Life just gets worse in Iraq

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think so, it wasn't when they were pursuing the program in 2002. In any case Iran will go nuclear and Arab states like Egypt and even worse Saudi Arabia are going to try and match them - there is no room for democratic peace in an arena of hyperproliferation and that is going to mean bad things for everyone.

 

[STING2]

might a Saddam Hussein next door been a deterrant for Iran to have been as aggressive in its nuclear ambitions?

On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was the central motivation behind Iran's Nuclear program which started in the 1980s as a result of its massive casualties it took during its war with Saddam and the lack of an effective response to Saddam's WMD. It turns out Iran took the threat of Saddam's WMD more seriously than any other nation except the United States.

 

[Irvine511]

On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was the central motivation behind Iran's Nuclear program which started in the 1980s as a result of its massive casualties it took during its war with Saddam and the lack of an effective response to Saddam's WMD. It turns out Iran took the threat of Saddam's WMD more seriously than any other nation except the United States.

on the contrary, a weak, unstable Iraq has been the best thing to happen to Iran in decades as it's allowed the subsequent perception of US weakness as demonstrated by the failure in Iraq has to combine with the current alignment of the present Shia dominated Iranian government with the Shia majority in southern Iraq to result in a dramatically more powerful. Iran has increased it's influence in southern Iraq dramatically since the occupation, akin to the Soviet Union and its satellite nations. in repsonse to the invasion, Iran has accelerated it's program, not dismantle it! and so long as Iran believes that the US is completely pre-occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will be deterred from striking Iran not because of Iran's ability to withstand a US bombing of the country but because of Iran's ability to create a major, calculated, retalitory Shia uprising against occupation forces. and that's just in Iraq. look at what happened in Lebanon this summer to understand the greatly increased influence of Iran across the Middle East, thusly putting Israel in even greater regional peril than before from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well Britain is going to be out of there in the first quarter of next year; strategic strike timetable?

 

[STING2]

on the contrary, a weak, unstable Iraq has been the best thing to happen to Iran in decades as it's allowed the subsequent perception of US weakness as demonstrated by the failure in Iraq has to combine with the current alignment of the present Shia dominated Iranian government with the Shia majority in southern Iraq to result in a dramatically more powerful. Iran has increased it's influence in southern Iraq dramatically since the occupation, akin to the Soviet Union and its satellite nations. in repsonse to the invasion, Iran has accelerated it's program, not dismantle it! and so long as Iran believes that the US is completely pre-occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will be deterred from striking Iran not because of Iran's ability to withstand a US bombing of the country but because of Iran's ability to create a major, calculated, retalitory Shia uprising against occupation forces. and that's just in Iraq. look at what happened in Lebanon this summer to understand the greatly increased influence of Iran across the Middle East, thusly putting Israel in even greater regional peril than before from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Your missing the point that I responded to. Rather than being a deterent to Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Saddam was in fact the central motivation for such a program. Considering how close they had come by the time the coalition invaded Iraq, there was no way they would turn back.

Iran is far from being the only country in the region to benefit from Saddam's removal. Obviously, it benefits Kuwait more than anyone else which unlike Iran was swallowed by Saddam in 12 hours back in August 1990. Saudi Arabia would be next considering how vulnerable their oil fields in the Eastern part of the country are. Naturally, since the planets economy is so heavily dependent on oil from both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the whole world benefits from Saddam's removal.

The Shia of Iraq cannot be thought of as one large entity marching in step to the wishes of the Iranian government. Lets not forget that Shia Iraq did most of the fighting against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. Most of Saddam's army was composed of Shia personal, and nearly all the fighting occured in close proximity or on area's where Shia Iraqi's live. While many Shia Iraqi's have strong ties with Iran, others are very distrustful of Iran and do not want any major Iranian influence in their part of the country. There are strong conflicts among shia tribal groups on this issue and others.

The Soviets and their Satellite Nations are a poor example for the situation that exist between Shia area's of Iraq and Iran. The Soviets occupied their Satellite Nations with hundreds of thousands of troops and often controlled every aspect of life there, almost as if the country was apart of the Soviet Union. There are no Iranian troops in Iraq, except perhaps small numbers operating covertly.

The United States is unlikely to strike Iran because only an intense air campaign lasting months or more would have any chance of changing the situation in Iran. Airstrikes by themselves will probably not hit all the important targets since getting intelligence on where such targets are is so difficult. The only way to insure that the current Iranian regime never gets nuclear weapons is to remove it. Given the level of threat Iran poses to the region as well as the cost of such an operation, for right now, the United States is not considering such an operation. As threatening as Iran is right now, its never engaged in the sort of behavior that required Saddam's disarmament and finally his removal from power. The threat from Iran is much lower given their unwillingness to act directly and instead using proxies to attempt to achieve relatively limited goals.

Iran's influence in other area's like Lebanon is no different that it was 25 years ago. In fact, Iranian troops were actually deployed in Lebanon back in 1982. There has been no evidence that Iranian troops were on the ground there last summer, and most of the modern weapon systems used by Hezbollah came from Syria which got such weapon systems from Russia.

Israel looks at the removal of Saddam as having a positive impact on their security situation. Something people should remember given Israel's experience in the region and the stakes for them when the security situation gets worse.

 

[AliEnvy]

The only way to insure that the current Iranian regime never gets nuclear weapons is to remove it.

Starting to lay the groundwork I see...

Given the level of threat Iran poses to the region as well as the cost of such an operation, for right now, the United States is not considering such an operation.

But if say, Iran strikes at the US, say, at the naval fleet building up in the Persian Gulf right now, say, through one of its proxies then how might the US respond to bring about regime change in Iran?

 

[Irvine511]

Your missing the point that I responded to. Rather than being a deterent to Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Saddam was in fact the central motivation for such a program. Considering how close they had come by the time the coalition invaded Iraq, there was no way they would turn back.

no, i fully understood your point, i just disagree with your analysis and conclusions.

though i imagine we could find a way to blame the tsunami, AIDS, and the Myanmar/Burma government on Saddam.

and, really, if Saddam were every bit the problem you make him out to be, then the Middle East would be in much better shape today now that he's gone.

instead, you've removed one problem and replaced it with a more volatile situation that will, ironically, require the implementation of another strongman/dictator very much in the mold of Saddam, the big difference, however, being that said new strongman/dictator won't be a secular Stalinist figure but a religious fanatic who'll put Iraqi women in burkas and execute gay people and not do a thing to bring back the 3,000 dead Americans and the tens of thousands of American limbs and shattered lives the survivors have left behind in the sand.

 

[STING2]

and, really, if Saddam were every bit the problem you make him out to be, then the Middle East would be in much better shape today now that he's gone.

instead, you've removed one problem and replaced it with a more volatile situation that will, ironically, require the implementation of another strongman/dictator very much in the mold of Saddam, the big difference, however, being that said new strongman/dictator won't be a secular Stalinist figure but a religious fanatic who'll put Iraqi women in burkas and execute gay people and not do a thing to bring back the 3,000 dead Americans and the tens of thousands of American limbs and shattered lives the survivors have left behind in the sand.

The biggest impact that the Persian Gulf Region has on the rest of the world is through its large supply of oil. So the most important question to ask is whether or not the removal of Saddam has made oil supplied by Kuwait and Saudia Arabia more secure or less secure. Its obvious that these countries are more secure now than they have ever been with the removal of Saddam's regime, and thus the rest of the world is more secure as well given the impact of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil have on the global economy.

There are currently no hostile forces in Iraq that have anywhere near the capabilities of Saddam's military in projecting military power beyond the borders of Iraq and thus being able to threaten neighboring countries. All you have are rag tag groups of militia's and insurgents that lose much of their capabilities once they leave their own neighborhoods and towns where its easy for them to hide.

Right now, Iraq has an elected government and a growing military force that given several more years of training and building, will be able to bring order to the country. But this process takes time, far more than simply 3 or 4 years.

Oh, and please stop overstating US casaulties in the war. There have not been tens of thousands of US limbs lost. Right now there is just under 10,000 US troops that have had injuries serious enough that have prevented them from returning to duty within 72 hours, and those that have lost limbs are a fraction of that figure.

 

[STING2]

Starting to lay the groundwork I see...



But if say, Iran strikes at the US, say, at the naval fleet building up in the Persian Gulf right now, say, through one of its proxies then how might the US respond to bring about regime change in Iran?

mmm...no, just a statement of the obvious. If the current Iranian regime is willing to get nuclear weapons at all cost, the only way it will be prevented from eventually getting such weapons will be to actually remove the regime.

For Iran to strike the United States now would be very foolish. The US response would depend on several factors, whether the US could actually link the attack to Iran, as well as how much damage was done in the attack.

What ever the response, the United States has a large number of air and naval assets that it can respond with and do massive damage to Iran and the Iranian regime. In addition, current caps on the use of National Guard Brigades could be rescended. There are currently 34 National Guard Brigades. In addition, there are around 27 active Army and Marine Brigades resting from their deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and other area's if the world.

There is no doubt, than an invasion of Iran would put an incredible strain on the US military, but provided the caps on the rate of use of National Guard Brigades are removed, deployments for brigades in Iraq are extended, and brigades resting in the USA are redeployed, there are technically enough Brigades to invade Iran and remove the regime if the President decided it was necessary. The problem of course comes after the removal of the regime and the long term occupation that would be required to ensure a proper replacement. The force level would have to eventually be cut in order to allow brigades to come home to rest and refit.

 

[Irvine511]

Its obvious that these countries are more secure now than they have ever been with the removal of Saddam's regime,

how can you say this with a straight face?

seriously. EVERYONE, except you and maybe the president, admit the chaotic civil war in Iraq. EVERYONE admits now that we vastly misjudged the operation back in 2003. EVERYONE admits that the Iraqi government barely functions. EVERYONE.

it boggles the mind. perhaps civil wars in Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon in 2007 will change your mind?

as for your oil -- i do think it's refreshing that you admit that it really is all about the oil, nothing else -- there's tremendous unease in Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia about the perceived marginalization of the Sunni Arab former elite by the ruling Shiite majority in Iraq, particularly as the reprisal sectarian violence gets even worse, and as Iran continues to expand it's influence across the region and especially in Iraq.

and your indifference to US casualties -- not to mention your dismissal of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis -- is increasingly offensive.

 

[STING2]

how can you say this with a straight face?

seriously. EVERYONE, except you and maybe the president, admit the chaotic civil war in Iraq. EVERYONE admits now that we vastly misjudged the operation back in 2003. EVERYONE admits that the Iraqi government barely functions. EVERYONE.

it boggles the mind. perhaps civil wars in Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon in 2007 will change your mind?

as for your oil -- i do think it's refreshing that you admit that it really is all about the oil, nothing else -- there's tremendous unease in Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia about the perceived marginalization of the Sunni Arab former elite by the ruling Shiite majority in Iraq, particularly as the reprisal sectarian violence gets even worse, and as Iran continues to expand it's influence across the region and especially in Iraq.

and your indifference to US casualties -- not to mention your dismissal of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis -- is increasingly offensive.

Well, perhaps you could technically explain how Kuwait is more likely to be overrun now than it was while Saddam was in power. Please explain which Iraqi militia group is going to march over a hundred miles through the desert into Kuwait in civilian vehicles and defeat a Kuwaiti military force with several hundred tanks as Saddam did in August 1990 in 12 hours?

Do you know who General John Abizaid is? He is the commander of Cent Com and perhaps the leading expert on Iraq and the middle east in the US military. He does not call the current situation in Iraq a Civil War. He understands that 90% of the sectarian violence, the reason people call it a civil war, happens within 30 miles of downtown Baghdad. The vast majority of the rest of the country is free of this type of violence.

But hey, call the situation in Iraq whatever you like. It does not change what has to be done in order to succeed there. It does not change what has been accomplished already in attempting to stabilize Iraq.

The Planets economy is dependent on Oil to survive. Its why the United States and its allies went to war in 1991, attempted to contain Saddam in the 90s, and had to remove him in 2003. There are threats to the security of oil supply from the region that simply cannot be tolerated.

I have not dismissed any US casualties, I've only asked that you not inaccurately claim what US casualties are since there are actually accurate figures on them. There are not relatively accurate casualty figures for Iraqi civilian deaths, but it is certain is that the current sectarian fighting in Iraq no where near resembles the level of fighting in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 when nearly 10% of the population was slaughtered.

 

[AliEnvy]

The Planets economy is dependent on Oil to survive.

That and continuous, confident American consumer spending.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, perhaps you could technically explain how Kuwait is more likely to be overrun now than it was while Saddam was in power. Please explain which Iraqi militia group is going to march over a hundred miles through the desert into Kuwait in civilian vehicles and defeat a Kuwaiti military force with several hundred tanks as Saddam did in August 1990 in 12 hours?

when the Shiites of Iraq and Iran join together, look out.

the Saudis are nervous. shouldn't you be?


[q]Do you know who General John Abizaid is? He is the commander of Cent Com and perhaps the leading expert on Iraq and the middle east in the US military. He does not call the current situation in Iraq a Civil War. He understands that 90% of the sectarian violence, the reason people call it a civil war, happens within 30 miles of downtown Baghdad. The vast majority of the rest of the country is free of this type of violence.[/q]




Abizaid has about as much credibility as Bush or Rumsfeld. gee, it wouldn't be in his own personal interests and reputation to deny that he's, you know, FAILING at his job and the US military is incapable of dealing with the increasing sectarian violence. oh, right, you think the military is incapable of spin and PR . in reality, NO ONE agrees with your assessment of the situation in Iraq, nor does anyone agree with Abizaid. 3,700 civilians died in October ALONE.

There are not relatively accurate casualty figures for Iraqi civilian deaths, but it is certain is that the current sectarian fighting in Iraq no where near resembles the level of fighting in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 when nearly 10% of the population was slaughtered.

oh, i see, so we only care if it measures up to Bosnia. what convenient, self-serving metric. and let's not forget that the lack of intervention in Bosnia was a great European failure, as well as being a situation where outside militlary intervention would have indeed (and did indeed) help end the fighting whereas in Iraq its the presence of an outside military, and the removal of a strongman, that has given us the violence we now see.

still, the comparison between Iraq and Yugoslavia is apt, but not in the way that you think.

 

[STING2]

when the Shiites of Iraq and Iran join together, look out.

the Saudis are nervous. shouldn't you be?


Abizaid has about as much credibility as Bush or Rumsfeld. gee, it wouldn't be in his own personal interests and reputation to deny that he's, you know, FAILING at his job and the US military is incapable of dealing with the increasing sectarian violence. oh, right, you think the military is incapable of spin and PR . in reality, NO ONE agrees with your assessment of the situation in Iraq, nor does anyone agree with Abizaid. 3,700 civilians died in October ALONE.



oh, i see, so we only care if it measures up to Bosnia. what convenient, self-serving metric. and let's not forget that the lack of intervention in Bosnia was a great European failure, as well as being a situation where outside militlary intervention would have indeed (and did indeed) help end the fighting whereas in Iraq its the presence of an outside military, and the removal of a strongman, that has given us the violence we now see.

still, the comparison between Iraq and Yugoslavia is apt, but not in the way that you think.

I asked you to technically explain why Kuwait is more likely to be overrun now than when Saddam was in power and all you have to say is "when the Shiites of Iraq and Iran join together, look out"? I thought the Shiites of Iraq and Iran were "already together" according to yourself and others, but in any event, please explain how they would be in a better position to overrun Kuwait than Saddam was at any time he was in power.

Part of the problem of many people in the media as well as critics is that they only look at the day to day events without considering the scale of what is being done and how long it will take to complete the process. You claim that General John Abazaid is failing at his job, but you ignore what has been accomplished and how much worse things would be on the ground without the accomplishments of the past 3 years. How can you call an operation that will take 10+ years to complete, with plenty of setbacks along the way, a failure after only 3 years? What level of violence would you consider to be normal given the tasks involved and how long it will take to complete them?

There are plenty of people who agree with Abizaids position, especially among the US military, the largest group of foreigners on the ground in Iraq. If you understand and appreciate how long counter insurgency operations and nation building takes, then you would realize that these sudden declarations of failure are absurd.

You could make the case that Taliban controlled Afghanistan was a more stable place prior to their removal. In both cases, the Taliban and Saddam's regimes had to be removed because of the threat they posed to the planet. Naturally, rebuilding both countries after the removal of such dominating regimes are very difficult tasks that require TIME in order for them to be successful.

 

[U2DMfan]

I say outline a definitive strategy for victory, get out and hammer it home to the public and you can build support back up for the war. The problem is, there isn't one. And everyone looking for objective answers knows it.

 

[trevster2k]

Umm, the lack of violence in the rest of Iraq is because they are already segregated in those regions. Kurds in the north, Shia in the south, and Sunni in the triangle. They aren't going to kill each other, yet. Baghdad is mixed, right now the civil war is sorting them out. Once the neighbourhoods have been sorted out, there could be another escalation in violence unless calmer heads prevail.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are getting the hell out of dodge cause this is going to end ugly. Surrounding countries are already seeing streams of refugees and the Saudis are building a fence to stop the influx of people. Neighbouring countries already have enough problems without having to handle Iraqi refugees. The US can stay and participate in the chaos or leave and come back to assist with the clean up. I don't think the US would have been too happy if the nation of France decided to leave garrisons of soldiers and it's navy behind after helping fight the British.

When history looks back upon this age, I wonder which will be viewed to have the greater negative impact on the world, 9/11 or the response to it.

Abizaid will be a CNN or Fox News analyst in a year or two commenting on the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So leave however million people to be murdered then come back with UN mandated multilateral force.

Which state and non-state actors have an interest in making it ugly? For what reasons?

Those questions must be considered before pulling all the stops and standing by for a slaughter. It happened after the first gulf war and what little credibility America ever had is completely lost if it does it again.

Right now Syria is making the play against Lebanon and Iran is moving ahead with it's nuclear program and the solution that the Bush admin seems to be adopting from the bipartisan commitee will involve courting both those countries; neither of which has any interest in seeing a free Iraq.

 

[Irvine511]

Naturally, rebuilding both countries after the removal of such dominating regimes are very difficult tasks that require TIME in order for them to be successful.

they also require POST WAR PLANS and EXECUTIVE COMPETENCY and ATTENTION TO DETAIL.

 

[Irvine511]

I asked you to technically explain why Kuwait is more likely to be overrun now than when Saddam was in power and all you have to say is "when the Shiites of Iraq and Iran join together, look out"? I thought the Shiites of Iraq and Iran were "already together" according to yourself and others, but in any event, please explain how they would be in a better position to overrun Kuwait than Saddam was at any time he was in power.

i'm sorry, are you presenting the location of Kuwait as some sort of trump card?

i'll explain again. Iran is operating inside Iraq and wields a great deal of influence. but, as you know, it will take TIME before Iraq is totally controlled by its Shiite majority (after murdering a few more hundred thousand Sunnis), and once it is, look for an Iraq more belligerant than Saddam with a nuclearized Iran looking on. Kuwait won't make much of a difference, just ask the Saudis -- they don't view Kuwait as the buffer you do, and they're already making plans.

[q]Part of the problem of many people in the media as well as critics is that they only look at the day to day events without considering the scale of what is being done and how long it will take to complete the process. You claim that General John Abazaid is failing at his job, but you ignore what has been accomplished and how much worse things would be on the ground without the accomplishments of the past 3 years. How can you call an operation that will take 10+ years to complete, with plenty of setbacks along the way, a failure after only 3 years? What level of violence would you consider to be normal given the tasks involved and how long it will take to complete them?[/q]

how good are "accomplishments" -- a bunch of purple forefingers -- when they cannot provide a basic level of security to the peple of Iraq? democracy means NOTHING without stability, without being able to go to the market or a mosque and not worry about being blown up by a car bomb or set on fire or being rounded up at a bus stop, abducted, have your eyes drilled, and then be executed and dumped in the river.

and what an interesting sentence:

[q]ut you ignore what has been accomplished and how much worse things would be on the ground without the accomplishments of the past 3 years.[/q]

so ... you're saying it could be even worse? is this your consolation? how much worse could it be? we could have failed even more? our leaders could have been even more incompetent? they could have been even more underprepared? and you use these points as measures of success?!?!?!?!


[q]There are plenty of people who agree with Abizaids position, especially among the US military, the largest group of foreigners on the ground in Iraq. If you understand and appreciate how long counter insurgency operations and nation building takes, then you would realize that these sudden declarations of failure are absurd.[/q]


sudden declarations of failure? my friend, this has been discussed for a while, it's only now that everyone is admitting what has been obvious to those of us who don't blindly follow whatever Rove-approved Pentagon talking points are released to the media. i am also dumbfounded that you'd view American troops on the ground -- who have every understandable impulse under the sun to defend their mission since no one wants to know that their friends have died for the arrogance and foolishness of a wildly incompetent chief executive -- as the most accurate barometers of "success" in Iraq. these are understandably the least impartial observers of the situation we have.

anyway, you say this is going to take 10 years.

have things improved over the past 3 years to the point where you think the next 3 years are going to get better? where? how? what's improved? what are the signs that things are working and that Iraq will be a stable, prosperous democracy in 2013? show me the evidence that firstly justifies the occupation, justifies each and every American and Iraqi death, and then shows me where Iraq will be.

the burden of proof is upon you, sir, to prove that the continuous escalation of violence and broader breakdown of civil society and ineffective government and an army and police force that has beeen infiltrated by murderous Shiite revenge militias is yet another step in the right direction.

lastly, no one agrees that TIME is some sort of cure-all, that things will inevitably get better if we just stay a certain course that is demonstrably ineffective. how can you ask men to die as part of a plan that has not worked?

 

[anitram]

what little credibility America ever had

I don't believe America has any credibility in the Middle East.

I also don't believe it has much anywhere else in the world anymore either.

If you think staying there with no post war plan, just pissing in the wind like this is going to change that, I am shocked because you are not that stupid.

Heckuva job.

 

[trevster2k]

I heard Jimmy Carter on The Current this week and he brought up an interesting point about how during the past 6 years this administration has not even attempted to broker peace in the Middle East unlike most previous recent administrations including Bush I. He points out that this may be a contributing factor in the anger towards the US leading to the acts of terrorism. At least before there was an appearance that the US was unbiased and wanted peace, now it seems that Israel is infallible in the eyes of the US government. This would make a strong impression on the people of the Middle East.

Whatever is going to happen in Iraq is going to happen whether or not the US is there or not. And the people who have been predicting all the past events like, wait until after we catch Saddam, after the election, after we catch Zarquawi, insurgency in the last throes, no civil war and so on don't offer comfort to anyone in predicting future events in Iraq. They have been WRONG!! and they will continue to be WRONG with a hopelessly unrealistic optimistic view of the immediate future in Iraq by continuing the same path. It is definition of insanity, keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

 

[deep]

Right now Syria is making the play against Lebanon and Iran is moving ahead with it's nuclear program and the solution that the Bush admin seems to be adopting from the bipartisan committee will involve courting both those countries; neither of which has any interest in seeing a free Iraq.

If I recall you were one who, for the most part, supported the Bush Administrations actions in this part of the world.


My problem with "supporters"
is that the Bush plan or plans never really had any real chance of success.

They have just squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and even worse tens of thousands of lives, ruined economies, infrastructures, institutions, historic sites, when there was no real chance for a successful outcome.

A better approach would have been to threaten the "so-called regime change", to keep the no-fly zones in place with the partition of Iraq. North for the Kurds, South for the Shia to have reasonable security.

This is what was done with the biggest terrorist of the 80s, Khadafi.
Khadafi started two wars and invaded countries and sponsored real terror, the bombing of international airlines.

Before this Iraq fiasco America was perceived to have the ability to accomplish it's will.

Now we have Iran, Chavez, North Korea all chomping at the bit to show the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

The Bush Administration misdeeds will reduce the U. S. as the major player in international affairs within the next decade.
A smarter team could have preserved that popular conception for several more decades.

 

[Irvine511]

I heard Jimmy Carter on The Current this week and he brought up an interesting point about how during the past 6 years this administration has not even attempted to broker peace in the Middle East unlike most previous recent administrations including Bush I. He points out that this may be a contributing factor in the anger towards the US leading to the acts of terrorism. At least before there was an appearance that the US was unbiased and wanted peace, now it seems that Israel is infallible in the eyes of the US government. This would make a strong impression on the people of the Middle East.

oh hush!

we all know that the removal of Saddam Hussein was far more vital to the "world's interests" and the Middle East than brokering an agreeable settlment between the israelis and the palestinians.

after all, it's not the Palestinians that Muslims across the world get upset over; it was Saddam. now that Iraqis have had two elections, there is great rejoicing across the Middle East.

everything comes down to Saddam.

thank goodness he's gone! that's all that should ever, ever matter!

 

[Irvine511]

The Bush Administration misdeeds will reduce the U. S. as the major player in international affairs within the next decade.
A smarter team could have preserved that popular conception for several more decades.

and what is truly tragic is that US leadership is badly needed on what are the real global issues (which, incidentally, have NOTHING to do with Iraq):

1. global AIDS
2. Israel/Palestine
3. nuclearized NoKo
4. the rise of China

 

[A_Wanderer]

If I recall you were one who, for the most part, supported the Bush Administrations actions in this part of the world.

Yes I supported and still do support the removal of Saddam Hussein, I also would support more pressure on Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. Bush didn't pursue an agenda of liberalisation or support for democracy movements beyond Iraq - it was all empty verbiage. Coupled with the failures such as not going into the Sunni areas more strongly earlier on; such as the aborted move against Fallujah in early 2004 and allowing Sadr to live to make another militia are big failures. The occupation has been a string of failures - but the original OIF not so much.

I refuse to accept that the only permutation for the middle east is violent secular autocracy or theocracy. But with an opressive theocracy on the verge of getting the tools to fufil prophesy it may all be completely moot. I hate to think that because of Iraq the Lebanese, Egyptian and Iranian activists will get screwed over.

 

[STING2]

i'm sorry, are you presenting the location of Kuwait as some sort of trump card?

i'll explain again. Iran is operating inside Iraq and wields a great deal of influence. but, as you know, it will take TIME before Iraq is totally controlled by its Shiite majority (after murdering a few more hundred thousand Sunnis), and once it is, look for an Iraq more belligerant than Saddam with a nuclearized Iran looking on. Kuwait won't make much of a difference, just ask the Saudis -- they don't view Kuwait as the buffer you do, and they're already making plans.


how good are "accomplishments" -- a bunch of purple forefingers -- when they cannot provide a basic level of security to the peple of Iraq? democracy means NOTHING without stability, without being able to go to the market or a mosque and not worry about being blown up by a car bomb or set on fire or being rounded up at a bus stop, abducted, have your eyes drilled, and then be executed and dumped in the river.

and what an interesting sentence:


so ... you're saying it could be even worse? is this your consolation? how much worse could it be? we could have failed even more? our leaders could have been even more incompetent? they could have been even more underprepared? and you use these points as measures of success?!?!?!?!




sudden declarations of failure? my friend, this has been discussed for a while, it's only now that everyone is admitting what has been obvious to those of us who don't blindly follow whatever Rove-approved Pentagon talking points are released to the media. i am also dumbfounded that you'd view American troops on the ground -- who have every understandable impulse under the sun to defend their mission since no one wants to know that their friends have died for the arrogance and foolishness of a wildly incompetent chief executive -- as the most accurate barometers of "success" in Iraq. these are understandably the least impartial observers of the situation we have.

anyway, you say this is going to take 10 years.

have things improved over the past 3 years to the point where you think the next 3 years are going to get better? where? how? what's improved? what are the signs that things are working and that Iraq will be a stable, prosperous democracy in 2013? show me the evidence that firstly justifies the occupation, justifies each and every American and Iraqi death, and then shows me where Iraq will be.

the burden of proof is upon you, sir, to prove that the continuous escalation of violence and broader breakdown of civil society and ineffective government and an army and police force that has beeen infiltrated by murderous Shiite revenge militias is yet another step in the right direction.

lastly, no one agrees that TIME is some sort of cure-all, that things will inevitably get better if we just stay a certain course that is demonstrably ineffective. how can you ask men to die as part of a plan that has not worked?

The plan can't work if its not given the necessary time to do so! How can you abandon one of the only proven ways to defeat an insurgency and build a nation from the ground up? How will abandoning the current plan improve the security situation for the USA and the region, as well as the lives of the Iraqi people? What is the alternative plan that has a historic track record in quickly defeating insurgencies and building nations in under the 3 year time period you somehow believe it can be done?

The escalation of violence in Iraq has so far been confined to a 30 mile area around Baghdad. You do realize that Iraq is a much larger country than the Baghdad metropolitian area and violence in that one area does not represent the condition in all the other provinces of the country? The government, which you specifically claimed would NEVER form, has only been in office 6 months, yet you expect it to have already rebuilt the country and stopped all the violence. When has any new government ever in history stopped a level of instability like this in under 6 months?

The Iraqi Army is a very different case from the Iraqi police force. The Iraqi Army has not been penetrated by militia's any where near to the degree that the Iraqi police forces have. Yet, you lump them together as being one in the same which is simply inaccurate. Building of the Iraqi military, which had less than a thousand members 2 and a half years ago is going well and will take more time to be complete, but is ultimately one of the key solutions to many of the problems that are faced in the country.

The next 3 years will see the Iraqi Army grow in size, capability, and experience, provided people do not withdraw US forces prematurely. As the Iraqi military becomes more compentent and grows in size, it will be increasingly difficult for insurgence and terrorist to pull off their actions. More area's can be secured, which will increase security for civilians and allow for greater intelligence gathering as civilians feel safer about coming foward and telling what they know about terrorist or insurgents. Sorry, but this is not something that will happen overnight, that will be marked by some date on a calander etc. Its a gradual process, just as it has been in every other successful, nation building, counter insurgencey process. Show us the evidence that the world would be a safer place without US troops in Iraq and that the lives of Iraqi's would dramatically improve if the United States abandons the country as your friends in the Democratic Party are electing to do. Show us why the world was better with Saddam in power and that the Iran/Iraq war, invasions and attacks on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel were good things for the region and made it a safer place. Show us why pushing the planet to the brink of the worst global economic depression, the largest use of WMD in history, and the slaughter of 1.7 million people were good things for the region and the world relative to the situation now.


Oh yes, US troops on the ground, what would they know right? 140,000 on the ground at any given time over the past 3 and a half years, and over a half a million who have been in country. Their all just beating the propaganda drum for Karl Rove, it has nothing to do with their training, what they know an understand about counter insurgencies or nation building, as well as what they have experienced on the ground in Iraq? Its all just one mass conspiracy and the only people who can save us are those that work at the Washington Post and the New York Times?

I'm not asking that you agree with everything the military says, but you could at least look at it, respect what they have to say, acknowledge the things they have been successful at, instead of labling everything they say as propaganda just because it does not agree or fit in with your conclusions about things.


Indeed, Iraq could be far worse than the present situation, and will certainly get far worse if the Democrats have their way in withdrawing troops prematurely. Iraq could be in a civil war, a real civil war that is marked by more than just sectarian violence in one city. A Civil War like Bosnia, which if it happened in Iraq would kill over a million people every year! Iraq itself has saw far worse periods of violence under Saddam than the current period. Its sad that 200 people were killed in the recent bombing, but it pales in comparison to the 6,000 Iraqi's who were gassed in one town one early morning while Saddam was in power. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who died from Saddam's unecessary war with Iran. The 300,000 Shia's slaughtered by Saddam in under 30 days in March/April 1991. Thats 10,000 people a day!

Yes, preventing the level of tragedy that was so common place before Saddam was removed is indeed a success, as well as preventing a real Civil War. A government is in place, the military is getting stronger, GDP growth is up, the insurgency has not grown since April 2004, the sectarian violence is confined primarily to Baghdad, these are all positive things that had the potential to be worse, not be in place, or not exist at all.


In the 13 non-Sunni majority provinces, people do go to the Market and the Mosque, usually without fear of being bombed or attacked. Polling done in these area's shows that peoples top concern is the lack of services rather than the lack of security. But wait, there is only one Iraq, the Iraq that is within 30 miles of Baghdad, right? Lets just pretend the majority of Iraq does not actually exist.

Once again, you've yet to explain how a bunch of relatively rag tag shia militia's are going to go through a hundred miles of desert with few roads and overrun Kuwait in 12 hours like Saddam did in August 1990. The Iranian's only have at best 25% of power projection capabilities that Saddam had in August of 1990, and thats assuming one could count hundreds of pieces of US equipment from the days of the Shah as still being operable. How many people in any of the Shia militia's have ever operated more than a hundred miles from where they actually live? What vehicles are the Shia militia's equipped with besides civilian trucks and cars? Beyond hand held motars and RPG's, what medium or heavy weapons do the Shia militia have to use in their conquest of Kuwait? IED's may be good weapons in attacking an occupier, but their not much use when your doing the occupying. Stripped of the safety, and security of their own towns, neighborhoods, and civilians, how would a Shia militia a hundred miles into the open desert combat ANY of the professional military forces in either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia with such limited weaponry, vehicles, as well as the logistics needed to sustain such an operation like that? Are the Iranians going to actually supply the Shia militia's with this missing equipment, equipment that their own military is in desperate need of, equipment that for the past three years, they have not given to any Shia militia?

Its not necessarily that Saudi Arabia considers Kuwait to be a buffer, but if your not properly equipped for crossing the desert where there are no roads, then your going to have to stick to the major roads that run through Kuwait and then into Saudi Arabia. More importantly, if your no match for the Kuwaiti military, your certainly not something that is going to worry the Saudi's. I don't know of any Shia militia that would last long in the open desert, hundreds of miles from home, against 10,000 dug in, fully supplied Kuwaiti troops, with modern Main Battle Tanks, Artillery, Attack Helicopters, Combat Aircraft, etc. There is a huge difference between being able to make trouble in your own neighborhood and being able to march into a neighboring country and defeat a professional military force in the open.

 

[STING2]

I don't believe America has any credibility in the Middle East.

I also don't believe it has much anywhere else in the world anymore either.

If you think staying there with no post war plan, just pissing in the wind like this is going to change that, I am shocked because you are not that stupid.

Heckuva job.

Can you name another country that has more credibility as well as capability in handling these problems?

 

[STING2]

Whatever is going to happen in Iraq is going to happen whether or not the US is there or not. And the people who have been predicting all the past events like, wait until after we catch Saddam, after the election, after we catch Zarquawi, insurgency in the last throes, no civil war and so on don't offer comfort to anyone in predicting future events in Iraq. They have been WRONG!! and they will continue to be WRONG with a hopelessly unrealistic optimistic view of the immediate future in Iraq by continuing the same path. It is definition of insanity, keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Well, thats not what history has shown us. For 25 years, very little happened in Iraq unless Saddam wanted it too. Saddam was then removed in an invasion that the liberals claimed would kill a million people and cause another 1 million to flee the country immediately. Oh, but that was nearly four years ago, no one remembers that right.

The accomplishments of the elections, capturing or killing certain insurgent leaders, the growing Iraqi military, the passing of a constitution, the establishment of the first elected Iraqi government, are all important, but few people if anyone actually claimed that Iraq would immediately stabilize and become a prosperous nation once any of these things occured. Most people especially those who looked recently at Bosnia and Kosovo realize that nation building takes many years if not decades. Resolving these problems and issues take time and involve many costs and setbacks along the way.

If you disagree with the establishment of Iraq's first democratically elected government, the passing of a new constitution, the building of a new Iraqi military and police force, Billions of dollars in economic aid for previously impoverished area's of Iraq, talking with all the groups in Iraq in order to try and bridge differences between them, what is your alternative plan? Perseverance is not insanity, its necessary to accomplish objectives that take a considerable amount of time.

 

[STING2]

If I recall you were one who, for the most part, supported the Bush Administrations actions in this part of the world.


My problem with "supporters"
is that the Bush plan or plans never really had any real chance of success.

They have just squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and even worse tens of thousands of lives, ruined economies, infrastructures, institutions, historic sites, when there was no real chance for a successful outcome.

A better approach would have been to threaten the "so-called regime change", to keep the no-fly zones in place with the partition of Iraq. North for the Kurds, South for the Shia to have reasonable security.

This is what was done with the biggest terrorist of the 80s, Khadafi.
Khadafi started two wars and invaded countries and sponsored real terror, the bombing of international airlines.

Before this Iraq fiasco America was perceived to have the ability to accomplish it's will.

Now we have Iran, Chavez, North Korea all chomping at the bit to show the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

The Bush Administration misdeeds will reduce the U. S. as the major player in international affairs within the next decade.
A smarter team could have preserved that popular conception for several more decades.

Saddam killed far more people than Khadafi did in the 1980s in just a few hours one morning in 1988. Khadafi never threatened the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage or caused the largest deployment of US troops since World War II. He invaded neighboring Chad where his small military forces were picked off and defeated. Terrorism was a concern, but Libya never had the anywhere near the size and capabilities of Iraq or other countries of the Middle East. Not that Khadafi did not try to be big, but its difficult when the size of your population is not much bigger than the Republic of Ireland and your country does not sit on or in close proximity to the planets vital resources.

The Bush administration has already accomplished several of its goals in regards to Iraq and removed a serious threat to the planets energy supplies. Now that the most important goals have been accomplished, stabilizing Iraq to ensure stability and peace in the future will obviously take more time. It will be successfully accomplished provided the time and resources are spent to see that it does.

The amount of money spent on the US military, Iraq, and Afghanistan, is currently smaller as a percentage of US GDP, than annual defense spending in the 1980s under Reagan.

Iran's behavior is no different than it was prior to the invasion of Iraq. North Korea has had nuclear weapons since 1994! I know its fun to believe that all the worlds problems are suddenly the result of the invasion of Iraq, but thats not the case.

Bush's "misdeeds" are no more likely to reduce the United States role as the major player in international affairs than Reagan's "misdeeds" were to do the same to the United States in the 1990s. What fundamentally makes the United States the most powerful nation on the planet and the most important player in International Affairs has not changed at all. In many ways, it has only become stronger.

 

[A_Wanderer]

BAGHDAD — With sectarian violence reaching new extremes, some Sunni Muslim clerics are breaking with the most militant factions in their sect and reaching out to Shiite clergy in an effort to pull Iraq back from the abyss.

Some members of the Muslim Scholars Assn., which has acted as a broker between Western officials and members of the country's Sunni-driven insurgency, worry that their group has done little more than clasp hands before television cameras with their Shiite counterparts and issue joint appeals for calm.

"The Muslim Scholars Assn. so far has not participated in any real, effective negotiations," said Sheik Mahmoud Sumaidaie, a senior member who preaches at the organization's Baghdad headquarters, the Umm Qura Mosque.

Sumaidaie said more than 70 clerics across Iraq want to form a new religious council that can unite all Sunni factions and open a channel of communication with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's most revered Shiite cleric. Without it, he said, "we will never be able to stop the bloodshed in Iraq."

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-sunnis30nov30,1,4562125.story?ctrack=1&cset=true