gunslnga wrote:tomdarch wrote:
Talk about something important - like the fact that the Bush administration's foolish decision to invade Iraq, and their subsequent corruption and incompetence is leading to an all out civil war there.
(see USSR/Afghanistan) Step 3:bungled occupation leads to civil war, superpower withdraws (guess who?).
How about the fact that the majority of the country was suppressed by the small party of Saddams Elite Baathist party and now once usurped they are struggling to hold onto the fleeting glory/power/wealth they once had.
The majority Shiites are now excersising they're freedom and the Baathists are trying to start an uprise because they are no longer in power and are afraid that they will hold no power in the future. the strength of the insurgents is backed by Baathist blood money. The way we are handling things on the ground there has nothing to do with this civil war. We have to let the newly trained military handle this with as little assistance from us so it won't seem that we are taking sides.
The newly trained military? Do you mean the couple of thousand serious Iraqi soldiers, or the tens of thousands of guys who were run through a few weeks of training and then set loose, who, not surprisingly, run the instant anything nasty starts happening? I certainly think it would be nice or ideal if there was a real Iraqi military who believed in Iraq as a nation-state and put aside the sectarian differences (and bribery) for the good of the country - but there just aren't very many of them around.
As for the insurgency, I'll be pretty damn surprised if there is serious, widespread collaboration going on currently between the secular (anti-religion) Ba'athists and the radically fundamentalist Sunni, al Qaeda types. If you are a deposed Ba'athist, and you decide to support the fundamentalists, what do you see as an end game? Sure the suicide bombers may run the US out and set off a destabilizing civil war, but then you have to fight them to regain control of the country. That sounds like a tough game plan to me. These guys may be scum, but they aren't stupid. I supect that the Ba'athists are more likely just letting the al Qaeda-types run loose for a while, rather than really helping them.
And none of this changes the fact that dolts like Cheney and Rumsfeld (who both managed to avoid ever serving in the military themselves) ignored folks like Powel and Shalikashvili, who had decades of experience from Viet Nam to the Former Yugoslavia, who said that there weren't enough troops or support to pull off the occupation of Iraq (never mind the effect of pulling resources away from Afghanistan) It's no coincidence that the same people who said that nation-building in places like Somalia and Yugoslavia wouldn't work, are the same people who can't do nation-building in Iraq.
Don't confuse me with folks who say that we should never invade anyone. I'm all for having true global colaitions go in and depose the worst dictators, then rebuild their countries. But it has to be done legally, compotently, and for honest reasons - all of which are lacking in Bush's invasion of Iraq.
I was around in the 80's I followed the Afghan war as close as possible,
I don't remeber a civil war. I do remember that the Russians invaded with the help of the Afghan Goverment and it's Military. I remember it was the usual Communist domino tactic to aquire more land and spread Communism. I remember that the Mujahideen was all but beat and retreating to the mountains of pakistan and such. I remember when the U.S sent CIA spooks and boat loads of Stinger missles to the Muj and when they gained air supeiority, they pushed the Commie invader out of there country. I just don't see your conclusion of Commie occupation to American reconstruction after winning a war???? I'm pretty sure the iron boot of Socialisism would have been installed at the tip of an AK-47, rather than through elections and Democracy.
The 'civil war' I'm talking about was the scenario after the Soviet withdrawl that led to the rise of the Taliban. (Don't forget that while the US did arm the mujahadeen (some of whom went on to become the Taliban), the USSR was in the process of imploding, which helped 'encourage' them to withdraw from Afghanistan.) The current situation with Iraq moving towards civil war, and the fact that Bush's incompotence has left Americans fearing another Viet Nam, means that there is a serious risk of us pulling out and the country totally decaying. The power vacuum in Afghanistan made the 9/11 attacks possible, and a similar situation in Iraq would be a total, global disaster. Remember, the origin of al Qaeda was to overthrow the 'corrupt' house of Saud and put Saudi Arabia under
really fundamentalist control. Having a destabilized Iraq as a base from which to attack Saudi Arabia would be a huge gift to the terrorists. Don't forget about the Kurish issue - we're damn lucky to have Turkey as a stable ally in the region, and an independent, oil-rich Kurdistan splitting off from and Iraqi civil war and potentially aiding Kurdish sepratists in Turkey would not be good. Oh, and then there's Iran - if you want to see mushroom clouds over the middle east, then let's have a full-on war between Sunis and Shiites without the constraints of nation-states! And all of this means an insecure oil market, which costs us serious cash. (and even bigger profits for Exxon...) And how about a region where bird flu can incubate uncontrolled and mix with a population of weakened people? Did I mention heroin trafficing?
Sorry - I don't mean to rant AT you, gunslinga - I'm just ranting.
(This got me thinking - what's the movie where a Soviet tank gets lost from it's group in Afghanistan? I saw part of it, and it was pretty amazing. I'd love to see the whole thing sometime!)
