Solving the mess in Iraq

Remove all ads!

OK, the thread about the election was getting derailed a bit IMHO in that it was focussing only on one issue in the election and kind of getting away from what I see the central point of that thread, which is the race between the two candidates. So I humbly offer this thread as a location to discuss what the devil the US (and others) should do with Iraq.

Here's my 2 bits: Unilaterally leaving would make a lot of Americans happy. Certainly even some supporters of the war would be happy that no more soldiers are going to die. The consequences of that would be that the region would degrade into a horrendous civil war and thousands would suffer. A new regime would likely come to power, one that is hostile to the US -- (and possibly by extension the Western world in general) and that would be bad for oil prices (can they get much worse?) and regional stability (I think in particular Israel would be nervous and would likely take some unilateral military action.)

That said, there is the argument that whenever the US goes, be it next month or next century, the same blasted thing is going to happen, so better to bail sooner than later.

Others believe that the US can actually help the nascent Iraqi government become strong enough to stand on its own two feet, and that they US should stay and stabilize the country.

I'm conflicted, to tell the truth. I don't like the idea of soldiers sent to die in a situation that doesn't threaten their own homelands. However, the innocents they are protecting are just as important as people in the west. I'm thinking the US might be better off expending its resources on finding a source of oil closer to home and also developing other sources of energy (wind, nuclear, solar, etc.)

Have at 'er SPrs!

 

This is why we have a Constitution and this is why our leaders should obey it. The President's oath of office is to "uphold and protect the Constitution" not the people of America and certainly not the people of Iraq.

What bugs me about so many of the varying points of view on the war -- on both the left and right -- is that they completely ignore the laws of this land, the foundation this nation was built upon, and instead muse about what's right, what's moral, what's good for the World, for Israel, what's Biblical, etc.

Who cares? What does the Constitution say our leaders can and should do? It says they never should have started the bloody war in the first place! And now that we're in this mess...

Who benefits? "Cui bono?" as the ancient Romans used to ask. The war-profiteers, that's who. War is their business and business is good. And if McCain is our next president they'll continue to benefit from the war for another 100 years. Your tax dollars hard at work.

 

It's worse than that, actually. It's entirely possible that a lengthy US occupation might serve to exacerbate the existing tensions and make things worse after the US withdraws its troops.

 

Your opinion and yet another example of misquoting McCain to make a invalid point.

 

The problem being, of course, that Iraq wasn't threatening the US homeland when the US decided to play invader in the first place. The only homeland being threatened in this whole affair was Iraq's. So if a few US soldiers end up dead trying to fix up the administration's mistakes, so be it. It's unfortunate, but that's the price you pay for sticking your nose into places it doesn't belong.

Edit: with apologies to our SP'ers with military service. I don't wish harm on anyone, but the administration screwed up. It's just too bad that those same screw-ups aren't on the front line.

 

LDK, there are many reasons to fight. Although I did not agree with the reasons this administration gave, I certainly have no regrets that Hussein is gone.

There are many situations that threaten the 'homeland.' Keeping trade routes open has always been a reason for the US to fight. We import ~75% of what we need for our economy -- a threat to the ability to import is a direct threat to our entire economy. Destroy the economy of the US and you effectively destroy the nation. Most of our politicians realize that.

 

I hear you , T2. Anyone who remembers the beginning of the war knows I was in favor of going in and blasting Saddam's regime to hell -- I still think that doing that was a bit of preventative medicine that stopped Saddam from any more depredations. NOW, however, soldiers are dying for reasons that I am less certain of. But that doesn't mean I am totally against working on the problems in Iraq. I would just like some assurance that what they are doing is actually doing some good. The question of what the best possible course of action is what weighs heavily on my mind.

 

The problem with this line of reasoning is what it can lead to.

A hypothetical example:

The US needs oil. The US’s oil supplies run short. Canada has oil, and sells it to the US. But Canada needs its oil for its own uses, and reduces shipments to the US (basically looking after its own needs first, which many in the US have always claimed is justified when talking about its needs). But the US believes its own needs outweigh Canada’s, so the US feels justified in invading Canada to get what it wants - Canada’s rights be damned.

I’m not saying that this would happen, but it’s a natural extension of what you’re saying.

Except that Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam. Time will tell if that will ultimately change. Yes, Saddam was an SOB (to put it mildly), and I'm not sorry he's gone, but is the price being paid by everyone involved worth it? So far, IMHO, the answer is no.

 

Right now, I'm a bit neutral on the issue. On one hand, I've never been exactly fond of the Iraq war - while I don't miss Saddam the whole period up to the war was a travesty of international affairs, and the period that came afterwards wasn't much good. On the other, the US presence is somewhat of a stabilizing factor. The question is, how much does it stabilize? While it is easy to claim that withdrawing the US troops will lead to civil war and bloodshed, they have - by and large - not been very effective in preventing it. Instead, it seems that now most neighborhoods have become homogenized and are often patrolled by their own militias. Some of them are also represented in the Parliament, or what counts for one, thus winning some legitimacy. Al-Queda in Iraq is, afaik, pretty non-existent and would probably be opposed by the other players if it tried to make a comeback.

Therefore, I doubt that a US withdrawal - or at least, the withdrawal that Obama proposes - would lead to the kind of chaos that people fear. First, if I remember his statements correctly, Obama's plan for withdrawal is both partial and conditional - he iirc claimed that some forces would remain to guard US facilities, perform anti-terrorist operations, etc. This is flexible enough to offer broad support to the Iraqi government - after all, many elements of an insurrection can be qualified as terrorism, especially if - as most likely will happen - it turns into a civil war, in which acts against civilians are quite likely. Oh, and since the US will most likely support the government, any insurrection would quickly become a threat to or attack US facilities. So no, I don't see the US leaving Iraq soon anyway.

Yet even if it did, the shift in political power probably won't be too drastic.The Iraqi government may be somewhat destabilized and would look for alternative allies. Given that it has a very strong Shi'a element, these would be the Sadrist militia and neighboring Iran - both groups that the current coalition has had extensive dealings with already, despite the US disapproval. I doubt their rivals - the Kurds and the Sunni - would feel strong enough to challenge them. An attempt by the government to crack down on the Sunni is somewhat more likely, but I doubt they have the will to pull it off - with the local militias alive and kicking, it would mean a civil war, and one in which they have a lot to lose. It could happen with serious Iranian support, but I don't think the Iranian government would take that risk. Even without US troops in Iraq - and I'd say even with a "total" withdrawal the US would keep a handful of soldiers there - this would mean an immediate war with the US and/or a low-key war with other Sunni states over Iraq, and I don't think the Ayatollahs want that.

Given, an Iraq with close ties to Iran would not be a good outcome for the US, Israel and several Arab states, but with the fall of Saddam's regime this scenario has become all but unavoidable. The question is, is it worth it for the US to pay the price of its "support" of the Iraqi regime to limit the amount of pull Tehran has on it?

Ideally, I would prefer a UN peacekeeping mission, though it would ideally have a strong American presence. If their mission is a relatively narrow one - i.e. prevent fighting among the factions and protect the humanitarian agencies working in the country - they may help the country stabilize somewhat.

 

But can continued military presence prevent this? If not, they're just stalling the inevitable. The Republicans have stalled it until they are out of office to let it blow up in the face of the Democrats...

Then that just means another war, but when the population is less pissed off about such conflict. Hell, if the new regime pisses off the population bad enough, you might even enjoy support that this war did not.

Never say that! It sounds like you're daring them to jack up the price!

A puppet state? That's the only thing that you could get, but then you'd never get the troops home. If that's the objective, then you might as well declare Iraq the 51st state--and abandon the moral high ground from the first war with Iraq in the 90's.

But can we protect them or are we just placing them at an increased risk?

They should have been doing that when there was the first indication that people there didn't like them...

An excellent start, but why are the troops still there?

So it was about the oil? It that's the case, then why aren't American corporations going in and harvesting that oil?

I'm beginning to think more and more that that course is to pull out and get ready to destroy the next petty warlord that has the audacity to piss them off. Then when it happens again, you simply go in, immolate their military, trash their infrastructure and go back home before the protesters get too annoying. Sooner or later these people will smarten up. The only other alternative is a third world war to unify the middle east under the flag of whoever is willing to kiss the presidents ass.

But if the US invades, then why not just merge the countries and be done with it. Then we still get what we need...

 

martaug, T2,
You're both arguing under a wrong premise. The UN did not mandate the no-fly zones.

 

Ragusa, it is obvious you did not read the post murtaug is referring to.

As for the NFZ, it was an error on my part to assume operations supporting UNSC Resolution 688 were UN ops. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was a substandard Secretary-General who repeatedly failed to perform adequately when it came to providing humanitarian aid -- to assume a despot like Hussein would comply to a resolution without enforcing it was just plain bad judgement (most of the UN nations supported the NFZ -- even without BBG's endorsement).

However, you still did not answer the question. Are you willing to answer the question, knowing that any answer you give will weaken your arguement? By now you should have realized the northern NFZ was established to stop the genocide of the Kurds by Hussein. He had been conducting a bombing campaign against his own populace. The NFZ actually prevented additional bombing in Iraq. [Sarcasm]But, of course, you appear to be against the use of force to stop genocide. Did you side with Boutros on the Rwanda issue as well?[/Sarcasm]

I honestly doubt that you believe stopping the genocide of the Kurds was wrong or that Boutros was correct in not sending UN troops to stop the Rwanda massacre -- just from what I've read from you. But you appear to be in a constant "everything the US does is wrong" mode -- which taints your arguments somewhat.

 

His (correction: that is your) statement on the no-fly zones was quite simply incorrect, the UN did not mandate the no-fly zones. Period.

To put it in the most friendly way, US administrations are too good at PR for their own good, and I don't really wonder how it comes that some of their taller tales on foreign policy and international law stick at home. As they say, armies fight best at home, and that certainly applies to domestic 'opinion shaping'.

There is a difference between claiming a mandate and actually having it, even when one is in the comfortable situation to veto any clarification by the body that made those resolutions. The US claimed that the existing UN resolutions gave them that mandate, but I cannot read that out of them, and that is the point Boutros was making as well. He is correct. You both (correction: alone) are not.

So did the Turks, with US supplied weaponry, and I can understand the Turks. They didn't sacrifice so many civilians and troops to fight the PKK and mostly succeed, only to go through all that again. The US bomb Iraqis in their 'counterinsurgency effort', and I dare say they are delivering more payload more efficiently and precise than Saddam ever did.

What Saddam faced in the north was a seditious movement that wanted secession from Iraq, and in the south a Shia uprising that challenged his rule. He crushed both, brutally. I have no sympathy for Saddam. But his reaction isn't in any way irrational or singularly evil. By turning to oppression, he simply used the habitual response of authoritarian regimes.

The question is if force indeed can stop genocide, and has been used to that end by the US in Iraq.

The NFZ also gave safe haven to groups that the US hoped could topple Saddam's regime, humiliated Saddam internally. They can be easily understood as a measure intended to help achieve regime change. I do not think that the no-fly zones and the later abandoned efforts (because they were deemed to have little prospect for success) by the CIA to mobilise the Kurds or the Shia in the south where mere coincidence.

It is just that the zones were then kept in place and were given a new declared purpose. Madeleine Albright found the death of 500.000 Iraqi children was worth 'it'. 'It' was regime change, and certainly not preventing atrocities to the Iraqi people, Kurds and Shia included. Do not fall into the trap of using your motives or motives you would embrace as a justification for what exactly US policies did in Iraq, and what those policies were about; I see a lot of denial about this ('better than ever!').

I think that it is quite tempting to speak the verdict over brutal thugs like Saddam and Iraq under his rule, and call for the abolition of such a state's sovereignty and the Westphalian order for the purpose of saving these poor people. But a state is easily destroyed, with consequences that might be far worse than the status quo. I am still speaking of Iraq. Order in an oppressive regime might be preferable to freedom in anarchy, because an oppressive state can perhaps be reformed. It is much harder to recreate one, as the US are still finding out in Iraq, to their great cost.

I don't believe it would have been exactly wrong, I believe you are addressing a fiction. I do think it was (a) not genocide, and (b) that it wasn't the US primary motive and (c) if it was, considering that only air power was used, I wonder how effective it was (air power didn't prove to be effective in Kosovo). While I believe there was a genuine desire to help the Kurds, their plight served well as justification to pursue other policies, namely regime change. This is not a condemnation, but a clarification.

As for genocide - Rwanda was a genocide. Pol-Pot committed genocide. Saddam, for all his atrocities, never inflicted such damage on the Kurds, or the Shia. 'Genocide' in the context of Saddam is first of all a label. Genocide seeks to destroy a group. What Saddam did was to subdue them, cruelly - but much like Madeline Albright, Saddam lacked genocidal intent. When they submitted he stopped the mass killing. He was still a brutal thug and mass murderer, but not genocidal. The use of the label has probably more to do with the US success in branding Saddam than with his actual actions.

Correct in not sending ... which troops? Your sarcasm is misplaced and I feel you are in error about the power of the UN secretary general. There are no UN troops. There are troops being 'lent' to UN efforts, and then they put on their blue helmets, but there is nothing like a standing UN army under the secretary general's command (probably much to the relief of the US right). The 'lending' of troops means that the secretary general is only able to act to the extent that the nations are able and willing to act and carry the costs.

On a purely moral level preventing genocide is imperative. Yet I have a hard time convincing myself on the purity of US motives in this regard, in particular in the case of Iraq. Being a frequent reader of Foreign Affairs and the like doesn't help to soothe my scepticism.

As for preventing Rwanda, how easy is it to send 250.000 to 500.000 US and Western or African troops into the heart of the African jungle so that people don't massacre each other for totally irrational and outlandish reasons? Would the resolution pass Congress? The German parliament? Other parliaments? Do we have enough troops? How effective will that be? How long are they supposed to stay? How long can they logistically stay? How do we get them there? How long will it take to get them there? Is there a root cause? Will it affect the root cause? Are results, if achievable, sustainable? What when they leave? That is not a cost-benefit calculation. What I want to say is that it is easy to spell out high minded moral imperatives, but much harder to follow up on them. I have grown very sceptic about the efficiency of those so-called humanitarian interventions - we're still 'solving' the Balkan crises. I can easily comprehend US and western motives for not going there. You see me profoundly ambivalent on this.

 

Actually ragusa, i don't think you did read my post because i never mentioned the no-fly zones at all. I was talking about the number of UN ops that end up being carried out by NATO troops.

As far as saddam not being genocidal, i'm flat-out shocked you would say that. How can you claim that someone that uses WMD's on a group of people in his country different from his own with the express purpose of wiping them out isn't genocidal confuses me.
http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

Now in your post in the other thread you seem to be implying that it is the US/UK that was keeping iraq from importing parts for their infrastructure. Now i'm fairly sure that you know that it was a UN resolution(#700, june 17, 1991) that imposed those sanctions, not the evil U.S.
Oh, for a good look at just how many resolutions iraq ignored before we acted go here:http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
Thats all for now.

 

martaug,
do you know who persistently vetoed any efforts to change the resolution that banned those imports? *hint* There are only five veto wielding powers, two of them start with 'U' *hint* When you talk about the UN, do occasionally remind yourself that there are veto wielding members of the UN security council, whose will is above that of the secretary general.

Genocide is a question of intent. There is a difference between intent to kill, and the intent to eradicate an ethnic, demographic or political group in its entirety. It's not just about killing a lot of people (that is a different and much more common crime), or using a particular weapon like poison gas for the purpose. I advise against the promiscuous use of the word. Where the US genocidal when they burnt down Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Was Syria's Assad genocidal when he crushed the uprising in Hama? You tell me.

And indeed, I only skimmed your post, and re-reading it I remember that I wanted to point out something else that I eventually forgot over my response to T2. It was roughly along the line of what I wrote in the first section of this post. Mea culpa. So T2 is alone in erring about the no-fly zone. I added corrections to my last post. In my defense, it was very early this morning, I only had half a cup of coffee at that time and was mentally already on my way to work.

 

True on the five having veto power however several of those also blocked ALL efforts by the u.s & the U.k. to pass harsher resolutions against iraq as you surely know.
Saddam was specifically trying to kill a racial/ethnic group just like the nazi party in wwII was trying to do to the jews & gypsy. they & he were killing members of their own nations while we were attacking civilians of a nation we were in a declared state of war with. It has been stated many times by numerous military figures, historians & those familiar with the japanese culture that the bombings saved tens of thousands, possible even millions of lives by preventing an invasion of the japanese homeland.

Yeah, i hate posting before the first of the coffee has had a chance to percolate to the brain However i too was in the same boat with T2 as i thought that resolution 688 authorised the no-fly zones.

 

According to who? To you? Boutros-Ghali was simply inadequate to the task of Secretary-General -- it was foolish of him to believe that any resolution should be without teeth. So, in your opinion, resolution 688 was simply a request. "Please be nice." Sorry, I do not read it that way -- and I am glad the coalition forces also did not agree with your train of thought. I also said the operations supporting 688 were not UN operations -- but they were reasonable extentions of the resolution. Coalition forces acted quickly and decisively to stop the genocide.

You may not agree with the term genocide in regard to the Kurds, but you're simply wrong. Governments, courts, news agencies, religious communities have all called the Iraqi attacks on the Kurds "genocide." By your definition, the holocaust was not an attempt at genocide -- after all, the Nazi's could not have possibly killed all the Jews.

That there are still Kurds is proof that force can indeed prevent genocide.

Of course, all this is really moot and your continued arguments further solidify the point I made earlier -- that, in your opinion, the US can do nothing right. All of our foreign policies are garbage and that we clearly do not know what we're doing. I believe that premise of your argument is wrong and, since that is a major premise in all your arguments, your arguments are therefore flawed. Try to show a little open mindedness and creativity when it comes to issues -- to paraphrase Monty Python "'You're wrong' is not an argument." And typing out volumes of rhetoric is not creativity.

 

According to a conservative reading of international law books. And a conservative reading was not something something the US did not engage in. The joke went that on Iraq the US had the magical ability to see a mandate where no one else could. I think that is quite apt. US assertions about the extent of their mandates and the legislative history of the UN resolutions are divergent. At best, one could call it 'creative reading'. There was no no-fly zone mandate from the UN.

As far as inserting ambiguity the US negotiators simply acted masterful. It served their purposes just right. I would sum it up as the 'instrumentalisation of disarmament/ humanitarian causes for the ends of regime change'. Again, that is not so much a condemnation as a clarification. You should get past the notion that the US acted always in good faith, and that they stuck to international law. They did neither, and were in the lucky situation to be unchallengeable on this thanks to their privileged position, not to mention their power. They wanted to screw Saddam, and they succeeded.

Reserving themselves veto rights, the permanent five didn't want a UN with teeth when they founded the organisation. Minor point. The reason why the resolutions lacked 'teeth' was that the US, and the UK, did not convince the other permanent members on that. It's a little rich to blame that on Buthrous-Ghali.

Then read it your way. I give you Resolution 688, which is short, and you show me where it establishes no-fly zones.

Nonsense. The Nazis had the intent and went to the work, and 'succeeded' to a great extent and kept on until the very end because they wanted every one of them dead in the final solution. Of course that was genocide.

Yes? Saddam brutally mauled the Kurds when they rose up, and when they collapsed, he stopped because he had succeeded in subduing them. He didn't go on killing them because he didn't need to. But of course, that reading would suggest Saddam was a rational actor, which is heresy, after all everybody - governments, news agencies and so forth - said he was a demented monster incapable of coherent thought.

To me it is in any case an explanation that is somewhat more compelling than your view that assumes genocide, and then derives from the existence of Kurds in Iraq that the US intervention into Saddam's genocide was a success, because obviously with Kurds surviving said genocide must have failed thanks to the US intervention. I don't believe in circular reasoning.

You're ready with whining about how much I do hate America? It isn't exactly as if the US did rack up a stream of brilliant foreign policy successes under Bush Jr.'s reign where only a malevolent Ragusa in his rant mood could find something to object to.

See, I can understand the US going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, that is a sensible war that I support to a large extent. Iraq is different. It was a war of choice, that could have been avoided. You will disagree with me, but I am confident it was primarily about reshaping the Middle East rather than the 'supporting acts' like WMD (chosen for bureaucratic reasons), humanitarian reasons and all that. I think Bush's policy of confrontation towards Iraq and now Iran and Syria is simply silly and counter productive. I could live just fine with common sense policies as suggested by (bless him) Gen. Odom.

Amen! Not only that they breed failure, Bush's policies increase substantially the tension in the region. I didn't have a problem with America when Bush the elder reigned. He managed admirably the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. I could live with Clinton with whom we played hard ball on the WTO negotiations - that's all ok. America is a great Nation, and they do throw their substantial weight around. That is why I don't really care whether the US elects McCain or Obama - because we will have to live with whoever comes next.

When I point at the history of US policy on Iraq, that is primarily to show up what must be confusion, that at times expresses itself in amusing things like 'better than ever' or bolder claims like that the UN did mandate the no-fly zones. I know both assertions to be false and I will point that out, like it or not.

 

Ok, i would say that the U.S., U.K. & France that set up the no fly zones got there permission from the following portions of resolution 688
5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;
6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts.
Considering that they had already had resolution 678 which authorised them to use all means necessary to deal with iraq.
The use of force against iraq was reaffirmed in resolution 686.
Resolution 687 also listed numerous conditions that saddam's government did not do & that plainly set up a 15 kilometer DMZ
This is the wording: " 5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters" of 4 October 1963; to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;"

So all i see that they did was to expand on an already established DMZ & establish a new one to curtail new attacks.

 

Martaug, resolution 688 doesn't create or authorize any no-fly zones. That is a simple fact, and, as Reagan once said, facts are stubborn things. No matter how many hoops you jump through or how many times you spin it, this simple fact will not change. You are making the wrong argument. What you should be pointing out is that it doesn't forbid them.