Both you and Madhanee are wrong. I am not pro-insurgents or anti-America, per se. I am just providing a reasonable argument on why insurgents are doing what they are doing. You may not agree with the argument because you don't think US is in the wrong, and thats fine, but it doesn't invalidate the argument. For the record, anyone who gets killed in Iraq through bombing or fighting is nothing to cheer about, this includes Iraqi civilians, insurgents, US forces or Al-Qaida agents.
Anyway, as you said "All insurgencies are not created equally I guess. Some truly are freedom fighters-fighting for the freedom of the people to set the course for their nation. Others would appear to be fighting to suppress freedom as it is expressed in the form of representative government."
Ok, so who draws the distinction. You are categorizing Iraqi insurgency as villainous based on your pre-conceived notion that US is there for "helping" Iraq. Others may not agree to that theory either, and if someone doesn't agree that US has no ulterior motives (regardless of the PR campaign) then the whole "insurgents are villains" arguments falls flat. If we assume that insurgents are Iraqis (which most of them presumably are) then naturally they have more right on Iraq than 3rd US Infantry Division.
Now you are asking me, what should be the exit strategy for US? How long will this go on? Well, for starters, till the time US is in Iraq, they should provide security to Iraqi civilians. Not because Faisal says so, but because this is the International law (of invasions). Second, if you feel that whole country is a labyrinth, where local Iraqis don't appreciate the "help" of Iraqis and insurgents fire on US forces, then answer to yourself why shouldn't the US get the heck out of there, ASAP. The answer may not be pleasant, but you guys just need to be honest with yourself, for once. At the end of the day, insurgency is not your key issue.. the real question is, is it worth it?
"Remind us to stand up when you're through destroying the place and contracting the reconstruction out to your corporations. Maybe we can get some Muslim governments to fund cleaning up the rubble and disposing of the corpses."
Never mind that, help with the political solution. Bring in poll watchers to insure a free fair and participatory election. Of course, most Muslim countries have never experienced this phenomenon, so why would they support it in Iraq? Work with the Sunnis to form effective political parties. (and make them realize that they are a minority, always have been a minority, and will have to live in a Shia dominated country. which is what the insurgency is really about).
What's your plan for Afghanistan? Can you give me evidence as to the poor job they are doing in the time they have been in office? Not just inklings or musings. Demonstrate how the latest government is making life worse and has the potential to make it worse in the future.
Just calling them puppets is not good enough by the way. Neither are references to poppy production.
[/QUOTE]
That is besides the point. Was it not your objective to liberate and bring democracy to the country? Well the very fundamental part of your objective is violated when the those same people who you want to liberate/democratize have NO say in who is going to run the country.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"Remind us to stand up when you're through destroying the place and contracting the reconstruction out to your corporations. Maybe we can get some Muslim governments to fund cleaning up the rubble and disposing of the corpses."
Never mind that, help with the political solution. Bring in poll watchers to insure a free fair and participatory election. Of course, most Muslim countries have never experienced this phenomenon, so why would they support it in Iraq? Work with the Sunnis to form effective political parties. (and make them realize that they are a minority, always have been a minority, and will have to live in a Shia dominated country. which is what the insurgency is really about).
[/QUOTE]
That's all very well and good. But surely you will agree that with the nation's current state: riddled with insurgents and instability, what you are talking about is premature. If the will of the nation isn't with you, then I don't care who you summon from anywhere in the Muslim world, it's not going to help. I think Faisal was referring to the law and order situation, politics comes later. Fix that first, then see what needs to be done. No one wants to inherit or even contemplate ruling a country where one's life isn't even safe.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
At the end of the day, insurgency is not your key issue.. the real question is, is it worth it?
[/QUOTE]
That remains to be seen. If the theory of replacing a totalitarian, anti-American regime with a democratic one brings stability over the long term to the region and aids in stemming hostility toward the U.S., then it will have been worth it. That's what it's always been about-U.S. security, Iraqi democracy being the byproduct.
The greatest miscalculation the U.S. has made was the assumption that with the unseating of Sadaam, the transition to democracy would be welcomed and relatively painless. A huge and ignorant error it was and remains to be. The administration had no idea of the sway anti-Americanism holds amongst Muslims, in particular where U.S.-Muslim conflicts are concerned. A power that flies in the face of what we stupidly take to self-evident in the secular West:
that representative govt./freedom of religion/expression are sacrosanct and no one would choose tyranny over the opportunity for the latter.
Your posts continue to make great sense and explain what I believe I already know.
I understand the perspective of what drives this Iraqi/Muslim/nationalist insurgency.
I just don't happen to think it's motivations are pure-just as U.S. motivation was/is not purely to benefit Iraqis.
But I have a strong opinion given the current circumstance regarding what course I think will indeed benefit the Iraqi people over the long haul. I'm sure it's pretty clear which one it is.
Beyond being so insufferably empathetic to all viewpoints, do you have an opinion about what course will best benefit Iraqis in the future?
^^ The problem is that the most powerful man in the country, Sistani, believes that elections will diffuse the insurgency. And delaying the elections means that they are winning. If the Sunnis don't want to vote, the elections in their provinces can be delayed, and the seats held for them pending the elections.
Delaying elections only prevents a more legitimate govenment, and the Iraqi will not get behind an appointed head. Their future is in their hands, they have to get thier crap together.
This si not completely about Anti-Americanism either. It's about Sunnis losing power.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skhan: *
If the will of the nation isn't with you, then I don't care who you summon from anywhere in the Muslim world, it's not going to help.
[/QUOTE]
The only way to get decent measure of the will of the nation is to hold elections.
They will be imperfect initially, but it will improve.
Chaos and intimidation and war only cloud any way to measure the will of the nation currently.
Why in the hell do so many continue to be at least ambivalent and at worst elated at the idea of the insurgency disrupting or disabling this fundamental first step in the process?
If we all agree that "the will of the Iraqi nation" is paramount, call me an idiot (too late for some of you), but I'm just a bumpkin who thinks an election will be a better measure than a terror campaign.
Well, as long as we are pondering on the motives of insurgents, other than the whole US invasion thing, there is obviously the thornier issue of internal politics within Iraq. A minority sunni population had effectively ruled Iraq for the last many decades by brutally crushing the shias and the kurds. Now, with democracy on the horizon, shias have a legitimate claim to power in Iraq, and that is not something that settles easily with sunnis.
Now one way to handle this is to tell the sunnis "tough luck, guys", now its time for shias to kick your sorry asses. Or may be there is another way of handling this in which there is an appropriate power-sharing between the three factions and whereby the insurgents (who are mostly sunni) will also see some kind of a silver lining. Thats where the role of current Iraqi President (who is a sunni) is very important. So far, the insurgents are playing on both the foreign invader card, as well as telling their sunni support base that an absolute shia rule (under democracy) will be a horrible future for Iraq's sunnis.
Hand to heart, till the time foreign forces are stationed in Iraq in such large numbers, it is difficult to imagine a peaceful resolution of such complex issues. I know, the hope was that an Afghanistan-like solution will emerge where a Karzai-like guy will come up and wins the election. Everyone is happy. But #1 Iraq is very different from Afghanistan, and #2 if you look closely, even Afghanistan is not such a happy role model either. Karzai's rule is severly limited, and the country is practically run by war lords and poppy growers.
There is enough damage done already to US .. both in Iraq (physically) and generally in muslim world (from a credibility standpoint). It makes sense to take stock of the situation and figure what really is in US best interest. Making enemies left right and center and not caring because you are a big military power, really may not be a wise course. Especially in the present age of WMD's and dirty bombs and nuclear weapons. One doesn't really need a whole lot of army to do a whole lot of damage. Additionally, many of US allies in the middle east are brutal monarchies, and they may not be your best friends, either, when the going gets tough.
I'll bet ya 5 bucks that in the Kurdish areas, and the Shia areas that there will be HUGE turnouts for an election. After all those years of 99% Saddam votes, I would imagine that the elections will be huge sport for the Iraqis. I think Sistani knows this. What the Sunnis will do when they see the rest of the country plowing ahead without them, sho knows? It is possible that they will figure our that the insugency is actually hurting them, and they will feel even more irrelevant.
The one thing that has been ignored is that Sadr city is quiet, the south is quiet, and other than Mosul, as mixed city, the North is quiet. Muqtada has shut up, and is forming a political party, and he has been defused. Fallujah had to have some effect on the insurgency, that was a lot of men and material put out of circulation. Elections could be a tipping point.
If the Sunnis try to disrupt the elections, they may be thwarting the will of a lot of Iraqis. Long term that will eat into their support. People WANT to vote, Iraqis may be more interested in voting than the Afghanis, so our friendly guppies may be stuck spinning another huge trunout, and how it does not count.
FURTHER, the rap against the US was always, they are here for our oil, and they will never leave. An election, even a flawed one, puts some of that to rest. Are the Shia going to run roughshod over the Sunnis? politically yes. But thus far there have not been ethnic clashes. Thus Iraq is survivable. Basically the Shia are screwed, and they know it, and the insurgency is making it worse. Iraqis are not completely stupid. They know why they have no gas and power and garbage removal. Despite what they say for the Al-Jazeera cameras, they know who is responsible for the chaos in thier lives.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The problem is that the most powerful man in the country, Sistani
[/QUOTE]
Another problem is distributing titles like this around :) No, seriously. Sistani is a great scholar and probably the most influential shia leader in Iraq, right now... but his views may also be biased to favor his community i.e. the shias. So, lets just take every thing with a pinch of salt.
By the way, the Kurds and the shias don't see eye to eye on many issues either. Ofcourse, Shias will like to keep one Iraq that they can rule. Kurds may have something different in their minds.
If I were a betting man, I'd say the situation will remain fairly precarious for a few years - regardless of whether elections happen on time or are staggered. Iraqis, themselves, have to figure out what they want, and in many cases different Iraqis will want different things. Its not an easy country to rule anyway. May be, it will just break up into three parts. Who knows? Some geographical realignment happens every few decades, anyway. Historically. You know it as well as I do.
The only way to get decent measure of the will of the nation is to hold elections.
They will be imperfect initially, but it will improve.
Chaos and intimidation and war only cloud any way to measure the will of the nation currently.
[/QUOTE]
Let say that shias come to power (which looks all too likely now) and they ask US forces to leave. What then??? And dont tell me thats not going to happen. Remember the Iraqis welcomed American forces with RPGs not garlands, as was expected.
I know, I know the US admin isnt that stupid to hold fair elections; they'll end up installing another puppet like Karzai in Afghanistan. See its not in your best interests to have democracy in Iraq.
^^ Yes, we were very reluctant about Democracies in Japan and Germany.
No government in Iraq is stupid enough to ask the US to leave, yet. A civil war is a day away, and would only enhance the leaders of militias. The country fractures the day the US leaves. That leaves three weaker countries to defend, and splitting up an oil powerhouse. The Kurds and the Shia would look like Kuwait and Saudi in 10 years, if they got their oil flowing.
Let say that shias come to power (which looks all too likely now) and they ask US forces to leave. What then??? And dont tell me thats not going to happen. Remember the Iraqis welcomed American forces with RPGs not garlands, as was expected.
I know, I know the US admin isnt that stupid to hold fair elections; they'll end up installing another puppet like Karzai in Afghanistan. See its not in your best interests to have democracy in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, you're probably right. The combination of legitimately rooted and pathological anti-Americanism is a force this administration just didn't calculate very well.
In the middle east you can depose a brutal dictator and offer to rebuild a country, and you still ain't gettin' any love. I hope this message has been received loud and clear.
Before any of you remind me, I acknowledge U.S. interests were first and rebuilding somewhere down the line in motivation.
I agree with O.G., however, that given the opportunity to vote most will vote for security which just may mean a U.S. friendly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
I acknowledge U.S. interests were first and rebuilding somewhere down the line in motivation.
[/QUOTE]
You didn't had to re-iterate the obvious. The US Military is not Salvation Army. Its not philanthropic. Its all self-interest. But you would not find US public figures or their rabid supporters acknowleding that or pointing it out all that much. For them its all about pure goals of bringing freedom and democracy around the world.
OG its time you admitted that US admins of days gone by are not the same as the current admin. When a president openly declares that his intuition cant be wrong, you know there are serious issues.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
But you would not find US public figures or their rabid supporters acknowleding that or pointing it out all that much. For them its all about pure goals of bringing freedom and democracy around the world.
[/QUOTE]
That may be so, but so what. Fundamentally underneath it all, some of us can figure out that just because the publicized or highlighted motive isn't necessarily the prime objective, doesn't mean it ain't worth a sh•t.
The lunar program wisely highlighted the idea of "Man Walking on the Moon!"
And that was nice.
But think about the Velcro! Now we got shoes you don't have to tie!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Actually, if you think about it, one Iraq only suits sunnis and US. Go figure!
[/QUOTE]
How does one Iraq favor sunnis? I would think it favors shia since they are the majority and sunnis are used to being in power. I think one Iraq favors Iran as much as anyone else.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
How does one Iraq favor sunnis? I would think it favors shia since they are the majority and sunnis are used to being in power. I think one Iraq favors Iran as much as anyone else.
[/QUOTE]
Just think about it some more. What will sunni Iraqis do with their triangle, in a land-locked position and no oil wealth? Common wisdom will suggest that sunnis don't want to break up Iraq. Most oil in Iraq is either in the South or in the North, controlled by Shias and Kurds, respectively. Having South secede will leave Southern oil in the hands of Iran-dominated Shia Iraq, which is not a pleasant thought in Washington DC. And having Kurds secede will be very unappetizing for Ankara, another US ally.
^That all makes sense, but I just don't see sunnis being happy in a shia-dominated government. Maybe their religous values outweigh their economic concerns? I agree US doesn't want 3 states.