Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Ok, but did you get my point about the "strong race up north?" In that way there is "race".

The "illusion" is that race is something genetic, and thus somethig that we can not change. So the only solution people are willing to accept is to destroy the race they do not like.

In reality, it is a matter of culture and upbringing. Something that is not easy to change, but not impossible either. Though sometimes I wonder when even intelligent people have such a hard time seeing it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The "illusion" is that race is something genetic, and thus somethig that we can not change. So the only solution people are willing to accept is to destroy the race they do not like.

In reality, it is a matter of culture and upbringing. Something that is not easy to change, but not impossible either. Though sometimes I wonder when even intelligent people have such a hard time seeing it.

You seem to be agreeing with me more now, though I'm not sure if IRex will...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You seem to be agreeing with me more now, though I'm not sure if IRex will...

Race is an intellectual construct, not a physical reality. I think that is what IR is basically saying as well.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

What would happen if Iraq was divided into three sections?

Then youd have war. And war beyond Iraq's borders because Turkey would go after the Kurds and Iran would back the Sunnis to the point of possibly sending troops in for them. Nobody wants to be left out of the oil grab and the oil tends to be concentrated only in certain areas. Not to mention the chaos of relocating hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in a kind of middle east trail of tears. And Baghdad becoming another Jerusalem.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Race is an intellectual construct, not a physical reality. I think that is what IR is basically saying as well.

Well, in that case I would not place myself at either extreme of both. I think there is a certain physicality to it, as I exampled in my north tribe metaphor...

[Spock]

On the tri-parting of Iraq; I don't think that would be as successful () as the German breakup after WWII. It seems the tribal mentality is to attack and kill as many of the others as possible no matter where and no matter what.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then youd have war. And war beyond Iraq's borders because Turkey would go after the Kurds and Iran would back the Sunnis to the point of possibly sending troops in for them. Nobody wants to be left out of the oil grab and the oil tends to be concentrated only in certain areas. Not to mention the chaos of relocating hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in a kind of middle east trail of tears. And Baghdad becoming another Jerusalem.

Sorry Rex, I was kicked off that night before I could reply.

I agree with you about the splitting...

[Draken]

I'm afraid a split is looking likelier by the day, and might be the least worst option. As measures to reduce the level of violence are not working, it's hard to see any reason for the antagonists to lay down their arms. Looking at Yugoslavia, a split was ultimately not preventable there - but once the borders had been stabilised, the fighting did stop, at least.

Insidious Rex is right that the Turks would not be happy with a Kurdish state on their border, and Turkish considerations have historically held back the West from giving the Kurds the recognition they deserve. However I think it's time to bite the bullet and allow a Kurdish nation state in what is now northern Iraq. It doesn't imply support for Kurdish separatists in Turkey, and as a Kurdish nation would be broadly pro-Western, diplomatic pressure could be brought to make sure there is no cross-border agitation.

This would then leave the rest of Iraq to be partitioned between Sunni and Shia. This would be messy and result in an anti-Western, fundamentalist nation in the the south that will be a natural ally to Iran. The central Sunni state will also be anti-Western, but this will be tempered by their need for allies against the Shia: unless they retain Baghdad, the Sunni state will be weakest in terms of industry and natural resources. Baghdad, at the likely Sunni/Shia border, could indeed become another Jerusalem, and will probably end up in the hands of whoever fights hardest for it - like I said, messy!

So not an ideal solution - but I think we're beyond getting that. At least it will remove the occupation of Iraq as a bee in the bonnet of Islamic terrorist organisations, and will leave them with the interesting problem of picking which of two Islamic sects to support.

[Lief Erikson]

Are you kidding? If we pull out coalition troops and the official Iraqi army is disbanded, the terrorists will have free run of the country. They will have access to the country's oil reserves also, which they will undoubtedly use to fund the extremists' war against us. There will be no one to stop them or fight them if the US pulls out, and they must be fought. The security of the West would be compromised by handing Iraq over to the insurgency.

If we left, abandoning the country to civil war, the group in the best position to take advantage of it right now is the insurgency.

I'm weary of this war too and I wish very much that it was possible for the US pull out. But if you think the situation we have now is a nightmare, (100 Iraqis killed a day) that nightmare is nothing in comparison with what would exist if we pulled out. And that nightmare would envelop the West as well. We can't run and avoid paying our part of the nightmare in blood, for that would put fuel in the hands of the extremists that hate us and cost us more blood later. If we refuse to spend our lives on freedom's behalf in Iraq, considering the nature and organization of the insurgency, there is every reason to believe we will pay with our lives in our own cities.

I approved of the Iraq war largely because of the threat of Saddam's manufacturing WMD. The US Congress was fully convinced of the threat by the intelligence they received, just as the Administration was. Saddam was certainly being very dodgy with the UN investigators and the Security Council. If this reasoning all proved wrong and we entered Iraq for a wrong reason, we're there now. We and the new army we're building are all that stands between people that love democracy and terrorist ambitions. Even though it cost us deeply in both blood and money, we have to stick this out to the end. By doing so, we protect ourselves and we protect Iraq.

The suffering Iraq experiences now is undeniably horrific, but that suffering would be nothing compared to the horror they experienced if we were to hand them over to the extremists. To do so, in my view is cowardice and weakness. We have destroyed the stability of Iraq. It is our moral duty to do all that we possibly can to make a new country out of the shambles. If we shirk that duty, we lose face in front of all our enemies and our allies, who both will know that America won't hold to its promises but will flee when confronted by our ruthless and above all persistant enemies.

Our enemies know how to pay a price for what they believe is right. They know how to give their lives for a "righteous" cause and how to persist relentlessly. Because of that passion that comes from their hearts, they are strong. The Islamic extremists that we fight worldwide have an ideology that gives them great power.

It was so also at the birth of Islam. What we are seeing now is what the West saw then. Muhammad led his band of followers in a war against all Saudi Arabia from within, and he conquered it in spite of great adversity and odds against him. His successor, Abu Bakr, conquered the tribes all over again in the ridda wars after they revolted the instant Muhammad died. Then the Muslims attacked the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires simultaneously! And won! Saudi Arabia had previously been a pawn in those empires' hands, politically divided and used. Their armies were far more powerful and their wealth and infrastructure infinitely superior to Saudi Arabia's, but that didn't matter because of the rigidity of Muslim belief. They had good strategies too, some of which are not unlike modern extremists' strategies. Their power was in their faith, in their willingness to die for a cause and to lose as many lives as it took in that cause. You could not fight an enemy like that. Well you could, but you could not win.

This is one of the great strengths of our enemy, and this also is one of the great strengths of our current American president. Under all the terrible pressure of his office, did you see how fast his hair turned gray? Just about . . . instantly. He is faced with a burden such as none of us for an instant could bear, and yet too many of us scorn him. He knows that to fight is necessary, and he will persist. He will fight on, as is his moral duty, and as is best for the security and wellbeing of our country and Iraq.

When Adolf Hitler came to power, he took over country after country because the nations of the West were too weak to stop him. He was an evil maniac who was plotting world war, and to avoid world war we gave him whatever he wanted. The same is happening today.

Our enemies are attacking Iraq, but seeking to avoid war by avoiding that fight is futile. Rather, just as Hitler's early invasions gave him a power base from which to launch devastating strikes against France and Russia, we would give the extremists a power base in Iraq and perhaps in other parts of the world where we would rather not fight them.

We don't want to spend our lives in the cause. We are unwilling to fight our opponent who cannot be made peace with and wants no peace with us. If we follow that desire for peace by refusing to resist Al'Qaeda in Iraq, we put great power in our enemies' hands. Iraq would be come a safe haven for terrorists, a symbol of American weakness that they could use to draw support, and a money source through oil. The cost in blood for Iraqis also would be beyond belief. In short, it would be a far, far worse disaster than the one we currently are faced with.

To defeat our enemies, we have to have as much determination as they do. Not as much ruthlessness, but as much determination. We must have as much love for freedom as our ancestors at the beginning of this country did. They died for their love of freedom, for freedom was more important to them than life.

I wish very much we could withdraw, for like you, I am weary of the war. I was reading a press report today which said that more and more Americans are feeling that way. Something like 60%, I think. The war in Iraq that's spiraling out of control because of the ruthless tactics, evil and zeal of our foes seems to me like a pot where carnage is more and more vigorously being stirred. It's horrible.

But I also know that this is nowhere near as bad as it would be if we pulled out now. Nowhere near. A comparison can't even be drawn.

It would be our fault that they suffer so, and we would end up suffering for it. Oh well, I think I've said my piece . An incredibly long post, I know, but that's just the way it goes with me!

By the way, that's a great signature you have, Draken .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It is our moral duty to do all that we possibly can to make a new country out of the shambles. If we shirk that duty, we lose face in front of all our enemies and our allies, who both will know that America won't hold to its promises but will flee when confronted by our ruthless and above all persistant enemies.

Moral duty?

Big speeches on false morality always tug heartstrings, but look at some numbers from the projected 2006 Federal Budget:

Education spending: $56 Billion

Military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: $75 Billion

When you address one duty, you leave others behind. Which of the two above investments does more for our, and the world's, future? True, we won't "lose face" as much shortchanging our children, but we will lose more in the long run.

Not to mention that five years hasn't done anything to improve the situation, and has most likely made it worse today and in the years to come. So even from the pure "security" point of view, we have failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But I also know that this is nowhere near as bad as it would be if we pulled out now. Nowhere near. A comparison can't even be drawn.

You know that, eh?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Moral duty?

Big speeches on false morality always tug heartstrings, but look at some numbers from the projected 2006 Federal Budget:

Education spending: $56 Billion

Military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: $75 Billion

When you address one duty, you leave others behind. Which of the two above investments does more for our, and the world's, future? True, we won't "lose face" as much shortchanging our children, but we will lose more in the long run.

First of all, you can't say, "Either we spend less on the military or we spend less on education. There's no other way." That's a false division, a debating fallacy. Furthermore, losing face is only part of the danger that would come from losing the war in Iraq, and it is a real danger. It means our allies won't put so much trust in us as they might have and our enemies will gain strength, both of which would have a direct negative impact upon the children we'd be "shortchanging."

This is a terribly important war with more at stake than embarressment.

Secondly, I don't believe that our education problem is one that can be solved by throwing money at it. From what I've seen, it's the resolve of a student that will make him or her succeed. Most students just don't care what they're taught and they aren't interested in learning. They try to scrape by on the absolute minimum they need to pass simply because they're lazy. Teachers can't put the needed resolve in people. With previous generations, it was the family and society that put a strong emphasis on the child learning. Families nowadays are fracturing for many reasons, and the parents don't do their job in placing a high value on success for the students.

That is really the only reason I disagree with parts of No Child Left Behind. The flaw in the program is the basic assumption: that changing the education system will improve students' education. However, what really has to happen is parents need to bring up their children with different values. Deterioriating family structure is the reason for education collapse, not lack of funding.

Also, frankly, I can't see how making sure my child is fully educated is more important than seeing that someone else's child under my protection isn't blown up.

That's an important point. Our responsibility for keeping a country under our protection from igniting and hundreds of thousands of people in it dying is a heavier moral responsibility than our duty to take care of most domestic affairs.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not to mention that five years hasn't done anything to improve the situation,

That's absurd. First of all, a government has been freely elected in Iraq. According to an Economic Intelligence Unit report, they are the fourth freest nation in the Middle East. There have been many political successes, and the number of trained Iraqi troops is constantly increasing, in spite of the casualties they're taking. They are still taking over more and more control from coalition forces. They are the hope for the future.

The violence in Iraq is worse than ever, but there have been significant improvements in the country in spite of that.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and has most likely made it worse today and in the years to come. So even from the pure "security" point of view, we have failed miserably.

True that extremists are using our presence in Iraq to fuel warfare against us. That is a very nasty consequence of the war. Yet it is also true that if we were to pull out, the terrorists would be the best equipped and organized force in the region. The insurgency has named itself Al'Qaeda in Iraq. They would have a safe-haven in Iraq, oil resources and the ability to say truthfully, "we beat America."

Our presence in Iraq may have fuel the insurgents now, but if we pulled out, this would help them far more than our staying would. And by staying, there is still hope that we can strengthen the Iraqi security forces sufficiently for them to take over from us and stabilize their country.

That hope is not gone. Looking at the numbers of how their military has been increasing in numbers and training, taking part in military operations and gaining control of more territories shows that the US plan for Iraq is working. To win this war though, we have to pay a price. The people of Iraq have to pay a bigger price. Yet there is good reason to believe that the price of accepting defeat would be far greater than the price for achieving victory. We have to be willing to pay a price for our freedom if we are to maintain it.

I'm connecting the war in Iraq with the global struggle as I say that, for the fight in Iraq is part of the war for our freedom as well as their's. If we pulled out, it would greatly strengthen those who want us dead. More would rally to their cause, just as Hezbollah is currently experiencing a wave of support throughout the Arab world because Israel failed to crush it. We should learn a lesson from that war as we continue to fight this one.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You know that, eh?

It's obvious. Which is going to be better, poor security or no security? Obviously poor security.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Are you kidding? If we pull out coalition troops and the official Iraqi army is disbanded, the terrorists will have free run of the country. They will have access to the country's oil reserves also, which they will undoubtedly use to fund the extremists' war against us. There will be no one to stop them or fight them if the US pulls out, and they must be fought. The security of the West would be compromised by handing Iraq over to the insurgency.

If we left, abandoning the country to civil war, the group in the best position to take advantage of it right now is the insurgency.

If the official Iraqi army is dibanded, that's because the country will have been divided into three, as discussed above- for the terrorists (and here I'm assuming that by "terrorists" and "the insurgency" you're referring to the Sunnis) to have free run of the country, they'd still have to beat both the Kurds and the Shiites, who control the territory where the oil is. Neither of those two groups will sit down while their most hated enemies take control, and in the case of the Shiites, the Iranians certainly won't allow a bunch of Salfists and Baathists to take over southern Iraq.

The suffering Iraq experiences now is undeniably horrific, but that suffering would be nothing compared to the horror they experienced if we were to hand them over to the extremists. To do so, in my view is cowardice and weakness. We have destroyed the stability of Iraq. It is our moral duty to do all that we possibly can to make a new country out of the shambles. If we shirk that duty, we lose face in front of all our enemies and our allies, who both will know that America won't hold to its promises but will flee when confronted by our ruthless and above all persistant enemies.

All those allies who told you not to go in, and who wish very much that you'd get out? And I think you're making far more enemies by staying in- certainly in the Muslim world

Our enemies know how to pay a price for what they believe is right. They know how to give their lives for a "righteous" cause and how to persist relentlessly. Because of that passion that comes from their hearts, they are strong. The Islamic extremists that we fight worldwide have an ideology that gives them great power.

What power? Their leader is hiding in a cave- the most these guys can do is bomb some soft targets here and there- like the IRA, ETA, or the the Palestinians- terror is the weapon of the weak. We have to be vigilant, and most specially guard against loose nukes, but they're nowhere near the threat the the Soviets or Nazis were.

This is one of the great strengths of our enemy, and this also is one of the great strengths of our current American president. Under all the terrible pressure of his office, did you see how fast his hair turned gray? Just about . . . instantly. He is faced with a burden such as none of us for an instant could bear, and yet too many of us scorn him. He knows that to fight is necessary, and he will persist. He will fight on, as is his moral duty, and as is best for the security and wellbeing of our country and Iraq.

Well, I'll agree with you that Bush is an ignorant fanatic. Many of us (still not enough) scorn him because he (and his advisors) are fools who rushed into a situation with nothing but their ideology to giuide them.

When Adolf Hitler came to power, he took over country after country because the nations of the West were too weak to stop him. He was an evil maniac who was plotting world war, and to avoid world war we gave him whatever he wanted. The same is happening today.

He also happened to be in control of one of the most powerful industrialised countries in the world countries in the world- see anyone out there like that?

Our enemies are attacking Iraq, but seeking to avoid war by avoiding that fight is futile.

No, your enemies are Iraqis, now fighting each other.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That hope is not gone. Looking at the numbers of how their military has been increasing in numbers and training, taking part in military operations and gaining control of more territories shows that the US plan for Iraq is working. To win this war though, we have to pay a price. The people of Iraq have to pay a bigger price. Yet there is good reason to believe that the price of accepting defeat would be far greater than the price for achieving victory. We have to be willing to pay a price for our freedom if we are to maintain it.

The problem with the new Iraqi army is, is it an Iraqi Army? or is it an Army composed of units whose prime loyalty is to Kurdistan or the Shiite militias- or the insurgents?

I'm connecting the war in Iraq with the global struggle as I say that, for the fight in Iraq is part of the war for our freedom as well as their's. If we pulled out, it would greatly strengthen those who want us dead. More would rally to their cause, just as Hezbollah is currently experiencing a wave of support throughout the Arab world because Israel failed to crush it. We should learn a lesson from that war as we continue to fight this one.

And I think the lesson should be, don't rush into a war if you're not committed to make the sacrifice to win- and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld weren't, and aren't. They were told what would be needed, and they chose to ignore that, because the neocons/exiles told them that they'd be greeted with rose petals, and they preferred to listen only to what they wanted to hear.

With the number of troops in Iraq too small to do anything but run around playing Whack-a-Mole, Bush has not once gone out and called for Americans to sacrifice by volunteering to go to Iraq- he's never dared to face the political risk.

I don't know what can be done now- withdrawal certainly risks an explosion of violence and civil war; staying seems to lead to a steady downward spiral to civil war- with US troops caught in the middle.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

If the official Iraqi army is dibanded, that's because the country will have been divided into three, as discussed above- for the terrorists (and here I'm assuming that by "terrorists" and "the insurgency" you're referring to the Sunnis) to have free run of the country, they'd still have to beat both the Kurds and the Shiites, who control the territory where the oil is. Neither of those two groups will sit down while their most hated enemies take control, and in the case of the Shiites, the Iranians certainly won't allow a bunch of Salfists and Baathists to take over southern Iraq.

And do you think the Sunnis would sit down and let their neighbors have all the oil? There would be civil war. But the insurgency is the best equipped and organized military force in the country, after the coalition forces and Iraqi military and police. Therefore they will have the advantage in whatever power struggle might follow.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

All those allies who told you not to go in, and who wish very much that you'd get out?

We have allies in the Middle East and in sensitive places in other parts of the world who would learn that a firm resistance can defeat us. European allies aren't the only ones that matter. I think much of the world would scorn us if we pulled out, and rightly so, for we would be leaving Iraq to civil war.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

And I think you're making far more enemies by staying in- certainly in the Muslim world

I disagree. Again, see the effects of the Israeli pull-out from Lebanon. Their presence in Lebanon was gaining them enemies, but their pull-out made it even worse. It gave heart to all their foes and made Hezbollah heroes all over the Arab world, according to articles from BBC News and The Washington Post.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

What power? Their leader is hiding in a cave- the most these guys can do is bomb some soft targets here and there- like the IRA, ETA, or the the Palestinians- terror is the weapon of the weak.

Like ten airplanes bound from the UK to the US, an attack foiled just in the last week or two, which if successful would have killed thousands of civilians. The plot was in its final stages of completion when disrupted.

You know, the Patriot Act and other more contraversial policies our government has been implementing have been having a strong effect in our country. I don't know how much you've been keeping up on it, but they've thwarted many terrorist plots in the United States since September 11. The government released details on ten of them last winter, I think it was. But when I was researching the warrantless wiretapping situation, I found information about other terrorist cells that were broken up in Virginia and other states. The fight definitely has been continuing. The explanation for that, I believe, is that the Administration has done a very good job at fighting terror on the domestic front. But as a consequence of their success, it's easy for us to be lulled into a false sense of security.

I doubt that public opinion about the war in Iraq, the warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act or the Administration in general would be nearly as forbidding if several of those terrorist plots had succeeded in the last few years.

Not that I wish they did. I admire our intelligence agencies for their success, and I believe the Patriot Act is a very sound piece of legislation. The wiretapping deal I am much less sure about. I know there recently has been a court ruling that it is illegal too.

But anyway, my point is that it's apparent the enemy is not powerless, but our security efforts have been successful.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

We have to be vigilant, and most specially guard against loose nukes, but they're nowhere near the threat the the Soviets or Nazis were.

I agree with you that this is true, for the time being. But the extremists are getting stronger all the time, and defeating the US in Iraq would certainly look very good to potential converts to their ideology and cause.

Oh, speaking of loose nukes as you just were, what are your feelings on the current nuclear controversy with Iran?

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Well, I'll agree with you that Bush is an ignorant fanatic. Many of us (still not enough) scorn him because he (and his advisors) are fools who rushed into a situation with nothing but their ideology to giuide them.

So the US Congress was a pack of ignorant, ideology-driven fools too, for believing the same information the Administration did and acting in the same way. The American people were united on that decision at that time, Congress, Administration and public. But since then, the public has grown weary of the war. Politicians smelled the new public feeling and changed with it, to garner support. So who takes all the blame for us getting into the war in the first place? The Administration, naturally.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

He also happened to be in control of one of the most powerful industrialised countries in the world countries in the world- see anyone out there like that?

I see Iraq and Iran and many countries in the Middle East full of a whale of a lot of oil and backed by powerful sponser nations as a consequence. We're also talking about people who would have successfully put Americans to flight. But none of that really matters.

War in the 21st century isn't the same as historical war. Pitched battles aren't the rule anymore. Terrorism is the great threat of the new millenium. Look at how effective terrorism has been in the insurgency's hands in Iraq! Look at all the hurt it has caused Israel's economy over the years. And that's not even getting into WMD. You don't have to be a huge industrialized nation with an army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to do terrible harm in the modern world. Our military understands this, which is why they are undergoing massive internal changes these years to cope with the big new threat.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

No, your enemies are Iraqis, now fighting each other.

Self-styled, "Al'Qaeda in Iraq."

[The Gaffer]

What GM said.

Lief - well written, and characteristically moral posts there. I respect the fact that you are trying to put the current situation into a cohesive moral light. You are, however, living in a fantasy world. The idea that Iraq is the 5th freeest state in the world is risible. Free to get kidnapped, murdered, beaten up in the dark with no fuel? I guess so.

Basically, everything that the anti-war argument said would happen HAS happened, while every justification that the pro-war brigade put forward for attacking Iraq has been exposed as bogus. They are now reduced clinging on to "we have to stay there to keep the terrorists pinned down". (I would have a lot more respect for them if they were honest and said "we're staying the course to make sure we can get that oil out of the ground whilst lining our corporations' pockets with our taxpayers' money".) Now that's an interesting proposition: create a war to distract the terrorists from attacking the US directly. How many US citizens would have supported that in 2003?

I don't know how much Bush would have to be exposed as a clueless dolt before the US right would admit that they have got it badly wrong. Maybe if he was caught on film trying to tie his shoelaces. I am struck at the continuing messiah complex of the Right. The arguments are all based on vague terms "the enemy", "terror", "freedom", which when you examine them critically are empty and meaningless.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

The problem with the new Iraqi army is, is it an Iraqi Army? or is it an Army composed of units whose prime loyalty is to Kurdistan or the Shiite militias- or the insurgents?

Do you have any information on how widespread this problem is, and just how (if at all) crippling it is? I knew it was a problem. They were really debating whether or not they were right in taking in former soldiers who had fought for Saddam Hussein. There was self-doubt going on over that.

There are also Shiite death squads working for their politicians. Again, I don't know just how widespread all of this part of the problem is.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

With the number of troops in Iraq too small to do anything but run around playing Whack-a-Mole, Bush has not once gone out and called for Americans to sacrifice by volunteering to go to Iraq- he's never dared to face the political risk.

Actually, a new headline on BBC News today has been that he just authorized that up to 2500 more troops be sent to Iraq. And critics have seized upon that and attacked him for it, saying that it shows we're overstretched in Iraq. But if the generals in the field don't request more troops, they know better than we do what the situation out there is like.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The idea that Iraq is the 5th freeest state in the world is risible. Free to get kidnapped, murdered, beaten up in the dark with no fuel? I guess so.

I didn't say the fourth freest in the world, but the fourth freest in the Middle East. That's political freedom talked about there, voter freedom. The United Nations monitors agreed that the elections were free. There is a war going on simultaneously.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Basically, everything that the anti-war argument said would happen HAS happened, while every justification that the pro-war brigade put forward for attacking Iraq has been exposed as bogus. They are now reduced clinging on to "we have to stay there to keep the terrorists pinned down". (I would have a lot more respect for them if they were honest and said "we're staying the course to make sure we can get that oil out of the ground whilst lining our corporations' pockets with our taxpayers' money".)

We attacked because we believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was a dangerous threat to our national security. The Administration, Congress and public all (overall) believed so. But whether we went to war based on true or a flawed reasoning has little relevance to the decision of whether or not we pull out now.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Now that's an interesting proposition: create a war to distract the terrorists from attacking the US directly. How many US citizens would have supported that in 2003?

This is not about "creating a war" anymore. It's about winning or losing a war that currently exists. By fighting to win, we preserve our national security and prevent civil war from destroying those we (I know I'm beginning to sound very monotonous as I say this ) have a moral duty to defend. By declaring failure and pulling out, we create civil war and strengthen our enemies.

Here's another thought, one I should have mentioned to GrayMouser as well. If Iran backs the Shiites in civil war, and the Sunnis are led by Al'Qaeda in Iraq, no matter which side wins, we'll have an anti-US government in charge. The Shiites will have known that we left them to the civil war and will be strongly influenced or even dominated by Iran, a power that does not conceal at all its hatred for the US. They would be fueled by oil resources if they defeated the Sunnis. Either way, it comes out badly for US national security. Only the solution of a free and democratic Iraq comes out good for us now, and it is not outside of reach. It is just a matter of patience and willingness to make sacrifices that is required of us at this time.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I don't know how much Bush would have to be exposed as a clueless dolt before the US right would admit that they have got it badly wrong. Maybe if he was caught on film trying to tie his shoelaces. I am struck at the continuing messiah complex of the Right. The arguments are all based on vague terms "the enemy", "terror", "freedom", which when you examine them critically are empty and meaningless.

I agree with you that there is a failing we can too easily make when we strictly divide things between good and evil, and place ourselves on the side of good and our enemies on the side of evil. I don't think it works out nearly so simply in this war. I see both good and evil on both sides, personally. But I do believe the fight is necessary because we have to protect ourselves.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What GM said.

Lief - well written, and characteristically moral posts there. I respect the fact that you are trying to put the current situation into a cohesive moral light. You are, however, living in a fantasy world.

Thank-you for the compliments. I love your posts too!

As I said above, I see good and evil on both sides. I think there is justice to many of the complaints our enemies raise against us, though not to all. But then there is also right to many of the things we have done. And there has been evil done on both sides, one against the other.

But one of the things in this war that is morally obvious to me is that we invaded Iraq and thus its well-being is our responsibility. Therefore it would be a morally reprehensible action, to my view, for us to leave the population that is under our protection to civil war. To my mind, that is very black and white.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I didn't say the fourth freest in the world, but the fourth freest in the Middle East. That's political freedom talked about there, voter freedom. The United Nations monitors agreed that the elections were free. There is a war going on simultaneously.

I agree that this is a significant acheivement, but it pales in comparison with the harm done. The sad fact is that ordinary Iraqis had more freedom under Saddam. The situation there is still far worse than it was before we invaded.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We attacked because we believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was a dangerous threat to our national security. The Administration, Congress and public all (overall) believed so.

Don't try to delegate the blame. They held those beliefs because the Bush Administration faked the intelligence and bullied them into taking a course which had been decided well in advance. For example when the UN weapons inspectors reported that Iraq didn't have WMDs, the Bush admin's response was to besmirch the character of Hans Blix.

Iraq was invaded because 9/11 had given the neocons the opportunity they wanted to kick Saddam's backside and put all that redundant military gear to work for good old big business. All the subsequent justifications have been proven empty: no WMDs, we've increased terrorism not defeated it (and created the ideal training ground to boot), civil society has all but collapsed, people are worse off than they were under Saddam, and now we're reduced to justifying it by saying that we can't leave because that will only make things worse). The only justification/explanation which holds any water based on the observed evidence is the "kick his ass, grab the gas" one.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But whether we went to war based on true or a flawed reasoning has little relevance to the decision of whether or not we pull out now.

I mostly agree. I'll qualify that by saying that a morally unjust war (as I believe it is) remains morally unjust and there may be an imperative to rescind those immoral actions as a priority. That would be separate from a utilitarian concern regarding the consequences of pulling out and might override them, depending on one's view. Personally, I am unsure of what the right balance is here.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is not about "creating a war" anymore. It's about winning or losing a war that currently exists. By fighting to win, we preserve our national security and prevent civil war from destroying those we (I know I'm beginning to sound very monotonous as I say this ) have a moral duty to defend. By declaring failure and pulling out, we create civil war and strengthen our enemies.

Now you're in danger of doing that conflation thing: which enemies? which war?? what is the purpose of this war? is it that Terror thing again?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's another thought, one I should have mentioned to GrayMouser as well. If Iran backs the Shiites in civil war, and the Sunnis are led by Al'Qaeda in Iraq, no matter which side wins, we'll have an anti-US government in charge. The Shiites will have known that we left them to the civil war and will be strongly influenced or even dominated by Iran, a power that does not conceal at all its hatred for the US.

Another pre-2003 prediction comes true: Iran is the only winner, no matter what happens.

But it is not clear to me that US foreign policy should dictate the morality of war. Further, maybe the best way to deal with a verbally hostile regime is to park an army of 150,000 in the next-door state, but I'm sure that there are many diplomatic experts who might disagree. It is hard to see what more the US could be doing to try to provoke a military confrontation with Iran.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you that there is a failing we can too easily make when we strictly divide things between good and evil, and place ourselves on the side of good and our enemies on the side of evil. I don't think it works out nearly so simply in this war. I see both good and evil on both sides, personally. But I do believe the fight is necessary because we have to protect ourselves.

It's not just about good and evil, it's about the shameless use of the rhetoric of war, terror, freedom etc, and the senseless conflation of complex issues into simplistic slogans to bolster a flawed policy. Anyone who questioned the war was branded a traitor. They faked the evidence on WMD to frighten Congress. The Bush administration has done everything it can to manipulate people's beliefs about the situation in the process of doing lasting damage to the state of the world.

The only way out I can see, for the US, is to get rid of that regime as soon as possible. You have Congressional elections coming up, and I recommend that you put your cross next to people who will take a different approach to the problem. You will get nothing from Bush and the GOP than more of the same.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Thank-you for the compliments. I love your posts too!

As I said above, I see good and evil on both sides.

I'm glad we can hold almost polar opposite views and still discuss it civilly. I know I tend to use rather blunt language at times...

That second point, if there were more people like that on both sides we might be a step forward.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But one of the things in this war that is morally obvious to me is that we invaded Iraq and thus its well-being is our responsibility. Therefore it would be a morally reprehensible action, to my view, for us to leave the population that is under our protection to civil war.

We can agree on this. At the moment, however, it's not at all clear to me that the Coalition troops are succeeding at all at protecting ordinary Iraqis.

[Lizra]

I agree with The Gaffer! Reality seems to be far more complex and dark than the conservative fantasy in this situation...wake up and vote smart people. It's about doing the smartest thing, not winning or losing......

[brownjenkins]

Exactly Lizra.

Hopefully we'll figure it out eventually when, after all we've done, terrorism still continues.