Things I Don't Understand about Iraq

S

SamHouston

New member
Never understood several things about the Iraqi people.

If you want to get the US out of your country and take power you would think they would lay low for a year and stop the violence. After the military forces are reduced and American people have mentally moved on, the opportunity to step up your action would be a lot easier when you are fighting only your local people.

Don't understand why they continue to kill their neighbor. How do they get their hands on such large amounts of explosives. Why explosives and not guns? If it's that easy to smuggle explosives, are we able to stop the flow into the US?
 
Last edited:
Sam, in a nutshell, there are many different ethnic groups within the borders which were setup by Europeans back in the 20's. There are also religious divisions within these groups and they all live and die by a tribal code rooted in a 12 century doctrine.

We, as westerners for the most part, are just now coming to a level of knowledge about the Eastern mindset about why and what they do. It is not in their genes and nature to "leave anything or anyone alone" that challenges them. Hence the continuance of fighting and taking on all comer's.

It's not just us they fight.
 
Xrocket has got it right.

The various sects and tribes in Iraq have been fighting with one another for centuries. Saddam was ruthless enough to hold things together through his brutality, now that's gone and their fighting for turf. (Not unlike Yugoslavia after Tito).

An almost impossible situation since you can't force people to like one another.
 
They're jockeying for position with each other.

The Mahdi army may have backed off from the Americans but also the Americans backed off from them. That gives them a position of power for whatever may happen in the future. And the future is what they are fighting for. America can't stay in Iraq forever. Whether in the short, medium or long term the US will be gone and then it will all be to fight for. If not the whole of Iraq, at least their own little corner.

Besides, if Russia invaded the US would the average armed American have "laid low for a year"?
 
They don't want us to leave. They want us to be bogged down in Iraq as long as possible. Their goal is to get the US stuck in economically draining quagmires, and we're playing right into their plans.
 
How do they get their hands on such large amounts of explosives. Why explosives and not guns?

Due to the genius military planning of Dummy Rummy and others, we did not have the forces to guard all the military dumps in the country. Those supplies for quite a large army just went poof during the invasion. Also, Saddam, knowing he would lose a conventional battle, distributed arms and explosive all over the country before the invasion. This is clearly laid out in histories of the invasion.

We then abolished their army (which Genius Without Brains didn't know about till it happened) causing another wave of stuff to vanish into the populace.

Now there is smuggling of high end stuff into the country - because we never had enough troops to seal any border or local allies to help us.

Why do they use explosives, because fixed battles are losers for guerilla tactics. When Americans have to patrol well known fixed routes - explosives make much sense.

Last, as pointed out, Iraq isn't really a nation state - it is a group of disparate religious groups and ethnicities that have primary loyalty to their cohort and not some phoney nation. Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Wulfowitz, etc. ignored all the expert advice on this as they were full of their masturbatory fantasy of being greated as 'liberators' as in France in '44.

Free of a top down dictator, these groups want to duke it out. Yes, they should inhibit themselves to get us out of there, so when we leave, they could fight it out but they don't have the impulse control.
 
I'm a firm believer in fighting the bad guys where we can to keep them from our back yards. I'm concerned that in the very near future we'll see those explosives working there way into our cities.
 
Well, what makes you think the Iraqis vs. the Iranians, Syrians, Palestians, Pakistanis, etc., etc. aren't on the way?

The 9/11 Hijackers were for the most part Saudis.

Do we fight that entire section of the world and patrol it for the thousand years to keep them down?

Cliches get us nowhere.
 
An almost impossible situation since you can't force people to like one another.
Click to expand...

Very true.


I'm a firm believer in fighting the bad guys where we can to keep them from our back yards. I'm concerned that in the very near future we'll see those explosives working there way into our cities.
Click to expand...

Good plan if we secured our borders and ports plus controlled immigration
otherwise we in truth are wasting lives and money.
 
Good plan if we secured our borders and ports plus controlled immigration otherwise we in truth are wasting lives and money.
Click to expand...

Very true, but looks like it will take some type of event before we take this seriously.
 
I think some are falling for the 'cliché' that people from that region can't be peaceful. That the will kill each other regardless.

The point made before about their history is a good backdrop. The thing Americans have a hard time getting their heads around is that they EXPECT injustice. We have lived in an environment of rights and an expectation of justice. We get outraged when we perceive a violation of our rights or a miscarriage in justice. It is a part of our national psyche.

People in that region EXPECT INJUSTICE. And that breeds resentment and eventually violence in any people. It's a condition that generation after generation has had proven to them. It's manipulated by their leaders to keep their heads down. The leaders point outside the country to keep that resentment and violence directed away from them.

Iraqis have long lived in a condition of that expectation of injustice. They have been severely treated should anyones head pop up. Now, for the first time in a very long time, there is starting an expectation that they will get to live how they choose. The Petraeus successes aren't borne from overwhelming US military domination, they are borne of the change in the perspective of the Iraqis. The promise made was that they could live how they want to live. Be Sunni, Shiite, etc. and the US wasn't going to force that to change. The only condition was that they also allowed their neighbors the same liberty to live how they wanted to live. Nobody will kill you for how you want to live, and no killing your neighbor for how they want to live. The US military would be their to protect that liberty should they be attacked. As that promise was consistently kept, the Iraqi people became emboldened to stand up for themselves.

This took like wildfire as liberty does among human beings. It came to the point that Iraqis drove out insurgents from their communities with the confidence that the US military was now perceived as an ally, not an adversary. The expectation of justice started as the promise was kept.

The local to central approach worked, and is STILL working very well. The change has been dramatic. The Shiites and Sunnis passed a Fatwa (Muslim 'law') against 'the rule of the gun' and made gaining power via violence a violation of sharia law. That speaks volumes about the effect of liberty of people accustomed to expecting injustice.

The promise needs to be kept. Breaking it will feed that expectation of injustice innate to that culture and result in a resentment that's violence can be pointed in any direction the next charismatic leader points it. KEEP the promise and those people will fight any threat to their new sense of justice.

The people of that region aren't incapable of being peaceful, rather they are expecting injustice and are positioning themselves to survive it. A new sense of expectation of justice will do more to reduce the threats from that region then carpet bombing ever could. That is has been manifesting in Iraq. The promise kept is what is at stake.

Look into what is causing the changes that are taking place in Iraq to come about. Petraeus took this approach vs. Abizaid's whack-a-mole approach. Petraeus is due soon for another report to Congress. Let's hope more attention gets paid this time. His approach has really been brilliant. If one really checks it out it's clear that the human desire for liberty is working in Iraq.
 
why would they bring the explosives with them?

Given the tons and tons of explosives (not the other materials) hear in the US why would they even try to bring them with them. These people are wacko fanatics not idiots. As long as there is diesel fuels and ammonium nitrate readily available they have the basic components readily available. A little cash here and there and you can buy just about anything you want right here in the USA. Why would they try to smuggle in these explosives to make things like IEDs?


DHS uses scare tacktics to make you believe they need more and more to provide us safety and security. Far to many are willing to believe the DHS statments and approve more and more funding for programs that are not working.

I'm starting to believe we are following the Mao plan to control everyone. Everyone is responsible to report on everyone else: if you do not you'll be punished for your failure to report any infractions. When you do report you get a reward. Now where did I put the Renolds wrap?
 
It is has been claimed that a desire for Western style democracy bubbles under the skin of many folks in the world. That is just a theological statement without empirical support.

The desire for democracy slowly developed in Western Europe. The view that all folks want this as compared to some theocratic or other authoritarian state is just another pipe dream of "Liberator" Neocons trying to justify their move on oil supplies.
 
Re-read the post. It has no reference to any 'theology' and is discussing liberty (owning one's own life), not western style democracy. In fact the 'selling point' if you will about General Petraeus' approach to the Iraqi's that got the attention of the 'village' level local people, and drew a contrast to what AlQ was telling them, was that the Americans were NOT trying to keep Iraq for themselves and make Iraqis start living like 'western style democracies' (ie like America) but rather they have the liberty to live how THEY choose to live as long as they respected that their neighbors could ALSO live how THEY chose to live. No killing each other over how others chose to live. That took so well that Shia and Sunni leaders agreed to a Fatwa declaring 'the rule of the gun' a crime in Sharia law.

The very next step in making the Iraqi central government a reflection of the desire of Iraqis is Provential elections which are scheduled for October. By very next step I mean the next step in the local to central reconciliation verses central to local. Think about it, local to central government what makes representative government work. When the central government is dictating down to provential (State) government how to govern their villages (cities/counties) it totalitarian, not representative.

...........and the 'neocon' thing........really? Could you point me the organization claiming to be based on the alleged political movement? Admit it, it's just a 'theological statement without emirical support' isn't it.

And would you say that the desire for liberty ISN'T a common human desire. Liberty defined as owning ones own life that is. Do ALL people of all races and cultures not have that as a hearts desire? An actual answer please. Lets start having a serious discussion rather then one of hyperbole.
 
Bruxley said:
And would you say that the desire for liberty ISN'T a common human desire. Liberty defined as owning ones own life that is. Do ALL people of all races and cultures not have that as a hearts desire?
Click to expand...

Agreed, all human souls seek self determination.

The only condition was that they also allowed their neighbors the same liberty to live how they wanted to live. Nobody will kill you for how you want to live, and no killing your neighbor for how they want to live.
Click to expand...

We are not nation building with the educated, enlightened warrior-philosphers of the American Revolution. (We Americans naturally imprint our own experience on the world.) The Arab culture is weak on the "live and let live" concept, and they are dealing with thousand year old grievances.

That took so well that Shia and Sunni leaders agreed to a Fatwa declaring 'the rule of the gun' a crime in Sharia law.
Click to expand...

Progress between Sunni and Shia is commendable, but McCain is quite correct that we must provide security before substantial gains can be made. Bush is prosecuting this war the way conservatives run business -- give too few people too much to do -- and has utterly failed to lead the American people to take ownership of this cause. How should Americans sacrifice for the war effort? Go shopping.

Finally, there is the matter of the Kurdish north. The Kurds have never, and likely will not soon, view themselves as Iraqi, and a Kurd nation is deeply opposed by our Turkish allies. McCain is also correct that this could take 100 years.

The grand Bush vision for Middle East democracy is undermined by pathetic domestic political leadership, as is clearly evidenced by the number of fools who support Democrat proposals for total withdrawal.
 
If you want to get the US out of your country and take power you would think they would lay low for a year and stop the violence.
Click to expand...

Most opponents of US military deployment around the world have taken to heart General Vo Nguyen Giap's strategy where, to defeat the US, all one has to do is hang in long enough, and cause enough causalities so as to get the US News media to propagandize effectively against the war effort and demand the troops be brought home.

Giap's strategy worked well in Vietnam. The North suffered huge losses in the Tet Offensive for example, but still considered it a victory because of the effect it had on the American public's support for the war thanks in part to folks like Walter Cronkite.
 
I do not think that a desire for western democracy (the seeming definition of 'liberty') is an innate property of humanity or given to us by some supernatural forces.

It is a process of socialization and education. It is a cultural evolution that depends on the circumstances of a society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top