Iraq Policy Is Broken. Fix It.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]We?re utterly surprised,? a senior U.N. diplomat told me. ?We thought that after the war, the United States would try to dump Iraq on the world?s lap and the rest of the world would object, saying, ?This is your mess, you clean it up.? The opposite is happening. The rest of the world is saying, ?We?re willing to help,? but Washington is determined to run Iraq itself.? And what are we getting for this privilege? The vast majority of the costs, for starters.

MOST ESTIMATES SUGGEST that Iraq is now costing U.S. taxpayers $4 billion a month.[/Q]

If this is a UN Operation, why are we fitting a majority of the costs? If all of these resolutions clearly make this an operation of the UN, where is the UN $$$.

[Q]The solution is obvious: internationalize the occupation. The Pentagon claims it already is?by getting troops from various Coalition partners. Here is what that means: Britain, Poland and maybe India will each lead a division. But few countries have active, well-trained troops in the numbers needed. So the British division will include troops from seven countries, sometimes just a few hundred. (The Czech contribution is 650.) The Polish division will have only 2,300 Polish troops, the rest coming from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary. Even so, the division will be a small one, about 9,000 (as opposed to 15,000, which is more the norm). I?m not a military expert, but can this work as a fighting force?[/Q]

Wow, I wonder where we have heard this before????? Clearly our "coalition allies" are not able to give us more support. Where could we get this support?

[Q]There is one group of nations with large numbers of well-trained troops, experienced in peacekeeping and in working with the United States Army. It?s called NATO. The problem for the Bush administration is that calling on NATO means bringing France and Germany back into the fold. My suggestion: get over it. Even for NATO countries, sending large numbers of troops is not going to be easy. Besides, without NATO at the core, the Coalition of Iraq forces will be constantly changing, an ad hoc group with no experience working together.
But we will still need more troops. In order to get other countries?perhaps Muslim countries?to participate, Washington should give the United Nations a more central role. (Alternatively, create a multinational body specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq, blessed by the United Nations, with many foreign faces.) In virtually every negotiation the administration has had for more troops, countries have expressed a strong preference to be part of a U.N. mission rather than a U.S. mission.In India right now, the government is keen to send a division to northern Iraq, but it knows that it will pay a political price without U.N. cover.[/Q]

Wait a minute, ask Nato????? Get more Arab support????? Make this a UN Operation? I thought this was a UN operation? AM I missing something? Nations are still not willing to send troops because it is NOT a UN Operation?


[Q]The European Union and Japan, the two donors with big aid budgets, are far more likely to put large sums of money into a U.N. operation than a U.S. occupation. [/Q]

I must be missing something. Didn't Resolution 1483 make it a legitimate UN Operation? WHat are these other nations thinking? Maybe they read Resolution 1483 as an acknowledgement that it makes the US an Occupying force, and the only form of governement in charge there. If they are still not willing to send money to help IT MUST NOT BE A UN OPERATION IN IRAQ.


[Q]Today the United States gets to decide which Shiite leader will be mayor of Najaf?thereby annoying 100 other contenders. Meanwhile the United Nations distributes food, water and medicine. Why is this such a great deal for America? Why not mix it up so that the political decisions are made by an international group? And why not have the United States more involved in relief work?[/Q]

Because its my way or the highway maybe?

[Q]From the start, internationalizing the Iraq operation has seemed such an obvious solution. But the Bush administration has not adopted it because it holds a whole series of prejudices about the United Nations, nation-building, the French, the Germans and multilateral organizations. In clinging on to ideological fixations, the administration is risking its most important foreign-policy project.[/Q]

This is why we are OCCUPIERS as opposed to a group that is WORKING through the UN.


Peacehttp://www.msnbc.com/news/935250.asp
 
I think that the fact that the US are views as occupying Iraq, as opposed to their being a UN operation in that country is a possible explanation for why there have been many attacks on US soldiers. I don't think it's only "Saddam loyalists" etc who are carrying out attacks - many Iraqis feel resentment towards the US and unfortunately there are some people who turn to violence.

I didn't agree with the war to begin with (as you all know, lol) but I definitely think that now it's happened the US needs to give the UN a much more central role in post-war Iraq. For right or wrong, many people in Iraq are extremely suspicious of the US' motives in occupying their country and there's a good chance that were the UN more closely involved they would have more trust in the UN to bring the occupation to an end and restore control of Iraq to the Iraqi people as soon as possible.
 
Dreadsox,

"If this is a UN Operation, why are we fitting a majority of the costs? If all of these resolutions clearly make this an operation of the UN, where is the UN $$$."

They may call it NATO, but who do you think provides the majority of the money? Who do you think provides the majority of the money for current NATO operations in Bosnia? Who do you think provides the money for the majority of NATO operations in Kosovo? Who do you think provides the majority of the money for operations in Afghanistan?

"Wow, I wonder where we have heard this before????? Clearly our "coalition allies" are not able to give us more support. Where could we get this support?"

Gee, lets send the Turks, Iranians and Syrians. I know the Iraqi's would love that. What a party that would be.


The "Senior" UN Diplomat critizes the mix of countries the the Bush administration is getting to send troops.

Britain, Poland, India, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary.

The diplomat states: I?m not a military expert, but can this work as a fighting force?

Realize that of the 9 countries mentioned, 7 are members of NATO and Ukraine could be a member in the future and is currently apart of "Partnership for Peace" where they often train with NATO forces. With that in mind read the next paragraph.

"There is one group of nations with large numbers of well-trained troops, experienced in peacekeeping and in working with the United States Army. It?s called NATO. The problem for the Bush administration is that calling on NATO means bringing France and Germany back into the fold. My suggestion: get over it. Even for NATO countries, sending large numbers of troops is not going to be easy. Besides, without NATO at the core, the Coalition of Iraq forces will be constantly changing, an ad hoc group with no experience working together."

Well, the countries he mentioned prior to the above paragraph are no "AD hoc group with no experience working together". They are in fact NATO countries that have worked extensively together.

It is true that there were some problems with NATO countries from a capability standpoint when it comes to high intensity combat, but the war is over. Judging by the past two months, most peacekeeping in Iraq with the exception of the Baghdad/Tikrit area is not any worse than Bosnia/Kosovo.

"Wait a minute, ask Nato????? Get more Arab support????? Make this a UN Operation? I thought this was a UN operation? AM I missing something? Nations are still not willing to send troops because it is NOT a UN Operation?"

Well thats this UN diplomats view point, who also thinks that Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, are an AD Hoc group of Non-Nato countries.

"Maybe they read Resolution 1483 as an acknowledgement that it makes the US an Occupying force, and the only form of governement in charge there."

Yep, that must be true. The UN does that all the time, recognize occupations they don't approve of. I mean, don't you remember when the UN recognized the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait?


"If they are still not willing to send money to help IT MUST NOT BE A UN OPERATION IN IRAQ."

Documents and votes on resolutions don't decide if something is a UN operation. How much money some country is giving decides that. It would be interesting to go through all the UN operations over the past 50 years and look at which countries gave considerably less to certain operations than others and then theorize that they did so because they did not consider it a "UN operation".


"Today the United States gets to decide which Shiite leader will be mayor of Najaf?thereby annoying 100 other contenders. Meanwhile the United Nations distributes food, water and medicine. Why is this such a great deal for America? Why not mix it up so that the political decisions are made by an international group? And why not have the United States more involved in relief work?"



"Because its my way or the highway maybe?"

Or maybe because certain decisions designed to be made by an "international group" often do not get made and were left with multiple problems. The USA has an excellant history when it has been in charge of nation building. How many countries helped the USA rebuild Japan? Germany? The UN has given the USA, Britain and Australia the role as the "Authority", which will speed up the political decision making process. Involving every country in the UN in that process would make the Iraqi situation a Quagmire.

"But the Bush administration has not adopted it because it holds a whole series of prejudices about the United Nations, nation-building, the French, the Germans and multilateral organizations."

Really, and what might be this diplomats prejudices?

"This is why we are OCCUPIERS as opposed to a group that is WORKING through the UN."

Until the US gives in to Paris, the US will always be occupiers as opposed to a group working through the UN.
 
It's heart-breaking to read stuff like the shop-keeper in Baghdad who complained that they're just as bad off, if not worse off, than they were under Saddam. The entire quote is in the new Time magazine with the "Peace is Hell" cover. Arguments aside, that tells me something is dreadfully screwed up in Iraq. I hate it that innocent people are having to live like this.:censored: :censored: :censored:
 
verte76,

Try asking the Shop Keeper in Mosul or Basra what they think of life under Saddam as compared to now.
 
STING2 said:
verte76,

Try asking the Shop Keeper in Mosul or Basra what they think of life under Saddam as compared to now.

OK. *Perhaps* this can't be helped, that this is inevitable or whatever. I still don't have to like it.
 
STING2 said:
verte76, Try asking the Shop Keeper in Mosul or Basra what they think of life under Saddam as compared to now.


....
But despite these positive openings, most of the people we meet say their lives were better before ? under Saddam Hussein ? than they are now. Before, at least there was order. Before at least they had jobs and salaries, electricity and water. Before, at least women were not afraid to walk the streets. Many ask "How come the Americans were so prepared and competent when it came to making the war but so utterly unprepared and incompetent when it comes to rebuilding?"

Every day, the United States appears to be losing ground here in Iraq. There are an average of 13 attacks a day on the occupation forces, and there is less and less sympathy among Iraqis when U.S. soldiers are attacked. To many, the words freedom and liberation now seem like a cruel joke.

Two elderly moneychangers sitting outdoors in the brutal heat clothed in long flowing robes and white caps sat at their stand hawking thick wads of Saddam Hussein bills, which is still the currency in use. We started chatting. They asked where we were from. "Oh, America," one answered, crossing his arms against his chest, "I love America."

"How about the soldiers?" we asked, pointing behind them at U.S. soldiers sitting atop ferocious-looking tanks, weapons at the ready. The man who "loved America" said how happy they were to be free of Saddam Hussein, but the other man demurred. I asked him directly, "So you think the soldiers should go home to America?" Both men broke out in big grins. "Yes, Saddam gone. That's good. Soldiers should go, too. Many Iraqis don't like them here."

They said if conditions in Iraq do not improve soon ? a month, two months, six months ? it won't be just Saddam loyalists or Shi'ite fundamentalists but ordinary Iraqis who will fight to get rid of the Americans. "We have a 9,000-year-old culture, you have a 200-year-old culture," one of the men said. "I think we can figure out our own future."

Iraqis are puzzled why the United States, a country that can make bombs so smart they target a particular building from 30,000 miles in the air, can't give Iraqis electricity or create a functioning economy. Some are so puzzled that they have concluded that the United States is purposely trying to destroy every aspect of the economy so that they can come in and rebuild it in their own image. Others attribute the mess to incompetence, arrogance or stupidity.

One of our visits in Baghdad was to the famous circle where the statute of Saddam Hussein had come tumbling down, the scene that was showed over and over on U.S. television. Now, a new, rather indecipherable three-headed statue by a young Iraqi artist was in its place. But curiously, on the column just beneath the statue, someone had written in bright red paint and imperfect English, "All donne. Go home."

For lack of an alternative, most Iraqis are still willing to give the United States more time in the driver's seat. But the clock is ticking and their patience is wearing thin.

entire text here
 
Besides which, I agree with Dread, the U.S. War College scholars and other knowledgeable people that this :censored: could have been prevented. That's what makes it such a damn shame. :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
What precisely could have been prevented? This was a country that has been brutalized for 30 years and gone through 3 wars and stiff economic sanctions. On the contrary, I am surprised after all that and the various ethnic rivalry's that there has not been far more unrest and difficult situations.

Again, look at the entire country. Baghdad/Tikrit does not equal Iraq. Where are the reportest in Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq. Why does Baghdad/Tikrit get the majority of the coverage but yet is only a tiny part of Iraq.

The war has been over for 2 months and people call it failure because there are actually "problems". I say, what the hell did you expect? What did Germany look like two months after the end of World War II? What did Japan look like two months after the end of World War II? Bosnia? Kosovo?

Despite the horror stories thrown out by many in the anti-war movement before the war, much of Iraq is already in better shape than the above countries were at the two month mark.
 
verte76 said:
Maybe I just need a nap. :yes: :yes:

I guess it is too easy to understand that a multinational force supported by Arabs, Nato, and the UN would change this from a US occupation to something more appealing to the Iraqi people, since indeed the war was to "liberate" them.

Of course, the author of the article I posted must be too dumb as well.

I am taking a nap with you VERTE:yes: :yes:
 
I guess it is to difficult for some people to understand that many people living in absolute poverty, who have wondered for decades where certain family members are don't give a rats ass about how many countries form a coalition or whether this is or is not a UN operation. People want to be free of anxiety and torture and the composition of the forces that bring that about matters far less than the results produced.

But if its easier for you to dream otherwise, be my guest.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I think that the fact that the US are views as occupying Iraq, as opposed to their being a UN operation in that country is a possible explanation for why there have been many attacks on US soldiers. I don't think it's only "Saddam loyalists" etc who are carrying out attacks - many Iraqis feel resentment towards the US and unfortunately there are some people who turn to violence.

I didn't agree with the war to begin with (as you all know, lol) but I definitely think that now it's happened the US needs to give the UN a much more central role in post-war Iraq. For right or wrong, many people in Iraq are extremely suspicious of the US' motives in occupying their country and there's a good chance that were the UN more closely involved they would have more trust in the UN to bring the occupation to an end and restore control of Iraq to the Iraqi people as soon as possible.

Exactly.

Angela
 
STING2 said:
I guess it is to difficult for some people to understand that many people living in absolute poverty, who have wondered for decades where certain family members are don't give a rats ass about how many countries form a coalition or whether this is or is not a UN operation. People want to be free of anxiety and torture and the composition of the forces that bring that about matters far less than the results produced.

But if its easier for you to dream otherwise, be my guest.

Sting, I think torture, killings and other human rights violations suck big time. They're massive crimes against humanity. Saddam is a :censored: like Ceceauscu and Milosevic. I think a big part of the present griping on the part of *Iraqis* is economics, not politics. The Baghdad shopkeeper I referenced was talking about economics, not politics. That's why they're exasperated with all of the instability and stuff that's going on. Iraqis know how to say "it's the economy stupid" too.
 
Last edited:
verte76 said:


Sting, I think torture, killings and other human rights violations suck big time. They're massive crimes against humanity. Saddam is a :censored: like Ceceauscu and Milosevic. I think a big part of the present griping on the part of *Iraqis* is economics, not politics. The Baghdad shopkeeper I referenced was talking about economics, not politics. That's why they're exasperated with all of the instability and stuff that's going on. Iraqis know how to say "it's the economy stupid" too.

*Nods*

I think we're all in agreement that Saddam's a massive creep. I'm glad he's gone (or, at least, we think he is...some reports recently of him being spotted places), I honestly could care less about him.

Angela
 
A recent article brought out how the causualities are moving forever up.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16394

"Moreover, when you consider that civilian deaths from the three-week war are estimated at 5,500 to 7,000, with military deaths exceeding 10,000, and overall nonfatal casualties totaling 50,000 ? all together touching family and friends reaching into the millions ? you have another grave condition feeding insurrection. "

I also saw a report on CBC from Bagdad, showing the mounting heaps of garbage everywhere. It was appalling. Bubonic Plague came to my mind, not to mention typhoid fever, ect. This can only add to the rising tide against Americans.

Then you have the disenchantment of our own soldiers.

"No wonder many American soldiers are demoralized and angry. Some have written their congressmen requesting repatriation. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," runs one such letter, quoted last week in the Christian Science Monitor. And another: "The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all." And another: "We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in]." "

"Naturally the V-word: Vietnam, is turning up frequently in reports from the front. The U.S. command has certainly made the familiar moves. Outgoing Gen. Tommy Franks, facing sharp questions July 9th from the Senate Armed Services Committee, admits the current number of U.S. troops in Iraq, around 148,000, will remain for the "foreseeable future," while Secretary Rumsfeld doubled the estimated military costs to $3.9 billion a month. Meanwhile, America's promises for Iraq ride on a lie that appears more obvious each time Mr. Bremer squashes another attempt at self-governance that is not restricted to hospitals, water or electricity. Nor is the hand-picked Governing Council a substitute for home-grown representation. Washington doesn't want an independent and democratic Iraq to emerge, for one of the first moves its government would make is to order the U.S. out."

The situation in Iraq sours by the day. :no:
 
Heaps of garbage.......horrors. This is scary. There was the cholera outbreak in Basra because of lack of clean water. That was bad enough. Now some other disease is going to break out. Wonderful. :mad: :scream: :censored: :censored:
 
Scarletwine,

"Moreover, when you consider that civilian deaths from the three-week war are estimated at 5,500 to 7,000, with military deaths exceeding 10,000, and overall nonfatal casualties totaling 50,000 ? all together touching family and friends reaching into the millions ? you have another grave condition feeding insurrection. ""

The 5,000 to 7,000 figure is unsubstantiated estimate. The factual figure is unlikely to be higher than 1,400 that the Iraqi government recorded. In any event, how many of those family and friends would be alive today or have a future in a Saddam controlled Iraq?

Mounting Heaps of Garbage? How about Mounting Heaps of bodies from the days under Saddam, whether it was from War or executions by Saddam. As bad as things are now, ask any Kurd or Shia Iraqi and they will tell you it pales in comparison to life under Saddam.

One should never underestimate the time and effort needed in rebuilding a country of 24 million people that has been under the grip of terror by a man like Saddam for 24 years. Its going to take years. Estimates before the war were that some US troop present would be required for up to 10 years and would need a minimum of 75,000 troops. Its been 3 months since major combat ended in Iraq. Its going to take more time.

Think Bosnia and Kosovo. US troops have been in Bosnia for 7 years and are still working to help build the country. There are still problems in Bosnia, but the situation has improved to the point that Bosnia now has a Standard of Living similar to Russia. Far from perfect of course, but far better than the years of war from 1991-1995 when 300,000 people were killed in a country of 4 million. Kosovo has had US troops for the past 4 years and will continue to for many years to come.

Iraq most likely is a more difficult task of nation building than Bosnia or Kosovo. Again, time, patience and hard work are needed.
 
STING2 said:
I guess it is to difficult for some people to understand that many people living in absolute poverty, who have wondered for decades where certain family members are don't give a rats ass about how many countries form a coalition or whether this is or is not a UN operation. People want to be free of anxiety and torture and the composition of the forces that bring that about matters far less than the results produced.

But if its easier for you to dream otherwise, be my guest.

are you such a dreamer to actually believe were mindless ass-clowns that think iraqis are now living the high-life?

get real.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
Scarletwine,

"Moreover, when you consider that civilian deaths from the three-week war are estimated at 5,500 to 7,000, with military deaths exceeding 10,000, and overall nonfatal casualties totaling 50,000 ? all together touching family and friends reaching into the millions ? you have another grave condition feeding insurrection. ""

The 5,000 to 7,000 figure is unsubstantiated estimate. The factual figure is unlikely to be higher than 1,400 that the Iraqi government recorded. In any event, how many of those family and friends would be alive today or have a future in a Saddam controlled Iraq?

Mounting Heaps of Garbage? How about Mounting Heaps of bodies from the days under Saddam, whether it was from War or executions by Saddam. As bad as things are now, ask any Kurd or Shia Iraqi and they will tell you it pales in comparison to life under Saddam.

One should never underestimate the time and effort needed in rebuilding a country of 24 million people that has been under the grip of terror by a man like Saddam for 24 years. Its going to take years. Estimates before the war were that some US troop present would be required for up to 10 years and would need a minimum of 75,000 troops. Its been 3 months since major combat ended in Iraq. Its going to take more time.

Think Bosnia and Kosovo. US troops have been in Bosnia for 7 years and are still working to help build the country. There are still problems in Bosnia, but the situation has improved to the point that Bosnia now has a Standard of Living similar to Russia. Far from perfect of course, but far better than the years of war from 1991-1995 when 300,000 people were killed in a country of 4 million. Kosovo has had US troops for the past 4 years and will continue to for many years to come.

Iraq most likely is a more difficult task of nation building than Bosnia or Kosovo. Again, time, patience and hard work are needed.

O no, not again Sting2,...funny you mention kosovo and Bosnia. Als those American help is a weapon for getting wat America wants,..

The USA try to presure those goverments to sign a contract for not deliver American soldiers to the international court of justice. If Bosnia and Kosovo not sign, the economic help wil end. And the hipocryte thing is, The USA expect that from the Bosnia and kosovo goverments to hand over their warcriminals to the tribunal in the Netherlands.

If that is the future of Iraq, allah help them.
 
Rono I agree, the US should also be held responsible to an International War Crimes Court. Why should we be exempted?

Sting2,
That response did not address what is going on in Iraq NOW.
No - Kurds and Shia are not saying that - they are also pissed about living conditions. They are glad Sadaam is gone, but not happy with the way the US is handling post-war Iraq.
 
Scarletwine said:
Rono I agree, the US should also be held responsible to an International War Crimes Court. Why should we be exempted?

Sting2,
That response did not address what is going on in Iraq NOW.
No - Kurds and Shia are not saying that - they are also pissed about living conditions. They are glad Sadaam is gone, but not happy with the way the US is handling post-war Iraq.

Exactly.

Angela
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,

"are you such a dreamer to actually believe were mindless ass-clowns that think iraqis are now living the high-life?"

"get real."

That wasn't at all the point I was making and is something I think you would understand if you would read what I said I little more carefully.
 
Rono,

"O no, not again Sting2,...funny you mention kosovo and Bosnia. Als those American help is a weapon for getting wat America wants,.."

"The USA try to presure those goverments to sign a contract for not deliver American soldiers to the international court of justice. If Bosnia and Kosovo not sign, the economic help wil end. And the hipocryte thing is, The USA expect that from the Bosnia and kosovo goverments to hand over their warcriminals to the tribunal in the Netherlands."

"If that is the future of Iraq, allah help them."

Your words help me to better understand why Europeans failed to stop the deaths of 300,000 innocent people in their backyard. The USA stopped those wars and prevented another 300,000 people from dying. Europe is all talk and no action.
 
STING,

Sorry to bring up the point again, but I wondered what do you think about the US' decision to withdraw aid from countries like Bosnia unless they exempt the US from the International Cout of Justice?
 
Scartletwine,

"That response did not address what is going on in Iraq NOW."
"No - Kurds and Shia are not saying that - they are also pissed about living conditions. They are glad Sadaam is gone, but not happy with the way the US is handling post-war Iraq."

I've studied what living conditions were like for Kurds and Shia under Saddam. It was absolute hell for them. I know you would like to keep those facts out of the picture of whats going now, but you can't. The conditions that Shia and Kurds live in right now are the result of 24 years of rule and repression by Saddam. Their lives are improving now because the USA is there. The USA has to some degree been taken care of the Kurds in the far North for over a decade. I saw a program where villiagers had named their childern after Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Again, 90% of the attacks against US troops are in the Baghdad/Tikrit area where there are Saddam loyalist are.

Nation building takes time, and those that expected no problems once the war ended, do not understand that reality. The Serbs hated and despised the USA in Bosnia when we first came, but the fact of the matter is, the Serbs there are experiencing the best Standard of living they have had in decades now as a result of the US presence.

There are always problems in any nation building process and its easy to point them out. But US soldiers and government officials are working hard night and day to solve these problems and will continue to do so in the months to come. They deserve are praise and support for the incredible job they are doing.
 
Fizzing,

I thought this was Serbia rather than Bosnia. In the case of Bosnia I think they should continue to recieve aid regardless. The International Court Of Justice is something the USA can simply refuse to participate in if it does not agree with the framework. I see no reason to withhold aid from anyone on that.
 
STING2:

well an international court would be the best to punish non-government enemies like Terrorist organisations. And the US were helping a lot and wanted that court a long time ago.
I guess the military strength brought the idea that they might be better of in world with less laws and less justice

Klaus
 
Back
Top Bottom