BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Iraq Occupation

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Tezcatlipoca
12:26 / 29.04.03
From almost daily protests against the occupying forces, some with horrible consequences, to the preparation of action against General Franks, it's blatantly obvious that the US are now feeling the backlash of that free-speech they always claimed to be bringing to the Iraqi people.

In address to the Coalition Forces, Rumsfeld said "You have driven a repressive regime from power, ending a threat to free people everywhere, protecting our country from a growing danger and giving the Iraqi people a chance to build a free nation.", and, later, responded to critics by paraphrasing Churchill, "Never have so many been so wrong about so much."

It seems that the US are almost willfully out of touch with the reality of their situation in Iraq, whilst the newly liberated people - and especially the Shi'i - are pushing more steadily more direct action to rid themselves of the occupying forces.

So, where do you stand on the situation? Oil aside, is there really a need for the US to continue to stay, and, if (as they almost certainly will) they do, are we going to see protest shift to civil unrest? Your thoughts?
 
 
Jack Fear
12:47 / 29.04.03
Well, it depends who you ask: India's NDTV polled 1000 Iraqis in Baghdad, 54% said that America did the right thing by invading Iraq, while 43% of respondents wanted US troops to stay and help rebuild.

In the poll, Iraqis over 40 tended to be more pro-American and anti-Saddam, which I suppoise makes sense: Iraqis under 40 have no clear memories of life under any regime but Saddam's—the exhiliration of freedom must be mingled with terror as the only frame of reference they've ever known has been smashed.

So yeah, 43% isn't quite a majority (and of course no single poll is entirely representative), but it's a start...

A thought experiment: do you reckon support for American occupation will increase or decrease once basic services have been restored? When American engineers turn the lights back on, when American aid workers are handing out the ration packages—what's that going to do for public support?
 
 
Jack Fear
12:54 / 29.04.03
As to this...

is there really a need for the US to continue to stay?

Should we just walk away from the devastation we've caused, then? I agree that the US military role should be minimal, and its political role even less—but haven't we an obligation to at least fix what we've broken? And for that to happen, there's going to be a need for some troop presence, just for security purposes.

To me, the great shame of US intervention in Afghanistan was in the aftermath—in our failure to follow up with the aid and reconstruction—and security—that we promised. Wouldn't it only increase anti-American sentiment if we pulled out and left the place a shambles? Wouldn't we be seen as dodging our responsibilities to the people of the region? And isn't that what got us our horrible reputation in the first place?
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
12:59 / 29.04.03
Very true. I think a lot of the population is still caught up in the post-regime euphoria, so sentiments are running pretty high. Actually, I think there's a lot to be said for the US - or indeed any - occupying force maintaining order until (at least the basic skeleton of a social infrastructure is back in place).

My concern here isn't that some of the population (and I'm not placing too much faith in figures from any source here) don't want the US there, so much as some of the population seem to be threatening civil disobedience if they remain. I don't know, part of me just keeps seeing this whole affair settling down into an uneasy truce, with the US permanently stationing troops there and Iraqi extremists making repeated attacks in an effort to move them.
 
 
Baz Auckland
16:10 / 29.04.03
Two interesting things in the news right now relating to this:

U.S. Military Pulls Out of Saudi in Realignment

The United States said on Tuesday it was ending military operations in Saudi Arabia and removing virtually all its forces from the kingdom following the Iraq war.

Rumsfeld told reporters after talks with the prince that the "liberation of Iraq" had changed the situation in the Gulf and allowed Washington to reduce its troops in the region. "The relationship between our two countries is multi-dimensional -- diplomatic, economic, as well as military-to-military," he told a news conference.

Although it says the troops are leaving the gulf because Saddam Hussein's gone, I wonder if they're really just moving their bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. They act like Syria and Iran are new threats and need troops present. They mentioned a deal on bases yesterday as well. More help to keep dissent down?

Item two is a bit more disturbing: U.S. Reaches Cease-Fire With Terror Group

U.S. cease-fire with the Mujahedeen Khalq allows the terrorist group to keep its weapons to defend itself from attacks by Iranian-backed groups. This appears to be a way for the US to increase pressure on Iran, which has been accused of meddling in Iraq.

But the cease-fire represents a conundrum of sorts for the US, which has classified the Mujahedeen Khalq as a terrorist organization. The United States went to war against Iraq in part to dismantle what it said were terrorist networks supported by Saddam's regime.

Yet the U.S. military negotiated a cease-fire with the group, has allowed its fighters to keep their weapons and has allowed them to use military force against what the United States says are Iranian infiltrators entering Iraq. When asked how the United States could make deals with groups classified as terrorists, the official said the cease-fire was a battlefield agreement that coalition commanders were entitled to negotiate.

"Like all other parties in Iraq we will use U.S. influence and power to establish and maintain a secure and stable environment," the official said.

U.S. officials have charged that Shiite Muslim-controlled Iran was sending operatives into neighboring Iraq to destabilize the country further and promote an Iranian-style theocracy among Iraq's predominantly Shiite population.

Maybe the US will only leave once it has enough Iraqis armed or in power to ensure that the country will be friendly to their interests?

I don't think Iraq should be left like Afghanistan, but I would have more faith in the UN, if only because if the UN was in charge, the new government would look more clean and untainted.

There's a good overview of Iraq's history in this season's "Wilson Quarterly". (Browse through it at the bookstore). It's not available online unfortunately, but the article shows that since before the Ottomans, Iraq has had a very long history of the various areas rising up against the central government. The south and north have always been unhappy with rule from the centre, and it looks like it will be difficult to keep the country in one piece. Afghanistan has the same problems too...
 
 
Jack Fear
19:29 / 29.04.03
Let us not forget that "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" are both Wesetrn constructs, that their boundaries were set by outsiders—namely the British—and that the diversity of ethnic groups within these artificial boundaries is no accident. It's simple divide-and-conquer: if the Kurds, Turkomens, and Arabs of Iraq are kept busy squabbling with each other, they cannot band together to kick out the colonial power.

The withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia is an interesting case: it may have the side effect (intentional or not) of taking the windout of al Quaeda's sails. Remember, Osama bin Laden's beef was always primarily with the Saudi government, and his war with the US was a civil war by proxy. The Saudi royal family has allowed (and even encouraged) rampant anti-Americanism as a means of diverting the energies of its discontented populace away from itself—the Saudis, oo, know how to divide and conquer.

If the US substantially reduces its presence in the region, it sends the message to the Saudis that domestic discontent is their problem, which is as it should be: in a best-case scenario, it leads to popular pressure, Saudi democrtic reform, and consequent irrelevance of al Qaeda.
 
 
Baz Auckland
22:40 / 29.04.03
Just wondering: does anyone know much about the disintegration of Yugoslavia? Is the same pattern possible in Iraq? (notwithstanding Turkey ensuring the Kurds don't get power, and Iran helping the Shias get power?)
 
 
Baz Auckland
22:57 / 29.04.03
There's a good article by Naomi Klein here (you may need to copy and paste it into a word processor to make it legible.

She writes that the US will remain in Iraq until all the contracts are in place and secure, and the country is fully privatised.

And by the time the Iraqi people have a say in choosing a government, the key economic decisions about their country's future will have been made by their occupiers.

The Bush Administration knows it can't talk openly about selling off Iraq's oil resources to ExxonMobil and Shell. It leaves that to Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraq petroleum ministry official. "We need to have a huge amount of money coming into the country," Chalabi says. "The only way is to partially privatize the industry."

Some argue that it's too simplistic to say this war is about oil. They're right. It's about oil, water, roads, trains, phones, ports and drugs. And if this process isn't halted, "free Iraq" will be the most sold country on earth.
 
 
Saint Keggers
02:17 / 30.04.03
I find it surreal that Canada is going to be sending in the Mounties.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be going there to aid Iraq in creating and trainning a police force. Im expecting pepperspray sales in iraq to be second only to oil.
 
 
at the scarwash
02:52 / 30.04.03
That is surreal. Before any of our Canadian brethren catch a hauteur, yes I know that the RCMP are just as scary and effective of a national police force/intelligence organization as any other in the world. But the image of a red-coated mountie on camel back is thrilling.
 
 
waxy dan
08:16 / 30.04.03
His Majesty Bazza Auckland
She writes that the US will remain in Iraq until all the contracts are in place and secure, and the country is fully privatised.

I can't find any transcript of the damned show now, but there was an interview with the US general in charge of the 'southern territory' of Iraq on newsnight a week or two ago.
He said something along the lines of "we're not stupid. It doesn't make sense to maintain a military presence in Iraq. We'll stay for long enough to support US corporations in moving in and securing contracts. Then we'll hand it over to an Iraqi democracy".
I was amazed at the honestly of it all. Also that he felt comfortable in stating it in so open a manner. It seems to me that things must have changed a great deal in recent years, for it to have become acceptable to do so.
 
 
Baz Auckland
11:26 / 07.04.04
With the recent escalation of resistance and violence in Iraq, I figured this could use a resurrection...

What exactly is happening right now? Will this lead to civil war, or will it just put the Americans in a very bad situation?

The promises to destroy Fallujah with "overwhelming force" could be the start of something horrible...
 
 
grant
14:01 / 07.04.04
What was that you said?

Fallujah, Iraq — U.S. troops battled insurgents in two central Iraqi towns Wednesday, with 40 Iraqis reportedly being killed in a single air strike on a mosque in Fallujah, a stronghold of Sunni resistance near Baghdad.

Witnesses said that a U.S. helicopter gunship hit the mosque with three missiles. U.S. officials were unavailable for comment.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:08 / 07.04.04
Well, we've done the impossible. We've managed to unite the Sunnis AND the Shiites against us. Good job, Mr. President. All we need now are some sandworms and our Mideast policy can finally implode in style.
 
 
Antigen
23:29 / 07.04.04
Jon stewart had a great clip the other night. Someone asked Büsh if the coalition were still on for the deadline to turn over power. It took him about 3 and 3/4 (each one being seperate) tortured sentences to say, essentially, "Yup, we've got everything figured out except that little detail about identifying the recipient."

I think the whole aim of this war from the beginning has been to establish a US seat of power seperate [wink, wink] from Israel. Iraq was already a soft target, having been bombed, strafed, embargoed and generally smacked around like a red-headed step child for the past dozen years since Rummy quit sending birthday cards to Sadam.

It's the only thing that makes sense. Now, as to whether or not the plan will suceed, well... what do you say, Brittan? How'd it go last time you tried to colonize Babylon?

I started out thinking this would end pretty much like Vietnam w/ our military pulling out in defeat. Sad as it is, I haven't seen a lot to change my mind. The trouble w/ an emperial game plan like the one our government seems to be working from is that a good many Americans are still quite attached to our constitution and our national identity as freedom loving good guys. I'll grant you that we've done a very poor job of educating ourselves in these last few, freakishly prosperous generations. So it's taking the majority awhile to come to the inescapable conclusion that we're going to have to choose between empire and being good Americans. But I'm confident that we'll arrive at the correct decision. It'll still be an awful mess and we won't be the ones writing all of the history about it. But I think it would be for the best if Americans would get back to the business of demonstrating the principles embodied in our Constitution.
 
 
fluid_state
17:17 / 08.04.04
Was going to post a few thoughts yesterday on the occupation, it's reportage, and the escalation of the conflict (Mission Accomplished!), but thought they were ill-considered. Essentially, that the casual observer, reading headlines in passing and formulating opinion therein, would see sharp spike in the violence in Iraq, and that this would direct American opinion toward the "Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" position. Based on comments I'd read on some far-right blogs, it seemed the direction the media complex wanted people to lean, until I realized that the far-right blogosphere may not be the best divinatory tool.

Then I read this MSNBC poll:
Time to Send In Massive Military Reinforcements?
63% yes

(sigh). You'd think that at the same time that the media is publicising the Vietnam comparisons, people might, say, not support the exact same strategies again, but...

(So I went and looked at Junior's Compassion Photo Album, and I'm feeling much better now.)
 
 
sdv (non-human)
17:38 / 08.04.04
For those interested in America as imperialism, there are some genuinely informative moments in this.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
18:19 / 08.04.04
Forgive me for linking only to one blog for the news sources, but there's plenty of links in there...

Fallujah

Casualites

Hell

Basically, the Ukranians have been pushed out of Najaf and other coalition forces are pushed out of Kufi. We've got Sadr in a mosque just begging for martyrdom and Sistani holding back waiting to see how this plays out. I don't feel comfortable predicitng how this could go, since there's too many x-factors. But basically... yeah we're getting dangerously close to fucked here. And it doesn't help that the administation is in complete and utter denial.
 
 
pachinko droog
18:28 / 08.04.04
I'm just wondering how long it will be before we expand the war. Syria and Iran keep getting brought up in news segments as the source of arms, manpower and financial assistance for the insurgency, and the govt. has already predicted a "long hot summer" for our troops. It doesn't bode well...I think more troops being sent over are a certainty at this point.

The problem is that if we stay, we're screwed. And if we pull out, we're screwed. If we pull our troops out now, Iraq disintegrates into civil war, followed by probable Iranian intervention on behalf of the Shiites. If the Kurds then tried to set up their own state, as they're prone to wanting, the Turks would then intervene and you'd have an even bigger mess to deal with as Turkey is a NATO member and it has a mutual defense pact with Israel. Syria and Lebanon would undoubtedly get drawn into the mix due to their close proximity and Syria's interests, and now you have a major regional war, not to mention economic nightmares for the west.

At this point, whatever we do is "wrong".
 
 
Antigen
18:33 / 08.04.04
"Time to Send In Massive Military Reinforcements?
63% yes"

Well, at least 63% of MSNBC viewers are in a state of profound denial. The fact is that we don't have any more massive military reinforcements to send in. We've been sending reservists enmass for manh months and they and their families have been complaining bitterly about their return being continually delayed.

I think the idea that anyone can rule the world from Babylon is lunatic on the order of Pinkey and the Brain.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
22:30 / 08.04.04
Right. Here's This report.

And then look at this and realize that we may not be hearing anything about what's going on down there for a while...
 
 
w1rebaby
22:56 / 08.04.04
Al-Jazeera article with quotes from their correspondent inside Falluja

I must admit that before I was doing a bit of reading around today, I didn't realise quite the level of shitstorm that seems to be going on right now.

News here seems to be mostly concentrating on Rice's testimony.
 
 
diz
08:46 / 09.04.04
Well, at least 63% of MSNBC viewers are in a state of profound denial. The fact is that we don't have any more massive military reinforcements to send in.

when that sinks in, it's going to really be a big headfuck for a lot of people. the prevailing wisdom in the US for the past few decades has basically been that we could have won Vietnam (or even Korea) had we simply had the willpower to unleash the full power of our military without simpering liberal bullshit about human rights or whatnot. this delusion was reinforced with the cakewalk that was the first Gulf War, and now running into the solid brick wall of Iraqi opposition and realizing that we are absolutely stretched to the limit, and we're fighting as hard as we can, both in terms of military resources and the money to pay for them, they still don't love us or respect us, and we are still not winning... that's going to shake some foundations.

my fear is that we're going to retreat deeper into the delusion and start hunting for scapegoats on a scale we've never seen before.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:57 / 09.04.04
pachinko droog: Well, we've done the impossible. We've managed to unite the Sunnis AND the Shiites against us.

Yup, that's the scary one. The last few days have seen this begin its inexorable slide from "a bit out of hand" to "totally uncontrollable"...

Considering that this was a country with no ACTUAL links to terrorism, staking the whole "War Against Terrorism" on it is seemingly becoming increasingly stupid...

Let's look at this purely in terms of cost-effectiveness... the UK has spent fuck knows how much on aiding the US in its war with Iraq... but we can't actually get a radio system that works underground for the Met (until 2006, apparently- it's too expensive), despite the fact that the Tube seems to be the most prominent target in this country.

I dunno... I was a paranoid child, and always expected to live in frightening times. It's just... I never expected the times I lived in to be quite so... so fucking STUPID.
 
 
w1rebaby
10:39 / 09.04.04
my fear is that we're going to retreat deeper into the delusion and start hunting for scapegoats on a scale we've never seen before.

It will be another case of "we were stabbed in the back by the liberals at home, we *could* have won", as has been said by many different armies. I've already seen columnists comparing this (rather bizarrely) to the Tet Offensive.
 
 
pachinko droog
16:41 / 09.04.04
It seems to be getting rather comparable to what the Russians are facing in Chechnya, although we aren't flattening cities like they did in Grozny. That may happen to Fallujah yet.
 
 
grant
02:08 / 10.04.04
Tower: this part of "this report" is utterly terrifying:

Some 20 kilometers west of Baghdad, a US patrol was attacked just moments before the Iraqi marchers arrived. Armed insurgents could be seen dancing around two blazing military vehicles.

Two US Humvees tried to stop the marchers but were forced to drive off as residents joined the marchers, shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is greater).

US troops again blocked the highway further west, but were forced to let the Iraqis past as they came under a hail of stones.



I mean, that, that's practically mythic, that is. Guys marching with food aid, chanting "God is greater" and beating back dudes in tanks....
 
 
pachinko droog
14:58 / 10.04.04
Of course, the Shiites didn't hate us quite so much before Israel assassinated Sheikh Yassin. In the Arab media, the insurgency in Iraq is now being referred to alternately as an intifadah and a jihad, and comparisons are now being drawn between Iraq and Palestine.

Shit storm on the event horizon...
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
16:46 / 10.04.04
grant: Yeah, I had chills reading that one. We're getting into some serious Crusades shit here...

I hate to be a blog-bitch/pimp, but The Agonist is about as close to a blow-by-blow we'll be getting.

Juan Cole is also rapidly becoming indisepnsiable reading for current Iraq analysis. Especially when you read This story that the Iraq Governing Council may be on the brink of collapse and there might not be any government to HAND power over to come June 30.

Slightly off-topic: Have we ever had a thread about the rising ascendance of blogs for news commentary/reporting?
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
16:51 / 10.04.04
pachinko: Exactly. Most of the Iraqi blogs I've read point to that exact event being a turning point for the Iraq public opinion. People don't take kindly to the image of sending cruise missles after a parapalegic, no matter how much of a scum the guy may have actually been.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
19:00 / 10.04.04
I am a terrible conspiracy theorist so what I am about to offer may and probably will be met with derision

Here goes

We have all heard about PNAC

written by Wolfowitz, Perle et all, it details how America should "spread democracy" to the rest of the world and how the new century should be American

a number of the signatories were of joint Israeli / US citizenship

Iraq, Syria and Iran are sworn enemies of Israel. Do I think this is a coincedence

No


Do I think it is the whole picture?


No


Oil is also a major factor as are all the lucrative contracts yet to be awarded in Iraq. It is my belief (and this will not be popular here) that it matters not who wins the next US election, as Kerry is as beholden to the various power brokers and large campaign donators as Bush

Big Oil traditionally support Republicans but they hedge their bets and spend hundreds of thousands on the Democrats as well. So do a lot of other mutlinationals and vested interests

It is my belief that Kerry will win. Bremner is stirring shit up in Iraq for a reason. He, I believe has no intrinsic loyalty to Bush and is answering to his own puppet masters.
There must be a problem with the June 30th deadline....in my opinion, peaceful transition is not on the cards (perhaps the contracts haven't been worked out yet)

Also (and here is where I admit I am treading on thin ice) I believe that for PNAC and Israel's interests, it suits certain interested parties to escalate hostilities and involve the Shia

The American public would not have stood for another invasion over WMD when none have been found in Iraq. How best to involve Syria and Iran but to demonize the until now, reasonably peaceful Shia majority in Iraq

Eventually, proof of Iranian involvement will be found and this will give the US the pretext to put pressure on the Iranian Government.

As for Saudi.....there was an interesting article the other day about how the Saudi's oil reserves are questionable to say the least. They have been quoting figures that most people in the industry are basically unwilling to accept. Again this could be the reason for the pull out of US troops, civil unrest will cause the UN to be forced to send in troops, freeing America of the responsibility of upholding the loathsome house of Saud


I also believe that Bremners' actions are also to draw UN troops into the conflict. With escalating violence and reporting of human rights violations........the UN will be asked to send in troops and bolster the beleagured and presumably exhausted US troops. Kerry becoming the new "caring face" of international diplomacy will be the perfect foil for the US/ UN to heal their rifts


I know this all sounds like the ramblings of a madman, and hard to accept but for me Bush/Kerry/Blair etc are all just puppets, serving an agenda set out by big business


If you think that is crazy listen to this


A website I was on the other day said that the reason the US military is holed up in Iraq is to protect it. They alleged that a huge Asteroid is destined to hit the US this year and the military wanted to ensure most f it's troops were abroad. Iraq has allegedly the most extensive underground (though if this is true, why they were never used in the war it was not stated) facilities and the US army intend to wait out this global catastrophe, emergine as the major world power after the disaster

Now even I don't subscribe to that one


but there were those stories of all the arson attacks on the observatories, so who knows
 
 
Joetheneophyte
19:06 / 10.04.04
This


details the alleged lying of the Saudis about their oil reserves
 
 
Hieronymus
19:35 / 10.04.04
It's an interesting series of events when even Pat Buchanan is firing against the PNAC policies of the Bush administration and its involvement in Iraq.

Methinks the glory of our war president is falling like a lead balloon.
 
 
MJ-12
19:44 / 10.04.04
this part of "this report" is utterly terrifying:

See, I actually find it to be quite encouraging, in that the troops didn't just hose the crowd down, and call it a day.
 
 
w1rebaby
20:41 / 10.04.04
If you'd like a really depressing analysis of the situation, the author of which provides many examples of why Coalition troops are not popular...

If the Americans stay, more innocent Iraqis will be killed by them and more Iraqis will die fighting them. More American boys will die for nothing far away from home, where there is even talk of the draft being reinstated to compensate for a military stretched thin. Should the Americans withdraw, Iraqis will not rejoice for long before they turn on each other in the competition for power, but the American retreat will be viewed by radical Islam as a success akin to the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan in 1989, giving their movement a fillip in the "clash of civilizations", a theory with no basis made real thanks to Osama bin Laden and Bush.

I'm afraid to say I can't see much wrong with this analysis, though I'm not convinced that not encouraging "radical Islam" is a sufficient reason not to leave.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply