[LawDog]

Sky News in the Gulf is reporting a "popular uprising" of the Shi'a majority against the Hussein regime in the city of Basrah.

Basrah is Iraq's second largest city, and was one Coalition troops had been hoping to avoid actually having to enter on the way to Baghdad.

May be a pyrrhic victory for the Iraqi rebels, seems that troops loyal to Hussein are firing mortars and possibly machineguns into crowds of protesters.

Brit artillery is supplying counter-battery fire against mortar posisitons, and American aircraft are using J-DAMs against loyalist postions, and the Ba'ath HQ.

British forces were going to enter the city in support of the rebellion, but the brass have decided to hold off until daylight to avoid shooting the wrong people full of holes.

Hoo-hah! Y'all thought things were interesting before?

LawDog

[Leatherneck]

Let us hope that this spreads like wildfire! Although engaging in Basra means urban warfare to some degree, having the inhabitants on our side creates a whole new picture. Great news.

[2dogs]

Any chance of Iran moving in from the east?

Are the Turks still trying to get in from the north?

I hope we don't have to fight inside out.:uhoh:

[jmbg29]

They are wacking and stacking each other? WIN/WIN!:cool:

[Bahadur]

If we want the Shia population to rise up like it did after Desert Storm, we MUST support the Basrah rebellion and ensure that it succeeds.

If the residents of Basrah are able to throw off Saddam's yoke (with our help), the rebellion will spread like wild fire through all of southern Iraq, and will reduce the need for us to guard against Saddam loyalists (like the Fedayeen Saddam). At that point, the latter would need OUR protection against the Shia lynch mobs!
Any chance of Iran moving in from the east?Iran is, er, a bit busy with its own internal struggle between the reformist students and reactionary Ayatollahs.
Are the Turks still trying to get in from the north?This needs careful watching. Although Turkey supposedly agreed not to insert large number of troops into northern Iraq, its moves can affect opening of the northern front by diverting our Kurdish allies from attacking Saddam's forces (due to their need to counter the Turkish incursions).

[Intune]

Bahadur, you are right on target. We MUST support them. I would add that we let them down once before and Sad Damn ate their lunch so now they are understandably a little gunshy. The Turks aren't gonna do squat other than possibly bluster about a bit. This is good news indeed. :cool:

[moa]

The biggest problem is that the Iranians step in. They are mostly Shia Muslims, but they are not mostly Arab. And the Iranian border is very close.

Be interesting to see what happens. Might end up with one huge Middle East free-for-all.

Apparently the last Iraqi Shia revolt cost the Shia hundreds of thousands of dead at the hands of Saddam and his mafia.

[Bahadur]

The biggest problem is that the Iranians step in. They are mostly Shia Muslims, but they are not mostly Arab. And the Iranian border is very close.Though Iraqi Shi'ites and Iranians share a common sect, they bear much hatred for each other (Arab vs. Persian). They are unlikely to enter the war to "help" the Iraqi Shia.

Besides, our actions in Iraq are already having profound repercussions in the Middle East. Reputedly, Syrians have withdrawn troops from Lebanon and have sent messages to our government that they will "act nicely" (because they fear they may be next).

Iranians are holding their breaths to see what happens next. When a missile fell in Iran, the Iranian government didn't bluster about American aggression and all that. It was pretty quick to put out a statement that the missile was Iraqi.
Apparently the last Iraqi Shia revolt cost the Shia hundreds of thousands of dead at the hands of Saddam and his mafia.Most of the Shia rebels from the last fiasco are dead. Saddam Hussein's loyalists inflicted terrible retribution on the Shia. Frankly, I would not be able to blame the Shia for not rising up, considering how we encouraged them to rebel last time and then simply stood by while they were murdered.

But it is in their best interest to rebel and support us, and it seems to be dawning on them, reluctance or no.

[Jim March]

Agreed re: supporting the Basra insurgency. We WANT to see the same thing happen in Baghdad, although it will add a note of confusion :uhoh:.

On the other hand, isn't it neat how the rest of the middle east seems to be going "oh hell, this guy Dubya ain't screwin' around!".

:cool:

Now if only Israel will get a clue and get those crazy "settlers" under control :fire: and then friggin' Ara-rat fires up both his neurons at once, we'll maybe get somewhere.

[Bahadur]

Agreed re: supporting the Basra insurgency. We WANT to see the same thing happen in Baghdad, although it will add a note of confusion.The interesting thing is this. Saddam Hussein generally forbids military units from entering Baghdad (even Republican Guard units) because he is afraid of a coup. When the RG units get compressed and forced to retreat into Baghdad by Coalition forces, all kinds of interesting scenarios can play out.
On the other hand, isn't it neat how the rest of the middle east seems to be going "oh hell, this guy Dubya ain't screwin' around!".Well, at the international security level, "good cop, bad cop" routine works when adults are in charge. Of course, the routine does require a graphic demonstration of the "bad cop" in action at least once, before the disbelief disappears and the "good cop" can work his magic.
Now if only Israel will get a clue and get those crazy "settlers" under control and then friggin' Ara-rat fires up both his neurons at once, we'll maybe get somewhere.I think Arafat is a lost cause to peace. Hopefully, Abu Mazen, the new Palestinian PM, will prove to be more realistic.

Under that particular scenario, if the Israelis make it crystal clear to the general Palestinian population - categorically - that they will NOT colonize West Bank and Gaza and will eventually relinquish them PROVIDED that the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel, I have no doubt the Palestinians will topple Arafat should the latter object to such a peace.

Whether because of propaganda or because of mixed messages coming from the Israeli government (with its electoral eye on the fanatical pro-settler parties), the Palestinian population is not convinced that Israel has no desire to play the colonialist power game.

[cordex]

The interesting thing is this. Saddam Hussein generally forbids military units from entering Baghdad (even Republican Guard units) because he is afraid of a coup.
What historical government used to do this? I'm thinking something Roman Empire era, but can't remember. I know I've heard it before.

[CZ-75]

Provincial governors of the roman empire were forbidden to bring their armies with them to the city of Rome.

Caesar was forbidden to bring his over the river Rubicon.

[moa]

Israel will probably never give up the occupied territories. Makes Israel too hard defend when the narrowest part of the country is 15 miles wide.

[Bahadur]

Israel will probably never give up the occupied territories. Makes Israel too hard defend when the narrowest part of the country is 15 miles wide.Is that why the IDF crushed THREE (count them THREE) major Arab armies in a spectacular fashion during the Six Day War when Israel began with no "Occupied Territories" and was only 15 miles wide at the narrowest part?

Is that why, conversely, the IDF *almost* came to defeat in the subsequent 1973 Yom Kippur War (particularly in the Golan) against only TWO opposing armies, sending tremors through the IDF establishment and the contry as a whole, even though the war started with the IDF in control of West Bank, Gaza and Sinai, the biggest Israel has ever been?

[Bahadur]

What historical government used to do this? I'm thinking something Roman Empire era, but can't remember. I know I've heard it before.That's true. But that's true of all governments that are afraid of usurpers and coups.

The US government has absolutely no problem stationing troops in Washington, D.C. during a national emergency, because it knows that there is little to no chance that military leaders will use the occassion to mount a coup (the people of the country will NOT stand for it).

Where civilians control the military, this isn't much of an issue. Where the military/security forces control the country, it can get dicey for the one in power to admit military forces into the capital.

[Leatherneck]

Bahadur's last points raise the question: Why are we different? Besides tradition/culture of supremacy of civilian power over the military, we have it written down. So is a constitution the sine qua non of a successful New Iraq?

TC
TFL Survivor

[Bahadur]

Bahadur's last points raise the question: Why are we different? Besides tradition/culture of supremacy of civilian power over the military, we have it written down. So is a constitution the sine qua non of a successful New Iraq?We are different because the Founding Fathers of our country who wrote our basic law - the Constitution - had a more immediate concerns & problems from their historical experience (Cromwell's militarism and British Crown's military quartering of the military in civilian homes), which thus reflected prominently in their subsequent legal guards.

In a way, it's an "accident" of history (I don't mean that it was "random," but that it resulted from a unique set of circumstances).

Constitutions can certainly help. But there has to be a tradition of respect for the Constitution (heck, ChiComs have one that guarantees press freedom, right to protest, etc.). Then again, it's not as if we really respect our Constitution any more (tell me how the EPA is not a gross violation of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights)... So I guess it is all a matter of degrees.

As for Iraq, a regime that is relatively stable, is more representative than most of the other Middle Eastern countries, fosters prosperity with the "God-given" natural resources of Iraq will do nicely.

[Destructo6]

The interesting thing is this. Saddam Hussein generally forbids military units from entering Baghdad (even Republican Guard units) because he is afraid of a coup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What historical government used to do this? I'm thinking something Roman Empire era, but can't remember. I know I've heard it before.

Well, that would have Rome itself. Traditionally, Roman commanders were not allowed to enter the city while still holding imperium. Later, under Sulla IIRC, it was extended so that one could not cross the borders of his assigned province while under arms. The southern border of Julius Caesar's province (Gaul) was the Rubicon river.

[Tamara]

They are wacking and stacking each other? WIN/WIN!:cool:

Way to cultivate allies, Mr. jmbg29. I'm sorry; you fail. Go to the back of the class, please. :rolleyes:

(PS: It's "whacking". ;) )

[Bahadur]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interesting thing is this. Saddam Hussein generally forbids military units from entering Baghdad (even Republican Guard units) because he is afraid of a coup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What historical government used to do this? I'm thinking something Roman Empire era, but can't remember. I know I've heard it before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, that would have Rome itself. Traditionally, Roman commanders were not allowed to enter the city while still holding imperium. Later, under Sulla IIRC, it was extended so that one could not cross the borders of his assigned province while under arms. The southern border of Julius Caesar's province (Gaul) was the Rubicon river.Of course, all that applied to the proconsuls in the provinces. The city of Rome itself had an urban legion (a fairly weak one, really meant for maintaining law and order like a police force), not to mention the Praetorians, the kingmakers.

[Destructo6]

I was talking about the late republican period, when there really was no praetorian guard. Praetors, yes, but they were not guards. At the time, there really wasn't a police force in Rome, either, as the riots from Tiberius Gracchi to Pompey indicate.

Caesar's murder testifies to a lack of guard.

[jmbg29]

Way to cultivate allies, Mr. jmbg29. I'm sorry; you fail. Go to the back of the class, please.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be cultivating allies. For what purpose would I do such a foolish ting? Perhaps so they could stab me in the back later, say... like the French? I need no allies.

P.S. It's thing.:p Now where (or is it were) is that middle finger smilie?;) :neener:

[Bahadur]

I was talking about the late republican period, when there really was no praetorian guard.Praetors, yes, but they were not guards. At the time, there really wasn't a police force in Rome, either, as the riots from Tiberius Gracchi to Pompey indicate.

Caesar's murder testifies to a lack of guard.Sorry, I thought you meant "Rome" in an expansive sense (including the late Republican-to-early Empire period).

Augustus instituted the Praetorian Guard as his personal bodyguard. He also created the Urban Cohorts (cohortes urbanae) as a kind of police for Rome as well as the vigiles as a kind of nightwatch/firefighter force.

By the way, the Roman legions not being allowed into Rome or Italy dates from Sulla, so was a more "recent" phenomenon (for example, there were certainly legions manning the walls of Rome during the Second Punic War).

[Glock Glockler]

Why would we want the Turks or Iranians to invade, we don't need their help, and if they did invade we'd be obliged to give them part of the spoils? The Turks had their chance, we had a very generous offer on the table, and they decided to give us the Ham sandwich. To hell with them.

We should incite and support rebellion throughout Iraq, but keep the participants within it's borders.

[moa]

Roman legions must have been allowed into Rome on special occasions such as celebrating triumphs, which lasted for days and the troops pretty much had the run of the city.

[Destructo6]

Roman legions must have been allowed into Rome on special occasions such as celebrating triumphs, which lasted for days and the troops pretty much had the run of the city.
Yep, but they had to wait outside the city walls until the triumph was approved and the day arrived. Julius Caesar forewent a triumph in order to stand for election, due to a recent law that required cadidates to be physically present in the city.