Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

How do people think that it is going?

I'm not too happy with it at the moment, although I don't think that it is unsalvageable. I'll write more tomorrow, but I just wondered what people's honest opinions were about how we have been able to administer the postwar Iraq, and how they see things going from now on, whether we need to change our policies on the ground and, if so, to what, etc. What are the significant achievements, significant failures, significant risks?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5027

I think that things could still go either way. The post 4-merkins-dead-in-fallujah retaliation by US forces could trigger new events on the ground.

We need to dig our heels in and stay for the long haul.

I think that handing over power this early is a bit premature... as I think nationbuilding will take at least a decade before it has an acceptable chance of going well.

Civil war is still not too far off IMHO... and a shiite crackdown could lead to a world of hurt.

But at least the Kurds are doing quite well ATM... and that gives me hope.

Cheers

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

Mind you, the Kurds were doing OK during the last years of Saddam's rule, too.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5027

twas related to the no-fly-zone patrols, yes?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

Yes, the old containment policy.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5027

yeah... I didn't state my point too well.
The fact that Kurdish progress has not imploded or brought on the vindictiveness of the sunnis is a good sign IMHO.

But if religious and/or ethnic tensions flare up... we could look at a process of atomization within Iraq... probably violent to boot.

The Shiites could very well wake up and realize their power. let's hope that this power can be made to manifest itself through institutions of democracy.

Cheers

edit: syntax

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

My short answer: Turn the clock back and let them stew in their own barbarities!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3374

it's not going well now , the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is causing problems , 30 where killed today

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_nm/iraq_dc_43 .

we need to stand by our hand over date , we have removed Saddam and gotten the ball rolling on a government , no army in the world can make Muslims sects peaceful , they will always fight one another .

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: armpit, wv
Posts: 1217

I see it as a lost cause unless the US is plaining on staying for the long haul. That country (and region for that matter) has a long history of fighting among themselves and thats why a lot of em had Dictators that ruled w/ a cruel/iron fist to keep the ppl in line. I can only see this as more fuel for em to wage a greater war on America or any other country they see fit. I'd say we should back out come June and keep military help limited. It's gonna be ugly either way.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2001
Location:
Posts: 2701

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucidnightmare
it's not going well now , the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is causing problems , 30 where killed today

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_nm/iraq_dc_43 .

we need to stand by our hand over date , we have removed Saddam and gotten the ball rolling on a government , no army in the world can make Muslims sects peaceful , they will always fight one another .

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7935

----------------------------------
we need to stand by our hand over date , we have removed Saddam and gotten the ball rolling on a government , no army in the world can make Muslims sects peaceful , they will always fight one another .
---------------------------------
Geez, I remember the good old days of Catholic/Protestant bloodletting and the Muslims seem pretty tame compared to them days. What changed the relations between Christian sects? The access to material riches in the new world? The development of political ideology and social systems separated from church and unquestionable dogma? The freedom to be measured and taken as a human being distinct from whatever social class and ethnic/religious background one has been born into? Common sense?

You see the problem isn't with muslims and their sects. The problem is with the role of the first world in the world of muslim faith. When the British ruled the region, they robbed it (as colonialist invariably do) and the secular institutions approved it. When the Americans overthrew the secular government of Iran for the Shah, they robbed it and the secular institutions approved. When the people feel that the secular is being run by robbers, they retreat towards the opposite. This is when fundementalism takes off.

In America and the European world the citizen became the defining role of the person and, since all citizens are equal (at least on paper), sectarianism doesn't matter near as much. One could even be jewish and still be considered a member of society. (Zionism finds it's roots in the places where this was not the case) In places such as Northern Ireland, there was a split between citizens; some being first class, some being second. Then sectarianism takes on importance as a means of resistence.

In Iran this resulted in the Muslim fundementalist government taking over the country because it was one of the few avenues of society ignored by the CIA and the Iranian secret police.

Therefore, if fundementalism is to lose ground in Iraq and the sects to gradulally reduce internal tension then the Iraqis have to be treated better than second class citizens in their own country. And expropriating all the societal institutions and privitasing them to American and "Coalition" member corporations while using oil profits as a means of reparations for the american's war is not a good start.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5027

this price of war should have been clear to all who supported going in, as well as those opposing.

I think we will need 10 years of occupation to have a shot at a viable democracy in Iraq... and I did not support going in.

But now that we are there... all we can do is to grit our teeth and see it through to the end, no matter what happens. The more we hawk it, the bigger the bruises we will recieve, IMHO.

The bill should be ours to pay... as we are responsible for the mess we have chosen to install to replace the mess of Saddam.

Alliance tax money should cover the expenses... in proportions equal to the eagerness to dive in.

Cheers

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3374

i agree with much of what you said , i think the death of fundamentalism is a major step forward for any society , the religious fanactics are the key reason middle eastern Muslim nations cannot join the modern world .

wealth , trade , a middle class and social freedom , which Islamist will not allow would bring the standard of living up for the average person and reduce the willing recruits for their jihad . this is why the fundamentalist fear it and fight it with such intensity , they fear the loss of their power .

therefore the fundamentalist must be fought in the middle east , if they are to join the modern world .

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3374

i also agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to cash in on this occupation . the goal is a free and peaceful in Iraq , not a fucking boom for corporations.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7935

The only issues I have with what you say is these two areas:
---------------------------------
i think the death of fundamentalism is a major step forward for any society , the religious fanactics are the key reason middle eastern Muslim nations cannot join the modern world .
wealth , trade , a middle class and social freedom , which Islamist will not allow would bring the standard of living up for the average person and reduce the willing recruits for their jihad .
------------------------------------
When you research the history of Mexico, the Philipines, Columbia, Indonesia, Haiti, India, etc, etc, and in the Muslim world it is not because of fundementalists that there is poverty and a lack of social freedom. It is because poverty serves the national goals of an imperial power. Fundementalism rises in response to crisis and poverty is such a crisis. Who can afford to think when you can't afford to eat? Now since the subjectation of Iraq and the desperation of it's people serves powerful economic goals then tell me how the removal of fundementalism will improve wealth, trade, the middle class, and social freedom. These measures of a dominated society can only be improved if the powers that be allow it to do so. Until then fundementalism is going to be the answer of the desparate to the question of imperialism.

Only the altruism of a world community has much hope of really rebuilding things.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7935

sorry for exceeding the "ism" quota for a single post. Too many garbleywords dilute the message so I'll try to slim it down a bit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucidnightmare
i also agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to cash in on this occupation . the goal is a free and peaceful in Iraq , not a fucking boom for corporations.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

IN qnswer to smug's question.... I think that the whole thing is going reletively as expected. It does seem clear that we were somewhat lacking in the post-conflict preparation, which has been shown by the dithering of the Bush Administration on a number of issues. Clearly the "wmd fallacy" that was put out for the plebs was a a miscalculated strategy, but the blowback from it has not been as bad as one would've thought. Bush was obviously well protected from that anyway as it was not his primary argument for intervention. Blair on the other hand may be different and election in the coming two years shall tell on that one I think. It's a shame it happened the way it did really, because, as the former US Ambassador to the Washington has said, Blair and Bush agreed Iraq would come after Afghanistan at a dinner on September 15th, 2001 meaning they had one and half years to work out not only the post-conflict strategy but the exit strategy as well, yet it doesn;t seem like they did.

The INC is a bit of a mess sadly. However, it is largely as I said pre-war it would be. We have replaced a non-compliant dictatorship with a compliant and puppet shamocracy. At leats it is compliant at the moment. Whether it reamins that way when America pulls out remains to be seen. Obviously the odds are pretty dodgy that it will all remain good given the people we have "handed power to" are well known for their corruption and criminality, Chalabi after all has international arrest warrents out for him from Interpol. Still, as long as they remains compliant to western needs it should be ok. In the case of Britian that means providing protection of our interests in the region.

I don't think the US should hand over power when they plan to. I think that "deadline" has more to do with politics and the need to show the world that they are not "imperialists". Basically the move lack balls in my opinion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

quote:

---

Originally posted by philjit
...as the former US Ambassador to the Washington has said...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

oops... meant British Ambassador

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5027

Im listening to danish public radio ATM citing a CIA report about Iraq and the war on terror.

According to that, the Iraq situation has increased recruitment for Osama and friends... and that factor is interpreted by both CIA and state department sources as a net increase in terror risk.

the reporter used that data to suggest that as far as terrorism goes, the war in Iraq has been counterproductive so far.

If true (I cant find the story on CNN or BBC), this would support my fears on the subject.

I am afraid that todays deployment of helicopter gunships in the urban environs of the iraqi capitol wont do much to help the situation.

the hand-over deadline is dead, as far as I am concerned.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

Saw a report today that said that Bush is likely to stick to the deadline for handing over power. Politically, it would presumably be very painful for him, and a further knock to his credibility, to put it back.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged