Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the US now in the 'end game' in Iraq?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by obrescia View Post
    LOL !!!

    you forgot Jesus-Christ-Superstar with Bon Jovi - ON ICE!
    How about Mohammed-Superstar? Might be more appropriate given the locale.

    S-2, thanks. I've come around to the idea that we probably ain't going anyway in Kurdistan, at least. Promoting pluralistic democracy... what are your thoughts on cantonization?
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      How about Mohammed-Superstar? Might be more appropriate given the locale.
      Once you see JCST on ice skates together with Bon Jovi - tust me - you'll switch.

      I got one for you.

      Why has every county since the end of the Second World War adopted a Parliamentary system of government (in some form) over our own model of government here in the US?

      New topic?

      Comment


      • #18
        obrescia,

        very generally speaking, the parliamentary system is better suited as a "natural" evolution from a dictatorship or kingdom, whereas the presidential system is better suited if the nation was formerly a republic or an oligarchy.

        there are benefits and drawbacks to each system, but they are roughly equal.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          obrescia,

          very generally speaking, the parliamentary system is better suited as a "natural" evolution from a dictatorship or kingdom, whereas the presidential system is better suited if the nation was formerly a republic or an oligarchy.

          there are benefits and drawbacks to each system, but they are roughly equal.
          That's interesting, one would think it would be the other way around. Is it because of resistance in former dictatorships/kingdoms to put too much power in an executive? They've been there, done that, so to speak and don't want a repeat of it, whereas in oligarchies there are "too many cooks in the kitchen", and so prefer a singular executive as the main decision-maker?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by obrescia View Post
            I got one for you.

            Why has every county since the end of the Second World War adopted a Parliamentary system of government (in some form) over our own model of government here in the US?

            New topic?
            I see a larger trend in semi-presidential systems that combine elements of both the American system and the Westminister system. A parliament, a prime minister, and a strong president.

            Here, take a look at this:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fo...government.svg
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • #21
              IronDuke Reply

              "...what are your thoughts on cantonization?"

              You probably remember this-

              Unity Through Autonomy: Biden & Gelb- NYT

              and this-

              Resort To "Soft Partition" Repair In Iraq?: O'Hanlon & Joseph-Brookings Institute

              leading to this-

              The Case For Soft Partition In Iraq- O'Hanlon & Joseph- Brookings Institute

              with a superb critique by Reidar Visser seen here.

              The only nation of which I'm aware that's formally cantonized is Switzerland. My knowledge of their growing pangs and throes experienced is nonexistent. I'm dubious that a nat'l defense and oil revenue sharing can be functionally provided under any envisioned plan. Those would be key to Iraq retaining some collective identity.

              Selfishly, partition or cantonment would mean the near-perpetual presence of the United States in (likely) Kurdistan. It would impose great burdens on us to re-orient Kurdish nationalist sentiment for our sake were we to do so. Success, though, would assure us a stable platform from which to project power into central Asia, the mid-east, or the Trans-Caucasus.

              Just some idle musings by an avowed but betrayed neo-con.
              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

              Comment


              • #22
                As i've been saying long time ago, war's already been won by the US. Saddam's been captured and hung, and his army's been smashed. But the question about the US leaving, the answer is no. There will always be a presence there :)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Perhaps cantonization was not the best term to use, I think I should have used decentralized or confederation instead. Switzerland does have cantons, but it transitioned to a federal republic 160 years ago. I was thinking more along the lines of Bosnia - but it doesn't take a whole lot of thought to realize that such a route would more or less mean a permanent presence in Iraq -- Bosnia doesn't function as a state.

                  I'll rephrase my question... what level of centralization / autonomy do you think is best for Iraq? What competences ought to be left to the provinces? One of the articles you posted mentions that the provinces together can form a regional government -- I found that interesting.

                  There was one bit I was confused about a bit in your reply.
                  Originally posted by S-2
                  I'm dubious that a nat'l defense and oil revenue sharing can be functionally provided under any envisioned plan. Those would be key to Iraq retaining some collective identity.
                  Just for clarification, were you referring back to my question about cantonization, or any plan including the current setup of the Iraqi government?
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ironduke Reply

                    "... any plan including the current setup of the Iraqi government?"

                    The above. Any plan that presumes sharing power in any way will make very difficult an apportioning of Iraq's oil revenues and nat'l defense responsibilities. We've faced that hurdle from the beginning and still don't have good answers six years later. Nothing I've seen suggests that we'll see adequate functional integration and power sharing in the energy or defense sectors.

                    Let me think on the rest of your question. I regret that I've never entertained what would be BEST for Iraqi self-governance.

                    Too busy trying to figure how to steal the oil...:))
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      A new phase, not an end game. But let public think it is the final phase; keeps the political pressure down.:)
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        hero,

                        That's interesting, one would think it would be the other way around. Is it because of resistance in former dictatorships/kingdoms to put too much power in an executive? They've been there, done that, so to speak and don't want a repeat of it, whereas in oligarchies there are "too many cooks in the kitchen", and so prefer a singular executive as the main decision-maker?
                        partly, but it was also because of the way kingdoms evolved first into constitutional monarchies and then towards democracy.

                        parliamentary democracies place a big differential between head of government and head of state, and the figurehead monarch as the "head of state" was already in place in a constitutional monarchy.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          A new phase, not an end game. But let public think it is the final phase; keeps the political pressure down.:)
                          Good point. Whatever the case might be, I think S-2 is spot on with the US remaining in Kurdistan at the very least whatever the SoFA and SFA say.
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            Good point. Whatever the case might be, I think S-2 is spot on with the US remaining in Kurdistan at the very least whatever the SoFA and SFA say.
                            Would be a very bad development for Turkey.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              We have been trying to "work ourselves out of a job" since we arrived in Iraq. We though that al Anbar province would never come around. Let us call this what it is SUCCESS.
                              J. J. Ogershok, Jr.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hitman817 Reply

                                "Would be a very bad development for Turkey."

                                It would be the best of all worlds.

                                Instead of a dysfunctional Iraqi gov't held accountable for the KRG, the KRG itself would be accountable and thoroughly dependant upon the goodwill of the United States to survive all on their lonesome surrounded by wolves.

                                Nope. The Peshmerga would jump right quick to address the PKK if they thought that the survival of a Kurdish state rested on that single hair- and it would.

                                There's no way that we go into Kurdistan without that being priority #1 by the KRG to sail under our umbrella.

                                Once done, Turkey would have a firm ally on it's southern flank and the Kurds would have a secure route to market for their oil without crossing Iranian, Shia, or sunni territory within what remains of Iraq.
                                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X