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

I agree with Ted Kennedy about the troop surge and how congress should react to it. Bush should seek congressional authorisation for more troops and the funds to do it. If he refuses to do so, congress should move to block it from happening.

Ahh.....divided government is bliss.


Arsenal
BTW When Turkey gets the EU, it wouldn't matter by this atage as the kurds in this country want to be a part of it.

The real question is: does the EU want Turkey to be a part of it? There's some grumbling and backsliding going on.

 

The end of the world must be near because I found myself in the position of supporting Ted Kennedy.

Today I talked with my former professor who specializes in the Middle East, and he gave me an article he wrote for the local newspaper days after 9/11. At the end he said:

I found it very interesting that he said we basically failed that test, and that it has been the arrogance of the administration that has lead us to where we are.

When they show polls showing 71% think the war is going badly, you have to wonder what the heck the other 28% are thinking.

 

"The latest Gallup poll found that 66 percent of Americans think President Bush is doing a poor job in Iraq. The remaining 34 percent believe that Adam and Eve rode to church on dinosaurs."

- Tina Fey, SNL Weekend Update

 

Don't just blame the administration. Blame the voters who put them in power (and don't you DARE say 'they didn't know Bush would be like this' because I sure as hell did, and I was only 16).

 

I don't blame the voters because if the leaders of a country want to go to war, I can't think of a time when the people haven't been convinced to do it. If you remember, prior to 9/11 Bush promised less involvement in foreign entanglements, not more. I don't see what reason you have to try and pawn Bush's failures off to the voting public except to score some policial points against all Republicans.

This was a failure of leadership, not the people. We can't forget the impact of 9/11 which gave the political cover from the administration to pursue Iraq, and I don't think it is fair to blame the people who after that rallied behind the President. If you really want to lay blame on anyone besides the administration, the Democrats didn't have the political will to stand up for what they believed. If they had opposed the war and there had been another attack, they would have been politically dead.

The people shouldn't be expected to know anything about Iraq, they trusted the President when he said there were WMDs and that fighting Iraq was vital to our national security. The voters didn't elect "Neo-cons," they were fooled into going into war like every population ever.

 

No need to refer to this as a claim. Its a fact.

The Defense Intelligence Agency's study concluded Iran was the culprit. The CIA used this study as a basis for its views. Also, the U.S. State Department was quoted in the Washington Post at the time of the attacks that Iran was likely responsible. There are even declassified telegrams sent by the U.S. State Department to diplomats with talking points to support the Iranian responsibility allegation. No wonder the Security Council condemned the Halabja attack by mentioning both Iraq and Iran.

 

What do people think should happen at this point? While I agree the history leading up to this the current situation in Iraq is worth discussing, the immediate question is what is the solution to the problem of the wildly unstable situation in Iraq? As I have contended on this board, splitting Iraq up into its separate factions is the best option. This in effect reconstitutes substantively the three provinces of the Ottoman Empire that existed prior to World War I. I think any solution that tries to keep Iraq as it currently exists to day is doomed to be plagued by the same sectarian strife we have seen since World War I.

 

If you are saying predicting a 1400 year conflict would continue would be considered a "safe bet" then I agree.

Until someone resurrects Mohammed to provide instruction as to who are his rightful religious heirs it exists. The idea that there was no conflict during the period immediately after the overthrow of Saddam's regime is simplistic. Sunni and Shia forces concentrates their efforts on coalition forces - ensuring they could establish strongholds from which to operate (e.g., the Sunni triangle and Sadr's Sadr City). As they established their footholds, it was only a matter of time before they began focusing once again on each other. The Al Askari incident was inevitable.

Yes most of the people fighting and killing are extremists but there are lots of extremists and they are a permanent feature of the region. They have existed for 1400 years, they were present since the Treaty of Versailles and since we invaded Iraq.

 

Well as the Economist piece points out, in contrast to DM's claims, it was the dissolution of the State structure in Iraq that caused the previously pacified sectarian strife to emerge as a dominant ideological force.

Again, it's like Tito and Yugoslavia.

E_S

 

No, see, this is how representative government works, OK? Voters put officials in office, and except in extreme circumstances, the officials are acting AS the people: voting how they believe their constituents want them to vote.

You imply that I'm not blaming the Democrats. I do blame everyone of them who failed to stand up against what was going on. At the same time, their culpability is diminished by the fact that THEIR constituents seemed to be supporting the Bush administration at the time. Ultimately, if an elected official disagrees with her majority of constituents, I think the elected official has the prerogative to do what he personally thinks is best, under the mandate given her by the voters upon election. If the voters disagree strongly enough with the offical's decision they can remove him from office.

And yes, it sure as hell is fair to blame the people who rallied behind Bush after 9/11. Was that a scary time for all of us? Sure. Was it made more scary for some of us (myself included) by the fact that so many people decided it was better to shut their brains down and blindly trust the administration? Damn straight.

If at any time in our recent history, the wake of 9/11 was a time that every citizen in this country needed to start or increase using their critical thinking skills and figure out what 9/11, terrorism, and this country are (and should really be) about.


On the one hand, it's great that so many people seem to be seeing though Bush's bull now. On the other hand, I'm sick and tired of Bush's former supporters blaming everything on the administration and pretending that their support wasn't a MAJOR FACTOR in allowing these travesties to happen. I'm so disgusted I'll even risk Godwinning myself (though I won't use the H or N words):

The German government of the 1930s was good at manipulating people, but they weren't the ones (or was it thousands?) marching into Poland.

 

Tack me up as very skeptical of any plan to divide up Iraq. It strikes me that doing so would set off the war that proponents of the plan are trying to avoid.

 

Some new plan. I seriously hope that this is wrong, but 'eh...I kind of doubt it. Hey, military, a coup would be nice right about now. GWB is sending you all off to die without a care in the world. Rise up. Sheesh...his new strategy should be resigning.

 

No, see, this is how representative government works, OK? Voters put officials in office, and except in extreme circumstances, the officials are acting AS the people: voting how they believe their constituents want them to vote.

That is a very simplistic view of the way officials actually act.

You expect far too much from the general population, the whole reason the founding fathers didn't simply create some unicameral fully democratic body that was the final say in all decisions was because "the people" are not able to act in the way you would wish them to. "The people" don't have the time or know how to "use critical thinking skills" to understand the very complex problems of terrorism. You should know that "the people" rarely make such decisions. There wasn't this magical desire on the part of the general populace to go to war with Iraq, the elected officials created the policy and convinced the people that it was a good thing. Whenever any country goes to war, no matter what kind of political system, they do the same thing. A good example would be the Spanish-American war where the Spanish were practically begging for peace, but due to the media and top elites with nifty soundbits like "Remember the Maine" the people were convinced to go to war. Trying to blame the people in that case seems a bit silly.

There are plenty of people to blame for the current situation, but blaming Joe Shmoe for supporting Bush when he seemed to be doing a good job responding to the attack of 9/11 seems more like sour grapes on your part than anything else. Historically the general population is going to rally behind the flag no matter what, it takes time for "the people" to figure out what is happening.

Because the ruling elite makes the real decisions about what this country does, it seems incredibly unfair to try and blame the poor shmucks who are along for the ride.

 

The point I'm trying to make to you is that the poor schmucks don't HAVE to be along for the ride. I wasn't. Dozens of people I know weren't. We were paying attention, getting our information from more than just the propaganda machine.

The 'schmucks' made a DECISION to go along with everything. They GAVE Bush and his administration the power they had, not just in elected offices but in blind support. They CHOSE to ignore arguments against the war, and to refuse to get their information outside of FOX News.

Through our system of government, the people cede much of their power to elected officials. But that power still originates from the people. It is theirs to give and theirs to take away. I am not in any way trying to say that the Bush administration does not hold responsibility for the war in Iraq. But I am pointing out that they are far from the only ones responsible.

**And please stop trying to paint this as an issue of "J_K_H is still bitter that Bush is president, so he's taking it out on anyone who helped get him into office." Your dismissal of my argument based on your perception of my personal politics is exactly the sort of attitude that got us into Iraq. "He's just arguing against going to war because he's upset Bush got elected, his arguments obviously have no merit."
Also note that until now I have refrained from mentioning the possiblity that your resistance to my argument is due to your past support of Bush and fear of admitting, "Yes, I am partly to blame for the problem that is the War in Iraq." I'm not saying this is the case (I don't even know for sure if you supported the war in 2003), I'm just pointing out that I've tried to avoid making this personal, instead focusing the discussion on the validity of our arguments.**

 

I'm sorry, I saw this quote regarding Saddam Hussein's hanging reposted on my LJ friendslist, and I had to post it here:

Master Sgt. Robert Ellis, a senior medical adviser responsible for Hussein's care in Baghdad, praised the stoicism displayed by Hussein. ?Saddam,? he said, ?was gangsta.?

From here.

 

Thank you replying to my comments in a way that sums up why I rarely post on this forum anymore. I really do despair at having to debunk such absurd statements.

The idea that armed conflict between Sunni and Shia is inevitable is deplorably stupid. It is no different to saying that Protestants and Roman Catholics are incapable of living in peace. Of course their will be differences but the notion that such differences must result in armed conflict is palpably absurd. Sunni and Shia peacefully co-exist in many countries and so to suggest that they cannot do in Iraq is laughable. For two years post Saddam not only was their relatively little violence between the two sides but almost every credible western journalist (both pro and anti war) who visited Iraq reported that there was little appetite for violence.

Not only has this conflict has been provoked by a small number of extemists but it is more about "us against them" and people turning to militias for protection than any great ideological divide.

 

I agree that the Sunni and Shia intercesine struggle was not inevitable: but it was an extreme danger, like the equivalent of having explosives in a house without a detonator on them. It was all there to be exploited, the right buttons just needed to be pushed, and pushed hard.

It's not impossible for Sunni and Shia to live in peace (Saddam, a murderous dictator, ironically proved that). However this is a very volitile section of the world, and fighting between them is more likely to break out than between other minorities in most sections of the world. It's certainly more likely than fighting between Protestants and Catholics.

Well, except in Ireland, of course. It's just as likely there.

 

Gonk

I certainly agree that a Sunni-Shia conflict was always a distinct possibility and I even warned about it before the invasion.

 

Bush's speech sounded like a last stand.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that 2007 is a pivotal year...

It is the last chance for Iraq to get it together.

I give it 6 to 12 months.

 

If the quality of your post here is indicative of what we could expect then I appreciate your mercy.

I have already addressed the mistaken notion that Sunni and Shia were peacefully coexisting after the fall of Saddam. Your Protestant and Roman Catholic "analogy" is so far off I am not sure whether you are being serious or not.

As for your "laughable" comment, you oversimplify a complex situation. Bahrain, Iran and Azerbaijin are the main countries similar to Iraq in terms of a majority Shia population with a minority Sunni population and an overall large Muslim population.

Bahrain 70% Shia - plagued by Shia tensions against the Sunni ruling family. The current ruler's father banned the country's Center for Human Rights and frequently had to crush movements of unrest within the country. Shia are substantively banned from participating in the country's security forces.

Iran 90% Shia - The Sunni are suppressed by a vicious Shia regime that is frequently cited for its human rights violations and brutal treatments of dissidents including Sunnis. Further, the Sunni are primarily isolated in the southeastern provinces, i.e., there is very little mixture of sects in the country.

Azerbaijan 80% Shia - Interestingly, this is the only country in the world where a Shia majority exists relatively peacefully with a Sunni minority. Why? Because the country is predominantly secular and religious observance is nominal due to the hangover of the Soviet era. Too bad we can't immunize the rest of the region against religion.

The two groups can only coexist peacefully if they don't actually adhere to their religious beliefs as in Azerbaijan. Otherwise, you just see ebbs and flows of relative peace followed by coups and revolutions. Regional isolation helps but the idea of a democracy where majority rule is the approach was completely and utterly doomed in Iraq.

You can't apply a Newsweek-derived understanding of Islam and the region to the problem. Nor judge others views as "stupid" and "laughable" because they do not sync with your own.

 

You can't honestly refer to Saddam's rule as a period of "peace." If you define "peace" as "I didn't see anything problematic reported on CNN" then I guess you might be right. Significant and brutal violence existed during Saddam's reign. However, instead of the bilateral violence we see now - violence under Saddam was decidedly unilateral - Sunni against Shia.

Saddam executed 5 million Shia and several hundred thousand Kurds during his rule. He killed 300,000 Shia during 1991 alone after the uprisings following the first Gulf war. We uncovered hundreds of mass graves in 2003 alone some containing remains of over 10,000 people - including women and children.

Whatever that is - it sure as hell isn't "peace."

 

Strangely, I found myself siding more with Bush and McCain this evening than Obama, Edwards and others. Edwards assertion that Bush's speech was too "analytical" was ridiculous. Obama's focus on "political accommodation" was misguided. As long as the Sunni and Shia militias think they can get their way via violence they don't need politics. First, you crush the militias and death squads then you start talking politics.

Maliki seems credibly ready to face up to Sadr now also. This is a significant development. When Bush was referring to places they couldn't go but can go now he was basically talking about Sadr City.

I am inclined to agree with Bush and McCain - this is not just a quantitatively more robust initiative but also a qualitatively more robust initiative. I think we should give it a shot. I think it might significant reduce the level of violence in Iraq to the point that the Iraqi army can get its feet under it.

It won't eliminate the violence. The country will be plagued by it as long as it remains in existence. But the situation can improve from its current predicament.

 

You can't honestly refer to Saddam's rule as a period of "peace." If you define "peace" as "I didn't see anything problematic reported on CNN" then I guess you might be right. Significant and brutal violence existed during Saddam's reign. However, instead of the bilateral violence we see now - violence under Saddam was decidedly unilateral - Sunni against Shia.

It was peace compared to whatever the hell's going on over there now. You didn't have Sunni spontaniously blowing away a few Shias, or Shias spontaniously torturing Arabs to death.

The violence that happened under Saddam's regime was largely conducted by Saddam.

Also, Saddam did not execute 5 MILLION people. He was bad, but that's like, 1 million more people than even Pol Pot was responsible for. And if Saddam executed THAT many, Iraq would never have gotten as successful as it did. Methinks you are getting the numbers mixed up with the amount of Shia who may have died in ways other than outright execution: people who died in the Iran/Iraq war, for instance, or those that died under sanctions.

Saddam killed a whole lot of people, it's true. But 5 million is a lot, even for him.

 

I just read the highlights of Bush's speech.

He continues to amaze me. Yeah, let's increase the number of people dying in your vain pursuit of a positive legacy.

 

I think the only realistic way of ending the insurgency in Iraq is by infiltrating it. It's like destroying weeds,if you pull the weeds out from the top then the roots stay intact and the weeds just grow back again. You have to destroy the roots.