Is Iraq's Progress Under Gen Petraeus a Turning Point in History?

[CaptainQuasar]

Whether Iraq handles their own problems as a single country or as three separate countries is unimportant.

Division of Iraq into three separate countries would exacerbate Balkanization (or ex-Soviet-Central-Asia-ation) of the Middle East and perpetuate misery there. It would be wrong of us to rig something like that up and scram.

I thought the war was wrong and I was against it from the beginning but we have to take responsibility for it. We broke it, we bought it. We have to put Iraq back together at least as well as it was before we went in.

Like I said [post=1605351]upthread[/post] whether we escalate troop levels or pull out and explicitly turn the country over to someone who can fix it, unfortunately the guy who got us into this mess, who is the one who should be taking responsibility for going down one of those two roads and should be spending his own political capital and risking his own political legacy to do it, is simply languishing in the White House trying to not look guilty.

⚛​

 

[TVP45]

Division of Iraq into three separate countries would exacerbate Balkanization (or ex-Soviet-Central-Asia-ation) of the Middle East and perpetuate misery there. It would be wrong of us to rig something like that up and scram.

I thought the war was wrong and I was against it from the beginning but we have to take responsibility for it. We broke it, we bought it. We have to put Iraq back together at least as well as it was before we went in.

Like I said [post=1605351]upthread[/post] whether we escalate troop levels or pull out and explicitly turn the country over to someone who can fix it, unfortunately the guy who got us into this mess, who is the one who should be taking responsibility for going down one of those two roads and should be spending his own political capital and risking his own political legacy to do it, is simply languishing in the White House trying to not look guilty.

⚛​

This is a little tongue-in-cheek since I understand the world is vastly more complex and dangerous today.

But, we really are talking about ancient Sumer - where Balkanization was invented. The Tower of Babel allegory was not made up entirely out of whole cloth. I'm surprised that even a dictator could keep that country together.

And, I buy your argument that we have an obligation to fix it - if it can be fixed.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This is a little tongue-in-cheek since I understand the world is vastly more complex and dangerous today.

But, we really are talking about ancient Sumer - where Balkanization was invented. The Tower of Babel allegory was not made up entirely out of whole cloth. I'm surprised that even a dictator could keep that country together.

And, I buy your argument that we have an obligation to fix it - if it can be fixed.

Hmm… isn't it actually the other way around, that ancient Sumer was the first place to become non-Balkanized and achieve a national identity?

Either way - the important thing is to not add two separate countries with separate militaries, intelligence services, etc. to the region. Not to mention that making the division of the oil field revenues into a contested multi-national issue would not be the hottest idea.

Y'know what I learned recently, is that the Hittite culture evidently spoke an Indo-European language. …I was trying to think of some witty comment to go along with that but I'm fresh out.

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

if it can be fixed.

Well that's the fundamental dilemma of the occupier.
Governments are known to be staffed with people with control issues.

 

[Yonoz]

Either way - the important thing is to not add two separate countries with separate militaries, intelligence services, etc. to the region. Not to mention that making the division of the oil field revenues into a contested multi-national issue would not be the hottest idea.

That isn't necessarily an undesirable - consider the Peace of Westphalia.

 

[Astronuc]

Governments are known to be staffed with people with control issues.

No kidding! And personality disorders.

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams

 

[Astronuc]

That isn't necessarily an undesirable - consider the Peace of Westphalia.

And how long did that last?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_map_1648.PNG
Interesting that Ireland, Portugal, Spain (today's) and Switzerland are about the only national entities surviving today. Everyone else changed.

 

[Yonoz]

The Peace of Westphalia is a collection of treaties. The name is indeed misleading as it did not bring about absolute peace in Europe, but it did end the religious wars, and set new rules that ensured relative safety for the population, giving rise to the European state system.
Here's another one from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Europe#Enlightenment"

After the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years' War, Absolutism became the norm of the continent, while parts of Europe experimented with constitutions foreshadowed by the English Civil War and particularly the Glorious Revolution. European military conflict did not cease, but had less disruptive effects on the lives of Europeans. In the advanced north-west, the Enlightenment gave a philosophical underpinning to the new outlook, and the continued spread of literacy, made possible by the printing press, created new secular forces in thought. Again, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would be an exception to this rule, with its unique quasi-democratic Golden Freedom.

The Arab world needs to find its Richelieu.

 

[mheslep]

Either way - the important thing is to not add two separate countries with separate militaries, intelligence services, etc. to the region. Not to mention that making the division of the oil field revenues into a contested multi-national issue would not be the hottest idea.

Agreed a separation looks messy, but at the end of the day its up to the people there to decide.

 

[BobG]

I guess that sooner or later this was going to happen if Iraq (or the US) can't control what's happening within Iraq's own borders: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080222/ts_nm/turkey_iraq_dc_14

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Whoa. That bites. Thanks for posting it BobG.

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

Turkey invades Northern Iraq

Kurds get bombed by oppresive undemocratic middle eastern goverment.
I thought the writers strike was over - why is the news still showing reruns?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Agreed a separation looks messy, but at the end of the day its up to the people there to decide.

Sure, if they really arrived at a decision like that on their own it's up to them. What I said is that it would be irresponsible of us to rig up a solution like that and scram. We broke the Pax Husseinica, however icky a peace it was, now it's our responsibility to establish and maintain the peace there.

I thought the writers strike was over - why is the news still showing reruns?

LOL.

⚛​

 

[Art]

I guess that sooner or later this was going to happen if Iraq (or the US) can't control what's happening within Iraq's own borders: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080222/ts_nm/turkey_iraq_dc_14

There is speculation in the press here in Europe of why the USA gave tacit approval to Turkey for this invasion.

Some have questioned whether there is a link to Cheney's forthcoming visit to Turkey and have noted this is his first visit since he went there looking for support for the attack on Iraq and are wondering if in return for allowing Turkey to enter N Iraq the Bush admin is seeking logistical support from Turkey for an attack on Iran.

 

[Jekertee]

Yes Iran is bad, nuclear weapons all over the place

 

[BobG]

There is speculation in the press here in Europe of why the USA gave tacit approval to Turkey for this invasion.

Some have questioned whether there is a link to Cheney's forthcoming visit to Turkey and have noted this is his first visit since he went there looking for support for the attack on Iraq and are wondering if in return for allowing Turkey to enter N Iraq the Bush admin is seeking logistical support from Turkey for an attack on Iran.

The speculation that the US gave tacit approval seems reasonable considering White House comments: Turkey Sends Soldiers Into N. Iraq

Gul called Bush early Thursday to tell him of the incursion, according to Turkey's military. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Turkey to keep the operation short and "keep in mind that while the terrorists need, obviously, to be stopped from doing what they're doing, that there really can't be a destabilization of the region."

"This is something that we were aware of in advance, and, as you know, the U.S. agrees with Turkey that the PKK is a terrorist organization and is an enemy of Turkey, Iraq and the United States," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters.

I think the situation is a little more confused than that: http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080225/ts_csm/oinvade_1

I'm not sure what's going on with Turkey's invasion. Comments from the military, Pentagon, State Dept, and White House don't seem entirely in synch with each other. It's a development that doesn't instill a lot of confidence.

 

[vanesch]

unfortunately the guy who got us into this mess, who is the one who should be taking responsibility for going down one of those two roads and should be spending his own political capital and risking his own political legacy to do it, is simply languishing in the White House trying to not look guilty.

Why not make him president of Iraq after his term ?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Why not make him president of Iraq after his term ?

LOL! Better yet, ambassador. I'm sure all of the State Department employees who got forced to go to Iraq would love that. Of course it wouldn't quite be fair since he'll have the ex-Presidential Secret Service detachment.

⚛​

 

[Astronuc]

Rebuilding Iraq: What's Next?
Pledging to 'Do Better' Amid Corruption in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88531149

Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · The Iraqi government is allocating billions for schools, clinics and roads, but corruption remains a major problem that impedes projects to rebuild the war-torn country, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih says.

Recently, seven northern Iraqi governors met in Tikrit with ministers from Baghdad to air their concerns, ranging from repairing water and sewer systems to the distribution of gasoline and fertilizer, according U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, who called the meeting.

Salih agrees the provinces need more help from the central government.

"In every meeting I go to with the provincial leaders, they always complain," he tells Steve Inskeep. "They always demand more and I think they deserve to get more."

Salih says allocations to the provinces for reconstruction have increased to $3.3 billion this year from $2 billion in 2007.
. . . .

This part is really important -
U.S. Bridging Gaps Between Baghdad, Provinces
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88431904

Morning Edition, March 18, 2008 · The so-called surge in U.S. troops last year helped quell the violence in Baghdad, but in northern Iraq, U.S. forces continue to face a "tenuous" security situation, says the top U.S. commander for that region.

"We're still continuing to pursue al-Qaida in several areas in our region," Army Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling tells Renee Montagne.

Meanwhile, Hertling's troops are also working to train Iraqi forces and to build trust between the central government in Baghdad and the provinces.

The last few months have seen a general decline in violence in Iraq. In northern Iraq, attacks have dropped by about 50 percent in the past six months, but that decline has begun to level off over the past month or so, Hertling says.

He says the U.S. has enough troops in the region; the focus now is on training more Iraqi security forces — especially police. Hertling estimates that some 30,000 additional Iraqi police are needed: "We're not completely where we want to be there in the north."

He says the U.S. military is set to start training those additional forces in April.

. . . .

Iraq must overcome the culture of violence in order to succeed.

 

[Art]

Iraq must overcome the culture of violence in order to succeed.

There doesn't seem to be any great desire on the part of the militants to stand down. With no faction having suffered a major defeat each still thinks it can emerge dominant in the country.

Keeping them off each other's throats by building walled enclaves and with armed checkpoints ran by local militia suppressed the opportunity for doing violence to each other in the short term but what is really needed is a new mindset and there is precious little evidence of that happening.

In essence the Kurds are just biding their time before declaring independence (and the oil).
The Shi'ite are just waiting for the opportunity to get revenge on the Sunnis for their years of oppression.
The Sunni are longing to put the Shi'ites back in the box they popped out of.

There hasn't been even the slightest movement toward peace and reconciliation.

 

[Astronuc]

Sad Milestone

A.P.’s Death Toll for Iraq War Reaches 4,000
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?hp

BAGHDAD (AP) -- A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000.

The grim milestone came on the same day that rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall lull in violence.

. . . . .

''There have been some significant gains. However, this enemy is resilient and will not give up, nor will we,'' he said. ''There's still a lot of work to be done.''

The 4,000 figure is according to an Associated Press count that includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.

. . . .

 

[Astronuc]

Step in the right direction

Top Sunni Bloc Is Set to Rejoin Cabinet in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s largest Sunni bloc has agreed to return to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s cabinet after a boycott of nearly a year, several Sunni leaders said Thursday. They cited a recently passed amnesty law and the government’s crackdown on Shiite militias as reasons for the move.

The Sunni leaders said they were still working out the details of their return, an indication that the deal could still fall through. But such a return would represent a major political victory for Mr. Maliki in the midst of a military operation that has at times been criticized as poorly planned and fraught with risk. The principal group his security forces have been confronting is the Mahdi Army, a militia led by the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Even though Mr. Maliki’s American-backed offensive against elements of the Mahdi Army has frequently stalled and has led to bitter complaints of civilian casualties, the Sunni leaders said that the government had done enough to address their concerns that they had decided to end their boycott.

“Our conditions were very clear, and the government achieved some of them,” said Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in the government. Mr. Dulaimi said the achievements included “the general amnesty, chasing down the militias and disbanding them and curbing the outlaws.”

The amnesty law, passed in February, has already led to the release of many Sunni prisoners, convincing Sunni parties that the government is serious about enforcing it. And the attacks on Shiite militias have apparently begun to assuage longstanding complaints that only Sunni groups blamed for the insurgency have been the targets of American and Iraqi security forces.

Sunni Bloc to Re-Join Iraq's Shiite-Led Government
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89871099

Morning Edition, April 23, 2008 · Iraq's prime minister, long criticized as weak, overly sectarian and indecisive, has used the crackdown on Muqtada al-Sadr's militia to strengthen and improve his political position. A key Sunni bloc has declared it will soon re-join Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government, and Sadr, the anti-American cleric, appears more politically isolated than ever.

Now if they can only reign in corruption - and get the infrastructure repaired.

Another bit of good news and goodwill:

U.S. Medics Tend to Iraq’s Wounded in Sadr City
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/world/middleeast/25sadrcity.html

. . . . With little in the way of emergency services and travel hampered by blocked streets, nightly curfews and sporadic firefights, a steady trickle of Iraqis has been turning to the American soldiers here for medical care.

Medics who have trained for combat have attended to a seizure victim, an infant brought in by an anxious father and a boy wounded by gunfire. On Thursday, they cared for Samera Tula, who had been seared over much of her body when a propane tank accidentally exploded.

Providing care to Iraqi civilians and Iraqi soldiers “has been the excitement of being here so far,” said Specialist Joshua Bosley, one of the medics here. . . . . .

 

[LightbulbSun]

I feel like we'll all be sitting here in 2030 hearing the same nonsense: "We've made some great strides, but there's still a lot of work to be done!"


Death toll: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000

But they're making great strides though!

 

[RonPaul2008]

Iraq was a scam to coverup the CIA or The Pentagon's failures in locating Osama Bin Laden, and we should never have been there in the first place. Whatever reason the current administration ignored congress and decided to invade we may never truly know, but it was not to extradite the ones responsible for the attack on 9/11. The political attitudes Sadaam Hussein harbored towards Al-Qaeda weren't particularly favorable.

 

[mheslep]

Iraq was a scam to coverup the CIA or The Pentagon's failures in locating Osama Bin Laden, ...

Please see the PF P&WA Guidelines
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

In addition to content already prohibited by our global forum guidelines, the following are specifically NOT permitted in Politics & World Affairs:
...
3) Assigning truth values to opinions.

 

[RonPaul2008]

Itis the only logical conclusion. Can you think of any other reason? To bring democracy to Iraq? Oil? To battle terror? Like I said, nobody except the lying administration knows the true reason why we are there. The only thing we can do is speculate, but whatever reason we are there, it isn't in the best interests of the United States.

 

[mheslep]

It is the only logical conclusion. Can you think of any other reason? To bring democracy to Iraq? Oil? To battle terror? Like I said, nobody except the lying administration knows the true reason why we are there. The only thing we can do is speculate, but whatever reason we are there, it isn't in the best interests of the United States.

You can't defend your assertion of opinion as fact by citing strawmen. You should edit and qualify your post as an opinion without any basis. One could just as well say "UFOs were the only logical conclusion for going into Iraq, as nothing else explains it."

 

[vanesch]

Even though in principle you could put some qualifiers to the words used by RonPaul, I think it is fairly well established by now that the main reasons given for the Iraq invasion all have proven wrong (WMD, 9/11 link, what else ?), and that there are serious indications that this was known by the Bush administration, or at least that they couldn't have the certainty they displayed back then. We can only guess at what were the true reasons for the invasion, but they were certainly not those told back then. What's also not clear is whether those secret goals have been met in the mean time.

 

[BobG]

Iraq was a scam to coverup the CIA or The Pentagon's failures in locating Osama Bin Laden, and we should never have been there in the first place. Whatever reason the current administration ignored congress and decided to invade we may never truly know, but it was not to extradite the ones responsible for the attack on 9/11. The political attitudes Sadaam Hussein harbored towards Al-Qaeda weren't particularly favorable.

(emphasis mine)

Itis the only logical conclusion. Can you think of any other reason? To bring democracy to Iraq? Oil? To battle terror? Like I said, nobody except the lying administration knows the true reason why we are there. The only thing we can do is speculate, but whatever reason we are there, it isn't in the best interests of the United States.

Even though in principle you could put some qualifiers to the words used by RonPaul, I think it is fairly well established by now that the main reasons given for the Iraq invasion all have proven wrong (WMD, 9/11 link, what else ?), and that there are serious indications that this was known by the Bush administration, or at least that they couldn't have the certainty they displayed back then. We can only guess at what were the true reasons for the invasion, but they were certainly not those told back then. What's also not clear is whether those secret goals have been met in the mean time.

It is true that the implied reasons for the invasion were so far off base that they encourage absurd speculation, but the claim that it was a scam to cover up CIA and Pentagon failures is as outlandish as the reasons that the Bush administration gave.

At the time the administration began the push to invade Iraq, there was no sense of failure in the search for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Publically, it seemed like just a matter of time, a year or two at most before leadership would be killed or captured. RonPaul's assertion requires that the CIA and Pentagon realized right off the bat that they would be unsuccessful in their efforts and pre-emptively created a diversion. Yet Tenet wasn't exactly an enthusiastic proponent for linking Iraq to WMD and 9/11. He was more a reluctant accomplice who just kept giving in. He was weak, not deranged.

If RonPaul's main point is that the administration's reasons for the invasion were absurd, then I have no real objection. Nonetheless, their reasons are at least more plausible than the reason RonPaul gave. He ought to provide some support if he's going to outdo the Bush administration in outlandish reasons for the invasion.

 

[vanesch]

At the time the administration began the push to invade Iraq, there was no sense of failure in the search for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

True. However, Iraq's invasion was nevertheless presented as some kind of "retalliation" for 9/11, and I figured that this was what RonPaul was after.

 

[mheslep]

Yet Tenet wasn't exactly an enthusiastic proponent for linking Iraq to WMD and 9/11. He was more a reluctant accomplice who just kept giving in.

Eh? How do you get from 'slam dunk' to reluctant accomplice?

As in, it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or so Tenet said, with the kind of unambiguous self-assurance that Bush so admires. These will go down as Tenet's famous last words, even though he uttered them more than a year ago.

"George, how confident are you?" the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," Tenet said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14030-2004Jun3.html

 

[mheslep]

Even though in principle you could put some qualifiers to the words used by RonPaul, I think it is fairly well established by now that the main reasons given for the Iraq invasion all have proven wrong (WMD, 9/11 link, what else ?), and that there are serious indications that this was known by the Bush administration, or at least that they couldn't have the certainty they displayed back then. We can only guess at what were the true reasons for the invasion, but they were certainly not those told back then. What's also not clear is whether those secret goals have been met in the mean time.

On what could you be basing this assertion, that 'this was known'? The (mistaken) belief in Iraqi WMD was indeed a major reason for the war. The evidence is overwhelming that almost all of the key decision makers in the executive branch, not to mention Congress, had convinced themselves that Iraq continued to have '91 like WMD before the invasion, and many still believed it well after the invasion. Judge the WMD delusion, or even the hyping of the surrounding facts to the public as you will, but not that they all secretly knew differently.

See interviews with most of them here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

 

[vanesch]

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," Tenet said.

But maybe everybody is interpreting this phrase badly! I could see it more like "this is the winner slogan (Hussein has WMD) which will get your war going with the public, M. President"



You see, in Europe, most people (politicians as well as ordinary people) were pretty much convinced that the whole WMD story was set up just to hit Iraq. I don't remember many people ever giving credence to the story, and Colin Powell's pity full demonstration with his aluminum tubes in the UN was seriously put in doubt in most critical news shows on TV. I say this from memory, but the impression was quite general.

Visibly, that critique was present in the US too:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

and:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32110-2003Feb5?language=printer

 

[mheslep]

But maybe everybody is interpreting this phrase badly! I could see it more like "this is the winner slogan (Hussein has WMD) which will get your war going with the public, M. President"

I don't think so, I'd have to go back and check but I believe Tennet fooled himself too. Regardless, he was the President's intelligence chief, not his political advisor.

You see, in Europe, most people (politicians as well as ordinary people) were pretty much convinced that the whole WMD story was set up just to hit Iraq. I don't remember many people ever giving credence to the story, and Colin Powell's pity full demonstration with his aluminum tubes in the UN was seriously put in doubt in most critical news shows on TV. I say this from memory, but the impression was quite general.

No doubt there was widespread EU popular opposition to the pending war, but that's a curious recollection on WMD, that most Europeans thought it was a 'set up'. In holding this 'set up' opinion, do you think most Europeans recalled at the time the '88 nerve agent attack on Halabjah (7000 killed), or the six other nerve agent attacks in '88/'91? That after the first gulf war Iraq was found to be 2-3 years away from a nuclear weapon (inventory 10-40 kg of HEU found after the war much of in from the French built Tammuz-2 reactor) and that this was unknown outside Iraq prior to the first war? (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm").

If WMD was widely known to be a 'set up', then why did the EU members of the 2002 UN Security Council (UK, Ireland, Norway, and France) vote unanimously in 2002 on Resolution http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/" to declare Iraq in breach of its ceasefire agreement in part WMD:

...Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,..

Now, in full knowledge that Iraq had indeed developed, possessed, and used WMD before the Gulf war, perhaps the many EU folk had followed the Iraq inspections in the 90's in excruciating detail and concluded that the Inspections had in fact destroyed the WMD arsenals. Perhaps, but I think not.

Visibly, that critique was present in the US too:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

The CBS piece was post invasion, when many 'yes I knew all along there was no WMD' tongues started wagging.

and:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32110-2003Feb5?language=printer

Visibly? From the W. Post link:

"The tubes are an important indicator, but they are not specific to centrifuges," Albright said. "I would not feel comfortable arguing on this basis that Iraq has a nuclear program -- even though I personally believe it does."

-M. Albright.

BTW, I do not hold that all of the prewar conditions - prior Iraqi use of WMD, Iraqi close proximity to a weapon in '91, allied agreement, or Hussein's attempts to pretend he did have WMD - even all of that does not serve as an adequate excuse for the Iraq war WMD public story. There was a smugness that helped rush into Iraq. Likewise I do not countenance smugness after the fact by those that now claim they had all the answers on WMD.

 

[mgb_phys]

President's intelligence chief, not his political advisor

Is there a difference anymore?
The UK's intelligence chief was able to determine that the Madrid train bombings were the work of ETA not Al Queada instantly by the simple mechanism of being told that there was an election the next day and the incumbent Spanish government was in trouble for supporting the Iraq invasion.