Can I interrupt for a minute to ask exactly where this perception has come from that British occupying forces usually get on swimmingly with the locals? That certainly hasn’t been the case on this island … and I think there’s a few hundred women in Kenya who might also disagree.
Well, it wasn’t about oil.
Basically it was wishful thinking. The goal was a prosperous, democratic Iraq that was allied with the United States. If such a thing were to miraculously come about it WOULD be a Good Thing for American interests in the Middle East. It would take some of the pressure off Israel, making a Palestinian settlement more likely. It would put more pressure on Iran, forcing them to be more circumspect in their support of radical Islam. It would allow us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, which was one of the main things that pissed off OBL. It would also put pressure on the Saudis to liberalize, potentially heading off a big popular revolution (which will probably result in another Iran).
The administration didn’t believe it could state these goals publicly without being accused of imperialism. So it used the inflated threat of WMDs, plus humanitarian issues to justify an exercise in realpolitik.
This would all be well and good if the invasion had actually resulted in a prosperous, friendly, democratic Iraq. Unfortunely it looks like we’re headed in exactly the opposite direction. And in the process we’ve alienated our allies, short-changed homeland security, and neglected the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
So, basically: wishful thinking. The White House assumed that all sorts of good things would magically flow from the invasion. They seemed to have ignored any evidence that suggested that the outcome would be anything less than rosy. And now we’ve got our fist firmly planted in the tar baby … .
You forgot to close your /sarcasm tag. 
**Collounsbury
**
Do you have any links (English speaking, preferably). I’m picking quite a bit on Alternet and Truthout, and sometimes, even MSNBC.
Any others you have would be appreciated.
Bob
urban1z, here’s a WP article from yesterday that speaks in part about the growing number of non-fatal attacks. They’re only non-fatal because they haven’t perfected their technique.
Most disturbing to me was the quote from this guy:
That having been said, as well as Collounsbury’s comments above, I need to point out that this is not a process which can be conducted swiftly.
The first priority in occupying and rebuilding a country is most likely setting up a logistical infrastructure which supports the occupiers first, not the occupees.
There may be a serious logistical problem at hand, with Iraq’s damaged port facilities, blown bridges, and unsafe highways. It might be constricting the supply line to the point where the Iraqis really aren’t seeing any benefits of the American presence.
Say for example that 90% of the supplies going into Iraq right now are destined to feed, clothe, house, arm and treat the soldiers there. That remaining 10% isn’t going to do squat for the Iraqi people, and it most certainly won’t be going to those unruly areas which we desperately need to buy off with a good flow of cheap loot. If the Americans really are working to rebuild Iraq’s basic infrastructure this problem will be slowly alleviated as repairs progress.
Or, the Americans might just be too cheap to flood Iraq with needed American supplies, in which case the Bush Administration is… insane.
I personally want to believe that the former possibility is the case, but I don’t entirely discount the second until I learn more about the situation.
I’ve thought much the same thing; it had crossed my mind while the main fighting was going on that perhaps he viewed the whole thing as just another coup attempt - he’s survived what, a score of them? One that was actually going to succeed in kicking him out of power for a time, but perhaps in his mind just a big coup attempt nonetheless.
Is there any reason to believe that there is any unity at all amongst the “insurgents”? Might they not be of several stripes? Clearly, the Admin would prefer that we believe that they are made up entirely of “dead enders” and fanatic B’aathists. They might as easily be nativist resistance movement, or Islamic meatballs, or any of these, or all of them.
We know they have some weapons sophisitication, but its been pointed out that Iraq is crawling with men who have at least some military training and/or experience.
However…one could reasonably expect that such a group would not find much sympathy amongst the Iraqi population. In that case, the recent bounties offered would make them easy pickings.
One question, of course, is how do you know you got yourself a Genuine Insurgent, and not the unfortunate brother-in-law of Achmed the Professional Snitch? At those prices, someone innocent is bound to get ratted out. Search his house, he’s got an AK-47. So who doesn’t?
In the opposite case, the native resistance movement, they may rely on the sympathy and solidarity of the Iraqi people. In this instance, the aforementioned bribes will not work very well. And the people who collect them may very well wish they hadn’t.
Maybe this is too soon, but its been a few days now since the bounties were offered. Hear much about arrests?
Ahhh Sam, please revisit my post in your famous “Iraq War Predictions” thread… I recall I predicted this scenario precisely - that is, the sustained stress it must be for Coalition forces not being able to tell Iraqi friend from foe… a dreadful burden to place the troops under.
Collounsbury has got it right… somehow, shitloads of money have to start flowing into the place - pronto. And it can be stuff which, outwardly, seems like we’re getting fleeced - stuff like gun buy-back schemes, and buy-back schemes for rocket-propelled grenades etc. What’s important is that you’re reducing your arms cache, and let’s face it, Iraq is a country awash in arms, and at the same time you’re introducing cash flow INTO the country.
It might seem like some huge blasted social welfare program at first, but my arguement is this… there are 22 million souls in Iraq and not all of them are scumbags - not all of them are looters - and not all of them are geurilla forces laying in wait. I would suggest that by far, probably 95% of the Iraqi population just wants to live a peaceful middle class life which allows their kiddies to grow up well educated and in a good, safe, secure environment with a top notch health system.
But as it stands at the moment, as Coll pointed out quite succinctly in another thread, in relative terms the Iraqi average wage per citizen has dropped from 12-15K US in the late 70’s now to around 1-1.5K in 2003. You can see immediately by this syndrome that the country has ground to a halt. There simply is no dispensible cash flow within the Iraqi society for anything to work anymore. Civil administration functions are bankrupt, as is a huge segment of the population, and obviously, huge amounts of bitterness are being cultivated as a result.
The War has effectively brought all of these issues to a head. Saddam Hussein hardly represented what we in the West could describe as good governance. Despite his murderous, thuggish ways, his most damning legacy will be that he allowed his so-called “beloved” country to grind itself into a dustbowl.
Accordingly, the single most pressing objective it seems to me is for the USA to organise a huge multi-national fiscal relief program within Iraq. We gotta get money in there asap. We gotta get money circulating around the middle classes, and back into the arteries of Iraqi society so that her civil administrations can start to blossom once more.
As the old saying goes, in the abscence of competition, even an ugly woman is attractive. In the abscence of huge fiscal injection programs, even the remaining Ba’aathist ratbags seem attractive to your average Iraqi citizen.
elucidator said:
The administration agrees with you. They say that there are up to five different, unrelated groups involved. Groups like the ex-regime Baathists, foreign fighters, Ansar al-Islam, etc.
Boo Boo Foo said:
And if you’ll go back and look at what I said all along, I admitted that I thought the reconstruction was going to be long, complex, and I had serious reservations about nation-building, based on my belief that central planning of large economic systems always produced unintended conseqences and other major unforseen problems. I also posited a scenario exactly like you suggest - that Saddam’s plan would be to withdraw from direct conflict with as many troops as he could, fade into the population, and fight a guerilla war.
If that’s the case, it’s both good news and bad. The bad news is that we may be in store for much more serious attacks using heavier weapons, booby-traps, etc. And btw, this may also explain why WMD haven’t been found - Saddam’s still got 'em. They may yet be used. Let’s hope not.
But the good news is that if it’s a directed battle by a central command, it’s a lot easier to stop than if it’s a general uprising building out of the population at large. Get Saddam, his sons, and his lieutenants, and the resistance may crumble.
But the administration doesn’t think this scenario is accurate. They think it’s just a bunch of disconnected groups, each fighting for their own reasons.
Really, though, there’s no reason the two scenarios are in conflict. It’s easily possible that Saddam is mounting an organized guerilla campaign and there are several unrelated groups of thugs running about.
Heres a good article on how much planning went into Iraq
To early to tell. It only takes a very small number of people to attack our soldiers so they can’t be said to be representative. But they might cause a negative overreaction from our trpps which alienates nonviolent Iraqis.
I am skeptical about the long term results because the mind manipulators I’ve met aren’t as smart as they think they are and I doubt they can predict the behavior of Iraqis that well. We are dealing with non-European socialpsychology.
Dal Timgar
I don’t trust the article, because it repeats a long-since discredited story about the alleged museum lootings.
It’s a good article for those who are anti-war and anti-Bush, since it criticizes how the Bush Administration handled this aspect of the war. But, I have no reason to believe that it presents a fair and balanced POV.
At last update, it appeared that widespread looting of antiquities had in fact taken place.
The 10% estimate of stolen items is a lot different than the wholesale looting the articles were initially decrying a few months ago where they described Iraq’s museums as having been virtually cleaned out, down to the last clay tablet, of important historical items.
The 10% figure is, however, perfectly consistent with the part of the Miami Herald article that december criticized:
Probably the looters were too exhausted from strewing roses in the path of the American soldiers to do a thorough job of it. Or perhaps they just lack sufficient “entreprenuerial spirit”.
This whole looting thing is obvious spin. Why? Because Bush critics are harping on whatever area seems to be not going well. They’re not taking an unbiased look at all areas to see which are doing well and which are problematic.
Since we’re in GD, let’s try to be fair and balanced. Let’s start by listing what America’s military needed to accomplish. The most important goals were during the war. They include[ul][li]WIN it![]Quickly[]Low coalition casualties[]Low civilian casualties[]Prevent widespread oil well fires.[]Avoid extensive damage to the infrastructure.[]Kill or capture key enemy leaders.[]Kill or capture Saddam Hussein.[/ul]All these goals were accomplished very well except for the last.[/li]
Then we come to the most important postwar goals[ul][li]Avoid civilian deaths due to widespread starvation, lack of water, plague, etc.[]Establish control[]Restore power, water, etc.[]Clear the port and restore deliveries by ship.[]Restore a working monetary system[]Permit businesses to operate[]Establish local governance[]Protect museum antiquties[/ul]No doubt posters can add items to this list. So far, we have a mixed record in achieving these goals. The first five are doing fine to adequate. The last two would get a lower grade. [/li]
But, museum exhibits just aren’t as important as some of these other goals, particularly the first. Spin-happy critics are focusing on a secondary area, because that’s the one that isn’t going as well.
This must be some new usage of ‘fine to adequate’ with which I’m not familiar.