Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 57

Thread: My Iraq Opinion.

  1. #1

    Default My Iraq Opinion.

    I believe that America failed to realize how much the Sunni factions in Iraq had invested in Saddam's regime.

    We see very low levels of violence in the northern Kurd areas and the southern Shia areas.

    The main source of home grown terror is the sunnis. Not only do they attack coalition forces but now they have started slaughtering Kurds and Shias in the streets.

    Most analysts seem to think the reason for the shift from attacking coalition troops to attacking iraqi civilians is to cause a civil war.

    I say let them have it.

    Thus far, we have tried our hardest to keep the shia and kurds from responding with violence, and they have.

    I say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us. They speak the language, they know the streets, and they're mad as hell. I feel they would do a better job prosecuting this war than we ever could.

    Some people see civil war as the worst possible option, but in reality that isnt the case. Often times throughout history civil wars have corrected the wrongs of a country.

    My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month as the sunni have no real power or control over the nation anyway. The Kurds and Shia backed by the Americans would quickly "rectify" the situation and put the Sunni in their place.. the place of a 20% minority in a democracy, not an overthrown aristocracy throwing a temper tantrum.

    Well thats my small-minded opinion. Of course since it wreaks of the kind of real politik Americans arent willing to accept anymore and the media have built civil war up into the worst kind of disaster that could befall the country, it will never happen.

    Any opinions on the "let them fight it out" opinion, or any alternate opinions?

  2. #2
    Evil Sadist Member discovery1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Urbana, IL
    Posts
    2,551

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Interesting. It would decrease US involvement and possibily solve our problems. Of course it would result in mountains of bodies, although we have that anyway. And what if the kurds and Shia go at each other(not that I can think of why they would, aside from Kurdish nationalism)? And what about the possibilty of the genocide of the Sunnis(oddly I'm not really bothered by this prospect)?

    Of course since it wreaks of the kind of real politik Americans arent willing to accept anymore and the media have built civil war up into the worst kind of disaster that could befall the country, it will never happen.
    *sighs* Actually I think we've always been averse to it, just the gov could do a better job keeping it secret. I wish we weren't though.

    Edit: And I wouldn't be surprised if it last longer than a month.


    GoreBag: Oh, Prole, you're a nerd's wet dream.

  3. #3
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    I don't know if a civil war would really be a flash in the pan. While it might not be too hard to put down the Sunnis. destroying all the foreigners would be hard, especially if a civil war begins and the recruiters can say "Hey, you can shoot at the infidels and not just blow up children!".

    And if it boils over to other countries...say hello to the real WWIII.

    Crazed Rabbit
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  4. #4
    Humanist Senior Member Franconicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Trying to get to Utopia
    Posts
    3,482

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Panzer,

    don't you think that a civil war would
    - seperate the Iraq in several areas each controlled by a warlord
    - make other countries like Iran and Turkey interfere and fight for their own interests
    - be the ideal ground for terrorists of every color
    -- ruin the economy of Iraq and esp. the oil business?

  5. #5

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us.

    What do you think they have been doing these past couple of years .

    Was that you making the speech in the Iraqin Parliament Panzer ?
    The governmnet has failed , the Americans have failed , turn Baghdad over to the militia and let them protect us .

  6. #6
    Things Change Member JAG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    London, England.
    Posts
    11,058

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    So Panzer, do you know what happened over the weekend in Turkey?

    If so, why have you not accounted for it and don't you think it kinda screws up your whole nice, cosy picture?
    GARCIN: I "dreamt," you say. It was no dream. When I chose the hardest path, I made my choice deliberately. A man is what he wills himself to be.
    INEZ: Prove it. Prove it was no dream. It's what one does, and nothing else, that shows the stuff one's made of.
    GARCIN: I died too soon. I wasn't allowed time to - to do my deeds.
    INEZ: One always dies too soon - or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are - your life, and nothing else.

    Jean Paul Sartre - No Exit 1944

  7. #7
    Evil Sadist Member discovery1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Urbana, IL
    Posts
    2,551

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Kurdish bombers?


    So, yeah, Kurdish nationalism would be a great problem caused by this.


    GoreBag: Oh, Prole, you're a nerd's wet dream.

  8. #8
    Member Member sharrukin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada west coast
    Posts
    2,276

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Most of the army officers of even the new Iraqi security forces are Sunni. Most of the Iraqi army officers were recruited from the Sunni Arab minority and many of them are still out there. One of the reasons the current officer corp has more Sunni's is that the officers recruited initially wouldn't fight the insurgents during some of the unrest (Falluja). This forced the American military to turn to the former officers of Saddam's military. Those officers in high positions not from Saddams army, have little experience and are not well regarded by the Americans on the ground.

    The current Iraqi police and army units that do exist are fragile in both training and morale. Remove a significant portion of the officers and galvanize the unemployed Sunni ex-officers and men to action and you would get a civil war that might turn out to be very bloody indeed. Even as it stands the current army troops have shown little motivation compared to that of the militia's.

    In addition you have the problem of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait who are predominately Sunni in religion are they would begin funneling arms, volounteers, and money to the Sunni insurgents as the massacres began. Other nations farther away such a Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and Algeria would pose more of a political problem than a military one.

    The civil war would also make the Turks and the Iranians very nervous and they might also begin to assist in ways that might at first seem counter-intuitive.

    This map shows the Kurdish regions of the middle east and if a civil war erupted the Kurds would in all likelihood make an attempt for the long awaited dream of independence. I doubt a direct intervention would be likely, but the Turks might assist the Sunni's in their fight as an independent Kurdish homeland would be a disaster for them.



    The Iranian to a lesser degree would have many of the same worries, though being predominately Shia they would be tempted to play the radical shia card in the turbulence of a civil war. Radical Shia Muslims would be attracted to the American backed Shia groups. War tends to radicalize people and there would be a real danger of the American faction becoming something we might not care for. The militia's that would spring up would be far more difficult to control than they currently are.

    "You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.

    The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."

    Conversation in Hanoi, april 1975 (april 30th, Saigon surrenders)
    Last edited by sharrukin; 07-18-2005 at 08:10.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
    -- John Stewart Mills

    But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
    LORD ACTON

  9. #9

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Thanks for the well thought out and informative perspectives.

    At this late night juncture, i will only address the Kurdish bombing of Turkey.

    In my opinion, the Kurdish and the Turkish have always been at odds, and that really doesnt have anything to do with Iraq. We have seen very little trouble from them in Iraq.

    Also, for those worried about genocides... Im not suggesting the US leave the country, only that we step back and let the Shia/Kurds go in and fight this dirty war for us, as they could probably identify the good sunni from the bad better than us.

    I would certainly give them a broader leash than American troops currently have, but that would not extend to any kind of genocides.

  10. #10
    The Blade Member JimBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Chi Town
    Posts
    588

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Hold on a second. Since when are cultural wars short and efficient? Catholics and Protestants in Ireland for Centuries, The Crusades, though spread out, the warfare and hatreds existed over hundreds of years. Rwanda, Pogroms, Bosnia. We tried the "let the newly liberated Shias do it" strategy soon after the fall of Baghdad, short version is that armed groups ruled the streets, long version is in Generation Kill. Another problem is that the Kurds and Shias are pissed, and they will not just 'hunt down militants' they will hunt down Sunnis, I mean if people of one ethnicity had blown up people of yours, would you not take bloody vengence, and would the other side not respond? Now I dunno about you but I don't want to be from the country that supports the commiting of genocide.
    Sometimes I slumber on a bed of roses
    Sometimes I crash in the weeds
    One day a bowl full of cherries
    One night I'm suckin' on lemons and spittin' out the seeds
    -Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers, Lemons

  11. #11
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    The survivors of this blatant genocide of Sunnis would surely be the next generation of terrorists. If this plan were to go ahead, for the US to be in any way involved would be an international relations disaster and they would lose all credability.


    However, on a variation of your idea: Why not seperate Iraq into three countries if they can't all get along?
    Sunnistan
    Kurdistan
    Shiastan
    Or even one country with three semi-autonomous states. The United States of Iraq.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

  12. #12
    Corporate Hippie Member rasoforos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2,713

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    [QUOTE=PanzerJager]I believe that America failed to realize how much the Sunni factions in Iraq had invested in Saddam's regime.

    1)We see very low levels of violence in the northern Kurd areas and the southern Shia areas.


    2)Most analysts seem to think the reason for the shift from attacking coalition troops to attacking iraqi civilians is to cause a civil war.

    I say let them have it.


    3) I say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us. They speak the language, they know the streets, and they're mad as hell. I feel they would do a better job prosecuting this war than we ever could.


    4) My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month as the sunni have no real power or control over the nation anyway. The Kurds and Shia backed by the Americans would quickly "rectify" the situation and put the Sunni in their place..

    My view:

    1) Thats not exactly true is it? We have seen Major Shia uprisals, often on a city scale. In addition, Kurds HAVE been spending their time blowing up oil pipes n stuff. Sunnis might be representing the biggest resistance force at the moment but if the Shia organise themselves well enough they will be able to create a new Iran.

    2) Actually this has been tried in Iraq a long time ago. As I remember, the Shia and Kurds were supposed to 'welcome the ''liberation'' forces and offer assistance'. A civil war in Iraq WAS the plan. Of course as we know the Shia were too closely associated with Iran and they had their own plans of a theocracy. The Kurds on the other side were rather tired of getting killed for 25 years by American weapons ( In Turkey ) and they couldnt care less....

    3) Once upon a time Uncle Sam asked an ambitious young man named Shaddam to do this to Iran. This nice fellah knew the area well and he didnt like Iranians much. It all went well and Iran does not pose any threat anymore. In addition Shaddam ruled his country wisely and fairly, everyone had enough to eat and no-one was suffering and they all lived hapilly ever after.

    This just would not do.

    Fist of all 75% of the Kurds live in Southeast Turkey. Give em weapons and they will use them there as well. If this happens then the US will not only destabilise the area but will also anger one of their major allies in the area...and when I say anger I mean they will totally genuinely make them mad...

    Now the Shia also have their own agenda, a theocratical state where religious leaders rule, something like Iran really. Thats a bit no-no.

    4) The US has been, with no success whatsoever, to make a proper occupation out of Iraq for 2 years now and things are getting progressively worse. I do not think that results can be achieved in a month. Also I think that even if this works you will get : a) a bunch of really angry Sunnis all around the globe b) 2 larger and armed resistance groups instead of 3 smaller and non-armed and organised by Uncle Sam's money....I just dont think it would make things better....

    ....actually I doubt there is anything that can make things better. This might last longer than Vietnam.


    P.S And yes, I m kinda back...
    Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.

    http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/

  13. #13
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    I think that one big problem in the Middle East is that Kurds doesnt have their own state there are big minorities of Kurds in Iraq,Turkey and Iran.In Iraq they are considered as US allies,In Turkey they are considered as separatist terrorists and in Iran i dont really know.I believe that in order to bring peace to the area the only good solution is to creare National states there first.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  14. #14

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    P.S And yes, I m kinda back...
    Wow, I havent seen that screen name in a long time.

    Good points.. The US would have to work very hard to assure that other surrounding nations dont get involved if this plan were put into action.

  15. #15
    Member Member Spetulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    818

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJager
    In my opinion, the Kurdish and the Turkish have always been at odds, and that really doesnt have anything to do with Iraq. We have seen very little trouble from them in Iraq.
    Perhaps so, but they've certainly seen Turks in Iraq. Even with the US/UK No-Fly Zone in operation the Turks were hunting Kurdish separatists in Iraq. Yup, the innocent victims of Saddam were despicable terrorists when our brave allies hunted them. Any guns given to the Kurds WILL end up used against their real enemy, Turkey. It's not that many years since Kurdish was a forbidden language there.
    If you're fighting fair you've made a miscalculation.

  16. #16

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    We have seen very little trouble from them in Iraq.
    Thats funny , since Ansar al Islam is an Iraqi Kurdish group . They have been responsible for nearly 10% of all the suicide bombings .
    But of course they have only recently become "terrorists" , they managed to bomb the UN Headquaters , the Italian Military headquarters , the Jordanian Embassy , the Najaf Mosque and Shia shrines in Baghdad and Karbala before the State Dept. finally designated them as "terrorists" .
    Then of course there are the "good terrorists" of the KDP and PUK who are condemned in the State Depts. report for their attacks and assassinations in Iraq , yet they are not designated as terrorists for some reason , and then you have the PKK who are listed as terrorists .

    So if you are not seeing much trouble from them it must be because of the "Liberal bias" in your media sources

  17. #17
    Saupreuss Member Stefan the Berserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Baal / Rhineprovince
    Posts
    964

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJager
    I believe that America failed to realize how much the Sunni factions in Iraq had invested in Saddam's regime.

    We see very low levels of violence in the northern Kurd areas and the southern Shia areas.

    The main source of home grown terror is the sunnis. Not only do they attack coalition forces but now they have started slaughtering Kurds and Shias in the streets.

    Most analysts seem to think the reason for the shift from attacking coalition troops to attacking iraqi civilians is to cause a civil war.

    I say let them have it.

    Thus far, we have tried our hardest to keep the shia and kurds from responding with violence, and they have.

    I say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us. They speak the language, they know the streets, and they're mad as hell. I feel they would do a better job prosecuting this war than we ever could.

    Some people see civil war as the worst possible option, but in reality that isnt the case. Often times throughout history civil wars have corrected the wrongs of a country.

    My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month as the sunni have no real power or control over the nation anyway. The Kurds and Shia backed by the Americans would quickly "rectify" the situation and put the Sunni in their place.. the place of a 20% minority in a democracy, not an overthrown aristocracy throwing a temper tantrum.

    Well thats my small-minded opinion. Of course since it wreaks of the kind of real politik Americans arent willing to accept anymore and the media have built civil war up into the worst kind of disaster that could befall the country, it will never happen.

    Any opinions on the "let them fight it out" opinion, or any alternate opinions?
    1. What you say is the final proof the USA aren't able to control the Iraq.

    2. That Civilwar would have no other Result than this:
    - Kurdistan declares Independance and causes Kurdish uprises elsewhere
    - The Sunni are slaughtered
    - The Shia control the South and degrade the Minority
    - If you leave the Shia alone you'll have a Godstate in Result
    - All three will hate each other and the USA even more
    - Iran and Syria supporting their Factions in a Civilwar

    3. "Realpolitik" is a term by Otto von Bismarck you have never understood, stop useing it.

    4. Finally what "Realpolitik" means with the Iraq.
    A) The "Realpolitik" Wargoals of the USA have been:
    - Takeout Weapons of Massdestruction (Legitimation)
    - Create domestic Tensions in the European Union
    - Divert the Population from internal troubles (Recession, unemployment)
    - Save the Anti-Islamism in the Population to justify boosted Armament
    - Turn the Iraq by force into a Democrathy and Puppet of the USA
    - Put the Iraqi Econnomy to Puppetstatus as an open Market

    B) The "Realpolitik" Result of the Iraqwar is:
    - The Weapons of Massdestruction have been a fake to justify the action
    - The War caused extremely negative impact on the USA's global Relations
    - Tensions between London-Rome and Berlin-Paris-Moscow created
    - The War causes domestic unrest with the Population
    - The Worldrecord Arnament is pushed through
    - The creation of a "democrathic Iraq" Puppet succeeds
    - The Puppets is totally dependently and would collapse without the USA
    - The Puppet-Econnomy of Iraq is unable to work and produces cost

  18. #18
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    - Create domestic Tensions in the European Union
    Really. Bush wants 2000 dead Americans to screw up... Europe?

    - Put the Iraqi Econnomy to Puppetstatus as an open Market
    So countries with open markets are puppets? Or do you mean make the open the market using Iraq's alleged puppet status?

  19. #19
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    I agree with some of PanzerJaeger's analysis but not the conclusion. To the extent that the insurgency is devolving into a Sunni rebellion, I wonder if it is possible to defuse it by greater decentralisation - rather than civil war? Give the Sunnis greater autonomy - make Iraq into a Belgium - and you might reduce their willingness to align with al-Zarqawi and fellow Jihadis.

    But I do agree that getting the Iraqi security forces to fight the insurgency is probably better than relying on the Coalition troops. It makes it harder to portray the insurgency as an nationalist/anti-Western struggle and again should help isolate the hardcore.

  20. #20
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Just one quick note:

    Many people, including within the CIA, knew that the Americans weren't going to be cheered in the streets. The Analysts within the Pentagon knew this. But of course Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney didn't want to scare the American people away from the war by telling them that. So Cheney said that the Iraqis would welcome the Americans with flowers and candy. But many people, myself included, noted repeatedly, long before the war began, that it wasn't going to be the cakewalk Cheney and Rumsfeld were making it out to be. The insurgency was predictable; in fact, it was predicted.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  21. #21
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker

    3. "Realpolitik" is a term by Otto von Bismarck you have never understood, stop useing it.
    Now this is just humorous - accusing one individual of not know what "realpolitik" is and go off on a tanget that just proves you don't know what it means either. How funny.

    Now to the "Realpolitik" Issues - first one must define "realpolitik" - not what you think it means but what the common usage of the term is.

    Realpolitik in many cases has been for the advancement of the national interests of a country over ethical or principled concerns. and from a United States prespectiveIn this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics — for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s purported opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment.


    . Finally what "Realpolitik" means with the Iraq.
    A) The "Realpolitik" Wargoals of the USA have been:
    - Takeout Weapons of Massdestruction (Legitimation)
    - Create domestic Tensions in the European Union
    - Divert the Population from internal troubles (Recession, unemployment)
    - Save the Anti-Islamism in the Population to justify boosted Armament
    - Turn the Iraq by force into a Democrathy and Puppet of the USA
    - Put the Iraqi Econnomy to Puppetstatus as an open Market
    Now you went into an analysis stating several key things as being "Realpolitik"

    So explain how Divert Population from internal troubles fits within the defination of "Realpolitik?" How does the War in Iraq draw the national interest of the people away from their own troubles with the economy and focus on what is going on in Iraq. In the modern world of instant news services and communications - A government would not be very successful in convincing the average citizen to take National interests over their own pocketbooks. When engaging the discussion of Tax breaks and other economic policies of the Bush Adminstration along with the War with Iraq- one can successfully argue the case of "Realpolitik" but as a stand alone case of "Realpolitik" the case does not truelly fit within the model.

    Then lets discuss the "Anti-Islamism" statement that you just made. Where the nation's leaders of both United Kingdom and the United States have made it clear that the fight is not with Islam.

    There are others - but your statements about "Realpolitik" toward one individual - leads me to conclude that you only accept the term as defined by yourself - which according to other researchs and experts in diplomacy - your defination is not accurate either.

    B) The "Realpolitik" Result of the Iraqwar is:
    - The Weapons of Massdestruction have been a fake to justify the action
    - The War caused extremely negative impact on the USA's global Relations
    - Tensions between London-Rome and Berlin-Paris-Moscow created
    - The War causes domestic unrest with the Population
    - The Worldrecord Arnament is pushed through
    - The creation of a "democrathic Iraq" Puppet succeeds
    - The Puppets is totally dependently and would collapse without the USA
    - The Puppet-Econnomy of Iraq is unable to work and produces cost
    Again - many of your comments don't fit into the term "Realpolitik" on these outcomes either.

    You make an allegation of weapons of mass destruction being faked - but leave out the little crucial bit - that Saddam's government provided the illusion of WMD for his own reasons. That the majority of the world's intelligent services while not all agree that Iraq definetly had WMD - all were sure that they did not truely know if he did or not. Saddam practiced "Realpolitik" better then any other nation when it came to the WMD issue.

    It seems to me that you are intermixing consequences of "Realpolitik" as being in actuallity "Realpolitik" when they are not - they are seperate consequences based upon the "Realpolitik" policies attempt by the United States and Great Britian


    http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journ...0409_kraig.asp

    An interesting quote from the above link

    To summarize these diverging schools of thought:

    • The traditional, competitive Realpolitik model of international security can be thought of as a balance of interests based upon a rough balance of power.

    • The more recent U.S. strategic evolution can be thought of as an imbalance of power and interests (hegemony) based upon both offensive (compellant) and defensive (deterrent) threats used in conjunction with one another.

    • The relatively recent cooperative model can be thought of as a balance of interests based upon mutual reassurance.
    And at the end of a rather long read - but worthwhile in trying to understand the author's conclusion.

    In sum, there are two major contending approaches to Gulf security: U.S. hegemony and principled multilateralism. If the United States were to adopt the Bush administration's approach, Gulf relations would be patterned along the following lines:

    • Gulf security would be exclusionary, with U.S. "friends and allies" on one side, and U.S. enemies such as Iran on the other. The United States would make a decision on who is excluded, based on factors such as internal regime structure, support of terrorism and WMD aspirations.

    • Confidence-building measures in the military realm (such as arms limitations, cooperative military exercises or transparency on arms buildups) would only apply to friends and allies.

    • The ultimate goal would be to target those "rogue" states outside the established order, isolate them, and bring about a "regime conversion" or regime change.

    • The legitimate right to self-defense would not be recognized for all actors, but only for those who agree with U.S. policy approaches and the U.S. definition of security threats.

    • WMD would not be viewed as dangerous in and of themselves. Rather, the character of the state obtaining WMD would be the primary criterion for counterproliferation efforts. Implicitly, Israel would not be the target of nonproliferation efforts, and "friends" next door to the Gulf, such as Pakistan and India, would not be pressured to moderate their nuclear behavior because of the potentially negative effects of their nuclear arsenals and missile programs on Gulf states' security.

    • Arab friends and allies would not base security on their own indigenous capabilities but rather on continued dependence on the United States as an outside power, through bilateral agreements.

    The hegemonic strategy does not deviate from U.S. policies in previous periods and thus risks more policy failure. Bilateral ties, by themselves, will neither solve outstanding political conflicts nor prevent new conflicts from arising among the Gulf states. In fact, dependence on the United States is only going to increase the domestic pressures against current Arab regimes.

    In stark contrast to the approach of hegemony, a principled multilateral approach to Gulf security would have the following attributes:

    • Gulf security would be inclusive. Even if Iran were not integrated into the collective military structure of U.S. allies, Iran would still be included through myriad economic or security ties, as opportunities for common action arose.

    • Gulf security would be built on a rule-based order in which universal principles would apply to all actors in the Gulf, including the United States.

    • There would be basic recognition of the inherent right to legitimate measures for self-defense on the part of all states in the region, whether or not the United States considered those states to be friends or allies. Thus, Iran's right to self-defense, including the maintenance of a viable military, would be recognized and allowed. The demand side of WMD proliferation would be addressed, because every actor's security concerns would be taken into account.

    • The goal would not be to end competition through regime change, but rather to manage competition between all governments as they are currently constituted.

    • WMD would be viewed as a general problem requiring equal rules and constraints that apply to all parties, including the United States, Israel, Pakistan and India.

    In general, the central assumption of the strategy of principled multilateralism is that security is sought with other states, rather than against them, and that domestic developments in the Gulf will follow a more beneficial course if all states are gradually intertwined in a web of military and economic agreements that create strong interdependence. Time will tell whether the United States and its global and regional partners have the foresight to adopt this revolutionary strategy for providing security in the Gulf in the twenty-first century. Whatever approach is adopted, a genuinely new set of policies for security and prosperity in the region is desperately needed – before the status quo practice of Realpolitik bilateralism breaks down once again, with predictably negative results.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  22. #22

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    By Simon

    I agree with some of PanzerJaeger's analysis but not the conclusion. To the extent that the insurgency is devolving into a Sunni rebellion, I wonder if it is possible to defuse it by greater decentralisation - rather than civil war? Give the Sunnis greater autonomy - make Iraq into a Belgium - and you might reduce their willingness to align with al-Zarqawi and fellow Jihadis.
    Thats an interesting point. It seems in recent news weve been getting information that seems to indicate the homegrown iraqi insurgency doesnt want to be associated with the foreigners.


    By Stefan

    3. "Realpolitik" is a term by Otto von Bismarck you have never understood, stop useing it.
    I used the word correctly. To incite and support a civil war to actually fix the situation would be:

    for the advancement of the national interests of a country over ethical or principled concerns.
    Redleg brought up some strong doubts as to your own usage and understanding of the word.

  23. #23

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    To incite and support a civil war to actually fix the situation would be:

    Quote:
    for the advancement of the national interests of a country over ethical or principled concerns.
    Just one problem with that , how the hell would inciting a civil war advance the national interests of the country ?
    You write earlier
    My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month
    Perhaps you should take that timeframe and change it to ....
    The current ceasefire between the two main Kurdish groups would last about a month in a civil war , before they went back to their usual role of killing each other with their well armed and intact militias .
    So a civil war within a civil war next to other civil wars together with a foriegn occupation and foriegn insurgents would advance the national interests of which country exactly ?

  24. #24
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    This is something else Panzer. You think it would be a good strategy to conguer an country and then leave it to chaos.How do you explain this to yourself?It is better to live in a country in civil war then under a dictator?The problem with iraq is there are those three major groups The Sunnis,The Shiias and the Kurds.If they cant live together, how hard would it be be to dispand Iraq and have them rule themselves.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  25. #25
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    The Turkish will not permit the creation of an independant Kurdistan because they know what that would mean for their own country.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

  26. #26

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    By Tribesman

    Just one problem with that , how the hell would inciting a civil war advance the national interests of the country ?
    Read the initial post.


    By kagemusha

    How do you explain this to yourself?
    Its about the greater good.

  27. #27
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
    The Turkish will not permit the creation of an independant Kurdistan because they know what that would mean for their own country.
    I think if Turks think so,they are doing a huge mistake.I like to to divide reasons behind terrorism in two separate categorys.First people who think of themselves as freedomfighters like the Basqs with Seta,The Tzechenian separatists and the Kurdish PKP.I sympathize these peoples goals but they are doing it the wrong way by attacking also civilian targets.I believe that these organizations would disappear if they would get their own countries.The second group are the religious terrorists like Al Qaida,Hamas,Hizbollah,IRA and the Oranian brotherhood.I have no sympathy for these organizations ,because i think they are only people who have been corrupted by their own hatred and should be stopped by any means nessesary.
    Last edited by Kagemusha; 07-19-2005 at 22:56.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  28. #28
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    But if you start giving a nation to every group who wants to be independant where do you stop? The Basques and ETA in Spain would like their independance too.
    Also, what happens what the definition of independance of two terrorist groups conflicts, such as in Northern Ireland?
    And surely there will be people living in the newly created nation who were happy with the previous arrangement, surely they are then marginalised.

    I forsee a world of 1,000 nation states if this were done.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

  29. #29
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
    But if you start giving a nation to every group who wants to be independant where do you stop? The Basques and ETA in Spain would like their independance too.
    Also, what happens what the definition of independance of two terrorist groups conflicts, such as in Northern Ireland?
    And surely there will be people living in the newly created nation who were happy with the previous arrangement, surely they are then marginalised.

    I forsee a world of 1,000 nation states if this were done.
    Whats wrong with Nation States?Yes i would give idependancy also to Basques and Tzecheens.If democracy is about giving people freedom why cant they get it?
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  30. #30
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: My Iraq Opinion.

    Because where do you draw the line? How small can one nation be and as I said before, surely there will be settlers in the new nation who prefered things the way they were before?

    I thought democracy was about pleasing the majority of the population rather than removing those from the system who are unhappy with it.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO