What Should Be Done In Iraq?

[pbleighton]

This post is not meant to be primarily about the question of whether the U.S. invasion was right or wrong, though I'm sure opinions will be expressed. FWIW, I strong opposed it on both moral and practical grounds. Mainly, though...

 

It's a real mess. Unemployment is over 50%, electricity is scarce, the Sunni insurgency is killing people, the Shiite-dominated government-paid militias are killing even more people, the Kurdish goverment is showing fascist tendencies, the Shiite-dominated de facto government is turning into an irresponsible, corrupt theocracy, a real government hasn't been formed months after the elections, etc., etc.

 

What should the U.S. and the world do about it? The only thing I am sure of is that the U.S. should

1. Get it's troops out within 6 months - we are doing more harm than good, and

2. Instead of halting reconstruction aid, as we have been doing, increase it.

 

After that, it's awfully tough.

 

Ideas?

 

Peter

[mike777]

"1. Get it's troops out within 6 months - we are doing more harm than good,"

 

I agree this is one of the main issues if not the main one.

Can we objectively define "harm" and "good" so we can measure it?

 

I would put forth if we cannot measure the "harm or good" in an objective way then we are just making a blind guess.

 

One possible measurement is: will more people die and be wounded if we stay or go? Another possible measurement is the USA safer or less safe if we leave in 6 months. These may not be the best measurements and you may have better ones.

 

It is hard if not impossible to say we should stay in Iraq if more harm than good will be measured. I would go further and say put everyone on a plane tonight and send them home if more good is measured out than harm.

 

I assume you would agree we should stay if we measure more good than harm by staying or do you argue we should leave no matter what we measure?

[pbleighton]

"I assume you would agree we should stay if we measure more good than harm by staying or do you argue we should leave no matter what we measure?"

 

I'm not sure how to "measure" the future, but if I thought that the situation would be better (ot at least less bad) if U.S. forces stayed, I would support them staying, even though I initially opposed the war. Is this what you are asking?

 

The reasons that I am sure that we should get out is that:

1. Pubic opinion polls consistently show that a large majority (60-80%, depending on the poll) of Iraqis want us to leave.

2. Our presence exacerbates the sectarian hatreds which are ripping the country apart.

3. We offer nothing except a club for the dominant Shiites to beat the Sunnis with. We broke their social order, and are essentially taking sides in the resulting civil war. Any solution will require a peace be made. Right now, we are infuriating one side and enabling the other to take a hard line.

4. The most important reason is the empirical evidence - the longer we have been there, the worse the violence has gotten.

 

Now, what can be done after our military leaves? The positive part is much tougher.

 

Mike, do you have any suggestions of any type?

 

Peter

[mike777]

"I'm not sure how to "measure" the future, but if I thought that the situation would be better (ot at least less bad) if U.S. forces stayed, I would support them staying, even though I initially opposed the war. Is this what you are asking?"

 

 

Yes that is a very key question. Our leaders must measure the future somehow and make a decision. They do not have the luxury of not doing so. At least we both agree if we "measure" the future our army should stay for now if it means more good than harm.

 

It seems many just want to pull out regardless if it means more harm or good or they do not care or know, just send my son home now! I think they measure that for their family having the son home safe and sound is more good than harm regardless of who else dies later on.

 

You do not use these exact words but it seems you are taking some objective measurement of the future and saying it is clear more harm than good will happen so we should leave. You are making some educated guess based on some rational measurements that more harm than good will happen if we stay more than 6 months.

 

It would help the political debate if people on both sides of the issue did a better job explaining by what measurements more good or harm happens. You are making a stab at this difficult issue with your points.

 

Most of us seem to have little clue as to the question is more harm or good done if we stay or go and just trust our political leaders to make the correct guess and blame them if they guess wrong, oh well.

 

I note Sen. Biden is against the 6 month pull out. He measures a great civil and regional war will occur with Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and others pulled in if we pull out in 6 months. He measures many many more deaths if we pull out in 6 months than if we do not. Many disagree but I hope they have some rational reasons and are not just making a blind emotional guess.

[sceptic]

1/. Build a huge Military base near the main oilfields.

 

When the oil starts to run out, we wont have to invade to protect our supply

 

2/. Pull out and let them sort their own problems out.

 

I can't see why they removed Saddam Hussain, there is no guarentee that his elected successor will be any less of a murderous bastard (I assume the only way to enter the elections is if the American or British Governements approve them) so it will not be a totally free election

 

3/. A novel idea here, Pull out totally and apologise for poking our noses into their buissness and reimburse them for all the damage we have caused.

 

4/. Ask them to patch up their differences with their neighbours and work together to possibly become the (possibly)richest ot Strongest power in the world, think of the good they could do with all that money benifiting all their own people instead of a few spoilt elite

 

5/. Let them remain at loggerheads with the world until one of the lunatics with nothing to lose gets nuclear weapons and decides to start a war with the west

 

6/. Totally piss them off until they decide their only ally is China and they welcome that Chinese on board, that will screw us all

[csdenmark]

I think the europeans also here will be able to be helpful to the americans which seems to have messed everything up.

 

It is very likely Denmark and Italy very soon will leave the coalition of armed forces. I think something like by the end of this year. It is then very likely that Denmark will offer more humantarian aid, which is the normal way for scandinavians in armed conflicts. This means education in building civilian institutions like judicial system, police education, human right education.

 

Such methods are those needed to bridge cultural differences. With fairly good results we have done so in some african nations. Unfortunately we have never tried in Cyprus but instead used that conflict as a solarium for danish youngsters.

[hrothgar]

I wish there was a good answer to this one...

[the saint]

Tell them all to grow up and stop being so immature. And then give them a slap. How on earth do they expect the rest of the world to help them if they can't help themselves.

 

I know this sounds harsh, but in reality, if everyone stopped fighting around the world and started helping, 99.9999999% of preoblems could be solved, poverty could be eliminated. That goes too for all the corrupt administrators, theocratics, businessmen, politicians all of them.

 

All these parasitic vipers need to be held to account and that also means that all the pussy-footed liberals need to put up and shut up because difficult questions have to be asked and answered.

 

Everyone has a responsibility to this world we live in.

[pbleighton]

"All these parasitic vipers need to be held to account and that also means that all the pussy-footed liberals need to put up and shut up because difficult questions have to be asked and answered."

 

Would you elaborate?

 

What specifically are you proposing?

 

Or is this a joke?

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"I think the europeans also here will be able to be helpful to the americans which seems to have messed everything up."

 

I hope so. Also the Muslim nations, etc.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

Can we objectively define "harm" and "good" so we can measure it?

objectively? i doubt it :ph34r:

[pbleighton]

"objectively? i doubt it"

 

Jimmy, we agree on something :ph34r:

 

Peter

[nickf]

All these parasitic vipers need to be held to account and that also means that all the pussy-footed liberals need to put up and shut up because difficult questions have to be asked and answered.

 

Is this a record? If not, it must be close to a PB for the most mixed metaphors in the one sentence.

 

nickf

sydney

[csdenmark]

"I think the europeans also here will be able to be helpful to the americans which seems to have messed everything up."

 

I hope so. Also the Muslim nations, etc. 

 

Peter

Also the Muslim nations, etc

Don't be naive Peter.

 

For sure - nobody will be able to help USA anywhere if they decides to have nothing better to do than starting WWIII in Iran.

[luke warm]

"I think the europeans also here will be able to be helpful to the americans which seems to have messed everything up."

 

I hope so. Also the Muslim nations, etc. 

 

Peter

Also the Muslim nations, etc

Don't be naive Peter.

 

For sure - nobody will be able to help USA anywhere if they decides to have nothing better to do than starting WWIII in Iran.

what would you do in iran, claus?

[pbleighton]

"For sure - nobody will be able to help USA anywhere if they decides to have nothing better to do than starting WWIII in Iran."

 

If we invade Iran, it certainly makes it less likely that other nations will help in Iraq. I think that we need to leave Iraq first, before Iraq gets much help. I'm not saying that's right, but I think that's the way it is.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"what would you do in iran, claus?"

 

Possibly worth it's own thread!

 

"First, do no harm". I would NOT invade or bomb. Sanctions may be worth a try, but I think we have to face the fact that nuclear weapons will spread. I think that this is the least bad answer. Technology is making the world more dangerous. Preemptive wars don't make it better - see Iraq.

 

Peter

[csdenmark]

what would you do in iran, claus?

Leave it to the international community. We are all to suffer therefore this is also the best and only responsible solution.

 

You will see Iran is not going to be easy as Iraq. Iran is a key muslim society and don't have a political agenda as was the case with Baath party. You will see the very thin governments in countries like Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Idonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan to fall rather quick. Countries like Egypt, Jordania and Turkey will be much in danger too.

 

Maybe what you dislike most will be the iraqi solidarity to come with Iran. The solidarity the opposite way was impossible in favour of Iraq. You are dealing with tribes not with nations. Several times the world have faced nasty surprises coming from the deep of Asia.

 

I am not sure you are a predicant of doomsday - but Iran will be the moment of truth.

[pbleighton]

I am actually considerably more hopeful about Iran than about Iraq, though the thought of the ayatollahs with nukes is scary. The Iranian people, particularly the younger generation, are getting mighty sick of theocracy, and dictatorship is an inherently unstable form of government.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

"what would you do in iran, claus?"

 

Possibly worth it's own thread!

 

"First, do no harm". I would NOT invade or bomb. Sanctions may be worth a try, but I think we have to face the fact that nuclear weapons will spread. I think that this is the least bad answer. Technology is making the world more dangerous. Preemptive wars don't make it better - see Iraq.

 

Peter

i think there's a big difference between a preemptive conventional war and a nuclear one... this isn't the same as the cold war, where one could bank a bit on the relative sanity of the two participants...

 

i think a nuclear iran is a threat to the entire free world... i also believe it is moot, since i doubt israel will allow it to happen (even if the usa does)

[the saint]

"All these parasitic vipers need to be held to account and that also means that all the pussy-footed liberals need to put up and shut up because difficult questions have to be asked and answered."

 

Would you elaborate?

 

What specifically are you proposing?

 

Or is this a joke?

 

Peter

Erm yes. I get emotional sometimes. For example however we see that Mugabe has run Zimbabwe into the ground, average life expectancy over the last 20 years has dropped from 53 to just 36 and all opposition of any kind is brutally repressed. And what does the world do? NOTHING. Again, someone who should be is not held to account and (to quote myself) the 'pussy-footed liberals' would have a field day if anyone tried to.

 

I'm not saying that the developed world should go charging willy-nilly into everything (because that can only make things worse), but those who do have resource should try to help those who don't and not turn a blind eye to it simply because it isn't this months cause celebre.

 

Mugabe is just one example. There are many other people all around the world who should be brought to task in some way.

[luke warm]

Mugabe is just one example. There are many other people all around the world who should be brought to task in some way.

assuming that's true (and it probably is), who should do this?

[Winstonm]

There can be nothing done in Iraq until it is clearly understood that there exists no country of Iraq - only a boundary on a map which houses various tribes of peoples, and whichever tribe is in power controls the resources within those boundaries. As long as there are tribes there will be times of peace among the tribes and times of war; the only immoratity comes in the financial support of the ruling tribe as this always leads to slaughter and attempted genocide of the non-ruling tribes. The only sensible solution is to divide the country of Iraq into as many "tribal" nations as are needed and then withdraw and let Darwinian natural selection determine the eventual winner. The only other solution is the one that Rome attempted and that is to conquer and rule - but to conquer by force and then hope for change is both dangerous and naive. The U.S.A. must either be a conqueror or a bystander - what it must not be is a policeman who imposes his sense of morality on a people who do not share that same belief.

 

This is all high and mighty talk but doesn't take into account the truth - the down and dirty of it all. The truth is that the Achille's heel of the U.S.A. is oil. Like a junkie deprived of heroin, the U.S.A. will come up with any lie, deception, or excuse possible to protect its supply of oil - like weapons of mass destruction in the desert, and then in the not too distant future will be the threat of fascism in Venzuela. Until such time as a viable alternative to fossil fuel exists, any oil-producing areas of the world will be under threat of an invasion by U.S. troops to "protect" the chances for democracy in that area.

 

Protecting the concept of democracy can be placed in the great big lie envelope along with "I'll respect you in the morning", "The check's in the mail", and "Your president is not a crook."

 

Winston

[luke warm]

i think i agree with all of that, well said

[the saint]

Mugabe is just one example. There are many other people all around the world who should be brought to task in some way.

assuming that's true (and it probably is), who should do this?

That is the big question. What we instead see are lots of people with sloping shoulders. The African nations won't do it because of tribal reasons, lack of resources and the fact that pretty much every government in the continent is corrupt and too busy looking after its own back avoiding the next coup.

 

The Europeans won't because of apathy (even colonial us). The Yanks won't do it because of nothing to gain (fill in own opinion here). The Russians won't do it because they don't have cash to buy arms off them, the Chinese won't do it on the off-chance there is oil and Mugabe would be perfect for them to deal with and the rest of the world just doesn't give a ****. And of course if we wanted to do it the African nations would be up in arms about the white-man interfering in Africa again and there would be all manner of complaints from everywhere about having some agenda of some sort. Well maybe there might be - an agenda to help oppressed people.

 

Unfortunately this is the racism of convenience that gets trotted out all over the world in situations like this. As I have said before the Western world made a LOT of mistakes in the preceding few centuries when it was in imperialist mode. And that caused a lot of resentment which lingers today. As we have come to realise that we are in fact one global family and after the horrors of WWII in particular, those nations that were involved in that conflict came to realise that we have the power to obliterate each other and that we cannot live that way any more. We developed a social conscience. Other nations in the developing world have not developed that because events such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust have never permeated their cultures in the way they have ours. While the tribal culture of vengeance fuels them, it will not be possible for them to develop this either. The dangerous thing is that as technology improves, the event that may finally show them the error of their ways will be more and more destructive.