The Real Iraq

[Azure]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Pr...aheri_0606.htm

I do realize Iraq has its problems, but I also think we need to see the other side of the story. This article does a pretty good job at describing that.

Long read, but very interesting.

And please read the article with an open mind. Although I do know some of you are going to look at who wrote it, see that he works for the New York Post and dismiss it as political BS.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And please read the article with an open mind. Although I do know some of you are going to look at who wrote it, see that he works for the New York Post and dismiss it as political BS.

Now why would anyone want to do that?

It's undoubtedly the case that the situation in Iraq is more complex than the media picture that we get here. Understanding Iraq through the media is like reading a map with a telescope--it's hard to get the big picture.

But as you yourself note, this isn't exactly an unbiased source. He refers to the Brookings Institution as "unbiased," works for the famously conservative NY Post--and this article is published in a magazine whose editors have chosen a booklist that features among other conservative luminaries, David Frum (not once--but TWICE! Nobody needs that much David Frum.)

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It would be silly to claim that nothing good ever happens in Iraq. Hey, Saddam was finally deposed--and you know, he's a very bad man. Clinically insane, probably--but also very, very bad. Schools have been built, and order has been virtually restored inside the "Green Zone," which is where most reporters are allowed to go. (note that even this pollyannaish appraisal admits that reporters are "cocooned inside their hotel"--now why would that be, if their purpose for going to Iraq was to report on the news. I'm guessing it's not that the cocktails are really good.)

One point of interest: after waxing poetic about the open democratic discourse between interest groups, this author provides us with this gem:

The second reason for extending Americas military presence is political. The U.S. is acting as an arbiter among Iraqs various ethnic and religious communities and political factions. It is, in a sense, a traffic cop, giving Iraqis a green or red light when and if needed. It is important that the U.S. continue performing this role for the first year or two of the newly elected parliament and government.

If there's a true democratic discourse, why do "ethnic and religious communities" need an arbiter? Particularly a heavily armed arbiter?

Either they're getting along or they're not. I don't think anyone can rationally argue that pulling out of Iraq is a reasonable option for the US at this point. In my opinion, they're now committed to staying the course and keeping order while democracy is established, regardless of the cost.

That doesn't mean that it isn't worth re-evaluating the decision to go to war in the first place--which it's worth remembering was made because of WMDs, not regime change--and which has clearly proven far more costly than anyone thought, both monetarily and in terms of human life. And I don't think even Amir Taheri would deny that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Either they're getting along or they're not. I don't think anyone can rationally argue that pulling out of Iraq is a reasonable option for the US at this point. In my opinion, they're now committed to staying the course and keeping order while democracy is established, regardless of the cost.

That doesn't mean that it isn't worth re-evaluating the decision to go to war in the first place--which it's worth remembering was made because of WMDs, not regime change--and which has clearly proven far more costly than anyone thought, both monetarily and in terms of human life. And I don't think even Amir Taheri would deny that.

Thanks for biting.

I really don't have any disagreements. Sure one could argue that the war is not justified but it would be an absolute hell to pull out the troops for that reason. The US is there, and must seek the best course at which to succede.

I did notice what you quoted and kinda figured someone would see it. Its common news that the major political parties in Iraq cannot get along. Would I say the disagreements will eventually lead to civil war? No, because the US still has too much of an iron grip on what happens.

I do think Iraq can become sucessful by the end of 2007. But I guess I might be the local optimist who actually wants the US to suceed, instead of hoping they get their asses kicked all the way back to the US. Maybe thats the effect one gets from having family members serving there.

I also think this war and the backlash too it will create a big change in how wars are fought. Notice how the US is holding off against Iran and letting the UN and others also step in? A positive sign IMO.

[Bobblehead]

I didn't agree with the US going in, but I have always believed that once you go in you must stay until the mess created was cleaned up, or at least until they are in a position that they can clean it up themselves.

Maybe some people want them to fail, but I think most people just want peace; and personally I think that that will be a long term thing.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I do think Iraq can become sucessful by the end of 2007. But I guess I might be the local optimist who actually wants the US to suceed, instead of hoping they get their asses kicked all the way back to the US. Maybe thats the effect one gets from having family members serving there.

To be honest, I really hope you're right. I may not have family members there, but I've had three students who were Iraq war veterans, and I have former students who are over there. I'm not in touch with any of them, but it does make the whole thing a lot more real. For one thing, it's a daily reminder of how young these soldiers are. Underneath the mean-looking haircuts, these kids are the same age as my students, which is a scary thought. I'd hate to have it all be for nothing--and I think it IS valuable to look at the positives that have come of this, for that exact reason.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

To be honest, I really hope you're right. I may not have family members there, but I've had three students who were Iraq war veterans, and I have former students who are over there. I'm not in touch with any of them, but it does make the whole thing a lot more real. For one thing, it's a daily reminder of how young these soldiers are. Underneath the mean-looking haircuts, these kids are the same age as my students, which is a scary thought. I'd hate to have it all be for nothing--and I think it IS valuable to look at the positives that have come of this, for that exact reason.

Right on!

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Azure

I do think Iraq can become sucessful by the end of 2007. But I guess I might be the local optimist who actually wants the US to suceed, instead of hoping they get their asses kicked all the way back to the US. Maybe thats the effect one gets from having family members serving there.

Successful? I am not sure how you define 'success' but in order to justify 2 trillion+ dollars spent, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, pre-emptive war and its disasterous effects on the global stage including the justification for the two most dangerous nations on earth to persue nuclear arms faster then otherwise, and the decades if not centuries it will take future generations of Americans to pay off those deficits it better be REALLY REALLY REALLY successful.

Now if you mean 'successs' as in being able to withdraw and hold relative peace from afar for ~1yr, until all hell breaks loose, but just long enough for the average American to forget about the people there just like they did in Vietnam then i agree with you it is a possibility but that is not success. And it is FAR more likely to happen in 2009/2010 then in 2007.

I also think this war and the backlash too it will create a big change in how wars are fought. Notice how the US is holding off against Iran and letting the UN and others also step in? A positive sign IMO.

Isn't that what Vietnam was for?

Or even Korea?

How many times does the lesson need to be taught?

And don't kid yourself about America v. Iran. (1) America is more bogged down then you seem to realize and IMHO would have to implement a draft in order to invade and hold Iran, (2) Iran is what, like twice the size with three times the population and 5 times the military of post-sanctions Iraq, (3) the economic consequences of invading Iran would grind America to a hault.

Not saying America wouldn't win, i think they would obviously win over the long term IF they had support of their people, but the costs would be FAR higher then the American people are KNOWINGLY willing to endure.


Claeren.

[Azure]

Successful? I am not sure how you define 'success' but in order to justify 2 trillion+ dollars spent, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, pre-emptive war and its disasterous effects on the global stage including the justification for the two most dangerous nations on earth to persue nuclear arms faster then otherwise, and the decades if not centuries it will take future generations of Americans to pay off those deficits it better be REALLY REALLY REALLY successful.

Its obvious you don't want the US to suceed. Sucess would be defined as a democratic government being established that has the ability to hold power through economic, political and military status.

Is that impossible? No. Why? Because daily progress is being made. Of course if you want to look at the negative side of everything, death and destruction, no one would define Iraq as a sucess. But the same could be said for WW1 and 2.

Maybe we should ask the Iraqi people what "they" think about the war. Of course the numerous polls that have been conducted have all shown the Iraqi people will a favourable viewpoint of their life. But there are always idiots like yourself that try to downgrade that.

Like one of my brothers(currently stationed in Iraq) once said, "if you've never been here, then shut the hell up." The media presents "one" side of the story.

Now if you mean 'successs' as in being able to withdraw and hold relative peace from afar for ~1yr, until all hell breaks loose, but just long enough for the average American to forget about the people there just like they did in Vietnam then i agree with you it is a possibility but that is not success. And it is FAR more likely to happen in 2009/2010 then in 2007.

All hell breaks lose? The US was winning the war in Vietnam under Nixon. Until Watergate that is. Then the US, under the democrats pulled out and the communist forces overtook all of Vietnam and killed millions of innocent civilians. Suprisingly to the left-wing media out there, thats a forgotten reality.

Isn't that what Vietnam was for?

Or even Korea?

How many times does the lesson need to be taught?

Neither Vietnam nor Korea were fought on terms that weren't justified. I guess you're on of those people that would have protested the US fighting Germany in WW2, since it was actually Japan that attacked Pearl Harbour.

And don't kid yourself about America v. Iran. (1) America is more bogged down then you seem to realize and IMHO would have to implement a draft in order to invade and hold Iran, (2) Iran is what, like twice the size with three times the population and 5 times the military of post-sanctions Iraq, (3) the economic consequences of invading Iran would grind America to a hault.

The US could take Iran out in one strike. But I really don't understand why you would think they would do it alone. Israel has a capable military, capable enough to invade Iran and take over.

Like Firefly once said on this board. Wars are good for the economy, and the US invading Iraq would only drive up the GDP even more. But I guess if the UN sits on their ass and doesn't do anything against Iran, it will be left to the US to deal with their idiot of a President.

Not saying America wouldn't win, i think they would obviously win over the long term IF they had support of their people, but the costs would be FAR higher then the American people are KNOWINGLY willing to endure.

What cost? The cost of democracy is never too high, and if the US can establish a sucessful democracy in Iraq, it would be the domino effect going the other way.

[oldschoolcalgary]

usually I try staying away from these topics, as they will <eventually> turn into powderkegs instead of rationale debate, but I will say a few things:

1) I was against the war to begin with, but at this stage, I don't see any other choice than the US staying there...

2) it was a little optimistic to have believed that the Kurds, #####e and Sunni would have gotten along right off the bat-there was a loooong history of in-fighting that I think the US strategists under-estimated or failed to understand.

3) I do feel for the soldiers over there - they are simply doing what they are told to do - of course, the DoD have made some major missteps in planning in terms of post-war rebuilding: the number of former commanders speaking out against Rummy is unprecedented.

4) In terms of cost, idealistically, it is easy to say that "the cost of democracy is never too high"; the reality of that is that US citizens, the ones bearing the weight, both in financial and human costs, are really the ones who should be asked that question.

5) the "domino effect" - jury is out on this one...all I know is that it didn't work in Southeast Asia for communism - it can be argued that democracy is more likely to succeed because it is a more humanist system - however, it remains to be seen.

my two cents.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its obvious you don't want the US to suceed. Sucess would be defined as a democratic government being established that has the ability to hold power through economic, political and military status.

Is that impossible? No. Why? Because daily progress is being made. Of course if you want to look at the negative side of everything, death and destruction, no one would define Iraq as a sucess. But the same could be said for WW1 and 2.

Maybe we should ask the Iraqi people what "they" think about the war. Of course the numerous polls that have been conducted have all shown the Iraqi people will a favourable viewpoint of their life. But there are always idiots like yourself that try to downgrade that.

Like one of my brothers(currently stationed in Iraq) once said, "if you've never been here, then shut the hell up." The media presents "one" side of the story.



All hell breaks lose? The US was winning the war in Vietnam under Nixon. Until Watergate that is. Then the US, under the democrats pulled out and the communist forces overtook all of Vietnam and killed millions of innocent civilians. Suprisingly to the left-wing media out there, thats a forgotten reality.




Neither Vietnam nor Korea were fought on terms that weren't justified. I guess you're on of those people that would have protested the US fighting Germany in WW2, since it was actually Japan that attacked Pearl Harbour.



The US could take Iran out in one strike. But I really don't understand why you would think they would do it alone. Israel has a capable military, capable enough to invade Iran and take over.

Like Firefly once said on this board. Wars are good for the economy, and the US invading Iraq would only drive up the GDP even more. But I guess if the UN sits on their ass and doesn't do anything against Iran, it will be left to the US to deal with their idiot of a President.



What cost? The cost of democracy is never too high, and if the US can establish a sucessful democracy in Iraq, it would be the domino effect going the other way.

I think most people, no matter how much they were against the war, want the USA to succeed.The alternative is going to be worse then Saddam.

"The US was winning the war in Viet Nam" . This is news to me and probably 99% of everyone else who lived during that time or knows their history. Speaking of that, Nixon was the one who withdrew from Viet Nam. Maybe you should do a brushup. Try to watch the "Fog of War". http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/

"The cost of democracy is never to high" can be easily argued by the adage 'You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink'. Me thinks you've been watching too many John Wayne movies.

[Azure]

I think most people, no matter how much they were against the war, want the USA to succeed.The alternative is going to be worse then Saddam.

And I note the optimism by everyone.

"The US was winning the war in Viet Nam" . This is news to me and probably 99% of everyone else who lived during that time or knows their history. Speaking of that, Nixon was the one who withdrew from Viet Nam. Maybe you should do a brushup. Try to watch the "Fog of War".

Really?

In December 1974, Congress completed passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the Saigon government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon. Many in the US congress seemed to want the government of South Vietnam to fall and encouraged its collapse by cutting off aid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Nixon resigned from office on August 9th, the US withdrew "completely" in December. Sure, Nixon gradually withdrew troops and let the South Vietnamese take over the operation, which happened to be very sucessful, but he never completely quit helping them.

Then Watergate happened, Nixon resigned, the US withdraw all troops and stopped all funding and the Viet Cong went through the process of exterminating all Southern Vietnamese troops and civilians.

"The cost of democracy is never to high" can be easily argued by the adage 'You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink'. Me thinks you've been watching too many John Wayne movies.

So to hell with them right? Pull out all the troops and let the people kill themselves. Or is the cost of democracy in the Middle East worth it?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I note the optimism by everyone.



Really?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Nixon resigned from office on August 9th, the US withdrew "completely" in December. Sure, Nixon gradually withdrew troops and let the South Vietnamese take over the operation, which happened to be very sucessful, but he never completely quit helping them.

Then Watergate happened, Nixon resigned, the US withdraw all troops and stopped all funding and the Viet Cong went through the process of exterminating all Southern Vietnamese troops and civilians.



So to hell with them right? Pull out all the troops and let the people kill themselves. Or is the cost of democracy in the Middle East worth it?

Well the US troops were ordered to leave on March 29, 1973. Nixon was in power than and Ford another Republican succeded him in 1974. The US withdrew their financial support in Dec. 74, after Nixon cut funds in half, as the funds were not getting to the war effort and the Americans were sick of the whole situation and saw the writing on the wall. Everything that the US did in negotiating and withdrawing was a "face saving exit".

You've got some excellent rose coloured glasses.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well the US troops were ordered to leave on March 29, 1973. Nixon was in power than and Ford another Republican succeded him in 1974. The US withdrew their financial support in Dec. 74, after Nixon cut funds in half, as the funds were not getting to the war effort and the Americans were sick of the whole situation and saw the writing on the wall. Everything that the US did in negotiating and withdrawing was a "face saving exit".

You've got some excellent rose coloured glasses.

I guess so, eh.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its obvious you don't want the US to suceed.

I'm kind of surprised that at this stage of the game that I have to point this pretty simple rule out, but here goes...

Criticizaing mistakes does not = hoping for failure.

Look at it this way -- if a teacher gives a student an F in math because the kid can't count, would you say the teacher didn't want him to succeed? I doubt it. But that's what you are doing here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm kind of surprised that at this stage of the game that I have to point this pretty simple rule out, but here goes...

Criticizaing mistakes does not = hoping for failure.

Look at it this way -- if a teacher gives a student an F in math because the kid can't count, would you say the teacher didn't want him to succeed? I doubt it. But that's what you are doing here.

Nice example. I mean seriously, its not hard to see that one can take either the positive or negative elements from Iraq and use them to dictate his opinion.

Are you criticizing mistakes? I mean really, ranting on about how no WMD were found is a good "mistake" for how operations are being conducted in Iraq.

Criticizing mistakes would apply to how the US is operating there. I haven't seen "anyone" do that.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Azure

Criticizing mistakes would apply to how the US is operating there. I haven't seen "anyone" do that.

Umm...Abu Grahib...random bombing of civilians...no power or infrastructure in baghdad...it must be nice to look at a turd and call it a flower.

But they don't count cos' things are good, right?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Umm...Abu Grahib...random bombing of civilians...no power or infrastructure in baghdad...it must be nice to look at a turd and call it a flower.

But they don't count cos' things are good, right?

They have removed Saddam and his cronies in France, Germany and elsewhere.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Umm...Abu Grahib...random bombing of civilians...no power or infrastructure in baghdad...it must be nice to look at a turd and call it a flower.

But they don't count cos' things are good, right?

You should really look up power and infrastructure in Baghdad. You'll be suprised at what you find. Considering the amount of attacks, suicide bombers and complete nutjobs willing to do anything in order to stop Iraq from suceeding, the US has done pretty good with the rebuilding.

I'm sure the Iraqi people would have the best say and they already voted overwhelmingly that they approve of the life the US has helped give them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

You should really look up power and infrastructure in Baghdad. You'll be suprised at what you find. Considering the amount of attacks, suicide bombers and complete nutjobs willing to do anything in order to stop Iraq from suceeding, the US has done pretty good with the rebuilding.

I'm sure the Iraqi people would have the best say and they already voted overwhelmingly that they approve of the life the US has helped give them.

Hmmmmm.

Rubin spent 18 months handling Iraq matters for the Pentagon, with a stint from July 2003 to March 2004 as political adviser at the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Yet he is sharply critical of the results of the U.S. effort to rebuild the country and improve the daily lives of average Iraqis.

"The reconstruction obviously hasn't gone that well," Rubin says. "But we have put together a lot of PowerPoint presentations about the problem."

--------------------

Despite the "can-do" spirit of the military and progress "here and there," overall reconstruction is lagging, said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. He noted a poll two weeks ago by the International Republican Institute depicting most Iraqis as downbeat about the economic rebuilding of their country, citing poor electrical service and a shortage of jobs.

--------------------------

The problems stem in part from earlier U.S. policies in Iraq that discouraged countries that hadn't joined in the military invasion from helping to rebuild Iraq, said Lawrence Korb, assistant secretary of defense in President Ronald Reagan's administration. That reduced the assistance available from other countries, he said.


So maybe things aren't going quite as well as you would have us believe? Of course the military, the Brookings Institution and a big wheel in Reagan's defense department have been duped by the LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS so I'm sure you'll dismiss this as leftie nonsense.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Hmmmmm.

Rubin spent 18 months handling Iraq matters for the Pentagon, with a stint from July 2003 to March 2004 as political adviser at the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Yet he is sharply critical of the results of the U.S. effort to rebuild the country and improve the daily lives of average Iraqis.

"The reconstruction obviously hasn't gone that well," Rubin says. "But we have put together a lot of PowerPoint presentations about the problem."

--------------------

Despite the "can-do" spirit of the military and progress "here and there," overall reconstruction is lagging, said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. He noted a poll two weeks ago by the International Republican Institute depicting most Iraqis as downbeat about the economic rebuilding of their country, citing poor electrical service and a shortage of jobs.

--------------------------

The problems stem in part from earlier U.S. policies in Iraq that discouraged countries that hadn't joined in the military invasion from helping to rebuild Iraq, said Lawrence Korb, assistant secretary of defense in President Ronald Reagan's administration. That reduced the assistance available from other countries, he said.


So maybe things aren't going quite as well as you would have us believe? Of course the military, the Brookings Institution and a big wheel in Reagan's defense department have been duped by the LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS so I'm sure you'll dismiss this as leftie nonsense.

Of course. In the eyes of the neo-cons criticism = treason. The US is not winning in Iraq and it's plain as day to everyone not wearing the rose-coloured glasses. Do I want them to succeed? Absolutely. However, if you look at the history of regime changes that the US has been involved in the pattern is not nice.