Iraq; Opponents to the war, correct again. Turkey will invade #222

[Oddjob]

The sectarian issues are still a major problem. Why not create camps where large numbers of Sunni and Shiite families can be detained and 'concentrated' on helping rebuild and restructure Iraq. If food and welfare is kept to a minimum, the resulting disease and exhaustion will help keep numbers of the troublemakers down. Once these are established the coalition could then look into setting up gas chambers to further maintain 'the peace' - The gas WILL have to be imported though as I don't think Iraq's had any for the last ten years...

OASN

12 months of a fascist lockdown is NOT going to kill off a civil war. Resistance groups throughout Europe operated for years under the Nazi's. Increasing force to the levels you've described is not only extremely dangerous and more than likely doomed to fail, it is also morally abhorrent and would certainly lead to a worldwide backlash particularly from the Islamic world. Hell, if Al-Qaedda memberships are flourishing just now, imagine what they'd be like after a US led genocide!

The situation that you've described POSM is what is happening now. Death squads forcing people to move along religious lines. Exactly as it happened in Lenanon and Bosnia.

The strategy I outlined is designed to kill or sideline the hardliners, stop the miltias acting openly, stop the flow of weapons and explosives from Iran and if necessary Syria. ie bring about soem semblance of peace and get the pieces in place for a real cessation of hostilities. Or would you prefer a failed state with a lashing of genocide a la Rwanda?

Its true that resisitance groups operated throughout Nazi Europe but they hardly made a dent in the Nazi war effort by any objective measure. Anyway comparing Nazi Europe to Iraq is too generous by half. Stalingrad is probably a better comparison for the mayhem that is occuring.

What is more morally abhorrent? Letting people kill each other on religious grounds on a massive scale or what I have suggested. Some people might be happy to let one bunch of muslims kill another bunch of muslims but as far as I am concerned they are all people and the only people who should die are the ones packing AKs and explosives in the name of extremism.

Do you honestly think the US gives a rats arse about what the muslim world thinks? What would be better for Al Qaeda, a failed Iraq state or one where there is at least a fragile peace.

The second biggest problem with that is what POSM has already said, Ireland became, and still is, a rather large thorn in the side of the English. It was a fairly inefficient policy fro the Brits and geography was more their friend than it will be for the Yanks (distance from home, size of the country, Iraq is mostly land locked and among many non-friendly states, etc.).

Secondly, as pointed out by POSM, this risks wider conflagration of the issue and a destabilising of the region as a whole. The Saudis, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, etc. don't want the US to succeed in running the country and are making efforts to confuse the issue already. If you allow yourself to be seen as the bogyman (even more so than Abu Ghraib and the rapes/murders have already done) you risk encouraging greater regional balancing behaviour against your efforts. It would also even further polarise the Arab/Persian/Muslim community against American/Western aims possibly creating further terrorism issues globally.

But Northern Ireland is now largely at peace. The Government maybe hopeless and the Orange marches might still cause tensions but at least all the marxist catholic lunatics are dead and Sin Fein and the Unionists can talk to each other without needing assualt rifles to make their point.

I disagree. I see Iraq as a festering suckhole of instability as it is. The only way it can get worse is if Iraq fails totally and there is all out civil war. The whole of the middle east would really divide along sunni, shiite lines with the Kurds sucking in Syria and Turkey for good measure. Lebanon would look like a lovers tiff in comparison.

 

[Dhfactory]

I support the war and still do.

The fighting in Iraq has just proven how much of a problem there is in the area.

It's easy to stand back and do nothing, wait for problems to solve themselves. It's take alot to put your balls on the line, get up and do something.

I would rather see post on solutions to peace and not posts about how a war is wrong, or how the wrong decisions have been made.

-Sean

 

[johnny]

I won't stop supporting the invasion, I'll just wish it had been carried out with the competency the US is capable of.

Toodles mentioned the US's 'usual level of competency' in waging war on foreign lands, but given such recent 'successes' as Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia, it's little wonder the situation has gone as pear-shaped as it has.

Which brings me to my strongest reason for not supporting the invasion.

My anit-attitude is not born out of an indifference to suffering nations such as Iraq under Saddam; it is more so a result of the American track record since WW2 and the underlying agendas.

The Yanks screwed up in Korea (1950s) by moving past the 38th parallel and dragging the Chinese into the conflict. They screwed up Vietnam, Haiti, Nicaragua, Gulf War 1 (encouraging a Shia up rise and then letting it get crushed), they lost big-time in Somalia as mentioned before, they didn't do a very good job in the former Yugoslavia, they hadn't finished Afghanistan and there was no real reason to take Iraq at the present time.

This letter from the PNAC gives light to the agendas encouraging the initial concept:

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.


The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

PS. Google some of these names in bold if you don't know where they fit in to all this.

Nowhere here does it mention liberation and all that fairy tale bullsh1t. This was an issue of American strategic concern. Therefore, you will not get other countries adding to the effort that aren't looking for the spoils of war (favour from the victor, prestige, access, etc.). This meant that it was never going to be a concerted or UN mandated effort, or in other words, an American affair.

IMO, the Yanks don't have a good enough track record to be able to pull this type of thing off with any great success....as has no been displayed in all its ugliness. Maybe if it was a global effort (including Arab states and Russia) or NATO led (yes, American dominated, but also gives the other countries a greater say, as is now happening in Afghanistan), I would have had a little more faith. But the US is trigger happy and led by their national and private interests. Too many agendas ruin the soup and dishonest agendas always become apparent in the long run. This is a very inefficient policy if you want to hold a country with a history and culture as deep as Mesopotamia.

 

[Dhfactory]

I think the most dissapointing thing to come from something like the Iraq war would be the lack of global support for problems facing our planet.

It's like no one cares about drug addicts, unemployment until someone robs them, then they complain no one is doing anything about the problem.

-Sean

 

[Oddjob]

There seems to be a move to compare what's happening in Iraq to the troubles in Northern Ireland at the moment. Whilst both conflicts largely stem (or stemmed in the case of NI) from sectarian divides, there is still huge fundamental differences.

The conflict in Northern Ireland raged for almost 30 years, and whilst it had it's fair share of death and violence, it pales in insignificance to the widespread slaughter that has been seen in Iraq over the past two years. Bombings in Ireland were an occasional occurance, sometimes with devastating results -Omagh, Einneskillen, but most often fairly minor. Over the last 2 years in Iraq large scale bombings have been a daily occurence, so much so that the death toll has to reach 3 figures these days to make the foreign news section of the paper. Add to that the regular findings of mass graves resulting from death squads and you've got yourself a bit of a quagmire.

Another important aspect is the presence of troops. In NI the British troops were originally installed there as protection for the catholic minority. This changed over time with the rise of the Provisional IRA. Growing resentment from the catholic communities saw the British Army's percieved role change from peacekeeper to oppressor, meanwhile the protestant loyalist movement started to forge stronger links with the army. This differs from Iraq in the fact that in Iraq EVERYONE -possibly with the exception of the kurds- hates the coalition and have viewed them as foreign invaders from the outset.

As for the strategic why's, what's and where's, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that Baghdad should or could have been put under a rigourous curfew. Armies of occupation rarely have any success and given the fact that Baghdad is a city of over 7 million people not counting the populations of other hotspots such as tikrit and fallujah- The US led coalition with it's relatively small number of ground troops who have almost no knowledge of even the basics of arab culture was doomed from the outset. Toodles mentioned the US's 'usual level of competency' in waging war on foreign lands, but given such recent 'successes' as Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia, it's little wonder the situation has gone as pear-shaped as it has.

Finally,



I'm not picking on you Oddjob, but surely that's playing right into their hands!

I'm not trying to compare Iraq to Northern Ireland in any real way than to use the British strategy as a model of forcing the extremists in a low level conflict into either dying or rethinking their strategy and considering negotiation.

No offence taken but I've always believed in giving martyrs what they want, preferably in public and with a .300 Winchester Magnum.

 

[Dhfactory]

Looking back in history and pointing out military events where you believe the U.S made mistakes is a little ludicrous.

Let me know the last time you declared war on a country or invaded foreign soil.

-Sean

 

[jayrool]

Looking back in history and pointing out military events where you believe the U.S made mistakes is a little ludicrous.

Let me know the last time you declared war on a country or invaded foreign soil.

-Sean

Not to beat up on you Sean, but since when do you have to fuck up yourself to see that someone else has fucked up?

We can all see that BIG mistakes have been made!

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

It's all well and good making bold statements about killing off the hardliners and stopping the flow of weapons from Iran but in practice I believe it's a much trickier proposition. The sad fact is NO army in recent times has ever managed to install it's will over the reluctant population of a completely foreign country for any length of time and certainly not without resistance.

-quick aside- Now I know some of you may throw up the examples of the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Soviet rule over it's former republics as examples contrary, but they at least had good knowledge of the territories and cultures they'd usurped and to be honest both states have/had killed countless millions in the process of holding power.

In this day and age though, technology is widespread and small arms are more freely available than at any other time on the planet making a civil war a very easy thing to initiate.

The only way to achieve what Oddjob's suggesting is through the widespread use of strategic nuclear weapons. I don't know how well that will go down with the voters though.

I certainly can't say I have any of the answers but it's fairly obvious that the present situation is a shitload worse than it was pre-invasion. Not just in Iraq but worldwide - remember a great deal of the world's population believe this war is a personal attack on their religion by the 'privileged west.' The only way forward that I can see is to split up the country along Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish lines - essentially giving the Iranians a Shiite puppet state and creating a diplomatic migraine as far as dividing up the wealth goes. This would have to be backed up by billions of dollars worth of aid from the international community to enable an iraqi economy to grow again. This is probably the more important part as people with bugger all to lose tend to be the first to volunteer for martyrdom.

It's a notion that'd never be considered by the current administration but if it leads to an end to the constant killing then it may not be a bad thing. And if that eases the tempers of angry Islamic-Britsh youths and means I can buy duty free whisky again if I've got a connecting flight through the uk then all the better.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Looking back in history and pointing out military events where you believe the U.S made mistakes is a little ludicrous.

Let me know the last time you declared war on a country or invaded foreign soil.

-Sean

I've never stuck a steam iron on it's highest setting then rested my scrotum on it but I think I've got the common sense to realise it's probably a bad idea...

 

[tassiehardtail]

wait a tick,

didnt the U.S.A give Iraq W.M.D's in the first place so they would kick the shit out of Iran?

i'm not a forgein dimplomatic aide so i really havent got any clue other than what the media tells us

and to be honest it is a bit one sided....

 

[johnny]

Looking back in history and pointing out military events where you believe the U.S made mistakes is a little ludicrous.

Let me know the last time you declared war on a country or invaded foreign soil.

-Sean

Ignoring track records, experience and history pretty much opens you up to making the same mistakes over and over again doesn't it? As you are aware, I've stuck my hand up and put my money where my mouth is before. Not that this makes me any more qualified or legitimates me to comment, but these events effect all our lives so I think we are all entitled to have an opinion on the matter.

As for the assertion that the trouble in the region shows how much trouble there is in the region.....that's a circular argument. Maybe the invasion heightened and exaserbated the trouble there. It's pretty certain that Iraq didn't have foreign fighters flocking to it before the invasion.

Also, do you have a counter for my argument that this invasion has now destabilised the whole region and pushed countries like DPRK and Iran to accelerate their nuke program?

 

[Dhfactory]

The general public doesn't have all the information available to them to make and educated decision on something like this.

I might be jumping to conclusions, but last time I checked most of us didn't have access to the finer details of the global weapons trade, drug trade and know who is funding terrorists around the world.

The big time criminals of this world are in charge of countries or close too, and thats the reason they have free reign to do what they want. They are lawless and who do you what to stop them? or better yet how?

How does herion from Afganistan end up in Indonesia?

-Sean

 

[Dhfactory]

Ignoring track records, experience and history pretty much opens you up to making the same mistakes over and over again doesn't it? As you are aware, I've stuck my hand up and put my money where my mouth is before. Not that this makes me any more qualified or legitimates me to comment, but these events effect all our lives so I think we are all entitled to have an opinion on the matter.

As for the assertion that the trouble in the region shows how much trouble there is in the region.....that's a circular argument. Maybe the invasion heightened and exaserbated the trouble there. It's pretty certain that Iraq didn't have foreign fighters flocking to it before the invasion.

Also, do you have a counter for my argument that this invasion has now destabilised the whole region and pushed countries like DPRK and Iran to accelerate their nuke program?

I would agree there have been alot of undesired results from the war, and I know there is alot of foreign fighters flocking to the area, and being trained in places like Pakistan. What is your solution to this?


Iran, DPRK and other places may accelerate their nuke program because of this. But even if it's a slow nuke program or a fast one it's still a major problem.

Johnny I was in no way saying ignore track records and repeat the same stupid mistakes. I was saying it's naive to judge a countries military strategy off a history book.

In this sort of there is unique complex reasons for all problems, addressing them with simple solutions makes like "bring all the troops home" just shows the lack of thought put in to the situtation by that person.

-Sean

 

[Drizz]

I would agree there have been alot of undesired results from the war, and I know there is alot of foreign fighters flocking to the area, and being trained in places like Pakistan. What is your solution to this?

Prevention is way better than the cure, in this case I don't think the world best think tanks can come up with one.

Iran, DPRK and other places may accelerate their nuke program because of this. But even if it's a slow nuke program or a fast one it's still a major problem.

Depends on how slow it is, regimes can fall apart in the space of a few years. If the Axis of evil statement and the Iraq war didn't come along, than Iran might never had saw the needs for a nuke program.

Johnny I was in no way saying ignore track records and repeat the same stupid mistakes. I was saying it's naive to judge a countries military strategy off a history book.

No, we are juding it off CNN/FOX/BBC at the moment, and the term FUBAR is being generous.

In this sort of there is unique complex reasons for all problems, addressing them with simple solutions makes like "bring all the troops home" just shows the lack of thought put in to the situtation by that person.

Nor does solutions like "Lets send our boys over and kick some ass" have any thought in it, But hands up for any nations in the world that have the stomach to put up 200,000 troops for the next ten years for an occupation mission?

I am sadden that Iraq is now going to be one those presistent war zone for decades and people going to suffer a problem not of their own doing. The flipside is that Iraq will hopefully sort itself out in the next 50 years or so, I am more worry about global warming even though if I won't be alive to take the full brunt of its effect.

 

[Oddjob]

It's all well and good making bold statements about killing off the hardliners and stopping the flow of weapons from Iran but in practice I believe it's a much trickier proposition. The sad fact is NO army in recent times has ever managed to install it's will over the reluctant population of a completely foreign country for any length of time and certainly not without resistance.

-quick aside- Now I know some of you may throw up the examples of the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Soviet rule over it's former republics as examples contrary, but they at least had good knowledge of the territories and cultures they'd usurped and to be honest both states have/had killed countless millions in the process of holding power.

In this day and age though, technology is widespread and small arms are more freely available than at any other time on the planet making a civil war a very easy thing to initiate.

The only way to achieve what Oddjob's suggesting is through the widespread use of strategic nuclear weapons. I don't know how well that will go down with the voters though.

I certainly can't say I have any of the answers but it's fairly obvious that the present situation is a shitload worse than it was pre-invasion. Not just in Iraq but worldwide - remember a great deal of the world's population believe this war is a personal attack on their religion by the 'privileged west.' The only way forward that I can see is to split up the country along Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish lines - essentially giving the Iranians a Shiite puppet state and creating a diplomatic migraine as far as dividing up the wealth goes. This would have to be backed up by billions of dollars worth of aid from the international community to enable an iraqi economy to grow again. This is probably the more important part as people with bugger all to lose tend to be the first to volunteer for martyrdom.

It's a notion that'd never be considered by the current administration but if it leads to an end to the constant killing then it may not be a bad thing. And if that eases the tempers of angry Islamic-Britsh youths and means I can buy duty free whisky again if I've got a connecting flight through the uk then all the better.

Give me an AWACS aircraft, a squadron of fighter bombers and a SAS battalion and I'll shut that border with Iran.

Nukes wouldn't be necessary to achieve what I'm suggesting, just a lot more troops and some good strategy.

If the west really wanted to make a personal attack on islam we would use nukes. Nothing says 'fuck you' like a thermonuclear device after all. I love how these guys are happy to kill each other based on whether they believe in a certain caliphate but then accuse the 'west' of trying to wipe out islam. They should be killed for being too stupid, not because their muslim.

There's no way I can agree with a Iraq seperated along religious lines. Segregation has done stuff all for the sub continent and I can't see it being any more succesful here.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Give me an AWACS aircraft, a squadron of fighter bombers and a SAS battalion and I'll shut that border with Iran.

It's a pretty big border...

 

[johnny]

The general public doesn't have all the information available to them to make and educated decision on something like this.

I might be jumping to conclusions, but last time I checked most of us didn't have access to the finer details of the global weapons trade, drug trade and know who is funding terrorists around the world.

when dealing in global security issues such as the invasion of a sovereign nation, there is a lot of info out there in the public domain. Nuts and bolts type strategies are a different thing, but most countries such as America do publicise their grand strategies, weapons procurements, regional strategies, ambitions etc. for all to read. Defence white papers, strategic white papers, State of the Nation addresses, weekly addresses to the nation etc. all spell out strategies, intentions and directions. There are also hordes of analysts out there, with differing credibilities that give opinions and analysis as to what is happening. With experience, education and networks of information built over a decade or two it is quite possible to have a rather credible opinion on what is going on. Of course, not even the Pres. will have the complete picture at his finger tips as there are so many agendas at play at any given time, but read, research, travel, talk and experience enough and you can get a pretty good feel as to what the big picture is.

The big time criminals of this world are in charge of countries or close too, and thats the reason they have free reign to do what they want. They are lawless and who do you what to stop them? or better yet how?

Put me in charge!

I would agree there have been alot of undesired results from the war, and I know there is alot of foreign fighters flocking to the area, and being trained in places like Pakistan. What is your solution to this?

Massive. massive question. I will attempt to answer this, but will create a new thread as this one is based on Iraq, not the global diaspora of Islamic fighters/jihadists.

Iran, DPRK and other places may accelerate their nuke program because of this. But even if it's a slow nuke program or a fast one it's still a major problem.

Disagree. South Africa, Libya, a number of post-Soviet states and so on were deterred from retaining/building their nuke capacities through diplomacy/leverage because there was time to manouvre (sp). However, an accelerated program indicates a certain degree of commitment for completion. This makes the diplomacy and its costs far more accute. Plus, you have maybe 18 months to sort it out where as you have maybe 5 years to find a solution. So, yes, it's always a significant issue, but one has higher odds of being solved before adding to the list of dangerous states.

Johnny I was in no way saying ignore track records and repeat the same stupid mistakes. I was saying it's naive to judge a countries military strategy off a history book.

Not judging strategy at all, simply likleyhood of success based on passed experiences. The US seems to have a knack for misjudging situations. Robert MacNamarra has released a few excellent books saying that if he knew the situation in Vietnam better than he did as Secretary of Defence at the beginning of Vietnam, we would have pulled straight out and ignored it because their conception of the civil war was completely detached from the reality of the situation.

In this sort of there is unique complex reasons for all problems, addressing them with simple solutions makes like "bring all the troops home" just shows the lack of thought put in to the situtation by that person.

Couldn't agree more. Ever since I posted this thread I've been trying to come up with an answer for my last question; "Where to from here?". I will post my opinion of what could/should be done, but I reckon I'll be thinking on it for a while yet....

 

[Oddjob]

It's a pretty big border...

The Australian 'Wedgetail' AWACS is rumoured to have a radar range in excess of 1000kms...

 

[johnny]

The Australian 'Wedgetail' AWACS is rumoured to have a radar range in excess of 1000kms.

There were FAR more than these capacities operating throughout Afghanistan's regions/Tora Bora.........

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Segregation has done stuff all for the sub continent and I can't see it being any more succesful here.

I dunno, whilst the results of partitioning haven't exactly been free beer, chips and dips all round, You've got to wonder what the situation would be like if India hadn't seperated along religious lines. Instead of the populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh spending decades finding their feet as new nations you'd have one incredibly pissed off muslim minority (in a country where being in a minority can mean you've still got 500,000,000 mates) that are spread throughout the land wanting self governing rights. Them's fighting words in most places! Instead of frosty diplomatic relations and a mini arms race between India and Pakistan, you'd have Sri Lanka on a grand scale(ie decades long insurgencies claiming thousands of lives) !