| Author |
Topic:
The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/9 1:52pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
The seeds of democracy are far less interesting at this point than any potential seeds of a positive working relationshp with the U.S.
The larger point is that the Bush administration seems to have more or less given up on the national Iraqi government, even if they will not admit this as a policy direction. Bush I believe has looked Miliki in the eye and found him, finally, irrelevant. The recent U.S. strategy seems built much more around bottom up local arrangements that ratify whatever the actual situation is on the ground in whatever region. Given a large enough presence, the U.S. military is perfectly capable of working with local Iraqi fiefdoms to the mutual benefit of everyone, and this is why the surge has had some modest success. Contrast that to Miliki's ill-advised action in Basra in which a thousand Iraqi soldiers/police abandoned their posts.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
4/9 1:53pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Sure.
But I think the point is, even taking that at face value, Iraq, has overall, probably retarded the pace of democratization, relative to what otherwise could've been achieved. Certainly, I think you'll agree it's seen more as a cautionary tale than a success story at the moment.
-----signature-----
Penitent & Unforgiven  Sorry JediAngela The Yankees are awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/9 2:04pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Do you mean Iraq in relation to Iraq? There was no democratic movement (at least beyond the conceptual stage) in the country at all prior to 2003. Sure, Iraq is a cautionary tale. Any war, conflict, peacekeeping operation should be looked at as a cautionary tale, and Iraq isn't unique in this regard.
I'd say that those in the West also tend to artificially inflate what Iraq represents as well. Most of the democratic movements in the Middle East have accelerated after Iraq, so there certainly isn't a retarding of forward motion in the region overall. This is not to say that such movements have done so because of Iraq. Correlation does not equal causation.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
4/25 6:01am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
- Date Edited:
4/25 6:04am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
J-Rod
|
Jabba-wocky posted:
Sure.
But I think the point is, even taking that at face value, Iraq, has overall, probably retarded the pace of democratization, relative to what otherwise could've been achieved. Certainly, I think you'll agree it's seen more as a cautionary tale than a success story at the moment.
I know, right? After 13 years and 17 resolutions we decide to roll the tanks just as democracy was budding. 
On another note, while this is from a right-wing blog, the numbers are interersting. Here
If the numbers are accurate, Bush's military has had less casualties than any in the last 25 years.
EDIT: I miss you guys! Stupid work! 
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"  http://www.mymonavie.com/yourjuice
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/25 8:06am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Iraq, has overall, probably retarded the pace of democratization, relative to what otherwise could've been achieved. Certainly, I think you'll agree it's seen more as a cautionary tale than a success story at the moment.
I don't think anything could have been achieved vis a vis democratization. But yes, it's a cautionary tale. I don't know any more what it's a cautionary tale of. These days I tend to think that the proximate cause of the Iraq invasion was not so much George Bush but rather the catastrophe and failure of the sanction regime.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 8:42am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
J-Rod posted:
On another note, while this is from a right-wing blog, the numbers are interersting. Here
If the numbers are accurate, Bush's military has had less casualties than any in the last 25 years.
J-Rod, I suggest you look at this.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/25 8:57am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
|
Re that report, the ratio of dead to wounded in operation Iraqi freedom relative to other American conflicts is simply astounding. If anything, one of the great successes of this war has been the amazing advances in battlefield medicine, if that's the right term, and in particular the logistics of battlefield medicine, if that's the right term.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
4/25 1:31pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Yeah, those're the right terms I *think*..have to ask my platoon medic.
This war has done alot for limb replacement; they ran a piece in our unit newspaper the other day about growing new body parts from your stem cells. Trials start in 2 years, they say.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ben_Skywalker
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/29 10:06am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
growing body parts? I guess it's not that surprising given that we'll be able to cure blindness in 10-15 years.
Darthboba, are you in active army or reserves/ng?
-----signature-----
Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither.
*Obama '08*
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
4/29 11:37am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
J-Rod posted:
I know, right? After 13 years and 17 resolutions we decide to roll the tanks just as democracy was budding.
Since Mubarak isn't making a lot of meaningful movement towards democracy, we have to say that the biggest impetus for democratic change in the region is actually Lebanon. While arguably encouraged by the initial US move in Iraq, the driving force behind this movement was Syria's heavy-handed assassination of Hariri. There were plenty of Arab states that weren't happy about that arrangement for a long time anyway, so it really could've happened somewhat independently of Iraq. Whereas, by contrast, the situation in Iraq is often cited now by regional autocratic rulers as evidence that attempts to embrace democracy can lead to chaos, sectarian civil war, and general instability. If we're trying to make the sell "This is how much your country will improve after moving towards democracy" then we're doing a pretty terrible job of it, all things considered.
Secondly, I agree with the earlier comments that what your seeing in those statistics is primarily a function of advances in medicine. A lot of injuries that would've been fatal in, say, Vietnam, are now very much survivable. Also, we can expand to a more general point and say that in terms of battlefield tactics and performance, our troops do quite well in engagements.
But to talk about that really misses the point of the debate that is going on over Iraq. The question is not whether our soldiers are competent in battlefield encounters, but whether our continued presence is increasing the chances of long-term stability in the country. I would tend to agree with a recent article in Foreign Affairs that we are not. The shift to embracing things like the Awakening groups represents a sort of bottom-up to reconciliation and functional government in Iraq. However, among other reasons, I think that approach is doomed to failure because it encourages tribalism, and disincentivizes reconciliation. For instance, the sheikh's that control individual groups of the Sons of Iraq get, on average, 20% of the payment the US sets aside for those Sunni groups. They wouldn't get this if these informal units were fully integrated into the Iraqi security forces. So, since the annual budget is $150 million, that means not only are these people being recognized as power-holders and important movers and shakers, they're also receiving annual payments of some $30 million dollars from the US. Given, this is collective, but even if you can manage to get a hundred or so men beneath you, that's a very healthy salary of thousands of dollars. Why would anyone give this up? Empowering local tribal leaders this way makes them a competing authority with the central government.
I could go on, but I'll just say briefly that these are the kinds of questions and challenges that make most people question the wisdom of staying in Iraq long-term. It's not at all the case that we're somehow convinced that a group of largely unemployed fighters with inferior training, equipment, and support services would pose a serious threat to the US military in a conventional confrontation.
-----signature-----
Penitent & Unforgiven Sorry JediAngela The Yankees are awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/29 2:11pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
I agree with much of that. My question is does it matter to U.S. interests whether Iraq is tribally fractured, with no hope in the medium term for a stable national government? It's pretty clear from all that's happened that U.S. interest IS the occupation. Bottom up arrangements with local overlords and regional militias suits that interest, if not as optimally as a stable national government might.
What are the things that are important to the U.S.?
1. Military hegemony over the world's biggest oil producing region.
Having big bases in Iraq suits the purpose of reminding everyone that the global petroeconomy is anchored by the U.S.
2. Containment of Iran's regional ambitions, whatever they are.
Iran can influence what happens in Iraq, but cannot dominate the outcome as long as U.S. troops are there.
3. Provide enough stability in Kurdish Iraq for oil infrastructure investment. Provide enough regional stability in the southern oil fields to allow for oil infrastructure investment. Provide enough regional stability to allow for infrastructure investment and protection of oil export terminals.
This has not been a complete failure. Kurdish Iraq is chomping at the bit to rebuild its oil industry. Oil is flowing out of Iraq, even if a lot of it is being diverted to fund the efforts of just about anyone with access to pipelines and distribution points.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LordVader66
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
4/29 11:56pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Iran is the key to Iraq (and Afghanistan). If we cut a deal with the Iranians, by lifting the embargo and sanctions, and in turn they cut ties to terrorism, and cease in their destabilizing policies of Iraq and Afghanistan, then I believe the situation in Iraq will greatly improve. Five years ago, after the fall of Baghdad, Iran offered that and more to the US:
cut all ties to terrorism
turn Hezbollah into a political party only
help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan
allow complete transparency for their use of nuclear technology
create diplomatic ties with Israel
support a two state solution
the US had to do the following:
lift the embargo and sanctions
restore official diplomatic ties
cease interfering in Iranian internal affairs
Mr. Bush, at the time, had a plan to overthrow 7 governments in 5 years (including Iran's), said something to the jist of go to hell. Is this offer still workable? Hard to say. But Iran is a natural ally of the US, because it's one of the most modern Islamic nations in the world. I mean they allow stem cell reseach and the US doesn't because of a religious stance! How much easier would the job had been if we had a cut a deal? A whole lot. Now, because Ahmadinejad is so hated, it's probably politically unworkable to work a grand bargain with the Iranians. Mr. Bush, since he has wrapped himself in the spread of freedom and liberty, as an excuse for his extreme policies of regional transformation, also would now seem politically unworkable from that end, too.
My hope is that Mr. Obama will cut a deal with the Iranians. He has the most pragmatic foreign policy of any of the candidates and he stands the best chance of salvaging any hope of success in the Middle East for the US.
-----signature-----
Peace in the Middle East
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
4/30 4:39pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Ben_Skywalker posted:
growing body parts? I guess it's not that surprising given that we'll be able to cure blindness in 10-15 years.
Darthboba, are you in active army or reserves/ng?
active army; 2-22nd INF regiment, 10th Mountain Division. This is my 3rd deployment.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ben_Skywalker
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
5/1 12:18pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
DarthBoba posted:
Ben_Skywalker posted:
growing body parts? I guess it's not that surprising given that we'll be able to cure blindness in 10-15 years.
Darthboba, are you in active army or reserves/ng?
active army; 2-22nd INF regiment, 10th Mountain Division. This is my 3rd deployment.
damn.. that sucks man. Well at least one positive thing is that you're not stuck at Fort Drum anymore. How long have you been in the Army? I'll be at Camp Stanley, Korea this November with the 2nd Combat Aviation brigade, 2ID. I'd like to transfer to the 101st after the year tour but we'll see.
-----signature-----
Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither.
*Obama '08*
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
5/1 1:08pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
dude, skip the 1-0-worst and just come to drum. Horrible post, but it's the best damn unit in the entire regular army.
I'm in my 5th year now 
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
