Well, it appears martial law has been declared in Iraq and according to this report, they are under a state of emergency for 60 days.

This leaves me scratching my head for a few reasons. First, what happened to the poor suffering people wanting to be liberated? If it's a small group of insurgents, why is the entire country under martial law? Secondly, wasn't there supposed to be an election in January? Does this run into that time frame? Meaning, will people be voting while under martial law?

So, my questions for debate are:
Should martial law have been expected and been a normal part of this process?
Will martial law impact the elections and/or the results?

Sometimes the world just seems like one giant mad house and you have to laugh in order to not cry.


Should martial law have been expected and been a normal part of this process?

I think martial law has been declared for one very simple reason. The impending attack on Fallujah is targetted at the Sunni insurgency and the US forces have brought together all the best units they have in Iraq to take part in it. In order to launch this attack they have had to call up units from other parts of the nation, including the UK's Black Watch soldiers to fill in the gap.

This is a problem because the rest of Iraq's insurgency forces are Shia Muslims and they probably don't much care about the Sunni Muslims, but may see an advantage in having US troops tied down in Fallujah (and thus spread even thinner than before through out the rest of Iraq)

Martial law is probably the only tool left to Allawi to try to counter the ever growing attacks against his police and militia forces.

Unfortunatly for Allawai (& his backer in Washington) he really has no 'mandate' to decree martial law so I doubt it will mean much to the Iraqi population though it may help coalition troops patrolling the roads at night.


Will martial law impact the elections and/or the results?

I doubt it will.

I think the bulk of Iraqi's may simply vote according to their convictions, and we shall see how Iraq's 'moral majority' feels about such things as the recent US bombing of the hospital in Fallujah.

I wasn't sure what the significance of invoking martial law really was so I looked up the definition:

Main Entry: martial law
Function: noun
1 : the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power
2 : the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety

I take this to mean that the Iraqi government has basically handed power back to the US Military and we are officially occupiers again. Didn't take long for the government we installed to fail.

Should martial law have been expected and been a normal part of this process?
I think, like you said, Allawi has no mandate and the US military has, for all intents and purposes, been running the show all along. Even after the so called hand off. This doesn't really change anything...I believe it's only to prepare the American public for the news they're about to see on the coming blood bath the military is about to create in Fallujah.

Will martial law impact the elections and/or the results?
I don't think the elections are going to be seen as legitimate with or without martial law. The Iraqi people are naturally suspicious of such things and our actions have only convinced them we will install whoever we want no matter what.

Let your scalp rest easy, I got the answers.

1. The poor suffering people wanting to be liberated are largely still there, some of them are enjoying the benefits of liberation in the more stable ares of the country.

Others are prevented form doing so by idiots who like to pretend that they can free the country from foreign influence by executing dozens of native police officers.

This of course is while the number one thing on the minds of most Iraqis is security.

Which leads into #2.

2.The entire country is under martial law so that it will be easier to stop insurgents form fleeing from the upcoming coordinated assaults in the Sunni Triangle. The insurgency likes to export its nonsense from places like Fallujah to areas of the country where the resistance is less popular, it helps them in the PR battle.

3. I believe the martial law is set to end right before elections (off the top of my head I think the date is January 27).


Standards for failure are pretty low, eh?

Not what it means at all, control will remain in the hands of the interim government which will itself have the final word on any major operations conducted by coalition forces.

I've seen no indication of that, indeed political involvement is being encouraged by leaders across the country.

This is a mole-hill, let's not mistake it for a mountain.

turnea


While I don't dispute this, I am curious as to why you suppose that the majority of Iraqis might think that the coalition forces represent security.

I can see why you and I might think so, but I don't see how the Iraqi's might. After all why should they view an occupying christian army as 'security'?


And what will happen do you suppose if the Iraqi's vote in a hard liner like (for example) al Sadr?


Martial law is a 'mole hill'?

If you think that, then what do you call 1,100+ dead US soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's?

...A storm in a tea cup?

Through paying attention to news sources and polls. Polls say (as of the last one I read that is) that most Iraqis do not want coalition forces to leave immediately.

New reporters often ask Iraqis why, the usual answer is because Iraqis recognize the the country is quite likely to fall into chaos with coalition forces present.

Iraqis are not a wholly irrational people, they know the real threat to their society comes from the insurgents.


He'll bluster and bluster but get nothing done in an arena where his wit means more than his gun. (Hey, that rhymes!)

The Iraqi constitution allows for a multi-faceted government.

Compared to what could be happening, pretty close.

Should martial law have been expected and been a normal part of this process?

Yes it should be. It's about time I might add. Martial Law is the only reasonable solution to the crisis. Train Iraqi's who are willing to fight for Democracy. The large majority want a Democracy. This is the misunderstanding from many in the western world. Do you really believe that the majority of Iraqi's want something other than Democracy? If so how do you support this idea? 80 attacks out of a pop. of 20 million and 80% want elections to take place... seem's to me that many are underestimating the Iraqi's will toward Democracy.

Will martial law impact the elections and/or the results?

This is complicated as is the situation in Iraq. Even after watching the documentaries coming out of Iraq I cannot answer that question but I believe the answer is yes.

Should martial law have been expected and been a normal part of this process?
Well, I suppose techinically it could be argued that the time between invasion and the Allawi provisional government, when coalition military forces were in charge, was martial law. Going back to it now with a couple of thousand Iraqi troops and police into the mix (especially given that the total numbers will be more or less the same as initial troop numbers immediately post-invasion; most countries have reduced their committed forces since then) will not, I suspect, make much material difference on the ground.

Those that liked the security presence last time around will still do so, and those that did not will be just as antipathetic as they were last time.

Will martial law impact the elections and/or the results?
Frankly, I doubt it will have much additional impact - I think people's minds are not going to be made up one way or the other based on whether or not martial law is or is not in effect.

The concerning thing on this score is that there have already been some elections in the "secure" south of Iraq, and the turn-outs there were in the low 20-percent range. This does not bode well for mass public support of the post-Allawi government (whether or not Mr Allawi plays any part in it). It will be very easy for opponents to question the legitimacy of any government elected by so few people.

Other imminent factors might make a difference - if Fallujah turns into a bloodbath, it will be a cakewalk to paint it as the new Guernica and no amount of persuasion will make people happy about it. If it goes according to coalition aspirations and draws the teeth of extremist oppostion, then people might buy into the idea of elections more than they seem to have so far. Like in the West, people vote when they think it will make a difference, and they don't when they think it won't. As well as military rule achieving the intended results with no unintended adverse ones, there needs to be a concerted PR campaign to sell the idea that voting matters and will help make life better for the man in the souk.

turnea

Has it occured to you that perhaps the reason why the reporters get such favourable answers is because they don't actually venture into those area's where they're likely to be shot at or kidnapped?

And do you lend credence to the report that claimed at least 100,000 Iraqi's had died as a result of violence this year? That was a scientific poll carried out by a respectable body.


Yes, probably. But thats not what I meant. Perhaps I should have been clearer? ...what will his possible election mean for US policy?

What will it mean if after all this warfare, the end result is an Iranian backed Shia government that demands the US forces leave Iraq?


The Iraqi constitution has never been accepted by the Iraqi people.

And here is the pure hypocrisy in the neo-con/ Washington position, Iraq, like Palestine is a nation created by the western powers.

If there are no such people as the Palestinians, then there are no Iraqi's either.

The idea that the 'Iraqi people' are of one mind is probably a fantasy, but if there is one factor that unites all the natives of Iraq, then it is most likely their faith.



Are you aware that the USA is currently engaged in the heaviest fighting since the Vietnam war?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Vampiel

I don't know how you can know what the majority of Iraqi's think given that there is no way to know such thing in Iraq. No national poll, no national consensus and no way of knowing that they want. Sure, there must be millions who would like democratic rule, but that doesn't mean they want any help from the USA and its christian army.

And 80 attacks? The daily average in Iraq is over 80 attacks.

I notice as well, that several posters here and else where at AD, have made the point that there are Iraqi units fighting alongside the US troops this time, and it strikes me that perhaps this is really what Fallujah is all about. Setting one group of Iraqi's against another in order to soldify a segment of the population into a pro US stance. History shows the US tried a similar tactic with the South Vietnamese, and history also shows that this tactic failed due to the ease with which the North Vietnamese were thus able to infiltrate the ARVN forces.

Much the same thing has been happening in Iraq... LINK

It is Allawi who gave the order, it is Iraq troops that are fighting, and it is Allawi, not the US that gave the order to go into Fallujah The only thing that is US military are the troops and the plans, the commands to declare martial law come from the Iraqi's. So it is a flawed argument to claim that because US troops are in the country, the country is under US occupation. If this were true then we would say that Great Britian, France, Cuba, China, Japan, Germany, etc. are all under US occupation since they have US troops within their borders.

Should martial law have been expected and been a normal part of this process?
The declaration of martial law is nothing more then a warning for those within the cities to remain within their homes in the evenings. Those who are not at home are enemies. The US is using night vision goggles and carrying out all attacks at night.

Secondly, it has been martial law for a week, the reason being to give Iraqi's time to move into safer places. The US has flooded the city of Fallujah with leaflets for a week telling people to leave. The US military is preparing the battle field in order to prevent high civilian causalities. In fact, last night, the Iraqi troops took the hospital in Fallujah in order to prevent insurgent attacks on the hospital and to prevent injured insurgents from seeking help without being watched. In the same strike, the US military took a three story unoccupied office building as a command center to be able to keep in eye on the city of Fallujah.

Thirdly, the Iraqi military has begun doing human resources opps (talking to those who are refugees of the city of Fallujah) and have been well received. This invasion is welcomed due to the bullying of the insurgents, the insurgents controls over mosque, and the insurgents daily trials and attacks on civilians of Iraq. People are willing to give up some basic freedoms (curfew) for a moment (60 days) in order to have their country back. During World War II, the West Coast had black outs, which is where all the lights were turned off in the cities and no one was allowed out at night, in order to prevent Japanese bombing attacks. People are willing to sacrifice certain freedoms for the benefit of the nation in a long run.

Will martial law impact the elections and/or the results?
The 60 days is up before the election. The goal of the 60 days is to remove the insurgents in order to have free elections in all parts of Iraq. This will have no impact unless:

1. The martial law goes longer then 60 days
2. The martial law does not remove the insurgents
3. The martial law remains during the 60 days longer then it takes to secure the city

However if any of the above happen, it only means Allawi will probably not be elected.

The number was between 8,000 and 190,000 so they just estimated it to be 100,000.

At least acknowledge estimation's based on this "science" is far from accurate.



Sure there isnt, unless it fit's "your agenda", sort of like the 100,000 dead civilians estimate.

So why cant we just fool ourselves and you can take a look at my "bogus" numbers to.
http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/myths.htm

80,000 Iraqi children are alive today because the Coalition Forces took Saddam Hussein from power.

Polls show 75% of Iraqis want a democracy.

51% of Iraqis say their country is going in the right direction.

By some estimates, Saddam tortured and killed five times as many people as died in the Hiroshima blast

200,000-300,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam, Chicago Tribune May 26, 1992; according to the Iraq Foundation, the Iraqi defense minister in 1992 bragged of killing 300,000 Shi°ia after the 1991 uprising; 270 mass graves have been reported in Iraq since the end of Saddam°s regime, primarily in the Shi°ia areas; some estimates say that the graves contain as many as 400,000 people

If you include all the people indirectly killed by Saddam it would top a million easy.

60% of Iraqis surveyed believe that the attacks are caused by people from outside Iraq to destabilize their country.
86% of Iraqis surveyed say that the attacks are an attempt to divide Iraq and incite civil warxi.
Democracy offers Iraq the hope of peace, stability and a better life, while the people attacking the coalition forces offer only chaos and prolong internal troubles in Iraqxii.
- 72% of Iraqis agree with this
- 19% disagree
61% of Baghdadis say that ousting Saddam Hussein is worth whatever hardship they are enduringxiii.
This increases to 74% among the Shi'ia, who were most oppressed by Saddamxiv.
Between April and June, public support for radical Shi°ia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr dropped from 80% to 50%



That's true but it's also the same thing we have done in almost every other war in history, especially in Afghanistan. Of course you like the Vietnam comparison better because the US lost that war. Im not attempting to paint a rosy picture, it's just that there is good news in Iraq that you dont read about.

I thought these pictures, taken by an Iraqi blogger, where quite humurous.

http://img56.exs.cx/img56/1721/PDVD_30.jpg
http://img56.exs.cx/img56/992/PDVD_31.jpg
http://img56.exs.cx/img56/3595/PDVD_33.jpg

(note : that last pic is at a graduation cerimony)

Vampiel

It is a poll, so its accuracy can never be a guarantee. I have no cause to doubt the conclusions reached by the poll however. I do not think the Lancet is in the habit of publishing idle speculation.

Until I see a more comprehensive poll by an independent body then the number is as valid as any other, and certainly cause for concern.


As an interested observer do I have an agenda? I am not aware of it.
Perhaps it is just that I am not so eager to believe that things are going so well?


Well, I don't have a problem with any of those figures really. They are all the results of polls though and have to be treated with the same scepticism you showed the 100,00 dead figure. Why is it you are sceptical with regards to one set of numbers but not the other?

Do you have an agenda?

And how is any of this germane to the question of martial law?


But you are attempting to paint a rosy picture! Your trying to portray the war in Iraq as some sort of a success.

I personally do not see much of a comparison in Iraq with Afghanistan. I used the example of Vietnam because I believe the USA was in Vietnam for the same basic reason that it is in Iraq. I do not believe that Iraq is in any way related to the 'war' on terror as Afghanistan was and I do not believe what took place in Afghanistan can be used as a justification for what happens in Iraq. Iraq to me resembles Vietnam or the French war in Algeria where a western power uses its military to maintain a grip on a region and uses a convenient 'ism' (communism/ terrorism) as justification for its actions.


I don't read blogs and I don't see the validity of any argument that seeks to excuse war and death on polls and blogs either.

I hope you'll excuse my scepticism, I don't mean to be rude or personal.

Everyone has an agenda. There's no such thing otherwise. We are all human and deduct information within our realm of reality and logic. We tend to slant information given to us through our own interpretation. Things change when passed from person to person, ever play "telephone"?



I never said I was not skeptical, in fact I said let us "fool ourselves".



Yep. To bring Democracy to Iraq. Having a positive outlook yet admitting problems is the first step. I donated alot of money to the cause. Having a pessimistic view is to concede defeat.



According to the poll, most Iraqi's want Democracy but they also see security as a top priority. Temporary martial law may or may not bring about both of those. This is not permanent.



No im not. You take in bad news so easily but ignore the good news. I only try to balance the two. The war in Iraq is all about the war on terror. It was the original reason used to goto Iraq and remains the reason that we are still in Iraq.



You should. There's lot's of Iraqi blog's out there and honestly they are alot more objective than the MSM.

How am I attempting to "excuse" war an death? To the contrary the war in Iraq is about the opposite, to prevent war and death.

Unfortunately war and death was the result of Saddam not the US. We did support him in the beggining to counter act the Islamic extremists and realized the critical error of that support. We are simply intervening on behalve of humanity. Would you rather Saddam hold the throne? Would that prevent "war and death"?

It's simple the US loves freedom. We support freedom for all and are willing to make sacrifices to give that freedom whether it be the poor Somalian in Africa or the middle class dentist in Kosovo. GWB understand's the American people and is simply carrying out our mandate.

Yes the risk's are high, the death toll is high but the objective is just and the goal is liberty and the end result of that objective is to undercut the support of radical Islam.

Martial law may be required to root out the small percentage of the population in order to bring liberty.

Vampiel

Yes. Every one has an agenda. That much is true, but that doesn't mean to say their agenda is as easily defined as you seem to be indicating.

For my part, I am more interested in learning than teaching. I don't know, and can't say what the Iraqi's want, I can only absorb the lessons of Iraq as I learn about them and try to understand what it all means. If I have any agenda other than that it is only the continued safety and security of Denmark, Europe and our allies.

And I'm not as convinced as I once was that the war in Iraq is going to bring security.


I see.

Do you believe, in the light of your personal involvement that you see things objectively?
By which I mean, how sure are you that your not just denying the bad news because you don't want to concede a possible defeat?


Not quite. I personally do not believe that any 'good news' from Iraq is worth much debate. I raise the issues I do in response to the news I hear which give rise to my concerns.

Regarding the 'war' on terror and Iraq. Yes, that was the original reason used. Just as communism was the original reason used to justify the Vietnam war. Does that mean that America is really in Iraq because of terrorism? I don't think so. Neither Bush nor Blair had made a secret of their desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein prior to 11 Sept 2001 (when terrorism suddenly became so important) and there has never been any case that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism.

All this stuff about Saddam Hussein being a terrible dictator was equally true when he was receiving US backing. He didn't suddenly change over night.

And then there is the case of Saudi Arabia, where the presence of US troops had become such a hot topic amongst Saudi extremists and was putting such pressure on the house of Saud that it became an impossible position for the King of that nation to have US soldiers stationed there.

All in all Iraq, to me, looks like a global super power consolidating its hold on a volatile region and I see no evidence that Iraqi democracy is anything but a convenient excuse to justify the lengths the US government and its pawn Allawi will go to to establish Iraq as the new bastion of US power in the middle east.


Yes, and there are a lot of Iraqi blogs that portray Iraq as a disaster area just as there are a lot of Iraqi's on Danish television talking about US aggression and indifference to civilian deaths. However these are all subjective and highly personal views of the region, and I have no guarantee that anything written in a blog is genuine. There are plenty of liars in this world.


It depends. On this point I am in two minds. Whilst I welcomed and looked forward to the fall of Saddam Hussein, I am not totally convinced that removing him was the wisest course of action without substantial ground work and preparation having been done prior to the invasion.

I see the biggest danger in Iraq as being an Iranian backed popular rising and any valid election in Iraq is an open door for such an event.

I would much rather have seen a popular Iraqi army, in place before the invasion. Not some tacked on after thought, now a year after the fact.


If that were true, then how can you explain all the instances where the USA has helped overturn democracies in favour of military junta's and dictators? Remember the Shah of Iran? Remember Pinochet?

The American people may have the best intentions in mind, but the American people have little if any influence over what is done in their name.


Perhaps. Or perhaps the Iraqi's have their own idea's about the matter and the freedom and ease with which the rebels are able to operate, as well as the high rate of desertion from the Iraqi army units is a sign of how a substantial portion of the population feels on the matter. As an American you should be well aware of the fact that it is very simple for a loud minority to dominate a silent majority.

Your insistence, or GW bush's convictions can't change the fact that the bulk of news coming out of Iraq indicates that the entire endeavour, from the initial invasion of Iraq to the attack on Fallujah is characterized by a chronic political mismanagement. By which I mean, that the US military performed well, but the political implications and long term dangers were obviously not taken into account.

There is no popular uprising in Iraq as a result of the down fall of Saddam Hussein. There has been no surge to democracy. There was no call for freedom before the invasion and since the people of that nation have no voice, then we still cannot know what it is they truly want.

Currently the only real mandate the USA has in Iraq is superior firepower.

See, this is patently untrue. The second you cleanse yourself of this faulty assumption the sooner you'll understand U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. has opposed freedom in Iran, Chile (you never hear people talking about the other September 11th), Guatamala, Vietnam, Greece, Italy, the Phillipines, El Salvador, and Venezuala, just to name a few. What is the relevance of this? Well, quite simply, it demonstrates that the U.S., while it may have an interest in freedom, is not overly concerned with it; and Iraq is the perfect example.

Bringing it all around to Iraq... Certain elements in the government are obviously in support of a DEMOCRATIC government, but this does NOT imply freedom. Saddam held regular elections, and his regime was not democratic. At the same time FDR was able to extend extend his term in office beyond the Constitutional limit during the Second World War, and that by itself didn't render the U.S. undemocratic. To understand Iraq we have to recognize that Freedom and Democracy are not interchangeable, they just happen to intersect a great deal.

UltimateJoe

Just a quick question UJ. Which other 11 September are you thinking of with regards to Argentina?

Are you confusing Argentina for Chile? (11 September 1973 was the day that Pinochet usurped power from the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende) or is there another significance to the date that I am unaware of with regards to Argentina?

Dammit, you're right. Consider my post amended.

No it's not. I understand US foreign policy, what I said is true. The US love's freedom. Our world leader's do not always support freedom directly.

Either way the citizen's of the United State's love freedom. Even the guy who burn's the US flag love's freedom.

It is not "patently untrue". Americans love for freedom and US foreign policy do not always directly meld with each other. That's called politics.


I love it when these examples are brought up. It only justifies the invasion all the more.

This seem's to have turned into another war justification thread. If you wish to continue please respond to this thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8417

Maybe I just don't understand the connections here, but how do UJ's examples justify the war? Could you please explain your reasoning?

Also, I agree with you Vampiel that America loves Freedom, but I would also assume others love it. America fights freedom when it matters to us. When our interests are in jeopardy we fight, but we don't fight on principle, which I think would be the "high moral ground" here. If Americans are such humanitarians then why don't we help all nations in the order they sign up? If we're gonna get rid of dictators then why don't we get rid of all of them regardless?

I would be more inclined to say that we had certain interests in Iraq and wanted to preserve them, and what better way than take out a dictator and be the knights in shining armor.

Should martial law have been expected and been a normal part of this process?

Maybe, but it seems like if martial law was to be enacted, then it should've happened earlier, after "major fighting" was over. Right now it seems that we're losing control because the Bush Admin. has been trying to paint a rosy picture for the last few months. Whether or not America and Iraq are losing control to the insurgents, I don't know, but I do know that it seems like we are.


Will martial law impact the elections and/or the results?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it wont affect the elections, but that's only because it's November 9th. As I said above, I think some people will interpret it as the Bush Admin. losing control and doing a generally poor job of mismanaging post-war Iraq; whereas others will say this was to be expected and isn't a huge deal. I fall closer to the first statement and think that this is somewhat of a set back and that things aren't going terribly well in Iraq at the moment.