I have to say it's pretty fucking gimp that Bush hasn't been put on trial for this shit already.
For what, exactly? Hiring jackasses who aren't qualified to run a toaster put in charge of rebuilding a war ravaged state?
Criminal negligence maybe? They should at least be nailed the assholes who have managed to do exactly nothing while getting paid millions of dollars by the US government however.
Honestly. It's been nothing but a tremendous fucking pack of lies and it's good that the people who make sense are finally getting their way and trying to put an end to this.
Are they though? If the Daily Show clips are to be believed, the Democrats brought in on a wave of public dissatisfaction with the war are just maybe thinking about the possibility of voting on whether they should write a strongly worded memo to the President asking him to decrease the number of troops a little.
What part of 'cloture' is so difficult for people to understand? I mean, yeah you can get some pithy quips and good jokes about it, but it isn't as though the Dem's have any substantial power and they're just sitting with their thumb up their asses rather than deal with Iraq.
Gravel actually said something smart (surprise!) about this a while back. They control both majorities, and if they were serious about ending the war there'd be legislation to end or move toward ending the war on the floor every week at least. Let the Republicans filibuster if they want, but at this point I'm not sure they'd have the votes.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
srsly though, Britain is outta there in the next year or so, maybe half a year. Who is the US going to point to as being on their side then? When you build an ally up so much ("the UK is with us; the war can't be that bad!") it gets hard to justify it when even they've left.
You cannot bring a man freedom, you can only help him fight for it.
Right now, people are fighting to drive us off, and we are trying to convince age old enemies to get along. The only way to win the Iraqi war would be mass genocide, as you systematically killed your enemies, broke their spirts, siezed their guns, and basically killed anyone with even the slightest desire to organize rebellion.
Frankly im of the opinion we should pull back to the oil wells, pump them dry, and let the country work its own problems out. Consider it a conquered territory, sieze the resources, and leave.
Maybe the fundamentalists and the sectarians et al would run out of money and recruits if some of the contracters would stop paying them to not attack them.
I mean, when the contracters give you a million a month to not attack them, its not like you are just going to sit on the money and invest it in the bullish market. Your going to use the funds to recruit and arm more people to extort even more people.
Which is why a political solution is the only one with any staying power. the central government there needs to find ways of isolating their more extreme elements while making it attractive for the more moderate groups to actively participate. Trouble is right now the Iraqi government is viewed as either an American pawn(partly true) or a sectarian force using their power to terrorize their enemies(also partly true).
I question if it's too late to really create a government that the people are going to follow. Trouble is on the US' part it seems like we never really cared. We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
2 very simple things.
De-Baathification.
Disbanding the Iraqi army.
If we didn't do that we could very well have pulled out in victory by now.
Well, we'd probably have still need a much larger occupying force than we had. We also had no preparations made to train an Iraqi police force- there was a State Department plan to bring in a couple thousand police specialists to help keep order, but it was nixed as "too expensive" by the prewar planning idiots. And we weren't ready to rebuild infrastructure, either- we didn't make any preparations for large scale construction projects, or bring engineering specialists to help get the power grid up and running again, etc.
But, yes. Those two things were fatal. Just...not the only two fatal things, I'd say.
Which is why a political solution is the only one with any staying power. the central government there needs to find ways of isolating their more extreme elements while making it attractive for the more moderate groups to actively participate. Trouble is right now the Iraqi government is viewed as either an American pawn(partly true) or a sectarian force using their power to terrorize their enemies(also partly true).
I question if it's too late to really create a government that the people are going to follow. Trouble is on the US' part it seems like we never really cared. We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
2 very simple things.
De-Baathification.
Disbanding the Iraqi army.
If we didn't do that we could very well have pulled out in victory by now.
Well, we'd probably have still need a much larger occupying force than we had. We also had no preparations made to train an Iraqi police force- there was a State Department plan to bring in a couple thousand police specialists to help keep order, but it was nixed as "too expensive" by the prewar planning idiots. And we weren't ready to rebuild infrastructure, either- we didn't make any preparations for large scale construction projects, or bring engineering specialists to help get the power grid up and running again, etc.
But, yes. Those two things were fatal. Just...not the only two fatal things, I'd say.
Hell we didn't have the troops to safely secure all the weapon caches we came across while invading.
Which is why a political solution is the only one with any staying power. the central government there needs to find ways of isolating their more extreme elements while making it attractive for the more moderate groups to actively participate. Trouble is right now the Iraqi government is viewed as either an American pawn(partly true) or a sectarian force using their power to terrorize their enemies(also partly true).
I question if it's too late to really create a government that the people are going to follow. Trouble is on the US' part it seems like we never really cared. We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
2 very simple things.
De-Baathification.
Disbanding the Iraqi army.
If we didn't do that we could very well have pulled out in victory by now.
Well, we'd probably have still need a much larger occupying force than we had. We also had no preparations made to train an Iraqi police force- there was a State Department plan to bring in a couple thousand police specialists to help keep order, but it was nixed as "too expensive" by the prewar planning idiots. And we weren't ready to rebuild infrastructure, either- we didn't make any preparations for large scale construction projects, or bring engineering specialists to help get the power grid up and running again, etc.
But, yes. Those two things were fatal. Just...not the only two fatal things, I'd say.
Hell we didn't have the troops to safely secure all the weapon caches we came across while invading.
Not even a fraction of them!
There's almost no way you could screw up an occupation more thoroughly. The amount of missteps and fatal mistakes is boggling.
Even with the adoption of some basic counterinsurgency doctrine for the "surge", it is too little, too late. Other elements of "the surge" actively contradict basic counterinsurgency doctrine, as well, so it's like two steps forward, two-and-a-half steps backwards...
Which is why a political solution is the only one with any staying power. the central government there needs to find ways of isolating their more extreme elements while making it attractive for the more moderate groups to actively participate. Trouble is right now the Iraqi government is viewed as either an American pawn(partly true) or a sectarian force using their power to terrorize their enemies(also partly true).
I question if it's too late to really create a government that the people are going to follow. Trouble is on the US' part it seems like we never really cared. We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
2 very simple things.
De-Baathification.
Disbanding the Iraqi army.
If we didn't do that we could very well have pulled out in victory by now.
Well, we'd probably have still need a much larger occupying force than we had. We also had no preparations made to train an Iraqi police force- there was a State Department plan to bring in a couple thousand police specialists to help keep order, but it was nixed as "too expensive" by the prewar planning idiots. And we weren't ready to rebuild infrastructure, either- we didn't make any preparations for large scale construction projects, or bring engineering specialists to help get the power grid up and running again, etc.
But, yes. Those two things were fatal. Just...not the only two fatal things, I'd say.
Hell we didn't have the troops to safely secure all the weapon caches we came across while invading.
Not even a fraction of them!
There's almost no way you could screw up an occupation more thoroughly. The amount of missteps and fatal mistakes is boggling.
Even with the adoption of some basic counterinsurgency doctrine for the "surge", it is too little, too late. Other elements of "the surge" actively contradict basic counterinsurgency doctrine, as well, so it's like two steps forward, two-and-a-half steps backwards...
In all fairness, this was the hardest occupation that the United States has ever had to do, and that is including Vietnam.
You cannot bring a man freedom, you can only help him fight for it.
Right now, people are fighting to drive us off, and we are trying to convince age old enemies to get along. The only way to win the Iraqi war would be mass genocide, as you systematically killed your enemies, broke their spirts, siezed their guns, and basically killed anyone with even the slightest desire to organize rebellion.
Frankly im of the opinion we should pull back to the oil wells, pump them dry, and let the country work its own problems out. Consider it a conquered territory, sieze the resources, and leave.
So... you're saying you should go into a country, smash everything up and kill a lot of people, fail to even *try* to restore order, let it descend into anarchy then steal all their stuff and leave? What a hero. Really, that's the most immoral suggestion about how to handle Iraq I've heard recently, well done.
In all fairness, this was the hardest occupation that the United States has ever had to do, and that is including Vietnam.
The problems at the moment are due to failure and incompetence at the start of the occupation, maybe even before the war when more nations could've sent troops or less effort spent convincing people it was going to be easy by doing no preparation. It didn't *have* to be the hardest occupation, simple things like more troops, not firing the entire army and letting them take their weapons, or not getting rid of as much of the government as possible would've gone a long way to solve problems before they were created.
In all fairness, this was the hardest occupation that the United States has ever had to do, and that is including Vietnam.
The problems at the moment are due to failure and incompetence at the start of the occupation, maybe even before the war when more nations could've sent troops or less effort spent convincing people it was going to be easy by doing no preparation. It didn't *have* to be the hardest occupation, simple things like more troops, not firing the entire army and letting them take their weapons, or not getting rid of as much of the government as possible would've gone a long way to solve problems before they were created.
Iraq, at the time of invasion, was a mix of the xenophobic political oppression of Nazi Germany mixed with the near-Economic collapse of Communist Russia. The worst parts of both. As well, the people speak an unfamiliar language, and have a primitive, alien cultural heritage. Introducing representative democracy to that part of the world is like going back in time and trying to force it on medieval European peasants.
A bloodletting [strike]civil war[/strike] genocide has been brewing in Iraq for generations, and when the occupation ends in 2009, the area is going to have some demographic renovations.
Iraq, at the time of invasion, was a mix of the xenophobic political oppression of Nazi Germany mixed with the near-Economic collapse of Communist Russia. The worst parts of both. As well, the people speak an unfamiliar language, and have a primitive, alien cultural heritage. Introducing representative democracy to that part of the world is like going back in time and trying to force it on medieval European peasants.
A bloodletting [strike]civil war[/strike] genocide has been brewing in Iraq for generations, and when the occupation ends in 2009, the area is going to have some demographic renovations.
A lot of the people of Iraq were fairly happy about the invasion at first, though - resentment was created towards the occupation through multiple mistakes and the resulting violence. Ethnic tensions were already there, obviously, which should've been resolved with a proper reconstruction plan and proper occupation with enough troops. Getting rid of the army really helped the early violence.
Really, it doesn't matter how tense ethnic tensions may or may not be, if you get rid of the authorities things will go downhill in a hurry. Really, if you took most of the authorities out of, say, London, it'd start with a couple of murders, then a couple of reprisal killings, then every tiny little disagreement would become a matter of life or death. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but the general principle is true: law and order will vanish quickly if you take away people enforcing law and order, whether it's some "backwards" hellhole or a paragon of civilization.
Also, unfamiliar language? To who? The Iraqis? Very patronising of you to call their culture primitive, too. Personally, I'm not too impressed with our culture of corrupt, lying politicians at least some of whom haven't been elected (Bush), rich getting rich for being rich, and general apathy amongst the populace.
Getting rid of the army really helped the early violence.
The army was not "gotten rid of". It is not like Paul Bremmer went on to the parade ground one day, and said to the massed assembled troops: "You guys can go home now. It's OK, btw, keep your guns. We Americans believe in your right to bear arms."
I read his [strike]self-serving[/strike] illuminating book a couple of years ago, and according to him the Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. There were no active batallions, the mostly Shia troops had packed up and gone home with their weapons rather than be at the receiving end of some American smart-bombs.
They had to rebuild the Army anyway, and it was better to start again than recalling the troops.
Really, it doesn't matter how tense ethnic tensions may or may not be, if you get rid of the authorities things will go downhill in a hurry. Really, if you took most of the authorities out of, say, London, it'd start with a couple of murders, then a couple of reprisal killings, then every tiny little disagreement would become a matter of life or death. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but the general principle is true: law and order will vanish quickly if you take away people enforcing law and order, whether it's some "backwards" hellhole or a paragon of civilization.
I really disagree with the Hobbesian hypothesis. That's another matter - though more specifically I do not agree that all of Iraq's problems would have been solved if there had simply been more troops.
That having been said, it definitely would not have hurt. And it definitely did not help that those Generals saying that they required more troops to be effective occupiers were retired.
Also, unfamiliar language? To who?
The differences between Arabic and English is a little more pronounced than say, English to French. It's a hard language to learn, that's why Arabic-translators are so sought after (of course, it doesn't help when you fire them for being gay).
Very patronising of you to call their culture primitive, too. Personally, I'm not too impressed with our culture of corrupt, lying politicians at least some of whom haven't been elected (Bush), rich getting rich for being rich, and general apathy amongst the populace.
Our society is not perfect, but:
by your own admission, we elect our leaders.
We do not stone apostates.
Women are allowed and generally encouraged to enter the workplace.
Women are considered to be more than breeders.
We do not practice corporal punishment.
Church and state are either clearly defined as being separate legally, or has become traditionally that way.
We're allowed to adopt children.
We're allowed to lend money with interest.
We can take a fucking joke.
I'm not going to apologize for the Human Rights abuses of the Muslim world just for the sake of "understanding". I truly never took to the idea that there are "no primitive peoples, just different cultures". It's a total copout. The Islamic world never had a Renaissance, never had an Enlightenment, and has never, ever defined the rights of the individual. If there had been no Battle of Baghdad, things may have been different. But culturally, the Islamic world has not advanced beyond 1258.
In effect, trying to speedily introduce democracy in a region that, historically, has zero traditions of the sort, is almost certainly doomed to failure. It's like trying to teach a child calculus before he can count to ten. That's not to say that establishing a flourishing democracy in the Middle East will be impossible, just nearly impossible. And I can't, for the life of me, think of a single foreign-supported democracy that has worked. It would be far easier simply to establish a pro-Western demagogue and just be done with it.
The army was not "gotten rid of". It is not like Paul Bremmer went on to the parade ground one day, and said to the massed assembled troops: "You guys can go home now. It's OK, btw, keep your guns. We Americans believe in your right to bear arms."
I read his [strike]self-serving[/strike] illuminating book a couple of years ago, and according to him the Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. There were no active batallions, the mostly Shia troops had packed up and gone home with their weapons rather than be at the receiving end of some American smart-bombs.
They had to rebuild the Army anyway, and it was better to start again than recalling the troops.
That's news to me, admittedly. The thing is, believing it would violate the most important rule of paying attention to Bush, those associated with his government and neo-cons in general: don't believe a word they say, because whatever they say is only what they want you to hear, anything truthful is incidental. Even if it is true, they could've at least tried to reign in some of the former soldiers, or track the AWOL ones down, or *something*. Really, having a bunch of armed ex-soldiers running around just sounds like a bad idea; I thought that at the time, and if you look at history, de-mobbing soldiers like that is just stupid. "We couldn't help it!" is a bad excuse
I really disagree with the Hobbesian hypothesis. That's another matter - though more specifically I do not agree that all of Iraq's problems would have been solved if there had simply been more troops.
That having been said, it definitely would not have hurt. And it definitely did not help that those Generals saying that they required more troops to be effective occupiers were retired.
I agree all of Iraq's problems wouldn't have been eliminated with more troops, but as you say, more troops wouldn't have hurt. And the lack of troops is just one example of the numerous problems with the whole fiasco.
The differences between Arabic and English is a little more pronounced than say, English to French. It's a hard language to learn, that's why Arabic-translators are so sought after (of course, it doesn't help when you fire them for being gay).
Right, you meant the interaction between troops and civilians, I thought you were talking about amongst the civilians.
Women are allowed and generally encouraged to enter the workplace.
Women are considered to be more than breeders.
We do not practice corporal punishment.
Church and state are either clearly defined as being separate legally, or has become traditionally that way.
We're allowed to adopt children.
We're allowed to lend money with interest.
We can take a fucking joke.
1. We elect our leaders, but it's not anymore a part of their culture to *not* than in our's. Looks at the governments in S. America, parts of Europe (even now - Belarus, Russia), Asia and Africa. The lack of democracy isn't unique to the Mid. East, and *our* interference has tended to help that problem. We might support democracy domestically, but we aren't so bothered about internationally
2. Not everyone in the Mid. East does that, and there are some in the West who would *like* to do that. Fundamentalism isn't restricted to Muslims, it's just we hear about them more.
3. Something that the West has only had for decades. And it's not like everything's perfect in this area. You wouldn't say early 20th Century Europe was primitive, would you?
4. True, but I'm not exactly fond of nations that execute convicts, either, so the West doesn't win points on that count.
5. The kind of influence religion has in Western politics is greater than it should be, though. Like a fundamentalist Christian US President.
6. Don't know about child adoption in the Mid. East, admittedly.
7. That's more economics than culture or freedom
8. Some of us can - hear the stories about people being ordered to take off t-shirts insulting Bush or Christians going nuts over the Jerry Springer Opera and it's fairly obvious that's not all of us.
The thing is, the West isn't perfect either, and actually tends to cause or continue some of the problems you're talking about. I don't like feeling morally superior because we can prop up their dictators or cripple their societies, but they can't do the same to us. Iraq's an example - we could've invaded and set up a stable democracy, instead we've created a problem that might still effect the country in 20 years.
I'm not going to apologize for the Human Rights abuses of the Muslim world just for the sake of "understanding". I truly never took to the idea that there are "no primitive peoples, just different cultures". It's a total copout. The Islamic world never had a Renaissance, never had an Enlightenment, and has never, ever defined the rights of the individual. If there had been no Battle of Baghdad, things may have been different. But culturally, the Islamic world has not advanced beyond 1258.
In effect, trying to speedily introduce democracy in a region that, historically, has zero traditions of the sort, is almost certainly doomed to failure. It's like trying to teach a child calculus before he can count to ten. That's not to say that establishing a flourishing democracy in the Middle East will be impossible, just nearly impossible. And I can't, for the life of me, think of a single foreign-supported democracy that has worked. It would be far easier simply to establish a pro-Western demagogue and just be done with it.
I'm not talking about excusing genocides, massacres and imprisoning political dissidents, I'm just complaining about the use of the word "primitive." Hitler was a genocidal maniac and a dictator, but Nazi Germany wasn't primitive. I hate talking like Bush, but Germany didn't have a strong democratic tradition before '45 (Weimar might've been okay if it weren't for the depression, but it had difficulties), same with Japan. Relatively earlier days for both, only 60 years on, but they're doing okay. It's not easy to introduce democracy to a nation under a dictatorship or oligarchy, but it's not impossible. Some might embrace it with enthusiasm. The problem is, the West likes expediency. If people don't adopt a democracy within 4 years while there's anarchy around them, they're primitive and they must not understand.
No, if people are given a remotely stable democracy they seem happy to stick with that democracy, even if it takes a generation or two. Constantly screwing with their nations and their people isn't likely to create democracies, though. And, conversely, if times got really bad in a democracy, people would happily let a dictator rise to power if he promised solutions.
Fascism was primitive. It was an absolutist dictatorship that functioned off of a cult of personality and nationalism. It was no different than the plethora of tyrannical models of Government employed in the past.
Tyranny is primitive - yet it seems to be the natural state of Government from which a nation has to rise above. Take your finger across the globe, and try to find a place that has not functioned as a tyrannical state for most of its history.
On another note, irrational fundamentalism is primitive wherever it is. Foreign and domestic.
The United States is the only nation in the free world that practices capital punishment, so its a pariah rather than an exemplar.
5. The kind of influence religion has in Western politics is greater than it should be, though. Like a fundamentalist Christian US President.
While George Bush is many things, a fundamentalist he is not. He actually mentions God less in his speeches than Bill Clinton did.
So... you're saying you should go into a country, smash everything up and kill a lot of people, fail to even *try* to restore order, let it descend into anarchy then steal all their stuff and leave? What a hero. Really, that's the most immoral suggestion about how to handle Iraq I've heard recently, well done.
Lets cut to the matter at heart. If your talking morality we have no right to invade a country and just decided to impose our ideals on the populous. We had no legal or ethical right to invade Iraq. It was a feel good, kill the dictator, go america, fuck yeah! war that had nothing to do with terrorism.
So you have three distinct sides all wanting to kill the other two that have only been kept in a semblance of order due to one side being in power keeping the other two in line with threats of genocide if not outright mass killings.
Lets be realistic. We are not going to restore order. The sides may get along enough to get us out of there between killing our troops and claiming to make progress when in fact little is being done toward a stable democracy. If you held an election, whichever side lost would protest with fire and blood and your right back at square one.
Its going to descent into anarchy anyway. I fail to see why we shouldnt be recouping the cost of the war. We had a war, we won. The countrys resources are ours to exploit as we see fit.
Its going to descent into anarchy anyway. I fail to see why we shouldnt be recouping the cost of the war. We had a war, we won. The countrys resources are ours to exploit as we see fit.
I think you're missing the point that it's not going to be particularly easy to do that in the current climate, and that if there's anything which would more effectively destroy American influence in the region then it already has been it would be definitively and obviously acting as an imperialistic power.
I mean, I guarantee you that the war was pitched as "going to pay for itself" on the basis of the Iraqi oil fields (somewhat a different notion though to the idea that it was done for the oil. It was done because they wanted to try it, the oil was just an appealing motivator).
George W. Bush is the guy who believes that God talks to him personally each day, and who believes God directly placed him in the White House. He is (was?) a member of the United Methodist Church, but his ideas are more in line with the SBC (and UM has said as much.) He's a fundamentalist.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
George W. Bush is the guy who believes that God talks to him personally each day, and who believes God directly placed him in the White House. He is (was?) a member of the United Methodist Church, but his ideas are more in line with the SBC (and UM has said as much.) He's a fundamentalist.
He's so often misquoted, that sometimes I'm tempted buy this "left-wing media conspiracy" garbage.
“I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president.†What? Did George Bush really say that? Does the president imagine he has a divine mission?
Well, he was quoted to that effect by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. The full quote, however, does not quite sound as if Mr Bush is labouring to scrap the republic and replace it with a theocracy. “But if that doesn't happen, that's okay,†the president continued, “I have seen the presidency up close and personal. I know it's a sacrifice, and I don't need it for personal validation.â€
Yeah, if anything, the Economist is the one messing with context. The fact that he's a fundamentalist christian doesn't mean he wants to dismantle the Republic.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm amused that a return to previous troop levels is being sold as a "reduction." Especially since the surge was sold from the outset, at least if I remember correctly, as being temporary.
5. The kind of influence religion has in Western politics is greater than it should be, though. Like a fundamentalist Christian US President.
While George Bush is many things, a fundamentalist he is not. He actually mentions God less in his speeches than Bill Clinton did.
But it is often said that he got in office based on a public perception as a "good Christian President." I know that's why my boyfriend's mother voted for him in the 2004 election. If he is selling himself as a religious leader (leader who is religious, not necessarily leader of a religion), then does it really matter how many times he mentions God in his speeches?
5. The kind of influence religion has in Western politics is greater than it should be, though. Like a fundamentalist Christian US President.
While George Bush is many things, a fundamentalist he is not. He actually mentions God less in his speeches than Bill Clinton did.
But it is often said that he got in office based on a public perception as a "good Christian President." I know that's why my boyfriend's mother voted for him in the 2004 election. If he is selling himself as a religious leader (leader who is religious, not necessarily leader of a religion), then does it really matter how many times he mentions God in his speeches?
The fundamentalists like him more than Bill, but George himself is not.
A fundamentalist Christian would not have walked into and prayed in a mosque following Sepember 11. He would not assert that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God.
A fundamentalist chooses to ignore all external viewpoints but his own. He clearly is more inclusive.
I think you can be a fundamentalist christian and understand the value of good public relations as the President. Or to put it more favorably, you can be understand that you preside over a pluralist society.
Look, as I said upthread, Bush is an evangelical, born-again christian who believes that his political life has been and continues to be directed by god. He has not that I can recall ever been opposed to the evangelical fundamentalist community in his public policy preferences, and despite not saying the word 'God' as often as Clinton, his speeches are shot through with religious references and material. Various Bush appointees have made far more fundamentalist and inflamatory statements than he has himself, with no rebuke from the executive branch that I'm aware of.
And as far as Bush ignoring all external viewpoints, well. If you think he doesn't, I wonder how much attention you're paying.
I'm still curious to know how you can possibly define fundamentalist christianity without including Bush, unless you're going to restrict it to Fred Phelps-style bomb throwers.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The surge has gone well, as far as I can make out. But its impossible to really judge its effectiveness until troop numbers withdraw to normal levels, because we cant know if the surge has permadently improved security, or just put a lid on things.
Introducing representative democracy to that part of the world is like going back in time and trying to force it on medieval European peasants.
Interesting choice of words. Are you saying it would fail because they are not themselves creating it, or it will fail because they are medieval peasants? Or both?
Introducing representative democracy to that part of the world is like going back in time and trying to force it on medieval European peasants.
Interesting choice of words. Are you saying it would fail because they are not themselves creating it, or it will fail because they are medieval peasants? Or both?
It fails because they're not creating it, so it gets viewed as yet another set of rulers, rather then anything they have any real stake in.
Introducing representative democracy to that part of the world is like going back in time and trying to force it on medieval European peasants.
Interesting choice of words. Are you saying it would fail because they are not themselves creating it, or it will fail because they are medieval peasants? Or both?
It fails because they're not creating it, so it gets viewed as yet another set of rulers, rather then anything they have any real stake in.
Well, that'd be my opinion too - I just wanted to know how much he thought their medieval peasantry comes into the equation.
Worth noting, though, that back then (I'm talking 16th century here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the idea was around a lot earlier) the feudal monarchy was regarded in educated circles as a superior, natural evolution from the 'primitive' democracies of Greece, being far more stable and better able to care for its citizens. That was the theory. It has a lot of roots in Christianity and yadda yadda, but I won't get into that.
The idea that a benevolent dictatorship is better then democracy is still around today, though I would say that they were also mixing in ideas of a meritocracy while simultaneously demonstrating exactly why it fails.
Posts
I prefer Stewart's term: "catastrofuck"
For what, exactly? Hiring jackasses who aren't qualified to run a toaster put in charge of rebuilding a war ravaged state?
Criminal negligence maybe? They should at least be nailed the assholes who have managed to do exactly nothing while getting paid millions of dollars by the US government however.
Gravel actually said something smart (surprise!) about this a while back. They control both majorities, and if they were serious about ending the war there'd be legislation to end or move toward ending the war on the floor every week at least. Let the Republicans filibuster if they want, but at this point I'm not sure they'd have the votes.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Damn British! Hanging America out to dry they are!
srsly though, Britain is outta there in the next year or so, maybe half a year. Who is the US going to point to as being on their side then? When you build an ally up so much ("the UK is with us; the war can't be that bad!") it gets hard to justify it when even they've left.
Right now, people are fighting to drive us off, and we are trying to convince age old enemies to get along. The only way to win the Iraqi war would be mass genocide, as you systematically killed your enemies, broke their spirts, siezed their guns, and basically killed anyone with even the slightest desire to organize rebellion.
Frankly im of the opinion we should pull back to the oil wells, pump them dry, and let the country work its own problems out. Consider it a conquered territory, sieze the resources, and leave.
They were probably up to their old tricks.
Taxing us without representation and whatnot.
I mean, when the contracters give you a million a month to not attack them, its not like you are just going to sit on the money and invest it in the bullish market. Your going to use the funds to recruit and arm more people to extort even more people.
MWO: Adamski
Australia. Howard won't stop backing Bush under *any* circumstances. Rudd may be a little more circumspect...
Well, we'd probably have still need a much larger occupying force than we had. We also had no preparations made to train an Iraqi police force- there was a State Department plan to bring in a couple thousand police specialists to help keep order, but it was nixed as "too expensive" by the prewar planning idiots. And we weren't ready to rebuild infrastructure, either- we didn't make any preparations for large scale construction projects, or bring engineering specialists to help get the power grid up and running again, etc.
But, yes. Those two things were fatal. Just...not the only two fatal things, I'd say.
Iraq really should install a revolving door for the British; this is what, the third time we've invaded and then left?
Hell we didn't have the troops to safely secure all the weapon caches we came across while invading.
Not even a fraction of them!
There's almost no way you could screw up an occupation more thoroughly. The amount of missteps and fatal mistakes is boggling.
Even with the adoption of some basic counterinsurgency doctrine for the "surge", it is too little, too late. Other elements of "the surge" actively contradict basic counterinsurgency doctrine, as well, so it's like two steps forward, two-and-a-half steps backwards...
In all fairness, this was the hardest occupation that the United States has ever had to do, and that is including Vietnam.
So... you're saying you should go into a country, smash everything up and kill a lot of people, fail to even *try* to restore order, let it descend into anarchy then steal all their stuff and leave? What a hero. Really, that's the most immoral suggestion about how to handle Iraq I've heard recently, well done.
The problems at the moment are due to failure and incompetence at the start of the occupation, maybe even before the war when more nations could've sent troops or less effort spent convincing people it was going to be easy by doing no preparation. It didn't *have* to be the hardest occupation, simple things like more troops, not firing the entire army and letting them take their weapons, or not getting rid of as much of the government as possible would've gone a long way to solve problems before they were created.
Iraq, at the time of invasion, was a mix of the xenophobic political oppression of Nazi Germany mixed with the near-Economic collapse of Communist Russia. The worst parts of both. As well, the people speak an unfamiliar language, and have a primitive, alien cultural heritage. Introducing representative democracy to that part of the world is like going back in time and trying to force it on medieval European peasants.
A bloodletting [strike]civil war[/strike] genocide has been brewing in Iraq for generations, and when the occupation ends in 2009, the area is going to have some demographic renovations.
A lot of the people of Iraq were fairly happy about the invasion at first, though - resentment was created towards the occupation through multiple mistakes and the resulting violence. Ethnic tensions were already there, obviously, which should've been resolved with a proper reconstruction plan and proper occupation with enough troops. Getting rid of the army really helped the early violence.
Really, it doesn't matter how tense ethnic tensions may or may not be, if you get rid of the authorities things will go downhill in a hurry. Really, if you took most of the authorities out of, say, London, it'd start with a couple of murders, then a couple of reprisal killings, then every tiny little disagreement would become a matter of life or death. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but the general principle is true: law and order will vanish quickly if you take away people enforcing law and order, whether it's some "backwards" hellhole or a paragon of civilization.
Also, unfamiliar language? To who? The Iraqis? Very patronising of you to call their culture primitive, too. Personally, I'm not too impressed with our culture of corrupt, lying politicians at least some of whom haven't been elected (Bush), rich getting rich for being rich, and general apathy amongst the populace.
The army was not "gotten rid of". It is not like Paul Bremmer went on to the parade ground one day, and said to the massed assembled troops: "You guys can go home now. It's OK, btw, keep your guns. We Americans believe in your right to bear arms."
I read his [strike]self-serving[/strike] illuminating book a couple of years ago, and according to him the Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. There were no active batallions, the mostly Shia troops had packed up and gone home with their weapons rather than be at the receiving end of some American smart-bombs.
They had to rebuild the Army anyway, and it was better to start again than recalling the troops.
I really disagree with the Hobbesian hypothesis. That's another matter - though more specifically I do not agree that all of Iraq's problems would have been solved if there had simply been more troops.
That having been said, it definitely would not have hurt. And it definitely did not help that those Generals saying that they required more troops to be effective occupiers were retired.
The differences between Arabic and English is a little more pronounced than say, English to French. It's a hard language to learn, that's why Arabic-translators are so sought after (of course, it doesn't help when you fire them for being gay).
Our society is not perfect, but:
I'm not going to apologize for the Human Rights abuses of the Muslim world just for the sake of "understanding". I truly never took to the idea that there are "no primitive peoples, just different cultures". It's a total copout. The Islamic world never had a Renaissance, never had an Enlightenment, and has never, ever defined the rights of the individual. If there had been no Battle of Baghdad, things may have been different. But culturally, the Islamic world has not advanced beyond 1258.
In effect, trying to speedily introduce democracy in a region that, historically, has zero traditions of the sort, is almost certainly doomed to failure. It's like trying to teach a child calculus before he can count to ten. That's not to say that establishing a flourishing democracy in the Middle East will be impossible, just nearly impossible. And I can't, for the life of me, think of a single foreign-supported democracy that has worked. It would be far easier simply to establish a pro-Western demagogue and just be done with it.
That's news to me, admittedly. The thing is, believing it would violate the most important rule of paying attention to Bush, those associated with his government and neo-cons in general: don't believe a word they say, because whatever they say is only what they want you to hear, anything truthful is incidental. Even if it is true, they could've at least tried to reign in some of the former soldiers, or track the AWOL ones down, or *something*. Really, having a bunch of armed ex-soldiers running around just sounds like a bad idea; I thought that at the time, and if you look at history, de-mobbing soldiers like that is just stupid. "We couldn't help it!" is a bad excuse
I agree all of Iraq's problems wouldn't have been eliminated with more troops, but as you say, more troops wouldn't have hurt. And the lack of troops is just one example of the numerous problems with the whole fiasco.
Right, you meant the interaction between troops and civilians, I thought you were talking about amongst the civilians.
1. We elect our leaders, but it's not anymore a part of their culture to *not* than in our's. Looks at the governments in S. America, parts of Europe (even now - Belarus, Russia), Asia and Africa. The lack of democracy isn't unique to the Mid. East, and *our* interference has tended to help that problem. We might support democracy domestically, but we aren't so bothered about internationally
2. Not everyone in the Mid. East does that, and there are some in the West who would *like* to do that. Fundamentalism isn't restricted to Muslims, it's just we hear about them more.
3. Something that the West has only had for decades. And it's not like everything's perfect in this area. You wouldn't say early 20th Century Europe was primitive, would you?
4. True, but I'm not exactly fond of nations that execute convicts, either, so the West doesn't win points on that count.
5. The kind of influence religion has in Western politics is greater than it should be, though. Like a fundamentalist Christian US President.
6. Don't know about child adoption in the Mid. East, admittedly.
7. That's more economics than culture or freedom
8. Some of us can - hear the stories about people being ordered to take off t-shirts insulting Bush or Christians going nuts over the Jerry Springer Opera and it's fairly obvious that's not all of us.
The thing is, the West isn't perfect either, and actually tends to cause or continue some of the problems you're talking about. I don't like feeling morally superior because we can prop up their dictators or cripple their societies, but they can't do the same to us. Iraq's an example - we could've invaded and set up a stable democracy, instead we've created a problem that might still effect the country in 20 years.
I'm not talking about excusing genocides, massacres and imprisoning political dissidents, I'm just complaining about the use of the word "primitive." Hitler was a genocidal maniac and a dictator, but Nazi Germany wasn't primitive. I hate talking like Bush, but Germany didn't have a strong democratic tradition before '45 (Weimar might've been okay if it weren't for the depression, but it had difficulties), same with Japan. Relatively earlier days for both, only 60 years on, but they're doing okay. It's not easy to introduce democracy to a nation under a dictatorship or oligarchy, but it's not impossible. Some might embrace it with enthusiasm. The problem is, the West likes expediency. If people don't adopt a democracy within 4 years while there's anarchy around them, they're primitive and they must not understand.
No, if people are given a remotely stable democracy they seem happy to stick with that democracy, even if it takes a generation or two. Constantly screwing with their nations and their people isn't likely to create democracies, though. And, conversely, if times got really bad in a democracy, people would happily let a dictator rise to power if he promised solutions.
Fascism was primitive. It was an absolutist dictatorship that functioned off of a cult of personality and nationalism. It was no different than the plethora of tyrannical models of Government employed in the past.
Tyranny is primitive - yet it seems to be the natural state of Government from which a nation has to rise above. Take your finger across the globe, and try to find a place that has not functioned as a tyrannical state for most of its history.
On another note, irrational fundamentalism is primitive wherever it is. Foreign and domestic.
The United States is the only nation in the free world that practices capital punishment, so its a pariah rather than an exemplar.
While George Bush is many things, a fundamentalist he is not. He actually mentions God less in his speeches than Bill Clinton did.
Lets cut to the matter at heart. If your talking morality we have no right to invade a country and just decided to impose our ideals on the populous. We had no legal or ethical right to invade Iraq. It was a feel good, kill the dictator, go america, fuck yeah! war that had nothing to do with terrorism.
So you have three distinct sides all wanting to kill the other two that have only been kept in a semblance of order due to one side being in power keeping the other two in line with threats of genocide if not outright mass killings.
Lets be realistic. We are not going to restore order. The sides may get along enough to get us out of there between killing our troops and claiming to make progress when in fact little is being done toward a stable democracy. If you held an election, whichever side lost would protest with fire and blood and your right back at square one.
Its going to descent into anarchy anyway. I fail to see why we shouldnt be recouping the cost of the war. We had a war, we won. The countrys resources are ours to exploit as we see fit.
I mean, I guarantee you that the war was pitched as "going to pay for itself" on the basis of the Iraqi oil fields (somewhat a different notion though to the idea that it was done for the oil. It was done because they wanted to try it, the oil was just an appealing motivator).
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
He's so often misquoted, that sometimes I'm tempted buy this "left-wing media conspiracy" garbage.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm amused that a return to previous troop levels is being sold as a "reduction." Especially since the surge was sold from the outset, at least if I remember correctly, as being temporary.
But it is often said that he got in office based on a public perception as a "good Christian President." I know that's why my boyfriend's mother voted for him in the 2004 election. If he is selling himself as a religious leader (leader who is religious, not necessarily leader of a religion), then does it really matter how many times he mentions God in his speeches?
The fundamentalists like him more than Bill, but George himself is not.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
A fundamentalist chooses to ignore all external viewpoints but his own. He clearly is more inclusive.
Look, as I said upthread, Bush is an evangelical, born-again christian who believes that his political life has been and continues to be directed by god. He has not that I can recall ever been opposed to the evangelical fundamentalist community in his public policy preferences, and despite not saying the word 'God' as often as Clinton, his speeches are shot through with religious references and material. Various Bush appointees have made far more fundamentalist and inflamatory statements than he has himself, with no rebuke from the executive branch that I'm aware of.
And as far as Bush ignoring all external viewpoints, well. If you think he doesn't, I wonder how much attention you're paying.
I'm still curious to know how you can possibly define fundamentalist christianity without including Bush, unless you're going to restrict it to Fred Phelps-style bomb throwers.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Interesting choice of words. Are you saying it would fail because they are not themselves creating it, or it will fail because they are medieval peasants? Or both?
It fails because they're not creating it, so it gets viewed as yet another set of rulers, rather then anything they have any real stake in.
Well, that'd be my opinion too - I just wanted to know how much he thought their medieval peasantry comes into the equation.
Worth noting, though, that back then (I'm talking 16th century here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the idea was around a lot earlier) the feudal monarchy was regarded in educated circles as a superior, natural evolution from the 'primitive' democracies of Greece, being far more stable and better able to care for its citizens. That was the theory. It has a lot of roots in Christianity and yadda yadda, but I won't get into that.