We have finally totally and thoroughly blown it in Iraq.

[Thomas Kirby]

BBC News Article

 

Round and round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows.

 

The Sunni Moslems have usually been the good guys, but they seem to be behind the insurgency in Iraq. Who can blame them? The Shiites are using their police powers to commit further tortures and murders of Sunnis. This is when the ink is barely dry on any agreements signed by the alleged coalition government. It's a joke. What do you get when you set up a joint Shiite/Sunni government? You get a Shiite government.

 

As far as I know, historically Sunnis have been much easier to get along with, by anybody, than the Shiites. Saddam may or may not have played head games with us, which I don't think justifies a war, but George Bush definitely played head games with the American public, and Saddam was firmly on the side of the Sunnis. And now the Gulf Wars have managed one significant change. They have created another Shiite dominated country, where the Shiites do to people exactly what they do in Syria. They torture and murder them.

 

In the same article the reporter says this:

 

In their brutal campaign of violence, the insurgents have focused their attacks on Shia and members of the Iraqi security forces in order to provoke sectarian conflict.

 

That's a strange little piece of rhetoric. It had looked to me like this reporter was saying that the Shiites were doing the provoking, then he switches around like that. Whatever.

 

George II must be a total genius. He has figured out how to completely screw up what his father only partly screwed up.

[Pangloss]

What would you suggest? Is there any conceivable course of action that could have been taken that would *not* have produced the above conclusion?

 

If not, then what's the point of this self-flaggelation? Because make no mistake about it, this is SELF-flaggelation. George Bush certainly isn't going to lose any sleep over it, and in the end if there's blame to be dealt, there are lots of places to pass it around.

[Thomas Kirby]

Leaving Iraq alone would have been better. We have to know when to do nothing. How could we have known we would make it worse? I'm not sure what all made it predictable, but it's happening. I think they're proving that letting them have power in another country that pretty much succeeded in locking them out is not a good idea.

[-Demosthenes-]

Must we do this again? This is a tired subject Kirby.

[Pangloss]

I'm asking you about courses of action following the invasion of Iraq. This thread is about the current situation, which you've stated to be a failure. What I'm looking for here is evidence that some other course of action would have produced a better war following the fall of Hussein's government.

 

If you have none, then I tip my hat to you for a nice rant, but that's all it is, and you're going to find the discussion a very short one.

 

So, are there any courses of action the Bush administration could have taken following the change of regimes in Baghdad that would not have resulted in your assessment that we have "failed" in Iraq?

 

Also, I respect your opinion, but how can you say that you've giving an honest assessment of the current situation in Iraq when you follow it up with that kind of ideological pre-judgement? I opposed the war as well, but I think we have to be smart about this. It's possible, for example, for Bush to be completely evil and for us to still be doing the right thing here. The world is not black-and-white; it's gray.

 

My personal opinion is that it's going about as well as can be expected, which is to say not well at all, but it does appear to be progressing towards a resolution, even if it's not a fun trip.

 

I have a dream that someday my children will be able to visit the ruins of Mesopotamia without a Visa. That they'll be welcomed by a friendly and grateful people who are better off for what happened.

 

What's your dream?

 

 

The problem with this country isn't that it put George Bush in power, but that it doesn't understand why it did so.

[Thomas Kirby]

Oh yes, the illegal invasion of Iraq is a little over two years old, so it's "water under the bridge." The death of a few people in Mississippi in the 1960s was still an open case when the U.S. government prosecuted some of the perpetrators this year.

 

Ideological pre-judgement? Of the Sunnis and the Shiites, which one routinely practices more violence and torture?

[Pangloss]

Again, what would you suggest?

[Thomas Kirby]

The US didn't know enough not to invade a pretty much impotent Iraq and install a government that included Shiites where before the Shiites didn't have any power. The right course of action to take would have been to believe the U.N. inspector who said they had no weapons of mass destruction, which is something that the U.S. government admits to now. There are risks that we can take to keep a problem from becoming worse. One of those risks is the risk of not sending a bunch of our young adults into a desert to fight a nasty war against a fairly harmless country, not wasting a lot of our money and military resources, and wait and see if the Husseins did anything to us at all.

 

This may well be a tired subject for some people, but there seems to be no way to get the most powerful country in the world to think before it acts. Maybe all that intelligent people have left is the same dull persistence that the dullards use. If it is possible, I would also like to see some jail time for the people who started this illegal war.

[-Demosthenes-]

Oh yes, the illegal invasion of Iraq is a little over two years old, so it's "water under the bridge." The death of a few people in Mississippi in the 1960s was still an open case when the U.S. government prosecuted some of the perpetrators this year.

If we'd had a billion threads about Mississippi killings in th '60's I'd be tired of them as well.

[Ophiolite]

If I read you correctly TK you are saying this to Pangloss - "You ask me what to do. I have no idea what to do in Iraq, but I believe we should take action here to prevent anything like this happening again."

If that's accurate, what action would you take.

[Pangloss]

The US didn't know enough not to invade a pretty much impotent Iraq and install a government that included Shiites where before the Shiites didn't have any power. The right course of action to take would have been to believe the U.N. inspector who said they had no weapons of mass destruction, which is something that the U.S. government admits to now. There are risks that we can take to keep a problem from becoming worse. One of those risks is the risk of not sending a bunch of our young adults into a desert to fight a nasty war against a fairly harmless country, not wasting a lot of our money and military resources, and wait and see if the Husseins did anything to us at all.

 

I agree, but that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is that "we have finally totally and thoroughly blown it in Iraq". What does our motivation for invasion have to do with how we've handled the situation since then?

 

Again, what I'm looking for here is evidence on your part that some other course of action would have produced a better result following the fall of Hussein's government.

 

If you can't answer these questions, then the reader must obviously conclude that you have no basis for the assumption you make in the first post of this thread. The reader is forced to conclude that you have decided that any action we might have taken in Iraq since Hussein's fall will be declared erroneous, because you are not capable of rendering fair and impartial judgement.

 

You don't want that to happen, do you?

 

Just as a side note, I don't know why people think that biased ideological ranting can ever convince anyone of anything. When I point out these simple and obvious contradictions, and all they can do (left or right!) is repeat the same mantra, why then do they continue to feel that their opinion has any weight or merit in debate whatsoever? Might as well crawl under a rock, for all the convincing you're ever going to do.

[atinymonkey]

I'm asking you about courses of action following the invasion of Iraq. This thread is about the current[/i'] situation, which you've stated to be a failure. What I'm looking for here is evidence that some other course of action would have produced a better war following the fall of Hussein's government.

The problem lies in the Shiites being placed in positions within the Police. Positions, in some cases, that they held under Hussein. Positions that they used as an excuse to abuse and torture people, and that they have returned to doing.

 

The reason for this is that there is a huge shortage of police in Iraq, and the coalition has been forced to give jobs back to the people they 'liberated' the civilians from two years ago. The UK/US security forces are overwhelmed with the work to rebuild Iraq.

 

The solution, it would seem, would be to get more resources to police Iraq. If the security forces were substantially larger, they would have time to train up fresh recruits and provide a truly effective and humane police in Iraq. There is one prominent source for the resources. It's world recognised and proven as effective in policing troubled and wartorn lands. The United Nations, given enough public and political apology, would step in to help.

 

The issue is now the stubbornness of the UK and US political leadership. They refuse to admit that there is an issue in Iraq, or that they were in any way at fault. This makes it impossible to approch the UN, unless they modify their position. Iraqis are being abused and tortured becasue of the leadership in the UK and US, instead of the homegrown version. I suspect that Bush will go to the UN in two years, when he has nothing political to lose. In the meantime, we wait.

[Aardvark]

The Sunni Moslems have usually been the good guys, but they seem to be behind the insurgency in Iraq. Who can blame them?

 

Why do you say that the Sunnis have usually been the good guys? They are the minority group which have historically held power in Iraq through brutality and repression.

 

The Shiites are using their police powers to commit further tortures and murders of Sunnis.

 

It would be more accurate if you rephrased that as 'some rogue elements amoungst the Shiites are accused of commiting excesses'.

 

You might also mention the Sunni insurrgent tactic of bombing Shiite mosques and assainating Shiite preachers. And you think they are 'good guys'?

 

 

This is when the ink is barely dry on any agreements signed by the alleged coalition government. It's a joke. What do you get when you set up a joint Shiite/Sunni government? You get a Shiite government.

 

It's called democracy. The Shiite population is greater than the Sunni population so the Shiite candidates got more votes. Simple.

 

 

As far as I know, historically Sunnis have been much easier to get along with, by anybody, than the Shiites.

 

As far as you know? Is that an open acknowledgement of ignorance? If you check the facts you will see that Sunni Muslims have a long history of not being at all easy to get along with. There are no grounds for thinking that they any more peaceable than Shiites.

 

And now the Gulf Wars have managed one significant change. They have created another Shiite dominated country, where the Shiites do to people exactly what they do in Syria.

 

Syria is a Sunni country not Shiite.

 

You have argued that Sunnis are generally 'good guys' whilst giving no proof or reason to back that assertion. You have argued that Iraq having a Shiite dominated government is somehow a 'joke' despite that being the result of democracy (which i tentatively presume you are in favour of). You have argued that Syria is a Shiite dominate country where Sunnis are mistreated, despite the fact that it is a Sunni nation with only a tiny Shiite minority of no influence.

 

If you are going to make statements and criticisms please at least ensure they are not completely contrary to the facts.

[Thomas Kirby]

You may notice that the Sunnis are now a persecuted minority, persecuted by U.S. paid and trained Shiites. Just because they are called "police" does not make this murderous band good people.

 

We never had to have this war, and that's the first thing I would have done differently. I don't even know why you keep wanting me to say what I would have done after the hottest part of the war and place that in a superior position in this discussion. That part is also in the past so it's just as moot as whether we should have gone to war or not.

 

This discussion may well help illustrate my point that we never seem to learn anything, and we will fight to keep ourselves from learning anything. The lesson of the wars on Iraq is to not start wars against Iraq. Second best is to never let a Shiite near any kind of weapon or any control of any government. We already know what they do with it. They will murder people.

 

I agree' date=' but that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is that "we have finally totally and thoroughly blown it in Iraq". What does our motivation for invasion have to do with how we've handled the situation since then?

 

Again, what I'm looking for here is evidence on your part that some other course of action would have produced a better result following the fall of Hussein's government.

 

If you can't answer these questions, then the reader must obviously conclude that you have no basis for the assumption you make in the first post of this thread. The reader is forced to conclude that you have decided that any action we might have taken in Iraq since Hussein's fall will be declared erroneous, because you are not capable of rendering fair and impartial judgement.

 

You don't want that to happen, do you?

 

Just as a side note, I don't know why people think that biased ideological ranting can ever convince anyone of anything. When I point out these simple and obvious contradictions, and all they can do (left or right!) is repeat the same mantra, why then do they continue to feel that their opinion has any weight or merit in debate whatsoever? Might as well crawl under a rock, for all the convincing you're ever going to do.[/quote']

[Pangloss]

I don't even know why you keep wanting me to say what I would have done after the hottest part of the war and place that in a superior position in this discussion.

 

Because the subject of this thread (which you started) is "We have finally totally and thoroughly blown it in Iraq". My point is that it seems likely to me that there is no method that could have been chosen that you would have deemed acceptable, because you are not capable of rendering objective judgement about any activities of the Bush administration. Anything they do is automatically wrong, regardless of what the actual situation may be.

[Thomas Kirby]

Pangloss, that is an unfair accusation and you should take it back. It is not my fault that the Bush administration is incapable of doing anything important and doing it in any manner that can conceivably be right.

 

In this case, totally and thoroughly blowing it is letting the Shiites have power in a country where they had little or none before. If you read the article, you would notice that it is Shiites who are torturing Sunnis. These Shiites are US trained "police." At least some of the insurgency has to be because of this, in spite of the fact that the author of the article accuses the Sunnis of being the ones who are being violent and causing divisiveness or whatever. If the Shiites are running around in gangs using US supplied money, training, uniforms, and weapons to do this, we are responsible for this situation that would not have developed if the U.S. had not intervened.

[atinymonkey]

It is not my fault that the Bush administration is incapable of doing anything important and doing it in any manner that can conceivably be right.

You may be confusing satire with reality. We may like to portray the current American administration as being incompetent or hillbillies, but in reality they are not. George Bush may be many things, but he is not drunk at the wheel.

 

America has been a little gung ho with peace keeping wars for the past half century. It's not a reflection on an individual President that they are at in Iraq now. Granted, George Bush has huge problems justifying his position (hampered by his less than eloquent rhetoric) but he was supported by the majority of America and the Senate.

[Skye]

Thomas, I don't think you've supported your assertions that the Shi'a are more violent or disagreeable than the Sunni Arabs.

[john5746]

Sunni\Shiite

 

FYI: Seems to me the shiite would be more prone to radicalism, since they regard the ayotollah's as "perfect". No evidence though.