Extremists said nuke them, kill them all. What’s your idea of a best next move?
I say let’s get out of Iraq, even if it would cost Bush’s presidency. Why? because soldiers lives are more important than a wrongful occupation. We don’t want soldiers die unnecessarily.
Give over control to the UN. They won’t do any worse than we’re doing, and maybe we won’t even be spitting in everyone else’s faces.
Not that that’ll ever happen.
Well considering that 9/11 killed 4k americans… and the Iraq adventure has killed 600 americans in 1 year… that is 15% of those deaths. 9/11 was a terrorist attack… Iraq was on purpose. Do you really think Bush cares about the soldiers lives ? If he did he wouldn’t be playing tough lone guy.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. 
If Bush’s past is any indication, he will not get out or transfer control to the UN until he has his back against the wall and by then it will be too late. In almost every decision he displays a pigheaded stubborness and then gives in when the damage is done. The longer he stays in Iraq and the worse things get, the worse the retreat will look. The sooner he does it, the lesser the damage. But it’s not going to happen. Not with GWB. He will obstinately plow ahead until he hits a wall he cannot overcome. Then he will proclaim that was the plan all along and withdraw. That is what he has done pretty much in every single instance in the past.
Even if we offered, why would the UN want Iraq? The country is very much an American clusterfuck.
Well, the UN would take charge nominally like they did in Gulf War 1. The USA would still be the major influence in the UN and the major UN force in Iraq. In other words, transferring it to the UN basically means to ask for UN backing, which would come at the price of giving other countries a say in the matter and they would probably demand a fixed calendar for the USA to get out which the USA does not want to do. The USA just does not want to cede any authority or control and that is all they would be doing because it’s not like they could send all the troops home the next day.
You folks do understand that Bush has been trying to get the EU/UN involved in security for six months and they refuse to play - you do remember Bush going to the UN and asking for help (and that doesn’t even begin to describe what must have gone on behind the scenes as he got more and more desperate to be bailed out) ?
How about France suggesting the US leave and let the experts nation build - Bush didn’t seem to bite at that opportunity.
Folks, the idea is to get Bush out of the damn Whitehouse, not bail him out in Iraq so to contribute to his re-election.
So, no UN before the election, unless . . . unless . . . Bush hands over everything. And, of course, he can’t do that as it negates the entire purpose of this national acquisition (control of the flow of oil).
Hence the rotation in of National Guard, weekend warriors and private mercenaries. And US casualties rather than blue-helmeted casualties.
I think both Bush and the Iraqis know the comming months are crucial. An American dead before the elections is worth much more to the Iraqis than an American dead after the election so my guess is they will step up their operations as much as they can in the coming months in the hopes that it costs Bush the White House and Kerry will be more willing to get out.
If Bush is reelected then he has no votes to lose and the coming 4 years would be of unlimited folly in Iraq. It would probably continue as a low level war like it has been until now.
It still boggles the mind that Bush did not realize this would happen because it had been widely predicted.
If this continues at this rate for some more years and the USA finally has to get out with its tail between its hind legs the damage will be incalculable and America’s capacity to act will be greatly diminished, like happened after Vietnam. Add to this the growing capacity of China and in 10-15 years we might see some serious tensions rising between the two in Asia.
Beneficial for the US or for Iraq?
If the action is to be in the main interest of the US, push hard for a separate Kurdish state. On the upside, there will be a sizable friendly nation in a geopolitically important area with potential bases for the US military. On the downside, this will cause a ton of resentment from most of Iraq, Syria, and Iran (nothing new) and will probably alienate Turkey.
For Iraq? Beats me. It’s pretty much fucked in any scenario I can imagine.
You gotta be kidding! The day a Kurdish state is proclaimed is the day it is invaded by Turkey. There is no way in the world Turkey would accept that and the whole occupation has been done with assurances to Turkey that Iraq would remain a single country.
Nah. Bush will continue to look for support in the UN but will always offer too little, always a day late and a dollar short so he’ll be stuck with Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Turkey would hate a newly created, US-backed Kurdish state, but they would not invade. Right now the Turkish government’s top priority is to gain admittance to the European Union, and an unjustified invasion of a neighboring country would kill that hope immediately. Look at it from a Kurd perspective. Would you rather have your own country and simmering tension with your neighbors, or try to coexist in Iraq where the other two ethnic groups both hate your guts and are perfectly willing to attack you?
Methinks you underestimate the political situation in Turkey. Turkey likely wouldn’t have to worry about the impact of a “unjustified invasion,” since they would be too busy putting down an ethnic rebellion to give a rat’s ass - and they certainly wouldn’t let “Kurdistan” stay existing. They’ve been at war for 15 years. They damn well aren’t going to be able to allow “simmering tension” with a neighbor. This would be like a “simmering tension” between Israel and Palestine, or India and Pakistan. You bet your sweet ass they would invade, and they would trade their EU membership for a few years to do it. They would also blame the United States, which would cause another catastrophic destruction of support in one of the few countries in the region that can be said to “support” it.
I disagree. Every analysis I have seen concludes there is no way Turkey would accept this because it would mean it’s own kurds would want to join the new formed state and it would mean civil war. No way.
Ha, ha. That’s a good one. To think the USA would have the interests of the Kurds as a primary concern. Makes a good dream though.
It ain’t gonna happen any time soon and certainly not if the USA can prevent it. If Iraq falls into civil war out of control then I think it is more probable that Iraq would intervene in northern Iraq and occupy it than the Kurds proclaiming an independent state.
And this issue is more important than joining the EU for Turkey.
My take on the situation:
The reason for this invasion has, IMO, it´s roots on the oil dependency on Saudi Arabia, the US/Saudi relationships had, so far, kept those reserves as a bank deposit for the future and tool to regulate the market; so the US has made all kinds of concesions to keep the royal family happy, and I´ve read some eerie articles about how much carnal the relationship is. Now that´s all good and dandy except the bored, theologically enhanced general population of SA doesn´t like the US one bit and by extension the royal family (who have their own credentials to be hated for granted, such as rampant corruption) The RF has tried to appease the extremists, mainly through copious amounts of cash, they´re sponsoring terrorism as long as it doesn´t happen at home; the US does the “see no evil hear no evil speak no evil” thing and supports the RF, the RF supports (as in paying protection) terrorists, the terrorist attack the US (and anyone that is not quite as nut as themselves for that matter). Now what we have there is a messed up situation, the US won´t withdraw it´s support to the RF for that would result, most probably, in the fall of the house of Saud, and bye-bye oil; but if the support continues there´s no telling how far could groups like Al Qaeda would go.
So the US (or the sociopathic bunch of ideologes in charge) say, “OK, we have to pull out there and find another oil vault”, look at the map and hello!, Iraq right there, just across the border; a despicable “goverment”, no-one will miss Saddam, we kick him out install and prop a new friendly goverment and we let those Saudis see that we don´t have to fellate them anymore ´cause we´ve got a new dealer; hopefully, in a best case scenary they´ll end up with two oil rich partners and SA would crack on the fundamentalist for once.
And you know what? it just may work, as in I may win the lottery or Madonna may became a nun; it´s not impossible, but by Og, it´s a long shot.
What really put all chances against a favourable outcome was the attitude of the US about the invasion, it was their way or the highway; wich I suspect was purposedly so to alienate possible strong allies how would have demanded a sizeable slice of the spoils, it was a greedy move, it shouldn´t had been; the results of a less mendacious and self-serving approach could had been the same in the long run, secure oil reserves and a blow to terrorism.
It could have been played differently, but seems to me that Bush & Co. disregard for diplomatic finesse (to put it mildly) has not only dilapidated a good chance for positive change in the region, but also set the law of unintended consequences in over-drive. The only choice they have is to stick to the plan and hope for the best, they won´t allow the UN to take control any time soon, that I can almost guarantee; they went there for a reason and don´t seem to be willing to let their gains go. The plan is a US friendly Iraq or bust.
The shit is flying and the fan is spining really fast, this can get very messy.
English language carnage in previous post justified by 2 AM induced lack of synaptic activity
Not only would Turkey be at war with an independent Kurdistan, but if the US backed the Kurds, it could well result in the demise of NATO. Ugly stuff.
Ugh. It’s beginning to look like I wasn’t being overly pessimistic in predicting a three-sided civil war last January. I really, really, really didn’t want to be right about that.
First, gotta calibrate our blunder parameters. Rumor has floated about that Paul Wolfowitless was in line to take Paul Bremers places. This will not happen, it is too stupid. So that helps establish a base line.
Its the Shia that have me confused. Thier behavior really makes little sense: they’ve won, all they have to do is run out the clock. No matter how the parliamentary system is stuctured, with thier solid majority they can rewrite the laws as they choose as soon as the Americans are gone, if not before. The prize will fall into thier laps simply by an excercise of benign inertia.
So why? They were the reliable ones, the ones we could count on. Over and over we here told how its just those malcontent Sunnis, pissed about thier perks being revoked, the vast majority of Iraqis are simply bubbling with good mojo for the Americans. But now the Shia are acting up, and it would seem there is no good reason for them to do so, why rebel against an authority that is seemingly intent on handing everything to you?
Unless they don’t believe us. That’s about the only way this makes sense, that they really believe that this is all an excercise in colonialism, an international smash and grab.
On the gripping hand, in a situation like this, seeking the sensible scenario may be a foolishness in itself.
As for the Kurds and Turkey…pray for them. If ever there were a situation simply brimming over with potential horror and carnage, that’s gotta be it. Outside of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, its difficult to conceive of a more dreadful possibility.
As a pessimist, I always hope to be wrong, and often am. Just not often enough.
I’m not sure about the UN, but the correct question would be : which countries would agree to send troops to replace the americans on a “peace-keeping mission” in Irak while waiting for the installment of a new Iraki government? None.
The general consensus is currently that the US should stay there now, until power can be handed (as soon as possible) to the Irakis.
Isn’t this one of those “Hey, wait a minute, you mean the Pope’s a Catholic” moments?