How much worse is it for Iraqis now then it was before the war?

[Realitycheck]

This is really the essence of what continues to drives this war. Should we feel obligated to make everything perfect for however long it takes, or should we step back and realize that this was already a big mess that we just happened to complicate? I think the answer is pretty obvious, but I had to do a little research to back up my claims.

 

Yeah, there has always been old wounds between Sunnis and Shias, between pagan Persians and Shia Arabs, between Iranians and Iraqis, and between secular Baathists and anyone else, though they obviously favored Sunnis over Shias. It looks like the key issue these days is that the Baathists are out of power, especially Saddam is out of power. Looking at his rap sheet over his entire life is quite an epic in self-propelling, power-hungry militant exploitation. Attempted coups dating back to 1956, imprisonment, escapes, successful coups, and that's before he even came to power in 1979.

 

http://askquestions.org/details.php?id=8461

 

When you start looking at relations between Sunnis and Shias and the illegitimate moderation by the Baathists, it appears that at times throughout their recent history, concessions were made to try and appease the Shias out of fairness. However, towards the late 1990's and into the 2000's, things started to deteriorate more and more for the Shia way of life.

 

The Baath Government's diversion of supplies in the south limited the Shi'a population's access to food, medicine, drinking water, and transportation. According to the former Special Rapporteur and opposition sources, thousands of persons in Nasiriyah and Basra provinces were denied rations that should have been supplied under the U.N. oil-for-food program. In these provinces and in Amarah province, access to food allegedly is used to reward regime supporters and silence opponents. Shi'a groups report that, due to this policy, the humanitarian condition of Shi'a in the south continued to suffer despite a significant expansion of the oil-for-food program.

 

By the end of Saddam's regime, the following government restrictions on religious rights remained in effect: restrictions on communal Friday prayer by Shi'a; restrictions on Shi'a mosque libraries loaning books; a ban on the broadcast of Shi'a programs on government-controlled radio or television; a ban on the publication of Shi'a books, including prayer books and guides; a ban on many funeral processions other than those organized by the Baath Government; a ban on other Shi'a funeral observances, such as gatherings for Koran reading; and the prohibition of certain processions and public meetings commemorating Shi'a holy days. the Baath Government requires that speeches by Shi'a imams in mosques be based upon government-provided material that attacks fundamentalist trends.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia-baath.htm

 

So yeah, it looks like change was definitely due. While I don't necessarily agree with our act of good samaritanism in helping the Shias, we all know that the case for war was inappropriate with Iraq, it really looks like the suppressed majority Shias have a lot more to be happy about now then before the war. I don't believe that we are obligated to give them an open check towards perfection if they were already starving from no food-for-oil and so culturally depressed before we even got there.

 

Judging by what I have read, they really have the potential to mend the wounds. They have worked together and have the capacity to make it work in the future, especially now that the Baathists and Saddam are out of power. While it may not become the 'new Middle East" that we fantasize about, things should work out, especially when we get out of their hair. Yeah, things are not going to be perfect, but should we feel obligated to give them an open check towards perfection when they themselves have never been perfect? When they have been embroiled in their own domination for so long? I think not. We gave them the keys. Now they can drive.

[Pangloss]

Last week ABC News released the results of a poll conducted amongst Iraqis that, for the first time, showed that the majority of Iraqis believe their situation is improving. It also had another interesting statistics: While 71% disapprove of ongoing military presence, only 15% want the Americans to leave immediately. 36% want us to stay in force "until a new government is in place".

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

 

Here's another interesting tidbit from the poll: 49% want democracy, and only 21% want Islamic law. But 70% expressed confidence in their religious institution and leadership. <shudder>

 

Now... when was it you wanted to leave, again?

[john5746]

Now... when was it you wanted to leave, again?

 

Umm, when a majority of Iraqis let us??

[Realitycheck]

 

Now... when was it you wanted to leave, again?

 

Well, Obama and Hillary can talk about how soon they will get us out of there (She probaby has better information to deal with at the moment.), but in all actuality, when it comes down to it, the actual specifics could very well be an unknown. Surely, they will make the exit a lot more hasty than decades of doom and gloom in Iraq and I think that's really all that America cares about now, showing some tough love. The majority is in power. They have it set up. It should not take decades to set them free. The serious elements causing the most damage and disruption are the outsiders, Al Qaeda and so forth, if the latest intel is accurate. And Al Qaeda is definitely not in collusion with Iran.

[Pangloss]

Well let me be more specific. I realize that the "leave now" proponents don't actually mean "now", but they do seem to mean that we should depart as soon as we can safely do so, with "safe" being a reference only to our troops and perhaps any civilians located around our troops as we depart. I think that's a mistake, and that our determination of departure should be made on the political benchmarks that they've been using.

 

I do agree with some of what you're saying, and I think it goes along with a good point that iNow made earlier about how the threat of our withdrawl has had an impact on their progress. I don't want it to take decades and I don't think any of the candidates have suggested that it actually will. McCain gets bashed over this a bit, and fairly so -- his comments fed that criticism. But he doesn't want us to stay any longer than we have to, or any more than any other candidate does. I also agree that Iran is irrelevent in this discussion, as much as the hawks would have it be so. The hawks should not be allowed to frame this debate, and I don't think they will be. But I also don't think our reasons for going there are relevent to this discussion either, and I don't know why they ever come up in the context of figuring out when to leave (you raised this issue in the OP).

 

But in the end the only thing I really take issue with you on is the extent to which Iraq is ready right now. They aren't ready, and it's too soon to leave.

 

However, I'm all for more threats to leave. By all means, pull some troops out now (as Bush is doing in June). Threaten to pull out some more. DO pull out some more. Whatever it takes to keep the pressure on without toppling the fragile coalition government. By all means.

[ecoli]

I've been reading more about Wayne Allyn Root's policy on this issue... he's the front runner for the LP's nomination. His foreign policy and Iraq war stance seems to make the most sense, and least partisan of anyone else's. And, unlike Paul, he's not for immediate withdrawal and was for the surge.

 

http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

a little less than half way down on this page.

[Realitycheck]

Oh man, benchmarks? I just took a look at these benchmarks and from what I can tell, from what I remember, they are not doing diddly squat about benchmarks. This is not our responsibility. Shape up or we're shipping out. It's not that hard to figure out what you really want to do with your life, right? Live free or die hard, just get a clue about what makes sense. This is where the tough love comes in. Shape up or we're shipping out.

 

This whole time that we've been trying to figure out how to save Iraq, I've been thinking about how to organize their economy, build up their oil refining capabilities and infrastructure without having some idiot terrorist blow it up every other day of the week, and generally make Iraq a better place than it was before we got there, and they cannot figure out how to make these simple concessions listed below?

 

* Reaching out to the Sunnis by reopening talks on the Iraqi Constitution.

* Passing a new oil law.

* Reversing the purge of former Baathists from Iraqi politics and government employment

* Dismantling sectarian Shi'ite militias.

 

If they cannot accomplish these 4 simple things, then they do not deserve our open check towards perfection. If it's that hard, it ain't happening. The time is up! Start bringing people home gradually, as you alluded to. Ween them off slowly. But the tough love is going to win, either way. Open checks are not getting us anywhere if they cannot get their act together within this amount of time. Either they want to work together or not. We cannot make them get their act together, but if we show them the light, maybe that will.

 

It really seems that all of this posturing by the Republicans about staying there for decades is the real kicker over oil. Of course, we want to ensure a good relationship with the #3? oil reserves, but they have to get their act together and it certainly seems that the only way to accomplish that is to draw back some and let them figure it out. This is not the way it was and it will never revert to the way it was as long as we are involved to some extent.

 

I mean, what is the biggest threat to Iraqis right now? Suicide bombers from afar. The only reason they are there is because they want to make life complicated for us because we are there. Sure, rogue militia justice is always a potential flashpoint, but that's not our war. That's their problem, period.

 

And I know what you're going to say. We're making progress, we just need more time. Suicide bombers are becoming less prominent, Muqtada Al Sadr has been silenced for another 6 months or whatever, but the real stumbling blocks in this set of benchmarks are either going to fly or they're not. It isn't that hard to decide which side of the line they want to be on.

[Pangloss]

...what I can tell, from what I remember, they are not doing diddly squat about benchmarks...

 

...they cannot figure out how to make these simple concessions listed below?

 

If they cannot accomplish these 4 simple things, then they do not deserve our open check towards perfection.

 

It isn't that hard to decide which side of the line they want to be on.

 

You make it sound like a simple matter of snapping one's fingers and off we go towards economic salvation and personal happiness. Snap snap, no more berkas and everyone will just be okay with that. Snap snap, free falafal for everyone! Snap snap, shiites and sunnis living together in harmony!

 

They know they don't want suicide bombers to rule the day, sure. But the underlying problems that produced the suicide bombers (which wasn't, unless you ask Michael Moore, American troop presence) remain -- religious divides, economic struggle, and freedom. These are tough problems. We can't even solve them in our highly successful western nations, what makes you think it's any easier for them? Wouldn't it be harder? Putting additional pressure on by threatening withdrawl may help, but in the end the solutions still have to be found.

 

As you said I would say, we are making progress, and they do need more time.

 

 

Some met, some underway, lots of work still to do. As you say, it's pretty straightforward indeed.

[Realitycheck]

It would certainly seem that the Sunnis just refrain from their part of the oil-sharing deal out of spite. "We'll just wait and wait and wait till the cows come home, all the while the Americans keep pumping money into our country. We'll show them for messing with us!" Of course, I don't really like letting my imagination get the best of me.

[Pangloss]

It would certainly seem that the Sunnis just refrain from their part of the oil-sharing deal out of spite. "We'll just wait and wait and wait till the cows come home, all the while the Americans keep pumping money into our country. We'll show them for messing with us!" Of course, I don't really like letting my imagination get the best of me.

 

Absolutely, I think that's a valid observation. That's one of the factors making the problem difficult, and one of the reasons threatening to leave has an impact. I agree with that aspect of your message.