Quote:
|
So far, I don't see US involvement with the Kurds as a prelude to civil war; this would be tantamount to a complete pullout of troops
|
i dont understand what you are saying here--could you explain?
i should have been clearer--i was referring to the situation in iraq in general, linking the curious situation that emerged today in the post with other information about other regions. the pattern seems to indicate that the americans are not the structuring power, but rather are one (big, heavily armed but not dominant) faction amongst others. what is worrying from the viewpoint of civil war is the jockeying that is going on on the part of the central iraqi govt. relative to the sunni community. if that breaks down, then the americans will find themselves involved in a civil war that they do not and cannot control. it seems to me that this--admittedly dark--scenario would run in a direction opposite to a pullout--it would tip into a morass.
the point about the iraqi "security force" was seperate: it has seemed to me that if you were to look at one institution as a metaphor for the situation in general, it might well be the security forces, which seem a microcosm of the factionalised situation both within the "legitimate" sphere of politics and in the relation of this "legitimate" sphere to the insurgency.
what is curious in this--whcih i did not talk about becuase it only just occurred to me--is the american tendency to pitch the insurgency as a foreign entity, ia kind of 5th column--which seems misleading as an information strategy--but if this reflects hwo strategy is being considered, then i think the results would be not good at all. but i do not know (and am not sure how i would find you--any ideas?) the extent to which the two are linked, if they are (information strategy/military strategy).
hope this clear up a bit what i posted earlier.