28-04-2004 23:15									#91
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Americans are doing good things in Fallujah. They are fighting against the people who would destroy the new Iraq, which I beleive the majority of Iraqis want. In the course of this civilians are being killed which is a tragedy. But its a result of the good things the Americans are doing.

Do most Iraqis want the same new Iraq we are building? Do we even know what kind of new Iraq we are building? I don't think we do. Besides, we set to create a new Iraq by force-no kidding then we would meet armed resistance by those that benefited from the old Iraq.

	28-04-2004 23:35									#92
	Support Apolyton

The fundamental problem is that there is no new Iraq which any sufficient body of Iraqis want.

If it were otherwise they would have created this new Iraq long ago and would not have been stuck with Saddam Hussein.

And that is why any attempt to put a constitution in place now is doomed.

Traditionally, from the point they had reached, their next step would be for some dictator to be effective enough to found a short lived dynasty. Then, eventually, a dynasty would last long enough to win a sufficient allegiance to weaken the hold of tribal loyalties. Gradually a nation state would emerge with a stable form of government and a set of institutions would evolve which support it.

Saddam Husein didn't look anything like well enough established to have got them even to the first stage of that particular process. In time his grip would have slackened and he would have been deposed by the next strong man.

To think that somehow it might be possible to go from where they are and to leapfrog all the intervening stages so as to create a complex form of government is silly. There is no case (well, just conceivably one) where it has happened and common sense suggests half a hundred reasons why that should be so.

The survey that came out a while ago showed that Iraqis understand all this perfectly well. A very large majority said that a strong man was needed to establish and maintain order.

Conceivably he will demonstrate his strength through establishing leadership of the opposition to the occupying forces. A costly process if so it proves.

Hard to imagine how else it will occur.

	28-04-2004 23:49									#93
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader --- The proposition that removing Saddam Hussein for the benefit of the Iraqi people would be a good idea was never advanced before all this started. Raising it now is, I am afraid, just a lame excuse. It is a collateral benefit that happens to have flowed from events. As the main benefit which was sought has turned out to be no benefit at all it is the only good thing which has inured. ---

It seems like they found the WMDs on Monday. Too bad they were boobie trapped...

	28-04-2004 23:49									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap LoTM: so I assume you believe posting the opinion of one Iraqi proves your point? Why not post the invariable other side, and compare? Or is that too bothersome to do?

I merely wanted to introduce one more datum into the discussion. Im sure you, or Spiff, or EST or Boris, are quite capable of posting other data, if you think what I post is misleading. I note that when Spiff posted his article you did not ask him to post the other side - did you really think there was no other side.

So dont play rhetorical games by asking me to do your research for you.

I know there are Iraqis who sympathize with the insurgents. Hell, there are Iraqis who ARE insurgents. I could have just posted poll data, but we've all been through that before. I found an anecdotal point much more interesting, and challenging to the notion expressed here that "Well its an occupation, and when someone occupies you, your against it" Obviously the situation is much more complex. When youre occupied, you look to see what the occupation is leading to, and whether its going to lead your betterment or not. Different classes, regions, ethnic groups, etc will make different choices, depending on their situation.


Someone mentioned Mississippi. When the US occupied Miss, in 1865, at least 50% or so of the population of Miss supported the occupation. Thats cause about 50% of the population of Miss were Black. In Tennesee and North Carolina large numbers of mountain people who had either opposed the CSA or had been lukewarm toward it, cooperated with the occupation as well. As did even many lowland white Southerners, when they determined what deals they could cut.

Nonetheless eventually the occupation failed - while the South remained in the union, power was handed back to the "bitterenders". That was due primarily to a failure of Northern will however.

	28-04-2004 23:56									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader The fundamental problem is that there is no new Iraq which any sufficient body of Iraqis want. If it were otherwise they would have created this new Iraq long ago and would not have been stuck with Saddam Hussein. And that is why any attempt to put a constitution in place now is doomed. Traditionally, from the point they had reached, their next step would be for some dictator to be effective enough to found a short lived dynasty. Then, eventually, a dynasty would last long enough to win a sufficient allegiance to weaken the hold of tribal loyalties. Gradually a nation state would emerge with a stable form of government and a set of institutions would evolve which support it. Saddam Husein didn't look anything like well enough established to have got them even to the first stage of that particular process. In time his grip would have slackened and he would have been deposed by the next strong man. To think that somehow it might be possible to go from where they are and to leapfrog all the intervening stages so as to create a complex form of government is silly. There is no case (well, just conceivably one) where it has happened and common sense suggests half a hundred reasons why that should be so. The survey that came out a while ago showed that Iraqis understand all this perfectly well. A very large majority said that a strong man was needed to establish and maintain order. Conceivably he will demonstrate his strength through establishing leadership of the opposition to the occupying forces. A costly process if so it proves. Hard to imagine how else it will occur.

I am not going to debate the full nature of political evolution throughout history with you.

I was making two simple points
1. The US will evaluate this enterprise when it is finished. It is way too early to do that. You may believe that you dont need to wait for the empirical results, since you have a model of political evolution that enables you to understand what will happen a priori.
2. This is sui generis anyway. The antiwar people may have discounted it, and the more gung ho hawks may not have cared, but for the "swing" segments of opinion in the US, the legal issues relating to Gulf War 1, and the following UNSC resolutions mattered. There is no other state in an analogous situation. Not Syria, not Iran, not Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia. IF the US ever launches another attempt at regime change it will be in a situation of a much more dramatic and obvious casus belli (doesnt mean some folks wont contest it). But i didnt need to wait till now to tell you that. I could have told you that in January 2003.

	29-04-2004 00:00									#96
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap Do most Iraqis want the same new Iraq we are building? Do we even know what kind of new Iraq we are building? I don't think we do. Besides, we set to create a new Iraq by force-no kidding then we would meet armed resistance by those that benefited from the old Iraq.

We gave Fallujah its chance: 82nd Airborne basically stayed away the whole time. They didn't use their chance, now it's time to pay.

It appears to me the Fallujites are just a bunch of sado-masochists: the more you beat them up, the more they respect you. But the more nicer you treat them, the more belligerent they get.

	29-04-2004 00:03									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap LoTM: so I assume you believe posting the opinion of one Iraqi proves your point? Why not post the invariable other side, and compare? Or is that too bothersome to do?

Heres the NYT

quote: Firefight damages mosque; residents turning on al-Sadr By John F. Burns The New York Times BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A protracted firefight between Marines and insurgents in a Fallujah suburb on Monday culminated with U.S. helicopter gunships and tanks firing at a mosque and toppling the minaret, further dimming hopes for a peaceful end to the three-week siege. The U.S. command said that the battle erupted when insurgents, breaching a shaky cease-fire in Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, used the mosque to launch rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire at Marine positions. After two hours, pinned down by fire, the Marines called in helicopters and tanks, which directed "suppressing fire" at the mosque, the command said. One U.S. Marine was killed and eight others wounded in the battle, which also killed eight insurgents, an American spokesman said. He said commanders still intended to go ahead with a plan to send U.S. troops on joint patrols with Iraqi security forces into contested parts of the city. But that plan, put forward by Fallujah civic leaders on Sunday to avert an American invasion of the city, appeared to be in jeopardy. With Iraq's prospects of resuming progress toward a peaceful handover of sovereignty on June 30 hanging uneasily in the balance, developments in Fallujah were echoed by fresh tensions at Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, that has been the focal point of a separate confrontation. At nightfall on Monday, Najaf residents said a major battle was being fought on a key highway leading to the city by U.S. troops and militiamen loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite cleric who has holed up in Najaf and adjacent Kufa. Sketchy reports of the Najaf battle suggested that al-Sadr's fighters had taken heavy casualties from U.S. ground troops and helicopter gunships. In another development the Americans were watching, reports from inside Najaf said that the growing anger of residents there against al-Sadr and his men, who have sown a pattern of lawlessness since their uprising in the city began earlier this month, had taken a startling new turn, with a shadowy group killing at least five militiamen on Sunday and Monday. These reports, from residents who reached relatives in Baghdad by telephone, said that the killers called themselves the Thulfiqar Army, after a two-bladed sword that Shiite tradition says was used by the patron saint of Shiism, Imam Ali, the martyred son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed. The group distributed leaflets in Najaf threatening to kill members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army unless they fled Najaf immediately, according to accounts. One Najaf resident said that some of al-Sadr's militiamen were shedding the black clothing that has been their signature. The same resident said he knew of two killings of Mahdi Army members on Sunday and that three others had been killed later on Sunday or Monday. If reports of violence against al-Sadr's followers suggested that the American occupiers might be seeing the beginnings of Iraqis taking action of their own to curb the cleric -- as L. Paul Bremer, the chief American administrator, has urged -- events in Baghdad on Monday underscored how potent a force al-Sadr remains, at least among many volatile young Shiites who have found a release from their impoverishment in the cleric's anti-American oratory.

	29-04-2004 00:06									#98
	Tired of ads?

Oh goody, another militia! A blow is struck for law and order! And of course, we know this new group will welcome US forces with open arms if they marhc into Najaf like has occured in fallujah!



Oh, and you failed to answer my message-o do you not read blogs by Iraqis who aren't pro-occupation in some way?

	29-04-2004 00:08									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

LOTM, that's indeed good news. Sadr's henchmen are nothing but a bunch brain-washed riffraffs. Having them control over cities will undoubtedly create big mess there. We don't have to move against Najaf, just to keep Sadr holed up there so he can't create mess somewhere else.

	29-04-2004 00:11									#100
	Got spare money?

I got a bit worried about the US when you put up with the behaviour of your present president. But he has done nothing threatening for quite a while now so I was making my way back to my previous sense of cousinly fellow feeling little by little.

But the attitudes which all this is bringing into view are thoroughly disturbing from the point of all the rest of us.

I suppose I had better just hope it is not a regme here you next decide you don't like and some other place where you decide Oerdin had better be sent.

The US is a young nation and confidance is one of the attractive qualities of the young.

Just right now, though, I hope those among you who are willing to entertain doubts speak their doubts nice and clearly.

This is an unholy mess. It wants thoroughgoing recognition as just exactly that.

	29-04-2004 00:12									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yes, its so much better that opposing shiite militants set up their own armed gangs, cause when the power transfer comes, they will undoubtedly drop their weapons and become law abbiding citizens.....

If anyone remmebers, Sadr's gangs began when he was the only one providing security for Sadr City right after Baghdad fell.

	29-04-2004 00:13									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I question the reliability of that report. It just doesn't match what I have actually seen here in Iraq. I admite that I haven't been to the city of Fallujah but I seriously doubt the Army's rules of engagement or it's punishment for breaking them are all that different.

	29-04-2004 00:20									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap Oh goody, another militia! A blow is struck for law and order! And of course, we know this new group will welcome US forces with open arms if they marhc into Najaf like has occured in fallujah! Oh, and you failed to answer my message-o do you not read blogs by Iraqis who aren't pro-occupation in some way?

Salaam Pax is pretty good, and he was anti invasion before it happened, and is pretty skeptical about the CPA now. But he does think the occupation is a good thing, net-net, even if he thinks its being horribly managed. Anyway, hes out of Iraq lately.

Only notable Iraqi blogger I know of who's anti-occupation is Riverbend. I read her enough to get the flavor. Id be truely surprised if shes changed her mind lately. Like I said, i recognize that her point of view exists. In fact I think it well reflect between a quarter and a half of the Sunni Arab population (i think weve been through the numners before) If you care to post quotes from her, be my guest.

	29-04-2004 00:20									#104
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader I got a bit worried about the US when you put up with the behaviour of your present president. But he has done nothing threatening for quite a while now

You just wait until they start putting liberals and lefties in the bonfires to cleanse our sins and save our souls or send us to hell where we belong.

	29-04-2004 00:22									#105
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Oh goody, another militia! A blow is struck for law and order! And of course, we know this new group will welcome US forces with open arms if they marhc into Najaf like has occured in fallujah! :

Dont know that US forces ever will march into Najaf. Question is how will these guys relate to Iraqi forces that go in. All depends on Sistani, I think.

	29-04-2004 00:25									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

One wonders who is organizing this new army. Either way it is not a great thing, even a good thing this is happening in Najaf. At best, it is a new variable to keep in mind, like we didn't have enough of these.

	29-04-2004 00:25									#107
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Ollie: Excellent picture

Yes, the bastards could show a bit more gratitude. Given the way they handled the Iran-Iraq war, and the Shiite and Kurd uprising in 1991, and Saddam's purge of the Republican Guard in 1996, they should be grateful we don't use their beloved former leader's methods on them pour encourager les outres.

quote: I must admit there is something I really loathe in the way Americans see their war, it is their absolute belief to be right, to bring all that is great and good for the targets. I heard it being called the "messianic vocation" of the US, and I think it is spot-on.

Some people feel the need to believe the US is right and noble in what it does. I'm just concerned with the effective projection of power. You might not like it if more people had my point of view.

quote: If it wasn't for the incomparable belief to be right, maybe the Americans would avoid slaughtering Civilians, and dismiss that slaughter under the PC word of "colateral damage". But for this, they'd have to tolerate the idea their methods could be wrong.

If we were slaughtering civilians, and not concerned about avoiding doing so, we could easily have liquidated the entire population of Fallujah by now. And the rest of the world doesn't have a collective ball between it to do anything substantive about it. Challenge us militarily? Trade sanctions? Over a bunch of dead brown people?

That's the real sad part - the rest of the world (you people have some say in who your leaders are, right? ) won't sacrifice it's economic convenience or national agendas no matter how many dirty, grubby third-world types get killed. Lucky for you, you all get to wring your hands and gnash your teeth, but we really don't kill enough of them for your leaders to even have to make excuses to you for doing nothing about it.

Oh, and while everyone's on their soap box about civilian casualties, where is the condemnation and outrage against arab fighters (Iraqi and otherwise) who attack from civilian areas and attempt to use the civilian population as shields? Your protestations are ineffective and have no effect on anyone, so why not distribute them against all parties who put civilians at risk, in proportionate to the manner in which each party puts civilians at risk? I don't think we're killing many in Mosul, maybe there's a reason things are happening differently in Fallujah?

quote: I'm damn glad the politicians stepped in, and forbade to attack mosques. In France, we have a particularily painful memory of the occupation, the incident of Oradour sur Glane: The Germans knew some resistors were harbored in the village of Oradour sur Glane. They decided to launch a retaliatory operation on the village. The population looked for a sanctuary in the church. The Germans burned down the Church, and every villager within burned to death. It is the single most barbarous act of the German occupation of France (and I know it is nothing compared to their ordinary handlings in Eastern Europe). This is what happens when you attack religious buildings in a religious country - you are bound to destroy all the civilians who looked for a safe haven, and who believed religious buildings are respected.

There's a big difference between Heinz Lammerding and SS Das Reich's action in Oradour and our attacks on mosques. The intent of Das Reich was to kill the civilians in the church to set an example, and the Germans weren't being sniped at from the church itself at the time. We've made very limited attacks when mosques have been actively used as fighting, command and supply positions, and we haven't made a point of herding villagers into the mosques to level it. So nice rhetoric, but the reality is a bit too disconnected for it to be effective.

	29-04-2004 00:27									#108
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie If I get time time tonight, I will translate a similar report by a Swedish journalist who is one of the few Westerners that have been in Falluja recently. What happened to the "embedded reporters" anyway?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...rson/index.html

	29-04-2004 00:30									#109
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader This is an unholy mess. It wants thoroughgoing recognition as just exactly that.

I said it would be a major mess from the beginning, even before the invasion. The long-term political solutions, if there are any, are not even going to get off the ground as long as there are significant enemy forces actively fighting our troops and attacking convoys, etc.

Solving things first on the battlefield may make the political fixes harder to achieve, but failure to solve the battlefield problem is even worse.

	29-04-2004 00:47									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

There is nothing wrong with firing back at people who are firing at you. If they are firing from a religious building (i.e. Mosque) then the Geneva convention makes it clear that it is then considered a military target and it 100% legal to destroy it. The US only destroyed a small part of the building; specifically the part which the gunmen were in.

I actually see this act as resulting in fewer Mosques being destroyed and fewer lives being lost in the long run then if we simply let them turn every Mosque into a safe firing position. If they want their Mosques to be safe then don't turn them into war zones.

	29-04-2004 00:57									#111
	Got spare money?

BINGO!

You get another free beer to add to your tab.

	29-04-2004 01:01									#112
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin There is nothing wrong with firing back at people who are firing at you. If they are firing from a religious building (i.e. Mosque) then the Geneva convention makes it clear that it is then considered a military target and it 100% legal to destroy it. The US only destroyed a small part of the building; specifically the part which the gunmen were in. I actually see this act as resulting in fewer Mosques being destroyed and fewer lives being lost in the long run then if we simply let them turn every Mosque into a safe firing position. If they want their Mosques to be safe then don't turn them into war zones.

I think most of us agree. Now try to convince the Arabs. It's really their opinion that will decide if you will win this war or not.

	29-04-2004 01:38									#113
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Yes, its so much better that opposing shiite militants set up their own armed gangs, cause when the power transfer comes, they will undoubtedly drop their weapons and become law abbiding citizens..... .

It may be a bad thing, but it seems kind of inevitable that something like this would happen in Najaf. See if a group of outsiders occupy a place against the will of the inhabitants, and mistreat them, its only natural that theyre going to resist, right??

I do hope this at least disabuses people of the notion that the Sadrist occupation of Najaf is a "liberation".

	29-04-2004 01:48									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark It may be a bad thing, but it seems kind of inevitable that something like this would happen in Najaf. See if a group of outsiders occupy a place against the will of the inhabitants, and mistreat them, its only natural that theyre going to resist, right?? I do hope this at least disabuses people of the notion that the Sadrist occupation of Najaf is a "liberation".

You make the weirdest assumptions about what I say.

Sadr and his men are not being fought against becuase they are "outside occupiers", but becuase they are seen as lawless followers of a punk userper-ie, and internal Shiite concern.

Having a new armed band of vigelantees is NOt a good thing.

	29-04-2004 02:07									#115
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap You make the weirdest assumptions about what I say. Sadr and his men are not being fought against becuase they are "outside occupiers", but becuase they are seen as lawless followers of a punk userper-ie, and internal Shiite concern. LOTM - I doubt that there are similar anti-Sadr militias in Sadr City. AFAICT his militia is entirely Sadr City in its roots, and they ARE outsiders in Najaf. Having a new armed band of vigelantees is NOt a good thing.

I dont know for sure theyre really new, and not just the Badr brigades, or other Sistani loyalists, under a new name. Look, if you were Sistani, and you wanted Sadr done with, and you realized that having the Americans come in and do it would lead to an explosion (I think Sistani expected the Americans to capture Sadr in Baghdad, and that the US failure to stop his flight to Najaf came as a rather nasty shock) what would you do? Come out openly against him? Or get your guys to quietly shoot his guys?

This isnt vigilantism, this is war.

	29-04-2004 02:09									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap You make the weirdest assumptions about what I say.

I didnt have you in particular in mind. Lots of folks seem to see the sadr uprising as part of a general uprising of the Iraqi people. AFAIK you have not said that (I apologize if i implied you had said that).

	29-04-2004 02:21									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark This isnt vigilantism, this is war.

Oh, great, Shiite factionalism will surely make the new country a stable, wonderful dmeocracy.

	29-04-2004 02:32									#118
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Oh, great, Shiite factionalism will surely make the new country a stable, wonderful dmeocracy.

shiite factionalism has been a reality since April 2003. When Sadrs folks killed Al Khoie in cold blood. Whats happening now is that Iraq is moving on, to a new constitution and Sistani is moving with it. Sadr is trying to stop that from happening, and the people loyal to Sistani are finally putting him down.

Would it have been better if all Iraqi Shia had been united against Sadr from the beginning. Yeah sure. Is it better that Iraqis in Najaf deal with Sadr, rather than American troops? I think so.

	29-04-2004 04:14									#119
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I would prefer that Sistani nip that upstart Sadr in the bud. Sistani may be difficult, but at least reasonable.

	29-04-2004 15:02									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The fourth Geneva Convention says nothing at all about churches/mosques. It neither forbids damage or destruction nor sanctions attacking those who use them for cover.

It does have something to say about hospitals

"Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict."

I doubt that an attack on hospital buildings which were then being used as a base of operations by the enemy would breach this provision. Those so using the buildings - in the unlikely event that they were soldiers of a signatory state - would themselves be causing a breach.

The actual point about damaging mosques is little or nothing to do with moral or quasi-legal matters. It is pragmatic.

Because it throws into sharp relief the question of whether the game is worth the candle.

If the objective - as folk like MtG imagine - is to win the various fire fights when they occur then there can, of course, be no question of allowing the "enemy" any shelter from which they can launch attacks with impunity.

But if the objective is to restore order to Iraq so that the troops can leave and the people can get back to living their lives then the trouble with firing on people in mosques is that you enflame the situation further and find yourself further away from achieving your object.

And, of course, that is the object.

The troops were sent to eliminate the risk that hideous nuclear and chemical and biological weapons originating in Iraq would be used against the USA or the UK. And that object is achieved.

They stay because Bush and Blair fight shy of just bringing them home and leaving the power vacuum in Iraq to resolve itself as it will.

Which leads to this simple place.

The insurgents are not "the enemy". They have never had nuclear weapoons or powerful chemical weapons or biological weapons. Instead they make up a part of the very people whom the US/UK now need to engage so that a government can be brought into existence in Iraq which commands the loyalty of a sufficiently high part of the population to be stable.

Whereupon we can withdraw.

The objective is not to defeat these people it is to police them until they can go back to doing that for themselves.

Police the world over know that they can only operate if they win and maintain the trust of the community they serve.

Where open resistance breaks out in Iraq the troops need to withdraw, attempt to cordon off the area and to open communications with any leader who can be found; not to win a battle but rather not to have a battle at all.

I will offer one final observation. The comparisons made with Vietnam up to now have seemed to me rather silly. But in this particular respect there is a parallel. Because the US did no more than pay lip service in Vietnam to "winning the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese. It was the MtGs of this world who then had all the answers.

So I, and all the rest of the world, watched the attempts to "win" that war by the steady escalation of military force. It was appalling. It brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets of every capital city in the world including me. It totally sickened the men who were sent there to do the "winning". In the end even the world's politicians, even Richard Nixon, knew how appalling it was.

Which tells us this.

It does not stop with firing on mosques.