DNFTT
First of all, the Vietnamese don’t hate Americans. Are Vietnamese not human? That wasn’t that long ago, you know; the U.S. killed a hell of a lot more Vietnamese than it has Iraqis. I can cite a hundred examples of unjustified wars where the two sides weren’t “mortal enemies” afterwards. The U.S./Vietnam relationship essentially consisted of the loser sulking for a long time while the other got along with their own business. Today it’s opening up nicely. Where’s the mortal hatred?
Secondly, you’re assuming the attitudes of government are necessarily the same as those of individuals, which is not the case. They reflect individual attitudes, but through a distorted lens of political expediency.
No, that’ll probably never happen, but memories become blunted, and subsequent generations find other things to worry about.
Unless of course Iraq turns to China with its massive reserves. In which case it screws America.
Not appropriate for this forum.
Uh, wold you mind answering the question I asked. I was simply trying to give some broad parameters to success. Now, would you prefer that we succeed or fail in Iraq?
Part 2: What, specifically, would you like to see happen there. Aside from all U.S. soldiers being killed, of course.
Wrong!
So therefore, the particular country, Iraq an Islamic country, would not be the US’s mortal enemy as they have fundamental agreement on how that little part of the world should be run.
Those who have fundamental agreements can’t also be mortal enemies.
And further note that
So a success is attainable in Iraq and I desire the one defined by magellan01
When success for you requires that I be a despot, a profiteer, and an evangelical then it will be a very cold day in hell when I will let you succeed!
I believe friend Der is indulging a bit of sarcasm, with the deft subtlety of a frozen mackeral across the chops.
The scenario you presented is a failure in my eyes and I also agree that the second objective seems more like pie in the sky at this point.
What I thought of as disorganized retreat: Leaving Iraq while still under fire from insurgents. Leaving Iraq while civil war is still raging. That sort of retreat. A retreat that would look to the rest of the world like the U.S packing up and leaving with their tail between their legs, as happened in Vietnam.
As far as failure, as I said before, It’s tough to decide. I guess basically leaving Iraq in worse shape than we found it and not getting enough from it (cheap oil, trade agreements, reconstruction contracts, etc.) to “make up” for all the money, resources, materiel and human lives burned by the War Machine would be considered a failure from a U.S standpoint.
As far as my agenda regarding Iraq: I’m for the course of action that will result in the smallest loss of combined U.S and Iraqi lives which I regard to be equal in value. I admit I don’t know that much about the role oil control and other geopolitical concerns play in this conflict so I cannot claim my assessment isn’t politically naive.
How many people blame the U.S for causing indirect deaths if sectarian massacres occur after the U.S leave? These things have to be accounted for when defining what failure will be defined as, not by americans, but in the eyes of outside observers. What is your opinion on this, Elucidator?
Note: Maybe I should have said fail WORSE in Iraq. Please edit the title, mods, if you see this.
I second the observation. Do note that Der Trihs is located in California, a noted bastion of peaceful godless hippies who know how to party.
Not much different than your own. But “failure” in a realpolitik sense is much different than failure in the eyes of humane beings like you and I. Sooner or later, the sectarian strife will settle down to a low seethe, but this is far, far from the comparatively secular society that existed under Saddam. Damn few marriages between the Shia and Sunni these days, for instance.
It appears that a rough form of peace may be at hand. Iran has (apparently) decided to side with the Maliki regime and ease al Sadr to the sidelines, which is, for the most part, pretty good news. Of course, it is a touchy situation regardless, and it could all go to hell in about two shakes.
But I think if it goes according to plan, and some sort of reasonable accord can be reached (or the appearance of such) with the Sunni minority, then we will end with a Sha dominated state friendly to Iran and not so friendly to us. Is that failure? In the eyes of many, very much so.
And when that happens, I think the Iraqis will invite us to leave and throw us a victory party. The Bushiviks will embrace this fantasy with open arms, it offers a plausible case for “victory” and they would love it to pieces. And if it all goes to hell as soon as we’re out, well, heck, not our fault, eh? When we left, things were peachy, and they fucked it up.
But if we can reach a peaceful accord with Iran…not tossing bouquets, but not tossing threats either… we will do the most possible harm to the militant Islamic movement in Iran by voiding the place held by the Enemy. This may make possible the very regime change we so ardently wish for.
Who wants the United States to fail in Iraq?
[Stonecutters]We Do![/sc]
Not that I like engaging in the arithmetic of valuing human lives, but I don’t agree. Since the US is the aggressor, and in the wrong, I would say that US troops’ lives were worth less than that of Iraqis. That is, if it would cost more US troops in a particular action to save Iraqi lives, then that should be the action to take. e.g. An air attack on a hostile location with “collateral damage” is less preferable than a boots-on-ground attack on the same location with higher loss of US lives, but less loss of bystander lives to me.
The ultimate life-saving course of action, in that respect, would be a complete US withdrawal. Yes, civil war, yaddah, yaddah - but that is actually up to the Iraqis, and their responsibility. I wouldn’t blame the US too much for a post-pullout civil war. It would have been likely even if the US had just gone in, taken out Saddam and his fellows and then left .
Ok, I’ve been thinking about what realistic options I would have as CiC.
Iran: Iran with nuclear weapons must be something very much opposed by other countries in the region. Israel is the least of their worries, after 60 years of conflict, it is a neverending TV drama (used throughout the arab world as well) to entertain the populace (just like soccer) from all those countries’s politics (and failing politicians) and , for Iran, it tries to convince other sunni countries that they have a common enemy and they should be friends and want Iran to have nuclear capabilities.
Because of the newly-fanned fires of sectarianism in the middle east, Sunni, Arab-speaking nations are not keen to deal with a nuclear Iran controlled by Ayatollahs with a worrisome fondness for martyrdom culture in their military ranks. We’ve all had ample evidence of that in the Iraq-Iran war where the Iranians would send wave after wave of men at them.As a small minority in the muslim world, few would want them to get the bomb.
Iranian police, as well as arab police and a true international military coalition would have to make this legitimate and prevent any abuse from ideologically emotional parties. Iran must be given a reason to hinder isurgents: protecting its own police from terrorist attacks might prove efficient.
Syria will also have to be convinced to join and increasingly pressured by the international coalition to oppose any violence in Iraq. Lebanon complicates things that are already complicated. Sigh.
Then, there are Russian and China to think about, as they too have vested oil-related interests and whose plans I am unaware of.
The bottom line is the U.S needs a lot of help from a lot of countries, fast. It’s a hard sell, even for someone as convincing as Obama.
Up to the iraqis? Don’t you mean up to the aggressors and not the innocent victims who tried to do their share for a peaceful Iraq? Do we really need another Colombia or Afghanistan on our hands (#1 producers of cocaine and heroin respectively as it turns out) ?
Like it or not, the world is a global village now, every problem ripples further as transportation and communications pull us together and just like a garden, it’s better to tackle problems early and to tend to it regularly than it is to quarantine problematic areas when it’s too late and hope the healthy portions remain unscathed from the Pest Of the Day. The garden gets smaller and more crowded every day and the trend shows no sign of reversing.
Do not accuse anyone of trolling anywhere on the SDMB except for The BBQ Pit.* Particularly refrain from that action in Great Debates.
Even in the Pit it is used more as a generalized insult rather than a legitimate accusation. If you believe a poster is trolling, report it to the staff.
[ /Moderating ]
Got it, apologies.
What, exactly, is wrong with producing coke and smack?
The problem: one man’s weed is another man’s prizewinning flower. Or - why should anyone buy the American standard of what constitutes a “problem”? The track record there is not very impressive, to put it mildly!
The civil war that will boil over in Iraq after America leaves is a problem by any definition of the word.
That doesn’t mean we should stay, but I can see the reasoning people are using with that argument. We should leave because we can’t do any good. All we’re doing is preventing the worst of the violence, and eventually we will be FORCED to leave under even worse circumstances than now.
You say “problem”, I say “solution”. Sometimes. civil wars are necessary and lead to better outcomes for the people in the long run. Look at the US, or England. Sometimes they don’t, I get that. Many hellholes bear witness to that, too. But that’s the Iraqi’s problem (and their immediate neighbours). Not the US.
I’m not sure that the worst of the violence is being prevented. Without US interference, the way is clear for the majority Shiites to take over completely. With Iranian support, I see any civil war as being pretty short (and brutal, yes).
I know you don’t have one, because this is your own personal delusion, but…
cite?
We have already lost. The Iraqis have a government we put in place. It provides no services, and has no mandate. It can not govern or police. We know we can not stay forever (unless you are McCain) but we can not easily extricate. We can not continually pour money into Iraq. It seems like we are just waiting for something to happen. The cost alone should force us to leave. Hopefully the presidential election will force our hand to actually do something.