[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/12/iraq.main/index.html


Does killing never stop

Better question: Why is the killing stopping? The Iraqis need to kill this guy once and for all. Negotiations only made things worse the first time around and will do so this time.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank


What the coalition needs to do is **** off home like 90% of Iraqis want them to do. What the Iraqis need to do is make it clear to the coalition that they arent welcome anymore, preferably with large truck bombs.

Um... do actually have any statistics to back up that 90% figure?  

I'd imagine most Iraqis are realistic to realise they have no security forces at present aside from the coalition, and thus will need to rely on them or risk the same scenes of anarchy as after Saddam fell.  

(Note 'rely', not 'welcome')

In order to return (return?) to stability, Iraq needs some form of security.  At the moment - botch  job as it may be - the Coalition troops are all they have.

[Rictor]

Actually, the figure is probably between 95% and 100%. The most recent poll that I know off indicated 98%, though naturally, polls can err a few digits up or down. But still, if that doesn't constitute a vast majority, I don't know what does.

And Iraq has police forces now, who also act as soldiers when needed. I'de say they have plenty of security, and necessitiy would spawn more.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Actually, the figure is probably between 95% and 100%. The most recent poll that I know off indicated 98%, though naturally, polls can err a few digits up or down. But still, if that doesn't constitute a vast majority, I don't know what does.

And Iraq has police forces now, who also act as soldiers when needed. I'de say they have plenty of security, and necessitiy would spawn more.

(first source i could find)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040704/news_mz1b4iraqi.html

n the past year, with the Pentagon outsourcing many of its functions, SAIC has played a major role in training the Iraqi army and the police force. But the number of police officers and soldiers trained has been far below expectations.

One year after the first training contracts were issued, the Iraqi army has only 6,700 troops – slightly more than half the size of the Los Angeles police force – and fewer than half of them have received training.

I'm trying to find the police force numbers.... but i'm willing to bet it's nowhere near enough.  Especially, considering the 100-odd thousand coalition troops have been so ineffective.

EDIT; possibly more reliable;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3873359.stm
Multinational Brigade North (also known as Task Force Olympia):
About 20,000 soldiers, of whom 11,500 are Iraqi security forces (national guard, border patrol and army).

Also, the size of the police force is probably pretty irrellevant.  Most police forces are neither trained nor expected to fight guerilla warfare.  Also, there's possible issues over who the new police / army are loyal to - especially the leftovers from Saddams days, if they were sufficiently indoctrinated.

EDIT2; probably the best I can find.  No date, though.  
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040209-08.html
According to the U.S. Defense Department, Iraq's police force now numbers 70,000, just shy of the projected total force of 71,000, and the ICDC forces stand at 21,000, just over half of the desired force size of 40,000.

Captain Romley said that other branches of the Iraqi security forces include 21,000 border police, a force that is expected to grow to 26,000, and approximately 92,000 in the facilities protection services, whose task it is to guard important infrastructure and government buildings.

In addition, he said that a cadre of 1,700 officers and NCOs have been trained to serve as a core for the country's army. These officers will in turn train enlisted soldiers, with the goal of establishing an army of approximately 40,000 troops.

Romley said that the army is designed strictly to protect the territorial integrity of the country and will not serve any internal, domestic function.

In all, Iraq's security forces now stand in excess of 200,000 men, outnumbering the coalition presence of 140,000 troops.

It's hard,admittedly, for me to judge if this is 'enough'.  The UK has about 150,000 police, IIRC - but we're not a warzone last I checked, and also they're not 'new' to the job. Or, indeed, subject to organized terrorist attacks.  Well trained police won't make good soldiers, anyway - police aren't trained to kill, after all - they're trained to investigate and arrest.

Based on the current situation, I'd say they don't have enough numbers or training.

[Ford Prefect]

Last I heard, there were security forces actually shooting at US troops.

[Gank]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Um... do actually have any statistics to back up that 90% figure?  

I'd imagine most Iraqis are realistic to realise they have no security forces at present aside from the coalition, and thus will need to rely on them or risk the same scenes of anarchy as after Saddam fell.  

(Note 'rely', not 'welcome')

In order to return (return?) to stability, Iraq needs some form of security.  At the moment - botch  job as it may be - the Coalition troops are all they have.

What planet are you on mate, do you honestly think after the last year that US forces are going to restore stability to Iraq? The coalition troops may be all they have, but peace and security arent going to come about until long after they leave.  As for most Iraqis relying on them, iirc the same poll said most Iraqis had no confidence in them in that role. Google it if you want to know the exact figures, it was a cpa poll taken june iirc, one taken before the april uprising gave dissaproval ratings at 80% iirc.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank


What planet are you on mate, do you honestly think after the last year that US forces are going to restore stability to Iraq? The coalition troops may be all they have, but peace and security arent going to come about until long after they leave.  As for most Iraqis relying on them, iirc the same poll said most Iraqis had no confidence in them in that role. Google it if you want to know the exact figures, it was a cpa poll taken june iirc, one taken before the april uprising gave dissaproval ratings at 80% iirc.

EDIT;

Right.  Simple question

What do you think would happen in Iraq if the Coalition pulled out now?

[MatthewPapa]

Civil war up the butt. The coalition is getting theirselves out of there as soon as possible. Chances are that country will be in anarchy for a great many years.

[Ford Prefect]

We probably ought to keep in mind that even the United States had a rocky, violent start with democratic government. I think that violence and civil war may be an unavoidable fact in Iraq. You can't suppress violence with force; you have to defuse the driving force behind it.

[Corsair]

Originally posted by Rictor
Besides, damaging the mosque is not something they can afford to do, and I think they know it.

Bing bing bing! I was sitting in my DC hotel room with an Arab-Israeli friend and a Egyptian friend of mine when I saw this on CNN. They both said the same thing. "Oh ****. The Ali Mosque? That place had better not get hurt..."
These friends of mine are pretty liberal guys, too.

[Rictor]

I think that the US has a very clear motive for trying to convince everyone that it there would be civil war if they pulled out. Now, I'm not dismissing the possibility, but its rather clear that the civil war scenario stinks of politics opportunism.

What do I think would happen if the US (please don't refer to it as a coalition aldo, since you know damn well that its not) pulled out?

I honestly couldn't say. Civil war is one possibility, I'm not denying that, but I don't pretend to know enough about the complex internal politics of Iraq, especially after the past 16 months, which have been particularly unusual, to say for sure.

But what I can say with some certainty is that, at least as far as I can see, the US troops are *causing* the instabilty, not guarding against it. Right now, 100% (or very close to it) of the fighting is between the US plus Iraqi police (collaborators let call them) and various insurgent groups. Now, if the US left, would these groups break their alliance and turn on each other? Maybe, maybe not. The US is a unifying force, in that it unites groups with, I would guess, rather different views and policies, against the occupation. It could very well be that when you take this unifying force away, it would be an all out battle for who will rule, but I don't think thats certain.

But this is all working under the assumption that the US will stay only so long as it takes "to do the job", which is until elections, which clearly is not the case.

[Flipside]

Come to think of it, on a side-note, didn't didn't most democratic countries have to have a civil war to gain their version of freedom? Certainly the UK, France and the US did?

[Rictor]

I think thats its safer to say that most democratic nations have gone through a civil war at some point which, more often than not, decided the power structure which is in place to this day.

Hell, all of Eastern Europe falls into that category, Spain, Greece, Germany (sort of), Switzerland I think...

No pain no gain. If a civil war is the only way people are going to get that **** out of their system and settle down, so be it.

[vyper]

I just hope the last one, was our last one.

Britain has gentlemanly coups actually, you see sudden shifts in government or policy, public pressure (or press) forcing out governments, etc.

Just an interesting point.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
I think that the US has a very clear motive for trying to convince everyone that it there would be civil war if they pulled out. Now, I'm not dismissing the possibility, but its rather clear that the civil war scenario stinks of politics opportunism.

What do I think would happen if the US (please don't refer to it as a coalition aldo, since you know damn well that its not) pulled out?

I honestly couldn't say. Civil war is one possibility, I'm not denying that, but I don't pretend to know enough about the complex internal politics of Iraq, especially after the past 16 months, which have been particularly unusual, to say for sure.

But what I can say with some certainty is that, at least as far as I can see, the US troops are *causing* the instabilty, not guarding against it. Right now, 100% (or very close to it) of the fighting is between the US plus Iraqi police (collaborators let call them) and various insurgent groups. Now, if the US left, would these groups break their alliance and turn on each other? Maybe, maybe not. The US is a unifying force, in that it unites groups with, I would guess, rather different views and policies, against the occupation. It could very well be that when you take this unifying force away, it would be an all out battle for who will rule, but I don't think thats certain.

But this is all working under the assumption that the US will stay only so long as it takes "to do the job", which is until elections, which clearly is not the case.

Technically, it is a coalition.  AS UK and Polish troops have also been involved in fighting, I don't think you can argue it isn't,  It's just dominated by the US.  But seeing as a complete withdrawal would involve removing all foreign troops, then coalition is clearly the appropriate term.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=define%3Acoalition&btnG=Search

I belive that, if the coalition pulls out, it will leave a power vacuum which will likely lead to an all out civil war, probably on racial grounds (Sunni vs Shia vs Kurdish).  In the event of Kurdish involvement and later independence, that could draw in the Turkish army, and possibly lead to a wider isntability.

I think that the best solution is to bring in a properly neutral peacekeeping force, preferably drawn from Arab countries (i.e. a muslim force), and possibly even a UN one.  The withdraw the coalition troops.  

But at the moment, I fear withdrawal will only lead to a long civil war ala Afghanistan (i.e. up to and including the Taliban).  And i don't think a civil war is by any means a good thing.

And if you look at Afghanistan, which has seemingly had minimal support in terms of coalition troops, it's an example of how not to rebuild a country.

NB: I don;t think man/most european civil wars have taken place on racial / religious lines, as is most likely to happen in Iraq.  IIRC they've been ideological (except Yugoslavia).  Haven't really looked it up, though.  Albeit Spain is a very bad example - Franco had a lot of outside help there, and it ended up a totalitatrian dictatorship.

[Ford Prefect]

The best solution is clearly to build a time machine, go back to the post-WWI Middle East, and prevent the nation of Iraq from being formed.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The best solution is clearly to build a time machine, go back to the post-WWI Middle East, and prevent the nation of Iraq from being formed.

If only it were that easy.....

[Gank]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Right.  Simple question

What do you think would happen in Iraq if the Coalition pulled out now?

Simple answer, same thing thats going to happen whenever they do leave. The US has no credibility in the country now and neither they or any of their appointed puppet rulers are going to bring peace and stability to the place, their continued presence is the main reason for the lack of it. As for a civil war, its probably inevitable, given the rise in power of Sunni and Shia extremists like Al Sadr.

[Rictor]

I just learned something very interesting. Apparently, of the four main religious leaders in Najaf, not counting Sadr, all four were out of the city when the siege started, and obviously, they can't return now. The attack was, quite coincidentally of course, timed so that no religious authority would be present.

I don't know what to make of that exactly.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Rictor
Actually, the figure is probably between 95% and 100%. The most recent poll that I know off indicated 98%, though naturally, polls can err a few digits up or down. But still, if that doesn't constitute a vast majority, I don't know what does.

Somehow I doubt the internet/phone possessing Iraqi's would be the majority of the population.

Or did some poor fool do door to door asking for each person's vote?

I think of ppl tend to forget things like this when they see "The All Mighty Poll Results" because for us,..in our home countries respectively,...having access to the internet or at least a phoneline is a very common thing.

So perhaps it's better said "The figure is probably between 95% and 100% 'of those able to vote in the poll'. Which for all we know is 3 ppl and a hampster, albeit it a wealthy successful hampster