Well, as in the past Lind has presented something to ponder. In any battle, one has to asses its future on a consistent and constant basis and determine when it is time to continue or to fall back and regroup.

The Sunni vs. Shiia situation in Iraq has not come close to being resolved despite the reduction of violence in Iraq as a result of the surge. And with the Shiia led government failing to embrace the Sunni (despite the fact the Sunni have done a great job in the elimination al Quaeda in Iraq and given very little credit for having done so) does not bode well for the future. The Sunni will not be denied meaningful participation in the Iraqi government. And the sooner the Shiia resolve this issue the better. If they do not, the Sunni will feel they have no other option than to resort to violence. If that occurs, we will be stuck in the middle as we have dedicated more resources to the Sunni than the Shiia and have trained, equipted and paid for now what appears to be a 120,000 strong Sunni military force. Do we now suddenly fight the Sunni again to protect the Malaki government? Sadly, this is a situation we have created due to our inability to understand Iraqi history.

Regardless of how troops may feel, the larger situation overshadows their individual opinions based upon a small section of Iraq where they are or have served. There are powers being brought into play that our troops have no concept about in Iraq (and the entire Middle-East)the significance of these powers and how they will shape what happens in Iraq. In total, these powers will determine what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The Iraq war was not initiated on the basis of what our troops would think or believe regarding its outcome...it was, is and is about political ideologies again writing checks our troops would have to cash with their blood and pain but the ideologues retained all of the decision making power with its results to our troops being way down on a list of importance.

Lind is correct...the 'culmination point' is approaching in Iraq and I hope the powers to be heed its importance to the men and women in uniform and for our Country.

S/F Gordon

Mr. Lind has mixed some good theory with wishful thinking. Just because it could happen, it doesn't mean that it will.

This is the first time I had heard of a party wishing to fight both the coalition and the Taleban in Afghanistan. There is a significant element within America, which will not accept "defeat" on any terms, and which will view any type of withdrawal from our new empire as such.

I still think that Lind's previous hypothesis -that the Iraqis and Pakistanis will separately, but near simultaneously, rebel against the U.S. and cut our supply lines- is the more likely. More likely than both Lind scenarios to me: the Sunnis and Shias, and other Aghans with the Taleban, will find common ground to fight the invader as allies.

I do not think it will be that cut and dry. I do believe we will be asked to leave Iraq and A'stan by some deadline. Now if we decide to ignore the requests by two soverign governments, then it will hit the fan.

As to Pakistan, I think they will be more pragmatic about things. They like our counterbalance to India.

If we are asked to leave Iraq and A'stan by a date certain, there will be no need for us to worry about supply routes...unless we decide to stay. Under such circumstances, I believe Turkey would step up to the plate regarding a supply route as it would be in their best interests to do so. Kuwait would stand behind us. A few of the Gulf states would also stand with us. I think the Saudi's would do so reluctantly. We would also make sure we retained complete control of the waterways around the Arabian Gulf. We would also dominate the air space in the area. Bottom line, supplies for a continued war would continue to flow pretty much unimpeded.

Just an hypothisis but lets hope we do not place ourselves in a situation where it has to be tested.

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:
Mr. Lind has mixed some good theory with wishful thinking. Just because it could happen, it doesn't mean that it will.

This is the first time I had heard of a party wishing to fight both the coalition and the Taleban in Afghanistan. There is a significant element within America, which will not accept "defeat" on any terms, and which will view any type of withdrawal from our new empire as such.

I still think that Lind's previous hypothesis -that the Iraqis and Pakistanis will separately, but near simultaneously, rebel against the U.S. and cut our supply lines- is the more likely. More likely than both Lind scenarios to me: the Sunnis and Shias, and other Aghans with the Taleban, will find common ground to fight the invader as allies.