Iraq- the next steps

[rory_20_uk]

What is so valuable about Iraqi lives? America has not been concerned about "collateral damage" recently. I can understand that preserving the oil is important, but since that is in the south and the north there is a large part of Iraq that can be left to it.

And let's not pretend that America or the West in general is particularly concerned about the sanctity of human life. Africa sheds lives every day through several civil wars, uprisings, border disputes and the tried and tested starvation, malnutrition and disease.


So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

[Hooahguy]

So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

so by that reasoning, we should build heavily fortified bases around the oil drills, then leave the rest of iraq to destroy itself?

[LittleGrizzly]

so by that reasoning, we should build heavily fortified bases around the oil drills, then leave the rest of iraq to destroy itself?

Rory is practical and emotionless to the extreme (i mean it as a compliment, its something i admire about your consistent political stance)

I have an open mind on Iraq, i was vehemently opposed to the war, for all kinds of reasons and i was basically right on my reasoning.... but i think once america and the uk went into iraq we had a responsibility to fix the mess we made, my position was closer to McCains than Obamas on Iraq...

what i can't decide is

1) how winnable is iraq, can we really stabilise the country from its current situation with troops and rebuilding ?

2) by having the troops there are we actually making the situation worse ?

3) if it is winnable... is it affordable ? can we keep enough troops in iraq and put enough money into rebuilding to make it successful

any answers appreciated, i have an open mind on the issue of staying or leaving being a good idea...

[rory_20_uk]

1) how winnable is iraq, can we really stabilise the country from its current situation with troops and rebuilding ?

2) by having the troops there are we actually making the situation worse ?

3) if it is winnable... is it affordable ? can we keep enough troops in iraq and put enough money into rebuilding to make it successful

any answers appreciated, i have an open mind on the issue of staying or leaving being a good idea...

Things in Iraq are back to front: the local government having little control over a foreign force, but at the same time not having to pay for the force.

As has been pointed out, Iraq now is accruing money from oil wealth, enough to pay for the reconstruction and troops.

The situation should be that the Iraqi government asks for military expertise and assistance from America / UK / elsewhere, and it pays for the expertise. Thus the control is with the Sovereign state. The current one-size-fits-all clearly doesn't.

Although the above is merely a change of view the effects could be striking:

As the government is in control of the situation and dictates what is done where the feeling of occupation would lessen; if the government tried to do things independently odds are it would make a complete mess of it and then ask for help - but would then be grateful for the help.

This ensures that the war is affordable as most cost is on Iraq.
If troops are thought to make things worse there is the option of paying for troops from other countries to assist, which might help the current tension.

But the most crucial point is that this requires the government to be strong enough to hold the country together. I think that this is in some ways a good thing: if the country can not hold itself together either monetarily, logistically, culturally or militarily, well, there isn't really a country there in the first place.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman is correct that if the Shiites refuse to reconcile and choose to punish the Sunni instead then civil war is inevitable.

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

[Guildenstern]

I was opposed to the war, I think it was unnecessary and based on a collection of lies. That said, I support Obama’s plan on Iraq. He said the removal of the troops would be “responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government”. I think the time table is not set in stone. The 16 months troops removal is what the military experts he has used to base his decision on have said. Now, if the commanders on the ground say differently, I’m sure he would change his decision in order to suit their needs.

I think the US cannot afford the money they are spending in Iraq while Iraq makes billions on oil. In my opinion, no country can survive with an economic crisis and two wars going on at the same time. Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works (I’m not so sure), it will work just as well in Afghanistan. Actually, it should work even better because they will have to commit forces for trying to protect Osama bin Laden. Yeah, it’s easier to find a man if you are looking in the country where he’s hiding. I think Obama wants to move resources to where they are now really necessary. If the theory works, maybe any terrorists that may have shown up in Iraq after the US invasion (because they weren’t there before), will follow the US troops out of there and to Afghanistan.

[LittleGrizzly]

Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works

That theory is crap (i know your not the one pushing it) the basic premise that all the terrorists currently in Iraq would be in america right now blowing things up, i ask you where were these terrorists before the iraq invasion ?

What actually happened is the iraq invasion created a bunch of terrorists, sure there were AQ members who went to iraq who may have gone elsewhere instead, but the crucial thing is AQ decided to go to iraq because they saw an excellent oppurtunity handed to them, the chance to convert a generation of young muslims infuriated by the foriegn policy of the US, the fact is iraq created a whole bunch of terrorists we wouldn't have had to deal with otherwise and gave an excellent recuiting tool to the ones already in AQ, to think that iraq was a secular state before we went there, it really was foolish to pursue iraq instead of AQ...

Ohh and another thing, im fairly sure OBL is dead, i can't know personally, but i really don't see the guy diving in and out of caves well hooked up to a machine (thats right i gave up spelling the word... i kept coming up with dailysis... which doesn't seem right at all....)

[Incongruous]

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

Now my mind is foggy over this but, a remember reading on the BBC (yes I know) that the majority of Iraqis still wanted to be Iraqis and that country should stay together.

Actually having thought about it, perhaps they really mean, WE will be the IRAQIS and We will keep IRAQ, all those other bastards can bugger off...

Bugger.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

This is a telling point. I was reading a bit of AP wire on Iraq the other day and it became obvious to me that, at the least, M. Al Sadr will make a bid for power. Tribes' is almost certainly correct that he will not be alone in this effort and that wars -- the plural -- is the likely scenario.

We need to take as a given, for planning purposes, that once US forces draw down and exit Iraq for Kuwait and points elsewhere, there WILL be civil war in Iraq.

For me, the question is: will a longer stay provide the "central" government time enough to develop forces, credibility, and connections between groups sufficient to allow it to survive and, eventually, marginalize the various "players" in revolt.

All we are currently proving is that the world's best military, using a ridiculous amount of resources, can impose security while, and for as long as, we're willing to continue to expend the same level of resources and effort. Iraq, totally propped up in terms of force structure, is doing better and better on its own. But does it have a hope of riding once the training wheels come off? A fall or two is inevitable, but it only works if they're willing to get up afterwards. I'm not sure.

[Banquo's Ghost]

For me, the question is: will a longer stay provide the "central" government time enough to develop forces, credibility, and connections between groups sufficient to allow it to survive and, eventually, marginalize the various "players" in revolt.

The problem is that the central government is largely Shia dominated. It is supported (for now, and because they don't wish to take on the US) by at least two Shia factions in the direct employ of Iran. The Sunni are less troublesome of late because of the Awakening Councils and the large scale bribery by the US forces. The Kurdish north is still itching for further autonomy and hopeful of independence - and is also riven with factions biding their time.

It is hard to see an "independent" Shia government continuing to pay the kind of money over to the Sunni that is being doled out right now. If that is downgraded, or favourites played, the warlords (still there, taking advantage of relative peace to develop the forces, credibility, and connections between groups needed for what they know is coming) will start flexing their muscles. The Al Sadr Brigades will re-arm swiftly as will the Badrist rivals. At some point, al-Sistani will die and the restraining influence will have gone.

As has been pointed out before, the military surge has only served as a lid for the pressure cooker. The underlying heat has not been addressed, certainly not turned down. Buying off combatants and facilitating community segregation is sensible from a short-term US perspective, but does nothing to reduce tensions.

There are too many conflicting nationalisms and religious fault lines for anything but imperial force to keep them quiet. The US discovered this by having just a holding force for several years, until a proper imperial force was deployed. Even then, it has just solved the attacks on the imperium, and merely reduced those on the now fully segregated communities of the ruled.

I have always maintained that a civil war would be inevitable, and it would be better to let it happen sooner than later. Many more resentments have built up these past few years. I would, I should say, be very happy for my analysis to be utterly wrong - the history of empire however, tells me I am not.

Real, lasting democracies solve their problems through negotiation and disappointment. They have to learn to do this from inside, by accepting that disappointment is best handled peaceably. This learning is tough to impose.

[Spino]

What is so valuable about Iraqi lives? America has not been concerned about "collateral damage" recently. I can understand that preserving the oil is important, but since that is in the south and the north there is a large part of Iraq that can be left to it.

And let's not pretend that America or the West in general is particularly concerned about the sanctity of human life. Africa sheds lives every day through several civil wars, uprisings, border disputes and the tried and tested starvation, malnutrition and disease.


So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

Well see there's this thing called 'world opinion' which is currently the obsession of American politicians who have maintained an anti-war position since things took a turn for the worse in 2004 and a turn for the better in 2007 after the Surge was implemented. If the US pulls out before Iraq's government & military is ready (which doesn't appear to be anytime soon) it is a safe bet to say that the country will literally get ripped apart by internal and external forces. If you thought world opinion of the US was low now, just wait until they blame us for the bloody aftermath that will follow our withdrawal. See, the Vietnam the war was raging years before the US got involved so as much as our involvement hurt our image most people believed our intervention was a fool's errand to begin with. But with Iraq... regardless of the fact that we deposed a murderous dictator we are single handedly responsible for the current conditions on the ground, both good and bad. We opened Pandora's Box and our pulling out and leaving the Iraqi people exposed to its terrible contents is going to heighten anti-American sentiment to previously unimagined heights.

Now I personally don't care about world opinion or the fate of the Iraqi people but I DO care about the message this sends to our enemies. Expect a marked increase in our enemies' less savory activities once Iraq is thrown to the dogs.

[Hosakawa Tito]

If the current Shiite dominated government won't accommodate/share resources/include the Sunni minorities, and so far they have only payed lip service to that, then withdrawing US troops will lead to civil war. Coalition forces do more for the Sunni enclaves providing utilities, medical care,police protection, etc... than their own government.

[Tribesman]

Spino and Hosa , you both miss that its gonna happen if you pull out next year or in 10 years time .
Its as inevitable now as it was on the day of the invasion .

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't see what security our 10 billion a month we sink in Iraq can provide that Iraq shouldn't be able to provide on its own with its 79 billion dollar surplus per year. If they can't do it now, I don't see why they would be able to do it in 3 years or 5 years.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I don't see what security our 10 billion a month we sink in Iraq can provide that Iraq shouldn't be able to provide on its own with its 79 billion dollar surplus per year. If they can't do it now, I don't see why they would be able to do it in 3 years or 5 years.

They lack the will to do it, not the means. Tribesman is correct that if the Shiites refuse to reconcile and choose to punish the Sunni instead then civil war is inevitable. I just choose to be less pessimistic is all and hope they come to their senses.