Comments on: The end of major combat operations http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:33:23 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jon Kay http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195533 Jon Kay Mon, 07 May 2007 05:51:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195533 <i>I tell you what, let’s kill off all the Sadrist thugs and all the sunni thugs, probably only about 10 million people altogether, and that will prevent the genocide! Are you game?</i> Well, no. But then, that was entirely YOUR brain that had that idea. What a cheerful picture I form of you. Maybe you should try reading what I wrote. You never answered my question. Or, better still would actually be to examine ongoing operations yourself. <i>Sadr isn’t up against the democracy, </i> Yep! Just the way Marius, Sulla, and Julius Caesar were for the Roman Republic, so long as they could intimidate most of the voters. Are you aware of his record? His men have been involved in police corruption, shootings, beatings, raps, ethnic cleansing, etc.. <i>It’s a whole lot of thugs to kill off, even if the elections were fair.</i> Yeah, thugs like to talk about how untrustworthy elections are. After all, those damned moderates keep doing so well. Sometimes power passes on before the men in charge die. The elections must be rigged. I tell you what, let’s kill off all the Sadrist thugs and all the sunni thugs, probably only about 10 million people altogether, and that will prevent the genocide! Are you game?

Well, no. But then, that was entirely YOUR brain that had that idea. What a cheerful picture I form of you.

Maybe you should try reading what I wrote. You never answered my question. Or, better still would actually be to examine ongoing operations yourself.

Sadr isn’t up against the democracy,

Yep! Just the way Marius, Sulla, and Julius Caesar were for the Roman Republic, so long as they could intimidate most of the voters. Are you aware of his record? His men have been involved in police corruption, shootings, beatings, raps, ethnic cleansing, etc..

It’s a whole lot of thugs to kill off, even if the elections were fair.

Yeah, thugs like to talk about how untrustworthy elections are. After all, those damned moderates keep doing so well. Sometimes power passes on before the men in charge die. The elections must be rigged.

]]> By: J Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195509 J Thomas Mon, 07 May 2007 00:02:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195509 <i>jthomas, if you’re insisting on a legal standard of evidence, as I proposed, “ratting out” will not usually be sufficient.</i> Well, when they're negotiating the sunnis can depend on the shia courts to require a legal standard of evidence that will keep them from getting executed. Would you settle for that, if it was your neck on the line? There was no amnesty for nazis because there was an unconditional surrender. If we're willing to wait for an unconditional surrender then we don't need an amnesty, of course. it's just a question how long that will take. <i>They don’t have to divert the Euphrates, just contaminate it.</i> That's specifically forbidden by the koran. Of course that might not stop them, if they could keep it secret. But if you look at a map the euphrates runs through sunni land into shia land and joins the tigris where it runs through shia land to the gulf. They'd do better to divert the river. You're right that it would take a whole lot of food coming in to make a difference. And the US military has a priority to seal the borders. I can just see the european news reports. The humanitarian aid convoys coming in with Red Cross symbols painted on top of each truck, and the US planes swoop in and the fireballs start going up, and then the transmission cuts off.... And then the next day the transmission shows the planes in the distance and the signal breaks up because they're jamming, and the humanitarian aid column sends no more signals ever again.... And then we stage a press conference and show that the trucks were carrying contraband -- wheat -- and so we were completely justified in destroying them.... It will do wonders for our diplomacy. jthomas, if you’re insisting on a legal standard of evidence, as I proposed, “ratting out” will not usually be sufficient.

Well, when they’re negotiating the sunnis can depend on the shia courts to require a legal standard of evidence that will keep them from getting executed. Would you settle for that, if it was your neck on the line? There was no amnesty for nazis because there was an unconditional surrender. If we’re willing to wait for an unconditional surrender then we don’t need an amnesty, of course. it’s just a question how long that will take.

They don’t have to divert the Euphrates, just contaminate it.

That’s specifically forbidden by the koran. Of course that might not stop them, if they could keep it secret. But if you look at a map the euphrates runs through sunni land into shia land and joins the tigris where it runs through shia land to the gulf. They’d do better to divert the river.

You’re right that it would take a whole lot of food coming in to make a difference. And the US military has a priority to seal the borders. I can just see the european news reports. The humanitarian aid convoys coming in with Red Cross symbols painted on top of each truck, and the US planes swoop in and the fireballs start going up, and then the transmission cuts off….

And then the next day the transmission shows the planes in the distance and the signal breaks up because they’re jamming, and the humanitarian aid column sends no more signals ever again….

And then we stage a press conference and show that the trucks were carrying contraband—wheat—and so we were completely justified in destroying them….

It will do wonders for our diplomacy.

]]> By: J Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195504 J Thomas Sun, 06 May 2007 23:44:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195504 "That was true for Mao, too. Take away his thugs with guns and very soon he would have been forgotten." <i>And looked how well he ruled. He won, of course, because he was up against clearly uncaring thugs with guns. Sadr is up against a half-organized democracy, a much different thing.</i> Sadr isn't up against the democracy, his voters are a large minority in that democracy. There's an iraqi conspiracy theory that goes like this: Before the elections nobody predicted Allawi would get more than maybe 3%. But he got 18%. And Sadr's people got about 15% less than expected. It's a whole lot of thugs to kill off, even if the elections were fair. I tell you what, let's kill off all the Sadrist thugs and all the sunni thugs, probably only about 10 million people altogether, and that will prevent the genocide! Are you game? “That was true for Mao, too. Take away his thugs with guns and very soon he would have been forgotten.”

And looked how well he ruled. He won, of course, because he was up against clearly uncaring thugs with guns. Sadr is up against a half-organized democracy, a much different thing.

Sadr isn’t up against the democracy, his voters are a large minority in that democracy. There’s an iraqi conspiracy theory that goes like this: Before the elections nobody predicted Allawi would get more than maybe 3%. But he got 18%. And Sadr’s people got about 15% less than expected.

It’s a whole lot of thugs to kill off, even if the elections were fair.

I tell you what, let’s kill off all the Sadrist thugs and all the sunni thugs, probably only about 10 million people altogether, and that will prevent the genocide! Are you game?

]]> By: novakant http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195501 novakant Sun, 06 May 2007 23:15:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195501 the simple fact is: you don't know the simple fact is: you don’t know

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195489 abb1 Sun, 06 May 2007 21:06:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195489 Here: <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/blum05052007.html" rel="nofollow">William Blum</a> writes about the "if the United States leaves Iraq things will really get bad" argument. A bit too rhetorical for my taste, but the same idea. Here: William Blum writes about the “if the United States leaves Iraq things will really get bad” argument. A bit too rhetorical for my taste, but the same idea.

]]> By: Jon Kay http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195466 Jon Kay Sun, 06 May 2007 17:53:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195466 <i>That was true for Mao, too. Take away his thugs with guns and very soon he would have been forgotten.</i> And looked how well he ruled. He won, of course, because he was up against clearly uncaring thugs with guns. Sadr is up against a half-organized democracy, a much different thing. Do you think the FBI should give up and let the Mafia take over US streets because they have guns and are nasty? Because it's just too hard and icky and takes too much thinking to keep it from happening? Except, it seems to largely work. That was true for Mao, too. Take away his thugs with guns and very soon he would have been forgotten.

And looked how well he ruled. He won, of course, because he was up against clearly uncaring thugs with guns. Sadr is up against a half-organized democracy, a much different thing.

Do you think the FBI should give up and let the Mafia take over US streets because they have guns and are nasty? Because it’s just too hard and icky and takes too much thinking to keep it from happening? Except, it seems to largely work.

]]> By: Martin Bento http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195465 Martin Bento Sun, 06 May 2007 17:51:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195465 abb1, there is very little of history that I find "acceptable". This makes very little difference. If it is better than the likely alternatives, then it should be advocated, however ugly it is. This does not mean I am for "stay the course". I am for trying to use access to the oil to try to get other countries involved - especially China, Indonesia, and Malaysia (I realize Indonesia doesn't need the oil per se, but oil is simply the hardest of hard currencies), and actually transition control over to the UN and away from Lord Chimp. Complicating this is that, unfortunately, we now have a Bush crony in charge of the UN. The Iraqi government currently seems to be getting strongarmed into giving US and UK oil companies favorable rights to its oil, so I tend to think they would offer the same deal to others if it had a reasonable prospect of actually creating a stable situation. I also think his simian majesty needs to stop threatening Iran even if that means, as it likely does, Iranian nukes sometime down the line. jthomas, if you're insisting on a legal standard of evidence, as I proposed, "ratting out" will not usually be sufficient. And it's not like simply being a member of a party because, first of all, it is public knowledge how people register to vote, and, secondly, being an insurgent involves taking actual criminal action, which could be very hard to prove after the fact. There was, after all, no amnesty for former Nazi's and collaborators in the European countries, but only a small percentage of the most grevious offenders were ever punished. Others went on to head the UN, become President of France, and become Nobel Laureate novelists. While I'm not necessarily opposed to an amnesty, treating it as a necessary condition imposes a superfluous roadblock IMO. They don't have to divert the Euphrates, just contaminate it. I don't know whether they would actually take that step. I'm sure they wouldn't at first. The sort of out and out genocide I'm talking about would follow several steps of escalation from the current situation, but the current situation looks to me like it will escalate if the stalemate is broken. But even just with food, if the Iraqi government wants to keep food out, and outsiders want to bring it in, it's going to come to military conflict. This isn't like weapons - you smuggle in a gun, it stays smuggled. You smuggle in a day of food, you have to do it again the next day. I don't think it's possible to do it surreptitously. abb1, there is very little of history that I find “acceptable”. This makes very little difference. If it is better than the likely alternatives, then it should be advocated, however ugly it is. This does not mean I am for “stay the course”. I am for trying to use access to the oil to try to get other countries involved – especially China, Indonesia, and Malaysia (I realize Indonesia doesn’t need the oil per se, but oil is simply the hardest of hard currencies), and actually transition control over to the UN and away from Lord Chimp. Complicating this is that, unfortunately, we now have a Bush crony in charge of the UN. The Iraqi government currently seems to be getting strongarmed into giving US and UK oil companies favorable rights to its oil, so I tend to think they would offer the same deal to others if it had a reasonable prospect of actually creating a stable situation.

I also think his simian majesty needs to stop threatening Iran even if that means, as it likely does, Iranian nukes sometime down the line.

jthomas, if you’re insisting on a legal standard of evidence, as I proposed, “ratting out” will not usually be sufficient. And it’s not like simply being a member of a party because, first of all, it is public knowledge how people register to vote, and, secondly, being an insurgent involves taking actual criminal action, which could be very hard to prove after the fact. There was, after all, no amnesty for former Nazi’s and collaborators in the European countries, but only a small percentage of the most grevious offenders were ever punished. Others went on to head the UN, become President of France, and become Nobel Laureate novelists. While I’m not necessarily opposed to an amnesty, treating it as a necessary condition imposes a superfluous roadblock IMO.

They don’t have to divert the Euphrates, just contaminate it. I don’t know whether they would actually take that step. I’m sure they wouldn’t at first. The sort of out and out genocide I’m talking about would follow several steps of escalation from the current situation, but the current situation looks to me like it will escalate if the stalemate is broken. But even just with food, if the Iraqi government wants to keep food out, and outsiders want to bring it in, it’s going to come to military conflict. This isn’t like weapons – you smuggle in a gun, it stays smuggled. You smuggle in a day of food, you have to do it again the next day. I don’t think it’s possible to do it surreptitously.

]]> By: J Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195440 J Thomas Sun, 06 May 2007 13:23:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195440 Martin, without amnesty, any sunni politician can get any other sunni politician disqualified by getting somebody to rat on him. You can't run a representative government for all iraq without sunni politicians. If the sunnis do an unconditional surrender then you don't need an amnesty. If it's anything other than unconditional surrender then they'll insist on an amnesty because otherwise it's unconditional surrender. Sure, the government doesn't have to detain them years later for what it suspects they did during the occupation. But if it can, then they're at best second-class citizens. I don't know quite how to put this. imagine that at some time the US government decided that it was illegal to be a registered Democrat (or Republican, take your pick, whichever party you've ever registered for). And after a great deal of effort it gets established that they don't really have the power to make that stick. Would you settle for the government promising that it won't punish members of your party without a fair trial first? On the grounds that they don't want to retroactively legitimise your party and they want to uphold the supremacy of law? The argument here is whether it's better to try for reconciliation or whether it's better to push hard for unconditional surrender. The US government accepts only surrender. Either the USA changes that stand, or the USA withdraws, or the sunnis unconditionally surrender, or the fighting goes on. While the sunnis appear to have very little representation in the international media, still I don't think we could get away with diverting their water. What would they do, divert the euphrates? We could though cut off the food. They depend on the iraqi government to ship the food in, and the government could simply claim there's too much violence for the shipments to get through. Which they have in fact claimed. "Those stupid sunnis, they're so violent they starve themselves!" "Sure we'd like to send in humanitarian relief, but it's a war zone. We can just barely get the troops in to attack insurgents, we can't possibly send in food. Once the insurgents are killed off then we can restore food shipments." But for that to work we have to seal the borders to prevent food coming in from neighboring sunni nations. We're making a solid attempt at that too. Martin, without amnesty, any sunni politician can get any other sunni politician disqualified by getting somebody to rat on him. You can’t run a representative government for all iraq without sunni politicians.

If the sunnis do an unconditional surrender then you don’t need an amnesty. If it’s anything other than unconditional surrender then they’ll insist on an amnesty because otherwise it’s unconditional surrender. Sure, the government doesn’t have to detain them years later for what it suspects they did during the occupation. But if it can, then they’re at best second-class citizens.

I don’t know quite how to put this. imagine that at some time the US government decided that it was illegal to be a registered Democrat (or Republican, take your pick, whichever party you’ve ever registered for). And after a great deal of effort it gets established that they don’t really have the power to make that stick. Would you settle for the government promising that it won’t punish members of your party without a fair trial first? On the grounds that they don’t want to retroactively legitimise your party and they want to uphold the supremacy of law?

The argument here is whether it’s better to try for reconciliation or whether it’s better to push hard for unconditional surrender. The US government accepts only surrender. Either the USA changes that stand, or the USA withdraws, or the sunnis unconditionally surrender, or the fighting goes on.

While the sunnis appear to have very little representation in the international media, still I don’t think we could get away with diverting their water. What would they do, divert the euphrates?

We could though cut off the food. They depend on the iraqi government to ship the food in, and the government could simply claim there’s too much violence for the shipments to get through. Which they have in fact claimed. “Those stupid sunnis, they’re so violent they starve themselves!” “Sure we’d like to send in humanitarian relief, but it’s a war zone. We can just barely get the troops in to attack insurgents, we can’t possibly send in food. Once the insurgents are killed off then we can restore food shipments.”

But for that to work we have to seal the borders to prevent food coming in from neighboring sunni nations. We’re making a solid attempt at that too.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195423 abb1 Sun, 06 May 2007 07:54:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195423 Well, it's a stalemate with hundreds of people killed every week; obviously not a satisfactory situation, sorta like a stalemate in the middle of the WWI or Vietnam war. You need to suggest a path to some kind of an acceptable resolution. Well, it’s a stalemate with hundreds of people killed every week; obviously not a satisfactory situation, sorta like a stalemate in the middle of the WWI or Vietnam war. You need to suggest a path to some kind of an acceptable resolution.

]]> By: Martin Bento http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195419 Martin Bento Sun, 06 May 2007 05:57:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195419 jthomas, I actually don't think amnesty is that important. Grant amnesty to whom? We sure don't know who most of the insurgents are, and, I think if the Iraqi Shia knew, they would kill them. Early in the occupation, when amnesty first came up, I proposed that insurgents should be subject to punishment, but their guilt had to be established to a legal standard. I think this will rarely be possible, so it achieves most of what amnesty does without forcing either the US or the Iraqi government to retroactively legitimize the insurgency. Added benefit: it asserts the supremacy of law. And, of course, the government always has the option of not pursuing every case it could prove. abb1, I think we just have very different pictures of what is possible in this case. I do not see yellow boxes of water from the sky fixing this. But I hope I'm wrong. I would love to see the US withdraw and everything if not work out at least not worsen. But I'm skeptical. The current stalemate is far from the worst outcome possible. jthomas, I actually don’t think amnesty is that important. Grant amnesty to whom? We sure don’t know who most of the insurgents are, and, I think if the Iraqi Shia knew, they would kill them. Early in the occupation, when amnesty first came up, I proposed that insurgents should be subject to punishment, but their guilt had to be established to a legal standard. I think this will rarely be possible, so it achieves most of what amnesty does without forcing either the US or the Iraqi government to retroactively legitimize the insurgency. Added benefit: it asserts the supremacy of law. And, of course, the government always has the option of not pursuing every case it could prove.

abb1, I think we just have very different pictures of what is possible in this case. I do not see yellow boxes of water from the sky fixing this. But I hope I’m wrong. I would love to see the US withdraw and everything if not work out at least not worsen. But I’m skeptical. The current stalemate is far from the worst outcome possible.

]]> By: J Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195391 J Thomas Sun, 06 May 2007 00:11:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195391 If saudi arabia actually wanted to intervene militarily in iraq they might equip and transport egyptian troops. Which is something we might plausibly have done except that we'd have to consider them unreliable. But all that aside, continued violence in iraq is in no one's best interest. Not even ours, though by our actions it appears our high command disagrees. Every nearby sunni nation has a shia minority or majority that could cause them trouble. They're better off with iraq as a sort of buffer with a mixed government that gets along, than they are with a bitter split or continuing war. Iran is better off with a friendly neighbor than a continuing catastrophe. The iraqis themselves are better off with peace, if they can reach a reasonable power-sharing approach. Part of any settlement would depend on facts on the ground that the US government has been careful not to officially find out. What are the relative shia:sunni population sizes? If it's 3:1, 60% to 20% of the population, then the sunnis need to accept reality and hope for a merciful settlement. If it's 2:1, 54% to 27% then it takes more powersharing. If it's 45% to 35% then everybody needs to develop a lot of tolerance. Saddam's government said they had 35% sunnis. The CIA thought he was lying. We haven't held a census, we don't know how many iraqis are left or what proportion they are. But one of the pollsters has been averaging 30% sunni when conducting randomised polls. If the iraqis held free elections without the USA involved, if they had an amnesty and former insurgents could vote without fear of being detained, it might not matter whether anybody knew what the ratio was. But it matters that each group believe it isn't under-represented. To get peace in iraq there would have to be an amnesty. The US government has not yet allowed an amnesty. Certainly we couldn't allow amnesty for al qaeda in iraq members. An amnesty would look to americans like an admission of defeat. There can't be peace in iraq until we allow an amnesty, unless of course the sunnis offer unconditional surrender. Then we win, or the shias win, or iran wins, or something. If saudi arabia actually wanted to intervene militarily in iraq they might equip and transport egyptian troops. Which is something we might plausibly have done except that we’d have to consider them unreliable.

But all that aside, continued violence in iraq is in no one’s best interest. Not even ours, though by our actions it appears our high command disagrees.

Every nearby sunni nation has a shia minority or majority that could cause them trouble. They’re better off with iraq as a sort of buffer with a mixed government that gets along, than they are with a bitter split or continuing war.

Iran is better off with a friendly neighbor than a continuing catastrophe.

The iraqis themselves are better off with peace, if they can reach a reasonable power-sharing approach.

Part of any settlement would depend on facts on the ground that the US government has been careful not to officially find out. What are the relative shia:sunni population sizes?

If it’s 3:1, 60% to 20% of the population, then the sunnis need to accept reality and hope for a merciful settlement.

If it’s 2:1, 54% to 27% then it takes more powersharing.

If it’s 45% to 35% then everybody needs to develop a lot of tolerance.

Saddam’s government said they had 35% sunnis. The CIA thought he was lying. We haven’t held a census, we don’t know how many iraqis are left or what proportion they are. But one of the pollsters has been averaging 30% sunni when conducting randomised polls.

If the iraqis held free elections without the USA involved, if they had an amnesty and former insurgents could vote without fear of being detained, it might not matter whether anybody knew what the ratio was. But it matters that each group believe it isn’t under-represented.

To get peace in iraq there would have to be an amnesty. The US government has not yet allowed an amnesty. Certainly we couldn’t allow amnesty for al qaeda in iraq members. An amnesty would look to americans like an admission of defeat. There can’t be peace in iraq until we allow an amnesty, unless of course the sunnis offer unconditional surrender. Then we win, or the shias win, or iran wins, or something.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195383 abb1 Sat, 05 May 2007 22:04:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195383 I don't know, Somalia is a different case, there they were doing the 'nation building' thing; punishing 'bad' warlords and helping the 'good' ones. IIRC in Afghanistan they used to just drop stuff from the airplanes, those yellow packages, remember? What's wrong with that? No, still I don't believe the Saudi government would jump into the mess, genocide or not. They just don't do it, Saudi Arabia is not an ordinary state. Their role - their only role in the world - is protecting Mecca and Medina, everybody understands that. Not that I believe there would be a genocide in the first place. Iran now is not under sanctions, they are playing Russia, China and Europe against the US; that's their game. I don't think they would risk it. They would be very careful. <i>you’re just arguing what you want to believe</i> Well, yes, I want to defend this particular position. You hear everywhere that if the US troops leave there's going to be an Apocalypse. I don't think it's that obvious, but if no one ever defends the opposite pov it becomes a common wisdom. I don't think this one deserves to be a common wisdom. I don’t know, Somalia is a different case, there they were doing the ‘nation building’ thing; punishing ‘bad’ warlords and helping the ‘good’ ones.

IIRC in Afghanistan they used to just drop stuff from the airplanes, those yellow packages, remember? What’s wrong with that?

No, still I don’t believe the Saudi government would jump into the mess, genocide or not. They just don’t do it, Saudi Arabia is not an ordinary state. Their role – their only role in the world – is protecting Mecca and Medina, everybody understands that. Not that I believe there would be a genocide in the first place.

Iran now is not under sanctions, they are playing Russia, China and Europe against the US; that’s their game. I don’t think they would risk it. They would be very careful.

you’re just arguing what you want to believe

Well, yes, I want to defend this particular position. You hear everywhere that if the US troops leave there’s going to be an Apocalypse. I don’t think it’s that obvious, but if no one ever defends the opposite pov it becomes a common wisdom. I don’t think this one deserves to be a common wisdom.

]]> By: Martin Bento http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195375 Martin Bento Sat, 05 May 2007 20:28:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195375 As for diplomacy, there is nothing the world is going to hold over SA or Iran that will override their basic interests, especially when they have the oil, and both of them, particularly SA, will, in fact, have defensible moral positions. The UN will stop SA from defending the Sunnis from genocide? On what basis? And using what carrots and sticks? The UN has been singularly ineffective at getting Iran to back down on its nuke program, which does not really speak to anywhere near as vital a strategic interest of theirs as what happens in Iraq. As for diplomacy, there is nothing the world is going to hold over SA or Iran that will override their basic interests, especially when they have the oil, and both of them, particularly SA, will, in fact, have defensible moral positions. The UN will stop SA from defending the Sunnis from genocide? On what basis? And using what carrots and sticks? The UN has been singularly ineffective at getting Iran to back down on its nuke program, which does not really speak to anywhere near as vital a strategic interest of theirs as what happens in Iraq.

]]> By: Martin Bento http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195373 Martin Bento Sat, 05 May 2007 20:19:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195373 It is always easier to disrupt water supplies than to ensure them, and if the government itself is seeking to do this, it will be very hard to contravent from outside. It is interesting that you think outside forces will not intervene militarily to help the Sunnis, but that they will be able to pull off massive and continuous rescue operations in defiance of the government. The latter requires the former at a minimum. Somalia, among others, showed how bringing in food supplies does not necessarily mean people get fed, and that was with US military backup, and a government not opposed to relief per se. I generally have a higher opinion of your contributions here than most, abb1, but I think here you're just arguing what you want to believe. It is always easier to disrupt water supplies than to ensure them, and if the government itself is seeking to do this, it will be very hard to contravent from outside. It is interesting that you think outside forces will not intervene militarily to help the Sunnis, but that they will be able to pull off massive and continuous rescue operations in defiance of the government. The latter requires the former at a minimum. Somalia, among others, showed how bringing in food supplies does not necessarily mean people get fed, and that was with US military backup, and a government not opposed to relief per se. I generally have a higher opinion of your contributions here than most, abb1, but I think here you’re just arguing what you want to believe.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/comment-page-3/#comment-195363 abb1 Sat, 05 May 2007 19:09:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/01/the-end-of-major-combat-operations/#comment-195363 Providing food, water and sanitation stuff is not rocket science, not a particularly complicated and expensive project. Been done. A billion dollars will feed a million people for a year. Nations being drawn in is obviously a matter of diplomacy, UN resolutions, etc. Can you really imagine brave Saudi armed forces moving in to fight Al Sadr, risking Iranian response? Or Iran moving in risking full-scale sanctions? I can't. It'll likely be more or less fiddling around the edges, sending weapons, commandos, stuff like that. I'm sure they do it already. Providing food, water and sanitation stuff is not rocket science, not a particularly complicated and expensive project. Been done. A billion dollars will feed a million people for a year.

Nations being drawn in is obviously a matter of diplomacy, UN resolutions, etc. Can you really imagine brave Saudi armed forces moving in to fight Al Sadr, risking Iranian response? Or Iran moving in risking full-scale sanctions? I can’t. It’ll likely be more or less fiddling around the edges, sending weapons, commandos, stuff like that. I’m sure they do it already.

]]>