NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that people are being too optimistic about Iraq (please keep reading, you'll see what I mean.) Iraq can never be 'fixed', so to speak. It is an artificial, arbitrary state that was created for the sole purpose of a 'divide and conquer' imperial colonialism. It was specifically created to keep its resident population at each others' throats, and it will stay like that unless you can get someone to strong-arm everybody into submission. Nothing can save this fundamentally flawed state, and most certainly not democracy, which will only play into a majoritarian dictatorship. To sustain this fundamentally flawed state is masochism and sadism, nothing less.

In recognition that Iraq is inherently an unstable and unviable state, the solution to this crisis must understand this key aspect of its nature. The only solution to this problem that could truly work- and I believe it is too late for this to be implemented- is if Iraq were to be dismembered as a nation-state. Not as a series of Balkanized ethnic states, which, while it would prevent majoritarian oppression, would encourage strife between the new states. Rather, there should be no power structure in Iraq for anyone to seize hold of, whether Sunni, Shiite, or Iranian. Every individual should be autonomous, and these individuals will unite with each other based on voluntary relations of family, mosque and community.

The positive effects would be visible almost immediately. Without the threat of majoritarian oppression, the various groups of Iraq would be able to keep to themselves and avoid one another (if it is what they wish. Which, probably, it is.) This would greatly reduce the amount of strife between the various ethnicities and sects. Secondly, any would-be dictator would not have the structure necessary to solidify his base of power. Where that dictator might have wanted a governmental base with which to rule over the entire country, he will instead have to go and try and deal with the legion of different community centers scattered across the country. Thirdly, this absolute secession would allow for the start of repaired relations between the various groups in Iraq. While a good portion of the various groups in Iraq will keep to themselves, there will be those who wish to trade and conduct commerce between one another. These entrepeneurs will be able to do so and allow for peaceful, interdependent coexistence between the various groups.

Unfortunately, this will never happen. The power structure is already set in place, and no one within it will entertain the idea of ending its existence. So there will be no improvement in Iraq, alas.

This is the problem with much of the Middle East and Africa (and large parts of the rest of Asia as well), not just Iraq.

It was specifically created to keep its resident population at each others' throats, and it will stay like that unless you can get someone to strong-arm everybody into submission.

i don't think there is anything in principle that necessitates either the hatred or the strong-arming, even if iraq stayed a unified state. it is at least possible that they could do otherwise.

I agree with you that Democracy wont help Iraq. But I dont think individual groups will help much.

Why? Because if the country were to be split, some of it would be conquered by their neighboors. The kurds wouldnt be left alone because every other country surounding it also has a big kurd population who is striving for independence.

Anyway, just like the middle east, Africa suffers from the same problem. The deal is that some people dont understand that democracy is one of the last stages of the growth of a culture and civilization. For democracy to happen, you need a population who believes in nationalism, where all share the same culture and goals. With France and England, that happened due in part to the One Hundred years war. That only happens if you leave a feudalic society and go into an absolutist society. After years, maybe centuries of an united society, you can go to democracy, but that takes a lot of time.

That is what happened in Europe. You had feudalism, then absolutism, nationalism, the french revolution, and finaly democracy. In Iraq, they are trying to go from a Feudalism society to a democracy in one jump.

That just doesnt work. There are too many cultures there and they wont reach a consensus quite soon.

i don't think there is anything in principle that necessitates either the hatred or the strong-arming, even if iraq stayed a unified state. it is at least possible that they could do otherwise.

It is possible, but only with politics that go beyond "put this ethnic group into power and oppress everyone else."

Unfortunately, non-sectarian political movements probably have a very short life expectancy at the moment, with the occupiers and the various death squads not particularly wanting competition.

You have feudalism, then absolutism, nationalism, the french revolution, and finaly democracy. In Iraq, they are trying to go from a Feudalism society to a democracy in one jump.

actually, they sorta did the french revolution too. only their napoleon didn't manage to get very far.

It is possible, but only with politics that go beyond "put this ethnic group into power and oppress everyone else."

Unfortunately, non-sectarian political movements probably have a very short life expectancy at the moment, with the occupiers and the various death squads not particularly wanting competition.

true enough. i wonder what the massive new exile communities will do on this front...

actually, they sorta did the french revolution too. only their napoleon didn't manage to get very far.

Mainly because other countries fucked them.

If Iraq and the middle east were to be stable, they would have much more control over oil. That is bad for the west. Its much better to keep the region under conflict and instability, making it easier for foreigner powers to interfere in all of the country choices. And get much bigger profits.

Of course, things went bad and the US created such a instability that they themselves have lost control over it. And by creating this instability, they messed with the balance of power, and fanatic religious organizations managed to get some of them. These organizations have figured out that most of their suffering was created by the US (and it was) and now they are trying to pay back.

That is what happened in Europe. You had feudalism, then absolutism, nationalism, the french revolution, and finaly democracy. In Iraq, they are trying to go from a Feudalism society to a democracy in one jump.Who "they" ? The US? The French revolution was carried by the population while the US invasion of Iraq was only carried by one retarded US president's urge to do the job that his father couldn't complete. And the US population went along with his patriotism bullshit, elected him for a second term, and enabled him to complete the destruction he had planned for Iraq. The US voters are responsible for the mess in Iraq and nobody else. The Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein, and by now even the US population all know it. But now they don't have the balls to fix what they have so selfishly torn apart, and they want to cut and run and leave Iraq in the mess they have created. Everyone who voted for Bush should be put before a war crimes court. Of course Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but the US is far worse, with all their morality and world domination dirt in their minds.


The quality US lives are of no interest. US lives cause death and destruction in Iraq. US lives are directly responsible for what is going on in Iraq because they put a moron in the White House twice. You messed up, now clean up. Properly. You went into Iraq to improve Iraqi lives (although you've been changing alibis for the invasion quite often), so now just do that. You are in fact trying to weasel out of this. Who doesn't show responsibility for his deliberate wrong decisions is a coward. You created the situation in Iraq and now you want to fail to render assistance. You should be sent to Iraq....You have spilled blood and have caused blood to be spilled of many many Iraqis unrighteously. For blood you shall render blood. In pain and bitterness you shall unlearn the lies of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell.
The last line of the US national anthem is a question. And it can now be answered. The star sprangled banner now waves over the home of the ruthless, self-righteous, and proud.
And maybe we really see a piece of some higher justice at work here? There is no reason why Americans should sit on their couches before their tv screens and fill their bellies, while somewhere else people are dying because of their national arrogance which they erroneously name patriotism.I utterly and totally agree with both of these sentiments. Letting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die due to a conflict we started just because we're tired of the burden it puts on our troops and their families is irresponsible to the people whose lives we have overturned.

Iraq's civil war serves the same purpose that the Mongolian invasions of the Middle East served in 1402 by Tamarlane. Dividing Islam against itself and weakening it.

We might not have achived what we wanted to achieve, but we achieved what we needed to achive.

Iraq's civil war serves the same purpose that the Mongolian invasions of the Middle East served in 1402 by Tamarlane. Dividing Islam against itself and weakening it.

We might not have achived what we wanted to achieve, but we achieved what we needed to achive.Why don't you just volunteer for police patrol of an east Baghdad market?

Oh, I believe Iraq will eventually stabilise. It will just take time, a lot of time - 50 years or more. People eventually get sick of having their lives ruined by violence, and instead of it being one group verses another, the community starts to divide into those who want to solve things peacefully and those who want to solve things using violence. Those who would choose violence are slowly pushed out of the community until there are so few that they can easily be managed by a police force.

All zeal for violence eventually peters out. Northern Ireland, Basque, the German left-wing terrorist groups like the Baader-Meinhof gang. It's just ultimately unsustainable.

edit:
That is what happened in Europe. You had feudalism, then absolutism, nationalism, the french revolution, and finaly democracy. In Iraq, they are trying to go from a Feudalism society to a democracy in one jump.On what basis to you think Iraq is a feudal society? Where is the landed elite? Where are the serfs? Does Iraq not have a middle class?

Oh, I believe Iraq will eventually stabilise. It will just take time, a lot of time - 50 years or more. People eventually get sick of having their lives ruined by violence, and instead of it being one group verses another, the community starts to divide into those who want to solve things peacefully and those who want to solve things using violence. Those who would choose violence are slowly pushed out of the community until there are so few that they can easily be managed by a police force.

All zeal for violence eventually peters out. Northern Ireland, Basque, the German left-wing terrorist groups like the Baader-Meinhof gang. It's just ultimately unsustainable.But what about the deaths that the US invasion and the subsequent developments have caused and continue to cause? Are they irrelevant? It's not just the Iraqi's business, you know. The US let loose the violence, and that's why they have the responsibility to end it.

But what about the deaths that the US invasion and the subsequent developments have caused and continue to cause? Are they irrelevant? It's not just the Iraqi's business, you know. The US let loose the violence, and that's why they have the responsibility to end it.The US can't end the violence. This is not something that can be solved through guns and walls. Not unless the US installs a dictatorship gives it a strong military and secret service.

Sometimes in life people can cause damage that they cannot repair, but that can only be repaired by others. Perhaps an odd analogy would be if a person cheats on their partner. Nothing that person does can repair the bond of trust that was broken. The only way things can get better is if the partner can find in it their heart to forgive the person. In fact, any continued efforts by the person to try and gain their partner's favour is more than likely to backfire.

The US can't end the violence.You mean they don't want. Because they never care about the suffering they cause to others.
The US government should be executed just as the former Iraqi dictator was. Their crimes are the same.
This is not something that can be solved through guns and walls. Not unless the US installs a dictatorship gives it a strong military and secret service.
Sometimes in life people can cause damage that they cannot repair, but that can only be repaired by others. Perhaps an odd analogy would be if a person cheats on their partner. Nothing that person does can repair the bond of trust that was broken. The only way things can get better is if the partner can find in it their heart to forgive the person. In fact, any continued efforts by the person to try and gain their partner's favour is more than likely to backfire.So then just let the US install a temporary dictatorship. And if that costs US blood then that's the just price for US arrogance. Or just give the puppet government of Iraq the means to take control of the country. If the US were to just duck out of this, then every Iraqi in the world should be advised to just kill every American they happen to meet and it would be justice.

You mean they don't want. Because they never care about the suffering they cause to others.
The US government should be executed just as the former Iraqi dictator was. Their crimes are the same.
So then just let the US install a temporary dictatorship. And if that costs US blood then that's the just price for US arrogance. Or just give the puppet government of Iraq the means to take control of the country. If the US were to just duck out of this, then every Iraqi in the world should be advised to just kill every American they happen to meet and it would be justice.
Trolling much?

You seem to have missed that the Iraqis want us to leave. They don't care about the damage. They just want the USA out.

You mean they don't want. Because they never care about the suffering they cause to others.
The US government should be executed just as the former Iraqi dictator was. Their crimes are the same.
So then just let the US install a temporary dictatorship. And if that costs US blood then that's the just price for US arrogance. Or just give the puppet government of Iraq the means to take control of the country. If the US were to just duck out of this, then every Iraqi in the world should be advised to just kill every American they happen to meet and it would be justice.Woah, you be talking like the Biblical god there.

But, no, I mean the US can't end the violence, even if they want to. Just because you can destroy something does not mean you can rebuild it. The Americans destroyed the sense of national identity that Saddam had imposed upon Iraq. In doing so Saddam commited a great number of atrocities. So basically it sounds to me as if you are saying that the American's should attack the insurgents like a sledge hammer, and if they kill innocent people in the process then that is not a problem, so long as they instill fear in the minds of the Iraqis.

A temporary dictatorship? Like the dictatorship of the Proletariat you mean?

US blood to pay for US arrogance - you mean that innocent people should pay with their lives for the mistakes of George Bush and his ilk? How very noble of you.

Again, to give the government of Iraq the tools to quell the violence quickly would be to give them tools of barbarity, the like that Saddam and the Shah were given. In essence, it doesn't matter who dies, just so long as their fear of authority, and with that fear comes the stability you seek. Think carefully about what you advocate as you advocating the tools of the Mongols and Machiavelli.

Your irreverance for human life astounds me.

Trolling much?No. The US causes death and destruction. Payback is definitely necessary, and if it was only to reduce US arrogance as the self-styled world dominator.

You seem to have missed that the Iraqis want us to leave. They don't care about the damage. They just want the USA out.They didn't want the US in in the first place. Of course they do want them out. But that's only because they see the US's unwillingness and failure to take responsibility for the mess they have created. If Iraqis had the impression that US really cared, they might think differently.

Woah, you be talking like the Biblical god there.Maybe. Like that one I am not forgiving collective injustice. Especially when it comes out of ignorance and contempt for others, as in the US attitude towards Iraq and in fact the entire Middle East and Muslim 'world'.

But, no, I mean the US can't end the violence, even if they want to. Just because you can destroy something does not mean you can rebuild it. The Americans destroyed the sense of national identity that Saddam had imposed upon Iraq. In doing so Saddam commited a great number of atrocities. So basically it sounds to me as if you are saying that the American's should attack the insurgents like a sledge hammer, and if they kill innocent people in the process then that is not a problem, so long as they instill fear in the minds of the Iraqis.

A temporary dictatorship? Like the dictatorship of the Proletariat you mean?

US blood to pay for US arrogance - you mean that innocent people should pay with their lives for the mistakes of George Bush and his ilk? How very noble of you.

Again, to give the government of Iraq the tools to quell the violence quickly would be to give them tools of barbarity, the like that Saddam and the Shah were given. In essence, it doesn't matter who dies, just so long as their fear of authority, and with that fear comes the stability you seek. Think carefully about what you advocate as you advocating the tools of the Mongols and Machiavelli.

Your irreverance for human life astounds me.It is irreverence of human life that got the US into Iraq in the first place, and that got the US to elect Bush twice. A transitional benevolent dictatorship isn't the worst thing for Iraq after the destruction the US have caused there. Just give an Iraqi government the means to stop the violence that the US invasion has let loose, instead of just putting up a puppet government that is de facto powerless. Your solution would be to just let them fight it out, so that no more US soldiers will die.
And what and whose innocence are you talking of? The US Americans' ?
Why should an Iraqi care who exactly causes his family and friends to die in the violence that the US stirred? The US attacked the entire Iraqi people, so it why shouldn't the entire US people pay for it? The US population causes the Iraqi population to suffer. But unfortunately US Americans just don't grasp what they are responsible for, all they care for is their own personal wealth and to fill their bellies with burgers and cola, while they are wading in Iraqi blood.

No. The US causes death and destruction. Payback is definitely necessary, and if it was only to reduce US arrogance as the self-styled world dominator.

They didn't want the US in in the first place. Of course they do want them out. But that's only because they see the US's unwillingness and failure to take responsibility for the mess they have created. If Iraqis had the impression that US really cared, they might think differently.
The USA kills innocent Iraqis. This is wrong.

Let's pay them back by killing innocent Americans, the bastards!

And it's equally likely that if the USA tried to stay to help the Iraqis would get the impression that the USA arrogantly believes it knows what's best for the Iraqi people and that the USA is using the state of Iraq to stay and impose their will on the Iraqis.

This is the problem with much of the Middle East and Africa (and large parts of the rest of Asia as well), not just Iraq.
Duh. But when was the last time we overthrew an African government and tried to rebuild the country in the shape of a Democracy that we don't even have.

The USA kills innocent Iraqis. This is wrong.

Let's pay them back by killing innocent Americans, the bastards!Why not? Maybe is has an educational effect on USAmericans. But I doubt it, US folks only start caring about things when they are happening within the USA.
And what is this talk about innocent Americans? Has there not been a US invasion of Iraq, or what?

And it's equally likely that if the USA tried to stay to help the Iraqis would get the impression that the USA arrogantly believes it knows what's best for the Iraqi people and that the USA is using the state of Iraq to stay and impose their will on the Iraqis.Well, just put the US military in Iraq under Iraqi command. But of course USAmericans are too proud and, um, 'patriotic' for that.

Why not? Maybe is has an educational effect on USAmericans. But I doubt it, US folks only start caring about things when they are happening within the USA.
And what is this talk about innocent Americans? Has there not been a US invasion of Iraq, or what?

Well, just put the US military in Iraq under Iraqi command. But of course USAmericans are too proud and, um, 'patriotic' for that.
If the Iraqi commanders and officers were better and more competent than the American officers we wouldn't be able to train them, would we?

Unless you can show me that every single American supported the war in Iraq...

If the Iraqi commanders and officers were better and more competent than the American officers we wouldn't be able to train them, would we?This is not a question of 'competence' but of who has the leadership.

Unless you can show me that every single American supported the war in Iraq...Wtf? The US is in Iraq. Does an Iraqi have to care who supported the war or not? France and Germany did not. The US did.

This is not a question of 'competence' but of who has the leadership.

Wtf? The US is in Iraq. Does an Iraqi have to care who supported the war or not? France and Germany did not. The US did.
I think if you have a choice of military leaders you should pick the most competent ones. Maybe that's just me.

If you're going to encourage Iraqis to go on genocidal murder sprees they should at least have the courtesy to recognise who they should bloodily murder. *nods*

I think if you have a choice of military leaders you should pick the most competent ones. Maybe that's just me.That's just you. You can have an Iraqi leader and under his command the US forces to work out the details with all their 'competence'.

If you're going to encourage Iraqis to go on genocidal murder sprees they should at least have the courtesy to recognise who they should bloodily murder. *nods*Well, Iraq was invaded by the US, so it's the US they should take revenge on.

I think that people are being too optimistic about Iraq (please keep reading, you'll see what I mean.) Iraq can never be 'fixed', so to speak. It is an artificial, arbitrary state that was created for the sole purpose of a 'divide and conquer' imperial colonialism. It was specifically created to keep its resident population at each others' throats, and it will stay like that unless you can get someone to strong-arm everybody into submission. Nothing can save this fundamentally flawed state, and most certainly not democracy, which will only play into a majoritarian dictatorship. To sustain this fundamentally flawed state is masochism and sadism, nothing less.

In recognition that Iraq is inherently an unstable and unviable state, the solution to this crisis must understand this key aspect of its nature. The only solution to this problem that could truly work- and I believe it is too late for this to be implemented- is if Iraq were to be dismembered as a nation-state. Not as a series of Balkanized ethnic states, which, while it would prevent majoritarian oppression, would encourage strife between the new states. Rather, there should be no power structure in Iraq for anyone to seize hold of, whether Sunni, Shiite, or Iranian. Every individual should be autonomous, and these individuals will unite with each other based on voluntary relations of family, mosque and community.

The positive effects would be visible almost immediately. Without the threat of majoritarian oppression, the various groups of Iraq would be able to keep to themselves and avoid one another (if it is what they wish. Which, probably, it is.) This would greatly reduce the amount of strife between the various ethnicities and sects. Secondly, any would-be dictator would not have the structure necessary to solidify his base of power. Where that dictator might have wanted a governmental base with which to rule over the entire country, he will instead have to go and try and deal with the legion of different community centers scattered across the country. Thirdly, this absolute secession would allow for the start of repaired relations between the various groups in Iraq. While a good portion of the various groups in Iraq will keep to themselves, there will be those who wish to trade and conduct commerce between one another. These entrepeneurs will be able to do so and allow for peaceful, interdependent coexistence between the various groups.

Unfortunately, this will never happen. The power structure is already set in place, and no one within it will entertain the idea of ending its existence. So there will be no improvement in Iraq, alas.

it was always impossible to dismantle the power structure of iraq, leaven none, and let the people reassemble the power structure of their choice. there has always been religious/ethnic/tribal splits in iraq where power exists. it had only been supressed by the baathist regime. it was always ready to spring back to life as soon as the boot was removed from its neck.

that is what has happened and what needs to be taken into consideration in any peaceful settlement of the situation. and now we have to add in the lust for revenge.

it was always impossible to dismantle the power structure of iraq, leaven none, and let the people reassemble the power structure of their choice. there has always been religious/ethnic/tribal splits in iraq where power exists. it had only been supressed by the baathist regime. it was always ready to spring back to life as soon as the boot was removed from its neck.
that is what has happened and what needs to be taken into consideration in any peaceful settlement of the situation. and now we have to add in the lust for revenge.Strange that the US didn't know about the circumstances in Iraq although Iraq had been a key ally until fairly recently. With Rumsfeld being Hussein's buddy and all...

When not being rallied by power hungry leaders the two sects can get along together quite fine. There are mixed neighborhoods that work fine. There are mixed marriages that work fine. It is not an insurmountable problem. Just a big one.

Strange that the US didn't know about the circumstances in Iraq although Iraq had been a key ally until fairly recently. With Rumsfeld being Hussein's buddy and all...

im sure that plenty of people in the intelligence community understood that about iraq.

the administration wasnt interested in listening to anyone who didnt back up their delusional idea that we could invade a country, depose its leader, be greeted by the masses as liberators and install a democracy with no problems.

Every individual should be autonomous, and these individuals will unite with each other based on voluntary relations of family, mosque and community.



And then compete with each other for scarce resources, form political blocks and either come up with a power structure that works to resolve differences over how resources are distributed - a government - or form military factions and start killing each other.

And then compete with each other for scarce resources, form political blocks and either come up with a power structure that works to resolve differences over how resources are distributed - a government - or form military factions and start killing each other.

when one group gets enough control of resources and creates the biggest military, a new dictatorship is formed. a new boot presses on the necks of the iraqis and ...... iraq is the same as it was under hussein.

when one group gets enough control of resources and creates the biggest military, a new dictatorship is formed. a new boot presses on the necks of the iraqis and ...... iraq is the same as it was under hussein.

Which is why we need to make sure the Iraqi gov't has the biggest guns in town.

Which is why we need to make sure the Iraqi gov't has the biggest guns in town.

...

Yes, let's give the government all those fun toys to give to their death squads.

im sure that plenty of people in the intelligence community understood that about iraq.

the administration wasnt interested in listening to anyone who didnt back up their delusional idea that we could invade a country, depose its leader, be greeted by the masses as liberators and install a democracy with no problems.well, back then i did not hear that many voices in the US who spoke out against the invasion plans. the US was all covered under a tidal wave of 'patriotism' then.

Which is why we need to make sure the Iraqi gov't has the biggest guns in town.

you cant force loyalty to a central government. you cant give it power that it doesnt earn.

and you cant expect that those guns are more loyal to the central government than to the leaders of the groups they are drawn from.

well, back then i did not hear that many voices in the US who spoke out against the invasion plans. the US was all covered under a tidal wave of 'patriotism' then.

oh you think that the average american understood the internal politics of iraq? no, no they didnt.

but there were those in the intelligence community who did. they were ignored and in some cases forced out of their jobs.

there were those who spoke out against invading a country that had never done anything to us, but they were pretty much drowned out.

it wasnt so much patriotism as fear. we were fed shameless lies about how iraq had imminent plans to attack the US mainland and we believed them.

in retrospect, it was a mistake.

you cant force loyalty to a central government. you cant give it power that it doesnt earn.
and you cant expect that those guns are more loyal to the central government than to the leaders of the groups they are drawn from.

You can't force somebody to be loyal but w/ a certain number of gov't roles per sect you can create a gov't that can't go completely in one direction or the other. You can, however, expect those guns to be loyal to the neighborhood they are from as is customary in Iraq. If each unit recruits from and operates in one small AO that problem is mostly taken care of.

You can't force somebody to be loyal but w/ a certain number of gov't roles per sect you can create a gov't that can't go completely in one direction or the other. You can, however, expect those guns to be loyal to the neighborhood they are from as is customary in Iraq. If each unit recruits from and operates in one small AO that problem is mostly taken care of.

you see that as part of the solution?

i see it as part of the problem. they are loyal to their shiite or sunni neighborhoods. when we go, they will be loyal not to the central govt but to their own leaders.

we are busy creating the armies of the big time civil war that will erupt as soon as we leave.

you see that as part of the solution?

i see it as part of the problem. they are loyal to their shiite or sunni neighborhoods. when we go, they will be loyal not to the central govt but to their own leaders.

we are busy creating the armies of the big time civil war that will erupt as soon as we leave.
I don't see it as part of the solution or as a problem. It is just merely something to consider. We can try to fight it by forcing them to be loyal to the central gov't but I'm not sure that that will be easier than giving them what they want. They will defend their neighborhood and keep crime away. That is given considering their deep loyalty. However this is enough nationalistic feeling to prevent them from seeing another neighborhood as a different people.

When not being rallied by power hungry leaders the two sects can get along together quite fine.

Indeed. And when not played against each other by the occupation.

They didn't get quite what they wanted... and this time, it was very unfortunate. A puppet Shi'ite regime, even a repressive one, would be better than the present mess.

I don't see it as part of the solution or as a problem. It is just merely something to consider. We can try to fight it by forcing them to be loyal to the central gov't but I'm not sure that that will be easier than giving them what they want. They will defend their neighborhood and keep crime away. That is given considering their deep loyalty. However this is enough nationalistic feeling to prevent them from seeing another neighborhood as a different people.

well bush has another year and a half-ish to see if this plan can work. if he cant make real progress by then, the next president will pull us out and be done with it.

Indeed. And when not played against each other by the occupation.
You are misinformed. We conduct operations daily to prevent sectarian violence. We also seek a balance in operations against each sect.

They didn't get quite what they wanted... and this time, it was very unfortunate. A puppet Shi'ite regime, even a repressive one, would be better than the present mess.
I disagree. For U.S. interests a Shiite regime would be quite undesirable. This is because 1) It would most likely be loyal to Iraq, 2) The possibility of genocide making us look bad, 3) Would create unwanted tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran creating possibility of conflict. However this would prevent Al-Qaeda from being a player in Iraq. That could also have the unintended consequence of AQ being able to devote more resources to A-stan.

well bush has another year and a half-ish to see if this plan can work. if he cant make real progress by then, the next president will pull us out and be done with it.
I wouldn't give Bush credit for any plan. If it works our it will be the sole achievement of the military. The way I see it, we have a year and a half to train about 150,000 more IA and IP. At the current rate that is very doable. Of course if by chance a repub is elected we may stay there longer.

When not being rallied by power hungry leaders the two sects can get along together quite fine. There are mixed neighborhoods that work fine. There are mixed marriages that work fine. It is not an insurmountable problem. Just a big one.

Exactly. I mentioned this when I was talking about commerce etc., and how certain people will live next to each other, and others will keep to their own people. This will minimize the amount of strife between the various groups.

And then compete with each other for scarce resources, form political blocks and either come up with a power structure that works to resolve differences over how resources are distributed - a government - or form military factions and start killing each other.

But they keep getting screwed over by governments, because one group will ALWAYS expropriate the other for its gain, and then we end up at Step 1 again. If you make it so that there is no one with a real military/tax base with which to externalize aggression, then every individual will be less likely to kill each other. Who do you think is more likely to cause armageddon in a country, as you nfer in the last part of your argument- a little town with a few Kalashnikovs, or a president of a country with plenty of tanks and bombs to terrorize anyone who disagrees with him?

...

Yes, let's give the government all those fun toys to give to their death squads.

QFT.

I also find it appalling that some are seriously entertaining the notions that more violence and bloodshed, whether upon Iraqis through "reprisals" or upon American civilians, is something desirable. Hasn't there been enough killing already, for fuck's sake?

You are misinformed. We conduct operations daily to prevent sectarian violence.

Now, yes. "Sectarian violence" is bothersome. "Sectarian politics" isn't. It is an old tool of control.

I disagree. For U.S. interests a Shiite regime would be quite undesirable. This is because 1) It would most likely be loyal to Iraq,

Freudian slip?

Of course, you meant Iran... and the tendency for the Shi'ite government to move towards Iran was a crucial reason for the US distancing itself from it.

But they were caught in a difficult position, with the very real possibility of a united front against the occupation, and their recognition that if they did not hold real elections their entire project was doomed. What other option did they have that would have a decent chance of keeping a US-friendly government in power?

So they went along with the sectarianization of Iraqi politics, and indeed encouraged it by siding with the Shi'ite leadership and devastating the Sunni Triangle... and then the Shi'ite government went with Iran anyway.

Look at other war-torn nations that America has rebuilt. Japan, Germany, South Korea. They all turned out fine. Historically speaking, America has an outstanding reputation when it comes to occupying and rebuilding nations like Iraq.

Though I don't really understand why we invaded Iraq to begin with. Nevertheless, we're there.

Look at other war-torn nations that America has rebuilt. Japan, Germany, South Korea. They all turned out fine. Historically speaking, America has an outstanding reputation when it comes to occupying and rebuilding nations like Iraq.

Though I don't really understand why we invaded Iraq to begin with. Nevertheless, we're there.Uh.. we didn't really occupy and rebuild South Korea, at least not in the same sense we did Germany or Japan (and are attempting to do in Iraq). And a more recent and probably more similar case, Vietnam didn't turn out too well. At least until we just got the hell out and let them sort it out for themselves. Now Vietnam is a relatively stable and peaceful place, no thanks to us though.

Iraq's civil war serves the same purpose that the Mongolian invasions of the Middle East served in 1402 by Tamarlane. Dividing Islam against itself and weakening it.

We might not have achived what we wanted to achieve, but we achieved what we needed to achive.

There's a lot of truth to that statement, though I don't give our current government a whole lot of credit...too much incompetence for that outcome to have been planned.

oh you think that the average american understood the internal politics of iraq? no, no they didnt.

but there were those in the intelligence community who did. they were ignored and in some cases forced out of their jobs.

there were those who spoke out against invading a country that had never done anything to us, but they were pretty much drowned out.

it wasnt so much patriotism as fear. we were fed shameless lies about how iraq had imminent plans to attack the US mainland and we believed them.

in retrospect, it was a mistake.

We?

I never supported the Iraq war because I think it is idiotic for this country to try to support TWO nation-building projects at the same time.

Iraq was not about to do a damn thing...the threat, what little there was, was contained, both by US military power, and the fact that all the neighbors hated Saddam.

We already had a job to do in Afghanistan...it should have been done before we went ahead with any other "bright" ideas.

Iraq's civil war serves the same purpose that the Mongolian invasions of the Middle East served in 1402 by Tamarlane. Dividing Islam against itself and weakening it.

We might not have achived what we wanted to achieve, but we achieved what we needed to achive.Unfortunately we have only divided Islam within Iraq. And even then sectarian strife is often second to hatred torwards the occuppying forces. The Iraqi invasion did more torwards unifying Islam against the west than it did torwards dividing it, especially outside of Iraq. Al-Q was almost on it's last legs before W foolishly turned his attention from it and did the one thing that they were desperately in need of to rebuild, he invaded a non-aligned Muslim state. Al-Q recieved a fresh surge of support and recruits (and alliances from other radical groups)almost immediately after that.

Look at other war-torn nations that America has rebuilt. Japan, Germany, South Korea. They all turned out fine. Historically speaking, America has an outstanding reputation when it comes to occupying and rebuilding nations like Iraq.You really overestimate the American contribution in rebuilding Germany or Japan.

Though I don't really understand why we invaded Iraq to begin with.Because you elected a complete butthole into the White House. Twice.

Nevertheless, we're there.But not for long. You have already decided to duck out.

As a general rule, most 3rd world strife is the result of overzealous and amateurish western cartographers.

But they keep getting screwed over by governments, because one group will ALWAYS expropriate the other for its gain, and then we end up at Step 1 again. If you make it so that there is no one with a real military/tax base with which to externalize aggression, then every individual will be less likely to kill each other. Who do you think is more likely to cause armageddon in a country, as you nfer in the last part of your argument- a little town with a few Kalashnikovs, or a president of a country with plenty of tanks and bombs to terrorize anyone who disagrees with him?



My point is that the situation will always end up resolving itself in either the formation of a big power structure or a civil war. If the present Iraqi government were to be completely dissolved and all outside influence were eliminated in ten years there would either be some form of central government whether it be a theocracy, military dictatorship, democracy, socialist republic or any combination or premutation of any of them or there would be a bloody civil war Somalia style. There will be a strong central government to keep the peace or there will be no peace. There is only peace without a central government when scarcity does not exist and that only happens at extremely low population levels - population levels not seen for thousands of years. If there were a few hundred or maybe a few thousand people living in Iraq I'd say you'd have a chance of having a few happy, content people walking about minding their own business, but with millions of people existing on food imports, water desalinization and an uneven geological distribution of their chief commodity - crude oil - there's not a chance in Hell that you can just dissolve any power structure and expect everyone to just get along. They'll either form a new one or fight each other for available resources.

Iraq's civil war serves the same purpose that the Mongolian invasions of the Middle East served in 1402 by Tamarlane. Dividing Islam against itself and weakening it.

We might not have achived what we wanted to achieve, but we achieved what we needed to achiveThe last thing we needed to do was destabilize and inflame anti-western sentiment in the area of the world that holds the lion's share of the resource that underpins our entire civilization. Iraq's oil production hasn't even recovered to Saddam era levels and if this sectarian strife spreads across the broader Middle East, and there is a very real possibility of that, then you can kiss the standard of living enjoyed in Europe and North America goodbye.

My point is that the situation will always end up resolving itself in either the formation of a big power structure or a civil war. If the present Iraqi government were to be completely dissolved and all outside influence were eliminated in ten years there would either be some form of central government whether it be a theocracy, military dictatorship, democracy, socialist republic or any combination or premutation of any of them or there would be a bloody civil war Somalia style. There will be a strong central government to keep the peace or there will be no peace. There is only peace without a central government when scarcity does not exist and that only happens at extremely low population levels - population levels not seen for thousands of years. If there were a few hundred or maybe a few thousand people living in Iraq I'd say you'd have a chance of having a few happy, content people walking about minding their own business, but with millions of people existing on food imports, water desalinization and an uneven geological distribution of their chief commodity - crude oil - there's not a chance in Hell that you can just dissolve any power structure and expect everyone to just get along. They'll either form a new one or fight each other for available resources.

Would it be a perfect transition? Probably not, seeing as how force over reason has become the modus operandi in Iraq (like every country, though some a great deal more than others.) But a great deal of the strife in Somalia resulted when the government collapsed. Afterwards, Somalia did just fine; hotels continued to operate, the telecommunications industry boomed, its herding economy was better than any of its neighbors, its exports quintupled, and its currency, the shilling, stabilized. It upheld its law not by statutory central government law, but through customary law of subsidiary institutions (family, mosque, community), and the extended family in the form of clan on downward (in the form of jiib and family) has provided stability. Not bad for a state that enjoyed life under a bloodthirsty military dictatorship (central government) for decades. Which, judging from the horrific invasion by Ethiopia, it looks like it will be under again.

My solution would simply jump over the coup d'etat bloodbath and start with peaceful coexistence between individuals and their subsidiary institutions. I don't want any more bloodshed; that's why I oppose this Iraqi government that is promising to be an absolute horror just like that of Saddam's. Central government is not the creator of harmony between people; it is the enabler of disharmony, disharmony that promises to take many more lives.

Would it be a perfect transition? Probably not, seeing as how force over reason has become the modus operandi in Iraq (like every country, though some a great deal more than others.) But a great deal of the strife in Somalia resulted when the government collapsed. Afterwards, Somalia did just fine; hotels continued to operate, the telecommunications industry boomed, its herding economy was better than any of its neighbors, its exports quintupled, and its currency, the shilling, stabilized. It upheld its law not by statutory central government law, but through customary law of subsidiary institutions (family, mosque, community), and the extended family in the form of clan on downward (in the form of jiib and family) has provided stability. Not bad for a state that enjoyed life under a bloodthirsty military dictatorship (central government) for decades. Which, judging from the horrific invasion by Ethiopia, it looks like it will be under again.

My solution would simply jump over the coup d'etat bloodbath and start with peaceful coexistence between individuals and their subsidiary institutions. I don't want any more bloodshed; that's why I oppose this Iraqi government that is promising to be an absolute horror just like that of Saddam's. Central government is not the creator of harmony between people; it is the enabler of disharmony, disharmony that promises to take many more lives.Somalia did just fine? I guess if daily gunbattles between rival warlords and tens of thousands dying of starvation are of no concern to you, everything could be said to have been 'fine'.

We?

I never supported the Iraq war because I think it is idiotic for this country to try to support TWO nation-building projects at the same time.

Iraq was not about to do a damn thing...the threat, what little there was, was contained, both by US military power, and the fact that all the neighbors hated Saddam.

We already had a job to do in Afghanistan...it should have been done before we went ahead with any other "bright" ideas.


me either. but since the american public is "us" then "we" believed them even if you and i did not.

my consideration of the wisdom of invading iraq didnt need to go any farther than "have they done anything bad to us?" to conclude that it was a bad idea.

You mean they don't want. Because they never care about the suffering they cause to others.
The US government should be executed just as the former Iraqi dictator was. Their crimes are the same.
So then just let the US install a temporary dictatorship. And if that costs US blood then that's the just price for US arrogance. Or just give the puppet government of Iraq the means to take control of the country. If the US were to just duck out of this, then every Iraqi in the world should be advised to just kill every American they happen to meet and it would be justice.

To quote Bill Cosby, "That's the dumbest thing I ever heard!"

Seriously, just dumb. First, I would agree the US caused this. So? Not everyone in the US caused it. The fact that those in power in the US committed crimes, loosed the violence and made mistakes doesn't make my nephew or my sister or myself, all of whom NEVER supported the current government or a unilateral (more or less) war.

Your claim would be like saying that because if someone commits a driveby on my family that I should be permitted to do the same to their family. It's gangster justice and it has no place in a civilized world. It doesn't work. It's not moral. It's not ethical. And it never ends. Because all you get are unjust killings. I kill your family who didn't deserve it. So you kill my family who didn't deserve it. So I kill your friends who didn't deserve it. And so on...

It's so short-sighted and absurd, I would only expect it to come from someone who puts their ire before reason. Do you want to be that person?

No. The US causes death and destruction. Payback is definitely necessary, and if it was only to reduce US arrogance as the self-styled world dominator.

Payback is not justice. It's revenge. They are not even related. And your slip is showing, pull down your skirt. We know you're pissed at the US. How about you present reasonable solutions instead of showing your hatred and inability to set aside bias and use reason?

They didn't want the US in in the first place. Of course they do want them out. But that's only because they see the US's unwillingness and failure to take responsibility for the mess they have created. If Iraqis had the impression that US really cared, they might think differently.

You keep claiming the US can end the violence if they like. Fair enough. How?

I find it amusing that according to you justice means not doing what the Iraqis want and if we do do what they want, they should start executing Americans for revenge. Well, not amusing. Stupid, actually.

Would it be a perfect transition? Probably not, seeing as how force over reason has become the modus operandi in Iraq (like every country, though some a great deal more than others.) But a great deal of the strife in Somalia resulted when the government collapsed. Afterwards, Somalia did just fine; hotels continued to operate, the telecommunications industry boomed, its herding economy was better than any of its neighbors, its exports quintupled, and its currency, the shilling, stabilized. It upheld its law not by statutory central government law, but through customary law of subsidiary institutions (family, mosque, community), and the extended family in the form of clan on downward (in the form of jiib and family) has provided stability. Not bad for a state that enjoyed life under a bloodthirsty military dictatorship (central government) for decades. Which, judging from the horrific invasion by Ethiopia, it looks like it will be under again.

My solution would simply jump over the coup d'etat bloodbath and start with peaceful coexistence between individuals and their subsidiary institutions. I don't want any more bloodshed; that's why I oppose this Iraqi government that is promising to be an absolute horror just like that of Saddam's. Central government is not the creator of harmony between people; it is the enabler of disharmony, disharmony that promises to take many more lives.

Ummm...


Been to Somalia lately? The place is a complete mess and, you're right, it started with the collapse of the central government. Since then it's been one of the most violent, impoverished nations in the world. It's the perfect example of what happens when too many people live in an area with too few resources to allow them all tio live comfortably and they lack a central government to keep control and manage the distribution of scarce resources.

I'm not saying your idea is a bad idea, I'm saying it is not possible. If you remove the current government from Iraq they will either replace it with a new one post haste or start killing each other with even greater fervor than they do now - probably the latter.

Maybe. Like that one I am not forgiving collective injustice. Especially when it comes out of ignorance and contempt for others, as in the US attitude towards Iraq and in fact the entire Middle East and Muslim 'world'.

Well, according to your ideas of "collective injustice", then the US is already justified by the 9/11 attacks.

And they were justified by past US bad acts, and we were justified by past "Muslim" bad acts and so on. See that's where your thought process get us. Rather than dealing the actual individuals or specific groups involved in a particular problem, you attack people only loosely linked to the problem and as such increase the problem rather than solve it. Now, THAT is some good justice. The kind that increases violence and decreases stability, but hey who cares about violence and instability so long as you get your vengeance and get to scream about your ire regarding the US.

Well, according to your ideas of "collective injustice", then the US is already justified by the 9/11 attacks.

And they were justified by past US bad acts, and we were justified by past "Muslim" bad acts and so on. See that's where your thought process get us. Rather than dealing the actual individuals or specific groups involved in a particular problem, you attack people only loosely linked to the problem and as such increase the problem rather than solve it. Now, THAT is some good justice. The kind that increases violence and decreases stability, but hey who cares about violence and instability so long as you get your vengeance and get to scream about your ire regarding the US.

I might also point out that his idea of justice is at the root of the current cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq.

Would it be a perfect transition? Probably not, seeing as how force over reason has become the modus operandi in Iraq (like every country, though some a great deal more than others.) But a great deal of the strife in Somalia resulted when the government collapsed. Afterwards, Somalia did just fine; hotels continued to operate, the telecommunications industry boomed, its herding economy was better than any of its neighbors, its exports quintupled, and its currency, the shilling, stabilized. It upheld its law not by statutory central government law, but through customary law of subsidiary institutions (family, mosque, community), and the extended family in the form of clan on downward (in the form of jiib and family) has provided stability. Not bad for a state that enjoyed life under a bloodthirsty military dictatorship (central government) for decades. Which, judging from the horrific invasion by Ethiopia, it looks like it will be under again.

My solution would simply jump over the coup d'etat bloodbath and start with peaceful coexistence between individuals and their subsidiary institutions. I don't want any more bloodshed; that's why I oppose this Iraqi government that is promising to be an absolute horror just like that of Saddam's. Central government is not the creator of harmony between people; it is the enabler of disharmony, disharmony that promises to take many more lives.

Right onw cue...

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Heavy shelling and tank fire rocked Mogadishu Monday, the sixth straight day of raging battles in the capital that have plunged the country deeper into chaos and left more than 200 people dead.

Masked Islamic insurgents clashed with Ethiopian troops backing the fragile Somali government's forces in the southern part of the battle-scarred coastal city, pounding each other with machine-gun fire, mortars, tank shells and heavy artillery.

At least four people were killed in Monday's fighting, said Khadija Farah, who saw a shell hit a residential area north of the city and kill three men and a women. Farah added a six-month-old baby was wounded.

The United Nations said the fighting had sparked the worst humanitarian crisis in the war-ravaged country's recent history, with many of the city's residents trapped because roads out of Mogadishu were blocked.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/23/somalia.fighting.ap/index.html

Somalia did just fine? I guess if daily gunbattles between rival warlords and tens of thousands dying of starvation are of no concern to you, everything could be said to have been 'fine'.

No, actually, it was under relative control with the Islamic Courts and customary law; how else would their economy have expanded so rapidly? Not to mention how well their herding industry has done, which makes aforementioned starving less of a problem than before.

Ummm...


Been to Somalia lately? The place is a complete mess and, you're right, it started with the collapse of the central government. Since then it's been one of the most violent, impoverished nations in the world. It's the perfect example of what happens when too many people live in an area with too few resources to allow them all tio live comfortably and they lack a central government to keep control and manage the distribution of scarce resources.

I'm not saying your idea is a bad idea, I'm saying it is not possible. If you remove the current government from Iraq they will either replace it with a new one post haste or start killing each other with even greater fervor than they do now - probably the latter.

But the economy of Somalia has been doing so much better than before under its central government, and its herding economy, i.e. its method of keeping people from starving, has outstripped its neighbors. Not to mention that its exports have exploded as well. The problem is in these analyses are that we keep trying to apply our western views onto third world nations concerning economics. Somalia is (or was, before it was brutally invaded) better off than under its dictatorship. That's all that matters, really.

Right onw cue...



http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/23/somalia.fighting.ap/index.html

How does a central government bombing, shelling, cutting a swath of destruction and committing war crimes help your argument?

No, actually, it was under relative control with the Islamic Courts and customary law; how else would their economy have expanded so rapidly? Not to mention how well their herding industry has done, which makes aforementioned starving less of a problem than before.In other words, it was doing well while there was a strong central government.



But the economy of Somalia has been doing so much better than before under its central government, and its herding economy, i.e. its method of keeping people from starving, has outstripped its neighbors. Not to mention that its exports have exploded as well. The problem is in these analyses are that we keep trying to apply our western views onto third world nations concerning economics. Somalia is (or was, before it was brutally invaded) better off than under its dictatorship. That's all that matters, really.Somalia is in shambles.



How does a central government bombing, shelling, cutting a swath of destruction and committing war crimes help your argument?

First, the militants are also bombng, shelling and cutting a swath of destruction and comiting war crimes. Second, the central government is weak - in fact it can barely hold the capital. What is happening is exactly what I described would happen in Iraq. Without a strong central government the country has fallen into military factions. In the capital the government rules. In countryside warlords and insurgents rule. They fight each other, sometimes ally with each other when it suits them... One day your friend is your friend, the next day he was never your friend and the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The citizens place their allegience with one faction or another, mostly based on who can hurt them the most or on some tribal relationship, then they all pull up their boots, pull out their guns and get down.

I might also point out that his idea of justice is at the root of the current cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq.

Well, of course it is. It's genocide. "Kill every American to make them pay for things the majority of them don't support and for things the majority of us asked for." Yep, good and logical that is. But do you want? The guy isn't trying to do this out of reason. He's angry at the US government and is acting on that. Reason plays no part.

In other words, it was doing well while there was a strong central government.

It's been fine for almost 15 years. The herding, export, and telecommunication boom didn't start with the relatively new Islamic Courts, and customary law kept it well in control.

Somalia is in shambles.

Now that Ethiopia invaded, yes. But it's economy has done wonderfully well over the last 15 years, as I am reiterating once more.

First, the militants are also bombng, shelling and cutting a swath of destruction and comiting war crimes. Second, the central government is weak - in fact it can barely hold the capital. What is happening is exactly what I described would happen in Iraq. Without a strong central government the country has fallen into military factions. In the capital the government rules. In countryside warlords and insurgents rule. They fight each other, sometimes ally with each other when it suits them... One day your friend is your friend, the next day he was never your friend and the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The citizens place their allegience with one faction or another, mostly based on who can hurt them the most or on some tribal relationship, then they all pull up their boots, pull out their guns and get down.

Yes, and that's why both the Ethiopian central government and the Somalian central government should go the hell away. There would not be this explosion of violence if they hadn't invaded. The militants are doing the same because the invasion has the effect of smacking a wasp's nest with a stick; they're not going to gently kneel down and accept the new domination. The Somalian people should be left well alone to live their lives, instead of having some imperialists impose upon them to use them like chess pieces.