Is Blowback the Right Word?

[neoblues]

It seems I've been having a few thoughts that are almost trying to connect.

In the past, many times, the United States has taken it upon itself to "train" foreign nationals in either the military and/or covert/intelligence arts. The reasons vary and include attempts to give support to a particular nationalist group to their opponents. Other instances would include attempts to strengthen revolutionary or insurgent forces such as was done in Afghanistan to allow the local population to resist the Soviet invasion of their country.

In that latter case, the end result was the creation of what we now call Al-Qaeda. Certainly this was a development that occurred after the immediate purpose was achieved; the Russians did choose to pull out as a result of the effectiveness of the U.S. supplied/trained resistance. Nevertheless, this did come back to bite us. We've supported any number of other groups that, in the end, came back to haunt us; a list I'm sure someone better versed in history and this particular subject could much better provide.

On occasion, I've heard the term 'blowback' used to refer to this unfortunate tendency of our assistance to such groups, particularly the training on how to manage a guerilla force and operate in secrecy to accomplish covert operations, to one day be used against us. Whether this is the right term or not...

The thought occurs to me that in IRAQ, first of all we are witnessing the predictable outcome of 'freeing' several groups that have historically at least been at odds with each other and at worst, hate each other with a passion. This has already been called a "civil war" by many who should be in a position to know. Next, once again, evein if it's for all the "right" reasons, we are taking great pains to "train" members of these groups to act as a security service capable of military action and undoubtedly associated 'intelligence' activities. This training involves being fully equipped and outfitted to handle the job as well as working closely with our own forces; a fine example of on-the-job training where they're exposed to who knows how much of our very own techniques. Providing such offensive abilities to any elements of such a turbulent/unstable situation carries a certain risk.

If we assume that these troops are and will be a singular, national force... so long as the government that's ultimately formed is 'friendly' to us, we may be okay. However, it seems to me there is a real chance that the coalition of the unwilling in IRAQ may fail at some point--fail beyond the ability to pretend that everything's okay. Outright civil war may occur and if it does, the U.S. trained 'security' forces will naturally break apart into it's natural ethnic/religious components--each of which will by then be fully trained to inflict even greater damage than they otherwise would be.

At that point, two or more of the resulting groups may be not only well equipped to hurt each other but to be even more dangerous to us--where 'us' means not only our troops but all western countries/peoples including American interests. Indeed, their new abilities may improve their chances of causing us harm even here at home. In any case, the Muslim factions will probably be openly supportive of other Muslim (extremist) 'terrorist' organizations and by means of their new skills, be even more effective and useful as supporters. The result would be that our efforts to provide groups of non-U.S. people the ability to protect themselves or mount an effective resistance to some other group, will have once again come back to bite us.

Given we went in, there may have been little other choice than to try to create an IRAQI national force, but that very act may be cause for much future grief (and I've yet to hear anyone dare consider that potentiality; perhaps it's just too unpleasant to consider). Then again, maybe we'll keep their 'Democracy' together and all will be fine or perhaps I'm just imagining the most unlikely of outcomes (though given Bush's record of "successes" it'd be surprising if anything worked out okay). Tell me there's nothing to this line of thinking... reassure me?

[ROakes1019]

1. the Iraqi forces

According to The News Hour (or was Democracy Now? I heard it somewhere on TV tonight), the Iraqi forces are predominantly Shiite and Kurdish. What we're doing is training and supplying the Shia side of the Civil War, the side that Iran will support. So, yes, we've compounded out problems in Iraq and laid the groundwork for the very thing Bush claims isn't happening and won't. It is a bit like what we did with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.