Iraq getting better?

[Walsingham]

BBC main

al-Jazaera

BBC mortars

 

Figures on attacks are down. The Iraqi public are losing patience wuth organisations such as the Mehdi army, and staging protests against them. Al Qaeda has been beaten back in Sunni areas due to their high-handedness, and determination to provoke total war and genocide against the Shia.

 

Yet yesterday the Independent newspaper declared this a 'war without end', on its front page. My question is really whether this news changes anyone's opinions here. Is a continuation of effort and ramping up of support capable of rescuing the country, or should the signs of progress be taken as cause to leave? The US is usually accused of reinforcing failure. Will this be a case of abandoning success?

[Enoch]

Well, the U.S. Army really has no option but to abandon, to a certain extent. Sure, the current "surge" of troop levels has decreased violence. But the Army only has the personnel to maintain troops at their current levels until sometime around early next spring.

 

The whole point of this temporary increase in troop levels was to give Iraqi politicians the room to operate and come to some kind of agreement to stop all the clan- and sect-based conflict. I don't really know how successful they can be on this front in such a limited span of time.

[Walsingham]

Well, the U.S. Army really has no option but to abandon, to a certain extent. Sure, the current "surge" of troop levels has decreased violence. But the Army only has the personnel to maintain troops at their current levels until sometime around early next spring.

 

The whole point of this temporary increase in troop levels was to give Iraqi politicians the room to operate and come to some kind of agreement to stop all the clan- and sect-based conflict. I don't really know how successful they can be on this front in such a limited span of time.

 

I do see what you mean. But given the importance of Iraq to the US on every level I would suggest that other commitments be dramatically reduced. This is crunch time on the centre of gravity for this century.

 

Of course this is a Brit talking, and we're strolling off whistling...

[Azarkon]

The insurgency groups in question only have so much manpower, and they've not been in the business of winning alot of hearts and minds, lately. As such, it wouldn't surprise me if a prolonged military stay brings temporary security to the region.

 

Of course, this means little, because our goal in Iraq is not to bring temporary security. No, we want the country to become pro-US and to serve our regional interests, much like Japan and South Korea in the Asia Pacific; that this can only be achieved by stability is just icing on the cake.

 

To this end, the reconstruction of Iraq must proceed at pace, a permanent US military presence must be established, and its people must be willing to become, like the Japanese and the South Koreans, willing participants of Western market capitalism. They must be, above all, willing to cast off the yokes of Islam and thus, in part, their traditional identities to embrace a new, US-centric one. This last point is an important one, as both Pakistan and Turkey have shown, as of late, that just because you enforce Western pragmatism (by, ie, suppressing Islam) and an alliance with the US does not mean that you will succeed in converting people's fundamental allegiances. Ultimately, Islam and the Middle-East must reform itself to make peace with the West; any attempt to reform it from the outside will only leave deep-seated resentments that shall one day turn against the perpetrator.

[SilentScope001]

They must be, above all, willing to cast off the yokes of Islam and thus, in part, their traditional identities to embrace a new, US-centric one.

 

Don't play into the hands of extermists. By stating that you want to change the region and make it pro-Western, you are basically admitting that you want to turn Muslims into Western puppets. And, well, uh, Muslims don't want to be puppets. Nobody does, after all. It's understandable.

 

To stop extermism, you have to buff the moderate wing of Islam who wants secularism and believe the US is a 'model', but at the same time, keep the 'yoke of Islam' and their traditional idenities.

***

...The PKK is still doing terror attacks in Turkey, and an Turkish intervention is possible. The dispute over Kirkuk and who should own it, Arabs, Kurds, or have it be 'multi-ethinc' looms. SCIRI and the Medhi Army are two major parties that hate each other very much so in the Shia controlled regions. Americans are allying with Sunni insurgent groups that hate Al-Qadiah more than they hate the Allied forces (but still hate the Allied Fores)...but the Shias are afraid of the insurgent groups, and actually some of the insurgent leaders working with the US are wanted by the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government, controlled by Shias, are friendly to Iran.

 

However, there are good news: The Medhi Army is lying low, and in fact, is cracking down on the splinter groups that do attacks on Americans. And the surge, yes, it has great manpower, but how long can it last?

 

But, uh, well, I hate talking about 'better' or 'worse' or 'winning' or 'losing'. You are going to have to deal with the small issues, and you can't frame it in big questions of "staying until we are done" or "withdraw now!" You have to look and say, "Alright. We got these problems. It could be worse, it could be better, but you know what, let deal with what we got."

****

In the end, get used to this. Most of the wars the US have fought can be seen to be quamires and failures. The War of 1812, declared by the US, was nothing more than a meaningless stalemate that led to the destruction of Washigiton, DC. The Civil War and Reconstruction failed to reform the South, and instead, saw the traditional system of Whites be kept. World War I failed to check German expansion (see Nazisim). The Cold War did not stop either Communism or Russia, in fact, with the rise of China as a world power and a resurging Russian empire led by Putin, one can argue it's still being fought today. The Americans ran away from Lebanon after a sucidice bombing, and from Somaila after a pitched battle with angry crowds of civilians. American involvement in Nicagrua was undone by the recent election that brought the Sandaraists back into power, American involvement in Afghanistan during the Cold War paved the way to the Taliban, and American involvement in Angola led to...nothing at all.

 

Oh, and I didn't even mention the Korean and First and Second Indochina Wars (Vietnam War).

 

Why I say that? To lessen the blow. So what if we 'lose' in Iraq? It's not the end of American hegomony. We can still recover. We lost many wars, we wasted lots of money, but look in the long haul, not in the short term. There are other issues out there, issues that may be more important than Iraq. The national debt, for one.

[Azarkon]

To stop extermism, you have to buff the moderate wing of Islam who wants secularism and believe the US is a 'model', but at the same time, keep the 'yoke of Islam' and their traditional idenities.

 

But our goal isn't to stop extremism. It's to attain dominance in a region destined to become a geopolitical hotpoint between the great powers - namely Russia, China, Europe, India, and, of course, the US.

 

Consequently, I really don't think that the US cares whether the Middle-East is Islamic or not, so long as it's pro-US. By the same token, I don't think you should assume that secular nations are "natural friends" of the US, either. There are deeper links than secularism between the US and its Asia Pacific allies; something about them being home to a number of our military bases and being dependent upon our exports...

 

In other words, I regard combating extremism to be a front. The deeper reasons for our involvement will become clearer in the coming years as sectarian violence decrease (hopefully) and the Iraqi people test the limits of their autonomy against US geopolitics.

[Hurlshort]

Islam is the second largest religion in the world and it is currently growing faster than Christianity. I think it's more important that the US find a way to embrace Muslim culture than it is to "cast off the yoke". Islam isn't going anywhere.

[Fenghuang]

Yeah, but then I see stuff like this where the Engineers are like "Uh, HAY GUYS the dam is about to collapse and it could be killing a lot of your dudes." and then the Iraqis are like "Meh, you n00bs take care of it, we don't gots the goldz." and it just makes me want to call all our guys home and let the Iraqis do whatever.

 

IF ONLY THERE WERE A NATURAL RESOURCE IN IRAQ THAT COULD BE SOLD FOR LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY!!!

Edited November 12, 2007 by Fenghuang

[Walsingham]

A lot of interesting points. I'm going to listen for a bit first. However, just a couple:

 

1. Iraq is not a 'Muslim' country. It's a complex hodgepodge of allegiances and cultures. However, I've heard a lot of people who ought to know saying Iraq is a secular country. They're a brutalised country, but basically secular. The religious extremism is finding its most fertile soil in the disaffected and jobless young men. Thus (and this is no accident) the more the extremists wreck the country the more support they get in their key niche.

 

2. I think it's nonsensical to say that we have to be either about stopping extremism or prducing a pro-western success story. Firstly the two goals are enabled by almost identical effects in country. Secondly, we never seem to have one goal, but rather a massive mess of competing goals. If we did we have only one goal we might be a lot more effective.

 

3. I don't think it's at all fair to describe all American wars as a grotesque grinding mess. We could debate plenty of the examples you mention, but Gulf 1/Desert Storm was an absolute triumph demonstrating how incredibly far the Yanks have come since embracing operational manoeuvre and information warfare in the mid '80s. LImited objectives, coalition warfare, and almost staggeringly tiny casualties.

[SilentScope001]

Iraq is not a 'Muslim' country. It's a complex hodgepodge of allegiances and cultures.

 

While this is true, the vast majority of Iraqis are indeed Muslim. In a way though, you are right, it is inaccurate. It's like saying, "Oh, America is a Chrisitan Nation with Chrisitan values", which is true, but also simplistic.

 

I don't think it's at all fair to describe all American wars as a grotesque grinding mess. We could debate plenty of the examples you mention, but Gulf 1/Desert Storm was an absolute triumph demonstrating how incredibly far the Yanks have come since embracing operational manoeuvre and information warfare in the mid '80s. LImited objectives, coalition warfare, and almost staggeringly tiny casualties.

 

That why I didn't add Gulf Storm to the list of "American Military Defeats". The United States won that war. Fair and square, because of their limited objectives. There are also lots of other military victories as well: The Revolutionary War, the Settler/Indian Wars in the 1860-90's, the Invasion of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War, the Phillpine Insurgency, the various interventions in South America and the Carribean to overthrow communist governments...

 

True, not all wars are grotesque grinding messes, I didn't mean to give that impression actually. I did however mention what I did because sometimes, the US lose wars. That doesn't mean later the US might eventually prevail over its enemies, but it can suffer setbacks. It would be better to take setbacks in strides rather than panic and worry too much about losing.

Edited November 12, 2007 by SilentScope001

[Sand]

We shouldn't have gone into that country in the first place. The whole reason why we invaded was a fabrication, a lie, and as far as I am concerned every soldier that has died over there died because of a lie. Not to bring freedom and peace to a nation, but for a lie from a warmongering president and his Republican party. Because of that lie we have had soldiers die needlessly, Billions of US Dollars wasted, and ultimately very little gains to show our investment into Iraq.

 

Let the Iraqis determine the fate of Iraq. No more and no less.

[Hurlshort]

We shouldn't have gone into that country in the first place. The whole reason why we invaded was a fabrication, a lie, and as far as I am concerned every soldier that has died over there died because of a lie. Not to bring freedom and peace to a nation, but for a lie from a warmongering president and his Republican party. Because of that lie we have had soldiers die needlessly, Billions of US Dollars wasted, and ultimately very little gains to show our investment into Iraq.

 

Let the Iraqis determine the fate of Iraq. No more and no less.

 

Everybody, let's jump in the time machine with Sand!

 

Seriously, if all the Americans left Iraq right now, it wouldn't be Iraqis determine the fate of Iraq.

[Guard Dog]

We shouldn't have gone into that country in the first place. The whole reason why we invaded was a fabrication, a lie, and as far as I am concerned every soldier that has died over there died because of a lie. Not to bring freedom and peace to a nation, but for a lie from a warmongering president and his Republican party. Because of that lie we have had soldiers die needlessly, Billions of US Dollars wasted, and ultimately very little gains to show our investment into Iraq.

 

Let the Iraqis determine the fate of Iraq. No more and no less.

 

Everybody, let's jump in the time machine with Sand!

 

Seriously, if all the Americans left Iraq right now, it wouldn't be Iraqis determine the fate of Iraq.

Yup, totally agree. Whatever the reasons for the war, right or wrong, they make exactky zero difference now. The choice is success or failure. I vote or success. If we abandon Iraq now not only will everone who died there died in vain, I guarantee we will be back there in another war (probably after another 9-11 type attack) within 10 years. That is exactly what we all said as we were packing up to leave in 1991. We were right.

[samm]

And right you'll always be if you don't change exactly that fatal opinion of the american (and worldwide) public now.

[Hurlshort]

And right you'll always be if you don't change exactly that fatal opinion of the american (and worldwide) public now.

 

Can you explain your statement?

[Sand]

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.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Sand

[Pop]

And right you'll always be if you don't change exactly that fatal opinion of the american (and worldwide) public now.

 

Can you explain your statement?

I think he's saying that preventing another 9/11 has less to do with getting out of Iraq than it has to do with tempering world opinion. Which is a fair point, since it's not like all the terrorists decided to congregate in Iraq, but it doesn't bring us any closer to figuring out exactly how we're going to get it done. Our position as the world's only superpower limits our ability even without the Castros and Chavezes and Ahmenadihadimejadads directing their countries' suffering and anger onto us.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Pop

[Sand]

Being led by a warmongering president that acts like an ass doesn't help how other countries view the US either.

[Tigranes]

On the whole Islam deal, with Azarkon, Silentscope and whatnot:

 

Certainly, flat 'westernisation' is one answer. Japan has shown the powerful ways in which the Western mechanisms can be adopted for one's own uses in the economic sphere: South Korea has shown how rapidly and effectively such a jump can be made in the right climate (though it did at the turn of the century suffer from the aftereffects of doing in thirty years what most nations took a century to do).

 

But in the end, one of the biggest question facing not only the region but the world in our time is, how can, and how will, Islam, as not only a religion but a way of life, culture and politic, manifest itself in this century? Because right now it's not really 'realised'. Even setting aside the fact that Iraq is not purely 'muslim', and that 'muslim' doesn't mean one thing, there is a massive lack of consensus or examples of workable / successful models on how a modern state can be run using muslim ideals; how a muslim can live culturally and religiously in our era; how indeed a muslim identity can be negotiated altogether. There is nothing more urgent than this in that region, never mind immediate causes such as Palestinian eviction, oil, nuclear Iran or current presence of US/etc troops in Iraq.

[Sand]

While it is more prevelent in Islam, there are some Christian sects that are having a hard time living in the 21st century, like the followers of Pat Robertson and Rev. Phelps. Most religions are a throwback to a time in which human beings didn't know why there is thunder or why a person gets sick, and had a fear of death so they invented something called an "afterlife." I am not saying following a spiritual path is a waste of time, just that Islam isn't alone in not coming to terms with the 21st century.

[SilentScope001]

Certainly, flat 'westernisation' is one answer. Japan has shown the powerful ways in which the Western mechanisms can be adopted for one's own uses in the economic sphere: South Korea has shown how rapidly and effectively such a jump can be made in the right climate (though it did at the turn of the century suffer from the aftereffects of doing in thirty years what most nations took a century to do).

 

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.

 

I think this 'hyrbid' is a possible solution (combining aspects of Islam and westernization), but in the end, since Islam has 800 million followers, you can't get everyone on board. Its strength is at the same time its weakness.

[Tigranes]

No, it's not the same as being a puppet. Keep in mind I don't share a hive-mind with Azarkon. Certainly, even the most westernised country is a hybrid. There is no such thing as 'Americanisation' in the sense that you simply become influenced by America (or France, or West, or Japan, or whatever) and take some of their nature directly: there is always an indigenous hybridisation that occurs at the site of the influence. The question, though, is what are the standards by which such hybridisation is to occur. Currently, across many nations, yes, such standards do exist; but they are dependent on extremely vague, misleading and easily manipulated ideas such as 'national identity' and 'tradition'. I recently read a Korean book on the matter (which is nice to get a perspective, after reading many US/UK based writers), and it was stressing how a blind and forced reproduction of the past traditions can never displace the organic processes of cultural hybridisation (or 'Americanisation' if you want) - i.e. even if the government subsidises some obscure ancient Korean music, nobody's really going to be receptive to it (because its just bad? because our ears are already trained to Western music? Who knows?), and then the triumph of tradition or identity becomes a farce. A hybrid that is to the benefit of developing a Muslim world that can coexist with the Western one and retain its core values (another can of worms) is possible, but how? Who can say?

 

Sand, yes you are right - the fundamentalist movements we saw last century in pretty much all major live religions is testament to the fact that the phenomenon is not limited to Islam. It should be noted, however, that such a struggle to adapt or accept changing social reality isn't a characterstic of religions alone, and it's not because religions are inherently based on ignorance of how the world works, or anything like that. Religion seeks to explain how things work based on particular spiritual standards: Science seeks to explain how things work based on particular empirical standards of its own. Both disciplines' standards change over time (science has changed its own standards and judgments again and again, just as religion does). Judged using religion's standards, science naturally is limited; judged using scientific standards, religion is naturally ridiculous. My point is that all such disciplines are ways of explaining reality and our place within it; so, with rapid or major changes in social reality, of course all these disciplines then struggle to readjust themselves, to remain relevant and alive in our world. The same kind of crisis is now happening with the idea of the nation as a polity, the idea of group identity based on physical geographic integrity. To come back to religion, religion has adapted and changed again and again throughout all its history. It may do so again; it may die (probably not). But as you said Sand, it's not just people in the Middle East, or people that believe in Islam, that are affected by this. If the question of how to live a religious life in the modern world is not solved, then not only will there be more tragedy in the Middle East, there will also continue to be extreme and dangerous, perverse fundamentalist movements in places you wouldn't suspect, like suburban America: there will continue to be violence and conflict not only where religion meets religion, but also where religion meets the rest of the world.

[Sand]

However Science, by its very nature on depending on empirical observation and experimenting can adjust quicker to new ideas of thought and discoveries than religion. I find that the big three, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as dinosaurs in spiritual beliefs and if they do adapt to modern thinking and join the 21st century they will lose their intrinsic nature of being what they tend to teach because the very heart of their scriptures are centuries upon centuries old with very little flexibility and adaptability built in to them. For a prime example is the acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage. Even some of the more liberal minded Christians would balk at the allowance of gay marriage let alone more conservative factions, however homosexuality is a part of our society and with human sexuality being a phsyiological drive they do not see that a person cannot 100% control who he or she is attracted to. Its that type backward thinking that hampers progress. They same can be said about stem cell research. There is no scientific evidence of a soul. There is no scientific evidence that an embryo is any more self aware than a skin cell or gnat. It is a collection of cells and nothing more, yet we have Christian groups claiming, without any sort of evidence to back this up, that an human embryo has a soul and should be treated the same as any living person. If it wasn't for Christianity and Islam ruining civilization with their constant fighting, both with each other and within, and hampering progress of civilization we just might be a slightly more advanced people than we are now.

[Walsingham]

As fascinating as it is to hear Sand singing the same song yet again, I fail to see the relevance.

 

The failure of Iraq's new genesis is not Islam but a culture of tribalist non-state loyalty. There are several countries making progress within the bounds of Islam, including Malaysia and (in some respects) Iran. The challenge is not changing a culture of religion. the challenge is changing a culture of corruption and individual advancement. A culture which keeps practically the whole of Africa under its heel, and is laying low Russia.

 

On the one hand, such a culture always flourishes during unrest and violence (we had it here in Britain during both wars) but it is also laid down with cultural traditions, stories, institutions, heroes and so on.

[Guard Dog]

They same can be said about stem cell research. There is no scientific evidence of a soul. There is no scientific evidence that an embryo is any more self aware than a skin cell or gnat. It is a collection of cells and nothing more, yet we have Christian groups claiming, without any sort of evidence to back this up, that an human embryo has a soul and should be treated the same as any living person. If it wasn't for Christianity and Islam ruining civilization with their constant fighting, both with each other and within, and hampering progress of civilization we just might be a slightly more advanced people than we are now.

 

Going OT here for a moment. What Sand said here perfectly encapsulates the entire debate on stem cell research (which is NOT illegal and IS happening without bilking taxpayers for it) and abortion between religious and secular viewpoints. My Christian belief tells me that all human life has a divine spark (or soul if you will) and therefore has value and that creating a human life for the sole purpose of destroying it is morally wrong. The same with abortion. I can understand in the cases of rape, incest, severe birth defects, or the health of the mother abortion is an appropriate choice. But when it is done for the convenience of someone to cover their irresponsibility, that is morally reprehensible to me. Now if you take Sands view that there is no spark or soul, and human life does not have some great value, then why not destroy it to further the interests of other humans. Now despite how I feel personally about such things, what I think about the legality of such things I have made clear on these boards many times. And I think most of you agree with my conclusions if not the logic I used to come to them.

 

 

Back OT. I agree with Wals that one of the big problems with Iraqi unity is that the nation of Iraq is an artificial construct itself and the individula ethnic communities do not owe it any alligence. There is no strong national identity. This is the point where I break out the argument that is they should have been broken up into it's three original pre WWI territories. But you have all heard it before. Heck I could cut and paste it from a dozen past threads but it would just give everyone deja vu.