I R A Q
Melatonin
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">iraq? again?! yes!</div> theres not been any Iraq topic for too long.
I thought that now there have been more <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3226189.stm' target='_blank'>American deaths</a> since the war 'ended' than when it was still officially occuring, and that American troops morale is at an <a href='http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4407' target='_blank'>all time low</a>, it was time to bring up the question of <i>when</i> Iraq will be left to govern itself.
There seems to be more and more reports of so called terrorists (read freedom fighters?) and recently the 'attempt on Wolfowitz'..
how much longer can the occupation continue without loosing control of the increasingly hostile population of Iraq, and without loosing all respect 'back home' with the American population?
*edit:syntax*
I thought that now there have been more <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3226189.stm' target='_blank'>American deaths</a> since the war 'ended' than when it was still officially occuring, and that American troops morale is at an <a href='http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4407' target='_blank'>all time low</a>, it was time to bring up the question of <i>when</i> Iraq will be left to govern itself.
There seems to be more and more reports of so called terrorists (read freedom fighters?) and recently the 'attempt on Wolfowitz'..
how much longer can the occupation continue without loosing control of the increasingly hostile population of Iraq, and without loosing all respect 'back home' with the American population?
*edit:syntax*
Comments
The least the administration could do is be straight about it. And if they're not straight about it because they themselves really don't know, then we're screwed.
Give me something CONCRETE to work with, no more overgeneralized patriotic rhetoric... that doesn't accomplish anything.
Well you gave something concrete, that's more than laudable.
The "shooting to kill attackers" part... of course we're doing that. If someone attacks our units, we WILL fight back. If there's a forceful attack from outside the borders we WILL attack back. We HAVE been arresting suspected terrorists, there've been some rather well-reported arrests in the past month... I'd certainly HOPE we're doing this. But how has this stopped anything? Everything has been guerilla warfare and terror attacks. How do you shoot and kill a suicide bomber? How do you know who a suicide bomber is? We're currently limiting emigrants from Syria and Iran, but all of the attacks have been WITHIN the nation.
You're asking for martial law and, honestly, we're kind of giving that to them. And it's NOT working. So what else can we do, proactively?
That's grand !
Yes. "So called terrorist", I mean, those freedom fighters they are... killing Humanitarian Aid workers and bombing Red Cross aid, how noble !
Terrorists not so called terrorists, yes they are terrorists, are apparently trying to display their initiative by trying to cross international law.
Iraq's only problem is that they are occupied by Radicals who are disrupting peace and progression, the US military is doing fine.
The reconstruction of Iraq is vital, and it's important we fulfill our promise.
You know it might be just my strange view of the world, but isn't the US trying to create a <i>democracy</i> in Iraq? The measures you've just described are more akin to a police state than a democracy.
The big question has to be: how is the US going to bring order and peace to Iraq? Firstly we must figure out who is attacking the US and other foriegn organisations in Iraq. Certainly former-Saddam supporters can be blamed for some of the strikes. But look at the statistics:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US forces, for their part, have faced an average of 33 attacks a day in the past week, and more Americans have died in combat over the past six months than during the war itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(www.news.com.au). That's a lot of attacks, which means in turn that there's a considerable number of people who really don't like the US being in Iraq. Can it all be blamed of pro-Saddam loyalists? This bbc article, and there are many more like it, takes a look at who is behind the fighting:
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3148223.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3148223.stm</a>
Now even if all the attacks are only by pro-Saddam loyalists, the task of hunting them down is truely immense. How can you tell these people apart from regular, everyday Iraqis? Many of the records that would have helped to track them down were lost in fires and looting. If, as some US commanders claim, the US is facing an organised guerrilla war, this will not be an easy struggle.
But in turning back to the question of how to combat the violence, has the US gained sufficient support from amongst the Iraqi people themselves? Civilian intelligance certainly would be of great use, especially as it is amongst the civilian population that these guerrillas are hiding. Yet, have the Iraqi people been co-operating? Do they, in fact, want to co-operate? Few Iraqis are sad to see Saddam gone, true, but that does not automatically translate into support for the US. If the guerrillas are coming from the civilian population as well, and are people who dislike Saddam but wish to see America out of Iraq, then the situation is even worse than anticipated. Fighting a guerrilla war in a country where more and more people are against you is a daunting task, and one that no modern army has had a good track record with. Both the former USSR and the US both met their worst military defeats in guerrilla fighting, in Afghanistan and Vietnam respectively. Can the new US military succeed where others have failed?
If it does become clear that the Iraqi people themselves do not want the US around any more, is there any wisdom or indeed, reason for staying in Iraq? Staying there against their wishes would be a disaster, both militarily and from a PR standing.
Time will tell whether the Iraqis do want the US to stay in Iraq. But given the steady increase in attacks, which have now forced Aid agencies to leave Iraq ( <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7724402%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...2%255E2,00.html</a> ) and claimed 117 American soldiers, the future looks bleak.
To quote Erich Wollenberg who said it better than I could:<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Frederick the Great once clothed his foreign policy in a garb of bad Latin. <i>Prevenire, non preveniri</i>, he said, meaning to imply thereby that it is better to spring a surprise attack on the enemy than to let him get his blow in first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq was run by a secular regime and surprisingly enough, one of the most progressive in the area. I am not discarding the fact that the Ba'athists tortured and executed countless Iraqi fundamentalists and communists in their long reign, but I am presenting the fact that women and christians held many high positions in the old regime.
Iraq had the misfortune of being situated over a lot of oil reserves. Rather than allow Europe to buy the oil with exclusive trading rights, we invaded to get our own exclusive control of the oil, straight at the source. This was a real blow to the Europeans, who are now scampering back to beg for mercy that they did not let the US go in more smoothly. This act of defiance by Europe is being forgiven by Bush, but it proves that the European Union are the USA's servants by fortune and not by creed.
In Iraq, the resistance can call on the memories of many Iraqis, who are more and more dissatisfied with their devastated economy and centralized bureaucracy having collapsed, leaving the nation in ruins.
Much like the Nazis used strong language in reference to the Marquis, so do we call these resistance fighters "terrorists." But they are fighting for no more than a better life for them and their families. The most tragic thing is that the real terrorists haven't been caught. They are: Bush, Saddam, and the European leaders, all who wished to exploit the Iraqi people, through different means, for maximum profits.
The Americans getting shot at are poor kids who are fighting other poor, Iraqi kids. Our boys are going to return home to minimum wage, and little if any veterans' benefits from a government that uses the army as a tool of imperialism and doesn't care for the lives or well-being of its soldiers. They're fighting and dying in a war that doesn't concern them, and they won't get **** in return.
Well, dictators, imperialists, and robber barons come and go, but the Iraqi and American people remain: just people. Nothing has ever separated us, and it's very tragic that we're killing our fellow human beings like gladiators in the arena for the good of our common enemy: the international bourgeoisie.
WHY WE ATTACKED IRAQ
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam. The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. **** Cheney wants to establish America's primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats. And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials -- Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41's realpolitik and shaping what would become 43's pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who'd that come from? Probably some hardcore conservative who was blinded by government lies, right?
BZZZ! Wrong, thanks for playing.
MAUREEN DOWD
All of those reasons are valid, and make sense. If the war were <b>only</b> about oil, the US could have lifted sanctions and engineered some deals with Iraq. Do you think that Saddam didn't want the money?
Also, I wasn't aware that CAR BOMBS on CIVILANS were a method of fighting for 'freedom' (if Freedom means a dictatorship). I also wasn't aware that the INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS was a symbol of the inernational bourgieise.
Dowd's argument there is silly, she's saying that the feelings and obsessions of a bunch of politicians are driving the world. This analysis of history has been proven incorrect many times before: history is <i>far more</i> than the actions of "great men." A class analysis is needed.
gtg or i'd write more. sorrie
Consider the 20th Century: the cult of personality swept the world as individuals changed mankind's destiny. Truman, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Tojo, Bush II, etc.
This is totally Off-Topic though. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also, the freedom fighters was aimed at Melatonin. Sorry bout that.
This is what the iraqis have seen of "democracy" has brought them in the last half year.
Now, some of you say that it is best to simply retreat from this land, as if you do not have any special responsibility for the current position it is in. But if you do that, I am quite sure that it will become a failed state, with all the turmoil and a very weak government. It is even impossible to maintain order with all these US (and dutch too <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> )policemen marching around.
Therefor, it is clear that Iraq needs foreign aid, but not in the way it is getting now. The first thing that should be done, is hand over authority to the United Nations, both in the case of the militairy as well as the civil. These should maintain order and lead Iraq quick into democracy.
Indeed! That IS a lot of attacks! Lets see, 33 a day... lets say for a whole year.... 12,045 attacks.... out of, what, 5.6 million people in Baghdad alone?
Quite a bit of dissent! That's almost one active person attacking the US in about 464 citizens in the span of one year. Surely there are more who are disgruntled at our presence, but they're not attacking. They're used to waiting out and just enduring you see.
What few people realize is that in a democracy there are a number of parties! That's the point. After we put in place a democracy (if we do it right) the Iraqi people get to choose how they live their lives. If they want to revert to a more authoritarian form of government, it's their choice. (Ideally, this is if we do not put in some sort of lame puppet government, or as soon as we leave they have a civil war or something).
We won't leave until the job is done- we can't afford another situation where we run like vietnam, even if that means more soldiers die (unfortunately). However this, hopefully, gives us a kick in the pance and teaches us to be quicker! There is no reason short of dumb beaurocracy that their power is not on yet. A taste of things to come? I hope not..
for sure we'll be there another 18 months (while we train their local security police) unless the next president decides to cut bait and come home, but most democrats seem to be for finishing the job even if they weren't for going in in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hand over authority to the United Nations<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They had their chance. I'm not about to bleed for a cause then hand it over to someone who didn't want to help after I acheived it. The best way for the UN to help now is to provide aid or troops; that would redeem them somewhat. America is pretty much the most influential member, and just like the league of nations, if you do not have the balls to enforce what you decide, then you won't ever get anything done. Period. Meanwhile people are dying in droves- if anything, it was a crime to let that continue. Regardless of who started it, the bottom line is that it's happening now- don't be upset for us fixing our mistakes. What really upsets me is that we seem to only help the people that is in our best interest to help... but I digress
Enough with this bull**** already of soldiers being slaughtered. Japan took 7 years to build and today it's one of the richest on the planet. Everyone expects too much, just like when the major fighting was happening. Remember how the press was calling it a "quagmire" when the U.S. halted at their first offensive?
Yeah. I think it's safe to assume the U.S. is going to win through at this rate. Any logic to be skeptical doesn't exsist in my oppinion, unless we are talking about money. That is the only valid and useful critisism about Iraq. 83 Billion is a big commitment.
They had their chance. I'm not about to bleed for a cause then hand it over to someone who didn't want to help after I acheived it. The best way for the UN to help now is to provide aid or troops; that would redeem them somewhat. America is pretty much the most influential member, and just like the league of nations, if you do not have the balls to enforce what you decide, then you won't ever get anything done. Period. Meanwhile people are dying in droves- if anything, it was a crime to let that continue. Regardless of who started it, the bottom line is that it's happening now- don't be upset for us fixing our mistakes. What really upsets me is that we seem to only help the people that is in our best interest to help... but I digress<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What exactly did you achieve? Did you achieve democracy in Iraq?
A Yes!
B No!
Do you want to achieve democracy in Iraq?
A Yes!
B No!
Now, you say that the UN had their chance. Did they have their chance at governing Iraq?
A Yes!
B No!
Did the WMD inspectors have any success in their investigations?
A Yes!
B No!
Postwar, did the inspectors find any great amount of weapons of mass destruction?
A Yes!
B No!
Would it have been possible to start inspecting Iraq for human rights?
A Yes!
B No!
Did the UN help achieve democracies in various countries, and support democratic countries in staying that way?
A Yes!
b No!
Saying that the UN has no way to enforce its regulations, and then voting against anything that would enforce such regulations (Israel, Iraq) is downright hypocritical. Furthermore, I still think that it was a right decision of the UN not to support this war. Now, why would the UN send any troops without any garantuee that the US make Iraq a democracy, or any guarantee that the soldiers will be used in the best way for the iraqi people?
Futhermore, the U.N. passed 13 resolutions to have Iraq shape up or ship out.
You just named one of the actual successes of nation building that most people tend to forget.
Urza, it's still early yet. Although I don't doubt the governments resourcefullness in finding ways to screw things up, we'll have to wait and see.
You just named one of the actual successes of nation building that most people tend to forget.
Urza, it's still early yet. Although I don't doubt the governments resourcefullness in finding ways to screw things up, we'll have to wait and see. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan was already a capitalistic society prior to WWII. Capitalism has been and is the major driving force in developing and consolidating democracies. Since 1871, it has been ready to adapt western values, ideas, and techonological developements. The first japanese political party, the Aikoku Koto, was established in 1874. A first petition for democracy was written in the same period. Japan had a democracy before most European countries.
In short, seven years is total nonsense.
Oh man, I <i>so </i>don't want to go into it.
There's a spectacular article called "Between the Technique of Living an Endless Routine and the Madness of Absolute Degree Zero: Japanese identity and the Crisis of Modernity in the 1990s" that explores the long term effects of Imperial Japan's demise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the 20th Century: the cult of personality swept the world as individuals changed mankind's destiny. Truman, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Tojo, Bush II, etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, right, a single man can take hold of an entire country and make it an extension of his personality? I don't think so.
If Churchill had been born elsewhere and come to power over, say, the Phillipines he would have been defeated by the Americans regardless of how hardcore he was.
Folks, I hate to say so, I <i>really</i> do, but not only I, but a large part of the anti-war protestors told you so before it all started. The Coalition forces are stationed in a country that has so far only once been brought to relative stability: Under the authoritarian, totalitarian and grossly violent reign of Saddam Hussein.
When looking at the current situation, we should keep in mind that the 'nation' Iraq is a product of the careless, ignorant decolonialization efforts of the European colonial powers after WW1 (wipe that smile off your face, Mons <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). The Iraq is in no way homogenous, it lacks any kind of uniting characteristic that would truly make the inhabitants regard themselves as Iraqis in the first place, and, even worse, the single factions have a long and colorfull tradition of hating and fighting each other:
<li>Religiously, it's, as we all know, divided in Sunnites, Kurds Shiites, and a number of smaller minorities, such as Sufis. This divide became even deeper than it was due to historical influences by to the exposed role parts of the Sunnite minority played during Husseins reign.
<li>Economically, the Iraq encompasses areas that became relatively wealthy due to oil trade, and large regions inhabited by poor desert dwellers.
<li>Culturally, not few of the Iraqis could just as well regard themselves as Iranians, Syrians, or Saudi-Arabians.
<li>Politically, the Iraq has never experienced domestic administrations except for Hussein and the local tribeleaders of pre-colonial times. It has <i>no</i> non-authoritarian political tradition whatsoever.
One could argue that, cynical though it might sound, the only thing that kept this country together <i>was</i> Hussein and the mustard gas.
Now, the Coalition marched into this hells kitchen and hoped to bring peace and democracy to it. Honestly, I doubt that the Iraq in its current form could truly reach either of the two in the best of all cases, as the petty conflicts between the factions would inevitably break out again, and historical experience shows that conflict-ridden regions tend to fall under authoritarian reigns.
Now, let's have a look at <i>this</i> case. We'll all agree that the Iraqi public, which grew up with anti-American propaganda and just experienced a war consisting of surgical strikes employing cruise missles with eight to twelve percent failure rates in their tracking systems, was and is bound to be at least cautious towards a force led by and largely consisting of the USAmerican military. (No, I'm not trying to bash the US here, this is the attempt of a calm analysis of the situation.)
This caution was certainly reinforced by the continuing anarchy throughout the country. A short lawless transition after the occupation of a nation isn't so surprising, but if you could still not go out after dark for the fear of your life six months after the end of a war, wouldn't you also start doubting the intention behind the actions of the most powerful army of the world?
Add to this the influence of radical fundamentalistic preacher (which didn't have to be 'imported' from the Iran, there was plenty of them native to the Iraq in the first place), remainders of the Ba'athists, and pretty much any kind of Muslim extremist organization active on this planet, and you'll agree with me that a certain hostile atmosphere isn't surprising.
This atmosphere is, of course, only supported by any kind of action the Coalition risks.
They're in a horrible situation, really: Either, they decide to lay low, which'll offer any kind of dissenter free movement and reign throughout the country, leaving the occupant forces with an air of incompetence, or, they decide to strike hard as Jammer suggested, which'll inevitably mean collateral damage to innocents. And imagine being a sixteen years old who sees big white men in bulletproof jackets dragging his older brother out of the house at night - what would <i>you</i> do?
This is where I should come up with a sharp point about what to do, but honestly, I have no damn idea.
Stay in and get the job done, if necessary under martial law? Well, look at the last twenty years of Israeli/Palestenian history and tell me how well <i>that</i> worked out.
Stay in and try to get a democratic government in place as soon as possible? They used to try that with Germany after WW1, as well - some historicans call the ensuing period 'the democracy that lacked democrats', others call it 'the years before the Third Reich'.
Get out of there? And leave multiple millions of people at the mercy of the guy with the biggest gun?
All I know is that we all are waist deep in industrial-grade fertilizer.
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7749988%255E401,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...255E401,00.html</a>
15 US soldiers dead after their Chinook helicopter was shot down by a SAM. Also 21 wounded.
Extract from the article, detailing other attacks during the week:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Local villagers displayed blackened pieces of wreckage to arriving reporters, and in nearby Fallujah townspeople celebrated on the streets. "This was a new lesson from the resistance, a lesson to the greedy aggressors," said one Iraqi, who wouldn't give his name. "They'll never be safe until they get out of our country," he said of the Americans.
Townspeople also reported a fresh attack on US soldiers inside Fallujah, saying an explosion struck one vehicle in a convoy at about 9 am Sunday (local time). They claimed four soldiers died, but US military sources said they couldn't confirm the report.
In a separate incident, military sources said a soldier from the 1st Armored Division was killed just after midnight in an explosion in Baghdad.
In Abu Ghraib, local Iraqis said US troops arrived on Sunday morning and ordered people to disperse from the marketplace and remove what the Iraqis said were religious stickers from walls. Someone then tossed a grenade at the Americans, witnesses said, and the soldiers opened fire.
The US command said it had no immediate information, but Iraqi witnesses said they believed three or four Americans were killed and six to seven Iraqis were wounded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this what we're going to expect over the coming months? Far from winding down, these attacks have gotten worse and larger, claiming more and more lives. The Iraqi people don't seem to be actively trying to help hunt down those responsable for these attacks. Which raises the question of do they want the US there?
Myself and many other people who spoke out against the war are currently resisting the overwhelming urge to say "We told you so". Things are just going from bad to worse. Still no word on WMDs. Still no sign of Saddam. And every day brings fresh attacks.
Like Nem said, the US is up that famous creek. And there's no means of propulsion to be seen.
All too true. And living as I do in a country only a couple of miles away from the world's largest Muslim nation (Indonesia) I fear that Australia may soon experiance the consequenses of supporting the Iraq invasion. We already had the Bali bombings. How long before the ripples from Iraq reach us?
Tragically, as you point out Nemesis, nations like Germany are all too likely to be caught up in a conflict that they tried so hard to prevent. We can only hope that the US will learn from it's mistakes here and not start another invasion elsewhere. Given that the US still hasn't seemed to have learnt from it's Vietnam experiance, I can only say that this is a forlorn hope indeed.
Thats the most depressing part of all, nothing has been learnt, the rhetoric coming out of Washington is even more resolved to continue this campainge today than before the war, and theres absolutly no signs that the 'war on terror' will stop after Iraq is back on its feet.
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7749988%255E401,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...255E401,00.html</a>
15 US soldiers dead after their Chinook helicopter was shot down by a SAM. Also 21 wounded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats alarming news to say the least. Let's hope this doesn't turn into a soviet-afghan stinger missile scenario.
If memory serves the soviets lost over 200 aircraft to those.