Well gee, the answer is pretty obvious, really, isn’t it?
The vast majority of Iraqi’s would like an Islamic Democracy it would seem - that is, democratic roots with a strong Islamic Clerical influence. This is really obvious to everyone - even Blind Freddy.
My advice is this… hey you? US Interim Administration? Get those fucking Islamic Clerics in place pronto. Rustle 'em all up and tell 'em “Guys, she’s all yours… we’ll do what ever you want us to do to help preserve the peace - we’ll spend whatever you need us to spend to get the show on the road, but the show’s yours… OK? Capiche?”
It doesn’t matter if an Islamic Democracy doesn’t EXACTLY fit in with the “perfect ideals” of Western Democracy. What counts is this… at the moment the ONLY voices of reason which anyone are listening to are the Islamic Clerics of the nation. THEY are the only people with any nationwide influence - and accordingly, THEY are the only people who can bring about the changes necessary in terms of mindset within the Iraqi population to stop the nasty geurilla tactics.
Let the Clerics run the show - pronto. It’s possibly the only thing that the US could do right now to earn any lasting brownie points. If the US was to do something to earn the longterm gratitude and thanks of Iraq’s senior clerics, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
It’s so obvious it’s almost blinding to be honest.
This whole issue has me in two minds. First off to declare my bias I thought the invasion was a half baked and foolish idea that smacked more of ideology then sound planning or common sense.
But its a lost debate, its done and you have made Iraq your responsibility. The consequences of the invasion were both predictable and widely predicted, and I dont see that handing over affairs to an Islamic government and bailing out is now a viable strategy. It sounds like a recipe for civil war. It would also be bad politically for an administration thats facing an election so both politics and its own inclinations would preclude the possibility I suspect.
What I would like to see is wider arab involvement in the reconstruction and if this means the US loses a lot of the decision-making power then so be it. Or perhaps even, god forbid, the French as they are unlikely to generate the hostility that US forces are facing.
Does anyone else get really irritated when GWB defends the invasion of Iraq by saying something to the effect of “At least the Iraqi people are now free”. Denying them the right to pick the leaders of their own choosing, while maintaining an occupation force of 150,000 foreign soldiers doesn’t equate with my idea of freedom. I agree that the conditions are better than while under Saddam’s thumb, but to me, the absence of Saddam does NOT equal freedom.
Please explain this statement. Are you asserting that it is NOT common practice in the Middle East to use one’s roof as a kind of veranda? People have been sleeping on their roofs in the ME since Biblical times. You don’t have the sklightest clue what you’re talking about and blaming a little kid for getting killed is amazingly callous and hateful.
Somehow I think if an American child were “accidentaly” killed by a foreign miltary you’d have a much different reaction.
I’ve talked to people who argue that the failure of any other pro-war rationale doesn’t matter because the Iraqi people have been liberated, and then in the same breath start railing against the ungrateful Iraqi people who don’t appreciate the fact that we liberated them. I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Effectively Iraq is under a US military dictatorship at the moment, with Shrub as the dictator. I think I’d blow my own head off if I had to live under a Shrub dictatorship. Do we even have any evidence that the Smirk’s regime has been any better for Iraqis than the Moustache’s was?
I’m pretty safe in saying that anyone who knows even anything remotely about the roles which women have traditionally played in Iraqi society would concur that your position has far more to do with your ignorance of Iraqi society than it does reality. Still, it’s a red herring because enlightened attitudes towards any “insert name here” social equality issue results from years of stability and a commitment to civil rights and civil institutions.
My point is this… any fool can write out a hit list of “perfect ideals” and then kybosh any efforts towards peace because one, or some, of those ideals aren’t met. They aren’t gonna be fair to gays? Then no way can we accept an Islamic Democracy… They ain’t gonna be fair to Africans? Then no way can we accept an Islamic Democracy… etc, etc, etc.
But such ideals are at the “luxury end” of stable society, and you can’t put the cart before the horse. Stability in Iraq is first and foremost at the moment. The borders are porous and a quantum shift in the country’s mindset is what needs to change. Ann this is why the ONLY allies the Americans could possibly rely on are the Shi’ite Clerics. Perhaps the Sunni Clerics would disagree, but it matters not if majority rules. And most importantly, at this point, there’s no way you could say the American’s have a popular mandate to be there.
With the utmost respect, but the survival of the US Administration at a political level is hardly what matters at the moment. US Soldiers are being murdered on a daily basis doing a thankless job in an amazingly hostile environment. It would take at least 1 million foreign troops to totally disarm Iraq. THe popular consensus is that the ratio is 1:15 soldiers to citizens to totally submit a country to foreign occupation against her will. A million soldiers provides a 1:22 ratio so you’d BARELY be meeting that goal.
Hence, the USA needs allies - and she needs 'em REAL QUICK. And the only ready made allies in the region who can truly make a difference are the Islamic Clerics - that, and the former officers and paid conscripts of the Iraqi Army - because quite frankly, disbanding that army and NOT giving them a paid job to move on to merely created 250,000 very bitter men who are fully trained in using armaments. Getting the picture now?
As for your assertions of civil war? That is such bunkum. Over 85% of the Iraqi population regularly attends their local mosque. The Clerics rule… simple as that. The influence they have is amazing - for decades they represented the role of quasi political opposition - or at least dissent. If they issue orders, there is a HUGE difference in the chances of THOSE orders being carried out than those which might be offered by the US Interim Authority.
You are thinking “roof” in American terms. The roofs there are usually like a veranda. The roof often IS the bedroom. If the family has a lot of kids, often the kids sleep up on the roof with an adult because it’s supposedly safer to sleep up there because to sleep on the ground invites snakes, scorpions and other creepy crawlies that aren’t necessarily good bedfellows. How did they know there would be trigger happy spooked American soldiers who think only in American terms that might shoot people on the roof? Even with Saddam, they could sleep there in relative safety unless they were subversive or someone in their family displeased the Husseins.
When you go into a country, you should know more than how to say “Give me a beer” and “surrender now”.
I’ll make myself clearer. The political survival of the Bush administration is not important to me, I’m not an admirer and I’d like it to go, but I doubt the administration shares my desire for its downfall, its own survival is important to itself and that was my point. With electioneering underway one eye is always going to be on the domestic political implications of things.
Why is it bunkum? Iraq has experienced a great deal of civil war in recent history, between sunnis and shiites and arabs and kurds. They arent homogenous and I dont think we can assume that religious rule from what would by necessity be the shiite majority is going to be popular with the minorities.
My point is this… any fool can write out a hit list of “perfect ideals” and then kybosh any efforts towards peace because one, or some, of those ideals aren’t met.
Boo, keep in mind that Mehitabel is speaking about half of the population of Iraq. I think it is fair to be concerned with peace for them too.
That’s a mighty loose definition of murder you’re using there. There is still a war on you know, and if you call one side murderers, the other side’s going to get shit dropped on it too. Both sides in this conflict deserve more respect than that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo *
**I’m pretty safe in saying that anyone who knows even anything remotely about the roles which women have traditionally played in Iraqi society would concur that your position has far more to do with your ignorance of Iraqi society than it does reality.
[QUOTE]
I dont think its a safe assumption that the role women have ‘traditionally’ played in Iraq will be the role they will play under an islamic republic now. The world changes and Iraq hasnt escaped the growth in Islamic fundamentalism throughout the middle east.
The above quote is from the first debate between Gore and Bush. In that debate, Bush also mentioned the importance on having a sound exit strategy in place. I heard comone on the news today say that Pentagon spokespersons admit that the situation in Iraq was not what was expected. Rumsfeld, however, continues to say that everything is going according to plan.
As for myself, I never dreamed last April that the situation would get so out of hand.
Remember the raiding of that plant where low grade uranium was kept? Some Iraqis are using those barrels for food storage in some cases! There are about 500 of these barrels out there. The U.S. military wants to pay $4.00 for each barrel returned. It would cost an Iraqi the equivalent of $15 to replace those barrels. Green Peace has come to the rescue and is arranging for barrel replacement. Could the US not afford the $7,500 that it would take to coax the exchange?
But can you see the self defeating cycle which manifests itself if we raise the bar too high right from the outset? If we (the West) insist on forcing a cultural paradigm onto Iraq which is openly impossible to maintain, right from the outset, we condem our efforts to failure.
Look, I’m merely trying to divine the best solution out of a lot of poor choices. It’s not our fault if the region is rife with a shitload of vested interests and nepotism. It’s not our fault if the region would rather blame the West for it’s troubles than to accept responsibility for their own fate themselves.
Regardless, however, the fact remains that Iraq will continue to be a shithole for US troops if they remain in Iraq in such small numbers along with their British comrades. It’s a dreadful burden to place upon such soldiers. Their numbers are too few to play the policing role which is now being asked of them. Either the UN has to throw in another million soldiers from around the world and thereby FORCE Iraq to be a secure place, or the US has to cut a deal with the Islamic Clerics to obtain peace and security by another means.
First of all, what’s this crap about how all the Iraqis hate the U.S. and want them out? This is a distortion at best, a flat-out lie at worst. You’re all operating under the assumption that the U.S. is facing a hostile population in Iraq. A better read of the situation is that there are a bunch of insurgents in the country - some from the ex-Baathist regime who have lost their perks, possibly even a nascent guerilla force being run by Saddam or other high-level regime members still at large, and probably a good number of fighters from outside of Iraq. It may also be true that there is dissatisfaction with the pace of reconstruction. But hell, you can find dissatisfaction with the government in Des Moines. Doesn’t mean civil war is about to erupt.
Put it in perspective. There are 175,000 Americans walking around in Iraq. Patrolling streets, manning checkpoints, etc. A handful have been shot. If the civilian population was truly in an uproar about the U.S., don’t you think that number would be a teensy bit higher?
The fact is, if you get away from a few trouble spots, the average Iraqi is ecstatic that the U.S. invaded. No, they don’t want a permanent occupation (who would?), but they also don’t want the U.S. to leave.
The breakdown is that 51% of Iraqis want the U.S. to stay, while another 25% want them to stay only until an interim government is formed (does that mean that 51% want the U.S. to stay indefinitely?)
The article goes on to point out that the vast majority think that the reconstruction is going poorly (94%), and should be done better. Another 73% think that the U.S. has done a poor job of restoring security.
Now think about those numbers: 94% of the people think that reconstruction is going poorly, and 73% think that security is a problem. And yet, 76% of the people want the U.S. to stay!
How do you reconcile the two? Simple: The average Iraqi thinks that the U.S. occupation, flawed as it is, is better than any realistic alternatives. They are frightened of the Islamists, and don’t want to be a theocracy. They do not trust their own leaders. They don’t trust other Arab nations, who looked the other way as Saddam destroyed the country and oppressed the people.
Now, if 76% want the U.S. to stay even though they see a lot of problems, think of the opportunity for the U.S. here - if they can get security in place, and more importantly can get food and money into the average Iraqi’s hands and restore the infrastructure, public opinion in Iraq towards the U.S. is going to be overwhelmingly positive.
This is not a scenario leading to quagmire. There is still plenty of opportunity to turn Iraq into a glowing success story.
Of course, the U.S. could still screw it up royally. I have little faith in government management. But to claim that the people hate the U.S. and want them gone, as you guys are painting, is just flat-out ridiculous.
For example:
The correct description is, “We’ve put them in charge of rebuilding a country full of people who are extremely happy to be liberated, but who are wary of the future.” Or, “We’ve put them in charge of rebuilding a country with a serious security problem - a bunch of ex-regime people are still causing trouble, and the region is full of militant nutbars, some of whom have made their way to Iraq and are now causing trouble.”
And BTW, the U.S. military is STILL very, very good at infrastructure reconstruction. It’s the political side they suck at. Which is why Bush pulled Jay Garner and installed a civilian administrator.
The only way out, is through. Iraq pretty much has to end up a spotless, shiny example to the world, esp. the Arab world or else the detrimental effects of US invasion and occupation will be all that’s seen. In the end, this outcome would leave th eUS more vulnerable to terrorist attacks by increasing the number of potential recruits, and consequently, the number of potential terrorist actions. If that happens, then the whole invasion is pretty much been in vain.
If Iraq doesn’t end up in excellent shape, (adequate or good will not do), the negative perceptions of the US and US foreign policy re: the ME will continue to grow. The only way to get from here to there is a massive commitment. I know that the Bush admuins initially said that we could be in and out in a relatively short period of time- but nobody got them pinned down as to what the time period was relative to.
If some pre-war estimates are correct we have been committed to a decade of a large military presenxce in Iraq and somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 000 000 000 USD. A budget buster bomb. There’s not really any turning back now though.
That’s funny Sam, because I always more or less despise your assumptions, being rather fantastical and absurd in general.
Crap?
Well, distortion is perhaps not inaccurate if the claim advanced is that all Iraqis want the US out right now, as best one can tell from a country with no reasonable means to judge popular opinion on a truly national scale.
However, it seems fairly accurate to note that acceptance of a US presence is highly limited and bounded, and that a significant percentage of the population would like the US to bugger off as soon as an Iraqi gov is in place, which they want right soon.
It is Sam, it is. Pretty fucking clear actually for those not sucking down CENTCOM glurge.
However the hostility is still manageable and changeable.
Yes, indeed party line from CENTCOM.
Nice job you’ve done there, regurgitating the CENTCOM line, it’s an attractive just so story for those who know nothing of the country or culture, that would be people like you (who as I recall innocently thought the reconstruction numbers were encouraging…).
The reality if one stitches together what’s reported suggests something rather more problematic.
Certainly the cited folks play a role, but as the recent massacre of British troops highlights, a significant risk profile is the issue of revenge killings, blood debt and honor in Iraq.
US troops barging into private houses is a signficant and major issue for the conservative Iraqi, it defiles his home and his family and puts him in a dishonorable position. Taking a whack at the foreign clods who do that is a part of honor, show you’re a real man. The fact that the US doesn’t have many Arabic speakers or specialists capable of sorting out the crap information from the real information, or even helping the poor bloody grunts understand what’s going on around them doesn’t fucking help.
Further to that, the youv’e got the dynamic of deep frustration based on entirely unrealistic expectations on the part of Iraqis, above all those from the formerly priv. groups who already feel moderately humiliated by the national loss and the subsequent ‘faouda’ or chaos that swept and remains the general state.
You’ve advanced the ignorant ass opinion the present occupation is better for the Iraqis. Tell that to the folks who no longer have jobs, subject to carjackings and unbounded violence. The security blanket that was the Iraqi state before had, if nothing else, predictability. Keep your head down, don’t mix politics and religion and Sadaam, and you’re not likely to hit trouble. That’s the social compact of dictatorships – seen it bloody often enough – can be comfortable in a sick sort of way, and has less of the terror of never knowing if one is going to get carjacked, shot to hell by a US patrol sold on the idea you’re Baathi by a neighbor you hate and hates you… etc.
At present, things are shit, and they bloody well have to get better.
This ain’t fucking Kansas and it ain’t Middle of the Plains Canada either.
Oh, dissatisfaction in Des Moines is the benchmark Sam, well that is a fine and rich little analogy. Why it’s perfect, for Des Moines has all the same issues and problems… Right, Des Moines has a history of coup d’etats, has a history of police states, repression, inter-ethnic violence rising to the level of civil war, is a city awash in weapons – not little howdy doody hunting rifles but nice military arsenal level stuff including anti-tank weapons, mines, explosive, military assault rifles. And of course Des Moines has a history of anti-Western nationalism with deep popular roots running back to a colonial occupation by the British, and further Des Moines also has traditions of blood feuds such that the clan of the killed to preserve its honor has to kill some of the group of the person or persons who killed a member of the clan. Oh yes, Des Moines has gone from near total security to complete chaos, and well some people just wrote their aldermen…
Yes, Sam, a perfect fucking benchmark that really shows clear and analytical thinking on this issue. You’ve burrowed down to the heart and discovered Iraqi dissatisfaction is nothing problematic at all, after all it’s just like Des Moines.
Brilliant. You’ve a bright career ahead of you with the Bush White House planning national reconstruction. It’s worked so bloody well for them so far.
The reality is that Iraqi discontent is a serious fucking concern and a serious fucking problem insofar as the famous"Coalition of the Willing" aka the US and Britian and some minor players barely able to pony up soldiers, have highly limited legitimacy in the Arab world and the window of opportunity to change opinions – as the British realize having run into this dynamic before in the colonial admin – is closing.
As such, this “Coalition” had better start getting resources mobilized better and faster.
Put it to you this way, Sam my dear fine Canadian who’s never seen the region, your analysis is shit.
The organization in question is an American Chamber of Commerce, but doesn’t require membership for this access.
There is also a dialy but non-archived update on CENTCOM, however I have been unable to access this for about 2 weeks - in addition the UN Center on security coordination has stopped since about 2 weeks sharing it’s security briefs. No doubt a coincidence.
Estatic? Give me a fucking break. You still suckered for the statue shot? Well, I guess the reality is there is a sucker born every minute, and somebody somewhere has to believe the CENTCOM spin. That would be Sam and December, the “All’s Well in Iraq” spinmeisters.
Good start, although you go off on a funny little Sam Spin (reminicent of your pre-war “wondering” if the Shiites would want the US to stay in Iraq w/bases…), such engaging wide eyed innocence.
We’ll take this for the moment, although either way, on the positive points and on the negative points, I would warn a degree of caution is needed insofar as polling was unknown before Sadaam and it will take some time before free expression is an actual habit, if ever.
Ah the Sam wise deliberate misreading of the poll.
The poll reported, Sam my man, that 51 percent wanted the US to stay until a permanent government is formed, 25 percent until an interim government is formed. The remainder, from other reporting, it is clearer, want to the US to go. Just about no support for a permanent presence.
Well, they’re spot on in that opinion.
Until an Iraqi government is in place, and generally speaking from the poll information published here, that means right fast – although there was an expressed preference for a technocratic government over a political government.
Simple. Yes, indeed, always simple to Sam. I suppose it’s always fairly simple when one has such a radically simplified set of information upon which one extrapolates lovely little fantasies. Comforting they are, precisely the kind of khayali crap that got the Admin in trouble, however.
It is indeed likely true for the time being that especially the religious Shiites see the US as a temporary ‘wind-break’ against a Baathist revival, insofar as it’s the Baath core in the Sunni Arab heartland where most of the arms and regime support were found, and where at present the population seems most disposed to armed resistance. No surprise really, loss of privs, collapse of the economy, American soldiers’ lack of understanding of cultural norms, weeks of getting rubbed the wrong way, clan-based revenge traditions. All a wonderful fucking soup.
However there’s no basis for your khayali assertion in re the ‘Islamists’ – indeed the Shiite Islamists are the core of civil society in the Shiite regions, the only places with a semblance of order and calm in the Arab Iraqi region, nor have I heard anything from Iraqis in re the other Arab nations… but then this is right up there with your wish-fulfilment assertion that everyone would be turning on the French and Russians by now, for their ‘support’ of Sadaam.
And they lived happily ever after, and the boy got the girl, and all’s well that ends well.
Whatever Sam, your knowledge of the political dynamic here is shit. Shit and more shit.
A best case scenario – and I give you this as someone who speaks to Iraqis, real ones from all walks of life and religions, is a beneficient neutrality on the US on a political scale. Not overwhelmingly positive, which is a fucking fantasy, but not overwhelmingly negative. Of course that itself is quite a lot of progress.
Yeah, sure there is. Plenty of fucking opportnities.
The current Administration simply needs to start doing things right and mobilize the resources. Of course you Sam my Man, think that the numbers are not a problem still, don’t you? yeah, no problem at all attracting as much FDI to Iraq as all the region plus Africa gets. No fucking problem at all. Just like the financial system was in fine shape.
No, it is not flat out ridiculous, it’s far closer to the truth that your little regurgitation of CENTCOM spin.
Now, I have to get back to doing the real work on this.
