It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hidden Agenda? Insurgency to spark Civil War in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
When I was there in Iraq '03-'04, before insurgency became the primary obstacle, the biggest fear of MNF (US/Coalition Forces) was to pull out to early before a established govt was in good standing, of course post war rules change with time and the MNF is committed to staying until Iraq is established well enough.

With that said, US and MNF military will not pull back from Iraq until Iraq can function and hold its own and on its way to becoming a nation in rebirth. That is when you will see vast numbers start to return home, however, we will have a presence in Iraq, not meaning a military base/post(which I am sure will be in the works down the road) for years to come, like Bosnia and the current Kosovo/Afghanistan. Purpose will to maintain stability within the region, in the event of another Kuwait invasion, so to say.

Now to the point, beforehand of the insurgency problem, there was a fear of Shi'ite and Sunni civil war, now with the insurgency problem, the insurgency may try to spark civil war, although the Sunni and Shi'ite's are working together to rebuild Iraq, laying their differences down.

Given the fact that if the insurgency, knowing they can not quite defeat the MNF, Iraqi govt and it security forces (although they are getting hit quite fequently, which is expected and more to come til 30 Jan), they could spark unrest internally, giving the MNF more than just one front to fight, while they backdoor and try to establish themselves as a seperate and known entity, like the Taliban.

Please, throw your thoughts into this. Possibility is quite real if you think about it. And it could become more real after the elections, only cause discontent in the region, trying to refocus efforts elsewhere.

[edit on 4/1/05 by mscbkc070904]




posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Sorry if it seems confusing what I stated, I just have alot of thoughts jumbled in my head on this, but the plan is simple, but putting it into words simplisticly, is another case right now for me. My apologies if its not clear.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mscbkc070904
Sorry if it seems confusing what I stated, I just have alot of thoughts jumbled in my head on this, but the plan is simple, but putting it into words simplisticly, is another case right now for me. My apologies if its not clear.


The US could be allowing the insurgents to keep up their chaos in order to the US army have reason to remain in iraq. It could be in goals of the US army to remain there for the next 10 years.

Mabe there waiting for a certain time. Remember iran and syria are the US army's next door neighours. I'm sure iran and syria must befunding the insurgency so the US can fail so they won't get attacked.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Well actually Iran isnt really befunding, just merely observing and looking for political avenues in the future with Iraq. Syria on the otherhand, is a problem period, main problematic areas are harboring terrorists and their allies/resources, provided a door for the former regime prior to the war, and no control or care to control its borders to Iraq. Also, high probability of sending agents in to infiltrate and probe US forces as well as MNF within the region along with their capabilities to study further tactical and strategic scenarios in the event of war.

As far as letting the insurgency do its deed, no way, there are too many saddam loyalist and former regime looking at trying to gain a foothold for financial gain. The former regime doesnt care about the people of Iraq, they just want US forces out and no western influence in the region not to mention Iraq has very high historical background, Muslims and Christians alike. As well as the country is enriched with mineral, oil, agricultural gains that could well supply the other mideast countries for exports, of course at high dollar amounts.

As far as, like most people think, which is actually carelessly thought of, US wants the oil, not really. Yes there is economical gain for the US and allies with that prospect, but not the sole purpose. Iraq has been the thorn in the Middle East for decades as well as worldwide. One last thought to add, the oil and still is from Iraq only provides 7% of the import to the US, but worldwide, its was prior to the war, the number 7th major world import to Asia.

[edit on 4/1/05 by mscbkc070904]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join