This week's lessons from Iraq

AF A-10's picture

By now, as we see a steady flow of violence in Iraq, it lends evidence to the notion that the violence is more about civil, sectarian violence than it was about driving election results here. Ask yourself this tough, but necessary question: Will the Iraqis be more prone to adapt our philosophy and way of life if we stay there and engage more of them in combat, or if we increase our presence in their country?
For second amendment types here at home, how would you greet an Army of Iraqis or Russians comming to spread their form of govt to us? Here-in lies our dilema.

Hack

AF A-10's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Hmm
Submitted by AMDG on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 4:23pm.

I disagree with your premise. Now that the party that agrees with them is in power, the insurgents are keeping the attacks up with the hope that Murtha and his ilk get their wish and we withdraw immediately. It would make no sense for them to stop the attacks now. They are pressing their advantage.
Sure, there is also sectarian violence. It's not all one or the other thing. But be sure, withdrawal will be seen as weakness and surrender.
Happily for you, it seems that leaks from the Iraq Study Group suggest they are going to advocate withdrawal. The consequences of such a decision will be horrible.
By the way, your analogy is not very apt. We did this same thing in Germany and Japan after WWII because those countries showed that their homegrown institutions were too dangerous. The same is true in Iraq: the Hussein regime lost its right to remain in existence due to its flagrant violation of international law and the cease fire it signed. It's not like we just decided to impose our system on Iraq out of the blue. And, let's remembers, we have tried to "impose" democracy, giving the people a direct say in how their new government is formed. We did the same in Japan and Germany and things worked out quite well, thank you. But what's different here is that there are too many people who hate liberty, freedom, and civilization in Iraq.

login to post comments
Treyhoff
AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 5:13pm.

Hi Trey,
Let's combine this thread with the one linked to your LTE for simplicity. I understand your feeling about the neocon expression, but it is a fratricidal term used often by other conservatives. Anywho...
The premise holds. It is very narcissistic to think the fighting in Iraq and the killing is a show of force to influence our political behavior. Here are some stone cold facts.

Outside jihaadists are a minute fraction of combatants in Iraq, estimated to be only 5% of all protagonists. Only 2% of captured fighters have been from external sources.

Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd have only existed in harmony in Iraq under iron fist (AKA tyrannical) rule. Trying to get shiite to cooperate with sunni who they call "half muslims" is like trying to get Jewish and Catholic people to agree on the role Jesus plays in religion. The religious disagreement over Mohaamad is that deep. I do not think any military operation by an external force will yield that agreement.

Now for the statement that the Hussein regime lost the right to remain in existence. Iraq was a sovereign nation. I hold sovereignty to be almost sacred. They were not attacking us. They were not attacking neighbors. They DID NOT posses WMD. I'm not sure how they lost their claim to sovereingty due to our faulty intel. We arrogantly claimed UN resolutions to invade a country against the will of the UN, cherry picking the UN's validity.

Lastly, this is not WWII. This is not Germany or Japan. This is civil war, and our military, which is excellent at killing people and breaking things (and proud of it!!) is lousy at consensus building. We are trying to use a sledge hammer to fix a broken vase. We can hammer away for one hundred years, but soldiers and airplanes with weapons are not going to magically bring about religious tolerance.

What will? First: Talking. All players in the region, including the Shiite sympathetic country of Iran. You do realize that Iran is a natural, religious ally to the majority Shiite Iraq, don't you? These groups are ideologically matched. All stakeholders need to be at the table. This is how cease fires are obtained.
We are a catalyst to the flames and timelines must be set for our departure. It is false to say timelines are detrimental. Every military training course I have ever attended had a graduation date. We are telling Iraqis that we will train them and feed them indefinitely right now. Try sending a kid to college who has no graduation date, no objectives that must be met at certain times, and they have your credit card with an unlimited balance... recipe for d i s a s t e r!
We are fueling the religious fire while trying to keep red embers from blue embers, and we will continue to burn with them until we extricate ourselves.
We won't solve this on these boards, but America is certainly ready for a plan B. Three years from now we will be able to look back and see if, objectively, this was a needed change. I believe it is, and the majority of our fellow citizens agree.

Cheers,

Kavin Hack King


login to post comments
Hi Hack
Submitted by myword_mark on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 11:11am.

As crude as it may seem, I feel like Dollaraday may be on to something.

If we are not going to engage in Nation Building, then why couldn't we have just gone in - ousted Sadaam- and then left?

While I feel sure that would have resulted in civil war, it seems inevitable anyway - just as we did - to establish some form of unified government.

I am equally sure that oil production would have fallen for a few years but production is not as big of a problem as refining and that is OUR problem not the middle east. Besides, putting a lid on a boiling pot has yet to calm things - in fact, I think that's how you make a pressure cooker.

Aside from the negatives, there are a few positives to consider if we choose the Dollaraday method. First, the tin horn dictators like Saddaam would get the word that if they get too far out of line and invade their neighbors, violate cease fires and attempt to gather weapons of mass destruction (allegedly), they may be 'jobless'.

I suppose what I am trying to say is, isn't there a way for the world to get a handle on people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran? That boy is nuts. If you are an Israeli, you have to think Hitler has been reborn.

What about North Korea and a potentially nuclear armed Iran? Do we rely on M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction)to a nation headed by a guy who wants to participate in jihad - or whose brain is being eaten by syphillis?

A part of me wants to just say - look guys (as in foreign leaders threatening other countries)we will bomb your infrastructure and have you removed and another part of me wants to say - screw them - we are not the world's police!

You know there are two problems with being who we are: 1) we are the world's super power and therefore feel responsible for maintaining some sense of order and 2) we are arrogant and egocentrists who feel our way is the right way.

I vote we build a bunch of B.A. walls, learn to survive off of our own resources, and keep a low profile until things calm down Eye-wink Can we do that?

ﺵﻤﺍﺭﺍ ‘ﺡﻠﺼ ‘ﻰﺘﺸﺍ ‘ﻰﺘﻤﻻﺴ ‘ﺎﻔﺼﻭ ﺡﻠﺼ

login to post comments
Selfish dumbos
Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 6:51am.

How many times have countries tried to "civilize" Africa? India? Pakistan? Iran? Turkey? Colombia?
We simply refuse to study history. There was only two ways to do in Iraq: Invade with a million soldiers, occupy every place and run it for ever, or, Run Saddam off, give it to the next guy, walk off and say, "who wants to be next here in Iraq to be hung if you screw up?" We seem to have had no idea what we were doing.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.