Impregnable Iraq

The biggest danger democratic Iraq ever faced was a military coup. Now that the Americans are back in Iraq - even in very small numbers - that threat should have abated. I would congratulate the Iraqis on managing to maintain that no-coup situation for more than 2 years. That was an interesting data point.

The small numbers of US forces in Iraq at the moment is similar to the situation that existed in Afghanistan where a small number of US special forces were able to assist the Northern Alliance to a stunning victory.

ISIS seems to have been successful by getting some disgruntled Sunnis to stand up and assist them, and Sunni soldiers being unwilling to fight fellow Sunnis. They aren't going to have the same success in the Shiite areas, especially not with US backing.

Sadr's Mahdi Army was a major concern as well. It is very unusual for a democratic country to have a 100,000-strong militia under independent control. Again it is fortunate that the Americans are back in town to prevent them from staging a coup.

The Iraqi experiment has been a fascinating success story, and I am keen to watch how the rest of the drama plays out.




Kurdish Independence

Turkey has long been opposed to the Iraqi Kurds declaring independence from Iraq. And Turkey is an ally of the free world, for decades, and we don't wish to cross or betray them after all the assistance they have given (e.g. providing air bases to maintain the "no fly zone"). But for whatever reason, the Turks have had a change of heart. That is great. And now I think the time is right for Iraqi Kurds to declare independence. Thanks to ISIS, the Kurds have been able to take Kirkuk, so they hopefully now have all the territory from Iraq that they think belongs in greater Kurdistan.

This does have the unfortunate side-effect that the Kurds are no longer available to guide the Iraqis to decent government, but nevermind. The Iraqis are always going to vote for religious egg-heads, and I wouldn't want to live under egg-head rule myself.

Thanks Turkey!!!

P.S. Polls show that 79% of Kurds supported the 2003 Iraq war, versus 19% who opposed. That's a fantastic ally to have. Much better than Iraq as a whole. Imagine having an oil-rich ally of the free world. They would probably be eligible to join NATO too. :-)

P.P.S. Another figure of interest is that only 3.3% of all Iraqis liked Saddam. This shows how easy it is to control a population with modern weaponry.




Greetings Julie Bishop

Open Letter to Julie Bishop, Australian Foreign Minister

Hello Julie. I saw your comment here where you said:

‘‘Well, I supported the liberation of Iraq at that time. I thought Saddam Hussein was one of the worst dictators on the planet at that time. And his removal was a good thing.’’

A very obvious observation, a very accurate observation, yet an observation that more than 50% of Australians cannot grasp.

The fact that around (depends on poll) 50% of Australians do not subscribe to the basic principle that toppling cruel dictators is a just cause is very disturbing to me. I would like the Australian education system to explain why you (Julie) have the correct stance on this issue. Now that you are in power, what does the Liberal party intend to do to ensure Australian children learn that Vietnam and Iraq were just causes and that the Labor party betrayed our allies in both of those wars? If you don't change the education system, the left-wing narrative will continue to be propagated in our schools.

I have done enormous amount of analysis to find out why so many Australians aided and abetted a rapist like Saddam/Uday. The result of that analysis can be found here. I hope you can take the time to read it.

Paul Edwards,
Free World South.




Mosul Madness

The nutcase Islamic militants in Iraq have taken over Mosul. Thanks to the myths of Vietnam (US action supposedly failing when it didn't), Afghanistan (Russian action supposedly failing when it didn't) and the US "revolution" (aka French military victory), the dumbass insurgents think they can take on the Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi security forces outnumber the insurgents by about 1000 to 1, along with having complete air supremacy and almost all the heavy weaponry.

The Iraqi security forces are spread thin over the entirety of Iraq, which allowed the militants to bunch up and take on the security forces in Mosul. But that can only be a temporary gain. The Iraqi security forces also have the ability to bunch up in their thousands and take on the nutcases who are also spread more thinly as they attempt to hold on to territory.

Basically there is an amusing turkey-shoot about to happen as the science of warfare takes on the "glorious" insurgents.

P.S. This is similar to the Tet Offensive where the insurgents revealed who they are and got decimated. Mosul should be played very carefully so that we send as many insurgents through the meat grinder (ie the Iraqi security forces) as possible. The Iraqi military should advance and retreat so that the insurgents think that they are a match for the security forces and are driving them back (a bit like a carrot in front of a donkey - just a little bit more effort and we'll win). And the insurgents will hopefully call for reinforcements and the insurgents are never aware that they are being sucker-punched.

P.P.S. The problem that the Iraqi security forces had was that a single police station is no match for a force of hundreds of enemies. This is what happens when you try to control territory - you need to spread your forces thin. But an attacking force that is not trying to control territory is able to concentrate. The beauty of a democracy is that you don't need to control people. You can let civilians do whatever they want. People like the Taliban have a remit to keep the population under control. The Northern Alliance/USA only had a remit to take on the oppressors, not control the people. The insurgents are trying to control territory now, against a hostile population. The Iraqi security forces just need to concentrate power and take the insurgents on in any territory they are attempting to control.

P.P.P.S. What would be good from this is if ISIS gets weaponry from the captured Iraqi bases and takes them to Syria. Also it is good that the Kurds are taking Kirkuk. They should use this opportunity to spread their wings and take whatever territory they want.

P.P.P.P.S. There is a quote - "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man". What we have in all countries is police stations and army bases which are basically fixed fortifications. Basically the entire country is just a "front". These weak fortifications are not designed to cope with an attack by hundreds of militants. The militants have basically used maneuver warfare to score their victories. They can easily be defeated by a maneuver warfare response from Baghdad. Basically a column of tanks could leave Baghdad and destroy ISIS.

P.P.P.P.P.S. Now that the insurgents are controlling territory, what I would suggest is that the Iraqi military surround some of that territory, and then take out some militants, creating a vacuum. And instead of advancing into that vacuum, they should let the insurgents fill that vacuum. Hopefully their ideological allies will continue to pour into this territory that they believe they have gained, not realizing it is basically an ambush.




5000 years in Afghanistan

There were a lot of people who said that there was no chance of Afghanistan embracing democracy, and they pointed towards things like the fact that in a 5000 year history there had never been a democracy or willing transfer of power. And because of this they opposed trying to change politics in Afghanistan in 2001.

They were so wrong.

Karzai is an honorable man and will certainly transfer power in the coming months. What a beautiful result. And from this civilian to the militaries of the free world - thankyou for your blood sacrifice, it is absolutely the right thing to do in my eyes.




Iraq Elections 2014

The results of the 2014 election are now in. I favour the secular parties, but that is not what the Iraqi people are voting for. The top 3 parties are religious to some extent. So I think what needs to be acknowledged is that the Shiites need to be allowed to do whatever they want. They can vote for moderate Shia (Maliki) or radical Shia (Sadr and Muwatin) or secular Shia (Allawi).

The non-Shia parties need to passively support the best Shia party. That is far preferable to the religious Shia all allying together. If the top 3 parties (all Shia religious) ally it will create 157 seats out of the 165 needed to govern.

It would be better if the top Sunni party (Muttahidoon with 28 seats) and the Kurds (Kurdistan Democratic Party 25, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan 21, Gorran 9) with a total of 55 seats were to be passive partners of Maliki, giving 92+28+55 = 175 seats.

The long-term challenge is to get the Shia split on a left/right basis instead of hardcore religious, moderate religious and secular. And to get the Shia to support secularism too. As such, it is better for Allawi to remain in opposition so that he can say "I am the opposition to Maliki as I am secular, and you should vote for my secular party next time because it's better!" (and the only way to prove that is to elect him). The Sadrist and Muwatin provide another opposition party - that of strong Shia religion. Hopefully that "3rd pole" will be eliminated over time, but the scary thing is that they will get stronger with their message "strong religion is better" (and the only way to prove that is to elect them).

P.S. What we need is for Allawi to reach about 70 seats, to Maliki's 92, and then the Sunni Arab block vote of 43, and the Kurdish block vote of 55 can sweep in to anoint Allawi, with 70+43+55=168. But for now, Maliki is king.

P.P.S. As per this, the Arab Sunnis and Kurds should not make any demands on Maliki. Just cement him in power and let him do whatever he wants.

P.P.P.S. Just to be perfectly clear, the Arab Sunnis and Kurds should not even demand a single cabinet post. If Maliki chooses to give posts to the Arab Sunnis and Kurds, that is great, but the choice is his. He must feel confident about abandoning his ex-allies like Sadr.

P.P.P.P.S. In the long term we need 6 parties. Secular Arab Shiite Left, Secular Arab Shiite Right, Secular Arab Sunni Left, Secular Arab Sunni Right, Secular Kurdish Left, Secular Kurdish Right. The non-Shia need to hold their noses and support the most secular party they can in order to gain a majority, and after securing a secular party they need to start thinking left/right.

P.P.P.P.P.S. It looks like my favorite candidate, Mithal Al-Alusi, is back in parliament.




Honesty in Religion

Around 1990 I was having a conversation with a German. The German said that he was ashamed to be German when he had to explain the Holocaust to his children. But I asked why the Germans supported Hitler's conquest of other countries, and he explained that that was natural - a great conqueror. I asked him whether other Germans would support a great conqueror now, and he said he thought so. Basically we have no choice but to keep Anglophone troops in Germany to ensure they don't become a rogue state again.

Anglophone pacifism as seen before WW2 was disastrous. It is very clear that Jesus's pacifism is a bankrupt ideology. Mohammad saw the need for perpetual warfare, and he was right. I wish Anglophone Christians would acknowledge that their (correct) ideology is closer to that of Mohammad than Jesus, and simply say that they are Muslims, and that Christian ideology is horrendous.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?