The War in Iraq

[Q]

Not knowing who all comes here, or what they are like persay, I can't predict if this will go well. Chances are it may turn into a big flame war, but never the less, I'd like to hear your opinions on the War In Iraq.
Stupid? Unjust? Overdue? Disgusting? Necessary?

[DBS]

Sad to say it seems to have gotten to the point where there is no good way out. What policy-makers need to realize is the following:

1. Casting blame (at this point) is now politically counterproductive. By now pretty much everyone who uses a variety of news sources realizes that the Coalition leaders decieved their constituents into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Fine. We do need to see some sort of recrimination against those who led the run-up to the war once it is all over. Quite frankly, the leaders of the invading nations engaged in contemptible behaviour in gathering support for the invasion, and should be held accountable. But not while policy still must be made. Either hold the president accountable now, or wait until the situation is ended. Sadly, in 2004 we chose the latter option.

2. Because of REALLY bad planning, the occupying forces squandered any real chance of creating positive change in post Saddam Iraq. By allowing the religious factions to join with the insurgency means that there is almost no chance of post-withdrawal Iraq being any better than under Saddam. As the military axiom goes, "it is nearly impossible to recover from an incorrect disposition of forces."

3. Any chance of avoiding disaster in Iraq due to #2 is dependent on either de-fusing ethnic/religious tensions somehow and giving all Iraqis a stake in their future governance, or defeating the insurgency outright and then equipping the Iraqi government with the ability to deal with future strife. Therefore, to simply leave now will likely lead to disaster, but unless some progress is made in the areas of stability, there is no convincing reason to continue to waste American and British blood and treasure on a hopeless situation.

So like it or not, unless we decide that the situation truly is hopeless (in which case we should leave as soon as possible but be prepared to go back in within the next five years...), the occupiers MUST find a way to stabilize the situation. To paraphrase former Secretary of State Colin Powell, 'we broke it, so we bought it'. We now have a moral stake in preventing disaster, if that can be done. Policy should focus on leaving all options on the table (including negotiations with surrounding powers and even insurgent leaders) and giving alternatives a chance to succeed before we consider leaving.[/i]

[Ferrarius]

I've never agreed with the war, saddam was a beast but at least it wouldn't be a fullblown civil war. Now that the war has occured we have to face the aftermath. With this horrific possibility, civil war, I don't understand why the US is so keen on keeping this nation completely unified. Personally I'd like tos see three substates with a relative amount of independence, more as the american states, but still in a union called simply the iraqi union. That way the sunni/kurds/shiites d not need to breath in each others backs politically, there is peace and unity.

[Sionnach Glic]

I was against the war from the start, I wont get into wether or not the war was justified, but why couldn't the military see you'd get stuck in this position. It seemed rather clear from the start it would just turn into... well, what it is now I guess.

[DBS]

Yep.

Like I said, we now need to keep all options on the table becuase pretty much any solution that ends less horrifically than this one looks like it will could reasonably be considered success

The three states should definitely be seriously considered. At least give the Kurds a chance! Kurdistan is the one place that has actually developed in a good way. It would be a shame to lump it in with the dismal failure that is greater Iraq now. To leave Iraq while it is still unified is probably a recipe for disaster and further repression of the Kurds once the civil war gets itself over with.

[Sionnach Glic]

Would splitting Iraq into three states not just lead to wars between them. None of those groups are going to be too happy about having their country split up. Remember what happened when India got bits taken off?

[DBS]

Good point.

But I do wonder whether or not that would still be better than a full-blown religious civil war. Sure, there would almost certainly be ethnic cleansing, expulsions, and fights over oil resources. But most of that is happening anyway already. At least it would give each sect a safe(r) region where they wouldn't get blown up every day.

Conventional wars are and always will be awful, but they tend to be less harmful to civilians than what is going on now!

But like you say, who is to say that splitting the country up will be any better than trying to keep it together. I just think it would be too bad to lump the only successful group indefinitely to the quagmire that Iraq will likely be until these tensions get sorted out. In my opinion, the Kurds should be able to remain autonomous enough to stay out of the civil war if they want to.

[I Am Spartacus]

An independent Kurdistan would be a super bad idea. Turkey has a large Kurd minority which are persecuted, and a Kurdistan would cause many of them to break into open revolt. Destabilizing and potentially disintegrating Turkey.

Unless they invade the independent Kurdistan, which is what they'd do.

Bad thing for a NATO and future EU member.

[Dean Martlou]

i'd say nuke 'em.

of course, that's my solution for everything from unrest in the Middle East to the retreating glaciers, so it really doesn't tell you much...

anyways, i disagree with the war on the basis of the Calvin Doctrine.

How do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?"

the answer, of course, being that they don't.

[DBS]

An independent Kurdistan would be a super bad idea. Turkey has a large Kurd minority which are persecuted, and a Kurdistan would cause many of them to break into open revolt. Destabilizing and potentially disintegrating Turkey.

Unless they invade the independent Kurdistan, which is what they'd do.

Bad thing for a NATO and future EU member.

I agree and realize that, only that leaves us in an unpalateable situation in which we are now in the position of screwing the one group of people that have actually benefitted from this whole sad endeavour. If they are stuck in a civil war in Iraq, they will probably be persecuted (again), probably more so than before for "collaborating" with the invaders

If left alone, they would probably at least nominally secede from a war-torn Iraq anyway. Like I said, any solution will mean having the cooperation of the surrounding powers, including Turkey.

[Ferrarius]

I don't quickly see the EU accepting turkey in the EU. It's continualy being postponed and turkey just hasn't been able to live up to expectations.

[Graham Kennedy]

When it was launched, I supported it. But that was largely on the WMD threat, and as it turns out our governments... well, let's face it, they just made that up.

Still, I think it would probably have been a change for the better if the war hadn't been utterly mismanaged from the start. A brilliant military campaign to topple the regime, absoutely. But we disbanded the army and police force, when we didn't have near enough people to replace them; leaving a power vacuum for everybody with a few mates with AK-47s to fill. Disasterous, absolutely disasterous.

And now it's Vietnam over again. We'll be seen as weak failures if we pull out, so we stay. But we can't win, and the longer we stay the worse things there will get, and the more unpopular it will become, until finally we will just walk away humbled and humiliated.

I wish I could see any better way out of this, but I just can't.

[Sionnach Glic]

That pretty much summed it up.
Its Vietnam all over again, and this time the US is determined not to pull out. When will people learn?

[RedDwarfian]

That pretty much summed it up.
Its Vietnam all over again, and this time the US is determined not to pull out. When will people learn?

I don't agree with that in one opinion: I don't think that the treatment of troops by civilians is ANYTHING like it was with Vietnam. I'm really happy that we support the troops in this war, even though we may not support the cause nor the leaders behind it. My mother lived in the Vietnam era, and was deathly afraid of one of my cousins (Well, future cousin, step cousin, whatever you want to call him, his father's getting married to my aunt soon) who had his uniform on during certain public occasions. She was almost afraid he was going to get hurt. She's very glad that the American public has grown up at least a little.

I agree that this war should have happened, though. I feel Saddam needed to be removed from power, but in the way it happened... I don't think the ends justify the means anymore.

I think I should finish it with a quote by a particularly powerful political figure after Desert Storm:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

~George H. W. Bush

Daddy knows best.

[Q]

i'd say nuke 'em.

of course, that's my solution for everything from unrest in the Middle East to the retreating glaciers, so it really doesn't tell you much...

Haha, that's the way I handle things too. I promise I'll actually contribute to this discussion when i can think straight.