Any solution to Iraq?

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Paul Bremer was given endless constraints on who he could hire. The basic ground rule was that he was not allowed to hire anyone from the State Dept, although he found a way around that a few times. Secondly, his budget and staff size was so restricted that he had no ability to affect a transition from wartime to peacetime rebuilding. He tried in vain to get anyone's attention on this and was totally ignored by the administration.

Basically, the idea of rebuilding Iraq was never really fleshed out and acted upon. In the ensuing time, the situation has come to be totally out of control.

I agree that a divided Iraq will open the door for Iranian influence, but we have that already. In the meantime, we are woefully stretched militarily, and our seeming impotence has been an invitation for all the belligerent nations to go right for us when we are vulnerable. At the moment we aer defending three Iraqui sects from each other, when we should be fighting terrorism where it actually lives, which is in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What we have here is the need for the lesser of evils in choosing an exit strategy. They all suck except for all the others.

I disagree with so much of this I don't know what to say other than if we are going to leave any country we should leave Afghanistan.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
JA,

Another great Frontline production. Am I showing my predilections? :)

FRONTLINE: the lost year in iraq: interviews: l. paul bremer iii | PBS

I think I saw something else on Bremer. Did you read his book? I think he has one, obviously I haven't, read it that is.

[edit: Yeah, saw him on Charlie Rose I think.]
Spiker, no, but I read Woodward's book, which is where I learned about Bremer's be doing. Bremer's travails were a big part of Woodward's book. However, I really should read Bremer's book before I claim to know anything about this.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It seems nowadays Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket. I guess it's been like that for a while, but it seems to be getting progressively worse.

It's a perceptual problem. You see defeat perhaps because you want to see defeat. Well, if you wish hard enough, maybe it will happen.

Iraq's army was crushed in record time, the dictator was pulled out of a hole, and a series of very successful elections were held on schedule. As a result, Iraq has a government of Iraqis, by Iraqis, and for Iraqis. This was a tremendous accomplishment. The enthusiasm with which they took to voting was particularly promising (and in that respect somewhat more promising than the US). Does the formation of this new government mark the end of all their problems? Of course not. Nobody ever claimed that it would. As it turns out, there are some things which Iraqis will have to work out for themselves. The US can't do it for them. One of those things has to do with the balance between Shia and Sunna. It looks like they will have to fight that one out, which is what they are finally doing now, after putting it off for two years. The Sunnis ran the country before. Sunnis haven't all faced the fact yet that in a representative republic they won't run the country - they haven't the votes. So they tried the old Middle East destabilization routine - bombings, assassinations, petty atrocities galore. Now, however, it's come back to bite them, as Shias do the same to them. That is perhaps the reason why Moqtada was not imprisoned two years ago - he's the ideal tool to terrorize Sunnis. Both by inclination and by politics the US can't do it. But after Moqtada does his dirty work the government can neutralize him at its convenience, thus becomming the force which finally saves the Sunnis. A complication is that both factions are naturally terrified of the Kurds, who could massacre them all without difficulty (although the Kurds are Sunnis, that wouldn't slow them down much). The Iranian connection starts to become important because in a very real sense Moqtada is an Iranian agent. The Iranians are, of course, the Shi'ite center, for historical reasons I won't get into. But that's another reason why Moqtada will have to go, eventually. In the meantime, he's doing something useful.

Is this what's happening? I have no idea. This is elementry speculation. The point is that what you see as chaos may be chaos, or it may be something else. What I outlined is very simple, obvious stuff. I've ignored the Syrian and Turkish angles altogether. Obviously those complicate things further. "Complication" is not the same thing as "disaster".

Our problem is political. Two centuries ago, the Whigs in England considered it far more important to embarrass the Tory government of Lord North than to defend the Empire. Because of that, some North American colonies were able to split off. So we owe the existence of the United States to English politicians who couldn't see the big picture even when it was in front of their noses - or saw it but didn't care. Unfortunately the same thing is happening today. It's far more important to embarrass George Bush than it is to set up an outpost which can be used in the war against a political and religious movement which believes that planting bombs and machinegunning school children are just forms of political expression. And that is as shortsighted as anything done by Lord North's opponents.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Our problem is political. Two centuries ago, the Whigs in England considered it far more important to embarrass the Tory government of Lord North than to defend the Empire. Because of that, some North American colonies were able to split off. So we owe the existence of the United States to English politicians who couldn't see the big picture even when it was in front of their noses - or saw it but didn't care. Unfortunately the same thing is happening today. It's far more important to embarrass George Bush than it is to set up an outpost which can be used in the war against a political and religious movement which believes that planting bombs and machinegunning school children are just forms of political expression. And that is as shortsighted as anything done by Lord North's opponents.

Well, while some, the so called "Radical Whigs" [who were really just political pundits] were associated with a faction of the British Whig party involved in radicalism which ultimately lead to US independence (and the French revolultion) the "Whigs" themselves as a political 'party' where not, by action or inaction the cause of cessesion. This was provoked more by the lack of representation, taxation and legislation such as the Stamp, Sugar and [more well known] Tea acts. For what it's worth much of North's Government was itself comprised of former Whigs.

It's a perceptual problem. You see defeat perhaps because you want to see defeat. Well, if you wish hard enough, maybe it will happen.

I agree, in that I suspect it's you that has a problem with perception. The invasion of Iraq has been a good thing, for whom exactly?

The current situation in Iraq has rather less to do with embarrasing Bush and wish fulfillment and rather more to do with the consequences of an ill conceived, poorly executed, unjustified, self aggrandising and self serving (now backfired) military action undertaken without an evident exit strategy or clear restructuring plan which has made all our lives less secure.

Of course, the future is unknown and Iraq may find it's way, I hope so, though I think it will be despite US [Western] intervention [help]rather than because of it. Either way I doubt history will record this period as one covered in glory. That's my perception.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Big dirigible's engaging in his usual spin. He writes, for example,

The enthusiasm with which they took to voting was particularly promising

They were so enthusastic, in fact, that the Ministry of Trade had to threaten people that their food rations would be withheld if they did not vote, and that U.S. troops were sent to "coax" people out to vote. (source)

If I were going to be starved and shot at if I didn't vote, I might be a little more enthusiastic about doing so, too.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
It's far more important to embarrass George Bush than it is to set up an outpost which can be used in the war against a political and religious movement which believes that planting bombs and machinegunning school children are just forms of political expression.

Outpost to be used? What a thoughtful way to phrase it.

Perhaps the inhabitants of Iraq are just violent thugs and there's no hope for them. Or perhaps they aren't all that interested in complying with W's wish that they be "used" as an "outpost" to bolster western military and economic interests in the region.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
They were so enthusastic, in fact, that the Ministry of Trade had to threaten people that their food rations would be withheld if they did not vote, and that U.S. troops were sent to "coax" people out to vote. (source)

If I were going to be starved and shot at if I didn't vote, I might be a little more enthusiastic about doing so, too.

I'm sure that there is some truth in that, in least in part, but read on.

source said:
Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. "The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting," he said. "Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote.

Well, the last time I voted it was required that I gave my name before I could do so. Isn't that what is supposed to happen?

source said:
Other questions have arisen over methods used to persuade people to vote. U.S. troops tried to coax voters in Ramadi, capital city of the al-Anbar province west of Baghdad, to come out to vote, AP reported.

Each US election thousands of unpaid volunteers are recurited to do exactly that, even taking potential voters to the polling stations, only those that are likely to vote for their party of course, nothing so dirty as being non partisan, sure the US military should not be used for such things there's no explanation of or expansion on 'coax' and I won't speculate, you seem to have that one nailed.

I'm not trying to rubbish your 'source' just saying that there is mileage in painting a certain picture. I don't see anywhere in your source where it says anyone would be 'shot at' for failing to vote for example (more that they risked being blown up for voting), also, nowhere does it say the Ministry of Trade threatened what you said, you inferred it. So, are you trying to paint your own picture? This is also known as 'spin' of which you accuse BD.

There are many countries; parts of Austria for example where failure to vote can result in a fine or even imprisonment. Not quite as severe as being shot for sure, but fines and/or disenfranchisement are common enough potential consequences for failure to vote in many 'democracies' with compulsory voting so let's not get on our high horse just yet eh.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm not trying to rubbish your 'source'

Thanks for your comments -- I appreciate that you've read through the source with a critical eye. (There's a big difference in my mind between an argument that reads, "Your source says X, but here are some counterexamples," and "Your source is X? Oh, well, he's just a raving leftie.")

You write,

I don't see anywhere in your source where it says anyone would be 'shot at' for failing to vote [...] you inferred it.

Exactly right. The article made no mention of what forms of "coaxing" the military troops used to elicit voters. Let's agree for the sake of argument that their intentions were entirely gentle and peaceful.

But then I hope you'll also agree that in the mind of an Iraqi citizen who has American troops banging on their door and telling them to leave the house and go do something, the fear of getting shot at can be both real and justified. Prior brutal treatment of Iraqi civilians by American troops, well-documented in both American and foreign media, makes it unfair to suggest that simply because they didn't plan on shooting anyone today their "coaxing" was any less intimidating.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Thanks for your comments -- I appreciate that you've read through the source with a critical eye. (There's a big difference in my mind between an argument that reads, "Your source says X, but here are some counterexamples," and "Your source is X? Oh, well, he's just a raving leftie.")

Well, I care less about the source; it's whats said that carries real weight with me. But thanks anyway.

Exactly right. The article made no mention of what forms of "coaxing" the military troops used to elicit voters. Let's agree for the sake of argument that their intentions were entirely gentle and peaceful.

But then I hope you'll also agree that in the mind of an Iraqi citizen who has American troops banging on their door and telling them to leave the house and go do something, the fear of getting shot at can be both real and justified. Prior brutal treatment of Iraqi civilians by American troops, well-documented in both American and foreign media, makes it unfair to suggest that simply because they didn't plan on shooting anyone today their "coaxing" was any less intimidating.

Again I don't disagree, merely suggesting that you are projecting your view of the situation and making inferences that fit that view without evidence. Of course you are free to do so, as I am free to do likewise (or not) as the case may be. No one said or implied they were banging on doors, (other than you); they could have handed out leaflets, talked to people at checkpoints, used a tannoy from the back of Humvee....I don't know, and I suspect neither do you and therein lies the danger in making assumptions.

There is plenty of evidence of US troops behaving appallingly but there is no evidence that this is what happened here, not in the article you cited. Certainly there is no evidence to the contrary either, you have again chosen to fill in that gap based on other events. That may be a reasonable or correct assumption but then it may not. I have not looked further than this article though, perhaps you have?

Whatever happened I think it's a relatively minor event in the context of the overall, deteriorating situation in Iraq which I suspect we both think is one significantly at variance with that painted by BD.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't think there are any easy solutions to the Iraq problem. However I think Britain and America will both have to hang on in there until it's sorted. To abdicate responsibility at this time would be a grave mistake.

Adrian,
That approach always seems reasonable and I think it is most people's default position. But it doesn't take a number of things into consideration, such as:

  • The conflicts in the middle east are centuries old, and seemingly unfathomable and unsolveable to the Western mind.
  • It is a uniquely western notion that all problems have a solution.
  • Every western power that has going into the middle east for any political purpose seems to have done more harm than good.
  • Western powers are not trusted in most of the middle east and in some cases their distrust is justified (see item 3).
  • Our mere presence in Iraq could possibly be far more inflammatory than our ability to bring about any kind of stability or build an infrastructure.
  • Terrorist activity in the world is probably 1000 times higher right now than before the Iraq war, if you include the violence in Iraq (which you must include).
  • The Iraq war has created a country in chaos and a heightened sense of purpose or "cause" to Muslim extremists.
  • In short, we may be presiding over and maintaining the most effective recruiting tool and training ground for our terrorist enemies in history.
These are all the things that concern me about our continued presence in Iraq. If we were being effective, then I would think differently. But I fear that every minute we continue to occupy Iraq, we are digging ourselves into a deeper hole.
 

Adrian69702006

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
2,761
Media
69
Likes
2,233
Points
433
Location
Lincoln (Lincolnshire, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I think there's some truth in what you say. However having contributed to the problems in Iraq, even if we haven't actually caused them, I think we're duty bound to try and sort them out - if it's achievable. Obviously it's not going to happen overnight and that's why I think we have to be prepared for the long haul and accept that it may well take several years. :smile:
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
Several decades you mean? As with ANY country in the world, they need to stop being told by the US what to do and get on with it! Get their people to rebuild their country, rebuild their patriotism for their country, get schools and factories and civilisation going again...
 
D

deleted26151

Guest
The greatest Fortress a man can hold is the affection of his people

America does not have the affection of the Iraqi people and so, like a spotty teenager at makeout point, theyr gonna have to pull out - Think people should focus on how best to do that?
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Adrian,
That approach always seems reasonable and I think it is most people's default position. But it doesn't take a number of things into consideration, such as:
  • The conflicts in the middle east are centuries old, and seemingly unfathomable and unsolveable to the Western mind.
  • It is a uniquely western notion that all problems have a solution.
  • Every western power that has going into the middle east for any political purpose seems to have done more harm than good.
  • Western powers are not trusted in most of the middle east and in some cases their distrust is justified (see item 3).
  • Our mere presence in Iraq could possibly be far more inflammatory than our ability to bring about any kind of stability or build an infrastructure.
  • Terrorist activity in the world is probably 1000 times higher right now than before the Iraq war, if you include the violence in Iraq (which you must include).
  • The Iraq war has created a country in chaos and a heightened sense of purpose or "cause" to Muslim extremists.
  • In short, we may be presiding over and maintaining the most effective recruiting tool and training ground for our terrorist enemies in history.
These are all the things that concern me about our continued presence in Iraq. If we were being effective, then I would think differently. But I fear that every minute we continue to occupy Iraq, we are digging ourselves into a deeper hole.

I find a number of things about your post slightly alarming JA.

I don't think you should dismiss any possibility of understanding the history of the region. I don't think it is that complicated - a series of empires ending with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire only three generations ago. They were after all known as the "Sick Man of Europe" not the sick man of the Middle East.

The failure of that Empire to keep the region apace with a modernising Industrial World, the growth of Nationalism imported from Europe and the expansion of European (including Russian) imperialism within their Empire. Finally the emergence of Oil and the petro$.

Most of the countries hvae a modern history of being ruled by a very strong Royal Family or President and Democracy has little sway. This is your problem in Iraq - you want a democracy and expect this to be a solution. It may be in the long term, but in the short term, it opens up a can of worms, not least in Iraq because the previous administration was a ruthless minority and in some respects it's payback time, though the Saddam camp fight back. You are also probably rightly fearful of a vacuum in power being filled by a theocracy, if these strong arm administrations lose power.

I can't see that the occupation and trouble is anything other than a direct consequence of US foreign policy. I don't think that anyone denies that proper thought had not been given to the aftermath.

Unsavoury though it sounds, a very strong leading party should be aided to gain firm control. After this we will part company, as I do not look at the region in terms of US interest. I would like to see a strong independent Middle East, with a strong reforming Arab League. Naive though it will sound to some, good relations should be nurtured between the west and Islamic countries and people.

Image:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Age of Caliphs.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia