Post by: wmenorr67 on July 08, 2008, 07:27:11 AM
Quote
National security adviser says any security deal must contain timetable
BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.
The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
On Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.
Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq."
"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy *expletive deleted*it city of Najaf.
He was speaking to reporters after meeting Iraq's top *expletive deleted*it cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Rubaie said he spoke to Sistani about the U.S. talks, but did not say if the cleric had an opinion on the negotiations. The revered cleric is routinely briefed on key national issues.
"I informed the (clerical leaders) about some of the advances in the talks. There are real problems and difficulties, and we have many roadblocks ahead. There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said.
The Bush administration has always opposed setting any withdrawal timetable, saying it would allow militant groups to lie low and wait until the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq left.
On Tuesday, the White House said the talks were not aimed at setting a hard deadline for withdrawal.
"Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Japan, where President Bush is attending a Group of Eight summit.
"It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal."
Dispute over immunity for U.S. troops
In a further complication, Iraq's deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya said lawmakers must approve any deal the Iraqi government reaches and will probably reject the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law.
It would be virtually unthinkable for the United States to allow its soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law.
Al-Maliki's preference for a memorandum of understanding, which could be an attempt to bypass parliament, is in contrast to earlier talks which have all been leading to the signing of a formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
"Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds," Attiya told Reuters in an interview.
Washington has SOFA pacts with many countries, and they typically exempt U.S. troops from facing trial or prison abroad.
Iraq said last week Washington was showing flexibility on some key issues, which officials said included dropping a demand for immunity for private contractors working for the U.S. government.
Control of military operations and airspace are other points of contention, along with the detention of prisoners.
Fall in violence emboldens government
Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability, and Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.
Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against *expletive deleted*it militias and Sunni extremists.
BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.
The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
On Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.
Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq."
"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy *expletive deleted*it city of Najaf.
He was speaking to reporters after meeting Iraq's top *expletive deleted*it cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Rubaie said he spoke to Sistani about the U.S. talks, but did not say if the cleric had an opinion on the negotiations. The revered cleric is routinely briefed on key national issues.
"I informed the (clerical leaders) about some of the advances in the talks. There are real problems and difficulties, and we have many roadblocks ahead. There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said.
The Bush administration has always opposed setting any withdrawal timetable, saying it would allow militant groups to lie low and wait until the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq left.
On Tuesday, the White House said the talks were not aimed at setting a hard deadline for withdrawal.
"Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Japan, where President Bush is attending a Group of Eight summit.
"It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal."
Dispute over immunity for U.S. troops
In a further complication, Iraq's deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya said lawmakers must approve any deal the Iraqi government reaches and will probably reject the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law.
It would be virtually unthinkable for the United States to allow its soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law.
Al-Maliki's preference for a memorandum of understanding, which could be an attempt to bypass parliament, is in contrast to earlier talks which have all been leading to the signing of a formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
"Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds," Attiya told Reuters in an interview.
Washington has SOFA pacts with many countries, and they typically exempt U.S. troops from facing trial or prison abroad.
Iraq said last week Washington was showing flexibility on some key issues, which officials said included dropping a demand for immunity for private contractors working for the U.S. government.
Control of military operations and airspace are other points of contention, along with the detention of prisoners.
Fall in violence emboldens government
Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability, and Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.
Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against *expletive deleted*it militias and Sunni extremists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25585978/
A lot of contractors are also stating they will leave if they lose immunity.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 08, 2008, 07:31:19 AM
Post by: longeyes on July 08, 2008, 08:19:50 AM
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 11:19:22 AM
One day we will look back at this war as a noble experiment in "good will" as a substitute for the iron law of vanquishing the enemy.
Who's the enemy that was supposed to be vanquished? The Iraqi people who support having no foreign troops in their country, and who don't want foreigners being immune from Iraqi laws while in....Iraq?
One day history will look over the documentary records from today, and it will be astounded to find that some ever believed this to be an exercise in "democracy."
Post by: Manedwolf on July 08, 2008, 11:23:47 AM
One day we will look back at this war as a noble experiment in "good will" as a substitute for the iron law of vanquishing the enemy.
Who's the enemy that was supposed to be vanquished? The Iraqi people who support having no foreign troops in their country, and who don't want foreigners being immune from Iraqi laws while in....Iraq?
One day history will look over the documentary records from today, and it will be astounded to find that some ever believed this to be an exercise in "democracy."
Uh...Saddam and his psychopath sons?!
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 11:29:24 AM
One day we will look back at this war as a noble experiment in "good will" as a substitute for the iron law of vanquishing the enemy.
Who's the enemy that was supposed to be vanquished? The Iraqi people who support having no foreign troops in their country, and who don't want foreigners being immune from Iraqi laws while in....Iraq?
One day history will look over the documentary records from today, and it will be astounded to find that some ever believed this to be an exercise in "democracy."
Uh...Saddam and his psychopath sons?!
Who, as bad as they were, did not manage to kill nearly as many people as the catastrophe that followed the 2003 invasion.
I'm glad they're gone too-but that doesn't mean that there's been a sincere effort at democracy in Iraq. That never was the purpose of the administration, and that fact is obvious from every available source.
The only aim that makes any sense was to make Iraq like Okinawa or Korea-a base for US operations against its neighbors. If the Iraqis benefitted in the process, fine, but if they didn't, no big deal....that wasn't really the point.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 08, 2008, 12:52:38 PM
So, the question now is, do we honor the demands of the sovereign nation we liberated?
Or, do we, as often occurs in classic U.S. government fashion, knock all the pieces off the chess table and start over again with another "democracy"?
Or, maybe we'll just keep giving them chances at democracy until they pick the one we like.
Pakistan has a "democracy" too. We just spent $3 billion on it not long ago.
Post by: lupinus on July 08, 2008, 01:02:56 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 08, 2008, 01:23:07 PM
Well, if they want us out give it to them. They are their own sovereign nation so respect their wishes. And if they push no immunity? Withdraw immediately and leave it to them as they so desire, no phased, just pull back to Kuwait board the planes and boats and come home.
I agree with that. If they think they can handle it, let them. If that other article I posted is correct, that may be why they are rumbling about this. We are going to have to let them stand on their own eventually.
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 01:54:18 PM
Well, if they want us out give it to them. They are their own sovereign nation so respect their wishes. And if they push no immunity? Withdraw immediately and leave it to them as they so desire, no phased, just pull back to Kuwait board the planes and boats and come home.
Even from different political viewpoints on the issue of the middle east, we can agree on a straightforward, no-bs position in support of democracy.
Post by: ilbob on July 08, 2008, 03:46:18 PM
Post by: lupinus on July 08, 2008, 04:16:15 PM
Wouldn't have worked because the middle of the country is very strong but has the least oil, so you would then see them over running their neighbors. Bad juju there.
I think a confederacy or loose republic would have been the best thing. You would then have had independent areas that handled most of their own things for themselves; but centralized enough that oil profits were shared (to avoid fighting mentioned above), common defense against their neighbors or radical factions inside the country getting any ideas, etc.
What we put in place and backed I think is to centralized to maintain peace very long once we leave, and if it does it's going to be a long ride to peace and unity.
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 04:24:46 PM
I am beggining to think that the most logical thing to have done was create three seperate states - kurds, sunni and shia, give everyone a year or two to move where they want to live, and then go home.
Why not let them decide how to divide up the country?
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want a partition-the polls are clear in showing that.
It's not up to us to decide how they'll do it-that's up to them.
Post by: ilbob on July 08, 2008, 04:29:07 PM
I am beggining to think that the most logical thing to have done was create three seperate states - kurds, sunni and shia, give everyone a year or two to move where they want to live, and then go home.
Why not let them decide how to divide up the country?
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want a partition-the polls are clear in showing that.
It's not up to us to decide how they'll do it-that's up to them.
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 04:33:33 PM
I am beggining to think that the most logical thing to have done was create three seperate states - kurds, sunni and shia, give everyone a year or two to move where they want to live, and then go home.
Why not let them decide how to divide up the country?
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want a partition-the polls are clear in showing that.
It's not up to us to decide how they'll do it-that's up to them.
Doesn't look like they accept that they're beaten yet, and in any case, the war was supposedly to help them kick Saddam's ass, not to beat the Iraqi people into submission.
This was to reform the middle east by spreading democracy and freedom, remember?
It really doesn't matter how many Iraqis are killed-at this point it's obvious that they aren't going to let us decide for them what Iraq should be. But it says plenty about your mindset (and why the Iraqis are overwhelmingly against occupation) that you think it's legitimate to force them to comply with foreign demands.
Post by: lupinus on July 08, 2008, 04:37:30 PM
You can make polls look like whatever you want. The governments stance (ours) from the start has been one unified Iraq. Naturally, this is whats been pushed and advanced. The fact is that those in the oil barren areas would have pushed into the areas that do have oil very quickly. So just carving it up wouldn't have worked out right.
Of course, if they choose something else more power to them.
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 04:38:48 PM
SS-
You can make polls look like whatever you want. The governments stance (ours) from the start has been one unified Iraq. Naturally, this is whats been pushed and advanced. The fact is that those in the oil barren areas would have pushed into the areas that do have oil very quickly. So just carving it up wouldn't have worked out right.
Of course, if they choose something else more power to them.
You can make polls look like whatever you want. The governments stance (ours) from the start has been one unified Iraq. Naturally, this is whats been pushed and advanced. The fact is that those in the oil barren areas would have pushed into the areas that do have oil very quickly. So just carving it up wouldn't have worked out right.
Of course, if they choose something else more power to them.
I agree it wouldn't have worked-but the Iraqis are with us on that one. They aren't agitating for a division either-in fact their representatives were outraged when the Senate voted on partitioning Iraq.
But yeah, I agree with you-it's their country and it's their problem.
Post by: longeyes on July 08, 2008, 05:10:53 PM
Just let the Iraqis do whatever THEY want? Who here thinks we really just spent five years with high costs in blood and treasure in order to create another untrustworthy "Islamic Republic?" If we did we had better ask some hard questions of Mr Bush and the State Dept.
The real reason is, or should have been, to plant fortresses in "Indian country."
Post by: Waitone on July 08, 2008, 05:29:11 PM
Withdraw from Iraqi? Won't happen anytime soon. As we speak we are building the largest embassy on the planet. Last I heard we have under construction mammoth bases out in the middle of nowhere. Huge airbases and a number of terrestial bases for those who don't fly. We wage a war right smack dab in the middle of the middle east and just as soon as things turn our way AND an election shows up, we begin hearing about withdrawal. We will be doing to Iraq just the same as we have done to Europe. We will have substantial forces in place for a long, long, long time to come. Oh, there will be the usual platitude of democracy, self sustaining government, etc. but the reality is we are not leaving Iraq in any meaningful manner. Even O'Bama has figured it out.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 08, 2008, 05:30:56 PM
The real reason is, or should have been, to plant fortresses in "Indian country."
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 05:45:03 PM
Eye wash. Convenient we hear of Iraqi demands for withdrawal date which coincides with a US election.
Withdraw from Iraqi? Won't happen anytime soon. As we speak we are building the largest embassy on the planet. Last I heard we have under construction mammoth bases out in the middle of nowhere. Huge airbases and a number of terrestial bases for those who don't fly. We wage a war right smack dab in the middle of the middle east and just as soon as things turn our way AND an election shows up, we begin hearing about withdrawal. We will be doing to Iraq just the same as we have done to Europe. We will have substantial forces in place for a long, long, long time to come. Oh, there will be the usual platitude of democracy, self sustaining government, etc. but the reality is we are not leaving Iraq in any meaningful manner. Even O'Bama has figured it out.
Withdraw from Iraqi? Won't happen anytime soon. As we speak we are building the largest embassy on the planet. Last I heard we have under construction mammoth bases out in the middle of nowhere. Huge airbases and a number of terrestial bases for those who don't fly. We wage a war right smack dab in the middle of the middle east and just as soon as things turn our way AND an election shows up, we begin hearing about withdrawal. We will be doing to Iraq just the same as we have done to Europe. We will have substantial forces in place for a long, long, long time to come. Oh, there will be the usual platitude of democracy, self sustaining government, etc. but the reality is we are not leaving Iraq in any meaningful manner. Even O'Bama has figured it out.
Does this explain why Iraqis are continuing to fight Americans then?
Maybe they have a different idea for Iraq's future-ie, no foreign troops.
The reality is that this plan, while I agree with you was the aim of the war, is going to fail because the Iraqis are refusing to cooperate. The only realistically foreseeable result of maintaining bases there is an endless slow bleeding of lives and cash, not unlike what happened to Russia when they did the exact same thing to Afghanistan.
Post by: roo_ster on July 08, 2008, 06:02:13 PM
Eye wash. Convenient we hear of Iraqi demands for withdrawal date which coincides with a US election.
Withdraw from Iraqi? Won't happen anytime soon. As we speak we are building the largest embassy on the planet. Last I heard we have under construction mammoth bases out in the middle of nowhere. Huge airbases and a number of terrestial bases for those who don't fly. We wage a war right smack dab in the middle of the middle east and just as soon as things turn our way AND an election shows up, we begin hearing about withdrawal. We will be doing to Iraq just the same as we have done to Europe. We will have substantial forces in place for a long, long, long time to come. Oh, there will be the usual platitude of democracy, self sustaining government, etc. but the reality is we are not leaving Iraq in any meaningful manner. Even O'Bama has figured it out.
Withdraw from Iraqi? Won't happen anytime soon. As we speak we are building the largest embassy on the planet. Last I heard we have under construction mammoth bases out in the middle of nowhere. Huge airbases and a number of terrestial bases for those who don't fly. We wage a war right smack dab in the middle of the middle east and just as soon as things turn our way AND an election shows up, we begin hearing about withdrawal. We will be doing to Iraq just the same as we have done to Europe. We will have substantial forces in place for a long, long, long time to come. Oh, there will be the usual platitude of democracy, self sustaining government, etc. but the reality is we are not leaving Iraq in any meaningful manner. Even O'Bama has figured it out.
Does this explain why Iraqis are continuing to fight Americans then?
Maybe they have a different idea for Iraq's future-ie, no foreign troops.
The reality is that this plan, while I agree with you was the aim of the war, is going to fail because the Iraqis are refusing to cooperate. The only realistically foreseeable result of maintaining bases there is an endless slow bleeding of lives and cash, not unlike what happened to Russia when they did the exact same thing to Afghanistan.
If you think we are doing "the exact same thing" to Iraq you need to re-read the history of the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan or dial back a bit on the Islamo-Propagan-Do-Meter.
'Cause your statement is either "fact-deprived" or "lacking in truthiness," depending on your level of ignorance of the two events.
Post by: Dntsycnt on July 08, 2008, 06:11:16 PM
If we stay when they want us to leave, we'll only be telling the Middle East that we aren't serious about democracy, but only want to push our agenda. This is a huge part of what bothers them about us. Show them, for once, that we respect their right to govern themselves. Both sides come out looking good.
Assuming it doesn't immediately implode. But even then, they asked us to leave.
Post by: 41magsnub on July 08, 2008, 06:15:47 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 08, 2008, 06:16:50 PM
If you think we are doing "the exact same thing" to Iraq you need to re-read the history of the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan or dial back a bit on the Islamo-Propagan-Do-Meter.
'Cause your statement is either "fact-deprived" or "lacking in truthiness," depending on your level of ignorance of the two events.
There's another meter to beware of: The McCarthyist Communo-satanic propaganda meter.
The USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was not the evil empire that the Taliban would have you believe it was-the Soviets did indeed build infrastructure there (though haphazard and poorly, like we are now doing in Iraq), they did in fact institute an educational system that pushed women's rights and secular values (we didn't even try this in Iraq), and they also weren't maddog killers-they bombed villages where militants lived (like we do) and conducted constant sweeps to round up and kill the opposition (like we do.)
The evidence of atrocities committed by the Russians is no different than the cherry picking that goes on in Iraq-referencing the rape and murder of a little girl and her family to "prove" that the occupation is inhumane, for example. The reality was obviously not as cartoonish, for the USSR in Afghanistan or the US in Iraq.
Then there was also the fact that they claimed to be removing a dictator in order to restore democracy...plenty of parallels there, actually.
Post by: taurusowner on July 08, 2008, 07:58:03 PM
Quote
We will be doing to Iraq just the same as we have done to Europe. We will have substantial forces in place for a long, long, long time to come. Oh, there will be the usual platitude of democracy, self sustaining government, etc. but the reality is we are not leaving Iraq in any meaningful manner. Even O'Bama has figured it out.
So...are you saying our presence in Europe means means Germany or Austria aren't democratic? Does Italy have a self-sustaining government? Japan? The fact is, we have bases in and near all of the countries, left over from when we were at war. But that doesn't mean they aren't self-sustaining democracies in any sense.
Keeping bases or an embassy in Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not they are self-sustaining or democratic. No matter how the libs want to paint it.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 09, 2008, 05:28:02 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 09, 2008, 06:16:52 AM
If they want us out, we should just GTFO. It's their country, for better or worse.
If we got out right now, Imajihad would just have more oil fields.
Post by: longeyes on July 09, 2008, 06:34:05 AM
Post by: roo_ster on July 09, 2008, 06:45:37 AM
Your attempts at equivalence are motivated, but lacking in the whole reality department.
Just one of glaring difference (of many):
The USSR had a policy of moving folks out of Afghanistan and they were able to get 1/3 the population to skedaddle and move into Pakistan , Iran, & other points beyond the Afghanistan border. This was in keeping with their doctrine / lessons learned: "The population is the sea in which the guerrilla swims."
This was also in line with what the Soviets did to the break-away nations and troublesome minorities during the 1920s & 1930s: forced relocation and terror starvation.
Frankly, equating what we did in Afghanistan to the Soviets is disgusting. It is either ignorance or a crippled morality doing the equating.
Anyone interested in how the Soviets operated at the small-unit level could do much worse that reading The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan, first published in Russion by the Frunze Academic Press in 1991 and translated into English 1998 & published by Frank Cass Press (www.frankcass.com).
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 12:13:44 PM
The USSR did not have a policy of moving folks out-but millions of people did flee the war. I don't see how that is any different from Iraq either; Iraqis are now one of (if not the) largest refugee populations on the planet, having run away from the disasters in their home country.
If you would try to point out the factual differences between the two occupations, I think your claims of obvious crippled morality or ignorance would be a lot harder to sustain. The reality of the situation is that the Soviets killed their puppet in Kabul for being too trigger happy, and it wasn't until a good half way through the war that they really tried to exterminate the militants and ended up doling out mass casualties.
I'll track down that book, and I'd also recommend "Fighting Masood's war" by Abdullah Shariat-gives a decent if grossly biased view of the afghani politics at play.
Post by: roo_ster on July 09, 2008, 01:21:03 PM
Again, it would take a moral cripple or ignorance to equate the USSR's conduct in Afghanistan and our in Iraq.
All I highlighted below was Soviet policy.
Compare that to US policy, where we not only did not bomb indiscriminately, we removed the HE from many of our smart bombs and replaced it with concrete to reduce the collateral damage when our bombs hit the target.
Instead of destroying irrigation systems, we rebuilt them and re-flooded the marshes Saddam had drained.
When Iraqi civilians are killed, we hold investigations for violating our policy and laws, if the evidence points that way.
Instead of rubbling cities, we go after insurgents the hard way, fighting house-by-house with great care to avoid killing noncombatants. Fallujah being a prime example.
WRT refugees, the Soviet policy of forcing them out resulted in 33% of the population being displaced. Estimates are that 7% of Iraqis have been displaced, the greatest number internally to avoid not American violence, but sectarian violence by other Iraqis.
The USA also does not sling out small mines willy-nilly, in an attempt to displace the locals.
I could go on, but it is obvious to a rational observer that the USSR and USA conduct of the different operations was as different as can be.
The Soviet Union had a good deal of experience with guerrilla warfare. During the 1920s and 1930s, they conducted a successful counterinsurgency in Central Asia against the Basmachi. During World War II, the Soviet Union fielded and directed the largest partisan force ever deployed in wartime. Following World War II, the Soviets conducted another successful counterinsurgency in the Ukraine. Yet, when the Soviets entered Afghanistan, they were unprepared to conduct a counterinsurgency in this theater. Their divisions were designed for conventional war against NATO or China, so they had all their tanks, chemical defense and air defense units with them. The Soviet intention was to hold the operational key terrain and ward off the hostile neighboring states of Pakistan and Iran. The Armed Forces of the DRA were supposed to fight the counterinsurgency. However, as the countryside rose in revolt, it became obvious that the DRA could not handle the counterinsurgency alone and that the Soviets would have to participate--as the main partner.
The initial Mujahideen resistance to the Soviets was based on a popular uprising. Hundreds of small bands took to the field. The guerrillas were local and their leaders were local--village chiefs, tribal leaders, prominent family elders. The revolt was secular and the leadership was secular. The local mullahs and imams might accompany the guerrillas, but seldom in a leadership role. Since the guerrillas were local, the support base was built in. Food, water, shelter and medical aid were readily available and the neighbors provided intelligence on Soviet and DRA movements. The guerrillas weapons were what they had on hand--primarily WWI-era British Lee-Enfield.303 bolt-action rifles and older British Martini-Henry single-shot breech-loading rifles from the 1880s. Lucky units seized DRA district headquarters, looting their arms rooms and liberating AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles and some machine guns.
Belatedly the Soviets addressed the insurgency. Despite their past experience, they had forgotten their history. They read Mao Tse Tungs aphorism the guerrilla is the fish that swims in the ocean of the people . The Soviets decided that the way to isolate the fish was to drain the ocean. The Soviet Air Force, which had readily ripped apart the Afghan lashgars, was useless against a guerrilla that it could not target. However, the air force could readily target irrigation systems, orchards, cropland, farms, villages and livestock. The air force went after the Mujahideen support structure.
At this time, Afghanistan was a country of approximately 17 million people. Most were rural. Soviet bombing drove 5.5 million people out of the country and into refugee camps in bordering Pakistan and Iran. Another 2.2 million became internal refugees crowding into the shantytowns and the suburbs of Afghanistans cities to escape the Soviet Air Force. The guerrilla now had to carry his weapon, ammunition, food and water with him. If he was hurt, his closest medical support might be in Pakistan or Iran. The rural social system was turned upside down and the guerrillas support base was being closed down.
The Soviets soon learned that they did not want to be within 300 meters of the Mujahideen. The 300-meter mark represents the maximum effective range of the Kalashnikov assault rifle, the RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher against a moving target and is well within the danger close area of supporting artillery and air power. The Mujahideen preferred the flat trajectory fight where the bulk of Soviet combat power was negated. Where possible, the Soviets bulldozed orchards, villages and other cover and concealment some 300 meters back from both sides of the road to create stand-off and aid in counter-ambush.
The initial Mujahideen resistance to the Soviets was based on a popular uprising. Hundreds of small bands took to the field. The guerrillas were local and their leaders were local--village chiefs, tribal leaders, prominent family elders. The revolt was secular and the leadership was secular. The local mullahs and imams might accompany the guerrillas, but seldom in a leadership role. Since the guerrillas were local, the support base was built in. Food, water, shelter and medical aid were readily available and the neighbors provided intelligence on Soviet and DRA movements. The guerrillas weapons were what they had on hand--primarily WWI-era British Lee-Enfield.303 bolt-action rifles and older British Martini-Henry single-shot breech-loading rifles from the 1880s. Lucky units seized DRA district headquarters, looting their arms rooms and liberating AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles and some machine guns.
Belatedly the Soviets addressed the insurgency. Despite their past experience, they had forgotten their history. They read Mao Tse Tungs aphorism the guerrilla is the fish that swims in the ocean of the people . The Soviets decided that the way to isolate the fish was to drain the ocean. The Soviet Air Force, which had readily ripped apart the Afghan lashgars, was useless against a guerrilla that it could not target. However, the air force could readily target irrigation systems, orchards, cropland, farms, villages and livestock. The air force went after the Mujahideen support structure.
At this time, Afghanistan was a country of approximately 17 million people. Most were rural. Soviet bombing drove 5.5 million people out of the country and into refugee camps in bordering Pakistan and Iran. Another 2.2 million became internal refugees crowding into the shantytowns and the suburbs of Afghanistans cities to escape the Soviet Air Force. The guerrilla now had to carry his weapon, ammunition, food and water with him. If he was hurt, his closest medical support might be in Pakistan or Iran. The rural social system was turned upside down and the guerrillas support base was being closed down.
The Soviets soon learned that they did not want to be within 300 meters of the Mujahideen. The 300-meter mark represents the maximum effective range of the Kalashnikov assault rifle, the RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher against a moving target and is well within the danger close area of supporting artillery and air power. The Mujahideen preferred the flat trajectory fight where the bulk of Soviet combat power was negated. Where possible, the Soviets bulldozed orchards, villages and other cover and concealment some 300 meters back from both sides of the road to create stand-off and aid in counter-ambush.
The war was a political as well as military operation. While Soviet troops supported and then took on themselves a counterinsurgency effort in the countryside, the Soviet secret police, known as the KGB, and other civilian institutions set about building an Afghan Communist state in Kābul and other cities. The system was enforced by the Afghan State Information Services (Afghanistans secret police), known as KhAD. Led by Muhammad Najibullah, who replaced Babrak Karmal as party leader in 1985 and as president in 1986, KhAD had a larger budget than even the military. It operated under the guidance of KGB advisers.
The Soviet leadership did not intend to fight in Afghanistan for a prolonged period. It planned on an operation similar to that in Czechoslovakia in 1968, leading to a quick stabilization. Initially it secured the main towns and supply routes while leaving counterinsurgency to Afghan troops. It also engaged in massive and indiscriminate aerial bombardments of areas along infiltration routes near the Pakistani and Iranian borders, as well as in a few other resistance strongholds, such as the Panjsher Valley. These bombardments resulted in many civilian casualties. They forced about a third of the populationan estimated 5 million Afghansto flee the country. The 3 million Afghans in Pakistan and the 2 million in Iran became the worlds largest refugee population in the 1980s.
When this strategy proved a failure, the Soviets sent in Special Forces, known as spetsnaz, starting in 1984. The spetsnaz undertook aggressive operations, mainly against the same areas that had been targeted in the bombing campaign. These operations began with the surrounding of an area by armored vehicles, usually at night. The Soviets then bombarded the area from the air or with artillery. Spetsnaz, often transported by helicopters, then invaded the villages, often fighting house to house and killing large numbers of civilians. The result was the emptying and destruction of villages. The destruction included the placement of antipersonnel mines in houses, agricultural land, and irrigation canals, in order to prevent the return of the population.
The use of antipersonnel mines was widespread. So-called butterfly mines distributed from helicopters had wings that enabled them to flutter to the ground. Camouflaged in the color of dust or vegetation, they were laid along infiltration routes that also served as herding paths and routes for refugees. These mines, which maim rather than kill, were largely responsible for the large numbers of handicapped persons in Afghanistan.
The Soviet leadership did not intend to fight in Afghanistan for a prolonged period. It planned on an operation similar to that in Czechoslovakia in 1968, leading to a quick stabilization. Initially it secured the main towns and supply routes while leaving counterinsurgency to Afghan troops. It also engaged in massive and indiscriminate aerial bombardments of areas along infiltration routes near the Pakistani and Iranian borders, as well as in a few other resistance strongholds, such as the Panjsher Valley. These bombardments resulted in many civilian casualties. They forced about a third of the populationan estimated 5 million Afghansto flee the country. The 3 million Afghans in Pakistan and the 2 million in Iran became the worlds largest refugee population in the 1980s.
When this strategy proved a failure, the Soviets sent in Special Forces, known as spetsnaz, starting in 1984. The spetsnaz undertook aggressive operations, mainly against the same areas that had been targeted in the bombing campaign. These operations began with the surrounding of an area by armored vehicles, usually at night. The Soviets then bombarded the area from the air or with artillery. Spetsnaz, often transported by helicopters, then invaded the villages, often fighting house to house and killing large numbers of civilians. The result was the emptying and destruction of villages. The destruction included the placement of antipersonnel mines in houses, agricultural land, and irrigation canals, in order to prevent the return of the population.
The use of antipersonnel mines was widespread. So-called butterfly mines distributed from helicopters had wings that enabled them to flutter to the ground. Camouflaged in the color of dust or vegetation, they were laid along infiltration routes that also served as herding paths and routes for refugees. These mines, which maim rather than kill, were largely responsible for the large numbers of handicapped persons in Afghanistan.
Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet or Afghan communist forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or Afghan Communist troops, according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts [60]
The population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants, following a months-long campaign of carpet bombing and bulldozing by the Soviets and Afghan communist soldiers in 1987.[61] Land mines had killed 25,000 Afghans during the war and another 10-15 million land mines, most planted by Soviet and Afghan government forces, were left scattered throughout the countryside to kill and maim.[62]
A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines. A 2005 report estimated 3-4% of the Afghan population were disabled due to Soviet and Afghan communist land mines. In the city of Quetta, a survey of refugee women and children taken shortly after the Soviet withdrawal found over 80% of the children refugees unregistered and child mortality at 31%. Of children who survived, 67% were severely malnourished, with malnutrition increasing with age.[63]
The population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants, following a months-long campaign of carpet bombing and bulldozing by the Soviets and Afghan communist soldiers in 1987.[61] Land mines had killed 25,000 Afghans during the war and another 10-15 million land mines, most planted by Soviet and Afghan government forces, were left scattered throughout the countryside to kill and maim.[62]
A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines. A 2005 report estimated 3-4% of the Afghan population were disabled due to Soviet and Afghan communist land mines. In the city of Quetta, a survey of refugee women and children taken shortly after the Soviet withdrawal found over 80% of the children refugees unregistered and child mortality at 31%. Of children who survived, 67% were severely malnourished, with malnutrition increasing with age.[63]
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 03:13:40 PM
It is not a moral cripple you need to see the comparisons-it's an ideological blindness to the facts that you need in order to not see them. Your problem is that you keep posting statistics from Afghanistan without taking a look at the corresponding statistics in the Iraq war. Of course if you ignore damage done to Iraq and only look at damage Russia did, then you will conclude there's no equivalence.
If you look at the damage done to Iraq side by side with the damage done to Afghanistan, however, the comparisons become quite obvious. To look at both facts side by side, however, you need to be free enough from ideological convictions to admit that facts other than those which confirm your ideology are relevant.
Now let's see the comparisons to Iraq:
Quote
The Soviets decided that the way to isolate the fish was to drain the ocean. The Soviet Air Force, which had readily ripped apart the Afghan lashgars, was useless against a guerrilla that it could not target. However, the air force could readily target irrigation systems, orchards, cropland, farms, villages and livestock. The air force went after the Mujahideen support structure.
Here's the American equivalent in Iraq:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1123/p01s02-woiq.html
Quote
It was Fallujah where the US military decided to set a precedent in Iraq, hoping that a full-scale offensive [ss's comment: ie, destroying the city]- which heavily damaged the city - followed by a carefully controlled return of the 300,000 residents, would undermine the insurgency
The Russian attack on Infrastructure:
Quote
The rural social system was turned upside down and the guerrillas support base was being closed down.
And the American attack on Iraq's infrastructure:
http://www.irffi.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/IRFFI/0,,contentMDK:20241710~hlPK:1285902~menuPK:497916~pagePK:64168627~piPK:64167475~theSitePK:491458,00.html
Quote
Prior to the 1990s, Iraqs infrastructure was among the best in the Middle East.
Quote
Today most Iraqis have limited access to essential basic services, including electricity, water supply, sanitation, and refuse collection.
Serious environmental and health risks associated with contaminated water supplies, inappropriate handling of solid waste, and disposal of sewage threaten to further burden the already stressed health system. The concentration of economic and social activities in the main urban centers of Iraq has also led to a proliferation of under-serviced neighborhoods in major Iraqi cities. Iraqi officials are looking for means to quickly restore basic infrastructure services and to improve living conditions. The lack of basic infrastructure services, particularly electricity, has contributed to the general lack of security in various parts of the country.
Serious environmental and health risks associated with contaminated water supplies, inappropriate handling of solid waste, and disposal of sewage threaten to further burden the already stressed health system. The concentration of economic and social activities in the main urban centers of Iraq has also led to a proliferation of under-serviced neighborhoods in major Iraqi cities. Iraqi officials are looking for means to quickly restore basic infrastructure services and to improve living conditions. The lack of basic infrastructure services, particularly electricity, has contributed to the general lack of security in various parts of the country.
Notice the parallel? Destroying the infrastructure so that most activity ends up concentrated in the cities...hmm, familiiar.
Refugees-plenty of those in Iraq:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=SUBSITES&id=461f7cb92
Four million displaced Iraqis....right up there with the Afghan tragedy.
Total deaths of Iraqis?
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
Quote
September 2007 More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered
Post by: Scout26 on July 09, 2008, 05:11:04 PM
Comparing us in Iraq to the Soviets in Afghanistan. You're quite a piece of work.
Quote
Quote
The Soviets decided that the way to isolate the fish was to drain the ocean. The Soviet Air Force, which had readily ripped apart the Afghan lashgars, was useless against a guerrilla that it could not target. However, the air force could readily target irrigation systems, orchards, cropland, farms, villages and livestock. The air force went after the Mujahideen support structure.
Here's the American equivalent in Iraq:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1123/p01s02-woiq.html
Quote
It was Fallujah where the US military decided to set a precedent in Iraq, hoping that a full-scale offensive [ss's comment: ie, destroying the city]- which heavily damaged the city - followed by a carefully controlled return of the 300,000 residents, would undermine the insurgency
I don't think we destroyed croplands, farms, livestock and orchards. In fact we went house by house to prevent unnecessary destruction. Oh, and when the battle was over, we returned the residents and paid for and help repair any damage done. But I guess the difference is lost on you.
Quote
And the American attack on Iraq's infrastructure:
http://www.irffi.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/IRFFI/0,,contentMDK:20241710~hlPK:1285902~menuPK:497916~pagePK:64168627~piPK:64167475~theSitePK:491458,00.html
Notice the parallel? Destroying the infrastructure so that most activity ends up concentrated in the cities...hmm, familiiar.
http://www.irffi.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/IRFFI/0,,contentMDK:20241710~hlPK:1285902~menuPK:497916~pagePK:64168627~piPK:64167475~theSitePK:491458,00.html
Quote
Prior to the 1990s, Iraqs infrastructure was among the best in the Middle East.
Quote
Today most Iraqis have limited access to essential basic services, including electricity, water supply, sanitation, and refuse collection.
Serious environmental and health risks associated with contaminated water supplies, inappropriate handling of solid waste, and disposal of sewage threaten to further burden the already stressed health system. The concentration of economic and social activities in the main urban centers of Iraq has also led to a proliferation of under-serviced neighborhoods in major Iraqi cities. Iraqi officials are looking for means to quickly restore basic infrastructure services and to improve living conditions. The lack of basic infrastructure services, particularly electricity, has contributed to the general lack of security in various parts of the country.
Serious environmental and health risks associated with contaminated water supplies, inappropriate handling of solid waste, and disposal of sewage threaten to further burden the already stressed health system. The concentration of economic and social activities in the main urban centers of Iraq has also led to a proliferation of under-serviced neighborhoods in major Iraqi cities. Iraqi officials are looking for means to quickly restore basic infrastructure services and to improve living conditions. The lack of basic infrastructure services, particularly electricity, has contributed to the general lack of security in various parts of the country.
Notice the parallel? Destroying the infrastructure so that most activity ends up concentrated in the cities...hmm, familiiar.
And who's done most (and continues to do) damage the infrastructure ?? We must be really stupid, because everyone that I've talked to that's beeen over there has always remarked about how much time, effort and money we put into getting the infrastructure up and working. Then according to you we just go and blow it up again. It's the terrorists that are destroying things. We're trying to get it to work.
And then your final slap in the face. You quote a POLL on the number of deaths, implying that all were caused by US forces.
Have you no shame ?? No sense of decency ??
It's a shame dueling is illegal, because I would challange you to one.
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 05:37:35 PM
Quote
I don't think we destroyed croplands, farms, livestock and orchards. In fact we went house by house to prevent unnecessary destruction. Oh, and when the battle was over, we returned the residents and paid for and help repair any damage done. But I guess the difference is lost on you.
Fallujah was a house-to-house operation? You mean house to house to destroy, along with bombing every car in the city in advance....and still forbidding any cars to operate there at all.
Anyone who wants can look at photos of Iraq's major cities-the damage is not minor or localized.
Quote
And who's done most (and continues to do) damage the infrastructure ?? We must be really stupid, because everyone that I've talked to that's beeen over there has always remarked about how much time, effort and money we put into getting the infrastructure up and working. Then according to you we just go and blow it up again. It's the terrorists that are destroying things. We're trying to get it to work.
Again, the point I'm making is not that the US isn't trying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure-it's that Russia also tried to build Afghani infrastructure.
You are creating a straw man here-I'm not and never have claimed that all US troops are doing is destroying Iraq. It is untrue to say that Russia was doing that to Afghanistan though. Russia tried to build the place up, and a lot of their work was sabotaged or destroyed in fighting the militants. It was, again, similar to the situation in Iraq.
Not because the Army in Iraq is evil, which is silly, but because the Russian army was not a cartoon badguy in Afghanistan.
Quote
And then your final slap in the face. You quote a POLL on the number of deaths, implying that all were caused by US forces.
Yeah, how is that different from the numbers we're using for Afghanistan? The pre-Taliban certainly killed a large number of the people who died, and caused refugees, and I see no indication in the refugee or death numbers that they included only deaths directly caused by the USSR.
Again, the same as the numbers we're tossing around for Iraq.
Before you challenge me to a duel, you should try to give an honest read to my post. Because the duel you're imaging right now is between you and a stuffed-with-straw scarecrow.
Post by: roo_ster on July 10, 2008, 05:47:12 AM
I would hazard a guess as to "No" and "No," given that ignorance is not now an available (charitable) assumption.