Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-22 08:09:21

Bill, are you saying we should pull out immediately? Like we did with Afganistan? I don't like it, but the US has no choice to pull out until after the Iraqi government is truly in place. You saw how bad the voting was the first go around (like how many Sunni's, I think, sorry, get the various factions confused, didn't vote for fear of retribution).

Now, how long that will be is anyones guess, but I do think the insurgency is dissipating to some extent.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 08:14:10

Now, how long that will be is anyones guess, but I do think the insurgency is dissipating to some extent.

True, due in large part to their own errors.

Blowing up Iraqi civilians and police is not going to win people over.

We're not the only ones making stupid mistakes. If we get our act together things will get much easier.

BWhite · 2005-06-22 08:19:44

Bill, are you saying we should pull out immediately? Like we did with Afganistan? I don't like it, but the US has no choice to pull out until after the Iraqi government is truly in place. You saw how bad the voting was the first go around (like how many Sunni's, I think, sorry, get the various factions confused, didn't vote for fear of retribution).
Now, how long that will be is anyones guess, but I do think the insurgency is dissipating to some extent.

First, don't go in at all without a viable plan to leave. And we must accept that some brain tumors simply are inoperable.

Please do not forget Chalabi, Paul Bremer and that blue/white flag. Our post-Saddam plan was a joke.

Second, one school of thought is that the Sunnis, Kurds and Shia are so opposed to one another, that only a Saddam can keep Iraq from fragmenting. Saddam apparently was astounded that we invaded because he knew how difficult it was to prevent the Kurds and Shia from rebellion.

Bush 41 declined to remove Saddam in 1990 because he feared Iraq would fly apart into pieces.

As Cobra and I = AGREED = upon a few days ago, partition is the only short term stable solution. With some terrible costs for the Turks and with the empowerment of Iran.

Still "Iraq" is an artificial country created by the British after WW1 - - something else Cobra and I agree upon.

Third, we cannot just withdraw.

But, we need to honestly accept our mistakes in order to devise a strategy to correct this mess we have created. No other nation will offer troops unless the United Nations is in control.

The UN is corrupt you say? True. But so freakin' what?

America hasn't the willpower or stomach to stay in Iraq for 20 years (let alone a big enough army) and with Bush using his stature as "War President" to appoint judges who will outlaw abortion half of America will oppose anything he advocates.

So what do we do?

BWhite · 2005-06-22 08:24:28

Now, how long that will be is anyones guess, but I do think the insurgency is dissipating to some extent.
True, due in large part to their own errors.
Blowing up Iraqi civilians and police is not going to win people over.
We're not the only ones making stupid mistakes. If we get our act together things will get much easier.

The Iraqi military needs to find something worth fighting for. That is the only way out leaving a stable intact Iraq.

Which is why the blue/white flag proposal was such a total disaster.

BWhite · 2005-06-22 08:30:57

Juan Cole's solution is to bring in Third World military forces to Iraq in exchange for a whole lot of US money (a crass one line summary of a nuanced position) with this army wearing blue helmets so the population of Iraq can accept this new army as NOT being puppets of America.

Since the US military seems incapable of winning the guerrilla war in Iraq either militarily or politically, someone else will have to do it if we are to avoid Gulf War III and its consequences. The Europeans cannot do it. They only have a surplus capacity of about 10,000 troops for deployment outside the continent, and they are already in Afghanistan. You could argue that they should reform their militaries so that they did have more troops for external deployment, but that would take time we don't have.
That leaves a United Nations command leading troops from the global South, with perhaps, one or two remaining US divisions. The Southerners are culturally better suited to negotiating an end to the Iraq hostilities anyway, and some of them have excellent militaries. Gulf War III and Very High Oil Prices would hurt them more than it would hurt the US and Europe, so they have every interest in intervening. Moreover, they will be richly rewarded with billions in future Iraq contracts, which they need more than Texas does.
Some are construing this proposal as me having the poor people in the global South suffer for Bush's mistakes. But at $60 a barrel they are already suffering for Bush's mistakes. Do you know how many factories will have to close over this, or will never open in the first place, in Pakistan and India? Factories are very sensitive to energy costs, which have tripled, and could go even higher. Iraq is adding $10 to $15 a barrel to the current price because of uncertainty and speculation, and the removal through sabotage of about 1.5 million barrels a day also contributes to the problem.
I am saying that the UN and the global South can solve the problem, that they have every incentive to solve the problem, and that they will be richly rewarded for solving the problem.

Edited By BWhite on 1119450845

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-22 08:36:29

Second, one school of thought is that the Sunnis, Kurds and Shia are so opposed to one another, that only a Saddam can keep Iraq from fragmenting.

I don't think that's fair, I think the US is doing a great job given with what they must contend with, and that is a terrorist organization (the "insurgency") that is full of radicals who don't give a crap about blowing themselves up.

These "insurgents" are not part of Iraq, they are not Iraqi's, they are nothing more than terrorists (who are being sympathized with increasingly less, as resturants and cafeterias get suicide bombed). I think the voting this past cycle showed that these factions can get along just fine, and they don't need a worthless (nay, powerless, consider the power of the Iraqi military before the invasion, most people surrendered) dictator-type to keep things in check. In fact, I would say that the immedicy that the bombings and invasion has created has united these groups, if anything. "If we can get along, then the US can be gone!"

In the end, though, you're absolutely right, Bush lied about his reasons. And I think that Cobra is wrong in that, by going back to the UN, the previous resolutions were nullified, but I don't know for sure. Logically, they should be, as they suggested a need for reevaluation of the situation.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 08:39:05

So what do we do?

*I don't know.

But always seeing the glass as half empty and declaring "the patient" DOA probably isn't helping much.

--A mouse amidst the lions (powers-that-be)

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 08:39:29

Juan Cole's solution is to bring in Third World military forces to Iraq in exchange for a whole lot of US money

I'd have some trepidation at this approach. In essence it would be using mercenaries. Such troops are both unreliable and prone to corruption. We'd likely make the situation worse with such an approach.

The only way it would have a chance of working would be to put them directly and firmly under American control. This would require more than a payoff and more time than we currently have to cultivate.

The British have a model for this sort of thing, but then we can't have colonial troops without colonies now can we? :;):

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-22 08:58:48

I think you guys should take a break from this, I don't mean to bugger in or anything, but, yeah. Just sayin'. I think I'm going to be staying away from this awful awful thread.

clark · 2005-06-22 09:00:05

quitter.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 09:01:06

Odds are it's gonna crash soon anyway.

Then we start all over. :laugh:

It's our own little New Mars causality loop.

clark · 2005-06-22 09:02:48

I'd have some trepidation at this approach. In essence it would be using mercenaries.

And this is different from now how? Private contractors and foreign governments that are given money for the troops they provide are called what...

clark · 2005-06-22 09:05:56

Oh brave new world...

http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/index_b.php 2056

BWhite · 2005-06-22 09:09:49

Juan Cole's solution is to bring in Third World military forces to Iraq in exchange for a whole lot of US money
I'd have some trepidation at this approach. In essence it would be using mercenaries. Such troops are both unreliable and prone to corruption. We'd likely make the situation worse with such an approach.
The only way it would have a chance of working would be to put them directly and firmly under American control. This would require more than a payoff and more time than we currently have to cultivate.
The British have a model for this sort of thing, but then we can't have colonial troops without colonies now can we? :;):

Trepidation? Dude, we should be swimming in oceans of trepidation by now.

US control? Then it won't happen. A while back Pakistan would have sent 40,000 or so troops IF there was a UN figleaf. And that was back then, and is why that UN figleaf should have been so important to our decision to go in..

The draft, of course, is another option. Our reserves just won't hold up for another several years at this operational tempo. But I have military trepidation about that. How well will angry 20 years olds - - who did not volunteer - - actually fight?

= = =

On Josh's point - - if there truly is to be an Iraq (rather than a Shia Sumer, greater Kurdistan, and Sunni sector)

ONLY the Iraqis (if any there be) can make that happen.

Edited By BWhite on 1119453036

BWhite · 2005-06-22 09:12:48

Oh brave new world...
http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/index_b.php]2056

Lunar Olympic officials continue to search for missing pole vaulter.

Grypd · 2005-06-22 09:52:02

The one problem with a country like Iraq fragmenting is that it will lead to a very nasty civil type war as the various factions and ethnic groups fight to get there slice of the pie. It happened in Yugoslavia, When India/Pakistan got its independence in 1948 and so many numerous times in Africa.

But what matters for the west is what ethnic group will be holding which bit of Iraq. Im not happy at having the very pro Iranian Shi'a majority in control of the Oil which when combined give Iran and the Iraqi Shi'a a very large percentage of the worlds supplies at hand.

In relation to Opec it would cause the Iranians and there natural allies to have more of a share than the USA's ally Saudi Arabia and a more pivotal control of the worlds oil trade.

Add in the trouble Turkey another western ally will recieve from a Kurd republic on the doorstep and the west could well hamstring itself.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 10:03:30

Partitioning Iraq is not my first choice. A nominally republican (small "r") Iraq would be greatly preferable for a number of reasons.

But to achieve that will require a certain amount of force, money, discretion and careful manipulation of events. I have deep concerns that America lacks the stomach for the force, the foresight for the money and the attention-span for the discrete manipulating.

If we won't be able to achieve that goal, it's better not to go halfway. In that case, partitioning may be the most viable long-term option if we're willing to accept the short-term consequences.

If we can't do "master plan" we're left with "one thing at a time."

BWhite · 2005-06-22 10:10:43

Partitioning Iraq is not my first choice. A nominally republican (small "r") Iraq would be greatly preferable for a number of reasons.
But to achieve that will require a certain amount of force, money, discretion and careful manipulation of events. I have deep concerns that America lacks the stomach for the force, the foresight for the money and the attention-span for the discrete manipulating.
If we won't be able to achieve that goal, it's better not to go halfway. In that case, partitioning may be the most viable long-term option if we're willing to accept the short-term consequences.
If we can't do "master plan" we're left with "one thing at a time."

I agree with this.

How did Saddam "hold Iraq together" as one entity? By brutality. Okay, now how do we hold Iraq together without Saddam-like brutality?

= = =

I have deep concerns that America lacks the stomach for the force, the foresight for the money and the attention-span for the discrete manipulating.

This is exactly why it was disastrous for Wolfowitz to say Iraqi oil revenue would finance reconstruction and to fire those generals who said we need hundreds of thousands of troops for years and years.

As for Bush (or another neo-con) before we can trust their leadership I believe we need to know they have learned that firing generals who disagree with you is bad policy - - especially when they are later proven be have been correct.

Edited By BWhite on 1119456860

Palomar · 2005-06-22 10:17:47

Okay, now how do we hold Iraq together without Saddam-like brutality?

*Why ask us? No one here has any political power or an office on Capitol Hill, etc.

And then there's the viewpoint that America -will- fail, no matter what.

Seems pointless, doesn't it?

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-06-22 10:26:40

Okay, now how do we hold Iraq together without Saddam-like brutality?
*Why ask us? No one here has any political power or an office on Capitol Hill, etc.
And then there's the viewpoint that America -will- fail, no matter what.
Seems pointless, doesn't it?
--Cindy

Ah but you live in a democracy and in the end you ellect your leaders and it is through them that you as the people Govern!

Without rehashing old arquements the USA did in all likely go into Iraq without too well a plan worked out for what to do when it had won the war. Fighting a war is a whole different matter than occupying the country afterwards. Best way to put it is to slip on the velvet glove as a mailed fist just will not work.

Still the USA can still "win" if that term can even be used and come out of Iraq with a friendly western leaning positive regime in existence. Its getting the current Iraqis to think that way and to hammer "politically" the opponents of that idea.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 10:43:47

As for Bush (or another neo-con) before we can trust their leadership I believe we need to know they have learned that firing generals who disagree with you is bad policy - - especially when they are later proven be have been correct.

Yes, I'd have thought that lesson would have been learned already. The name Joseph Stalin comes to mind.

Which brings me to a tangent, just for a little flavor and change of pace. The real makeup of the current political landscape seems to escape most Americans, even the unusually sharp minds here. Fortunately you've got the unsleeping free-associating Cobra to point this out. :laugh:
What, I'm leading into a Bush bash here, I need a little arrogance in the air.

First, time to dispense with some assumptions. The looney-Left likes to compare Bush, Republicans and conservatives to Nazis in their diatribes. So first off, they miss a few important details.

Conservatism and Nazism are diametrically opposed. Nazism is in fact a close cousin of communism. The differences are akin to the differences between Catholocism and Lutheranism. The underlying ideas are mostly the same stuff. Commies see class as the most important criteria of loyalty, Nazis choose race. They're all statist socialists of one stripe or another. Those screaming Lefties at the anti-war rallies with the MoveOn.org shirts are far closer to both the value system and the spirit of the Brownshirts than conservatives ever could be.

Ah, but Bush is not a conservative. Conservatives don't enact giant entitlement programs. Conservatives don't invade countries when they don't have to. Conservatives don't talk about grand crusades of spreading democracy around the globe.

So when the Left implies that Bush and his neo-con ilk are like Nazis, they hit on a point albeit obliquely and through no skill of their own. Neo-cons share one important element with the Nazis: they've taken an essentially Leftist worldview and tied it to a few traditionally rightist elements.

So in essence, they can rightfully draw comparisons because Bush is closer to the heritage of Nazism because he's more like them. Communism and Nazism are two sides of the same wackjob coin. Conservatism opposed both from the outset. The modern Left is descended in large part from communist thought, much of which is shared with Nazism when you really get into the meat of it. the neo-cons are more closely related to them than the conservatives so often tarred as being, essentially, Leftists.

So in a sense, what we're witnessing is the triumph of Leftism. Just not the particular flavor certain Leftists would like. Heresy, if you will. Some will no doubt take it as a crass indictment of American liberals but it is in fact my admission that their strain of thought is not entirely bankrupt. Mostly, but not entirely.

BWhite · 2005-06-22 10:44:09

Okay, now how do we hold Iraq together without Saddam-like brutality?
*Why ask us? No one here has any political power or an office on Capitol Hill, etc.
And then there's the viewpoint that America -will- fail, no matter what.
Seems pointless, doesn't it?
--Cindy

If our leaders cannot answer this question, we need to throw them out of office. To have invaded Iraq without having a good answer to this question was the highest folly.

And for us to refrain from asking this question is unpatriotic and disrespectful to the lives of the solders we send over there.

= = =

Where to find more troops? Brazil, Japan, India and Germany desire permanent seats on the UN Security Council.

Okay guys, lets make a deal.

clark · 2005-06-22 10:53:35

C.C., ahem, you are offically nuts. Coming from me... :laugh:

There is not a singular part of your last post that makes a shred of sense.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 11:04:43

There is not a singular part of your last post that makes a shred of sense.

Ignorance coupled with decades of spin and a desire to believe it. :;):

But hey, if you want to keep believing that Nazism is conservative I can't stop you. Here's the water, the rest is up to you.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 11:13:57

Okay, now how do we hold Iraq together without Saddam-like brutality?
*Why ask us? No one here has any political power or an office on Capitol Hill, etc.
And then there's the viewpoint that America -will- fail, no matter what.
Seems pointless, doesn't it?
--Cindy
If our leaders cannot answer this question, we need to throw them out of office.

*Easier said than done, isn't it?

And for us to refrain from asking this question is unpatriotic and disrespectful to the lives of the solders we send over there.

Yeah. But this discussion isn't changing anything real.

It isn't a letter to senators/congressmen/the local newspaper editor.

I agree with what you're saying...it's just that merely conversing endlessly is pointless.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2005-06-22 08:09:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#252 2005-06-22 08:14:10

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#253 2005-06-22 08:19:44

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#254 2005-06-22 08:24:28

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#255 2005-06-22 08:30:57

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#256 2005-06-22 08:36:29

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#257 2005-06-22 08:39:05

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#258 2005-06-22 08:39:29

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#259 2005-06-22 08:58:48

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#260 2005-06-22 09:00:05

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#261 2005-06-22 09:01:06

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#262 2005-06-22 09:02:48

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#263 2005-06-22 09:05:56

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#264 2005-06-22 09:09:49

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#265 2005-06-22 09:12:48

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#266 2005-06-22 09:52:02

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#267 2005-06-22 10:03:30

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#268 2005-06-22 10:10:43

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#269 2005-06-22 10:17:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#270 2005-06-22 10:26:40

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#271 2005-06-22 10:43:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#272 2005-06-22 10:44:09

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#273 2005-06-22 10:53:35

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#274 2005-06-22 11:04:43

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#275 2005-06-22 11:13:57

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer