Having conquered the country, we are responsible for the fucked up situation they are in over there. We cannot assume the white man’s burden of fixing up the place for them because we cannot know exactly what it is that the inhabitants of another civilization want. That’s their call. All we’re doing by staying is getting in the way of their taking care of their own business. Not surprisingly, they resent that. It’s condescending as hell.
Because an element of colonialism is a part of it, even if you don’t agree with it, a good chunk of Iraqis believe that when after the elections and the capture of Saddam we did not make a move on leaving, that meant that other reasons are at play on why we remain in Iraq.
Opposing the occupation is an important element of the insurgency, when today there is little control on how mush oil is officially extracted (meaning Iraqis have less revenue for their oil) denying that this is also happening and a part of the big mess is naive.
Incidentally I’m still in favor of leaving, but unlike India we have the advantage of still be capable of doing something to prevent sectarian violence, and I still believe that if Iraqis do not have complete control over their resources, why should they sacrifice when we are there controlling them? IMO once they do control their revenue and government then they will have something to lose and even though American troops would be out, we would still have the power to intervene, one big difference will be that big corporations that are there right now will not get the profits they are getting now, too bad.
‘We’ don’t get to try to fix it. George W. Bush gets to try to fix it. Frankly, I’d rather let Borat have a try.
As far as the potential ethnic cleansing goes, as I said @115:
Actually, I was offering this with little thought about whether or not it was a good policy. The thread title is “Is the situation in Iraq improving?” and this is just one more metric showing how bad it is.
Yet given the choice between the US leaving outright and leaving after the security vacuum has been filled, they always respond more favourably towards the latter, wonder why that is?
Same thing happened in Vietnam, an ARVN official asked an American officer why they were in Vietnam, he talked about how they wanted to make sure Vietnam remained free and have a future, so the ARVN offical asked the same question again, and got the same answer. Altruism is hard to understand for someone who’s country has a legacy of Colonialism, but the mission always remained the same.
Foreign Oil companies would get less than 15% of all the revenue they extract from Iraqi Oil wells, which incidentally, hasn’t stopped the Kurds in the north from signing Oil agreements with Norway DNO. Looks like that, and the combination of the fact that any Oil extraction will be done within federally autonomous regions of Iraq, why this is a bad thing, I don’t know.
They have control over their resources, but it comes down to everyone wanting an equal share, that’s a main contention, not to mention the complete political realignment since the invasion. You tell me what the Sunni Arabs in Iraq could have to contribute to the society since Saddams fall, and it’ll draw a blank, like I said, each community is trying to find it’s role its reasons why it’s part of Iraq, and what it can contribute after this is all over.
http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc050107CM.html
Oh yeah, just like pre-invasion, the oil belonged to all Iraqis and was governed by one man, Saddam Hussein, who you know gave provisions to the Russians and Chinese Governments for Oil exploitation.
Here’s the difference.
The draft oil law provides for the distribution of revenues from all current and future oil fields to regions or provinces based on population. That agreement was meant to assuage the fears of the Sunnis, who suspect that the Shiites and Kurds are conspiring to hoard oil wealth, which is concentrated in the areas they dominate.
The minority Sunni Arabs are at the heart of the insurgency against the Shiite-led government, and hold swaths of land in western and northern Iraq that produce little oil, though geologists believe there are substantial untapped reserves there.
The Sunnis have been pushing for centralized control of the oil industry to assure equitable distribution of the revenues, while the Kurds have favored strong regional control. The Shiites have fallen somewhere in between
**The Kurds held up cabinet approval of the draft law for months, seeking to ensure that it guaranteed maximum regional autonomy to sign oil contracts. They fear that the central government might steer exploration and development contracts toward the Shiite-dominated south, at the expense of other regions.
The Kurds recently discovered two fields in northern Iraq, after signing contracts with a Norwegian and a Turkish company. But on Wednesday the Iraqi oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, a Shiite, said at a conference in Saudi Arabia that any contracts signed by the Kurds before passage of the oil law were considered invalid and illegal, news agencies reported. **
In Erbil, Mr. Salih, the Kurdish spokesman, said the Kurdish contracts were legal and “had been prepared according to international standards and norms.”
The draft law approved by the Iraqi cabinet says regions may enter into contracts, but a powerful new central body called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would have the power to “prevent” the contracts from going forward if they did not meet certain standards. A panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq would advise the federal council on the contracts.
However given the average Iraqi citizens options, would you rather choose to either A) your entire community massacred or B) At least have the knowledge that outside forces are trying to do something to at least limit the amount of sectarian blood flowing in the country, which could precipitate into full blown civil war. If ‘taking care of their own business’ equals a complete repression and maybe explusion of an entire sectarian group, then it’s our business to stay since it was our call to go in and invade that country.
White mans burden my ass, this is a Humanitarian burden. You know, Human compassion?
Not with the four year track record of fuckups we’ve amassed. One needs credibility to effect improvements. We have none. Pretending that we do, while continuing to screw the pooch is part of the white man’s solemn burden, and a big part of the reason the concept is so reviled.
So why care as to whether Iraqis kill themselves as you so eloquently pitted me about? Since you lump it as GWB’s problem, then he has to deal with it and it has ‘nothing’ to do with ‘us’
US and Iraqi political manouvering in the Anbar province allowed them to capitalise on the grievances of many of the Tribal sheiks to proclaim the ‘Anbar Salvation council’ and actually organise themselves to fight Al Queda. Whilst it might be correct in the assertion that the insurgents don’t need to win, just not lose, the other assetion can be made to say that all the Iraqi government needs to do is limit the insurgent violence down to a minimum it can handle.
Which brings me to the question: Why withdraw and make it worse?
So in order to effect improvements, it’s impossible for said person in office to reverse their stance and somehow salvage something positive for the Iraqis and Coalition forces in order to provide stability and some fucking chance of political rapproachment? Like I said, White man’s burden my ass. It sounds like you’re lamenting the strategy put in place now to reduce violence, increase political reconciliation, yet if this hadn’t been implemented, you wouldn’t of cared either way.
You can’t make up for years of bad strategy by staging a minor tactical shift. Our bad rep among the Iraqis is already set in stone. It sucks to fail, but it sucks even more to deny the fact of that failure. Putting aside the current ‘said person in office’ and looking to the next person in office; they won’t be able to salvage anything either. It’s America’s reputation that’s been damaged, not just a single politician’s.
I just assumed you would be able to follow along with the simile. My mistake. I’ll be more direct:
We’ve spent four years trying to fix the things that we’ve broken. There comes a time when we need to acknowledge that we might not be able to fix them. Just because we “should” fix the problems, doesn’t mean we “can”.
I’m definitely not arguing that it’s “got nothing to do with us” - you’re absolutely right. We went in, we broke things, we should fix them. A lot of us seriously doubt that we can actually succeed with that task, though, considering the progress we’ve made so far.
LilShieste
Do you believe that is not yet happening already? Every single time the question gets asked “How much worse could it get?”, it goes unanswered. Perhaps you can end the streak.
Are you also with the crowd that thinks “It’s fixable, and here’s a *realistic * way to do it”? Maybe not, because there aren’t enough members in it to constitute a crowd, and perhaps for good reason. Perhaps you can tell us how? or even what “fixing it” means, beyond a comforting slogan? Or is simple obstinacy the only thing you dwindling ranks of supporters have left to hold onto?
Wait, wait, hold the presses!
Ooo, they have a plan! Things should be turning around any minute now.
Aaaaaaaaaany minute now.
–taps watch–
Mmm hmmmmmmmmm.
Do you ever stop and think what you are saying? It is indeed bad because that does not fit with the official plan that Iraq should be kept together to then claim “victory”.
It is worse when one sees in your same post later that the rest of the Iraqis told the Kurds that they will consider those deals null and void.
And I see you are ignoring that it is the unfairness of the oil deals that is a part of what is fueling the unrest.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/1514255
One item to keep an eye, even today: oil meters.
What Petraeus is doing is a major shift in counter insurgency strategy, where as before the Coalition was emphasising quick sweeps and retreats to large bases outside city limits, there’s been a reversal of this and an added emphasis of maintaining a constant presence in insurgent hotbeds, and working towards trying to influence local political leaders to shift position, which is exactly how the Anbar salvation council came about. Taking into consideration that some of these people were shooting at US soldiers a few months back, it’s a remarkable turnaround in some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq.
Sunni Tribal Chieftains rally against Al Queda
And if it takes longer than four years? I know for instance that the administration and some others expected instant results following the downfall of Saddams regime, however, since this is not the case, why say that because it’s been only four years, that somehow this is too long a time to resolve Iraqs problems. Even most counter insurgency strategists agree that most insurgencies burn themselves out within 10 years, which leaves us 6 more years to resolve most of the political fall out within Iraq. Besides, who said wars had to be done on a set timetable? So when we hit the 4 year mark we’re supposed to leave? Why? Would you say the same about Afghanistan?
Exactly, we’ve set up a shaky government which has been elected by it’s people, we should be there resolved to commit ourselves to ensure that that Government eventually has the ability to stand up on its own two feet. If we withdrew, regardless of the time involved upto this point, I’d see it as we did a half assed job of restoring security and some semblence of order within Iraq. So in effect, by withdrawing, without proper support for Iraqi security and economic construction, we’d be setting them and ourselves up for failure.
Let’s consider the implications of an immediate withdrawal of Coalition support to the Iraqi government, which is, I agree, already fractured, the implications could be that by withdrawing, without having security within most of the country established, would be allowing Al Queda to manipulate to the maximum advantage, the security situation in the country. If it were just insurgent groups who were nationalistic, fine, they have a chance of some rapproachment within a post occupation Iraq, however, since Al Queda is a pan Islamic movement, why would they immediately lay down their arms to a Government they consider full of heretics, and what would stop them with their absolute disregard for anything but absolute brutality, in taking over major areas of Western Iraq, and God forbid, Sunni portions of Baghdad completely?
What slogan is that? The Neo-con ‘stay the course’ which so many have labelled me as? like I said before on this board, I’d even support phased withdrawal if it meant tangible results in Iraqi security are apparent. Other than just withdrawing outright, what’s your credible solution to our forces in Iraq?
So federally administered autonomous regions aren’t considered a victory? The Iraqis wrote that constitution themselves, and since what they want is considered a large part of our victory, why should we deny them this? None of them are screaming for independence (with the exception of the Kurdish North) and the ones that have realise their geo-political limitations.
Something that will eventually be resolved through dialogue, compared to ethnic cleansing (Kirkuk)
In which the majority of the oil law is being done through political talk, rather than fighting. It’s not even been implemented as law yet, only a draft law.
It’s got everything to do with us, but that doesn’t give us control.
No matter how much we care about the welfare of the Iraqi people, the only things we can do are (a) let Bush do what he wants to do (which has a proven negative track record with respect to the welfare of Iraqis), or (b) force withdrawal on him.
There isn’t an option (c) where Bush is immediately replaced by a wise, humane, and honest President who we can trust to try to do what’s best for the Iraqi people.
No matter what you feel, you have to determine whether (a) or (b) is more likely to be worse for Iraq over the coming years. I believe (a) is. You’re welcome to argue that (b) is, but for you to suggest that because I argue for (a) means I don’t care about the Iraqi people is bullshit.
I’m not sure I understand this as a reply.
Again, you have failed to address my point. (In addition to making the debatable assumption that things will get worse if we withdraw.)
The fact that it remains a failed state does not lead to all this. By remaining there and deciding who are the ones that could lead them the US is indeed denying them that.
The ethnic cleansing is happening right now.
Fig leaf, only by being completely independent from a foreign power is when they will deal properly with those foreign powers. And it does remain an embarrassment that even that deal has not been made yet.
I certainly won’t try to make the claim that nation building is a quick-and-easy task. If that’s all this situation actually was, I would be more understanding about the time frame.
The problem is that this administration has flailed about, in these last four years, with several “strategies” - none of which have shown any discernible success (hence why they’ve gone from one strategy to another, to another).
Personally, it leaves me with the impression that we’ve exhausted all of our viable strategies (if they ever existed), and are now simply trying out new, last-ditch efforts and “hoping for the best”.
And when we hit the 10 year mark, and the insurgency is still going strong, we’ll just continue to hear, “Any day now - insurgencies rarely ever last longer than this. It’s bound to die down really soon…”
Contrary to popular belief (well, the belief of the President, et al. anyway), timetables aren’t just a collection of arbitrary dates, plucked from thin air. Timetables are used to lay out a general plan for success/victory/whatever, establish workable benchmarks and deadlines, and track overall progress.
And to suggest that timetables are basically set in stone, no matter what happens, is just plain ludicrous. If the democrats had succeeded with their timetable bill (calling for troop withdrawal starting in October), and September came along showing some incredible progress - suggesting that if we were to stay an additional month or two, things would be vastly improved - it’s asinine to think that people would simply say, “Too bad. The timetable hath spoken.”
What if that’s simply not possible? What if we do a full-assed job, and still come up short? As I mentioned earlier: just because we are responsible for this mess, doesn’t mean we have the capabilities to actually fix it. We need to be able to identify our boundaries and make sure we don’t cross them - otherwise we’re not only “not helping” the situation, but we’re hurting ourselves in the process.
LilShieste
One thing we all should have learned by now is that there’s no such thing as unalloyed good news in Iraq. Every time were hear a piece of good news, we can be sure there’s a dark side lurking. In the case of the Sunnis in Anbar, the fly in the ointment is that they’re Saddam’s people. They’re not reconciled to the Shi’ites, who, as it happens are the main prop of the government that we’re somewhat tepidly supporting. No surprise that the tribes are happy to take weapons from the government and pretend to be part of the “national” army.
It would also be a mistake to assume that Al Qaeda will continue with its ill-advised strategy of targeting Sunni collaborators. I think they’ll probably realize that unless they can cut a deal with the tribes, they’ll be annihilated.
Here’s a further question to meditate: if all we want out of the Sunnis is to keep down Al Qaeda and resist Iranian influence among the Shi’ites, why did we get rid of Saddam again? He did a bang-up job at both.
Wrong. That’s a change in tactics. The *strategy * is the same it always has been, to hope the Iraqis somehow form a coherent national government on their own. But it’s easy to mistake the 2 very different words, since Commander Guy does so himself, and his propagandists are desperate to show he isn’t just staying the course that he so patently is staying, rather than even seriously consider the recommendations from the commission his Poppy’s people handed him.
Remarkably, the US death rate is increasing.
Then it won’t happen. That’s plenty of time for lines to harden, and plenty of time for them to soften too - if they’re going to. Remember, we were in and out of World War 2 in less time than that.
Only in the presence of a strong central government. But this isn’t an insurgency problem anymore, is it? It’s a civil war, with 3 groups each wanting to control at least part of the territory. Those burn out when they’re either won or lost, not before.
There ain’t no fuckin’ sign of that happening, is there? :dubious:
Not in Iraq, it isn’t. It’s a battle flag for the Sunnis.
Where do you get all this fantasy from, anyway?
Withdrawing outright IS the only credible thing we can still do.
Exactly, and its main purpose is to set up the partition that appears inevitable and well on its way.
Yes, why indeed are we trying to stop the partitioning process instead of facilitating it? Hmm, thinkthinkthink …
WTF? They’re bombing each other every day to get it. Seriously, where *do * you get these fantasies from?
Diplomacy? From this administration? Please.
What do you think are the chances it ever *will * be implemented, considering it hasn’t yet?
Really? Can you cite these counter insurgency strategists? Or recommend a book or two? I’d love to read one. Personally, I’m having difficulty seeing how one could make such a sweeping statement without a lot of qualifiers. I guess there could also be a very pedantic debate about what exactly counts as an insurgency or a guerilla war and what counts as one long war instead of two. But I can think of plenty of examples of insurgencies not just burning out.
Columbian insurgency – since the 60s.
Palestinian insurgency.
Lebanon Hezbollah against Israel since 1982, their public victory in 2000 with Israel’s retreat, still going on.
IRA – debatable (30 years?) but way longer than 10 years.
ETA in Spain – about 40 years, has been pretty quiet nowadays compared to the past but they bombed a building and killed 2 a couple months ago.
Good old Vietnam, 1947 to 1975 sounds about right.
Even when these things do end in around 9-11 years it’s not always a good thing for who they’re fighting against. Sometimes the insurgents win, like the USSR attempted occupation of Afghanistan (1979-1988) or the Algerian War of Independence, (1954-1962) which saw the exodus of a million Frenchmen after it became clear they weren’t welcomed in the new state. The brutal, under reported Nepalese Civil War, 1996-2006 ended late last year with concessions on both sides – and now the Maoist guerillas are in Parliament!
One recent conflict I can think of that fits your criteria is the Algerian Civil War which started in 1991 and sorta ended in 2000. There’s still some violence in the countryside but the insurgents were dealt a massive blow in 1999 and it’s pretty much over. But it’s not like they just gave up – they had to be killed or captured with their popular support cut out at the knee, along with a policy of amnesty to most guerillas and their supporters. Ditto the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century.
I’m sure there are other conflicts which would fit under your criteria but I honestly can’t think of any.
The most important aspect, in my mind, is the popular support angle. Has there ever been an insurgency quelled when a supermajority of the population (i.e. 2/3) of the population supports its cause? Because that’s what we’re facing right now in Iraq and it’s not clear to me if there’s any possibility of us making them switch sides. Such an endeavour seems analogous to putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Besides, there just isn’t much more than four years of support for this sort of fiasco. Even the Republicans, Boehner and Lott are talking of deadlines:
They DO NOT WANT to go into a big election year with a country sized Albatross draped around their necks.