Iraq: The Case of Cutting and Running

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/...raq-withdrawal
The Atlantic, December 2005, Nir Rosen.

I don't completely agree with the author’s suggestions but I do admire people who can form coherent thoughts and communicate them well. This guy spent 16 months in Iraq and I think he makes some great points. Overall I admire his analysis.

Personally I think the US military should stay a little bit longer but we can't hold the interim govt hands forever. Eventually they need to man-up. The US military has been very effective in killing insurgents. The results of this are demonstrated by:
1. The insurgents now primarily target Iraqis rather than coalition troops. US Troops have dealt HUGE losses to insurgents.
2. There have not been any effective attacks on oil facilities for a long time.
3. Also the captured suicide bombing in Jordan said US Troops killed most of her family that were involved in the insurgency.

US Troops are killing lots of head-chopping-psycho-pathetic-murdering-scum. A few more months of killing these scum and I think US troops can begin their withdrawal. Personally, I’d like to see an independent Kurdish state established in Iraq. It would be nice to have a Muslim state that likes the USA. Many Kurds admire Israel and want to model a Kurdish state after Israel.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Also the captured suicide bombing in Jordan said US Troops killed most of her family that were involved in the insurgency.

US Troops are killing lots of head-chopping-psycho-pathetic-murdering-scum. A few more months of killing these scum and I think US troops can begin their withdrawal.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only problem with this assertion is that saying "If we kill them all, there won't be any more insurgents," is kind of backwards. Violent actions against insurgents, I believe, actually increases their numbers. Now, I'm not saying that the US is wrong for violently targetting the insurgents, but I would be curious to know whether or not the captured bombers decided to join the insurgency before or after the US killed their families.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The Case of Cutting and Running

[/ QUOTE ]Why do some folks always append "running" to the term "cutting"? I do not consider myself as "running" from anything (except mistakes) when I'm folding a hand in poker and cutting my losses.

"Running" implies cowardice.

A mistaken assumption as far as poker (or Iraq) is concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
I do admire people who can form coherent thoughts and communicate them well. link

[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you'd also be interested in this "Foreign Affairs" article where Edward Luttwak, who's no dove, expands on the rationalisation of disengagement.

[nicky g]

"1. The insurgents now primarily target Iraqis rather than coalition troops."

I doubt this is true. Evidence? Attacks on coalition forces have been running at all time highs recently.

"2. There have not been any effective attacks on oil facilities for a long time. "

Definitely not true. I posted a story about a month ago about an attack that took out a major piece of Iraq's oil production.

[nicky g]

Here we go, from late October:

Blast halts Iraq oil exports

There you go again, ruining Felix's whole point with ... um, what are those things called again ... oh, yeah, "facts."

[canis582]

"US Troops are killing lots of head-chopping-psycho-pathetic-murdering-scum."

Is that all we are killing?

"1. The insurgents now primarily target Iraqis rather than coalition troops. US Troops have dealt HUGE losses to insurgents."

Any metrics to back this up?

"I’d like to see an independent Kurdish state established in Iraq."

This is pie in the sky...it will only be accomplished via a civil war in Turkey with us helping the Turkish Kurds. The US government has already spent a lot of effort helping the Turks subjegate their own Kurdish population via death squads and ethnic clensing. Yes I have sources.

[canis582]

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistanobse...y-remarks.html

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
There you go again, ruining Felix's whole point with ... um, what are those things called again ... oh, yeah, "facts."

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate you agreeing with me, but I think we agreed making these kinds of posts should get people banned from the internet.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"1. The insurgents now primarily target Iraqis rather than coalition troops."
I doubt this is true. Evidence? Attacks on coalition forces have been running at all time highs recently.
************************************************** ********
In a 12 month period on Haifa Street (aka "purple heart alley") in Bagdad there were 400 attacks on coalition soldiers. In the last 10 months.....ZERO. The trend is down. Attacks on US troops are now exclusively roadside bombs. Troop on troop atacks no longer take place due to castotrophic casualties inflicted on the insurgents.


"2. There have not been any effective attacks on oil facilities for a long time. "
Definitely not true. I posted a story about a month ago about an attack that took out a major piece of Iraq's oil production.
************************************************** ****
I hadn't seen that story and I'm on the internet almost everyday. After reading your link, it seems that incompetance of the Iraqis is bigger problem than attacks on the oil facilities. Oil production is steady but has not reached the 3mb mark yet. It will.