 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
But - you assume the only chance of death is from US action. Quite a few Iraqis know that they have a chance of death of if the Baath takeover whether they cooperate or not. So they have more incentive to cooperate. Granted though, not too many of those people in Baiji, Tikrit or Fallujah. |
Nice annalysis, for the areas of the country, such a the Kurdish north and Shi'a south, places were the fighting has been minimal. But the fact is that a return to Baathist power is NOT guaranteed if this rebellion succeeds, since other groups have been arming and there is no, or would not be sans the coolition, a state apparatus- So if the US left, fundamentalist fundie clergy would have as good a chance as any.
quote:
Even more people who have cooperated with the coalition since April. They also are goners if the Baathists return. And we have such people almost everywhere. |
Look above.
quote:
Also, they have to evaluate the odds of the Baathists being able to carry out their threats. As a a guerrilla organization its far from foolproof - every attack on a collaborator exposes them, to yet other informants. If they can come back into complete control they can kill every informant - at least every informant they KNOW about. |
Even if not foolproof, they still outknowledge us in the areas of the rebellion, which is what matters at this point. The question, as always, is the accurate application of power, not how much power there is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
But - you assume the only chance of death is from US action. Quite a few Iraqis know that they have a chance of death of if the Baath takeover whether they cooperate or not. So they have more incentive to cooperate. Granted though, not too many of those people in Baiji, Tikrit or Fallujah. |
Nice annalysis, for the areas of the country, such a the Kurdish north and Shi'a south, places were the fighting has been minimal. But the fact is that a return to Baathist power is NOT guaranteed if this rebellion succeeds, since other groups have been arming and there is no, or would not be sans the coolition, a state apparatus- So if the US left, fundamentalist fundie clergy would have as good a chance as any.
quote:
Even more people who have cooperated with the coalition since April. They also are goners if the Baathists return. And we have such people almost everywhere. |
Look above.
quote:
Also, they have to evaluate the odds of the Baathists being able to carry out their threats. As a a guerrilla organization its far from foolproof - every attack on a collaborator exposes them, to yet other informants. If they can come back into complete control they can kill every informant - at least every informant they KNOW about. |
Even if not foolproof, they still outknowledge us in the areas of the rebellion, which is what matters at this point. The question, as always, is the accurate application of power, not how much power there is. |
IIUC, the only places where Sunni fundamentalists (fundi fundamentalists?) dominate the counterrevolution is in Falujah, and maybe Baji. In Bagdah, in Baquba, in Mosul and certainly in Tikrit the resistance is Baathist. I think the odds of the Clerics taking over the triangle are minimal - they dont have the training, the weapons caches, the moneys, the intel tradecraft, etc that the Baathist (mainly Fedayeen Saddam) have.
If we left tomorrow the Baathists would take over the Sunni Triangle from Baaji to Samarra and Baquba, and west to Falujah and Ramadi. The clerics in Falujah would go along with the Baathists, and would not be able to protect anyone from Baathist revenge (kinda like Mensheviks in Bolshevik held cities during the Russian Rev or like Cadets in white cities, if you prefer). The IGC forces backed up by the Shiite militias would keep the Baathist from taking over Baghdad, and the Kurdish Peshmergas would seize Mosul and the rest of the North. anti-colloborator atrocities would be carried out accross the triangle, while anti-baathist atrocities, perhaps degenerating into anti sunni arab atroticities, would take place in Baghdad and Mosul. The civil war would then begin - the Shiites and Kurds would win, until such point as the Sunni Arabs appeal to the region - to Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, even Syria. At that point, assuming the Americans wont come back in, the Kurds and Shia would have no choice but to call on Iran.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
IIUC, the only places where Sunni fundamentalists (fundi fundamentalists?) dominate the counterrevolution is in Falujah, and maybe Baji. In Bagdah, in Baquba, in Mosul and certainly in Tikrit the resistance is Baathist. I think the odds of the Clerics taking over the triangle are minimal - they dont have the training, the weapons caches, the moneys, the intel tradecraft, etc that the Baathist (mainly Fedayeen Saddam) have.
If we left tomorrow the Baathists would take over the Sunni Triangle from Baaji to Samarra and Baquba, and west to Falujah and Ramadi. The clerics in Falujah would go along with the Baathists, and would not be able to protect anyone from Baathist revenge (kinda like Mensheviks in Bolshevik held cities during the Russian Rev or like Cadets in white cities, if you prefer). The IGC forces backed up by the Shiite militias would keep the Baathist from taking over Baghdad, and the Kurdish Peshmergas would seize Mosul and the rest of the North. anti-colloborator atrocities would be carried out accross the triangle, while anti-baathist atrocities, perhaps degenerating into anti sunni arab atroticities, would take place in Baghdad and Mosul. The civil war would then begin - the Shiites and Kurds would win, until such point as the Sunni Arabs appeal to the region - to Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, even Syria. At that point, assuming the Americans wont come back in, the Kurds and Shia would have no choice but to call on Iran. |
While a civil war is a likely outcome of an sudden withdrawl (and might be int he cards for the future anyway), I don;t agree with how it would develop. First of all, the Turks would intervene early , to stop the Kurds from creating an independent homeland, which is what they would do, instead of fighting to be part of an Iraq if the whole thing is falling apart, and in doing this Turkey would have the support of Syria and Iran. While Sunni fundamentalist might surge into Iraq to fight against the Shia, Saudi Arabia would be very reticent to get involved directly, for that would bring in Iran on the other side. Syria has not Sunni solidarity, so they would stay out, and given their relations with Iran and Hizbullah, they are more likely to back the iranian position.
So either the foreign power come in to creat single Iraq, probably under Shia control, or you get a truncated Iraq with Shia control and a Kurdish state (less like since all the neighbors would hate this outcome most). BUt that is one issue: the Shia basically know their time has come in Iraq, and if the coolition tries to set up a gov. with "too many" rights for the Sunni minority (and perhaps even the Kurds) the Shia might think the coolition no longer worthwhile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The best possible situation is a recreation of Britain's 1932 Iraq policy where pro-western leaders are selected and then put in place. These leaders would then write a western style constitution with a western style sepporation of religion and state while we would continue to supply them with economic and military aid so they can defeat the Ba'athists and fundimentalists. |
so iraq can repeat the process again in 40 years? no thanks. reminds me of iran, and we all know how much they love us now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
BTW. According to the Geneva convention it is illegal to meddle in the politics of an occupied state. It only allows for policing to allow normal civilian life to continue as normal.
That would mean that deciding on what news are broadcast, setting up new governments, building a police force is illegal.
This is according to Claire Short, the minister of developent, sacked by Blair just before the war. In fact she thinks that a lot of the attacks are happening because of this continuing illegality by the occupying power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, AFAIK, we are abiding by the Geneva convention. In what way are we not? |
What I stated. The occupying power cannot setup a new government. Cannot set up a domestic police force.
quote:
Also, regarding "illegality," we are operating under a UN mandate. |
No.
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/guide/war-timeline.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I was right about the Iraqi resistance. I simply miscalculated the time frame.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
The VC gave us their lives, is that what you have in mind? |
That's true. A veteran said that the americans killed and killed by the millions untill they were devasted from tireness of the killing. Still, Vietnam beat you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
That's true. A veteran said that the americans killed and killed by the millions untill they were devasted from tireness of the killing. Still, Vietnam beat you. |
Vietnam didn't beat anyone. We were beaten by the Russians and Chinese. Baathists, however, don't have any big brothers backing them this time.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-11-2003 02:19
i know, lets broadcast FOX News in iraq!
|