The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated

[yychobbyist]

Good idea forget about what will be the end result for a while - several years. Now all you can do is your best under the present circumstances. There is no choice - while mistaken this will be seen through to a point that the international community can reflect upon and say "They did what they set out to do" That last statement may be loosely formulated as I expect the administration to waffle, but the fact is that the US can not under any circumstances be seen to have lost this one. (And while this point has been made before it does not seem to be contested.)

Hey, unless there is a total collapse of the insurgency and Iraq becomes the region's most stable political entity (and who'd bet on either of those happening in the foreseeable future) the U.S. has lost this one.

 

[slowpoke]

...There is no choice - while mistaken this will be seen through to a point that the international community can reflect upon and say "They did what they set out to do" That last statement may be loosely formulated as I expect the administration to waffle, but the fact is that the US can not under any circumstances be seen to have lost this one. (And while this point has been made before it does not seem to be contested.)

I assume you mean that US' international credibility would take a huge hit if the rest of the world saw their invasion as a failure because they lied about WMD and then completely failed to keep their promise of establishing democracy, freedom and security in Iraq. IMHO, this is already happening. This election will be a travesty. The US won't hang around for the many years it will take to get real democracy, if it ever does take hold. So the US is going to take that hit. You can count on it.

 

[Mcluhan]

The US won't hang around for the many years it will take to get real democracy, if it ever does take hold. So the US is going to take that hit. You can count on it.

Agreed 1000%. Tell, me someone..anyone...what could possible happen to prevent this from becoming a stong theocracy? (with close ties to Iran?)

It looks like the Pentagon is planning on another two years at current troop levels...meanwhile...they cannot even secure the road to the airport...and they have returned to airstrike warfare...not good for civilians... The soldiers and marines returning are telling a different story than the media. It's going to a bloody 'four more years'.

 

[islandboy]

I understand your points, but if the US does not get to a point that the international community accepts as a proper job completion, the US will no longer be accepted as having a voice which can or should be listened to.
While you may like that idea, hang on to your wallet as there will be no reasonable alternative to a vastly increased military and ecomonic aid budget countries such as Canada.


If you think that the world will do just fine without no credible country or countries out there with the resources to to help with conflict and/or disaster and/or economic collapse, we are wasting each other's time.

You know, then it comes to the Tidal waves that just hit, the US cash per person may or may not be the largest, but that does not factor in that it was our ships, planes, and men that were the first on the ground with sufficient resources to help out. That costs a huge sum of money. To the extent that it is claimed that US interntional contributions have declined over the past few years, that does not consider the costs of our military which by its size, capablity, and use has contributed to world stablity.

 

[Mcluhan]

I understand your points, but if the US does not get to a point that the international community accepts as a proper job completion, the US will no longer be accepted as having a voice which can or should be listened to.
While you may like that idea, hang on to your wallet as there will be no reasonable alternative to a vastly increased military and ecomonic aid budget countries such as Canada.


If you think that the world will do just fine without no credible country or countries out there with the resources to to help with conflict and/or disaster and/or economic collapse, we are wasting each other's time.

You know, then it comes to the Tidal waves that just hit, the US cash per person may or may not be the largest, but that does not factor in that it was our ships, planes, and men that were the first on the ground with sufficient resources to help out. That costs a huge sum of money. To the extent that it is claimed that US interntional contributions have declined over the past few years, that does not consider the costs of our military which by its size, capablity, and use has contributed to world stablity.

Your point is clear, a large military infrastructure is an enormous benefit when tragedy strikes. The argument what’s good for the goose, is also good for the gander, looses meaning when you compare crisis aid with invading a sovereign nation on false pretense over ulterior motives. I can’t think of a better way to lose hard-earned well-deserved credibility, can you? It’s a false argument in this circumstance, because the US had store piles of international credibility, before it thumbed its nose at the UN, and went waltzing into Iraq. Admittedly the UN is a weak and sometimes corrupt organization, however since its inception, and the loftier days of Dag Hammarskjold the U.N.Charter’s main reason for existence was to prevent war, and its happens to be the only global voice the rest of us have. Now, the US has thrown a cold wet blanket on the role of the UN in this capacity, in as much saying the UN interests are not US interests, and that's all that counts. It doesn't strengthen you argument to find that the UN was correct in its assessment of MWD, and the Slam Dunk crowd was wrong.

Okay. Fine. Please continue with your argument, but for Christ's sake fess up to the lying, the coercion, and the mistakes first. Some honesty here might at least strengthen the wilting platform.

 

[slowpoke]

Agreed 1000%. Tell, me someone..anyone...what could possible happen to prevent this from becoming a stong theocracy? (with close ties to Iran?)

It looks like the Pentagon is planning on another two years at current troop levels...meanwhile...they cannot even secure the road to the airport...and they have returned to airstrike warfare...not good for civilians... The soldiers and marines returning are telling a different story than the media. It's going to a bloody 'four more years'.

Whether it is two more years or four more, they will be very long and arduous! The US public is rapidly losing its enthusiasm for exporting freedom and democracy so I expect the US will ditch Iraq at the earliest opportunity. It will become politically necessary to cut and run because the folks back home will see it as an impossible mission and demand an end to it.

It is one thing to invade and militarily occupy a country of that size and complexity. But it is quite another to force freedom and democracy on people you have already starved, bombed, imprisoned, brutalized and generally alienated. US credibility in Iraq no longer exists. It has been replaced by a fervent and now entrenched insurgency that will be impossible to root out and defeat. The longer the US stays, the worse this will get.

 

[islandboy]

Yes I fear that Bush will spin the terms of exit from Iraq. And yes, there was a hit to crediblity. But all that can be done now is get on with it and try as best you can. As I noted in another thread: while I fear that thoecratic demoncracy is an oxymoron and will cause continued problems, if it brings hope to those within Iraq and those surrounding it and, as well, can liberalize over time, it may be that history will not view what has happened so dimly.

Consider, that while there are delivery problems with Iraqi oil, prices have risen and the accounting is transparent which long term is a huge plus for the iraqi people.

 

[yychobbyist]

Yes I fear that Bush will spin the terms of exit from Iraq. And yes, there was a hit to crediblity. But all that can be done now is get on with it and try as best you can. As I noted in another thread: while I fear that thoecratic demoncracy is an oxymoron and will cause continued problems, if it brings hope to those within Iraq and those surrounding it and, as well, can liberalize over time, it may be that history will not view what has happened so dimly.

Consider, that while there are delivery problems with Iraqi oil, prices have risen and the accounting is transparent which long term is a huge plus for the iraqi people.

I wonder why many of us in the West have a problem with the concept of a theocratic democracy when we never question the concept of a captalist democracry.

 

[Mcluhan]

Yes I fear that Bush will spin the terms of exit from Iraq. And yes, there was a hit to crediblity. But all that can be done now is get on with it and try as best you can. As I noted in another thread: while I fear that thoecratic demoncracy is an oxymoron and will cause continued problems, if it brings hope to those within Iraq and those surrounding it and, as well, can liberalize over time, it may be that history will not view what has happened so dimly.

Consider, that while there are delivery problems with Iraqi oil, prices have risen and the accounting is transparent which long term is a huge plus for the iraqi people.

Islandboy help me out here. You are saying that the US made a mistake by invading Iraq? Correct? (requesting a 'yes' or 'no' answer)

You are saying that Bush will 'spin the terms' of his exit from Iraq. can you be more specific? The Pentagon is set for two more years. Can you even think in terms of year five? If so, what do you see? What do you think Bush sees?

If your answer to the first question was (a clearly spoken): "Yes, the US made a mistake", then is your statement: get on with it and try as best you can not the same as, "We are in a hole, let's keep digging." Or do you imagine some way to correct the mistake by continuing down the same road.

 

[islandboy]

Yes - I am saying that the US should not have invaded Iraq. I understand the reasons but there were alternatives.

Yes I am saying that Bush MAY 'spin the terms' of his exit from Iraq by saying that the deomocratic status or readiness for self suffciency are greater than what is the case. As I think that now that we are in there, there is no alternative to getting things done wiil, I can in terms of five years. But I see Bush cutting and running if the heat gets to high - while he understand the history, he also has to worry internal matters and such things about Jeb's run for POTUS.

In response to your statement: "If your answer to the first question was (a clearly spoken): "Yes, the US made a mistake", then is your statement: get on with it and try as best you can not the same as, "We are in a hole, let's keep digging." Or do you imagine some way to correct the mistake by continuing down the same road." I respond. 1) Canada is on the other side of the hole. And seriously 2) Of course, we must persevere. This is not Vietman, the costs of leaving the country in a state where there will be blood bath on every street corner and a complete break down of services including police - there must be enough central authority with suffcient power to at least keep the infrastructure running - is not an option. Vietman did not face that fate; they always had the North ready willing and able to administer some sort of transition. The North was harsh but there was no complete breakdown of ALL order. That is the real consequence of cutting and running.
There are greater polical and moral issues at hand now.

 

[yychobbyist]

I understand Shrub today said that the American presence in Iraq would last for generations. That's an interesting admission if true.

 

[Mcluhan]

Yes - I am saying that the US should not have invaded Iraq. I understand the reasons but there were alternatives.

Yes I am saying that Bush MAY 'spin the terms' of his exit from Iraq by saying that the deomocratic status or readiness for self suffciency are greater than what is the case. As I think that now that we are in there, there is no alternative to getting things done wiil, I can in terms of five years. But I see Bush cutting and running if the heat gets to high - while he understand the history, he also has to worry internal matters and such things about Jeb's run for POTUS.

In response to your statement: "If your answer to the first question was (a clearly spoken): "Yes, the US made a mistake", then is your statement: get on with it and try as best you can not the same as, "We are in a hole, let's keep digging." Or do you imagine some way to correct the mistake by continuing down the same road." I respond. 1) Canada is on the other side of the hole. And seriously 2) Of course, we must persevere. This is not Vietman, the costs of leaving the country in a state where there will be blood bath on every street corner and a complete break down of services including police - there must be enough central authority with suffcient power to at least keep the infrastructure running - is not an option. Vietman did not face that fate; they always had the North ready willing and able to administer some sort of transition. The North was harsh but there was no complete breakdown of ALL order. That is the real consequence of cutting and running.
There are greater polical and moral issues at hand now.

Thanks for the answer(s). You raise a good point on North Vietnam. I wonder about Iraq laspsing into a chaotic civil war. It is not necessarily a given. There are those among the Sunni and Shia both who seem to feel they have been living and do now live in relative harmony with the Shias. Do you not think that the Sunni and Shia would pull together and solve their own internal 'arab' problems? I for one tend to think so...only because I am listening to what the Iraqi's are saying in the street. What makes you think that the country would fold into chaos and civil war? The Kurds seem to be a different matter. They would likely (instantly upon US pull-out)) form an independent state, and they have the arms support to do so. Is it perhaps more of a reality (than imminent civil war) that the US does not want to face a second Iran, i.e. the strengthening of fundamentalism in the region and a theocracy controling the second largest oil reserve on the planet..rather than the US concern for a civil war in Iraq. Lets be honest about the intentions here, of your Government.

 

[slowpoke]

I understand Shrub today said that the American presence in Iraq would last for generations. That's an interesting admission if true.

Hollow words from a man who doesn't ever have to worry about the next election. What possible reason do we have to suspect him of telling the truth? Anything at all.....

 

[islandboy]

My view is the Kurds and Turks will fight their own war.

The sunni's and shia's have so little experience knowing they can work together without supressing each other and/or killing each other or just simply settling old scores, that with all those arms and no effective civil administration in place to run the infrastructure and perform police et. al. duties there would be door to door civil war.

As far as underlying US motives I discount many such as oil - too speculative per Pravda - and while the decision matrix certainly has others which I disagree with, as Colin Powell said "You break it, you own it."

I am not particularly interested in US motives on going in except as we can learn from what we have found so we can get out in a diplomatically and morally acceptable fashion and not repeat the mistake. And If you have read my opinions in other threads, you will see that I take the position that we will only know if this nation building thing actually works in about 40 years if we stay the course.

As far as the oxymoron of a theocartic democary, only time will tell if learning to work together within the context of a transparent government can evolve into something self sustaining. Right now any government which does not give both Sunni's and Shia's a strong say will fail. It should be noted that there are strong mulla's in both camps who are keeping their mouths shut - I guess in order to be sure that if and when they can assert influence that, ot having shot themselves in the foot, they will be in a position to be listened to.

Ah, who the hell knows anything anyway. (Having said this do not think me a neo-con who thinks that long term strategic thinking is a waste of time and that only short term goals matter.) I just think that too many people are drawing too many conculsions - mine included.

 

[onthebottom]

I wonder why many of us in the West have a problem with the concept of a theocratic democracy when we never question the concept of a captalist democracry.

I think you've started to loose your grip....

OTB

 

[red]

I wonder why many of us in the West have a problem with the concept of a theocratic democracy when we never question the concept of a captalist democracry.

not too many theocratic democracies have escort review boards.

 

[islandboy]

I think as is almost always the case nowdays that all of forget that capitalizm and democracy are not the same thing. Indeed, we often confuse capitalism and market analysis with business and business profits. Capitalism and clear known values are not the same as profitable business - would that it did but hiding cost and benefits can help profits.

When we talk about democracy we are talking about a process of choice. Economics is a factor. Religion is a factor. Funding is a factor. Freedom is a factor. The problem with a democracy that elevates all other aspects to one and is authoritarian in how is thus structures itself is that change, adaptation and other considerations may never be possible.
We see this when buiness hijacks this administration. While it talks about an ownership society instilling hope and responsiblity, its actions tend to belie that ideal. So while our model is still better as it has more actors able to get to the table and make a difference, the theocratic model shuts off many of the players before they get to the gate.