NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom is on the march! This is an open discussion with Fareed Zakaria who has been in Iraq from the beginning.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15462857/site/newsweek/

Monroe, MI: I spent eight years in the Navy, my last 5.5 months on active duty in the Persian Gulf/North Arabian Sea participating in Desert Storm, so I am not antiwar but I am VERY disturbed by the incompetent way this more recent conflict has been managed by the civilian leadership in the White House and Pentagon. By the way, I am a political independent and have never voted for a Democrat... but I am keeping my options open now. I look forward to more information in the pages of Newsweek from Mr. Zakaria -- be he man, myth, or legend.

Fareed Zakaria: First, thanks for your service to the country. I share your dismay, even digust at the way this operation has been executed. Peter Galbraith, a former ambassador who supported the invasion and now advocates an even larger withdrawal than I do, has said that the occupation of Iraq is the most incopetently executed American foreign policy project in history. I would have to agree.

Another great quote from the discussion:

Fareed Zakaria: I don't think he's in Iraq because of his faith. But I think Bush's interpretation of his faith has much to do with the totally botched occupation. Bush does not believe in doubt, in questioning, in looking at evidence. He know the right path, and the crucial task for him is to stay strong and on that path. This means he rarely questions people about what's going on with policies, why they are not working, what should be adjusted. All that is a sign of weakness. So he has driven us, with complete strength and conviction and clarity, right off a cliff.

I always like reading what Mr. Zakaria has to say. I find his articles quite good and his analysis insightful. :)

bump

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html
Good article...

Some highlights:
In point of fact—and it is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless—America is not winning in Iraq, which means that it is losing. Iraq has fallen apart both as a nation and as a state. Its capital and lands containing almost 50 percent of
the population remain deeply insecure and plagued by rising internal divisions. Much of the south, which is somewhat stable, is subject to gangsterish, theocratic and thoroughly corrupt local governments. To recognize this reality does not mean that there is no hope for the years to come. There is—but hope is not a policy.

The most revealing statistic about Iraq is not the spiraling death toll but the unemployment rate, which is conservatively estimated to be around 30 to 40 percent, and has not moved much in the past two years. Given that conditions are almost normal in the Kurdish north, that means the rest of the country has an unemployment rate closer to 50 percent. Whatever we have been doing in Iraq, it is not translating into peace, normalcy and jobs. In parts of the Sunni Triangle, reports suggest that unemployment is more than 70 percent. If you think that Iraq's tumult is a product of its culture, religion and history, ask yourself what the United States would look like after three years of 50 percent unemployment. Would there not be civil strife in Manhattan, Detroit, Los Angeles and New Orleans?

The root cause of Iraqi unemployment is, of course, the lack of security, which is endemic in much of the country. In some places the vacuum has been filled by local forces—most effectively in Kurdistan by the peshmerga. In parts of the south, though—Basra among them—various Shia militias are battling each other for power. In Sunni areas, particularly Anbar province, former Baathist soldiers and a smaller group of Islamic terrorists continue to mount campaigns against U.S. forces and the new Iraqi Army. They intimidate and kill Sunni leaders who help the Iraqi government or work with the United States. Whenever U.S. forces scale back in an area, the attacks begin again. The violence in Iraq is being suppressed but not solved.

The most significant new reality in Iraq—in fact, the country's defining feature—is sectarian violence. By any reasonable definition, Iraq is mired in a low-grade civil war between its Sunni and Shia communities. Communal tensions are high, and rising—everywhere. Violence has been mounting in all areas where these communities are mixed. Ethnic cleansing, either forced or voluntary, is increasing rapidly, with 365,000 people having fled or been forced from their homes since last February's bombing of a Shia mosque in Samarra. In Baghdad alone more than 2,600 Iraqis died in September, most of them as a result of communal attacks.

These interests are achievable with fewer forces. President Bush is fond of warning, "If we leave Iraq, they will follow us home." This makes no sense. Qaeda terrorists from Iraq could have made their way to America at any point in the last three years. In fact, Iraq's borders are more porous today than they have ever been. If a terrorist wanted to inflict harm on U.S. civilians, he could drive across Anbar into Syria, then hop a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Does the president really believe that because we're in Iraq, terrorists have forgotten that we're also in America? Here's what we really need to worry about doing:

Battle Al Qaeda. In fact, the fight in places like Anbar is largely not a jihadist crusade against America, but a Sunni struggle for control of the country. The chances of Iraq's being taken over by a Qaeda-style group are nonexistent. Some 85 percent of the population (the Shia and Kurds) are violently opposed to such a group. And polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of Sunnis dislike Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The real jihadists in Iraq are a small and unpopular band that relies on terror and violence to gain strength. They do not have heavy weapons—tanks, armored vehicles—and cannot hold territory for long. Were a deal between the Shia and the Sunni to be signed, Al Qaeda would be marginalized within months. In the meantime, U.S. Special Forces could harass and chase Qaeda terrorists just as they do in Afghanistan today.

Whos with me in considering the Iraq war the most failed military venture in the past oh lets say... 150 years? (not in terms of lives of course) But in terms of udder confusion, Leadership incomoptence,foolishness, stubborness, and Hardheadedness, I mean for fucks sake even Hitler changed his tactics from time to time.

Whos with me in considering the Iraq war the most failed military venture in the past oh lets say... 150 years? (not in terms of lives of course) But in terms of udder confusion, Leadership incomoptence,foolishness, stubborness, and Hardheadedness, I mean for fucks sake even Hitler changed his tactics from time to time.

Udder confusion? Is that like mistakenly trying to milk a bull?

Udder confusion? Is that like mistakenly trying to milk a bull?

exactly my freind. Exactly!

exactly my freind. Exactly!

:D

Udder confusion? Is that like mistakenly trying to milk a bull?


Because you can't refute his points, you come up with this bullshit?

Whos with me in considering the Iraq war the most failed military venture in the past oh lets say... 150 years? (not in terms of lives of course) But in terms of udder confusion, Leadership incomoptence,foolishness, stubborness, and Hardheadedness, I mean for fucks sake even Hitler changed his tactics from time to time.

Nation building never was easy... Especially when you don't want to keep what you've taken, but want to leave a stable country with a democratic government behind. The odds were against success in a big way.

Because you can't refute his points, you come up with this bullshit?

Oh I don't know, he seemed to be agreeing with the poster.

Oh I don't know, he seemed to be agreeing with the poster.


My mistake. to err is human. To forgive is bovine.

Can't wait for someone here to call Fareed Zakariah a Commie-Liberal Islamofascist :D

Nation building never was easy... Especially when you don't want to keep what you've taken, but want to leave a stable country with a democratic government behind. The odds were against success in a big way.

Absolutely. The problem is that the goal was to invade, destroy a government and leave a stable government in the wake of an occupation. The problem is with the legitimacu of the government left behind and the people's willingness to accept it. In this case that problem is multiplied threefold because you have to get three different large factions to accept a government left by an occupying power that people there generally don't like very much. You also have to figure in that the people who were running this operation were also incredibly stupid and incompetent. Doing anything as complex as that requires that you simply must not be really stupid and arrogant. In fact, I think that the biggest obstacle to the success of this endevour wasn't really that the goal was unattainable - competent people might have been able to do it. The biggest obstacle was in the lack of competence and the stunning stupidity of Bush and his administration. :)

Absolutely. The problem is that the goal was to invade, destroy a government and leave a stable government in the wake of an occupation. The problem is with the legitimacu of the government left behind and the people's willingness to accept it. In this case that problem is multiplied threefold because you have to get three different large factions to accept a government left by an occupying power that people there generally don't like very much. You also have to figure in that the people who were running this operation were also incredibly stupid and incompetent. Doing anything as complex as that requires that you simply must not be really stupid and arrogant. In fact, I think that the biggest obstacle to the success of this endevour wasn't really that the goal was unattainable - competent people might have been able to do it. The biggest obstacle was in the lack of competence and the stunning stupidity of Bush and his administration. :)

Oh the stunning stupidity was an important factor - the unifying of the three factions should have been seen as extremely difficult before the invasion, and plans should have been made for post-invasion Iraq. The De-baathification and the disbanding of the army are examples that was simply... incredible!

*sigh*

But I honestly don't know if any invader could have pulled this off... The best course of action would perhaps have been a military coup or an assassination, but that would not have given the administration the results they wanted...

Well, you break it you buy it.

I mean for fucks sake even Hitler changed his tactics from time to time.

Not that i disagree w/ you, but didn't hitler lose?

Absolutely. The problem is that the goal was to invade, destroy a government and leave a stable government in the wake of an occupation. The problem is with the legitimacu of the government left behind and the people's willingness to accept it. In this case that problem is multiplied threefold because you have to get three different large factions to accept a government left by an occupying power that people there generally don't like very much. You also have to figure in that the people who were running this operation were also incredibly stupid and incompetent. Doing anything as complex as that requires that you simply must not be really stupid and arrogant. In fact, I think that the biggest obstacle to the success of this endevour wasn't really that the goal was unattainable - competent people might have been able to do it. The biggest obstacle was in the lack of competence and the stunning stupidity of Bush and his administration. :)

I'm not sure that even the best laid plan could have kept the country together. There is no sense of Iraqi nationhood ... just three different large cultural groups. As in Africa, arbitrary lines drawn on the maps by colonial officials continue to wreak havoc. As in Yugoslavia, the only thing holdiing the country together was the iron grip of a dictator. It was a mistake to go in in the first place.

I'm not sure that even the best laid plan could have kept the country together. There is no sense of Iraqi nationhood ... just three different large cultural groups. As in Africa, arbitrary lines drawn on the maps by colonial officials continue to wreak havoc. As in Yugoslavia, the only thing holdiing the country together was the iron grip of a dictator. It was a mistake to go in in the first place.

Sure, but it's REALLY bad to go in when the person in charge is so incredibly stupid.

Can't wait for someone here to call Fareed Zakariah a Commie-Liberal Islamofascist :D

I would hate to have you disappointed.
Man, Fareed Zakaria is such a Commie-Liberal Islamofascist.

Not to go off-topic, but does anyone else think that "Islamofascist" is a stupid word?

Not that i disagree w/ you, but didn't hitler lose?

Yeah, but it was a real tough fight considering it was every major power in the world vs. more or less Germany, Japan, and Italy.

I would hate to have you disappointed.
Man, Fareed Zakaria is such a Commie-Liberal Islamofascist.

Not to go off-topic, but does anyone else think that "Islamofascist" is a stupid word?

Not only stupid, but worse: Inaccurate.