Americans bring enlightenment and progress to Iraq

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Americans are doing good things in Fallujah. They are fighting against the people who would destroy the new Iraq, which I beleive the majority of Iraqis want. In the course of this civilians are being killed which is a tragedy. But its a result of the good things the Americans are doing.

Do most Iraqis want the same new Iraq we are building? Do we even know what kind of new Iraq we are building? I don't think we do. Besides, we set to create a new Iraq by force-no kidding then we would meet armed resistance by those that benefited from the old Iraq.

[East Street Trader]

The fundamental problem is that there is no new Iraq which any sufficient body of Iraqis want.

If it were otherwise they would have created this new Iraq long ago and would not have been stuck with Saddam Hussein.

And that is why any attempt to put a constitution in place now is doomed.

Traditionally, from the point they had reached, their next step would be for some dictator to be effective enough to found a short lived dynasty. Then, eventually, a dynasty would last long enough to win a sufficient allegiance to weaken the hold of tribal loyalties. Gradually a nation state would emerge with a stable form of government and a set of institutions would evolve which support it.

Saddam Husein didn't look anything like well enough established to have got them even to the first stage of that particular process. In time his grip would have slackened and he would have been deposed by the next strong man.

To think that somehow it might be possible to go from where they are and to leapfrog all the intervening stages so as to create a complex form of government is silly. There is no case (well, just conceivably one) where it has happened and common sense suggests half a hundred reasons why that should be so.

The survey that came out a while ago showed that Iraqis understand all this perfectly well. A very large majority said that a strong man was needed to establish and maintain order.

Conceivably he will demonstrate his strength through establishing leadership of the opposition to the occupying forces. A costly process if so it proves.

Hard to imagine how else it will occur.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
---
The proposition that removing Saddam Hussein for the benefit of the Iraqi people would be a good idea was never advanced before all this started. Raising it now is, I am afraid, just a lame excuse. It is a collateral benefit that happens to have flowed from events. As the main benefit which was sought has turned out to be no benefit at all it is the only good thing which has inured.

---

It seems like they found the WMDs on Monday. Too bad they were boobie trapped...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
LoTM: so I assume you believe posting the opinion of one Iraqi proves your point?

Why not post the invariable other side, and compare?

Or is that too bothersome to do?

I merely wanted to introduce one more datum into the discussion. Im sure you, or Spiff, or EST or Boris, are quite capable of posting other data, if you think what I post is misleading. I note that when Spiff posted his article you did not ask him to post the other side - did you really think there was no other side.

So dont play rhetorical games by asking me to do your research for you.

I know there are Iraqis who sympathize with the insurgents. Hell, there are Iraqis who ARE insurgents. I could have just posted poll data, but we've all been through that before. I found an anecdotal point much more interesting, and challenging to the notion expressed here that "Well its an occupation, and when someone occupies you, your against it" Obviously the situation is much more complex. When youre occupied, you look to see what the occupation is leading to, and whether its going to lead your betterment or not. Different classes, regions, ethnic groups, etc will make different choices, depending on their situation.


Someone mentioned Mississippi. When the US occupied Miss, in 1865, at least 50% or so of the population of Miss supported the occupation. Thats cause about 50% of the population of Miss were Black. In Tennesee and North Carolina large numbers of mountain people who had either opposed the CSA or had been lukewarm toward it, cooperated with the occupation as well. As did even many lowland white Southerners, when they determined what deals they could cut.

Nonetheless eventually the occupation failed - while the South remained in the union, power was handed back to the "bitterenders". That was due primarily to a failure of Northern will however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
The fundamental problem is that there is no new Iraq which any sufficient body of Iraqis want.

If it were otherwise they would have created this new Iraq long ago and would not have been stuck with Saddam Hussein.

And that is why any attempt to put a constitution in place now is doomed.

Traditionally, from the point they had reached, their next step would be for some dictator to be effective enough to found a short lived dynasty. Then, eventually, a dynasty would last long enough to win a sufficient allegiance to weaken the hold of tribal loyalties. Gradually a nation state would emerge with a stable form of government and a set of institutions would evolve which support it.

Saddam Husein didn't look anything like well enough established to have got them even to the first stage of that particular process. In time his grip would have slackened and he would have been deposed by the next strong man.

To think that somehow it might be possible to go from where they are and to leapfrog all the intervening stages so as to create a complex form of government is silly. There is no case (well, just conceivably one) where it has happened and common sense suggests half a hundred reasons why that should be so.

The survey that came out a while ago showed that Iraqis understand all this perfectly well. A very large majority said that a strong man was needed to establish and maintain order.

Conceivably he will demonstrate his strength through establishing leadership of the opposition to the occupying forces. A costly process if so it proves.

Hard to imagine how else it will occur.

I am not going to debate the full nature of political evolution throughout history with you.

I was making two simple points
1. The US will evaluate this enterprise when it is finished. It is way too early to do that. You may believe that you dont need to wait for the empirical results, since you have a model of political evolution that enables you to understand what will happen a priori.
2. This is sui generis anyway. The antiwar people may have discounted it, and the more gung ho hawks may not have cared, but for the "swing" segments of opinion in the US, the legal issues relating to Gulf War 1, and the following UNSC resolutions mattered. There is no other state in an analogous situation. Not Syria, not Iran, not Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia. IF the US ever launches another attempt at regime change it will be in a situation of a much more dramatic and obvious casus belli (doesnt mean some folks wont contest it). But i didnt need to wait till now to tell you that. I could have told you that in January 2003.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by GePap

Do most Iraqis want the same new Iraq we are building? Do we even know what kind of new Iraq we are building? I don't think we do. Besides, we set to create a new Iraq by force-no kidding then we would meet armed resistance by those that benefited from the old Iraq.

We gave Fallujah its chance: 82nd Airborne basically stayed away the whole time. They didn't use their chance, now it's time to pay.

It appears to me the Fallujites are just a bunch of sado-masochists: the more you beat them up, the more they respect you. But the more nicer you treat them, the more belligerent they get.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
LoTM: so I assume you believe posting the opinion of one Iraqi proves your point?

Why not post the invariable other side, and compare?

Or is that too bothersome to do?

Heres the NYT

Firefight damages mosque; residents turning on al-Sadr


By John F. Burns
The New York Times


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A protracted firefight between Marines and insurgents in a Fallujah suburb on Monday culminated with U.S. helicopter gunships and tanks firing at a mosque and toppling the minaret, further dimming hopes for a peaceful end to the three-week siege.

The U.S. command said that the battle erupted when insurgents, breaching a shaky cease-fire in Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, used the mosque to launch rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire at Marine positions. After two hours, pinned down by fire, the Marines called in helicopters and tanks, which directed "suppressing fire" at the mosque, the command said.

One U.S. Marine was killed and eight others wounded in the battle, which also killed eight insurgents, an American spokesman said. He said commanders still intended to go ahead with a plan to send U.S. troops on joint patrols with Iraqi security forces into contested parts of the city. But that plan, put forward by Fallujah civic leaders on Sunday to avert an American invasion of the city, appeared to be in jeopardy.

With Iraq's prospects of resuming progress toward a peaceful handover of sovereignty on June 30 hanging uneasily in the balance, developments in Fallujah were echoed by fresh tensions at Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, that has been the focal point of a separate confrontation.

At nightfall on Monday, Najaf residents said a major battle was being fought on a key highway leading to the city by U.S. troops and militiamen loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite cleric who has holed up in Najaf and adjacent Kufa.

Sketchy reports of the Najaf battle suggested that al-Sadr's fighters had taken heavy casualties from U.S. ground troops and helicopter gunships.

In another development the Americans were watching, reports from inside Najaf said that the growing anger of residents there against al-Sadr and his men, who have sown a pattern of lawlessness since their uprising in the city began earlier this month, had taken a startling new turn, with a shadowy group killing at least five militiamen on Sunday and Monday.

These reports, from residents who reached relatives in Baghdad by telephone, said that the killers called themselves the Thulfiqar Army, after a two-bladed sword that Shiite tradition says was used by the patron saint of Shiism, Imam Ali, the martyred son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed. The group distributed leaflets in Najaf threatening to kill members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army unless they fled Najaf immediately, according to accounts.

One Najaf resident said that some of al-Sadr's militiamen were shedding the black clothing that has been their signature. The same resident said he knew of two killings of Mahdi Army members on Sunday and that three others had been killed later on Sunday or Monday.

If reports of violence against al-Sadr's followers suggested that the American occupiers might be seeing the beginnings of Iraqis taking action of their own to curb the cleric -- as L. Paul Bremer, the chief American administrator, has urged -- events in Baghdad on Monday underscored how potent a force al-Sadr remains, at least among many volatile young Shiites who have found a release from their impoverishment in the cleric's anti-American oratory.

[GePap]

Oh goody, another militia! A blow is struck for law and order! And of course, we know this new group will welcome US forces with open arms if they marhc into Najaf like has occured in fallujah!



Oh, and you failed to answer my message-o do you not read blogs by Iraqis who aren't pro-occupation in some way?

[Lord Merciless]

LOTM, that's indeed good news. Sadr's henchmen are nothing but a bunch brain-washed riffraffs. Having them control over cities will undoubtedly create big mess there. We don't have to move against Najaf, just to keep Sadr holed up there so he can't create mess somewhere else.

[East Street Trader]

I got a bit worried about the US when you put up with the behaviour of your present president. But he has done nothing threatening for quite a while now so I was making my way back to my previous sense of cousinly fellow feeling little by little.

But the attitudes which all this is bringing into view are thoroughly disturbing from the point of all the rest of us.

I suppose I had better just hope it is not a regme here you next decide you don't like and some other place where you decide Oerdin had better be sent.

The US is a young nation and confidance is one of the attractive qualities of the young.

Just right now, though, I hope those among you who are willing to entertain doubts speak their doubts nice and clearly.

This is an unholy mess. It wants thoroughgoing recognition as just exactly that.

[GePap]

Yes, its so much better that opposing shiite militants set up their own armed gangs, cause when the power transfer comes, they will undoubtedly drop their weapons and become law abbiding citizens.....

If anyone remmebers, Sadr's gangs began when he was the only one providing security for Sadr City right after Baghdad fell.

[Dinner]

I question the reliability of that report. It just doesn't match what I have actually seen here in Iraq. I admite that I haven't been to the city of Fallujah but I seriously doubt the Army's rules of engagement or it's punishment for breaking them are all that different.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh goody, another militia! A blow is struck for law and order! And of course, we know this new group will welcome US forces with open arms if they marhc into Najaf like has occured in fallujah!



Oh, and you failed to answer my message-o do you not read blogs by Iraqis who aren't pro-occupation in some way?

Salaam Pax is pretty good, and he was anti invasion before it happened, and is pretty skeptical about the CPA now. But he does think the occupation is a good thing, net-net, even if he thinks its being horribly managed. Anyway, hes out of Iraq lately.

Only notable Iraqi blogger I know of who's anti-occupation is Riverbend. I read her enough to get the flavor. Id be truely surprised if shes changed her mind lately. Like I said, i recognize that her point of view exists. In fact I think it well reflect between a quarter and a half of the Sunni Arab population (i think weve been through the numners before) If you care to post quotes from her, be my guest.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
I got a bit worried about the US when you put up with the behaviour of your present president. But he has done nothing threatening for quite a while now

You just wait until they start putting liberals and lefties in the bonfires to cleanse our sins and save our souls or send us to hell where we belong.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh goody, another militia! A blow is struck for law and order! And of course, we know this new group will welcome US forces with open arms if they marhc into Najaf like has occured in fallujah!

:

Dont know that US forces ever will march into Najaf. Question is how will these guys relate to Iraqi forces that go in. All depends on Sistani, I think.