http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070915/ts_nm/iraq_dc

The political benchmarks, which include a crucial revenue-sharing oil law, are designed to build on the improved security and promote national reconciliation.

Iraqi lawmakers were not impressed.

"The Americans always try to pretend the responsibility for cleaning up this mess isn't theirs and tend to shift blame onto Iraq, Iran and Syria for everything that goes wrong," said veteran Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.


I caught that post while reading the news on Yahoo.

Questions are simple:

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?

2) What responsibility DOES Iraq, as a nation and society, have for "fixing" the problems, too many to list, of what is wrong with that nation, considering that the US destabilised that country by invading?

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?
Nope. Iraq's primarily, we're #2, then Britian.

2) What responsibility DOES Iraq, as a nation and society, have for "fixing" the problems, too many to list, of what is wrong with that nation, considering that the US destabilised that country by invading?
None at all. We should just pack up all of our marbles tomorrow and go home. Then if we hear even a peep out of Iraq that we don't like, we should send wave after wave of B-52s and bomb the entire country back into the Stone Age. If a few bombers go off course and annihilate Iran and Syria in the process, that's okay. Just to let the BDS victims have their jollies, we'll strap BushCo to the first stick of bombs we drop.

Their responsibility is to get their excrement together. We lanced the boil, they've got to clean things out.

To clarify then- the fact that we destroyed thier infrastructure, both political and bricks and mortor, set the stage for a civil war, and completley destroyed thier country- it is not our responsibility to sacrifice our soliders lives and spend the federal coffers dry to fix what we broke?

Do you deny that we broke Iraq in the first place?

Do you think we are the "good guys" for doing this?

Correct, its not our responsibility. Iraq was a hostile nation, under the control of a pyschopathic dictator, and presented a threat to both regional peace and world stability.

Iraq was already broken, rotted from within. Unfortunately, the rot was becoming a threat beyond its borders as well. So, just like a boil that threatens to infect an entire limb, we lanced it and have been attempting to clean it out. It is not our responsibility to do so, certainly not in the sense you seem to be advancing. It may be, however, quite prudent for us to do so.

Yes. It should be noted that nobody likes the pain of alchohol flowing across an infected wound, but the doctor irrigating the wound with antiseptic is the good guy.

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?
Iraq may have been a mess before America stuck its nose where it didn’t belong, but seeing as how we did, now we are stuck with the bigger mess we made of it. I think Iraq needs to step up, also; but with a good portion of their population running for the hills, the rest of them either scared of their neighbors and American soldiers or infighting with rival tribes, and the fact that their basic infrastructure is in shambles as a result of our interference… well, gosh, is it any wonder the Iraqis kind of throw up their hands in confusion?


Y’know, this whole gross boil scenario you keep putting out there is inaccurate. It is more accurate to say that the boil had been there for a long time, not getting better, but not getting worse either, until someone decided to force the body down, take a dull, dirty, rusty scalpel and start digging away at it, leaving the body to heal or die. When infection and rot set in, they dug around some more, poking around to see what else they could do. Basically, gangrene has set in, and it’s time to amputate the limb.

Very interesting statement. One need look no further to know why the Iraqi government has failed to live up to its end of the bargain in meeting the various milestones necessary for the government to progress.

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?

No, absolutely not. America can't 'fix' it...only the Iraqi's can. The problem is that Iraqi's haven't figured out how to get along. Only they can fix that.

2) What responsibility DOES Iraq, as a nation and society, have for "fixing" the problems, too many to list, of what is wrong with that nation, considering that the US destabilised that country by invading?

Loaded question, no? Sets forth premise not established as fact, namely that we destabilised them by invading. Assumes Iraq was 'stabilized' previously, which is certainly not necessarily the case. Certainly not unless you consider that whatever 'stability' was achieved was there through absolutely brutal and abhorent means, essentially achieved through terror and brutal suppression. Also ignores the fact that Iraq was a strong destabilizing influence in the entire Middle East, and therefore a significant destabilizing force on the entire world. One may argue any or all of these points, but it would certainly be nice if assumptions as to their answers weren't included as fact in the questions.

That aside, plus refer to my answer above. Iraq is soley, completely, and totally responsible for setting up their own government and figuring out how to get along. They're the only ones who can do that. The more other entities try to enforce a solution, probably the less likely that it would succeed. Therefore, even if one assumed that we did indeed destabilize the country by invading, the answer is still that the Iraqi's are responsible for 'fixing' it. Iraqi lawmakers would do well to grasp that fact, and if they did, we wouldn't need to be even having these discussions any more.

All of which doesn't mean that we shouldn't provide as much assistance as possible. I agree with BikerDad on this point:


There are a great many reasons it is indeed prudent for us to provide as much assistance as we can. However, progress will not be made until Iraqi lawmakers grasp the fact that it is up to them, not us, to 'fix' it. Regardless of how anyone feels about whose 'responsibility' it is, it simply can't be done unless the Iraqi's themselves take the lead in doing it. No group in Iraq will accept an American solution to the problem, it MUST be an Iraqi solution. We can't make them get along...they have to do that themselves. We can try to keep them forcibly separated, but that is only a temporary solution. Eventually, when we leave, there needs to be a framework in which they can get along without us there, and only they can put that framework together, because they all need to be accepting of it and have buy-in in order for it to be successful.

Perhaps another way to look at it--What do you think the Iraqi lawmaker who made the statement above would say were America to determine and enforce a solution? I can absolutely guarantee he'd be screaming about how heavy handed we were being, how we were favoring one side over the other, and how Americans shouldn't be telling Iraqi's how to run their country. See...we can't win that fight. They have to be the ones putting forward the solution. And they can't do that until they accept that it is indeed their responsibility to do it. If it really is 'our' responsibility, there is a very simple solution. One country, majority rule. Of course, this would leave our Kurdish lawmaker out in the cold, but it works perfectly well for us--something our Kurdish lawmaker might consider before making such statements. But I think it illustrates very well that not only is it their responsibility for figuring out themselves how to get along, it is actually in their best interest to do so as well.

Okay- since the "disease" was Saddam- why was it our responsibilty to "liberate" the Iraq poeple in the first place- wasn't it thier responsibility to have whomever in power that they wished to have lead them? They seem quite willing to die to kill Americans- why were they so unwilling to do so against Saddam?

It is completely stupid to suggest that somehow we have been threatened by this guy, since all WMD claims were debunked, and that he was obviously contained within his own country. So really, we just didn't like the guy, and that gave us the right to destroy everything they had?

And BD- the infrastructure and security of the country were just fine before we got there- they did have working infrastructure under saddam, and it was a safer place to live prior to our invasion. We just made it far worse and more dangerous. Pretty bad when we can't even make the benchmark of making the country more liveable compared to Saddam, don't ya think?

It wasn't our responsibility. "Liberating" the Iraqi people was simply a fortuitous by-product of eliminating Saddam.

Questions are simple:

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?
No but we need to help finish what we started and Iraq then need to maintain their fragile democracy.

The country was a mess before we “invaded”. Under UN sanction, a brutal dictatorship responsible for the murder of up to a million civilians, some of them killed with VX – Iraq was 100 Billion + in debt. Their infrastructure was a disaster long before the war.

The country is certainly not stable yet but the foundation for a democracy is there and the Iraqi government needs to size the opportunity to become the first democracy in the Arab world.

Pare of their problem today, from what I have heard from experts, are what we would call “States Rights” issues. We, as a nation struggled with them and still do today and the opinio0n is Iraq expected to resolve these issues quickly but that was optimistic – at best.

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?
Big questions, but reasonable. In some respects it's our responsibility, in others it on the Iraqis. Either they want a better life of they don't. I think America is trying to do a good job with financial support, engineering and security expertise, and trying to get the UN involved in a role that is their best suit. Humanitarian and organizational support from the UN is important.

2) What responsibility DOES Iraq, as a nation and society, have for "fixing" the problems, too many to list, of what is wrong with that nation, considering that the US destabilised that country by invading?
Let's face it, things sucked for them under Saddam. Don't buy all this crap about it was better. It was better as fair as infrastructure, but to a limit. We didn't take them from Qatar-level paradise to Ethiopian ghettos. Saddam was building golden palaces and a big army, do you think that was cheap? Need I mention the other more important aspects of life....called liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Anyone think happiness is found in a mass grave? So they're having problems with electricity, well of course that means nothing else is going well right? How many countries in history were able to maintain perfect utility services while fighting was going on in their land? Every time I see footage of Iraq I see cars driving around and people busy doing things. Knowing the liberal press, they should be showing us ghost towns with dead bodies and naked children running around. So I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Who believes that Saddam had engineers prior to the war better than ours after the war? Before you assume they were, ask yourself how come he had to higher German companies to build a ton of infrastructure over there.

Bottomline, the Iraqis need to get off the arses and WORK.

Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?

There are two ways to answer this question: (1) does the US have a moral responsibility to "fix" Iraq and (2) does the US have a pragmatic responsibility to "fix" Iraq?

1a. Morally the US is on the hook for Iraq. The US invaded. The US occupies. The US is fighting. Civilians are dying at the US's hands (not exclusively so, of course). Enemies that didn't exist before the US invasion exist now post-invasion. The US destroyed much of Iraq's infrastructure. The US has been involved in some heinous scandals (some consider war crimes).

1b. Morally the US is on the hook for the US. The US executive has continually made the argument that a stable (and democratic) Iraq is essential for US security. If Iraq is unstable, then the US, by definition, is insecure. It would be immoral for the US executive to not "fix" Iraq assuming the stability argument is true.

2. Pragmatically the US cannot fix Iraq. The only realistic way Iraq can be fixed is if Iraq fixes itself. From Iraq's point of view, the US has done more harm than good. Thus, the US is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The moral position and the pragmatic position are in direct conflict: both cannot be true. Since the moral position is little help in fixing Iraq, I go with the pragmatic position. This means that the US needs to drop it's moral posturing entirely. It also needs to admit it cannot "fix" Iraq.

I suppose this is part of your solution space? Once the admission occurs all will be better. Here's my advice to you.

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?

Now that we’re in the thick of it? Probably not, but that doesn’t stop us from feeling obligated to. The scathing disapproval of all the other countries in the world certainly doesn’t help either. Before we invaded, Iraq had to take care of all its own messes—now it we take care of its messes, and all the new messes we started by arriving in the first place.
We invaded a sovereign country. We “liberated them”. If you want that point, I’ll concede it. We also liberated a boiling pot of racial and religious tension, in a country whose culture and values are completely inscrutable to us. (In its defense I should say that our values are equally inscrutable to them) I’m not saying we’re responsible for fixing Iraq. But chances are, that unless Russia, or China suddenly feels in an altruistic mood, we’re the only ones who will.

2) What responsibility DOES Iraq, as a nation and society, have for "fixing" the problems; too many to list, of what is wrong with that nation, considering that the US destabilized that country by invading?

It may sound ridiculous, but I think that the only successful governing system in Iraq will be a theocracy. The bitter lies of politicians are much easier to swallow when hidden by a theological shroud—we are speaking, after all, of a culture that for centuries has associated leadership, with only Allah, and no others. Only when the Iraqi people believe that they are rebuilding their country for their own benefit, and that of god’s, will they feel truly motivated to strive towards that goal. As it stands, let’s face it, we haven’t’ exactly given them the impression that their fate is in their own hands, have we?

As for destabilization, warranted, we’ve done plenty of that. Under Saddam’s thumb, filthy as it was, Iraq operated. People lived in constant fear of his secret police, dissidents died all the time, and genocide was carried out on a regular basis, but the country as a whole was stable. We’re the ones who broke that stability, in order to topple a dictator. We yanked almost half a century’s worth of rigid infrastructure out from under their feet. Is it any wonder the state the country is in now?

We need to fix it, but we can’t fix all of it. Iraq does bear some responsibility in this—not out of culpability, but more from necessity—if they don’t assist us, there’s no real way that any progress will be made. And eventually, they will need to stand on their own two feet; the only problem is that the day when they can, is years and years away.

In the end, it’s a simple question of morality. If we want to end things, we can do so relatively quickly—incite civil war, throw money at whoever survives, and go on home. Bloody, brutally inefficient, America epitomized. Or, we could come face to face with the truth that the problem in Iraq is not something we can solve with a simple snap of our fingers, and settle in for the long run.

The only problem is-one is cheap and easy, and one is time-consuming, and unimaginably difficult. And we all know what the nation chooses when such choices are offered.

1) Is Iraq America's, and America's alone, responsibility to "fix"?

Historically, the answer is absolutely not. If you look at instances where regions were "fixed" after a war, you'll see they were for a reason. Germany, Japan, the U.S. South, South Korea, Taiwan. We helped for a self-serving reason in each of these cases. There is no responsibility, ever. There are only consquences of (in)action.

Consider how we ignored Cambodia, a monster largely of our creation, allowed that to continue unchecked, and then finally Vietnam (!!!) invaded them, and ended the tragedy (for a reason).

So we must ask, do we have a reaon to help Iraq? I can think of three decent reasons:

A. De facto control of strategic oil fields.
B. A bastion of military strength in this troubled region.
C. Because we told the world at large that we would.


2) What responsibility DOES Iraq, as a nation and society, have for "fixing" the problems, too many to list, of what is wrong with that nation, considering that the US destabilised that country by invading?

Same terms. They have no enforced responsiblity, but I'd say the consequences here are stiffer for inaction. It seems that the only people who can benefit from turmoil would be the foreign terrorists, who want to avoid the appearance of a U.S. victory, and local militias that want to control politics inside Iraq. The only other selling point is the desire that we simply go away, which naturally is the one thing that we won't do, since in invalidates 2 of our 3 reasons above.

So it's a Catch-22, we can't leave while they are unstable (if then), and they won't stabilize while we're there (if ever).

So the "winning strategy" is to sit tight, make clear to the locals we ain't going anywhere, and wait until they accept this as normal. Also, turning the locals against the foreign fighters seems to be having some effect, at least in some areas. Perhaps, if we continue to support these groups and regions within Iraq, one by one, we will win them over.

Unfortunately, I think history agrees that it is much easier to maintain a local insurgency than a foreign standing army, and our presence, and the regular atrocities (real and rumoured), will make the next generation of Iraq (that survive) hate us much worse than their parents ever have. Just as we keep hearing in the news, our present course is going to take a long time (decades).