Can democracy in Iraq survive a US withdrawal?

[gumboot]

Good point, TBH I'd forgot Afghanistan was landlocked and it's now pretty obvious why the military planners were forced to go the airpower and special forces route, especially early on. Did the coalition have control of Kabul (and it's airport) before the Battle of Tora Bora?

The 15th MEU conducted the world's longest amphibious assault (about 700km) to secure Camp Rhino in southern Afghanistan. Camp Rhino had a runway sufficient for landing C-130s and C-17s. Shortly afterwards they secured Kandahar International Airport which could take heavier aircraft.

 

[godless dave]

I think democracy in Iraq is not connected to the presence of US troops one way or another.

 

[skeptical]

Honestly, that's not a lot of time for a democracy. It takes time for politicians to create track records of either success or failure, and for the electorate to start voting based upon such records. Given the complete lack of any such institutions under Saddam, the whole system was essentially starting from zero. It's an iterative process, and we're still at the beginning of it.

True to an extent, but they have the backing and funding of the only superpower in the world, and all they have to do 24x7 is to rally support for a unified Iraq. If they cannot do that in 2 years time, I don't have much hope they will rally it given more time.

If they keep having open and fair elections at regular intervals, why not? It's one thing if we're supporting politicians who not only don't do what the people want them to do, but hold on to power against the will of those people. It's quite another if the politicians just aren't performing as well as desired, but are still the preferred officeholders as determined by fair elections. Keep in mind also what happens in the US: people often have very low opinions about Congress as a whole, but approval ratings for individual congressmen and senators among their constituents consistently come out much higher. Nobody likes other people's congressmen, but everybody likes their own congressman (overgeneralizing, I know, but I think you get the point).

Again, this is true to an extent. However, I am not at all convinced that a majority of Iraqi's will ever accept a government that was created under US occupation. However we see our role there, the only thing that really matters is how Iraqi's see us. And it is generally not good.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...250&nid=&id=&gclid=CLKlr5PkxJECFQwsOAodC0HNng

Granted this is over a year ago, but I am not aware that it has improved.

My perception is that a lot of Iraqi's see the current govt as a puppet created by the US, and I am not hopeful they will ever fully accept it.

 

[WildCat]

The 15th MEU were in Afghanistan very early on, establishing Camp Rhino and securing Kandahar International Airport before the battle at Tora Bora. In fact they were supposed to be in the battle of Tora Bora and were very unhappy that they were pulled off the operation at the last moment. Here's what one of the 15th MEU officers had to say about it:

They might have been unhappy, but the fact is by the time the Kandahar airport was secure the battle of Tora Bora was all but over and OBL was long gone. The last of the cave complexes at Tora Bora were overun on December 17.

eta: the entire 15th MEU in Camp Rhino was about 1100 Marines and sailors (SEALs), many of which would have had to stay behind at Kandahar airport to keep it secure. Even if Tora Bora had dragged on longer the Marines available for the fight would have numbered only in the hundreds.

 

[gumboot]

eta: the entire 15th MEU in Camp Rhino was about 1100 Marines and sailors (SEALs), many of which would have had to stay behind at Kandahar airport to keep it secure. Even if Tora Bora had dragged on longer the Marines available for the fight would have numbered only in the hundreds.

The force slated for the Tora Bora mission was a Task Force and the 15th MEU (which is about 2,200 troops in total) was only one element of it. Their sole mission in the planned operation was to establish a blocking position along the Pakistan border so that the Al Qaeda fighters couldn't escape - the single element that was missing from the operation.

Kandahar International Airport was being held by the 26th MEU, not the 15th MEU (they were only involved in the initial seizure).

Of course it's not like this was all the US could do. The 82nd Airborne Division were not deployed in Afghanistan until June 2002. Yet the stated mission of the 82nd Airborne is to be able to perform a strategic airborne forcible entry into any place in the world within 18 hours of notification. Virtually every single piece of equipment the 82nd uses can be air dropped.

Personally, had I been El President, I would have put the 82nd Airborne into Afghanistan as soon as possible and followed it up with the 10th Mountain Division (the 10th Mountain Division are required to be able to deploy to anywhere in the world by air, sea or land within 96 hours of notification).

 

[WildCat]

Of course it's not like this was all the US could do. The 82nd Airborne Division were not deployed in Afghanistan until June 2002. Yet the stated mission of the 82nd Airborne is to be able to perform a strategic airborne forcible entry into any place in the world within 18 hours of notification. Virtually every single piece of equipment the 82nd uses can be air dropped.

Personally, had I been El President, I would have put the 82nd Airborne into Afghanistan as soon as possible and followed it up with the 10th Mountain Division (the 10th Mountain Division are required to be able to deploy to anywhere in the world by air, sea or land within 96 hours of notification).

I understand your point, but I don't know if any of those units are meant to be dropped off so far from a supply chain.* They would need fuel and ammo, and access to medical care. It's one of those great risk vs. great reward things. I don't think the commanders were willing to take such a big risk so early in the war. That's why they wanted to secure the airports first I think.

*eta: It's easy to get them there, but a whole different story getting them out if things go FUBAR.

 

[gumboot]

I understand your point, but I don't know if any of those units are meant to be dropped off so far from a supply chain.*

Well traditionally the entire point of Airborne units is that they operate while cut off and surrounded. That's what gives them their elite status.

The only supply chain such troops needed was the sky, and the US were perfectly capable of rapidly establishing air sovereignty over Afghanistan, allowing for a continuous flow of supplies.

I don't think the commanders were willing to take such a big risk so early in the war. That's why they wanted to secure the airports first I think.

Operation Market Garden was a risk. Putting two of the US military's best divisions into Afghanistan would not have been a risk. Of course one of the prime duties of the 82nd Airborne is to secure airfields. I would have put the 10th Mountain into the border regions near Pakistan but I would have put the 82nd into Kandahar International Airport. As soon as that airport was secured you could start putting in some armour to secure your base of operations against Taliban attacks, and start spreading out into the surrounding area.

I don't think it was about military commanders not wanting to take risks. I think it was about Donald Rumsfeld and the other morons in the Administration looking for an "easy" "bloodless" victory. They tried it in Iraq too, and they failed there even more spectacularly.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think democracy in Iraq is not connected to the presence of US troops one way or another.

Makes that trillion dollars money down the drain, then.

 

[SezMe]

Honestly, that's not a lot of time for a democracy. It takes time for politicians to create track records of either success or failure, and for the electorate to start voting based upon such records. Given the complete lack of any such institutions under Saddam, the whole system was essentially starting from zero. It's an iterative process, and we're still at the beginning of it.



If they keep having open and fair elections at regular intervals, why not?

The problem I see is that you seem to equate elections with democracy. But your first paragraph correctly points to the problem. A democracy does not stand alone but needs supporting institutions, infrastructure, a justice system (including police, fire, etc.) and so forth. Without these, no matter how many elections are held the count is not a reliable indicator of progress towards democracy.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Perhaps the better question here is, can democracy in Iraq survive the US remaining?

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem I see is that you seem to equate elections with democracy.

I don't. I recognize that what I wrote doesn't make that distinction (but hey, how thorough a job do you expect in a short post on an internet forum?). My point was more that the contention that the contention that the iraqi government doesn't have the consent of the populace is hard to really support if free and fair elections keep occuring. Now having free and fair elections is not at all the same thing as having elections, and there are countless examples to demonstrate that. And if other civil structures don't develop as well (functioning press, rule of law, etc) then free and fair elections tend not to remain free and fair. And that part seems to be the heart of your objection, and I agree about it. But that's a little secondary to the main point I was trying to make. If we pulled out now, I doubt Iraq would remain democratic, even if the government could defeat the insurgency, because those other institutions aren't strong enough yet. But we aren't pulling out yet, and as long as we're in there, we can do (and have done) a hell of a lot to ensure elections are free and fair, even if their own civil institutions aren't up to the task yet. And that can provide a breathing space during which those institutions may be able to grow. And I think they are growing (that's one of the subtext messages I get from reading people like Michael Yon and Michael Totten) - it's just not front page material, because many of the details are quite frankly boring, and it's probably hard to notice that stuff unless you spend a considerable amount of time there outside the green zone, which most reporters don't do.

 

[Ziggurat]

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...250&nid=&id=&gclid=CLKlr5PkxJECFQwsOAodC0HNng

Granted this is over a year ago, but I am not aware that it has improved.

I'm really not trying to be a smartass here, but it's actually OK if they always want us out "within a year" - as long as it remains "within a year" and doesn't turn into "now".

My perception is that a lot of Iraqi's see the current govt as a puppet created by the US, and I am not hopeful they will ever fully accept it.

They can survive that - if they trust their local government and local police forces, and if those institutions are worthy of that trust. Most Americans have a lousy opinion of Washington, but we trust our government in the ways that matter most. If a cop pulls me over for speeding, I'm not worried that I'll have to bribe him to keep from getting beaten up and thrown in jail. And those local government institutions will gain that trust if they perform well, and whether or not we set them up won't matter if the evidence of that performance is apparent to Iraqis.

 

[davefoc]

I'm wondering what the consequences would be for the democratic party in future elections if by withdrawing from Iraq, as they promise, they indirectly cause a genocide and an Islamic state and/or Iranian ally/territory. From comments heard out of Tehran you can tell they are chomping at the bit to take control of Iraq.

This would be pouring diesel fuel on American politics and right wing militaristic authoritarians would reap in the pot.

For the most part my predictions about the future have not been very good. But one of the things I got right was that people who claimed that time would tell whether the Iraq was a good idea were wrong. No amount of time will ever answer the question definitively.

What I thought would happen and what did happen was that most of the people who thought the war was a good idea would continue to think it was a good idea no matter what kind of a mess it turned into.

Conversely, no matter how well the war and occupation went it is always possible to hypothesize plausibly that things would have been better without the war and most of the people who thought the war was a bad idea would do exactly that almost no matter how well things turned out.

And in this situation, the war supporters will always blame the people that ended the occupation for whatever happens afterwards and the war critics will always claim that ending the occupation made things better than they would have been if the US had kept the occupation going.

The Vietnam hawks who felt that the US should keep going are significantly muted by the fact that it was a Republican administration that ended the war. In this case, when the Democrats end the war, the Republican hawks will continue to claim that things would have been great if only the war had not been ended by the liberal wacko Democrats. And the Republican hawks will continue to make this claim for the rest of my life at least.

My own view of the situation is that the war is being continued for deeply cynical partisan purposes to take advantage of this exact situation. The Republicans know that by most measures a continuation of the present effort is futile and now only hope to keep the war going long enough to blame the consequences of a US withdrawal on the Democrats. At some point the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own problems and the continued US presence weakens the US in several critical ways while not significantly improving the lot of the Iraqis. The Iraqis survived thousands of years without the US and they don't need the US for their survival now.

 

[gumboot]

Perhaps the better question here is, can democracy in Iraq survive the US remaining?

That's quite an interesting question and one, I suspect, that very few people have bothered to ask. Or maybe a horrific bloody civil war is precisely what Iraq needs. One of the first things I remember learning about the USA was that the Civil War had such an enormous impact on the national psyche that you simply cannot really understand anything about the USA unless you first understand the Civil War.

Maybe a horrific violent civil war in Iraq is actually the only thing that will result in robust, fair, and successful democracy in that nation.

 

[proxywar]

Sadly, the history of warfare is that nations rarely learn from their mistakes, a point laid out in the excellent documentary about Robert S McNamara, The Fog Of War.

In my humble opinion, the US shold realise it lives in a democracy, and when their soldiers start to get slaughtered in the high numbers, the emotional power of a nation is to bring them home. It is inevitable that the Democrats, with their anti-war stance from 2004-2008, would be a shoo-in at the next election. Thus is the trouble of democracy, and a example of the tyranny of the majority. (Or in this case, the longing of the majority).



In Bin Laden's latest As-Sahab video, The Solution, this is exactly the point he is making. He compels the world to see that superpowers fall, and it just so happens he has scored an incredible propoganda victory by claiming
'19 men, driven by only their love for their God, changed the face of America's compass'.

I think it is very important to understand that Bin Laden never downplays the incredible might of American military power. His victories are when it is defeated by the ordinary man.

If Al-Qaeda gained a lot of money and could build a nuclear sub, firing up to 20 missiles into America off the cost of Florida, it would not score the same victory as a lone lover of Islam smuggling a nuclear weapon into New York and detonating himself and everyone else, because Al-Qaeda do not go in for sterile victories.

One would think middleastern people (not terrorist) would be more pissed off at fundamentalist terrorism for bring the wrath of america upon their land and making islam look bad. You give bin laden to much credit, with the right exit strategy Iraq would have been a slam dunk.

ps. fog of war was a good special.

 

[Unalienable]

Who cares if democracy can survive? What's so good about democracy?

 

[proxywar]

They don't commit beheadings and car bombings (and wear scary beards) because they think it's fun. They do it because they know exactly how the US media will report it, and they know exactly how the US population will react to those reports

Actually OBL and crew wear breads because the sayings of mohammad
( in the Hadith) address his followers to wear mandatory beards.That parts not a propaganda tactic, it's monkey read monkey do. lol

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/18C1672C-1DE2-4852-B580-73BC79FBF792/
However, muslims do like to protest images of mohammad, because imagry of the prophet is forbiden. For Muslims, the rule against depicting God and the prophet comes from the Hadith/koran, a collection of sayings and actions attributed to Mohammed.


chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."

This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.


Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

From this arises the Muslim belief that images can give rise to idolatry - that is to say an image, rather than the divine being it symbolises, can become the object of worship and veneration.

 

[proxywar]

Lets say a civil war breaks out and our shita backed interest loses and the sunnis take over and Iraq becomes a terrorist breeding ground willingly haboring Al qaeda/Al qaeda-like terrorist members? What if too early US withdraw makes Iraq the main base of operations for future terrorist such as was the case in Afghanistan? Then later down the road another terrorist attack happens to America only this time it's nuclear?


F-word hope, we need a man in office with realistic goals who can get **** done competently. Though I am Bipartisan on Iraqis needing to step up and take responsibility. However, while some seem to think iraqis may not need us for their survival, I tend to think we need them for ours. (Plus, we don't want to see shitas, sunnis, kurds, and truks, all slaughter themselves only to see our side/interest lose and the blame for this placed squarely on American shoulders.) That would mean even bigger problems in the future for America and Iraqis whom by then would be hoping for our return to help them out. But the Americans will turn a blind eye to that genocide in Iraq just like bill clinton turned a blind eye to the genocide in Rwanda. Or we might just have to go back and do the job all over again. Best thing to do is stick it out and do what none of us really want to do and that is fix the problem the chimp erroneously got us involved in Iraq. Sorry the risk is just too costly. F-word the Democrat/republican BS.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Vietnam hawks who felt that the US should keep going are significantly muted by the fact that it was a Republican administration that ended the war.

A republican administration ended our direct military involvement in the war. But the war did not end there, not by a long shot. We supported South Vietnam for some time after our troops left, until a democratic congress cut off all the aid we were providing. And South Vietnam did not fall until after we had cut off that aid. It is entirely possible that continuation of that aid might have been enough to keep South Vietnam alive - despite the standard rhetoric, nothing about their fall was actually inevitable.

The Republicans know that by most measures a continuation of the present effort is futile

Nonsense. The surge has finally been producing measurable, undeniable reductions in violence. What, pray tell, is futile about that?

At some point the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own problems

The Iraqi army and police have likewise made considerable progress. They are now very much engaged in the fighting against the insurgency. Progress is being made on this front.

The Iraqis survived thousands of years without the US and they don't need the US for their survival now.

I'm sure the Iraqis can survive without us. Just as the Russians survived Stalin, and the Afghans survived the Taliban. I think they would prefer to do a little better than just survive.

 

[davefoc]

The Vietnam hawks who felt that the US should keep going are significantly muted by the fact that it was a Republican administration that ended the war. In this case, when the Democrats end the war, the Republican hawks will continue to claim that things would have been great if only the war had not been ended by the liberal wacko Democrats. And the Republican hawks will continue to make this claim for the rest of my life at least.

A republican administration ended our direct military involvement in the war. But the war did not end there, not by a long shot. We supported South Vietnam for some time after our troops left, until a democratic congress cut off all the aid we were providing. And South Vietnam did not fall until after we had cut off that aid. It is entirely possible that continuation of that aid might have been enough to keep South Vietnam alive - despite the standard rhetoric, nothing about their fall was actually inevitable.

This fits a bit into my thesis that no matter when an occupation ends there will be some that claim that if the occupier had just stayed a little longer or in this case kept supporting the administration installed by the occupier a little longer that things would have turned out better. There were certainly Frenchmen resisting until the bitter end the French exodus from Algeria. And maybe they were right. Stuff didn't go all that well for the Algerians after the French left. And maybe the people advocating the continued American support of the South Vietnamese were right. Stuff didn't go all that well for the Vietnamese after the Americans left. But today Vietnam seems to be doing OK and maybe all that was required was for the Americans to leave and let the Vietnamese go through whatever process they needed to to get over generations of French and American occupation. FWIW, I had a Vietnamese friend who strongly believed that the failure of the US to support the South Vietnamese government after the American withdrawal was a terrible mistake. I'm skeptical, if a government can't survive after years of massive military and economic support maybe they wouldn't have survived after a few more years of American support. At any rate, Ziggurat, I will defer to your greater knowledge about this subject and leave you the last word, if you want one, on this somewhat off topic subject.

My own view of the situation is that the war is being continued for deeply cynical partisan purposes to take advantage of this exact situation. The Republicans know that by most measures a continuation of the present effort is futile and now only hope to keep the war going long enough to blame the consequences of a US withdrawal on the Democrats.

Nonsense. The surge has finally been producing measurable, undeniable reductions in violence. What, pray tell, is futile about that?

Hmm, what part of the "surge" working do you attribute to various changes in strategy and circumstance that were part of the "surge"
1. Economic and military aid for the Sunnis, the group responsible for about 90% of the US casualties before the surge?
2. What part of the "surge" working do you attribute to reduced resistance to Sunni ethnic cleansing?
3. What part of the "surge" working do you attribute to the massive migration of Iraqis out of areas being ethnically cleansed?
4. What part of the "surge" working do you attribute to the small increase in troop levels that were part of it?

And what does "surge" working mean to you? Does it mean that the Turks and the Kurds have come to agreement? Does it mean that the Sunni reluctance to cooperate in any Shiite dominated government is disappearing? Does it mean that the various Shiite groups have decided to cooperate with each other and with the Sunnis and the Kurds to move towards either separation or a government that will be acceptable to each of the various groups? If the US can temporarily reduce violence by arming both sides in a civil war does that mean the "surge" is working?

The Iraqi army and police have likewise made considerable progress. They are now very much engaged in the fighting against the insurgency. Progress is being made on this front.

What insurgency? The Shiite fundamentalist insurgency? The Sunni insurgency? The home grown Sunni Al Qaida insurgency? Where are the defeated insurgents going? Have they just decided that opposing the US is futile or now that the US is fighting on their side have they just decided to stop killing Americans in the interim? Have some significant number of insurgents given up their cause and embraced the current Iraqi government or are they just lying low right now?

At some point the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own problems and the continued US presence weakens the US in several critical ways while not significantly improving the lot of the Iraqis. The Iraqis survived thousands of years without the US and they don't need the US for their survival now.

I'm sure the Iraqis can survive without us. Just as the Russians survived Stalin, and the Afghans survived the Taliban. I think they would prefer to do a little better than just survive.

I would like nothing better to see things go well for the Iraqis after the US leaves. I think that the US should begin an orderly withdrawal with humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts to assist the Iraqis as the highest priority. The longterm utility of the US devoting such vast resources to a 25 million person country is highly suspect. There is no doubt it has been hugely profitable for various Bushco cronies. There is no doubt that it has been a huge disaster for the Iraqis. And there is no doubt that as the US weakens itself each day with this military endeavor that its ability to use its military and economic power to advance its interest deteriorates.