I took some rather hot flak when I opposed international gun control as an excuse for invading Iraq (if Iraq’s nukes are “bad”, are France’s and China’s nukes “good”?). I have also taken some sharp criticism for saying that invading a country in order to make friends is an odd strategy (worthy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau “We will force you to be free!”).
From Wires blog:
As we were leaving Baghdad, taking a ‘short cut’ through Fallujah and Ramadi, we passed a US Tank involved in ‘Stop and Search’. It had ASSAULT AND BATTERY written on it’s barrel.
Nice Peace – Keeping.
Now I do not take everything fiona says as Gospel, although her first act in Iraq was to try out an AK-47 so she can’t be all bad!
It is clear however that there is no abatement of the resistance to foreign occupation of Iraq. It does not really matter whether the fault is that the occupying forces are too forceful, or failing to keep the peace because of politcally correct instructions, or a row between the US State Department and the Department of Defense. Either way it has all the potential for Vietnam II.
The only worthwhile achievement of invasion was the removal of Saddam Hussein. He has gone, it is time to leave also.
The only worthwhile debate now is whether to recognise an independent Kurdistan or not before the troops pull out and allow Iraqis to sort out their civil affairs.
Oh sure, I can see the huge list similarities… the jungles, the supply of weapons from the Soviet Union and next-door China, the disciplined Vietcong-like guerrillas, the decades of warfare financed by International Communism… yeah, I don’t know how I didn’t see it sooner!
Saddam is gone (hurray), and that was the objective, not ‘making friends’. Now how about NOT just letting the country descend into chaos without attempting to put some tolerable institutions into place which will not gas and mass murder their own citizens? Having invested so much it seems a tad, well, bonkers, to just funk out when the going gets a bit tough.
No isnt better now than 1 month ago, now that hundreds of moqtada´s boys died?
I must note that Brazilian São Paulo city has 18 murders day….
And i expect that near US election we will have a brutal terrorist campaign. Neverthless who would expect that a traumatized country like Iraq would be
peacefull in 1 year when Saddam paid thousands of thugs…(also remember IRA, Beider Meinhof, Red Brigades…that will be the Iraq of next 10 years)
Btw Iraq is working wonderfull to put most of the fighting far away from western world.
I agree with Perry.
There is also the issue of US credibility and options for future invasions. We will hesitate going into Syria or Iran or N. Korea proportional to the failing in Iraq.
Also, we are pulling out as fast as we can, given the needs on the ground. I mean, the elections will most likely be all about “moving on” and getting the US out. Sponsoring a democratic movement against us is the most legitimate way for the US to leave.
Besides, the chaos on the ground might get better after June 30th because attackers won’t be able to hide behind the ‘justification’ of their attacks: the US occupation.
There always seems to be a concept of manageability underlying these arguments.
The idea goes that if we do this or that in such a way then everything will fall into place.
It is, on the other hand entirely possible that there is quite simply no good to come of staying. There may be the potential for resistance to foreign intervention within the Iraqi populace that transcends the behaviour of any occupying force.
If hearts and minds are not there to be won. Then why stay?
Eamon
Simply put. How would we feel if others were masters in this house. Even if it was for our own good,
Antoine,
What about the removal of Hussein strikes you as good? Will these qualities be preserved if the US bails on Iraq? Would they have been had the US bailed immediately upon his capture? I think it’s unwise to assume so.
And to whose satisfaction shall the Iraqis ‘sort their affairs’ out to? Who says they weren’t well-sorted *before* the capture of Hussein? One might say they weren’t free to have sorted out their affairs because of the interference of their murderous dictator. One might also say they won’t be free to sort out their affairs with the interference of nearby murderous dictators, and the existence of murderous elements in their society. The occupation helps ensure that they are provided with a genuine opportunity to sort out their affairs.
/Dan
The whole “Iraq is like Vietnam” thing misses the bigger point that all occupations will produce some of the same dynamics of resistance and reactivity, the battle for hearts and minds, the struggle for security and control, etc.
They will also produce moral dilemnas for the occupier. Did you know that the French in Algeria…many of them veterans of the underground that fought the Germans in WWII, adopted many German torture methods in turn and made up their own? These have been passed along, including the “Waterboarding” techniques said to be used by US troops on Iraqi prisoners in this war (I think the French referred to it as “the bathtub”)
As far as progress in Iraq, Al Sadr may have lost hundreds of supporters…but how many has he gained in the process and what political cost has the coalition paid to put down the insurrection?
All of this is very dynamic….unpredictable in course and outcome for Iraq, for the US and for the world…hence the saying “Ride the tiger” (which if i recall, if from Vietnam).
We just have to keep in mind, as I think others are saying here, that we may set out to try to stabilize things in Iraq…but there is absolutely no guarantee that it will not produce even more trouble than exists now. It may well go to civil war if we stay and could possibly calm down if we leave. Who Knows?
Other acheivements include:
1. Withdrawl of US troops from Saudi Arabia
2. End of need to enforce no fly zones
3. End of UN oil embezzlemand
4. A doubling of the GDP per capita of Iraqis
5. A large drop in the number of suicide bombers in Israel
Failures
1. The resultant inability of the world to think about anything else.
2. Bath’s failure to win the Zurich Premiership.
Like Giles, I also count the wonderful end of possibly the largest kick-back scheme in the world. Actually lately things seem to be going pretty well (given every other war and occupation in history) to me. How long was it before we held elections in Japan? West Germany?
BTW are you sure your source didn’t see Assault Battalion?
Oh yes! Recognize an independent Kurdistan and watch a replay of the India-Pakistan wars, only this time include Turkey, Syria, and Iran. A war between countries controlling between 1/3 and 1/2 of the workds oil would be EXACTLY what we need.
I like the Vietnam Analogy.
America left the field – 2 million mass murdered. Boat people. etc.
Now why would we want to repeat that in Iraq? Isn’t once enough?
German occupation lasted what? 30, 40 years with self government not fully established until more than 5 years into the occupation.
Where is the will to steady on?
What people want to do here is throw up some lathing. Plaster it a once. Paint it with whatever available and call it a cathedral. Or even a suitable dwelling.
Elections are taking place. Local ones at first. Integrating the functions and assemblies until a national government is formed.
Look at the message of Fallujah. Insurrection retards your progress in the process of political integration. I believe this will not be lost on the rest of Iraq.
Isn’t it a tad simplistic to say that Saddam has gone? Saddam had created a state in his own image. Saddam the individual may no longer be in charge, but the institutions he put in place and the thousands of men he taught to think like him didn’t just cease to exist the moment he was captured.
When Hitler committed suicide, Nazism didn’t instantly die. This isn’t some sci-fi flick where all the aliens drop dead when you kill their leader.
Squander, I kinda think that was the pont the first comment dude was making, it aint enought to just nail the guy at the top.
Antoine is off-base endorsing criticism of the “assault and battery” slogan on the tank. The US military is not a police force: it’s a war-fighting machine. It’s a bit silly to criticize soldiers for thinking like soldiers.
Yes, let’s get out of Iraq as soon as we can. But not sooner, please. And drop the Vietnam comparisons — they’re absurd.
OT but related:
Shiite Muslim Convention in Washington Endorses Coalition, Urges Firmness with al-Sadr
A Tank Named ‘ASSAULT AND BATTERY’
A soldier who is warlike enough to christen his vehicle with a title both sardonic and vaguely pun-ic. The horror.
The US Army is paid to be a violent extention of diplomacy – it shouldn’t be a surprise that the soldiery will express such an attitutude.
Note that soldiers will christen their vehicles with a full range of emotion – from romance to irony to the absurd.
” before the troops pull out and allow Iraqis to sort out their civil affairs.”
If “sorting out their civil affairs” means installing another Saddam-like murderous nut, then no, thanks, the troops better stay.
Otherwise the “troops” are in no way an impediment to “sorting out their civil affairs” , on the contrary, the occupiers would like nothing more than such a “sorting out” to take place.
And note: the progressives never cease calling this an “occupation”. In fact it is much more like a liberation, maybe like the liberation of Germany from the Nazis; I think a great majority of Iraqis see it this way. If you lived under Saddam you too would call it a liberation.
I agree with Perry on this.
I was against the war, or rather, I was against the war we’ve fought. I felt from day one that we simply weren’t ready for what was going to happen next.
We cannot morally leave now until the country is stabalized. Jerry Pournelle has a lot of sensible things to say on this on his Blog.
I was for the war, but I’m not for occupation, the sooner we bring the troops home and give them a victory parade the better.
Its better that instead we embark on a long term new Cold War with Islamo-fascism, coupled with a ruthless attitude towards terrorists.
The troops in Iraq are generating serious problems with the ordinary Iraqi population. Who anywhere would want to see a foreign army in their country? The troops can’t bring democracy with bullets and seem to be a source of destabilisation. A domestic army de-Baathified and supported by us might be wiser. The fly-paper theory that its better to attract all the Al Qaeda to Iraq to mix it with the Marines seems a bit glib to me. They will still seek to attack us at home.
Our best weapons in a new Cold War would be the same as in the old Cold War; the superiority of societies based on liberty and political pluralism, our prosperity and the strength of our security forces. Our example will wring change in those countries suffering under dictatorship and we will support those fighting for freedom.
It will take a decade or two, but we will prevail. Israel’s situation is in some ways like that of West Berlin in the old GDR. We will have to protect it and support its survival. But I’m sceptical that Iraq will be a launch platform for democracy in the Middle East. Jordan or some of the other moderate states are much better candidates. Democratising Iraq is a worthy goal, but is it currently realistic? Are the coalition forces not a hindrance to Iraqi self determination?
Perry says we can’t “funk out” when the going gets tough. How long can we stay as occupiers? What purpose is served by having circa 150,000 troops there long term? How many are really required to prevent a civil war in the lead up to elections?
My support of war on Iraq, the whole country, not just the ‘baddies’ was based on removing a known expansionary element that threatened oil supplies. I was never interested in freeing anybody and not overly interested in laying the foundation for a stable Iraq. If we don’t stay there at least ten years, civil war will be inevitable, and even then may be very likely once we have pulled at whatever the timeline. As long as whoever gains control over the State of Iraq is not expansionary, our job is finished.
If our objective was to establish a completely docile mass of Iraqi’s then by far too little force was used, IMO. Wars of the last 100 years have shown, to be successful you have to completely demoralize the enemy if you expect them to comply. But our objective was to end Iraq’s expansionary motives and we have done that. Making them into a liberal democracy would have taken much more force and an extermination of a greater portion of the resistance the first time around instead of letting them reform as guerillas.
As always it is very difficult to argue against the indoctrinated American mind: this war must be compared to previous wars that America fought in – either to promote or dispute the similarites with Vietnam or WWII – but at usual within the American paradigm – nowhere else exists. No other history is known. So the last thing we would want to do is discuss the reasons for failure of the previous Empire which invaded Iraq ( in much more clement conditions) , and left a democracy based on it’s own image. Of course the constitutional monarchy left by the British empire failed, but why? Doesn’t matter. Not American. Don’t know.
Of course the fix is in. A whole lifetime of indoctrination – clearly evident on these boards – that America is always just and riteous, will not be swept away over night.
If America fails and a thug comes to power this will prove to Americans that Arabs are just naturally backward. So America can’t lose. If this thug sides with America and Israel and yet tortures his own people wholesale the American will just not know about – only “progressives” will know about it and thay are “anti-american”
Come to think of it , if Saddam had become a friend of Israel and America in the last few years, he would be free to do as he pleased with the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Only progressives would know, just as only “progressives” ( and this libertarian) know that the US has strong ties with dictators to this day who are every bit as bad as Saddam was, as they were of course his backer when he was at his worst.
So is this pro-US thug committed genocide – it would not matter, and would not be reported in the worlds “Freeest” country. In fact, America would move on to discussing itself once again; and all eyes would turn to some scandal , or internal cultural issue: Michael Jackson , Gay Marriage , an intern who had sex with an unknown congressman and was found dead in a ditch ( remember Sept. 10th)
I swear Orwell could not make this up. If some other thug turned against America, and America invaded his country, the un-untutored american public would hear about the thug for the first time, learn to find the country on the map, and eviserate the left, and anti-war protesters who would have been aware of this thug all the time – for being pro-dictatorial by opposing the invasion.
I wonder could this work with any dictator the US now supports. I imagine it could.
What a dangerous new country it is, filled with such people.
To M.Simon: boat people happened after US get out of Vietnam which says a lot that for some Vietnamese the war was a little better than “communist peace”.
Why does everyone seem to forget that mean ol’ Saddam was supported by some mean ol’ Republicans just a few years back? Is everyone making the above hawkish comments an eighteen-year-old who just started reading the news a year ago? You might want to go down to the used book store and invest in a few back issues of Newsweek. If I entered a restaurant, took a shit in the middle of the dining room, left, and then returned the next day to clean it up, I wouldn’t expect applauses from those dining there.
Karlos,
I’ll tell you why no one mentioned it.
Every one changed sides. Repubs now hate Saddam. And Democrats think that once you have made a mistake you must repeat it endlessly.
How embarassing for every one.
There is one more reason: it is irrelavant.
lucklucky,
Thank you for emphasizing my point.
You got to hand it to the progressives. Before Bush turned the spotlight on Saddam you never saw anti-Saddam marches.
After Bush put Saddam in the light the progressives thought that America should not unseat him.
I used to count myself among the progressives before I found out they didn’t mean it. Sometime not too long after the Vietnamese Boat People. No outcry among the progressives about that one either.
I am sorry but i have to pick you again M.Simon: it was Saddam changing behaviour(attacking US allies )that prompted the change in U.S.
To karlos: never was a “friendship” between US and Saddam Iraq, diplomatic relations only started in 80’s , no weapon sales exept some dual use helis(Bell212 and Hughes500) and that value was around 0,1% of Saddam international arms Bazar.
One does not use the business-end of a tank-mounted 120mm gun keep to keep peace. Let’s put that misconception to rest, please. The military did precisely what it trained to do: it decimated Saddam’s army. The Iraqi Air Force was a non-entity to begin with, and the Iraqi navy…well, we’ve all heard the jokes.
What is happening now is that the U.S. and British military are no longer an offensive force — they’re targets. Thus we have the quagmire crowd gnashing their teeth about “Son of Vietnam.” The military will accelerate their rotations out of Iraq, and then the militant Islamists will only be able to continue what they’ve already started — killing fellow Iraqis. Ending civil strike in Iraq will present little political opportunity to U.S. and British politicians, and so we’ll all be able to get on with the navel-gazing back home.
Fifteen months does not a quagmire make.