roll: Check my previous comment on that.

Which one?

"salaf" wrote:

The British defeated the communist guerillas in Malaysia with far fewer troops because they were better trained. They also weren't resented by the locals because Britain was gradually withdrawing from Malaysia.

Yep, although there is a big difference. It seems like you are saying that because a lot of the jihadis are from Iraq, the outside operators (Syria, Iran, AQ) can be ignored. The problem is much bigger than a group of rebels, since other states in the region would like Iraq for a satellite. So victory has to be overwhelming, and before the troops can leave the country needs to be secure. On a sidenote that may take time, and I do not assume that in the process the "anti-war" lobby will quieten down, but their agenda is firmly to expose US corruption and more vaguely to save lives, within which not all their arguments add up to a realistic position on securing Iraq for Iraqis and saving lives.

[size=10]

"salaf" wrote:

Which one?

"100man" wrote:

I am saying that if the troops quit they leave the country to the wolves. Are you suggesting the 'insurgency' would die down? Do you really believe there is no need for the troops?

[/size]

I would like to see peace in the region, and I believe that includes confronting dictators with an agenda to annihalate Israel and a discriminatory, repressive social agenda. I cannot be sure either way but I believe concerning 'the will of the people' that a democracy is much better placed to determine a country's relations with other governments than any smoke-and-mirrors dictatorship.

Quote:

Yep, although there is a big difference. It seems like you are saying that because a lot of the jihadis are from Iraq, the outside operators (Syria, Iran, AQ) can be ignored.

You're doing it again. Why are you calling the guerillas "jihadis". According to the Telegraph article and indeed the US military most of the guerillas are ex-baathists or iraqis who've become disillusioned with the occupation. Do you think you know more than the US military?

Quote:

The problem is much bigger than a group of rebels, since other states in the region would like Iraq for a satellite. So victory has to be overwhelming, and before the troops can leave the country needs to be secure.

Yes Iran would like Iraq as a satellite. The point is that British troops aren't doing anything to prevent that unless they're planning to stay their forever.

Quote:

I would like to see peace in the region, and I believe that includes confronting dictators with an agenda to annihalate Israel and a discriminatory, repressive social agenda.

So you want to use the British military to to protect Israel?

Constantine,

Thanks for those insights. Especially with regard to the 10:1 thing I am not sure what prospects that would leave either way. Do you think that with Iraqi assistance 10:1 will be acheived?

"Constantine" wrote:

This war is still completely winable if we sent in overwhelming troop capacity - you would see less trigger happy incidents of Americans blowing up vehicles, more stability, and more trust in the American military to secure the country.

I think if America increased its troop levels in Iraq now the insurgency would gain more support possibly among shi'ites. The situation is made worse by the fact that practical goals are not set by the US government.

"Constantine" wrote:

"100man" wrote:

Constantine,

Thanks for those insights. Especially with regard to the 10:1 thing I am not sure what prospects that would leave either way. Do you think that with Iraqi assistance 10:1 will be acheived?

It can't be achieved because the administration no longer accepts that doctrine. The new policy is "transformation" which means a lighter army for quick strikes with a heavy dependency on technology - it plays to our logistical strength.

Unfortunately it is incompatible with occupation, it's the reason we won the war in 30 days and can't hold the country.

Gen. Shinseki and the others didn't suggest the number of 500,000 because we had confidence in Saddams republican guard - it was because that was necessary for the overwhelming force capacity needed to quell insurgency.

Anybody that disagree (like Shinseki) was purged.

This war is still completely winable if we sent in overwhelming troop capacity - you would see less trigger happy incidents of Americans blowing up vehicles, more stability, and more trust in the American military to secure the country.

Thanks. So the anti-war ethos is the exact opposite of what it will take to stabilise the region. I am all for that. ftr another conversation needs to be had, about the oil. I fear we are hopelessly prone to misinformation from all sides, and that is surely the temptation for governments to provide a facile cassus belli.

"Constantine" wrote:

"salaf" wrote:

You're doing it again. Why are you calling the guerillas "jihadis". According to the Telegraph article and indeed the US military most of the guerillas are ex-baathists or iraqis who've become disillusioned with the occupation. Do you think you know more than the US military?

The changed ELIG doesn't embrace the idea that the Iraqis are "disillusioned" with the American presence or the Iraqi government. They are understood (quite rightly) to be recruities of foreign terrorists and iraqi ex baathists who simply want to tear down the regime and make Iraq a failed state terrorist recruiting ground.

These aren't Iraqi VC

Whats an ELIG?

The VC existed before the Americans came into Vietnam and they weren't widely supported either.

"salaf" wrote:

"Constantine" wrote:

This war is still completely winable if we sent in overwhelming troop capacity - you would see less trigger happy incidents of Americans blowing up vehicles, more stability, and more trust in the American military to secure the country.

I think if America increased its troop levels in Iraq now the insurgency would gain more support possibly among shi'ites. The situation is made worse by the fact that practical goals are not set by the US government.

That last point is possible, but regarding increased force resulting in increased Shia support, since the war is already on that argument has to be discounted. There are measures in place to woo all parts of Iraqi society to embrace democracy, but the remaining thorny issue is what to do about committed fighters who are not backing that outcome, and the thing is to defeat them overwhemingly.