The Partitioning of Iraq enters last Phase,

[charles brough]

Partition is not our government's stated policy but it is inevitable and now part of our government's present (but secret) agenda. The Administration's only way to placate public opinion and prevent a disastrous pull out of American forces in Iraq is to see that the new downtrend continues in the casualty rate of our service men there. The Sunni-Shiite conflict in the Baghdad area is gradually pitting the U.S. and the Sunnis against the Shiite government and army. Just as gradually, the Shiite government will turn to Iran for support. The Sunnis have to rely upon us to counter the Shiite-led directed genocide of Sunnis. The Shiite government wants control of Baghdad and can then cut off the flow of oil money to the Sunni provinces.

 

Saudi Arabia has become alarmed enough over the growth of Shiite power in Iran and in Iraq that it is clamping down on the flow of Sunni money and operatives into terrorist organizations. It has been increasingly backing the insurgency drift away from killing American servicemen in Iraq and to the killing of Shiites---as well as opposition to the Shiite government. That is why General Patreus is able to show a decline in the number of suicide bomb deaths of American servicemen.

 

See: MEMRI: Latest News

 

The main U.S. enemy is Iran. The Administration is working closely with Saudi Arabia and Israel to reduce Iran's growing power and influence. If Iran gains the ability to build atomic missiles, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would also have to develop that ability and are threatening in private to do just that.

 

So we are being forced to move against the very government we set up in Iraq. By working with us in Iraq to eliminate Al Queda, the Sunnis are turning into our ally as swiftly as the Shiite government there backs away from us and leans toward Iran for support and arms. That is why that government appears to us to be so "incompetent." It's agenda just happens to differ from our own!

 

When the final stage of partition occurs and the Shiite government of Southern Iraq cuts of its flow of oil money to the Sunni state-in-being, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will come up with the funds to keep the new state functioning. We will be forced to drive out the Iraqi army and help the Sunnis gain control over the Shiite areas of the province. Iraq will then be in a partitioned state.

 

Events are moving swiftly. Already, we can expect war with Iran within the next six months. The flight of Israel war planes over Syria is a prelude. The jets were testing Syrian and Iranian responses. We have an immense naval armada in the Gulf. Israel wants this war more than even President Bush and is willing to start it itself if it needs to in order to drag us into it.

 

The decline of our servicemen deaths, the growing threat of Iran, and the resolution of the occupation through partitioning can logically be expected to restore President Bush's popularity and make the Democratic Congress look like a bunch of chickens who were willing to sink everything just because the public had grown tired of the war!

 

The timing is all calculated for the 2008 presidential election to come at the height of President Bush's expected recovery of popularity and bring about another republican President into the White House.

[Cedars]

Two weeks ago I spent a few minutes talking to one of the kids friends who just returned from Iraq after 15 or 18 months, as they blew through the house gathering stuff for a small party at the park. He described it as a religious civil war right now and described some of what he was seeing. Lots of fighting between factions without involving our troops. He described it as "they are avoiding engaging the Americans because we will react to an attack on our troops and they dont want that".

[Freddy]

Nice summary Charles! So what about the Kurds in the north? Who will protect them? Civil war in Iraq has always been my prediction. We need to leave Iraq before it becomes all out war between the factions. Iran is dangerous, but I doubt the American people will support another war that Bush leads us into. I cannot imagine Bush regaining political support after nearly 4,000 US soldiers have died for a lie. And still 1/3 of Americans believe Saddam had something to do with 911.

[charles brough]

Freddy, I'll save your response and we can bring up the subject some months ahead and see who turns out to be right! Myself, I think our death toll will keep dropping and that the fickle public will then turn against the Democrats. Everyone was originally for the war when we should never step on Islam, never. We are turning it into a terrorist faith. But there is no way we can get out of Iraq now and have any credibility in the world. Even American tourists would be laughed at abroad and treated badly. American franchise foods in other countries would get no more customers. We would be in retreat everywhere.

[LaurieAG]

But there is no way we can get out of Iraq now and have any credibility in the world. Even American tourists would be laughed at abroad and treated badly.

 

Hello Charles,

 

I would have to say that from down under it looks like you have got that the wrong way around. When the 'unthinkable' is only considered by people who think, does that leave the 'thinkable' to those who don't?

 

After all, what was the advice of all the departing neo-cons before they cut and ran?

[CraigD]

Very interesting analysis. Were it not for the terrible toll in human suffering and death, I’d consider this an engaging game of political speculation and military strategy.

 

On the subject of strategy, I think there’s a tendency among both civilians and military pros to assume that a US invasion of Iran would closely resemble the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in which the collapsing Iraqi military’s defense was ineffective. I don’t believe this expectation is realistic – like it’s economy and government, Iran’s military is much more organized and capable. While a US invasion would, I think, be successful, it would be much more costly – especially when one considers that Iran has a small but modern non-nuclear submarine fleet, capable of retaliation against the US surface navy. A single effective attack on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier could result in an immediate 5,000 combat deaths, an event not suffered by the US navy since WWII.

[charles brough]

craig, I was not thinking of an invasion of Iran. What the Administration plans, I believe, is a purely air and naval war. We would try to bomb their nuclear facilities. When we ultimately fail to satisfy ourselves that we have succeeded, we threaten to bomb the country's infra sctructure until they give in to inspection demands. They refuse of course, and we then tear down the country. When they still refuse, we use nuclear bunker busters. We would suffer few casualties and appear, to the American public, to be merely esculating because of Iran's intransigence. All along, the Right Wing would be expecting a regime change there which, of course, would not happen.

[Buffy]

So you see no possible negative consequences to bombing Iran into submission?

 

Art of war,

Buffy

[CraigD]

craig, I was not thinking of an invasion of Iran. What the Administration plans, I believe, is a purely air and naval war. We would try to bomb…

Charles, your suspicions about the Bush administration’s plans seem to me reasonable, though beyond my ability to confirm or deny.

… We would suffer few casualties and appear, to the American public, to be merely esculating because of Iran's intransigence.

The main point I’m trying to make is that the expectation of minimal US casualties in any sort of “hot, shooting war” with Iran is far from the given that many or most people assume. Though an inventory of US military resources and a comparison of US and Iranian economic strength make it clear, IMHO, that the US could ultimately succeed in crippling Iran’s production and civil infrastructure, or in invading and toppling its central government, I don’t think such a “victory” would be nearly as one-sided as the Iraq invasion.

 

Though nowhere near at parity with the US, Iran has a significant number of modern fighter aircraft and armaments, and, by regional standards, high-quality pilots for them. A greater threat, however, as I mentioned above, might be their small fleet of modern, stealthy submarines. Modern naval simulation suggests that even the best antisubmarine defenses are not entirely effective against such vessels, and that even the best defended parts of the US surface fleet – its carriers – are vulnerable. Such a kill has the potential to exceed the greatest US naval losses of life of WWII – note that a single Nimitz-class carrier carries more than twice the number of human beings killed in the entire 12/7/1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

Note also the potential of land and ship fired anti-ship missles. The modern navies of both the US (USS Stark, 5/17/87, by Iraq) and the UK (HMS Sheffield 5/2/1982 and HMS Glamorgan 6/11/1982, by Argentina) have suffered near-sinkings from such weapons. I don’t have a reasonable assessment of the capability of Iran in this area, but suspect it’s effectively superior to that of Iraq or Argentina in the 1980s.

 

While in no way intending to suggest that the US military is not very well trained and prepared, nor its strategists and tacticians well aware of the risks I describe, the fact remains that more than a generation has passed since its navy an air force fought an enemy capable of effectively striking back. Many people are, I believe, falsely confident in the ability of the US to wage war with few casualties of its own.

[LaurieAG]

But there is no way we can get out of Iraq now and have any credibility in the world. Even American tourists would be laughed at abroad and treated badly. American franchise foods in other countries would get no more customers. We would be in retreat everywhere.

 

How come the US is buying up Iraqi milita's (so they don't attack US troops) while the civilian death toll is staying the same?

 

Surely the responsible thing to do would be to plan for the partition of Iraq now, instead of planning to do the partitioning covertly.

[charles brough]

How come the US is buying up Iraqi milita's (so they don't attack US troops) while the civilian death toll is staying the same?

 

Surely the responsible thing to do would be to plan for the partition of Iraq now, instead of planning to do the partitioning covertly.

 

We have neither the right, the power or the ability to partition Iraq. It has to be and will be something that takes place on its own at its own pace. We think we are running the world, but we are apart of it and part of the reason it is not running so well!

 

The death toll in Iraq has been plunging there for the last five months and is only now beginning to be recognized. Just as we eventually ended the long insurrection in the Phillapines after taking it from the Spanish, so we are slowly ending it in Iraq. We are succeeding because the Sunnis recognize the Shittes and Iran as a worse enemy than we are because they know we want to get out but that the Shiites want to take our place!

[LaurieAG]

Hello Charles,

 

We have neither the right, the power or the ability to partition Iraq. It has to be and will be something that takes place on its own at its own pace. We think we are running the world, but we are apart of it and part of the reason it is not running so well!

 

Correct, but there are many ways that it can take place, some worse than others, and some that might be too far advanced to stop.

 

The death toll in Iraq has been plunging there for the last five months and is only now beginning to be recognized. Just as we eventually ended the long insurrection in the Phillapines after taking it from the Spanish, so we are slowly ending it in Iraq. We are succeeding because the Sunnis recognize the Shiites and Iran as a worse enemy than we are because they know we want to get out but that the Shiites want to take our place!

 

GWB's request for around an extra 48 billion only adds up if you include, along with 1 billion for Iraqi troop training and 6 billion for US troop training, the remainder for paying both the Shia and Sunni militas to stop attacking US troops! How much does the life of a US soldier cost 40,000,000,000/1000 = 40 million a pop (on top of the other 150 billion p.a.).

 

So, when the milita's have recouped their strength and have bought the latest weapons and explosives, they will settle the partition US troops or not.

 

Also, looking at some of the major countries with current US involvement (one way or the other) Saudi Arabia and Turkey are Sunni while Iran is Shia (Iraq could be described as having a Shia majority). Why does one (the democracy) get treated badly by the US politicians (of both sides (did they forget the carrot when they got out the stick)) while the other (religious monarchy) doesn't even get investigated properly over 9/11 when 15/20 hijackers were from this country? BTW, I was talking about Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

 

If money talks so well to US politicians, what can we expect in the future, more of the same or worse?

[learnin to learn]

Speaking from a soldiers perspective, the war on Iraq was costly but it is a risk that almost every US soldier is willing to take for his or her country. Will we invade Iran? according to my Colonel it is a strog possibility. According to him we will invade Iran within the next four years, depending who is sitting in office. But we will invade Iran almost the same way that we invaded Iraq. We will bomb key targets that will cripple their military, and then we will rely on a massive land invasion sweeping in from the west. Yes, Iran has an efficient airoforce, but so did Iraq. Yet NO aircraft were used against the US military during our invasion.

A US soldier's life is work 400 thousand dollars. A small price paid to our families if we ultimately lose ours lives while in the service of our great nation. But you will not find many soldiers who mind this cost. Yes, we spend a lot of money on training the Iraqi army, but we are not paying the militias not to attack us for the simple purpose that this action would not work. They would take our money and attack us anyway. A prime example is Ossama Bin Laden. We paid him to organize an army in Afghanistan in order to liberate his country for the Russians. In return he attacked us, using the money that we gave him to finance his terror.

[LaurieAG]

A prime example is Ossama Bin Laden. We paid him to organize an army in Afghanistan in order to liberate his country for the Russians. In return he attacked us, using the money that we gave him to finance his terror.

 

Hi learnin to learn,

 

Old saying 'If you lie down with dogs don't be surprised if you get fleas'.

[Freddy]

A prime example is Ossama Bin Laden. We paid him to organize an army in Afghanistan in order to liberate his country for the Russians. In return he attacked us, using the money that we gave him to finance his terror.

Bin Laden is a Saudi. He did not organize and lead the Afghans in fighting the Soviets, he merely fought and supplied money. The US gave money and huge amounts of weapons to the Afghan resistance, the Mujahideen , through Pakistan and not directly to Bin Laden.

[learnin to learn]

Bin Laden is a Saudi. He did not organize and lead the Afghans in fighting the Soviets, he merely fought and supplied money. The US gave money and huge amounts of weapons to the Afghan resistance, the Mujahideen , through Pakistan and not directly to Bin Laden.

 

thank you for clarifying Freddy! I didnt know that. I was always under the impression that Bin Laden was leading the attack on the soviets. So he was just part of the resistance? But to this day what i do not understand, if we helped liberate his country from the soviets, why did he attack the US?

 

LaurieAG I have never heard that saying before, I like it. I must remember it:)

[Freddy]

thank you for clarifying Freddy! I didnt know that. I was always under the impression that Bin Laden was leading the attack on the soviets. So he was just part of the resistance? But to this day what i do not understand, if we helped liberate his country from the soviets, why did he attack the US?...

Again, bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan. His beef with the US is we stopped sending aid after the Soviets were defeated and did not continue to help with other Muslim struggles. Our sleeping with the Saudi royal family does not help, since he cannot go back home. We were just in it to defeat communism and to secure Mideast oil. Charlie Wilson's War clearly points this out. Later when it came to giving money for Afghan schools no one would support Wilson's request. The US gave about $2 billion in high tech anti-tank/aircraft/helicopter weapons to the Afghan resistance to help to defeat the Soviet invaders. We also support Israel.