A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

OK, it is pretty clear that there is now a self-sustaining guerrilla campaign against the US and the current US-appointed government. Generally, foreign powers have done poorly against guerrilla campaigns in developing countries - the only one I can think of won by the Europeans was the Boer war, where much of the war was between two colonial settler groups.

My question is, what are we going to do this time that is sufficiently different to change the odds for the outcome? What will we do that was not done in any of the wars lost by us and by European powers over the last 250 years?

The Bushies response the day they went in would have been, "We will be welcomed as liberators, so we don't have to worry about that, but if it comes up, the overwhelming speed of our attack and our ability to move light troops quickly will prevail." Obviously, that response has proven completely off-base.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I can leave now. I will always remain as a reference people use to make a point- like Candyman.

I'll tell you, when I read the substantive posts on this board, it's really like you were never here.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
My question is, what are we going to do this time that is sufficiently different to change the odds for the outcome? What will we do that was not done in any of the wars lost by us and by European powers over the last 250 years?

I don't think we can look at history for this one because the facts are so different. Perhaps I'm wrong, but when has an "occupying power" funded and trained the locals to protect themself?

I personally think the "insurgency," which is really a misnomer, is being blown out of proportion. We are talking not only about a very small portion of the population, but also a very small portion of the geography. No shadow government, no popular support. In other words, it's a dead end.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think we can look at history for this one because the facts are so different. Perhaps I'm wrong, but when has an "occupying power" funded and trained the locals to protect themself?

Vietnam. And in case you haven't read about it, it didn't go so good.

[sgtclub]

Paul Bremer has an editorial in today's WSJ in which he explains the decision to disband SH's military. I don't know whether it was the right decision or not, but at least it looks like there was a reasonable basis for doing so.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ironweed
Vietnam. And in case you haven't read about it, it didn't go so good.

Yea, that was dumb.

[sgtclub]

• WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. government ran a $1 billion budget surplus in December, helped by a rise in corporate tax payments, the Congressional Budget Office said in its latest budget report released on Friday.
  
  The surplus, which compared with an $18 billion deficit in the previous December, helped create a smaller fiscal deficit for the first three months of the 2005 fiscal year, than in the same quarter of the prior year.

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsAr...toryID=7268095

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ironweed
Vietnam. And in case you haven't read about it, it didn't go so good.

Here's one take on your question:

• Can the anti-government forces in Iraq win? Some pundits think so. But do you really think the Shia Arabs and Kurds will allow Saddam's thugs to bully their way back into power? The Kurds and Shia Arabs are 80 percent of the population, they control of the oil, and have American troops to back up their efforts. Iraqis indicate, to anyone who will listen, that they have no intention of folding under Baath pressure, and a growing desire to come down hard on the Sunni Arabs who support the violence. The Kurds and Shia Arabs have lists of names, because Saddam's thugs didn't wear masks when they ran things for three decades. Guess who is going to lose? But that thought is what is driving the resistance. The Baath Party thugs know what they will have to face eventually, if they don’t regain control of Iraq.
  
  The Baath and al Qaeda campaign against the police and government officials results in spectacular and newsworthy attacks each day. But there are still 7,000 new police and National Guard undergoing training, and another 25,000 waiting to start their training. The attacks are concentrated in two provinces; Anbar (where Fallujah is) and Nineveh (where Mosul is). Because the attacks are killing mostly Iraqis, the attackers are not very popular, even among Sunni Arabs. The police are getting more tips about anti-government activity. This includes information about where roadside bombs are planted, or where gunmen are hiding out. Although the Arab media makes a big deal about how impossible it will be to run the elections, the Iraqi people don’t think so. To the average Iraqi, the elections mean the difference between a free and prosperous future, or more Baath Party tyranny. Candidates for the new parliament have the most to lose, especially in Sunni areas. Baath and al Qaeda have threatened these candidates with death, and in Sunni Arab areas, there are plenty of Baath Party gunmen to carry out the threats.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qn...arget=IRAQ.HTM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. government ran a $1 billion budget surplus in December, helped by a rise in corporate tax payments, the Congressional Budget Office said in its latest budget report released on Friday.
  
  The surplus, which compared with an $18 billion deficit in the previous December, helped create a smaller fiscal deficit for the first three months of the 2005 fiscal year, than in the same quarter of the prior year.

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsAr...toryID=7268095

So much for your theory that higher tax revenues are not the key to deficit reduction.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So much for your theory that higher tax revenues are not the key to deficit reduction.

You're being cute right?

So much for your theory that supply-side economics = voodoo economics.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think we can look at history for this one because the facts are so different. Perhaps I'm wrong, but when has an "occupying power" funded and trained the locals to protect themself?

I personally think the "insurgency," which is really a misnomer, is being blown out of proportion. We are talking not only about a very small portion of the population, but also a very small portion of the geography. No shadow government, no popular support. In other words, it's a dead end.

I guarantee you they're asking this question at the US War College and the Command and General Staff College. And they're not putting up with neo-con wish-think as an answer.

They study a lot of history in the war colleges. As to shadow government, at this moment there seem to be multiples out there (e.g., al-Sadr), which may be tougher than dealing with just one.

On popular support, it's difficult to gauge, is probably a minority, but some seems to exist. Enough so that you can buy bin Laden candies in the street.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I personally think the "insurgency," which is really a misnomer, is being blown out of proportion. We are talking not only about a very small portion of the population, but also a very small portion of the geography. No shadow government, no popular support. In other words, it's a dead end.

I think you misunderestimate the severity of the problem.

Club,

The Iraqi Interior Minister may be full of crap, but he said earlier this week that the Iraqi government now estimates the insurgency as involving up to 200,000 participants, with 40,000 "active" participants.

I hope those numbers are high, but if correct they represent about .8% of the Iraqi population as participants, with about .2% "active" in the resistance. Seems small?

Well, this is not an inconsequential number or proportion of a population engaged in armed resistance. That's the rough equivalent of an armed insurgency in America with 2.3 million participants and about 560,000 "active" participants. Even more to the point, its a huge number compared to the summer of 2003.

When you consider that we have, what -- 170K coalition troops plus about 100K local forces in various stages of training, quality, and equipment (generally not high) -- you'll see the counter-insurgency problem. Current doctrine calls for a ratio of troops considerably higher than our current 7:1 ratio to actually suppress a rebellion. [That ratio is generous to both sides, as it accepts the Iraqi number for nsurgents, but counts the Iraqi police and Defense forces (and all coaliton forces) as equally effective on the other side.]

It is true that the vast bulk of its support comes from Sunni Arabs, who are about 25% of the population of Iraq. That is not a "very small" portion of the population. Hopefully enough will decide to support an elected government that we can avoid a full-fledged civil war.

You've apparently missed some reporting on intel discussing large-scale coordination meetings, and "shadow governments" in some some towns and cities (particularly in isolated rural areas) -- levying taxes, etc. The insurgents are apparently engaging in their own "law enforcement" in Mosul.

As for geography -- the insurgency, IIRC is most active in 4 of Iraq's provinces which cover great stretches of the country's territory -- particularly the West, Northwest, and Center.

S_A_M

eta: Why do you think the word "insurgency" is a misnomer? All indications are that a very large proportion of those involved are Iraqis engaged in a battle against an occupying power. The forces of religion, tribalism, etc. all play roles -- but that doesn't mean its not an insurgency.


Also -- it is sometimes helpful to understanding if one considers matters from an opposing point of view. From that point of view:

The fact that we are good people who invaded their country with only the best intentions to help them out (cross our hearts and hope to die) to bring them democracy, and we don't mean to kill civilians (mostly) and have only killed probably about 12,000 or so civilians in the war and since (for perspective -- again, proportional to the deaths of about 135,000 American civilians) and we only blow up what we have to blow up, and are imposing a good system of government that will be the best thing for them in the long run (trust us) doesn't mean that many of those on the other side don't qualify as Iraqi patriots or are insane to oppose oru presence in their country.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Here's one take on your question:

Wasn't asking anything, but thanks for the cut and paste anyway.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Can the anti-government forces in Iraq win? Some pundits think so. But do you really think the Shia Arabs and Kurds will allow Saddam's thugs to bully their way back into power?

I would find this more convincing if I thought the author had made any attempt to come to grips with the fact that the Sunnis previously held power, notwithstanding being a minority, or the fact that there are many other countries in the world where ethnic minorities hold power.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You're being cute right?

Why, yes. Gosh, I'm blushing.

So much for your theory that supply-side economics = voodoo economics.

I'm not sure that's my theory, but let's take a look at the facts here. According to the article you posted, the deficit for 2005 thus far is $114 billion. $16 billion less than it was for the same period last year.

So, if the supply-side theory is that lower taxes will result in greater growth so as to offset any deficit effects... well, let's just say you're off by $114 billion. This year. So far.

And off by a cumulative $8 trillion since Reagan initiated the theory, despite the gains we made during the Clinton era of fiscal prudence.