Brink of civil war in Lebanon

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I'd think the US could hope that the prospect of partition could pull the iraqi's back from the brink, but it would be wrong to try to see it as a way of salvaging the project.

If you left a Sunni city to Shia mercy their is every likelyhood that they would see the US as like the Israeli's in Lebanon, stepping back to let the militias do their dirty work. It could all backfire terribly.

No, if the threat of partision focuses minds the US should use it as a window for exit, once gone the Iraqi's will either pull themselves together, or be torn apart, but either way the US should watch from the sidelines, not be in the field.

I can't see the current administration going for it as it would be a total humiliation, but the democrats might.

They could use rising discontent about the war to slowly constrict the flow of funds and personnel, until a point where the military could only stand and watch, while the prospect of partition was talked up.

Then like a new boss moving in to a struggling office that fires half the staff, and makes sweeping changes the next President could pull out the troops and end "Bush's War".

He'll if they really pushed it they could talk about rebuilding Americas reputation and relationship with it's allies, and say,

" But it won't be done in one year, perhaps not even in one term".

Peter.

[Moronic Max]

Pick a major city in Anbar, like Ramadi. Put 50,000 Shia dominated police, including those infiltrated by the Shia militias, and into the city after all US troops back out. Give it a couple of months and then ask the Sunnis to choose to have another city get the same treatment or to get to the negotiation table with an unconditional ceasefire in place.

Here's the thing. Logically speaking, going for a ceasefire after that would be the right course of action for the Sunnis.

But when I try to imagine how I'd respond to something like that; if, say, China let all the democrats in LA kill all the republicans in LA (okay, okay, not the greatest example, but work with me)I can't see myself saying "alright, let's not fight china or each other no more".

And I don't think my reaction is unique; strategic bombing of cities (which amounts to a more impersonal version of what you're suggesting) has not, by and large, caused people to surrender. Even people who are losing. Dresden didn't make the Third Reich fold, Tokyo didn't make Japan give it up (nukes did, but nukes represented the prospect of annihilation without the opportunity to fight), Korea had lost something like 4/5 of its urban areas by the time the armistice was signed, and the six million tons of bombs we dropped on Southeast Asia didn't make anyone surrender, nor did Project Phoenix, nor did free fire zones.

And the wholesale slaughter the Nazis subjected Yugoslavia to didn't stop the guerrilla war there.

Are there examples where that sort of thing did work (Rotterdam counts, I think)?

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If the US basically said to the Sunnis "you think we're bad? If you don't knock it off we'll take the leash off of the Shias and withdraw all attempts to help you." I think that will get most of the Sunnis rethinking their strategy. The Shias need a wakeup call too, but until the Sunnis get a grip on reality I don't think that is possible.

I as a Syrian Sunni, along with the majority of Iraq’s Sunnis, barring the sect’s puppet, non representative leadership class dependant upon the US for its survival, will say to the US, by all means, “take the leash off”, “withdraw all attempts to help”, get da funk out.

The Sunnis like their chances with the above equation, “unleash hell”. One has to look at analysis of pros and cons vis à vis US withdrawal from the perspective of each sect. And from a Sunni prism, the Americans are impeding the Iraqi Sunni agenda as much as they may be impeding the Shias’ desire to go postal.

If the US occupation ceases and Iraqis are left to mend for themselves, you’ll have all the Arab countries pitted against Iran and to a certain extent Syria, with the Kurds being checked by Turkey. Ultimately, no Arab country, including most Syrian Sunnis want to see an Iranian Iraq. The biggest fear of all gulf states, as well as Jordan and Egypt is the rising Persian tide and a potentially nuclear Persia.

Arab gulf states, as well as Jordan and Egypt, don’t foresee a western threat of force against them or debilitating pressure, nor do they expect them, Iran does. As for Syria, later rather than sooner, it will be pried away from Iran and brought back into the fold. In consequence, Iran can’t take on the US, Europe, Israel and the Arab countries all at once, the Iranian Mullahs will have to relinquish Iraq, abandon their proxies and tend to their regime’s survival instead.

You’re looking at a nasty knife fight, but the Sunnis like their chances and won’t be abandoned by their own kind. After all, Saudi and environs is Sunni, Egypt is Sunni, Jordan is Sunni, Syria is Sunni, Indonesia is Sunni, Turkey is Sunni, Pakistan is Sunni, Afghanistan is Sunni, Malaysia is Sunni, Sudan is Sunni, India’s Muslims are Sunni, Central Asian Stan states are Sunni, The US ambassador to Iraq, Khalil Zad is Sunni.

Who’s Shia? Iran, southern Lebanon and nearly two thirds of Iraq, das ist it.

One trick the US uses for stupid western consumption is to highlight a spurious Sunni untenable plight in Iraq, as if Sunnis are minorities everywhere, which is a mockery of the crystal clear truth.

If Iraq’s Sunnis are in such an untenable plight, how come they won the Anbar war and are actively forcing Abi Zeid to plan a full withdrawal and reallocate the western command to a burning Baghdad. With such a move, the sunnis will have a vast base of operations, a mammoth Fallujah if you will, to lauch insurrections into Baghdad.

So the Sunni answer to the US powers that be isn’t unlike the following, we're not gonna “knock it off”, do “take the leash off”, sic the Shias on us and go back to Peoria. The Sunnis fabricated a Saddam in a Shia stronghold long before the US knew an Iraq existed. They don’t need the US to baby sit, give hand outs, or put their detractors on a leash, they want an Iraq free of foreign presence and American air power.

[ November 30, 2006, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: LoneSyrian ]

[Battlefront.com]

Lone Syrian,

I as a Syrian Sunni, along with the majority of Iraq’s Sunnis, barring the sect’s puppet, non representative leadership class dependant upon the US for its survival, will say to the US, by all means, “take the leash off”, “withdraw all attempts to help”, get da funk out.

This theory might be put to the test. For the Iraqi Sunnis that want nothing but peace, I hope it doesn't happen. The US forces aren't the problem, the Insurgents are. If the Insurgents stopped their attacks tonight, tomorrow there would be no bloodshed, and soon after the US forces would leave the area. The US does NOT want to keep combat troops in Anbar, but the Sunni Insurgency is making it necessary. It really is that simple.

Ultimately, no Arab country, including most Syrian Sunnis want to see an Iranian Iraq.

Which is why it makes no sense for Syria to be actively undermining the effort to keep Iraq a single state. It is a very risky game they are playing. Same with Lebanon.

If Iraq’s Sunnis are in such an untenable plight, how come they won the Anbar

Because the US is fighting with one hand and leg tied behind its back. If you think the US is fighting using its full capacity and capabilities, you're very much mistaken. The US is losing due to incompetent political leadership.

I also think you'd find the Shia methods a lot more effective, at least in the short term. Just look at what the Bosnian Serbs, backed by the remains of Yugoslavia, acheived. It is possible that long term the Sunnis will be able to acheive some of their goals, but at what cost? Just like in the Balkans a war between Shias and Sunnis would have to be settled by political means. The same thing happened in the Iran-Iraq War.

In any case, the war is stupid and senseless. Muslims killing Muslims, Muslims killing Americans, Americans killing Muslims... the only thing it acheives is death.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Moronic Max,

A foreign power rarely wins an insurgency. The key to winning is to overwhelm it (China vs. Tibet) with the intention of full control forever (military and political administration). The less ethnically and religiously diverse, the easier it is too. The US is not overwhelming Iraq and it has no intention of controlling it forever. The population of Iraq is hardly unified and significant segments of each are actively fighting against US occupation.

WWII Yugoslavia is an interesting example to look at, and then compare it with the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Germany's control of Slovenia and Croatia was pretty good right from the start. The problem was that the Serbs were a large percentage of the population and were highly motivated to fight against the Croats and Germans. After extremely bad management by the Germans and Ustasi Croats, the Serbs were completely unified and even the Croats and Slovenes rose up against the Germans. Who knows what would have happened if the Germans weren't also losing millions on the other fronts and seeing its homeland overrun by other powers. The latter somewhat complicates a comparison with Iraq since the US itself is not at risk.

The modern breakup of Yugoslavia was pretty similar to WWII. Croats and Serbs fighting it out with Muslims and others caught in the middle quite often. They largely fought each other to a standstill and both found themselves unable to do much towards the end of the conflict. Foreign intervention, which had done almost nothing during the conflict, tipped the balance at the end in favor of a negotiated settlement. One can imagine that this would have been the case in WWII if the Germans had withdrawn early in the conflict. Serbs and Croats fighting each other to the point of exhaustion, then negotiating an end of the violence.

The only hope a foreign power has of winning an insurgency against it is to use majority to suppress the minority. That's not what the US or the world wants to see happen, but it is headed that way fast. It's easy for the Sunnis to say "bring it on!" at the moment because they are largely dictating how the war is being fought. But that would change dramatically if the US were to pull its troops out of Anbar.

No matter what this mess will have to be settled politically. The only question is how many people must die and how much property will be destroyed before all sides realize this.

Steve

[ November 30, 2006, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Imperial Grunt]

"quote:If Iraq’s Sunnis are in such an untenable plight, how come they won the Anbar"

Al Anbar is hardly "won" by the insurgents and AQ. Tactically the Marines and US Army soldiers are still there, winning every engagement, and performing great tasks on a daily basis. There is no where they cannot go where the insurgents and terrorists can prevent them or stop them.

The poor performance rests upon the shoulders of the politicians setting policy for both the US and the Iraqi government. Military force cannot achieve political victory, unless it is going to be a Nazi or Saddam like dictatorship. Certainly no form of democracy can exist in such conditions.

Al Anbar is not a pretty picture for sure, but it not a "win" for the Sunni insurgents and AQ. If the US decided to, every city in Al Anbar could be "Fallujahed." But that is not the point of winning an insurgency, that is a last resort.

War is another form of politics. Its up to the politicians to what happens over the next few months.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

If the US decided to, every city in Al Anbar could be "Fallujahed."

nah, US military is too weak for such operations.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

Al Anbar is hardly "won" by the insurgents and AQ. Tactically the Marines and US Army soldiers are still there, winning every engagement, and performing great tasks on a daily basis. There is no where they cannot go where the insurgents and terrorists can prevent them or stop them.

The poor performance rests upon the shoulders of the politicians setting policy for both the US and the Iraqi government. Military force cannot achieve political victory, unless it is going to be a Nazi or Saddam like dictatorship. Certainly no form of democracy can exist in such conditions.

When General Abi Zeid was asked last week by Senator Warner if US forces have control of Anbar, Abi Zeid answered under oath “we do not control Al Anbar province.” I believe him.

Anbar today represents a graveyard for US Marines, they may very well patrol any sector they chose to, but not without sustaining daily casualties which resonate back in the US.

There’s no political or military victory, there’s only victory. What good was "winning every engagement” in Vietnam? One need only refer back to the chaotic pictures depicting the US embassy’s last hours in Saigon and the scuttling of copters off the boat home.

The US military often says “we don’t like to fight fair” in reference to its devastating air power. Well, Iraq’s freedom fighters and their allies aren’t fighting fair either. They know the US is somewhat paralyzed, it has an incompetent leadership, it cannot nuke, it cannot go all out, it must show restraint, it must retain a semblance of a moral campus, so they asymmetrically stick it in.

Anbar IS lost, and it’s a prelude to the entire Iraqi theater. Moreover, Anbar is lost not because of inner Iraqi killings or sectarian violence, it’s lost because Americans no longer accept the level of daily casualties they’re sustaining in the province, the cost has become too much to bear by American standards.

American pride and the need of some to parse and justify may see the Anbar situation differently, but the rest of the world sees it as an American defeat and a Sunni Iraqi victory.

No one measures the triumph of a superpower over a guerilla force through single engagements or the sum of said engagements, triumph and defeat are measured by the final outcome of a campaign _ will the US maintain presence in Anbar? If NOT and it withdraws soon, then its foe won and America lost. There’s no “political”, “tactical”, this or that, there’s what's there for the entire world to see.

Al Anbar is not a pretty picture for sure, but it not a "win" for the Sunni insurgents and AQ. If the US decided to, every city in Al Anbar could be "Fallujahed." But that is not the point of winning an insurgency, that is a last resort.

War is another form of politics. Its up to the politicians to what happens over the next few months.

And if the US decided to, it can nuke the entire Islamic world, it can incinerate Venezuela, it can obliterate North Korea, it can flatten Cuba. But it won’t decide to, it can’t decide to. Why? Apart from the constraints of its present forces' configuration, the US president says there are forces of good and evil in this world, and the good ole guys can’t go on mass murderin’ now can they?

[Battlefront.com]

Lone Syrian,

When General Abi Zeid was asked last week by Senator Warner if US forces have control of Anbar, Abi Zeid answered under oath “we do not control Al Anbar province.” I believe him.

For sure the Iraqi central government does not control Anbar. Nothing Imperial Grunt said contradicts that. What he said is that it is in dispute, not "won" by the Sunnis as you put it. The Sunnis are not in control of their destiny in Anbar, the US forces there are. As Imperial Grunt said, there is no place that the Insurgents can go that the US forces can't also go. When the Insurgents try to gather up strength in a particular area, the US forces crush them. This is established fact, so there is zero room for debate.

What is up for debate is what this all means and how it will turn out. I'm curious... what do you think will happen if the US forces withdraw immediately from Iraq? While you're at it, I'm still curious to know who you think is behind the various assassinations in Lebanon if Syria isn't to blame?

Anbar IS lost, and it’s a prelude to the entire Iraqi theater. Moreover, Anbar is lost not because of inner Iraqi killings or sectarian violence, it’s lost because Americans no longer accept the level of daily casualties they’re sustaining in the province, the cost has become too much to bear by American standards.

That's nonsense. The Americans have lost faith in the war because it is obvious that a political solution is needed and BECAUSE of the sectarian violence a viable settlement in the near future is impossible. Therefore, things don't look good from the American perspective. It looks like a lot of senseless killing with us getting caught in the middle. Given a choice between more force and pulling out, it would appear that without a viable political solution between Sunnis and Shias that the option to pull out is the one most would choose. It is quite rational and logical to choose this option.

You can dodge and dance around the issue all you like, but the fact is that if the Sunnis stopped their killings and instead went to the negotiating table the violence would end. But they don't want to negotiate... they want their old position of power and dominance in Iraq back. That will not happen. The US, the Iraqi Shias, the Kurds, and the Iranians will not let that happen. So why not negotiate now and get started on making the lives of Iraqis better today instead of in a few years after a lot more death and destruction?

It is up to the Sunnis, and sadly I don't see them starting to act sensibly any time soon. This is not helped by the fact that Syria and Iran are actively aiding the violence instead of trying to put an end to it. Their desire to give the US a defeat and to create their own buffer states will mean hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will die and millions will suffer. The US might be to blame for starting this process, but it can not be blamed for continuing it. It's out of the US' control.

Steve

[Drusus]

I don't think pulling out is a particularly good choice. We know what happened in Afghanistan. At the moment the situation is so bad that it might still be the best choice.

Putting the responsibility to Sunnis might be correct. But reasoning that they should stop is like claiming that the Vietcong should just have stopped fighting. Yes, it would have stopped the bloodshed. I think the crucial thing to understand is that they are fighting because they can't accept where Iraq is heading right now. They aren't fighting because they want bloodshed. If the US don't want a bloodshed, why not raise Sunnis to power? That would stop the fighting, right? Like said, that just wont happen. Also, Sunnis accepting their fate just wont happen. Probably no big difference here on opinions, except that IMHO discussing about this is kind like discussing about if cancer should just vanish from the world.

Letting Shias kill thousands of Sunnis would only make things worse. First, fighting to the last man can really happen. Second, it would cause much more tension in the already chaotic area. Third, it is not guaranteed that the Shias could actually control the areas. Fourth, US armed police forces killing Sunnis just to show what can happen is a war crime, you know people get hanged for that kind of behaviour. Though as the Sunnis are clearly terrorists that might not count... Then there are the diplomatic consequences. And to me it seems USA has already burned their karma.

As said earlier, there are no good choices. A lot of people are now paying for stupid decisions made about Iraq.

The US might be to blame for starting this process, but it can not be blamed for continuing it. It's out of the US' control.

You broke it, you own it.

[Peter Cairns]

The fighting in some form or another will continue until the US leaves, because the Sunni's and Shia's can't.

It's there country they really have no where else to go but Iran and Syria, and that means that those to states are linked to Iraq for good.

Peter.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Drusus:

Though as the Sunnis are clearly terrorists that might not count...

When you label Sunnis “terrorists”, you’ve to understand to Sunnis and most Iraqis, US soldiers are the consummate, indisputable and monstrous terrorists.

Take the case of US soldier James Barker of the infamous 101st Airborne, as one of countless examples. This convicted and sentenced American terrorist, along with three 101st terrorists by the names of Jesse Spielman, Paul Cortez and Bryan Howard, committed a most heinous terrorist act and unspeakables a Sunni would never contemplate.

In March of 06, the above squad stalked and surveilled a 14-year old Sunni girl in the village of Mahmudiya, Iraq. Once her address became known to them, they proceeded to gang rape and bludgeon her to death with her family present in the house. After raping and murdering this teenager, they burned her along with her entire family, as well as their house to conceal the evidence of the terror and horror they perpetrated.

The Sunnis ask you, who’s terrorizing who? You say it’s a few bad apples, an isolated incident, the Sunnis say NOT.

Enter the town of Haditha, 19 November, 2005 whereby 24 Iraqi civilians were massacred in cold blood by US troops looking for action and revenge. Again, in March of 06 and after the Mahmudiya rape, murder and incineration act of terror, an entire Iraqi family of 11, including five children is wiped out in a flash by you know who.

Do not presume your own kind, be it European or American isn’t well familiar with dispensing terror up close and personal. Wearing a uniform while terrorizing hardly shields the terrorist from the label which best describes him.

The US might be to blame for starting this process, but it can not be blamed for continuing it. It's out of the US' control.

You broke it, you own it.

Amen.

Steve,

The answer as to who I think done it in the last Lebanese assassination is present in my very first post, the last 2 paragraphs or so. It states names, factions, possible motives, ends and grand designs. You might've missed it, for I admit, my posts are long-winded, Syrians donno brevity.

[Battlefront.com]

Take the case of US soldier James Barker of the infamous 101st Airborne, as one of countless examples. This convicted and sentenced American terrorist, along with three 101st terrorists by the names of Jesse Spielman, Paul Cortez and Bryan Howard, committed a most heinous terrorist act and unspeakables a Sunni would never contemplate.

Pardon me while I have my first laugh of this thread. Sunnis would never contemplate such acts? So somehow the Sunnis are morally superior because they only kidnap and behead people, detonate bombs in the middle of marketplaces, bomb schools, destroy Muslim shrines, etc., etc. AND rape. Under Saddam's rule there was plenty of the latter.

The Sunnis ask you, who’s terrorizing who? You say it’s a few bad apples, an isolated incident, the Sunnis say NOT.

The Sunnis also think that murdering innocent men, women, and children because of some dispute over the interpretation of the Koran is OK. That strapping bombs to one's body and detonating it in the middle of a populated civilian area is OK. I also see no Sunnis investigating, arresting, trying, and punishing Sunnis for their crimes. This doesn't make the Sunni's concept of right and wrong very credible to me, though no doubt they do view the world the way you say they do.

The isolated acts of over stressed soldiers of the US military are not even in the same ballpark. While the acts of violence committed by these individual soldiers and marines are abhorrent (I think they should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty) they are anomalies while the violence of the Sunnis is not. That is a fact. A couple dozen criminal acts committed by a few hundred thousand soldiers over a period of 3 years in an active combat zone. That's extremely low from a historical perspective. Compare this with the of thousands of people blown up, mutilated, kidnapped, murdered with a shot to the head, tortured, etc. by Sunni extremists. Saying the US forces are as morally corrupt as the Sunni Insurgents is like saying that a handful of sand is the same as a desert.

Do not presume your own kind, be it European or American isn’t well familiar with dispensing terror up close and personal. Wearing a uniform while terrorizing hardly shields the terrorist from the label which best describes him.

You misuse the term. Terrorism and criminal activities are not necessarily the same.

The answer as to who I think done it in the last Lebanese assassination is present in my very first post, the last 2 paragraphs or so. It states names, factions, possible motives, ends and grand designs. You might've missed it, for I admit, my posts are long-winded, Syrians donno brevity.

I saw that line of argument and didn't find it particularly convincing. Which is why I challenged it. On the one hand the assassinations don't help anybody but hurt everybody. So arguing "they wouldn't do it" doesn't work out so well because SOMEONE thought it was a good idea to kill these people. The most logical explanation is that whomever did it is pro-Syria since the only common thread between the victims is their opposition to Syrian control. That means the most likely people responsible for the murders are in some way allied with Syria, or are possibly Syrian operatives. Of course I could be wrong, but the logic that Syria is indeed responsible is very strong.

So again, what do you think the solution to this mess in Iraq is?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Drusus,

Putting the responsibility to Sunnis might be correct. But reasoning that they should stop is like claiming that the Vietcong should just have stopped fighting.

Oh, I know. When looking at moral responsibility, one is usually looking at theory rather than reality. If one side claims the moral high ground then one has to examine it from that perspective. The US invasion of Iraq was morally questionable (at least the way it was done), but that does not excuse the Sunnis and Shias from the responsibility for the situation Iraq is in now. It is a fact that the US wants all sides to negotiate with each other, it is a fact that the Sunnis and Shias would rather die first. And so they are.

Letting Shias kill thousands of Sunnis would only make things worse. First, fighting to the last man can really happen. Second, it would cause much more tension in the already chaotic area. Third, it is not guaranteed that the Shias could actually control the areas. Fourth, US armed police forces killing Sunnis just to show what can happen is a war crime, you know people get hanged for that kind of behaviour. Though as the Sunnis are clearly terrorists that might not count... Then there are the diplomatic consequences. And to me it seems USA has already burned their karma.

Letting them kill each other until there is either a clear winner or they are both exhausted from murder is perhaps the only way it will end. This was the case in the Balkans. They didn't fight to the last man or woman. Instead, they fought until they were more sick of the fighting than they were of each other's demands. Then they stopped and negotiated. I think the same thing will have to happen in Iraq. And there probably isn't anything the US can do about it.

Steve

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The Sunnis are not in control of their destiny in Anbar, the US forces there are.

Steve seems bent upon imposing a defeatist, capitulation-orientated policy on Iraq’s Sunnis. It’s the Americans who control the Sunni’s fate in Anbar, says he, not the owners of the land. If only they would come and kiss American and Shiite ass, Steve adds, we’ll make it so much easier for them, the bloodshed would stop, this simple.

Had Steve’s great grand parents said to George Washington, it is King George and Cornwallis who control your fate, you best negotiate to stop the bloodshed, Steve’s grand dad would’ve been laughed out of the room and imprisoned for sedition.

Had James Wolfe been told New France’s Nova Scotia shall remain French for ever, resign yourself and surrender your fate to Bougainville and the French Empire; it is not you who masters your own destiny, the forbearer of this edict would’ve been disgorged.

If Stonewall Jackson were told to stop fighting unionists, and McClellan to negotiate with Lee to stop the bloodshed in the midst of battle, shame would’ve descended upon the advisor adopting such a strategy.

It is the duty of occupiers, emperors, empires and their sycophants to instill in any resistance movement a defeatist stance, a conciliatory attitude, a feeling of despair and resignation. Yet throughout history, it is the conviction and endurance of those who resisted that won the day.

Sunnis aren’t orphans, they’re the kings of the region, as Arabs have begun to witness an attempt to resurrect the Persian empire, they’ve plans to aid, finance, support and arm their Sunni brethren. An American-sponsored Shiite proverbial island in the midst of a Sunni sea of wealth and determination is barely capable of holding its dick in its hands, let alone the fate of a colossal, proud sect.

As for my prior post which agitated you, let me retract its harshness and stipulate, for you’re the master of the house and it’s dangerous waters to delve deep into the morality of war and its combatants, or lack thereof.

In terms of you not liking my reasoning for the Lebanese assassination, I can’t invent another reasoning because you challenge it or don’t like it. People in forums present arguments, enjoy public discourse, converge, diverge, let things stand where they and move on. I did notice one thing though, you tend to burnish “logic’ when it suits your argument, then take a fat piss on it when it tarnishes it, nothing serious though, humans do it all the time.

[Imperial Grunt]

This debate reminds me of the one that I had with a Sunni school master outside of Fallujah in March of 03. He was determined to convince me that when I die and go to Heaven, Jesus would command me to convert to Islam. He also told me that Saddam Hussien was a great leader and that the US had made a huge mistake in attacking him.

Quote: In terms of you not liking my reasoning for the Lebanese assassination, I can’t invent another reasoning because you challenge it or don’t like it. People in forums present arguments, enjoy public discourse, converge, diverge, let things stand where they and move on. I did notice one thing though, you tend to burnish “logic’ when it suits your argument, then take a fat piss on it when it tarnishes it, nothing serious though, humans do it all the time.

Unfortunately I do not think that anyone will win this debate in a forum. There are some very opposite point of view between the US and the Arab, Sunni dominated, Middle East. In my opinion, both will look at an apple and see something different.

And the future does not look bright. The future of the Middle East is becoming even more polarized against the US and the West in general.

Obsession

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

The future of the Middle East is becoming even more polarized against the US and the West in general.

It doesn’t really matter. The oil must flow and it will regardless of Iraq, Syria or Iran.

Hey Steve ,

My neighbor didn't live to see the "Jews turned loose". He lost a lung to Agent Orange and refused to quit smoking cigarettes. A Vietnam veteran a retired firefighter and a good neighbor R.I.P. My cat keeps his widow company if I don’t feed her (the cat of course) at her desired schedule.

[Darryl60]

As far as I can see,the only way to keep Iraq as a unified country instead of it breaking up into individual Shia,Kurdish and Sunni nations would be to install another "strongman" as leader.

Looks to me like Hussein was the only one who could keep all the factions under some degree of control. Of course he was a genocidal tyrant...but apparently you have to be to keep the Shia and Sunnis from killing each other.

There is no doubt in my mind that overthrowing Hussien will come back to haunt us...it already is by getting rid of Iran's greatest regional enemy and allowing Iran to become a major player in the region...to the point where they have some control over some of the Shia groups in Iraq.

Yeah we got rid of Hussien...but by doing so we opened up pandora's box.

[Battlefront.com]

Lone Syrian,

Steve seems bent upon imposing a defeatist, capitulation-orientated policy on Iraq’s Sunnis. It’s the Americans who control the Sunni’s fate in Anbar, says he, not the owners of the land. If only they would come and kiss American and Shiite ass, Steve adds, we’ll make it so much easier for them, the bloodshed would stop, this simple.

You've missed my point. Long term the US controls nothing, and neither do the Sunnis or Shias. What I am talking about is today and the very near future. The fact is the US militarily controls Iraq along with Great Britain and a small number of troops from other nations. Their military dominance is being challenged, for sure, but it has not been defeated. This puts the US, as the prime military power, in a position of great importance. You can deny this all you like, but that is the reality today. What this means for the future of Iraq is entirely debatable because one thing is clear:

The US will not be in this position of military dominance for long. It will withdraw, one way or another.

I've outlined my thoughts on what would happen if the US left right now. I've also outlined my thoughts on what would happen if the Sunni Insurgency ended. I've asked you several times to tell me what you think would happen if the US were to withdraw immediately and without delay. So far you've dodged the question except to make vague statements about the Sunnis being triumphant. No mention of what a pullout would mean for the average Iraq citizen who is alive today. Care to take a guess as to what would happen?

Had Steve’s great grand parents said to George Washington, it is King George and Cornwallis who control your fate, you best negotiate to stop the bloodshed, Steve’s grand dad would’ve been laughed out of the room and imprisoned for sedition.

When one talks about morality one needs to dismiss the reality of Human failings in their actions. The fact is the US is not the problem in Iraq. They only want to have a peaceful society and to pull its troops out as soon as that is achieved. They do NOT want to stay there and are even prepared to leave without Iraq being stable. So why is Iraq not stable? Because certain Iraqi groups do not wish it to be so. In particular foreign jihadists and various Sunni and Shia groups. They are not only attacking the US occupation forces, but also attacking each other. The Sunnis lead the pack in terms of violence, though the Shias are gaining ground.

So, from a moral standpoint... who is responsible for the bloodshed and suffering of the innocent? The US government who absolutely wants peace or the various Insurgents who are purposefully murdering innocent civilians? From an absolute standpoint, the Insurgents are obviously responsible for the deaths of the innocent. Obviously, things are not that simple. The US is partly to blame too, largely because of incompetent handling of the situation. But it is trying very hard to keep things peaceful. To not understand this is to not understand what will happen if the US pulls out immediately. Which is probably why you haven't yet offered your predictions.

As to the historical references you made... you really think there was no serious effort to negotiate a settlement to these two disputes? My knowledge of British history is a little rusty, especially as far back as Cornwall, but I can say for sure that about 1/3rd of the American Colonialists wanted to stay under the reign of England, 1/3rd actively wanted to break away, and 1/3rd was ambivalent. If you think there was no effort to negotiate you're very much mistaken. The hardcore revolutionists wanted none of it, so they made sure to sabotage any and all efforts to win freedoms and rights without bloodshed. The hardcore anti-revolutionists in England also wanted no part in it. So the war dragged on and on and on, with a loss of life and property that was staggering.

If Stonewall Jackson were told to stop fighting unionists, and McClellan to negotiate with Lee to stop the bloodshed in the midst of battle, shame would’ve descended upon the advisor adopting such a strategy.

Well, the South would have been smart to have risked "shame" over "defeat". The Confederates knew pretty early on that they couldn't win the war unless they got damned lucky. Instead of trying to leverage the gains they had made (and they made many), they instead gambled on total victory or total defeat. They got the latter along with a huge helping of shame. From a Unionist standpoint, the Confederates made the right choice.

It is the duty of occupiers, emperors, empires and their sycophants to instill in any resistance movement a defeatist stance, a conciliatory attitude, a feeling of despair and resignation. Yet throughout history, it is the conviction and endurance of those who resisted that won the day.

Not always true. The Confederacy had plenty of conviction and endurance... they lost. History is also littered with examples of an initially successful resistance movement overplaying their hand and being defeated by some other force. Napoleon is one great example, Hitler would be another. Long term others have failed, such as the Bolsheviks, Pol Pot, and hundreds of groups in Africa. I have argued that the Sunnis in Iraq will meet the same fate as the Serbs in the Balkans. You have offered no counter argument to this other than...

Sunnis aren’t orphans, they’re the kings of the region, as Arabs have begun to witness an attempt to resurrect the Persian empire, they’ve plans to aid, finance, support and arm their Sunni brethren. An American-sponsored Shiite proverbial island in the midst of a Sunni sea of wealth and determination is barely capable of holding its dick in its hands, let alone the fate of a colossal, proud sect.

That is obviously coming from your bias and not from anything else. Iran is a major global power and it knows it. The regimes in most Sunni countries are for the most part internally weak and externally powerless. Syria fits into this category for sure, but unlike the other Sunni regimes it is not propped up by Western military power. If Iran wants a Shia stronghold in Iraq, Iran will get it and there isn't a damned thing anybody else can do about it without risking defeat at home as well as on whatever battlefield they choose to challenge the Iranians on. And the Iranians know this.

Sure, it is entirely possible that Iran will overplay its hand and the Sunnis will dance on their graves. But I don't think that is likely. A draw is the best the Sunnis could hope for in Iraq. A draw can be negotiated without the risk of total defeat. That's why the Sunnis should be negotiating instead of murdering. Their chances of victory are extremely low and require the intervention of outside powers on their behalf. Many of those powers are propped up by the West and therefore might very well choose to abandon their Sunni brothers. Unfortunately, although Iraqi Sunnis are gambling away their future they don't appear to know what the stakes are.

As for my prior post which agitated you, let me retract its harshness and stipulate, for you’re the master of the house and it’s dangerous waters to delve deep into the morality of war and its combatants, or lack thereof.

Well, then don't put Sunnis on a moral pedestal they cleary don't deserve to be put on.

As usual in this debate so far, I accept full responsibility for "my side's" criminal and counter productive activity, you don't. Worse, you denny it. Claiming that Sunnis wouldn't "contemplate" things that they are in fact doing every single day in real life doesn't give much credibility to your side of the debate.

In terms of you not liking my reasoning for the Lebanese assassination, I can’t invent another reasoning because you challenge it or don’t like it. People in forums present arguments, enjoy public discourse, converge, diverge, let things stand where they and move on. I did notice one thing though, you tend to burnish “logic’ when it suits your argument, then take a fat piss on it when it tarnishes it, nothing serious though, humans do it all the time.

I think you need to take a closer look at your own behavior here. Your pattern so far is to criticize and dismiss the other's point of view and make no effort for introspection. You concede nothing, not even the obvious (like the murderous behavior of Sunnis in Iraq, historically or presently). Whatever dispersions you wish to cast about my debate style, this clear difference between us exists.

Steve

[ December 03, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Darryl60,

As far as I can see,the only way to keep Iraq as a unified country instead of it breaking up into individual Shia,Kurdish and Sunni nations would be to install another "strongman" as leader.

This does appear to be the case. The thing is, if the US has to install a strongman in Iraq it will not be a Sunni, it will be a Shia secularist. The Sunni's time of dominance in a united Iraq is over for the near future at least. The best the Sunnis can hope for is their own state with oil rights. And the way to get that is to negotiate, since they won't get the oil rights if they lose a pitched battle with the Shias.

Steve

[Gpig]

Excellent debate.

I'm curious to hear LS's reply . . .

Gpig

[LoneSyrian]

I think you need to take a closer look at your own behavior here. Your pattern so far is to criticize and dismiss the other's point of view and make no effort for introspection. You concede nothing, not even the obvious (like the murderous behavior of Sunnis in Iraq, historically or presently). Whatever dispersions you wish to cast about my debate style, this clear difference between us exists.

Steve

Here’s some “introspection” for ya, in the last week alone, a downed F16 with its pilot KIA, a downed Chinook with 4 fatalities and a total of 20 American soldiers KIAed, all courtesy of the Anbar Sunni resistance. It don’t seem to the those who introspect you control anything in Anbar, let alone the fate of anybody. Yes, the contemporaneous military, operational fate. Anbar’s Muslims wiped that arrogant smirk off the Corp’s face in Iraq.

Crush Sunnis? Iraq's Anbar is crushing the very fabric of the entire US of A, it has polarzied your population, FUBARed your internal balance of power, cheated you out of $300 billion of tax dollars, relegated your superpower status, beset your administration with a most embarassing domino effect a la Rumsfeld and Bolton. Arabs, especially Sunnis don't feel the crush, I was in Kaaem recently and could only notice gloat and resolve.

Yes, only 0.0000000303 of Sunnis would contemplate raping and burning a 14 year-old girl, and Marines consider rape a national sport best conducted in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Okinawa, Anbar and Kuwait.

Rape to Muslims is the sewage of sewages.

Why shouldn’t I put the superiority and morality of the Sunni warrior on a pedestal, if Steve keeps purifying, aggrandizing and massaging US intensions and ends in Iraq.

Grand Solution? Constructive Chaos and mayhem. One Bush doctrine that’ll work here. Leave, let the Arabs and Iranians gouge away, Iraq’s demographics are too populace for the size of that country anyways, the cancellation of a mill or two Shiites would revive the country’s economy. Better yet, help Arab Sunnis and nuke Iran very soon. We’ll return the favor in a few years by winning and stabilizing Iraq so you can have oil @ $25 again.

[Grimm]

LoneSyrian,

Interesting debate. I'm curious as to why you chose to school in the US. Did you finish a degree here? Did you school elsewhere?

[Homo ferricus]

hmmm, it seems that for the most part, Steve's arguments have been logical and are supplemented by plenty or historical information, while LoneSyrian's seem to be vigorous propaganda and drug-induced ramblings about the glory of Sunnis, with nearly no regard for a decent and straightforward counter to Steve's points.

but again, as someone posted before, i agree that there are too many differences between American, and Sunni Arab living in Syria point of views.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by LoneSyrian:

Here’s some “introspection” for ya, in the last week alone, a downed F16 with its pilot KIA, a downed Chinook with 4 fatalities and a total of 20 American soldiers KIAed, all courtesy of the Anbar Sunni resistance. It don’t seem to the those who introspect you control anything in Anbar, let alone the fate of anybody. Yes, the contemporaneous military, operational fate. Anbar’s Muslims wiped that arrogant smirk off the Corp’s face in Iraq.

Crush Sunnis? Iraq's Anbar is crushing the very fabric of the entire US of A, it has polarzied your population, FUBARed your internal balance of power, cheated you out of $300 billion of tax dollars, relegated your superpower status, beset your administration with a most embarassing domino effect a la Rumsfeld and Bolton. Arabs, especially Sunnis don't feel the crush, I was in Kaaem recently and could only notice gloat and resolve.

Yes, only 0.0000000303 of Sunnis would contemplate raping and burning a 14 year-old girl, and Marines consider rape a national sport best conducted in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Okinawa, Anbar and Kuwait.

Rape to Muslims is the sewage of sewages.

Why shouldn’t I put the superiority and morality of the Sunni warrior on a pedestal, if Steve keeps purifying, aggrandizing and massaging US intensions and ends in Iraq.

Grand Solution? Constructive Chaos and mayhem. One Bush doctrine that’ll work here. Leave, let the Arabs and Iranians gouge away, Iraq’s demographics are too populace for the size of that country anyways, the cancellation of a mill or two Shiites would revive the country’s economy. Better yet, help Arab Sunnis and nuke Iran very soon. We’ll return the favor in a few years by winning and stabilizing Iraq so you can have oil @ $25 again.

---Well, this is stated like a true Sunni. Lone Syrian you seem very sure of the superiority of your point of view and I do not think there is any way to change that. Especially here in a forum.

But, that being said:

Any Marine or US Military servicemember who gets caught conducting the act of rape (or other violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is tried in a Court Martial. And if found guilty, they go to prison for a long time, they are stripped of their rank and entitlements they once had as a servicemember, and they are a convicted felon with a dishonorabe discharge if they ever get out of prison. Hardly a "sport". And of the hundred of thousands of US servicemembers that go to places like Okinawa, the Philipines, etc...the few that commit major crimes is a very small percentage, much less per capita than in most metropolitan cities.

As far as Sunnis conducting rape, I am sure the Shias and others have a different perspective. Saddam's sons, both Sunni, institutionalized it in Iraq. And it was a "sport" to them.

Your grand solution would probably not work in Iraq. The Sunnis are greatly outnumbered by the Shia population in Iraq. For some reason the Kurds hate the Sunnis and the Iraqi Christians hate the Sunnis too. There may be a trend here.

Regarding Al Anbar, it is hardly "crushing the very fabric of the entire US of A". Most Americans do not feel any impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at all, except for what they see on the news. It is really only being fought by military families. While the expense is very large, it is less than 4% of the US's gross national product.

"the superiority and morality of the Sunni warrior on a pedestal"...please explain this. If the "Sunni warrior" is so superior, then how did US and UK forces get into Iraq in the first place? Should'nt have the Sunni warriors counterattacked and driven the US and UK all the way to the Gulf by now? Why do Sunni insurgents resort to murder and terrorism against other Sunnis and Shia? Why to they support Al Qaida?

"Anbar’s Muslims wiped that arrogant smirk off the Corp’s face in Iraq". Right. Who knows...maybe one day the US Marines and their US Army brothers-in-arms will come visit Syria one day as well, and you can have a first hand crack at "wiping the arrogant smirk off" the US forces faces. Make sure you in good terms with Allah first.

[ December 04, 2006, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Imperial Grunt ]