Iraq: A New War and an Old War

[Publius]

While JFK was in office he did a strange thing: he started a new TYPE of war with vietnam. Since Alexander, Hannibal Barca, Caesar, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel and Patton wars have been fought over territory. The idea is simple enough, you own what you conquer and can do what you want with it accordingly. Vietnam was a war for people's opinions, for their thoughts. Iraq is the same type of war, and it is a difficult one.

The essence of Rome's success was her ability to make the people she conquered accept her way of life. Rome offered culture, peace, and stability to people. People accepted accordingly because she offered a better way of life.

In Iraq, we have not conquered. We chose not to. When we first arrived people were receptive, because they expected to be conquered by a much stronger enemy. Our kindness is mistaken for weakness and impotence. We offer a better way; but we never delivered the "shock and awe" we promised. We are percieved as deceptive and weak by those who did not want us there to start. This type of war has yet to be won by anyone as evinced by Kennedy's failure in Vietnam. First times for everything?

Publius

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Publius

The essence of Rome's success was her ability to make the people she conquered accept her way of life. Rome offered culture, peace, and stability to people. People accepted accordingly because she offered a better way of life.

The essence of Rome's failure was the adoption of ethics equivalent to the socialistic and liberal politics being used and promoted in America today.

In Iraq, we have not conquered. We chose not to. When we first arrived people were receptive, because they expected to be conquered by a much stronger enemy. Our kindness is mistaken for weakness and impotence. We offer a better way; but we never delivered the "shock and awe" we promised. We are percieved as deceptive and weak by those who did not want us there to start. This type of war has yet to be won by anyone as evinced by Kennedy's failure in Vietnam. First times for everything?

Publius

No. We will not and cannot win. We went in with an ideology and let ourselves get corraled by world politics and opinions. No matter which way we go from here, we lose in that realm wether we win militarily or not.

-Mainly due to above example of American socialism already OWNING the politics of the EU and UN and the other nations predominantly as well.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Publius
While JFK was in office he did a strange thing: he started a new TYPE of war with vietnam. Since Alexander, Hannibal Barca, Caesar, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel and Patton wars have been fought over territory. The idea is simple enough, you own what you conquer and can do what you want with it accordingly. Vietnam was a war for people's opinions, for their thoughts. Iraq is the same type of war, and it is a difficult one.

The essence of Rome's success was her ability to make the people she conquered accept her way of life. Rome offered culture, peace, and stability to people. People accepted accordingly because she offered a better way of life.

In Iraq, we have not conquered. We chose not to. When we first arrived people were receptive, because they expected to be conquered by a much stronger enemy. Our kindness is mistaken for weakness and impotence. We offer a better way; but we never delivered the "shock and awe" we promised. We are percieved as deceptive and weak by those who did not want us there to start. This type of war has yet to be won by anyone as evinced by Kennedy's failure in Vietnam. First times for everything?

Publius

Pretty much Iraq is a draw. We removed Hussein but we did not kill enough of the assholes to make a big difference. Power will be handed over on June 30 and it will not be too far after that the country will be plunged into civil war then its anybody's guess as to what will happen then. I think when history looks back on this they will say we had good intentions and it was the right thing to do unfortunately our leadership did not learn 1 lesson from Vietnam, that being that wars cannot be fought from D.C. and they cannot be fought according to what political correctness dictates. Our general's hands were tied by politicians therefore not allowing us to root out and kill all insurgents. We were too worried about civilians and mosques and what the wacko left would say, lets face it Bush has been in a 4th quarter prevent defense for a while now and the enemy has basically picked it apart, all because of a fucking election. What Bush fails to realize is the people want a decisive victory like, well take your pick of WWII campaigns, they don't care about civilian deaths just get the fucking job done.

I'm afraid that Iraq may be a bigger shithole after we leave than we found it all because we seem to lack the stomach for all out bloody war.

All this said i'm still going to vote for Bush hoping that once the election is over and he never has to worry about reelection again he will unleash the dogs of war wherever they need to bark.

 

[Publius]

Originally posted by OCA
1. it will not be too far after that the country will be plunged into civil war... I think when history looks back on this they will say we had good intentions and it was the right thing to do unfortunately our leadership did not learn 1 lesson from Vietnam

2. they don't care about civilian deaths just get the fucking job done.

3. he never has to worry about reelection again he will unleash the dogs of war wherever they need to bark. [/B]

First let me say thank you, I must have been over in the BOCES chat section earlier...check out my other posts under Israel/Palestine

1. Agreed, Civil war is a serious possiblity in Iraq. I just hope we leave first so we're not band-aiding muslims for the next 8 yrs.
2. Yes. But here, the job we undertook was so vague...we could level the country and not complete the objective.
3. Lets hope it's later than sooner, and it's not N.Korea

 

[Zhukov]

I think things are going swell in Iraq.

I don't think it will devolve into a civil war.

I think the only worry is a terrorist decapitation strike on the new Iraqi government sometime next year. If the new Iraqi government is competent enough to secure itself, everything will be fine.

If once a month a terrorist bomb goes off in Iraq killing 5-20 Iraqis, I can assure you no one in this country will care. Well, the media won't at any rate, so we'll never know.

I'll say this though. This is a battle for territory, just as Vietnam was.

Democracy vs. Militant Islam/Totalitarianism

instead of

Democracy vs. Communism

Publius
Lets hope it's later than sooner, and it's not N.Korea

Let's hope it's sooner than too late.

 

[Publius]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I think things are going swell in Iraq.

I don't think it will devolve into a civil war.

I'll say this though. This is a battle for territory, just as Vietnam was.

Democracy vs. Militant Islam/Totalitarianism

instead of

Democracy vs. Communism


Right now you probably couldn't guarantee the safety of anyone or anything in Iraq. You could be right that civil war is avoidable, but when you have a country basically divided into 3 parts by religious fanaticism you must have strong gov't. This is a power grab opportunity like Iraqi's have never seen, ever. When political power is only an assassins gunshot away it will be interesting to see how a country with a 3d grade education copes when their individual religous group is underrepresented. Stalin faced this type of situation after your character batted the Germans back. It took over 20 million civilian deaths to avoid civil war there.

With this I respectfully I disagree. Battles for territory are different. When Hannibal ravaged northern Italy and sacked Cannae, leaving burnt towns and bodies in his wake; that was a territory battle. When the Germans ripped through Poland and France and All the way to Stalingrad leaving nothing of use behind them, that was a territory battle. The difference is that we not only need the country to be functional and intact; here we need their approval. We have made this situation for ourselves. Not good.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Publius
Right now you probably couldn't guarantee the safety of anyone or anything in Iraq. You could be right that civil war is avoidable, but when you have a country basically divided into 3 parts.

This is something I would hope the President, his administration, and the top Iraqi officials themselves all realize. Whether is it palatable to some or not, Iraq will require a strong hand.

Stalin faced this type of situation after your character batted the Germans back. It took over 20 million civilian deaths to avoid civil war there.

There was no danger whatsoever of another civil war after the Great Patriotic War . He killed those 20 million people because he was a paranoid (clinically diagnosed).

With this I respectfully I disagree. Battles for territory are different.

Iraq is now open territory for capitalist expansion and exploitation where as before it was not. It is everday becoming safer to do business there.

A war for territory does not mean it will be occupied by us, only that our enemy is deprived of it.

 

[menewa]

Turning Iraq into a secular Republic with a capitalist economy is the exact thing that many fundamentalists Muslims fear. Capitalism and secularism would destory many of their Koranic laws and expose the youth to the fun of consumerism and equal rights. So no matter what kind of great republic gets installed there, chaos will most likely continue until the majority of Iraqis learn that SUVs, cable TV and countless consumer goods far outweigh any kind of religious enlightenment.

In America, probably the first true secular government in the world, fundamentalists Christians are just as outraged. They no, longer get to stone homosexuals and beat insubordinate wives and tell people what they can and can't listen to.

But to me, I think America's secularism has been her greatest strength.

To hell with all religious zealots.

However, if the US would let Iraq spinter into several smaller nations, the outcome may be more peaceful and benign.

Why do you think the Bush Admin. seems so opposed to allowing Iraq split up? The Soviet Union scattered into a plethora of new nations after shedding their authoritarian regime. The same should be done in Iraq to facilitate peace. Also, the Kurdish region in the north seems to be doing great because they have a lot of autonomy.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by menewa
However, if the US would let Iraq spinter into several smaller nations, the outcome may be more peaceful and benign.

Why do you think the Bush Admin. seems so opposed to allowing Iraq split up? The Soviet Union scattered into a plethora of new nations after shedding their authoritarian regime. The same should be done in Iraq to facilitate peace. Also, the Kurdish region in the north seems to be doing great because they have a lot of autonomy.

It's not a good idea.

1.) You give the Kurds autonomy and suddenly they want the Kurdish lands in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. "We want a Kurdistan," they say, start trouble across the borders, and suddenly Kurds are being exterminated in three different countries.

2.) Iraqis or more nationalisitc than many other moslem citizens of the middle east. If you start to seperate parts you're going to get another Yugoslavia with every group wanting to extend their borders just a little bit into their neighbor's yard to make their Iraq. That will cause the civil war.

 

[Abuwaleed]

i canot believe sum of the fngs that ur saying, like lets have an allout bloody war and who cares about the civilians, then if that is the case who cares about the civilians in america who were killed. Lets jst get the bloody job done.
America will never be able to destroy and defeat iraq, u rely to much on ur military technology. i congratulate u that u have such technology and surley if u have it u shud use it but ur soldiers are cowards. All ur soldiers are drug dealers and young hispanics who bush is jst sending to die for the political aganda of the zionists.
Look how clever the zionists are. They truly have much enmity for the muslims and this is clearly known. How clever they are, sending the american to die for there cause.truly your lives mean nothing to them. The mujahdeen are the gratest warriors because they are not afraid to die.
Regardless of ur military mite ul never defeat neone. Take alook at chechnya how russia is using its whole military might to destroy the muslims yet they cant. Everyday they loose men to a band of freedom fighters.
U call them terrorists but when the french were using the same tatics agains the wehrmacht and germans they were freedom fighters.
The essence of this is its one rule for u and one for us.
I hope Iraq boils in to an allout bloody war between the sincere mujahideen of iraq and the us military forces and their allied mercenaries. Lets wait for this day and see what happens. It will be all like vietnam and ur people will be beginning bush to bring the soilders home. History is repeating it self.
The mujahideen of Iraq are better equipped then there brothers in afghanistan yet there brothers managed to defeat russia and still continue in war operations against america.
whenever a great attack happens in IRAQ u blame it on foreign extermists. U r fooling urself. This is the struggle of iraq and ul never succeed.

 

[NewGuy]

SE:

Having fun with images today, I see?

Did Bert put you up to that?
:

 

[Annie]

IRAQ THE MODEL

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Saturday, June 05, 2004

:: I plann to make quoting from Iraqis' comments on the BBC Arabic forum a weekly corner of this blog (or when there's a hot topic). It's one of the ways to show opinions of Iraqis other than those usually not seen in the western media (although this site is a part of the western media but as it is in Arabic so I don't think many people in the west can benefit from it. This time the comments are related to the main topic on the Iraqi field; the formation of the interim government.

I noticed that there were more positive comments from Arabs this time than in the past weeks but I also noticed that most of the negative ones came from Syria (largest share) while there's a remarkable change in attitude in the comments coming from KSA, Egypt or Jordan. Another observation was that negative comments from Iraqis decreased significantly also and actually I could find only one comment of those.


“Congratulations to the Iraqi people, may the future bring more happiness.
Lie no.1: we’ll crush the Americans at the gates of Baghdad. Fact: the regime ran away and fell apart without resistance and the regime’s head tried to flee to save himself with a couple of hundred millions of dollars.

Lie no. 2: the heroic leader is the courageous son of a tribe and he’ll fight to the last breath. Fact: he surrendered in a rat hole without shooting a single bullet.

Lie no.3: the objective of the American invasion is the Balkanization of Iraq. Fact: Iraq wasn’t divided as some wished to see.

Lie no.4: the Americans will plant hate and mistrust among She’at, Sunni and Kurdish Iraqis to make Iraqi another Lebanon. Fact: no civil war-that the terrorists wanted to provoke- happened.

Lie no.5: Iraq was invaded to let America steal Iraq’s oil and control the prices. Fact: oil prices increased and the (oil coupons scandal) pointed out the actual thieves who stole Iraq’s oil while under sanctions.

Lie no.6: Iraq was invaded to put a hand on Iraqi’s money. Fact: 68 billion dollars were assigned from America’s budget to cover the expenses of the troops and the reconstruction in addition to another 25 billion dollars assigned this month.

Lie no. 7: the explosions and random killings were fabricated by the Americans to postpone the sovereignty hand-over to Iraqis. Fact: the interim government was formed and the new president was chosen a month before the planned hand-over date.”
Jihad – Iraqi in USA.

“Discussing the political side of any subject should cover all the facts on the ground related to this subject; otherwise it will be unrealistic and lacking reason. The subject of the new Iraqi government, till now, is only a breeze of hope to put our feet on the right direction and this is also a phase to test the dedication of those men until the day of future elections. By reviewing the plans announced by Dr. Allawi regarding the coming eight months (if he succeeded to implement them), peace and comfort almost kick fear out of our hearts.”
Nadhom Mohammed – Baghdad/Iraq.

“The government that that the US put in charge can-in no way-be the beginning of a change towards democracy because democracy and freedom pave the road for the countries of the region towards progress in industry, the thing that America doesn’t want to occur.”

Mohammed – Syria.

“I don’t understand how could a government be independent when it’s chosen by the occupier? What I fear as an Arab is that Iraq might turn to be a dagger in our nation’s back”
Firas – Syria.

“My reply is directed to the two gentlemen, Mohammed and Firas from Syria: actually I want to state here that the Syrians are the last to have the right to criticize the new Iraqi government. Whatever this government’s nature is; the president didn’t heir the throne from his father. Your house is built of glass, gentlemen and you know it’s not difficult to smash it.”
Aws Al-Husainy – Nasiriyah/Iraq.

“To our Arab brothers, let’s imagine that an Arabic brother nation or even an Islamic nation came to Iraq, spent her money and sacrificed her sons’ blood to save the Iraqis from Saddam. Would that savior nation leave Iraqis alone after that?
I believe that America wants a democracy in Iraq but within known limits just to ensure that there will be no threat to her interests in the future. Part from that, there will be plenty of space for Iraqis to move within which opens real new horizons for a better future. As far as I know, this is all what any human being-not suffering from paranoia or still holding ancient slogans-wish.”
Mudhir Hussain – Baghdad.

“I believe that the sovereignty hand-over WILL happen, even if it needs several stages and this is just a matter of time. Dictatorship has gone forever and we’re not feeling sorry for that.
We support Yawer because he’s an educated, open-minded man and he descends from a respectable family. He has moderate perspectives and we expect him to use this feature to approximate Iraqis’ opinions and we’ll support him in his mission although he’s a ceremonial president as I heard.

As for the cabinet, I think that despite the fact that it was formed without elections and we do disagree with the formation in some points but it’s much better than most of the Arabic governments’ formations. I hope that Allawi succeeds in improving the economic and security situations. And I think that if he succeeded to do so he may have a chance to be elected with his cabinet next year. Otherwise we shall stand in his face but through voting boxes (like in other democracies) not through violence.

One last thing to say: we, in Iraq, have learnt the lesson and we’re not going to praise and clap to anyone and no one can force us to do so no matter what his place is. The road to dictatorships starts with clapping”
Mohammed – Baghdad.


- posted by Omar @ 19:24
Comments (51)

:: At last, a day of peace and happiness in Najaf after two months of fear and blood.
I can't describe how happy the Najafis were when they appeared on TV welcoming the IP forces that started to patrol the streets after Muqtada's militia left the city. I don't know if that scene was shown on western media or not but to me, their celebrations were similar to those Najafis had when they got rid of Saddam a year ago. I Hope this joy lasts for a long, long time.
- posted by Omar @ 19:08
Comments (28)

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Abuwaleed
i canot believe sum of the fngs that ur saying, like lets have an allout bloody war and who cares about the civilians, then if that is the case who cares about the civilians in america who were killed. Lets jst get the bloody job done.
America will never be able to destroy and defeat iraq, u rely to much on ur military technology. i congratulate u that u have such technology and surley if u have it u shud use it but ur soldiers are cowards. All ur soldiers are drug dealers and young hispanics who bush is jst sending to die for the political aganda of the zionists.
Look how clever the zionists are. They truly have much enmity for the muslims and this is clearly known. How clever they are, sending the american to die for there cause.truly your lives mean nothing to them. The mujahdeen are the gratest warriors because they are not afraid to die.
Regardless of ur military mite ul never defeat neone. Take alook at chechnya how russia is using its whole military might to destroy the muslims yet they cant. Everyday they loose men to a band of freedom fighters.
U call them terrorists but when the french were using the same tatics agains the wehrmacht and germans they were freedom fighters.
The essence of this is its one rule for u and one for us.
I hope Iraq boils in to an allout bloody war between the sincere mujahideen of iraq and the us military forces and their allied mercenaries. Lets wait for this day and see what happens. It will be all like vietnam and ur people will be beginning bush to bring the soilders home. History is repeating it self.
The mujahideen of Iraq are better equipped then there brothers in afghanistan yet there brothers managed to defeat russia and still continue in war operations against america.
whenever a great attack happens in IRAQ u blame it on foreign extermists. U r fooling urself. This is the struggle of iraq and ul never succeed.

Besides the fact that this post was a complete farce is the fact that either you are 9 years old or a complete fucking illiterate. You can't spell or construct a coherent thought or paragraph. How the fuck do you expect people to read your ranting diatribe when its infuckingcoherent and unfucking readable?

JESUS! These people are pissing me off! Anybody want to still tell me that we can negotiate with these illiterates?

 

[Annie]

I think this may be the best piece on the Iraq situation I've seen:

http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm


SOCIAL STUDIES
In Iraq, Don't Cut And Run. Cut And Don't Run.

By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, June 4, 2004

"I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American," President Bush said on May 24. Right, but what about making them Taiwanese? Or South Korean, or Turkish, or Mexican, or perhaps Russian? Now, there we might have something. The biggest mistake America could make in Iraq would be not to try for democracy there. The second-biggest mistake might be to try too hard.



Bush intends to give Iraq "a representative government that protects basic rights, elected by Iraqis." His critics implicitly agree with him that anything less than democracy would constitute failure, which they see looming.

Both views may be wrong. The biggest mistake America could make in Iraq would be not to try for democracy there. The second-biggest mistake might be to try too hard.

In an influential Commentary magazine article in 1979, Jeane Kirkpatrick, a Georgetown University professor (she later became U.N. ambassador in the Reagan administration), argued that in Iran and Nicaragua and elsewhere, America's efforts to democratize authoritarian regimes too quickly had backfired catastrophically in the face of determined insurgencies. "The American effort to impose liberalization and democratization on a government confronted with violent internal opposition not only failed," she wrote, "but actually assisted the coming to power of new regimes in which ordinary people enjoy fewer freedoms and less personal security than under the previous autocracy -- regimes, moreover, hostile to American interests and policies."

She discerned a pattern. The United States would pressure a friendly authoritarian regime to enter into negotiations "to establish a 'broadly based' coalition headed by a 'moderate' critic of the regime, who, once elevated, will move quickly to seek a 'political' settlement to the conflict." Alas, it never worked. "Only after the insurgents have refused the proffered political solution and anarchy has spread throughout the nation will it be noticed that the new head of government has no significant following, no experience at governing, and no talent for leadership." The moderate government collapses, the insurgents win, America faces a new enemy.

The failure, she argued, was based on a fatal U.S. misunderstanding of "how actual democracies have actually come into being." Typically, they emerge from "traditional autocracies," which she distinguished from radical and totalitarian ones. "Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits" of democracy, she said. A traditional autocracy, provided it is reasonably friendly to the U.S. and poses no threat to its neighbors, may look ugly, but it can provide the stability that incubates democracy.

In only two modern countries was democracy imposed quickly and successfully from outside: West Germany and Japan, both after World War II. Many more cases have followed Kirkpatrick's model of liberalization within an authoritarian, but not totalitarian, regime. As if to underscore the point, Russia recently tried to leap straight to multiparty democracy and failed. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia now appears to be moving through a phase of authoritarian consolidation, from which, the West can only hope, real democracy might yet emerge.

The Bush administration seems to see Iraq through the prism of Japan and Germany. In this view, representative democracy in Iraq can succeed because American forces will stay there to guarantee it. America, goes the mantra, will not cut and run.

Well, maybe it won't, but much of the public is eyeing the exits. Building democracies in Japan and West Germany required U.S. occupations lasting seven and four years respectively, and in neither place did the Americans face an angry population or a hardened insurgency fed by conniving neighbors and an international terrorist network. The Pentagon has done its utmost for more than a year and still cannot even control the borders or protect the head of the governing council outside the coalition's own gates. Almost 70 percent of Iraqis told the Gallup Organization recently that they feared for their lives if they cooperated with the occupation. Worse, outside the Kurdish north, a sizable plurality of Iraqis believe that public cooperation with the coalition would not speed up stability anyway.

The Iraqis are probably right. It appears that only Iraqis themselves can secure their country, sometimes using methods that Americans cannot countenance. So here is Plan B: Aim for democracy in Iraq, but settle for less. Cut and don't run.

Under this scenario -- call it realism -- America and the United Nations would stay on in Iraq, but they would take a minimalist role. They would jump-start elections and then draw a few red lines around whatever Iraqi government emerged: no atrocities, no civil war, no threatening of neighbors, no intervention by neighbors. The allies would help train and equip Iraqi forces, patrol the borders, and protect the flow of oil and gas. Other than that, they would leave Iraqis alone.

"Self-imposed guidelines are very important in Iraq," says Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank. "We should say very clearly to the Iraqis and the world that Iraq is on its own."

And then? The U.S. and U.N. will probably bequeath to Iraq a delicately balanced compromise government, with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all represented. As Kirkpatrick warned in 1979, such brokered regimes tend to be too weak to govern. In the course of things, the weakman government may give way after an election or two to a strongman government, consolidating power much as Putin has done in Russia. The regime would set about curtailing if not dismantling democracy, while preserving the trappings.

We know a lot about such governments; indeed, America has had them in some of our big cities, such as New York City under Tammany Hall and Chicago under the first Mayor Daley. Typically, they are one-party political machines that buy off most of their enemies through patronage and use police power to intimidate the rest. Such regimes are far from pretty, but they are more interested in stability than in ideology, and they are a far cry from the megalomania and mass terror of a Saddam Hussein.

Pipes argues for accepting such a regime in Iraq as the best of real-world alternatives. "I think the administration's goals are too heady, too ambitious," he said. "If it turns out I'm wrong and things go according to plan, I will be delighted. My goal is not to have Iraq be less well-off. It is a judgment call." Countenancing a "democratically minded strongman," Pipes argues, would slow the democratic transition, not block it; and democracy, when it came, might be the stronger for emerging from within.

In an interview, Kirkpatrick, now at the American Enterprise Institute, said, "We need to set the bar within the realm of the possible. We need to face the fact that [Iraqis] have absolutely no experience with democracy."

The trouble with such realism is that it may be unrealistic. Given the amount of rhetorical capital Bush has invested in his call to make Iraq a democratic beachhead in the Middle East, settling for even a moderate autocracy might come off as a surrender. The world would hoot at America's enthronement of "Saddam lite." And could America's troops really just stand aside with a shrug if an Iraqi Putin or Pinochet began closing newspapers and arresting enemies?

But realists have three strong rejoinders. First, a Putinized or Pinocheted Iraq, however flawed, would be much better than a Saddamized one. Second, Iraq would be constantly prodded from inside and outside toward genuine democracy, and would probably arrive there within a generation. Third, for outsiders to indefinitely prop up and micromanage a dysfunctional government in an unstable environment may work, sort of, in a tiny place like Kosovo, but it cannot work in Iraq.

For good reason, the Bush administration talks the talk of democracy; but realism, like Washington's cicada brood, lurks underground, awaiting its season. To realists, an Iraq that became an Islamist stronghold or a terrorist haven or a pawn of its neighbors would be a defeat, but a less-than-democratic Iraq would be merely a disappointment. In the realist view, U.S. forces' willingness to cede effective control of Falluja to former Baathists, provided they observed certain limits, was less a surrender than a model. It wasn't pretty, but it worked.

"I would love to have democracy in Iraq, but we're not going to create it," an administration official told me last summer. "That's not the reason we conducted the military activity, and it's not the reason we're there now." Iraqis, he said, will have to govern their country in their own fashion. He might have quoted Kirkpatrick, who wrote, 25 years ago, "History is a better guide than good intentions."


Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer for National Journal magazine, where "Social Studies" appears. Rauch is the author of the new book "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."

[ Social Studies Archives ]


Copyright 2003 by National Journal Group Inc.
1501 M St., NW #300 Washington, DC 20005
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by OCA
Besides the fact that this post was a complete farce is the fact that either you are 9 years old or a complete fucking illiterate. You can't spell or construct a coherent thought or paragraph. How the fuck do you expect people to read your ranting diatribe when its infuckingcoherent and unfucking readable?

JESUS! These people are pissing me off! Anybody want to still tell me that we can negotiate with these illiterates?

I agree that this post is pretty insane. But if this is person really speaks arabic as a first language, then how well could you post in arabic?

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by Zhukov
It's not a good idea.

1.) You give the Kurds autonomy and suddenly they want the Kurdish lands in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. "We want a Kurdistan," they say, start trouble across the borders, and suddenly Kurds are being exterminated in three different countries.

2.) Iraqis or more nationalisitc than many other moslem citizens of the middle east. If you start to seperate parts you're going to get another Yugoslavia with every group wanting to extend their borders just a little bit into their neighbor's yard to make their Iraq. That will cause the civil war.

Good reply Zhukov. You do draw some scenarios that might occur from a splintered Iraq that I didn't think of. Also, pondering on it a little longer, a lot of the splintering that occured post-USSR left a landscape still in carnage, such as Yugoslavia that you mentioned and Chechnya also comes to mind.

So how do you feel about a total withdrawal and let the Iraqis sort it out for themselves now?

Considering the mission was to rid Iraq of Hussein and WMD, and the first was accomplished rather quickly and the second might not even exist anymore. And since Hussein and his Baathist have been scattered, battered and shattered, they have no chance now of overwhelming the Shia majority. It seems the most peaceful areas in Iraq are the ones with minimal foreign troop precense, such as the Kurdish north.
I think so many contracts have been promised to private companies that if Bush left now a lot of CEOs and such would be pretty peeved. Oh well, I guess a few thousand poor American lives is worth enriching our private military and energy companies.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I think this may be the best piece on the Iraq situation I've seen:

http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm


SOCIAL STUDIES
In Iraq, Don't Cut And Run. Cut And Don't Run.

By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, June 4, 2004

This is a decent article even though the author only quotes neo-cons.

 

[Abuwaleed]

you an fucking idiot, this is not an exam that you have to spell correctly to express a point. could you not respond to my argument. You couldnot because you know it is the truth. Instead you had to try and make fun. You guys are really pathetic.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Abuwaleed
you an fucking idiot, this is not an exam that you have to spell correctly to express a point. could you not respond to my argument. You couldnot because you know it is the truth. Instead you had to try and make fun. You guys are really pathetic.

Right ummm ok. Would you like another hanky to replace the one that you've been crying into? By the way its hard to reply to a post that is a complete fallacy and utterly ridiculous. I usually try not to waste my time but can't pass up the chance to make fun of an illiterate.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
dunno who that was aimed for but it sure was funny!
Hey, you an fucking idiot too!

All your bases are belong to us.: