BS?: "US Marines Are Locked In Battle With Syrian Troops"

[Colin]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Colin,

So basically what your saying is that if your ally is going to start what you think is a stupid and needless war and you can't talk them out of it, you should volunteer to fight the stupid needless war for them.

Just as a matter of interest, if you were walking down the street with your mate on a Friday night and he said " I am going to cross the street amd start a fight with those Hells Angels over there just for the hell of it", and you thought he was serious, you would say " Hell no, you stay here pal, and I'll go over and do it for you".

Peter.

Last I checked the UN was not a nation. The US is a Member State of the UN. The United Nations is a group of nations that align to progress civility on earth.

<http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html> For a brief if you'd like.

Now, I didn't recall saying at any point that the UN should have gone to war. I mentioned a policing force deployed after the major combat, as was being discussed in the thread. The UN is, or would like to be responsible for promoting humanity and equality. I personally believe, the UN should have units in Iraq. Multinational units. Comprised of members of the UN. There is a volatile situation that could use a little humanity. People are dying and need security. The US has proved that they are capable of handling the combat situations but not the policing of a nation that is unwelcoming in more then one way. As was also mentioned, its hard when the guys killing are dressed the same guys handing out food.

Now the analogy you make up is hilarious. If anything it's more like: 'you and your friend are walking through the bad part of town. A few rough looking guys are nearby and your buddy picks a fight because he think one guy knocked up his sister. He knocks 4 of the 5 guys out and you have to work the scrawny kid in the back'

Sure maybe the last guy puts on a decent fight but it ends a lot quicker then if it was just one of you.

EDIT to add this:

I guess if that situation were applied to Iraq, it'd be your friend alone after his buddies take off because he's crazy to go to that part of town. The last guy would drag the fight on for hours and then in then end you'd find out it was the wrong guy and he didn't bang the sister.

And I promised not to post at 4am.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Splinty:

Ask any of us who have been there and we'll tell you things are 100% better than they were when we got there.

Okay, you've got my curiosity up, Splinty. In what capacity were you in Iraq, and for what dates?

Michael </font>

[Bigduke6]

Colin,

The UN did not buy into the US intervention in Iraq because the bulk of the UN was convinced that either there were no WMDs, or that the inspections run by the UN were so likely to uncover WMDs, that there was little sense in going to war in Iraq.

In hindsight, that looks like a fairly reasonable policy position for the UN to have taken. They turned out to right.

I think it is unfair for you to accuse the UN of "uselessness." In the opinion of the strong majority of the U.N. membership, UN troops should not be used to supress an insurgency, and certainly cannot supress the Iraq insurgency. They see the war as a U.S. mistake, and most members reasonably ask why the UN should get its people killed and maimed, helping repair a mistake the US would never have committed, if the US had just listened to the UN.

Splinty,

Which brings me to point number two. Do you include Vietnam combat veterans into your narrow definition of people in a position to comment on Iraq and war and insurgencies and so on?

I ask because I know of one participating in this discussion, a well-read guy, he's never been to Iraq, and is nevertheless a good deal more open-minded to conflicting opinions, than you are.

He also - I am willing to bet - is old enough to be your father. It is almost certain when you were a little kid playing with trains, he was an infantryman humping in a jungle against a very capable enemy indeed who went well beyond a roadside bomb in his active efforts to kill Americans.

If I were discussing the insurgency in Iraq, I would (and do) want to hear the opinion of a guy like that. I might disagree with him (as in fact I do sometimes) but I would be a fool to just blow him off because "he's never been to Iraq."

Do you?

And if you don't, when why draw the line there? There is another person contributing to this thread who is an certified expert on the Russo-German war of WW2 which saw, in case you weren't aware, one of the biggest insurgency in history - that of the Red Army and Soviet population against Germany. But he hasn't been to Iraq. So do we erase his comments from the thread as well?

I could go on.

I don't discount your comments, indeed, I sincerely appreciate your contributing them here. I would however caution you.

"The only thing my grenadiers saw of Russia was the pack of the man in front of him" - Napoleon

Of course, maybe Napoleon had no idea about soldiers and wars. And after all, he never went to Iraq either.

Personally, Splinty, my honest wish for you is that you keep your RL head down. But when it come to the forum, let's keep the discussion as wide as possible.

[ December 01, 2005, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Peter Cairns]

Colin,

I am with bigduke, I am afraid, as Richard Attenbourgh said in Jurassic park ( in a particularly bad Scottish accent), " I don't punish people for their mistakes, but I expect them to put them right.

The idea that the Un has some kind of duty to clean up the mess left by people who start wars without it's authority is just a non starter.

Hell why not have Hitler asking the US to send the National guard to police occupied France while he gets on with invading Russia.

If you really want help to clean up Iraq all the US has to do is present a proposal to the security council asking for a UN mandate form 100,000 Iranian troops to cross the border to replace the British and take over the policing of the oil rich south.

They're local, their Sunni, their friendly to the local population, on the face of it they seem the ideal people to help out, if that is your objective is to stabalise the country for it's people as opposed to securing it as an ally.

Peter.

[Colin]

Bigduke,

I do see where you are coming from. My standpoint is a moral one. It is a shame things operate as you say they do. It is completely accurate to suggest the UN wouldn't want to help repair a situation that the US created after ignoring the UN. Now realistically, who is punished by the UN not helping to repair? Is it the US or is it the Iraqi populace? It's been three years. Bush has flown onto a carrier and announced the end of combat. The fighting continues. If you didn't notice, the majority of combat is extremely low intensity (IEDs, a sniper or two, an RPG) with the odd exception. The problem is policing now, not soldiering. The fact is the US troops are probably the worst to do this. They are unpopular. They are seen as serving a political/economic agenda at the cost of Iraqi lives.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The idea that the Un has some kind of duty to clean up the mess left by people who start wars without it's authority is just a non starter.

Hell why not have Hitler asking the US to send the National guard to police occupied France while he gets on with invading Russia.

If you really want help to clean up Iraq all the US has to do is present a proposal to the security council asking for a UN mandate form 100,000 Iranian troops to cross the border to replace the British and take over the policing of the oil rich south.

They're local, their Sunni, their friendly to the local population, on the face of it they seem the ideal people to help out, if that is your objective is to stabalise the country for it's people as opposed to securing it as an ally.

Peter.

Wow. The idea the UN is allowed to pick and choose which nations they penalize for breaching the charter is the nonstarter for me. On Sept 15 04 Kofi Annan said the US invasion was illegal and breached the UN Charter. Nothing has, or will ever result from that. I'll let you speculate why that is ($ ).

UN Charter in brief

You Hitler analogy is so convoluted it's hard to dissect it to criticize it. If you follow your analogy, the US(Bush) would be Hitler, the US National Guard would be the UN, France would be Iraq and Russia is Iran/Iraq/NK. I don't think what your saying applies here at all, no offense intended.

Now for your Iranian troops. First off, the US would never have another nation guard Iraq's oil for them. In addition, the vast majority of Iranian's are Shi'a not Sunni.

Maybe your not understanding what I'm suggesting. I don't think any one nation's troops should be doing this job. The US has had free range on the situation for too long. The best way to have troops without a political agenda to serve is a UN force.

Shoot outta battery.

[Splinty]

Splinty,

Which brings me to point number two. Do you include Vietnam combat veterans into your narrow definition of people in a position to comment on Iraq and war and insurgencies and so on?

I ask because I know of one participating in this discussion, a well-read guy, he's never been to Iraq, and is nevertheless a good deal more open-minded to conflicting opinions, than

He also - I am willing to bet - is old enough to be your father. It is almost certain when you were a little kid playing with trains, he was an infantryman humping in a jungle against a very capable enemy indeed who went well beyond a roadside bomb in his active efforts to kill Americans.

If I were discussing the insurgency in Iraq, I would (and do) want to hear the opinion of a guy like that. I might disagree with him (as in fact I do sometimes) but I would be a fool to just blow him off because "he's never been to Iraq."

I will always listen to another combat vet, after all they've "been there and done that" For that matter I will always listen to anyone who has an informed opinion, that's why I have been following this thread since it started and waited days to post anything.

As for the "roadside bomb" comment, I believe the insurgency in Iraq has been doing alot more than planting IEDs, at Camp Dogwood we were rocketed and/or mortared almost nightly, at Baghdad Int'l AP, Al-Sadrs brigades attacked the front gates on the day before we were supposed to convoy back to Kuwait to go home, and in Mosul we had at least 10 night attacks in the 4 months I was there.

I'm just a little sick of the negative opinions of people who only hear what the politicians and pundits say on T.V. I'm also sure that some returning Iraq vets have completely different views than my own. My veiwpoint is based on what I saw and did along with the opinions and viewpoints of the people who went with me, and others I've spoken to who were also there.

BTW I'm 45, not old enough to have been to VietNam, but old enough to have been trained by VietNam vets. (I joined the Army in 1980)

[Battlefront.com]

In some ways things in Iraq are indeed improved. However, in some other ways things are just as bad if not worse. Most senior level commanders I've heard speak, including some in person, talk of "lost opportunities" and the looming spectre of a civil war. The recent uncovering of Iraqi Ministry of Interior death and torture ops does not bode well for the future.

As Cpl. Steiner said, the correct way to assess whether we should remain in Iraq is if we think we can ultimately succeed in creating a stable and moderate (by ME standards, not Western Europe IMHO) centralized authority. If we don't have a plan to do that, then we should leave ASAP and not waste another drop of blood or penny of the taxpayer's overdrawn money.

The pressure on the Admin right now is to prove they have a workable plan. "Stay the course" is not good enough since nearly all experts I've ever heard speak are skeptical, at best, that things are going in the right direction overally. Yes, in some ways things are better... but if a civil war comes about those modest gains will be wiped out very quickly. Just like winning some battles and losing the war.

One thing is very clear, the centralized rebuilding effort currently in place is a disaster. The level of corruption and incompetence is astounding. Just yesterday I was reminded of that. Personally I know a large US company, with government contract ties going back 60+ years, recently pulled its people out of large project in Basra. Safety reasons? Nope. It's because they weren't paid for a large Baghdad project they did last year and had no confidence things would get straightened out. So they pulled out. While there are literally billions of Dollars sitting around for reconstruction, the distribution of that money is horribly managed. The Congress agrees with the experts, so this is not a personal opinon.

Problem is that the first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem. The second step is creating a plan that fits the problem's needs. Then the step after that is executing that plan effectively, then managing the follow up process. The Admin has not admitted there is a problem, and that means the process stops right there. So I have a pretty good level of confidence that the US and its allies are CAPABLE of leaving Iraq in a lot better shape than it was before, I am not confident they will.

Anyway, we're really getting off topic here.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

The fact that the new Iraqi government is using "death squads" against opponents does not bode well for the future.

Killings linked to Shiite squads in Iraqi Police Force

[Battlefront.com]

Splinty,

I'm also sure that some returning Iraq vets have completely different views than my own.

The interesting thing I've seen is the difference in opinions from returning vets based on three factors:

1. Where they were located.

2. When they were located there.

3. What their position was while there.

I've seen totally different opinions from guys in the north vs. the south, first year of the war vs. present, foot soldier or battalion S2. In their own way all of these guys are probably more or less correct, but how their opinions match the Big Picture is less certain.

What I have noticed is a trend. The soldiers that were in OIF1 and left have a generally more positive outlook on things. The ones in theater now do as well. The ones that were in during OIF1 and OIF2, or have gone back for another rotation, have a more negative outlook. That is because those guys saw how things were and how things are now. Again, this is just my impression and is in no way scientific.

I've also noticed that as you go up the chain of command things are also different. The SGT who is in the thick of the small details tends to think things are going pretty well overall. The Captains and Majors don't seem as optimisitic, especially the ones that have retired since their deployments. Colonels and Generals rarely go on the record due to career issues, and when they do they show guarded optimisim at worst. However, ones that have recently retired have said some rather interesting things that are quite troubling at times.

My point is that a lot of guys who have been in Iraq (either as soldiers or government experts) are saying a lot of things that should give the civilian policy makers serious doubt that the current plan is working. This doubt should be explored and debated openly and honestly, at least within the policy making circle. It is this sort of critical thinking and reevaluation that is required to acheive success in such a situation as we find ourselves in Iraq today. The problem is that all indications are that this is NOT happening, or at best is only starting to now that public support is evaporating and Congress has rediscovered their duty for oversight of the Executive Branch.

Steve

[ December 01, 2005, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and Splinty... thanks for reminding people that Insurgents (or whatever Rummy wants to call them now ) aren't just using IEDs and small scale sniper attacks. While that is the more common tactic in most places most of the time recently, it certainly isn't the only thing that is going on now and certainly not in the past. Mortars and rocket attacks are actually quite common in some places. In fact, there was a mortar attack just yesterday on a building where US Army and local civilian leaders were meeting. Ineffective most of the time, but still a threat.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

The BBc carried a report on the Iraqi army tonight with them saying that they thought they would be ready to fully take over in about two years.

I'll make three predictions,

1) Within about two years the Iraqi army will take over most of the fighting (fairly sure).

2) Regardless of what the Iraqi army says , they won't be ready ( really sure)

3) Within two years of taking over the Iraqi army will be the government (less sure).

Peter.

[Sgt Joch]

I posted this earlier, but the growing reports that the Iraqi government is semi-officially using police "death squads" is a shocking development. As many as 700 Sunni men are alleged to have been kidnapped and killed.

It looks like a deliberate attempt by the Shiite government to intimidate the Sunni population.

In my naive small "l" liberal fashion, I had hoped that somehow Iraq could become a semi-democratic country like Turkey or Pakistan, but now that the "new" Iraqi goverment is already using such brutal repressive methods against the Sunni minority, I don't see how this could lead to anything but a bloody civil war.

Killings linked to Shiite Squads in Iraqi Police Force

Sunnis accuse Iraqi Military of Kidnappings and Slayings

[Peter Cairns]

Firstly my mistake I got Sunni and shia mixed up the south is of course Shia,

Given that Iraq itself is an artifical construct less than 100 years old, I think the option of partition should have been looked at.

I know the US was dead against it as it wanted a strong stable iraq as a buffer against Iran, but a seperate Kurdish state in the North and handing the ground up to North of Basra to Kuwait to form an oil rich "Greater Kuwait", Leaving a Sunni "mini- Iraq", would probably have been a lot more stable.

Of course we may end up with that pretty soon anyway.

[Battlefront.com]

JC,

The situation is far more confusing than this. There is no one

"Iraqi government". It is instead a bunch of different groups operating under one lable. It is suspected that the death squads are made up mostly of Islamic militants which are operating under the direction (directly or indirectly) of Iran. All they had to do is sign up for the police and then take orders from a parallel authority.

Remember, before the Saddam government collapsed there was no unified opposition group. Instead there were many different groups and factions within those groups. Religion, ethnic identity, and "clans" are just some of the things that define these groups. Chaos should be been anticipated for many, many years simply because there is no one group to put into power. My hope was that there would be a period of instability that would eventually shake out the extremists and leave a somewhat decent cental government in 10-20 years. But the early mistakes of the Bush Admin's policy (either in theory or execution or both) has put all of this behind schedule. It is no longer clear that the country will retain this new government long enough to actually become a decent rulling body. Civil War is becoming increasingly more likely.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Steve,

I basically agree with your assessment. We will have to see what happens.

You realize of course that this thread has long ago crossed the line into pure politics and now has only the remotest link to CMSF.

[Sirocco]

The ironic thing is Iran will be the real long term winner, with a hand in southern Iraq that it couldn't otherwise have hoped for.

I imagine the dilemna for the coalition is how to pull out of there, knowing the security forces have been infiltrated to a large degree by pro-Iranian forces.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I think your wromg about direction from Iran, sure they are involved and would love that kind of influence but they just don't have it. A beeter analogy for me is with Pakistan and the resistance in Afghanistan.

They armed and supported both what became the Northern Alliance, though they never had any real control, and then later they all but created the Talaban.

However these groups took on a life of their own and went their own way, (Hell Mossad originally backed and funded Hezbollah as a way of undermining the PLO and look how that ended up).

For me Iraq is as you say a mass of disperate factions, under the banner of a government who are all tying to get there share of power, and would pretty much cut each others throats to get it, but much as I say they'd like to if Iran is pulling any strings its more like trying to land a Marlin, that control a puppet.

Thats one of the reasons I feel that an army strong enough to take over the fight and take on the insurgency is probably the only thing strong enough to hold the country together.

And that opens up the prospect of the Kurds going their own way, which would have us back to Saddams days in no time.

People are joining the police and army for the money and little else and have little loyalty to the state as such. like many middleeastern societies they have loyalty to the extended family , the tride the local Iman, a particular Mosque or faction and a ethnic or regional group, even a political party.

In some respects like the Balkans, the nation was held together by an authoritarian central government and when it and it's propoganda were swept away we discovered ( to late as by that time we occupied the place) that Iraq as anything more than a piece of land defined by it's neighbours borders, didn't actually exist.

Maybe like the USSR and Yugoslavia these were to coin a phrase "Snowman Countries", once we turned up the heat and the thaw set in, they just melted away. The only way to get it back is to put a freeze on freedom and bring back Jack frost, be he Saddam, Tito or Putin.

Pretty depressing, but hell my wife has a day off tommorrow, and we are going "Christmas shopping" so I am in that kind of mood.

Peter.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Good analysis, but I would say civil war is already in progress. Forget the U.S. casualties, Iraqis are getting bumped off left and right. Several of the factions are using U.S. troops for their own ends, but none of the factions has the end goal of a free democratic unified Iraq.

[Battlefront.com]

You realize of course that this thread has long ago crossed the line into pure politics and now has only the remotest link to CMSF.

WAY off topic indeed However, this is a civil and interesting discussion of the issues of instability in the wake of a military operation. I think I'll leave it unlocked for a while. However, try to keep the nature of political commentary relevant. For example, I have stated that many experts feel the current Admin's policies are flawed and inadequate, but I haven't gone the next step to point fingers as to why it is what it is. That is an entirely different thing and not something I want to see here.

Peter, I think there is a lot of evidence mounting that the relationship between Iran and various factions in Iraq is far deeper than simply providing some logistical aide. So I'd say it is more like Mujahadeen and Pakistan than Northern Alliance and Pakistan. But whatever the case may be, Iran is a player in this in some way.

Bigduke6, I agree that there is an active attempt to create a civil war. What remains to be seen is if the central government can harden up faster than the factions pursuing civil war gain momentum. The jury is still out, so hopefully things are still recoverable.

Steve

[ December 02, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Nidan1]

Ten Marines reported killed by an IED near Fallujah...this looks like the tactic and delivery system of choice for the insurgents.

I don't expect too many more pitched battles, like last year. However the constant negative impact of this type of news can only strengthen those who support a pull out of US Forces sooner rather than later.

Militarily the insurgent factions cannot stand up to the US, but they can effect US public opinion a la 1968. Whether the US is winning or not doesnt matter, when the will of the US public is strained to the limit.

[MikeyD]

Marines have been getting the short end of the stick for awhile, casualty-wise. I thought I heard once that if you were to tabulate the likelyhood of being a casualty by percentage-of-service-arm-in-theater (sorry for the awkward phrase) it would work out to Marines most dangerous, followed by National Guard/Reserve, then Army.

One disturbing trend in Pentagon press releases lately. They're now stressing how many of the wounded in any engagement were quickly returned to duty. This gives me the creeps, its enough to make you flashback to the bad-old Vietnam days, where it'd be more than likely some ambitious mid-level apple-polisher colonel was presssuring his subordinates to push the wounded back into the field in order just to make the press releases appear better.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Marines have been getting the short end of the stick for awhile, casualty-wise. I thought I heard once that if you were to tabulate the likelyhood of being a casualty by percentage-of-service-arm-in-theater (sorry for the awkward phrase) it would work out to Marines most dangerous, followed by National Guard/Reserve, then Army.

One disturbing trend in Pentagon press releases lately. They're now stressing how many of the wounded in any engagement were quickly returned to duty. This gives me the creeps, its enough to make you flashback to the bad-old Vietnam days, where it'd be more than likely some ambitious mid-level apple-polisher colonel was presssuring his subordinates to push the wounded back into the field in order just to make the press releases appear better.

I was watching a program in the UK recently about American casualties, and a guy fitting artificial limbs to wounded soldiers boasted that they were so good you could return to duty with one. Some soldiers have apparently already been sent back into action with artificial limbs.

Well, you might be able to get around, but would you really be able to cope psychologically? This sounds pretty crazy to me. The guy said the army was hoping that eventually they would be able to return as many as 40% of amputees to their units. This sounds utterly bizarre to me.

[Bigduke6]

My opinion, this discussion is staying (mostly) civil because the topic has become the capacity of a top-end military of fighting an insurgency, rather than who's going to take the fall in U.S. politics. Well done all!

You want disturbing trends, check out this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1202/p01s01-woiq.html

Whatever the danger for the U.S. forces really is, it is nothing compare to the danger of being an Iraq civilian. Never mind a member of the civil administration. People are dying left and right, and the only way to be reasonably confident you are going to stay alive against other Iraqis is by arming yourself to the teeth. The Americans can't protect you, they're too busy "preserving the force" and "seeking out the enemy."

I disagree with Nidan1. The problem is not U.S. public opinion. U.S. public opinion is very rational. Results guarantee continued public support. Absence of results generates a loss of public support.

The result needed is a stable Iraq, and that doesn't mean wherever the U.S. units happen to be. It means Iraqis safe in their country, period, on their own, without some one holding their hand. Where banks don't get robbed in broad daylight, vendetta murders take place with zero investigation or punishment, and parents can send their kids to school with the reasonable hope that the kid will return in the evening, and also that the education will probably improve the kid's life.

The U.S. publi may not have thought through what is and is not acceptable to the average Iraqi so that the Iraqi thinks his country is safe, but the U.S. public is certainly intelligent to know that if the insurgents keep on killing Americans, and killing them and killing them, then something is basically wrong.

As it is there is at minimum a low intensity civil war in progress, and if you assume that the murders throughout Iraq are the tip of an iceberg, it's a medium intensity civil war with Americans running around on the side sticking their hand into the fighting from time to time.

As long as the insurgency goes on, the U.S. soldiers keep dying. (Also lots more Iraqis, but U.S. public opinion doesn't care about that.)

The insurgency is looking more and more to be unbeatable by military means. The only question to my mind is going to be how many more Americans die before that sinks in to enough American voters, to force the government to get the heck out.

MickyD,

What makes you think careerism has fallen in the U.S. military, since the 1970s? How many officers right now support the war, because they need their ticket punched?

[Battlefront.com]

Bigduke6, agreed. However, it can probably be said that no insurgency can be quelled by an occupying military through force alone. At least I know of none in history that has ever been. Some have been driven to the point of irrelevancy, but not defeated as such in a military manner. The simple reason is that insurgents don't have the same standards or timetable for victory that an occupying force does.

An occupying force needs to satisfy the local public opinion as well as the opinion of its home country. An insurgent force doesn't need to satisfy any public opinon, local or otherwise. Any slipups of the occupation force are scrutinized with attempts to hold it accountable. Insurgents operate outside of that loop. Even wreckless military forces, such as the Russians in Chechniya, have to worry about these things, while no insurgency has to. Worse yet, the best way to shut down local opposition is to enlist the aid of the locals themselves. However, this makes them a prime target for the insurgents, which has the effect of disuading others and discouraging those who aren't. It also keeps the focus on the insurgents and not on things like better schools, economic stimulus, etc.

In short, the odds are in the favor of the insurgent and against the occupation force. The higher level planners should have understood that a) an insurgency was almost a certainty in some form, that it would be extremely hard to put down, and c) time always works against the occuppation.

What I hope is that people are taking lessons from this. As I see it the only way to conduct a nation building campaign like this is through overwhelming support of the world community, in particular the neighboring countries. The more sympathy there is on the borders, the more problems one should expect. On top of this support there should also be overwhelming military presence. One of the most common complaints from mid level soldiers in Iraq (LTs and Captains in particular) is that whenever they leave a place it gets repopulated by bad guys extremely quickly. The solution is to never leave, and in order to do that you need to have troop levels to cover pretty much everywhere all the time. There also needs to be an efficient flood of aid to rebuild and restructure the government, people's lives, and society as a whole. This comes in the form of money but also training (and NOT just military training). As much of the work as possible should be done locally and NOT forced from the outside, since locals need to take ownership of reconstruction from the get go. And finally, the public that has been asked to support the war also needs to also be asked to support the nation building that follows. This means being far thinking with planning and very honest with the public. The public is going to find out they were hoodwinked sooner rather than later, so best not to do it.

Even if all of this stuff is done, and done right, it will likely be a long and tough haul. My concern, since a few weeks into OIF, is that the concepts I just outlined weren't considered as important as blowing stuff up. In terms of neighboring support, we didn't have it then and we certainly don't have it now. That will likely never be able to be made good on, but the other stuff could be. Even coming clean with the public can still be acheived. The willingness to do what needs to be done, however, appears to be lacking. Looks like the "easier" route of sticking to a broken plan that never had a chance of working is what we're stuck with.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I agree on one thing and sort of disagree on another.

Firstly agreement. The support of the international community, the local population and especially neighbours are wanted for success but not essential, though it's difficult to get by without any.

In the case of Iraq, it's clear that at the strategic level the Bush administration just couldn't have looked at in this way ( thats not a political attack just a judgement).

Of the near neighbours they had branded the Syrians and Iranians virtually as enemies, so their goes neighbour support.

Next the group, within Iraq, most in favour of toppling Saddam, the Kurds, wanted their own state, which was anathema to the Turks the northern neighbour. In the south the Shia's had a close affinity with Iran, who were anathema to the Bush administration.

Add this to the general hostility of key allies, for whatever reasons, and the general reluctance of the UN to sanction any encroachment of national borders ( hardly susrprising from abody made up of soverign states) and it's hard to see how they came to believe it would all fall in to place post invasion.

Now the disagreement. On Iranian involvement.

As I see it the Iranians want to see a strong pro Iranian, islamic Shia dominated Iraq with no independant Kurdish state. To achieve this they want to support, encourage, and nurture pro Iranain Shia party's, which they would do in part through military support and logistics.

As part of this is is almost certainly the case that they want to gain as much control politically as possible in the south and to as actively as possible aid armed Shia groups fighting the Sunnis.

In this respect engaging the Britrish in the south isn't really in their interest. The sooner they get the British to hand over security in the south to Iraqi forces that they can influence and direct the better.

Thats why I tend to take the view that their actual support is real but their control of what actually happend on the ground is limited.

As to central Iraq, for me the smart game from an Iranian point of view is to help the Shia take out Sunni's ( torture imprisonment, death squads) while doing nothing to stop Sunni's trying to kill Anericans.

This for me is in some ways supported by the idea of different militant groups having a turf war for Bagdhad. For Iran, Shia control of the centre and a pro Iranian regeme in the aftermath of the US withdrawl is the prize, so The US working with and coming to rely on a Shai dominated army is a good thing.

For these reasons I dont see it as being in Irans interest to get involved or support attacks on US forces. Iran wants you out and the Shias in control. For me their main target is the Sunni's and whats left of the Baath Party.

Whether they can coordinate or even get that message to the disperate groups on the ground is another matter.

Of course just as Iraq is politically fractured and riven, so is Iran, so there may well de different groups who have different objectives. Whether it be the Iraqi exiles you still have a support base in Iran or the more militant elements, there is for me a difference between "support from Iran" and "Iranain Support".

Indeed there is an arguement for believing that at least some of the Iraqi's getting support from within Iran are doing things that are not in any way in Irans interests.

I tend to be wary of believing in a monolithic enemy with an evil purpose, as opposed to a much more fluid and fractured picture, I am no more convinced by the Axis of Evil, than by the Red Menace, that lumped China and the USSR in as a single enemy.

Peter.