What Should Be Done In Iraq?

[csdenmark]

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?

Nobody of course Jimmy. The man is 80 and has damaged his country now for more than 25 years.

 

Jimmy please try to think of something more constructive than american armed hostility. Your way of thinking seems to reflect the american fundamentalism. Many of your written statements you may re-read and look at as examples of what anti-americanism is made of.

[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?

Nobody of course Jimmy. The man is 80 and has damaged his country now for more than 25 years.

 

Jimmy please try to think of something more constructive than american armed hostility. Your way of thinking seems to reflect the american fundamentalism. Many of your written statements you may re-read and look at as examples of what anti-americanism is made of.

But this is also the problem. Doing nothing. Is that not as bad as doing something badly?

 

Europe and America have to find the middle ground. Together.

[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?

Nobody of course Jimmy. The man is 80 and has damaged his country now for more than 25 years.

 

Jimmy please try to think of something more constructive than american armed hostility. Your way of thinking seems to reflect the american fundamentalism. Many of your written statements you may re-read and look at as examples of what anti-americanism is made of.

maybe so, claus... but let me throw something out, for the sake of discussion.. look throughout history and tell me what generally happens when the world is apathetic.. oh i'm not necessarily talking about mugabe here, i mean in general

 

as far as europe and america finding middle ground together, it rarely happens... imo europe has to face threats (military or economic, it doesn't matter) before they 'see things america's way'... but when they are facing those threats, they climb aboard pretty quickly... the exception is england, who is usually a staunch ally... the reason is, i believe, they share a lot of intel with one another they aren't trusting enough to share with other nations

[pbleighton]

"But this is also the problem. Doing nothing. Is that not as bad as doing something badly?"

 

This assumes that every problem has a solution. It is a typically American view, and can be great when inventing light bulbs, etc. But not every problem has a solution, and sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

 

"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... "

 

What do you think we should do about Iran, presuming Israel does not attack, sanctions are ineffective, and if we acted we would act alone, or mostly alone?

 

I think we should learn to live with it. What are your views? If you think we should take military action, of what kind? What, in your view, would be the likely short, medium, and long term consequences for the U.S., Iran, and the world?

 

Peter

[Impact]

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.

Winston sums up the "native Iraq" problem accurately - but his analysis stops short of the current position: the US (with Oz & GB) is there now.

 

You don't create a favourable culture and "liberal" democracy overnight even when dealing with an heterogeneous culture - much less a tribal society with intertribal hatreds in an artificially created state.

 

The theory of division of the state among the 3 tribes geographically ignores:-

 

1) its unpopularity with ALL neighbours (even US ally Turkey would oppose a Kurdish state);

 

2) the unequal geographic location of oil (hence wealth);

 

3) the inevitable dislocation of large segments of population causing further hatreds and feuds;

 

4) the logistics of boundary drawing which tend to be arbitrary and lead to further disputes (cf Palestine, India/Pakistan, pick any Balkan states....).

 

I was one of the pragmatists who believed Saddam on WMD, viewed his downfall as "a good thing" (cf 1066 & All That) but even prior to the invasion dared to voice the query as to what the plan was for "the peace" on the basis that occupation would have to take place for a minimum of 2 decades to educate and inculcate a generation if there was to be any prospect of establishing a sympathetic (or empathetic) western-oriented state. I doubted whether the US possessed the intestinal fortitude to stay the course over such a period as historically dramatic throwing of resources at a problem in the short term has yielded US its best results.

 

To my knowledge the only longterm "occupations" by the US have been Vietnam (not exactly a success), Germany (dealing with a western heterogeneous group) and Japan (which was at least heterogeneous).

 

Since WWII US foreign policy has been about maintaining a bulwark against communism - and since 1990 about effectively maintaining a status quo (as the dominant power is wont to prefer).

 

Once rhetoric is excluded that simple doctrine explains virtually all actions - and alleged volte faces for the past 60 years. It doesn't make those actions right - but it does explain them.

 

That is not to say that no dividends have been received by the occupation: a number of arab states have foresworn WMD and direct open funding of terrorists and a number of others have had to come to grips with the risk that there might be another state in which "the people" actually have a say - thereby instilling some doubts about the totalitarian regimes in other states.

 

Certainly, there is a strong argument that such dividends are insufficient for the cost (in lives and financially), but there is a further real issue now: what of the cost incurred to date if the US exits now. Those "costs" are effectively wasted in such a scenario.

 

As noted, the longterm strategy of staying the course in Iraq could be a winner geopolitically - but is all but unsustainable on a domestic political basis from an outsider's perspective.

 

Again, to steal from Clausewitz, America's foreign policy has really been a continuation of its domestic policy by other means.

 

I may not like a world superpower - but if we have to have one I am generally grateful that it is the US (consider the alternatives if say Russia, China or even colonial GB exercised the same dominance) as it is doubtful that in those circumstances criticism would be tolerated - and almost certainly there would be no self-vilification or introspection by such a nation.

 

It is quite touching - if somewhat naive- that the US still tends to believe that anywhere they go they will be loved - and the continued air of surprised disappointment when they are not. Other nations have tended to be considerably less caring.....

[mike777]

All this talk of Oil is old school and fighting the last war not the next one.

 

Wake up.....or look silly fighting old issues and old wars....like old men.....and lose!

 

Yes Energy is very important but all this talk of oil is for old men fighting the old wars over again....think forward!

[luke warm]

What do you think we should do about Iran, presuming Israel does not attack, sanctions are ineffective, and if we acted we would act alone, or mostly alone?

 

I think we should learn to live with it. What are your views? If you think we should take military action, of what kind? What, in your view, would be the likely short, medium, and long term consequences for the U.S., Iran, and the world?

at the risk of offending someone, i'll just repeat what i said above - during the period of MAD, there were two relatively sane countries involved... i don't view iran (or even some who now have the bomb) in the same light

 

as for what to do, i honestly believe israel will not allow iran to go nuclear unless duct taped to a chair by the usa... if not them, i think the un should prevent a nuclear iran... if they are unwilling or unable, i think the usa should

 

that's my opinion

[csdenmark]

What do you think we should do about Iran, presuming Israel does not attack, sanctions are ineffective, and if we acted we would act alone, or mostly alone?

 

I think we should learn to live with it.  What are your views?  If you think we should take military action, of what kind?  What, in your view, would be the likely short, medium, and long term consequences for the U.S., Iran, and the world?

at the risk of offending someone, i'll just repeat what i said above - during the period of MAD, there were two relatively sane countries involved... i don't view iran (or even some who now have the bomb) in the same light

 

as for what to do, i honestly believe israel will not allow iran to go nuclear unless duct taped to a chair by the usa... if not them, i think the un should prevent a nuclear iran... if they are unwilling or unable, i think the usa should

 

that's my opinion

i honestly believe israel will not allow iran to go nuclear

You are misinterpretating Israel Jimmy. The will of the Israeli people is peace with their neighbours - and nothing else. They know quite well without the protection coming from USA their state would be unable to survive.

 

They are not willing to risk a peace option for odd adventures from lunatics. Please remember Israel no longer have the same number and sorts of immigrants coming from east. Those were persons with no knowledge of democratic values.

 

Today and in future Israel will need to rely on persons raised in Israel creating an Israeli identity. The religious fundamentalism is likely to reduce in future. Thats why Sharon turned his positions to settlements.

[keylime]

I guarantee Israel with or without an invite will ensure their security. Quite frankly, the Holocaust, whether or not people deny that it ever happened, still looms and to the every last man and woman they will defend their land...and be successful at it.

[pbleighton]

"if they are unwilling or unable, i think the usa should"

 

How?

 

Peter

[luke warm]

i honestly believe israel will not allow iran to go nuclear

You are misinterpretating Israel Jimmy. The will of the Israeli people is peace with their neighbours - and nothing else. They know quite well without the protection coming from USA their state would be unable to survive.

time will tell, claus, but if history is any guide israel won't sit by benignly while an avowed enemy, one who states publically that they desire no less than the complete destruction of israel, develops the means by which that goal is realized... you'll be able to tell by the immediate future as it pertains to israel and hamas

 

How?

by any means necessary...