I disagree. I believe a transfer of authority to the UN, even if it is the same American trrops, but now under UN command, would go a long way in defusing the situation and the resistance would probably scale down operations. Not that the US government in all its arrogance would ever consider such a thing for the reasons cited by Ale.
On a more serious note, I really think this spells the end of the US’s ambitions in Iraq. It doesn’t look like the Iraqi’s are even going to pretend to accept Chalabi’s rule over them, and there’s noone else that’s going to look kindly toward handing over military basing, oil, privatized infrastructure or anything else to the US or US corporations. The war’s been lost. The US will keep fighting it for a while, but can no longer win.
I hate doing this, but can you give some cites?
No need to wait for L_C. Here you go:
Staying this course isn’t achieving the desired results.
Simple withdrawal would be disastrous.
A change in tactics is called for.
It’s in the US’s interest Iraq must come out like a prize-winning rose. Anythig less further undermines our ME “grand strategy.” You know, the one that relates the invasion of Iraq to the protection of the US from terrorist attacks. The one where we make things better in the ME and thereby reduce the impetus for young people to join up with terrorist groups. If Iraq isn’t obviously, signifigantly and undeniably better off then what we did will still be seen through the lenses of recent colonial history. US will be seen as no more of a liberator than Stanley Maude was.
Who doesn’t expect Iraqi’s and ME’ers in general to see these sorts of events in a cynical light?
How can anyone not be cynical about the whole affair?
It’s like he asked the UN to help with the paper work, but not the real problems. What arrogance.
I think dreams that Iraq can be made by the American occupation “obviously, signifigantly and undeniably better off” have pretty much disappeared from any reasonable person and now the objective is just to muddle through as best as they can.
You say “A change in tactics is called for” but that assumes there is a winning tactic and I do not think it is clear to be the case. What tactic do you propose? Because, after all, that is the million dollar question.
I’m not sure that SimonX was suggesting that he had a proposal. Looks more like he was pointing out the conflicting (and possibly mutually exclusive) objectives. IMHO.
Desmostylus - Thanks.
If by “paperwork” you mean take the bodybag hits while US soldiers didn’t (thus contributing to the Bush reelection campaign), then sure.
But that’s what Bush does – and if you don’t play his game, he’ll try as hard as he can to try and make you.
The idea was for the US to retain control but to have UN troops work under the US on security, which went down not terribly well.
Well, not to cast doubt on the “they don’t believe us” explanation, but don’t make the mistake of thinking the Shi’ites are a monolithic group. This Sadr character apparently has the loyalty of a smallish but significant minority amongst them, and may feel that he’ll be shut right out by Sistani et al if he doesn’t make a move.
THe group that has recently risen into rebelling is operating on the simple belief that America will never get its claws out of Iraq, which is quite possibly true. Keep in mind, the whole terrorist thing started because they felt we were too involved in their business. All we’ve done is get ourselves MORE involved, and that frightens them.
For instance, we wandered into Iraq on a false premise, swept away the remains of the military after bombarding their major cities, overturned half of their social laws that, while more just, is something you just don’t do overnight, captured their only natural resource, brought in American businesses to “rebuild” with armed American security guards, installed a puppet government, etc etc.
Does that sound like the actions of a peaceful people who will leave what they found alone, much less allow them to rewrite the laws?
Most of the Muslim world that opposed the 9/11 strikes supports strikes in Iraq. That says a lot, and it isn’t good for us. Even by the people who might profit by our overthrow of local governments, we aren’t just a “necessary evil” that will go away.
Furthermore, should any group cooperate fully with us by “waiting out the clock” until we do leave (if ever), that group would be immediately overthrown. Think about the timing of this - we say that we will hand over the government to Iraq by June. People start token rebellions and protests against America in April. Once we leave, this allows them to stand up and say, “we fought the American invaders. The current government cooperated with them.” Guess who wins the court of public opinion, and who gets their heads cut off? Best case scenario, we just create another Korea or Israel or Yugoslavia.
Turning Iraq upside down was a huge mistake product of the arrogant thought that they could control everything. It made iraq a chaotic mess and people are blaming the Americans.
Historically we see that occupations were more successful when the occupiers retained and used the existing social and political structures to their advantage. That is what the English mostly did where they went and, contrary to popular belief, that is also largely what the Spanish did in their colonization. The Spanish used the native nobility by confirming their ruling powers and incorporating them into the government. Sometimes the natives revolted against their own princes but often it meant a very few Spanish could control vast numbers of natives. Even the Romans or Spanish conquistadors understood politics better than the present American government.
For the USA to dissolve the army and turn the country upside down, to consider Iraq as the spoils of war and sell it wholesale to foreign investors, all this has been a huge mistake which has just created resentment and backlash.
What would the US casualties (soldiers killed) be, in your opinion, for the general US public to say - we would no longer want the troops to stay in Iraq for another day?
My estimate is 3000, given the media keeps them informed truthfully. Once the number reaches the level of thousands, it’s harder and harder for them to keep silence.
3003 or whatever the number of victims were on 9/11 will be a watershed moment.
From the Pentagon Commissioned CSIS Report on the Reconstrcution of Iraq [.pdf] July 17, 2003:
**
“The Iraqi population has exceedingly high expectations, and the window for cooperation may close rapidly if they do not see progress on delivering security, basic services, opportunities for broad political involvement, and economic opportunity.”
“In our travels throughout the country, Iraqis uniformly expressed the view that the window of opportunity for the CPA to turn things around in Iraq is closing rapidly.”
**
Based on these sorts of reports, it seems that things are getting more and more complicated as time goes by. The needed changes should begin and occur sooner rather than later.
IIRC, the decision to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the Department of Defense was an unusual one.
The Pentagon has shown itself to be poorly prepared to deal with the “post-war” period.
One of the first things in my capacity as a member of the American electorate that I’d like to see done is to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the State Dept.
While I don’t know exactly what all should be done in Iraq, I am certain that I’d like to have a new set of experts providing advice.
You must be working for Colin Powell…
Well, we wanted to know what the next blunder would be…
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq
“An Iraqi judge has issued a murder arrest warrant for a radical Shiite Muslim cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, for the slaying of another Shiite leader shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of the country, coalition officials said Monday…”
Yeah. That’ll work.
To be fair, a case can be made that this al-Sadr’s arrest has no direct connection to his anti-American stance, a case I find suspect, under the circumstances and timing. But most likely the average Shia follower of al-Sadr will see it as American oppression, or an action by Iraqi puppets of the American oppressor, which is just as bad. Closing the newspaper was a bad idea, this is a worse idea.
Lord have mercy on us all if this man should die in custody.
I think the time has run out. The idea a year ago was that by now things would be much better, that order and public services would have been restored months ago. . . and just look what we have instead and it’s not getting better. Even if it started to turn around now, too much damage has been done.
Well the problem is that it’s difficult to rebuild a country when they are shooting at you. If there is a state of virtual war nobody is going to be able to rebuild anything and at least the military can defend themselves.
Maybe the situation has progressed to the point where there is no answer but get the hell out , let the civil war sort things out and once things settle and Iraq is ready (25 years?) then help in the reconstruction.
At this point the only thing keeping the USA there is the hope that it can still hang on to bases and oil and that turning tail now would look awfully bad. The situation is quite fucked up and sometimes there is no way out but to bite the bullet and admit defeat.
The arrogance of our leaders is costing thousands of lives.
Thing is, so far as I can tell, folks in the Gulf seem to be pretty keen on slaughtering one another. If the Persians and Arabs aren’t trying to wipe each other out, Arab factions apparently get bored and go to work on themselves. Throw some Kurds in the mix and you’ve got a nice little shit sandwich on your plate. So what on earth gave Geedub&Co. the idea to take a bite? What in flaming hell posessed them?
Now it’s our shit sandwich. Just like Vietnam. Heaven knows we didn’t need it, but we’ve jumped in with both feet. We presently have two choices: Exit in disgrace now, or later. It all depends on how many body-bags the voters can tolerate. This policy of trying to save Iraq from itself is doomed to failure, just like every other time we’ve tried that approach. Pacify? Yeah, after we’ve killed them all.
A needless waste, all because we can’t kick the oil habit. When are our leaders going to learn to take renewable energy seriously so we don’t have to be dependant on the capricious whims of a land ruled by despots and fanatics? It isn’t all faggoty-ass tree-hugging liberalism, you nitwits, it’s sound policy. Is all the crude in Arabia really worth this?
“too much damage” for what?
I’m not suggesting that the military leave, or quit providing security. I’m also not suggesting that the State Dept get into the business of the military. On the other hand, note that the Marshall Plan was named for a Secretary of State, not a Secretary of Defense.
I just want “to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the State Dept.”
I’m under the impression that rebuilding countries is more Foggy Bottom’s cup of tea than the Pentagon’s. Maybe I’m wrong about that?
The costs are too high to quit yet.
The costs of exhausting some more possibilities before throwing in the towel are rendered insignifigant in comparison to the costs of failure.
IOW, we’re in for a penny, and stand to lose a whole lot more than just another pound, so might as well go in for another pound or two as well.
I earnestly believe that the US can salvage the situation. I still don’t have confidence in key elements of the team we’ve got enaged in the endeavor at the moment.
For example,
On the balance, Ahmed Chalabi’s brought inestimably more grief to the US and US taxpayers than he’s been worth. Without certain Pentagon civilians Chalabi wouldn’t be in on things.