Lounsbury on Iraq & MENA: War, Politics, Economy & Related Questions

Great Debates
381

Well, the question you have to let yourself be asked then is: Why don’t you go out and ask one? See, my family is friends with a family of Iraqi Kurds. There’s Iraqi societies all over the place. And during the regular demonstrations here in Germany, you can see plenty of Iraqi expats march with signs ‘Down with Saddam - No war’. Their views, as given in interviews in the media, are pretty much in line with what Collounsbury said. It would be good if Saddam were gone, but not this way. The Kurds have more difficult views of the issue, on the other hand greeting any means to get rid of Saddam, but wary of any US involvement in the deal, and especially of getting shafted once more in the end.

As I said previously, access to information doesn’t mean it is being used.

382

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo *
But now, just 23 years later, Serbia it would seem is forcefully committed to the 5 Golden Ideals of Stable Society as I like to refer to them - and this is just what, 4 years after the Kosovo era?

[QUOTE]

Wow, I think Zoran Djindjic would disagree with you.
Serbia has still quite a long way to go, if they keep turning
back to old totalitarian methods:
http://hrw.org/press/2003/03/serbia032503.htm

383

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mazirian *
**

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo *
But now, just 23 years later, Serbia it would seem is forcefully committed to the 5 Golden Ideals of Stable Society as I like to refer to them - and this is just what, 4 years after the Kosovo era?

Well, the article is already a couple of days old. I might of course be mistaken, but I expect that the state of emergency will soon be cancelled, since both the assassin and those ultimately behind the assassination have been arrested or killed by now. The far more serious problem, I think, is the fact that the assassination happened at all, showing that some questionable elements still have means to destabilize the country.

384

Randy Spears of Sweden asks about the US public’s tolerance of US military casualties.

This is a matter of speculation, IMO. I would say that W is fairly casualty-averse, judging from his heavy reliance on special op folks when Bin Laden was cornered in Bora Bora. But since we haven’t sustained large number of military casualties since the Vietnam war this is unclear.

Straws in the wind
One post 911 Pew survey suggested that conventional wisdom are overestimates US public aversion to casualties. But one might take such telephone surveys with a grain of salt.

Ludvack (sp?) claims that all societies with low birth rates are casualty-averse. Including the US and the former USSR.

Another neo-con character has recently stated that Americans are averse to losing, but not to dying. But I heard no compelling substantiation for that claim.

Israel/Palestine
Well, there is a heavy Jewish lobby in Washington. Certain Christian fundamentalists also publicly support Israel for somewhat obscure reasons. However, I strongly suspect that American Jewish opinion cuts both ways on the settlement issue. Furthermore, the lobbyists can be stared down when central American security interests arise: for example, Bush Sr. was able to sell AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia, despite the lobby’s objections.

The idea of stopping Israeli settlement building is advocated by Friedman of the New York Times. I suspect that a sufficiently interested Democratic or Republican administration could push this: whether the current group would pursue such a plan is less clear.

I also find it difficult to imagine Israel pulling out of the West Bank 100% in the foreseeable future (as they admittedly did in the Sinai). But that’s my nonexpert WAG.

385

quote:

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
And you know… I’ve been thinking about Ireland too… I mean, how, in the face of such stiff opposition, did peace ever break out in Ireland? And honestly, I purely put it down to this - a new generation arrived on the scene who were simply sick of the shit - on both sides. Maybe, that new generation first started soaking up information as eary as 1973 and then, 30 years later, enough of that generation were in positions of influence to actually make changes from the inside outwards. It’s not an unreasonable theory, for sure.

To which we might add the UK did not attempt to solve the problem through exclusive military means. It realised negotiations with unpleasant people was the only solution. If they’d attempted to bomb and machine gunn their way to peace NI would be like Beirut used to be by now.

386

Thanks flowbark!

I am interested also in how the “average joe” american views the Israel / Palestine conflict, in light of 11/9? How much work would it take to shift public opinion on this?

387

Please let me belatedly also welcome you back, Coll. (I will try to avoid fantasies about coitus with a menstrating female parent when dealing with in your current incarnation! ;))

It looks like the war is soon to enter Iraq’s “swamps”. Jibes made at Israel’s past efforts at urban warfare aside, they really had, IMHO, made a fairly reasonable but imperfect effort in Jenin to minimize noncombatant casualties … but real soldiers being real people human rights abuses occured … this with the seasoned highly trained IDF. In the larger urban environment of Baghdahd, with the larger numbers of combatants likely lurking, with the extreme fear of nontraditional weapons instilled in US troops, with the knowledge that guerilla and “terroristic” tactics are going to be the likely weapons of Iraq’s choice, and with the relatively slight US troop experience with operating under these conditions … you really think that there is a possibilty that the US will be able to avoid being internationally and regionally tarred with a “Massacre in Baghdahd” moniker if she does try her best (an open question)?

You have offered up the hope that this could come out well if handled exactly right from here out. I am sick to my stomach thinking that there is little hope of anything other than awful results even if handled perfectly from here. The US will not be able to avoid both significant civilian casualties and likely significant US military casualties in an urban conflict. (Unless she says to Hell with the civilian loss of life and bombs it flat … and as you have noted that would be more disasterous than the loss of life alone … or unless the arrogant fantasy of a popular civilian or military coup against the current leadership and a subsequent voluntary relinquishment of power to US forces would occur … something I think is as likely as my playing for the NBA)

Your informed POV at least gives me some hope that I am wrong. Thank you.

388

And as to the Israel/PA hijack. Randy, I think it would be easy to get Israel to give up settlements once Arafat is gone and a new PA leadership actually takes on the terrorist practices within their own ranks. I fear that the Iraq conflict will only strengthen the position and power of those in the PA who support terror and make moderation of the PA leadership more of an impossibility. Without that precondition no American pressure would force Israel in any way as the Israeli public’s perception (whether or not you agree with it) is that they tried the moderate approach with Barak and it failed miserably. Israel will not risk its percieved security no matter what pressure the US brought to bear.

389

Hi Dsaid, sorry for the hijack!

It was in some way related to Col:s prescription for a happy end to the Iraq venture. I don¨t really agree to the characterization of the Israel - Palestine conflict, and it¨s solution, but i¨ll save that for one of those threads. :slight_smile:

A quickie: Do you think that nothing, including a threat of withdrawal US military aid, would budge the Israeli government, save Exit Arafat?

390

Not if they percieve themselves to be under threat and percieve that their current actions reduce that threat. (Leaving the accuracy/inaccuracy of that perception alone for other threads) Arafat’s exit is not the point; real effort at reigning in terror tactics is and they percieve that Arafat will never do that. To tie this to the “happy end”, no, a US victory and lapdog installed as a “democratic” government in Iraq is not likely to spread Western-style secularism throughout the Mid-East and with it an end to the Israeli/PA conflict. Coll and Tamerlane are correct: secular style values will have to home grown in, how does Coll put it? Islam’s own idiom, to have a lasting effect. The current war understandably fosters hatred of the US and of Israel as its percieved “boy” (let alone the commonly held belief among many Arabs that Jews are controlling the actions of the US anyway … The Protocols of The Elders of Zion are alive and well in the Arab world)

Bush’s fantasy that the US will install a democratic government in Iraq that will spread the seed of secular democracy and result in peace across the region is no more realistic than is the fantasy that the people of Iraq will be showering American soldiers with flowers upon Sadaam’s overthrow.

391

I promised a couple bits of info on FSU Muslim perspectives on the Iraq war…I’ve been horribly derelict, I confess, but here’s a snippet from today’s RFE/RL Newsline (www.rferl.org)

“CHECHEN FOREIGN MINISTER AFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR WAR IN IRAQ
In a 2 April statement posted on chechenpress.com, Ilyas Akhmadov expressed regret that the UN Security Council failed to act unanimously to force the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He compared the sufferings of the Iraqi population with those of the people of Chechnya, and affirmed support for the U.S. military intervention in Iraq. Akhmadov added, however, that “justice should not be selective,” and that the war in Iraq should be paralleled by efforts to resolve the Chechen conflict. He called on the EU and the United States and other countries to take immediate measures to implement his proposal that Chechnya be granted “conditional independence” (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 20 March 2003). LF”

(I took a quick peek at chechenpress.org, and considering that one of the cover stories today expresses outrage at the continued genocide in Chechnya, and another one is on the creation of a war crimes tribunal for the Chechen conflict, the site sure isn’t a mouthpiece for the Russian-appointed Chechen administration.)

Dagestan: for the uninitiated, Dagestan lies within the Russian Federation, on the Caspian, east of Chechnya and just north of Azerbaijan. Most Dagestanis are Muslims, and Dagestan is home to some 60 or so indigenous ethnic groups (depending on how you define “ethnic group;” I’m using the Soviet census definition, which is based largely on self-designation by native language). A quick peek at “Dagestanskaya Pravda” (http://www.dagpravda.ru/) reveals front-page stories today entitled:

“Disarm America, above all, ideologically!”
“Judging ‘might makes right’ “
“A message from the Deputies of the People’s Assembly of the Republic of Dagestan to V.V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation, on world normalization of the Iraq crisis.” Synopsis: the deputies fear the destabilization of the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East at large, due to the unilateral exercise of force by the U.S.-led Coalition. They fear that such actions will damage the unity of the antiterrorist coalition, as well as their ability to address global problems, the peaceful resolution of regional armed conflicts, the struggle against terrorism and drug trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

(See? I knew I was a Dagestani in a past life! It would explain so many things…)

More later, I promise.

392

Randy Spears: IMHO the average American Joe is not particularly interested in foreign policy. This isn’t Europe, you know.

Furthermore, in 2-party democracies, it is the “swing voters” who matter. And only a small subset of the electorate will shift their support on the basis of the US’s stance towards Israeli settlement policy.

I suspect that the central challenge would be to persuade the sitting administration that there is a payoff for getting involved in the Arab/Israeli conflict. Given the time and effort that Clinton put into the problem, and the paltry results that he achieved, one can understand why W washed his hands of the conflict. (I’m not defending that POV: I’m merely providing one justification for it.)

393

Alternative (Recent) History

Ok, let’s say that France was publicly waiting for the next report by Hans Blix and that the Turkish Parliament had just voted to disallow US troop deployments.

The US issues a statement: “As always we reserve the right to invade Iraq when we feel like it, I mean should US security concerns blah blah blah.”

“However, we value the opinions of our friends and allies. We therefore postpone any invasion, for the time being.”

The US then plans for a summer/night-time invasion, or a Jan/Feb 2004 invasion, depending upon what the Joint Chiefs prefer. Turkey is also brought on board.

Q1: If, after due public consideration, France etc. supported a resolution for a May 2003 or Jan/Feb 2004 invasion, would that have made any difference in Iraq or in the Arab world? Or would they oppose any US invasion with equal intensity?

Q2: If not, what additional “diplomatic spadework” would make a difference? Be specific. For the sake of this argument, I’m assuming that Saddam’s WMDs are a serious medium term threat.

<<The above is an example of a “counterfactual”, btw. If you want to evaluate the significance of a certain event (here, the event is 2 particular diplomatic failures in Turkey and the UN Security Council) you trace the implications of not having the event occur. So I’m not merely jacking off here.>>

<<There are other benefits of delay. Specifically, if we took additional time to compromise the Al Qa’Ida network, Saddam’s ability to pass bioweapons to them would be lessened. Hi Cyberpundit. But that’s not what I’m asking about in this post.>>

394

Hey, Coll, what’s the opinion in the ME about that guy who helped rescue that POW from the hospital? Collaborator? Nice guy?

395

Sorry have to be brief, a lot in front of me presently. However an interesting question. I frankly can’t think of any real commentary on him. I’ll have to pay closer attention, the only thing I have noticed is some bitter commentary on the dearness of American lives compared to Iraqi lives, per what people see on CNN.

396

A word, the situation in the MENA region, once one knows it, does not defy rational explanation, rather one can clearly see the rational incentives for less-than-theoretically-optimal outcomes. It is not irrationality per se, but rooted disincentives.

397

If you look at the differences between

North Korea vs South Korea
East Berlin vs West Berlin (formerly)
China vs Tiwan
Russia vs US (formerly)
and many others

I think history has shown a government representative of the people is far better than dictatorships.

Has there been any country where freedom of choice was given up willingly to a dictator?

I think post-war Iraq will welcome a representative government and over time become the most prosperous in the region. I would never underestimate the power of personal freedom. Sure there will be some bumps in the road, but nothing impassible.

Now, in my opinion, America would not be over there if there had been no 9/11, no terriorists promotion and no other attacks.

I regret war, but it is not always avoidable. I pray for a swift and lasting peace in the region.

Love
Leroy

398

And participating from the twilight zone…

399

Col, count to ten (or a thousand) and just pick a different post to answer.

400

Don’t have time anyway, but it would be nice to have Gozu join me here. I’d like to hear him give me the scoop on M6 nowadays.