Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
I thought I'd dig up this thread. It bounced around a lot but my thesis that building capacity and creating breathing space doesn't automatically produce reconciliation seems relevant today.
I don't think anyone of any importance ever said it would.
Ken's comment "pressure is more likely to create resistance" is interesting given the pressure being placed on Sadr.
Why? I'd also note that Sadr has had several competing pressures placed on him by several actors -- which one will he most resist?
Another one of Ken's comments that is interesting: "It is considered not only permissible but desirable to lie (as we in the west see it -- they do not look at it that way) to a customer -- or a foreigner..." leads me to another hypothesis: Iraqis have figured out that if they call their rivals "terrorists" we'll use our use kinetic weapons against their rivals.
True in the first year or so, hardly at all true today. We're slow and we got taken early on but the Intel finally caught up and we're a lot more skeptical and aware today.
And finally, Ken's comment that "no one in the ME will ever 'trust' anyone who iis not family (preferably) or tribe / clan / moetie, etc (secondarily)" is undoubtedly true and supports my hypothesis that capacity building won't work. The government uniform comes off as soon as the fur flies.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by capacity building. Still, if your picture is to illustrate that people will change side based on the parameters I cited plus other factors -- Heh. No kidding. Welcome to the ME.
While everyone has acknowledged the brilliance and accuracy of Ken's previous post, no one has added up what it all means...
I think you do a distinct disservice to most people here and I'd suggest that those who said my earlier post was reasonably accurate already knew that everything I said was, in at least broad measure, correct -- and thus they'd already figured out what it meant. Something that seems to have eluded you, at least based on your post above to which this responds.
...It means that Iraqis only held up their purple fingers because they knew we were watching. It means that the only way to rule Iraq is the way Saddam did: give the most important responsibilities to your family and rule your family with an iron fist. Give the next most important responsibilities to your tribe and rule them with an iron fist. Give the next most important responsibilities to your religious group and rule them with an iron fist. Oppress everyone else with an iron fist...
I suppose that's one way to look at it. I don't agree with much of that but you're certainly welcome to if you wish to do so.
...The mistake that Ken makes is thinking that if we deploy an iron fist for 10 or 15 years it won't matter that we don't have a family, a tribe or a relevant religious group in Iraq.
You probably really ought to give up telling me what I think, you haven't gotten one call correct so far -- IOW, your'e batting .000 on that. Ken strongly disagrees with an iron fist, period -- go back to your first repeat of what I said "Ken's comment "pressure is more likely to create resistance" is interesting..." If that's what I believe, why would I be remotely disposed to do something that would build resistance. Your position is highly illogical. Again.
That's why I suggest that if you are in Iraq you reduce every interaction to a business transaction as simple as buying a carpet: how much do you want to attack Al Qaeda?...
Boy, they'd have a lot of fun with you...
...That's why strategically I advocate withdrawal; we're never going to succeed without a family, without a tribe and without a religious group in the fight.
Define succeed.