Iraq: Past, Present, Future

[Azarkon]

I haven't kept up with the Iraq War very studiously, as of late, and as such this article:

 

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC28Ak04.html

 

Came as a surprise. It paints a rather bleak picture of the situation, but given the latest surge in volence, that might be warranted. I was particular struck by the following summary, at the end:

 

So how, finally, do we "take stock of the war on terror"? Let me suggest three words:

 

1. Fragmentation - brought about by "creative destabilization", as we see it not only in Iraq but in Lebanon, Palestine and elsewhere in the region.

2. Diminution - of American prestige, both military and political, and thus of American power.

3. Destruction - of the political consensus within the United States for a strong global role.

 

Gaze for a moment at those three words and marvel at how far the US has come in a half-dozen years.

 

In September 2001, the United States faced a grave threat. The attacks that have become synonymous with that date were unprecedented in their destructiveness, in their lethality, in the pure apocalyptic shock of their spectacle. But in their aftermath, American policymakers, partly through ideological blindness and preening exaggeration of American power, partly through blindness brought about by political opportunism, made decisions that led to a defeat only their own actions - that only American power itself - could have brought about.

 

A small coven of America's enemies, using the strategy of provocation so familiar in guerrilla warfare, had launched in spectacular fashion on that bright September morning a plan to use the superpower's strength against itself. To use a different metaphor, they were trying to make good on Archimedes' celebrated boast: having found the perfect lever and place to stand, they proposed to move the Earth. To an extent I am sure even they did not anticipate, in their choice of opponent - an evangelical, redemptive regime scornful of history and determined to remake the fallen world - lay the seeds of their success.

 

It made me think about what the Iraq War has truly done - that is, what it has done to the status of geo-politics and American interests. A worthy reflection to make before the elections.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Azarkon

[Sand]

The invasion of Iraq was a mistake and continuing that mistake into the future is foolhardy. Every life lost in that war is a life wasted for nothing more than Bush's over inflated ego. There was no WMDs in Iraq. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion. It is now a money pit, waste of resources and lives that would be better used here at home than in that cesspit in which the Republicans created.

[Eddo36]

Past - has sucked

Present - is sucking

Future - will suck some more

[Humodour]

I recently came to the conclusion that moving into Iraq was a necessary step for America to maintain its image as both an economic AND military superpower. I believe it was a smart move.

 

I'm neutral about it all. It's not as though nothing good has come of it; I won't be so brazen as to claim the Iraqis were better off with Saddam.

[Gorgon]

When you chose to go to war I think it's important ,for obvious reasons, not to lie, and that includes lying by overstating the facts, to the people you are asking to make a sacrifice.

 

I place absolutely no credulity to the assertion that the coalition acted out of fear of Sadam's weapons programmes. The Bush administration wanted to use the momentum of 9/11 and Afghanistan to change the political makeup of the middle east, change it fundamentally, and in doing so ensure long term strategic goals, yes that encludes oil, and no, stating that doesen't make me a conspiracy therorist.

 

They embarked on their endeavor with the wide eyed optimism of a child, and predictably it turned out a great deal more difficult than envisioned, but really, 4000 dead would not be considered that much in the colonial era, merely the cost of doing business, and of course you can't discount that the Iraqis have gotten something really rare out of the whole ordeal, their liberty, well, while it lasts anyway.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

I absolutely love the fact that opponents of the war resolutely refuse to admit that there's any improvement in Iraq, despite a massive dropoff in violence and increasing reconciliation between the power players. Of course, it would be too scientific to ask Sand to base his opinions on observable data rather than isolated principles of faith.

[Guest The Architect]

Past - has sucked

Present - is sucking

Future - will suck some more

 

Racist.

[Brdavs]

I`m sure Iraqis value their new found liberties. All 1 million dead of them and 2.5million refugees that fled their country. Not counting those simply displaced inside it`s borders.

 

I absolutely love the fact that opponents of the war resolutely refuse to admit that there's any improvement in Iraq, despite a massive dropoff in violence and increasing reconciliation between the power players. Of course, it would be too scientific to ask Sand to base his opinions on observable data rather than isolated principles of faith.

 

So pats on the back all around are in order because after dropping a Ming Dynasty vase we managed to superglue 3 pieces together?

And what "increasing reconciliation" lol? Have you checked what`s happening in Basra lately? The militias UK left in charge when packing up (smartest thing you`ve done since 1947 - last time you`ve left to be back in 03) are being taken on by US backed militias from the north. The north ones have the political weight and the south ones have the oil. Kinda goes to show just how precious little clue coalition has as to what exactly to do... The British and US model of democracy in Iraq are at war with eachother now heh...

 

You`re wearing tinted goggles the same as Sand is, just of a different shade... refusing to acknowladge that the project of building a democracy in iraq is fast apporaching the debacle constructing socialism in rural Russia was.

 

 

 

 

On topic:

 

War is allways a learning process for the armies and nations involved. The enemy in Iraq was at first Sadam, a crazy maniac with WMD. (Turned out BS but oh whell). That was the first phase of the learning process, lifting of the veil around the devil Sadam, exposing him for the little dictator he was, a threath to no one but his people, his army gone in 24 hours... Second phase was the refocusing of the goals of the war. When the first one of saving the world from Sadams WMDs and winning the war on terror proved inadequate G.W. came up with a new one: to build a democracy and freedom in Iraq. Wich hasn`t turned out that great either apparently. All the reasons and justifications gven for this war have gone up in smoke in practice, but there was never a problem coming up with new ones.

So 5 years later we`re exactly where we started BUT we have learned something. We`ve let miliary diplomacy do the talking but now we know most of what there is to know about Iraq. We know to differentiate Shiites and Sunites... We know about places like Basra and Mosul and green zone. Things we had zero clue about when it kicked off on 03. The next US president will have the benefit of starting off with a solid capital of knowledge gained. We`ll see what happens.

 

Unless McCain wins that is... He was in Iraq, what 2 weeks ago? And during his visit he severel times accused and condemned Iran of supporting & financing Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Despite the fact that they`ve tried to politely explain to him that Iran is a shiite countly and a natural enemy of the sunite Al-Qaeda, it supports shiite militias in Iraq... Iran and Al-Qaeda are enemies.

And again we`re back where we started off in 2003, only this time we`re facing the threath of repeating a carbon copy learning curve in Iran.

But war is no good as an educational process. When politicians prepare new wars like that we`d be better off sending them back to school instead.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Brdavs

[Humodour]

i hate america and want to see it burn

 

sauce or gtfo

[Brdavs]

i hate america and want to see it burn

I cant be arsed/capable to produce counterarguments therefore I`ll try to make a joke and throw in an insult

 

Oh and USA rox, bomb all the mothafackas not speaking english. And Canadians.

 

 

That`s so typical. All you do is produce a timeline of the events and certain ppl who prefer to disconect themselves from reality get their panties in a knot.

 

Quote me one single thing not true in that post or "gtfo" yourself... It`s not my fault the state of affairs is what it is: FUBAR.

 

But apparently I deserve your scorn cos I don`t share your jouvenile C&C view of the world and how its superpowers should reasert their dominance. Grow up please. If anything Iraq has drastically eroded away the image and reality of world supremacy. Not only economicaly, militarily but also morally.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Brdavs

[Sand]

I absolutely love the fact that opponents of the war resolutely refuse to admit that there's any improvement in Iraq, despite a massive dropoff in violence and increasing reconciliation between the power players. Of course, it would be too scientific to ask Sand to base his opinions on observable data rather than isolated principles of faith.

 

Is there improvement in Iraq? I don't care. All I care is about the welfare of the United States. Let the Iraqis worry about the Iraqis. With our economy going down the drain, natural disasters leaving people homeless and in economic hardship, and our infrastructure deterioting where should the US spend their money. On a country on the other side of the world or right here at home? Our money and resources should be focused on taking care of the issues we have here. Before we take care of someone else we need to be able to take care of ourselves.

 

Before we take care of other countries we need to do the following (in no order of importance):

 

1. Make sure our unemployment rate is below 1%

2. The problems with immigration and border security is resolved.

3. Areas in the US that have been hit by natural disasters have been fully restored.

4. The housing market problems are satisfactory resolved.

5. A national system that helps stem the costs of skyrocketing healthcare costs is put in place.

6. We hold no debt or deficit to any foreign power.

 

Once we have these 6 in play then we will be in a much better position to help other countries. In the long term, we can't help others if we cannot help ourselves.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Sand

[Tigranes]

Let the Iraqis worry about the Iraqis.

 

I know this is a cheap shot, but if America listened to you Sand, they wouldn't have been in there to begin with. What you are saying now is something like, "Look, it's YOUR vase. I know my son was wrong to break it with his baseball bat, but it's your vase, your business. There's no way we're going to pay for a new one, or fix this one. We've got our own vases to worry about."

[Walsingham]

I'll buy 2.5 million displaced. But 1 million dead? Would that be from the Lancet report which assumed that some 70% of people killed never turned up in either a hospital or morgue? See the criticism expanded on at:

 

critique of the Lancet figure of 650,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

I suggest that given your eveident partisan hostility you restrain your use of figures to those which can be backed up by evidence.

 

I refer you to the same site to observe the falling off of civilian deaths, even in this fiercely independent source.

 

The action in Basra the last few days is probably misguided, but if nothing else it proves the Iraqi government are not mere pawns of the Coalition, since it contradicts the line taken by the USA of attempting peaceful integration of the Mehdi army, and reconciliation with the Shia.

 

I could quote economic indiactors at you, to show improvemnt, but it would be a total waste of time since the sources are governmental and will no doubt be ignored.

 

Once we have these 6 in play then we will be in a much better position to help other countries. In the long term, we can't help others if we cannot help ourselves.

[/quoted]

 

This is arrant nonsense. American prosperity depends on foreign imports and foreign markets. Your prosperity and employment depends directly on events abroad.

[Sand]

Whoops...

Edited March 28, 2008 by Sand

[Sand]

I didn't say stop foreign trade or not protect ourselves. Read what is there.

 

Tigger, if a nation attacks us then we go in, destroy them, then leave. No rebuilding their country afterwards. That is like rewarding our enemies for attacking us in the first place.

 

Walsh, we should trade with other countries, and bolster the economies of our trade partners as long as it benefits us. However that does not mean we should act irresponsibly by making excuses to invade other countries. Iraq was no threat to the US, nor any US citizen on US soil. Saddam had no WMDs. Saddam had no connection to Al Qaeda. We invaded on false pretenses and thusly acted irresponsibly and American lives have been lost and wasted.

[Azarkon]

Sand, I think you should read the article. Our goals in Iraq weren't punitive. We went in partly to show the world that the US was still in control of events and partly because the neo-cons imagined a grand operatic campaign of "creative destruction." It wasn't even so much about oil, as it was about geo-politics. We wanted to instigate, like we believe we instigated, the same sort of chain reaction that crushed Communism and democratized Eastern Europe. Yes, showing that you shoudln't mess with the US was part of it, but as pointed out in the article, that would've been a pointless exercise if it was targetted at Hussein since the base of terrorist power was in Saudi Arabia & Iran, not Iraq. No matter how the neo-cons spin it, the bottomline is that they envisioned a stable, secular Iraq that would put pressures all across the Middle-East to follow our leadership. Israel would be safe, American geo-political interests would be secure, Bush would be remembered as the president who "brought democracy to the Middle-East," and the troops'll be home for Christmas.

 

Except for one little problem - that never happened. Things seem to indicate that a permanent US presence would be required in order for the Iraqi state to even function now that it's thoroughly divided along ethnic lines. The US, far from constructing a secular, united, pro-Western, and strong Iraq, has divided the nation in twine and brought it into a state of permanent dependence. There's your case study for what happens when the US intervenes - and you wonder why nobody wants the West to mess with their domestic ethnic problems anymore.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Azarkon

[Sand]

Anyone with a brain should have seen that could never have happen.

[walkerguy]

As of this post, "updated 1 minute ago"

 

Iraq

[Xard]

Tigger, if a nation attacks us then we go in, destroy them, then leave. No rebuilding their country afterwards. That is like rewarding our enemies for attacking us in the first place.

 

Sand,

 

A) We don't live in ancient times anymore

B) and USA is not Roman Empire

 

so stop talking about like what romans did to Carthage after Hannibal's defeat should be done in today's world

[Nick_i_am]

That's before we even get into what actually counts as an 'attack'. Just look at internet, cyber skirmishes are getting worse and worse yet the US hasn't attacked China.

[Xard]

Well, obviously they should be nuked

[walkerguy]

If a nation attacks us then we go in, destroy them, then leave. No rebuilding their country afterwards. That is like rewarding our enemies for attacking us in the first place.

 

Thats a little bit extreme. Not every war is neccessarily, say, "just"... just think about the wrong ^ could bring about.

Edited March 28, 2008 by walkerguy

[Gorgon]

We don't have any clear idea of how many people have died in fighting or otherwise unnatural causes because both the US military and the Iraqi authority realise that the number would probably be very unflattering. No body counts, no images of soldiers in caskets. Where is the upside in meticulously documenting failure.

 

A conjectured number is much easier to attack as politically motivated.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Gorgon

[Sand]

Thats a little bit extreme. Not every war is neccessarily, say, "just"... just think about the wrong ^ could bring about.

 

If a country attacks the United States, causing lost of life and damaging property, then we should go in and make damn sure they don't have the ability to do so again. With 9/11 we should have went in Afganistan, focus on killing every single member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then simply leave afterwards. Iraq did not attack us therefore we should not have invaded.

[Xard]

Thats a little bit extreme. Not every war is neccessarily, say, "just"... just think about the wrong ^ could bring about.

 

If a country attacks the United States, causing lost of life and damaging property, then we should go in and make damn sure they don't have the ability to do so again. With 9/11 we should have went in Afganistan, focus on killing every single member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then simply leave afterwards. Iraq did not attack us therefore we should not have invaded.

 

You don't live in real world if you honestly think that is doable