Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

You know - since Britan has pulled away from the south in

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 05:52 PM
Original message
You know - since Britan has pulled away from the south in
Iraq - it is pretty open - all the way to the ocean right now - isn't it??

That is the only significant thing that really happened lately.

That man can put lipstick on a pig all day long - it is still a pig.

It goes back in my mind - how much I trusted the officers of the United States once- and how much I do not trust these "officers".

I want to trust them.

But I keep going over in my mind that story those kids wrote to the NYT - those 82nd Airborne kids -and I trust the GIs so much more right now.

Good for you England - I always thought you were smart.

Joe


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Once Blair was out the Brits were free to pull out of the Fiasco.
Blair had a deal with the Busholini Regime. I suspect that the deal was about the oil. BP is an English Oil Corp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm watching the Basra area. The British pull back could be a predictor
The British pulled back into armed camps, leaving several competing Shia militias to compete for control of the south. If it turns into a bloodbath, there will be huge resistance to further American pull outs.

If it goes well, if the people down there can cut deals and share power, it might be a model for the more diverse Baghdad and Anbar areas where our troops are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Understand just why Baghdad is important - it is not because
they have any resources we care about. DO you think they really care about those people??

They exist (the resources) in only two places. And if they didn't, we wouldn't be there.

I really didn't think Turkey would mass such a force to the north - and I didn't think Iran would do the same to the east - not really.

But I sure never thought the gate to the south would open this wide.

No - they never bargained for Britans move here. Give up the sea entry - I don't think so.

Joe





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, it's a sitting duck for General Sherman.
Wait... what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Basra is more important than Baghdad.
It is a major sea port.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. And....
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Are you asking why people care about control of the seaport linked to....
Two of the biggest petroleum fields in the world? Basra is a choke point. I'm sure Cheney is kicking himself for trusting the Brits to hold this. Until there's a viable pipeline running north or west out of Kurdistan, control of the Basra area could mean trillions in monthly profits to Bush's friends. The British pullback is a big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I'm asking what Joe's talking about this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. What don't you understand??
You think it matters what W does on his three day weekend??

WHat he says anymore??

Who you gonna believe - him or your lieing eyes?

It is that pathetically clear.

Joe

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I don't understand what your point is.
The Brits are pulling out of Basra- OK.

Basra is an important port city- OK.

So what's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. We DO have to extend to the south - and we just ran out of army
to do that - that is the point.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. That is a really good post Bucky -
And you are right - I think they never saw this one coming.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. But it is -
There are similarities - not exactly to Sherman - but there sure are as to his opponent - you know Johnston. Eerie similarities.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. So who's who in this analogy?
Who are the Union, the Confederates, and the slaves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Oh - we are Joe Johnson right now - We are so
Joe Johnson - You know - trying to hold back the enevitable with no possibility of reinforcement -

Yeah, that is us right now.

Joe

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. And who's the invading army?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. We are.
We just screwed up. We are the "Shermans" with the resources of Johnson -

You know even Joe had one thing going for him - at least his populace was friendly. We can't even say that right now.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I don't think your analogy's working terribly well.
Edited on Tue Sep-04-07 06:37 PM by Bornaginhooligan
:shrug:

On edit: fixed typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. That would be terribly well.
And unfortunately for us - it does.

Except I'll say this - Joe was a very good officer - a lot better than these clowns.

And we know how that came out - don't we??

Think it can come out better??

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Joe...
If you're going to use the Civil War as an analogy it helps to have one group of people be the North, and a different, seperate group of people be the South.

So no, it's not a very good analogy, because it doesn't explain what you're talking about.

As for Johnston, he was a traitor and a hack. The only reason he looked good was because McClellan was so incompetent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. That is pretty simplistic -
Joe Johntson was a traitor - is that what you are saying??

He did pretty well to hold back Sherman as long as he did. I don't take sides in that war as far as competence. But I will say there is a reason he was chosen even ahead of Lee and there is a reason they went back to him when the CSA got it's ass kicked in the west.

He never fought McClellan after Fair Oaks - and that was a draw.

Yeah - there really is an eerie similarity alright - and not in a good way.

Joe





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Of course he was.
It's really very simple.

But that's neither here nor there.

Explain the similarities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Man - politically I am so glad the south lost - for a lot of reasons
But credit is due where it is due.

JJ - he almost manged to hold off the Sherman swing (and I am convinced Sherman was a lunatic) long enough to influence the 1864 election. That is what he was trying to do - that is all he could hope for. He knew what he had to work with.

SO you may see the similarity - with little to work with he, as we do - are trying to hold off for a political settlement. It is eerie that way.

You clearly have a grounded understanding of that war. I would add - really -all war is the same in a way. And it repeats itself with little variation.

You know in Shermans memoirs he thought very highly of Johnstons ability in war - so did McClellan.

So did Jefferson Davis.

SO do I - he was a good commander. I realize he lost - but he did pretty well considering.

Joe





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. THis is just the beginning ... supply lines will be cut, our troops are vulnerable...
If you were part of the militias watching the British retreat to the airport, the only decision you would have to make is whether to launch an attack now or wait until they get on the planes and leave.

THis has all the hallmarks of a disaster waiting to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Why would the malitias attack the Brits as they leave?
It seems that the US Troops will now move in where the Brits were. The US Regime cannot afford to lose Basra.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. With what soldiers???
But you are right - we can't let the pipeline go either -

SO what are they gonna do??

Stretch even thinner??

Jesus - how in gods name did they manage to get us into this position??

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. I was referring to an attack on "our troops" not the Brits ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. That's option A. Option B is that they've already cut deals with the right people.
I don't know why I expect them to do anything right at this point. But the smart move would have been to cut deals with the competing armed factions in the south and use the troop relocation as a carrot to make sure BP gets a cut of the export action.

There's still room to cut deals and bring peace in Iraq. The key is to make the commitment to make it work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. And Then There's Option C
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II05Ak04.html

Basra crisis is Iran's opportunity
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

In his surprise visit to al-Anbar province in Iraq on Monday, US President George W Bush boasted of coalition troops' accomplishments in bringing stability and uprooting the al-Qaeda menace with the help of Sunni tribes. At the same time, the last British soldiers were vacating Basra in the south in what a British paper described as "ignominious defeat".

The British withdrawal to the safety of their one remaining bunkered base at the airport "will bring perils for US troops", according to a US commentator. This is why the US military and



the White House - "at the highest echelon" - have been lobbying London over new Prime Minister Gordon Brown's decision to phase out the British presence in Iraq.

Brown, inheriting an explosive legacy from his predecessor, Tony Blair, has delivered on his promises and the big issue now is whether or not the same forces which constantly harassed the British forces in Basra will remain operating on the outskirts of the city.

An even more important question is about the security vacuum that has been created, in light of the inter-Shi'ite power struggle in Basra and, indeed, the entire southern section of Iraq, which is overwhelmingly Shi'ite and within the purview of Iran's regional politics.

Recalling Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's recent statement that Iran can easily "fill the vacuum" of US forces, the situation in Basra may mean that Tehran may be forced to play that role sooner than expected, depending on the evolution or devolution of Basra's current state of emergency.

The ability of Iraqis to ensure a peaceful transfer of power, instead of a nosedive toward anarchy-driven factional strife, should not be underestimated however, particularly since Basra poses a litmus test of Shi'ite politics in the broader context of Iraqi national politics.

For Iran, the British withdrawal from Basra represents a conundrum. On the one hand Tehran counts it as a strategic gain that weakens the US's position with regard to Iran, given the greater vulnerability of the land supply route from Kuwait. But at the same time, the mere prospect of a security collapse in Basra spells major new and unwanted headaches for Iran, which has always insisted on an "orderly and timely" exit of foreign troops - in other words, no hasty and ill-planned withdrawal.

Yet, that is exactly what has happened in Basra, and a security meltdown there could easily translate into waves of Iran-bound refugees, thus warranting Iran's preemptive mediation in the ongoing inter-Shi'ite power struggle. This is mainly between and among the three dominant groups, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and its sub-factions, the Fadhila Party presently running the city, and the Supreme Iraq Islamic Council and its Badr militias.

Iran's already enormous influence in southern Iraq will likely grow more powerful in the near future, although this will be determined to some extent by political developments in Baghdad. For instance, a failure of the central government to maintain national unity will exacerbate the centrifugal tendencies that have primed southern Iraq as an Iranian sphere of influence.

"There are so many different scenarios in Basra and southern Iraq now, all tied to the US-Iran rivalry and it is a sure bet that short of a US military occupation that is not feasible for the overstretched US Army, the scenario of Iran's rising influence will predominate, in other words, Iran is a sure winner of the British retreat," a Tehran analyst told the author.

And that means that the US now needs to engage Iran more than in the past to play a constructive role in Iraq.

The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has renewed the US's interest in a follow-up discussion with Iran on Iraq's security, perhaps as a sign of recognition of Tehran's growing clout and responsibility in oil-rich southern Iraq.

Contrary to some Western analysts, Iran is not interested in turning southern Iraq into its satellite and harvesting the benefits of a de facto partition of the country. Rather, Iran still hopes that a strong, Iran-friendly national government in Baghdad will triumph over the odds piled up against it so that the two neighboring states can eventually remap the region's security calculus.

That expectation may have been compromised by the slew of difficulties facing the Shi'ite-led government of Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad, yet it is still the luminous light that directs Iran's Iraq policy.

Thus, the Basra microcosm, conceived as threatened with further yet ultimately manageable instability, fits into Iran's larger political map that connects Iraqi provincial politics to the national and even regional politics on a long-term basis, instead of looking for short-term gains.

Still, few analysts in Tehran are able to hide their rather euphoric reaction to the news of the British withdrawal from Basra, which potentially spells more trouble for those who are rattling sabers at Iran these days.

A US military option against Iran is now even less likely in light of the power vacuum in southern Iraq that, if need be, could be utilized by Tehran to undermine the stability of the US's presence in the rest of Iraq.

With Iran sensing both opportunity and crisis in southern Iraq, the stage is now set for a new depth to Iran's purely Shi'ite or Islamist politics that traverses narrow national(ist) considerations. After all, the ethos of Islamic revolution has always focused on Islamist solidarity and kinship, transcending limited territorial gains or considerations.

That is precisely why any fears of Iran's machinations to carve out southern Iraq into its sphere of influence are at bottom baseless. Iran will do so only as a last resort when and if a nightmare scenario of collapse of the center and irreversible regional autonomy appears inescapable.

That is not Iran's reading of the situation right now, even though policymakers have been toying with scenario-building in Iraq. Their threat analyses of Iraq do not envisage panic, partly as a result of Iran's thorough familiarity and rapport with the various Shi'ite factions, including the Mahdi militia, irrespective of Muqtada's occasional public misgivings about Iran's influence.

The Iranians' largely upbeat prognosis is in sharp contrast with the doomsday scenario seen in the US press, which depicts Basra as "plagued" with corruption, violence and gangsterism. There is a chance that the Iraqi army and police in and around Basra, deeply connected to various Shi'ite factions, might turn against each other, in which case Basra will disintegrate as a unified political unit.

Iran may well provide the glue that keeps that from happening - all the more reason for the US and its allies not to view every Iranian involvement in Iraq negatively, or as an act of subversion. Iran's vested interest in Iraq's national unity and territorial integrity translates into a calming influence in southern Iraq that can turn volatile only if other parts of Iraq break loose and set in motion southern Iraq's partition.

But, as stated above, Iran is not particularly worried about such a prospect at the moment and considers the other regional players, such as Syria and Turkey, sufficiently in sync with its Iraq policy to stave off the "nightmare scenario".

Yet, simultaneously there is another "nightmare scenario", that is, the possibility of a US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities that has been preoccupying Iran's leaders, which raises in turn the matter of linkage with Iraq. That possibility has now been dealt an indirect blow by developments in Basra.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Nice post -
You know there is a good thing about this - in a sick way -

This could really end up in millions of people trying to crash the Iranian border - just to get out of the way. Bizzare justice maybe. One thing Bush says that is probably right - they did agitate the thing.

The bad thing - they appear to be just as stupid about it too.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. That is right - you should be on the joint cheifs of staff -
cause right now I think they have no clue.

What did happen - as you point out quite well - our supply lines just got fucked all the way to the gulf - that is what happened.

How much elasticity you think our army has left at this point??

I think not much.

Joe

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. There is also the Saudi factor to consider.
The Royals can't be pleased that the south may fall into Iran's sphere of influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. They can't allow that. The day they do is the day they begin
to fall from power. Really. You are quite right.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC