"Civil war more likely than democracy" in Iraq

[shamrock_uk]

This from the outgoing UK ambassador to Baghdad to Tony Blair in his final telegram.

Link.

Mr Patey wrote: "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. "Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt."

This was then echoed today for the first time by the American's - the top American commander in the Middle-East, Gen John Abizaid. Link.

The article for some reason hasn't quoted the relevent part, but he did say that there was a real risk of civil war - they're not just putting words in his mouth.

Gen. Pace also said that the US army was playing 'whack a mole' in Iraq...lets just hope he's not responsible for operational planning...


So...it's looking increasingly like the 'bleeding heart liberals' were right all along in warning against this little Middle-Eastern jaunt. Is it possible to salvage Iraq? Keeping in mind that despite the much vaunted 'flooding' of Baghdad with troops during the last month, people were being killed at the rate of 100 per day.

Tony Blair said today "of course I'd regard it as a personal failure"... Well that's just great Tony, we've strengthened Iran's hand immeasurably, been responsible for the death of countless civilians, destabilised the whole Middle-East and roused anti-Western feeling on a scale never before seen. But hey, it's all about your legacy, right? For once, France had it dead right.

[ 08-03-2006, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Memnoch]

Think about it this way:

- how long did the Macedonians have to occupy Asia and Northern Africa to "Hellenicize" it?

- how long did the Romans have to occupy Europe to "Romanize" it?

- how long did the Poms have to occupy Asia, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, parts of Africa, Australia and North America to "Pomize" it? (note that I don't think they ever managed to "Pomize" Scotland, Ireland and Wales)

- how long did the Spanish have to occupy Sth America to "Iberianize" it?

Then again, it didn't take the Ayatollah Khomeini too long to "Iranianize" Iran, did it. But I suppose he had an unfair advantage in that the region was already Islamic before he took over.

It takes time and lots of money to effect a genuine cultural change. Even more so when there's a power vacuum. Unfortunately, occupation of other people's countries, even if for a noble cause, is generally frowned upon in today's world. Which is why while the best thing for Iraq is probably for the US to stay there, build schools, develop infrastructure, improve people's quality of life, etc. it's strategically inadvisable (not to mention downright dangerous).

[ 08-03-2006, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Timber Loftis]

As long as there's a war of some sort going on in Iraq, it's serving its function -- whether we're there or not. Muslims need hobby wars. If they don't have them at home, they come looking for them here. Every time we let them sit peacefully for a few decades, the raging barbarian hordes rise again and try to march on their more civilized neighbors. Do not forget the lessons of the past. Nothing like the Ottoman Empire should ever be allowed to exist again -- they're just too dangerous.

Mr Patey wrote: "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. "Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt." -------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/wo...rtner=homepage

Shiite Militia Clashes With Iraqi Troops BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 — At least 20 gunmen and 8 civilians were killed when the Iraqi Army battled fiercely for hours on Monday with members of a militia loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr in the southern city of Diwaniya, Iraqi officials said. [...] The fighting ended only after Shiite politicians visited Mr. Sadr’s office in the holy city of Najaf to negotiate a cease-fire. General Ghanimi and other Iraqi Army and police officials said several militias were involved, not just the Mahdi Army. But they said the seed of Monday’s violence was planted a week ago when a roadside bomb they believe was planted by the Mahdi Army aimed at a senior Eighth Division officer, killing at least two Iraqi soldiers. Two days later, the Iraqi Army arrested a member of the Mahdi Army and began an operation against the militia. The surge in violence — with more than 100 people killed Sunday and Monday — comes when Iraqi, American and British officials continue to assert that a civil war here can be averted. In fact, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the lead spokesman for the United States military, said Monday that attacks and murders in Baghdad declined in August as a result of the deployment of about 12,000 additional American and Iraqi troops. He said several neighborhoods that had been searched over the past few weeks under a new security plan were reviving, with stores reopening, and children riding bicycles in the streets.

Wow, did I just have a sense of de ja vu?

Timber:

Muslims need hobby wars.

It's strange, but I feel that your description is more appropriate for Americans. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. It seems that the Yanks need to have quite a few hobby wars. Or at least support tyrannical (and often Muslim) regimes in their little civil wars.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by The Mountain Hare: Timber: quote: Muslims need hobby wars.

It's strange, but I feel that your description is more appropriate for Americans. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. It seems that the Yanks need to have quite a few hobby wars. Or at least support tyrannical (and often Muslim) regimes in their little civil wars. [/QUOTE]No, no, no. We just realize the lesser peoples of the earth need their bread and circus, so we make a small sacrifice and provide it to them.

Actually, you'd be surprised. There aren't two tinpot leaders in the world who don't both call the White House if they have an argument. It's incredible the number of piddly world disputes we're asked to mediate or intervene in. Our leaders spend a lot of time dealing with a world full of f**king crybabies.

[ 08-29-2006, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Memnoch]

This is just unbelieveable how this fighting is continuing unabated at the moment eh. The sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq just seems to be getting worse and worse. Apparently 100 people are being killed per day, most of them bound and tortured before being killed.

Obviously it was only Saddam's iron will and bloodthirsty tactics that kept people in line. By invading Iraq and removing Hussein the US removed the status quo which Saddam had kept by force.

But what's happening now is depressing. How can a democracy flourish in a society where people not only kill, but torture before killing, people who have a different faith interpretation to them? The majority being killed right now are not Americans or coalition troops, they're Iraqis killing Iraqis. Does this mean that Iraqis need to have an iron will and a dictator ruling over them to stop them killing each other?

More to the point, can the US leave right now, if they wanted to? Or would that create a total power vacuum and make this fighting and killing worse?

Death squads threaten Iraq's politics . By Peter Graff | September 14, 2006 . BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's political process could collapse if sectarian death squads are not reined in, a Sunni political leader said on Thursday, after more than 80 corpses were found in and around the capital in the past two days. . Two car bombs struck Baghdad early on Thursday, killing 10, a day after bombers killed at least 22 people in the capital and police discovered 60 bodies, bound, tortured, shot and dumped in both Sunni and Shi'ite parts of the city. Another 20 bodies were found on Thursday, more typical of daily tallies. . Iraqi and U.S. officials announced the death of one and the arrest of another senior figure in the al Qaeda Sunni insurgent group. But broader sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'ite communities is increasingly seen as the graver threat to Iraq. . "If these barbarian acts do not stop, certainly it will affect the reconciliation plan," Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the biggest Sunni Arab group in parliament, told Reuters in a telephone interview. . A family of seven, including a three-month-old boy, were shot to death in their home in a Sunni district of western Baghdad after the father left for work. They were Shi'ites. . A car bomb struck a police patrol outside an orphanage near the busy Karrada district of central Baghdad, killing nine people and wounding 26. Another, outside a photography studio in the northwest of the city, killed one and wounded 13. . In Diwaniya, south of the capital where Shi'ite militia and U.S.-backed Iraqi forces fought a bloody battle two weeks ago, U.S. troops raided a local headquarters of followers of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. One man was killed and 10 wounded in subsequent disturbances. A daytime curfew was imposed. ~snip~ U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said most Middle East leaders had told him they believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a "real disaster" for the region, but he said they were divided over whether the Americans should pull out now, or stay. . "The U.S. has found itself in a position where it cannot stay and it cannot leave," Annan told a news conference in New York. "I believe, if it has to leave, the timing has to be optimum and it has to be arranged in such a way that it does not lead to even greater disruption or violence in the region." . Key to Washington's plan to withdraw is establishing a government that would draw in minority Sunnis, who rose up after being driven from power when U.S. troops toppled Saddam Hussein. . Sunni leaders say the Shi'ite-led government has turned a blind eye to Shi'ite death squads and corrupt militia that control the police. They accuse Shi'ites and Kurds of trying to seize Iraq's oil wealth by splitting the country into regions. . Parliamentary leaders met on Wednesday but failed to break deadlock over the issue of federalism. Dulaimi said another meeting set for Saturday would attempt to end the dispute ahead of a debate in parliament on the issue scheduled for Tuesday. . (Additional reporting by Aseel Kami and Ibon Villelabeitia) . Click here

The US is caught between the proverbial rock and hard place.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Think about it this way: - how long did the Macedonians have to occupy Asia and Northern Africa to "Hellenicize" it? - how long did the Romans have to occupy Europe to "Romanize" it? - how long did the Poms have to occupy Asia, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, parts of Africa, Australia and North America to "Pomize" it? (note that I don't think they ever managed to "Pomize" Scotland, Ireland and Wales) - how long did the Spanish have to occupy Sth America to "Iberianize" it? Then again, it didn't take the Ayatollah Khomeini too long to "Iranianize" Iran, did it. But I suppose he had an unfair advantage in that the region was already Islamic before he took over. It takes time and lots of money to effect a genuine cultural change. Even more so when there's a power vacuum. Unfortunately, occupation of other people's countries, even if for a noble cause, is generally frowned upon in today's world. Which is why while the best thing for Iraq is probably for the US to stay there, build schools, develop infrastructure, improve people's quality of life, etc. it's strategically inadvisable (not to mention downright dangerous).

Except that American cultural imperialism is at work through television, movies, advertising and products. It doesn't need to be present in the same way Greeks did, for the values to be transmitted. The presmise with somewhere like Iraq is that the people wanted democracy and capitalism and the freedoms they see Americans having, and that Saddam was repressing their desires for it all.

However the question should be asked, does a nation have a mandate to impose cultural values on other nations if their own nation is in disarray? Bush's initial election was surrounded by controversy, legal concerns, a minority vote, and low voter participation. Americans own faith in their system is at an all time low.

Why would other nations want an American-style democracy if this is the result?

Another argument would be that America is simply an extention of European imperialism, culture and values (it's certainly not Native American is it?), and that given the scope, variety and varying successes of parliamentary/westminster representative democracies driven by values protestantism freed and encouraged, (building on a jewish template), you could argue the spread of western culture is inevitable.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Melchior: Except that American cultural imperialism is at work through television, movies, advertising and products. It doesn't need to be present in the same way Greeks did, for the values to be transmitted.

Which is actually an argument that we don't need this, or any, war to spread our hegemony. Believe me, one of the last reasons we'd go to war is to make some other country want to be like us. There's plenty of that to go around already.

And yes, we are an extension of the European culture. In the past 200-300 years we've developed many distinct differences, but we're all children of Plato when you get right down to it.