27 March 2008
The Challenge of Iraq
Posted by Roy Bischoff under: World Affairs .
After reading the comments on the blog entitled We Must Find a Way, I decided to write down some thoughts. I think the biggest problem in Iraq is that the country was not and is not ready for democracy. Democracy is not part of their culture or their religion. Their religious leaders have so much power because of the way they view their religion. I want to make it clear that the criticism I offer is not so much of the Muslim religion but of various practitioners of it. Apostasy is a capital crime in much of the Middle East. Imagine how faithful you would be to your religion if it were a matter of life and death. Your own family members would feel the duty to kill you if you converted to another religion or otherwise apostatized.
We also read of clergy that have militias or perhaps militias that just closely follow a clergy’s advice perhaps for the above reason. The members of the clergy want a religion-based government so they are not helping the democratic movement. The U.S. does not want another Taliban situation. If we can’t get a majority of clergymen behind us then we cannot succeed without using an excessive amount of force.
Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq with one of the world’s largest standing armies. (He certainly proved he was willing to use it). I am not sure that we want an Iraq with too large of an army.
We seem to be repeating the past. In Vietnam the people wanted to be independent but we supported the French rulers. They then pulled out and left us holding the bag. We should have supported those seeking to govern themselves before they turned to communism as the answer. You have to remember it was quite a bi-polar world (meaning communism and democracy). We eventually realized that we didn’t want to do what was necessary to win and popular opinion forced an end to the war (by electing someone that promised to get us out).
We originally supported Saddam Hussein now we want them to trust us to help them by imposing upon them a form of government that they are really not comfortable with.We originally went into Iraq because of “weapons of mass destruction” and al Qaeda. We never found any weapons of mass destruction and according to our intelligence services al Qaeda is now as strong as it was before 911. Well we did find Saddam Hussein and Iraq hasn’t invaded anybody lately so maybe we can define that as a win. If Iraq cannot put enough men in uniform to provide its own security with all our help in five years and we cannot say when they will be able to, then something is very wrong.
I wonder what the world would be like if we had spent as much money on alternative fuel sources as we have mucking about in the Middle East. Maybe we would be in a position not to care about what goes on over there. Just look at Africa. Millions have been killed there versus just thousands in the Middle East so we can’t pretend it is about the people. I am not saying that letting lots of people be killed is good I am just saying that we pick our battles based on what is in it for us not on what the moral high ground is.
If a democrat is elected president we will be out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Bush will have lost the opportunity to leave the right way based on an attainable objective.
25 Comments so far...
Angela Rogin Says:
27 March 2008 at 9:26 am.
“attainable objective”, that is a good way to put it. I am starting to agree that a democracy cannot be shoved down a people’s throat if they are not ready for it. You can’t force over night what takes real understanding and progress to gain. I wish now that we had never gone to Iraq and had concentrated on Afghanistan but I agree with most of you guys that we should find a way to win and then get out. Staying would bring incalculable future problems on our head. I wonder why some Americans think that we are invulnerable?
Mac Says:
27 March 2008 at 11:32 am.
I guess I get this and I am glad most of you at least want to win before leaving but I just differ in that I think we need to be there longer than most of you. It takes time to do things right.
Joy Bischoff Says:
27 March 2008 at 11:47 am.
Mac, I can certainly understand that. It is something Roy and I hope can be discussed a little without it tearing apart our IGWT community. Learning to understand and respect opinions when they are sincere is so important. I respect you and appreciate all your contributions here. As Sean would say, you are a great American. And I sure do hope we find a way to win.
Mac Says:
27 March 2008 at 12:11 pm.
Thanks Joy. I loved the president’s speech today but he’ll get reamed for it.
Jan W. Says:
27 March 2008 at 2:05 pm.
Most people simplify this situation. They think we know best and the Iraqis just have to do what we say but it takes a lot of time for people to make such a drastic change. It seems like there should be a compromise with what they are use to and blend in some democratic ideas. Force is not a good idea and is the opposite of democracy any way. Good job Roy.
CindyL. Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:24 pm.
Mac, I think how people stand on this depends on what motivation they think is behind what we are doing. If it is just to fight the war on terror that is one thing. If it is to establish a base in the middle east to help control oil and influence spreading globalism to Muslims then that is something else. I always questioned why we went there in the first place since there are so many out of control dictators all over the world. I just wanted us to get out before I started reading here. Now I think it would be better to get their government to establish some stability first so there isn’t a massacre like after Vietnam. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I guess what we need to do is define what would be victory. For me it is to see them with a government that can function. Maybe for others it is to have a base in the middle east.
Pickles Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:27 pm.
Almost everybody I know wants out but I agree we should get things a little more stable first. I think the surge should continue even though it is so hard on our soldiers because that will give them a bit more time to get ready. I also think that if their government thinks we will stay as long as they want us to that then they won’t try hard and hurry. Are we there just to fight or do we want to win? If we want to win we can’t take soldiers out. I would give the government a secret ultimatum like the fall to be ready. Five years is long enough.
S.J. Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:31 pm.
Fall isn’t long enough. You can’t set firm dates because you can’t be sure what the enemy will do. Five years is a long time…too long to give up all we have sacrificed for.
Jesse Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:34 pm.
Al Qaeda wasn’t there until we came. We drew them to Iraq and that isn’t fair to the Iraqi people to make their land ground zero to fight the war on terror. If we turn over power to the Iraqis as soon as they can possibly try and handle it, then Al Qaeda won’t focus so much on Iraq. And you can bet that Al-Sadr will calm down and help fight Al Qaeda instead of us.
Cameron Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:37 pm.
I agree about not forcing democracy. I think that’s an oxymoron. You can’t force freedom. At the same time, I don’t think the fall is possible to have their government ready to take over. I like the idea of bench marks but they need more time than that to avoid a massacre. I do think they need to have secret time tables and share them with al-Sadr so he can call his men off. This is getting very ugly very fast.
Mac Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:45 pm.
Fall would be even sooner than Obama would do it since he wouldn’t be president until January.
S.J. I definitely agree with you. We can’t waste the sacrifice. It would do damage to our country and to our standing in the world. I guess it also wouldn’t be a good idea to be there permanently. It is a very different place than Japan and Germany. It really will take awhile for them to get ready to protect themselves though. We have a responsibility to those people. We have to take it seriously.
Matt Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:49 pm.
Mac, I agree partially but if they don’t have benchmarks then they won’t move forward. They are way to focused on power plays and they have to get serious and al-Sadr has to stand down. This is now back to civil war and under the cover of civil war both Iran and al qaeda can do so much damage. It will all fall apart. The surge worked partly because al-Sadr decided to give us time. Real progress politically has to happen now or it will be a quagmire.
Pickles Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:50 pm.
Okay so the fall is probably to soon but something has to happen. I like the idea of secret benchmarks and telling them to al Sadr. He will ruin everything otherwise.
S.J. Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:53 pm.
It’s true that if al-Sadr and his militia bring down the Iraqi government that we’ve set up, then we are back to square one. That would be very serious. It does make sense to try and negotiate with him and let him see we plan on winning and not staying permanetly as occupiers.
Jesse Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:56 pm.
Well there is just one problem with this plan. What if we really do want a permanent base there and we have no intentions of leaving? Then we couldn’t have secret benchmarks for winning and leaving and we couldn’t share that with al-Sadr.
It looks to me like that is exactly what we are after. The president has talked about a permanent base and so has McCain.
Pickles Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:58 pm.
Jesse, if that is true then that would be bad. I hope you’re wrong.
S.J. Says:
27 March 2008 at 4:59 pm.
He’s wrong.
Mac Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:02 pm.
I found this from Feb. 2008.
President Bush says he does not envision permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, but does want the United States to maintain a troop presence long enough to guarantee that democracy takes hold in the country. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, Mr. Bush’s comments on U.S. television come during a heated campaign season in which Democrats are pledging to continue to press for a deadline to begin major troops withdrawals form Iraq.
Pickles Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:04 pm.
GOOD, thanks Mac.
Jesse Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:06 pm.
I’ve heard him say we may have a permanent base and here is an article from Jan.
Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act
WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.
more stories like this
Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.
The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a “treaty,” and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/
Pickles Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:10 pm.
CRAP
Matt Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:15 pm.
Permanent Bases
Since 2003, the US has been building long-term military bases in Iraq and a mammoth embassy complex in Baghdad. Although Washington refuses to acknowledge that the bases are permanent, the billions of dollars spent on these projects suggest that the US sees Iraq as a client state. While most Iraqis have no access to basic necessities, the bases are provided with their own water and electricity, restaurants, swimming pools and movie theaters. The huge US embassy covers an area larger than Vatican City and Iraqis see it as an “arrogant” enterprise that aims to show US “superiority.” But as much as US officials in Iraq seek to cocoon themselves from the violence, the “heavy fortified” Green Zone, which houses the embassy complex, has come under an increasing number of deadly attacks. The US Congress opposes the base project and has rejected the spending of funds for this purpose, even while construction continues.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/permindex.htm
AND ANOTHER:
In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer “tasked with facilities development” in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction (”the numbers are staggering”). Since then, the base-building has been massive and ongoing.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/59774/a_permanent_basis_for_withdrawal_
Cameron Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:18 pm.
So which one do we believe?
Mac Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:23 pm.
Just because the president wants to power to do it doesn’t mean he is planning to.
Joy Bischoff Says:
27 March 2008 at 5:25 pm.
If you want to continue this discussion you can go to the new blog.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.