So, Just How Bad Is It in Iraq? as per Christian Science Monitor (2 Viewers)

[LSSpam]

Agreed. Nationalism can only take hold when there's a functioning nation to get behind. Currently in Iraq there is none so all that's left is sectarian identity.

Right, which is why violence was the core problem. As long as local militias offered more then anyone else, namely "security" (or the illusion of it through ***-for-tat retribution) you can't make any head way in earning the peoples trust. You have to offer people more then what those locals groups offer.

If we leave now, that only gets worse. It will be nearly impossible for a nation to arise from the sectarian chaos especially with the outside forces encouraging the latter. If we stay it's POSSIBLE (though certainly not guaranteed) a nation could emerge which will give rise to nationalism over cultural identity.

In particular, it becomes a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. And more specifically, Saudi Arabia, because it's so afraid of Iran, will have to turn to the one group doggedly opposed to Shia and with the international structure and appeal to combat it in Iraq . . . extremist Wahhabism. Which is exactly what we're trying to prevent. What's funny is if Obama executes his immediate withdrawal, by his own admission (whether he realizes it or not) he'll be sending troops right back in because the re-establishment of extremist Wahhabi elements to combat the Shia is guaranteed.

I realize that they weren't present in any organized form before the war. That's part of why I opposed the war to begin with. But they are there now and guaranteed to only establish a stronger, more organized presence later as Sunni groups in Iraq turn to them for protection. It's quite the pickle jar we put ourselves in.

 

[blackadder]

Flat out false again. History amply demonstrates the orgy of violence you see is what is artificial. It never occurred on this scale before. Not under Saddam, not under Qasim, not under the Faisals, not under the British. Not under the Ottomans, not under the Caliphate.

The idea that this is somehow their "natural state" is offensive and ridiculous. It's not. The current violence is strictly a consequence of the machinations of ourselves, Iran, Wahhabi extremist, deposed Baathist party members, etc. Consequently it can also be resolved by those parties, namely the defeat of/compromise with them.

Violence in and of itself has its roots elsewhere. Violence is just the symptom. Addressing just security, without getting at the root causes gets you nowhere in the long run and we are out of our depth in addressing the root causes because we see them from the perspective of what kind of Iraq is best for America, not what kind of Iraq the majority of Iraqis want.

The natural state of "Iraq" is a strong and ruthless central authority that suppressed the centrifigal forces. This is what has allowed "Iraq" to persist as an entity.

Had we not allowed the Republican Guard to crush the Shiite uprising in '91, you might have seen this happen sooner.

What you have in the modern era is that we are at point in history where these people have been impverished for more than a decade and have grudges stemming from the Saddam years. On top of the natural differences and fueds, they now have control of oil to fight over.

You have a good old fashioned civil war and things are not going to straighten out until it resolves itself according to local dynamics, for local reasons. However, we are there with veto power over outcomes we do not accept, which might be the natural outcome for the people that actaully live there.

Maybe Iraq should break up. Maybe left to their own devices that is what the locals would conclude. But they are not to go through the process because our presence limits the possible outcomes according to our interests, not theirs.

Many people find reality offensive. That's why they resort to drugs, alcohol or other mood altering substances.

 

[blackadder]

Whether that's true or not is completely irrelevant. It happened. The Middle East has united politically, ethnically, culturally, and religiously at various points in it's history, in many cases within the past century. The idea that it's "hopelessly divided in ways us westerners can't even begin to comprehend" is narrow minded and laughable.

Laughable how?

The historical record shows that everytime it has attempted to come toghther, the experience drove it apart.

Even the Palestinians are now split in a territory the size of Delaware...

Tribe centric. Pan-Arabism is a myth.

The periods of unity look like the abberations, the sectarian and tribal cleaveges the norm.

 

[blackadder]

No it doesn't. Just a few decades ago there was very serious talk of pan-Arabism. Egypt and Syria actually even went so far as to join together for a time and after a fashion (the UAR). Saddam Huessin and his Baath party is a product of that philosophy.

The idea that they're hopelessly divided along religious lines is absurd and an unfortunate product of extremist elements like wahhabism.

Will you listen to yourself?

Egypt and Syria attempted to join together as the UAR.

How did that turn out I wonder?

Did it last?

 

[LSSpam]

Will you listen to yourself?

Egypt and Syria attempted to join together as the UAR.

How did that turn out I wonder?

Did it last?

You're wrong. It's not even worth debating. In 1860 you probably pounded your fist about how culturally, religious, and ethnically different Bavaria was and how any unity with it's neighbors to the north was temporary at best.

 

[blackadder]

You're wrong. It's not even worth debating. In 1860 you probably pounded your fist about how culturally, religious, and ethnically different Bavaria was and how any unity with it's neighbors to the north was temporary at best.

No, you're wrong.



I wasn't around in 1860.

If you think Iraq is going to become Germany any time soon you're going to be dissapointed.

Iraq is closer now to where Germany was during the 30 years war than anything else and that process has to play itself out, which is going to be very messy for a very long time.

It's not worth the expense on our part.

 

[LSSpam]

If you think Iraq is going to become Germany you're going to be dissapointed.

I didn't say that. It's just your opinion appears to lack historical perspective. This sort of fracturing isn't a physical law of some sort. It's all very fluid and quite open to changing drastically. One moment you have the 200+ nations of the Holy Roman Empire, the next you have Germany. One moment you have Yugoslavia, the next you have a fracturing that continues even today.

The US formed under one banner, nearly tore itself apart more then once, fought an horribly bloody war that dwarfs what goes on in Iraq now, and then reigned supreme not even a century later.

Iraq doesn't have to be what it is. And assuming it does lacks perspective. That's all.

 

[blackadder]

I didn't say that. It's just your opinion appears to lack historical perspective. This sort of fracturing isn't a physical law of some sort. It's all very fluid and quite open to changing drastically. One moment you have the 200+ nations of the Holy Roman Empire, the next you have Germany. One moment you have Yugoslavia, the next you have a fracturing that continues even today.

The US formed under one banner, nearly tore itself apart more then once, fought an horribly bloody war that dwarfs what goes on in Iraq now, and then reigned supreme not even a century later.

Iraq doesn't have to be what it is. And assuming it does lacks perspective. That's all.

I think you lack the perspective, or your perspective is warped so that you don't see the magnitude of what you are advocating.

One moment?

You are talking decades and centuries of historical process in the examples you cite and some cases the issue still festers periodically with violence -- see the Balkans.

At $12 billion a week, we simply don't have the cash to be there that long. Better to let the forces play themselves out and deal with the result.

 

[LSSpam]

or your perspective is warped

You don't understand my point. I don't have the patience to explain it.

 

[blackadder]

You don't understand my point. I don't have the patience to explain it.

I understand your point perfectly.

You reject any historical, societal or cultural determinism. If we just wait a little while the Iraqis will learn to play nice, regardless of the cost to us.

I'm not rejecting the idea that the society there will continue to evolve and may eventually resemble something stable and tolerant. I reject the idea that we can afford to be there for the amount of time it takes for that process to happen and that the process can take its natural path as long as we are there meddling in it. Particularly with the current massive footprint. There are other ways to be effectively engaged short of direct occupation.

You are citing examples of things that took centuries. Nations like Germany that had to go through tremendously violent, bloody and disruptive upheavals to reach the state of a cooperative and tolerant unified nation.

Iraq is very early in that process and it is going to take decades minimum. More than another decade at the current level of commitment is going to do us in. It's not sustainable.

All sorts of bills are coming due in the next 5-10 years coincident with retiring the baby boom generation and maintaining and updating this country's physical infrastructure. Iraq is going force real quality of life choices for Americans because we can't pay for it all.

Part of the reason the dollar is free-falling is because of the smoke and mirrors fiscal and monetary policy we have been running for decades in order to finance the empire. Strains on the system are getting severe and Iraq is only going to hasten the reckoning.

So, we have a choice to make. There are large opportunity costs to staying in Iraq. In one sense we are allowing ourselves to be financially bled just as Bin Laden said he'd like to do.

You're welcome, Osama.

 

[RebSaint]

The idea that the US can "force it" is absurd, yes.

Can't agree here.

I would classify keeping 120,000 + soldiers, countless other contractors, plus billions spent on basic infastructure, arming, establishing, and training an Iraq military, establishing political "benchmarks" for the central government to "achieve" is definitely forcing national consciousness through a variety of different nation-building efforts.

 

[blackadder]

I don't see the connection. The Pan-Arab movement was largely secular and in most of it's manifestations (the Baath in Syria and Iraq, Nasser in Egypt) cracked down hard on fundamentalist/extremist groups viewing them as both backwards and a threat (one of the ironies of the Pan-Arab movement, which began in part to present a united front against Western Powers and Israel specifically, is how focused it was on Westernizing their countries at the same time).

Maybe you mean it "animated the modern terrorist movement" in the sense that it rose in opposition to Pan-Arabism? I think that's a stretch but much less so then the above.

And Western policies toward Pan-Arabism and secular modernizers like Nasser were inveterately hostile because that generation of post-colonial leaders were working to wrest control of the region away from the West and they were opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state in their midst.

They were seen as a threat to the status quo -- e.g. ownership and control ofassets like the Suez canal -- and we worked in every way we could to undermine them.

The humilation of the secular modernizing Arabs and the fact that we would not deal with them in any way that might have allowed them to deliver some semblance of progress to their populations meant that they were undermined and the Islamists easily filled the void.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[BullDawg]

I bet the dust is unbearable.

Surprisingly the dust didn't become a factor. I was surprised we didn't get a sand storm out of it though. It was like a good ole tropical storm when it started to rain.. Some of my equipment took minor damage, but no feelings were hurt in the process.