Aside from moralists feeling we were justified in freeing the Iraqi People from a tyranical leader and without a WMD debate, how do people feel about what's going to be our very expensive in lives and money long term occupation? In particular:

The real possibility of an Iraqi civil war and which of the three distinct groups should we support?

Should we continue to beg the UN, NATO and other nations for assistance without turning control over to the UN (if they'll still consider it)?

How long should we stay and under what circumstances?

I'm curious as to what people think as Iraq and the economy are what will drive the presidential election campaigns.

 

i dont remember G-W ever begging the UN for assistance... maybe i missed somthing.

honestly i think the only thing he did wrong was say the war is over too soon. that was just to keep the public from feeling we are at war. the war will not be over until the last soilder steps out of iraq, and we pull our last plane out of the area (which will never happen so dont expect it any time soon).

as for what to do about this civil war to come, i think either we should divide the country into 3, or pump more of our soilders in there and start over in a way.

-go back and re-think who we need to eliminate to make this work.
-and most of all dont wait until just before election time to go on the hunt for osama. he is the real crook here. i have a feeling that we will find him just before voting day.

 

First of all what we can’t see standing up, or on our hands and knees, or even under a microscope, is the underlying stress cracking that this country is experiencing because of this “nation building” affair. Government officials are overloaded with tasks concerning Iraq and are forced to overlook what’s going on here. This bleeds over to the “Terrorism Alert” and “Real economic news” threads along with the dreaded “Homeland Security” base. Anyone too busy to pay attention is too busy.
The Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites all proclaim that we have “liberated” Iraq for this time, this point in which they must act. But what they don’t understand is that we have the power (however you want to portray that power) to hand the future of Iraq over to either one, whichever sets up the interim government…of course that’s all over the news. What is not in the news is how we, as working-class Americans, feel about it. It seems to be squashed somewhere in the bowels of bureaucracy.
I, for one, am all for a peaceful resolution, but that is unlikely, maybe impossible. Even if the US could bring about some sort understanding among the three, I feel it would be temporary. We (ordinary folk) have no idea how these people are, where their hearts lie, as far as “having” their own country as they like it and will see any form of government we “suggest” fall in a matter of months.
Let’s get out of there and let them hash it out, as they see fit, until there is nothing left but the “winner”…as harsh as that may sound.

 

Big Orn, I don't think that sounds harsh at all. Unfortunately, under the Geneva Convention we're required to repair the damage created by our aggression (Geneva Convention word, not mine) and establish a working government. That's not publicized as it would be an admission of aggression against a sovereign country and without the WMD rationale put us in a position of penalties far beyond reparations. That, along with creditibility, is a major factor as to why the admnistration clings to the WMD scenario. The American public has long been refocused to Saddam being a tyrant as enough after the fact justification for the invasion/occupation.

I think its a foregone conclusion that if left alone, the Shias will dominate Sunnis and the Sunni Kurds alike just by their superior population. How a western style democracy with separation of state and church will ever play in a nation driven by their belief system is beyond me.

 

Colin Powell formally visited every major UN nation requesting military and financial assistance just last year. He was turned down by all but a few who are dependent on our aid and loan guarantees because we refused to relinquish any administrative or military control. When you've invaded another country on a unilateral basis against the majority, that's about as close as it gets to begging.

 

That is something, under the circumstances, that needs to be negotiated. It leaves no room for “common” sense. It’s akin to a police officer guiding a marriage after settling a domestic dispute…or a wet-nurse suckling the dingo that just ate her baby. I am not saying that I have no faith in our troops, it’s the policies we are “required” to work with that bugs me.
Why not publicize it? We, our Government, have already confessed we’re in a Nation Building mode and not a reparation “arrangement”. If you break one element of the rules, then break the others in order to save us further endangerment. JMHO.
I totally agree…and I am, by no means, a political or military analyst. I learned years ago to “download” all the frivolous, redundant junk out of my hard drive (head) and think anew. Maybe our leaders need to learn the same technique? Or maybe they just need to step back and realize that it’s a bear they’re fighting and not a kitten. But, regardless, in the end, the Shiites will rule.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by georgedavila
Aside from moralists feeling we were justified in freeing the Iraqi People from a tyranical leader and without a WMD debate, how do people feel about what's going to be our very expensive in lives and money long term occupation? In particular:

The real possibility of an Iraqi civil war and which of the three distinct groups should we support?

With US and other NATO forces remaining in Iraq, there will be NO civil war.


Should we continue to beg the UN, NATO and other nations for assistance without turning control over to the UN (if they'll still consider it)?

Turning over the creation of a democracy to a socialist organization like the UN is like turning over your children to Michael Jackson to teach them morality.

How long should we stay and under what circumstances?

I think there should be permanent bases in Iraq. They can be moved from SA.

I'm curious as to what people think as Iraq and the economy are what will drive the presidential election campaigns.

I had been hoping that Dean was the Democratic candidate to challenge Bush, but the more I research Kerry, the more ****** I see in his armor. Anybody who's left of "Teddy" is unelectable IMHO.

 

Lets Give control over to Israel!

They seem to have alot of luck with muslims.

 

I don't think there will EVER be peace in Iraq, All 3 factions (Shias, Sunnis and Kurds ) HATE each other, and will continue to kill each other.

The same goes for the whole middle east, They do not want peace.

 

jp,

You're saying permanent colonization with a suitable military force to insure US administered democracy remains the predominant pseudo government? I wonder how that would set with voters.

I seem to remember the Crown, before their economic implosion, using the same tactics to 'keep the natives in line' around the world as their natural resources were plundered. We're still watching Africa trying to sort its way out of that era of foreign rule. The difference being that Iraqis, a certain portion who generally hate our guts, are armed with weapons far more effective than spears and a belief system that can easily place us as the #1 bad guys. That'll be tough duty and equally harsh on those Iraqis who collaborate with us, as we're now experiencing.

What do we still have in Saudi Arabia? I thought we pulled virtually all operational units out excepting tech people assisting Saudi Forces under contract when they refused to allow us to stage there for Iraq?

 

One will end up dominating the others, at this point probably the Shias. The Kurds, Sunnis whom we've tried to leave somewhat automonous and truly hated by Arab Shias for taking their land under Saddam, are a different story. Turkey gets excited and nervous about Iraqi Kurd independence influencing Turkish Kurds as evidenced with past wars and would love to get their hands on the oil-rich Kurd portion of Iraq. We do have a tiger by the tail.

 

Three years before Dubya became President, The Project For The New American Century published a report that stated very clearly that the U.S. should invade Iraq and establish a permanent presence in the Middle East whether Saddam was still in power or not. Who were the key authors of this report? Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle. Paul Wolfowitz, the President's current handlers. The war on Iraq was a premediated act, not an intell glitch. Our ongoing presence and the resultant expenses of the invasion is just a part of that act. We will attempt to impose our style of government on a culture totally different from ours, a tribal culture centuries old that has always been held togather by force. Does anyone really believe such a government will survive based solely on the will of the people and not force of arms? Does anyone really believe we will be leaving Iraq in the near future?

 

Pentagon planning is now based on remaining at occupying power levels in Iraq through 2006. As Army planning is now undergoing massive changes to restructure divisions into smaller battalion units to combat identified enlistment and re-enlistment problems with longer in-service unit postings to reduce personnel and family disruption, it looks very much like a move from offensive to occupation logistical support. The big questions are still what level of insurgency Iraqi guerillas can maintain, personnel requirements to contain those disruptions and how long our economy will hold up to provide the necessary public support.

As a business equation, even if Iraq's infrastructure is rebuilt to a position where oil can exported at 100% capacity, it won't support Iraq (in spite of Baker's highly publicized negotiations, few countries are forgiving any serious Iraqi debt) and the cost of our civilian administration and military occupation, conservatively estimated at $200 billion a year in real accounting.

The major shortcoming in that Project was a lack of reality as to how Iraq would respond to taking Saddam out. Virtually all Mid-East countries are so criss- crossed with tribal and religious sects that iron hands are the only effective method of government. Democracy will work only as long as we have enough troops in place to make Iraq adhere to it. What an opportunity to see graft and corruption as an art form; a government not accepted by the populous.

So I'm back to one of my questions, how long will we stay. I should have phrased it with or without Bush & Gang.

 

I think the best question is who's got the power (government-backed) to pull the plug on life support. Without "Bush & Gang" it will likely die a "normal" death. Another 4 years of this will cause anarchy. Still, rebellion is inevitable. The Sunni Arabs have long controlled the military and commerce in the area, and who is restoring power? The Shia and Kurd “policemen”. Mix that into a salad. You can’t make chicken salad with chicken scratch. These underdogs (Sunni Arabs) have never let being outnumbered keep them from power…and they won’t start now. Does anyone ever think what Iraq’s neighbors might be thinking about now? How the odds are against the Sunni’s? The only ballot box these people trust in come only in the wooden version and it’s not what’s put in it’s what’s taken out (and are counted every time you hear that dreaded “rat-a-tat, rat-a-tat-tat, tat-tow”.) Religion + emotion = politics over there. It’s not a question when the civil war will begin, it’s who will finish it and how. Shiites, with or without US troops (who will only serve to stop a few more bullets). Common Sense? Out the proverbial window.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by georgedavila
jp,

You're saying permanent colonization with a suitable military force to insure US administered democracy remains the predominant pseudo government? I wonder how that would set with voters.

Military bases, not colonies. We have them in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia now, I'd just relocate them to Iraq.

I seem to remember the Crown, before their economic implosion, using the same tactics to 'keep the natives in line' around the world as their natural resources were plundered. We're still watching Africa trying to sort its way out of that era of foreign rule. The difference being that Iraqis, a certain portion who generally hate our guts, are armed with weapons far more effective than spears and a belief system that can easily place us as the #1 bad guys. That'll be tough duty and equally harsh on those Iraqis who collaborate with us, as we're now experiencing.
With due respect, the British brutalized their colonies. That's what led to the demise of the British Empire. The US isn't a colonialist country. We have no desire to rule Iraq, only a desire to prevent reversion back to dictatorship. There's a big difference.

What do we still have in Saudi Arabia? I thought we pulled virtually all operational units out excepting tech people assisting Saudi Forces under contract when they refused to allow us to stage there for Iraq?
We HAD permanent bases in SA. I don't know the current state of occupancyy there, but my point was that we should establish permanent bases (barracks, airstrips, security, etc) in Iraq, like the one in SA.