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 >

Mistakes in Iraq

  
 
sleazenation
16:18 / 26.05.06
So, Blair and Bush have began to admit to some of the vast litany of mistakes over their exploits in Iraq.

It really made me sad listening. Part of me was thinking "why couldn't you have said this earlier, and thought more before you acted". But unfortunately the rest of me was thinking - so what is the angle they are selling this time?

And this, I think, is the dilema.

Blair and Bush are essentially so discredited, both in terms of the reasons they took their countries to war and in the conduct of what followed the war, that not only is it difficult to trust anything they say, any policies that they adopt also become immediately tainted by association with them.

This is a real problem when it comes to democracy promotion.

So we appear to be in a situation where effective and constructive support for democracy promotion, both in Iraq and elsewhere, is actively harmed by the involvement of either Bush or Blair.

So in the light of this I have to ask - where can Iraq go from here? Are the coalition forces now only capable of doing more harm than good? Can it only get worse before 2009 when the two Western leaders who were both so instrumental in the drive to war in Iraq will be out of office?

What do you think?
 
 
Slate
19:58 / 30.05.06
It has been two days since my post and 105 *reported* people have been blown up by bombs in Iraq. The last two months have not been good either.

Without taking the quote out of context, please read the post So there are 2 options:

One is that Coalition efforts are successful and Iraq has a stable government. The other is that Coalition efforts fail and Iraq descends into a chaos that makes what is happening now seem like the halcyon years.

The first option is looking further away with every passing day. It is full scale civil war right now and I have been hearing this call for some time. I see another option as America, Britain and Australia need to think real hard on how to commit to solving the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish conflict that is driving this bloodshed. The pursuit for Democracy for the country of Iraq is going nowhere, as I have said, they don't want it and they may not need it. The solution has to come from inside Iraq, not forced on them. There is a power grab going on with young kids with guns with inept commanders caught in the middle. You have the Big Oil companies watching, waiting & grinning all the way to the bank as crude prices go through the roof as well. It is a very difficult situation getting more difficult by the day. Other options need to be brought forward and put on the table. This is the White Houses favourite quote, "discussing all options on the table", well I don't agree at all. The Kurdish people want a state, the Sunni's also and the Shia, is splitting the country up even further a valid option?
 
 
Slim
21:23 / 30.05.06
Blair and Bush are essentially so discredited, both in terms of the reasons they took their countries to warand in the conduct of what followed the war, that not only is it difficult to trust anything they say, any policies that they adopt become immediately tainted by association with them.

This is a real problem when it comes to democracy promotion.

So we appear to be in a situation where effective and constructive support for democracy promotion, both in Iraq and elsewhere, is actively harmed by the involvement of either Bush or Blair.

Hasn't the U.S. always been in a difficult position in regards to democracy promotion? As the world's leading superpower, its responsibilities sometimes conflict with democracy promotion, leaving the U.S. open to accusations of hypocrisy. Russia arguably has a legitimate beef when a U.S. diplomat criticizes its democratic deficiencies and then travels to visit the far more repressive Kazakhstan and doesn't repeat the same criticisms. Stabilizing the international political system while simultaneously promoting democracy requires a great deal of nuance and understanding.

Which brings us to the current Bush administration and its efforts in democracy promotion in the world outside Iraq. Less visible methods should still be viable. The U.S. frequently provides funds to independent news organizations and pro-democratic NGOs in non-democratic countries. Regardless of current events, money is still the universal language and success or failure in Iraq is unlikely to dent the effectiveness of this ploy.

How much has the situation in Iraq affect more aggressive attempts by the U.S.? I'm not sure that the *lies* leading up to the invasion and the Abu Ghraib situation are tremendously detrimental to pro-democracy efforts. Torturing Iraqis in jail does not answer the question of whether or not a country should move (or be moved?) towards democracy. Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but pro-democracy efforts will be affected solely by success or failure in Iraq. If an democratic Iraq is finally established, then all the *lies* and mistakes will be minimalized to the point where they'll only be lessons learned for the next time. To put it more clearly, if Iraq becomes a success story, it won't be the means that matter but the ends.

As for Iraq itself...I fear that it may have become a lost cause. Bush's mistakes, as well as Blair's to some extent, put the Coalition off to the wrong start from the very beginning. Unfortunately, I think you're right in that Bush has become a joke to the U.S. population, the international press, and the international community. He's practically a lame duck on the issue of Iraq.

It seems to me that everything now rests on what the international community is prepared to do. I don't doubt that foreign leaders are enjoying watching Bush being brought down a peg or two. He's like the asshole that finally gets what is coming to him to everyone's great delight. The problem is that this delight comes at the price of the Iraqi population. I'm not hearing much about what non-Coalition countries are doing to help in Iraq. Should they help? Can they help? You'll have to forgive me, I haven't fully developed my thoughts on the matter. I wonder if now is the time for the international community to step forward and decide what kind of world does it want? How do non-U.S. countries feel about promoting democracy and what is their plan for doing it? The Coalition is struggling, likely failing, in Iraq. Do other nations watch the ship sink or does it step in and attempt to save it? Why is their not more discourse about the responsibilities of non-Coalition countries?

I fear what will happen in Iraq when the U.S. pulls out. There may or may not be a low-level civil war currently in Iraq. But once the U.S. leaves, we might see a full-blown civil war or god forbid, genocide and religious cleansing. Is it right for the world to watch Iraq go up in flames? The U.S. should probably not haven gone into Iraq the way it did. But it's there now and other countries have to make a decision on what they want to do about it. I'm not convinced that playing the part of Pontius Pilate is their only option.

I'm running out of steam so I'm going to wrap up this post even if it's not fully-developed. I guess my final question is this- Can or should non-coalition countries step up their efforts in promoting democracy both in and out of Iraq?
 
 
sleazenation
19:08 / 31.05.06
Wow, there is a lot in this topic, so I'm probably going to attempt to come back to it in fits and starts, which is not particularly satisfactory, but I doubt I'll ever get round to it if I attempt to cover all this in a single sustained effort.

so...

Hasn't the U.S. always been in a difficult position in regards to democracy promotion? As the world's leading superpower, its responsibilities sometimes conflict with democracy promotion, leaving the U.S. open to accusations of hypocrisy.


What do you mean here by responsibilities? responsibilities to whom specifically?

I'm not sure that the problems the US faces with regards to democracy promotion are down to split responsibilities as much as inconsistancy, both historically and currently in its approaches and level of committment to this ideal.

Which brings us to the current Bush administration and its efforts in democracy promotion in the world outside Iraq. Less visible methods should still be viable. The U.S. frequently provides funds to independent news organizations and pro-democratic NGOs in non-democratic countries. Regardless of current events, money is still the universal language and success or failure in Iraq is unlikely to dent the effectiveness of this ploy.

The funding of NGOs is fantastic and something that a number of wealthier countries, including France (who part fund Medicin Sans Frontiers) do. However, such funding is a double edged sword. NGOs derrive much if not most of their power and influence precidely by being NGOs - NON governmental organizations. . By associating government policy too closely to the support and funding of NGOs, governments risk contaminating the NGOs by their association and also contaminating them by bringing the important work they do into the scrutiny of skitish, less than democratic regimes.

Russia has already turned its eye towards foreign NGOs, a move that seems to be a response to the role NGOs played in supporting the popular movement towards democracy in the Ukraine (a project that is still not out of the woods yet).

...
 
 
elene
07:29 / 02.06.06
It seems to me that everything now rests on what the international community is prepared to do.

I suspect we're already doing it, Slim.

These situations have a lot of inertia. It's not easy to prevent the break-up of a country into it's ethnic components once it's begun because very soon everyone's pursuing their sectarian aims with manic intensity, it being after all increasingly a matter of life and death. Civil war can probably be prevented during it's initial phase, one of sectarian attacks and vigilante justice - what we are currently seeing - but doing so means policing the country very closely, something we don't have the men to do. I think we would need considerably more than 100,000 troops in place to successfully police Iraq in this manner. That's not going to happen, unless they come from Russia and China.

I have no faith that Iraqi forces can or will provide the necessary policing, as they'd already be doing it were that the case. They're not.

Normally our interference in a foreign country takes one of two forms. We either promote a strong man, like Saddam, who'll hold it together, or we allow it to disintegrate into as many components as are necessary, like former Yugoslavia. We obviously don't want to help the Shi'a to complete control but neither can we put them back where Saddam once had them. Therefore we must permit or perhaps even assist a break-up to occur, hopefully in some halfway sensible manner.

I'm not sure I'm right about this and I'm not sure how disastrous it'll turn out to have been either - a couple of years ago I read an account that said this would destabilise the entire Middle East. As far as I can see it would strengthen Iran and weaken everyone else.

Nevertheless, we'll probably do nothing until a genocide begins, and then little.
 
 
sleazenation
09:38 / 02.06.06
Well certainly a fledgling Kurdish state would serve to destabilise Turkey whos own Kurdish population might well seek to join and enlarge it...

Back onto the police... the disasterous policy of 'debatheification' destroyed the Iraqi police at the time when they were needed the most to maintain the rule of law, as far as it was possible to do so, during the transition period between Saddam's Iraq and wha ever was to come after it.

The situation we now have is an Iraqi police force that is riven with split allegences, split into many overlapping factions. It does not seem that the Iraqi police are fit for purpose, which is problematic since the readiness of the police is one of the measures by which the coalition will measure their ability to scale back their involvement in Iraq.
 
 
elene
10:26 / 02.06.06
Yes, I agree with you on both points, sleaze. Once there is a Kurdistan, Turkey will be destabilised until it lets its Kurdish population go, which will greatly weaken it. And the Iraqi police and military are split just as the country is split. There is no one person to whom they could all pledge allegiance. They are part of the problem as far as holding Iraq together is concerned.

Suitcase Rider, I don't thinks it's full-scale civil war just yet. I think it can and will get much worse. When it's a full-scale civil war coalition casualties will drop, because they'll have largely given up trying to keep order and will be staying out of harms way, and there will be terrible sectarian massacres on a larger scale than we have as yet seen, with thousands killed and tens of thousands displaced within a few days.
 
 
sleazenation
12:00 / 02.06.06
Drat - just lost a sizable meandering post...

On the subject of what can the non-coalition countries do - well, since the coalition project in Iraq is currently framed in terms of democracy promotion, that pretty much rules out active support from China and Russia, two large and influential countries that have little interest in the goal of democracy promotion.

It is also probably worth pointing out that a number of countries that were named as being part of the coalition of the willing have a less than sterling record on democracy - Eritrea, for example, have indefinitely posponed elections in its single party state...

But there is still the question of who are the democracies that are not part of the coalition? Do Italy and Spain count? Both were part the original coalition and thus are now tainte by that association, even if they have now withdrawn or are in the process of withdrawing from it?

Who does that leave? France and Germany? Do we really thing that the security situation in Iraq would be noticably improved by the complete committment from France and Germany? I have severe doubts.

Which doesn't leave an awful lot of options it would seem...
 
 
elene
13:06 / 02.06.06
I don't think France or Germany would, or could, put many tens of thousands of soldiers into Iraq. In Germany sending a thousand men to the Congo is a big deal (but yes, it really is of course, no one wants to send men to maybe have to fight child soldiers), and the Iraq invasion was very unpopular here (though of course it was in Italy and Spain too). France maintains a much larger military though and feels much better about using it.

Policing a country is quite different to invading it. Better equipment hasn't remotely the same leverage it has when attacking. One needs far more troops. In fact one probably needs what Saddam had, some three or four hundred thousand troops. One certainly needs what we have already, about 150,000 (?), just to do what they do - protect oil-fields, airports, harbours and the green zone, beat up insurgents and militias on a regular basis. If, in addition, we want to police the country closely, well. There are about 8 million adult males in Iraq. We can expect at least 10% of these to take an active part in a civil war. Each can be expected to be active about once a week, so close policing implies we need one of our people for every five of that 10%, which means 160,000 troops. I consider this estimate conservative because we actually need troops to support this police force too. I think 350,000 troops is realistic, meaning we need 100,000 each from France and Germany. In your dreams! It'll never happen.
 
 
grant
15:53 / 15.12.06
They're sending in the robots now.

No, not robot soldier. Robot phone-callers.

Not long after Republicans harrassed tens of thousands of Americans with automated phone messages in November's election, news comes that the robo call, that staple of American democracy, is being deployed in Iraq. And it's literally terrorizing city residents.

Nir Rosen of the new blog Iraqslogger reports, calling it a "mysterious psychological operations campaign," that Baghdad residents have reported "receiving phone calls that the caller ID shows to be originating from outside Iraq." What follows is a "recorded message from an anonymous man speaking formal Arabic" who goes on to condemn the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia headed by the powerful cleric Muqtada al Sadr that's been a continual thorn in the U.S.'s side.

More here, at Iraqslogger.

Psy-Ops! They'll win the war for us!
 
 
Baz Auckland
22:06 / 18.12.06
So.... the elections are over, the Republicans lost, the Iraq Study Group has published it's findings... now what?

Bush seems to be stuck on sending 20,000 more troops 'temporarily', which will somehow stop the violence, and some people are supporting him...

This comment from Colin Powell caught my eye this morning though:

And let's be clear about something else. . . . There really are no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops...The active Army is about broken.
 
 
Slim
01:28 / 19.12.06
Theoretically, 20,000 more troops could help the situation, at least in Baghdad. However, as Ralph Peters pointed out in today's New York Post, no one has come out and said what the troops are supposed to do. Of course, he ruins it be going on to recommending policies that would essentially amount to turning Iraq into police state, a wholly unlikely and probably impossible occurrence. His point stands, though. Iraq will remain a failure until new strategic and operational decisions are made instead of throwing more troops into a hopeless scenario.
 
 
aluhks SMASH!
19:18 / 19.12.06
How will 20,000 more troops help anything, even in theory? I'm not asking sarcastically. It's just that nobody has yet explained to me what theory suggests that increasing troop levels will help a situation that U.S. troops should never have been involved with in the first place.
 
 
Slim
01:52 / 21.12.06
Sorry, I was trying to say that if we had the correct policies in Iraq an additional 20,000 troops would be beneficial (unless it turns out that the best policy is to exit quickly, which I'm not sure is the case).
 
 
sleazenation
10:43 / 21.12.06
Depends what you mean by the 'correct' policy. It could be argued that having never invaded Iraq there would be little need for 20,000 extra troops.

Working from where we are, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where a comparatively small number of extra troops would be able to have much of an effect, on either the country at large (Cf, Afghanistan where the writ of the government does not extend far outside of the capital) or within Bagdad.

A key point to remember is that the conflict in Iraq, and Bagdad in particular, is not a straight US vs a single cohesive enemy. There is an emerging civil/ethnic/religious war on top of the insurgency against coalition troops. I'm not convinced that any amount of US/coalition troops will be able to surpress this emerging conflict, which is the clear result of the way in which the US/coalition entered Iraq and bungled the post-war reconstruction.
 
 
Baz Auckland
22:08 / 21.12.06
It's easy to see now where the administration screwed up and how this situation developed, but the 'what the hell do we do now' question is hard to answer.

If America/UK/etc. stay, will it make things better or worse? Can America do anything to stop Iraq from falling apart? Does the administration really care?

If America/UK/etc. leave, will it be for the better? Is it pointless for them to stay?

Maybe ideally, a UN peacekeeping force could be sent in to try and prop it all up, but I've yet to hear the UN mentioned in the last 2 years...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:36 / 22.12.06
Would the UN be seen as any different to the current forces? Chances are a fair proportion of the troops currently there would stay, they'd just change their uniforms. And wasn't Bush spending a while after his re-election trying to sweet-talk the UN into taking over governing the mess of Iraq and Afghanistan? Whatever happened to that I wonder. Maybe that's why the current strategy is to try and persuade Syria and Iran to do the job, the UN perhaps turned Bush down?

Now that Bush and Blair have succeeded in turning the Iraq War into a Civil War perhaps the only sensible course is to pull our troops out of harms way. It's not a nice decision, it's not a moral decision, but perhaps it's the only decision that the clusterfucking stupidity of people like Bush and Rumsfeld has left us.
 
 
Slim
17:14 / 02.01.07
Depends what you mean by the 'correct' policy. It could be argued that having never invaded Iraq there would be little need for 20,000 extra troops.

That is why I admitted that the absence of U.S. troops may be the correct policy.

Working from where we are, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where a comparatively small number of extra troops would be able to have much of an effect, on either the country at large (Cf, Afghanistan where the writ of the government does not extend far outside of the capital) or within Bagdad.

20,000 troops would represent an increase of what, 15 percent or so above the current number? I would think that if all of the troops were poured into Baghdad, that could very well have a substantial effect on the level of violence. Again, it would depend on how soldiers are operating there already. Clearing out Baghdad would most likely result in insurgents fleeing into the smaller towns outside of the city, but that would be preferable to them controlling Iraq's largest and most important city.

A key point to remember is that the conflict in Iraq, and Bagdad in particular, is not a straight US vs a single cohesive enemy. There is an emerging civil/ethnic/religious war on top of the insurgency against coalition troops. I'm not convinced that any amount of US/coalition troops will be able to surpress this emerging conflict, which is the clear result of the way in which the US/coalition entered Iraq and bungled the post-war reconstruction.

U.S. commanders have already admitted that this war will not be won by the military. Military operations are being used to buy us time until political and economic situation can be improved, nothing more. I'm not in the military and I don't know what exact strategies have been used in Iraq. Maybe clearing and holding Baghdad while slowly expanding outward could limit the violence enough so that the Iraqi government can get its act together and meaningful economic reconstruction can begin. Of course, this process would likely take far longer than the American public is willing to tolerate (and perhaps rightly so).

I will come out and say it- I have a strong bias that probably keeps me from being as objective as I usually am. I do not want a quick exit to be the right answer. Currently, both insurgents and innocents are dying on the streets of Iraq. A U.S. pullout might increase the death rate of the latter category to a truly abhorent degree. I also fear the effect this would have on democracy promotion and interventions for the elimination of the abuse of human rights. Failure in Iraq may make the international community even less likely to intervene in cases like Darfur or other situations in which international cooperation and legitimacy is needed in order to stop very real evils.
Sometimes I wonder if more is riding on the line in Iraq than most people realize.

Would the UN be seen as any different to the current forces? Chances are a fair proportion of the troops currently there would stay, they'd just change their uniforms.

I don't know about the national composition of the forces but they'd almost certainly be less effective, less organized, and ill-equipped to handle Iraq.

Maybe that's why the current strategy is to try and persuade Syria and Iran to do the job, the UN perhaps turned Bush down?

I'd suggest that the more likely reason is that the U.S. would rather have Syria and Iran with us than against us. While the rest of the UN may abstain from sending aid, the U.S. needs Syria and Iran to abstain from making things much worse, something that is entirely in their power to do.
 
 
sleazenation
14:31 / 05.01.07
Depends what you mean by the 'correct' policy. It could be argued that having never invaded Iraq there would be little need for 20,000 extra troops.

That is why I admitted that the absence of U.S. troops may be the correct policy

Not what I was getting at. I was really attempting to make the point that invading in the first place was a mistake. It's probably not an incredibly helpful thing to say in relation to the ongoing mess in Mesopotamia, but it is, I think, still quite an important point to make in relation to foreign policy in the Middle East. Fools rush in.
 
 
sleazenation
15:26 / 05.01.07
Clearing out Baghdad would most likely result in insurgents fleeing into the smaller towns outside of the city, but that would be preferable to them controlling Iraq's largest and most important city.

Well, firstly I doubt the abilities of the US forces to be able to take and hold the entirity of Baghdad and its suburbs effectively. Secondly it would send some very unhelpful signals about the state of Iraq and the post-Saddam government that such a move would be necessary.

But more than that, I don't see that such a move would be in any way effective. 'Clearing out Baghdad' would amount to just expanding the borders of the Green Zone (arguably making the Green Zone less secure into the bargain) and would just expand the borders of its irrelevancy.
The important stuff is going on in areas outside of US/coalition influence an between Iraqis.

Maybe clearing and holding Baghdad while slowly expanding outward could limit the violence enough so that the Iraqi government can get its act together and meaningful economic reconstruction can begin.

I don't see this as a credible option. The US/coalition forces would need an ongoing and expanding number of troops to occupy and hold an ever increasing area. These troops will not be forthcoming. But more, such an occupation would seem to fly in the face of any comittment to a truly independant soverign Iraq.

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the unpalatable truth is that the reality on the ground in Iraq is largely outside of the power of the US to influence directly and that troops on the ground may well be exacerbating matters.

I can understand entirely the desire that the project in Iraq not end in failure, but I'm not sure that is avoidable at this point.
 
 
diz
23:59 / 05.01.07
I will come out and say it- I have a strong bias that probably keeps me from being as objective as I usually am. I do not want a quick exit to be the right answer.

I don't think it is the right answer. However, I think the right answer involves building a time machine, so it's not likely to happen. What we are left with is a series of wrong answers, and what we have to determine is which answer is least wrong.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
03:14 / 06.01.07
The right answer is to let other countries who have an interest in Iraq succeeding get involved. Sadly, everything I have read points to Bush believing that if he allows any other country to get involved in Iraq is worse than losing.

The team Bush assembled has shown on the past that they have absolutely no interest in follow through, and their time in this administration hasn't been any different.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:58 / 06.01.07
I don't think it is the right answer. However, I think the right answer involves building a time machine, so it's not likely to happen. What we are left with is a series of wrong answers, and what we have to determine is which answer is least wrong.

Thanks, diz. I've not contributed to this thread because I haven't been able to put my feelings into words that sounded right. You've nailed it right there.
 
 
Slim
02:04 / 12.01.07
It's probably not an incredibly helpful thing to say in relation to the ongoing mess in Mesopotamia, but it is, I think, still quite an important point to make in relation to foreign policy in the Middle East. Fools rush in.

I agree that it's an important point. But it has been made over and over and over again. I get frustrated when people use this as an answer for what to do in Iraq (I am not accusing you of being one of these people). The invasion happened, the situation has changed and we need to figure out a solid plan for the future.

Well, firstly I doubt the abilities of the US forces to be able to take and hold the entirity of Baghdad and its suburbs effectively. Secondly it would send some very unhelpful signals about the state of Iraq and the post-Saddam government that such a move would be necessary.

The latter point first...I don't think it's a big secret that Baghdad is a violent place right now. The signal has already been sent so to hell with it. Do the right thing, whatever that may be. Out of curiousity, who did you have in mind as the receiver of these unhelpful signals? The American people, Iraqi people, or the world at large?

As for the first point...20,000 soldiers doesn't sound like a lot until you realize that there are only 15,000 there now. That's well over a hundred percent increase. It still may not be enough but I think it's a significant increase.

Baghdad was and is the center of gravity for Iraq and it is where the war will be won or lost. I think that if you can get rid of the violence there you have a shot at saving the country from what appears to be oncoming chaos.

I don't see this as a credible option. The US/coalition forces would need an ongoing and expanding number of troops to occupy and hold an ever increasing area. These troops will not be forthcoming. But more, such an occupation would seem to fly in the face of any comittment to a truly independant soverign Iraq.

Hopefully, the expanding number of troops would be supplied by the newly trained and somewhat effective Iraqi troops. I assume that is what the US would be aiming for and it would signify an independant and sovereign Iraq.

By the way, this is what I've been thinking about for the past few days and my opinion was in no way affected by Bush's speech last night, whatever the similarities there may be.

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the unpalatable truth is that the reality on the ground in Iraq is largely outside of the power of the US to influence directly and that troops on the ground may well be exacerbating matters.

I can understand entirely the desire that the project in Iraq not end in failure, but I'm not sure that is avoidable at this point.

To be honest, I've been moving that way myself. Sometimes I think that it might be better to pull most of the troops out of Iraq, insert a sizeable amount into Afghanistan, and get that country on the right track again. We have a better chance of success there and more support from the international community.

Some days the situation seems hopeless and I think, "Well, Al Qaeda is more important anyways, let's go after those bastards." Then I remember that a collapsed Iraq may turn Al Anbar pronvince into the kind of terrorist state we thought we got rid of in Afghanistan. Ten years later we could find ourselves back at the beginning.

Another fear is that if the US pulls out because of a failed mission and Iraq goes to shit, what will happen then? Even if it turns into a state that houses terrorist groups the international community would likely turn a blind eye and abdicate any responsibility it may have towards solving the problem. A rubberband effect may result in a decrease in the desire to intervene in the affairs of states.

If the US pulls out of Iraq then the international community needs to get together and have a serious discussion on liberal intervention, democratic reform, and a vision for the future. It's a pipe dream, of course.
 
 
sleazenation
14:23 / 12.01.07
As for the first point...20,000 soldiers doesn't sound like a lot until you realize that there are only 15,000 there now. That's well over a hundred percent increase. It still may not be enough but I think it's a significant increase.

Um, I think you missed a zero - US troop levels are more in the order of 150,000, actually the figure is probably closer to 140,000. US Troop levels have fluctuated throughout the conflict, with numbers going up and down. The peak number was during the invasion itself when there were apparently around 250,000 troops deployed.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
15:46 / 12.01.07
sleazenation, I think Slim is talking about Baghdad.

If the US pulls out of Iraq then the international community needs to get together and have a serious discussion on liberal intervention, democratic reform, and a vision for the future. It's a pipe dream, of course.

With all due respect. Pipe dream? Wet dream more like. Liberal intervention? Nothing but naked National self-Interest.

On the state of Iraq, you mention Al Anbar province but aren't willing to see that it's already descended into chaos.
 
 
symbiosis
17:59 / 12.01.07
I think the conventional, though cynical, wisdom of the American political elite has been correct for a long time about Iraq.

If you don't have a madman ruling that place by brutal force, there is no way to prevent the eventual unification of Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and maybe even Egypt.

It is like it would be in American history if France would have supported a medieval dictator in the midwest instead of making the Louisiana purchase deal.

From the conventional strategic viewpoint of the U.S./Israel combine, it is irrelevant to ask what mistakes we made after toppling Saddaam, toppling Saddaam was such a collossal mistake that no matter what we do after that will never return us to how good it was before we toppled Saddaam.

I just can't believe that Israel let us do it. I know that the republicans, the American aristocracy, the neocons, and the knee jerk 911 revenge crowd can't think their way out of a paper bag(and I knew it in the fall of 1999 as well as I do now).

I just have a really hard time believing that Israel banked it's whole existence on Operation Iraqi freedom. A Pan islamic state is going to wipe israel out. They will unify, there will be revolutions all across the middle east to make it happen. It will have nuclear weapons, it will use them, the days of the existence of Israel are numbered.

We can stay in Iraq as long as we like, we can militarize the entire state of Texas and send them all over there, we could send all ten aircraft carriers and sit them ten feet off the coast of Iran. Or we could send them flowers and a trillion dollars.

It will make little difference. Israel will be destroyed by nuclear weapons in our lifetimes. The oil supply from the middle east will be entirely at the whim of fundamental islamic despots for the rest of our lifetime.

Fundamental christians are rejoicing about this, and jesus would vomit on them if he could, much less return to take them into his bosom(unless by that you mean death by fireball)

The only thing that could save us at this point is a philosopher king, who would have to please a majority of Americans and a majority of Iranians.

After looking at this venn diagram for a while, I have, like usual, no hope for the future here.

If I become an old man and the world is stable and at peace, then I will have seen proof of miracles.

But I'm not going to, instead I'm just going to be proud I was one of the ones who was willing to overthrow the entire U.S. government(and even to march in an ineffectual ten million person demonstration) rather than lift a finger to overthrow Sadaam Hussein.

On the earth's tombstone, we should write, 'Influence whoever you would like to, but never, ever meddle.'
 
 
Evil Scientist
19:44 / 12.01.07
As for the first point...20,000 soldiers doesn't sound like a lot until you realize that there are only 15,000 there now.

It's actually only around 17,500 troops being sent to Baghdad (admittedly still a lot).

This taken from The Guardian website:

President Bush will not be sending in fresh troops into the fray. He has hardly any combat units in reserve. Instead the surge will be achieved by making some already exhausted brigades stay on in Iraq months after their normal tours are over, and speeding up the deployment of others who were due to arrive later this year.

However, this logistical trick cannot be sustained indefinitely. Even before Wednesday's presidential announcement, the army and marine corps had been complaining they were overstretched. The outgoing head of Central Command, General John Abizaid, told Congress recently that troop levels could be increased by 20,000 or so temporarily but "the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something we have right now with the size of the army and the marine corps".

So this is a plan that is going to have to succeed very quickly before the troops are incapable, or unwilling, of fighting further.

Whilst the new tactic of taking and holding areas sounds good in principle the real question is how effective it will be in the long term. It will require US forces to actively engage with the Mahdi Army militia currently occupying the Sadr City slum area. Something they are capable of doing, however the militia has had a lot of time to prepare for them so causalties amongst US soldiers will be substantial (and Iraqi civilian casualties will been exponentially higher).

There is a question of how long the US government will keep their forces there if the causalty rate sours as a result of this "surge".

If you don't have a madman ruling that place by brutal force, there is no way to prevent the eventual unification of Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and maybe even Egypt.

Tell me you're joking. Do you seriously believe this? Could you show exactly how this would be the case please?

It will make little difference. Israel will be destroyed by nuclear weapons in our lifetimes.

Not necessarily. Israel is one of the most advanced countries in the region militarily (due to its close relationship with the West), it is also nuclear capable itself. Even if it didn't retaliate against nuclear assault there is a risk for anyone launching in that region that they would be on the recieving end of a "punishment strike" from the US. Argumants about "crazed fanatics" aside I think it would be unlikely that anyone would want to get into a nuke-slinging contest.
 
  
Add Your Reply