While world attention has been transfixed by the catastrophes in Lebanon and Gaza, Iraq has reached the point where sectarian bloodletting turns into civil war. Most of the country is already partitioned on ethnic and religious lines, and now the same thing is happening in Baghdad, with people abandoning mixed neighborhoods for the safety of homogeneous enclaves.
This development seems to finally mark the point beyond which slogans like “stay the course” make no sense any more. “Stay the course” presumed that the problem was an insurgency that could be defeated by the Iraqi government, given sufficient backing. Whether or not that was ever feasible, given the way in which the occupation acted as a recruiting agency for the insurgents, is now irrelevant. The forces driving the civil war are as much inside the government as outside. The occupying forces are doing nothing to stop it, and it’s not obvious that they can do anything.
Any suggestions on what to do next would be welcome. Given that the occupation has produced nothing but disaster, an early end to it seems like an obvious first step. But nothing now seems likely to stop the breakup of Iraq into warring statelets, at least some of which will be terrorist havens.
Update While the comment thread has been as acrimonious as you would expect, it’s been notably lacking in positive suggestions, particularly from those who supported the invasion. Stephen Bartos and a couple of others have some worthwhile discussion of the way a withdrawal could be managed, but the war’s supporters seem to think it sufficient to point out that Saddam was (and is) an evil man. Those of us who opposed the invasion knew that; what we were waiting for in 2002, and are still waiting for, was a coherent plan to deal with the consequences of an invasion.
John Quiggin 
Suggestions from those who supported the invasion being particularly welcome.
Suggestions from those who ridiculed Latham’s christmas policy might also be of assistance.
Those of us who always thought it would end up an intractable mess could be excused for thinking that, along with university professors, international lawyers, and just about anyone else with a smidgen of education in relation to any form of foreign policy analysis, our opinions are not wanted.
Regretably I think there is now no option that will result in peace. The US (and hangers on like Oz) need to get out so that the extremists have less fuel. However at best this creates a modest chance of order being restored.
The chances that the country will end up splitting on ethnic lines are starting to reach levels worth punting on.
No brilliant ideas beyond what I’ve thought for a while- out now. To stop making it worse is an important principle to act on, but its comig so late that the problems are now massive.
While it doesn’t solve the problems that remain, it at least removes one complication to the Iraqis beginning to sort it out for themselves. There is enough complicating this without the added layer of US military presence.
The university-educated Bill Clinton was right to make the removal of Saddam official US policy. The terrorist called Saddam Hussein killed 500,000 Iraqis but the “civil war” fetishists believe he is still the lawful president of Iraq. Astonishing. State-orchestrated slaughter, road-side bombs – there’s no moral difference. Saddam was more dangerous and bloodthirsty, that’s all. As the man is under indictment for war crimes – including genocide – the left should now apologise.
Nobody can be sure what politico-cartographic innovations might be made in Iraq in coming decades. Same goes for Indonesia and Canada. The important thing to remember now is that the removal of Saddam was just, there are no “insurgents” in the sovereign state of Iraq – only terrorists – and that prosperity and democracy will yield benefits over time. This fight was inevitable – between Saddam and the West and within Islamic culture. As a presence on the ground or as backers in the forums of the world, countries like Australia should indeed stay the course. As should forces of moderation within Iraq – with our support.
Latham’s and Labor’s Little Australia Doctrine will not make Australians or Iraqis any safer.
The question of whether Iraq is currently experiencing civil war is one of fact, and has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein’s legal status, or the crimes he committed (with the support of the then US Administration) in the 1980s, and for which he is now being tried. Iraq wasn’t experiencing a civil war a year ago (when Saddam was already in jail) but it is now.
And, as the post points out, the parties to the civil war aren’t (in most cases) insurgents, they are factions within the current government.
“Latham’s and Labor’s Little Australia Doctrine”
Me too coat-tail grasping, sheer cowardice, and unilateralism masquerading as bilateralism VS multilateralism and respect for some semblence of international community and law- call it little Australia if you are in the habit of inverting logic.
Multilateralism isn’t working out with Iran. The UN’s semblence of order seems to be characterised chiefly by blue-helmets committing mass rape. Or just waiting for everyone to die – which is Kofi’s Africa policy. “Sheer cowardice” was the Latham policy – he didn’t even make provision for the protection of Australian officials. Traitorous lunatic.
Membership of the chest-thumping “stay-the-course” club is gradually dwindling. Australia will likely be one of the last to leave, mainly because of a lack of independent policy on the matter. We aren’t so much stay-the-course but follow-the-leader.
Stay-the-course seems a poor substitute for re-thinking the situation in light of radically changed circumstances.
OK C.L. – points taken. Now, do you have any suggestions on what to do next? (which was the point of the post) Or are you going to spend the rest of your life making carping criticisms of “the left”.
And before you ask, I can’t offer any suggestions other than get out and leave it to the Iraqis.
Let ’em all kill each other Zoot?
Pr Q says:
Get out of Dodge before sundown. Our militaries are a viral infection to the more active elements in the Islamic world, and their antipathetic response is becoming deadly to both sides.
The Al Queada attacks were caused by US military installations and interventions into the region. These should stop, and we should begin to bring the troops home from Mesopotamia.
Require ISR to do the same to any and all Occupied Territories. Withdraw the IDF to 1949 borders. Try and organise a rational re-alignment of borders by means of buying out annoying settlements ie economic ethnic cleansing. Turn Jerusalem into a selfgoverning principality ala the Vatican, secured with UN Swiss Guards.
Turn ISR into a high-tech garrison. After withdrawal from the OT’s any further attacks by Islamic militants will be a sign that regional powers and militias wish to eliminate ISR and exterminate the Jews. This should legitimate the IDF to do whatever it takes to neutralise the regional threat. It is the regional super power and should be able to secure its original borders with a combination of ordinance barrages, commado ops, full scale punitive missions, nuclear counter-attack in extremis.
Any further military intervention into the region should be UN-backed and staffed. Foreign intervention into Iraq, in the form of militia support from Iran or Syria, should be punished by UN-flagged military strikes.
Also, lets lose the headlong drive to spread democracy to every last sun of a gun in the ME. A return to supporting more or less benevolent dictatorships that are slowly evolving in a pro-liberal and pro-Occidental way would be better for Islamic Arabs and Westerners alike.
Their notion of democracy is different from ours, less liberal and more militant. We think of democracy as an ethical social decision making procedure that reconciles majority rule with minority rights. They regard idemocracy as a means of legitimating ethnic identity rule, mobilising the populus to use state power to settle old scores and reward friends and relative.
Pr Q says:
The “regime changing” invasion to rid the Baathist dictatorship was as much as success as the “nation building” occupation to turn Iraq into a multicultural democracy was a failure. This is because Iraq is not a nation to build. Even if it was you can bet that Islamic sectarians and Republican partisans would stuff it up.
Pr Q says:
Correct. I am not so much worried by terrorist havens in Mesopotamia. Kurdistan was a war-ridden statelet and terrorist haven when it was de facto broken off from Iraq by the US no-fly zone policy. I guess the same policy will have to be followed accross the whole of Iraq.
Domestic insurrection and provincial secession in Iraq will have to more or less tolerated. This is business as usual for the Arab street. So long as they are busy killing each other they will not be that much interested in killing us. I guess sub-Saharan Africa will be the political model – ameliorated by oil money, exacerbated by jihadist ideology.
The US, as predicted by the “ditch Saudi/hitch Iraqi” thesis, will want to keep its “enduring bases” in Iraq, to provide oil pipeline and installation security. I dont see how it can withdraw from those bases without turning Iraq into another Columbia, turbo driven by sectarian theology. I dont see how it can keep those bases without inflaming local sentiment.
Insurrection and municipal secession in AUstralia worries me more. The example of Londonistan proves that ethnic militants use multiculturalism to foster terrorist havens. The Wets need to fess up that their toxic cultural policies have been based on self-interested lies and self-destructive delusion. This would also be good politics, since the majority already know this: hence the political decline of the Wets.
Immigration should focus on economical and ethical values. Social democrats should force leaders to renounce this evil policy, which is foundational to the politics of ethnic identity and destructive to a policy of national interest.
to whom it may concern,
i confess! i am responsible for saddam’s war crimes. and i would’ve gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for that pesky currency lad.
kisses,
the left.
p.s.: tell me more about how iraq is just like canada.
“The important thing to remember now is that the removal of Saddam was just, there are no “insurgentsâ€? in the sovereign state of Iraq – only terrorists – and that prosperity and democracy will yield benefits over time.”
Yo, CL!
You’re almost right, but you’re just a little premature.
If the US decides to veto the forthcoming resolution in the Security Council rescinding the immunity from prosecution of US personnel, then the sovereignty of the State of Iraq is very questionable indeed.
If this resolution does pass the Security Council, then US personnel will no longer be able to rape and terrorise Iraqi citizens with legal impunity from Iraqi law.
I guess that supporters of Iraqi sovereignty, like CL proclaims himself to be, would have to welcome this strongly desired restoration of the sovereign rights of the Iraqi nation.
And, further, I guess that lovers of the free Iraq, like CL, would have to welcome the prospect of American murderers and rapists facing justice in the courts of a sovereign Iraq.
For details of this interesting moment in the spread of sovereignty and liberty, see the following article:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-10T210647Z_01_KAR040738_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-RAPE.xml
And further, this snippet of RWDB theology merits unfavourable attention:
“there are no “insurgentsâ€? in the sovereign state of Iraq – only terrorists”
CL’s ideologically driven fantasia may well apply to Iraq’s Shiite death squads killing Sunni as we speak. These death squads wear uniforms and carry guns paid for by the chronically undertaxed US taxpayer and with US loans raised from the Central Bank of China.
However, if insurgents, who may well use terror tactics, are supported and protected by, and live among, a supportive population, then they are more than terrorists. They are insurgents.
Some historical parallels may help CL to resolve his admittedly chronic problem of categorisation:
George Washington used terror tactics on occasion. But he was an insurgent in that he had broad support among American people.
John Brown also used terror tactics. But he had no broad support in Virginia, where he was hanged for a terrorist and traitor.
I think billmon has put it best
De do do do, de da da da…. still waiting for that admission from the general right that they were consumately wrong about Iraq. CL’s stubborn declarations about insurgents and terrorists are meaningless- if we can’t even get humanitarian law upheld against one of our ‘allies’ currently slaughtering hundreds of civilians, then confirming that many of the attacks in Iraq constitute brutal terrorism has virtually no meaning.
1) they aren’t stopping.
2) all the might of the strongest country in the world can’t stop them.
3) this was entirely predictable before Iraq was ever invaded.
4) if you value human life then we’ve now reached the point where we can declare that the world and Iraqis would have been better off if we never went in.
5) if you value the ‘war on terror’ then we are without a scintilla of doubt worse off than if we never went in there.
6) it is the idiocy of the Iraq invasion that has put the west on a back foot in relation to Iran (and North Korea and other rogue states). Political capital is finite.
7) even with the various books that examined islamic extremism and asked ‘why do they hate us’ still sitting in the new release section, and with most conservatives blandly trumpeting their old anti islamic crusader conclusions about an evil religion etc, we are demonstrating with utter clarity why every muslim and/or arab has good cause to fear and hate the classic axis of Israel and the US.
8) …and that we consider 10 arab lives to be worth 1 life of an ally of ours.
So please, argue on. Your side of politics has done such a good job at bringing peace and democracy to the middle east.
Clinton may have wanted Saddam dead, but he clearly also had the intellect to recognise that without the right opportunity such a move would backfire and bring chaos to the region.
We now look forward to the next 20 years of cyclical violence.
the evidence seems overwhelming that the occupation is doing more harm than good, and should end, so John’s call for suggestions as to what to do next is timely. IMO there’s two separate steps to be considered:
first, how the occupation itself ends – should the strategy be to just pull up stumps, or implement a graduated withdrawal? the first seems more likely, based on the history of other countries post WWII (although mostly asia and south/latin america examples I admit) to cause further upheaval. If there is to be a staged process, there is a serious job of analysis to be done on how the stages are structured: geographically (eg leave the south first then the north? or leave rural/small towns first and major cities/Bagdhad last?); militarily (eg withdraw light ground units, then heavy units, then air support & special forces?); politically (eg withdraw unilaterally, or agree a timetable and staging with the Iraqi parliament?). Obviously a good strategy will combine all these considerations.
second, the issue of how best to support the fractured and highly dysfunctional state that will remain. I’d be recommending much greater intervention by Islamic multilateral institutions – eg the Islamic Development Bank – over what are seen as western-aligned institutions. This may require additional financial support for those Islamic institutions – however, a good deal cheaper than the current approach. In addition, working with other governments in the region to encourage them to mount assistance missions along the multilateral lines pursued in RAMSI could be useful, and could engage mainstream Islamic sentiment. Almost impossible for the US to pursue at the moment given its stance on Israel, but other countries might take up the running on this where they were not prepared to join the COW.
For a good (and by no means left-wing) approach to how to deal with state building, Francis Fukuyama’s book of the same name is helpful – one wonders why nobody responsible for US Iraq policy seems to have read it!
John,
There is very little we can do without talking with Iran and Syria.
Basically, we need to know what they want and then I suspect give
them what they want, Lie back and think of England as it were.
It is now important to try and understand how we got into this
situation. There is superb depth of knowledge in the area of middle
eastern studies. Policy however has been hijacked by a group of
hacks.
Apart from imperial fantasies, these hack have sought to destroy
the academic area of middle eastern studies. Many of them could be
motivated by a sense of bitterness that they did not get academic
appointments. The best examples are the first
rate thugs at campus watch, who’s aim is to find ways of revoking
the tenure of America’s leading experts on the middle east.
So in short, it is time to listen to our real experts and make the
hacks pay with their careers for the disasters that they have
cocncocted.
CL, drano is for unclogging drains, not drinking. And you didn’t answer the question.
My answer is that we don’t get out, or get out before sundown. There is much more than a civil war in the balance- this is a regional war about to happen. Iran will be in there, so will Turkey, who knows what will happen to the surrounding Sunni dictatorships and, oh by the way, apparently we’re going to have an international force in Southern Lebanon serving as target practice for Hezbollah (*!@#^!), so maybe we can drag some blue helmets in there too. The severity of the incompetence of George W. Bush and the neocons, (known during the first Bush administration as “the crazies”) has only just begun to be understood.
What this requires is not “staying the course” or immediate withdrawal. What this requires is an actual strategy and the vision and leadership to implement it (and no, I’m not holding my breath). The first thing we, as in us Americans, need to do is start being honest, transparent and proactive. That starts with an acknowledgment that we made a dreadful mistake, that Iraq is a mess and that our only objective at this point is to take whatever corrective action is most sensible, absolutely whatever that is. It should be clear that we are willing to commit substantial resources and troops, as required by the strategy, to the cause.
Beyond that, the first order of business is fixing post haste our troops recent predilection for war crimes, again using whatever methods necessary. Whatever those are- posting troops away from the civilian population, whatever- it will certainly include making some examples. We’ve got the death penalty in the United States. I’m not for it, but at a time like this it could come in handy. If it is true that a bunch of Marines murdered 30 Iraqis or whatever, we need to try them, convict them, line them up along a fence and shoot them, and broadcast each bit on every Iraqi channel we can get access to.
We also need to make a series of statements that are given credence by our law- for example, pass a law saying that after say 2008, continued presence of any American military in Iraq will require its passage in a national referendum or some such, and sign it in the damn rose garden with the Iraqi prime minister in attendence. We should also pass a law that says that American firms cannot own lease rights on Iraqi fossil fuels. Finally, we need to investigate all the war profiteering and criminal loss of Iraqi oil and US taxpayer funds and convict and send to prison all responsible.
Doing these things may just buy enough credibility with the Iraqi and world communities to start building alliances in both realms toward positive solutions to dealing with the violence and supporting what is, if not a great government, perhaps a precursor of a functioning government. Failing the backbone and sense of morality needed to go that course, the only other option is to pick a side on the civil war and let the atrocities fly. As bad as that would be, it is very likely to have a lower body count than either “staying the course” or withdrawal.
Majorajam says:”…our only objective at this point is to take whatever corrective action is most sensible, absolutely whatever that is.”
Well, cutting off the flow of US weaponry into the Middle East would be a start. Working through the UN to cut off the flow of other weaponry would be a good second step. But then Majorajam says: “…we are willing to commit substantial resources and troops, as required by the strategy, to the cause.” When will the penny drop? There is no military solution.
It’s time for the classic ending for failed imperial ventures – partition followed by an exchange of populations. Very nasty, guarantees poverty and instability for a long time (especially if the neighbours are silly enough to dabble themselves in the mess), but marginally better than the alternative.
Oh, and we should try the main players in this as war criminals pour encourager les autres. Fat chance that will happen though.
There’s been an interesting eastasia/eurasia switch as well, which many war apologists employed doublethink to absorb perfectly.
Huh?
So the US had always planned this, had they? So by attacking Iraq and removing Saddam (Sunni), which allowing Iraq to be annexed by shia Iran due to Iraq’s Shia majority, the US was fighting Shia terrorism.
So what they want you to believe is that they planned to fight Shia terrorism by firstly creating an environment in which Shia forces become dominant in the area. …OK, got it.
Meanwhile, the Sunni and Wahhabist (Al-Qaeda) house of Saud, which are the biggest sponsors of terrorism on earth (remember the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi), remain strong allies of Israel and the US…. And some people swallow this crap?? Pull your heads out.
Pr Q says:
There is really only one two-word solution for introducing national coherency: “ethnic cleansing”. As Pr Q’s comment suggests, this de jure end is already in de fact sight with the informal pattern of migration of various ethnic groups to safe havens.
I suggest that the “economic” model of ethnic cleansing, which was cooked up by Jimmy Carter at Camp David for Sadat and Begin for settling the Sinai question, might be a way to resolve the conflicts with less violence. Steve Sailer summarises how enlightened self-interest resolved this problem without resort to arms:
The other alternative is to let nature take its course and “give war a chance”. Seal the borders, arm our allies and let ’em duke it out until the worst man wins. That might will make right. Edward Luttwak outlines the real political benefits of cathartic carnage:
derrida derider – “It’s time for the classic ending for failed imperial ventures – partition followed by an exchange of populations.”
However which partition get the oil?
Ender Says: July 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
That is the 6.4 trillion dollar question. If the Suunis get pushed out of Shiite areas, and vice-versa, then the Shiites will end up with most of the oil.
I dont think there is much point playing favourites here. There are no good parties in the ME. And no one ever went broke overestimating the degree of political depravity that the region is capable of.
I gave my overview, Zoot. It was more substantive than your bug out and quit theory. What a yawn, Katz. Australia has been federated for more than a hundred years and its Head of State is still a German housewife who lives in England. These conundrums take time to work through. Hysteria isn’t the answer.
Iraq is a sovereign nation at international law. It has no “insurgents” – only terrorists. Armaniac praises Bill Clinton’s smarts. This is the man who once killed a lot of people in Sudan (and, reportedly, an Al Qaeda camel) so as to divert people’s attention away from Monica Lewinski. He was a profoundly unserious President whose place in American history is already inconsequential. He was correct, however, in inaugurating the policy of removing Saddam Hussein from office. Less right about rendition, which he also inaugurated.
As I said, Saddam is under indictment for genocide and it’s now time for the left to apologise for its tacit support for this monster. If they believe the war was “illegal,” let them call for his reinstatement to power. Watch, though: none of them ever do. That’s the chickenhawk left.
Gordon,
There is no military solution to winning hearts and minds, but that is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about foresight. An understanding of what we are facing and a determination to do what it takes to diffuse that bomb. It is not completely necessary for there to be a full blown regional conflict on up the escalating chain, but that looks pretty likely (Turkey may not even wait for us to pull out). Certainly Iran also knows what is in the balance. In any case, the naive who would proffer the idea that everyone will hold hands and figure it out if the US just leave are smoking too much of their own product.
“it’s now time for the left to apologise for its tacit support for this monster”
This obviously has to be said very very simply, since you haven’t already picked up on it, but most of Saddam’s monstering occurred with the full backing of the US Government. I’ll wait for them to apologise first.
Yo CL!
Hysterical, moi?
CL Mark 1:
““Sheer cowardiceâ€? was the Latham policy – he didn’t even make provision for the protection of Australian officials. Traitorous lunatic.”
CL Mark 2:
“Hysteria isn’t the answer.”
The syndrome is called “projection”. It is curable.
The precise nature of Australian sovereignty isn’t at issue here (although CL may think that it is.)
The issue is Iraq’s sovereignty. And unless the US reacts hysterically to Iraq’s resolution in the UN, they’ll get their sovereignty back in the normal, non-hysterical method, as stipulated by international law.
Do you recall any mention of international law CL?
Once upon a time only outlaw nations asserted that they were above international law.
Yo Katz – bring back Saddam! Nothing says sovereignty like a mustard gas bomb dropped on your own citizens.
CL, feared slayer of straw men.
Look upon his works, o mortals, and despair.
“Saddam’s monstering occurred with the full backing of the US Government. I’ll wait for them to apologise first.”
True, but he got even more support from the Soviet Union and France.
Saddam got widespread support because he was seen as less bad than the mad mullahs of Iran, a judgement that was suspended 1990-2003, but which may be coming back into fashion.
Saddam was bad, but the Iranians are bad and mad. They now control large parts of Iraq and its government, and are projecting their influence throughout the Middle East.
Getting rid of Saddam was supposed to help Israel with its security, among other things. It’s done exactly the opposite. The 2003 war was a huge strategic blunder, which has also cost tens of thousands of lives.
Not “the opposite” at all. In fact the Arab nations are more convinced than ever that their joint interests are served by Iran being stymied. That’s why the Arab League stunned the world by condemning Hezbollah. Tehran’s proxy war against Israel – there’s your strategic blunder.
“it’s now time for the left to apologise for its tacit support for this monster.” – CL
Applause for notable display of hypocrisy and audacity.
It’s interesting that CL thinks the majority of the Western world belongs to the ‘left’. Is he just trying to make me feel good?
Iraq is a sovereign nation at international law. It has no “insurgentsâ€? – only terrorists.
non sequitur much?
perhaps to formulate a sensible reply to the main post here, it would help if your delicate mind sort of re-imagined it a bit. for your benefit, i suggest replacing all references to “insurgents” with the politically-correct “terrorists”; and for “civil war”, why not substitute “sectarian terrorism”.
now, the point is:
This development seems to finally mark the point beyond which slogans like “stay the course� make no sense any more. “Stay the course� presumed that the problem was [terrorism] that could be defeated by the Iraqi government, given sufficient backing. Whether or not that was ever feasible, given the way in which the occupation acted as a recruiting agency for the [terrorists], is now irrelevant. The forces driving the [sectarian terrorism] are as much inside the government as outside. The occupying forces are doing nothing to stop it, and it’s not obvious that they can do anything.
what do you propose be done about this? i mean aside from objecting to the description of our troops as “occupying forces”.
“Getting rid of Saddam was supposed to help Israel with its security, among other things. It’s done exactly the opposite. The 2003 war was a huge strategic blunder, which has also cost tens of thousands of lives.” – Spiros.
Maybe, maybe not. Some Israeli strategists have long held the hope that Iraq should disintegrate into 3 smaller ethnic areas. But that is just the first step in their wish-list. This then leads onto a similiar process in Iran, and even Egypt.
Katz,
you usually have some well-reasoned opinions. Any thoughts on ‘what next’ in Iraq?
Iranians aren’t Arabs, they are Persians. ‘Palestinian’ is not a synonym for Moslem, however much Jack Strocchi might like to thinks so. The ME has been a playground for western imperial powers for well over a century and a half. People living there actually know their own history, even if the likes of CL etc do not, or choose not to.
Despite the well ventilated contempt expressed by the right here and elsewhere for both Arabs and Muslims (no Jack, they are not synonymous), the irritiating (for the right that is) reality, is that people who happen to live in the ME, like people who live here and in Europe, usually resent, often violently, outside interference in their affairs, collaboration of domestic tyrants with outsiders in order to preserve the tyrants domestic power, and the assumption by the powerful that might makes right. The tragedy of the ME is not its people (as Jack seems to be saying). It lies in the fact that it it sits on oil, rather than fields of broccholi.
Here’s another thing. Actions speak louder than words. Claptrap about ‘democracy freedom blah blah blah’. cuts no ice when all around you the bringers of enlightenment to a ‘barbaric world’ in all its Kiplingest glory, are either dropping bombs, supporting other people who drop bombs, or are explaining why ‘our bombs are good bombs’ and their bombs are ‘bad bombs’. Wake up to yourselves, you rascist creeps.
Jack – “If the Suunis get pushed out of Shiite areas, and vice-versa, then the Shiites will end up with most of the oil.”
Not forgetting the Kurds in the North with the large oilfields there near Kikurk. The Shia and Sunnis are not the only factions that would want their own partition. Turkey DOES NOT want an independent kurdish nation to its south and has actively campaigned against such a thing. A shia partition would immediately align with Iran and create a greater shia ‘problem’ that we have now. Remember that Iran is already a major oil and gas supplier – gaining control of the fields in Iraq’s south by proxy would give them immense leverage over the US. Maybe enough to force them to abandon the 3 major air force bases they have built.
Snuh, I can’t follow your grammar-free gibberish. Apologies.
Not sure what Michael is talking about either – majorities in the Western world etc.
Howard, Bush, Blair: re-elected.
You can add to the throw-the-towel-in list Afghanistan – no oil or broccoli but lots of dope.
And Lebanon, they have rejected the proposed ceasefire (by “they” I mean Syria via Lebanese speaker Nabih Berri)
Fortunately there is enough commitment to see this through, there really are no alternatives.
it’s quite simple.
1. “Iraq is a sovereign nation at international law. It has no “insurgentsâ€? – only terrorists.” is a non sequitur, as sovereign nations can face insurgencies.
2. not that point 1 even matters, because even if you describe those bad people in iraq as “terrorists”,* the problem they present nevertheless continues to exist. and regardless of word-choice, this problem nevertheless continues to require some sort of strategic re-assessment, given that under the present “stay the course” strategy, things keep getting worse.
*or even if you blame it all on “the left”, or even if you call latham a “Traitorous lunatic” etc etc.
Thanks for the invite Michael H.
You may be aware that hitherto I have opined that the immediate future of Iraq is more subject to the US political cycle than the dynamics of the situation on the ground.
Iraq is certain to be a major issue in the forthcoming mid-term elections, due to be held in November.
My previous confidence that these elections would be a no-brainer winner for the Dems has now dissipated somewhat. The Dems have be weak and pusillaminous in their attack on Bush’s policies. Thus I believe it to be quite likely that the GOP will suffer minimal damage.
Because of the relative absence of terrified incumbent Republicans, Bush will not be required to trim his policies in Iraq. He’ll be able to stay on message with his “stay the course” rhetoric. And there will be no powerful congressional pressure to withdraw or for that matter to alter his present approach to Iraq.
This may have some consequences in the form of street demonstrations etc., in the US. But this posible direct action will have little influence.
In the meantime, of course, fratricidal slaughter will continue in Iraq. Perhaps Bush’s policy revolves around the US hunkering down and waiting for exhaustion to overcome Iraqi forces.
However, if one is to believe Riverbend, the Shiites have almost succeeded in bringing about a cultural and social revolution right under the noses of the Americans. The Sunni middle class have gone into exile or have gone to ground.
The Shiites are themselves divided over the future of Iraq. Some want the US to stay under more restrictive conditions (see my earliest post in this thread). Some want the US to leave.
To summarise:
Bush has no reason to leave so long as staying looks statesmanlike.
The Dems can’t frighten the Reps into demanding that the US leave.
Anti-occupation forces in the US are weak.
The Shiites are divided over the presence of the COW. Some see the COW as being useful idiots, or perhaps hostages.
Iran is in no hurry to attempt to force the US to change its stance in Iraq.
As others have said, it is politically impossible for Kurdistan to declare independence.
And it is practically impossible for the Sunni regions to declare independence.
The US does not have the will or the wherewithal to impose a peace on Iraq.
Therefore, in summary, it seems that Iraq is in for a season of suffering under the noses of COW troops at least until G. W. Bush steps out of the White House in January 2009.
And after that, Iraq will possibly decline into a chaotic and ramshackle theocracy with a facade of western-style constitutionalism as a Potemkin Village to show off to visiting US Republican figures and representatives of Right Wing Think tanks.
funny isnt it, the way these things play out,
jq says, “Given that the occupation has produced nothing but disaster”
disaster for whom? ordinary iraqis for sure,
but the ruling elite in america, i dont think so, its all going swimmingly,
and israel, its mission accomplished for them in iraq,
from Oded Yinon’s, “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”
(ISBN 0-937694-56-8)
oded yinon wrote this in 1982,
whilst israel was funding iran, and the yanks were funding iraq,
its time you guys cleaned your glasses,
the bush administartion is not incompetent, at home and abroad it is acheiving its goals,
the israeli attack of lebanon was very well calculated,
the use of force is not disproportionate to the aims
oh yeah, and another thing, what were those two sas men in basra doing dressed as arabs with a car full of explosives
why was the Askariya mosque teeming with us troops and iraqi ‘policemen’ before it was blown to pieces in samarra
why did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sometimes have a wooden leg, sometimes not,
not seem to know how to operate a gun even though he’d been leading the resistance for years
wear goledn rings in the videos which strict muslims dont do,
have trouble speaking in his own language in some videos
what bullshit,
nevermind that the us military described ‘zarqawi’ as their most successful psyops of the iraq war about a month before they ‘killed’ him
Katz is still ignoring the “season of suffering” endured under Saddam.
I’m still waiting for someone to call for his reinstatement, by the way. After all, the invasion was “illegal.” Major credit to the first lefty with the courage of his or her convictions on this.
Three years since the invasion – ONE Australian parliamentary term. It took HALF A CENTURY for our own governmental system to emerge from squabbling paralysis. What ever happened to the greats of American liberalism who – like JFK – believed we should “pay any price and bear any burden” for the survival and defence of liberty?
Well, they’re the channel flippers who think three years is too long to endure for any programme.
why on earth would anyone call for saddam’s reinstatement?
CL has powerful fixations.
In addition to his projection manifested above, he has had a relapse of dualism.
“Katz is still ignoring the “season of sufferingâ€? endured under Saddam.”
OK this is for CL.
Yo, CL!
Saddam is a fascist brute. He killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He poisoned whole villages. He invaded his neighbours without provocation.
Part of the time he did these things against the desires of the United States. Part of the time he did it with the consent and the support of the United States. He deserves severe punishment for the crimes for which he will be found guilty.
And he deserves severe punishment for the crimes for which he will not be found guilty. He won’t be found guilty of some of his crimes because he will not be tried for the crimes committed with the consent and support of the United States.
So CL. I’m williing to condemn Saddam for all his crimes. Do you want his US sponsored crimes to be decided in a proper court of law? Or are you a mere apologist?
And while I’m here, an answer to CL’s crie de coeur (if you’ll pardon the French CL):
“What ever happened to the greats of American liberalism who – like JFK – believed we should “pay any price and bear any burden””
Ever heard of Vietnam? And while we’re on the subject of chicken hawks, you write with all the testosteronal machismo of a fightin’ man. Easily fit enough to mix it with the moribunds and amputees of Chimpo’s ragtag whipping boys in Iraq.
Here’s a perfect opportunity for you to bear personally, by enlisting, a bit of liberty’s price and burden.
And enlistment is a short cut to US citizenship. What a perfect opportunity for an American manque like your good self.
I’ll be looking forward to your eloquent despatches from the Central Front ofthe Beacon of Hope.
Hooo aaah!
What? Still here CL?
Katz is guilty of this fixation that if the US has a relationship with a sovereign state and that sovereign state commits crimes then by somew process crimes are sponsored by the US.
This is as nonsensical as saying that CentreLink sponsors criminal activity amongst the unemployed.
Guilt by association is the stuff of schoolyards.
Let’s not forget why the war on Iraq started. It was, as Rupert Murdoch opined, about “oil at $20 a barrel”. Remember how the museum was looted in Iraq but somehow, the US managed to guard the oil? I can’t see any withdrawal without getting their hands on that prize, all in the name of defending the Iraqi’s and bringing good ole red white n blue democracy to the region of course.
Rog,
I guess you don’t have much time for Fritz Fischer’s explanation of the causes of the Great War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Fischer
If only the world had gone to Rog for his explanation of the status of “guilt by association”, silly old Fritz would never have got a job in a junior college.
Not really katz, unless you want to try and draw parallels between pre WW1 Germany and Iraq, and I still dont have too much time.