The Brits are pulling out of Iraq

[Tigranes]

Artificial, yes; arbitrary, no. What we're seeing in present day Iraq is precisely the fallout from a semi-arbitrary assignment of different ethnic groups into a single nation in which they do not belong. As much as the modern West might hate to admit it, tribalism runs deep in the human instinct, and the world does not operate by the simple laws of a moral commonwealth. In fact, nation, tribe, and family play a huge factor in the direction of people's actions, so much so that many are fully willing to and capable of doing so-called "universal" evil in pursuit of "local" good - that is, acts that would be considered wrong if taken in a general context, but which can be construed as good when defined with respect to the interests of a group.

 

Indeed, whether 'natural' or 'artificial' once it is constructed firmly enough it is no longer 'arbitrary' in that sense. And we see in Sand's latest post the manifestation of that framework, because he believes, whatever the origins of nations or that nation, it needs to learn to stand on its own and any aid from outside is by definition 'foreign'. He believes that for certain major things the responsibility of man and institution extends only to national boundaries... and his standards are still shared by many.

 

This is why sovereignty and national integrity are important things to consider when deciding whether to engage in "foreign humanitarian missions." You simply can't treat people as if national borders and ethnic divides did not exist - because people's moral compasses are defined along those lines. Trying to force the Iraqis into one nation, to get along with each other, might seem a good thing to do - but it ignores the fact that in many of their eyes, what you're actually doing is violating their ethnic solidarity, and that's why they resort to sectarian violence.

 

Oh, I'm not saying they don't exist and they're artificial and we're all Earthlings anyway, or something like that. I do concede that systems of locality still rule the world by the powerful and basic level in which they possess our thinking. But you hit the jackpot in that we can't say 'Iraq' is a nation now, so 'Iraq' must get along with itself and stand on its own; we have to look at hte processes in which that 'Iraq' was proclaimed a nation, and whether, for example, it really *is* (or should be) a nation or it is better off separated. In a way we are looking at the formation of a new nation, if on the same ground with the same name.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Tigranes

[Azarkon]

Right, and the Iraqs themselves have the final say in that. Don't get me wrong: the US has definite interests in keeping Iraq "whole" and "stable," not the least of which is to prove that we don't just cause nations to split apart but can, in fact, build them into strong, prosperous democracies (which we won't prove, quite to the contrary, if the result is three separate states in constant border conflicts with each other). But we don't have the final say in this matter and it was arrogant to presume that we did. It is similarly arrogant to presume that national sovereignty doesn't matter in the face of international humanism - yes, people do deserve to have the same rights to life that we take for granted, but that doesn't mean they're willing to give up tribal, national, and ethnic loyalties in order to achieve them. You can't ignore that factor in the name of "interventionism," or you're going to end up making things worse. That's not to say there are no circumstances under which military intervention is justified, but it is to say that you had better hold a deep respect for national borders and ethnic identifies in making that choice, or you're going to end up pissing off more people than you help.

[Pop]

They should have used a condom.

 

Hiyo!

[Walsingham]

Tigranes, and Azarkon, your arguments are strong. Certainly national and smaller ties are real. My own loyalty is first and foremost to the United Kingdom. However, it is precisely due to that loyalty that I believe in keeping a hand in the international game.

 

One the one hand this is almost certainly influenced by the fac tthat Britain's security is perennially underwritten by ensuring no one hegemony exists in mainland Europe. Preventing such a hegemony has been our primary objective since the end of the Dark Ages.

 

On the other hand it is due to a recognition in general terms that nations rely on one another for trade, and can benefit by mutual assistance. Something which I have troublel explaining because it is so self-evident. Europe post-war is a good example.

 

On the third hand* I believe that the national interest is more than just survival. Because survival is of course finite. All nations eventually expire. The question then becomes what were they while they existed? Did they merely grub along, as selfish as earthworms? Or did they act with some special qualities that demonstrated a superior resolve and energy?

 

 

 

 

*Huh?

[Yuusha]

LOL.... You guys still at it?

[Walsingham]

LOL.... You guys still at it?

 

Nope. This happens every couple of weeks. You should have seen us last year. Two threads a day at least.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Sand, you are truly suggesting that if you were decision maker (and since you live in a democracy you are a decision maker) you would cheerfully abandon the entire country to disaster? As a human being I put it to you that you must be on just about the lowest possible rung, bereft of either compassion, honour and even common sense.

 

Consider for a moment what it would mean if in your country there were incidents in which a foreign army killed civilians, including the killing of a 5-yr-old girl and entire families with their children. Would this army be a stabilising influence? You know, there are 20 times more civilian deaths in Iraq since the war started than civilians killed on 9/11. Think about how many civilians were killed in the twin towers and times it by 20, and that's how many civilians have been killed in Iraq, all in the name of freedom.

[Xard]

*sigh*

 

Yeah, one attack usually kills as much people as war going on for years.

[Walsingham]

Sand, you are truly suggesting that if you were decision maker (and since you live in a democracy you are a decision maker) you would cheerfully abandon the entire country to disaster? As a human being I put it to you that you must be on just about the lowest possible rung, bereft of either compassion, honour and even common sense.

 

Consider for a moment what it would mean if in your country there were incidents in which a foreign army killed civilians, including the killing of a 5-yr-old girl and entire families with their children. Would this army be a stabilising influence? You know, there are 20 times more civilian deaths in Iraq since the war started than civilians killed on 9/11. Think about how many civilians were killed in the twin towers and times it by 20, and that's how many civilians have been killed in Iraq, all in the name of freedom.

 

1. I can follow your argument. Can you see my point about the removal of heavy Coalition forces will permit outright ethnic cleansing and civil war? I base that on my understanding of the former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide, and the British pullout from Eire. If you disagree I would ask on what grounds.

 

2. I cannot square your argument with the fact that the majority of attacks are occurring against civilians not 'occupation' troops.

 

3. Coalition forces have certainly killed people who ought not to have died. The only thing I can say is that it is a focus of policy and immense effort that this should not happen.

 

4. I don't believe it is fair to say the 40,000 (possibly more) casualties have died for freedom in the sense that you mean, that being at the instigation of the Coalition. The majority of casualties have quite deliberately occurred at the hands of - or by virtue of chaos caused by - an insurgency characterised by total barbarity. They have therefore died for freedom only in as much as they have died at the hands of people who aim to deny them freedom.

[Hiro Protagonist]

1. I can follow your argument. Can you see my point about the removal of heavy Coalition forces will permit outright ethnic cleansing and civil war? I base that on my understanding of the former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide, and the British pullout from Eire. If you disagree I would ask on what grounds.

 

2. I cannot square your argument with the fact that the majority of attacks are occurring against civilians not 'occupation' troops.

 

3. Coalition forces have certainly killed people who ought not to have died. The only thing I can say is that it is a focus of policy and immense effort that this should not happen.

 

4. I don't believe it is fair to say the 40,000 (possibly more) casualties have died for freedom in the sense that you mean, that being at the instigation of the Coalition. The majority of casualties have quite deliberately occurred at the hands of - or by virtue of chaos caused by - an insurgency characterised by total barbarity. They have therefore died for freedom only in as much as they have died at the hands of people who aim to deny them freedom.

 

1. Thank you for following my argument, that the continuing killing of civilians by the military is not having a stabilising influence in Iraq.

 

2. I don't follow what you're saying here. Are you suggetsing the majority or attacks are against occupation troops and not civilians? Because I'm not saying anywhere that the majority of attacks are against civilians.

 

3. You can say whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that military forces continue to kill civilians. Talk is cheap. Especially with responses by the military like, "change the channel," said by Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, after being asked about TV images of dead Iraqi civilians.

 

4. Try over 70,000 civilians killed in Iraq since the war began. And how was this insurgency created and for what reason? Was it possibly created to get the invaders occupying forces out of Iraq so they can have freedom for their people and not deny it.

[Yuusha]

The Brits and Americans need to get out of Iraq ASAP, and let the UN Peacekeeping troop take over. I doubt a multinational peacekeeping troop would do something as crazy as

[taks]

The Brits and Americans need to get out of Iraq ASAP, and let the UN Peacekeeping troop take over. I doubt a multinational peacekeeping troop would do something as crazy as

exactly whom do you think the UN peacekeeping troops are composed of?

 

taks

[taks]

well i'll be damned... learn something new everyday. only 5.5% are the EU and US...

 

taks

[Sand]

UN Peacekeeping forces are a joke. They are way too weak to keep any sort of order or peace. Sending them in would only get them killed. The US and Brits do need to remove their forces and equipment out of Iraq and let Iraq fend for itself.

[Tigranes]

I'm sorry, but the thread has fallen off the proverbial ladder.

 

[Try Again] [Quit]

 

Pragmatically speaking, the US government probably has every intention of getting out of Iraq as soon as they can. i.e. as soon as they think they've done just enough, so that once they get out there won't be such a big uproar of violence that people will just blame them.

 

Thinking of Vietnam, that could take a long time.

[Walsingham]

1. Thank you for following my argument, that the continuing killing of civilians by the military is not having a stabilising influence in Iraq.

 

2. I don't follow what you're saying here. Are you suggetsing the majority or attacks are against occupation troops and not civilians? Because I'm not saying anywhere that the majority of attacks are against civilians.

 

3. You can say whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that military forces continue to kill civilians. Talk is cheap. Especially with responses by the military like, "change the channel," said by Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, after being asked about TV images of dead Iraqi civilians.

 

4. Try over 70,000 civilians killed in Iraq since the war began. And how was this insurgency created and for what reason? Was it possibly created to get the invaders occupying forces out of Iraq so they can have freedom for their people and not deny it.

 

 

1. I appreciate your thanks. But you haven't answered my question. How will Iraq govt only troops prevent escalation of the violence to outright genocide?

 

2. I am not suggesting the majority of casualties are amongst Coalition troops. The majority of casualties are quite deliberately civilian. If Coalition troops are the cause of the violence it seems odd that they should not be the focus of the violence.

 

3. You can quote a one off comment from a general if you like. I have friends in the Forces and the lengths they go to as a group and as individuals to avoid civilian casualties are extraordinary. They regularly place themselves and colleagues at risk to do so. This does not excuse the deaths. However, since teh efforts far surpass those in any previous phase of human warfare I think the Coalition should not be accused of being callous murderers.

 

4. Your hypothesis that the insurgency was about throwing out the 'invaders' certainly holds water for the thousands of Saddam's fedayeen who initiated attacks with that goal in mind. It is also true that opportunists like the Mehdi Army saw the Coalition as an obstacle to seizing power for themselves. However, given that the freely elected govt of the Iraqi people has not once asked the Coalition to leave this undermines your theory completely. As does the relatively small scale (in numerical terms) of the insurgency. Neither types of insurgents have freedom in mind.

 

5. Lest there be any unfortunate confusion, would you confirm that you do not endorse the actions of the insurgents who are often from other countries and commit deliberate acts of slaughter, and destroy mosques like the one Yuusha showed?* Would it not be more fruitful to direct your energy towards demanding THEIR return home?

 

 

*Yuusha, I can tell you with 100% certainty that an air attack on a building that was so obviously a mosque would have had to come from the highest level, and only after the utmost provocation. Coalition commanders are not bloody stupid and will do just about anything to avoid such attacks. The video clip you linked to omits any context.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The smart thing to have done (and I've said this before) would have been to break Iraq into three separate countries such that would each encapsulate the three distinct ethnic/religious groups.

When has this ever worked? The various ethnicities/religions of people in Iraq don't just happily live in their own sequestered zones.

 

"Excuse me, if your home isn't already destroyed, would you mind picking up and moving everything you own ~150km to the southeast? Yes, a nice Sunni family that currently curses your name will be living in your house after you've left. Thanks much."

 

It's sad that probably the "best" example of this is Pakistan/India. Yikes.

[Sand]

I wouldn't go the three separate countries route but maybe more of a 3 separate but equal states with Bagdhad set up like Washington D.C., but instead of having a centralized federal government like the US, have it more like how the Articles of Confederation would have set things up. No one is forced to move but if a person do not like to live with Sunnis or Kurds or Shiites he or she could move to a province that has less and not as focused on one of the ethnic side of things, or move to Bagdhad where it would be more of a melting pot.

 

In the end there is no optimal solution and only the Iraqis can decide what is best for them. Not the US, The Brits, nor the U.N..

Edited September 11, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

In the end there is no optimal solution and only the Iraqis can decide what is best for them. Not the US, The Brits, nor the U.N..

 

Provided you have an objective function, of course ther's an optimal solution!

 

I agree that the Iraqis should decide. But by the Iraqis I mean the people in a democratic fashion. Not simply hand over everything to dingbat former baathists and fundamentalist radicals. They aren't Iraq any more than we are.

[Monte Carlo]

So, it's out in the open: The Brits hate freedom and are pulling out of Iraq in order to drink tea and eat buttered scones. Rumours speak of cucumber sandwiches and cricket a plenty.

 

Given the small number of real allies the US has left, the criminally inept post-war planning by the Pentagon, the fact that the UK always steps up to the plate and that we have spent considerable blood and treasure in Iraq your comment is remarkably crass and insulting.

 

The reflex "hates freedom" line is especially telling. And bunk. I find it the incipient anti-Englishness of certain Americans. You invoke the Boston tea-party yet expect slavish loyalty. Back to politeness school, young man.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Monte Carlo

[taks]

i think he was being facetious, MC. last time i checked, kaftan wasn't american, either...

 

taks

[Walsingham]

i think he was being facetious, MC. last time i checked, kaftan wasn't american, either...

 

taks

 

 

Troo dat.

 

Actually, back on topic I was interested to see that we haven't pulled out of Basra so much as pulled out of a palace in Basra, and moved a few miles down the road. U public relations exercise if ever there was one.