Iraqi elections

[Year Zero]

One would have to be very ignorant of history to believe that an election in Iraq is somehow going to make people forget about hundreds of years of culture, tribal divisions, politics, and religious conflict. It is also rather naive to believe that the US actually WANTS any democracy in the Middle East, seeing that open democracy tends to lead to landslide victories or at least steady progress by Islamic fundamentalists; or at the very least, anti-Israeli gains. See Egypt, Kuwait, and Iran for recent examples.

It is not surprising that Sistani doesn't talk like a Mullah. The Iranian government had no compunction against backing an insurgency by the Marxist Kurdish parties during the Iran-Iraq war. What IS evident however, is that Hizbollah and possibly even Iranian Pasdarin(Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) members have been said to be in southern Iraq. Read H. John Poole's Tactics of the Crescent Moon for more information on that.

Let us all remember the lesson of South Vietnam, with its elected(though not exactly a free election) government and armed forces of over 1 million men. With all the aid from the US, Australia, and the Republic of Korea, it still failed. The US failed in that war because the war itself was based on a mistake. A stupid mistake, but still a mistake.

In Vietnam, the problem was the assumption that a Communist Vietnam would become a proxy of China. On the surface there was a lot of evidence that suggested the two were working hand in hand. But even after the 1979 invasion of Vietnam by China, some people still missed the point. Robert MacNamera never realized his mistake until the mid-90's when he returned to Vietnam. A cursory knowledge of Vietnamese history would have revealed that the two nations always distrusted each other, and later biographies of Giap and Ho Chi Minh show an obvious distrust of China throughout their struggle.

The Iraq war, by contrast, was based on a lie- namely the lie that Saddam had certain weapons and was about to use said weapons, primarily against the United States.

 

[shecky]

The Sunnis and Kurds would never let a Shia majority go that far. It'd be civil war first.

Would that not be another failure for the US?

If not, why not just pull out now and let them go at each other?

 

[Year Zero]

So the bombings are all conducted by terrorists? Not insurgents and not freedom fighters? Not an Iraqi populace yearning to cast off an American yoke? Not the beginnings of a civil war, either--Sunni against Shiaa?

Splitting hairs. Let's recap: The president and friends said that the war on Iraq was a necessary step in our Global War on Terror. One would think that the object of a Global War on Terror is to reduce the frequency of terrorist attacks around the world.

Terrorism is actually a matter of tactics. I would say it's only reasonable to refer to an insurgent group as "terrorists" when their overall strategy is one that more or less fits in with what is called the Urban Warfare strategy, or at the very least a case where acts of terrorism are the most common tactic used at a high frequency.

1. Those directed specifically against the US military: While admittedly higher than pre-9/11, that is because the US military is there where they are.

Really? You mean the occupation of certain lands contributes to Islamic terrorism? There's a certain Yemeni gentlemen in a cave somewhere that seems to think the same thing. I think you are both right.

So terrorism increases because of where the US military is? Well how did the US military get there? How did we get into Iraq? If the war in Afghanistan is justified, and that would lead to guerilla attacks on our army(and the show really hasn't even begun there yet), why open a second front and begin fighting a NEW enemy, that is the homegrown Iraqi insurrgency? This is a strange strategy.

Imagine I am in a bar fight with someone, punch a guy, then run across the room and punch another guy who had absolutely nothing to do with that fight. What are my chances of winning then?

Much the same as the US military is there in Afghanistan where we are also now the victim of increased terrorism due to the invasion. Yet somehow this is not an argument against that invasion.

People do not generally criticize that invasion because there is at least some form of justification, though invasion might actually create more problems in the long term.

2. Those directed against everyone else: If this is terrorism, how has the US presence caused it? Did the US cause the Sunni/Shiaa conflict? Or has the removal of Saddam simply removed the restraints on it?

Technically the US DID cause the Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq because as we have discussed in another thread, the US aided Shiite insurgents including a terrorist organization(Al Dawa) in Iraq. Other than that the destablization of the infrastructure and the removal of Saddam has definitely contributed to this problem. However, if you admit that, would you then admit that the invasion of Iraq was NOT part of this "War on Terror" nonsense?

 

[rikzilla]

Would that not be another failure for the US?

If not, why not just pull out now and let them go at each other?

A civil war is clearly not an inevitability. As a matter of fact; as a possibility; it becomes ever more remote. Perhaps you are in favor of war for war's sake? If so it would be in your interest to advocate a pull out precipitively and watch the fur fly from a safe distance. Although entertaining, I'm just not that cruel. Those folks have suffered enough...and so have we. We need to finish the job properly so we don't have to go back and do it again.

-z

 

[Year Zero]

A civil war is clearly not an inevitability. As a matter of fact; as a possibility; it becomes ever more remote. Perhaps you are in favor of war for war's sake? If so it would be in your interest to advocate a pull out precipitively and watch the fur fly from a safe distance. Although entertaining, I'm just not that cruel. Those folks have suffered enough...and so have we. We need to finish the job properly so we don't have to go back and do it again.

-z

Cruel enough to support bombing a country that never attacked the US, killing large numbers of civilians and laying the foundation for civil war and insurgency?

There is no "finishing the job" when the "job" has never been clearly defined nor honestly presented.

 

[Tricky]

A civil war is clearly not an inevitability. As a matter of fact; as a possibility; it becomes ever more remote.

I hope you are correct. I fear you are wrong. Remember that it is not just the insurgent Sunnis (et. al.?) that are being restrained by US presence, but also the Shiite majority. It is quite possible that they will be looking for a little payback as soon as the babysitter isn't looking.

Perhaps you are in favor of war for war's sake? If so it would be in your interest to advocate a pull out precipitively and watch the fur fly from a safe distance.

Well, this wasn't to me, but I have said before (and still do) that we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made. I spoke out very strongly against making the mess, but that's not an option now. Of course, it could be argued that the fur is already flying.

Although entertaining, I'm just not that cruel.

Well, I'm hoping that was a joke. Maybe not you, but there are many who didn't give a flying fart about the poor downtrodden Iraqis until Bush contended that we needed to invade, and even then, freeing the Iraqi people was certainly not the big selling point for the war.

There are many arch-conservatives who would, as you say, find it entertaining. They were the same ones who were laughing their asses off when Iraq and Iran were at war. There are disturbing number of people in the US who don't like any kind of Muslims and hope they all kill each other off.

Those folks have suffered enough...and so have we. We need to finish the job properly so we don't have to go back and do it again.

Agreed. But what constitutes "finishing the job properly"? Will we intervene again if the place does erupt in civil war? Will we forever monitor their elections? Other than the fact that our hands are dirty, what justifies such intense scrutiny of Iraq and not other countries?

 

[Garrette]

All quotations from Year Zero

Splitting hairs.

Depends on context.

One would think that the object of a Global War on Terror is to reduce the frequency of terrorist attacks around the world.

Yes, one would think so and one would be correct in thinking it.
One would not be correct, however, nor reasonable to assume the reduction would be immediate or soon. Personally, I wish it weren’t taking this long, but I do not take the mere fact of terrorist attacks, even increased ones (the numbers have actually decreased since the spring) as evidence that the GWOT is a failure.
One could as easily say that KasserinePass was proof we couldn’t beat the Germans.

Terrorism is actually a matter of tactics.

If by “tactics” you include intent to terrorize, then I agree.

I would say it's only reasonable to refer to an insurgent group as "terrorists" when their overall strategy is one that more or less fits in with what is called the Urban Warfare strategy,

It does nothing of the sort.

or at the very least a case where acts of terrorism are the most common tactic used at a high frequency.

Terrorism justifies itself with repetition?

Really? You mean the occupation of certain lands contributes to Islamic terrorism?

Nope. I mean confronting a bully contributes to the likelihood of a fight right then, but the confrontation itself is not a result of the bullied standing up to him.

There's a certain Yemeni gentlemen in a cave somewhere that seems to think the same thing.

He may think whatever he likes. I am rather glad he is in a cave and not in his headquarters with easy communication with his network of terrorists.

So terrorism increases because of where the

US military is?

As the targets bring themselves to the terrorists, the frequency of terrorist acts increases, yes.

If the war in

Afghanistan is justified, and that would lead to guerilla attacks on our army(and the show really hasn't even begun there yet), why open a second front and begin fighting a NEW enemy, that is the homegrown Iraqi insurrgency? This is a strange strategy.

I’m not totally sold on our strategy, either. That’s a separate question, though.

Imagine I am in a bar fight with someone, punch a guy, then run across the room and punch another guy who had absolutely nothing to do with that fight. What are my chances of winning then?

Depends on you and the guys.
I could hypothesize scenarios in which this would be the wisest choice of several bad options.

People do not generally criticize that invasion because there is at least some form of justification, though invasion might actually create more problems in the long term.

It is possible.
Are you saying either of the following?
1. Invasion is never justified because of the potential for greater problems.
2. Invasion is never justified unless the outcome is certain.
I would disagree with both, but it is what I take from your comments.

Technically the

US DID cause the Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq because as we have discussed in another thread, the US aided Shiite insurgents including a terrorist organization(Al Dawa) in Iraq.

I wasn’t part of that thread and do not pretend to be an expert, though I am not without some knowledge.

The argument proposed here seems to ignore the history of Shiaa and Sunni conflict prior to our support of one side and the oppression of the Shiaa by the Ba’ath and Sunni prior to that support.

Other than that the destablization of the infrastructure and the removal of Saddam has definitely contributed to this problem.

Well, as far as removing Saddam goes, I’ll agree, but by that reasoning we should never object to any strongman or dictator regardless how bad he is so long as he maintains stability and the people can walk to Mosque on Friday without concern.

Regarding the infrastructure, the destabilization was there due to 35 years of neglect, particularly during the Iraq-Iran war. Power plants were never shut down for maintenance. In the short term prior to our arrival, this meant high levels of electricity. In the long term it meant disaster. When coalition engineers went to power plants they began instituting maintenance programs including shutdowns of the worst plants. The apparent result: Less electricity. The actual result within a few months of the fall of Saddam: Higher levels of electricity than before the war, though this was masked further by the sudden eruption of previously unobtainable energy-consuming devices such as the satellite dish.

In the summer of 2003, UNICEF conducted a survey of most of the schools in Iraq. Their conclusion was that 80% of the school structures required significant rehabilitation due to neglect. The next highest percentage (can’t remember it off the top of my head) was due to the looting after the war. The smallest percentage was due to the war itself.

The same thing applies throughout Iraq.

However, if you admit that, would you then admit that the invasion of

Iraq was NOT part of this "War on Terror" nonsense?

Different issue entirely and one I am not in a position to discuss. I’ll pm with a reason.

Edited for formatting

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, thanks for the links but I don't think that supports your contention. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my emphasis:



The article you linked to mentions only two terrorist incidents, both of them the downing of Russian planes. One of those was admittedly by Chechens rebelling against Russian rule.

Are you attributing such acts to the war in Iraq?

Well, I linked four articles, but the MSNBC one was talking events around the time of the article (Sept, 2004). One that was specifically mentioned was the execution of Nepalese workers in Iraq.

But the point remains that this invasion had the express purpose of making the world safer from terror. The world is not safer from terror, it is in even greater danger. Perhaps you may think that the US invasion of a muslim country did not help Al Qaida recruit. I would find such a contention to be extremely unlikely.

 

[Garrette]

But the point remains that this invasion had the express purpose of making the world safer from terror. The world is not safer from terror, it is in even greater danger.

You would first have to demonstrate that the greater danger is due to the invasion of Iraq. While it may appear causal it is so far only correlated.

Perhaps you may think that the US invasion of a muslim country did not helping Al Qaida recruit.

No, I do not think that.

I would find such a contention to be extremely unlikely.

I agree.

One then has to look at least a few things, none of which are, as far as I can tell, quantifiable:

1. Is the increase short or long term? (Corollary: What can be done to make it more short term and less long term?)

2. What would have been the effects on Al Qaeda recruitment (and recruitment by other terrorist groups) if there had been no invasion? It is conceivable that recruitment would have increased anyway.

3. What are the likely results of forcing a larger confrontation now as opposed to waiting for a series of smaller ones?

etc

 

[Garrette]

Aaagh!

Does anyone know why the forum splits some of my posts? Even when I edit out some quote tags, it puts them back in.

 

[Year Zero]

All quotations from Year Zero

Depends on context.

Yes, one would think so and one would be correct in thinking it.
One would not be correct, however, nor reasonable to assume the reduction would be immediate or soon.

The problem is that since terrorism is by nature reactionary, the idea that more military action could possibly significantly reduce terrorism worldwide is impossible to measure. The problem is that a nation cannot expect to reduce terrorism in the world when it has an ongoing history of intruding into conflicts that involve insurgencies, and backing "terrorist" groups when it is convenient(e.g. Kosovo Liberation Army).

The best way to protect one's nation from terror? Don't participate in terrorism.

Personally, I wish it weren’t taking this long, but I do not take the mere fact of terrorist attacks, even increased ones (the numbers have actually decreased since the spring) as evidence that the GWOT is a failure.

One could as easily say that Kasserine Pass was proof we couldn’t beat the Germans.

It's a failure because it's not based in reality. As NSA secretary General William Odom asked: "How can you fight a war against terror? That's like fighting a war against night attacks."

As for WWII, that was a completely different type of war. Let's also not forget the massive contribution that came in the form of Stalingrad and Kursk, two Soviet victories that are seen as turning points by not only historians but participants in the war. Also the Axis was not as cohesive as the allies, numerous Axis states had animosities with each other(e.g. Hungary and Rumania) or had massive internal problems(Croatia).

If by “tactics” you include intent to terrorize, then I agree.

It does nothing of the sort.

Terrorism justifies itself with repetition?

Does "Shock and Awe" count as terrorizing people?

Nope. I mean confronting a bully contributes to the likelihood of a fight right then, but the confrontation itself is not a result of the bullied standing up to him.

Saddam Hussein was bullying us? Because most of the world seems to think it was the other way around. Were you aware that as far back as 1997 Russia, France, China, and several other countries sponsored a UN resolution to declare Iraq in compliance with the sanctions, thus lifting them? Guess who vetoed that?

He may think whatever he likes. I am rather glad he is in a cave and not in his headquarters with easy communication with his network of terrorists.

Unfortunately the decentralized structure of Al Qaeda does not require it's leaders to be in direct contact with tactical elements. See Imperial Hubris and Through Our Enemies' Eyes by Michael Scheuer on this. Scheuer worked for 22 years with the CIA focusing on Afghanistan and Bin Ladin.

As the targets bring themselves to the terrorists, the frequency of terrorist acts increases, yes.

First of all, many of these terrorists you are referring to are, according to the Pentagon, Iraqi nationals. That means that they were not "terrorists" or insurgents until the invasion. So why bring the US military to those "terrorists", who were not terrorists, in the first place.

Are you saying either of the following?
1. Invasion is never justified because of the potential for greater problems.
2. Invasion is never justified unless the outcome is certain.
I would disagree with both, but it is what I take from your comments.

No what I am saying is that invading a country and removing its government is not justifiable when said country did not threaten nor has it ever attacked the United States. People were hanged after WWII for the crime of waging "aggressive war". If you don't agree we would have to ignore Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the Soviet's attack on Afghanistan, Hitler's invasion of Poland, ad infinitum.

I have no problem with international law so long as it is actually applied internationally and not selectively.

The argument proposed here seems to ignore the history of Shiaa and Sunni conflict prior to our support of one side and the oppression of the Shiaa by the Ba’ath and Sunni prior to that support.

Oppression of the Shia? Then why did Shiites serve as generals, ministers, government officials, and other high-ranking positions in the Baath government? Why did many Shiites actually fight for Iraq, even against Iran sometimes? I suggest you read the article by Muhammed Al-Baghdadi called "The Oppression of the Shiites" in which he rattles off the long list of Shiites that served in the Baath party and how the Baath party gave Shiites positions that they had never held before in Iraq.

The Baath wanted to end sectarian and tribal politics in Iraq. You can see what a problem those things cause.

Well, as far as removing Saddam goes, I’ll agree, but by that reasoning we should never object to any strongman or dictator regardless how bad he is so long as he maintains stability and the people can walk to Mosque on Friday without concern.

So it's reasonable to invade a country and kill its people just because the leader is an ambigously-defined "strongman"? Yes I know the US was only waging war on Saddam and not the Iraqi people, but given the fact that thousands of Iraqis died and Saddam is still alive, I see that as a big insult to the US military.

Regarding the infrastructure, the destabilization was there due to 35 years of neglect, particularly during the Iraq-Iran war. Power plants were never shut down for maintenance. In the short term prior to our arrival, this meant high levels of electricity. In the long term it meant disaster. When coalition engineers went to power plants they began instituting maintenance programs including shutdowns of the worst plants. The apparent result: Less electricity. The actual result within a few months of the fall of Saddam: Higher levels of electricity than before the war, though this was masked further by the sudden eruption of previously unobtainable energy-consuming devices such as the satellite dish.

In the summer of 2003, UNICEF conducted a survey of most of the schools in Iraq. Their conclusion was that 80% of the school structures required significant rehabilitation due to neglect. The next highest percentage (can’t remember it off the top of my head) was due to the looting after the war. The smallest percentage was due to the war itself.

The same thing applies throughout Iraq.



Different issue entirely and one I am not in a position to discuss. I’ll pm with a reason.

Neglect? Or sanctions, bombing, debt, etc.? Thanks for your input though, and I understand your situation.

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem is that since terrorism is by nature reactionary ...

Modern terrorism started with the anarchist bomb-throwers of the 19thCE, not reactionaries by any means. The terrorism of George Habash, Abu Nidal, Red Brigades, Red Army Faction et al was revolutionary socialist. Islamic terrorism is reactionary - radical, but reactionary - but it doesn't define terrorism.

 

[Year Zero]

Modern terrorism started with the anarchist bomb-throwers of the 19thCE, not reactionaries by any means. The terrorism of George Habash, Abu Nidal, Red Brigades, Red Army Faction et al was revolutionary socialist. Islamic terrorism is reactionary - radical, but reactionary - but it doesn't define terrorism.

I should have been specific but yes this is a correct assessment. "Terrorism" is a feature of insurgency, and insurgencies are generally a reaction to some socio-political issues, unless of course they are revolutionary in nature. Though to be fair even revolutionary ideologies claim to be reacting to a previous failed system.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure why so many people think that Iraqi Shiites want to recreate the Iranian theocracy in their own country.

I think it's mostly down to lazy thinking, and partly to do with an assumption that Arabs can't come up with their own model of a state. Out from under one wing, they'll find another to duch under ...

IMO, Iraqi Shiism will become a competitor with Iranian Shiism. Shiism - Islam, for that matter - is an Arab creation, and Iraq has the major Shiite holy places. Shia were repressed by Sunni Arabs, Seljuks, Ottomans, the Sunni monarchy established by the Brits and the Sunni republic that followed it. They were unable to compete with Iran as the protector power of Shiism. Now they can, and I think will.

 

[CapelDodger]

Though to be fair even revolutionary ideologies claim to be reacting to a previous failed system.

Not wanting to be picky, but "reactionary" does refer to reaction against change and in pursuit of the past. When revolutionary ideologies embrace terrorism it's because they want to bring the whole system down and replace it with their new, untried but impeccable prescription.

Islamist terrorism is reactionary because it believes that the system they want is already there, obscured by the profane superstructure which is their target. Complete bollocks of course, but there it is. Shoot 'em all, I say, and let Allah sort 'em out.

 

[CapelDodger]

A civil war is clearly not an inevitability. As a matter of fact; as a possibility; it becomes ever more remote.

Zarqawi's explicit declaration that Shiites were heretics - worse than infidels - and that the Islamist jihad is as much against them as it is against the West makes civil war less remote. Given the terrorist massacres at Shiite mosques of late, it seems a civil war is already under way, unless we want to argue terminology.

Sunnis have participated in this election, unhindered by the jihadis and insurgents. What has it got them? It may have been a smart move not to oppose the election, since there's no "what-if" left hanging. What has democracy ever done for the Sunnis? Nothing yet.

Early days, of course. What the new government actually does will determine things.

IMO, the role of religion will be left to the regions. The Shiites have no reason to try and impose themselves on the Kurds. The touch-paper will be the distribution of national oil-income. Since the Sunnis don't have any oil to speak of, why waste money on them if repression is cheaper? And it's only pay-back, after all ...

 

[Year Zero]

Shoot 'em all, I say, and let Allah sort 'em out.

Hmm, I say leave other nations alone and let them pursue their own destiny.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hmm, I say leave other nations alone and let them pursue their own destiny.

But where's the love?