is this a real thing that is actually happening?

[Dr Strangelove]

Exactly. And all of that represents an entirely predictable failure - hence why Iraq should never have been invaded in 2003.

Here's another interesting article: The sectarian myth of Iraq

A very interesting read. Out of curiosity has there ever been an accounting of the number of Kurds killed in the past few decades by our Turkish ally?

[Dr Strangelove]

I was smart enough not to post any opinions about the Iraq War (that I recall) being busy smoking pot and not giving a ****. My opposition to it though was rooted in our refusal to loot and pillage. If America invaded, intent on stealing the oil fields and leaving the native population to starve, that would have been awesome. We could have had cheap gasoline, and by staying out of cities, kept casualties to a minimum.

**** invading a country just to rebuild it. That's for chumps.

And they say that pot makes you a docile pacifist!

[dannubis]

From the same people who brought you "never trust a skinny cook": "never trust a pacifist with guns".

[C0ckney]

Not really. There were very clear and obvious mistakes made which can be very easily identified. The attempted de-Baathification of the country was a ridiculous mistake, capped off by the mindblowingly stupid decision to disband the army and disallow former Baath members from holding new positions. That one **** up cost countless thousands of lives and probably doomed the whole thing from the start.

On your second point though..



I think this is the main problem, that we wanted a regime that suited us, rather than the needs of the Iraqis. Ironic considering we were the ones who laid down the borders in the region of course. We wanted a country we could continue to use as a pawn against the perceived enemy of Iran, whereas keeping Iran as an enemy never made any damn sense.

Perhaps this should have been the time when we stopped caring about keeping Iraq together as a coherent single entity and supported the Iraqis own decisions on what they wanted. If that meant a new Sunni state, a new Shia state and a new Kurdish state, so what? And if that Shia state ended up merging into Iran even at some later date, again so what? It's time we stopped trying to control the shape of other peoples worlds.

of course it's very easy to offer a critique of the post-invasion plans, there being a lot to criticise. however the problem was far deeper than that. once saddam had suppressed political parties the primary outlet for political activity and dissent was through religious and ethnic organisations (this is of course a common pattern in arab dictatorships), which naturally caused people to identify themselves according to religion and ethnicity and thus reinforced old divisions. these divisions go back centuries and their effects can be more or less directly traced back to the three hundred years of ottoman rule, which gave the sunni element of the population the means to maintain their political supremacy in the country following its creation after the first world war.

the result was a state, in which the majority either didn't want it to continue, or were apathetic about its existence. this existence could therefore only be maintained through repression and force. then comes the invasion and 'nation building'. to put the problem in clear terms, it is impossible to maintain a democratic state, when the majority of its citizens do not wish to see it continue. the inability to neither recognise nor resolve this essential contradiction that doomed the whole enterprise to failure from the outset.

[C0ckney]

Exactly. And all of that represents an entirely predictable failure - hence why Iraq should never have been invaded in 2003.

Here's another interesting article: The sectarian myth of Iraq

an interesting article, but one which i fear glosses over the historical divisions between the various communities in iraq; in particular the period of ottoman rule and the near monopoly of political power held by the sunnis following iraq's independence.

[kentonio]

the result was a state, in which the majority either didn't want it to continue, or were apathetic about its existence. this existence could therefore only be maintained through repression and force. then comes the invasion and 'nation building'. to put the problem in clear terms, it is impossible to maintain a democratic state, when the majority of its citizens do not wish to see it continue. the inability to neither recognise nor resolve this essential contradiction that doomed the whole enterprise to failure from the outset.

That's what I mean though, we went in with the idea of maintaining a coherent single Iraqi state. Why? If several smaller states suited the Iraqi people better, why is this bad? Presumably just because then it's harder for us to maintain our control over multiple regimes. If we'd gone in with the mindset of creating an environment that suited the Iraqi people themselves, we could have done so successfully.

[C0ckney]

such an outcome could not be reconciled with western interests.

[C0ckney]

what i mean is that any intervention in iraq would have had to also serve (perceived) western interests. of course i would argue that such interventions are ultimately against everyone's interests, but that's by the by.

[Dr Strangelove]

If Obama hadn't cut and run, I don't see why any of the blame can be put on Bush. Obama's been in 6 years now, what has he done on this file but bleat about cutting and running?

In 2008 George Bush signes a treaty with Iraq pledging that all US forces would be out of the country before the end of 2011. It's at the end of this clip.

http://www.eonline.com/news/551969/jon-stewart-slams-idiot-iraq-war-supporters-on-the-daily-show-watch-the-viral-clip

[PLATO]

That's what I mean though, we went in with the idea of maintaining a coherent single Iraqi state. Why? If several smaller states suited the Iraqi people better, why is this bad? Presumably just because then it's harder for us to maintain our control over multiple regimes. If we'd gone in with the mindset of creating an environment that suited the Iraqi people themselves, we could have done so successfully.

I agree with this in principle, but the establishment of 3 actual states would probably have had a destabilizing effect on Syria and Turkey as well as causing even more Iranian involvement in the shia areas of Iraq. A 3 state federation might have been a good solution as long as it was open to the idea of letting each autonomous region deal with like minded countries on trade/cultural issues. However, that probably wouldn't have worked without keeping the Iraqi army together and integrating Kurds and Shia into it.

[PLATO]

In 2008 George Bush signes a treaty with Iraq pledging that all US forces would be out of the country before the end of 2011.

If memory serves me correctly that treaty had a clause to negotiate a final troop status with the U.S. A 15,000 man contingent of U.S. troops just being there might have been enough to deter ISIS. Also from memory, I believe that the sticking point was Iraqi insistence that U.S. troops accused of crimes on Iraqi soil would have to be tried in Iraqi courts...something Obama rightfully did not agree to. I do think that he should have pushed the issue harder than he did. While it is to much to believe that the mere presence of U.S. troops in a country brings stability, it certainly would be a stabilizing influence compared to abandoning a country right after gutting it.

[kentonio]

I agree with this in principle, but the establishment of 3 actual states would probably have had a destabilizing effect on Syria and Turkey as well as causing even more Iranian involvement in the shia areas of Iraq. A 3 state federation might have been a good solution as long as it was open to the idea of letting each autonomous region deal with like minded countries on trade/cultural issues. However, that probably wouldn't have worked without keeping the Iraqi army together and integrating Kurds and Shia into it.

Maybe it would have forced Turkey to finally deal with their Kurd problems too. I think it's safe to say though that it would have caused some huge upset, but perhaps some huge upset is necessary to reform that part of the world into a more natural shape for the people living there. As it is we have the huge upset and carnage and no real outcome because everyones so determined to hold firm to borders that suit no-one but the west.

[Sava]

the establishment of 3 actual states would probably have had a destabilizing effect on Syria

OH GOD WE WOYULDN"T WANT THAT

THERE MIGHT BE A CIVIL WAR

[Uncle Sparky]

Neither Turkey or Iran will accept a Kurdistan. The fact that the UN has now relocated their Iraq office to Irbil may force the issue, though. As far as I can tell, the Government of Iraq doesn't have an Irbil office, so the UN will have to deal directly with the Kurdish government, possibly forcing a formal recognition of a de facto situation.

[Ben Kenobi]

or brutally murdered; i'll take either to be honest.

And people say I'm the crazy person on Apolyton. Seriously. WTF is wrong with you, Cockney.