Implications for Canadians in Afghanistan if Iraqi Insurgents Win

[tomahawk6]

Short answer is there are minimal implications for Canadian forces in Afghanistan should the Iraqi insurgents win [remote chance]. The odds are better for a shia civil war between pro-Iranian milita vs the non-sectarian types with the Kurds and Sunni's joining the non-sectarian side.

 

[Dodger1967]

Ok Guys:

First comment is, if you're with the Taliban, or Al Qeada, then by all means go ahead and attack my fellow former G.G.H.G. Member, I'll be waiting in the wings to take you on.
Second is if you're CF, or former CF then you're all on the same side, why go looking to pick a fight over here, save the fighting for the Muslim Extremist.

Third if you're not up on your intel why open your mounth in the first place.

Fourth it doesn't matter about Iraq, or Afganistan, what matters is this...

Islamic Extremist goals are the complete and utter rule of the entire world. Did anyone what that special report on CNN Last Night? I did !

These Religous Zealouts teach hatered of the Jewish People and westerners in their public school and high school cirriculim, their movement is growing. It has spread all over the world and is being taught in Muslim Schools Worldwide. The term used by a Lebanese American, who went to school in Lebanon and went through those teachings called it Islamo - Fascism. And compared it to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.

So Gentlemen, what it will eventually boil down to is this. We'll be fighting for our very survival and I for one would rather die than live under Islamic Law and have the Muslim Religion shoved down my throat.

For anyone who didn't see CNN, I copied the Transcript, email me for a copy

dodger_1967@yahoo.ca

Cheers

 

[GAP]

Edited to add what I was responding to:

The odds are better for a shia civil war between pro-Iranian milita vs the non-sectarian types with the Kurds and Sunni's joining the non-sectarian side

Case in point being that there were some serious errors made with creation of the borders for Iran, Iraq, et al. The Kurds stretch across south east Turkey, northern Iran, and Iraq, and Eastern Syria. All the governments of these countries have actively worked to defeat any creation of a total Kurdish country. The Turks have been especially vicious in this process, because they stood to lose large areas of their land.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Dodger,

I can't tell if you are serious or not.  Do you think that the folks writing here are Taliban or Al-Queda?  Do you think that everyone in the military agrees on everything?  I missed the CNN report because I was watching the Sens break out of their slump.  What are you saying or asking exactly?

Cheers,

Red Five standing by

 

[paracowboy]

First comment is, if you're with the Taliban, or Al Qeada, then by all means go ahead and attack my fellow former G.G.H.G. Member, I'll be waiting in the wings to take you on.
Second is if you're CF, or former CF then you're all on the same side, why go looking to pick a fight over here, save the fighting for the Muslim Extremist.

Third if you're not up on your intel why open your mounth in the first place.

Fourth it doesn't matter about Iraq, or Afganistan, what matters is this...

Islamic Extremist goals are the complete and utter rule of the entire world. Did anyone what that special report on CNN Last Night? I did !

Are you on narcotics? I'm just asking because it will have an impact on my answers.

You're talking to SERVING Members who are either just back, or preparing to go. Moderate your silliness crrespondingly.

BOTH of you. Griff, you're starting to annoy me. Start answering some questions honestly and directly or get shown the door.

 

[Synthos]

My opinions and views are probably misinformed. I have never been deployed, and I don't know what Iraq, Afghanistan, or the entire Middle East are really like. However, maybe, just maybe, I would start a thread to see what other peoples views are - people who have been deployed and have seen it themselves - before voicing my own opinion.

Is that so wrong? That someone would want to start a conversation with people who know what they're talking about and chime in later after listening to some banter from the experienced and drawing his/her own opinions/views/conclusions.

And is it wrong to do it anonymously? Should I write an autobiography and put it in my profile so you can say I'm a "student" or an "arm-chair general" and dismiss what I've said without informing me of my mistakes? I understand the desire to know who you're talking to, but we're on an internet forum where anonymity is one of the highest privileges

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Synthos,

I don't need to start a thread to learn any of those things,..........I have never been deployed and I got out in 1988 so I am way out of date. I, however, read first before I jump in asking what others think.
What, like we don't have enough information here to keep someone busy for weeks?

 

[paracowboy]

My opinions and views are probably misinformed. I have never been deployed, and I don't know what Iraq, Afghanistan, or the entire Middle East are really like. However, maybe, just maybe, I would start a thread to see what other peoples views are - people who have been deployed and have seen it themselves - before voicing my own opinion.

Is that so wrong? That someone would want to start a conversation with people who know what they're talking about and chime in later after listening to some banter from the experienced and drawing his/her own opinions/views/conclusions.

And is it wrong to do it anonymously? Should I write an autobiography and put it in my profile so you can say I'm a "student" or an "arm-chair general" and dismiss what I've said without informing me of my mistakes? I understand the desire to know who you're talking to, but we're on an internet forum where anonymity is one of the highest privileges

when the mods start sniffing around someone, there is a reason. Shake your head.

 

[54/102 CEF]

So Gentlemen, what it will eventually boil down to is this. We'll be fighting for our very survival and I for one would rather die than live under Islamic Law and have the Muslim Religion shoved down my throat.

For anyone who didn't see CNN, I copied the Transcript, email me for a copy

Unless there's Al Quaeda U Boats off shore or CAP - I don`t think so.

Get Sageman's book - read it then pass it on. The recipient will think you are a genius.

 

[McG]

If Iraq falls to Al-Qaeda, it will be a natural launching point into Afghanistan, hence problems for our troops. 

1.  Iraq is not going to fall to Al Qaeda.  While I have no doubt there is Al Qaeda involvement, the problems in that country have more to do with ethnic tensions.  If insurgents chase the international community out, Iraq may be more like Yugoslavia at the start of the 90’s.

2.  There is a bit of geography that makes Iraq an improbable launching point for an attack into Afghanistan.

If they can destabilize not only Iraq, then all the 'Stan countries could follow, along with increased confidence for them to set their sites on Arab states that are friendly to the west. 

Again, geography is working against your hypothesis.

Consider also the near manic attitude Turkey has exhibited towards there being a Kurdish state south of their borders.  This has included some rather draconian statements in the past that the government would invade norther Iraq to stop such an eventuallity.  When one looks at the local, regional, and global aspects of this mess, one can't help but think back to the Balkans and what led up to WWI, except for the fact this is on a much larger scale.

Your analogy does not consider the role of the great powers in creating the First World War.  Your Balkan comparison is more fitting with the nineties (and there too were concerns about the conflict spreading to all the neighbouring countries). 

Spill over affects could be in Pakistan, which could setoff new concerns regarding the Kashmir dispute. 

Geography again.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting article in today's National Post about Pelosi and Murtha.  They lost big time.  That together with the number of conservative Democrats elected this time, and the fact that the guy that got the job Murtha was after (Steny Hoyer) has supported Bush and the war in Iraq, may mean that the pullout is not as imminent as Pelosi and Michael Moore would like to think.

 

[Dodger1967]

Ok Guys:

Many humble apologies !

You're right, I could have and should have been more sensitive to those who are serving in Afganistan.


Which I see as an honourable and nobel cause. If I could go over and help I would.

The whole point I was trying to make is this, we should give people here the time to explain themselves without jumping to conclusions. My fellow former Horse Guards member is only trying to get YOUR point of view on the Afganistan Conflict. Before he states his point of view, which I presume is an effort on his part to be informed by you guys, rather than taking the word of the press and the Govt. on the state of affairs in Afganistan, which is correct, I feel on his part. Give the man a chance.

God Bless You All BTW.

Cheers

 

[1feral1]

While I understand why some would be wary of trolls, I would hope that new members to this forum, such as myself, would be given at least a fair opportunity to get acquainted with a new venue and be judged on their posts over a reasonable period of time.  Jumping on the newbies isn't a good way to encourage new membership, and over the years I've seen this turn off people.  It is also a disincentive for the 'read only' types to get involved.  Some may outright leave what they view as a hostile environment, which means a loss to the forum concerned, and even more likely they will warn people off.  Enough said on that.

Quite frankly Griffin, I DID find it bad manners to jump in the deep end without perhaps an introduction, and FILLING out your profile. So, its a two way street in the courtesy department.

Enough said on that, right?

Wes

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Okay,  I know I’m a little late to this thread but I want to comment on the “News article from the future” http://www.therant.us/staff/kraft/10242006.htm

I just want to thank a_majoor for posting this.  I am not lying when I say that it made me laugh so hard to woke my roommate up.  I’m surprised my neighbor didn’t bank on the wall. I didn’t know how much I needed a good laugh until I got one, thank you.

I love this fictional future.  Democrats are responsible for millions of deaths in Iraq because they pull out, gay marriage will be forced into law,  decent hard working people put out of work because of Democratic spite and of course large scale nuclear attacks are timed to demoralize Christmas shopping. Oh and yes, just like “Back to the future” for some inexplicable reason everything all clicks with one certain date. I find this a rather obtuse ploy to revitalize the Republican base. The only thing missing from this is women being forced to have abortions because they are middle class Christians by the democrats who then harvest the stem cells to genetically engineer gay super soldiers, who then raise Taxes.

Now if America pulls out of Iraq,  I think it quite logical to conclude that the same thing that happened to Somalia would happen to Iraq.  Obviously with the resources Iraq has it wouldn’t be long before Iran, Syria, Kuwait and other neighbors all start to create “Security buffer zones” on their borders. (read as take large areas of land and kick out the Iraqis from it to use the oil)  I see Kurdistan declaring itself an independent  nation (preceded by a rather throughout campaign of ethnic cleansing)  This new nation would then see a massive wave of immigration from Turkey and other countries where Kurds are an oppressed minority and for a time,  Kurdistan would bide its time until it could get back the rest of its land.

I think that with the war in Iraq over those who finance the insurgency would then focus on Afghanistan.  If Iraq falls into total civil war,  then they might be to distracted to give Afghanistan their full attention though.

All I do know is that I want Canada to succeed in helping to free Afghanistan from the Taliban and to build a stable infrastructure there.  I know that if we fail,  both the people of Afghanistan and ourselves will pay the price for generations.

 

[cplcaldwell]

I'll put this in here, as it seems to be a logical place for it. Mods please move as fit.

Seems the Saudis are 'testing the waters' on this issue of Iraq,

From Reuters, as seen on yahoo news

Shared under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act RSC.


Saudi will intervene in Iraq if U.S. withdraws: aide
Wed Nov 29, 6:24 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Using money, weapons or its oil power, Saudi Arabia will intervene to prevent Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from massacring Iraqi Sunni Muslims once the United States begins pulling out of Iraq, a security adviser to the Saudi government said on Wednesday.

Nawaf Obaid, writing in The Washington Post, said the Saudi leadership was preparing to revise its Iraq policy to deal with the aftermath of a possible U.S. pullout, and is considering options including flooding the oil market to crash prices and thus limit Iran's ability to finance Shi'ite militias in Iraq.


"To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse," Obaid said.

The article said the opinions expressed were Obaid's own and not those of the Saudi government.

"To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region," he said.

President Bush will meet Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan on Wednesday to discuss a surge in Sunni-Shi'ite violence in Iraq.

Bush has said he does not support calls for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but he is expected soon to receive proposals for possible changes in U.S. policy in Iraq from a bipartisan panel.

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer and exporter and a close U.S. ally, fears Shi'ite Iran has been gaining influence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein's government.

Vice President Dick Cheney held talks with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on Saturday. Details were not disclosed.

Obaid said Cheney's visit "underlines the pre-eminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq."

He said if the United States begins withdrawing from Iraq, "one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

Obaid listed three options being considered by the Saudi government:

• providing "Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance," including funding and arms.
  
• establishing new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias;
  
• or the Saudi king "may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half ... it would be devastating to Iran ... The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."

 

[a_majoor]

If King Abdullah wants to shut out or limit the influences of the Iranians (which he surely does, as they are apostates and Persians in his eyes), he had probably stick to economic warfare, since Iran is far better equipped to fight a conventional war. Depressing the price of oil will have a short term boost on the global economy, ease pressures on the US balance sheet and deprive Iran of the economic muscle needed for their dreams of regional hegemony.

There will be negative effects as well; high cost oil producers like the tar sands will become uneconomical in the short term (with negative effects on Albeta's economy), and boondoggles like Ethanol will require even higher levels of subsidies to remain in production. Iraq will probably stabilize with one of the prime instigators out of the picture, but depressed oil prices will also affect Iraqi reconstruction. Saudi Arabia, or at least the Wahhabi's are not friendly towards the west, and they will benefit from the extra revenues Saudi Arabia will generate from using the oil weapon, and China will benefit from the drop in oil prices as well.

How this will affect Pakistan is hard to predict, if the economic boost provides some prosperity in Pakistan, then their ability or willingness to support the Taliban might be reduced, but if it is eaten away by corruption, then support for the Taliban might remain the same or increase.

 

[tomahawk6]

The biggest problem for all the Gulf states are their large Shia minorities which could be used as a fifth column to topple the leaders of the Gulf States, in favor of alliance or merger with Iran. Imagine the impact on oil prices if these regimes collapse.

 

[Blakey]

We could be on the receiving end of this:

http://www.therant.us/staff/kraft/10242006.htm

Obviously the worst case scenario, but we must always base our plans on enemy capabilities, not intentions. Today both capabilities and intentions are quite clear.

Or is it realy that far off the mark....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs9QRQ7Q35s&mode=related&search=

 

[KaptKain]

Have not read all previous replies here, but this topic is on the discussion I had at the shop this morning with fellow techies <yes, some of us are still not on Xmas block leave yet....bah Navy!>
With the news down south about the big man having to come up with ideas for Iraq exit strategy for US Forces, one point I havent heard others debate yet is this...
With the current Middle East tempo, Iraq is the worst case scenario happening now. Most Insurgents/Terrorists are targeting coalition troops currently in Iraq. When the US does pull out I believe the Afghanistan mission will be 10 times more active and dangerous. Reason being is when the coalition pulls out of Iraq I believe the Insurg./terrorists will then carry over to Afghanistan and start really bringing the casualties in on us then.

Anybody else think ahead and see this terrible predicament? please post any thoughts on the matter as well.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Time will tell, but its not as simple as the situation in WW1 when the Russians made a separate peace after the Revolution and German forces were thus freed to try one last big offensive against the western allies in France.  The enemy we face today is not necessarily a monolithic block, and while there are linkages and somewhat common backdrop, Iraq and Afghanistan are separate conflicts.

You may indeed get some "jihadists" making the journey to Afghanistan from Iraq to carry on the jihad against foreigners, but getting there is not necessarily a simple matter.  In addition, much of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, so I don't think you'll suddenly find a surplus of unemployed fighters/terrorists in Iraq looking for something to do since the sectarian strife will most likely continue and indeed intensify.  A US withdrawal from Iraq could lead to open civil war (perhaps civil war is already happening).  Further to that, Shia fighters in Iraq do not have much in common with the Taliban, while the Sunnis will have their hands full at home.