I don’t think anyone should be expected to know the future with precision. Not even the best strategists are always right. I think it’s fair to say, however, that “post-hostilities” Iraq is the result of some of the worst strategizing in American history. It’s getting to the point that a good finger-in-the-wind prognostication method would be to take anything the Bush administratin says should be done and pursue the opposite.
Anyway, it doesn’t take a genious to read the tea leaves at this point. Look, the right has been accusing the “pessimists” of exaggerating and catastrophising and overusing the “Q word” (quagmire) since the beginning. They’ve been wrong every time. I think it’s time to listen to the people who actually are grounded in reality and know what the hell they’re talking about. And those people say Iraq will likely fragment sooner or later, because none of the parties at the table really want to share power with the others. The only way to make them come around is at the muzzle of a gun, like Saddam did. And that’s not an option for us. This constitutional deadline thing is as artificial as the day the ME was carelessly partitioned by the English. Where does this endless wellspring of right-wing faith in failed policy come from? How much is enough?
Because he couched his assertions with uncertainty (see phrases like ‘I think’ or ‘scenerio’)…while you didn’t. Had you said ‘I think that this or that is going to happen’ I wouldn’t have said anything to you either but continued lurking as I’ve pretty much said what I wanted to say in this thread. However, you used words like IS going to happen and your assertions were given as fact the rest of us are just too stupid to see. Least thats how I read it.
Well, I agree it hasn’t been a rose strewn road of happyness, but I’m not willing to say that just because Bush says its so that automatically means it ain’t. Thats…well, crazy to be honest. And I’m not evaluating the situation solely based on what they are saying in any case…in fact, I’m mostly ignoring what they are saying at this point and trying to judge based on independant analysis from multiple sources.
Well…they have been overusing the ‘Q’ word since the beginning IMHO. They have been straining to make Iraq=Vietnam since nearly the beginning of the insurgency, because of the negative association American’s have with Vietnam. Its been a constant theme. Even the ‘Q’ word is a loaded word with conotations to Vietnam…and its used as such because of the imagry it engenders.
And you think that people advocating a cut and run strategy are ‘grounded in reality’ because…why exactly? What about their mantra makes them ‘grounded in reality’, while people from various political factions (even some who opposed the initial invasion) for the US staying in Iraq? What exactly about myself is not ‘grounded in reality’ on this issue? Maybe you could point it out so we could debate that. You’ve seen my posts in this and other threads on this topic…I’m always willing to see if I’m living in a fantasy world…please fight my ignorance.
Ok, lets see these ‘grounded in reality’ folks who are saying that Iraq WILL fragment sooner or later. Lets see some quotes so we can evaluate the people (and their agendas if necessary) and the context of their statements.
BTW, I admit I’m NOT sure that this may not happen…I’m saying that its not a sure thing, or even the most likely thing. In other words, there is still a level of uncertainty about it. Now, if some ‘expert’ thats ‘grounded in reality’ has some way of saying that it ‘will’ happen…well, I’m all ears at this point.
Horseshit. The only way to make them (if by ‘them’ you mean the insurgents) come around is by installing a stable government in Iraq that has the backing of the people. Whether that government is democratic or not. If by ‘they’ you mean the various factions, then ‘they’ need to learn the art of compromise. If the Sunni continue to stonewall, then maybe the best thing IS to do a national referendum on the proposed constitution.
So, you advocate not having a deadline? But you also seem to be advocating a cut and run strategy. So…where does that leave Iraq? Fucked I guess…and thats ‘grounded in reality’. Its like one of those self fulfilling prophesies. Pull out the US troops then be shocked and horrified (and surprised of course) when a humanitarian disaster befalls the people of Iraq (and probably Saudi, Iran, Syria, etc). Bummer…all the US’s fault though so you can be of good consious, ehe?
Where does this kind of callousness of the left-wing come from exactly, where political gain (i.e. making Bush and America look stupid, evil, etc etc) come from (since we are now throwing around ridiculous insults)?
How much is enough? Not sure…be we aren’t there yet.
Why the exaggeration? I said that would be a good “finger-in-the-wind” prognistication, not some policy formula, which is to say it would be more reliable than flipping a coin based on recent history.
So? Is Iraq a quagmire or not? Certainly looks like it to me, whether it resembles Vietnam in some ways or doesn’t. That some propagandists like that word doesn’t negate its accuracy.
Well, what is not grounded in reality is just about everything Bush ever told us about why we should go to war in Iraq, how the Iraq war is supposedly succeeding, making Americans safer, stabilizing the region, bringing freedom and peace to the ME, defeating al Qaeda…need I go on?
Well, there’s the prestigious Royal Institute of International Affairs who were saying this a year ago…but I’ll save you the trouble: “Bunch of liberal, defeatist hand-wringers! Of course they’d distort reality. Now, if you want a truly untwisted look at reality, let’s check out this incredibly prescient and balanced report from the Project for the New American Century.” There. No need to put off the inevitable trainwreck.
You seem to want to willfully distort what I’m saying. “Them” is “the people”, meaning the Shia, Sunni, and Kurd factions, who can’t seem to agree on much of anything together. About the only consensus is the Shia and the Kurds want their own spheres of influence with largely autonomous control of the oil-rich regions of the South and North of Iraq, respectively, and the Sunni’s aren’t having it. So Bush is calling people on the phone. Great. We know how well external pressures work in the long term, should even a short-term compromise be reached. The only group interested in something more than a loose federation, at best, are the Sunnis, because they get the shaft in any other scenerio; and they’re greatly outnumbered.
What good is a deadline for a constitution set by outsiders, when the people who have to live with that constitution don’t want it?
I love this Orwellian discussion about “cutting and running”. Right now the American military seems to be attracting militants like bees to honey. The place is already a humanitarian disaster. If I honestly thought our continued presence would actually help things, I’d say we’re absolutely morally obligated to stay. But it’s clear it will definitely be a war zone as long as Americans are present. There’s slim chance it won’t be a war zone under any circumstances, but an American presence literally creates the war wherever it is. It’s the ugly reality. There is not “end of hostilities” as long as American troops are around. It’s obvious. This “insurgency” is not stopping. I see no reason to think it will ever stop. American troops can barely defend themselves from attack. And if a civil war breaks out, they certainly can’t stop it. So their presence is, as far as I can tell, increasingly a wash, as far as Iraq’s stability is concerned. The only difference, apparently, between one scenerio or another is how many American soldiers get killed.
Nice strawman. Really, that’s a classic retort, that. Bravo. All I care about is making Bush bad. No way I could have thought of this carefully and thought of a way to make the best of an already bad situation, one that spared American lives, foremost, and might actually end hostilities sooner in Iraq. No, you’d rather ignore that’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Screw that. I want some NFL picks.
**Loopydude, Fear Itself: **
The majority of Iraqis, when polled, have repeatedly said that they don’t want the US to leave yet. Should we disregard the opinion of the people there?
The majority of Iraqis, when polled, have repeatedly said that they think Iraq is improving and will continue to. Why should we believe your prediction over theirs?
Damn, I’m good. Prediction comes true in less than three minutes.
WaPo, CNN, NYT, the usuals. I haven’t ever seen a poll in which the Iraqi people aren’t optimistic. Cites later (heading out now) if ya want.
And I have no claim to know what “practical reality” is in Iraq; all I know is what I read. But that wasn’t the question: the question was why I should believe you ( AFAICT just some American shlub like me) and your pessimism, instead of the people who actually live there (not to mention most of the soldiers, whose reenlistment rates are so high) who are optimistic.
So, to repeat:
The majority of Iraqis, when polled, have repeatedly said that they don’t want the US to leave yet. Should we disregard the opinion of the people there?
The majority of Iraqis, when polled, have repeatedly said that they think Iraq is improving and will continue to. Why should we believe your prediction over theirs?
Yes, we should. You would have Iraqis dictate our foreign policy?
Because that prediction is flat contradicted by the daily statistics. I am very glad the Iraqi schoolchildren have new pencils, but that will not solve the fundamental and deadly problems between the Sunnis and the Shiites and Kurds. Success in Iraq seems to pivot on the Iraqi defense forces being able to someday suppress the insurgency so that democracy can flower. How can the IDF ever hope to accomplish what has eluded the best trained, best equipped military force in the world? You don’t seriously think they will ever be as well trained, much less supplied, as the American forces, do you?
Why should I duck what can be swatted like a mosquito?
No, when I say what polls, I mean, what polls? When I did a search I came up with this, this and this on the first page. They’re a year old, so certainly things may have changed. But the positive polls all seem to be older. So if you’re referring to new polls, I’m just asking to see them, not trying to dodge them. There are more optimistic polls like this that I could find, but they’re all older than the pessimistic ones. I’m not accusing you of lying, I’m just saying I’m not familiar with them.
I also don’t see Iraq as a quagmire…yet. I admit it could work out that way and be a long slog for the US…or maybe we’ll even cut and bolt for home. Its too early to tell.
You must have mistaken me for someone else if you think I’d say ‘Bunch of liberal, defeatist hand-wringers!’, or anything of the sort.
You also must not have really read your own cite. They aren’t SURE of what will happen and give a range of possibilities:
Which is kind of what I was getting at if you had read what I actually wrote and what I was commenting on to Fear Itself earlier. I actually happen to agree with them that the most likely course would be fraction, and even along the lines and for the reasons they list. But…most likely does not equal a sure thing, which you seem to think it does. And because something is likely doesn’t mean the US should just toss up their hands and go ‘oh well, guess the Iraqi’s are fucked. Bummer’. Which is the question this thread is about, i.e. when is enough enough.
No, you needn’t. Just know that your grounding in reality might not be everyone else’s…nor does everyone feel that YOU are grounded in reality necessarily, yes?
Um…I wasn’t willfully distorting anything Loopy. I wasn’t sure what you meant, so I went into both of my interperatations. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason with me tonight.
I agree that there is a lot of friction between the 3 groups, and I actually do understand what their various positions are…and whats preventing them from agreeing on a constitution. In some respects I understand why the Sunni don’t want Federalism and why the Shi’ite and Kurds do. In the end though I don’t necessarily see why its up to the Shi’ite and Kurds (who have a greater percentage of the population…democracy and all that) have to make all the concessions. I don’t see the Sunni being willing to compromise either, ya know?
I would have thought you’d be happy with Bush trying to do what you seem to think is right. Wow…the guy just can’t win, ehe?
Iraq is being wracked by an insurgency. So…there is a bit of urgency here, right? IIRC the French also put us under some deadlines as a pre-requisite for continued support (they wanted a real government to deal with). I don’t have a real problem with setting deadlines in this to be honest. As to the people not wanting the constitution thats just bullshit and you know it…the people haven’t even gotten a chance to VOTE on it yet, so how do you know this. The SUNNI don’t seem to like it, but they make up 20% of the population. And this disreguards that perhaps the Sunni who are opposing the provisions are doing it for other reasons. I conceed btw that the converse may be true and the Iraqi people really DON’T want this constitution. I’m unsure and I bet everyone else is too…except you who seem to want to deal in absolutes on everything.
I’m glad you liked it…it was SUPPOSED to be over the top. You must have missed that part. It was to go along with your serious over the top statement to act as an ironic counterpoint.
When would it be time to tell? Five years of the same? Ten?
Of course I read it, and, again, they feel the most likely outcome is civil war. You said you wanted a cite where somebody said that, so I provided it. But now you won’t discuss the main prediction. I said above no one expects perfect predictions. But if the greatest likelihood is a civil war, which I felt was correct, and for which I provided the corroborating cite you asked for, then it seems worthy of serious consideration.
You’re moving the goalposts again. Complete certainty is not possible. I said that. I also said the Bush admin. has been wrong at just about everything, so they’ve approached complete uncertainty. I’d be happy with a modicum of confidence in a well supported oppinion. The problem with people like you is you’ll never acknowledge it.
What statements about Bush’s miscalculations or outright distortions were not grounded in reality. If you care to debate those points, debate them, otherwise, don’t bother with the cheap dismissals.
You’re being facetious and twisting my words around. One needn’t have a chip on one’s shoulder to find that tiresome.
The entire point is that the Kurds and the Shia pretty much want their own countries, leaving the Sunni with a poorer middle ground and a central govt. with no power to protect their interests at all. The Sunni appear to be willing to sabotage the whole process rather than come up short. They don’t want a federation, yet that’s the only viable course to avoid complete dissolution of the country. Hence, dissolution appears to be a probable outcome whether a constitution is in place or no. Deadlines won’t change this, which is what I’m talking about when I say people don’t want it.
If Bush can’t win it has nothing to do with whether I’m happy or not. It’s because his plans aren’t working out.
20% of the population is not trivial. And, if you’ve been listening to or reading the present news, the Shia and Kurds have given up on the Sunni negotiators, and will go straight to the vote, to meet this need for alacrity. They made no concessions that satisfied the Sunni representatives. The Sunni have been sidestepped, in no small part because they wouldn’t compromise anything either. So a fifth of the population gets the shaft, as they see it, and the rest want effective autonomy. What is the cause for optimism here? And if the country fractures, what is the American military supposed to do? Try and stop it?
Worse. So long as we stay, the likelihood increases that we will be forced to take sides. Extra special ultra no good. Our alleged principles pretty much demand that we side with the Shia, as they are the demographic majority. If they form a legitimate government, and we oppose insurgency, we will be effectively aligning ourselves with the Shia against the Sunni. Even if this were not our intention, it would be seen as such. In such a situation, the Shia would be our allies only in the sense of being willing to let us supply blood and firepower to destroy their enemies. But of course.
Another point: the culture of dependence that invariably arises around an occupying force. How many people in Iraq are making thier money from the American occupation? How many billions of dollars have vanished, and into whose hands? If money flows towards Iraqis who have a vested interest in keeping American troops in the milking stall, those selfsame Iraqis will, no doubt, direct some of that money towards keeping American troops in Iraq. And, of course, it is precisely these people with whom we interact agreeably that we will regard as “friendlies”: people we can trust, people we should listen to.
And what if the Shia and Kurdish alliance does, in fact, oppress the Sunni minority? We are already half-way to regarding the Sunni minority as our enemy. How difficult is it to imagine our troops being used to oppress the Sunni minority under the guise of supressing an insurgency against a legitimate government?
Come to think of it, that all sounds rather familiar, deja voodoo all over again.
There’s a deep, sad irony to it all. The only ones interested in something remotely resembling a non-sectarian republic, which was our stated goal from the outset, are the Sunni. The Shia want to turn Iraq into West Iran, which is about the last thing we were interested in. The Kurds want Kurdistan, which could destablize the region, again entirely contrary to our erstwhile goals. With an Iraqi federation built essentially without recourse to Sunni consent, the Sunni, in a civil war, become synonymous with “the insurgents”, who we’re duty-bound to fight, as you say. The one faction who supports anything resembling our aspirations (largely to save their own hides) is the most closely aligned with the Baathists. A major facet of our strategy from the outset, debaathification, has completely undermined all our other hopes. We took out the only crew who could have willingly alligned themselves with our ideals, because they happened to be Saddam’s old henchmen. Amazing.
Something to keep in mind in all of this is that the Taliban in Afghanistan were Sunni muslims and firm supporters of AQ.
Now I have no idea whether there is a close connection between the desires of the Sunni’s in Iraq (or the actual people/families/clans) and the Sunni’s that had moved into Afghanistan, but if they do hold the same philosophical/religious views, then maybe Iran West would be the lesser of 2 evils (for the US).
Just know that your grounding in reality might not be everyone else’s…nor does everyone feel that YOU are grounded in reality necessarily, yes?