Full Version: Down the Road in Iraq
Let’s move forward in time. We’ve stayed the course, the Iraqi’s are to the point where they can effectively manage the insurgency, the young democracy is following their constitution and we’re completely removed from that forsaken land.
As optimistic as I am, history is not on their side. A three thousand year track record indicates that in all probability this “experiment” will fail. Even though I opposed the war long before it started I sincerely hope Iraq is successful on every democratic level.
Others have expressed quite well how I feel.
Paladin Elspeth’s comment:
And as nighttimer put it:
There have been a couple of excellent threads discussing the success in Iraq. Based on what ever criteria you measure our success on:
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
As optimistic as I am, history is not on their side. A three thousand year track record indicates that in all probability this “experiment” will fail. Even though I opposed the war long before it started I sincerely hope Iraq is successful on every democratic level.
Others have expressed quite well how I feel.
Paladin Elspeth’s comment:
QUOTE
It seems to me I heard on the History Channel that the Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims have been quarreling with each other since the time of the Crusades--perhaps Vermillion can verify this. How like our United States of America to assume that we can solve a problem that has existed for many centuries by just staying the course and keeping our soldiers deployed in that land!
And as nighttimer put it:
QUOTE
The ideal that democracy can be imposed at gunpoint upon a people whom have never known the concept is doomed to failure.
There have been a couple of excellent threads discussing the success in Iraq. Based on what ever criteria you measure our success on:
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
Will Americans feel it was worth their efforts? I doubt it, but I don't think that matters. What matters is if Iraqi's feel it was worth it. After all, they bore the brunt of Saddams regime, and continue to bear the brunt of a war they did not start.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
I think very few westerners really understand all the dynamics in play in Iraqi politics. I know I don't. For what it's worth, I could see a new dictator rising and managing to keep the country together through force, either before or after a civil war, or fragmentation of the Iraqi state. I keep hearing conservatives saying that elections prove democracy is taking root in Iraq. Holding elections doesn't make a democracy; democracy only comes when all parties in an election respect the outcome. Does anyone really think that's going to happen?
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
Too late. It already has. I think it will continue to be so as long as there are foreign troops in Iraq, or the Iraqi government is perceived to be in the pocket of a foreign power.
Regarding sunnis and shiites quarreling since the Crusades: It goes back further than that. IIRC, the shia/sunni split came right after the death of Mohammed, and arose from a dispute over who would replace him as leader of Islam.
Will Americans feel it was worth their efforts? I doubt it, but I don't think that matters. What matters is if Iraqi's feel it was worth it. After all, they bore the brunt of Saddams regime, and continue to bear the brunt of a war they did not start.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
I think very few westerners really understand all the dynamics in play in Iraqi politics. I know I don't. For what it's worth, I could see a new dictator rising and managing to keep the country together through force, either before or after a civil war, or fragmentation of the Iraqi state. I keep hearing conservatives saying that elections prove democracy is taking root in Iraq. Holding elections doesn't make a democracy; democracy only comes when all parties in an election respect the outcome. Does anyone really think that's going to happen?
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
Too late. It already has. I think it will continue to be so as long as there are foreign troops in Iraq, or the Iraqi government is perceived to be in the pocket of a foreign power.
Regarding sunnis and shiites quarreling since the Crusades: It goes back further than that. IIRC, the shia/sunni split came right after the death of Mohammed, and arose from a dispute over who would replace him as leader of Islam.
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
Regardless of how the democracy effort works out, the answer is a clear no. The only mission of the US Military is to protect and defend the Constitution. It's purpose is not to enforce UN Resolutions or do nation building.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
President Bush will have to get on his knees before the United Nations and do some serious diplomacy, which I don't expect him to do. If he does do some serious diplomacy, here are the things that he's going to have to do.
1.) Come clean about the reasons for the invasion. Despite what the politicians in Washington said about the WMDs, the folks at the top knew that the evidence for it was flimsy. George Bush, Donald Rumsfield, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, and Joseph Lieberman are going to have to line up in a chain gang before the TV cameras and the United Nations and explain one by one why they supported the Iraqi invasion.
2.) Pay war reparations to the Iraqi people and pay money to Iraqis to rebuild their country. The Iraqi people need employment and one way to provide that is with good construction jobs. Unemployment is one of the causes behind the insurgency.
3.) Ask the American people to make unpopular sacrifices, sacrifices that I myself would not support. For starters, the nationbuilding effort in Iraq is going to cost real money. Not only will Congress have to repeal the tax cuts, they are going to have to raise taxes all across the board for everyone. The second sacrifice is going to be a military draft. If the politicians were willing to do that, they could ask the UN to come up with an equal number of peacekeepers.
Given that the politicians and the American people don't want to pay the full cost of building another country, we need to admit defeat and be prepared to deal with the consequences. Right now, the military personnel are feeling extreme personal pain from back-to-back deployments because there are too few soldiers for this difficult mission. Also, America is unwilling to do a military draft. On the financial burden, the Government has tried to hide the true financial cost by finding clever ways to borrow money. The Politicians even cut taxes during wartime. To pay for the full financial cost, the Government will have to cut Medicare and raise taxes for everyone, both rich and poor.
Regardless of how the democracy effort works out, the answer is a clear no. The only mission of the US Military is to protect and defend the Constitution. It's purpose is not to enforce UN Resolutions or do nation building.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
President Bush will have to get on his knees before the United Nations and do some serious diplomacy, which I don't expect him to do. If he does do some serious diplomacy, here are the things that he's going to have to do.
1.) Come clean about the reasons for the invasion. Despite what the politicians in Washington said about the WMDs, the folks at the top knew that the evidence for it was flimsy. George Bush, Donald Rumsfield, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, and Joseph Lieberman are going to have to line up in a chain gang before the TV cameras and the United Nations and explain one by one why they supported the Iraqi invasion.
2.) Pay war reparations to the Iraqi people and pay money to Iraqis to rebuild their country. The Iraqi people need employment and one way to provide that is with good construction jobs. Unemployment is one of the causes behind the insurgency.
3.) Ask the American people to make unpopular sacrifices, sacrifices that I myself would not support. For starters, the nationbuilding effort in Iraq is going to cost real money. Not only will Congress have to repeal the tax cuts, they are going to have to raise taxes all across the board for everyone. The second sacrifice is going to be a military draft. If the politicians were willing to do that, they could ask the UN to come up with an equal number of peacekeepers.
Given that the politicians and the American people don't want to pay the full cost of building another country, we need to admit defeat and be prepared to deal with the consequences. Right now, the military personnel are feeling extreme personal pain from back-to-back deployments because there are too few soldiers for this difficult mission. Also, America is unwilling to do a military draft. On the financial burden, the Government has tried to hide the true financial cost by finding clever ways to borrow money. The Politicians even cut taxes during wartime. To pay for the full financial cost, the Government will have to cut Medicare and raise taxes for everyone, both rich and poor.
QUOTE
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
That would be better than the alternative.a) No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic law.
[Note: The TAL and earlier drafts said that law may not contravene the verities of Islam. By specifying ISLAMIC LAW-- ahkam al-Islam-- this text enshrines the shariah or Islamic canon law quite explicitly in the constitution and would allow religious jurists to question secular legislation.]
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
I can see three possibilities, from most probable to least:
1) Iraq splits into three parts.
2) Iran takes over Iraq and instills a similar government.
3) The US continues to pour money/resources into the region to gain and retain influence.
The three-part split is well underway, with the two major factions being at each other's throats and the Kurds holding back to see what happens. The Kurds will join the frey to protect their land, and with the other two factions weakened, they'll have a shot at it.
Now say it all comes crashing down and heads into chaos, the strongest and most concerned neighboring country, Iran, can easily step in and take over. I think the Iraqi people would then welcome the strong centralism of Iran to get back to something close to peace.
The least likely thing is that the US will continue to do what we've been doing to date. Pullout within six to nine months is what I see coming down the pike.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
Probably not. The three-way split could open the door to cooperation in the region for mutual survival, a kind of EU thing where everyone gains something and everyone gives up something. Iraq needs room for compromise, and I don't see that happening if it remains a single country, but three sovereigns that cooperate has a prayer of a chance to work. It'd be like a tripod, each leg depending on the other and sharing the overall burden.
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
On this level, Saddam was our best bet for deterring terrorism. It was in his best interest to quell terrorists because they wanted his head too. But that's water under the bridge, over the dam, off into the oceans.
Obviously, keeping good diplomatic and trade relations are the ways to go, along with cooperative international police operations. Forcing the situation doesn't work.
I can see three possibilities, from most probable to least:
1) Iraq splits into three parts.
2) Iran takes over Iraq and instills a similar government.
3) The US continues to pour money/resources into the region to gain and retain influence.
The three-part split is well underway, with the two major factions being at each other's throats and the Kurds holding back to see what happens. The Kurds will join the frey to protect their land, and with the other two factions weakened, they'll have a shot at it.
Now say it all comes crashing down and heads into chaos, the strongest and most concerned neighboring country, Iran, can easily step in and take over. I think the Iraqi people would then welcome the strong centralism of Iran to get back to something close to peace.
The least likely thing is that the US will continue to do what we've been doing to date. Pullout within six to nine months is what I see coming down the pike.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
Probably not. The three-way split could open the door to cooperation in the region for mutual survival, a kind of EU thing where everyone gains something and everyone gives up something. Iraq needs room for compromise, and I don't see that happening if it remains a single country, but three sovereigns that cooperate has a prayer of a chance to work. It'd be like a tripod, each leg depending on the other and sharing the overall burden.
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
On this level, Saddam was our best bet for deterring terrorism. It was in his best interest to quell terrorists because they wanted his head too. But that's water under the bridge, over the dam, off into the oceans.
Obviously, keeping good diplomatic and trade relations are the ways to go, along with cooperative international police operations. Forcing the situation doesn't work.
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
It will most definitely be worth the efforts if you are an oil executive. The American taxpayers are footing the bill of this new acquisition, which is the standard operating procedure for U.S. foreign policy. First the cost was $87 billion, now the Bush administration is procuring funds in increments all in the billions of dollar range. The lie being sold to us is freedom for Iraqis and safety within our borders. On the aspect of security, we are safer from attack because foreigners are not allowed the usual civil rights in our lands, and our government has carte blanche to snatch anybody off the street and after that, one can only speculate. Iraqi freedom? Well, do we really care? No. It's hard for a conservative to make an argument with their mouth for Iraqi freedom while they use their foot to stomp on a Mexican's head, who is crossing the border with the hopes of feeding his family. It seems that hypocrisy has no boundaries. Safer? Yes. More freedom? No. Rich people getting richer? Does one need to answer?
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
The keys are the same keys that we used in Nicarauga, Panama and Gautemala. Massive destruction, the minority of the population in power and well-equipped militarily, American investors controlling the country's major resources and a work force of apathetic peasants. The influence will come in two forms, power and money. Those we place in power will maintain power if they do the bidding of the Multi-National Corporations. Those in power will be lavishly rewarding, not to the level of profit the US investors will see, but enough to keep their loyalty.
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
Iraq is now property of the United States. The elites have acquired a large amount of Middle East oil resources, we are not going anywhere so the relationship is going to be one of the beaten, humiliated house wife.
It will most definitely be worth the efforts if you are an oil executive. The American taxpayers are footing the bill of this new acquisition, which is the standard operating procedure for U.S. foreign policy. First the cost was $87 billion, now the Bush administration is procuring funds in increments all in the billions of dollar range. The lie being sold to us is freedom for Iraqis and safety within our borders. On the aspect of security, we are safer from attack because foreigners are not allowed the usual civil rights in our lands, and our government has carte blanche to snatch anybody off the street and after that, one can only speculate. Iraqi freedom? Well, do we really care? No. It's hard for a conservative to make an argument with their mouth for Iraqi freedom while they use their foot to stomp on a Mexican's head, who is crossing the border with the hopes of feeding his family. It seems that hypocrisy has no boundaries. Safer? Yes. More freedom? No. Rich people getting richer? Does one need to answer?
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
The keys are the same keys that we used in Nicarauga, Panama and Gautemala. Massive destruction, the minority of the population in power and well-equipped militarily, American investors controlling the country's major resources and a work force of apathetic peasants. The influence will come in two forms, power and money. Those we place in power will maintain power if they do the bidding of the Multi-National Corporations. Those in power will be lavishly rewarding, not to the level of profit the US investors will see, but enough to keep their loyalty.
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
Iraq is now property of the United States. The elites have acquired a large amount of Middle East oil resources, we are not going anywhere so the relationship is going to be one of the beaten, humiliated house wife.
QUOTE
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
I don’t see how this could happen. The US would have to allow this to happen and I can’t see it happening.
QUOTE
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
We will have continued influence including military support. I would add things like “most favored nation” trading status to the equation as well as some economic aid etc.
QUOTE
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
Our presence as above should help and let’s remember that the people of Iraq, the ones that are today losing their husbands, wives, and children to terrorists blowing themselves up, are unlikely to “forget” these people. In fact even now an increasing number of Iraqis including Sunni are turning in the “insurgents” to the US and Iraq forces for capture. Thousands have been murdered by these madmen. How can they ever be looked at as anything but murderers by the vast majority of Iraqi people?
QUOTE
Iraq is now property of the United States. The elites have acquired a large amount of Middle East oil resources, we are not going anywhere so the relationship is going to be one of the beaten, humiliated house wife.
Actually Iraq, unless I missed it, is still a sovereign nation and we own nothing of their “oil reserves”. If you have any proof we “own” oil reserves please post it here. If we are lucky some US companies will have the contracts to help develop some of Iraq’s oil fields. IMO we will never, ever recover (that is the government or the “elites” as you say) the 200 billion we will spend to free the country.
In five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or some other number of years, if Iraq is back to back to pre-invasion status or a similar variant, will it have been worth our efforts?
I agree what Author Musician said. I also foresee Iraq splitting up into three parts.
A civil war scenario could be a realistic result of the social/cultural dynamics currently at play in Iraq. The developments towards this are already showing. If this happens the whole of the Middle East will get sucked into it. Iran will definately see it as her responsibility to protect her Shi'ite brothers in the South of Iraq. The Sunni will seek the protection of influential countries like Saudi-Arabia, Syria, Egypt. And the Kurds ... they have fought all their lives for a free Kurdistan and they have allies among all the other Kurds living in Turkey, the North of Iran and in smaller sections of Armenia, Syria and Lebanon.
Hopefully it will not lead to a full blown war in the Middle East, but the chance that something like this will happen in say five years are there and if the U.S. will not be able to change this progress I suggest withdrawal as the only option. You do not want to end up in a civil war as sitting ducks, hated by everybody.
So to answer you question: no, unfortunately for all the lifes lost and destroyed, the result of the war in Iraq will in the end not be worth the cost the U.S. paid for it.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
There is a real danger that the new government of Iraq will fall into an isolated position, and will only get support from the U.S. government. Up till now I have little confidence in this government and have the feeling in Iraq it is not being regarded as something to obey. Up till now I am pretty pessimistic of the role of this new Iraqi government.
The break up will occur, I am sure of that and with it there is a big chance that everything built up by the U.S. in Iraq will fall apart, including the new government. How can you make sure the break up will be under controlled circumstances? That will be one of the main question for the future of Iraq and I have to admit I do not have a solution.
AuthorMusician, although I like your Tripod theory, I do not think it will ever happen.
There is too much anger and tension between the three main groups in Iraq, that cooperation seems like an utopia.
Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
That's a good question. Up till this moment I do not think the U.S. will have any grip on the development of terrorism in Iraq. The whole situation is falling into chaos and the endgoals, winning the fight against terrorism and establishing a stable and peaceful democracy in Iraq, seem further away than ever.
....... kind of pessimistic post, sorry about that.
I agree what Author Musician said. I also foresee Iraq splitting up into three parts.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 12 2005, 01:14 AM)
The three-part split is well underway, with the two major factions being at each other's throats and the Kurds holding back to see what happens. The Kurds will join the frey to protect their land, and with the other two factions weakened, they'll have a shot at it.
A civil war scenario could be a realistic result of the social/cultural dynamics currently at play in Iraq. The developments towards this are already showing. If this happens the whole of the Middle East will get sucked into it. Iran will definately see it as her responsibility to protect her Shi'ite brothers in the South of Iraq. The Sunni will seek the protection of influential countries like Saudi-Arabia, Syria, Egypt. And the Kurds ... they have fought all their lives for a free Kurdistan and they have allies among all the other Kurds living in Turkey, the North of Iran and in smaller sections of Armenia, Syria and Lebanon.
Hopefully it will not lead to a full blown war in the Middle East, but the chance that something like this will happen in say five years are there and if the U.S. will not be able to change this progress I suggest withdrawal as the only option. You do not want to end up in a civil war as sitting ducks, hated by everybody.
So to answer you question: no, unfortunately for all the lifes lost and destroyed, the result of the war in Iraq will in the end not be worth the cost the U.S. paid for it.
What are the keys to ensuring the new government will last well into the future? Does it include continued influence from the U.S. after we pull the troops?
There is a real danger that the new government of Iraq will fall into an isolated position, and will only get support from the U.S. government. Up till now I have little confidence in this government and have the feeling in Iraq it is not being regarded as something to obey. Up till now I am pretty pessimistic of the role of this new Iraqi government.
The break up will occur, I am sure of that and with it there is a big chance that everything built up by the U.S. in Iraq will fall apart, including the new government. How can you make sure the break up will be under controlled circumstances? That will be one of the main question for the future of Iraq and I have to admit I do not have a solution.
AuthorMusician, although I like your Tripod theory, I do not think it will ever happen.
There is too much anger and tension between the three main groups in Iraq, that cooperation seems like an utopia. Since this was a (cough) war on terror, what type of long term relationship must the U.S. establish with Iraq to ensure it doesn’t become the new Mecca for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
That's a good question. Up till this moment I do not think the U.S. will have any grip on the development of terrorism in Iraq. The whole situation is falling into chaos and the endgoals, winning the fight against terrorism and establishing a stable and peaceful democracy in Iraq, seem further away than ever.
....... kind of pessimistic post, sorry about that.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.