The US must stay the course in Iraq

[East Street Trader]

I agree GePap.

But the world's current set of leaders seem too poor quality to make such arrangements.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
am I wrong for thinking that? give me a link to a source that says otherwise.

Try reading any history of the Vietnam War. Diem was a dictator. If South Vietnam had been in anyway shape or form democratic, there would have been no war because the country would have united after the elections of 1956.

[Flubber]

Comment on the Vietnam comments

Of course the US lost the Vietnam War but it was weird in that the US military was not defeated in the sense that military forces are defeated in most wars. Usually you lose when you are unable to resist the power of the enemy. I'm betting that the day that the US pulled out they had the capability to take and occupy the bulk of South Vietnam all over again-- It was a political defeat.


Iraq is a a similar quagmire in that it is unlikely that any combination of forces will arise that would seriously challenge the US ability to occupy any portion of Iraq it wishes. But the question will be the US resolve to remain with the deaths that will be part of remaining. The backdrops may be very different but both are questions of political will.


Unfortunately, the current situation was pretty predictable. That factional claims will arise when dictatorial rule ends is almost inevitable. Frankly, I don't know what options the US has at the moment that would be considered good, but staying for a number of years seems to me to be a foregone conclusion if they expect to avoid anarchy

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by POTUS

Yeah, but at what cost?

The VC was effectively destroyed, and the (relatively) small NVA was forced to confront a much better army. Then, that army got scared and ran away.

Not so, the North Vietnamese didn't care about the cost. In fact the weakening of the VC by losses during Tet helped them to take control in the South. The VC had been somewhat independent before that.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Kucinich


But not militarily, politically.

Well that's hair splitting - military operations serve political objectives. It is the continuation of policy, usually foreign policy, by other means. Go and read your Clausewitz.

Seen in the proper light, Tet was spectacular and brilliant military success. America lost the will to fight on.

Rather haunting considering what is happening right now.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: The US must stay the course in Iraq

Originally posted by The diplomat
But if we back down, we send a signal to all would-be aggressors that the US is not willing to fight and die for what it believes in.

Actually, the more appropriate method is to fight and kill. Gen. Patton and all that.

If that would be the case, then we have already lost because it means that any would-be enemy can just come and kick us around and get their way.

Or it would just prove that third-world ****hole countries are a pain in the ass to occupy, so we should try to avoid doing that in the future.

In Iraq, we have two sides that want to take over control of the government. We have radical shiites that want power and we have baathist militants that want power. They think that if they hurt us enough, that we will withdraw and then they can fight it out in a civl war and take over the country all to themselves.

A lot more than two, and do you really think we're going to babysit them for the next century? Or that they're suddenly gonna be "just like us" and do their *****ing every four years at the ballot box?

We have to win. We have to stay tough no matter how many lives we lose.

Fanaticism neither wins wars nor sells in election years.

We have to crush the militants or terrorists or whomever wishes us harm, until they surrender and Iraq can live in peace.

Read al Qutb and al Maududi (peace be upon them). These boys aren't going to quit, not now, and not in a hundred years.

We have to win because if we don't, we send a signal to all would-be enemies that the US is weak and can be kicked around at ease.

Yeah, we're "weak" when we knock over governments at will. These guys are the home team, we're the visitors. As long as we keep fighting on their turf, all they have to do is keep being there, ready to stick us or our proxies in the back whenever we decide we can afford to lower our guard.

[Alexander's Horse]

Another problem with the whole situation is the "freedom" the coalition wants to give them is not the "freedom" they seem to want.

By that I mean, they want religious "freedom" and ethnic "freedom", not necessarily pluralist parliamentary democracy.

[johncmcleod]

The Iraqis must follow the Turkish model

We have really screwed up in our invasion of Iraq. It seems to me Big Bush has no idea how to set up democracy in Iraq (not that he cares or anything, his priority is to get voted).

The previous situation in Iraq was much better than what is happening now. The secular dictatorship was very brutal, but it held the country together and didn't allow ethnic conflict. Democracy in Iraq is almost impossible for several reasons. First off the country is third world and still developing (and this was hindered by invasions) and has little infrastructure, poverty is rampant (mainly because of the sanctions America pushed for), and there are plenty of socio-economic problems. All of these do not mix well with democracy. Successful democracies are always wealthy, developed countries. But the main problem is the country has severe ethnic problems, many want a theocracy, and the Iraqis have no idea how to run a democracy. The country will fall apart, it will be another Algeria but worse. However, there is a solution.

During the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was falling apart. It had just lost World War 1. Poverty was rampant. Industry and infrastructure were almost nonexistant. The Islamic people were arrogant and had ignored western ideas for centuries. They knew nothing of how to run a democracy. Fortunately, Ottoman reforms had created some education system. The rich kids got to go to school and learned European ideas. These people were the ones who were capable of running the country. So what happened?

First, a dictatorship was created. Before democracy was to happen, the conditions needed to be right, and a dictorship needed to be established. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was the dictator. He had been through the schools and knew the European ideas. He wanted to establish democracy in Turkey, but the Turks were not ready. He needed to make them ready. He made economic reforms and created industry and modernized the country. He greatly improved the economy and greatly reduced poverty. But the most important thing he did was education reforms. He created a huge public school system. All children were to be educated in European ideas, and the people were taught what a democracy was and how to run it. He also stamped out many of the old ways and traditions. Certain Islamic clothes were banned. Tolerance, open-mindedness to western ideas, and secularism was adopted and taught to the people. By the end of his 20 year rule, the Turkish people were ready for a democracy. The country was ready and the people knew how to rule themselves and run a European style democracy. It was an authentic democracy run by Muslims.

This is what is needed in Iraq. The economy needs to be improved, the people need to be educated in how to run a democracy and they need to learn new ways. They must learn to be secular, tolerant, and they must learn to work together and work past ethnic problems.

However, I am not too naive, and I know if the US takes control of Iraq, they will simply twist everything for their own interests. I do not trust any outside government, especially the United States, to try such an operation. The Iraqi people wouldn't benefit and the occupying country would. And if the US simply installs and Iraqi to carry out reforms, they will install one that will do whatever is best for US interests and not Iraqi interests. They will prop up another brutal dicator, just as they have done in so many other countries. And even if the UN does it, each nation will lookout for himself and nothing will be for helping out the Iraqi people. Therefore, there is no real way to carry out such a reform, unless we get lucky and a great Iraqi leader arises, kicks out the Americans, and follows the plan. But this won't happen, as America won't allow it. And it is a shame.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Try reading any history of the Vietnam War. Diem was a dictator. If South Vietnam had been in anyway shape or form democratic, there would have been no war because the country would have united after the elections of 1956.

Chegitz, some people would rather be ignorant in their patriotic correctness rather than read scholarly studies on the history of Vietnam.

Just let those buffoons be.

[East Street Trader]

Constitutions have been written and an election held in countless countries and in virtually none has democracy taken hold as a result. If you look at the history of those countries which now have a firmly established democratic tradition there is always quite a lengthy process during which the institutions which support a democratic system gradually develop.

Two of the most important institutions are an army with an unshakeable tradition of acting under the instruction of the current political leaders and a police force with an unshakeable tradition of supporting the rule of law. Those two alone tend to take a hundred years or so to entrench. And that is if they can develop their tradition under successive governments which are strong and secure.

Iraq strikes me as a country which, before recent events, was little further advanced than a loose coalition of tribes. Saddam Hussein was the strongest of the tribal leaders and he held other tribes in subjugation by the standard methods of the dictator. Recent events have not advanced the country, rather their likely effect is to set it back a bit.

So the only political future that makes any sense to me is a power struggle ending in the establishment of a new dictatorship. Conceivably a charismatic cleric might succesfully create a crude theocracy but the Sunni/Shia divide stands pretty firmly in the way of that.

How on earth the US/UK forces might maintain some measure of order while staying out of the power struggle itself I really don't know. Perhaps that is just not possible and the two governments will have to resort to the tired old rubbish of supporting one candidate or another. Just to get into a situation (eventually) when there is enough stability to allow the occupying forces to withdraw.

The prospect of yet another puppet dictator is deeply unappealing. But the only obvious alternative is just to withdraw and let whatever then happens occur unchecked. Which is more unappealing still. To subject the people of Iraq first to invasion and then to the consequences of a power vacuum would be pretty mean spirited.

[Agathon]

The US can't really "win" in Iraq unless they get the people on their side. They certainly can't win the occupation by military means. However given that the people hate foreigners, westerners and more specifically Americans, that will be hard short of a mass drugging operation.

[DAVOUT]

Interesting analysis EStT.

If it takes one hundred years to build the basis on which democracy can be build (and I agree on that), does not that mean that removing Saddam last year or next year, as satisfactory as it could appear, or not at all, would not significantly, if at all, shorten the one hundred years delay.

[Dr Strangelove]

There are a few instances of countries being able to abide by democratic rule without a period of recurring civil wars interspersed by the rule of dictators. India comes to my mind. The point EST makes about needing an army and police force who support democratic rule is a good one.

[Chemical Ollie]

I would say Russia, the Baltic states and South Korea has moved quite fast into democracy. They still have a long way to go, especially Russia, but it can happen much faster than 100 years.

I'm not so optimistic about Iraq though. If I was American commander, the first priority would be to disarm all civilians. They have no good use for pistols and AK-47s, have they?

[GePap]

First of all, makign dmeocracy and keeping democracy are too different things: Latin American states begun as dmeocracies close to 150 years ago, eyt all of them have seen at least one stretch of authoritarian rule, if not more....so simply having a writen constitution means little.

If only there was a simple mix for democracy, or even a tried and true method of making it....but the evidence is too random.