The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread

Significantly different than '06, '05, and '04 in terms of the internal situation of the American politic and popular will to continue to maintain presence...

Less than 20% of the public supports putting more troops in the region, and it looks like that is exactly what Pres. Bush is going to announce soon and will probably do...

By the end of the year, I would be surprised if there were not a serious attempt at cutting funding of the occupation by Congress if the President continues on this course. That wouldn't have been thinkable in '04 or '05 or even '06.

'07 and '08 will be the Iraqis last chance to get it together...

If the situation seems precarious now for the 'Iraqi' people, then we'll see how different - and worse for them - it will be when we pack up and leave.

 

There's a strong argument that the window of opportunity for broad Iraqi acceptance of the national government has already closed. The Maliki government essentially had its chance to prove that it could improve the lives of the Iraqi people, and failed, with plenty of assistance from the U.S. of course. Things went steadily downhill in 2006. Basic infrastructure is still subject to sabotage where it works at all. Ethnic cleansing is nearly a done deal. Iraq's secular, educated middle class and elite has largely fled the country. Islamist warlords have carved up Iraq neighborhood by neighborhood. What's left for the government to prove its complete inability to govern or for the U.S. to prove its inability to provide security?

From the point of view of the U.S.: escalate the conflict or get out remain the only two options. Increasingly it's looking like the answer to "which of these do we do" is going to be "yes." First escalate. Then get out. A very Vietnamish response, but for a country like the U.S. probably institutionally, culturally, politically inevitable. Lose big. If you're going to be a bear - be a grizzly.

 

Here's an interesting view from Douglas Wood, the Australian who was kidnapped and subsequently rescued. He tends to share the same views as those above.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-rot-starts-at-the-top-in-iraq/2007/01/03/1167777152360.html

 

The real test for Iraq comes this year? Uh...the test came and went when the war started 3 years ago. The prognosis looks poor for Iraq.

 

I'm starting to think the surge we've been hearing so much about over the past month won't make it through congress. I think they may start pulling their budgetary strings.

 

I'm not sure that's going to work. Remember, the Democrats only hold the Senate by one vote, and Lieberman is a strong supporter of the war in Iraq.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I know.

However, may Republicans have voiced very strong objections to the "surge". For example, my Senator Hagel has said "It's Alice in Wonderland" and ""I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

Not to mention the fact that 70% want troops to start coming out of Iraq and only 20% support sending more.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure it will work. I didn't say that it definitely wouldn't work, only that it's not certain to happen.

A lot will depend on what else is in the same authorization bill. Remember, it could be very beneficial to the Republicans to block a reduction in military spending. Come 2008, they could easily spin it as "The Democrats tried to cut funding for our troops!".

Kimball Kinnison

 

Come 2008, I'm not sure that trying to cut funding for the troops wouldn't be seen as neutral-to-positive.

 

Disregarding all the US politics, the alleged objective of the invasion of Iraq (at least the one thats still being discussed) is to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. I assert this objective was dead on arrival and will not be achieved no matter how many troops you send to Iraq. If the Bush administration and the Pentagon had spent some time reviewing history they would have realized Iraq, as currently configured, can't exist in a stable, peaceful condition no matter what type of government emerges or you install.

The Shia/Sunni conflict has been going on for 1400 years and there is no path to resolution for them. And I mean no path. As wise as Muhammad was allegedly, it did not occur to him to set forth a clear succession plan after his death. The schism in Islam that resulted gave rise to the opposing Sunni and Shia factions. The only way both can have peace is to not interact with one another. However, due to Iraq's configuration, they are forced to interact which had led to continual carnage since the end of World War I when the current state of Iraq was created. Prior to Saddam, the leadership of Iraq has bounced back and forth between Sunni and Shia elements - changing hands as the result of uprisings, assassinations, and coups. The conflict was alive and well under Saddam too. As a Sunni dictator, Saddam exacted a heavy toll on the Shia majority. The only reason the death count is higher right now is because both sides are fairly evenly matched in their guerilla/terrorist warfare style currently whereas under Saddam the Sunni had the Iraqi army under their control for which the Shia were no match. With Iran bankrolling the Shia and Saudi Arabia bankrolling the Sunni, there is no end in sight to the carnage we are currently seeing.

The best you can try to achieve in Iraq while keeping the country intact is civilized oppression. This is basically what we are trying to achieve - a strong enough Iraq police force and military to herd the religious war being waged. The following document does a fairly good job of detailing the current situation and the fundamental structural flaws of Iraq. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr168.pdf

We can discuss gear and troop levels, etc. but all of that is peripheral to the primary problem facing the global community. The real solution is a complete recongifuration of Iraq. Turkey annexes the Kurdish northern region of Iraq. Have the Sunni province of Al Anbar annexed by Saudi Arabi who have the oil resources to soothe the loss by the Sunni Iraqis of the oil reserves in the south that will be lost by turning the remaining Shia country into its own country. There is the risk that this resulting Shia nation will seek to combine with Iran but I think the likes of Moqtada Al-Sadr and his ilk would rather not share power with the religious and political pantheon of Iran. This is the long-term solution. It is not perfect. It will have challenges. But it is the best hope for reducing the carnage we will otherwise see and preventing that carnage from escalating across the larger region.

 

That seems pretty impractical, to me. While Turkey certainly doesn't want an independent Kurdish state, they have enough trouble from the Kurds and the PKK already. Given that the Iraqi Turks are already allowing some PKK activity in their regions when they're semi-autonomous, I don't think it would be wildly inaccurate to imagine that terrorism might spike if Turkey tried to absorb the whole of Kurish Iraq.

Additioanlly, and even more problematic, how would Saudi Arabia maintain control over one landlocked province, that is quite some distance from Saudi Arabia to begin with?

 

We make it a condition of Turkey's EU membership. That will get their attention.

Al Anbar is adjacent to Saudi Arabia.

 

Eh, seems my geography's a bit rusty. Point withdrawn, I guess.

However, what would be the EU's interest in doing this? And would that even be legal? The parameters for EU membership are pre-set, as I understand them. Further, I thought they were supposed to be largely technical bureaucratic (demonstrate stability through X economic indicators, etc) not making country's do major about-faces on issues of foreign policy. Isn't that already the huge difficulty with Turkey (in regards to the Cyprus issue)?

I'm really having a lot of trouble seeing how this would work.

And what's with this Fruit Loops banner?

 

EU accession is basically ad hoc rules - there is no "law" per se. Turkey applied for membership in 1987 and they are still being given the run around while the EU tries to muster the unaminous consent required for Turkey to join. Most of the big dogs (UK, France, Germany) already support Turkish membership - they could lean on Turkey to be a good global citizen and take one for the team so to speak. The EU has as big a stake as anyone at getting the Middle East under control and Turkey can play its part - besides the benefits Turkey would reap from EU membership would outweight any drag it might experience from taking on the Kurds.

I am not saying its a perfect solution. But there isn't one. Its the best solution available unless you have a way to get the Muslims of the region to stop killing each other over the equivalent of "tastes great"/"less filling."

 

Alright, stop me if I'm wrong...

I can see a lot of cynicism here about going into Iraq and also about how Iraq was handled. So let's do a brief history check...

In '90 Saddam invaded Kuwait. He had the world's fourth largest army with over 1,000,000 troops. That army was now sitting right on the boarder of Saudi Arabia. Saudi's king, fearing advancement of that army into his kingdom, asked for assistance in repelling Saddam from Kuwait.

The US, working through the UN, assembled a coalition to do just that. After a short but very bloody war Saddam had retreated and signed a cease-fire agreement.

At this point the coalition can do one of three things:

1) Remove Saddam from power.

2) Sign the agreement and strictly enforce it's conditions.

3) Sign the agreement and attempt to be as forgiving as possible in it's enforcement.

We chose option #3. Saddam spent the next 13 years proving to the Middle East that a military victory by the West had very little consequence. In the belief of many, myself included, this emboldened many in the region to start attacking our interests. This lead, after 10 years and 5 months of Saddam's defiance, to an attack on New York and Washington D.C.

Saddam had called us "toothless dogs" in 1990. Osama repeated the charge in 2001. While the Mid-East has always hated us, Saddam was a big part of the reason they had no fear of us.

So now we've gone in and finally enforced the cease-fire agreement. Many here are saying that the US has made too many mistakes and we may loose.

But have we really made too many mistakes? Let's look at where the war started to go south. The US flag over the head of Saddam's statue? No, not really. It was certainly over-reported but not an unexpected spoil of war.

No. It was Abu-Gharib. While these sorts of things happen in each side of all wars, this is the first war in which we have camera phones, embedded reporters, and high speed internet connections.

It was the reporting of the "scandal" that was the mistake. Before the story broke the military had already stopped the behavior and was investigating charges. There was no need for you or I, and by default the enemy combatants and Iraqi citizens, to ever know of this story.

It would be a different issue if the story involved a cover-up of the incident and/or protection of the guilty. But this was not the case. Absolutely no good came of reporting the story. There was no "protection of the innocent" accomplished by this.

The comes Fallujah. We handled the situation with kid gloves. Instead of a quarantine, curfew and a house to house search we had "negotiations." It was from here that the war obtained it's current state as Iraq once again proved that a military victory by the West means nothing due to our fear of bloodshed.

I believe that the war took that damaging turn due to Abu-Gharib. It is my belief that, much like the reporting of "The Highway of Death" took the wind out of Bush Sr.'s sails, Abu-Gharib made Bush Jr. a little too gun-shy about the perception of the war.

Combine that with all the leaked information about intel, intel gathering and financial surveillance and we have come to the point where we are in Iraq.

The solution? Brace yourselves, this is where I really shine!

We pick a freakin side! I prefer the Kurds but in the end it doesn't really matter. We pick a side, send in the troops we need to lock down the boarders, and roll the tanks through the country killing anyone from the opposing sides that will pick up arms against "our" side.

Does it look like genocide? Kind of. (Doesn't all war look "kind of" like genocide?) That's why it will never happen. But that's the only way to end this thing. The Iraqi Survey Group gave us nothing but a way to back out without taking all the responsibility for what would surely be a failed effort.

Thoughts?

 

Only that I don't think you could find a more reactionary (not to mention wrongheaded) take on the war.

First the war is lost. All political objectives are unable to be met.

Second, it was lost at many points along the way, each sufficient to have lost the war in and of itself. While one of these was indeed Abu Ghraib, many came before it. The idea that 140,000 troops could pacify a country of 25 million, the abandonment of the Iraqi army, the looting sprees, the use of corporations to conduct the reconstruction instead of feeding the billions into the actual Iraqi economy, not to mention the reliance on large bases (fortress syndrome) instead of spreading the troops throughout the city and country and closely embedding them with the locals (as in living in the same villages for extended periods of time).

Thirdly, it was general knowledge among the local population that Iraqi police and U.S. forces in Abu Ghraib were abusing prisoners. The reporting merely opened it up to the rest of the world.

Fourthly, the idea that the was no coverup is complete BS. Even with the reporting, everything has been scapegoated onto the lowest ranking people when it was much closer to policy than to the "bad egg".

Fifthly, I'm not sure if you remember Fallujah correctly. We went door to door through the city and caused extensive damage as a reaction to what happened to the contractors. It certainly was not "kid gloves".


Combine that with all the leaked information about intel, intel gathering and financial surveillance and we have come to the point where we are in Iraq.

Are you referring to the illegal wiretapping programs and financial surveillence (which was already public knowledge, and neither of which had anything to do with Iraq? You must be joking.

We pick a side, send in the troops we need to lock down the boarders, and roll the tanks through the country killing anyone from the opposing sides that will pick up arms against "our" side.

What troops? I'm afraid we don't have them.

What good are tanks against insurgents? Insurgents don't fight tanks and won't pick up arms until they are gone.

Since we will rightly not do what you suggest in Iraq, isn't it time to stop throwing good money (and good lives) after the bad?

 

If we did that every time, you'd look like someone who's just learning how to drive stick

 

What troops? I'm afraid we don't have them.

What good are tanks against insurgents? Insurgents don't fight tanks and won't pick up arms until they are gone.

Since we will rightly not do what you suggest in Iraq, isn't it time to stop throwing good money (and good lives) after the bad?

Hold it now. We have about one tenth of our military in Iraq. I don't think we are as stretched as the media and some of their sourses would have you believe.

And the stories about Abu-Gharib were just that...stories...until verified by a delighted press.

While many of your suggestions...the use of corporations to conduct the reconstruction instead of feeding the billions into the actual Iraqi economy,not to mention the reliance on large bases (fortress syndrome) instead of spreading the troops throughout the city and country and closely embedding them with the locals (as in living in the same villages for extended periods of time)...are very good ones none of them were responsible for the current state. I believe they would have made things easier though.

While one of these was indeed Abu Ghraib, many came before it. The idea that 140,000 troops could pacify a country of 25 million, the abandonment of the Iraqi army, the looting sprees,

All of which was from a lack of troops.

Fourthly, the idea that the was no coverup is complete BS. Even with the reporting, everything has been scapegoated onto the lowest ranking people when it was much closer to policy than to the "bad egg".

The commander was relived of her command. How "lowest ranking" is that? Especially considering that there was no evidence that she knew of the abuse, much less ordered or condoned it.

Fifthly, I'm not sure if you remember Fallujah correctly. We went door to door through the city and caused extensive damage as a reaction to what happened to the contractors. It certainly was not "kid gloves".

The result? A negotiated "peace." Kid gloves.

Are you referring to the illegal wiretapping programs and financial surveillence (which was already public knowledge, and neither of which had anything to do with Iraq? You must be joking.

The financing of insurgence in Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq? Really? See, we have no real idea who's money was being watched but certainly much of it was being funnelled into the expensive Iraq insurgency.

"Illegally" wiretapping calls involving Iraq as well as other nations that sponsor terror doesn't involve Iraq? Who's joking? Again, we have no idea who was being tapped. But I certainly think that a call or two to or from Iraq probably made the surveillance list.

And finally...First the war is lost. All political objectives are unable to be met.

Ya know, that has been said of nearly every major conflict reguardless of how it eventually ended. Why would this one be any different?

 

Ouch! Good one though!

 

just what happens if north korea decides to send over a million troops into south korea?

 

The rest of the world will then learn why it is a good idea to quit relying on our military (all the while bitching about how big it is) and have effective militaries of their own.

 

The rest of the world will then learn why it is a good idea to quit relying on our military (all the while bitching about how big it is) and have effective militaries of their own.

That's the truest thing you've written to date in this thread and I comlpletely agree.

The US should stop bringing "democracy" to countries like Iraq in the manner that it has done to date in Iraq and the rest of the world should stop relying on the US to protect it and spend some money on its own defence. A shallow view I know but true I think.

 

The US should stop bringing "democracy" to countries like Iraq in the manner that it has done to date in Iraq

Then what? Dispose of the dictator and leave the country to the next brutal regime?

 

Then what? Dispose of the dictator and leave the country to the next brutal regime?


no: we leave these countries alone entirely.

 

no: we leave these countries alone entirely.

So...we should not have gone in back in '91?