''War'' in Iraq - Should it now be called something else?

[E-Sabbath]

Maintaining order. The opponents aren’t under any one flag, there’s a number of different reasons for the violence, from Iran to religion (Shia) to religion (Sunni) to crime (kidnapping or murder) to paybacks to tribal issues. So they’re not fighting a rebellion, exactly. I vote for policing.

[Henry-Finland]

@E-Sabbath

I disagree with occupation, because we are no longer in control of the country, at least in theory. Iraq has its own government, now. We are after the occupation, assisting a legitimate government.

So, if and when, the new government asks the coalition to leave, do you really think it will leave?

Henry

[E-Sabbath]

The-o-retically. But Germany hasn’t asked the US to leave yet, either.

[XT]

I don’t see the real need to call it something else…except that ‘occupation’ has a different spin that ‘war’ does. I suppose thats the point in asking this?

@Henry-Finland

So, if and when, the new government asks the coalition to leave, do you really think it will leave?

Who do you suppose WANTS to stay at this point? Even GW himself would look on it as a gift from god if the new government asked us to leave. We could then declare victory and he’d have an immediate rise in popularity as the troops came home. Think of all the photo ops and parades and shit.

-XT

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

Who do you suppose WANTS to stay at this point? Even GW himself would look on it as a gift from god if the new government asked us to leave. We could then declare victory and he’d have an immediate rise in popularity as the troops came home. Think of all the photo ops and parades and shit.

I doubt that. Haliburton and other American companies would lose all those no bid contracts, and I doubt the neocons want to give up those big military bases and control of the Iraqi oil. We’ll be there until the oil runs out, I expect.

[XT]

@Der Trihs

I doubt that. Haliburton and other American companies would lose all those no bid contracts, and I doubt the neocons want to give up those big military bases and control of the Iraqi oil. We’ll be there until the oil runs out, I expect.

I think you overestimate ‘Haliburton and other American companies’ impact on the current situation (besides…what, you think there aren’t myriad ‘no bid’ contracts worth billions HERE that couldn’t be given as a sop??) and underestimate the political shot in the arm it would be for the Republicans, especially Bush, to ‘bring the troops home’. Thats pure gold to the Republicans right now and could go along way in healing some of the hurt they have dealt themselves in the past 5 years. It could ensure they keep their majorities in the Senate and Congress ('06 is right around the corner), and might even win them another presidency. You seriously underestimate the impact of this on the polls. Think about this. Bush’s numbers have risen a touch from the abyss they were in a few months ago (at least last time I checked)…I think a lot of that is the fact that gas has dropped a bit in price. Imagine the impact on his numbers if he brought the troops home, then staged a bunch of parades and photo ops.

-XT

[Squink]

@xtisme

and underestimate the political shot in the arm it would be for the Republicans, especially Bush, to ‘bring the troops home’. Thats pure gold to the Republicans right now…

I caught ABC and CBS news on Rummy’s 7,000 troop reduction this evening. Administration flaks and newsies alike were in transports of ecstasy over it all.
Rumsfeld’s more significant statement of the day “At the moment, there are no plans for long-term bases in the country,” wasn’t mentioned on the tube. If true, that should tone down some of the no-bid bonanza theorists.

[Henry-Finland]

Shure they would leave. :rolleyes:

But it is not the revenues of some firms. The question is about ME and the “-stans”.

The Bush administration knows that the only thing shia and sunni agrees on, is that the coalition should leave.

Henry

[Henry-Finland]

@Squink

<snip>
“At the moment, there are no plans for long-term bases in the country,” wasn’t mentioned on the tube. If true, that should tone down some of the no-bid bonanza theorists.

(bolding mine)

Biginning a sentence with “At the moment”, you can tell anything about the future and it still would be true if you act differently tomorrow.

The source is “American Forces Press Service”, so I would not count of its objectivity.

Henry

[Henry-Finland]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1128-32.htm

Some polls have asked Iraqis specifically about the presence of U.S. troops, and guess what: They want us to leave.

A February poll by the U.S. military, cited by the Brookings Institution, found that 71 percent of Iraqis “oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq.” This poll was taken only in urban areas, but others have found much the same sentiment.

According to a January 2005 poll by Abu Dhabi TV/Zogby International, 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiite Arabs favor the withdrawal of U.S. troops either immediately or after an elected government is in place.

A nationwide poll taken by Iraqi university researchers for the British government found that 82 percent of all Iraqis surveyed in August are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops and 67 percent feel less secure because of the occupation, the Sunday Telegraph of London reported last month.

But an opinion poll does not carry the weight of a referendum, in which all Iraqis could clearly and definitively vote on whether or not U.S. troops should remain in their country.

This can be done: Kurdish activists organized a referendum on independence during the January national elections in Iraq, which found that more than 90 percent of Kurdish voters want independence for the region.

On Oct. 15, Iraqis voted in another referendum, to accept a new constitution.

1) This all is just polls, but have you seen DoD making/publicing any polls lately about this?
2) If the Bush administration would be so happy with the Iraqi opinion in this question, would we not have polls about it all over the media?
They usually publice even the smallest shit that strenghtens their agenda.

Henry

[Der_Trihs]

@Squink

I caught ABC and CBS news on Rummy’s 7,000 troop reduction this evening. Administration flaks and newsies alike were in transports of ecstasy over it all.
Rumsfeld’s more significant statement of the day “At the moment, there are no plans for long-term bases in the country,” wasn’t mentioned on the tube. If true, that should tone down some of the no-bid bonanza theorists.

Why ? These guys aren’t exactly known for honesty and trustworthyness. When I hear someone not connected with America state that we’re abandoning those bases, I’ll consider believing it. Until then, no.

[E-Sabbath]

Personally, I’m in favor of a long-term base in Iraq. But that’s neither here nor there.

[rjung]

“Bush’s folly.”

[First_Amongst_Daves]

The Economist a few months ago described how ther use of the the words “occupying powers” by Kofi Annan (in the context of reminding the occupying powers of their responsibilities as occupying powers) caused the US and the UK to bristle.

The “insurgency” is a guerilla war. If it is successful it’ll probably be called the War of Iraqi Liberation by the guerillas.

[Frank]

@ShibbOleth

It would have been called an Uprising, Rebellion or Revolt had it not been successful, perhaps. Might depend on the length of the conflict. But we did Declare Independence and set up a provisional government.

But we were, actually, in rebellion, even though 'twas a successfull rebellion. I don’t see how our invasion of Iraq, or the resistance of the Iraqi insurgents can in any way be compared to the British attempt to suppress our rebellion.

[ShibbOleth]

@Frank

But we were, actually, in rebellion, even though 'twas a successfull rebellion. I don’t see how our invasion of Iraq, or the resistance of the Iraqi insurgents can in any way be compared to the British attempt to suppress our rebellion.

I was responding to Rashak Mani’s comment about what our War of Independence would have been called had we lost. No, this does not compare.

@E-Sabbath

Personally, I’m in favor of a long-term base in Iraq. But that’s neither here nor there.

You’re right, it’s neither here nor there. But even if it does make long term sense (and it might have once, but it might not now), you don’t call it a “War” as long as we maintain a presence, do you? The war with Germany ended in May, 1945 but maybe officially in June, 1945. We occupied West Germany for sometime after. Now it’s no longer seen as an “Occupation” per se. More like an alliance. Not sure exactly when the shift there occurred, but not all that long ago in reality.

My point is that although Iraq has never officially surrendered to us, we’re not in an active war, more like a police and control action. If it is an active war, as some here contend, how do we now when it’s over?

[RTFirefly]

From Der Trihs’ link:

The secretary said the subject has not been discussed because until the most recent election, there was no one to speak with.

But if Bush, Rumsfeld & Co. had no desire or intention to base troops in Iraq once their current policing function is over, they could have said so all along, whether or not there was anyone on the Iraqi side to talk to about it.

In response to xtisme, I have no idea what Bush’s motivations are to stay in Iraq, anymore than I know why he wanted to invade in the first place. I’m not going to claim Halliburton, though; if the Bushies want to enrich Halliburton, there’s lots of other ways they can do that: they were quick off the mark in getting post-Katrina contracts, for instance.

I suppose what he wants is to leave in a way that makes us look like we actually ‘won’, whatever that would mean anymore. Trouble is, there’s no clear road to outcomes that would look like winning: the best he can probably hope for is a stable, pro-Iranian, Shi’ite-run state that enforces a strict brand of Sharia law in the Arab part of Iraq, and lets Kurdistan be de facto independent. So my guess is he’s probably going to keep serious numbers of troops in Iraq for the rest of his Presidency, so that he can blame the ultimate ‘loss’ of Iraq on his successor.

That’s just a theory, mind you, but it makes about as much sense as anything else I’ve heard.

[RTFirefly]

@RTFirefly

and lets Kurdistan be de facto independent.

I might’ve spoken too soon. [url=“http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/13495329.htm”]The Knight Ridder reporters are on the job again:
[/quote]

Posted on Tue, Dec. 27, 2005
Kurds in Iraqi army proclaim loyalty to militia
By Tom Lasseter
Knight Ridder Newspapers

KIRKUK, Iraq - Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

Five days of interviews with Kurdish leaders and troops in the region suggest that U.S. plans to bring unity to Iraq before withdrawing American troops by training and equipping a national army aren’t gaining traction. Instead, some troops that are formally under U.S. and Iraqi national command are preparing to protect territory and ethnic and religious interests in the event of Iraq’s fragmentation, which many of them think is inevitable.

The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn’t hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted.

“It doesn’t matter if we have to fight the Arabs in our own battalion,” said Gabriel Mohammed, a Kurdish soldier in the Iraqi army who was escorting a Knight Ridder reporter through Kirkuk. “Kirkuk will be ours.”

The Kurds have readied their troops not only because they’ve long yearned to establish an independent state but also because their leaders expect Iraq to disintegrate, senior leaders in the Peshmerga - literally, “those who face death” - told Knight Ridder. The Kurds are mostly secular Sunni Muslims, and are ethnically distinct from Arabs.

That’s the beginning of a pretty long article, and it’s worth reading the whole thing.

[RTFirefly]

Fixing the link:

@RTFirefly

The Knight Ridder reporters are on the job again:

[Mops]

@ShibbOleth

… The war with Germany ended in May, 1945 but maybe officially in June, 1945. We occupied West Germany for sometime after. Now it’s no longer seen as an “Occupation” per se. More like an alliance. Not sure exactly when the shift there occurred, but not all that long ago in reality. …

As the present status of Germany has often been used in Iraq-related threads on this board some clarification might be in order. WRT the former West Germany the timeline was:

[ul]
[li]12 October 1944: first German city (Aachen) occupied by western Allies.[/li][li]8./9. May 1945: unconditional surrender[/li][li]late 1945: first municipial elections (in some states only in 1946)[/li][li]1946/1947: elected state legislatures/governments (state governments were appointed by occupying powers before)[/li][li]23 May 1949: founding of the Federal Republic[/li][li]22 November 1949: Petersberg Treaty between Federal Republic and the three Western occupying powers: cessation of disassembly of industrial plants; Federal Republic allowed to have foreign relations and be am member of international organizations.[/li][li]5 May 1955: Treaty on the relations between the Federal Republic and the three Western Powers comes into force. Germany becomes formally souvereign, occupation is declared ended, but the three Western powers reserve the following powers: emergency powers (because German constitution did not provide for emergency powers for the German government), and rights pertaining to the Allies’ reponsibilities for all of Germany and for eventual reunification.[/li]The quid pro quo for souvereignty was mainly that West Germany committed to rearm, which a large section of the population opposed.
[li]30 May 1968: emergency powers legislation passed by federal parliament (the legislative branch did not trust the executive branch with emergency powers before); Allied reserve powers in this respect declared lapsed.[/li][li]12 September 1990: Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (aka Two Plus Four Treaty) declares full souvereignty of Germany (i.e. the last retained Allied rights, those pertaining to Germany as a whole, are terminated). BTW this is also the definitve peace treaty for WW II.[/li][/ul]
a
[*]a