Am I Right to be Angry About This?

[Kramerman]

actually spreybear, our resident soldier here, said before he left that he expected to be in Iraq for a year doing policing duties. i dont know how many servicemen shared his thoughts, but he made it sound like he was told this by superior officers or somethn.

[DanS]

I don't think that US forces are necessarily the best for peacekeeping/policing. The British army has had far more experience in this (primarily in Northern Ireland) and is seemingly coping better, barring the incident the other week.

The US is doing OK in the Shia areas too, and aren't wearing body armor or helmets anymore. Not that the UK doesn't have more experience in the matter, but anecdotal reports from Basra suggest that the security situation is still very sketchy. I guess a lot of this is just a general settling down with a passage of time.

Re the MP sargeant, the main reason why I object to his attitude is that it precludes success of any sort. It seems cancerous to me.

Re Sprayber, I can only hope that his superiors take a more constructive attitude toward it all and look out for the morale of him and his guys.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
in this instance a democracy of any kind is in our interests - ANY democracy creates momentum for change in Iran, Saudi etc.

Not really. If the new dmeocracy in Iraq turns out to be Islamist, it gives the sauds a good excuse to cut back on dem. hte same one used in turkey and Algeria, that at this point, democracy means Islamist states and thus democracy is not for now.

And of course you did not ask what the US went to war for - you asked what I wanted for Iraq. I would really appreciate if you would stop consistently twisting the subject when we discuss something. It really isnt cute anymore.

Please. I did not actually care what you want. This admin. makes the case that what they want is a democractic, friendly, secular state. What they say they want is what matters, since that is what will drive policy, not what you or I want.

Re: the Kurds. Their quite intelligent enough to see that an independent Kurdish state would be overrun by Turkey, and that their best hope is autonomy withing a federal Iraq. And they have been making it clear that they feel that way since well before the war, and consistently since the war. Despite that those who wanted to believe the war could lead only to disaster have consistently ignored this.

Actually, the last thing I read about the Kurds (and one barely hears anythign anymore), most Kurds interviewed wanted teir own state and were simply paying along for now. As for Turkey overrunning them, I am sure that would be arisk to take to satisfy nationalistic ambitions.

Now if you want to go on about pre-war expectations, i may just go back and search for some things that were posted here. And see how they look now.

I said I don't care to look back. If you care, go ahead and look. I think i came out rather well in my few predictions.

[lord of the mark]

heres what one poster posted here on March 11th in response to a request for worst case scenarios:

"Realisitc worst case scenerios?

Iraq blows the oil fields, Kurds and Turks fight each other in northern Iraq, with the Iranians allowing more third parties in. Fighting in Baghdad bogs down, leading to massive civilian casualties. Massive anti-Us protests world-wide, massive anti-Us demonstratiuons world wide, especially in the ME. Both Israel and NK exploit the time to do something "unwise". Tony Blair kicked out of power due to disasters in the ground. US eventually wins, but the whole area is in an uproar.

The only good part of this view: Bush precidency ends Jan 2005."

Now granted this was a worst case scenario, but the poster specified "realistic"

Lets see what happened
1. Oil field captured largely intact, problems with pipelines and support infrastructure, oil flowing with 8 weeks
2. No fighting between Turks and Kurds. Kurdistan the quietist place in Iraq.
3. Fighting in Baghdad is bogged down, in the sense that we have ongoing problems with fedayeen there and elsewhere in the Sunni arab belt. I wonder if this is what the poster meant.
4. Massive civilian casualties- no.
5. Massive anti us protests - no. (more like massive Anti-ayatollah protests)
6. Israel does something unwise - well there are some folks who consider making a deal with Abu Mazen unwise, but i dont, so id say no. Nkor continues with their pre-war policies (which were never all that wise)
7. Tony Blair still in power, though apparently brits are unhappy about service delivery.
8. Area in an uproar - well Iran is, the rest of the region no.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
yup thats why americans never pay to visit Paris, and if they do they never come back. And the dirt and crime account for why no one goes to Tiajuana or other border towns. And you never meet Americans at youth hostels overseas. Etc.

Arent generalizations great?

Oh lord. There is a vast difference between going on a trip to see the sights and caring to stay long and live the local life. I mean, i know thousand of Americans have decided to make Tijuana their permanent residence....

As for Iraqis taking over the country, fine sentiment, but is what you want is a pro-US secular democratic Arab state, then that is not going to happen anytime soon

As for this phrase: the porblem being the English language; "if what one wants" would work the same, and was the meaning intended.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Not really. If the new dmeocracy in Iraq turns out to be Islamist, it gives the sauds a good excuse to cut back on dem. hte same one used in turkey and Algeria, that at this point, democracy means Islamist states and thus democracy is not for now.

[.

whats islamist? just about every state in the middle east has sharia covering family and inheritance law, and some govt involvement with waqfs, etc. If you mean an islamist state like in Iran, i'd agree with you. But the odds on that are pretty low - clearly the Sistani and most of the shiite leadership dont want that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
heres what one poster posted here on March 11th in response to a request for worst case scenarios:
Now granted this was a worst case scenario, but the poster specified "realistic"

And given the believed data present in March 11, can you point out why it was NOt realisitc at the point, specially given "worst case"?

I am sorry, but this is a sad attempt at "a point".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Re: the Kurds. Their quite intelligent enough to see that an independent Kurdish state would be overrun by Turkey, and that their best hope is autonomy withing a federal Iraq. And they have been making it clear that they feel that way since well before the war, and consistently since the war. Despite that those who wanted to believe the war could lead only to disaster have consistently ignored this.

Actually, the last thing I read about the Kurds (and one barely hears anythign anymore), most Kurds interviewed wanted teir own state and were simply paying along for now. As for Turkey overrunning them, I am sure that would be arisk to take to satisfy nationalistic ambitions.

.

Citation please? My sense is that theyd like their own state in the best possible world, but are realistic enought to see that is not possible.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




Oh lord. There is a vast difference between going on a trip to see the sights and caring to stay long and live the local life. I mean, i know thousand of Americans have decided to make Tijuana their permanent residence....

Excuse me - you were the one who brought up an american VISITING Paris not me. Not cute,

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
whats islamist? just about every state in the middle east has sharia covering family and inheritance law, and some govt involvement with waqfs, etc. If you mean an islamist state like in Iran, i'd agree with you. But the odds on that are pretty low - clearly the Sistani and most of the shiite leadership dont want that.

Islamist, as in political aprties that openyl associate with Islam, you know, like the ones that won the elections in Algeria that were propmtly cancelled by the
Army back then, or the party that came to power in turkey in either 95 or 97, i ofrget which, who's leader was forced to resign from office under pressure by the Generals, or the current ruling party in turkey.

Citation please? My sense is that theyd like their own state in the best possible world, but are realistic enought to see that is not possible.

I am not going to pay to link to old articles from the NY times to satisfy you. If you have a payed subscription to their archives, look up the last 5 articles written about the Kurds by the Times.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Excuse me - you were the one who brought up an american VISITING Paris not me. Not cute,

I brought up American complaining about the service in Paris when they visit. Saying that people go to Paris is not an arguement against saying they might not take or like many aspects of local culture thsat happen to be there, which was the arguement you tried to make.

[lord of the mark]

heres my prewar prediction


"this is along the lines of what i think - said afganistan, on the idead that there will be a loose coalition formed with lots of US involvement/encouragement/manipulation - I wasnt thinking of the kind of geographic decentralization/war lordism you have in afgan - i agrre thats not likely here. But i think there will be no national elections anytime soon, but there will still be an attempt to get Iraqis involved seriously in the larger running of the country. Also maybe local elections as a start.

Will there be a shiite rebellion - dount it - Aytollah Bakr, the leader of SCIRI hasnt made any noises in that direction, and has been working with the rest of the opposition. If he launches a rebellion there are only 2 possibilities - 1. he loses 2 he succeeds, but ends up dependent on Iran as protector. If he refrains from rebelling he will probably end up as a major leader, and ultimately possibly president, of a united Iraq, under the protection of a US which will gradually turn away when its regional objectives are accomplished. I think the situation is quite different from Lebanon - in lebanon the Shiites are smaller per cent of the population. The israelis occupation was far more unpopular than I expect the US occupation to be, for a variety of reasons. Also the the Shiites in Lebanon were originally divided between Hezb and Amal (?) Hezb rise to prominence is associated to issues of Syrian intervention that dont apply in Iraq."

so far i think im right - hakim and Sistani are anxious for the US to leave, but are not supporting violence, which is largely confind to sunni arab areas.

And of the 56 respondents to the poll, only one expected free and fair elections immediately. Most chose options that either implied a sustained occupation, or a quagmire.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I brought up American complaining about the service in Paris when they visit. Saying that people go to Paris is not an arguement against saying they might not take or like many aspects of local culture thsat happen to be there, which was the arguement you tried to make.

i cant imagine the person you described wanting to go back.

[DanS]

You guys are getting way off the beaten path, here. My thread is being Fez'ed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Islamist, as in political aprties that openyl associate with Islam, you know, like the ones that won the elections in Algeria that were propmtly cancelled by the
Army back then, or the party that came to power in turkey in either 95 or 97, i ofrget which, who's leader was forced to resign from office under pressure by the Generals, or the current ruling party in turkey.

[

if its islamist like the current ruling party in Turkey that would be very good. We dont know what Algeria would have been like under their islamist party, due to the coup - we cant be sure based on their generally positive record in municipalities.