The Iraq War

[Misty]

Okay, apparently people really want to discuss this, so let's sequester the discussion to a proper topic.


In my honest opinion, the war is a mess. Yes, violence is down, and yes, al-Qaeda is on the retreat. This is wonderful for the US, but it's horrible for Iraq. Why? Because peace is going to open up public awareness to the REAL problems - specifically, the weakness of the Iraqi government, and the sectarian and factional bickering. Iraq is becoming more and more divided, with sectarian splits the main issue, and smaller factional disputes (i.e., Sadr and Hakim) opening up frightening rivalries. If the US military left tomorrow, Iraq would probably dissolve in less than a year.

The central problem is the Iraqi government. Maliki is a weak leader who has pushed a sectarian agenda and exacerbated the problems that Iraq faces. Iraq needs a strong central government - the US learned this lesson in the 1780s. Unfortunately, Iraq's government is becoming increasingly weaker, especially if Kirkuk joins the already autonomous Kurdish region.

The other problem is the US government. While Bush finally got a clue and fired Rumsfeld, other problems still remain. Iran needs to be engaged - even if they are our "enemy". Just like we needed the Soviets to handle conflicts during the Cold War, we need Iran to handle Iraq. Iran has a great deal of influence, whether we like it or not, and we have to be willing to converse with them, or the result will be bad for Iraq, and by extension, bad for both the US and Iran. Syria has to be engaged too - my faith for this is pessimistic, but it could happen, especially if Syria and Israel manage to figure out the Golan Heights issue (which is why I'm pessimistic).

The other problem is corruption. Fortunately, the Democratic Congress has cracked down on this, but it doesn't really help if we don't rethink our methods of restoring basic services. This is, of course, a key development, because economic stability will help with stability in other areas.

In short, we need major changes in almost every way we've executed this war. Right now, we're using the Soviet model - using military strength to hold down disputes and keep things running smoothly, even if the political structure is vulnerable. But as we've seen, this will only work as long as the military is present, and it tends to dissolve when you take the military out of the equation. Bottom line, barring a miracle in the Iraqi government, we are in for a LONG military presence if we want to see a stable Iraq. If violence stays down, this may not be hard to accomplish, but if it flares up again, like it did when that mosque was blown up in 2006... it will be a catastrophe of the highest order.

 

[The Big Al]

First of all this is not a war, it's a occupation.

The problem is that we have no plan of how to conclude this. There is no strategy to have our troops leave. This lies squarely on the shoulders of Bush and his administration. When they went to war they did it such a spur of the moment they hadn't made any preparations for war and eventual end to military involvement.

I believe an opposite turn in the government should be taken. The only way you will unite the factions in Iraq is by putting a gun to their head. I think the three ethnic regions should be semi-autonomous with a weaker central government.

The biggest problem however is that a lot of powerful and influential people are making money off this war. This is a war for profit and as long as there is a reason to continue it there is very little that can be done to stop it.

 

[Misty]

I believe an opposite turn in the government should be taken. The only way you will unite the factions in Iraq is by putting a gun to their head. I think the three ethnic regions should be semi-autonomous with a weaker central government.

Congress suggested that and was promptly rebuked by Maliki - who, really, is right. Dividing up the nation won't help anyone, least of all the Sunnis who live in the oil-poor regions. It really just drives another stake into the continuing divide, which doesn't help. Iraq needs to be a stable nation, or it will likely just get swallowed up by its neighbors.

The biggest problem however is that a lot of powerful and influential people are making money off this war. This is a war for profit and as long as there is a reason to continue it there is very little that can be done to stop it.

Even if nobody was making money off this war, we couldn't leave - as I pointed out, we'd probably be forced to come right back when (not if) Iraq collapsed. As Petraeus noted, it's much easier to maintain stability than it is to create it, so the simple solution is simply to stay there until Iraq has a capable government.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Congress suggested that and was promptly rebuked by Maliki - who, really, is right. Dividing up the nation won't help anyone, least of all the Sunnis who live in the oil-poor regions. It really just drives another stake into the continuing divide, which doesn't help. Iraq needs to be a stable nation, or it will likely just get swallowed up by its neighbors.

History DOES show that dividing a country doesn't end well (though usually it's when it's ARBITRARILY divided, like the Middle East was, post-WWI). If every group gets their own country, and there can be a way of keeping peace, things usually work out fairly well. It's when they're forced together (Yugoslavia, I'm looking at you) that violence erupts. Iraq as we know it exists because, post-WWI, the powers-that-be decided to make little countries to protect, regardless of the differences between the people suddenly shoved together.

Even if nobody was making money off this war, we couldn't leave - as I pointed out, we'd probably be forced to come right back when (not if) Iraq collapsed. As Petraeus noted, it's much easier to maintain stability than it is to create it, so the simple solution is simply to stay there until Iraq has a capable government.

Even if that means never leaving?

 

[Misty]

History DOES show that dividing a country doesn't end well (though usually it's when it's ARBITRARILY divided, like the Middle East was, post-WWI). If every group gets their own country, and there can be a way of keeping peace, things usually work out fairly well. It's when they're forced together (Yugoslavia, I'm looking at you) that violence erupts. Iraq as we know it exists because, post-WWI, the powers-that-be decided to make little countries to protect, regardless of the differences between the people suddenly shoved together.

It is true that Iraq's founding is very unfortunate and not really conducive to a strong national heritage. But I really think Iraq benefits best from trying to stick together. Autonomous regions drawn along religious and ethnic lines would probably not benefit the Shiites (who would likely become a client state of Iran, if not swallowed whole) or the Sunnis (who, as mentioned, live in a very oil-poor region that is likely not sustainable). Cooperation is a hallmark of success with respect to humanity, and I think dividing up Iraq should be a last resort. After all, the division took place almost 100 years ago - that's still plenty of time to create a national identity, and I think we should try to take advantage of that.

Even if that means never leaving?

I don't really know - just keep in mind, we've had soldiers in South Korea for over 50 years...

 

[The Big Al]

Getting the Iraqis to cooperate makes herding cats look like child's play. The Sunnis and Kurds will never accept the central government because it will always be dominated by the Shiites. These people are mortal enemies and have been for almost 1500 years.

Iraq was no accident. The European powers intentionally drew the borders as they are. They wanted the countries they created to remain unstable and therefore dependent on the imperial power. If you look at a lot of the European created countries were designed so they hold various sects and factions that hate each other and a minority is installed as the power. If anything, dividing Iraq would help undo some of the damage done so long ago.

We're not occupying South Korea. While granted a small US garrison will remain in Iraq, they do not need to be engage in military occupation.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

It is true that Iraq's founding is very unfortunate and not really conducive to a strong national heritage. But I really think Iraq benefits best from trying to stick together. Autonomous regions drawn along religious and ethnic lines would probably not benefit the Shiites (who would likely become a client state of Iran, if not swallowed whole) or the Sunnis (who, as mentioned, live in a very oil-poor region that is likely not sustainable). Cooperation is a hallmark of success with respect to humanity, and I think dividing up Iraq should be a last resort. After all, the division took place almost 100 years ago - that's still plenty of time to create a national identity, and I think we should try to take advantage of that.

The big problem, though, is that there's no great NEED for the government to work towards unity. As far as they're concerned, we're ALWAYS going to be there to clean up their messes. And why shouldn't they think that way? They didn't ASK to be invaded. Hussein was a bastard, but we let plenty of other bastards rule countries unmolested. It was OUR choice to invade, so we SHOULD stay there until it's clean. But that leaves a HUGE problem: WE CAN'T stay there indefinitely. Not with the number we have. Besides, what happens if we get attacked again? Will we just pack up and leave?

I don't really know - just keep in mind, we've had soldiers in South Korea for over 50 years...

But that was AFTER the split of Korea into two sections. One was friendly to us (the one where our soldiers are stationed) and one wasn't. Same with Germany. We split the nations, then stationed our soldiers in the friendly section. And, as time has gone on, we've limited the number over there. Besides, those troops are more there as observers, not as protectors. I've no problem with a base in Iraq "just in case" (well, I kind of do, but it's really just nitpicking and not something I'd argue too hard against), but that's not what we've got. Not by a long shot.

 

[Misty]

You guys have mostly forgotten my original point - that Iraqi unity is FAR more beneficial than Iraqi disunity. Yes, we could "divide the country up" to "fix the mistakes of the past", but the result would be terrible for the people involved. Iraq has been in its current boundaries since 1926. Further, Saddam Hussein has moved around many people into different regions. The result is that, just because a region is called "Shiite" or "Sunni" or "Kurd", doesn't mean that it's homogeneous. Splitting up Iraq along sectarian/ethnic lines may actually encourage MORE violence, not less - as each region tries to establish more homogeneity.

Further, as I've noted, splitting up the nation is always going to be vigorously opposed by Sunnis, who have a lot to lose. They may not like the Shiite government, but the alternatives are much worse. As for the Shiites, I doubt they're really interested in it, and as noted, Maliki criticized this option.

The government definitely has an investment in unity - having us "clean up their messes" is not desirable for them and not desirable for us. It should be plainly obvious that everyone benefits when Iraq works things out on its own.

As far as our military presence... pretty much every major candidate desires to expand the military, and of course we're going to drop down from our current 150,000 troops very soon. I'd say that we're probably looking at having a long-term presence of about 50,000-70,000 (there are currently 47,000 American troops in Japan, btw). As a result, I don't see manpower needs being a problem. Also of note - Maliki wants an end to the occupation at the end of 2008. Whether this actually comes to pass, and whether or not it's mostly nominal, remains to be seen.


The last unanswered question - what do we do if we're attacked again? We're being attacked every day by al-Qaeda. The real problem would be a new sectarian free-for-all like the one that started in 2006. If that happened... I don't really know how to respond to that. One certainly hopes that people have had enough of the bloodshed and will avoid this.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

History DOES show that dividing a country doesn't end well (though usually it's when it's ARBITRARILY divided, like the Middle East was, post-WWI). If every group gets their own country, and there can be a way of keeping peace, things usually work out fairly well. It's when they're forced together (Yugoslavia, I'm looking at you) that violence erupts. Iraq as we know it exists because, post-WWI, the powers-that-be decided to make little countries to protect, regardless of the differences between the people suddenly shoved together.



Even if that means never leaving?

It took us 10 years to rebuild Germany and Japan, and they weren't even attacking us. Germany even had a democratic tradition before Hitler, so how can we expect to create a safe nation in 5 or 6 years? The timeline demanded by the Democrats to fix Iraq is unprecedented and really irrational.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

It took us 10 years to rebuild Germany and Japan, and they weren't even attacking us. Germany even had a democratic tradition before Hitler, so how can we expect to create a safe nation in 5 or 6 years? The timeline demanded by the Democrats to fix Iraq is unprecedented and really irrational.

That's partially my point. It was one thing to station troops in Germany, Japan, and everywhere else when we were just there to oversee things. Now we're there as...what? Security? The whole problem with the "war" is that we're now in this area where we can't move. We have NO options. It's either stay there and be seen as bastards (and have our troops be killed everyday), or leave and be seen as bastards (and, potentially, have some new terrorist group be formed around the basis that we left Iraq). The whole build-up to this war was a farce, and everyday we've been there has been a farce. Leaving isn't much of an option, but staying is like standing around while people shoot at you (which is, almost literally, what's happening), which isn't too bright a decision.

You guys have mostly forgotten my original point - that Iraqi unity is FAR more beneficial than Iraqi disunity. Yes, we could "divide the country up" to "fix the mistakes of the past", but the result would be terrible for the people involved. Iraq has been in its current boundaries since 1926. Further, Saddam Hussein has moved around many people into different regions. The result is that, just because a region is called "Shiite" or "Sunni" or "Kurd", doesn't mean that it's homogeneous. Splitting up Iraq along sectarian/ethnic lines may actually encourage MORE violence, not less - as each region tries to establish more homogeneity.

Could there BE any more violence?

And, largely, the Kurds are all in one area (part of Iraq, part of Turkey (which Turkey's pissed about) and part of...I forget where). So, really, you've just got the Sunnis and the Shiites left. Make a Kurdistan and you've taken out 1/3 of your problem (so what if it pisses of Turkey? They have a big enough country as it is).

The government definitely has an investment in unity - having us "clean up their messes" is not desirable for them and not desirable for us. It should be plainly obvious that everyone benefits when Iraq works things out on its own.

And, yet, they don't seem too eager.

I'd say that we're probably looking at having a long-term presence of about 50,000-70,000 (there are currently 47,000 American troops in Japan, btw). As a result, I don't see manpower needs being a problem.

Comparable levels are fine. Though I'm still interested in how big that leaves our standing army.

Also of note - Maliki wants an end to the occupation at the end of 2008. Whether this actually comes to pass, and whether or not it's mostly nominal, remains to be seen.

I'd chalk that up to Iraqis politicians learning how to lie out of their teeth to stay in office. And what greater evidence of democracy is there?

The last unanswered question - what do we do if we're attacked again? We're being attacked every day by al-Qaeda.

But not at home. Even our allies have had it fairly quiet since the London train bombing (though, if we're on track, SOMEONE should be getting attacked in 2008, or possibly these last days of 2007). Nothing makes a country's blood boil like a good old-fashioned terrorist attack on their own soil.

 

[The Big Al]

It took us 10 years to rebuild Germany and Japan, and they weren't even attacking us. Germany even had a democratic tradition before Hitler, so how can we expect to create a safe nation in 5 or 6 years? The timeline demanded by the Democrats to fix Iraq is unprecedented and really irrational.

We also had a plan for rebuilding Germany and Japan. We don't in Iraq. Leaving our troops to run around Iraq like chickens with their heads cut off is just as irrational.

 

[Fig]

Also, you didn't expect to be greeted with flowers and wild kisses in Germany and Japan.

Sane expectations sort of helped.

Plus they had somewhat more of a democratic background - BOTH of them. Plus they had just been completely, utterly beaten. Plus they had legitimately surrendered. Plus in Japan's case the country ultra-respected official leader collaborated with you.

That said, you got in there. You wanted to get in there. You deliberately chose to do it, despite the fact that lots of people called on you not to do it. You reelected president Doofus even after he had gotten you in this mess.

It's too late to back down now - after the shit you pulled the average Iraqi (not the one exploding themselves - the ones being exploded by the terrorists) into, you owe them that much. Leave without being sure the situation will not fall apart again the moment you're out, and you will legitimize every "american satan" commentary from that corner of the world. (They're already pretty legitimate, mind)

The only good reason to pull out is if and when you have very good reason to believe staying just make things worse for them (and not for you).

 

[Misty]

You guys have pretty much hit on my complaint - the problem is not the occupation itself, which is really a necessity (even the Democratic candidates admit this), but how it's being run. The lack of an exit strategy alone is crippling, because it makes it hard for the Iraqis to believe that we're acting in good faith, and it hurts domestic opinion because we don't really want to be there and we want to know what it's going to take.

 

[the gadfly]

I disagree. Part of the problem IS the occupation. While the U.S. troops are performing honorably, what the Iraqis hear about are Abu Ghraib and other alleged war crimes. They also know only a handful of American soldiers have been punished. In that part of the world, these are the things that get remembered and retold.

Let's not forget most U.S. troops in Iraq just graduated from high school and have never been abroad. What they want to do is return home alive and intact. They're not going to go out of their way to be friendly to the local populace, especially when the culture and language is so foreign.

What has the U.S. done to counter that image? Have they restored electrical power, water and sewage in Iraq? Not as far as I know.

Do I even have to mention Blackwater and other private U.S. security companies that are immune from BOTH U.S. law and Iraqi law?

The U.S. had a good plan to overthrow Saddam, but we never had a good plan about what to do next except to pick up the flowers that were going to be thrown at us. We still don't have a good plan for what we're doing in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus, god bless him, is the first person we've had in situ who seems to know what he's doing. His problem is that he has 4+ years of incompetence to overcome.

Now, as for Iraqi unity, there's a big problem there. Saddam was a Sunni. The Sunnis, a minority in Iraq, were favored by Saddam and controlled everything. He gassed the Kurds. He forbade Shiite religious rites and massacred thousands of Shia after the first gulf war. Neither group has forgotten nor I'd daresay forgiven.

Now that al-Maliki and the Shiites are in power, what incentive do they have to compromise with the Sunnis? What incentive do they have to compromise with the Kurds, an even smaller minority than the Sunnis?

What incentive do the Kurds, after years of protection due to the no-fly zones established after the first gulf war, have to compromise with anyone? The Kurdish zone is the most prosperous and peaceful part of Iraq.

Is it impossible for a leader to emerge who can unify the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites? Of course not. But there are none on the horizon.

So, what does the U.S. do?

 

[Misty]

I think the US has the ability to fix its problems and rebuild its image. To be honest, I think it already has, in small ways - there's a reason that many Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda and siding with us. It's because, while we've made some rather awful mistakes, it's an easy comparison to realize that we're not monsters like some of the insurgent groups. Granted, that's not saying much, but it's a start, and I think there's room to capitalize on that. The only problem is that I don't think Bush will capitalize very well, but judging by the way the votes are swinging, we have an excellent chance of electing a president who will change our course and give us a chance to do it right.

The Shiites (and, similarly, the Sunnis) need the Kurds, because the Kurds are in control of vast oil wealth which Iraq desperately needs. I will grant that the Kurds may not need or want to compromise much, but in fact this sometimes happens - like the Kurds offering to have an Arab deputy governor in Kirkuk to appease the Sunnis. As far as the Shiites needing the Sunnis... maybe they don't, and as noted, Maliki has made no special efforts to try, except to appease the United States. On the other hand, this question really only makes sense in a context where the United States is no longer gluing the nation together, so whether or not withdrawal helps with that is a moot point, I think.

 

[Misty]

Looks like things might come to a head faster than I had hoped. This will certainly get interesting.