Baghdad explodes

[Balta1701]

Well, this certainly isn't good.

 

A savage string of apparently coordinated bombings erupted Thursday in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of Baghdad, killing more than 140 people.

 

Police called it the deadliest single strike in Iraq since the war began more than three years ago.

 

Bombs and mortar shells struck Sadr City at 15-minute intervals, beginning about 3 p.m., according to The Associated Press, with the first bombing hitting a vegetable market.

 

Shiites responded almost immediately, the AP reported, firing 10 mortar rounds at the holiest Sunni shrine in Baghdad, the Abu Hanifa Sunni mosque in Azamiya. The attack killed one person and wounded 14 others, the AP said.

[kapkomet]

WOOT! CIVIL WAR!

 

That means we can come home now.

 

*sigh*

 

They need to just go in there and clean stuff up, but as I said before around here, the American people can't or won't stomach it, so it just keeps getting worse.

[Gregory Pratt]

WOOT! CIVIL WAR!

 

That means we can come home now.

 

*sigh*

 

They need to just go in there and clean stuff up, but as I said before around here, the American people can't or won't stomach it, so it just keeps getting worse.

 

What, exactly, does "clean stuff up" mean? You mean that with more soldiers we'd be able to quell the Civil War? How does that work?

 

--

 

I'm conflicted. I have trouble believing we have sufficient influence to end an Iraqi Civil War. Far too many Islamic values at play and Islamic leaders and Islamic sects.

I also have trouble believing that we should leave, and that we've done all we possibly can, but I can't figure out what the hell we do if we stay. Train an Iraqi Army led by their Government? For what? To split it three ways? Four ways?

 

Iraqi Civil War: Sunnis, Shiites, Government, Kurds.

Or so that the government can join with one of these factions and be better trained and kill more people?

 

Sometimes I think the War is over and we should go and leave the Muslims to kill themselves or make peace amongst themselves. Sometimes I think that be unwise. I'm leaning toward, Get out, though, the more that I think about it.

[kapkomet]

The 'civil war' could be over, real quick, if we wanted it to be - but most Americans wouldn't stand for what needs to be done to make it end - and that's go in there and really kick some ass.

 

However, as you're sort of alluding to, what would that do for the larger Islam religion as a whole? I don't think anyone knows, and even if there's some stupid article that tries to talk about it, no one really knows. It's a hard issue to deal with.

[Gregory Pratt]

I didn't ask you to tell me more generalities, with all due respect. I asked, "What does that mean" and saying, "The 'civil war' could be over, real quick, if we wanted it to be - but most Americans wouldn't stand for what needs to be done to make it end - and that's go in there and really kick some ass. " isn't quite the answer.

 

You mean we should send five hundred thousand ground troops to shoot everyone dead and search every home and kill everyone with a weapon? Should we bomb them straight to hell? Should we nuke them straight to hell?

 

"If we decided to REALLY fight we could win!" sounds nice, but I don't see how on Earth that's a strategy of any sort.

[kapkomet]

It wouldn't take that many troops. It would take a lot of air support, a lot of technologies that you (or I) don't know about, and some other methods.

 

I'm not going to sit here and waste my time - any military victory can be achieved by this country - but most people wouldn't or couldn't stand for it. And no, I'm not talking nuclear weapons or anything like that, but the type of warfare that would be needed to 'win' is no picnic.

 

We would need more troops, but not 500,000 more. That's a bogus number only used to hype your point.

 

Our country has wussified 'war' to keep casualties down. That's ok, but it leaves the political climate such as we see now, and people in our country (in general) don't think war with a price is necessary.

[Gregory Pratt]

Technology can't solve for political issues. There's only one thing that technology will never replace and that's human leadership and thought.

 

At this point, the War isn't so much political as it is religious and it isn't so much about us as it is about them. But I think you have far too much faith in the military's ability to win any war, however I must contest your contention that I am "hyping" my point by saying we'd need 500,000 soldiers to pacify Iraq. You sound like Donald Rumsfeld understating troop numbers badly and we can see the result today.

 

By the way, plenty of US generals have said we need 500,000 troops, so it isn't as if I pulled that number out of my ass. But, still, I think you're being naive to say that we can win any military war.

 

Can we defeat the English who have nuclear weapons, too? Can we defeat the Russians who have as many people -- or a fair, comparable number -- and nukes, too? I'm sure we could, but I also believe that they could defeat us as well.

 

Fact is, we've gone the "Bomb the hell out of them, don't use that many troops" route before and we got Vietnam. Similar situation except that now we've got a Religious Holy Civil War to deal with.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have generally been in the camp that Kap is here - we were fighting the war half-assed, and that gets us nowhere. If we have to be there at all (which we didn't), then do what it takes. Break some rules, and yes, kill more people. Ultimately, it would save more people, hard as that might be to stomach in the short run.

 

But, I must confess, I am starting to think that we may have missed that window of opporunity. We have now gotten to where civil war isn't a possibility - its already here. And now, because of the factions involved, the widespread nature of the conflict, the already-present anti-U.S. sentiment now prevalent for all parties involved... I think its too late. At this point, we could bomb the crap out of all the positions and bases for all the militants on all sides (or those we know about), and we could send more troops, and we could "take the gloves off", but because its not so much Iraqi versus Iraqi, the war would go on anyway.

 

So now I'm conflicted. I am starting to think that there is no longer a way to stabilize Iraq with us there. I've climbed onto the fence. Anyone willing to talk me down?

[Texsox]

War does not make anyplace more safe. More civilians are dying under our rule than the prior. Can we at least now realize why some, if not most, people in Iraq are not grateful for our presence? This kind of ties into Kap's thought. We are at war with all of Iraq. So we face a choice. Take the whole country over or get out.

 

I do not see Iraq's history books ever thinking our invasion was good for their country. (Unless we write them)

[Gregory Pratt]

You guys are all telling me that if we just took matters less half-assed and more violently, there'd be no Civil War or we could end it? That bombings can halt the violent differences amongst Islamic sects? Please. I consider that American arrogance and I've never used that phrase before.

 

What's going on there was something bound to eventually happen and that we can't stop. Us being there is like us being in Vietnam where we stepped into a Civil War and were stunned that we couldn't stop it by burning down the forest. Same in Iraq.

 

If we were facing a military enemy, like a standing Army, we'd certainly have more success and we could certainly make them surrender and destroy their soldier but this opponent in Iraq isn't even our opponent. It is a battle of Islam versus Islam, Iraqi versus Iraqi, and we're just in the way. No amount of bombs can change that.

 

If we leave, they'll keep fighting. We stay, they'll keep fighting. We blow them up, they'll keep fighting, and this will happen for years until they are done fighting on their own terms.

[NorthSideSox72]

You guys are all telling me that if we just took matters less half-assed and more violently, there'd be no Civil War or we could end it? That bombings can halt the violent differences amongst Islamic sects? Please. I consider that American arrogance and I've never used that phrase before.

 

What's going on there was something bound to eventually happen and that we can't stop. Us being there is like us being in Vietnam where we stepped into a Civil War and were stunned that we couldn't stop it by burning down the forest. Same in Iraq.

 

If we were facing a military enemy, like a standing Army, we'd certainly have more success and we could certainly make them surrender and destroy their soldier but this opponent in Iraq isn't even our opponent. It is a battle of Islam versus Islam, Iraqi versus Iraqi, and we're just in the way. No amount of bombs can change that.

 

If we leave, they'll keep fighting. We stay, they'll keep fighting. We blow them up, they'll keep fighting, and this will happen for years until they are done fighting on their own terms.

While there are certainly some parallels between our wars in Iraq and Vietnam, the civil war in Iraq is nothing like what was going on in Vietnam. Different animals.

[Gregory Pratt]

Yeah, but there are lessons to be learned: namely, that civil wars can't be stopped by the bombs of other countries. Especially not Civil Holy War which is exactly what this is.

[Rex Kickass]

I think that there are ways to quell the fighting in Iraq, but most of them are not military solutions.

 

The problem is, I wonder now if our time to make it happen has passed.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yeah, but there are lessons to be learned: namely, that civil wars can't be stopped by the bombs of other countries. Especially not Civil Holy War which is exactly what this is.

 

If england would have followed through in helping the south...I have a feeling the Civil War could have turned out a little differently, so I don't agree with your assessment.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that there are ways to quell the fighting in Iraq, but most of them are not military solutions.

 

The problem is, I wonder now if our time to make it happen has passed.

That was kind of what I was getting at, though I was speaking about the military side. The non-military tactics can still be used, but now must be used differently.

 

I'd really like someone to convince me that "go big" would get it done at this point, since I was thinking that before, but I can't reconcile it with the current circumstances. Same with "go long" - the war has changed, and it doesn't seem like out continued presence will do much good anymore. Can one of you hawks sell me on either of those?

[Gregory Pratt]

If england would have followed through in helping the south...I have a feeling the Civil War could have turned out a little differently, so I don't agree with your assessment.

 

I agree, if we look at it that way, but I also believe that the American Civil War and the Vietnamese Civil War and the Iraqi Civil War are far too different in that what we have today is a religious Holy War.

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree, if we look at it that way, but I also believe that the American Civil War and the Vietnamese Civil War and the Iraqi Civil War are far too different in that what we have today is a religious Holy War.

I don't think that is the most important difference. The key difference is that in Vietnam the U.S. could take a side (U.S. v Soviet influence), and in the American Civil War, the Brits could take a side (UK promoting best trade opportunities). Here, we gain nothing from choosing the Shiites or the Sunnis. There is no side worth promoting. Kind of like with Israel and Palestine.

[Rex Kickass]

I'd disagree with you on their being no side worth taking on any issue.

 

For US interests, I'd back the Sunni. Or at least the secular. We don't want a country too closely allied with Iran.

 

The more I see stories like this though, the more I think we've squandered any opportunity.

BAGHDAD, Iraq --Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...on.com+%2F+News

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd disagree with you on their being no side worth taking on any issue.

 

For US interests, I'd back the Sunni. Or at least the secular. We don't want a country too closely allied with Iran.

 

The more I see stories like this though, the more I think we've squandered any opportunity.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...on.com+%2F+News

That would be sort of ironic wouldn't it? Or maybe just poetic? We invade, knock Saddam and his Sunni minority out of power, spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to try to set up a secular state, see hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die in violence, and then decide to back those same Sunnis in taking back control of the country.

 

Sort of seperately, one thing I haven't changed my view on - Kurdistan should be a seperate state. In fact, if we do pull out, we might want to pull back to Kurdistan, support the Kurds as best as we can. That might help ease the worries of Syria and Turkey about an independent Kurdistan.

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't think that is the most important difference. The key difference is that in Vietnam the U.S. could take a side (U.S. v Soviet influence), and in the American Civil War, the Brits could take a side (UK promoting best trade opportunities). Here, we gain nothing from choosing the Shiites or the Sunnis. There is no side worth promoting. Kind of like with Israel and Palestine.

 

Soviet influence? Ho Chi Mihn wasn't exactly a Stalinist.

 

The key difference is that this is a religious holy war. Period.

[NorthSideSox72]

Soviet influence? Ho Chi Mihn wasn't exactly a Stalinist.

 

The key difference is that this is a religious holy war. Period.

You're welcome to see it that way. I don't disagree that its a major factor. I just don't see it as the key difference.

[Gregory Pratt]

You're welcome to see it that way. I don't disagree that its a major factor. I just don't see it as the key difference.

 

You don't think it's key to the nature of the Iraq War that their Civil War is going on between two groups of Islamic extremists who are fighting over religion?

 

Okay then.

[Rex Kickass]

NSS: I'd love to see the Kurds get their own state, but the Kurdish region has had its own problems - namely sponsoring PKK terror attacks inside Turkey, a NATO country. Bad enough that a couple months ago, Turkey threatened to take preemptive action in Northern Iraq.

 

We've got a lot of problems with each nationality. The Kurds are the ones we hear about least because their target is Turkish and not American.

[NorthSideSox72]

NSS: I'd love to see the Kurds get their own state, but the Kurdish region has had its own problems - namely sponsoring PKK terror attacks inside Turkey, a NATO country. Bad enough that a couple months ago, Turkey threatened to take preemptive action in Northern Iraq.

 

We've got a lot of problems with each nationality. The Kurds are the ones we hear about least because their target is Turkish and not American.

I'm not just taking this perspective from the lack of news items. The Kurds certainly have their own issues. The difference is, I think the overall situation in that region is much more controllable than the current mess in the heart of Iraq. They have some idea of a nation in mind, they have shown a willingness to work with us, and their desires are much more along the lines of independence, financial stability and security than is true for the rest of the country.

 

 

 

You don't think it's key to the nature of the Iraq War that their Civil War is going on between two groups of Islamic extremists who are fighting over religion?

 

Okay then.

 

Read my post more carefully. Its absolutely a key. I just don't think its the single most important difference.

 

Its really about personal and national gain.

[Balta1701]

It wouldn't take that many troops. It would take a lot of air support, a lot of technologies that you (or I) don't know about, and some other methods.

 

I'm not going to sit here and waste my time - any military victory can be achieved by this country - but most people wouldn't or couldn't stand for it. And no, I'm not talking nuclear weapons or anything like that, but the type of warfare that would be needed to 'win' is no picnic.

 

We would need more troops, but not 500,000 more. That's a bogus number only used to hype your point.

 

Our country has wussified 'war' to keep casualties down. That's ok, but it leaves the political climate such as we see now, and people in our country (in general) don't think war with a price is necessary.

So, I for one would like to hear exactly what it is we can do to "win" this war? You're clearly advocating some application of airpower, to what purpose exactly? And who is the target? Taking it as you say and totally ignoring how bloody things could be, what do we do?

 

Do we target and attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its Sunni population to put an end to the insurgency because we can't tell which Sunnis are fighting us and which aren't? If so, we wind up finally finishing off the process of handing another strong ally in the region to Iran and Syria.

 

Do we attempt to go after the Mahdi army, which forms the bulk of the support in Parliament for the current prime minister, and thus bring the entire government down?

 

What exactly do we do? Anyone we target, at least to my eyes, makes things worse. Taking sides in this civil war won't work, either we'll be helping out the Iranians or we'll be tearing apart Iraq's government. Just attempting to attack indiscriminatly any place that violence outcrops won't work; it doesn't do much to hit an already exploded car bomb with a JDAM. We can't enforce a curfew on the entire country, because a.) it wouldn't work (those Sunnis burned to death today happened under a full curfew), b.) we don't have nearly the manpower to pull it off, and c.) it sort of shuts down the entire country.

 

So, what is it exactly that we can do?