posted
Okay folks, not attempting to troll here...
Every day we see on the news how the insurgents and militants in Iraq are shooting this or blowing up that, capturing this person or lobbing mortar rounds into a crowd. We see the Mehdi army fighting US and Iraqi forces to something of a standstill. We've also heard, quite some time back from Black Fox, about how the US forces allow the Iraqis to keep one AK-47 per home for self defense.
The question is: With all of this weaponry floating around in the hands of the general populace, why didn't they ever make a determined effort to oust Saddam? This doesn't count the Kurds or the easternmost Shiite militias, but the folks that lived in and around Baghdad.
They have proved able to tie us down and are apparently getting some support and succor from the populace. If they had done this to Saddam, they would have eventually been able to topple him.
But they didn't. Is it because they know the US has to fight them tied to rules and that Saddam didn't? Is it because they didn't have this weaponry at that time? Did the weapons just magically appear?
Or is it because of something slightly more sinister? Was al-Sadr actually in cahoots a bit with old Saddam? Did al-Sadr keep his people in check if Saddam let him be the big man in his area? Was Sistani in this same boat?
Are these men now using their "army" to push for a bigger role in the new Iraqi government to simply maintain or re-attain their prior levels of power and influence?
Or is this actually a more subtle part of the "War on Terror" and proceeding just as planned? Were we hoping that arms and armaments, militants and terrorists would swarm into Iraq in a place where they could be kept busy?
Is it a case that we're not nearly as tied down by the terrorists as the terrorists are tied down by us? If you understand what I mean.
And why don't the US troops simply douse the Mosque in Najaf with massive amounts of tear gas and force the militants out without harming the place? The Mehdi army fighters aren't exactly equipped to deal with that sort of threat. And no martyrs would be made, and the mosque itself would not be martyred in the process.
[ August 26, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Lost Ashes ]
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, most of these weapons were smuggled into the country and stolen from abandoned Iraqi Army caches during the war.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
As you note, the US is playing by a set of rules - we haven't slaughtered thousands of people en masse as of yet. Say what you will about Saddam, he knew how to suppress a people.
That being said, my approach would be infinitely linear, amazingly insensitive and brutally effective.
posted
In addition, there is the fact that if they'd attempted an armed uprising against Saddam, he'd have come down on it much harder and much more indiscriminately that we have. We've been pulling our punches, and he wouldn't have. Also, it's my understanding that he had an extensive network of spies and snitches that kept resistance movements from getting started, because potential members couldn't be sure who else was a disaffected potential member, and who was actually an informant.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
True - most of the current foreign insurgents don't really care who's running the country, as long as the ruling politics agree with their own views.
And nobody likes the US - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and so on.
posted
Perhaps their relationship to Saddam was like a really, really, bad "love" relationship, with the manipulative and abusive guy and the subdued, submissive girl who lets him get away with it for complicated reasons. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, Trevor...the U.S. inv...er...liberation of Iraq seemed to unite some people who, otherwise, would be mortal enemies.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that may be one of the reasons we're staying right now: to keep weakening those factions.
That's part of the reason we've kept ourselves from rushing that Mosque right now, in my opinion. It's a rallying point for any and all troublemakers. Every day they lose a few more and droves more flock to it.
Notice how we're not very successful at keeping fighters from moving into Najaf and joining up there? If we can keep bleeding them without hurting the Mosque...
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, inevitably, is why we aren't pulling out yet. One group is just as likely to win control of Iraq as any other the second the US is no longer occupying the country. And leaving things up to chance like that is definitely not our government's style.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah well - granted, I'm not on the ground so I can't judge the stability of the current government, but are we really planning on staying long enough for the idea of Western Democracy to become accepted and embraced?
I'd rather not have to explain to my grandkids why we thought this was a good idea before they ship out for their tour.
posted
I think it really depends on what happens after November. Kerry says that if he's elected he's going to gradually pull us out and let the UN go in. I'm not sure what Bush will do, but I imagine we'll still be in for a while longer.
But who knows? A lot can change in 3 months.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
