Iraqi Moderates Must Fight?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Watching the news today, whether or not it’s true, some assmunch in Iraq was claiming how they have so many thousand troops in Iraq who will be working to set up their planned caliphate.

I know I’ve touched on it before, but doesn’t it seem obvious that the Iraqi’s are going to have to take control of their own country?

The militia’s and Al Queda seem ready to subjugate the population as soon as the US leaves the area… and the populace is sitting around either waiting for the US to fix things, leave and magically hope things will fix, or that their government will suddenly be able to defy the militia’s and fix things.

It’s also possible that the majority of people left in Iraq simply don’t care about being free (from Al Queda and so forth) as much as we might think they should. Will they fight to be free or will they simply be sheep to whoever wants to rule them next?

Now that the election is over, any non-partisan thoughts on how to move forward in Iraq? What about dealing with the huge recruitment levels for Al Queda and the danger this represents to the western world?

2

We’ve lost Iraq. This election proved it. There is no way Al Qaeda will give it up, knowing that the American public already has given up. They know it’s a matter of time before the troops start to be pulled out.

3

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We’ve lost Iraq. This election proved it. There is no way Al Qaeda will give it up, knowing that the American public already has given up. They know it’s a matter of time before the troops start to be pulled out.[/quote]

News flash: they knew that they could hold, or at least hole up in, Iraq indefinitely before the election…

However, I think saying we’ve lost is a little bit incorrect. Why? Because unfortunately the issue we are facing is not simply Iraq.

I will agree that Iraq has served as a fuel for recruitment and that we, the west, are being embarrassingly out-strategized by extremist factions.

4

The problem is that the way the war is being waged right now, they can probably hold off long enough for the army to eventually be pulled out.

If the US was to step up the occupation, either by providing more troops themselves; or - a better alternative - getting more allied countries to pitch in; they might be able to get the region back under control.

I don’t see any allies accepting to pitch in while Bush is still in office; and I don’t think the public will accept a hundred dead troops per month for another 2 years. I’m not optimistic.

Pulling out might allow Iran to “invade” the country to support the Shia militants (already the majority) and to crush or push back the Sunnis. They’d probably turn on the Kurds later on, but the North is oil-poor and they might simply let them have their “Kurdistan.”

You would then be faced with a bigger, more powerful Iran that now controls a sizeable portion of the world’s oil reserves. They’d be a major power in the Gulf region and might later on try to acquire even more territory. If they eventually go nuclear, it would be extremely difficult to intervene at all.

The Iraq war is one of those situation where failure is not an option; unfortunately, the US Administration has done seemingly everything they could to insure failure from the start.

5

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We’ve lost Iraq. This election proved it. There is no way Al Qaeda will give it up, knowing that the American public already has given up. They know it’s a matter of time before the troops start to be pulled out.[/quote]

No, the election proved that we fucked up Iraq, not that we’ve lost it. This was a vote for someone with a little bit of intelligence to figure out a strategy in Iraq that will work. Rummy wasn’t that guy. Seems like even Shrub had that one figured out, just too late.

There was no hope ever of “winning” Iraq, based on the fatally flawed intent of the original invasion. The whole theory of setting up a democracy in Iraq, with all the other countries falling like “dominoes” was fucked from the launch pad. Even the intelligent and honest proponents of a pre-emtive unilateral invasion are willing to admit that now. It’s the whole “well we’re there now so we have to stay the course till it’s fixed” bullshit that finally pissed off enough of the country to tip the scale.

Dickhead’s daddy even said ten years earlier that “you break it you bought it”. Now he has to send in his team to try and fix what Jr broke. Fucking peachy.

6

The american people are done with Iraq. If you think having the dems in charge of congress is going to get morale at home up, hah! The public’s spirit is broken, and they don’t want anymore troops dead.

Al Qaeda and other groups know this. They’re well aware of it. As they’ve said, they don’t have to (and can’t) defeat our military, just morale at home. They love death, more than we love life. They see the polls, the negativety, our media. They see our parties destroying each other and our leaders over the war. The only thing suprising to them is how quickly they’ve won this. They didn’t realize how quick we’d turn on each other. They didn’t count on how few deaths it would take to crush American resolve.

They announced from the beginning that the US was nothing but a paper tiger. They pointed at Somalia as their evidence. Look at recent polls, the mandate is clear, the american people have given up Iraq.

7

[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We’ve lost Iraq. This election proved it. There is no way Al Qaeda will give it up, knowing that the American public already has given up. They know it’s a matter of time before the troops start to be pulled out.

No, the election proved that we fucked up Iraq, not that we’ve lost it. This was a vote for someone with a little bit of intelligence to figure out a strategy in Iraq that will work. Rummy wasn’t that guy. Seems like even Shrub had that one figured out, just too late.

There was no hope ever of “winning” Iraq, based on the fatally flawed intent of the original invasion. The whole theory of setting up a democracy in Iraq, with all the other countries falling like “dominoes” was fucked from the launch pad. Even the intelligent and honest proponents of a pre-emtive unilateral invasion are willing to admit that now. It’s the whole “well we’re there now so we have to stay the course till it’s fixed” bullshit that finally pissed off enough of the country to tip the scale.

Dickhead’s daddy even said ten years earlier that “you break it you bought it”. Now he has to send in his team to try and fix what Jr broke. Fucking peachy.

[/quote]

You honestly believe the Democrats are going to start proposing to win the war? That they’re in it for the long haul? Have you seen the polls?

This well is poisened. They don’t set a firm date to get the hell out, they’ll be turned out of office in the next elections. Americans aren’t asking for a plan to ‘win.’ They told the Democrats, get us the hell out.

8

[quote]pookie wrote:
The problem is that the way the war is being waged right now, they can probably hold off long enough for the army to eventually be pulled out.

If the US was to step up the occupation, either by providing more troops themselves; or - a better alternative - getting more allied countries to pitch in; they might be able to get the region back under control.

I don’t see any allies accepting to pitch in while Bush is still in office; and I don’t think the public will accept a hundred dead troops per month for another 2 years. I’m not optimistic.

Pulling out might allow Iran to “invade” the country to support the Shia militants (already the majority) and to crush or push back the Sunnis. They’d probably turn on the Kurds later on, but the North is oil-poor and they might simply let them have their “Kurdistan.”

You would then be faced with a bigger, more powerful Iran that now controls a sizeable portion of the world’s oil reserves. They’d be a major power in the Gulf region and might later on try to acquire even more territory. If they eventually go nuclear, it would be extremely difficult to intervene at all.

The Iraq war is one of those situation where failure is not an option; unfortunately, the US Administration has done seemingly everything they could to insure failure from the start.

[/quote]

There is no way in hell other allies are coming in now. They see that americans have been poisoned on the idea that this is winnable. They’re not going to come in knowing the american public has made it clear, they want our troops out.

9

[quote]Sloth wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We’ve lost Iraq. This election proved it. There is no way Al Qaeda will give it up, knowing that the American public already has given up. They know it’s a matter of time before the troops start to be pulled out.

No, the election proved that we fucked up Iraq, not that we’ve lost it. This was a vote for someone with a little bit of intelligence to figure out a strategy in Iraq that will work. Rummy wasn’t that guy. Seems like even Shrub had that one figured out, just too late.

There was no hope ever of “winning” Iraq, based on the fatally flawed intent of the original invasion. The whole theory of setting up a democracy in Iraq, with all the other countries falling like “dominoes” was fucked from the launch pad. Even the intelligent and honest proponents of a pre-emtive unilateral invasion are willing to admit that now. It’s the whole “well we’re there now so we have to stay the course till it’s fixed” bullshit that finally pissed off enough of the country to tip the scale.

Dickhead’s daddy even said ten years earlier that “you break it you bought it”. Now he has to send in his team to try and fix what Jr broke. Fucking peachy.

You honestly believe the Democrats are going to start proposing to win the war? That they’re in it for the long haul? Have you seen the polls?

This well is poisened. They don’t set a firm date to get the hell out, they’ll be turned out of office in the next elections. Americans aren’t asking for a plan to ‘win.’ They told the Democrats, get us the hell out.[/quote]

Obviously, regardless who won the election, the course was going to be changed. Bush would’ve taken the Baker commission’s advice either way, and apparently he knew he was changing the sec. def. either way. The only thing really changing here is republicans recognizing the reality that dems have known all along.

10

Sloth, I think a good way to look at this is that the election simply reflects reality better than the baloney the white house kept putting out about the situation.

The “shift” isn’t that the democrats are going to do X, because the president still calls the shots on foreign policy. However, the president is probably starting to admit, at least to himself, that he has no fucking idea about what to do about the Middle East.

He thought, or people told him, that a bit of force would achieve some utopic moronic vision. In reality, he’s kicked a hornets nest and things are getting worse.

Again, to me, the concern here is not about whether Iraq ends up with a model democracy, but what comes after.

Listen to this, I don’t know how to make it more clear, there is no way to achieve what we want without going through the PEOPLE of the region and having them want something similar to that which we want.

While force is extremely effective in achieving physical objectives, it is not very good at giving you the ability to positively influence less physical things like thoughts and opinions.

We are fighting the wrong war… not that we shouldn’t fight it, or that we won’t have to attack other terrorists, but when we have to resort to force it is because we’ve already fucked up and it has come down to that option.

We need to look for the way to avoid being forced into a physical combat (to avoid having people willing to die to inflict damage on our citizens) and I sure as hell am not talking about appeasement.

Cut the tape off the little dark box that your mind is housed in… and start thinking about more ways to deal with issues than force. While force has it’s place, it is not the only tool available and it is not without consequences.

Finding alternatives to or preempting the need to use force is not weakness, it is wisdom.

Frankly, it will probably be decades before we can get there from where we are… if we even can find that path. That is the price we will all pay for the preemptive doctrine when stretched to a country that did not have WMD’s or any real ties with terrorism.

Now, whether or not the democrats or the republicans have any hope in hell of getting sophisticated enough to is the question.

I don’t see anybody putting forth long term ideas to change the nature of the situation. I don’t see anybody talking about the underlying issues and how to change them. Traditionally, both parties methods of dealing with the Middle East are seriously flawed!

You can’t control it and you can’t ignore it and hope it will go away…

11

There is no such thing as an Iraqi moderate.

12

[quote]vroom wrote:

It’s also possible that the majority of people left in Iraq simply don’t care about being free (from Al Queda and so forth) as much as we might think they should. Will they fight to be free or will they simply be sheep to whoever wants to rule them next?
[/quote]

I didn’t really expect this from you. But nevertheless, its not that the people in Iraq don’t care about being free. Firstly they have their own ideas and concepts of what being free is and what a good life is. Just because you think of it a certain way doesn’t mean they do too.
These people are more concerned about saving their families, women, children and relatives from the crazy violent bombings happening on a daily basis, and making a living to help feed their families as well.

And… Will they simply be sheep???
If the Iraqi people are sheep… what are the Americans?

13

[quote]doogie wrote:
There is no such thing as an Iraqi moderate.[/quote]

And there will never be such a thing as a you understanding that other people in other countries have different values. There will also never be such a thing as you realizing that just maybe your nationalistic and racist views are the reason why people die in wars in the first place.

14

I wasn’t putting forth an arguement. I simply stated that America, and it’s allies in Iraq, lost. Oddly, it wasn’t anything like a military defeat. It was a public morale defeat. Well, they got this nation pegged. Paper tiger, we are. We talked ourselves into defeatism.

As for the Iraqi security forces, I hope they keep up the fight once we desert them to Al Qaeda, secetarian militia leaders, and foriegn fighters and suppliers. Good luck with that. And sorry you were foolish enough to have taken our word, or relied on our resolve to see this through.

15

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
doogie wrote:
There is no such thing as an Iraqi moderate.

And there will never be such a thing as a you understanding that other people in other countries have different values. There will also never be such a thing as you realizing that just maybe your nationalistic and racist views are the reason why people die in wars in the first place.[/quote]

There are Iraqi Sunni extremists and Iraqi Shite extremists. I guess the Kurds are the moderates.

16

[quote]doogie wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
doogie wrote:
There is no such thing as an Iraqi moderate.

And there will never be such a thing as a you understanding that other people in other countries have different values. There will also never be such a thing as you realizing that just maybe your nationalistic and racist views are the reason why people die in wars in the first place.

There are Iraqi Sunni extremists and Iraqi Shite extremists. I guess the Kurds are the moderates.[/quote]

There are Muslim, Christian, and Kurdish moderates in Iraq. Ordinary people trying to make a living in a war-torn country. There are also, Muslim, Christian and Kurdish extremists in Iraq. Nationalistics and ethnocentrics.

17

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
There are Muslim, Christian, and Kurdish moderates in Iraq. Ordinary people trying to make a living in a war-torn country. There are also, Muslim, Christian and Kurdish extremists in Iraq. Nationalistics and ethnocentrics.
[/quote]

Shoebolt, my point was, and is, merely that freedom and peace don’t usually simply happen because people wish it would happen.

The problem is that everyone simply wants to earn a living and feed their families. Somebody else is supposed to come along to purchase their freedom with sacrifice of lives? The US is going to tire of doing so - and rightly so.

With an established non-corrupt government, then it might be possible to exert enough central power to pacify the situation, but that does not appear to be happening.

Without “somebody else” able to buy their freedom, their peace, it will fall to the Iraqi’s. Will they step up and make it happen, or will they watch idly as external elements such as Al Queda destroy their hopes.

I’m not sure where you tone of chastisement comes from? Perhaps you could suggest what ideas of freedom and self-government they have then, if they don’t have ours.

I’m not suggesting they have to adopt our thinking, ways or society, but that if they want something other than the vision being imposed by Al Queda and other influences, then they will have to exert themselves to achieve it.

If they won’t and the government can’t then, soon, nobody will.

18

My tone was used because of the language that you used. Even a slight word like ‘sheep’ you use to represent a people can make others perceive them in a way you did not intend them to be as. All anthropologists agree that currently the prime cause of cultural misunderstanding is the misuse both intentional and unintentional of language.

I realize what you’re trying to say bro. Just don’t do it that way.

19

[quote]vroom wrote:
Will they fight to be free or will they simply be sheep to whoever wants to rule them next?[/quote]

Right now, I think that most of the residents of Baghdad are willing to be “sheep” to whomever will give them clean water and more than a few hours of electricity a day. The large majority probably don’t care that much about political or religious affiliation, day-to-day survival matters a lot more at this point.

That’s not asking for much, and it’s pretty pathetic that we can’t deliver that much, more than three years after we fucked it up. And people don’t understand how we’re not winning hearts and minds?

20

[quote]doogie wrote:
There is no such thing as an Iraqi moderate.[/quote]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1163717411485&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

If I were an Iraqi, I wouldn’t “moderate” right now either.