Thread: Iraq got stable through political solutions, would same work in Afghanistan?

Iraq got stable?!
Enlighten me.

Originally Posted by s_qwert63

Iraq got stable?!
Enlighten me.

Ok, you got me there.
Perhaps like Bush, I had started to beleive our own propaganda for a moment.

Sadly, change to a relatively quiet but unstable and potentially explosive situation now seems "progress" compared to very high level of avoidable bloodshed and violence of last 5 years.

Originally Posted by Shek

I wouldn't call it a political solution, but rather some political accomodation at the local level. We'll see if it becomes a political solution endorsed by the Iraqi government or just a passing phase dictated more by American military might. The surge has created the "breathing space", but whether a critical mass of politicians step into the gap remains to be seen.

As far as Iraq vs. Afghanistan, Iraq had far fewer factions and have tasted the "good life" recently enough to see what they have to lose. Afghanistan has less to lose and more numerous and distinct factions. A central government has never controlled the whole country, and you have a much more radical threat next door that isn't under control by that central government.

There was some euphemism in terming "political solution" for financial "incentives' we have been providing to former insurgents. But it's very accurate that Iraq needed political solutions - like the other big middle east conflict between arabs and jews. There is no military solution to both conflicts. And yes, new Iraqi regime's progress on political front for the most part has been a failure. There is need for political solutions and lately things are moving in better direction with sunnis getting power in new legislative body but it's far from a good political progress.

Originally Posted by Stan187

I think in a dynamic environment like Iraq, we almost have to get beyond thinking in boxes of political solution vs. military solution vs. economic solution and so on. I mean look at the surge, it was a military solution right? But also, while employing the military to go after AQ, the Sunnis were offered economic and political incentives to come on board. Surely, the surge would have not worked as well without all the elements involved here. I think one of the lessons that Petraeus, Chiarelli and McMaster have worked to show us is that there must be an integrated solution. The political outcome depends on economic and military stability in large part, and to some extent vice versa.

I agree for the most part, it has to be a comprehensive strategy but its where primary focus is that determines what it is called and ultimately its success. "Surge" was a boost in resources to implement a new policy of reconcilation with former sunni insurgents/terrorists we were previously trying to kill but it wasn't a "military surge" in the sense that we exapnaded military conflicts or military fighting. Security is paramount and with hundreds of thousands civilians killed/injured and millions displaced from their homes, it may take decades to make Iraq secure for real political progress and stability.

Originally Posted by s_qwert63

Iraq got stable?!
Enlighten me.

Okay, how about a Kentucky Fried Chicken opening up in Fallujah, Iraq July, 20, 2008. Here is the link:

Yellow Limes: Kentucky Fried Chicken Served Up, Fallujah, Iraq Style

Originally Posted by Julie

Okay, how about a Kentucky Fried Chicken opening up in Fallujah, Iraq July, 20, 2008. Here is the link:

Yellow Limes: Kentucky Fried Chicken Served Up, Fallujah, Iraq Style

Millions of innocent people have been killed, injured or displaced from their homes because of this reckless and avoidable blunder and you're pointing to opening of heart clogging fried chicken shop as a sign of 'success'?

Unless you see things going from tragic to just horrible as a sign of 'progress'. Sorry couldn't help it as much as I'm impressed by your sense of optimism.

Originally Posted by Shek

Many insurgents turned to the insurgency because we took away their means of making a living, whether it was interdicting traditional tribal smuggling routes, favoring particular local contractors at the expense of others, etc. Furthermore, I'm not sure where you are getting that the Sons of Iraq has been framed as a political solution. It has been a transition to potential political buy-in by both Sunni and Shia who were on the margins of the current governmental structure. Many of the SOI have been integrated into the ISF.



Hopefully, you are not confusing no military solution with no military. Security is a necessary but insufficient condition.



I wouldn't categorize it as a failure. A smashing success? No, but certainly not a failure. The conversation has moved forward, the militias are being stripped of their power, al Sadr has been marginalized, budget execution is moving way up (the bureaucracy of the politics is improving).



Dead wrong. The military fighting vastly increased. Coalition casualties incresaed. Ordnance expenditures, both in numbers and size of caliber, increased. Oil spots have grown.



Resettlement is occurring at a slow, but steady pace, and at the local level, there has been tremendous progress. Shia/Sunni reconciliation is happening everyday. It may turn out to be a disappointment, but the prospect for strong progress through the results of the provincial elections in 2008?/2009 and the national elections in 2010 holds tremendous progress.

You make some valid points and I don't disagree with much of your observation. But looking at the overall situation, would you say security and other things in Iraq are better or worse than they were before start of pre-emptive freedom war? That's where we may have a different view if you believe overall it's better.