Should USUK forces leave IRaq now?

[audiotech]

Recent polling on the question of the Iraq war can be seen here.

http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?page_id=445

 

[oi2002]

Juan has is ping-ponging with some other pundits about withdrawal. This was interesting:

But now I'm not so sure. As a nation, we may be so desensitized to violence, and so inured to mechanized carnage on a grand scale, that we're psychologically capable of tolerating genocidal warfare against any one who can successfully be labeled as a "terrorist." Or at least, a sizable enough fraction of the America public may be willing to tolerate it, or applaud it, to make the costs politically bearable.

Actually it's worse than that.

The mood I get from right leaning Yanks is a simple, rather helpless and completely unconditional support for DC. Policy is not their business, Presidential loyalty is their only moral duty and the hated enemy is not the foriegner but those at home that fail in this duty. Enthusiasm for military adventure once strong is waning fast. Iraq is just a shadow play on the wall as easily abandoned as brutally subjugated; the important thing is that the Oval Office escapes Katrina like embarrassment.

This isn't as progressive as Fascism, it's a regression to the passivity of Feudalism. They have become Emperor worshipers. Like Tojo before Pearl Harbor they knowingly embrace any strategic folly that the Emperor has chosen.

 

[ska invita]

shadow play... i like that

 

[oi2002]

Wildebrant:

To put it somewhat glibly, the market for organised violence in today's Iraq is shared between four groups of fanatics: the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Shia militias, the Sunni insurgency and the United States Marine Corps. Their common attribute is the moral ethos of fighting for a cause they strongly believe in.

The nascent national Iraqi military and police forces are supposed to establish a monopoly on organised violence within Iraq's borders. But today, they are only bit players in a market dominated by others, not because they are corrupt or incompetent (although some surely are), but simply because they are not fanatic nationalists. Running towards gunfire is not merely a matter of training -- it also requires a moral conviction.

Now that's entirely wrong, he forgot about the US Airborne.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Juan has is ping-ponging with some other pundits about withdrawal. This was interesting:Actually it's worse than that.

The mood I get from right leaning Yanks is a simple, rather helpless and completely unconditional support for DC. Policy is not their business, Presidential loyalty is their only moral duty and the hated enemy is not the foriegner but those at home that fail in this duty. Enthusiasm for military adventure once strong is waning fast. Iraq is just a shadow play on the wall as easily abandoned as brutally subjugated; the important thing is that the Oval Office escapes Katrina like embarrassment.

This isn't as progressive as Fascism, it's a regression to the passivity of Feudalism. They have become Emperor worshipers. Like Tojo before Pearl Harbor they knowingly embrace any strategic folly that the Emperor has chosen.

It's a bit like a disease I think. Post 911 the propaganda epidemic was virulent and very many people got sick. Their critical immune systems were crippled, but in some cases, they've shaken off the infection and are now at least somewhat immune.

Many cases were hopeless however and did not recover ...

 

[ska invita]

Yesterday was a funny news day - in one paper it reported both that TOny Blair "would stay the course" in Iraq (not that he's in Iraq) , as well as in a seperate story announcing plans to withdraw troops in March... telling everyone what they want to hear?

Today though the news puts more pressure on Blair:
Local authorities suspend cooperation with British
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1578148,00.html
ICM poll: 51% want plans for troops to leave
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2005/story/0,16394,1578402,00.html
(although I still fear that wanting the troops to leave is more from a wish to wash hands then achieve peace... could be wrong of course)

Will be interesting to see if this breakdown between local authorities and the British escelates - so far the Iraqi governmnet has taken the side of local auhtorities...

 

[FruitandNut]

Trouble is, while it's very clear how the continued presence of US/UK forces makes things worse, it's not at all clear to me how keeping them there is going to do any good. We went through a whole bunch of options on the other thread that might do some good, from which I concluded that none of them are likely to happen due to political constraints.

The coalition forces have been placed in an invideous situation. Their political masters have put them into a situation that most likely cannot have a satisfactory 'end game'. They are now seen as being needed to attempt to hold down things from getting even worse while 'buying' time for Iraqi politics and forces to sort themselves out and ALSO being an integral part of the problem. We should not pull out immediately, but likewise we should not keep large numbers of troops there too long. (A lot of the insurgent activity is actually being orchestrated from outside Iraq. This is outside interference - but it is percieved as being 'Islamic' by many. They are not 'infidels' like we are percieved to be.) It is all in effect a clash of cultures - those of the 21st AND 7th centuries.

Our politicians (Bush and Blair et al) had both 'selfish' and 'noble' reasons for intervening in Saddam's Iraq, but they did not understand the true nature of feudal Islam in that part of the world. Senior Muslims have declared that democracy is NOT compatible with the tenets and ethos of traditional Islam. Their clerics are hostile to 'infidel' interference. Most of the senior immams and mullahs see their world as having its feet firmly set in the time and ways of Mohammed. If you research his life you will find he was rather a 'colourful' character; and you will better understand the bloody nature of trad Jihad.

 

[nino_savatte]

The coalition forces have been placed in an invideous situation. Their political masters have put them into a situation that most likely cannot have a satisfactory 'end game'. They are now seen as being needed to attempt to hold down things from getting even worse while 'buying' time for Iraqi politics and forces to sort themselves out and ALSO being an integral part of the problem. We should not pull out immediately, but likewise we should not keep large numbers of troops there too long. (A lot of the insurgent activity is actually being orchestrated from outside Iraq. This is outside interference - but it is percieved as being 'Islamic' by many. They are not 'infidels' like we are percieved to be.) It is all in effect a clash of cultures - those of the 21st AND 7th centuries.

Our politicians (Bush and Blair et al) had both 'selfish' and 'noble' reasons for intervening in Saddam's Iraq, but they did not understand the true nature of feudal Islam in that part of the world. Senior Muslims have declared that democracy is NOT compatible with the tenets and ethos of traditional Islam. Their clerics are hostile to 'infidel' interference. Most of the senior immams and mullahs see their world as having its feet firmly set in the time and ways of Mohammed. If you research his life you will find he was rather a 'colourful' character; and you will better understand the bloody nature of trad Jihad.

Why not pull out immediately? I have heard too many excuses why the troops should stay and they all revolve around trope and reifications. The simple truth is that the only reason troops are there at all is to secure the flow of oil; the security of the Iraqi people are not part of the equation. The interim regimew was practically hand-picked by the 'coalition'. So any talk of the government asking the troops to leave is a fantasy.

 

[FruitandNut]

I think you might be a tad over-biased and narrow in your assessment.

The fact is that if we just pull out now there will be even more cack and blood hitting the fan than is the case at present! As for the 'bloody' oil, there would be no 'winners', save possibly some clerics, dominant families and outside 'Islamic' interests. Iraq would be largely blown back to feudal Islam, split up and controlled by immams, mullahs and tribal warlords.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think you might be a tad over-biased and narrow in your assessment.

The fact is that if we just pull out now there will be even more cack and blood hitting the fan than is the case at present! As for the 'bloody' oil, there would be no 'winners', save possibly some clerics, dominant families and outside 'Islamic' interests. Iraq would be largely blown back to feudal Islam, split up and controlled by immams, mullahs and tribal warlords.

Thanks for patronising me. Let me ask you this question: whose country is it?

"Over-biased" and "narrow" eh? You understand the term "white man's burden" don't you?

 

[slaar]

Why not pull out immediately? I have heard too many excuses why the troops should stay and they all revolve around trope and reifications. The simple truth is that the only reason troops are there at all is to secure the flow of oil; the security of the Iraqi people are not part of the equation. The interim regimew was practically hand-picked by the 'coalition'. So any talk of the government asking the troops to leave is a fantasy.

That's one interpretation. I suspect if troops pulled out and the Shia-Sunni splits exploded into bands of fighters roaming around the country carrying out massacres, those killed would regret the troops being withdrawn.

A bit like the Lebanese, as much as they hate the Syrians, would likely have regreted it had the Syrians not occupied the country during the civil war and prevented widespread, large scale massacres and reprisals - hence tens of thousands rather than millions dead.

 

[nino_savatte]

That's one interpretation. I suspect if troops pulled out and the Shia-Sunni splits exploded into bands of fighters roaming around the country carrying out massacres, those killed would regret the troops being withdrawn.

A bit like the Lebanese, as much as they hate the Syrians, would likely have regreted it had the Syrians not occupied the country during the civil war and prevented widespread, large scale massacres and reprisals - hence tens of thousands rather than millions dead.

True but is the current situation any different to the original occupation 1917 - 58? I think the way that tensions are being described as Sunni versus Shia aren't helpful either. We tend to forget that there are tribal loyalties to consider. During the original occupation, the British successfully bought off many tribal chiefs...as they had done with the Scottish clan chiefs in the years leading up to the Highland Clearances.

 

[FruitandNut]

slaar - And don't forget the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.

 

[slaar]

True but is the current situation any different to the original occupation 1917 - 58? I think the way that tensions are being described as Sunni versus Shia aren't helpful either. We tend to forget that there are tribal loyalties to consider. During the original occupation, the British successfully bought off many tribal chiefs...as they had done with the Scottish clan chiefs in the years leading up to the Highland Clearances.

Sadly my knowledge of Iraqi history isn't good enough to answer that.

I can definitely see your argument, but the kind of statements being issued by some of those involved in the conflict - from complete nuts like Zarqawi to senior clerics etc - don't give me much confidence that withdrawing the troops would lead to a scaling down of hostilities, rather to a mutation (into something more like "conventional" war) and possible escalation. I read an article in the "Survival" journal yesterday on four ways forward for the coalition. None were positive, a gradual drawdown, with continued air presence to break up large units of militias were they to start expanding, was the least worst option.

It's an absolute mess, we're an inflammatory presence but also in part a stabilising force. I should say though that where I say "we" I think that refers more to the large US presence in the centre of the country. The role of the British I'm not so sure about, stability seems to be coming more from national / tribal forces in the south.

What a fucking mess.

 

[FruitandNut]

The Brits in the south are more sanguine about the reality of Iraqi society and realise that 'democracy' ain't going to work in that benighted part of the world. Uncle Sam has still got his head in the clouds thinking that 'democracy' is possible there.

 

[nino_savatte]

Sadly my knowledge of Iraqi history isn't good enough to answer that.

I can definitely see your argument, but the kind of statements being issued by some of those involved in the conflict - from complete nuts like Zarqawi to senior clerics etc - don't give me much confidence that withdrawing the troops would lead to a scaling down of hostilities, rather to a mutation (into something more like "conventional" war) and possible escalation. I read an article in the "Survival" journal yesterday on four ways forward for the coalition. None were positive, a gradual drawdown, with continued air presence to break up large units of militias were they to start expanding, was the least worst option.

It's an absolute mess, we're an inflammatory presence but also in part a stabilising force. I should say though that where I say "we" I think that refers more to the large US presence in the centre of the country. The role of the British I'm not so sure about, stability seems to be coming more from national / tribal forces in the south.

What a fucking mess.

I think the operative phrase here is "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

 

[oi2002]

Le Monde had a bit last week were a senior Iraqi Shi'a cleric said Al Zarqawi was A. dead long ago and B. being used as a pretext for the continuing occupation:

Je ne pense pas qu'Abou Moussab Al-Zarkaoui existe en tant que tel. C'est seulement une invention des occupants pour diviser le peuple car il a été tué dans le nord de l'Irak au début de la guerre alors qu'il se trouvait avec le groupe d'Ansar Al-Islam, dans le Kurdistan. Sa famille, en Jordanie, a même procédé à une cérémonie après sa mort. Abou Moussab Al-Zarkaoui est donc un jouet utilisé par les Américains, une excuse pour poursuivre l'occupation. C'est un prétexte pour ne pas quitter l'Irak.

There was a denounciation of Al Z's declaration of sectarian war from some Sunni clerics PDF

But the reality on the ground is an war of increasingly sectarian charecter. US casualty figures have actually dropped despite them being engaged in a major offensive. Iraqis are concentrating on killing Iraqis more than expelling the foreigner and there are fault lines appearing even within sectarian groupings as Iraqis get closer to power, Badr V Sadr is an example.

People who think the war can't get worse are plain silly, it's a picnic at the moment. Those who think it will decrease in intensity if the US leaves are probably wrong. There's a good argument that current US conduct is worsening the situation another that this is unlikely to change. Given the increasing disinterest in the war in the US and the bizarre lack of competence of Rummies Pentagon there is a fair chance of failure in even a fairly simple peacekeeping operation.

 

[ska invita]

I think the operative phrase here is "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

That is absolutely true - the right thing to do now is try and predict just how damned you would be if you did, and to what extent you would be if you didn't - the worst of the two scenarios from what I can tell is an immediate withdrawl - a phased withdrawl overtime depending on circumstances seems more appropriate.

Trust me, there are many people who think that troops should stay on a little longer who are adamant that not only all troops should go when the time comes, but so should all US infiltrations into Iraqi society.

Saying "yes" to troops staying on isn't saying "yes" to a permenant and covert colonisation of Iraq.

 

[rocketman]

In response to thread title:
Yes, as we are going to see the region decay into a spreading and bloody war, all the way into Africa, the Far East, across Europe, Russia and China. The signs are there.

The only state that seems to likely to benefit from such a conflagration?

Who do you think?

The one that started it all.

Just like the last war, and the one before. It's a Bush family business, starting wars to change the power balance in US favour.

 

[slaar]

I think the operative phrase here is "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

Indeed. Policy will be driven by three imperatives (in no particular order):

(1) Stop Iraq turning into a paradise for training jihadis a la Afghanistan, but worse.

(2) Stopping Iran getting more control over Iraq's resources than they already have.

(3) Keeping the oil flowing (see (1) and (2).

Given the incompetence of the US policymakers, none of these are by any means certain, let alone likely, and all this is even without the welfare of the Iraqi people being brought into the equation.

 

[oi2002]

WaPo has been talking to CENTCOM:

The commanders' thinking is conveyed by a set of "Principles for a Long War" for combating the main enemy, al Qaeda and affiliated movements. Among the precepts they discussed here: "use the indirect approach" by working with Iraqi and other partner forces; "avoid the dependency syndrome" by making the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security and governance; and "remove the perception of occupation" by reducing the size and visibility of American forces. The goal over the next decade is a smaller, leaner, more flexible U.S. force in the Middle East -- one that can help regional allies rather than trying to fight an open-ended American war that would be a recruiting banner for al Qaeda.
...
President Bush and other administration officials continue to speak about Iraqi democracy in glowing terms, but you don't hear similar language from the military. After watching Iraqi political infighting for more than two years, they're more cautious. "I think we'd be foolish to try to build this into an American democracy," says one general. "It's going to take a very different form and character." The military commanders have concluded that because Iraqis have such strong cultural antibodies to the American presence, the World War II model of occupation isn't relevant. They've sharply lowered expectations for what America can accomplish.

There's a couple of things to notice here. CENTCOM is no longer interested in longterm basing in Iraq but planning to stay beyond Dubya's term with considerably reduced visibility. They are still talking in terms of ongoing counter-insurgency not containment which suggests they are living in Rummies la la land when the press is in the house.

 

[audiotech]

Here you can hear some of Cindy Sheehan’s speech during Saturday’s rally in Washington DC where she refers to the Bush administration as an 'out of control criminal government'.

 

[sihhi]

As I see it civil war in Iraq already exists. As a round-up:- Turkoman Sunni Arabs are being turfed out from Kirkuk and Mosul, Peshemerga attack non-PUK/KDP political offices, dead bodies in groups belonging to one sect turn up every week or so, doctors are either getting kidnapped or leaving by the day, people are murdered on account of fictitious Baathist pasts, Magdi Army fires warning shots against people having picnics, a barber in Sadr city shot dead, teachers and university lecturers teaching secular topics are shot dead, people are kidnapped for ransom, people are kidnapped/blown up for aiding occupation be they police officers, truck drivers.

If this level of violence isn't civil war then surely the Yemen civil war of the 1980s, or the Papuan Bougainville civil war, or the Nepalese civil war now aren't civil wars.

"Averting" it by maintaining occupation and promising a phased withdrawal doesn't seem likely because it seems to assume the insurgent/ inter-ethnic/ religio-ideological violence can be suppressed by maintaining US troops and UK troops to kill as many of the type of people who are violent/ aid violent people.

(Not that I think an immediate withdrawal or replacement by UN peacekeepers etc etc will necessarily improve things for people.)

I can't say that those right in the firing line US and British Army- made up as it is of working-class people- should stay and continue to be targets.

 

[oi2002]

...If this level of violence isn't civil war then surely the Yemen civil war of the 1980s, or the Papuan Bougainville civil war, or the Nepalese civil war now aren't civil wars.

Well it is comparable to Algeria in the early 90s and even pedants like myself called that a civil war, not as bad as 62 but rather nasty, low end estimate of 100,000 dead.

To be pedantic civil war is not a term that refers to levels of violence. It is usually war of rival potential governments to control or seceed from the state. If only Iraq were that orgainised.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If it weren't embarassing due to being Bush's war, what would be the pros and cons of a "failed state" with substantial oil reserves from the US point of view?

 

[oi2002]

If it weren't embarassing due to being Bush's war, what would be the pros and cons of a "failed state" with substantial oil reserves from the US point of view?

Well from the Yank elites point of view Iraq's all cons as far as I can see.

1. Gulf oil production is less secure.
2. The Gulf kingships are likely to go down the tubes and with them all the sweet deals US oil companies made on their crude in the 50s.
3. Israel's principle enemy Iran is much stronger.
4. The terrorist threat is going off the grid.
5. Probably worst of all DC looks incompetent numpty and feeble to its enemies.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure but suppose at least some key stakeholders saw it as a choice between weak failed state with bases for US heavy forces and enough mercs to keep the oil flowing vs a strong and united Islamic Republic of Iraq on the model of Iran?

 

[oi2002]

Sure but suppose at least some key stakeholders saw it as a choice between weak failed state with bases for US heavy forces and enough mercs to keep the oil flowing vs a strong and united Islamic Republic of Iraq on the model of Iran?

The Iraqi oil is barely flowing now and no amount of US troops will change that. An Iranian dominated Iraq would piss off DC but it's probably inevitable and from a Big Oil point of view Iran would probably get the Iraqi oil flowing far faster than any US army. A deal could be made and that is what the Saudis are hinting is going on.

The question there is would Iran grab the Saudi fields next.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> The question there is would Iran grab the Saudi fields next.

It's about time the US took sustainability seriously

 

[redsquirrel]

I can't say that those right in the firing line US and British Army- made up as it is of working-class people- should stay and continue to be targets.

Yeah, even if withdrawing achieves nothing else then at least US/UK soldiers won't be killed.