Iraq getting better?

[Sand]

Yes, Walsh, it is the same song and dance, but Guard Dog has the right of it. Only the Iraqis can bring peace to themselves and they have a lot of different cultures in the bag without any sort of nationalism bringing them together, yet it seems the US fails to see that. If sectarian violence is going down, it is going down despite of the US pressence and not because of it.

 

And OT: The reason why I don't put much value on human life, and while deaths of innocents are tragic, is the fact that there are 6 billion of us on this mudball and more are coming every day.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

but Guard Dog has the right of it. Only the Iraqis can bring peace to themselves.

 

Ummmm, that is not quite what I said or where I was going with that....

 

If sectarian violence is going down, it is going down despite of the US pressence and not because of it.

 

 

Actually I disagree with you here. The "surge" has militarily suppressed a lot of the insurgency so I would argue it is because of the expanded US presence that sectarian violence has dropped.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Dark_Raven]

Time to send the boys back home and put Bush over there to clean his mess up personally.

[Sand]

I can't disagree with that.

[Dark_Raven]

[kirottu]

Those who die for a lie already died in vain. Those who act on falsehoods for the gain of others have already failed. I don't consider it as abandoning Iraq since we shouldn't be in that country to begin with.

 

Why don

[Sand]

Already have, at least to 3 people, and two of them agreed with me.

[Walsingham]

Nice to see you doing your bit to help them with their grief, jackass. For a man who has claims a quasi-religious mission to keep his nose out of other people's affairs you don't seem to practice what you preach.

 

If I can stick with the training I'm due to get posted in about year's time, and if I die I can tell you right now it won't be in vain unless people like you have their way. It is neither sane nor moral to write off the agony of a nation over a quibbling point of order. Or am I appealing to a Christian principle of assisting those who are weak and in pain, which you contend is evil?

[Sand]

Hey, they brought Iraq up and I just gave my opinion on it.

 

I think you are being foolish, Walsh. Iraq is a waste of lives and a waste of resources, resources that we could put to work right here in the US, especially to help out parts of the US that have gone through some nasty natural disasters such as the California fires, Georgia's drought, and parts of the south hit by Katrina that are still in ruins. The US government should put its own citizens first, help those who are "weak and in pain" here in our own country than be ignored while our warmongering president continues this useless war.

 

We have homelessness, unemployment, natural disasters to recover from, and millions in poverty. We need to put our own house in order before we help anyone. To do otherwise is foolish and irresponsible.

[Azarkon]

But is westernisation the same as becoming a 'puppet'? Even Japan manitans its worship of the emproer, and their history textbooks believe that fighting WWII was the right thing to do. You still have some traditional elements, just that it's combined with western ideals. It's a hybrid.

 

The theory behind "westernization" and "democratization" is that it will bring the state into common cause with the modern world, which is dominated by the US and its allies. If this wasn't the case, I very much doubt our geo-strategy think tanks would ever contemplate an occupation & reconstruction process costing trillions of dollars. Imagine, for example, if we rebuilt Iraq and strengthened its army only to have it join Iran in opposing US influence in the Middle-East. Heads will roll in Washington and the Pentagon for that.

 

The whole process is cynically geopolitical, and our playing one tribal group against another is simply a way of showing that those who side with us will reap the benefits of the new Iraq - so long as they dance to our tune. "Your interests lie in serving ours" - that's the message Washington is trying to send, and it's useful insofar as Iraqi identity can be understood in the same sense as Korean or Japanese identity - because those countries are prime examples of the sort of intertwined existential relationship that we're trying to build. The trouble comes when you consider the differences - Iraq is not an ethnically homogeneous or locally contained state (as Korea & Japan are); on the contrary, its ethnic-tribal groups view their affiliations as crossing national boundaries, both in terms of a pan-Muslim identity and in terms of the rivalry between Shiites in Iran, Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, and Kurds in Kurdistan. There is, as such, the very real possibility that reforming Iraq itself will not be sufficient, because the larger forces at play, to which Iraqis owe various degrees of allegiances, will remain untouched and return, once the occupation weakens, to retake Iraq for their own purposes. This is why the US is trying to play up Iraqi nationalism - in the hopes that they can avoid a division of the state along ethnic lines (which would place each ethnic fragment under the influence of their respective parent states), which would obviously run contrary to US interests as it'd force us to negotiate with those nations for anything we want in Iraq.

 

But to preserve Iraq as a single nation, or even to deal with it as a divided nation, we must find a point of commonality between our interests. This is where secularism comes in - the idea that if you follow US interests, your people will achieve the same sort of expensive life style that the US is known for. Business interests, in other words, unfettered by Islamic strictures. After all, it worked for Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Why not Iraq?

 

But then, of course, you realize that there is no real love for the US in either country, and that Turkey, despite being a member of NATO, is not keen on serving US interests, especially now that the US is knee-deep in regional politics in which Turkey has a real stake.

 

And so the seeds of discontent are sewn; even if a secular Iraq indeed emerges, and Washington celebrates its "victory" over Islamic extremists in Iraq, how long, I wonder, will that "victory" last?

[Guard Dog]

Very well stated Azarkon. And a perfect argument for why Iraq should have been broken up into ethnically homogeneous and autonomous states. And a very good explanation as to why it was not done. One of the failings the US has shown over it's history s that we fail to take a long term view of geopolitics/economics. I guess our short election cycles discourage leaders from doing what is best in the long term and instead rely on short term victories hoping to translate them into electoral successes.

[Walsingham]

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain your views so clearly and logically, Azarkon. It's a pleasure to read. Unfortunately, you've given me a lot to chew over and I'm not ready to respond yet.

 

I do, however, disagree that partition is the solution, after getting partway througha number of books I've been given by Alex de Waal. He talks about the history of conflict in the Sudan. He observes that although a north/south split is what everyone is pursuing, it really fails to account for the myriad east/west and patchy local conflicts. Divide to make peace and you'll end up with an unworkable mess. [assuming I've correctly understood him]

 

To a certain extent I think he would argue in favour of 'growing up' a little. What is needed is a pinch of federalism, combined with a heck of a lot of tough the **** up. Sacrifices are needed to get through this, including the sacrifice of short term interests. An often universally repeated truth, viz British efforts to make peace in Northern Ireland.

 

Sand, we've already taken apart your bizarre notion that only money spent within the geographic boundaries of the US benefits the US. The whole point about 9/11, and Pearl Harbour, and the sinking of the Lusitania before that, is that things outside the US affect the US. If Iraq goes down the tubes, and the entire region begins taking weekly nuclear jihad classes your domestic issues will seem pretty small beer. In any event, I still say it would kinder to at least mention the reasons why their sons may NOT have died in vain. It's called compassion.

[Sand]

I prefer not to lie, Walsh. And yes we should take a hand at the international field, but the homefront needs to be the number one priority. The invasion of Iraq was not needed. Saddam was contained and was no threat to the US. Bush and his administration created this lil' fiasco and he did so by lying. Ultimately, we are there because of a lie and that is what our soldiers are dying for. Bush's lie. You can try to justify it all you want, Walsh, but that is the core of it. Sorry that I seem to be lacking compassion on this issue but that is how I view it and its not going to change.

[SteveThaiBinh]

'Success' in Iraq, when and if it comes, will bring a new set of problems. The surviving (i.e. most successful) extremist fighters will flee, many to their countries of origin. A large number are from Saudi Arabia, so we can look forward to attacks on foreigners and oil production in Saudi Arabia increasing, and general instability spreading throughout the Middle East. Good times.

[Musopticon?]

Why are the majority from Saudi-Arabia? I thought they'd be from Emirates, Syria, etc.

 

Also, I feel for you.

[SilentScope001]

I would like to make a new topic, but I realize it might be better to just combine it here.

 

Walsh, I need you reaction to this news event that is freaking me out and could very well signal an end to the "Iraq Getting Better" topic.

 

Shia Militas Are Using Lull in Violence To Fight Each Other

Edited November 15, 2007 by SilentScope001

[Walsingham]

I would like to make a new topic, but I realize it might be better to just combine it here.

 

Walsh, I need you reaction to this news event that is freaking me out and could very well signal an end to the "Iraq Getting Better" topic.

 

Shia Militas Are Using Lull in Violence To Fight Each Other

 

Interesting piece, covering something I was already tracking. My view (which is also in the article) is that a surge in violence is pretty predictable.

 

1. Sadr was a real second stringer, who capitalised on his father's (seemingly justified) reputation, and then capitalised on the dissatisfaction of young shiite men to from a party with a militant agenda using the gun.

2. Sadr wants to be taken seriously as a politician, and is now bargaining for a senior place at table by promising an end to violence. The trouble is the young men are even angirer now, because y'know, they just spent the last three years blowing up their own country and scaring away jobs.

3. Sadr seems to be clearing house, and may be using this time to remove people strong enough to claim his role as leader on a 'kill everyone' ticket.

4. If the above is correct then we have to look for Sadr to win his murderous purge. Isn't politics fun?

 

EDIT: A similar dynamic is at play in Nigeria with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. A brokered ceasefire has provoked a splinter group to hive off and commence bombing again.

POST-EDIT: And before that we saw something similar with the Real IRA, or as I like to call them: I Can't Believe It's Not Murder.

 

 

~~

I would also like to retract my use of the word 'jackass' to describe Sand. Simply because a man does not accept second order dynamics, and doesn't listen to a word I've said does not give me the right to be insulting. I apologise for my tone, but stand by my objection. 'Truth' does not excuse hammering on a family's heartache.

[Sand]

I would also like to retract my use of the word 'jackass' to describe Sand. Simply because a man does not accept second order dynamics, and doesn't listen to a word I've said does not give me the right to be insulting. I apologise for my tone, but stand by my objection. 'Truth' does not excuse hammering on a family's heartache.

 

No need to apologize. I took no offense. I freely admit that I am an irrational stubborn jackass. Its one of my many flaws.

[Dark_Raven]

~~

I would also like to retract my use of the word 'jackass' to describe Sand. Simply because a man does not accept second order dynamics, and doesn't listen to a word I've said does not give me the right to be insulting. I apologise for my tone, but stand by my objection. 'Truth' does not excuse hammering on a family's heartache.

You're a big man for this Walshy.

[Walsingham]

Well, I'm still intending to check the rules on what the House of Commons will allow.

[Walsingham]

Another report charting progress in country.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7116717.stm

 

Abul Abed, former insurgent:

 

"At the beginning, people saw it as an occupation which had to be resisted. But then they saw that the Americans were working in the interests of the people.

 

"They saw al-Qaeda doing terrible things. They were killing Sunnis, Shias, and Christians. There were bodies everywhere, being eaten by dogs. So we had to fight them," Abul Abed said.

[SteveThaiBinh]

How about this for an argument:

 

Firstly, that the decision of these 'local fighters' to oppose al-Qaeda, rather than being one factor among many (including the US surge) for why security is improving (in those areas where it is indeed improving), may be the determining factor.

 

Secondly, that their decision to oppose al-Qaeda would have been easier and come about earlier had US/coalition forces withdrawn two years ago.

 

Discuss.

[Cantousent]

I agree on point one. I disagree with point two. In fact, I think things would have been far worse had the US withdrawn and then the folks who want to attack the US regardless of its decisions would have been in a better position to do so.

 

Iraq seems like a complete disaster for the US right now. Even if things get better, I think folks will be hostile to the war for a long time. This is especially true since the Bush administration has done some incredibly stupid things. However, we should hope that Iraq develops into a viable democracy. That is in the best interest of virtually everyone, even the folks who claim it can't happen and secretly hope it doesn't because they hate the US more than they love peace.

 

If Iraq does become a real democracy, with institutions and safeguards, then Bush will have been right in the long run. That, more than anything else, will be the basis for judging Bush in the centuries to come. Regardless of his inept and often confusing approach to any number of domestic and foreign issues.

 

finally, I would be suspicious of anyone who painted a rosey picture of Iraq. On the other hand, that works the other way as well. To say that the bad things in Iraq come solely as a result of US intervention while nothing good has come of US action sounds more politically than reason motivated. Yes, the decision of the Iraqi population to oppose al Qaeda is the determining factor. Of course. ...But the best evidence is that the surge has been the most important factor in lending support to the Iraqis in ridding themselves of the unwelcome alQaeda terrorists.

[Walsingham]

Rather like Cant I agree more strongly with point one than point two. I don't think the surge in troop numbers was key per se. As has been widely reported an influx of boots doesn't equal increased effect when effectiveness comes from the local knowledge and understanding in the boots. The whole concept of a surge was bizarre in counter-insurgency terms.

 

I wouldn't like to dismiss point tow until you've had a chance to elaborate, but I must say I don't like it one bit. If Coalition troops had left two years ago then these chaps wouldn't have had the opportunity to wise up. The only other option I can think you might be suggesting is

 

1) An immediate postwar pullout

2) A non-Coalition nations UN mission,

 

I can't see how the former would work. I can see the latter working only too well, given the stand up jobs France, Russia, and China have made of Chechnya, Rwanda, Chad, Sudan, and the DRC.

 

Sorry if this sounds aggressive, but right now I just don't understand your option.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm trying to sound out ideas rather than present an already coherent or well thought-out argument, so please bear that in mind. Both points are of course speculation and nothing more.

 

It occurred to me that these 'local fighters' were fighting the coalition for a signicant period of time, and yet at the end seemed to be in sufficiently good shape that when they turned on al-Qaeda, that made a huge difference in the direction of the struggle.

 

On point two, there are anti-war activists who would suggest that if the coalition withdrew from Iraq, al-Qaeda would also largely withdraw because they're there to oppose the coalition. If we don't accept that, and say that in fact al-Qaeda would have continued on their brutal path trying to bring their interpretation of the world to Iraq, then these Sunni groups would have come to oppose them just as they are doing now.

 

So the question, why would they have been less successful then (however many years ago) than they are now? In order for the coalition presence to have been beneficial, one of two things must have happened. Either al-Qaeda started out much the stronger group, but the coalition presence somehow tilted the balance of strength in the favour of the 'local fighters', which on the face of it seems unlikely since for most of the time they were actively fighting the coalition alongside al-Qaeda. Or, something about the conflict over the last four years (over and above al-Qaeda's attrocities), has made the local fighters more willing to side with their government and the coalition against al-Qaeda. Perhaps general war-weariness?

 

Comments/refinements/gaping holes?