| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: Re: Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US would not be subjected to guerrilla attacks by the insurgents. |
Not bad but first we have to assume the Kurds would want American forces around for the next 10 years. For the sake of argument, a small nation with massive oil reserves and lots of people looking to take it from them. Yeah, on balance the powers that be would see the advantage.
However, I don't think it would eliminate guerrilla attacks. One American solider in the middle east is one too many in the eyes of many in the region. It's still easy to strike out at America with troops there. Second, it might be rather easy to turn the Kurdish region into another Baghdad. If you remember, the first few months of the American occupation was going very well. People were happy to have the forces there. But that all changed when a GI was standing in line for a Coke and a guy came up to him and shot his head off. It doesn't take too many of those kinds of killings to put the American GIs into a very nasty defensive posture where they bring their massive forces to bear, and start racking up the "collateral damage" that starts to generate outrage in the locals and recruits locals.
American GIs just don't make a great occupying army and police force when they're in a region where they take casualties from an enemy that looks like every other guy on the street. Your plan seems to call for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US would not be subjected to guerrilla attacks by the insurgents. |
Not bad but first we have to assume the Kurds would want American forces around for the next 10 years. For the sake of argument, a small nation with massive oil reserves and lots of people looking to take it from them. Yeah, on balance the powers that be would see the advantage.
However, I don't think it would eliminate guerrilla attacks. One American solider in the middle east is one too many in the eyes of many in the region. It's still easy to strike out at America with troops there. Second, it might be rather easy to turn the Kurdish region into another Baghdad. If you remember, the first few months of the American occupation was going very well. People were happy to have the forces there. But that all changed when a GI was standing in line for a Coke and a guy came up to him and shot his head off. It doesn't take too many of those kinds of killings to put the American GIs into a very nasty defensive posture where they bring their massive forces to bear, and start racking up the "collateral damage" that starts to generate outrage in the locals and recruits locals.
American GIs just don't make a great occupying army and police force when they're in a region where they take casualties from an enemy that looks like every other guy on the street. Your plan seems to call for that. |
The US has an 80% approval rating from the Kurds and more than that they share the same enemies. It was the Bathists that gassed them. Overall the Kurds don't have the same view of the mideast and the world that others in the mideast do.
Both sides could really help each other and the Kurds need the US to protect their sovereignty . No US means Kurds would lose what they gained over the last 16 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US has an 80% approval rating from the Kurds and more than that they share the same enemies. It was the Bathists that gassed them. Overall the Kurds don't have the same view of the mideast and the world that others in the mideast do.
Both sides could really help each other and the Kurds need the US to protect their sovereignty . No US means Kurds would lose what they gained over the last 16 years. |
I'll grant you the relationship can be a close one and the average Kurd can fully appreciate the relationship. But that won't stop the jihad from trying to duplicate their tactics. Whether it will be effective, who can say. I'm just taking issue with your absolute statement that American troops will be free of such attacks in the Kurd region.
Indeed, I think the forces currently in that region are still subject to attacks, though less so. The Kurdish region is not homogeneous. It still has Sunnis et al, but in a minority. And I doubt they'll be happy to be part of a Kurdish nation propped up by the USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kissinger always took the side of the terrorists wherever he stuck his nose in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
