"Occupation by Policy" - How Victors Inadvertantly Provoke Resistance Insurgency

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---if you think we seem to have coherent policies in the US that foreign populations understand check this comment from Congress.

Congress babbles. That's what they do. It isn't policy.

I did not see volunteers from Congress wanting to be the first back into Iraq---but hey talk is cheap.

Yes, it is... and war is very, very expensive. That's one of many reasons why we should not go into wars unless we have clear, practical, achievable objectives and viable plans for attaining those objectives.

Note---noticed the Iranians have offered "military advice" and supplies against AQ---and who said Iraq is not a part of the Iranian Green Crescent?

Yes, Iran will try to gain influence in Iraq, and will try to control Iraq if they can. I haven't heard anyone say otherwise.

Not so sure what an offer of "military advice" is outside of sending troops as "volunteers" as they did in Lebanon and Syria.

Yes, they will send people, weapons, and money.

What do you think the Saudi response will be to that offer?

They will order the Americans to do something, pout when we don't obey, and then send people, guns, and money to support their own chosen proxies.

More weapons, cash, fighters into Syria or participation in the coming Syria talks-----

All of the above, most likely.

And what is our policy towards Syria currently---do not rock the boat and just talk at a meeting that will go nowhere except cement Russian influence in the ME, keep Assad in power and keep the Shia controlling the Green Crescent if the US does not support the anti Assad forces.

The policy is to participate in the talks but not to take sides or get involved in the fighting. What I think you're missing here is that neither side is worth support in this venture, and a victory for the Sunni would be no better for the US than a victory for the Shi'a. So why get involved at all? The knee-jerk reaction of "if the Russians support one side, we must support the other" went out with the Cold War.

I do not for a moment think Assad will give up and walk away from his country and go where---would have to be Iran as he could be hauled in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity.

Of course he won't. How is that an argument for US involvement?

When we get involved in a fight like this, it means taking sides. Because we're American, of course we can't just take a side. We have to declare that the people we support are the good guys, the while hats, the true spokesmen to the people. We have to call them our friends, and make a commitment... and then we give them guns and money. Few months later the money is in the Cayman Islands, nobody wants to talk about where the guns are, and our "friends" are back with their hands out. The smart thing to do at this point would be to walk away, but if we do that Carl and the Quds Force (great name for a band) would accuse us of abandoning our friends, so we double down and send more guns and money. Surprisingly, the same thing happens. By now everybody knows we've been played, but to admit that would be to admit that we made a mistake, and we can't do that, so we double down again. We send more guns and money, and this time we send advisers as well. Then we have to secure the advisers, and they want air support so we have to go all shock and awe on the air defenses... and then we're at war, tossing hundreds of billions into a black hole with no realistic goal, no exit strategy, and a bunch of "friends" that are about as useful to us as an anchor is to a long distance swimmer.

Why would we want to go down that road? What's in it for us?