World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Herodotus · 02-27-2008, 02:34 AM

Saddam, WMD, democracy were all objectives worth consideration. "...kill Islamic terrorists..." in Iraq is a simple requirement of establishing local security for the Iraqis. This poll-thread so far has largely said that terrorists weren't a viable pre-invasion issue. Their post-invasion presence may well be a product of our bungled Phase IV implementation. Their current presence is an undeniable though diminishing fact that is best addressed kinetically.

TWO examples of Iraq. Consequences of "bad, bad Iraq" to paraphrase nanheyangrouchuan fav anti-PRC rant and the shining beacon of new Iraq. First one was immediately understood by Gaddafi. The second needs some polishing. Objectives though, if unstated. So all excepting salafi-wahabbist A.Q. type terrorists. Ansar-al-Islam doesn't really quite work. I don't really know how to describe that relationship w/ Iraq. Tenuous, perhaps.

I would probably quibble with you some over Qaddafi's rationale in giving up his WMD program. I think there were a variety of reasons, Iraq may have been one of them, but maybe not the deciding factor.

Not at all. Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums in an arab state are too unusual to casually dismiss as EXPECTED order of business. Hardly short shrift that Iraq has had a government hold office...

I would still argue that they were imperfect parliamentary elections since they were drawn along sectarian lines and during a time when a sizable minority tried to reject the results.

Allawi took the interim P.M. position sometime in 2004. Jaffari. al-Maliki in 2006. True power is derived from competent institutions. There were none under Saddam. Perhaps that might be different now. That's TBD.

A year after the invasion and only because it was feared Sistani would call a fatwa.

Don't be so limp-wristed. Those seven words are values. Communication of these values is occurring. The "al-Anbar Awakening" is a reflection of this grass-roots re-emergence. But it's not as tame as forced school-bussing in Boston, that's for sure. Still, there's been considerable movement in the villages, towns, districts, and provinces which you've chosen to ignore I suspect.

I've heard something about grass roots politics in Iraq (or is that desert roots), but I don't think it has shown much in results, save for the fighting against al Qaeda:

World Politics Review | Iraq Resconstruction Teams Struggle to Sustain Grassroots Projects

Finally, one-third of the nation was COMPLETELY prepared to "bottom-up" from the get-go. Kurdistan. Most Kurds would suggest that-

Yes, yes the Kurds, well that's an entirely different story. I have warmed up to your ideas about partition. It would be a nice place to have an American base, or two.

Imperfect. Yazidis suffered badly recently. Kurds have fared better.

And Christians, Sunnis, Turkmen, Azeri...Jews?

That's changing quickly or will you not acknowledge that?

Yes, so far the "surge" or the Awakening seem to be working, now we are down to 2005 levels of violence. But is this indicative of a wider trend, or are various factions taking a step back only to re-arm and start fighting again?

I'd call the presence of an Iraqi parliament and constitution, by themselves, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's been much more since.

The Sunnis aren't very happy with it, or at least they weren't. Kirkuk hasn't been resolved, or oil sharing. I am encouraged by the reversal of de-Baathification...baby steps I suppose.

Whatever. "no" is absolute. That you use absolute phrasing repeatedly suggests you've departed from considered discussion of issues based on relevant and current conditions. I sense within some articles of faith to which you cling in the face of contrary observations.

This is an important point though, and the reason that radical Islam cannot be wedded with democratic change. Islamic fundamentalists deal in absolutes, so we should probably understand why that is. An Iraq with sharia does not make it a democracy no matter how many people go to the polls. Anyway I do take more of an academic view on this subject since I have read too many books/articles on why Islamic (and Confucian) societies don't mix well with democracy. (Yes, yes I know look at Turkey...or for that matter Kurdistan, but we've had this discussion before).

Something closer to Turkey than Saudi Arabia for starters. I like our chances there. Especially if it includes an Incirlik or two.

Okay, fair enough.

No. I didn't say that-least of all "any". Not by a country mile. Many have already been realized. No WMD. Neighbors safe from invasion. Kurds and shias safe. No baath party. Far more than you mentioned that are immediate benefits to the neighborhood.
[/b]

Those goals are all tied to the removal of Saddam, or were just confirmed after the initial invasion.

Rhetorical. You've already answered this for yourself. Prove weariness and beware of polls.
[/b]

Fair enough.

If you can't imagine worse than the present then you've not studied history at all. Note the absolutism of that comment by me.

Oh I can imagine much worse. I should have figured you wouldn't fall into my trap.

YOUR worse-case scenarios may not be the only imaginable. Our presence guarantees nothing. I think it's clear that our departure guarantees a highly unstable Iraq vulnerable to external and internal forces which it is only now averting with some success.

Well as I said above I'm sure I can think of worse things to happen in Iraq, and as you say our presence guarantees nothing. Though I wish it weren't so, what's done is done vis-a-vis Iraq; how to remove ourselves without further damage should now be the goal.

Too many questions now and I know you too well, Herodotus. You're cherry-picking the edges to avoid an open declaration of your views for which you might be pummeled.

Well yes, I would prefer a non-pummeling, and I would like to stay on these boards for a little while.

Take the big step and give us the Herodotus Manifesto of American Adventurism.

All in good time, all in good time. My views on foreign policy are in the minority, and I'm not sure folks here want to hear them.

You need to practice some "boilerplate assumptions" avoidance.

I'll just have to think of more clever questions to ask you.

Walter- My bowling partner. Good man. He can get you a toe in three hours.[/quote]

Well if anything S-2 you have impeccable taste in at least one movie.

02-27-2008, 02:34 AM	#49 (permalink)
Herodotus Contributor Join Date: 04-05-07 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 443 Country:	Saddam, WMD, democracy were all objectives worth consideration. "...kill Islamic terrorists..." in Iraq is a simple requirement of establishing local security for the Iraqis. This poll-thread so far has largely said that terrorists weren't a viable pre-invasion issue. Their post-invasion presence may well be a product of our bungled Phase IV implementation. Their current presence is an undeniable though diminishing fact that is best addressed kinetically. TWO examples of Iraq. Consequences of "bad, bad Iraq" to paraphrase nanheyangrouchuan fav anti-PRC rant and the shining beacon of new Iraq. First one was immediately understood by Gaddafi. The second needs some polishing. Objectives though, if unstated. So all excepting salafi-wahabbist A.Q. type terrorists. Ansar-al-Islam doesn't really quite work. I don't really know how to describe that relationship w/ Iraq. Tenuous, perhaps. I would probably quibble with you some over Qaddafi's rationale in giving up his WMD program. I think there were a variety of reasons, Iraq may have been one of them, but maybe not the deciding factor. Not at all. Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums in an arab state are too unusual to casually dismiss as EXPECTED order of business. Hardly short shrift that Iraq has had a government hold office... I would still argue that they were imperfect parliamentary elections since they were drawn along sectarian lines and during a time when a sizable minority tried to reject the results. Allawi took the interim P.M. position sometime in 2004. Jaffari. al-Maliki in 2006. True power is derived from competent institutions. There were none under Saddam. Perhaps that might be different now. That's TBD. A year after the invasion and only because it was feared Sistani would call a fatwa. Don't be so limp-wristed. Those seven words are values. Communication of these values is occurring. The "al-Anbar Awakening" is a reflection of this grass-roots re-emergence. But it's not as tame as forced school-bussing in Boston, that's for sure. Still, there's been considerable movement in the villages, towns, districts, and provinces which you've chosen to ignore I suspect. I've heard something about grass roots politics in Iraq (or is that desert roots), but I don't think it has shown much in results, save for the fighting against al Qaeda: World Politics Review \| Iraq Resconstruction Teams Struggle to Sustain Grassroots Projects Finally, one-third of the nation was COMPLETELY prepared to "bottom-up" from the get-go. Kurdistan. Most Kurds would suggest that- Yes, yes the Kurds, well that's an entirely different story. I have warmed up to your ideas about partition. It would be a nice place to have an American base, or two. Imperfect. Yazidis suffered badly recently. Kurds have fared better. And Christians, Sunnis, Turkmen, Azeri...Jews? That's changing quickly or will you not acknowledge that? Yes, so far the "surge" or the Awakening seem to be working, now we are down to 2005 levels of violence. But is this indicative of a wider trend, or are various factions taking a step back only to re-arm and start fighting again? I'd call the presence of an Iraqi parliament and constitution, by themselves, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's been much more since. The Sunnis aren't very happy with it, or at least they weren't. Kirkuk hasn't been resolved, or oil sharing. I am encouraged by the reversal of de-Baathification...baby steps I suppose. Whatever. "no" is absolute. That you use absolute phrasing repeatedly suggests you've departed from considered discussion of issues based on relevant and current conditions. I sense within some articles of faith to which you cling in the face of contrary observations. This is an important point though, and the reason that radical Islam cannot be wedded with democratic change. Islamic fundamentalists deal in absolutes, so we should probably understand why that is. An Iraq with sharia does not make it a democracy no matter how many people go to the polls. Anyway I do take more of an academic view on this subject since I have read too many books/articles on why Islamic (and Confucian) societies don't mix well with democracy. (Yes, yes I know look at Turkey...or for that matter Kurdistan, but we've had this discussion before). Something closer to Turkey than Saudi Arabia for starters. I like our chances there. Especially if it includes an Incirlik or two. Okay, fair enough. No. I didn't say that-least of all "any". Not by a country mile. Many have already been realized. No WMD. Neighbors safe from invasion. Kurds and shias safe. No baath party. Far more than you mentioned that are immediate benefits to the neighborhood. [/b] Those goals are all tied to the removal of Saddam, or were just confirmed after the initial invasion. Rhetorical. You've already answered this for yourself. Prove weariness and beware of polls. [/b] Fair enough. If you can't imagine worse than the present then you've not studied history at all. Note the absolutism of that comment by me. Oh I can imagine much worse. I should have figured you wouldn't fall into my trap. YOUR worse-case scenarios may not be the only imaginable. Our presence guarantees nothing. I think it's clear that our departure guarantees a highly unstable Iraq vulnerable to external and internal forces which it is only now averting with some success. Well as I said above I'm sure I can think of worse things to happen in Iraq, and as you say our presence guarantees nothing. Though I wish it weren't so, what's done is done vis-a-vis Iraq; how to remove ourselves without further damage should now be the goal. Too many questions now and I know you too well, Herodotus. You're cherry-picking the edges to avoid an open declaration of your views for which you might be pummeled. Well yes, I would prefer a non-pummeling, and I would like to stay on these boards for a little while. Take the big step and give us the Herodotus Manifesto of American Adventurism. All in good time, all in good time. My views on foreign policy are in the minority, and I'm not sure folks here want to hear them. You need to practice some "boilerplate assumptions" avoidance. I'll just have to think of more clever questions to ask you. Walter- My bowling partner. Good man. He can get you a toe in three hours.[/quote] Well if anything S-2 you have impeccable taste in at least one movie.