News Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The debate between Senators Biden and Graham on Meet the Press highlighted the complexities of the Iraq situation, with Biden advocating for a political solution and Graham emphasizing the need to prevent a civil war. The discussion raised doubts about Iraq's potential for recovery, questioning whether the U.S. should continue its involvement or withdraw and let Iraqis take control. Concerns were expressed about the implications of a U.S. withdrawal, including the possibility of increased chaos and anti-U.S. sentiment. The military community's growing skepticism about the war's success was noted, alongside the challenges posed by sectarian divisions in Iraq. Ultimately, the conversation underscored the urgent need for a viable political resolution to end the ongoing violence.
  • #331
Astronuc said:
The US did not invade Britain. The US military did not bomb the capital city of Britain, nor depose the government, nor did the US government exert influence in British elections.

The only criteria you laid out was an agreement to grant criminal immunity to visiting forces. However, if you care to revise at this point, then by your new reasoning the US is presently occupying Germany.

Again one's logic is faulty.

Whose logic?

Yep - it does. S. Korea and Japan are there, Iraq is not - yet.

Are where?

Here's a good resource to mull over - particularly "Iraq: Tribal Engagement Lessons Learned", Lieutenant Colonel Michael Eisenstadt, U.S. Army Reserve

As is this (a list of some of the canonical lit http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/07/coin-in-a-tribal-society-1/). There's lots of resources out there, but is there a particular point you're trying to make?

Interesting point about the collapse of the central government authority and basically the US-lead Coalition forces, which ostensibly include Iraqi forces now, still seem to be the ones calling the shots.

Yes, the increased relevance in tribal identity in everyday life following the Baathist fall from political authority is interesting. I broached the issue in a previous post: "Tribalism continues to hold sway in the governing classes while at the same time tribal identity is slipping away from the populace at large."

Eisenstadt makes no mention of the MNF calling any shots. Not sure where you got that from.

Hopefully Sahawah Al Anbar and Sahawah Diyala will be successful.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...ing_al_qae.php .

Nice map of Diyala - http://billroggio.com/maps/Diyala-South.JPG

Okay...

Still waiting for citations to support one's assertions. Please refer to -
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181
2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).

Whose assertions and which ones? I asked you this before. You have any issue with anything I've position I've taken, I'm more than willing to shepherd you to the appropriate resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #332
Tom Hayden about his book "Ending the War in Iraq."
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1199592&sectionID=231

Interesting perspective.

I'll address other questions when I have more time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #333
I haven't followed much of anything Tom Hayden's put out in recent years, but I wonder if it expands upon his 2004 proposal http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20571/.. According to this http://akashicbooks.com/endingthewar.htm , Hayden apparently subscribes to the "2006 midterms as Iraq war referendum" narrative and attributes its success to an antiwar movement whose strategic aim isn't merely an end to operations in Iraq, but (given his 2004 proposal) an end to the "occupation" on terms certainly unfavorable to the US. In Tom's words: "The strategy must be to deny the U.S. occupation funding, political standing, sufficient troops, and alliances necessary to their strategy for dominance."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #334
Pelt said:
I haven't followed much of anything Tom Hayden's put out in recent years, but I wonder if it expands upon his 2004 proposal http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20571/.. According to this http://akashicbooks.com/endingthewar.htm , Hayden apparently subscribes to the "2006 midterms as Iraq war referendum" narrative and attributes its success to an antiwar movement whose strategic aim isn't merely an end to operations in Iraq, but (given his 2004 proposal) an end to the "occupation" on terms certainly unfavorable to the US. In Tom's words: "The strategy must be to deny the U.S. occupation funding, political standing, sufficient troops, and alliances necessary to their strategy for dominance."
Hayden is still an antiwar activist, and his statements are certainly a political statement rather than a practical solution to the situation in Iraq. It appears that his strategy would be to cut the funding the Bush administration wants in order to force a change in policy.

I need to read the book to understand what exactly he is getting at and whether or not he offers a practical solution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #335
Astronuc said:
Tom Hayden about his book "Ending the War in Iraq."
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1199592&sectionID=231

Interesting perspective.

I'll address other questions when I have more time.

About 1/3 into the interview, Hayden says about the current Iraqi government
..people we installed in Baghdad...
? 70% turnout in the '05 elections, millions of people. The US didn't install these politicians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #336
Astronuc said:
I need to read the book to understand what exactly he is getting at and whether or not he offers a practical solution.

Just remember that Hayden's view of the "problem" boils down to: "The US is a dangerous force in the world and must be contained until reformed" (presumably along some as yet to be determined line of new leftism more compatible with international norms).

? 70% turnout in the '05 elections, millions of people. The US didn't install these politicians.

Hayden's view is any government that owes any part of its survival to American military strength exists only as a puppet to the US. He made this clear in his views on the South Vietnamese leadership. He also holds that the star opposition, therefore, must be preferable, whether North Vietnam the first time around or http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0930-23.htm today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #337
Pelt said:
Just remember that Hayden's view of the "problem" boils down to: "The US is a dangerous force in the world and must be contained until reformed" (presumably along some as yet to be determined line of new leftism more compatible with international norms).
It's tempting to throw around blanket labels like "leftism" but it's generally not productive to do so. There are a lot of fine people who believe that killing is wrong, except in self-defense, and that the Iraq War in particular had nothing to do with any of the Bush administration's stated goals. These people include a lot of vets, including many general officers, who are usually not liberals or leftists. Anti-war sentiment is not confined to the left or the right of the political spectrum (however you perceive that).

Regarding your assertion that Hayden thinks the "US is a dangerous force in the world", what is so wrong with that view? One retired general in particular warned us that the US was being taken over by a dangerous marriage of military contractors, military command, and Congress, though he edited out Congress before delivering the speech. That general was Dwight Eisenhower. The neo-cons in our administration and Congress, and in advisory positions, think-tanks, and lobbying groups have brought about the militaristic state that Eisenhower warned us about - a US whose foreign and domestic policies are driven not by the interests of the people, but by the interests of the war machine.

True conservatives would never waste our blood and treasure in an unnecessary war, nor would they want to see our military capabilities depeleted, or encourage foreign interventions. These are the actions of radical neo-cons, not conservatives. These snakes wrap themselves in flags and preach about freedom and democracy, while restricting both on domestic and international fronts. I don't know how we will manage to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but it's certain that the next president and the next president after that will have a big mess on their plates thanks to current administration.
 
  • #338
turbo-1 said:
It's tempting to throw around blanket labels like "leftism" but it's generally not productive to do so.

It's generally not a good thing to through labels around willy-nilly, but I disagree that labels are useless. Political identity is a very useful concept in a variety of social sciences, and in this case Tom Hayden is an avowed leftist. If your concerned with the neutrality of the term, I'd argue it is more so than "liberal" or "progressive." On a side note, I wonder if anyone's studied why "conservative" hasn't had as nearly as interesting a semantic life as its leftist counterparts.

There are a lot of fine people who believe that killing is wrong, except in self-defense, and that the Iraq War in particular had nothing to do with any of the Bush administration's stated goals. These people include a lot of vets, including many general officers, who are usually not liberals or leftists. Anti-war sentiment is not confined to the left or the right of the political spectrum (however you perceive that).

We're talking about Hayden, however.

Regarding your assertion that Hayden thinks the "US is a dangerous force in the world", what is so wrong with that view?

I disagree with it, but I acknowledge that people hold that view. My intent wasn't to debate the merits of his sense of values, but simply to point out what values he holds as per the OP.

One retired general in particular warned us that the US was being taken over by a dangerous marriage of military contractors, military command, and Congress, though he edited out Congress before delivering the speech. That general was Dwight Eisenhower.

Eisenhower warned against the social risks accompanying a standing military and advocated vigilance to secure against the "potential" danger of what he himself acknowledged to be "vital element in keeping the peace." This is hardly an uncommon view, it's expressed by leftists and neoconservatives like Eliot Cohen alike. It's doubtful, however, that Eisenhower would calculate such danger had been realized at any point in America's post-WWII military history.

The neo-cons in our administration and Congress, and in advisory positions, think-tanks, and lobbying groups have brought about the militaristic state that Eisenhower warned us about - a US whose foreign and domestic policies are driven not by the interests of the people, but by the interests of the war machine.

This is one view, and it's a view that was held continuously particularly by the Old and later New Left throughout from the late-1940s onward. On the other hand, since Eisenhower's day the standing military has lost almost three quarters of its peak post-WWII manpower, seven percentage points of GDP in defense spending, half of its naval strength, half of its ground force strength, and even more of its airpower.

True conservatives would never waste our blood and treasure in an unnecessary war, nor would they want to see our military capabilities depeleted, or encourage foreign interventions. These are the actions of radical neo-cons, not conservatives.

Few people if any, including neoconservatives, would waste blood and treasure on an adventure they perceived to be unnecessary. Calculating what is or isn't necessary is a little trickier than simply repeating such an obvious sentiment.

These snakes wrap themselves in flags and preach about freedom and democracy, while restricting both on domestic and international fronts.

Well domestically, civil liberties in the US is no worse off than it was in 1978. Also, it's hard to argue that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are less free and their governments more democratic today than under their previous regimes.
 
  • #339
Pelt said:
It's generally not a good thing to through labels around willy-nilly, but I disagree that labels are useless. Political identity is a very useful concept in a variety of social sciences, and in this case Tom Hayden is an avowed leftist. If your concerned with the neutrality of the term, I'd argue it is more so than "liberal" or "progressive." On a side note, I wonder if anyone's studied why "conservative" hasn't had as nearly as interesting a semantic life as its leftist counterparts.
You have Hayden's history to inform your label. My point is that you can't call someone a leftist because he or she thinks that the war is wrong and that the military-industrial complex and the neocons have hijacked our government. That view is not confined to liberals.

Pelt said:
We're talking about Hayden, however.
We're not just talking about Hayden, though, unless you want to paint him as the poster-boy for the anti-war movement.

Pelt said:
Eisenhower warned against the social risks accompanying a standing military and advocated vigilance to secure against the "potential" danger of what he himself acknowledged to be "vital element in keeping the peace." This is hardly an uncommon view, it's expressed by leftists and neoconservatives like Eliot Cohen alike. It's doubtful, however, that Eisenhower would calculate such danger had been realized at any point in America's post-WWII military history.
Your assertion is not supported by a reading of his speech. He had no problem with the existence of a strong standing military, but with the influence that the war industry could wield in our government.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Eisenhower said:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Pelt said:
This is one view, and it's a view that was held continuously particularly by the Old and later New Left throughout from the late-1940s onward. On the other hand, since Eisenhower's day the standing military has lost almost three quarters of its peak post-WWII manpower, seven percentage points of GDP in defense spending, half of its naval strength, half of its ground force strength, and even more of its airpower.
Defense spending has been exploding. If you think our military is insufficient, you should direct your energies toward the war profiteers and the people who authorize wasteful spending.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending

Pelt said:
Few people if any, including neoconservatives, would waste blood and treasure on an adventure they perceived to be unnecessary. Calculating what is or isn't necessary is a little trickier than simply repeating such an obvious sentiment.
Again, a cursory reading of the facts do not support this assertion. Cheney and his neo-con buddies knew that taking out Hussein would destabilize Iraq and lead to a civil war and a quagmire from which we could not easily extricate ourselves. They wanted a war and were willing to spend US lives and money and Iraqi lives and infrastructure to get their war. Cheney had an understanding of the problems of a destabilized Irag in 1994, but conveniently "forgot" all that when he got a chance to promote a war that would enrich his former company.



Pelt said:
Well domestically, civil liberties in the US is no worse off than it was in 1978. Also, it's hard to argue that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are less free and their governments more democratic today than under their previous regimes.
Warrantless wiretapping, monitoring of emails, denial of habeus corpus for any person fingered as a "terrorist"? That doesn't sound like much of an improvement in our liberties, does it? As for the people of Iraq (the subject of this post) I don't have firm numbers on the numbers of people who were executed every day by militia squads, tortured with electric drills, blown up by bombs, etc during Hussein's rule, but I'll venture to guess that the numbers were a bit lower in the "bad old days". I guess the Iraqi people are now freer to get executed by Blackwater mercenaries - they didn't have that freedom under Hussein.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #340
turbo-1 said:
You have Hayden's history to inform your label. My point is that you can't call someone a leftist because he or she thinks that the war is wrong and that the military-industrial complex and the neocons have hijacked our government. That view is not confined to liberals.

I can't see where I've ever labeled everyone in the antiwar movement as leftist. If you got that impression, I apologize.

We're not just talking about Hayden, though, unless you want to paint him as the poster-boy for the anti-war movement.

I'm certainly just talking about Hayden. Astronuc brought him up in an interesting tangent. I haven't expressed any views on an antiwar movement as a whole.

Your assertion is not supported by a reading of his speech.

It certainly is, since it's backed up by a direct quote from the speech.

He had no problem with the existence of a strong standing military, but with the influence that the war industry could wield in our government.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

We're not in disagreement on that point. We do disagree on whether or not Eisenhower preceived the danger as realized or even imminent.

Defense spending has been exploding.

As a percentage of GDP, it hasn't.

If you think our military is insufficient, you should direct your energies toward the war profiteers and the people who authorize wasteful spending.

Ironically, the reverse is probably more true. In constant dollars, http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos138/datadisplay/images/New_Folder/divide2.gif since the start of the Cold War through past its end has steadily trickled up. At the same time, the quantity of deployable forces has gone down.

Again, a cursory reading of the facts do not support this assertion. Cheney and his neo-con buddies knew that taking out Hussein would destabilize Iraq and lead to a civil war and a quagmire from which we could not easily extricate ourselves.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they thought the effort was necessary enough to warrant the risk.

They wanted a war and were willing to spend US lives and money and Iraqi lives and infrastructure to get their war. Cheney had an understanding of the problems of a destabilized Irag in 1994, but conveniently "forgot" all that when he got a chance to promote a war that would enrich his former company.

Then why did he hesitate in 1991? What happened between 1991 and 2003 to change his thinking? The man was Secretary of Defense and knew full well the windfalls that contractors incur during extended deployments.

Warrantless wiretapping, monitoring of emails, denial of habeus corpus for any person fingered as a "terrorist"? That doesn't sound like much of an improvement in our liberties, does it?

As I said, we're not that much worse off than in 1978.

As for the people of Iraq (the subject of this post) I don't have firm numbers on the numbers of people who were executed every day by militia squads, tortured with electric drills, blown up by bombs, etc during Hussein's rule, but I'll venture to guess that the numbers were a bit lower in the "bad old days". I guess the Iraqi people are now freer to get executed by Blackwater mercenaries - they didn't have that freedom under Hussein.

I'll readily concede that the average Iraqi and Afghan is less secure today than he or she was prior to the invasion (by as much as 6 excess deaths more per 1,000 people going by Lancet). However, we were talking about freedom and democracy. We can debate when and by how much we should value security over liberty in another discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #341
There are certainly differences between Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam, as there are differences between Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox branches of Chrisitanity. The media and various political figures have played up that difference, and it seems some parties in Iraq have sought to exploit differences.

Pelt said:
Astronuc said:
Perhaps Catholic vs Protestant (in N. Ireland) would be a more appropriate analogy.
Not sure how.

Well - let's see what an Iraqi says:

Abu Khaleel - A Glimpse of Iraq
http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/2005/02/sunni-shiite-iraq.html

Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq - An Overview of Basics
Sunnah and Shi'a are two sects of Islam, very much like Catholicism and Protestantism.
It's not exactly the same, certainly not. But there is a divide, despite being of 'one religion'.

Let's not forget that the US Congress passed a resolution recently recognizing the Christian religion as the largest (one) religion (and ostensibly on behalf of all Christians) in the world - despite the various conflicts over the centuries - and despite significant differences in beliefs and practices.

Or we could point out the conflict between the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox. Apparently it was one of the motivations behind the Crimean War (1854–1856), when after "Napoleon III had his ambassador to the Ottoman Empire force the Ottomans to recognize France as the "sovereign authority" in the Holy Land", which was followed by Russian counterclaims that "insisting that Russia was the protector of the Christian faith in the Ottoman Empire". Ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

Now the reference to the Crimea is perhaps apt to the situation in Iraq - lots of external interested parties with competing interests. But the Crimea (Peninsula) was a side show in the larger Russo-Turkic conflicts which flared up periodically over the last 500 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_Wars

The Bosporus Straits are certainly a key choke point for commerce in the Black Sea area. The Genitchi Strait (Sea of Azov) are of lesser significance.

Europe of the last 500 years was frought with alliances and competing interests, and maybe that's the case with Iraq for the next many decades, centuries. I hope not.
 
  • #342
As for the occupation - well certainly the Bush administration and supporters maintain that Iraq is not occupied. Well - apparently some/many/most ordinary Iraqis would disagree.

Thursday, December 13, 2007
Mobilizing the Sunni Tribes of Iraq
http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/2007/12/mobilizing-sunni-tribes-of-iraq.html

Article by AFP's Hervé BAR
The new US strategy in Iraq to co-opt former rebels mobilized by traditional tribal chiefs to combat the insurgents grants the tribes a central role but their influence over the long term may jeopardize the stability of the country.

It is a risky wager, explains Father Nabil Mohammad Younes, who teaches Political Science at the University of Baghdad. Since the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, the US military has been attempting to cooperate with the tribes, inspired by the example of the Ottoman and British empires.

In the October 2007 issue of Military Review, a US Army forum for intellectual inquiry, Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Eisenstadt deplored, deplores the unrealistic expectations due to a lack of knowledge of local and tribal history and politics.

Omnipresent throughout the Ottoman Empire, and progressively marginalized by the British occupation, Iraqi tribes inevitably lost their power with the independence and modernization of the country.

Relegated to the background under the monarchy, then by the Baa'th Party, the began to recover some influence at the end of the 1980's when Saddam Hussein, who considered them untrustworthy, attempted to buy the allegiance of some of them.

Beginning with their arrival in Iraq, American military officers, knowing nothing of the complex world of tribes, made missteps and errors. They also overestimated the power of sheikhs in the rebel city of Fallujah, when, in the midst of fighting Sunni insurgents, they insisted that the sheikhs end the violence. Moreover, US command collaborated in certain regions with sheikhs who had been appointed by the former regime and who had no credibility with their tribes. But at the same time, "they have generally proven useful as sources of information and advice and as vectors of influence among their tribesmen."

. . . .

But the recourse to the tribes, distrustful of the central government, jealous of their independence and whose loyalty goes to the highest bidder is risky, experts warn. For Father Younes, the tribal policies of the US are grounded in the principal of divide and conquer and promote the fragmentation of the country by multiplying local powers to the detriment of a strong central government. "If the occupation continues, sooner or later the tribal militias will turn on the occupiers", warns Father Younes.

Strengthening the militias also risks undermining institutions and civil society, says Col. David Kilcullen, an Australian and one of the developers of his country's tribal policies under the Coalition, in his blog, Small Wars Journal. . . .
Even the US military offices I know will readily acknowledge that Iraq is an occupied state.
 
  • #343
As for how to get out of this mess -

Learn from the mistakes (and there were plenty)

US Mistakes in Iraq (Abu Khaleel)
In this weblog, a number of the major mistakes made by the US administration after the occupation of Iraq are briefly outlined. The issues involved are so complex that any brief presentation of these issues has to be over-simplistic.

These mistakes not only led to the loss of “the hearts & minds” of the Iraqi people but actually led to “gaining" their animosity and resulted in considerable damage to Iraq and to America.

A lot of innocent blood was unnecessarily spilled!
http://usmistakes.blogspot.com/

Iraqi Letters
A blog from Iraq about Iraq, war, America, occupation, government, democracy, religion, terrorism... and politics.
http://iraquna.blogspot.com/

Khaleel has written to following letter to member of the US Congress.
Abu Khaleel said:
Honorable Member of Congress,

I am writing this message to you as a leader who has the power to influence political decisions in America that may have enormous consequences on my country, Iraq. Please forgive me for being rather blunt. I don't think we can afford to be otherwise.

Iraqi and American blood is flowing every day. Millions of innocent people are suffering every single hour. My country is literally devastated. It saddens me to see the worst in my country being the dominant visible feature. It is also true that the worst in your country has been the dominant visible feature in the eyes of the world.

There is little doubt now that the major factor responsible for the present state of chaos and turmoil in Iraq was the course of action taken by the Administration. It has also been responsible for the loss of American blood and treasure and the reduced standing of the US in the eyes of the world.

Arguments of good intentions are refuted by facts on the ground and by results. Even if the forces now devastating Iraq were not intentionally created by the US intervention, an environment was created by that intervention that was extremely favorable for those forces to thrive and become more powerful.

America is therefore responsible for the current failed state of Iraq. The realization and admission of this responsibility is an important prerequisite for any progress towards any solution. Only then can steps be taken to rectify the situation.

I realize that the foreign policy of the US is mostly the domain of the Administration and that it is influenced by several major forces from within and from outside the Establishment. I also realize the difficulty any decent American politician faces and the various forces at play that have to be considered: human aspects, economic issues including the security of oil supplies, immediate and long term security concerns as well as the pressures that can be exerted by special-interest groups. I realize all that.

Within Iraq too, the array of forces present is truly astounding: in addition to patriotic or nationalistic forces, the forces of sectarianism, corruption, decay, crime and violence are predominant. Regional countries are pouring funds to allies and cronies.

The solution to all these problems cannot be easy. At present, I can see no painless solution to the 'Iraqi problem'. Whichever direction I turn, I can only see rivers of blood, instability and destruction. This is the present dilemma. There is no easy solution. Yet, a start can be made.

For the longer term:

Many of the forces that are fighting the States in Iraq are fuelled by animosity stemming in part from the way the campaign was conducted, but mostly from a deep sense of mistrust of US policies. That mistrust was confirmed by the post-invasion performance. And that widespread popular sentiment is a fertile breeding ground.

Most ordinary Iraqis now believe that America is determined to subdue Iraq, control its oil and fragment it into warring cantons. You may find this utterly groundless. They don't. This view is shared by hundreds of millions of people around the world. And as long as there are millions of people convinced that America is an invading country and an enemy, America will be resisted and fought fiercely.

The formidable task is to convince ordinary Iraqis that America is not an enemy. Given the long heritage of mistrust, this is not an easy task! It requires a firm, and a clear stand. And it requires drastic measures. It cannot be rectified by spending money on public relations campaigns or through rhetoric.

Practical steps in that direction may include: a clear statement of admission of errors and mistakes; admission that America is occupying Iraq; a clear strategy; a clear statement of the intention to withdraw and clear plans in that direction; a clear statement of having no intentions to have any permanent bases in Iraq; a clear statement of intentions regarding control of Iraqi oil. A tall order indeed!

Only a visible change of direction may be the first step in the right direction.

For the shorter term:

The political process in Iraq was born dead. It was based on sectarianism. No modern country can be built on sectarianism. Although ancient and complex, Iraq was and still is constantly portrayed as Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. The country is far more than that. In the early days after the invasion and while the people were still in disarray and in a state of shock, Iraqis were presented with mainly ethnic and sectarian blocs as their representatives.

A "White" party, a "Black" party, a Catholic party or a Jewish party would be ridiculous propositions in American politics. A party that is supported by a foreign power would be found repulsive by the American public. Why have similar things been allowed in the democracy tailored by the American administration of Iraq?

The other, nominally secular groups packaged and presented to Iraqis were led by a few 'imported' gentlemen including a convicted felon, a CIA asset described by his own controller as a thug and a tired, uncharismatic old man. They had little credit with the people. They were also out of touch with the country for more than three decades during which the country and society were subjected to, and distorted by, enormous stressful forces that included a harsh tyranny, three major wars and years of strenuous sanctions.

The indigenous Iraqi voices were choked. There were other forces of reason, moderation and reconciliation in Iraq. But, in that prevailing climate with the overwhelming strength of those divisive forces and lack of organization, funds and support, those forces of reason and construction did not have a fair fighting chance.

In the early days, my belief was that power should have been quickly given to local people (who, as elsewhere, are moderate, peace-loving and reasonable) and democracy built from the bottom up. However, that approach was not appealing to the Administration or to the Iraqi forces in favor at the time. They knew what was best! In any case, this is no longer immediately possible as the well funded and well organized fanatics of various colors have infiltrated deeply into the grassroots.

Free-flowing funding was allowed to the sectarian and religious parties and war lords from regional and international sponsors. Those parties have now entrenched. They engineered an election process and wrote a constitution to maintain this status quo.

The irony is that some of the most powerful political and armed segments that emerged under the American administration of Iraq are enemies of the United States or close allies of countries that are declared enemies of the United States. I fail to see how any American can see this as anything but total failure.

Suggested Options

"Staying the course" is not a realistic option. It has already led to failure. Applying 'cosmetics' to that course can only make matters worse. In this context, partitioning Iraq is a recipe for certain disaster. Several forces have already been attempting to do just that since the invasion. The results are already visible. Iraq has been a single country for more than 40 centuries. If such a scenario is forced, strife in Iraq would last for many decades and would certainly engulf the region, with unpredictable results.

What is needed is a fundamental change of course.

. . . . .
 
  • #344
Astronuc said:
There are certainly differences between Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam, as there are differences between Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox branches of Chrisitanity.

None are teleological, however. Islam lacks a comparable concept of universality that is embodied in Catholicism (by the very term "catholic," in fact). For this reason, disagreements over sunnah (tradition) are considered temporal. I suspect Abu Khaleel would find a more apt analogy to the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox rites--that Great Schism still left two churches in full communion with one another.

The media and various political figures have played up that difference, and it seems some parties in Iraq have sought to exploit differences.

In Iraq, it's also important to note that the Shia-Sunni conflict is largely an Arab one from the Shia point of view, with Sunni Turkmen and Kurdish populations almost entirely ignored by Dawa and the Seminary. The Salafis, however, are going after everybody who doesn't buy into their extremely streamlined view of tradition.

Well - let's see what an Iraqi says:

It's not exactly the same, certainly not. But there is a divide, despite being of 'one religion'.

Sort of. Protestants and Catholics generally both subscribe to the Ncene Creed and it's universal claim as catechism, but deny one another common authority over Scripture. This leads to a strong teleological divide broadly over the matter of salvation and a temporal one over the role of the Holy See in securing it for mankind. Islam, on the other hand, has a dispute over which traditions of a universally agreed upon authority are best (basically, the fight is over some ahadith and who in Muhammad's company qualifies as a good imam). This is why I think the Roman/Greek split is more apt as an analogy than the Catholic/Protestant one.

Let's not forget that the US Congress passed a resolution recently recognizing the Christian religion as the largest (one) religion (and ostensibly on behalf of all Christians) in the world - despite the various conflicts over the centuries - and despite significant differences in beliefs and practices.

Well every world religion has divisions and many of them have gone through some very violent periods. Christianity isn't special in that regard.

Or we could point out the conflict between the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox. Apparently it was one of the motivations behind the Crimean War (1854–1856), when after "Napoleon III had his ambassador to the Ottoman Empire force the Ottomans to recognize France as the "sovereign authority" in the Holy Land", which was followed by Russian counterclaims that "insisting that Russia was the protector of the Christian faith in the Ottoman Empire". Ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

A good point, but...

Now the reference to the Crimea is perhaps apt to the situation in Iraq - lots of external interested parties with competing interests. But the Crimea (Peninsula) was a side show in the larger Russo-Turkic conflicts which flared up periodically over the last 500 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_Wars

...it's not ideal to magnify the Catholic-Orthodox dispute's role in the Crimean conflict. The war was principally over control of the Black Sea.

The Bosporus Straits are certainly a key choke point for commerce in the Black Sea area. The Genitchi Strait (Sea of Azov) are of lesser significance.

Exactly.

Europe of the last 500 years was frought with alliances and competing interests...

Far more than 500 years, we're talking millenia worth of wheeling and dealing to get to Westphalia and then four centuries more to the European Union. But the clear trend of history in Europe mirrors that of the rest of the world. Improved lines of communication increase interdependency which fosters republican democracies that prefer peaceful relationships with one another to violent competition.

and maybe that's the case with Iraq for the next many decades, centuries. I hope not.

Well Iraq is just one part of a broader region that contains over a billion people in dozens of countries, but that region isn't divorced from the rest of the world. Most of East Asia's come into modernity in lockstep with the Europeans; there's no structural reason why Near Eastern, Central and South Asia can't do the same.
 
  • #345
Even the US military offices I know will readily acknowledge that Iraq is an occupied state.

I readily concede that occupation is a trendy term in some quarters for the MNF mission, especially in the antiwar camp. However, it's meaning is solely perjorative and therefore inaccurate. The MNF has no governing authority or responsibility in Iraq whatsoever.

This distinction isn't flippant. It's an operational and legal one that defines a visiting forces relationship with the host country. It means the MNF has no authority to impose an oil sharing regime, halt or reverse de-Baathication, or even prevent the central government from negotiating deals with Syria and Iran.
 
  • #346
Astronuc said:
As for the occupation - well certainly the Bush administration and supporters maintain that Iraq is not occupied.
Where are you getting this?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html"
...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #347
mheslep said:
Where are you getting this?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html"
...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either...

Sorry but I have to e-laugh :smile:
That explains so much...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #348
Pelt said:
This distinction isn't flippant. It's an operational and legal one that defines a visiting forces relationship with the host country. It means the MNF has no authority to impose an oil sharing regime, halt or reverse de-Baathication, or even prevent the central government from negotiating deals with Syria and Iran.
I agree with this - they have no legal authority. But what they do have is a whole lot more arm-twisting power. It's this which is likely being sensed by Iraqis that feel that they are under occupation. Likely though, a good chunk of Iraqis that call the MNF an occupying force are heavily influenced by religious leaders that gain by denouncing the west.

The biggest mistake since the invasion, IMO, was the delegation of responsibilities to uncredentialed (and wanting Roe v. Wade overturned is not a credential for someone about to oversee financial rebuilding) incompetents, based on irrelevant ideologies.
 
  • #349
Gokul43201 said:
I agree with this - they have no legal authority. But what they do have is a whole lot more arm-twisting power.

Arm-twisting power that is never used is no power at all. Otherwise, we'd be forced to say the same about other host countries with large allied deployments. At the end of the day, the Iraqi government is doing what it wants on political reconciliation, revenue sharing, Iran, and de-Baathication regardless of the MNF.

It's this which is likely being sensed by Iraqis that feel that they are under occupation. Likely though, a good chunk of Iraqis that call the MNF an occupying force are heavily influenced by religious leaders that gain by denouncing the west.

The latter more so than the former. The http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf shows surprisingly high confidence in the central government and native security institutions, but little to no confidence in the MNF. While ungrateful, it's not unsurprising or necessarily unwelcome. Basically, it shows the Kurds understand what the MNF is trying to do, the Shia Arabs are feeling their oats and feel ready to take over as the dominant political broker in Iraqi politics, and the Sunni Arabs have finally accepted that their not going to be top dogs anymore. In this environment, the MNF is viewed as increasingly irrelevant to the ultimate objective of security. That is, of course, the aim of counterinsurgency conducted by a visiting force.

The biggest mistake since the invasion, IMO, was the delegation of responsibilities to uncredentialed (and wanting Roe v. Wade overturned is not a credential for someone about to oversee financial rebuilding) incompetents, based on irrelevant ideologies.

There isn't a single piece of evidence to CPA's underperformed in its reconstruction tasks. Just a lot of hoopla and mean-spirited Monday morning quarterbacking from people who didn't even bother to assume the risks their alleged inferiors did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #350
Pelt said:
Arm-twisting power that is never used is no power at all. Otherwise, we'd be forced to say the same about other host countries with large allied deployments. At the end of the day, the Iraqi government is doing what it wants on political reconciliation, revenue sharing, Iran, and de-Baathication regardless of the MNF.
It's not like the US hasn't been able to twist any arms at all. Left to himself, al-Maliki would not have dared say a word against al-Sadr, much less, sanction raids on his strongholds. I'm not sure what eventually happened to the oil bill that was going through their legislature a year(?) ago, but if it did go through looking anything like it was initially drafted, that would have taken some considerably twisting. Some areas are more amenable to persuasion than others. Besides, the reconstruction money comes from here, so at least in theory, the US does have the power to influence things.

The latter more so than the former. The http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf shows surprisingly high confidence in the central government and native security institutions, but little to no confidence in the MNF. While ungrateful, it's not unsurprising or necessarily unwelcome. Basically, it shows the Kurds understand what the MNF is trying to do, the Shia Arabs are feeling their oats and feel ready to take over as the dominant political broker in Iraqi politics, and the Sunni Arabs have finally accepted that their not going to be top dogs anymore. In this environment, the MNF is viewed as increasingly irrelevant to the ultimate objective of security. That is, of course, the aim of counterinsurgency conducted by a visiting force.
I recall from an earlier Brookings report that the people had very little confidence in the al-Maliki government and viewed it as a pawn of the US.

There isn't a single piece of evidence to CPA's underperformed in its reconstruction tasks.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=2936
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/061504.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #351
Gokul43201 said:
It's not like the US hasn't been able to twist any arms at all. Left to himself, al-Maliki would not have dared say a word against al-Sadr, much less, sanction raids on his strongholds.

Maliki doesn't sanction raids on al-Sadr's strongholds. In fact, he goes out of his way way http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/07/01/10136062.html condemn them.

On top of that, he's http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/july-dec07/iraq_12-26.html .

I'm not sure what eventually happened to the oil bill that was going through their legislature a year(?) ago, but if it did go through looking anything like it was initially drafted, that would have taken some considerably twisting.

It didn't go through. It still hasn't.

Some areas are more amenable to persuasion than others. Besides, the reconstruction money comes from here, so at least in theory, the US does have the power to influence things.

The same applies anywhere else the US disperses aid.

I recall from an earlier Brookings report that the people had very little confidence in the al-Maliki government and viewed it as a pawn of the US.

I'd have to check.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=2936

Seen this. It's an enumeration of grievances like Emerald City rather than a performance-based assessment of the CPA's tenure.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html

I'll readily http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/audits/06-036.pdf of economic indicators in two periods (May 2003 and July 2004 and July 2004 onwards) renders an inferred impact on reconstruction success doubtful.

http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/061504.shtml

This simply reiterates the IAMB/SIGIR concerns regarding CPA's accounting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #352
Pelt said:
...it's not ideal to magnify the Catholic-Orthodox dispute's role in the Crimean conflict. The war was principally over control of the Black Sea.

Far more than 500 years, we're talking millenia worth of wheeling and dealing to get to Westphalia and then four centuries more to the European Union. But the clear trend of history in Europe mirrors that of the rest of the world. Improved lines of communication increase interdependency which fosters republican democracies that prefer peaceful relationships with one another to violent competition.

Well Iraq is just one part of a broader region that contains over a billion people in dozens of countries, but that region isn't divorced from the rest of the world. Most of East Asia's come into modernity in lockstep with the Europeans; there's no structural reason why Near Eastern, Central and South Asia can't do the same.
Europe was a very favourable environment for democracy to develop. One can argue colonialism vented European expansionism. The Crimean war, for example, was sparked by Russian expansionism stepping on British and French toes, turning chronic border disputes into a major power conflict. Historically, the British intervened in European affairs only when there was risk to the British mainland - i.e. they fiercely resisted the control of the western European mainland by large powers, and kept the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Countries" independent and segmented. Napoleon III was trying to live up to his name. Perhaps the coevolution of democracy, the republic and the European balance of powers is a unique case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #353
I heard a discussion about Stewart and his new book, The Prince of the Marshes, and I'm interested in his perspective having been there.

Rory Stewart has covered a lot of ground—figuratively and literally. He spent sixteen months on his feet traversing Iran, Pakistan, India, and Nepal. He then embarked on the second stage of his walking tour: crossing Afghanistan from Herāt to Kabul. The Places in Between captures his experiences on that epic journey. After a brief rest in his native Scotland, he returned to Iraq as a diplomat working for the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Prince of the Marshes recounts Stewart’s eleven months as the appointed deputy governor of, two impoverished marsh regions of southern Iraq. The Prince of the Marshes reveals the difficulties, frustrations, and hazards Stewart faced as part of the Coalition trying to establish a new Iraqi nation.
http://www.harcourtbooks.com/PrinceOfTheMarshes/interview.asp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #354
Lancet Discredited

The http://http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm" discredits the Lancet Iraqi death studies. The Lancet II study, authored by Burnham, Lafta, Doocy, and Roberts, provides and estimate of ~650k Iraqi war caused deaths and is likely a 10x overestimate according to the report. Data Bomb details flaws including sample size, 'main street' bias, lack of survey oversight, refusal to make available original data, and the possibility of fraud.
NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute.

"I think that's when I fully understood the need to step beyond peer-review journals and statistical analyses if you are going to do effective public health work in times of war," Roberts explained in a recent interview with a Belgian-based publication.
Another Iraqi civilian death count effort, Iraq Body Count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/state-of-knowledge/11" on Lanset.
Note that the week after Lancet was released it was dozens of major media news shows, NY Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, and has been cited https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1272141&postcount=31"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #355
Five Years In
Fateful Choice on Iraq Army Bypassed Debate
By MICHAEL R. GORDON, NYTimes, March 17, 2008
BAGHDAD — When President Bush convened a meeting of his National Security Council on May 22, 2003, his special envoy in Iraq made a statement that caught many of the participants by surprise. In a video presentation from Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer III informed the president and his aides that he was about to issue an order formally dissolving Iraq’s Army.

The decree was issued the next day.

The broad outlines of the decision are now widely known, defended by proponents as necessary to ensure that Saddam Hussein’s influence did not outlive his ouster from power.

But with the fifth anniversary of the start of the war approaching, some participants have provided in interviews their first detailed, on-the-record accounts of a decision that is widely seen as one of the most momentous and contentious of the war, assailed by critics as all but ensuring that American forces would face a growing insurgency led by embittered Sunnis who led much of the army.

The account that emerges from those interviews, and from access to previously unpublished documents, makes clear that Mr. Bremer’s decree reversed an earlier plan — one that would have relied on the Iraqi military to help secure and rebuild the country, and had been approved at a White House meeting that Mr. Bush convened just 10 weeks earlier.

The interviews show that while Mr. Bush endorsed Mr. Bremer’s plan in the May 22 meeting, the decision was made without thorough consultations within government, and without the counsel of the secretary of state or the senior American commander in Iraq, said the commander, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan. The decree by Mr. Bremer, who is known as Jerry, prompted bitter infighting within the government and the military, with recriminations continuing to this day.

Colin L. Powell, the secretary of state and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was never asked for advice, and was in Paris when the May 22 meeting was held.

Mr. Powell, who views the decree as a major blunder, later asked Condoleezza Rice, who was serving as Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, for an explanation.

“I talked to Rice and said, ‘Condi, what happened?’ ” he recalled. “And her reaction was: ‘I was surprised too, but it is a decision that has been made and the president is standing behind Jerry’s decision. Jerry is the guy on the ground.’ And there was no further debate about it.”

When Mr. Bush convened his top national security aides before the March 2003 invasion, he was presented with a clear American plan on what to do with the Iraqi armed forces. American commanders and Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who served as the first American administrator in Iraq, planned to use the Iraqi military to help protect the country and as a national reconstruction force.

The plan was outlined in a PowerPoint presentation that Douglas J. Feith, a senior aide to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, gave at a National Security Council meeting that Mr. Bush convened on March 12, eight days before the invasion began. Republican Guard units, the forces deemed most loyal to Mr. Hussein, were to be disarmed, detained and dismantled.

But the rest of the army would be retained. Three to five of the divisions would be used to form the “nucleus” of a new Iraqi Army, according to a copy of the PowerPoint slide, which was obtained by The New York Times. Other Iraqi troops would be used as a reconstruction force to rebuild the nation.

The presentation also carried a caution about the risks of dismissing the army in the early months of an American occupation in a nation racked by high unemployment: “Cannot immediately demobilize 250K-300K personnel and put on the street.”

. . . . .
But the Bush administration allowed Bremer to dismiss the Iraqi military - and that, according many sources, coincided with the onset of the insurgency.
 
  • #356
I only got one comment for what to do there...

-<(This Comment is True)>-
phycological war fare is the cheapest way to end the war and make everyone a winner, Also it's far more cheaper to drop food,water, and supplies to make shelters and green house's and other supplies they need to sustain there daily and long term life, than it is to drop bombs and other military cost's... If you give them all what they want and what they need to live, I insure you they won't bite the hand that feeds them. Feed them intill they can feed them selfs. then stay the (F) out just like what they want. America would want the same thing if they were them... But then there would still be the problem of the people that call them selfs christian's and Jew's... *a thought* will people ever stop the needless things in this world?
 
  • #357
And somewhere from Iraq there's a thread titled:

"What To Do About The USA".
 
  • #358
What To Do About Iraq?

How about sending a message to all future Presidents that we will never again tolerate such a travesty!

Put George Bush and his cronies on trial for war crimes and let them rot in prison for life.

Bob
 
  • #360
Ivan Seeking said:
Frontline: Bush's War
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

A nice review of events and a peek at the inner workings of the WH.

I watched both episodes on television. I would really recommend that anyone who is interested or concerned about the middle east watch it online.

It covered everything from 911 on. The inner workings and power plays were incredibly detailed.

It seems almost impossible to believe that the CIA and Pentagon were not working together in Afghanistan because of personal differences.

The Northern Alliance was involved only because the war lords were paid to be involved.

This is a must see.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K