Political Progress in Iraq

[Pangloss]

The Iraqi national congress has finally passed the law related to debaathification which allows former members of the Baath party to reapply for government jobs. This is important because they're mostly Sunnis, and the fact that they weren't allowed in government was seen as giving Shiites an advantage.

 

This step was viewed with skepticism in some quarters because it doesn't guarantee those positions will go to Sunnis, but it is the first major benchmark that everyone's been looking for in the "political progress" front. The head of the largest Sunni contingent said today that it might be enough for them to come on board with the unity government. I expect that means he's going to have to wait and see how his people react over time. Nothing unusual there.

 

I await the obligatory "you're wrong, things are actually quite awful, and we cannot possibly win" replies.

[iNow]

The Iraqi national congress has finally passed the law related to debaathification which allows former members of the Baath party to reapply for government jobs. This is important because they're mostly Sunnis, and the fact that they weren't allowed in government was seen as giving Shiites an advantage.

 

This step was viewed with skepticism in some quarters because it doesn't guarantee those positions will go to Sunnis, but it is the first major benchmark that everyone's been looking for in the "political progress" front. The head of the largest Sunni contingent said today that it might be enough for them to come on board with the unity government. I expect that means he's going to have to wait and see how his people react over time. Nothing unusual there.

 

I await the obligatory "you're wrong, things are actually quite awful, and we cannot possibly win" replies.

 

No. Things ARE getting better.

 

The surge did work, but was begun on the presumption that it would be a temporary fix to give the government time to get their shit together.

 

Well... surge worked, but the goverment still doesn't have their shit together. This is why the surge should not be extended... not by ANY means.

 

 

So... the Iraqi political groups are now working to get their shit together. That's bloody awesome, mate. Can I propose why they are finally taking this seriously?

 

Because their free lunch leaves office in 11 months, and they know they must do something on their own to FINALLY make things work before that happens.

[Pangloss]

I agree with that completely, though I would say that anything we can do to bolster that success short of extending major engagement should be done, and that includes monetary commitment over time. We stuck our foot into it, and we owe the Iraqi people long-term financial support, for as long as they want it and need it, and with zero obligations in return (esp wrt oil).

 

I really want to see the far left eat crow on this. They were wrong in demanding immediate pullout all last year, and they need to stand up and admit it. This is a perfect example of how finding the middle ground can be a resounding success and how extremism is wrong and dangerous.

 

The moderate left was right about a lot of things on Iraq, and I think the country has recognized that fact, and applauded them for it. But I think this particular event is a victory for "staying the course now that we're there", and that needs to be recognized as well.

 

The General did not Betray-Us. If I want to see one political thing in my life before I die, it's to see MoveOn.org recognized by all as a traitorous, cancerous organization, unworthy of support or respect.

[iNow]

If I want to see one political thing in my life before I die, it's to see MoveOn.org recognized by all as a traitorous, cancerous organization, unworthy of support or respect.

While I feel what they did was a moronic way to express their extreme dissatisfaction with this country's leadership and path, I can think of MANY other political things I'd MUCH rather see during my lifetime.

[ecoli]

I agree with that completely, though I would say that anything we can do to bolster that success short of extending major engagement should be done, and that includes monetary commitment over time. We stuck our foot into it, and we owe the Iraqi people long-term financial support, for as long as they want it and need it, and with zero obligations in return (esp wrt oil).

 

Ah, you see here is the problem.

 

How are you defining 'we' here? I didn't vote for the war, and I don't vote for candidates who approved the war. So, why do I have to now be economically responsible for fixing the mistakes of people who I don't believe should be in power?

 

Why should we continue this expensive war, which is undoubtedly contributing to an economic recession, when it's not something most people even want to continue?

 

Were is the moral argument that "we" owe something to the Iraqis.

 

Certainly GW and his cronies owe the Iraqi's big time... And I don't for a minute think that this invasion wasn't, at least in part, profit-motivated. Why should the American people be morally obligated to continue a war we don't want, to fix other people's mistakes, in which they continue to profit off of anyway?

[Pangloss]

You might have misread my post, ecoli. I wasn't proposing "continuing the war" beyond the time frame iNow was talking about. I was pointing out that we need to continue to financially support Iraq during its reconstruction, which if all goes well will continue peacefully even after we've ceased major combat operations and pulled out the majority of the troops.

 

Anyway, the answer to your question regarding financial commitment is "because it's the right thing to do". We're in the boat together, so to speak. Regarding your moral responsibility question, ducking out of our long-term responsibilities is part of why America is so poorly perceived around the world. Regardless of what or who caused it, doing the right thing by Iraq will help to repair that damage.

 

You are, of course, welcome to disagree, and I respect your opinion on it.

[ecoli]

We're in the boat together, so to speak. Regarding your moral responsibility question, ducking out of our long-term responsibilities is part of why America is so poorly perceived around the world.

Well I disagree vehemently here... I think we are poorly perceived because we are meddling in the first place, in what is really a regional conflict.

 

And, technically, we are not in the boat together. They way I'm seeing it, is that the rich wall street types are profiting here, and letting ridiculous borrowing cause a great deal of economic harm come to the rest of us.

 

The way I see it, we aren't going to be able to afford the war for too much longer.

 

I believe the politicians have a moral obligation to americans to bring the troops home, in order to save the economy.

 

the american people have no moral obligation to save the iraqi people from a problem caused (in part, anyway) by our politicians.

 

Why do our politicians have a stronger moral obligation to Iraqis than to Americans?

 

And of course, this begs the question, if it wasn't for oil in Iraq would we even be there?

 

You are, of course, welcome to disagree, and I respect your opinion on it.

Thanks... and I respect yours, because at least you're thinking about it

[Realitycheck]

The flipside is, without U.S. stabilization, are you ready for $5 a gallon?

 

Hmm. To rock the boat ... or to let the boat be rocked.

[PhDP]

You have no moral obligation to save the Iraqi from a problem caused by people you elected ?

[ecoli]

You have no moral obligation to save the Iraqi from a problem caused by people you elected ?

 

I clearly stated that *I* didn't elect them. I was too young to vote for Bush in 2004, yet I will reap the consequences of other people's stupid decisions.

[Pangloss]

I share your resentment for having to deal with issues I don't approve of in the first place, but I don't think your argument that we're not responsible for their decline if we pull out prematurely and refuse to help them economically afterwards will hold water with the international community. The perception will be that we made a mess, then made it worse.

 

And THAT one WOULD be on your head.

[ecoli]

The flipside is, without U.S. stabilization, are you ready for $5 a gallon?

 

I'm not sure if that's relevant to the "moral" argument I'm trying to make.... tho it might be?

 

I share your resentment for having to deal with issues I don't approve of in the first place, but I don't think your argument that we're not responsible for their decline if we pull out prematurely and refuse to help them economically

well define "helping them economically"... because I have no problems with trading and offering advice.

[Pangloss]

I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more than trade and advice. Make no mistake about it, the Europeans would bash us severely on moral grounds for departing early. Who do you think reaps most of the reward for improving the most important moral ground of all: Increased Iraqi oil production! After all, we can't let Americans buy Iraqi oil -- that would just prove that we're only there for the oil in the first place, don't you know.

 

(No, Europeans really aren't any less hypocritical than Americans.)

 

If I were certain a other forum member this is where I would inject the phrase "Thank god I'm not a European." But of course that wouldn't be very politically correct, and I don't share that sentiment anyway.

[iNow]

Why do you feel that we'd be bashed severely for leaving? Clearly, some would bash us for such an act, but I feel confident that a large percentage would welcome the withdrawal... a long held breath finally exhaled...

 

"Yeah, they didn't fix all the problems they caused, but thank dog they're not there causing any more."

 

 

Sometimes the best solution is to simply walk away... I'm just curious why you see as fact that we'd be bashed for walking away now... after all these years...

 

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Pangloss]

I don't think we'll be bashed for leaving in the time frame you suggested, e.g. 11 months plus a smaller-sized engagement over the next few years, at the pleasure of the Iraqi government, which is what moderates on both sides of the aisle, and the Iraqis, seem to agree on.

 

What I think we would be bashed for would be if we were to walk away right now (pulling out this month, for example), and the country were to immediately descend into violence once again.

 

Surely the logic here is obvious. I agree that with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sentiment, meaning that if we pull most of the troops out a year from now and the region THEN descends into violence, we'll get blamed for that as well, but at least then we'll have the ability to say it was stable and had was given a real chance to succeed when we left it (we didn't just abruptly pull out the moment it stabilized).

 

The media is perfectly capable of selling this distinction to people. All it takes is a few more "Fox News Contributors" to provide their expert analysis (and sell their books, of course).

[Realitycheck]

e.g. 11 months plus a smaller-sized engagement over the next few years, at the pleasure of the Iraqi government

 

The Iraqi defense minister just finished saying that he thought it would take another 10 years to ready themselves. Talk about being presumptuous. Maybe he thought that if he said it now, he could somehow tilt the election in his favor.

[Pangloss]

(shrug) I don't have a problem with continuing to help them for another ten years. I don't think that's going to cost another trillion dollars, either. Billions, certainly, but maybe not even a hundred billion. But it will cost what it costs.

 

And frankly I'd rather spend that money on the chance for Iraqi peace and democratic prosperity than to throw it away on American hairdressers who thought they could afford $350,000 mortgages on $9/hr, or giving "free" medical care to those "living below the poverty line" who, according to the Census, have two cars, a house, a job, a Playstation 3, a big-screen TV, a DVD player, etc etc etc.

[Mr Skeptic]

Pangloss, keep in mind that there is a somewhat negative effect for money leaving the country (it is the same effect as importing stuff), whereas if money stays in the country it will eventually find its way into the average American's pocket, no matter how badly it was spent. (Not that I disagree with your point, just saying there actually are some good effects of wasting money in your own country)

[ecoli]

I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more than trade and advice. Make no mistake about it, the Europeans would bash us severely on moral grounds for departing early.

 

Wait... didn't the British leave Basra and areas of southern Iraq. I didn't hear anyone bashing them.

 

(shrug) I don't have a problem with continuing to help them for another ten years. I don't think that's going to cost another trillion dollars, either. Billions, certainly, but maybe not even a hundred billion. But it will cost what it costs.

 

Except where are these billions coming from? We're borrowing heavily from China.

 

This article covers some of the economics... We're already seeing the inflation.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/guns-butter-fed-rethinking-iraqs/story.aspx?guid=%7BA7DB7B95-7C58-41FB-AF89-1F65136D670E%7D

[DrDNA]

If I want to see one political thing in my life before I die, it's to see MoveOn.org recognized by all as a traitorous, cancerous organization, unworthy of support or respect.

 

That would be cool, but wouldn't you rather see George, Dick and Donald duct tapped buck necked to the front of Abrams tanks and paraded through the streets of Baghdad?

 

Why do you feel that we'd be bashed severely for leaving? Clearly, some would bash us for such an act, but I feel confident that a large percentage would welcome the withdrawal... a long held breath finally exhaled...

 

"Yeah, they didn't fix all the problems they caused, but thank dog they're not there causing any more."

 

 

Sometimes the best solution is to simply walk away... I'm just curious why you see as fact that we'd be bashed for walking away now... after all these years...

 

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Go in, make a mess and leave it the opposition.

This is basically advocating what we did in Vietnam and I think that history showed that to be cowardly, selfish and just plain wrong. Anyone that helped the West (USA) in any way would be immediately killed. Iran and/or radical Islam fills the void.

I'm absolutely no fan of the "war in Iraq" but geez. Have a heart for the lives that are gonna be left in the dust.

If we made a mess, and we did, we need to at least try to clean it up no matter what the cost.

[Pangloss]

Wait... didn't the British leave Basra and areas of southern Iraq. I didn't hear anyone bashing them.

 

Of course not. This is Bush's war, remember?

 

 

Except where are these billions coming from? We're borrowing heavily from China.

 

This article covers some of the economics... We're already seeing the inflation.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/guns-butter-fed-rethinking-iraqs/story.aspx?guid=%7BA7DB7B95-7C58-41FB-AF89-1F65136D670E%7D

 

Again, we're talking about perceptions here. Economic realities aren't all that relevent in the international public arena. We're the big bad filthy-rich American bastards who messed up the Middle East (never mind, never mind!), and we have to pay.

 

It's not a lot of fun, but that's the game that exists, and we have to play that game or we're not going to be able to maintain our position. The problem isn't Chinese debt, but what happens when the debt-holders decide their investment is no longer worth having.

[ecoli]

Of course not. This is Bush's war, remember?

So, they hate us if we stay and they hate us if we leave?

 

I say lets not worry so much about it.

 

 

Again, we're talking about perceptions here. Economic realities aren't all that relevent in the international public arena. We're the big bad filthy-rich American bastards who messed up the Middle East (never mind, never mind!), and we have to pay.

 

It's not a lot of fun, but that's the game that exists, and we have to play that game or we're not going to be able to maintain our position. The problem isn't Chinese debt, but what happens when the debt-holders decide their investment is no longer worth having.

Exactly my point though... we'll be screwed when China decides to stop buying up our debt. And, when that happens, we won't be in a strong economical situation in which we can deal with it.

 

If we keep building debt, where is the incentive for China to keep buying it? The devaluing dollar, due to inflation, is prompting oil exporters to start trading in Euros... what happens when China decides to trade in Euros as well? Luckily, we're still their largest trading partner, but with sales already slipping in the US (again, due to inflation) who knows if that may change.

 

The fed is trying to save the housing market by cutting interest rates (I believe that's their motivation), but they're also causing more inflation. Sure the economy is still in "slow growth" mode, but that situation is very top heavy. The upper classes are growing faster then the lowers. The elderly and poor, who's income is heavily affected by inflation, won't be able to afford the cost of living, which will hurt the economy, by hurting sales...

 

Perception is important, to be sure, but we can't keep up a mask, by pretending the war isn't hurting our economy right now. A democratic congress just raised the national debt ceiling to over 9 trillion, social security is empty... these are all issues we are going to have to deal with in the future.

 

If we don't keep our economy sound, we won't be able to afford to keep troops in Iraq, so we'll have face international scrutiny about leaving AND deal with a recession.

 

Our economy seems like a large price to pay, to save face in Iraq. Meanwhile, the military-industrial complex is profiting off of the lives of our soldiers... it doesn't make much sense to me.

[Pangloss]

Well that's fine, but in the end what you're saying is that you would abandon Iraq after we caused its problems. There's just no real good way to whitewash that. You can howl at the moon all you like, saying it's not about perception, or that it's not your fault, but the reality is what it is.

 

And incidentally, the ONLY reason the liberals on this board aren't lining up to blast you for what you're saying is that they WANT us to pull out prematurely so that they can proceed to demonize us for doing so.

[ecoli]

Well that's fine, but in the end what you're saying is that you would abandon Iraq after we caused its problems. There's just no real good way to whitewash that. You can howl at the moon all you like, saying it's not about perception, or that it's not your fault, but the reality is what it is.

But, the reality, is that we can't afford the war... so you can howl about responsibility and perception all you want, but economics trumps moral responsibility any day of the week. Our troops will come, when we can no longer afford to keep them there, and that's the reality of the situation.

 

When Rome collapsed, I bet a lot of people where sorry to see the rule of law go with them (and roads and aqueducts)... but complaining about 'moral responsibility' didn't stop the Roman soldiers from going home (if anybody did that - but you get my point).

 

Even politicians won't be stupid enough to sacrifice our nation for the sake of another. But, hey, if that's a way to get our current crop of politicians out of office, I may not mind it so much.

 

And incidentally, the ONLY reason the liberals on this board aren't lining up to blast you for what you're saying is that they WANT us to pull out prematurely so that they can proceed to demonize us for doing so.

perhaps

[Pangloss]

Who says we can't afford it? The annual cost of Iraq has been less than the budget deficit for the entire time. All we're really saying there is that we don't want to tighten the belt to fight a war. That should tell us that we shouldn't be fighting that war in the first place, but we are fighting it, so shouldn't we do what it takes to pay for it, instead of just pretending we can't afford it?