Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation

To be fair to the isolationist crowd, ATPG, they usually put the advent of US imperialism at around 1898 -- the Phillipines being their first "bad" example. The ACW was, to the isolationists, the last war we should have been involved in as it was the war by/through which the USA's one "at start" critical flaw was corrected.

Isolationists are more "mixed" in their views regarding: the undeclared naval war with France, the conflicts with (one declared, others not) the "Barbary Pirates" (read Tunisia, Libya, and to a lesser extent Morocco), the Mexican-American War, the campaigns against the amerinds (aka native americans, indians, injuns, indigenous peoples), the punitive expedition against Pancho Villa, our attempts to invade Canada during both the Revolution and the War of 1812, and the border posturing in support of the overthrow of Ferdinand of Mexico in 1865-1867.

If you want a couple of good authors on the imperialism issues, I'd suggest:

Smedley Butler

Max Boot

Quote:

---

Smedley Butler

---

What an amazing man. A true marine. Won two medals of honor I believe. Its hard to believe he wrote some of that stuff. I mean what the hell did he know :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

What an amazing man. A true marine. Won two medals of honor I believe. Its hard to believe he wrote some of that stuff. I mean what the hell did he know :laugh4:

---

:laugh4:

Yes. 2 MoH. They may have been a mite easier to acquire (and survive) then, but still an impressive accomplishment.

He had very few illusions about what he was doing, but he was also not of the opinion that everything we were doing was wrong either.

Smedley Butler aside, didn't the Iraqis set up their constitution so that the individual factions could all have a limited autonomy of their own? I don't know, as I haven't read a translated copy of the document, but I can't help but think that the situation could be mitigated with the implementation of such a measure. It would be sort of how each state has it's own powers in the constitution of the U.S. It's that sort of comprimise that allows represenative government to work, albiet in its inefficient manner.

Does anyone know where I could find a copy of the Iraqi constitution online?

the pdf is here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

It would be sort of how each state has it's own powers in the constitution of the U.S. It's that sort of comprimise that allows represenative government to work, albiet in its inefficient manner.

---

Remember that the reason you need that, is because the US is a big country with a lot of people in it. Smaller countries doesn't need that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Remember that the reason you need that, is because the US is a big country with a lot of people in it. Smaller countries doesn't need that.

---

Except it isn't just an issue of size. Iraq is a patchwork nation, with several different regions tacked together, each with its own particular blend of cultural, linguistic, religious, and ethnic characteristics, and not all in easy harmony. A more homogenous nation of the same size could easily manage as one political body. For Iraq it might be more difficult.

Ajax

The original topic was briefly mentioned in this thread..https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=85093 if you note what Xiahou brought up in relation to what you just wrote Rotor . While the majority block in the Iraqi government is supporting this move to get the trrops out, the President is appealing for troops to stay , his interest is in his (sort of)automonous region . His neighbours are threatening to invade as part of their "war on terror" and he doesn't really want that very much and hopes a coilition presence will stop it happening .
But anyhow , since you are going back to the unfinished constitution , how about going back slightly further to the elections ...try and find which parties stood on a manifesto that didn't call for an end to foriegn troops in Iraq .:yes: See if you can find even one .
But hey they are politicians aren't they , just because they said they would end the foriegn presence if elected it doesn't mean that they have to deliver on that pledge , its how democracy works isn't it :laugh4:

Personally, I think the US ought to leap at the chance. Any pretext of a vote asking us to leave we should jump on and get the :daisy: out of there. When all the naysayers, like Michael Moore, try to triumphantly proclaim that we got beaten by the insurgents, we can point to the resolution and state proudly "nope, respecting the autonomy we fought to establish, as we always claimed we would". I don't think there's going to be anything even remotely as good an exit strategy as this ploy right here...

its not that we're getting beat by the insurgents, its that its impossible for us to 'win' against insurgents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

its not that we're getting beat by the insurgents, its that its impossible for us to 'win' against insurgents.

---

Agreed. It's simply not a task that a traditional military force is capable of, and definitely not if they have any moral restraint, either in the troops themselves or the civilian populace back home.

Ajax

There's only one way that has proven successful in bringing an end to a popular insurgency and that is heavy hearts and minds and actually bringing the insurgents to the bargaining table.

Since hearts and minds is currently buggered in Iraq due to the lack of security and Bush won't negotiate, the only way there's going to be peace is if you slaughter enough people that the rest become pacifists.

And the Assyrian school of counter-insurgency methods is sort of not okay these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And the Assyrian school of counter-insurgency methods is sort of not okay these days.

---

Do you mean, those ancient assyrian tactics that brutilize civs?

or is this actualy modern?

plus it doesnt help your public reasons for going to war if you end up massacring most of the population... oh yeah, we're already doing that ;)

I'm not aware of any particularly modern associations for the name "Assyrian".
:inquisitive:
Crucifying, impaling and forcibly relocating seditious populaces just isn't kosher these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'm not aware of any particularly modern associations for the name "Assyrian".

---

Assyrians are one of the main ethnic/religious minorities in modern Iraq, and one of the most frequently persecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church

Ajax

edit: this one's actually slightly more relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people

All hail the mighty insurgent warrior. Undefeatable by any conventional force and therefore the inevitable winner in the guerilla. :rolleyes3:

Poppycock.

1. If insurgency were so unbeatable, then all wars would be conducted in this fashion and it would have become conventional. Militaries, over time, tend to adopt whatever works. Ethan Allen and Francis Marion did not win the revolution and found a nation. Arnold, Washington, Rochambeau, and De Grasse did.

2. Historically, most insurgencies/rebellions have failed.

3. The USA has one of the highest rates of success in these "small wars" of any nation on the planet. The mechanics of suppressing insurgency is actually pretty well understood.


The key question really is: is the conventional power willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to win? The guerilla wins ONLY when the conventional opponent chooses to quit or when the guerilla becomes able to contend with the conventional force on its own terms.

Huh. I must admit I had no idea the Assyrians were still around as a distinct group. Live and learn.

Neither did I, until they came up in a class I took this last semester. Anyhow, I think I learn new things on this board nearly every time I log on.

Ajax

no one thinks about Chaldeans these days either, or Persians for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The key question really is: is the conventional power willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to win? The guerilla wins ONLY when the conventional opponent chooses to quit or when the guerilla becomes able to contend with the conventional force on its own terms.

---

Quoted for truth. :yes:

You mean it isn't self-evident ?