Reality, Reason, and Iraq
The news calls them “jihadist” and “Sunni extremists.” You have no idea who they are or what they want. Iraq is a nation three large minorities: ethnic Kurds, Shi’a Muslims, and Sunni Muslims. (Baghdad’s Jews and Marionite Catholics no longer count.) Historically, Iraq was never a nation until the British created it from the old Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. That they did not create Kurdistan at the same time is another sad story.
Fast forward through the puppet King Faisal and we come to the modern era of socialism and military dictatorship. Although nominally a secular socialist, Saddam Hussein was a Sunni who depended on religionist support. Aside from the Kurds, his opponents were Shia Muslims who drew aid from Iran, the center of that faction, as Cantebury is for Episcopalians.
The US invasion destroyed the central government of Iraq. For over a decade, many Washington planners from different organizations have tried to create or nurture some kind of pluralist government in Iraq. It is doomed to failure.
For one thing, Turkey does not want an independent Kurdistan, especially as the Iraqi Kurds have de facto independence now. Moreover, they are largely out of this fight. It is between the Sunni and Shi’i.
As far as the Sunni are concerned, they are fighting for their lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Trian...
If they take control of Iraq again, the tables will be turned to no one’s benefit. It would be best to let them have their Sunni Triangle as a independent state or autonomous region.
As for the president of Iraq, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki:
“He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003. While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.” – Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Ma...
Iraq is suffering in a civil war – but it has suffered so ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and surely since the failure of the British mandate. American involvement on behalf of the central government will only make matters worse. Iraq will become a satellite of Iran.
If an ideal settlement exists, it is the partitioning of the region into three or four states: Kurd, Sunni, Shi’ite, with – again, ideally – Baghdad as an international free trade zone. Whatever happens, the best course is _no_ course: laissez faire.
Fast forward through the puppet King Faisal and we come to the modern era of socialism and military dictatorship. Although nominally a secular socialist, Saddam Hussein was a Sunni who depended on religionist support. Aside from the Kurds, his opponents were Shia Muslims who drew aid from Iran, the center of that faction, as Cantebury is for Episcopalians.
The US invasion destroyed the central government of Iraq. For over a decade, many Washington planners from different organizations have tried to create or nurture some kind of pluralist government in Iraq. It is doomed to failure.
For one thing, Turkey does not want an independent Kurdistan, especially as the Iraqi Kurds have de facto independence now. Moreover, they are largely out of this fight. It is between the Sunni and Shi’i.
As far as the Sunni are concerned, they are fighting for their lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Trian...
If they take control of Iraq again, the tables will be turned to no one’s benefit. It would be best to let them have their Sunni Triangle as a independent state or autonomous region.
As for the president of Iraq, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki:
“He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003. While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.” – Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Ma...
Iraq is suffering in a civil war – but it has suffered so ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and surely since the failure of the British mandate. American involvement on behalf of the central government will only make matters worse. Iraq will become a satellite of Iran.
If an ideal settlement exists, it is the partitioning of the region into three or four states: Kurd, Sunni, Shi’ite, with – again, ideally – Baghdad as an international free trade zone. Whatever happens, the best course is _no_ course: laissez faire.
Pick any two ..... right?
Of course they are treated like a red-headed stepchild by the entire world.
It's going to get really ugly when they overrun the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and kill a couple thousand, or hold them hostage and ransom them. Pull our people out now and close the embassy.
As an aside, why aren't the headless bodies stacked like cord wood being talked about more? My gods prophet is better than your gods prophet and I'll kill and maim you to prove it.
This presidency cannot survive another brutal embassy attack.
2) Regardless of how we got into the war, it was "won" and O failed to set the terms by which it would stay "won." No SOFA, no on-going military presence so that this incursion would not have happened. No military stabilization force. One reason that we stayed in Germany (albeit, way too long now) was so that any residual Nazi sympathizers wouldn't feel that they could resume the fight. O cut and ran, leaving a void that al Qaeda is more than willing to fill.
3) Unlike Mimi, below, I believe that WMD did exist, and are either buried in Iraq's desert or were sent to Syria. Some day, they will be found, mark my words. It is very unlikely that an underling of Saddam would take it upon himself to deceive such a brutal dictator that these existed if they didn't.
Fact 1: We went in with over a hundred-sixty countries, two-thirds of the world, ok??
Hali Burton and oil companies profited from our decision to go in. So? Isn’t that what they do? Look for profit in good times and bad. In an adult world we can look at these activities dispassionately. They are businesses, after all.
Fact 2: Bin Laden probably could have been killed a long time ago, but many in the military would agree that it would have been smarter not to hunt him down because his death could have actually caused a bigger problem in the region with fanatics. After our embassy was attacked in Syria (on Obama’s watch) there were demonstrations across the region where the men chanted: “Obama, Obama, we are all Bin Laden” Those fellows are probably part of the crowd marching on Bagdad as we write. Martyrdom is a bitch.
Plu-leze..not give Obama credit for Bin Lade, Of course I give him credit! Without him in front of microphones given his “go-me!” back-patting speeches along with his sidekick, Joe Biden, twenty-two members of Navy Seals six would still be alive.
Silly you. Of course I will never forget.
That is one reason that region has been fighting off and on throughout history.
The only time it stops for any length of time is when someone strong enough to force it to stop does so.
As I've expressed in other postings, I'm not by nature a violent or vicious man. But, like you, I can see what works and what doesn't work, and why.
"The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage. Therefore, they made war with Philip and Antiochus in Greece, in order not to have to fight them in Italy... They never went by that saying which you constantly hear from the wiseacres of our day, that time heals all things. They trusted rather their own character and prudence- knowing perfectly well that time contains the seeds of all things, good as well as bad."
"From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved."
" Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared."
-Niccolo Machiavelli
If I can find the source of this story, I'll share it. I do have several biographies on Alexander in my home library, but I'll not be there for a while.
When "push comes to shove" in this nation (and there are hard times coming), you will see a mass exodus from the coasts to the middle of this country.
At that point you will understand the thought of "true Americans". It has to do with individualism.
As far as the drone strikes go, you are correct. I personally understand that the US doesn't belong at war ...especially in the Middle East (the graveyard of empires).
Henry Kissinger said that our downfall would be a lack of consistent foreign policy. He was correct.
I agree, the state of Iraq is artificial and unstable, it could survive under firm control and a federal structure as many empires did -Ottoman, Hapsburg, Britain, and even Switzerland. Most of the world would be better off with a split of Iraq 3 or 4 ways. But will it happen without outside intervention?
Just a thought, if one powerful side does not intervene, other contenders will. The side who practice moralistic non-intervention will see the neutrals, the weak, and then their friends being picked off one by one. Um, no, I think hands off, at least in this case.
Assad is a member of a minority, neither of the big two. One of the few favorable things about Assad is that minorities in Syria are/were reasonably secure. Assad has the support of Shia Iran but that may be more for strategy than ideology.
But, above all, we made it clear that we were in charge of them. Or else.
The attacks on our aircraft flying the "No-fly" zone were themselves acts of war, and violations of the armistice. More than enough excuse to resume the war and finish Hussein.
The pounding was flawed in that we didn't put them in the stone age. The nation building was definitely flawed.
There was no Bush/Cheney debacle.
The "current outcome" was *self-fulfilling* policy. Just as in Vietnam, the leftists in government and the media did everything they could to cripple our war effort.
Invent a new religion, and base it on race. Claim that the Creators (12 of them, one for each facecard in a deck of playing cards) meant for white people to be pure, and therefore they must never be in the same building with brown people, and never in the same room with yellow people. See how long you get to practice your religion.
Again, the answer is to declare, via amendment, that Islam is not, in fact, a religion, but a philosophy of government.
("you" in this context being "one", not you specifically).
And, you're wrong, Maphesdus. The "whole world" hasn't turned against our enemies, in spite of *their* barbaric behavior. Rome was brutal to its enemies, but everybody wanted to be Roman, and the Roman border was the end of security, prosperity and civilization, for everyone. The Dark Ages came *after* Rome fell, not during her reign. Not even during her imperial period. Rome fell *after* it started being multicultural.
If only Great Britain were our ally in the end, I'd be content. But, then, I'm old fashioned. I prefer one or two good, reliable friends to a host of fair-weather acquaintances.
Load more comments...