Should USUK forces leave IRaq now?

[Sorry.]

It's still too soon for that, once the local forces are up to scratch and the UK/US forces are withdrawn or reduced to a tiny group in the desert then all that will be left is the terrorists to hate.

All the insurgents have the threat of civil war.

by the time that's the case, Iraq will be well beyond hope of avoiding civil war. I'm genuinely surprised that you can't see this situation deteriorating by the day and a peaceful solution becoming less and less likely.

And no, I don't think the foreign fundies carry with them the threat of civil war, except in the role of agent provacateur.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yes and no, it's not about how many you kill, or the battles. It's about people hating the insurgents more than they hate the government. It's about removing a reason for the terrorists. The ceasefires in NI are more a feature of the need for the IRA disapearing than a cause of it (imo).

The occupation will end, probably within this decade. But if you end it too soon then the country will implode, it's not ready yet.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

by the time that's the case, Iraq will be well beyond hope of avoiding civil war. I'm genuinely surprised that you can't see this situation deteriorating by the day and a peaceful solution becoming less and less likely.

And no, I don't think the foreign fundies carry with them the threat of civil war, except in the role of agent provacateur.

If it's deteriorating by the day it must be a very very slow procedure. I do not see that it is deteriorating, nor is it getting much better.

(Foreign fundies? So all insurgents are foreign or nationalistic?)

 

[nino_savatte]

I am trying to be polite in this thread, implying that i am a racist is not repaying that courtesy.

Where did I call you a "racist" bob? One thing I remember from my previous encounters with you is that you're paranoid and you imagine slights...but are quite happy to attack others (usually me). What is your problem, bob?

You have not been at all polite to me and most of your replies to me on this thread are evidence of this.


So I take it you are not familiar with the terms "White Man's Burden" or "The Noble Savage"?

Noble savage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

WMB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_man's_burden

[...] non-European cultures are seen as child-like as well as demonic, with people of European or more specifically West European (as East Europeans were also seen as lesser beings) descent having an obligation to rule them and encourage their development until they can take their place in the world by fully adopting western ways.

 

[redsquirrel]

Yes and no, it's not about how many you kill, or the battles. It's about people hating the insurgents more than they hate the government. It's about removing a reason for the terrorists.

And many of those reasons are because of the occupying forces and the goverment. If you remove the occupying forces then you remove a "reason for the terrorists".

 

[Bob_the_lost]

And many of those reasons are because of the occupying forces and the goverment. If you remove the occupying forces then you remove a "reason for the terrorists".

Yes, i know that. That is why the occupation has to end and the sooner the better. Just not too soon.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, bob, I'm still waiting. Where did I call you a "racist"? I'm sorry where did I "imply" you were a "racist"?

 

[Sorry.]

Yes and no, it's not about how many you kill, or the battles. It's about people hating the insurgents more than they hate the government. It's about removing a reason for the terrorists. The ceasefires in NI are more a feature of the need for the IRA disapearing than a cause of it (imo).

Right, so nationalist communities needed the IRA to defend them from unionist violence (and later the violence of the British state) and to advance their claim for civil rights. When some of this was achieved and unionist violence became less of an issue, the need for the IRA diminished.*

And in Iraq, the Iraqi people need a nationalist insurgency to eject a violent occupation from their homeland. When this is achieved, the need for the insurgency will diminish. Surely?

The occupation will end, probably within this decade. But if you end it too soon then the country will
implode, it's not ready yet.

I think the potentially for such a implosion increases over the duration of the occupation. The longer the struggle between the resistance and the occupier + collaborators continues, the more likely that collaborator and resistance won't be able to come to a peaceful solution.


*yes, I know it's more complicated, I'm just making a point

 

[redsquirrel]

Yes, i know that. That is why the occupation has to end and the sooner the better. Just not too soon.

So when is too soon?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well, bob, I'm still waiting. Where did I call you a "racist"? I'm sorry where did I "imply" you were a "racist"?

To insist that we "stay" is a merely a continuation of imperialist ideas of the "white man's burden".

You are familiar with the terms "White Man's Burden" and "The noble savage" aren't you?

Are you saying it is the white man's "duty" to stay and impose order on these Arab savages?

The view and the term itself are often regarded in modern times as racist and condescending

Europeans developed a notion of "the primitive" and "the savage" that legitimized genocide and ethnocide

If that isn't implying i'm racist then obviously i've misinterpreted you and the texts. Also the useage of the term "savages" is pretty obviously trying to reinforce it.

 

[Sorry.]

If it's deteriorating by the day it must be a very very slow procedure. I do not see that it is deteriorating, nor is it getting much better.

The last few weeks have seen the stampede and the labour exchange bombs, insurgents capturing the towns of Qaim and Talafar, British troops in the South desperately trying to weed what they claim to be a signficant infiltration in the Basra police force, not to mention the absolute farce that is the constitutional process, and the gathering forces against the document (which the US and the government will push heavily, and will lose, causing yet another crisis of legitimacy).

I think things have deteriorated markedly inside the recent past and withdrawal is urgent, before things become even worse.

(Foreign fundies? So all insurgents are foreign or nationalistic?)

It's a generalisation, but I do think there are two parts to the insurgency - a nihilistic terrorist campaign (led by foreigners) and a nationalist insurgency designed to end the occupation (primarily sunni nationalists). It's a fairly widespread opinion.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Right, so nationalist communities needed the IRA to defend them from unionist violence (and later the violence of the British state) and to advance their claim for civil rights. When some of this was achieved and unionist violence became less of an issue, the need for the IRA diminished.*

And in Iraq, the Iraqi people need a nationalist insurgency to eject a violent occupation from their homeland. When this is achieved, the need for the insurgency will diminish. Surely?

Yes, but while that would lead to the obvious solution of withdraw the troops now, it ignores the results, the country would descend into civil war. The balance has to be pulling out as soon as you are sure that it won't resort to that.

The occupation isn't for ever, but it is needed for now.

 

[bugsy7]

The threat of civil war breaking out in Iraq has been used so often now that everyone thinks it's a foregone conclusion. But it's not. The Iraqis are sophisticated and cultured people who know how to deal with each other.
If the Septics and Brits left now, the Iaqis would settle their differences and come up with a viable form of gobment. It certainly wouldn't be the sort of gobment the Septics or Brits want there, but it'd be an Iraqi gobment for Iraqis, instead of the fucking sham they've got now.
The Septic and Brit troops should be brought home forthwith and leave governing Iraq to the Iraqis. Stop the fucking inept meddling in the affairs of other countries!

MsG

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes, although i dispute your choice of "full" here.

Screening has been improved, and the iraqi government will have to sort that out over time.

What do you make of the fact that Al-Sadrs group won a large share of the vote then?. They are a part of the government.

I think the UN should handle a process by which it is divided up into three peacefully.

 

[oi2002]

...The real reason behind the call to stay is obvious: OIL.

Precisely my point. Nobody gives a monkies toss if the Islamic world stages a higher tech version of the 30 years war. They can fill ditches with their dead and we will look on with bored indifference.

Protecting oil production is however is a very good reason to stay. For God sake the bottom line here is the markets going into oil-shock, globalisation going tits up and with it the basic human right of iPod Nano ownership... I hope that thought hasn't caused anybody on U75 to go catatonic.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Precisely my point. Nobody gives a monkies toss if the Islamic world stages a higher tech version of the 30 years war. They can fill ditches with their dead and we will look on with bored indifference.

I care, as i'm sure you do. Maybe you mean no governments care.

 

[jonH]

I care, as i'm sure you do. Maybe you mean no governments care.

I care (i don't care is for fascists)

 

[Barking_Mad]

It makes no difference in my opinion - Iraq will goto the wolves whatever they do. Now or later

 

[oi2002]

I care, as i'm sure you do. Maybe you mean no governments care.

As an Ulsterman and former Maoist I'm not actually brimming with compassion. Despite all the pious platitudes neither are Western populations or the politicians they elect. They are however very greedy consumers and that's why it's probably more profitable to consider the oil angle.

That I'm afraid is why not owning one of these:

may in reality shock more folk more than a Middle East full of these:

That one's from Chechen site by the way which I suspect recieves slightly fewer hits than the Apple one.

In the US Dubya has cynically queered the humanitarian arguments by using them to justify the invasion after they failed to find WMD so let's get back to realpolitik and self interest as the only politcally viable basis for staying.

 

[ska invita]

please forgive length of post... lots to cover

Lets try and agree on some basics

But there isn't a power vacuum - there's a clear, unitary, sovereign political authority in Iraq

Saddam has left a huge hole: he filled it by being tough fisted and perhaps was the only type of person who could hold together a unified Iraq: a point that has been made by those on the right (looking for a new Saddam) and those on the left (saying that a removal of Saddam will cause the countries collapse).

There is not a unified resistance movement to the provisional government+USUK forces – to say there is is to over simplify a very complex situation.

I'm afraid it's your imperialist worldview that only the sensible western countries are capable of delivering a benign peace to the region that's fanciful.

To insist that we "stay" is a merely a continuation of imperialist ideas of the "white man's burden"

This argument is ridiculous and insulting – its not the racial qualities of the Iraq government that make them unable to control order and secure peace, it’s the fact they are starting from scratch, in a war zone, with no army to fully call their own. Like it or not, a key provision of any state is the “legitimacy to force” - you cant have legitimacy to force without a force to control. We’re talking about white men picking up the pieces of what they broke and carrying out a desperate and hellish programme of damage control. If I cant convince you of this you clearly don’t want the government to succeed in establishing itself.

Lets not forget that a government hasn’t been sworn in yet- this is a temporary coalition – if my memory serves me right a real election would see Sistani elected. Once a non-coalition, one track party takes power the government will have more direction and legitimacy. Then may prove to be a good time to begin withdrawl. Sistani is hardly going to be a western puppet either (neo-cons are furious that he'll win), and will be sure to ask the free-at-the-point-of-delivery USUK forces to leave once he has secured the ship of state.

to feed in a comparison along the lines of "you break it you bought it" - having "broken" Vietnam, should it have been incumbent upon the US to "buy it" to the tune of troops remaining in the country to 'peacekeep'?

Iraq doesn’t equal Vietnam – lets try and look at the realpolitik situation on the ground rather than trying to find general patterns in history to make sweeping points. For starters: the provisional government wants the troops there, the Vietnamese did not. Enormous difference .
.

I think the UN should handle a process by which it is divided up into three peacefully.

I think you may be right: a concerted effort to separate the country may work – what the f do I know sitting here. Just as likely, if the first general elections can be held perhaps a centralised government can be made to work also. A lot of work has gone into getting thus far: how long until elections? Anyone know? The sooner stability, the sooner essential public services can be supplied, and the sooner the murdering stops (lets hope and pray).

 

[Sorry.]

Yes, but while that would lead to the obvious solution of withdraw the troops now, it ignores the results, the country would descend into civil war. The balance has to be pulling out as soon as you are sure that it won't resort to that.

The country is descending into civil war, and the occupation is the primary cause. I just don't see that the occupying forces are guiding Iraq away from this, and I don't think that progress is being made.

As I see it, I do not see the potential for disaster in the wake of withdrawal diminishing over the course of the occupation. Certainly that has not been the case over the last 30 months. I don't see how that trend can be reversed, and I certainly don't think that will inevitably be the case. That being the situation, we're making a potential comparison:

security value of the troops v political damage of occupation.*

I think the latter outweighs the former, over the long term. I don't see coalition forces as being to avert a civil war, if various groups are determined to make one happen and I think that determination is fuelled by the occupation.


assuming that the practical goal should be to avoid civil war at all costs, and ignoring the potential questions about the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and the potential for further occupation violence

 

[nino_savatte]

If that isn't implying i'm racist then obviously i've misinterpreted you and the texts. Also the useage of the term "savages" is pretty obviously trying to reinforce it.

You still haven't grasped the fundamentals of what I'm saying and I suspect you are doing so for a reason: to continue your sad, pathetic little vendetta.

 

[nino_savatte]

This argument is ridiculous and insulting – its not the racial qualities of the Iraq government that make them unable to control order and secure peace, it’s the fact they are starting from scratch, in a war zone, with no army to fully call their own. Like it or not, a key provision of any state is the “legitimacy to force” - you cant have legitimacy to force without a force to control. We’re talking about white men picking up the pieces of what they broke and carrying out a desperate and hellish programme of damage control. If I cant convince you of this you clearly don’t want the government to succeed in establishing itself.

How is it "ridiculous and insulting"? It's the truth and it is an unpalatable truth that such imperailist ideas are still in circulation and are being tacitly expressed. As for the Iraqi government, the US got the government it wanted, not the Iraqi people.

 

[Sorry.]

Lets try and agree on some basics Saddam has left a huge hole: he filled it by being tough fisted and perhaps was the only type of person who could hold together a unified Iraq: a point that has been made by those on the right (looking for a new Saddam) and those on the left (saying that a removal of Saddam will cause the countries collapse).

There is not a unified resistance movement to the provisional government+USUK forces – to say there is is to over simplify a very complex situation.

I didn't claim there was a unified resistance movement. I'm saying that the primary struggle in Iraq is not one of people scrapping with each other to take presently unoccupied power, it's one of an identifiable authority structure (the occupation) being defied by a variety of groups.

Again, I think your notion of groups fighting one another, just because they lack an authority figure to bang their heads together is pretty noxious, and rather justifies my accusation of imperialism.

This argument is ridiculous and insulting – its not the racial qualities of the Iraq government that make them unable to control order and secure peace, it’s the fact they are starting from scratch, in a war zone, with no army to fully call their own. Like it or not, a key provision of any state is the “legitimacy to force” - you cant have legitimacy to force without a force to control. We’re talking about white men picking up the pieces of what they broke and carrying out a desperate and hellish programme of damage control. If I cant convince you of this you clearly don’t want the government to succeed in establishing itself.

My problem is that you automatically think that displacing a power will result in civil strife. I have no idea where this assumption comes from, other than the notion that without someone to tell them what to do they all become sectarian animals.

and FWIW, peace is the objective not the success of an illegitimate government and peace will require the re-incorporation of the nationalist insurgents into the national body politic.

Lets not forget that a government hasn’t been sworn in yet- this is a temporary coalition – if my memory serves me right a real election would see Sistani elected. Once a non-coalition, one track party takes power the government will have more direction and legitimacy. Then may prove to be a good time to begin withdrawl. Sistani is hardly going to be a western puppet either (neo-cons are furious that he'll win), and will be sure to ask the free-at-the-point-of-delivery USUK forces to leave once he has secured the ship of state.

and how long will that take? The constitution won't pass next month, so there will be new elections for the constitutional assembly (still no government or parliament). Then another contentious constitutional process, then another referendum, then maybe elections, then finally a real government.

2 years more of occupation and there will already be a civil war. More time has ticked past, and divisions are that bit more intense and bitter, peace becomes harder (and remember, it's peace not victory that we're looking for here)

Iraq doesn’t equal Vietnam – lets try and look at the realpolitik situation on the ground rather than trying to find general patterns in history to make sweeping points. For starters: the provisional government wants the troops there, the Vietnamese did not. Enormous difference .

The South Vietnamese government wanted the troops there. The Vietnamese people did not. Kind of like Iraq really.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You still haven't grasped the fundamentals of what I'm saying and I suspect you are doing so for a reason: to continue your sad, pathetic little vendetta.

I have tried to be polite in this thread. I have not been pursuing any vendetta, you do not seem to be making the same effort to strive for politeness. You have not said that you regret implying that i am a racist, and an appology would be apreciated.

 

[grogwilton]

a lot has been said about the likelihood of civil war, and bob youve used that as a reason for the troops to stay. do you not thin that maybe the troops are adopting a deliberate policy of divide and rule, that the tactics ased by the occupation are making civil war MORE rather then less likely, as this story suggests?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601315.html

maybe the sectarian affect isnt intentional, but its a tactic that is still being used depite its obviously detrimental affects. either its intentional which is just evil old school imperialism, or its fucking incompetent given civil war is what the occupiers are claiming they dont want.

 

[redsquirrel]

This argument is ridiculous and insulting – its not the racial qualities of the Iraq government that make them unable to control order and secure peace, it’s the fact they are starting from scratch, in a war zone, with no army to fully call their own. Like it or not, a key provision of any state is the “legitimacy to force” - you cant have legitimacy to force without a force to control. We’re talking about white men picking up the pieces of what they broke and carrying out a desperate and hellish programme of damage control. If I cant convince you of this you clearly don’t want the government to succeed in establishing itself.

No it's perfectly accurate and true. It's the same arguement used in, say, India. We couldn't possibly leave, the situation would end up with civil war etc etc. It's being used every time an occupier has tried to justfy that occupation. And as Sorry says it assumes the occupied country is unable to cope without our "assistance".

 

[nino_savatte]

I have tried to be polite in this thread. I have not been pursuing any vendetta, you do not seem to be making the same effort to strive for politeness. You have not said that you regret implying that i am a racist, and an appology would be apreciated.

1. I did not imply that you were a racist (please show me where I have done so). Therefore NO apology is due.

2. You have not "tried to be polite" to me on this thread. You make some feeble attempt to 'apologise' and then take it back. I shall direct you to the relevant post if you so wish.

 

[nino_savatte]

Precisely my point. Nobody gives a monkies toss if the Islamic world stages a higher tech version of the 30 years war. They can fill ditches with their dead and we will look on with bored indifference.

Protecting oil production is however is a very good reason to stay. For God sake the bottom line here is the markets going into oil-shock, globalisation going tits up and with it the basic human right of iPod Nano ownership... I hope that thought hasn't caused anybody on U75 to go catatonic.

I do get quite annoyed when some folk try to present the presence of 'coalition' troops on Iraqi soil as necessary for the security of the Iraqi people rather than the real reason. The invasion did not take place for humanitarian or altruistic reasons - though our Leadership presented it as such - therefore it follows that the occupation itself is wrong. I'd have thought with all this talk of global warming and the current crisis in the oil markets that we would at least make some effort to develop alternative sources of energy. There seems to be little real effort, just lip service. I digress.

 

[Sorry.]

I do get quite annoyed when some folk try to present the presence of 'coalition' troops on Iraqi soil as necessary for the security of the Iraqi people rather than the real reason. The invasion did not take place for humanitarian or altruistic reasons - though our Leadership presented it as such - therefore it follows that the occupation itself is wrong.

And I'm constantly bewildered by the notion that after all this, the best people to trust with the security of the Iraqi people is the occupying powers. As if they don't have their own interests to pursue, their own devious and potentially murderous agenda, and their own history of centuries of brutality and exploitation.