US Military Arming Insurgents....er...."Freedom Fighters"

[shooter503]

The new tactic can work in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. If a country is divided into small factions you can divide and conquer but this is not the case in Iraq, there are only the two major power blocks. The Kurds need not get involved, they only need to wait for a weakened and bloody victor from the Sunni/Shiite fight and then declare independence.

The Shiites will hate the new US tactic because they see it will increase their problems with the Sunnis in the future. This tactic will eventually unite the Shiites against the US and increase the prestige of AlSadr. Of course, even if Al Quaida is crippled, the Sunnie/Shiite clash is inevitable - and the Sunnis will be fighting with arms provided by the US. If the US tries to enforce a truce between the two sides they will both turn on the US in the belief that the US is giving more support to the other side. This new policy is a short ride to nowhere.

Despite the declared reasons(s), the underlying motive for the US entering Iraq was to secure oil and to establish large permanent land bases in the region. In the background you will see the US is still trying to complete this basic plan regardless of the Iraqi security situation. Access to the oil and land bases was possible if the Neocon pipe dream of welcoming Iraqis had been successful. Unfortunately we are now not only blowing billions of dollars on day to day combat we are also spending billions of dollars on an embassy and ground bases that will never be used.

 

[Number 6]

Arming locals is one strategy for fighting an insurgency that has been used before to great effect. When the US was helping the Guatemalans during their civil war, one tactic was to arm the indigenous tribes in the countryside. We gave them a bunch of M1 Carbines and told them that anyone that does not "belong" they could kill. This tactic essentially pacified a large area with relatively little cost. Yes, there were human rights abuses by those we armed. Yes, they did go off with the weapons we gave them and settled some personal scores. But, those are the costs of fighting an insurgency. Fighting insurgencies is a dirty business, and dealing with unsavory characters is just one of the costs.

 

[shooter503]

That's the point Number 6. You can divide and conquer if you have a large number of small groups who dislike each other, control their own ground and who are not strong enough to emerge as the single most powerful group at the end of the conflict.

Unfortunately, in Iraq there is going to be a clear winner after the conflict ends - and both the Shiites and the Sunnis want to be that winner. They will fight anyone who blocks that ambition.

 

[nemoaz]

Who blew up that mosq today?

Who cares?

 

[Number 6]

That's the point Number 6. You can divide and conquer if you have a large number of small groups who dislike each other, control their own ground and who are not strong enough to emerge as the single most powerful group at the end of the conflict.

Unfortunately, in Iraq there is going to be a clear winner after the conflict ends - and both the Shiites and the Sunnis want to be that winner. They will fight anyone who blocks that ambition.

Well that is the $25,000 question; can this work in Iraq? I think it has a possibility, if those running the show can restrain those that they arm. Its a big if, but I still place that in the realm of possibility.

Remember, this strategy has had a lot of success in Al Anbar, but that region is pretty homogenous. Baghdad is a different story, however.

 

[Titan6]

Well, the current train of thought is that while it may not work it can hardly make things worse.

If the Shia were serious about stopping the fighting they would have taken Al Queda and foreign infiltrators to task long ago. By making overtures to the other side we are putting them in the position of either keeping their word or facing a tougher internal enemy after we leave.

There is another reason as well. It as largely believed by some troops on the ground (and perhaps others) that a genocide may take place after departure. Will it is unlikely to do much good this may help mitigate that possibility.

 

[Prince Yamato]

You know, the sad thing is, if these people were even remotely civilized, they could have taken the near trillion dollars we gave them and built their country into a shining example of modern middle eastern democracy. Instead they pissed away every chance they had to settle scores in what is effectively a turf war over who gets to control a particular sandlot. I say, give the Sunnis the guns tell 'em to defend themselves, then dump all remaining funding into Kurdistan. Of course, then the Kurds will probably use the money we give them to fight it out with the Turks...

 

[LAK]

Those dominating the country were very civilized. More so per capita than most of the rest of the middle east.

We destroyed their infrastructure, took actual control of a very limited fraction of the country, and dithered around with a grossly undermanned and equipped occupation force with nothing to replace that which had previously kept the uncivilized in check throughout the whole country.

It is argueably a good idea to kill a rattlesnake in the yard; but you don't go around decapitating gopher snakes - unless you really like rats, mice and other vermin.

-----------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org