Iraq: Doubts about claims of united civil war
Think about the contrast: Someone claims to have "united people in a civil war."
Notice the curious dovetailing of two inconsistent concepts:
Considering both conflicting trends, let's pose some questions:
Let's talk strategy of the weak and poorly equipped when fighting a more formidable foe; or one that hopes to exploit a civil war that is already spreading.
If your goal is to spark a civil war, who cares whether you have allies or not: The idea of a civil war is to sew seeds of disharmony, exploit them, and get your opponents to fight each other and stay out of the battle. Then, when the battle is over, you defeat the weak and wounded, just like an auditor does. It makes no sense to take on a "strong opponent," when your own side has to do the work of uniting.
Rather, the more prudent approach would be to get your allies to appear to join forces with the enemy, then when your real enemy launches their troops and resources, you surprise them with a betrayal and inside attack from your ally.
If someone was truly "sophisticated to fight a civil war" would they not know to stay out of the fight until victory was ensured? The smart Russian generals knew when not to fight and conserve resources. They merely withdrew into the plains of Siberia and let their opponent waste resources.
The current "story about uniting to fight a civil war" sounds like it's an oversimplification and at odds with what a prudent strategist would actually do.
Thus, I conclude there is neither a real strategy behind this "uniting to spread a civil war," nor is the actual story credible on the surface.
We already had a civil war in Iraq, and it's already been spreading.
Second, the definition of a civil war is a division.
If someone were "able to unite" why would they not unite the whole country, rather than keep their "efforts to unite" narrowed to only a portion of the country?
I'm more inclined to believe that this is an oversimplification to explain:
However, civil wars aren't a simple one-off event. Rather, here are multiple cycles, or ebbs-and-flows of the collations, then they refocus on a new objective. It is dynamic, it changes, and the original conditions are close to what the final result is.
Alot of alliances change, things appear to swing one way, but the end conditions aren't usually all that different. The only thing that changes are the colors, uniforms, and faces. The entrenched corruption and flaws tend to remain, but hidden in a new way.
The simple story about Iraq is just that simplistic. "One leader unites many under one" doesn't sound credible. It sounds more like a manufactured press release for people who have no idea what civil war are all about: Americans.
Also, consider the idea of the Iraqi central government: There are multiple factions vying for constitutional power.
If someone is "able to unite many" why would they want to use violence, and not consolidate their power to secure greater power?
I conclude this is a non-sense explanation for a rather dynamic situation, that's been unfolding for quiet some time. We've seen in re Katrina what people will do when they're annoyed.
Or are we to believe that the "greatest threat" to unite the Americas is an Iraqi opposition force?
Careful: Watch for it -- the strange linkage, just as we saw in 9-11 with Iraq, between "Katrina chaos, and the need to preserve order by upping the troops in Iraq and invading Iran."
Yes, it's far fetched. Just as it was far fetched to link 9-11 with Iraq; or invade without WMD. It's absurd, so shouldn't we presume this is an option?
The appeal to absurdity is perfect: Anyone who would espouse it would get discredited; then when eyes are elsewhere, simply do it anyway.
The "united in a civil war"-story doesn't ring right.
"Move along, there's nothing new here. Same non-sense. Disregard the disconnect. Your mind will be comfortable if you blindly obey the Bush-erer."
posted by Constant @ 9:21 PM
<< Home