Who Wants to Own a Somalia With Oil?

[Lemur]

Interesting essay (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4245) from FT today.


Surge or no surge, it’s extremely doubtful the U.S. occupation can ultimately produce a successful Iraq—a stable, unitary, democratizing state at peace with its neighbors. The surge is merely the most preliminary precursor to this intended outcome, and even Petraeus admits that it could all come undone overnight. [...]

This is hardly the fault of Petraeus, a brilliant general tasked with a nearly impossible mission. Building a decent political order in Iraq has always been something of a fantasy. Even if Petraeus somehow succeeds in bringing violence down to a manageable level, it may be generations before Iraq becomes the “dramatic and inspiring example of freedom” in the Middle East that President Bush has repeatedly invoked. Instead, it will most likely evolve into a country plagued by instability, ethnosectarian violence, weak institutions, and unreliable oil production—if we’re lucky. Few Americans would support spending $12 billion a month in Iraq if they understood that they were buying, at best, another Nigeria, and at worst, Somalia with oil.

Here's where the analysis really gets interesting:


Supporters of the Iraq war, however, should know better. Many of them seem to have forgotten the work of scholars like NYU political scientist Adam Przeworski, who has written extensively about the relationship between wealth and democracy. Above a per capita income of $6,055, Przeworski finds, “democracies last forever.” But below that threshold, democracies are more fragile. Iraq’s GDP per capita today is a paltry $3,600, but even that low figure is misleading. When a country depends so heavily on oil revenues, its GDP per capita says little about its real level of development (Equatorial Guinea, technically speaking, is the 12th-richest country in the world). Przeworski’s research therefore excludes major oil-producers, which have their own set of problems.

In fact, oil tells us nearly everything we need to know about Iraq’s grim future. The United States is betting billions that Iraq—which has traditionally depended on oil exports for 95 percent of its foreign-exchange earnings—will escape the curse of what a Venezuelan oil minister once called “the devil’s excrement.” Academic studies have shown repeatedly that poor countries with oil tend to be poorer, more repressive, and more prone to internal conflict than those without it.

So we're paying like mad and sacrificing our sons and daughters to own a Somalia with oil. Lovely.

[Pannonian]

Stability at all costs should be the goal. Find a hardman who can hold the country together with whatever means necessary. Never mind if he's pro or anti US, that's less important than his ability to hold the country together so we don't have to. Then give him a brief of holding Iraq together in one piece, whatever means he wishes to use, whatever he wishes to do with this Iraq, and materially back him. The result will be a far more repressive version of Saddam Hussain, who has free rein to be as hostile to the US as he wants even as he receives American weapons and money. But it will be a lesser evil than having Iraq fall apart.

[discovery1]

Stability at all costs should be the goal. Find a hardman who can hold the country together with whatever means necessary. Never mind if he's pro or anti US, that's less important than his ability to hold the country together so we don't have to. Then give him a brief of holding Iraq together in one piece, whatever means he wishes to use, whatever he wishes to do with this Iraq, and materially back him. The result will be a far more repressive version of Saddam Hussain, who has free rein to be as hostile to the US as he wants even as he receives American weapons and money. But it will be a lesser evil than having Iraq fall apart.

What a mistake, oh what a mistake then.

I mean the whole getting rid of Saddam.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Stability at all costs should be the goal. Find a hardman who can hold the country together with whatever means necessary. Never mind if he's pro or anti US, that's less important than his ability to hold the country together so we don't have to. Then give him a brief of holding Iraq together in one piece, whatever means he wishes to use, whatever he wishes to do with this Iraq, and materially back him. The result will be a far more repressive version of Saddam Hussain, who has free rein to be as hostile to the US as he wants even as he receives American weapons and money. But it will be a lesser evil than having Iraq fall apart.

The easiest way to achieve this would be letting Iran have the south and Turkey the north - leaving a kind of butcher's yard buffer zone where the Sunnis are currently present.

You will not find a strongman of the type you propose in the current mess. The country is now all but partitioned, and religious divisions almost irreconcilable - at least for some generations - which grouping would your strongman emerge from? "Strong men" invariably usurp existing structures or emerge from many years of civil strife/extreme instability to create structures for their own ends. Thus, to impose stability right now, the United States would have to impose a choice by extreme force - something they are singularly unable to do.

If stability at all costs is your choice, then either you turn the country (and its oil) over to the regional powers or inflict a bloodbath several orders of magnitude greater than the current one.

The point is; Iraq has fallen apart. It's broken. I know you are fond of realpolitik - but as options, I don't think they are open to any US president.

[Pannonian]

The easiest way to achieve this would be letting Iran have the south and Turkey the north - leaving a kind of butcher's yard buffer zone where the Sunnis are currently present.

You will not find a strongman of the type you propose in the current mess. The country is now all but partitioned, and religious divisions almost irreconcilable - at least for some generations - which grouping would your strongman emerge from? "Strong men" invariably usurp existing structures or emerge from many years of civil strife/extreme instability to create structures for their own ends. Thus, to impose stability right now, the United States would have to impose a choice by extreme force - something they are singularly unable to do.

If stability at all costs is your choice, then either you turn the country (and its oil) over to the regional powers or inflict a bloodbath several orders of magnitude greater than the current one.

The point is; Iraq has fallen apart. It's broken. I know you are fond of realpolitik - but as options, I don't think they are open to any US president.
There's still al-Sadr, who's credibly anti-American and reasonably pan-Iraq in aim (if not appeal). British governments used to deal with their erstwhile opponents all the time during the colonial wind-down period, with terrorists who were a threat to civilisation and never to be dealt with suddenly becoming friendly presidents of the newly independent republics. Why can't the US do the same?

[Samurai Waki]

...well, it was gonna happen sooner or later. I don't think Uday and Kusay had the cojones to run the country like their dad did. And because saddam kept a rather repressive leash on his Ba'athist Ministers, none of them would have likely stood up to the challenge. Iraq, as a country is impossible until either Moderate Muslims have the will to stand up to the extreme elements, or until a Nationalist "One World For all Muslims" Sentiment appears, however it is unlikely either will happen, or if one does, it will take an epoch.

[Oleander Ardens]

It is good to know that this essay from the FT points to a very simple fact which I already have mentioned here in the .org. The cost of this ill-advised war has been gigantic in non-monetary and monetery terms, in human and political capital and still is, every day it is increasing. So we know that "staying the course" and trying to achieve "stability at all cost" is hugely costly. What we don't know what will happen afterwards. In our complex world the retreat of the US Army could well increase longterm stability or the sectarian bloodbath.

But to stick to the mission just because you have thrown money out of the windows doesn't mean that you must continue to throw out more money to give the impression you did a perfectly sensible thing before... :smash:

OA

[Banquo's Ghost]

There's still al-Sadr, who's credibly anti-American and reasonably pan-Iraq in aim (if not appeal). British governments used to deal with their erstwhile opponents all the time during the colonial wind-down period, with terrorists who were a threat to civilisation and never to be dealt with suddenly becoming friendly presidents of the newly independent republics. Why can't the US do the same?

Al-Sadr is hardly a strongman. His own base is fractured, he is an Iranian puppet, and he doesn't even unify the Shia. He has also repeatedly backed down in the face of military confrontation - largely because his paymasters in Iran don't want to play their hand until the US has left.

British imperialists knew that it was always unwise to smash a country thoroughly before then trying to find someone to do business with. The British Empire was pragmatic, as you say, and merely co-opted the existing structures with payments or placemen, changing them to suit over several generations.

Iraq is different. Her whole political and physical infrastructure was destroyed in the belief that an alien model could then be imposed on the rubble. Her people were allowed, nay encouraged, into an orgy of sectarian violence that has dispossessed the country of its brightest and best through exile or death.

This is not a colonial wind-down.

[Redleg]

Iraq is different. Her whole political and physical infrastructure was destroyed in the belief that an alien model could then be imposed on the rubble. Her people were allowed, nay encouraged, into an orgy of sectarian violence that has dispossessed the country of its brightest and best through exile or death.

You give the planners of the invasion of Iraq to much credit. They honestly thought that many would flock to the banner of democracy once Saddam was removed from power, that the alien model would take hold immediately upon his removal.

Now the main failure was that there was no plan for what to do if the first scenerio did not happen. This opened the door for complete and utter chaos.

[Geoffrey S]

The only real possibility I see for stability in at least part of Iraq there is Iran, exerting influence by proxy of al-Sadr. The irony is that the US and Iran have far more in common than either are willing to acknowledge - a shame, because both would gain from a more stable region. But pandering to the public in an international pissing match seems to have the priority.

The rest, though, would be screwed, and probably are regardless. If things get worse I'd be most worried about what exactly will happen in the north, because the Kurds are not going to ignore such a chance at autonomy.

[rory_20_uk]

I am sure that China would have a much more... robust way of sorting out the problem. None of this missiles at a distance, but troops taking on and breaking hard point after hard point with losses viewed as acceptable - people replenish over time, oil doesn't.

Again, China is used to fighting against religion and sees democracy as a problem, not a desirable outcome.

I imagine that if China has "war fatigue" it'd be far greater than the western "powers" and although the armed forces are not as high tech a unified command with clear cut objectives would help.

~:smoking:

[El Diablo]

Ummmmmm....

Was some one looking for a dictator?

Mugabe might be out of power soon.

Send him up there.

"Hello country missing a despot, here meet Mr Mugabe, Mr Mugabe meet Iraq."

Problem solved.

Some how I do not think so.... :no:

[rotorgun]

Hi all,

I haven't been able to get back to the posts as I am busy preparing for a deployment myself, but If I may add a small point. We of the United States Military certainly don't want to spend our entire lives or careers tied up in Iraq. That being said, it is also a part of what we accepted when we "signed up for the pancakes" by volunteering to serve. Speaking for myself, I'll do what I must to bring a successful end to this mission if one can be achieved. Whereas this is possible is certainly debatable. It all comes down to will- do we have the will to follow it through?

I also feel that we must take a hard look at what it will really take, and disavow this fantasy that there is some sort of "exit strategy" that will achieve anything but admit defeat. I am under few delusions when I say that my fellow Americans just cannot seem to sympathize with the plight of the people of this country in the way they did with Europe, England, the Pacific Basin, Korea, and even Viet Nam. Even I cannot help but wonder what in the hell I am about going to a place were I am seen as an infidel who will only leave after a year or so, or as an occupier at best. It will take many years of patient occupation and reeducation to change this mindset. We will also need to stop this pointless giving back of cleared areas to the insurgents. Why sacrifice our blood, just to let these jackals move right back in afterwards?

Unfortunately this will require the total commitment of the military to succeed IMHO. It's either that or admit defeat, pull out, and let the Iranians and fanatics take over. Only the strong-man can rule Iraq. So either we must be strong-in a way that the Iraqis understand-or accept or abject failure.

Commitment is not going to be easy. As Colin Powell tried to warn us-"If you break it, it's yours to fix".

[Papewaio]

and even Viet Nam. Even I cannot help but wonder what in the hell I am about going to a place were I am seen as an infidel who will only leave after a year or so, or as an occupier at best. It will take many years of patient occupation and reeducation to change this mindset. We will also need to stop this pointless giving back of cleared areas to the insurgents. Why sacrifice our blood, just to let these jackals move right back in afterwards?


Sounds like the problem they had in Viet Nam where the US military would 'win' a piece of land. Give it to the South and then due to a combination of different scenarios the US military would have to win it all over again.

What I don't understand is that if an opponent is openly the leader of a organisation that is using terrorism and those terrorist attacks are against civilians in Iraq that they are not stomped on. Sure give him the option to come to the peace table. But surely after 3 attempts wipe him and his militia off the face of the earth. That would be a far more effective method of saying that the US means what it says about terrorism.

I say increase the surge and put down all the militias that are fighting against the State.

[Furious Mental]

"I say increase the surge and put down all the militias that are fighting against the State."

That isn't really apt to describe the situation there. Really the only militia that is clearly "against the state" is Al Qaeda in Iraq. All the others have some toehold in government in some form which they wish to defend and enlarge but of course they are certainly prepared to attack "the state" where it aids that agenda.

[Vladimir]

I'll skip the absurdly of the OP and answer your question with one word: China.

No link for you, Google China and Africa.

Merging threads in a way.

[Lemur]

Vladimir, my friend, it's a little early in the day to be posting drunk, no?

[rotorgun]

What I don't understand is that if an opponent is openly the leader of a organisation that is using terrorism and those terrorist attacks are against civilians in Iraq that they are not stomped on. Sure give him the option to come to the peace table. But surely after 3 attempts wipe him and his militia off the face of the earth. That would be a far more effective method of saying that the US means what it says about terrorism.

I totally agree with you here. The problem is that it will be very messy, with a great chance of colateral damage and casualties as these guys are so deeply entrenched within the local communities. We must have the courage to face the critisizm that will surely come our way from such an action. It's part and parcel with the type of war it has become. I feel that the Iraqis will have more respect for us if we shall take such decisive measures. They are certainly suffering more casualties from the malitias than we would cause in the their elimination IMO. Afterwards, we must garrison such an area to prevent insurgency from rekindling. The people must be made to feel safe. In this way trust may be garnered.


I say increase the surge and put down all the militias that are fighting against the State.

Bear in mind that I, as a soldier, abhor war as I say this - but I feel we must adopt a "Total War" mentallity or we will fail. I can't remember who said it, but the jist of it goes "To show restraint towards the enemy in war is the hieght of folly." (Citation needed) This enemy in particular is of the most dedicated and commited. It will call for the same kind of resolve to defeat him.

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, my friend, it's a little early in the day to be posting drunk, no?

Now where were you when I posted my puppy comment, huh? :inquisitive:

No puppies for oil I say.

Keep them in the babe thread. HAH! :barrel:

[Xiahou]

I've said it before, al-Sadr should have had an "accident" several years ago. Sure it would've been messy, but at least he'd be out of the way and not poking his head up from Iran every couple months and fighting a proxy war.

I see al-Maliki is approving legislation that prohibits parties with militias from participating in the upcoming elections. An interesting idea, but we'll have to see if he can muscle it thru.

As to the OP, the Somali analogy is as flawed as the Vietnam one. They're all very different situations- comparisons like that just dumb the situation down and are designed to evoke an emotional response.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You give the planners of the invasion of Iraq to much credit. They honestly thought that many would flock to the banner of democracy once Saddam was removed from power, that the alien model would take hold immediately upon his removal.

Now the main failure was that there was no plan for what to do if the first scenerio did not happen. This opened the door for complete and utter chaos.

Sadly, I think you are all too correct as to the shape of the original post-Saddam strategy.

Many of our European allies long for the day when Bush will say, out loud, "I was wrong, you were right; Saddam should have been kept there to keep a lid on the cesspool." Until Bush says that (not a likely event), it is unlikely that he'll get much support to do anything in Iraq.

Banquo has the right of it, though. Iraq is as it is. Humpty Dumpty shattered and someone or something has to pick up the pieces. So....

Should the USA's European allies commit fully to peace-keeping efforts propping up the current regime until it can institutionalize some form of stable quasi-democratic government (probably with a high degree of federalism/regional autonomy), recognizing that this is a decades-long project at least as complex as that occurring in the Balkans

OR

Should the USA's allies assume that a bloody civil war is inevitable and necessary and push aggressively for a very fast withdrawal from Iraq so that the bloodshed can begin, conclude, and a new stasis point be reached (negotiating with the winners of that internicine conflict).



Currently, many of our European colleagues seem locked in an inactive "we still say you shouldn't have done that" mode. Even if fully correct in that view (which I'll stipulate and which history may well prove accurate), a remorseless chorus of "I told you so's" doesn't do anything to resolve the problem.

Thoughts?

[Tribesman]

I see al-Maliki is approving legislation that prohibits parties with militias from participating in the upcoming elections. An interesting idea, but we'll have to see if he can muscle it thru.

Asis from the fact that not only does he have to rely on the parties with militias to form his block in government and without their support he falls , this will never get past the two main Kurdish parties with their very large and very well armed militias .
So as for seeing if he can muscle it through ...yeah snowballs in hell

[Geoffrey S]

I see al-Maliki is approving legislation that prohibits parties with militias from participating in the upcoming elections. An interesting idea, but we'll have to see if he can muscle it thru.
With possibly the biggest militia involved in Iraqi politics backing him?

[Tribesman]

With possibly the biggest militia involved in Iraqi politics backing him?

No , one of the Kurd groups has a bigger militia .
You gotta admit though that its very funny when you get a very right wing American speaking in approval of a politician that is backed by Iran and Iranian backed militias , a politician who spent their time learning politics in Iran and Syria, and not only that , but a politician whose party bombed a US embassy .
Funny old world isn't it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Furious Mental]

Well they are having to rebuild the army with ex-Republican Guards and fight their ex-allies the Shi'ite militias with their ex-enemies the Sunni insurgents. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Should the USA's European allies commit fully to peace-keeping efforts propping up the current regime until it can institutionalize some form of stable quasi-democratic government (probably with a high degree of federalism/regional autonomy), recognizing that this is a decades-long project at least as complex as that occurring in the Balkans

Not a chance in Hell. Quite apart from the outcome being unattainable, it would be politically impossible to sell.


OR

Should the USA's allies assume that a bloody civil war is inevitable and necessary and push aggressively for a very fast withdrawal from Iraq so that the bloodshed can begin, conclude, and a new stasis point be reached (negotiating with the winners of that internicine conflict).

I've argued for this "solution" for some time now. As horrible as that would be, Iraq was always an artificial construct kept together by repression. Civil wars have been the historical method of resolving these kinds of conflicts about identity. Latterly, we have got better at persuading communities to talk rather than fight, but not much better.

Iraq, as I've noted, is broken. Only the Iraqis can put it back together, with some level of interference by neighbours with enough strategic interest - and less regard for their soldiers' lives - to be involved in such a bloodbath.

All it takes is the bitter realisation that Bush's war has done little but give the region's hegemony to Iran. Not much of a return for 4,000 American deaths and countless broken lives.

[Samurai Waki]

Or possibly a good return on 4,000 american lives... I don't mean this in the tragic sense. Any modernisation of Islam will certainly save more (American) lives than it will kill. Unfortunately, whatever path we head now, there will be large amount of heart ache and devastation to come, on both sides of the conflict. Iran can not possibly keep the status quo, and Saudi Arabia will certainly do whatever it can in it's vast religious power to prevent a status quo. America will be present in the region until either America Falls, or a great revelation occurs. Two Iraqi girls recently moved into town, and I haven't talked with either yet, but it seems like they miss home, they seem like they both have good heads on their shoulders, and from what I can tell (both being medical students at the university) that they're trying to return a favor to their homeland. I like Iraqis in the fact that despite the sectarian and religious differences they harbor against each other, that all I've met regard themselves as Iraqi first. That is hopeful, but not likely a reality for many decades to come... but steps are being made, no matter how small, to allow islam, and the idea of Iraq the chance to get the respect it deserves in the western world. If this works, despite how pessimistic I am, then it will prove that beyond any undeniable circumstance that dignity of one's self is far more important than the Dogma of one's religion.

[Geoffrey S]

No , one of the Kurd groups has a bigger militia .
More than 140,000?

[Vladimir]

Not a chance in Hell. Quite apart from the outcome being unattainable, it would be politically impossible to sell.

Another soothsayer. What lottery numbers should I pick for tomorrow?


I've argued for this "solution" for some time now. As horrible as that would be, Iraq was always an artificial construct kept together by repression. Civil wars have been the historical method of resolving these kinds of conflicts about identity. Latterly, we have got better at persuading communities to talk rather than fight, but not much better.

Iraq, as I've noted, is broken. Only the Iraqis can put it back together, with some level of interference by neighbours with enough strategic interest - and less regard for their soldiers' lives - to be involved in such a bloodbath.

All it takes is the bitter realisation that Bush's war has done little but give the region's hegemony to Iran. Not much of a return for 4,000 American deaths and countless broken lives.

There is plenty of fighting, hopefully we're getting smarter about who to kill or let die. What makes you "Iraq is broken" people think that it was whole in the first place? Scrap metal and Bondo does not a muscle car make. It's like something people have said about the intelligence community: CIA is broken--everybody knows it's broken--CIA is still broken. Yet somehow they've managed to get by for a good while now. Good enough for government work isn't a cliché, it's how things work.

Something which also gauls me is when people say that there is no "Iraq" but that its fate is up to Iraqis:inquisitive: .

How much influence does Iran have in the region? How much influence will it have? Can anyone here comprehend the long term prospects of "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan? You're worried about Iranian influence in the region? Will there be Iranian influence in the region? It's natural and easy to be pessimistic; there is comfort in thinking new things will fail, maintaining the world as you know it. I don't have time for that. How many English deaths and broken lives have occurred around the world and what was the consequence? Who really cares, it's just King [sic] George's war anyway right?

[Lemur]

Can anyone here comprehend the long term prospects of "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Don't conflate the two wars, it weakens your argument.

[Vladimir]

Don't conflate the two wars, it weakens your argument.

What is my argument? The two relate both to my post and Banquo's. Am I violating a psychological boundary in your mind?

So the answer for you is: No.

[Lemur]

What is my argument?
Excellent question. Upon re-reading your post, I can't say that you're making any cohesive argument at all. However, this thread was begun with a discussion of Iraq, and all of the posts have been on that subject. If you're going to drag Afghanistan into the mix without so much as an introduction, you'll just have to pardon me for pointing out that the two are not the same, never have been and never will be, and that rhetoric based on conflating the two is likely to be false.

[Vladimir]

Excellent question. Upon re-reading your post, I can't say that you're making any cohesive argument at all. However, this thread was begun with a discussion of Iraq, and all of the posts have been on that subject. If you're going to drag Afghanistan into the mix without so much as an introduction, you'll just have to pardon me for pointing out that the two are not the same, never have been and never will be, and that rhetoric based on conflating the two is likely to be false.

So is that a white or red oak?

I'm sure you're a good guy Lemur but you don't think things through here (.org). It's hard for me too given time constraints. What is the larger strategic significance of Iraq? What can it be? Did I say they were the same or you assuming that I am. You're also assuming that the intent was to form an argument.

Were you trying to form an argument? What two countries are more similar: Iraq and Somalia or Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the strategic significance of Somalia? You derailed the thread before you made the first post!

[rotorgun]

So is that a white or red oak?

I'm sure you're a good guy Lemur but you don't think things through here (.org). It's hard for me too given time constraints. What is the larger strategic significance of Iraq? What can it be? Did I say they were the same or you assuming that I am. You're also assuming that the intent was to form an argument.

Were you trying to form an argument? What two countries are more similar: Iraq and Somalia or Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the strategic significance of Somalia? You derailed the thread before you made the first post!

I won't try to answer all of the excellent questions posed by you here, but only the Strategic signifigance of Somalia and Iraq. I found an intersting article here:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=383&language_id=1

This paragraph seems to sum it up as far as Somalia goes:


With a population estimated at approximately 10.5 million people, a predominantly pastoral economy, no strategic resources and a rudimentary industrial base that has been decimated by civil war, Somalia's strategic significance resides in its close proximity to Arabia across a stretch of the Red Sea. Given its geographical position, Washington and European powers have in interest in stabilizing Somalia, primarily because its fragmentation has provided the opportunity for Islamic revolutionary movements, including al-Qaeda, to gain a foothold in weakly governed areas. An additional cause of concern is the appearance of domestic Islamist movements and of Islamic courts with their own militia that have arisen in response to the authority deficit. [See: "Do Al-Qaeda's East Africa Operations Pose a Threat to U.S. Interests?"

This link seemed a good one to look at Iraq's strategic imprtance, at least to the Bush Administration:

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hipj/iraq%20leaflet.doc

The first paragraph makes it fairly succint:

Iraq’s Strategic Significance: the real reason we went to war


Iraq’s oil reserves are the second largest in the world and have the potential to challenge Saudi Arabia as a guarantor of world oil price stability, if the proper infrastructure is developed to tap into these reservoirs. The Iraqi oil supply can be used to promote the interests of U.S. multinational corporations and the government’s economic agenda as long as they have control and access over it. Bush often proclaims Iraqi oil is for the Iraqi people – but even if oil revenues did return to Iraqis, this would be less significant for global economic leverage than who has control and access. By invading Iraq and constructing a government sympathetic to U.S. interests, the Bush administration invests in power over oil price fluctuation – and establishes bases for a stronger military presence in the region.

This all ties in well with the established views of the Neoconservative think tank effort known as The Project for the New American Century, whose members included Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Dick Cheney during the previous Bush administration, and then following into the current administration until his appointment in the World Bank. Although Somalia is not as important for the same reasons, it is a part of the overall strategic goal of discouraging any competitors from seeking a larger influence in the Persian Gulf region-another of the stated goals of the Former Secretary of Defense, know known as Vice President Cheney.

PS: I think that the real point of this thread is to point out the similarities of Somalia and Iraq being ruled by malitia backed thugs, whose primary interests are very narrow minded and parochial.

[Tribesman]

More than 140,000?
Which militia gas those numbers Geoffrey ?

[Lemur]

You derailed the thread before you made the first post!
If I believed in siggies, I would use that one. A truly impeccable example of rhetoric defying all logic and sense.


What two countries are more similar: Iraq and Somalia or Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the strategic significance of Somalia?
And you are reacting far more to the thread title than the opening post or the linked article, which I sincerely doubt you even read. The author proposed a best-case/worst-case outcome for Iraq, and suggested that the American public hasn't really considered the likely outcomes. He also draws in some interesting factoids from other fields.

It's a good article, and I think you'd enjoy reading it, even though it does not conform to your neo-con worldview.

[Xiahou]

you'll just have to pardon me for pointing out that the two are not the same, never have been and never will be, and that rhetoric based on conflating the two is likely to be false.
Sort of like Somalia and Iraq. ~:idea:

[Kagemusha]

A can of worms is can of worms, no matter from which perspective you look at it.Now i dont claim to be expert in situation in Iraq, but my humble view is that there really are not any kind of good paths to take.
First we have the three main factions in Iraq, The Sunni, The Shiia´s and the Kurds. Two of them are ethnically speaking Iraqi, while separated by religion and the third, the Kurds are a different people all together. The Shiias are backed by Iran, while it suits Iran´s interest to keep Iraq weak and separated. Correct me if im wrong, but im under the impression that the Iraqi Shiias also have little to none desire to be ruled by the Persians, no matter if the religion is the same, so basicly the relationship between Iraqi Shiias and Iran is forced one to the Iraqi Shiias, since there is no one else who support them.
Next we have the Sunni, who used to rule Iraq under Saddams regime. Both Shiia´s and Kurds have beef with them because of the past and now that Saddam and his regime are goners, they dont have means to take control in Iraq again.
Third we have the Kurds in northern Iraq, who have minorities in many middle east countries, including Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. So their growing as the main power in Iraq, would cause all the neighboring countries to interfere in the situation in Iraq, so the Kurdish movements would not spread to their own countries.
So who from these should west back up? Go into unholy alliance with Iran and back Shiias? Take the side of Sunnis, who are the main force behind the insurgent situation? Or maybe back the Kurds and loose main allies in middle east like Turkey?
I dont see any viable options, there, but then i thank God i dont have to resolve this mess.
Basically in a situation where there is nothing to win a withdrawal would sound like a viable option, but then does the west want to take the risk that a civil war could spread to surrounding countries? Turkey has already used military power in the north and in case a hypothetical civil war would start and Shiias would get the loosing card, how would west react in a possible intervention by Iran? Also if the Sunnis would get the smackdown, would Syria and other arab states interfere?
Like i said can of worms.:shame:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Many of our European allies long for the day when Bush will say, out loud, "I was wrong, you were right; Saddam should have been kept there to keep a lid on the cesspool."

a remorseless chorus of "I told you so's" I think the diplomatic stance about this topic is polite silence, not "I told you so's". Told-you-so's concerning Iraq are way past their expiration date, and are misplaced in the current transatlantic climate.
(Incidently, personally would call the invasion of Iraq a failure, but not necessarily a mistake...)


Should the USA's European allies commit fully to peace-keeping efforts I think Banquo thoroughly overestimated the chances of this option happening when he guessed it as 'no change in Hell'.

Although more European* troops for Iraq won't happen for at least the foreseeable future, there is another option. It is to commit more troops to Afghanistan (*waves at Lemur* ~;) ) by European partners, as was decided at the NATO summit two weeks ago. This eases the burden of the countries who are committed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It could be considered indirect support for a prolonged or increased presence in Iraq.

*Upon re-reading, I notice that I equated Europe with France here. This is, come to think of it, not correct. Europe is made up of lots of peninsulas attached to the French mainland, plus several islands off of her coast. The natives of this outer rim are known to often have wildy differing opinions compared to us.


Should the USA's allies assume that a bloody civil war is inevitable and necessary and push aggressively for a very fast withdrawal from IraqUp until, what was it, somewhere last year, this was indeed the expected course in French diplomatic circles as far as I can tell. Currently, however, there are promising signs that the situation in Iraq has stabilised. There could yet be a 'soft landing'.
I for one am no longer in favour of a withdrawal asap. I wish the democratic candidates would change their opinion about this too. Abandoning the hapless people of Iraq to a bloody civil war must be avoided if it all possible. A somewhat stable and workable solution seems no longer unfeasible, and is worth giving a shot.

I no longer believe that the American presence is only prolonging the inevitable civil war and breakup. For much the same reason, I am oppossed to installing Saddam 2.0. If only a strongman can keep Iraq together, then another Saddam will only prolong this inevitability as well, and we'll have the same problems again in twenty years time. Better would be, to find some sort of workable solution. Together with Iran and whatever other devils are necessary if need be.

[Furious Mental]

Up until a year ago it looked likely that the country would collapse in an orgy of violence within a year. It still looks likely that will collapse in an orgy of violence, but not so soon. The state has had a such a dysfunctional birth that it will eventually disintegrate like other artificial countries held together by ethnic and tribal compacts and/or outside patronage and/or constant military force, just like Yugoslavia, Zaire, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc, etc.

[rotorgun]

Up until a year ago it looked likely that the country would collapse in an orgy of violence within a year. It still looks likely that will collapse in an orgy of violence, but not so soon. The state has had a such a dysfunctional birth that it will eventually disintegrate like other artificial countries held together by ethnic and tribal compacts and/or outside patronage and/or constant military force, just like Yugoslavia, Zaire, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc, etc.

If this is the case, which is probably true, than perhaps it is time to consider the dividing of Iraq into seperate states, or zones along political/ethnic lines.
(The old divide and conquer method) It would be difficult to do at first, but much easier to administrate afterwards, not to mention making it more difficult for the various malitias and insurgent groups to operate with impunity.
I would divide the oil and tax revenues proportionally among them (only as each group agrees to sit down peacefully in the parliment), and police the borders heavily between the zones.

Finally we must police all the G---d---- Ak 47's that everyone and their brother seems to own! For goodness sake, what are we thinking about letting this go undone. It's the first thing that the Romans would have done, and they were masters of the hostile take-over.

[Tribesman]

It's the first thing that the Romans would have done, and they were masters of the hostile take-over.

Of course the Romans .... whatever happened to them ?

[rotorgun]

Of course the Romans .... whatever happened to them ?

Hmm...let's see. Well...after around close to a thousand years of ruling the then known world the empire collapsed from a combination of external forces and inward corruption and decay. Of course this is the eventual fate of all empires in the end as nothing lasts forever. Still, one must admit that they set the standard for the modern world as far as empire building goes. I say that if the US wants to try its hand at the game, we may as well take a few paragraphs from the old pros. If not then we should quit trying to run with the big dogs and stay on the porch. :clown:

[Kagemusha]

Hmm...let's see. Well...after around close to a thousand years of ruling the then known world the empire collapsed from a combination of external forces and inward corruption and decay. Of course this is the eventual fate of all empires in the end as nothing lasts forever. Still, one must admit that they set the standard for the modern world as far as empire building goes. I say that if the US wants to try its hand at the game, we may as well take a few paragraphs from the old pros. If not then we should quit trying to run with the big dogs and stay on the porch. :clown:

In modern world, if US wants to have an empire, they should win the economical race, not conquer middle east countries. Money is the deciding factor and when it comes to making money, if im not wrong China passed you in exporting goods last year while EU is number one currently in that game. So maybe sitting on your porch actually might be very good option, compared to the unilateralist policy the Bush administration tried.

[rotorgun]

In modern world, if US wants to have an empire, they should win the economical race, not conquer middle east countries. Money is the deciding factor and when it comes to making money, if im not wrong China passed you in exporting goods last year while EU is number one currently in that game. So maybe sitting on your porch actually might be very good option, compared to the unilateralist policy the Bush administration tried.

I totally agree with you, both in substance and in principal. Perhaps the Bush/Cheney led industrial complex see this as a way of insuring the ability to control oil prices-through the control of the oil of a "friendly democratic Iraq" By such control they may believe that this can be used to slow down the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, which is becoming ever more dependent on oil. These oil reserves also represent a strategic "ace up their sleeve" in case it should ever come to conflict. This was learned the hard way during WWII when the supplies of Persian Gulf oil were disrupted, causing the US to have to dig into its own strategic oil stockpiles, resulting in severe shortages back home.

Surely we could have found a better way than this poorly run preemptive war. That was the point of my last post I guess. I only think that if we were going to take such a drastic measure, than we should quit deceiving ourselves into thinking that the majority of the world view this as some sort of liberation. It is just another case of the "Strong doing what they may, while the weak do what they must" (Ancient Greeks). So if we are going to do as the romans did, than we may as well do it right and get this behind us quickly. Otherwise, as Von Rundstedt once told the German High Command, "Make peace you fools!"

[Lemur]

I trust everybody has heard about this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080418/wl_mcclatchy/2913186).


The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

[Tribesman]

Just wondering Lemur , since the Iraq fiasco is already a very costly waste did someone really have to spend the time and money writing a paper just to state the obvious about it ?

[Furious Mental]

It's very important to the credibility of their country that all measures be taken to make sure George W Bush doesn't put up another "Mission Accomplished" banner.

[rotorgun]

Lemur,
That was a very timely post. I enjoyed that article enormously. Especially this part:


Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."

I would personally like to make this into a banner, roll it very tightly, lubricate it with some crude oil, and "shove it where the sun don't shine" up the "right honorable" keesters of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Evidently all that alleged education that these two "wunderkinden" have had didn't include military history-or else they just slept through it. Right George W......it's really a well done.

Debacle Accomplished!

[Xiahou]

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so? I don't know that many of us could've predicted such a thing, yet it seems to be happening (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AtCbo56JjsXW.cIFsvC9AEm9IxIF).

A few highlights:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, assured visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he will not back down in his confrontation with Shiite militias, even as mortar shells fired from Shiite areas struck the U.S.-protected Green Zone.

In a sign of that resolve, Iraqi soldiers took control Sunday of the last stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the southern city of Basra, where an Iraqi offensive last month triggered the current wave of Shiite fighting.
Nevertheless, al-Sadr appears increasingly isolated politically, as major Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish parties have rallied behind al-Maliki in his showdown with the militias.

---

Finally we must police all the G---d---- Ak 47's that everyone and their brother seems to own! For goodness sake, what are we thinking about letting this go undone. It's the first thing that the Romans would have done, and they were masters of the hostile take-over.
I think trying to do that would be both a waste of time and just a bad idea. Most US casualties are due to explosives, not AK47's. And even if they did gather them up, they'd be quickly replaced by shiny new one's from Iran. It's much simpler and better PR just to let households keep an AK47 as some modicum of protection.

[Pannonian]

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so?
IIRC Tribesman has been making the point all along that it's not a matter of simplified religious divides, but more of factions. I certainly remember reading in Iraqi blogs (way back in 2003) about the tensions and conflicts between the Badr brigade and the Mahdi army, both of which were Shi'a. The recent government crackdown can be seen as an extension of that, with al-Maliki (whose main Iraqi backers are apparently Badr leaders) coming down on the Mahdi army.

[Tribesman]

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so? I don't know that many of us could've predicted such a thing, yet it seems to be happening.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Who would have thought it ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
just about anyone with a functioning brain:dizzy2:

Oh sorry its clearly too hard for you to have thought of .
Here have some simple steps to follow ...
Lots of parties lots of militias .
Some parties and militias become friends .
Some friends upset each other and are no longer friends .
They have a little fight and all the parties and militias that are either no longer friends or have never been friends support the move .

Simple isn't it .
Then again since I cannot recall anytime when you have been able to see even the most obvious events in this fiasco as what they are I can see why you have difficulty understanding anything relating to the debacle .

Tell you what Xiahou why not try another "good news from Iraq" topic ...you could go with this little episode ...perhaps along the lines of ...
"Long term Iranian backed militia turns up the heat on short term Iranian backed upstart to keep him in order":yes:

[Furious Mental]

These divisions and rivalries have always existed. The only people who would be surprised at this are the clods who thought the country was governed by such simple communitarian relationships that if they gave a bunch of ministries to Shi'ites, a bunch of ministries to Sunnies and a bunch of ministries to Kurds they would all get along.

[rotorgun]

Who would've thought even a couple years ago that we'd have a Shiite-led government that would have the will to crack down on their own (meaning Shiite) militias and would enjoy some measure of popular support in doing so? I don't know that many of us could've predicted such a thing, yet it seems to be happening (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AtCbo56JjsXW.cIFsvC9AEm9IxIF).

I suppose some people might think that this is good news. I tend to take the view that it's more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic


I think trying to do that would be both a waste of time and just a bad idea. Most US casualties are due to explosives, not AK47's. And even if they did gather them up, they'd be quickly replaced by shiny new one's from Iran. It's much simpler and better PR just to let households keep an AK47 as some modicum of protection.

That's all fine and good, unless you are one of the people being shot at by thsoe AK-47s. A "modicum of protection" is a handgun, hunting rifle, or a shotgun. Ordinary Iraqi citizens owning fully automatic weapons should be outlawed as it is in most civilised countries. I agree with you that the majority of casualties are caused by explosives, but most of those explosions happening in a firefight begin with the firing of AK-47s followed by an RPG or two. Taking these types of weapons out of homes would send a clear message to Iraqis-if you are caught with them after such a measure is taken, you will be considered as an insurgent at worst, or as a criminal at best. Finding out who is behind the illegal selling of tham would then be made much easier, as the weapons would be considered illegal.

[Xiahou]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Who would have thought it ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
just about anyone with a functioning brain:dizzy2:
Guess that rules you out then. :wink:
Better go back and read some of your own posts.

[Tribesman]

Guess that rules you out then.
Better go back and read some of your own posts.

Go on Xiahou , be a devil , quote me :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Furious Mental]

As regards illegal groups, it's small arms that are the basis of their stranglehold on much of the population. Saying that small arms don't matter because bombs are the biggest killer of American troops, as though that were the sole factor determining the stability of the country, evinces a very narrow view of the conflict. However the fact is that confiscating weapons from ordinary people probably wouldn't achieve much because the various gangs of thugs will, in places that they control, already have confiscated the weapons or forced people pay for a "licence".

[rotorgun]

As regards illegal groups, it's small arms that are the basis of their stranglehold on much of the population. Saying that small arms don't matter because bombs are the biggest killer of American troops, as though that were the sole factor determining the stability of the country, evinces a very narrow view of the conflict. However the fact is that confiscating weapons from ordinary people probably wouldn't achieve much because the various gangs of thugs will, in places that they control, already have confiscated the weapons or forced people pay for a "licence".

Good point. Preventing these "thugs" from being able to intimidate the people depends on how well one can secure an area after it is initially cleared. Clear and Hold is an effective strategy, and the only one that has had any real success IMO. The problem is that it can't be accomplished in a coutry the size of Iraq with 140-160,000 soldiers, many of whom are mere force protection for the 200-300,000 civilian contractors over there. We've already seen how efficient the alleged Iraqi security forces are; curruption is rampant within this organization, not to mention the problem of divided loyalties.

As much as I hate to admit it, Senetor McCain is right about one thing. It will take an ever increasing commitment on the part of the US to win this conflict. Commitment means more soldiers able to give the Clear and Hold strategy a chance to work. If we aren't commited as a nation, than we must withdraw, admit defeat, and prepare for a real "Somalia" to happen in Iraq-a civil war that will be the mother of all bloodbaths.