NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears there is good news from Iraq today. We will be handing over Anbar Provence to Iraq http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080827/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarysecurityanbar_080827173717
and it looks like fewer Marines are needed in Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,411522,00.html
So, it looks like the surge worked and we can now see light at the end of the tunnel. Also, Rice has been over there negotiating a US pull out.

My prediction is that a couple weeks into the transfer the insurgency will Zerg Rush Anbar Province and attack the credibility of Iraq's government. This would be more like the Tet Offensive, not with complete military victory in mind but to simply horribly wound morale and public image.

Good. Let's hope we can be out of there soon. Sooner the better. Though I still wouldn't put money on Iraq being a stable country in 5, 10, 20, or 50 years.

Good. Let's hope we can be out of there soon. Sooner the better. Though I still wouldn't put money on Iraq being a stable country in 5, 10, 20, or 50 years.

I think it will be very stable in 5 to 10 years or it will have broken into two or three separate countries. I doubt it will split though. I also think the US will have a presence there for many years to come just like we still do in Germany, Japan, and Korea.

Good deal. The sooner this is the case for the whole of Iraq, the better.

Its good that security is improving but if there's no political progress the 'awakened' Sunnis in areas like Anbar could turn against the government again, although their experience with Al-Qaeda at least makes it unlikely they will reunite with them.

....
So, it looks like the surge worked and we can now see light at the end of the tunnel. Also, Rice has been over there negotiating a US pull out.

I agree that that's good news from Iraq, but I think the statement "the surge worked" very much depends upon what you mean by "worked". If you mean "significantly reduced violence in the short term", then yes, clearly, but if you mean something more like "has changed conditions in Iraq and will lead to a long-term reduction in violence, allowing conditions to improve further", I'd say the jury's still out on that one.

Daistallia posted a Foreign Affairs article that argued that our tactics during the surge may be setting Iraq up for increased violence and chaos after we pull out. I'll find it somewhere. I hope that's not the case, but it's possible that we may simply have created a temporary lull allowing us to pull out "victoriously", able to blame the subsequent fall of Iraq on the Iraqis.

It would still be good to have US troops home, either way.

Wasn't the surge always intended to be a short term solution? To provide a period of low violence in order to reach a political settlement that would be impossible while the supporters of the main political blocks were trying to kill each other.

I suspect this has more to do with US politics than reality in Iraq.

I suspect this has more to do with US politics than reality in Iraq.

What, you think Bush would endanger an entire population just because of the political ambitions of his protegé?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Wait, this is Bush. Of COURSE he would.

My prediction is that a couple weeks into the transfer the insurgency will Zerg Rush Anbar Province and attack the credibility of Iraq's government. This would be more like the Tet Offensive, not with complete military victory in mind but to simply horribly wound morale and public image.

The thing is, though, that the Tet Offensive only worked because of its impact on the US. Had we remained steadfast and continued to hit the North Vietnamese successfully, no doubt the Tet Offensive would have marked the beginning of the end for the communists; that offensive was such a costly and desperate attack that they would have likely been defeated in fairly short order had we not begun the process of withdrawing. There is simply nowhere near the kind of vociferous opposition to the Iraq War like that which characterized Vietnam, which means any attempt at such a move will be a failure.

I think the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is, first and foremost, that we're backing a legitimately democratic government and that the insurgents are either Al-Qaeda types without significant public support or forces that more than anything desire the withdrawal of US forces rather than the destruction of the government in power. The first group are pretty much soundly defeated while the second will weaken as we turn over more and more power to the Iraqis.

Going in to Iraq was definitely a mistake, but it appears more than ever that we may be able to turn that mistake in to a legitimate victory for democratization in the Middle East.

Well we need those troops to gear up for war on Iran. Of course we're doing a pull out.

What, you think Bush would endanger an entire population just because of the political ambitions of his protegé?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Wait, this is Bush. Of COURSE he would.

Are you admitting that a withdrawal from Iraq endangers the entire population?

Are you admitting that a withdrawal from Iraq endangers the entire population?

That depends, do I still get to rub in the faces of those that insulted me that the invasion was a mistake? Also, in any case, I admit that a withdrawal RIGHT NOW, as opposed to 16 months from now, would be a mistake.

That depends, do I still get to rub in the faces of those that insulted me that the invasion was a mistake? Also, in any case, I admit that a withdrawal RIGHT NOW, as opposed to 16 months from now, would be a mistake.

Why? What's going to have happened in 16 months?

I think the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is, first and foremost, that we're backing a legitimately democratic government .

...whose economic policy was shaped by an unelected US imposed "authority".


Going in to Iraq was definitely a mistake, but it appears more than ever that we may be able to turn that mistake in to a legitimate victory for democratization in the Middle East.

63 oil wells out of 80 under Foreign control is a victory, but not for Iraq. Its turning back the tables to the days of Empire, with a few more bells and knobs to disguise the underlying exploitative nature of the arrangement.

That depends, do I still get to rub in the faces of those that insulted me that the invasion was a mistake? Also, in any case, I admit that a withdrawal RIGHT NOW, as opposed to 16 months from now, would be a mistake.

Oh get over it already, jeez, I'm betting most if the insulting that happened happen over the internet. You're worse than Andras, at least Andras was somewhat amusing, you just bitch.

As for the Iraq pull out, that does sound like good news. We should pull out, but we shouldn't pull out too soon, or too late. If we pull out too soon, the entire Iraqi government may collapse into Anarchy, if we pull out too late, they may become too dependent on our prescence to be self-sufficient.

Hmm, why does this talk of "pull out" and when to "pull out" making me think about sex? :p;)

Hmm, why does this talk of "pull out" and when to "pull out" making me think about sex? :p;)

...cause you're catholic?

Hmm, why does this talk of "pull out" and when to "pull out" making me think about sex? :p;)

Because withdrawal is difficult; it can have severe consquences if withdrawal is early or late and it is unwise to attempt to form a timetable.

Because withdrawal is difficult; it can have severe consquences if withdrawal is early or late and it is unwise to attempt to form a timetable.

Dammit, you made me laugh out loud in the computer lab, now everyone is looking at me weird lol.

So we are saying the US is using the rhythm method in Iraq?

It appears there is good news from Iraq today. We will be handing over Anbar Provence to Iraq http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080827/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarysecurityanbar_080827173717
and it looks like fewer Marines are needed in Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,411522,00.html
So, it looks like the surge worked and we can now see light at the end of the tunnel. Also, Rice has been over there negotiating a US pull out.

This is good news. I just hope that this can hold. The sooner we can get our troops out of Iraq the better. If we can do it in a way that doesn't allow the house of cards to fall that would be great. The surge is technically still in effect.National Guard, Reserves, and active duty who are seeing their 3rd and fourth tours right now. Their families would love to have them home for more than a few months.

So we are saying the US is using the rhythm method in Iraq?

Apparently

So we are saying the US is using the rhythm method in Iraq?


....in that its going to leave a sticky mess, it only being a question of just where, yes.

I think it will be very stable in 5 to 10 years or it will have broken into two or three separate countries. I doubt it will split though. I also think the US will have a presence there for many years to come just like we still do in Germany, Japan, and Korea.

I was always of the opinion that Iraq be split into 3 separate countries. Forcing to keep them together as we did after WW2 is the root cause of the problems they still have today. Can you guess which current candidate for President suggested this solution quite a while ago? Kudos to the person who gets the answer.

63 oil wells out of 80 under Foreign control is a victory, but not for Iraq. Its turning back the tables to the days of Empire, with a few more bells and knobs to disguise the underlying exploitative nature of the arrangement.

There's nothing wrong with foreign oil investment. They made their bids and the Iraqi government chose them; unless the US, China and UK are all conspiring together to produce Iraqi oil for the world market, that's pretty nonsensical.

Those companies are simply the best suited to restoring and expanding Iraqi oil production; decades of neglect and mismanagement by Saddam's government, as well as our military operations and the ongoing insurgency, have left them bereft of the kind of technical base necessary to really build up that industry to its pre-1991 levels.

Foreign investment is absolutely 100% necessary for successful economic development, and the commitment of billions of dollars in oil deals is a sign of growing confidence in the Iraqi government and economy.

...whose economic policy was shaped by an unelected US imposed "authority".

And who, should they choose to do so, can alter their policy. As much as people want to believe the US has the means to somehow control the Iraqi government, it's simply not true. That might have been possible 50 years ago, but in a multipolar world where there are other major states competing with the US, it's not possible.

I think the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is, first and foremost, that we're backing a legitimately democratic government and that the insurgents are either Al-Qaeda types without significant public support or forces that more than anything desire the withdrawal of US forces rather than the destruction of the government in power. The first group are pretty much soundly defeated while the second will weaken as we turn over more and more power to the Iraqis.

That's a more positive view of the insurgency than I've seen reflected in the news. I agree that Al-Qaeda are essentially opportunists without broad-based support in Iraq, but among the non-Al-Qaeda actors are large groups who want the US to withdraw precisely so they can undermine the government in power. Shia groups who want revenge for decades of oppression, and Sunni groups who want to take back the government (if only because they're afraid of the Shia majority.) These aren't disagreements created by outside forces, but the genuinely-felt concerns of significant numbers of Iraqis. It's impossible for the government to please both of these factions, let alone keep the Kurds from taking their ball and going home. Unless the Iraqi government gets a lot stronger than anyone expects, and soon, it won't be able to control the country once we pull out.

Heikoku, if you think you had it rough because you opposed the war and got some insults tossed at you over the web, then you seriously need thicker skin. My family's story in the US is evidence enough that far worse could happen...and they supported US intervention in WWI and WWII...all they did was kept their last name.

Heikoku, if you think you had it rough because you opposed the war and got some insults tossed at you over the web, then you seriously need thicker skin. My family's story in the US is evidence enough that far worse could happen...and they supported US intervention in WWI and WWII...all they did was kept their last name.

I don't think I got it rough, I want to get it EVEN.

(See, there's a wordplay you can't do in Portuguese. English is quite a dynamic language indeed.)

That's a more positive view of the insurgency than I've seen reflected in the news. I agree that Al-Qaeda are essentially opportunists without broad-based support in Iraq, but among the non-Al-Qaeda actors are large groups who want the US to withdraw precisely so they can undermine the government in power. Shia groups who want revenge for decades of oppression, and Sunni groups who want to take back the government (if only because they're afraid of the Shia majority.) These aren't disagreements created by outside forces, but the genuinely-felt concerns of significant numbers of Iraqis. It's impossible for the government to please both of these factions, let alone keep the Kurds from taking their ball and going home. Unless the Iraqi government gets a lot stronger than anyone expects, and soon, it won't be able to control the country once we pull out.

True, which is why an immediate pullout would be a disaster for all involved. Getting rid of Al-Qaeda is something they can handle on their own, especially given its weakened state, but those sectarian tensions are likely to be the biggest problem in the immediate aftermath of our withdrawal.

However, I think the very fact that those tensions exist is a big reason why things may improve most rapidly and permanently alongside a gradual pullout and transfer of military authority; a lot of infighting will definitely begin as the insurgents lose their primary target, and that may be enough weakness for the Iraqis and our forces to weaken them and bring them in to the democratic system rather than allow them to continue fighting.

There's nothing wrong with foreign oil investment. They made their bids and the Iraqi government chose them; unless the US, China and UK are all conspiring together to produce Iraqi oil for the world market, that's pretty nonsensical.
.

The service contracts were awarded on a no-bid basis to the big 5. They have the right of first refusal on the management and production contracts. US advisors were involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The service contracts were awarded on a no-bid basis to the big 5. They have the right of first refusal on the management and production contracts. US advisors were involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

No-bid contracts are the easiest way to get the process done and over with as quickly as possible. Iraq desperately needs foreign investment, and if that means giving these companies preferential treatment, so be it. They have neither the means nor the luxury to go through the long process of competitive bidding like that in developed countries.

Now, that's hardly the way to conduct business in a normal environment, but a lot of exceptions exist in Iraq that make it a special case.

And who, should they choose to do so, can alter their policy. As much as people want to believe the US has the means to somehow control the Iraqi government, it's simply not true. That might have been possible 50 years ago, but in a multipolar world where there are other major states competing with the US, it's not possible.

It requires, at the least, a 75% majority to overthrow any of the CPA decrees.
Cat herders wouldn't try that one.

No-bid contracts are the easiest way to get the process done and over with as quickly as possible. .

No argument there. Good way to get the result you want, too. And the first refusal on the managment/production contracts is just a happy happy joy joy present for making everything so painless.


Now, that's hardly the way to conduct business in a normal environment, but a lot of exceptions exist in Iraq that make it a special case. .

Yep, its government is dependent on an occupying power.
That power has already shoe-horned it into an economic model.
That power was involved in the no-bid negotiations.
Over 40 companies, many with previous interests and experience in Iraq were frozen out.
The Iraqi national oil company has had its control reduced to an unusually low level.

Time to smell the coffee.