Maybe we should just let the Iranians have Iraq

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
That’s a hefty assumption there BrainGlutton, so, in your view, people in Iraq will be better off when the Coalition leaves, because all the checks and balances there will still continue right?
[/QUOTE]

Not at all.

There is already a Yugoslavia-scale civil war going on in Iraq.

If the Coalition leaves, the civil war will tear the country apart; and then things will settle down, as in Yugoslavia.

If the Coalition stays, the civil war will tear the country apart; and then things will settle down, as in Yugoslavia.

If the Iranians intervene, the civil war will tear the country apart; and then things will settle down, as in Yugoslavia.

I’m just thinking the third option will bring about the “settling down” phase a bit sooner with fewer lives lost.

[Ryan_Liam]

Not at all.

There is already a Yugoslavia-scale civil war going on in Iraq.

If the Coalition leaves, the civil war will tear the country apart; and then things will settle down, as in Yugoslavia.

If the Coalition stays, the civil war will tear the country apart; and then things will settle down, as in Yugoslavia.

If the Iranians intervene, the civil war will tear the country apart; and then things will settle down, as in Yugoslavia.

Assumptions aside, Iraq is not Yugoslavia. And Yugoslavia didn’t have various neighbours wanting to carve out puppet states to bring into there own orbit. Iraq does, about 5 of them.

As for your suggestions, then why should the Coalition leave and allow the country to be brought into the orbit of various autocracies and theocratic governments?

I’m just thinking the third option will bring about the “settling down” phase a bit sooner with fewer lives lost.

Fewer lives will be lost if the Coalition stays, even in a reduced presence than letting the entire place be carved up like a cake and washing our hands of it, which is what the undertones of this debate is sounding like.

An “American” who wants to see the United States divided and does his best to accomplish that end?

I’m just stressing that even though he lead the Confederacy, he considered himself American. That’s a nationalist element there.

And Iraqis whose highest loyalty is to sect or tribe? So where does Iraq nationalism come in?

Like in all sectarian or civil conflicts, nationalism remains, but it’s defining role becomes blurred. I’m sure alot of Iraqis aren’t working towards a national interest, and have loyalties to tribe/sect, but alot do still consider themselves Iraqis.

It would seem that US supporters of the Iraq mission want a united Iraq a lot more than does a significant portion of the indigenous population of that area.

Huh? Even that scumbag and scourge of the US, Al Sadr, considers himself an Iraqi Nationalist. Also, having self autonomous regions or a federalised state doesn’t mean there’s no national loyalty. I could say that for various Middle Eastern or South Asian states. The only factor lacking in all this is political backing.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Assumptions aside, Iraq is not Yugoslavia. And Yugoslavia didn’t have various neighbours wanting to carve out puppet states to bring into there own orbit. Iraq does, about 5 of them.
[/quote]

No, only Iran. Turkey wants no part of it – they’ve got enough of a Kurdish problem already. And why would SA, Syria or Jordan want the trouble of trying to rule over all those rebellious Shi’ites? Even the “Sunni Triangle” wouldn’t look all that attractive to them.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
As for your suggestions, then why should the Coalition leave and allow the country to be brought into the orbit of various autocracies and theocratic governments?
[/quote]

Because that’s better than what they’ve got now and better than anything we are going to be able to give them.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Still thought of himself as American I bet though?
[/quote]
No, as a *Virginian * first, just as I suspect Sadr thinks of himself as Shiite first. Lee ultimately decided to defend his own *state * - *that * was what commanded his highest loyalty. The US was generally thought of at the time as a federation, not a nation, just as Iraq has always been a federation as well - and federations can be dissolved by the consent of their partners.

Just to show, you might have two opposing ideologies of how a country should be run, but still adhere to a nationalist notion that you’re ‘American’ or ‘Lebanese’

The opposing ideologies in the Civil War were about each state’s ability to allow or prohibit slavery within its borders, not about how ‘the country should be run’. There was little conception in the South that ‘the country’ could overrule what they wanted to do. See the analogy yet? It took over 600,000 deaths to end slavery and establish that the US was a single nation.

Now, where is that concept of nationhood among Iraqis that you seem confident will ultimately keep it together? Has it ever existed before, even without significant sectarian tensions? What’s going to create it?

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
The US was generally thought of at the time as a federation, not a nation, just as Iraq has always been a federation as well - and federations can be dissolved by the consent of their partners.
[/QUOTE]

Well, Iraq has never been a real nation in an ethnocultural sense – but in a constitutional sense it was a unitary state, not a federal state, at all times from its formation after WWI to the 2003 invasion.

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
No, as a *Virginian * first, just as I suspect Sadr thinks of himself as Shiite first.
[/QUOTE]

As an Arab Shiite, though. There’s a lot of anti-Persian sentiment in Iraq, even among Shiites. Remember, it wasn’t just Sunnis in Iraq’s army who died in the war with Iran, and the government portrayed the war as an Arab-Persian one. If Iran invades Iraq, the people will fight them.

[Ryan_Liam]

BrainGlutton
No, only Iran. Turkey wants no part of it – they’ve got enough of a Kurdish problem already. And why would SA, Syria or Jordan want the trouble of trying to rule over all those rebellious Shi’ites? Even the “Sunni Triangle” wouldn’t look all that attractive to them.

It’s irrelevant of them ‘not wanting to have a part in it’ because they will be drawn into it regardless of their opinions. If Shias welcomed Iranians into Iraq, then went onto persecuting the Sunni minority, then it would be the mission of the neighbouring Sunni countries in the West, to support the Sunni community in Iraq to defend itself from the Shias. So in essense you’d have Sunnis on one side receiving support from their neighbouring states, and Shias from the east receiving the same. So they’d both be in ideologically oppossed camps set against each other, but not the main producer of weapons or of funding, there’s one phrase for that, proxy war.

As for Turkey, it’s approach is different sometimes, they do the usual talking and fighting, as do the Kurds. Besides, the Kurdish leadership in Erbil isn’t going to allow the excuse for Turkey to invade by allowing the PKK to run rampant over its territory, hence why Kurdistans leadership wants a united Iraq, because it knows if it were independent now, it would be virtually isolated, and even more at a disadvantage because it’s landlocked between two large regional powers with siginificant Kurdish populations.

Because that’s better than what they’ve got now and better than anything we are going to be able to give them.

I thought the whole Iraq enterprise was supposed to limit our support and get them self sufficient so they relied on themselves, not anyone else. Also, I doubt the other ideologies and systems of government in the ME, autocracy and theocracy, would be able to put a damper on the violence currently going on now.

Plus you still haven’t theorised what would happen in Baghdad, I’d like to know how the Iranians would solve that one.

Captain Amazing
As an Arab Shiite, though. There’s a lot of anti-Persian sentiment in Iraq, even among Shiites. Remember, it wasn’t just Sunnis in Iraq’s army who died in the war with Iran, and the government portrayed the war as an Arab-Persian one. If Iran invades Iraq, the people will fight them.

I agree, they’d use the same sentiment to fight against us as they would against the Iranians, sure, they welcome their help, but troops in their backyard taking over the show for themselves, then they’d experience the same scenario the Coalition is.

ElvisL1ves
Now, where is that concept of nationhood among Iraqis that you seem confident will ultimately keep it together? Has it ever existed before, even without significant sectarian tensions? What’s going to create it?

Alot of Iraqi expats, regardless of their religion, define themselves still as Iraqi. Take for instance Afghanistan, after 30 years of civil war, many people, regardless of which ethnic group they come from or divisions, consider themselves Afghan people. Same thing applies to Iraq in some sorts.

One things for sure, Saddam helped cement some sorts of Iraqi nationalism on the population during the Iraq Iran war, in order to counter the appeal of Shiite Islamism in Iran.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
It’s irrelevant of them ‘not wanting to have a part in it’ because they will be drawn into it regardless of their opinions. If Shias welcomed Iranians into Iraq, then went onto persecuting the Sunni minority, then it would be the mission of the neighbouring Sunni countries in the West, to support the Sunni community in Iraq to defend itself from the Shias. So in essense you’d have Sunnis on one side receiving support from their neighbouring states, and Shias from the east receiving the same. So they’d both be in ideologically oppossed camps set against each other, but not the main producer of weapons or of funding, there’s one phrase for that, proxy war.
[/quote]

Yes, a grim situation. Still, better than what they’ve got now, and better than anything they will accept at our hands. Besides, I very much doubt the Saudis or the Syrians have enough fellow-feeling for the Iraqi Sunni as co-religionists to come to their aid, unless there is some definite material advantage to be gained, and none comes to mind. Both governments have enough problems at home.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
As for Turkey, it’s approach is different sometimes, they do the usual talking and fighting, as do the Kurds. Besides, the Kurdish leadership in Erbil isn’t going to allow the excuse for Turkey to invade by allowing the PKK to run rampant over its territory, hence why Kurdistans leadership wants a united Iraq, because it knows if it were independent now, it would be virtually isolated, and even more at a disadvantage because it’s landlocked between two large regional powers with siginificant Kurdish populations.
[/quote]

Does the PKK even matter any more? And from what I’ve heard in the news, a lot of Iraqi Kurds (perhaps not the leaders) do want an independent state – so long as it includes Kirkuk and its oilfields.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I thought the whole Iraq enterprise was supposed to limit our support and get them self sufficient so they relied on themselves, not anyone else.
[/quote]

:rolleyes: Yes. It was supposed to. And General Garner might have been able to pull it off, if allowed to do it his way. But he was replaced by Paul Bremer, who committed every imaginable blunder, including dissolving what remained of the civil government and disbanding the Iraqi army, with the results that (1) Iraq was suddenly full of resentful unemployed men with military training and (2) the apparatus of government had to be rebuilt from the ground up, a process the insurgents have made impossible. (You can read the story here.) It’s too late now. The pooch can’t be unscrewed.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Plus you still haven’t theorised what would happen in Baghdad, I’d like to know how the Iranians would solve that one.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose they might position themselves as the Sunnis’ protectors against the Shi’a, as empires often do with their subject peoples. It was the rule of the Turk that allowed Jews and Muslima and Christians in Ottoman Palestine to co-exist in relative peace.

Remember also that the Iranians are better suited than the Americans to long-term rule (and should be obvious by now that long-term foreign rule is inescapable) over Iraq. At least they aren’t infidels, like we are. They’re part of the same complex of Middle Eastern civilizations. Most Iranians have some knowledge of Arabic – you have to know it to study the Koran (which Muslims never study in translation), and they write their own language with Arabic letters. Better the devil you know – and the Iraqis know the Iranians better than they will ever know us; it’s like we come from a different planet.

[Ryan_Liam]

Yes, a grim situation. Still, better than what they’ve got now, and better than anything they will accept at our hands. Besides, I very much doubt the Saudis or the Syrians have enough fellow-feeling for the Iraqi Sunni as co-religionists to come to their aid, unless there is some definite material advantage to be gained, and none comes to mind. Both governments have enough problems at home.

Problems abroad in the Middle East become problems at home if left unchecked, since public ire would be directed towards the Saudi and Jordanian governments to do something about the persecution of the Sunnis in Iraq. So your assumption there is wrong on them not doing anything about it, because it will force there hand to do something anyway.

I clearly don’t see how it could be much better to dump the problem onto regional neighbours when clearly the only way to get Iraq stablised it to prevent the two communities from retreating into two heavily armed hostile camps and destroying the political processes which can avert a future civil war. Won’t happen if Iran takes charge.

Does the PKK even matter any more? And from what I’ve heard in the news, a lot of Iraqi Kurds (perhaps not the leaders) do want an independent state – so long as it includes Kirkuk and its oilfields.

There’s a reason for cross border raids by Turkey into Iraq. Kurdish rebels have been using Iraqi Kurdistan as a base of operations.

Yes. It was supposed to. And General Garner might have been able to pull it off, if allowed to do it his way. But he was replaced by Paul Bremer, who committed every imaginable blunder, including dissolving what remained of the civil government and disbanding the Iraqi army, with the results that (1) Iraq was suddenly full of resentful unemployed men with military training and (2) the apparatus of government had to be rebuilt from the ground up, a process the insurgents have made impossible. (You can read the story here.) It’s too late now. The pooch can’t be unscrewed.

They’re all very valid points, however it’s still the mission of the Coalition within the country to make sure Iraq becomes a viable and self sufficient country, this would of been reduced if we hadn’t demolished the previous government, but now we’re stuck with knowing that.

I suppose they might position themselves as the Sunnis’ protectors against the Shi’a, as empires often do with their subject peoples. It was the rule of the Turk that allowed Jews and Muslima and Christians in Ottoman Palestine to co-exist in relative peace.

Ottomans combined with Arab Sunnis outnumbered the Christian and Jewish minority considerably, not to mention that the various Christian and Jewish communities in the Middle East were small minorities which couldn’t put up too much of a resistance to Ottoman rule.

As for ‘protector of Sunnis’ I doubt that highly. Only because Iraq which was Sunni dominated was a legacy of the Ottoman rule over the area and Shia subjigation.

Oh, I think you’ll find this an interesting read as well, since many Sunni insurgent organisations would most likely increase their violence against any Iranians who would cross the border to ‘protect’ Iraq.

Sunni Group Warns of Iranian Takeover of Iraq

Remember also that the Iranians are better suited than the Americans to long-term rule (and should be obvious by now that long-term foreign rule is inescapable) over Iraq.

You say it as if it’s able to be governed by foreign powers more effectively than the Coalition. Where is the basis or presumption that Iraqis, Shia and Sunni, would actively welcome any Arab or Persian neighbour to come and occupy there territory?

At least they aren’t infidels, like we are

Iraqis don’t like us because of our inability to provide adequate services or security, religious obligation isn’t too much of a factor.

In Kurdistan, where there are lots of Sunni Muslims, the population is generally ardently Pro-US, how would you factor the ‘infidels’ comment into this?

. They’re part of the same complex of Middle Eastern civilizations. Most Iranians have some knowledge of Arabic – you have to know it to study the Koran (which Muslims never study in translation),

So? Even if this is to be taken into account, how does this turn into support for an occupation not that different from what we’re supposedly doing now?

and they write their own language with Arabic letters. Better the devil you know – and the Iraqis know the Iranians better than they will ever know us; it’s like we come from a different planet.

I’m sure the Iraqis know the Iranians very well, wasn’t too long ago that millions died (Shia and Sunni) fighting against those very same people. To think Sunnis would welcome the Iranians as protecting them from the larger Shia Arab community is laughable.