Iraq: The mistake and the true solution that has no chance

[.Shane.]

French colonialism? In Iraq? Syria was a French protectorate, not Iraq. Iraq was British

Read my post more closely. I said regional.

Meaning that in the regional conflicts/decisions between the two created Iraqs borders (as well as most other countries). But, yes, Britain had control over the Iraq area, specifically.

 

[Kosez]

Big difference between Yugoslavia and Iraq is: Yugoslavians chose what they chose, Iraq was forced into it by democracy-loving well-wishing almighty US (I really do hope they won't be the only superpower for much longer).

Yes, easiest thing to do is to leave Iraq alone, let them fight out, I mean, it's Iraqi civilians that's gonna die, and they're ... like ... er ... semi human? As long as there are no more imaginary WMDs in Sadam's arsenal (his arsenal was 90% US made anyways, but hey, now there is a real chance to sell some more weapons to wonderful new country of Iraq!)

Tragedy!

 

[FriendlyFire]

Did you comment on the wrong post or something? This has nothing to do with what I said.

The idea of working out Differences politically rather then via civil war. Isnt going to wok quite simply because of the cra we've allowed the Iraq gvernment to get away with in the past.

If you have someone like chalabi undermining US reconstruction in Iraq which ammounts to outright sabatage and have no accountability. You then foster that corrpution by enabling it.

 

[Xanikk999]

Rather than foul up someone elses thread, I'll post my thoughts here and invite civil discussion:

Current US Iraq policy is a failure for the following reasons:

*the overall cost in lives (10s of 1000s of innocent civilians, ~3000 US and growing)
*the squandering of billions and billions of $$
*the fact that Saddam was not in any way a realistic threat
*the fact there's no guarantee that what Iraq turns out to be will be any better
*the negative impact on energy prices
*the use of the Iraq mess as a recruitment tool by terrorists
*the fact that the operations in Afghanistan have been set back so far as to be almost regressing therefore letting the real terrorists, ie BIN LADEN, continue to be outside of justice.

But, the US and a handful of others (Don't forget Poland!) are there. You can't just up and leave. The US has dug a hole and needs to get out while not leaving a larger hole behind.

The current models won't work because they ignore realities: Iraq is a constructed state. It is leftover from British/French regional colonialism.

The best answer if you want immediate peace and longterm safety is to split it among the 3 primary factions (Shia, Sunni, and Kurd).

Benefits:
*Improved stability
*Better likelihood w/ 3 states that extremist Islam does not continue to take root.
*US would have an immediate and staunch ally in the Kurds.
*US would likely have a reasonable ally in one of the Muslim factions
*Recognizes long-standing cultural and historical differences while allowing the 2 minority groups what they most want: self-rule.
*The UN would be a 1000 times more likely to get behind this than the current situation and thus UN peacekeepers could be used to oversee the transition in conjunction w/ a much smaller US/British force.
*US resources freed up to pursue the real terrorists.

Why it won't happen:
*Would be a form of an admission of defeat for the Administration.
*Turkey would not allow it.

So, whether we "stay the course" or do a planned withdrawal over, say, the next 2 years, Iraq is going to be a complete FUBAR for years to come.

Iraq is a reasonable comparison to Yugoslavia.
*Both held together by dictators who coerced or punished dissadent minorites
*Both countries are artificial constructs forced by Western powers
*Both have religious and ethnic rivalries going back centuries
*These groups, if left alone, in the short term, will not get along

Look at the Yugo example and see how that being split into several countries has worked out reasonably well. The biggest problem against it was the Serbs counter-productive attempt to force the old Republic to hold. But, now we have several stable and credible countries. Yes, its a bit messed up in parts, but the overall violence has dropped dramatically.

The 3-state solution is the best, IMHO, but it will never happen.

You are an intellegent thinker. I wish we had people like you running our country..

 

[Shylock]

But your solution means defence contractors lose money.

Screw that.

 

[JohnRM]

We need to kill the terrorist faster than they can breed. End of story. We must prevent foreign terrorists from entering the country and we must deal with Iran.

What is more is that the American people and the West need to become more ruthless. We are too afraid of the international community and of public opinion. We try to pussyfoot around every issue. We will waste so much time looking for the round peg for the round hole when just hammering the square peg in with some brute force will work just as well. Terrorists and the terrorist states like Iran must be taught that they must respect American power or suffer the consequences of destruction.

 

[FriendlyFire]

We need to kill the terrorist faster than they can breed. End of story. We must prevent foreign terrorists from entering the country and we must deal with Iran.

What do you make of that 42% of Iraqs support the killing of US soldiers ?
At the same time 86% are greatful for the removel of Saddam from power.

 

[CaptainF]

We need to kill the terrorist faster than they can breed.

Terrorists are a race now?

End of story. We must prevent foreign terrorists from entering the country and we must deal with Iran.

Agreed.

 

[JohnRM]

What do you make of that 42% of Iraqs support the killing of US soldiers ?
At the same time 86% are greatful for the removel of Saddam from power.

If we treated Iraq like we did Germany and Japan and bombed the living Shi'ite (ROFL) out of their cities and fire-bombed everything, I doubt very much that they would be too concerned about fighting anything. They would be more pre-occupied with staying alive. Part of conventional war was making the population so very desperate that they focused on nothing else. We don't do that now. We pretend that civilians shouldn't be targetted cause they have nothing to do with it. That may be true for the Kurds or other groups that actually fought the Baath Party, but the majority of them needed to die. It worked before, it would have worked this time. Now we are stuck. We can't just go around bombing Iraqi civilians cause we already have the country.

 

[Kosez]

If we treated Iraq like we did Germany and Japan and bombed the living Shi'ite (ROFL) out of their cities and fire-bombed everything, I doubt very much that they would be too concerned about fighting anything. They would be more pre-occupied with staying alive. Part of conventional war was making the population so very desperate that they focused on nothing else. We don't do that now. We pretend that civilians shouldn't be targetted cause they have nothing to do with it. That may be true for the Kurds or other groups that actually fought the Baath Party, but the majority of them needed to die. It worked before, it would have worked this time. Now we are stuck. We can't just go around bombing Iraqi civilians cause we already have the country.

How very generous and tender you Americans are. One just has to love you!

 

[Xanikk999]

If we treated Iraq like we did Germany and Japan and bombed the living Shi'ite (ROFL) out of their cities and fire-bombed everything, I doubt very much that they would be too concerned about fighting anything. They would be more pre-occupied with staying alive. Part of conventional war was making the population so very desperate that they focused on nothing else. We don't do that now. We pretend that civilians shouldn't be targetted cause they have nothing to do with it. That may be true for the Kurds or other groups that actually fought the Baath Party, but the majority of them needed to die. It worked before, it would have worked this time. Now we are stuck. We can't just go around bombing Iraqi civilians cause we already have the country.

No that would only increase their hatred. We are not monsters.

 

[Xanikk999]

How very generous and tender you Americans are. One just has to love you!

Dont generalize americans about what that guy said. He hasnt got a clue.

 

[Kosez]

Dont generalize americans about what that guy said. He hasnt got a clue.

Good to hear that. But I'm not sure what do Iraqis and Palestinians and Vietnamese and Nicaraguans and Chileans... have to say about that. It's enough that one person's got no clue (guess who).

 

[JohnRM]

Dont generalize americans about what that guy said. He hasnt got a clue.

Ah yes, the age-old "all source of our disagreement stems from your ignorance" argument. WOW. Good work. NEXT.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but you seem to forget about Bosnia - Bosnia is the most ethnically mixed part of former Yugoslavia and it is by no means a reasonably working state.

Parts of Iraq are very ethnically and religiously mixed. What is your solution to that? Mass relocations of population? Well, that could work, but Western public wouldn't like it.

What about Baghdad ? What about oil ?

The thing is that arabs, both shihite and sunni, wants to lead the whole thing. They don't want an autonomous region. Indeed, if the country is divided in 3, shihites would lose Baghdad (where they are nearly the majority of the population) and sunnis would lose oil (which is mainly in the South of the country and in Kurdistan).

Furthermore, an independent Kurdistan has no chance as there are 85% of Kurds who don't live in Iraq but in Turkey, Iran and Syria. If a small Kurdistan representing 15% of the Kurdish population would become independent, this will necessarily have effects on neighbours that those countries don't want to think about.

 

[bathsheba666]

We need to kill the terrorist faster than they can breed. End of story.

Ermm, how about avoiding giving non-terrorists reasons to become terrorists faster than you can kill them?

Investigate relationship between rate of killing, and rate of appearance of new 'terrorists'.

 

[BasketCase]

No such relationship exists.

 

[JohnRM]

Ermm, how about avoiding giving non-terrorists reasons to become terrorists faster than you can kill them?

Investigate relationship between rate of killing, and rate of appearance of new 'terrorists'.

You answered your own question.

 

[CaptainF]

We can't just go around bombing Iraqi civilians cause we already have the country.

What would that serve anyway?

I suppose it would piss off tofu eating, yoga posing liberals, as well as the brown skinned arabic speaking demographic, but really now.

 

[JohnRM]

What would that serve anyway?

I suppose it would piss off tofu eating, yoga posing liberals, as well as the brown skinned arabic speaking demographic, but really now.

Well, if we killed every last man, woman, and child in the country, we would not have much of a problem left, would we? Even if we could reduce the population by 1/3 or 1/2, it would make the situation more managable. We could help the Sunnis destroy the Shias or vice versa, although the Shias are Iranian allies. However, this was not the point. The point was that these people are not tired of fighting. One of the ways you reach that point is by being bombed day and night by big B-52s with chubby bellies.