But okay, In the name of fair and balanced posting, here’s a quote that supports their desire for secession. I am not going to pretend I am the sole carrier of absolute truth in the universe or anything…
It’s not clear from your response if you read my cite. Did you see that it’s the party who probably will win the election, who will kick the occupiers out? It’s not just any ‘cite’ that I am bringing up…
Logistics of the stuff and the people they’ve got, that is. The administration most certainly is responsible for the total quantities of same, and the total quantities are the problem. The issues of their conduct while there are also attributed to there being so little of each that they have to act out of fear.
Kurdistan is well-defined, and so for the most part is the Shiite south. The mixed areas in the center are an issue, but countries have been partitioned to end or prevent civil wars before.
And yet that’s what would happen with the civil war that our presence there is just as likely to be provoking as preventing, is it not?
Odd that the pro-occupation argument is now reverting to body count, less than 2 years after we went in there to liberate them. What is your view, the old bumper sticker “Kick their ass and take their gas”?
Nor does your view that this interim government has any broad support among the people that would allow a non-sham election to take place. What do the Iraqis know about Allawi? That he was one of Saddam’s assassins, and is now being propped up by their occupiers. That’s the reality - not that he’s seen as the path to Iraqis ruling themselves. What, do you think there’s any realistic possibility of the country remaining united and becoming the beacon of democracy to the entire Middle East? While the Sunnis are fearful of reprisals if majority rule over all of Iraq takes place? In a country that has only existed since some Brit drew some lines on a map of the Ottoman Empire, within the lifetimes of some of them? I would suggest that you take Iraqi nationalism more seriously than most Iraqis.
Then let’s have 'em. Summarize, please. We’re all here to fight ignorance, even if it’s our own.
That view requires seeing them as somehow different, more evil, more cruel than any of the long string of tinpot dictators in the world, even including the ones we didn’t put into power ourselves during the decades we were thrashing about in the hall of mirrors called Anti-Communism. But they aren’t really different - the horrors of what they did are only an example of the horrors of all the dictatorships that still rule most of the world’s population. But, to support the pro-invasion view, it’s necessary to concentrate only on the evil that the Bush administration wants you to concentrate on, not all the other problems that are even worse. When, for instance, do we go take over Burma and Sudan?
But you have to plan based on probabilities.
It’s getting harder to avoid the conclusion that the war has already started.
Be nice to hear you say what facts lead you to think so.
Much remains to be seen - as Congress becomes more convinced that this is such a folly that it will get them into trouble, you’re going to see them, even under GOP control, show more spine.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying the mechanics of dividing Iraq. If you partition and make an independent Kurdistan, Iran and Turkey are going to go apeshit, since “Kurdistan” in the Kurd’s minds contains good chunks of both of those countries. Also, you have to consider where the Iraqi oil fields and single port and oil pipelines lay. It is easy to divide it up ethnically, but economically is another major factor, and none of the 3 major sides is going to have any of it being taken from them (the pipelines are in the north, fields in central-south, and port southeast).
Any amount of dividing you do will end up with contested territory, possible overflow of hostilities into Iran and Turkey (who have poor relations with Kurds already, both having done various unhumanitarian things like forced migration and military attacks). At best, you end up with some areas like Albania/former Yugoslavia/Macedonia or like Lebanon, Allah forbid.
xtisme, about that crack about Kerry: it’s as relevant as your fantasies about what might happen in Iraq. If you look at the OP, you’ll see this, from the September Barron’s editorial I quoted, with which I agreed in September, while the campaign was ongoing, and I still agree today:
So no, I had no fantasies about Kerry pulling us out of Iraq. Given that the relevance of what Kerry thinks at this point is only that he is now one out of 100 senators, and one out of 535 members of the entire Congress, your little crack was, like the rest of your fantasies, entirely irrelevant.
Back to the point: the soldiers are fighting a war while being asked to serve in a combat zone for far longer than were those who fought in Vietnam. This is a sign that we’re already overstretched, right now. The choices therefore are to either increase the troop strength so as to give a break to those who have already done more than their fair share, or to get out.
Kindly address that issue, please. The point of Frankenstein Monster’s apt cite from The Asian Times was that the Iraqis don’t want us there, and they’re adults perfectly able to take responsibility for their own country. If they can, good; if they can’t, not our problem. Our problem is our obligation to our troops, who have already done that which was asked of them. Once the elections are done and the Iraqis have a self-chosen government that is internationally recognized, our job will be well and truly done.
None of us knows whether the Iraqi state will do well or not. Saying that they won’t without us being there is racist and condescending; they managed without us before and they’ll manage without us again. The solutions they find to their own ethnic divisions are solutions they have to find by themselves and on their own in order to be accepted by all parties. That’s what a nation is all about.
Ok, but it begs the question…WHO exactly wants these lines. And more essentially who is going to do this partitioning? Because, I’m sure you realize, most of the present mess was the result of Europeans partitioning the area into the ‘nations’ we currently have there. I seriously doubt that the US partitioning of Iraq would be any better than the Europeans partitioning the old Ottoman empire after WWI.
Well, no…I don’t think our presence there would spark a full blown civil war in Iraq, while I think our leaving would. Thats kind of been my point in this thread and others like it. If I felt that our continued presence would spark a full blown civil war then it would modify my position somewhat…but I’ve seen zero evidence that things are moving to an Iraqi civil war because the US remains there. I’ve seen some evidence that the Insurgency has moved towards attacking the Iraqi people, especially those involved in the election process…but no evidence that the insurgency is either increasing nor that its gaining more popular support. In fact, I’ve seen the beginning of a trend where the Iraqi people are basically saying a pox on BOTH your houses with respect to both the occupation AND the insurgency.
Well, it MIGHT be odd if I were representitive of the pro-war positions or people expressing that position. However I don’t exactly fall in line with much of the pro-war stances, especially with reguard to the initial invasion.
Whats my view of that bumper sticker? Well, I think its fairly ignorant AND doesn’t really represent the situation well in any case. After all, its not exactly the case that the US is rolling in Iraqi oil, no? We never have been a big importer of Iraqi oil…even before we started butting heads with Saddam.
I never said the interrim government has wide support…thats why they are an INTERRIM government. Their roll is to attempt to put together a constitution and to set up an election process for the first elected Iraqi government. Nor am I under the delusion that the elected government will fully represent the will of the Iraqi people. However, it will be the closest thing the Iraqi people ever had to such a government. And it will, in theory at least, be a stepping stone to a government that actually DOES represent the will of the majority of the Iraqi people…eventually. My hope is that, if nothing else, the government thats elected in January (or whenever) will at least be a stable platform able to get on its feet…and that subsequent elections will bring things closer and closer to the will of the people. Will it happen? No idea really. It certainly MIGHT. For that matter, the will of the Iraqi people might just be to turn over the keys to the kingdom to a group of theocratic muslim fundamentalists a la Iran or the Taliban.
Intersting that you used the same example of the Brits drawing up the map of the ME…yet you think its a good idea for us to try and partition Iraq into artificial ‘nations’.
While I love fighting ignorance as much as the next doper, I’ve made these arguements before and find I don’t have the energy to go into all the ways the Iraqi conflict isn’t like Vietnam yet again. I’m sorry if this is a disappointment to you, but you are free to look up what I’ve written in the past about it if you like. Suffice it to say that I am militantly unconvinced that Vietnam bears more than a superficial resembelence to Iraq…and that making the comparison is more to attempt to score political points than it is a serious observation of similarities.
Er…you lost me. If you are saying that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because there are other places in the world just as bad, and that we can’t and shouldn’t be the policeman or consious of the world…well, I agree with you on those points. I find no compelling reason for us to have invaded Iraq. However, that said, we ARE in Iraq. Reality being real, my arguements in this thread have revolved around the US staying the course for the mess we’ve made and doing the best we can NOW for the Iraqi people.
Again, if you are saying that this is a compelling reason for us to have not invaded (i.e. because the probability of a stable and free Iraqi government are low) then I’m not argueing. However, again, reality being real, we ARE there…so we have to do the best we can reguardless of a low probability of success for getting everything we want in Iraq. We broke it, we are morally obliged IMHO to fix it…or to make the best effort we, as a nation, can make to TRY.
I disagree. I’ve seen no compelling evidence that the Iraqi insurgency has become more widespread…or that its moving to a level of general civil war. The various groups aren’t really fighting regularly with each other, nor is any group fighing FOR anything…except I suppose to kill Americans. And even that they have backed off on, going after Iraqi civilians instead. But their attacks are more to spoil the elections than to try and install a new system of their own. Who is the Iraqi Ho Chi Mien for instance, the Iraqi to rally around, the one with the vision for the new Iraq? A jumped up terrorist and psychopath who isn’t even Iraqi doesn’t really count as a rallying point.
That Iraq would fragement into civil war if the US just up and leaves?? You want ‘facts’ about THAT? Er…I suppose I could find a cite or two by ‘experts’ who say this is the case. But what would the point be? I mean, its fairly obvious to me that if there is an insurgency NOW, if said insurgency is made up of old Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters, and with the present weak state of both the interrim Iraqi government AND the Iraqi military, that its not SUCH a far out proposition that Iraq would slide rather rapidly into civil war should the US/UK suddenly pull out and leave them on their own.
Perhaps you could give me something to debate about on this one…why don’t you tell me why exactly you DON’T think Iraq would collapse into civil war should the US/UK suddenly pull out, tuck tail, and bolt for greener pastures.
Perhaps. But then, it depends on the situation in Iraq. I don’t really see it as all that bad ATM…nor do I see it getting worse right now. Perhaps I have an overly rosy view of the situation…but then, perhaps you have an overly gloomy one. As to what CONGRESS thinks…gods know. However, Congress, like the Senate and the Executive branch of the government is currently controlled by the 'Pubs…so I’m doubtful that they are suddenly going to get cold feet. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.
I didn’t go into depth, true, but I was simply suggesting that that approach might be somewhat less terrible than others.
Yes, but are they going to be willing to invade it? Are the Kurds going to be convinceable not to cast covetous eyes on Turkey and Iran? That stuff can all be dealt with, and I’d rather see the diplomats have a tough job than the soldiers.
Fields are found in the north, too. Pipelines can be built along other routes. Again, that’s all stuff that can be settled over a table by parties willing to do so.
All of which, you’ll note, are, if not exactly peaceful, then not engaged at killing each other anymore - and that’s the result of separating the ethnic groups geographically and putting the blue helmets along the borderlines. No, it isn’t great, but it’s the best approach we have available to us.
I most certainly don’t minimize the difficulties of partitioning, of course not. There aren’t any easy or complete answers, we have to pick the best one and make the most of it. Given that there is no basis for believing the Sunnis will be willing to be ruled by the Shiites and Kurds, or vice versa, then you have to doubt the possibility of Iraq remaining unified in any real sense under a truly indigenous democracy. If you accept that doubt, then you’re led to considering a splitup, and then to making that transition as death-free as possible.
Actually, I think that the French experience in Algeria can give USA plenty of hope. When the French eventually stopped all supplies for the FNLA rebels coming over from Tunisia the rebels’ military strength was entirely crippled- the French won a total military victory. A military victory is all the US needs to achieve its political aim of setting up a democratic government, a different situation than the French had (maintaining Algeria as an integral part of a democratic France became an obviously non-tenable situation when 90% of Algerians didn’t consider themselves French.).
The Iraqi resistance is in an unfortunate position in that (unlike the NVA, VC and temporarily the FNLA) it has no friends that are both able and willing to supply useful weaponry in large quantities. The mortars and RPGs they stockpiled before the war will run out sooner or later, and I get the impression that AKs are pretty useless against the US army, so I predict that the insurgency is going to gradually become less and less dangerous to US troops.
Well, it wasn’t really a ‘crack’…it was an observation. Kerry wasn’t going to pull out of Iraq quickly either (at least IMHO), so reguardless of who won YOUR view on bolting wasn’t going to happen. That was kind of my point with the ‘crack’. And you have no idea about what fantasies I have…my own (with reguards to politics) would be that both the Pubs and the Crats go down in defeat to a Libertarian government…who actually WOULD have tried to get the troops out of Iraq immediately if not sooner. Funny that he failed to get even 1% of the vote ehe?
Again, its a sign our LOGISTICS is overstreched right now…or as I’ve said, that someone fucked up. There are plenty of troops in the US…they just weren’t being rotated into Iraq the way they should have been. As to troop strengh, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you here. If you are saying that the US should recruit more soldiers, or perhaps even form two new divisions (a la Kerry) then I would tend to agree that this would be good…though it would be quite a while until those troops could be rotated into Iraq (btw, afaik we ARE increasing recruiting levels). If you are saying we need more troops in Iraq then THATS what I disagreed with. Again, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
Er…the Iraqi’s don’t want us there ehe? And this is news…how? Of COURSE they don’t want us there. We are occupying their country after all. However, again, reality has to rear its ugly head into this. They LOST. They were invaded by the US and lost. I figure that the Germans and Japanese weren’t too keen on us occupying THEIR countries either…no?
As to them being able to take responsibility for their own country…what leads you to believe that? They have no stable government atm…its a caretaker government. They have no real, effective military. We destroyed much of it, disbanded what was left. Its morale is poor, its training low…and its had several setback since it was reformed. We are currently training it up and trying to instill some morale back into it…but its not an instantaneous thing. And NATO hasn’t exactly jumped at our request for assistance, which would make things a bit faster.
Now, once the elections are done we will be one step closer to being able to turn things over to the Iraqi’s. But even then they STILL won’t be fully ready to go it alone, or for us to declare victory and bolt for home. Its going to take years before they are ready to stand completely on their own. It took years for both the nacent German and Japanese governments to stand on THEIR own, and they didn’t have an active insurgency going on (for obvious reasons).
Nope…none of us know how all this is going to play out. But I think the Iraqi’s have a much better chance getting back on their feet with us there to help than if we just run for home because its tough there.
Racist? Condescending? WTF?? !!
How about ‘reality based instead of head full of fluff’?? To think that the Iraqi’s aren’t ready right now to stand on their own isn’t racist or condescending at all…its looking at things realistically. Again, they have no stable government with ties to the people (i.e. its an APPOINTED government…appointed by the occupiers), they have no strong military, and they have an active insurgency thats not going to magically go away just because we leave. What part of my assessment is either racist OR condescending???
BTW, they managed to get along without us before due to the strong military Saddam built up, due to his crushing any and all resistance to his rule with an iron fist, due to his wacking any and all political opposition. Unfortunately (or fortunately) for the Iraqi’s they no longer HAVE Saddam, they no longer HAVE a strong military…both thanks to us. Perhaps the Iraqi’s would have been better off if we hadn’t destroyed their military or deposed Saddam.
We’ll never know now. We need to live in the real world as it is…not as we wish it was. And in the real world Iraq is weak right now and in the midst of an active insurgency that is targetting Iraqi civilians…and more importantly targetting the forces in Iraq trying to put things back together and install a process that will allow the Iraqi citizens the chance, for the first time, to participate in the selection of their government, no matter in how limited a way. What the insurgent aren’t really doing as much anymore is picking direct fights with the US…in fact we are going after them, not the converse. What does that say to you? What it says to me is that the US leaving won’t make any difference as far as attacks against a new Iraqi government goes…and without the US there to help it will fold like an empty beer can crushed under the wheels of a semi.
Call that ‘racist’ or ‘condescending’ if you like…I call it realistic.
I’m not so much worried about Iran or Turkey invading Kurdistan as I am about them supressing the Kurds in their country (or alternatively, the Kurds in their countries rising up to join Kurdistan). At BEST you’re looking at mass displacement programs like we’ve been seeing in Turkey, which I think would result very much like Albania.
Well, right now those parties are Haliburton and co. Where that line is drawn in the north is going to be very far between where a Sunni and a Kurd would draw it. Also, while Iraq has the potential for economic promise (like Saudi Arabia would without the income disparity care of the Saudis), divided it is much less potent an economic player, and much more vulnerable to economic instability than a united Iraq.
I dunno, there’s been a lot of unrest around Albania lately. Yugoslavia never really settled down, it just stopped getting media attention. The refugees are still bouncing around like some kind of bizarre mix between a ping pong ball and locusts, and Lebanon isn’t on my list of places to see first hand before I die (mostly because I want to see so many other places before dying there).
And putting blue helmets along the borders… sigh. Well, true, this does seem to dampen the effects of badly drawn borders, it has also failed more frequently than it has worked. That largely has to do with the region - in Africa, it has failed repeatedly because no one is willing to devote the manpower and take the casualties. In Europe, it works because those involved are more developed and “worth more” to Europe proper. In the Middle East, it works with stopping Israel and stopping people from invading Israel via threat of an international boot to the ass, but that’s about it. I don’t know much about UN deployments to Latin America, but having not heard any great success stories, I would think the outlook would be dim, as it is in SE Asia. And again, we’re talking about a massively larger area than Lebanon or Yugoslavia here; these borders would be hundreds of miles long. It would be impossible to adequately enforce them with a full force, much less a skeleton force, which is what a UN deployment outside of Europe almost exclusively is. But bluntly, the US can’t even control its border with Mexico. UN enforcement of a divided Iraq isn’t in the cards, from where I’m sitting, at least.
I’ll grant that it isn’t the worst approach, but I’d find that an aggressive and intensive social-economic rebuilding plan like we saw in Germany, Japan, or South Korea would be our best bet - but the Bush Administration has thus far been less than willing to devote much effort or money to those ends. Their concept of rebuilding is hiring outside contractors to patch things up when what really needs to happen is 5-10 years of intense upgrades in health care, education, public works and services, etc in a very managed (read: neo-socialist, only with the money coming from outside sources instead of (Iraqi) domestic taxpayers) environment. Put bluntly, we need to pour money, education, and technology into Iraq on scale not seen since the Marshall Plan. (Frankly, I think we need to do this with a few dozen key, cornerstone developing countries if we don’t want to see more of this kind of mess in the future).
One key insight I have here is on Russia’s privatization 1991 - 2004 - as a how NOT to convert from a dictatorial socialism to a free market capitalism. This kind of thing would need to be VERY managed.
Well, as far as government is concerned, aside from my Marshall Plan for Iraq outlined above, the answer to Iraqi political structure lays comically in front of us:
Federalization.
The only thing that let this country work when it started, and the key to making vastly disparate and competitive groups work together peacefully. So I suppose, yes, in one way, I do agree with you. Iraq needs to be split very carefully into many states, balanced with a durable yet keen edged constitution, and be given running legs to start on.
Um, what the fuckin’ hell? Where did you get that from? The alleged goal here was to *liberate * them, not defeat them. To get that monster Saddam out of the way. That’s done, long ago. Who’s the enemy now? Who are our friends?
But “they” lost, you say. That makes their views irrelevant, you say. To which it is only necessary to point out that that attitude makes their forming their own, stable government not only unrealistic but antagonistic to us. You make no sense here whatever.
So much ignorance, so little time. Both countries had long, established histories of national unity and self-governance, even of the non-dictatorial kind. The structures of both governments were even left essentially intact, just “demilitarized” and “de-Nazified”. And those were countries we had defeated more than liberated. They needed no help to stand on their own, and could have done so immediately.
It is already conventional wisdom that dissolving the army (it wasn’t destroyed or even heavily damaged, ya know) was a dumb move. Deposing Saddam only to go through years of war and then have him replaced with another dictator, or several, is also not obviously a smart move.
That’s it. Call it “making the best of a bad situation” if it makes you feel better.
Yet there’s leverage available to inhibit that, especially in Turkey (remember that EU membership application)?
I’d call that at WORST, but that again is disaster control.
I never said it would be easy, just less bloody.
I just don’t see that. There’s oil in all 3 regions.
But the mass murders have stopped. I count that a success, all things considered - and it’s better than what we have in Iraq. Unrest we can deal with and usually have.
Again, we’re comparing degrees of success. There is no totally successful method available, as you point out - but even in the cases you point out, the major fighting is over. I’m not aware of any UN border protection in Latin America, since you bring it up, but the borders are defined there.
I’ll grant that it isn’t the worst approach, but I’d find that an aggressive and intensive social-economic rebuilding plan like we saw in Germany, Japan, or South Korea would be our best bet - but the Bush Administration has thus far been less than willing to devote much effort or money to those ends. Their concept of rebuilding is hiring outside contractors to patch things up when what really needs to happen is 5-10 years of intense upgrades in health care, education, public works and services, etc in a very managed (read: neo-socialist, only with the money coming from outside sources instead of (Iraqi) domestic taxpayers) environment. Put bluntly, we need to pour money, education, and technology into Iraq on scale not seen since the Marshall Plan. (Frankly, I think we need to do this with a few dozen key, cornerstone developing countries if we don’t want to see more of this kind of mess in the future).
Hear, hear. Looks like Russia is re-Sovietizing under Pooty-Poot.
Only among groups that agree to yield even a small degree of their sovereignty. Don’t look like a happenin’ thang thar.
That, and a monarchy with extensive British “security” support, until it was overthrown by the well-armed and organized Baath fascists. Tito kept Yugoslavia together by similar means, too.
Just curious why you say “many”, and why you think the ethnic groups controlling each wouldn’t form antagonistic alliances. FWIW, an actual Kurdish government, even on the provincial level, might well provoke the kind of rage in Ankara and Tehran you pointed out earlier.
But what do I know, I’m just a plumber.
[/QUOTE]
What do you know? More than the simpleminded ideologues who got us into this mess.
As you say…the ALLEGED goal. I never bought that as the actual goal for the invasion, which I think were geopolitical but won’t go into (again) here.
The reality though is they were invaded and defeated. Which usually means…they lost. Which normally translates into…they don’t get much say in things such as how long they are occupied…or whether or not they are occupied. Perhaps you could tell me when in history this wasn’t the case?
Who is the enemy now? Depends on perspective of course, but I assume you mean from the US/UK/Iraqi governments perspective. The enemy are those who are trying to destabalize the situation, to prevent elections and destroy as much of the oil infrastructure as they can, while killing/terrorizing the maximum number of Iraqi civilians. I think their old goal was to kill off Americans, but it seems this was a bit too costly…so they have shifted to easier targets to civilians…much easier on the ‘freedom fighters’ going after civilians than nasty Americans who fight back.
Well, by the common definition of ‘lost’ would, I think, characterize the Iraqi’s with reguards to the recent invasion. Perhaps you could tell me how having their military pretty much wiped out or scattered, their government deposed and put on the run, and their nation occupied doesn’t relate to ‘they lost’?
Again, this is a reality check here. I’m really curious how you can spin it so that the Iraqi government (i.e. Saddam) DIDN’T lose…since I don’t make any sense and all.
Ignorance ehe? lol. I suppose that Iraq DIDN’T have a long history of national unity and self-governance, ehe? Funny…since Saddam took over in, what? 1969? Hitler and the Nazi party, if I’m recalling correctly, took over in what? 1932? 33? As for Japan, the Mejii restoration was in the late 18th century, but the Tojo government wasn’t until the, er, late 20’s (I’m too lazy to look all this up tonight…just going on memory so I could be off…but the overall point is valid IMO)? Early 30’s? I don’t recall exactly.
I wouldn’t characterize either as a long history of ‘national unity’ as far as the two systems that actually engaged in WWII…while I don’t see how Iraq wouldn’t also be characterized as a long stable government under Saddam. Certainly Iraq was ruled with fear and ruthless power…but then, so was Japan and Germany, no?
You think that the German government and the Japanese government were left essentially intact?? Where do you get that impression?? The Nazi’s had essentially disbanded elections, and the Japanese never had them. We MADE them adpopt democratic models…and especially in the case of Japan they weren’t exactly thrilled with it.
In both cases, as well as in the case of Iraq it didn’t matter though what the people wanted…they had lost a war and so they had to dance to the tune of the occupiers. Again, thats just how things have always been…and will always be.
As for your ‘liberators’ thing, you’ve been listening to too much of the Administrations propaganda machines. It was a war (even if undeclared). The Iraqi’s lost said war. Even if the people had been willing and eager to greet us with open arms and flowers (something I’ve always found unlikely in the extreme), we would still be the occupiers…and still be in the drivers seat as far as dictating the terms of our occupation, as well as what we expected the new government to be.
Well, I think it WAS destroyed as a fighting force. You realize don’t you that ‘destroying an army’ doesn’t necessarily mean you kill all the soldiers and destroy all the weapons…don’t you? It means breaking it to the point its no longer an effective fighting force. We certainly DID do that.
As to disbanding it…I’m not sure if it was smart or not to disband it. Considering the state it was in (morale wise), and considering how unreliable its officer corps were I seriously doubt it would have been all that effective…and could actually have been a liability. Reguardless, we DID do it…that reality stuff again. Having disbanded it, we are now faced with the real world situation that Iraq doesn’t have an effective fighting force NOW…and so is not in any shape to be cast adrift by the US at this time. Which was my whole point.
I agree that disposing of Saddam only to have a new strongman come to power in Iraq wouldn’t be too smart…IF it happens that way. Its still up in the air that it will happen though. I think the odds of it happening go up quite a bit if the US bolts though than if we stick it out until Iraq gets a few elections under their belt and gets a military able to defend itself.
xtisme: I’m beginning to think if I had a nickel for every poster who claimed to be a libertarian I’d be rich. Must be the fashionable thing to claim or something.
There is no overlap between being a libertarian and thinking this occupation needs to last long enough until, in the judgement of the USG, Iraq can go it alone.
Quote from an actual libertartian:
It’s not the USG’s call to make re when Iraq can go it alone, just as it shouldn’t the USG’s call to decide to invade the country in the first place. And if you actually read that Asian Times article, which I seriously doubt, you would see that it isn’t, if the wishes of the Iraqis are to be respected.
It’s not our call to figure out any of what goes on between the different ethnic groups in Iraq. It’s not up to us to decide when to leave once Iraq has a self-chosen, recognized government: it’s their call, as a sovereign government. Any other attitude to the problem isn’t libertarianism, it’s imperialism.
And the only reason why you don’t think it’s also racist and condescending is because you’re not on the receiving end of this kind of thinking.
XT, you are phrasing some blazingly obvious truisms as though they were revelations to the untutored. Yes, indeed, they don’t get much say so long as they are occupied. I suspect this has much to do with their impatience and annoyance at being occupied.
No. Japan had a parliamentary system with the beginning of the Meiji years. More importantly, this system was a structure built on top of a rigid cultural system, the same people who ruled Japan ruled the government, the samarai were replaced by businessmen. We didn’t impose much of anything on the Japanese after WWII, we couldn’t have had we wanted to. They adopted Western ways by choice, not by imposition, and had been doing so since the previous century.
Iraq cannot be meaningfully compared to Japan or Germany, for the simple reason that Iraq was invented, created out of whole cloth. Japan was an entity far longer than the Meiji Restoration, Japans cultural unity and xenophobia is the stuff of legend. Your attempt to imply that Japan was somehow “created” in the same sense that Iraq was is nonsensical. Japan was a nation, with a common language, a common culture and a shared identity. Iraq was largely a product of the imagination of Winston Churchill, et. al Japan has existed for better than a thousand years, Iraq was cobbled together in the early 1900’s.
Maybe. But you imply a unity here, that the “freedom fighters” or “insurgents” or whatsoever are a single, discrete entity. I see no good reason to believe that, and barring conclusive evidence from you, I won’t. But it would seem, given recent events such as the bombing of the American mess tent, that they do not cringe from attacking Americans, nasty or otherwise. It makes for good propaganda to imply cowardice on the part of your enemy, its not necessarily as effective as tactics.
I’m sure this justifies something. It has relevence, I’m sure of that. Otherwise you would not have mentioned it. Perhaps you think if you state the obvious it somehow supports your position. Can’t imagine why, other than that. Yep, they lost. Well, Saddam lost. Yep, we’re occupiers. Were these points in some contention? Unless this is it…
But we aren’t in the “drivers seat”. Surely that’s obvious? Were we in the driver’s seat, we wouldn’t have these problems, if we had the whole-hearted support of the “Iraqi people”, no insurgency could survive longer than it takes for a citizen to rat them out. We are indeed occupiers. But more importantly, we are invaders.
It would be real, real smart in a morally bankrupt, realpolitik perspective. Iraq existed because it was held together by a ruthless strongman. It is entirely likely that only another such can hold together the new! improved! Iraq. We were thinking along those lines, anyway, we had Ahmed Chalabi all picked out, ready to go. Pop out Saddam, install Chalabi, home in three months. The liberation of Iraq and its transformation into a bourgeois democracy was an afterthought, it was the cassus belli to replace the one that was proved to be utter horseshit.
If we could install a new strongman, and buy the loyalty of an Iraqi Army to back him, we could be home in jig time. Frankly, at this point, that ghastly solution is looking better all the time, in the same way that a bar skank looks better at closing time.
Germany has had some notions of ‘nationhood’ if not since the Treaty of Verdun in 843, then at least by the reign of Henry the Fowler early in the tenth century. I was recently re-reading Catherine Wedgewood’s book on the Thirty Years War ( 1618-1648 ) and she several times remarked on the conflicting tensions pulling major German leaders as diverse as John George of Saxony and Maximillian of Bavaria as they sought to balance their own dynastic ambitions with their genuine concern with preserving the German nation ( in the end their dynastic short-sightedness largely won out ). The reunion of most of Germany under the Prussians in the 19th century was welcomed by many and their was a real popular impetus in both Germany and Austria behind Hitler’s push for the Austrian anschluss.
Japan of course has an at least notional unitary history stretching back millenia, with a native royal family to match.
Iraq on the other hand never was a ‘national’ state since the Neo-Babylonian empire of the Chaldeans was broken in the 6th century B.C.E… The closest it came to being a seperate state in its present dimensions since then was briefly under the revivalist Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir ( c.1180-1225 C.E. ) and even then it just corresponded to the territories he physically held as he asserted wider dominion in the Islamic world. Perhaps one can make an argument for the Mongol-descended nomadic confederacy of the Jalayirids as well in the 14th-16th centuries, but that was less precise and hardly of a national character.
Iraq was cobbled together from two somewhat disparate Ottoman provinces ( originally the British intended to keep the southern province around Basra as a colonial possesion and just build a dependent vassal state at Baghdad ), to which a third ( the north around Mosul, originally promised to the French, then compromised by the unexpected Turkish resurgence ) was appended at the last minute, so to speak. It had a ‘foreign’ monarchy imposed on it and the British, in their charmingly romanticized way, profoundly fucked up by promoting the ‘noble’ tribal chieftains over the ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘degenerate’ Ottoman-educated urban elites. As a state it is almost certainly the least coherent historically in the entire ME/NA.
Which isn’t to say that the Iraqis ( largely minus the Kurds ) haven’t developed a sense of nationalism since then. Certainly there is some. But I think it would be dangerous to take that development for granted and overestimate its strength ( or underestimate it either ).
National unity isn’t solely a function of governmental systems - it is a function of shared history and ‘tribal’ ( in the loose sense ) communalism. Germany and Japan have long had that, Iraq really hasn’t as a nation.
Well 'luci, its blazingly obvious to me…and appearently you. Doesn’t seem that everyone has caught on though, which is why I seem to have to make this point repeatedly.
Certainly I didn’t mean to imply that Japan (or Germany) had been forcable created out of whole clothe. Of course, the peoples who became ‘Iraqi’ weren’t exactly forced together out of whole clothe either…they had been in that region for quite a long time. They were just part of a larger whole instead of being an independant nation on their own.
However, as I said, it wasn’t my intention to claim the situations were equal…they aren’t. However, to imply that Iraq hadn’t had a stable government for a reasonably long period (i.e. Saddam), while implying that Japan and Germany had (though both of their respective governments were fairly new with respect to WWII which was the discussion point) is equally wrong.
As for your Japan references, the point was DEMOCRACY…not western ways. We imposed that on them, and if memory serves they weren’t exactly thrilled about it when we did. Certainly they adopted western ways by choice…but I have to note they didn’t adopt DEMOCRACY along with western clothing and military and industrial ways. Or am I wrong about that?
Oh, I don’t know…I’ve seen some rather tenuous comparisons of the current Iraqi conflict with Vietnam. More tenuous than comparing Iraq to Germany/Japan as far as the occupation and imposition of a new government on them by force of arms goes. Throw me a bone here.
Again, I realize that Japan had a long and glorious history much before the Meiji restoration. However, the Meiji restoration was a fundamental shift from earlier times. In addition, Germany was kind of formed through force of arms in the 18th century (if memory serves) from a chaotic series of Prussian statelets…so they didn’t exactly have a long and glorious history of unity and brotherhood either.
And finally, I wasn’t really trying to make the claim that the Iraq was fundamentally like either Japan or Germany as far as from a historical perspective goes. Might surprise you, but I DID know the history of the whole ME as far as how it was formed, as well as at least the basics of German and Japanese history goes. I was making the case that the occupations are SIMILAR, and was refuting the point made by Elvis as far as the stability and longevity of their various governments goes. And despite the fact that Iraq was a manufactured creation by the Europeans after WWI, it DID have a fairly stable and long lasting (though brutal and cold blooded) government…longer lasting in fact than either the Nazi’s or the WWII Tojo government in Japan.
Am I implying that? I was thinking of it more like a ‘hive mind’ situation…i.e. many different entities can come to the same conclusion on their own, i.e. tangeling with the US military tends to thin the ranks of any given insurgent group. And after getting hurt by tangeling with the Americans, I can certainly see different groups coming to the same conclusions that there are easier targets out there.
Of course, maybe the various insurgent groups ARE coordinating their efforts, at least to some extent. Evidence? I’ve seen nothing conclusive either way.
As far as the mess tent goes, that also was somewhat of a soft target, though its a good point. Or, perhaps this was one of your independant splinter groups. However, generally I think my point stands…its fairly appearent that most of the attacks we are seeing these days are targetted at softer civilian or Iraqi type targets.
BTW, I’m not implying cowardice on the part of the insurgents. I think they have plenty of personal courage (though I see them as TRUELY morally bankrupt)…just practicality from their perspective.
Well, again, its obvious to me…and appearently to you. However, I seem to be forced to state the obvious quite often in these type threads because many of these points AREN’T obvious to everyone. I can’t imagine why (to use your phrase)…but facts is facts.
Ah, but see, there you are wrong. We ARE in the drivers seat. The fact that there is an insurgency going on doesn’t detract from that. They can and are hurting both us and the Iraqi’s…but that doesn’t make us not in the drivers seat as far as Iraq goes. We are the ones calling the shots in Iraq…the insurgents (at least so far) are spoilers. They aren’t and can’t call the shots.
As far as ‘we are invaders’…well, who is stating the obvious NOW.
Well, I have to disagree that the ONLY choice for the Iraqi’s is a new! improved! stongman. That will be in the Iraqi peoples hands though, and if they ultimately choose to go that path then it will be their choice…and they, like the Iranians, will have to live with it.
As for the cassus belli, I haven’t really gotten into all that (again), so I’m unsure where you are getting that. Personally I think the reasons for war given us by our government WERE utter horseshit. However, the point was…now that we are in the shit, should we stay or should we go. I’m still coming down on the side of ‘we should stay until the job is done or it becomes crystal clear that it is impossible’. We broke it…IMO we should do everything in our power to fix it, if it CAN be fixed.
Just out of curiosity, since you’ve spent your time mostly just hammering back replies (and being the droll fellow you normally are) and not really given YOUR views…what do YOU think will happen in Iraq and to the Iraqi people if we pull up stakes and beat a hasty retreat? And depending on your answer to that, do you really think this is a good idea at this time?
Seems I spoke too soon as far as history goes…Tamerlane has waded in.
My question to you, Tamerlane is…weren’t the PEOPLE in whats Iraq today there for quite a while? Weren’t they part of a whole that was the Ottoman empire…for centuries? Isn’t that as unifying a force as those in Germany, who, though you claim had an idea of unified government in 843, didn’t actually unify until the 19th century (my bad btw…I thought it was the 18th century when they finally got it together), and who fought each other tooth and nail? I mean, certainly there were germanic peoples in what we call ‘Germany’ today, who had ties to each other (but who were different tribes if I’m remembering correctly)…but weren’t the folks living in whats today ‘Iraq’ the same thing?
True, and its also true that the Emperor was the tie back to those earlier times. But to me its still a good point that the government and system that fought the US in WWII was a fundamental shift away from that whole older system.
Ok…I see the point. Certainly the people in present day Iraq didn’t have a history or group outlook of unification AS A NATION. However, they WERE unified under the Saddam regime for decades, and thats got to instill at least a bit of the feeling of national unity. Or are you saying that most Iraqi’s want to partition Iraq, or don’t care about partitioning Iraq into multiple statelets?
And whats your thoughts on the main point? Do YOU think Iraq should be partitioned (or allowed to partition itself)? Whats your thoughts on what would happen in Iraq if the US were to suddenly pull out with the situation as it is? Do you think the Iraqi’s could pull together, or do you see a civil war in the cards? And does it matter in the long run?
Ok, I agree. But…the people who are in modern day Iraq…where did they come from? Don’t THEY have a ‘shared history and ‘tribal’ communalism’? I mean, they didn’t just spring into being when Iraq was partitioned by the Europeans after WWI…did they? I certainly understand that perhaps they didn’t have the same sense of ‘nation’ as Japan (and perhaps to a lesser degree Germany, though I still need some more convincing based on my own understanding of German history).
Sorry to jump in here, but I have to side with David Simmons and strongly disagree with your assessment. Read this article to get an insight into the planning phase of the war. Pay special attention to metion of the TPFFD - this is the master plan that planners use in determing what units go where, when, how, and for how long. The number of combat units one is willing to deploy has an impact on the number of support (logistics) people and equipment that go with them. If you cut the number of combat units, your support units will corresponsingly decrease as well.
If you read the article, it was Rumsfeld who decided to forego elements of the TPFDD based on his belief that the military could go in “lean and mean”. It was definitely NOT what the planners initially wanted. I can attest from personal experience (being a former logistics planner in the USAF) that there is a certain logic (based on past experience) as to the requirements for a particular war plan.
For example, if one were to deploy an entire squadron of fighter planes, there is a certain number of support personnel (and equipment) that needs to be deployed as well. Planners have quite a bit of flexibility as the combat units can be modularized (For example, instead of deploying an entire squadron of fighters, one can deploy 1/2 or 1/3 of a squadron). It’s also important to consider where one is deploying. For example, if you are going to deploy a fighter squadron to a location with only a landing strip and a potable water source, then you are going to need addition support personnel (civil engineers, MPs, ATF’s, etc.).
However, what is critical to remember that it’s the combat units which drive the support packages. If you reduce the number of combat units, you are corresponsingly going to reduce support. In certain circumstances, this may not be a problem (example: a fighter squadron that is staged at a location well behind the primary combat area). However, one element in the planning process that became very clear while I was in the USAF is that “it’s always better to have something and not need it, than to not have something and need it.”
In short - blame Rumsfeld, not the planners for not anticipating the insurgency.
Sure. Though there was a very major demographic transition in the 19th century as Iraq went from primarily nomadic to primarily settled and from majority Sunni to majority Shi’a ( the two events are closely related ).
Not really, no. The difference is the Germans unified internally as a national state in general milieu of the rise of Europea nationalism after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The Ottoman state was more an externally imposed imperial structure of a multi-national character, more similar to its near precise contemporary, the defunct Hapsburg state. Despite that there was some sense of Ottoman commonality, yes ( and the later Ottoman government tried hard to reinforce that in the 19th century ). But that was undone by a) the complete elimination of the Ottoman state and b) as mentioned the British worked hard to eliminate any vestiges of the old Ottoman regime. The British had a curious early 20th century attachement to the ‘noble savage’ ideal which led them to regard the nomads as the highest exemplar of the Arab ( or Kurd, or whoever ) and conversely to look down on the urbanites as corrupted degenerates. The old Ottoman educated burecrats were particularly shunned as they were regarded as the worst of both worlds - obviously racially inferior as were all Middle Easterners, but also in their eyes half-assedly apeing western manners and style in a way that degenerated them from the noble tribesman.
Another potential unifying authority was the Shi’a clerical apparatus, that had been a steadily rising political force up to that point. As they had been largely hostile to the British and their quasi-puppets the Hashemites, that establishment was suppressed. In particular their sources of income were deliberately strangled and their ties to tribal leaders ( as important inter- and intratribal intercessors and negotiators ) were compromised and undermined as important sheikhs became dependent on state largesse in the form of land grants and tax-farming. We are only just beginning to see that long-suppressed force bubble back to the surface.
No, in fact, in part by design but also to a great extent inadvertently, the British thoroughly compromised any nascent Iraqi national unity.
Modern Iraq is pretty ethnically diverse and as I mentioned for quite awhile was dominated by nomadic elements ( say from at least the mid-13th century to the mid-19th ). What unity it had was of generally a rather precarious sort and inhabitants of Basra didn’t necessarily identify with those in Baghdad or Mosul ( except perhaps in the case of certain far-flung tribes, in which case that was the central identification ).
So, no, not really IMO. At least not since the seperate tribal nature of the German stem duchies disintegrated in the High Middle Ages.
I don’t disagree, as I said above. And pre-dating Saddam as well. But I also wouldn’t overrate it - it isn’t that deeply rooted, relatively speaking.
No, I’d say most would prefer not. The Kurds, I believe, are a particular exception. I believe the majority of at least the Kurdish leadership would seperate if they thought they could, but they are being pragmatic for now.
Pulling out? I disagree with pantom a bit, perhaps - not yet time. A moral debt is owed, poorly though it is being carried out currently. That said the eventuality may be moving closer and I think any attempt to turn Iraq into a strategic fulcrum would be/will be folly - permanent military installations are an invitation to perpetual instability given the circumstances. IMHO. I don’t think I agree with you that it is only a matter of time before the resistance is ground down and crushed.
No. That is I think it should be avoided and argued against. I’m not sure I’d try to forcefully prevent it if the decision to do so was reached politically. However it is a bad idea, because:
a) Despite my comments above, I am not a fan of ethnic nationalism. I also disapproved of the Yugoslav and Czechoslovak breakups on general principle. Or retrospectively the Indian partition.
b) While Kurdistan would be relatively easy ( Kirkuk excepting - that might be a nightmare ), the rest is not so easily accomplished. I would fear Indian/Pakistan levels of disruption in the area of Baghdad in particular. Don’t forget that two very importantt Shi’a shrines are in “Sunni” territory.
c) On the realpolitik side I prefer a more even balance of powers in the region. There are enough weakling Kuwaits and chaotic Lebanons without adding to the number. Regional instability would ratchet up sharply in any partition scenario IMO.
Don’t know. I think a civil war would be more likely.
Whether we stay awhile longer? Yes, it matters. Whether for ill or not, I dislike speculating. At present I support it, but I grow slowly more negative as time progresses.
Not internal to Iraq, not much, no. The Shi’a community, sure. The Sunni Arab community to some extent. The Kurdish community, a little yes, a little no. The Assyrians, the Turcoman, etc. But as ‘Iraqis’? No, not really.
To some extent.
Libya derived from a 19th century religious brotherhood. Egypt and Iran have long, firm, geographically rooted national histories. So, to a only slightly lesser extent, does Morocco. Yemen was long dominated by a particular religious sect ( though it too is very heavily tribalized ) and has its own independent history as such. Saudi Arabia arose from a local tribal aristocracy, expanded through conquest and a very successful conversion campaign. Syria was with Egypt the intellectual heartland of early Arab nationalism and transitioned much more completely to a “modern” state. Kuwait was nothing more or less than the personal holding of a particularly clever merchant family. Oman, again, not only has a fairly impressive modern history ( it chased the Portuguese from much of East Africa ), but is religiously anomalous ( Ibadis, last remants of the the third great division of Islam, the Kharijites ). Algeria had the unifying experience of the war of independence against France. etc.
Iraq has the least historical cohesion of any of them. Not NO historical cohesion - just not an enormous lot and the British fucked up some of what was there.
Thanks Tamerlane…I’ve probably learned more from you about the ME as far as from a historical perspective than I did from my college history classes. Of course, I’m older now and not being distracted by halter top wearing co-eds…but still, I appreciate the posts.
And I DO blame him for a number of things, trust me. Ok, I only skimmed through your cite…its nearing 1am here and I have to go to work tomorrow. If I missed a salient point, please let me know…I HOPE to read through the cite in more depth tomorrow.
That said, it seems what the article is getting at is a strategic level failure in the initial allocation and planning phase for what happens AFTER the invasion. Nothing new there…I think most folks are aware that the expectations of the Administration in general and Rumsfeld in particular were, er, not exactly accurate with reguards to what would happen after the Iraqi army folded its hand and Saddam’s government collapsed. I can certainly see that this lack of planning on Rumsfeld’s part would have the initial effect of screwing up the rotation logistics…though again, just because the Sec. Def says don’t plan for something, I would figure that an on the ball logistics/personnel staff would have SOME plan tucked away in a file drawer somewhere to bring out ‘just in case’.
However, we are well past the initial phase of the operation in Iraq…over a year past in fact. And by now even the administration is aware of the fact that things aren’t going exactly as planned in Iraq…and that there is a problem with troop deployments. So…why isn’t this corrected by now? After all, we DO have troops in the states, as well as in places like Germany that COULD be rotated through Iraq…no? Afaik its not really an issue of lack of troops, or even of troops with the correct MOS…its more a matter of getting those troops to Iraq, while keeping a cadre of Iraqi veterans there for the newbies to learn from.
Bottom line to me…Rumsfeld et al certainly screwed the pooch as far as the planning (and contingencies) for what happens after the war. But IMO the military also has to bear some responsibility for a personnel logistics problem…its their job after all. Rumsfeld, as Sec Def is a big picture guy…he’s not going to get into the details of troop rotation. Thats for the personnel department to handle…and they didn’t handle it well. Even if the initial screw up was at a high (read Administration) level, and even if this put us back a few months before we realized things weren’t going as planned, someone should have picked up the ball as far as this issue goes.
Maybe I’m not seeing things clearly. I was never in either personnel or logistics when I was in the military. It certainly seemed to me that when the military needed something or someone somewhere, they figured out a way to get them there. As this is effecting morale of the troops in Iraq, its a serious issue…and I can’t believe its one that can only be fixed or even looked at with Donny boys approval and oversight. I’m willing to be proved wrong here…as I said, I’m not expert on this particular aspect of the military.
!!
