The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

man with no head

I don't believe, however, that the solution to Iraq now is a military one. I believe the solution has to be a political one at this point. Keeping our military there as it is now is not part of that solution.

raycarey

^agreed.
if the solution was a military one, the neocons would have been right...but clearly 'shock and awe' was a pipe dream.

there's an interesting piece in the current time magazine which makes the argument that the only way 'forward' is to officially partition the country. 'officially', because for all intents and purposes it is already partitioned...the kurds have their own govt. and military, and in the last election over 90% of the votes cast were along sectarian lines.

it seems clear to me that the geographic region once known as iraq should be divided into thirds, and a UN force (primarily comprised of muslims) should be brought in so the US military can get out ASAP.

Butterfly

well, this is going to be the balkanization of the ME. Not sure if it's going to be any good.

At this point any desperate solution could do, even if it means bringing back Saddam.

stroller

That sounds sensible, I can agree with this.
The obvious 'hindrance' created by having outspoken Christians (Bush/Blair contingent)to be in charge has been going on for too long.

Time for the US to cough up their overdue UN membership fees, so the UN can proceed to deal with the mess the US has created.

man with no head

Has the UN paid for the cost of keeping U.S. troops in other nations? I would argue that if the UN expect dues from us then they need to pay us for the cost of keeping our troops overseas to keep the peace.

The question is: which neutral secular Muslim nation has a strong enough force to keep the peace in a country divided by deep religious lines? I think that invites a worse mess than it is now.

Sir Burr

An article from the Economist magazine from the 28th October edition.

WHEN a great democracy such as the United States holds elections at a time of war, voters are torn between two instincts. One is to show grit and solidarity by rallying around the flag and the president. The other is to treat the election as a referendum on the war. Ever since September 11th 2001 George Bush has milked the first instinct for all it is worth. But having gained so much from presenting himself as a war president, Mr Bush can hardly complain now that the voters are moving in the other direction. Many seem intent on using November's mid-terms to give their verdict on his handling of the war in Iraq. That is bad news for the Republicans. According to a Gallup poll this week, only 19% of Americans still think that America is winning. In Britain, America's chief ally in Iraq, the disenchantment is deeper. An ICM poll this week found that 45% of Britons wanted their troops to leave at once, and a further 16% wanted them out by the end of the year.

Patience and its limits

This loss of faith among the people of Britain and America is easy to understand. They have already shown a lot of patience. More than three years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become progressively more violent . Some 2,200 American soldiers and 120 British ones have been killed, and the death toll among Iraqis may stretch into the hundreds of thousands. Voters in the West would be steadier if they believed Iraq to be heading, however fitfully, in broadly the right direction. But that is not certain. Free elections have been held, but these have not yet brought effective government. A constitution has been written, but this has not resolved the big differences between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. Especially since the bombing of the Shias' Askariyah mosque in February, the violence has mutated from a low-level insurgency into a sectarian civil war, with ethnic cleansing already under way in some areas. George Casey, America's top general in Iraq, did his best this week to express some cautious optimism. Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted that success was still possible. But plenty of other diplomats and generals (including the head of Britain's army) have taken a more sombre view. Iraq may have bottomed out, or the worst may be yet to come. The truth is that nobody knows for sure.
In recent weeks the combination of an election campaign in America with the lack of progress in Iraq has for the first time produced a vigorous, open debate about strategic alternatives. Yet the benefits of this debate may turn out to be more apparent than real. For none of the alternative ideas mooted so far, such as partition, installing a strongman or withdrawing American forces “over the horizon”, looks more promising than the existing three-part strategy. This, broadly, is to damp down the violence as much as possible while continuing to train Iraq's own soldiers and policemen and pressing Iraq's elected politicians to make a power- (and oil-) sharing deal that could end the civil war. The real choice facing America and its allies in Iraq is whether to persevere with this strategy in the hope of eventual success, or admit failure now and start to head for the exit.
For the politicians (and newspapers, like ours) who argued strongly for the invasion of Iraq, it is no longer enough to accuse those who want to head for the exit of “cutting and running”, as if using a pejorative phrase settled the argument either way. Cutting your losses is sometimes the sensible thing to do, even for a superpower, and even after paying a heavy price in lost lives and wasted money. If you genuinely believe, as many people now do, that the likeliest long-term outcome in Iraq is that America will end up cutting and running anyway, with no improvement to be expected even three or four years hence, why simply postpone the inevitable?
Because failure may not be inevitable. It is true that Iraq is not poised to become the exemplary democracy the American neocons dreamed of carving out in the heart of the Arab world. But that definition of success was always a peculiar one to apply to a war the United States launched primarily to secure its own interests. A failure to turn Iraq into Switzerland means neither that Iraq is fated to collapse altogether nor that its people are doomed to perpetual fratricidal war. The question Americans need to ask is what impact their own staying or going is likely to have on the balance of probable outcomes. And in answering this question, the case for staying becomes a good deal stronger. By persevering, America stands at least some chance of putting Iraq on a more stable trajectory. By leaving, it is almost certain to make things worse.

What you can't do once you've gone

At a minimum, America's continuing presence in Iraq prevents the neighbours from joining in a civil war, as Lebanon's neighbours did in the 1970s with much less at stake. The Americans can still move into and establish some order in areas where the violence surges out of control. They can protect the elected government and put pressure on its members to make a political settlement. They can continue to train Iraq's own security forces and, if necessary, attack or dismantle some of the militias. Once they leave they can do none of these things. Senator John Warner spoke for many when he worried recently that the situation was “drifting sideways”. But there are worse directions than sideways. Leaving now stands a fair chance of plunging Iraq into an enlarged war and a far bigger bloodbath than anything seen so far.
For Mr Bush, the Iraq war has in one sense already been lost, whatever result the mid-terms bring. This president's legacy will forever be tainted by what he overpromised and how much he underperformed. The voters of America are entitled to judge and punish his party as they see fit. But Americans would be wrong to extend this punishment to the people of Iraq, who have suffered so much already. Even if it was a mistake to blunder into Iraq, it would be a bigger mistake, bordering on a crime, for a nation that aspires to greatness to blunder out now, without first having exhausted every possible effort to put Iraq back together and avert a wider war.

__________________
Phuket - Veni Vidi Veni

Milkman

Agreed. There was never really a military solution. They were 200,000 short of the necesarry troops, anyway.

Three critical mistake were made:

1. disbanding the Baath party (civil servants, bureaucrats like mailmen, and cops).

2. Disbanding the Iraqi Army.

These people were experienced in running things. They had the organizational set-up and the knowledge.

After being disbanded, they were unemployed with families to feed. No job, no money. No, not happy.

3. Ignoring the Iraqi National Council (INC).

True, but there will be a bloody war if there is a partition. The Sunnis have 0 oil. Nothing at all. Al-Anbar has not even been explored.

UN forces are usually ineffective, IMO.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

stroller

As far as I remember, the US is a member of the UN and has agreed on the membership conditions, including the fees, not the other way round?

Sir Burr

After the initial war, there was no Iraqi army to disband. They had all deserted by then according to Iraqi army generals.

LesBonsTemps

I absolutely agree with you, Surasak, that a political solution is required. And ideally any military presence would be predominantly UN and not US/UK.

Two countries that regularly "show up" for UN military service are Pakistan and India -- both had contingents in Somalia. They are at odds with each other, but their military is well-trained, funded and competent.

It's all such a bloody conundrum...so frustrating.

man with no head

Should not have invaded in the first place.

Boon Mee

Yeah, well, 20/20 hindsight is great, ain't it?
That's par for the course though in the dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist “debate” in this modern age.

Mr Earl

We are witnessing a clash of civilizations which has been brewing for 30+ years and was inevitable.
The big player which has yet to be dealt with is Iran. Iran is due for a spanking.

Sir Burr

And you think the USA is big enough to do it? Don't make me laugh!

Storekeeper

Do you remember part of the reason Patton was fired ? He saw no reason not to leave the Nazis in similar positions.

Storekeeper

Iraqis killing Iraqis is a frustrating thing.

raycarey

my guess is that you don't realize it, but you've just admitted that you agree the invasion was a mistake.

and for some of us, there's no 'hindsight' about it. we knew all along it was wrong headed....both in a moral and pragmatic sense.


and as far as earl puffing his chest up about iran....why can't he learn from his short sighted war mongering on iraq....or is that he doesn't have to learn because he has no direct connection to anyone who might be killed...iranian or israeli civilian or US military personnel?

Storekeeper

I take comfort in knowing though that you at least support assassination teams (which are illegal) ... and you probably wouldn't have really minded if we would have just bombed the fuck out of them without putting any troops on the ground.

Alas, I still believe it was the right thing to do. But I will admit the after invasion planning could have been much better.

__________________
"England forever; the USA one day longer"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.