History of Suppressing Insurgencies

[Witling]

A Christian Science Monitor article. I think the article is nuetral. But one thing it says, "Communication is more imporatant than tanks." So much for the new "Iron Hammer" operation. Monitor article.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Whitling
A Christian Science Monitor article. I think the article is nuetral. But one thing it says, "Communication is more imporatant than tanks." So much for the new "Iron Hammer" operation. Monitor article.

There is a time and a place for both and since we are using the article as gospel:

Lessons from past counter-insurgency campaigns - from the 1950s Malayan Emergency to Vietnam - suggest that success will require a broad civil-military strategy that emphasizes political and economic development and patient police work as much as infantry kicking in doors and hunting down guerrillas.

 

[Witling]

Ultra Quiet? Would that it were so.

 

[chess9]

Here's what I don't understand:

The Bush Administration wants a democratic government. But the majority of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims who have little love for the U.S. and its support for Israel. Assuming, just for laughs, that a democratic government is actually "elected"-and even in the very loose manner we know the neo-cons are using the term-how will a Shiite government in Iraq make the Middle East more stable? We would have to stay there for generations to overcome this obstacle of Shiite intransigence, in my view. Yet Bremer, the neocons and many of the political pundits completely ignore this issue as though democracy were going to be a natural consequence of us being there. I believe in magic, but not a truly democratic Iraq. Color me skeptical.

So, who here is the Iraqi expert who can point to an "upgrade path" for the Iraqi Shiite 7th century A.D. "computer?

-Robert

 

[CaptnKirk]

Their history is one of constant conflict. Supression and occupation is all that the region has known - historicaly since Biblical times.
Fall of Babel, Ottoman Empire, Turkish Taffy, Spanish Fly - the list goes on.

We've been doing things our way since 1776, we have 227 years experience telling people how we want it done.

They have 3,000+ years of saying "NO" - will we still be there in 20 years ? They will, they have all the time.

Doesn't matter when we leave or how we leave - they will still be there.

 

[VioletAura]

Originally posted by: chess9
Here's what I don't understand:

The Bush Administration wants a democratic government. But the majority of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims who have little love for the U.S. and its support for Israel. Assuming, just for laughs, that a democratic government is actually "elected"-and even in the very loose manner we know the neo-cons are using the term-how will a Shiite government in Iraq make the Middle East more stable? We would have to stay there for generations to overcome this obstacle of Shiite intransigence, in my view. Yet Bremer, the neocons and many of the political pundits completely ignore this issue as though democracy were going to be a natural consequence of us being there. I believe in magic, but not a truly democratic Iraq. Color me skeptical.

So, who here is the Iraqi expert who can point to an "upgrade path" for the Iraqi Shiite 7th century A.D. "computer?

-Robert

Bush set himself up to fall flat on his face. The Iranian influences that Saddam had suppressed are now on the loose. An Islamic shi'ite gov't in a country that loathes the US is not going to make the region more stable, and will definitely be a problem for the US in years to come. Unless the US really plans to set up a puppet gov't in the guise of democracy, this isn't going to work and short sighted bush would see why his predecessors not only allowed Saddam to stay in power, but actually helped him stay in power.