DanceswithwordsIraq today: what would you do?
November 17th 2006 02:12
one question really leaps up at me when examining the current quagmire that is todays Iraq. it seems obvious to me, but why the hell didnt the leaders of the coalition of the willing look at the history books when they invaded the country? why didnt they take heed of what happened to the british efforts to create an artificial state and a puppet dictatorship in mesopotamia? when the british imposed the saudi arabian sunni Faisal as leader in the 20's, bonded the three former provinces of the ottoman empire into one (basra, baghdad and mosul) and tried to establish lucrative trade routes back to london, what were the results? they created the conditions for numerous brutal coup's, governments that were complicit with the nazi's, the need for yet another invasion (yup, the british have been there now 3 times in the last 80 odd years), oh yeah, and the ability for the ba'athist party to come to power....which soon after lead to the rise of mr saddam. why didnt bush, blair and howard learn from the lessons that the british provided via their incompetence. that its one thing to bomb a country back to the stone ages, its quite another to strip the nation of the barbaric leader who ruled it but had somewhat unified it, devoid it almost entirely of its former defense networks (republican guard and the army), impose a new leadership which is essentially powerless, and then expect to be treated as triumphant liberators when the massive power vaccum appears on the horizon.
what we have today in Iraq is not just a civil war. we have all major towns run by militia, we have militia competing against one another for meagre resources. we have huge infiltration by sectarian militants in all facets of the newly created defense networks. we have parliamentary officials that are afraid to come to work. we have an occupying force that is neither sufficient enough to maintain control, nor popular enough to gain the support of the local communities they work in. the fact of the matter is, we in the west are not winning the war. we have as much chance of defeating the insurgency in iraq as we had defeating the vietcong in vietnam. the question i pose to you is what should the leaders of the coaltion do now? if your opinion is to depart immediately, withdraw the troops and leave the country to its own devices. what will you say when the spectre of another failed state appears, when iraq goes the way of afghanistan after the americans rallied the mujahideen and permitted entrance of the foreign fighters to defeat the USSR? if you wish to stay, are you willing to permit the only logical conclusion that the military advisers of our countries will reach, another carpet bombing of an entire country? to try and limit the power that the fundamentalists in iraq will have in victory. i say the latter because no government imposed by the west will be accepted, no deals brokered by us will have longevity. or am i missing something, what other options are on the table? if you were in charge of a coalition country today, what would you do?
what we have today in Iraq is not just a civil war. we have all major towns run by militia, we have militia competing against one another for meagre resources. we have huge infiltration by sectarian militants in all facets of the newly created defense networks. we have parliamentary officials that are afraid to come to work. we have an occupying force that is neither sufficient enough to maintain control, nor popular enough to gain the support of the local communities they work in. the fact of the matter is, we in the west are not winning the war. we have as much chance of defeating the insurgency in iraq as we had defeating the vietcong in vietnam. the question i pose to you is what should the leaders of the coaltion do now? if your opinion is to depart immediately, withdraw the troops and leave the country to its own devices. what will you say when the spectre of another failed state appears, when iraq goes the way of afghanistan after the americans rallied the mujahideen and permitted entrance of the foreign fighters to defeat the USSR? if you wish to stay, are you willing to permit the only logical conclusion that the military advisers of our countries will reach, another carpet bombing of an entire country? to try and limit the power that the fundamentalists in iraq will have in victory. i say the latter because no government imposed by the west will be accepted, no deals brokered by us will have longevity. or am i missing something, what other options are on the table? if you were in charge of a coalition country today, what would you do?
| 153 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The problem as I see it is that chaos exists where there an opportunity for corruption. The whole premise of the invasion was corrupt. Corrupt men deciding to remove a corrupt leader like Sadam is a poor start to stability. Hence the post invasion strategy was one of trying to erase Saddam from the country before they tried to fix what they had broken. The mindset of the coalition is still trying to save face over their own mistakes. Mistakes that were caused by self interest might I add.
So the issues are now one of a power struggle betweem Iraqi groups. They may be doing so to possition them them selves for domination after the Coalition of the willing leave. This is what happened just before the Russians left Afghanistan. Rebel fought amoungst themselves to find dominance before the final attack on the capital. In this case the power struggle is being described as an insurgency but I find it difficult to describe it entirely in those terms. Attacks on the US forces is a side show other wise they would be the only enemy. The morality of my enemy is ok for me mentality.
Ok enough of my analysis. How to fix it? The power struggle will continue on until someone either wins or they reach a compromise. The Coalition are playing on borrowed time in this regard as united Iraqi insurgence would easily overwhelm them. Increasing the US forces will help this power struggle to be decided as they will befaced with a bigger common enemy. The Iraqis are angry, agrieved and armed. They are not so blind that they don't know the causes of their problems stem from: how Saddam stayed in power, the UN santions, the invasion and post war profeteering by Haliburton. Hence it is this anger that needs to be addressed first.
First and foremost George W Bush must be go. As a war criminal who is little better than Saddam he should be thankful to leave with his life. Second the Iraqi people need an appology for the war crimes inflicted upon it. Third the cost of rebuilding the entire country has to be payed for by the Coalition of the willing. Haliburton must be prevented to operate as a company ever again. Any sign of US controlling the government of Iraq must be cut. Very important: We need to abondon this new Domino Theory as it is a s flawed as the old domino theory. There must be a stated intention of the coalition forces that they will be leaving . This must be shown to be done on the dates they stipulate.
Only then may the anger that is building in the middle east over iraq decline. In my opinion that failing to do this will only increase the anger and the rage. Then the US will realise that they are only 6% of the worlds population trying to bluff the other 94%
Comment by ChrisM
i agree with you that it would take a much larger coalition presence to unify the insurgency. bush spoke the other day about the possibility of sending an extra 20 thousand troops to baghdad. i dont think that would be sufficient for either side to get a leg up though. it will just put the green zone in limbo for a little while.
i like your idea about the us reforms that should be made in regards to Iraq, but unfortunately it doesnt take into consideration the islamic notion of the umma (muslim lands as one). the two issues that still have precedence over the iraq war in the salafi's or jihadists mind is the continuing presence of american military bases on muslim holy land (mecca and medina) and the problem of israel (which is very influential all over the middle east irrespective of religion). i think fixing iraq along the lines you mentioned would be a damn good step in the right direction though.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
As much as there are power struggles in the middle east there are just as many in the west over the same issue. So I don't think Bush is about to leave.
Comment by Eric
Mal Gadget
Iraq's court system found Saddam guilty of brutal murders and mass killings. They sentenced him to death by hanging.
If we are to suggest that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, we are also suggesting that Saddam should have been left alone to continue his tirade.
Comment by ChrisM