Iraqi Moderates Must Fight?

Al Qaeda in Iraq? Give me a break - they’re a very small part of the insurgency which is largely dominated by the Sunni and Shiite militias. The insurgency continues because nobody is addressing the main underlying problem which is dividing the oil spoils fairly. The oil is in the North with the Kurds and the South with the Shiites. The Sunnis in the middle aren’t getting shit. That’s why there fighting. The Shiites stayed out of the fight for a long time because they knew if the Americans could control the Sunnis they would be making out like bandits when this was all over. However, now that it’s clear that the U.S. can’t put the reigns on the Sunni insurgency the Shiites have joined the fight and now you’re getting the sectarian killings that are tearing the country apart.

And what’s going to happen to the U.S.? It’s over for us in Iraq. You’re not going to wipe out a population of 5 million Sunni and you’re not going to prevent any one of them from joining the insurgency when they finally “give up”. We’re now laying the groundwork for a withdrawal. You can see it in articles in the New York Times. Fuck head neocons like Perle and Adelman who marched us into war are now back tracking saying “oh this is all Bush’s fault and we failed in Iraq because…wait for it…the Iraqis don’t want freedom and don’t want a democracy.” Sure thing. After UN sanctions killed over 1 million children and after this moronic ass war killed over 600,000 civilians - Iraq has failed because they are somehow “too uncivilized” to want freedom. What a racist fucking view. As Robert Fisk says “We are preparing our get-out excuses. The Iraqis don’t deserve us. Screw them. That’s the grit we’re laying down on the desert floor to help our tanks out of Iraq.”

.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
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.[/quote]

Oh for fuck sakes. If people are waiting to be lead, and nobody is taking action, then I’ll call them sheep if I damned well want to. If anyone has a problem with that, they can kiss my ass.

Thank you.

Now, if someone wants to demonstrate ways in which they are not acting like sheep, then perhaps I’ll choose another word. However, I’m not going to do so just to be fucking sensitive about the feelings of supposed others who might not like to be called sheep.

Until then, I’ll use whatever analogies appear to be applicable.

So, for those who aren’t railing against the use of language to make an analogy, it sounds like the people of Iraq are screwed.

They don’t have a suitable groundswell of motivation to take the action necessary to get the results they want. This isn’t any type of indictment, and I’d imagine that growing up or living under Saddam was not good training for standing up and taking action.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
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.

Oh for fuck sakes. If people are waiting to be lead, and nobody is taking action, then I’ll call them sheep if I damned well want to. If anyone has a problem with that, they can kiss my ass.

Thank you.

Now, if someone wants to demonstrate ways in which they are not acting like sheep, then perhaps I’ll choose another word. However, I’m not going to do so just to be fucking sensitive about the feelings of supposed others who might not like to be called sheep.

Until then, I’ll use whatever analogies appear to be applicable.[/quote]

Sistani and a mass of Shiite protesters took the lead and demanded elections against the U.S. will. This is one example. The General Union of Oil Employees in Basra (GUOE), or Basra Oil Union is another example. They are determined to keep the oil out of international hands by staging peaceful walk-outs and strikes. Iraqi Sunnis resisting foreign occupation (however brutal the resistance and occupation may be) is yet another example.

The Iraqis tried to resist under Saddam but failed. Thousands of Shiites were murdered after the first Iraq war for trying to rise against the government. If the Kurds weren’t being killed by Turkey they were being killed by Saddam. It’s not so easy to resist or fight back against oppression when you have a gun to your head.

The blame for this failed war lies with the Bush administration and the American people who did nothing to stop it - not the Iraqis.

Help or cooperate with the new government and/or the US forces, and you are a traitor. Fight against them and you are supporting elements which you may hate. What do you do? If I imagine myself in a similar position, I’d think I’d do my best to keep my family safe and survive. Seriously, 9/10, not dying trumps politics.

That being said, my fiancee’s little sister is about the same age as the girl that was raped and murdered by US soldiers.

I imagined how I would feel if it had been her. I’d would without a doubt become an insurgent, and odds are I would feel that executing collaborators is justifiable.

How do you fix it? Build a time machine.
No matter how bad Saddam was, things are certainly worse now.

Maybe they should free him, reinstate his presidency, and have everyone pretend nothing happened. Yep, that would definitely work…

[quote]vroom wrote:
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?

[/quote]
Vroom,

I agree with your ideas. How many of our leaders eve nconsidered what the Iraqi people wanted. What if the Iraqis’ ideas of nations and borders are completely different from the idea the US is forcing on it? It seems to me the US picked the figureheads it wanted in power and said to the people, “Vote for them they are your new leaders”.

This new country and government is a complete sham. Just from a historical perspective we are talking about people whose ideas of borders are non-existent. We have a power vacuum here and all the new tyrant “wannabes” are standing in line waiting for the US to leave. Personally I don’t care.

I don’t believe the hype that if the US leaves (today or tomorrow) that it will create any more instability than is already there. That country is f’d no matter what. They have at least a decade or so before we will see any of the violence slowing down. This is the new Israel-Palestine conflict.

The areas we call Iraq today were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire.

Under the Ottomans, the Sunnis, Shia, Jews, Christians, Kurds, all occupied various regions in common; these ethnic populations were not geographically separated. Where these different ethnicities coexisted, they each had their own religious law, religious courts, and religious police. That was how the Ottomans kept everything together, and how everybody managed to get along. It was probably the last time Mesopotamia “worked” in any political sense.

As a result of WWI the Ottoman Empire collapsed (it had sided with the Germans) and France and Britain divided the Middle East among themselves and their allies. Russia was supposed to get the part where the kurds are today, but the czar got himself knocked off and Britain wound up taking that part too.

The British called their chunk “Iraq” and imported a king from elsewhere, one with no local tribal connections, to be a suitably weak puppet monarch. They then settled in for a nice long stint of exploring, drilling and pumping (oil). However their prize turned out to be troublesome. It took a fair amount of military pressure to keep the lid on.

Held together first under imperial power and then under a sucession of local strongmen, a sense of national identity began to develop, primarily among a secularized middle class. That asset for nationalism is now pretty much kaput. Sectarian warfare is killing the middle class, pushing the middle class out of the country, and rendering the middle class irrelevant (Iraq having no economy to speak of these days).

Iraq as was is pretty much gone, all that’s left is the geography. The Iraqi moderates you’re exhorting are in a distinct minority, hunkered down and trying to survive. The best that can be done at this point would be to return to the model of governance under the Ottomans: separate arrangements for the separate sects, and a strong imperial power to guarantee the peace.

You can’t partitition the thing up into pieces without a lot of violence, because the ethnicities are too meshed geographically. Baghdad is multi-ethnic. Even pulling the Kurdish piece out of Iraq would cause a lot of violence because Kirkuk is multi-ethnic.

The outside power needed to prevent this tinderbox from exploding is going to be either Iran or the US, I don’t see any other choices. A strong central Iraqi democracy with lots of permanent US bases to project power into the region is no longer in the cards, if it ever was.

I don’t see much chance of us backing down and letting Iran fill the vacuum. Even the ‘realists’ in Washington won’t bite on that one, it’s politically untenable. Instead, what we’re going to get, whether we like it or not, is a long, slow, meat grinder. Since reconstituting the military draft in this country is not politically tenable, we can expect continued decimation of the Iraqi populace by American air power.

That’s the one bit of political flexibility the beltway boys have left: American casualties are always an issue, but it’s still politically okay in this country to kill Iraqi women and children by the thousands. We will waffle forward in this bloody fashion for some unpredictable amount of time.

Judging from the British experience, we should just get out and let the cards fall where they may. It will be for the best in the long run. The only hope for such an outcome is if the electorate in this country continues pounding on the “wise men” in Washington with a baseball bat, to make them disgorge the bad thing they tried to swallow.

well, i just got back fom Iraq, and i’ll write what i see as the issues…

i was in the Al Anbar province, which is like a third of the country. the people in that region have a lot of herds of goats and sheep, but few have real jobs. this is one of the big problems… also, these people are used to a dictator…they need a period of time to get used to making decisions, and setting up their own government.

there were about 18,000 troops where i was stationed. most of these troops were in support roles, and i would estimate that only about 2,000 of us ever left the base to conduct operations. this is another problem…

troops in Iraq do a period of time and return. generally, the Army does a year, and the other branches do about 6 months. now there are brief extensions here and there, but most peope have a good idea when they’re going home. this is the biggest problem that i see, since a lot of people simply count down 'til they leave, and know they won’t be there for the long haul. as bad as this sounds, if we fought this like WWII, everybody would be there, and wouldn’t come home 'til we were done.

there are a ton of civilian contractors in Iraq…from secuirty types, to truckers and even guys that do our laundry. these guys make a lot of money-on average, i would guess almost 10K a month, so i think they have a rather dramatic affect on the economy. with them, and the troops that return home, there are a lot of people pumping our economy full of money… this is the final problem i see.

Some good informative posts.

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn’t trying to place blame with my posts, but wondering what might be required to come out with something other than a clusterfuck.

If there isn’t a large “moderate” group of populace that is willing to exert itself, then I don’t see how we can avoid the region becoming an Iranian satellite.

This turns it into a huge recruiting and training ground for the long term future… which spells bad things all around. Anything can come out of that region and everyone can either wash their hands or claim responsibility at will and who’s going to actually be able to do something about it?

Also, I should note that the examples given don’t convince me that the general populace isn’t currently hunkered down like sheep waiting for all the trouble to go away. The groups mentioned appear to be those that are throwing society into disorder and disarray… cowing the rest into submission through terror.

That is not admirable. What is admirable is acting on principles and having others follow or accept your leadership because your words and principles stand on their own… not because you kidnap and torture anyone who doesn’t submit.

Seems that some folks around here have lost their way in this regard - trying to twist strong action itself into an admirable trait, when it is the character of the action that defines its quality, not the size or power of the participants.

In any case, attacking unarmed civilians is an act of shameful cowardice, truly supported by no religion.