iraq

Marx created a narrative. The Soviets perfected it. The West internalized it. It "explains" all evil in terms of either American or British empire-building. The only problem with it being it is a pack of lies from start to finish. This is where the history of the evolution of the free world can be honestly written.

iraq

Postby kerravon » 2011-03-13 06:26

My attention was drawn to this:

http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/overn ... ras-lanuf/

article which states:

"Libyafeb17.com would like to state that we do not personally agree with the point regarding John McCain as we feel that a weak response is preferable to the kind of military intervention we have seen under recent Republican Presidency in Iraq and Afghanistan."

This is a completely inappropriate analogy.

First of all, you need to separate out the two different phases.

1. First you need to take out the organized military structures that are obeying orders from the resident dictator. In Afghanistan, this was done from 2001-10-07 to 2001-12-17 (ie about 2.5 months) . In Iraq this was done from 2003-03-19 to 2003-04-09 (ie about 3 weeks). The reason Iraq was quicker was that major US ground forces were used (200,000 troops) whereas Afghanistan wasn't pushed hard by the weaker (11,000 troops) Northern Alliance/United Front. In Afghanistan the enemy was pounded from the air for such an extent that the Northern Alliance could literally walk to victory.

2. Once the overt enemy forces are gone, you then have the tough task of nation-building. You do have an easy option of just re-employing the defeated military elements (which is what the revolutions in Eastern Europe effectively did), but this risks tainting the newborn democracy. In Iraq and Afghanistan they wanted to make it very clear that the new military was in no way related to the old.

Now in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are tribes, ethnic groups and religious divisions to deal with. If any of these groups feels that they will be a persecuted minority, number 2 will potentially be a disaster and a source of terrorism. Something similar to the Catholics in Northern Ireland supporting the IRA. If these groups haven't been taught to be tolerant of "others" so that they feel secure, you will potentially have civil strife. In Iraq, the main problem is the Sunni Arabs feeling (rightly or wrongly) disenfranchised and objecting to that in a deadly manner.

It is silly to think that Libya would be the same as Iraq in phase 2, if phase 1 is done the same way. Almost everyone is hoping for the rebels to win as per phase 1. Foreign aircraft make that phase 1 so much easier.

Whether there is a disaster in phase 2 is something that is going to happen independently of how phase 1 was achieved. Gaddafi did indeed come from a particular tribe, and that tribe may object and use terrorism. I think that is unlikely though, as it should be obvious to them that they can't possibly win that. In addition, there are no ethnic or religious divides in Libya for Libya to fracture along. So foreign planes should be as successful as they were in 1989 in the Philippines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Phili ... up_attempt

"With loyal forces hard-pressed by the rebels, Aquino requested US Military assistance, at the behest of her military commanders and was granted"

You didn't hear about Filipinos killing each other after that, right? And even if there was, it does not mean you should refuse to do phase 1, as that is giving in to terrorist demands of phase 2. Also, any violence in phase 2 should be blamed on inherent problems (ie bigotry) in the local population, rather than there being anything wrong with phase 1.
kerravon
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-01-29 04:01
Location: Australia, Free World South

Return to narrative

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron