Big Thread O' Iraq (with bonus Iran!)

[notasfatasmike]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Well, again, I was using "break" in a specialized way, which I think I went to some trouble to define, but I will explain how that pertains to the colonial rape of Africa, and how such abuse was not in fact a true iteration of destruction/creation.

First of all, the goals of the Romans, and at least our (America's) publicly-stated goals in Iraq are very similar -- make them like us.

Firstly, what reason do we have to believe that the United States' stated goal is their true goal? I've never been one to jump on the "Blood for Oil" bandwagon (and actually, that phrase bugs the hell out of me, but it makes it clear what's being referred to in this case), you have to admit that it is...convenient that of all of the overly oppressive, non-democratic countries in the world we decide to "free", the one picked just happens to be in an area extremely rich in a resource that the United States desperately needs. I'm not going to make an absolute statements, but I am skeptical about the aforementioned stated goals.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Don't rape their country for resources and slaves, or treat them like cattle, but rather enlighten them, bring them out of their religious and ethnic divisions, and replace their old value sets with new ones, specifically, ours.

What gives the United States the right to replace their value set with ours? While I, as someone from the United States, may view our culture as superior, who am I to say that someone else should adopt my culture under duress? I don't buy the "Might makes Right" justification, and if terrible things like genocide and genital mutilation (which you mentioned later in your post, just so you know why I reference them) are engrained in a culture, how is invading a country going to change the general opinion that it is OK? I'm not saying we should condone either of those things, but making them stop is not as simple as "Go over there and blow up a whole bunch of stuff, and they'll realize it's wrong."

Originally Posted by Tydeus

This is what the Romans did to Gaul. See, the Romans conquered only in part for plunder -- just as big a motivator, if not a far greater one (considering how the Gauls had previously sacked Rome, a couple centuries prior to Caesar) was safety. They were afraid of the Gauls, reasonably or not. They wanted safer borders, and they wanted to permanently eliminate a hostile nation.

This is a key difference between the two situations - Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States. The Bush Administration's claim of WMDs has, at this point, proven itself to be false. They certainly didn't have the capability to launch an offensive against the U.S. I understand a war of self-defense, but without major spin, I see no way to construe the war in Iraq through that lens, especially considering that there are many other countries who have declared deliberate intent to harm the United States who have a much greater likelihood of doing so (see North Korea).

Originally Posted by Tydeus

How do can you ever possibly do that? Make them your own. If you can beat them, make them join you. Rome invested a tremendous amount of blood and gold in Gaul, without any immediate net monetary return, and the people of Gaul benefited accordingly. They were given running water, sewers, roads, peace, stability, etc. (I already listed all this in my last post, I think). The Romans invested money and human life to improve the quality of life for the Gauls, and, by way of more Roman citizens (and therefore more soldiers), safer borders, and a greater tax pool, it improved the Roman quality of life as well, but only in the long run. Romans didn't see any benefits really for at least a good 30 years. It really took about 50 before Gaul became totally Romanized.

Yes, but the plan (stated or otherwise) has never been to make Iraq a direct part of the U.S. A puppet regime? Maybe. But that's not the same thing. Also, the improvements to the Iraqi infrastructure are not as great as those the Romans provided to Gaul, and they are also being made at a great cost to the U.S., with no possiblity of the return that the Romans saw (we will not gain Iraqi soldiers, safer borders, or an increased tax pool from it), and they are being made at a much higher cost, considering the frequency of no-bid contracts and the like.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Also, whereas Romans were settling like crazy in Gaul, most African countries didn't get settled by Europeans. South Africa is pretty much the only exception, but even in that case, the emigrating whites were coming to South Africa to become a permanent oppressor class, whereas Romans who settled in Gaul were generally more salt-of-the-earth kind of people. Ex-soldiers, mostly, living off of their pensions on beautiful, fertile farmland in what today is Provence. Not a bad deal, actually. Anyway, the Romans brought their culture, their gods, their politics with them, and tried to bring Gauls into the fold, tried to make the Gauls equals. It was completely and utterly different from European colonialism. It would be more analagous to France or Britain going to Africa and conquering what little military resistance cropped up, and then saying: "OK, so, we're going to modernize the crap out of your ass-backwards country [I'm not saying they were ass-backwards, but I'm trying to replicate the somewhat arrogant attitude of the Romans], until you people are educated enough, and invested enough in our culture to be our fellow citizens, with all the rights and freedoms and priviliges and comforts that that status entails. You know, like, indoor plumbing, and no more microscopic worm larvae in your water that grow to three feet or longer in your body before popping out of festering sores."

I repeat my question from above: what right would France or Britain have had to do that?

Originally Posted by Tydeus

But, that's not what the Europeans did. If you'll remember, my definition of "breaking" required that something be created afterwards. The problem with the European atrocities of colonialism is that they never created anything. They just ignored all the rules of the societies they conquered. Ignored, because they never set up any new rules to take the place of those they ignored. Yes, they had laws, and yes, people got punished for ignoring laws and rules that the Europeans instituted, but I mean at a deeper, cultural level, Europeans did not create. They merely corrupted, cheated, starved, and left the cultures they conquered to twist in the wind. Rome conquered African nations, too. Only, when they did it, they made them Romans. The result was prosperity and stability. Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make here?

I see the distinction you're trying to make, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with it. Look at the example of the British in India: they did everything in their power to make their culture a part of Indian culture, and it didn't work. You're assuming because it worked in the case of Gaul and the Romans, it works in every case - but this is a distinct case where it didn't.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

It's not some quirk of the modern world that conquest must always turn out this way -- it's just a matter of the conquerors' goals. Do you want to rape a people and their land for plunder, and nothing else? Well, then it's not going to turn out well for either of you in the long run.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Do you want to change their very way of life, bring them a new, more enlightened, more powerful, more progessive culture that, say, doesn't endorse genocide or genital mutilation (well, the Romans didn't endorse genocide anyway. We're kind of more lax about it than they were. Honestly, the Romans were, in some ways (not all! obviously not all!), far more humane than modern nations today. They didn't stand for that kind of bullshit.)? Well, then things will turn out well for both of you, in the long run.

Reference (for the 3rd time...I sound like a damn broken record) my question posed early on: who are we to say all aspects of our culture is better, and how does going over there and conquering them discourage them from performing things that we as Westerners view as terrible?

Originally Posted by Tydeus

This I addressed above, also. Basically, yeah, that's the way it turned out, but that's becuase of the motives for conquest. Europe's were heinous, and self-serving. Rome's were self-serving, but served all of humanity at the same time; after all, Rome's goal was to become synonymous with "humanity." That, to me, is a great goal.

But the problem as I see it, again, is that you're assuming a unanimous view of what constitutes "humanity". For a practical example: I view the death penalty as inhumane. (Let's not debate that here; the actual issue is irrelevant to my point.) Others do not. Who's view of humanity is "correct"? I will obviously maintain that mine is, while others will maintain that theirs is correct.

To summarize:
I maintain that it is impossible to change people's worldview and beliefs by force, which is essentially what you are advocating, Tydeus. Is it unfortunate that there are places in the world that view violence as an acceptable solution for the smallest of problems? Absolutely. Can we change it through force? I highly doubt it. It seems antithetical to the goal: "Stop killing or we'll kill you!" True societal change, or true revolution, if you will, has to come from within a group itself; it cannot be forced on people.

[Tydeus]

As a general response to Mike's post, which I think adresses his main, and recurring theme (btw, if you're a broken record, then what the hell am I with all this Rome stuff? :P): I did not, and still do not endorse the rationale for going to war. However, as someone who did not do everything in my power to stop it (a few protests != everything in my power), I am responsible for what happened to thousands of innocents, and I feel compelled to make sacrifices to set that right. At the same time, I'm not gonna sacrifice myself in vain -- I am a realist, after all. If there were a draft, and a serious effort to rebuild that country, you can be sure that I'd be volunteering ASAP. But, I'm not going to go risk my life for a cause I consider to be, at the moment, hopeless.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: Going to war = ill-advised, ill-evidenced, rife with manipulation of the public and the facts, and generally unethical. However, now that we are there, we are all responsible (us U.S. citizens, anyway, oh, and Brits too). Unless you don't pay your taxes, went to every protest you possibly could have, even ones out of state, you organized your own protests, you raised money for anti-war ads, or at least door-to-door operations, and spent every day of the pre-war leadup engaged in anti-war activity, then you're at least a little bit responsible. So, we have to remedy the situation. Pulling out will almost undoubtedly result in bloodshed and instability on a far greater scale, and for many more years, than if we took the Roman approach.

So, that's what I'm saying. We owe them.

[Lionesque]

The question here definitely is not whether or not we should be at war. We're there, there's no changing that.

As stated above, a troop pullout would lead to two things: the disentigration of Iraq and the creation of a situation even more hostile to the interests of the free world.

The fact most people haven't mentioned is that Bush is going to meet with the leader of a government that is flawed in it's basic premise. Iraq is not unified in ethnicity, religon, or just about anything else. Iraq was created by European powers after the fall of the Ottomans. It didn't emerge as a nation on it's own. The only sort of unity Iraq has known in recent times is political unity under Saddam, who we agree was a bad, bad man. The problem is that his reign of terror was the only thing holding Iraq together. And when we removed him, we tried to replace him with a democratic government that would oversee that same one nation.

That same one nation does not want to be one nation any longer. All Iraqi forces are pulling apart. The Iraqi government we support has even passed laws in that direction, granting a large amount of autonomy to several southern provinces. The government is a very weak adhesive for a nation that is breaking into several nations. The fact we keep trying to hold this nation together is causing it to fall even farther apart, as more and more parties try to use this situation to gain power and influence in Iraq.

The issue here should not be about how to save the Iraqi government anymore. It should be about how to create a government that starts to quell the fears of the Iraqi people enough that the militias lose support.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Lionesque

The question here definitely is not whether or not we should be at war. We're there, there's no changing that.

As stated above, a troop pullout would lead to two things: the disentigration of Iraq and the creation of a situation even more hostile to the interests of the free world.

The fact most people haven't mentioned is that Bush is going to meet with the leader of a government that is flawed in it's basic premise. Iraq is not unified in ethnicity, religon, or just about anything else. Iraq was created by European powers after the fall of the Ottomans. It didn't emerge as a nation on it's own. The only sort of unity Iraq has known in recent times is political unity under Saddam, who we agree was a bad, bad man. The problem is that his reign of terror was the only thing holding Iraq together. And when we removed him, we tried to replace him with a democratic government that would oversee that same one nation.

That same one nation does not want to be one nation any longer. All Iraqi forces are pulling apart. The Iraqi government we support has even passed laws in that direction, granting a large amount of autonomy to several southern provinces. The government is a very weak adhesive for a nation that is breaking into several nations. The fact we keep trying to hold this nation together is causing it to fall even farther apart, as more and more parties try to use this situation to gain power and influence in Iraq.

The issue here should not be about how to save the Iraqi government anymore. It should be about how to create a government that starts to quell the fears of the Iraqi people enough that the militias lose support.

Uh, yeah. That's pretty much the idea right there.

Would you go so far as to agree with me as to the best method for success, even? That would be pretty darn cool -- I won't seem so purposefully contrary (at least in this thread. :P)!

[Lionesque]

I don't know if I'd agree that we need to "break" the rules of Iraqi society, so much as we need to "break" the rules of Iraqi politics. The political situation in Iraq is artificial; we need to find one that will actually fit the people it will govern.

One of the main problems is that, despite what we'd like to think, forming a society friendly to democracy takes time. You can't just waltz in, instate a democracy, and expect everyone to vote and act like a good citizen. When you do that, your government becomes corrupt, your crime increases, and your citizens do not get the type of treatment a democracy warrants.

That's what happened with many South American nations. Political instability (contributed to by the good old US of A) has given birth to many weak, corrupt democracies, simply because the public was not allowed the time to develop it's own democracy, slowly. In nature, change is a slow thing. Rapid change upsets balance and creates disorder.

Look at the development of American democracy. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215, granting nobles protection from the powers of the King. It was a small step, but a step. It was over 400 years until the Glorious revolution in England, which established a true place for the english Parliament. And it wasn't until 100 years after that that the American colonies revolted and set up their actual "democracy". That's over 500 years it took for a 'modern' democracy to develop. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Idea that we can walk into Iraq, tear down a stable, if horrible, regime, and then instate a democratic government, was false in the beginning. What needs to be done is to find a better way to govern the country democratically (one that will allow for all this ethnic and religious tension, such as the plan to partition Iraq), slowly build the country up to the point where it can take care of itself, and then allow democratic society to flower while helping in any way we can. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to hold together this corrupt, splintered government we've created while the people it governs kill eachother.

I'm also not at all opposed to letting Syria and Iran get involved. However, I do feel that we should take anything they say with a grain of salt; the Iranians especially have high hopes of projecting a lot of influence over a new Iraqi state.

This meeting between presidents take place behind a larger backdrop of if Maliki's government can be maintained, and what to do if it can't. Bush has admitted a policy change is needed; this may be the first step toward that change.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

It's not some quirk of the modern world that conquest must always turn out this way -- it's just a matter of the conquerors' goals.

No, it pretty much is a result of modernity, and basically has nothing whatsoever to do with the conqueror's goals. You seem fond of mentioning Roman history well, Caesar's goals in invading Gaul were 1. money 2. fame and 3. more money, so he could buy fame. Rome was 'afraid' of Gaul like the US was 'afraid' of Iraq, people in power working real hard to kid the masses as an excuse to launch an unprovoked agressive war. (The Gauls attacked them two centuries previously? If that constituted a reasonable threat then America should be invading Britain.) I mean not to harp on the subject but as you yourself cite, forty thousand legionairres slaughtered three hundred thousand Gauls, I'd call that a pretty good measure of just how 'afraid' Rome was of Gaul. And Caesar's rhetoric two thousand years ago about how he did all this for the good of the Gallic people was no different from Spain's Gold, Glory and God excuses or Britain's 'White Man's Burden' or Bush's talk of Democratizing the Iraqis, or of any would-be conqueror seeking to hold up his atrocities as dictated by some kind of moral imperative.

The difference between then and now isn't intentions, it's that Caesar by bloody and vicious slaughter had killed a million of the Gallic people's fighting men and of those he left alive, severed their right hands that they might never wield a sword against him. The difference is that in an era of divided tribes, mass armies and combat by edged weapon it was actually a practical proposition to break the back of an opposing people and rip out its conception of itself root and branch. In an era of nationalism, mass communications, widespread firearms, insurgent warfare and suicide terrorism, this becomes difficult if not impossible.

The problem is, we left all the ancient rules intact -- hatred, bigotry, tribalism, fanaticism, paranoia, revenge.

No, the problem is that we drove people back to those rules, as a direct result of obliterating what passed for Iraq's edifice of civilization, and to the extent that we continue to wage war on that nation, we will only intensify and exacerbate those divisions.

Pulling out will almost undoubtedly result in bloodshed and instability on a far greater scale, and for many more years, than if we took the Roman approach.

So, that's what I'm saying. We owe them.

The Roman approach, even if it could conceivably work, requires the systematic slaughter of millions of people. I'm pretty sure whatever we owe the Iraqis, that isn't it.

Not that we haven't gotten off to a pretty good start, I mean, something between four and nine hundred thousand Iraqis dead in three years as a result of our war, and all. But if your solution to the issue of Iraq is to kill even more Iraqis, even faster, I have to say that's pretty lacking as a solution.

-----------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Lionesque

The question here definitely is not whether or not we should be at war. We're there, there's no changing that.

Uh yes, there totally is changing that, by removing US troops from that country, so that we are not there any more.

As stated above, a troop pullout would lead to two things: the disentigration of Iraq and the creation of a situation even more hostile to the interests of the free world.

No, because Iraq has disintegrated, and every second our troops are there causes the situation to be even more hostile to the interests of the free world, and not insignificantly, at the cost to ourselves of something like a half-billion dollars a day.

[Lionesque]

Uh yes, there totally is changing that, by removing US troops from that country, so that we are not there any more.

Point. I should have said "The question is not whether or not we should have gone to war.

No, because Iraq has disintegrated, and every second our troops are there causes the situation to be even more hostile to the interests of the free world, and not insignificantly, at the cost to ourselves of something like a half-billion dollars a day.

The situation in Iraq has disentigrated, but not Iraq itself. And pulling our troops out will not solve the violence. Slowly withdrawing them while fixing the problems we have already caused might. The violence a couple years ago was aimed at our troops. Now it's beyond that; the violence is aimed at other Iraqis by factions vying for dominance or independence. The different groups in Iraq do not trust eachother, and/or do not wish to be part of this one nation of Iraq.

People have started calling Iraq a "Civil War." If the Iraqi's were truly fighting us, it wouldn't be a civil war; it would be a war. We are not in Iraq to conquer it. We are not extracting resources or levying taxes on the Iraqi people. The reason we were there was because of the (obviously false) belief of the President that we could create a safe Iraqi democracy and eliminate support for extremists in the region by doing so. It is a sad thing that in order to do this, our boy George pretty much lied to the American people. However, there's not a lot we can do about that now. We have to change the way we look at the problem. Running away from the problem will not solve it. It will only allow the violence to continue and allow nations such as Syria and Iran to gain influence in the region, to further their interests. And it will, as you said, continue to be hostile to the interests of the free world.

Most of the attacks in Iraq are on Iraqis. Therefore, the problem isn't with the U.S. troops propping up the government; it's with the fact that the Iraqi people cannot trust their own government because of sectarian tensions. The Iraqi army is pretty much composed of "death squads" which slaughter members of the other factions. This shows only to clearly that Iraq, as one nation, will not work. It was an artificial nation to begin with, and it's falling apart. We need to find a way to create a safe, democratic government that is fair to all parties, and make sure that government can defend itself, and then get the hell out. But leaving before that would be foolhardy.

[Fifthfiend]

Slowly withdrawing them while fixing the problems we have already caused might. The violence a couple years ago was aimed at our troops.

Slow withdrawal will get whichever twenty thousand poor bastards are the last American men and women left in Iraq slaughtered, as they race down the highway to the airport or through the hundred miles of Sadr-controlled territory between Baghdad and the coast, in hopes that they live long enough to be evacuated.

And in the meantime, none of those problems are going to get even a little bit fixed.

Originally Posted by Lionesque

We are not extracting resources or levying taxes on the Iraqi people.

We are not extracting resources because Iraqis keep killing anybody we send to try and extract those resources and blowing up any resources we try to extract.

Running away from the problem will not solve it. It will only allow the violence to continue and allow nations such as Syria and Iran to gain influence in the region, to further their interests. And it will, as you said, continue to be hostile to the interests of the free world.

Not running away from the problem will continue to actively make the problem even worse, at a cost to us of half a billion dollars a day. I'd rather spend no money to not solve a problem, than half a billion dollars a day to make a problem worse.

Leaving will allow Iran to gain influence? No, staying will guarantee that Iran gains influence, because the longer our troops continue to operate in Iraq, the more the Iraqi Shia are forced to indebt themselves to Iran, whereas if we leave, it's at least hypothetically possible that nationalists like al-Sadr might be in a position to assert said nationalism.

Most of the attacks in Iraq are on Iraqis. Therefore, the problem isn't with the U.S. troops propping up the government; it's with the fact that the Iraqi people cannot trust their own government because of sectarian tensions.

Iraqi people will never accept their government because US troops are propping it up. This is what fuels sectarian tensions.

Basically the way this works is, as in any political system the one we've fabricated in Iraq selects winners and losers. Except unlike in a stable political system, any winners resulting from our fabricated Iraqi political system will never be accepted as legitimate by the losers, because those wins are the result of an artificial process propped up by a foreign entity. The response to such illegitimacy being violence. As the winners and losers as the latest round of Iraqi politics has pretty much broken down along sectarian lines, you get sectarian violence.

No side of this conflict can ever hope to legitimately win as long as the US remains in Iraq, which is why as long as the US continues to remain in Iraq, it is guaranteed that violence will continue, as well as continuing to deepen the divisions our presence sows.

EDIT:

But I mean, don't take my word for it:

Iraq's political process has sharpened the country's sectarian divisions, polarized relations between its ethnic and religious groups, and weakened its sense of national identity, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.

I mean, who am I to argue with Congress?

Also from the previous link, it seems worth noting this:

In spite of a sharp increase in Sunni-Shiite violence, however, attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces are still the primary source of bloodshed in Iraq, the report found. It was the latest in a series of recent grim assessments of conditions in Iraq.

Of course that's as of September and the relative/absolute levels of violence have probably shifted somewhat since then, but it's probably worth remembering that inasmuch as "the violence is aimed at other Iraqis by factions vying for dominance or independence," the violence is still also aimed very much at our troops.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

No, it pretty much is a result of modernity, and basically has nothing whatsoever to do with the conqueror's goals. You seem fond of mentioning Roman history well, Caesar's goals in invading Gaul were 1. money 2. fame and 3. more money, so he could buy fame. Rome was 'afraid' of Gaul like the US was 'afraid' of Iraq, people in power working real hard to kid the masses as an excuse to launch an unprovoked agressive war. (The Gauls attacked them two centuries previously? If that constituted a reasonable threat then America should be invading Britain.) I mean not to harp on the subject but as you yourself cite, forty thousand legionairres slaughtered three hundred thousand Gauls, I'd call that a pretty good measure of just how 'afraid' Rome was of Gaul.

Well, yeah. That was actually a point I was trying to emphasize -- it was a war of aggression, without a great deal of rational basis. However, lots of Americans were afraid of Iraq -- hell, the whole Middle East -- three and a half years ago. And a lot of Romans were afraid of Gaul when Caesar went to conquer it. And, to be fair to the Romans, the Gauls had never truly ceased their hostilities with Rome, and they did directly border each other, very much unlike Iraq and the U.S. You can't really deny that the Gauls were unpredictable and frequently hostile (to the point of military action) to Rome up to when Caesar invaded. But, anyway, I kind of thought that the whole "baseless invasion" thing kind of strengthened my analogy.

But, you know, I don't think Caesar was strictly such a whore for money/fame. Considering that, after all, Rome spent more money than it took in for the first 30-50 years of occupation. Also considering how he was an effective ruler (for all his four years as Imperator) restructuring economic arrangement and saving millions of poor Romans from crushing debt, as well as generally moving the Roman economy to a more capitalist orientation (not that it ever broke its slave-dependancy, which in the end probably is what destroyed Rome, as much as anything else). Point being, we've both been emphasizing the sides of Caesar and Rome that benefit our points of view. I'll try to be more balanced from now on -- Rome was probably not truly threatened by Gaul, the invasion was generally without warrant, and executed with typical Roman brutality. However, Caesar did not gain any real immediate monetary benefits, nor did Rome. Furthermore, Rome spent a great deal of money improving the lives of the Gauls.

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

And Caesar's rhetoric two thousand years ago about how he did all this for the good of the Gallic people was no different from Spain's Gold, Glory and God excuses or Britain's 'White Man's Burden' or Bush's talk of Democratizing the Iraqis, or of any would-be conqueror seeking to hold up his atrocities as dictated by some kind of moral imperative.

Actually I'm not really sure whether Caesar particularly did trump the moral imperative when conquering Gaul. After all, the Roman people were generally not opposed to conquering -- typically it meant more money and more security for Rome, in the long run if not in the short as well. Arguably, Roman society had been constructed in such a way that conquest was vital to its survival. So, I don't know about rhetoric involving moral imperative. Especially considering at the time of his conquest he was still a general of the Republic, and not really a politician. War hero, yes, Imperator, no.

Anyway, this doesn't seem terribly relevant to my proposal. It's a great argument against going to war, and the very one I myself repeated many times. However, I will try to point out some differences anyway, rather than just dodge your point.

First -- again, I don't believe (from what I've read, I am mostly inferring, unfortunately) that Rome was particularly focused on justifying conflict. Roman society tended to view war in a favorable light to begin with.

Second -- simply taking a look at the effects of the respective occupations (Spain, Britain, Rome), we see vast differences. In the case of Spain and Britain, their conquests were never inducted into the parent empires as equal and productive segments of the continuous, homogeneous, unified, equal whole. Instead, they were just places to mine for diamonds, silver or gold, and to take/use slave labor. Ultimately, both European empires left their conquests in far worse condition than before the Europeans came along. Also, they invested almost no money in infrastructure that wasn't directly related to European activities. In some cases (like the Congo, which of course was neither Spanish nor British, but not a terribly uncommon way to run a colonial territory), there was practically no investment in infrastructure at all.

By contrast, Rome built practically all Gallic infrastructure. People don't go to the south of France to see the Gallic aqueducts, now do they? Rome meant from the beginning to make Gaul a part of Rome -- not a colony, but a province, just like Italy was a province. That meant that Gaul would have to be taken care of, because the health of all the Empire was important. Furthermore, after all this massive investment in the Gallic people, with no direct product for Romans (it's not like they were building infrastructure to run mines -- they were building sewers and aqueducts and roads. I don't remember the Spanish investing a great deal of money into supplying the indigenous people of South America with sanitation, clean water, and efficient transportation), the Gauls came out of the deal with a far greater quality of life, by basically every standard that we could use to measure such quality. Health, sanitation, availablity of food, rights/freedom, effective government, stability, meritocracy, security -- you name it, the Gauls had more of it after Rome intervened. The Africans and South Americans had less. And that paralleled the conquering powers' respective investment in the conquered peoples, and their ultimate goals. Europe wanted money. Rome wanted, well, more Romans.

Now, frankly, I couldn't say Rome went to war ethically, or executed their war in a humane way (though, for the time, it was in no way more extreme than anyone else, and it would be unfair to examine Rome by modern standards of international law -- something which didn't really even exist in Roman times). However, they got results which benefited themselves, and the Gauls. By taking some basic tenets of war from their book, I think we could do alright by the Iraqis, and make them better off than they were when we invaded (wrongly).

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

The difference between then and now isn't intentions, it's that Caesar by bloody and vicious slaughter had killed a million of the Gallic people's fighting men and of those he left alive, severed their right hands that they might never wield a sword against him. The difference is that in an era of divided tribes, mass armies and combat by edged weapon it was actually a practical proposition to break the back of an opposing people and rip out its conception of itself root and branch. In an era of nationalism, mass communications, widespread firearms, insurgent warfare and suicide terrorism, this becomes difficult if not impossible.

Yes, the Romans were brutal. But, for their time, not especially so. And for our time, we know better than they did, and of course would not pursue the occupation of Iraq in such a bloody manner. And yes, edged weapons did made occupation easier, but still, there were guerilla-style warriors. In fact, Rome particularly resented that kind of fighting, 'cause they were terrible at it. It's one reason they really despised the Germans. Anyway, I'm not saying "break the back of the people." You know how I'm trying to use the word "break," but you seem to be trying to make it sound like I'm using it in a terribly violent way, when in fact I'm saying that the only way to break prejudices and ethnic division is by building a society which people will be happy in. That's my message. Give them services, give them stability (as much as you can, at any given time. Ideally, with 1,000,000 troops, as you proposed, fifth, that amount of stability that you are capapable of will increase with time, especially if you're rebuiding their nation all the while), and they will give you peace. The Gauls never really stopped fighting the Romans 'till at least 30 years into the occupation. At that point, Roman society had displayed its numerous benefits over Gallic society, and people realized how much more enlightened and safe and comfortable the Roman way of life was. So, they willingly became Roman.

Make Iraqi life stand out for the horrible way of life that it is by giving them a new way of life that is freer, safer, more tolerant, and more comfortable than the one they've known. They'll come around. History's taught us that. It's a lesson I believe could serve us very well in Iraq.

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

The Roman approach, even if it could conceivably work, requires the systematic slaughter of millions of people. I'm pretty sure whatever we owe the Iraqis, that isn't it.

Not that we haven't gotten off to a pretty good start, I mean, something between four and nine hundred thousand Iraqis dead in three years as a result of our war, and all. But if your solution to the issue of Iraq is to kill even more Iraqis, even faster, I have to say that's pretty lacking as a solution.

Well, that's the way the Romans did it. We can do the specifics differently, while keeping the same general idea. Here's that general idea, laid out plainly:

* Use our military as their police/military, since theirs is nothing more than a roving Shia militia.
* While using our soldiers to maintain security (as much as can be had), invest billions into rebuilding their nation. Start with basic services, expand immediately after to oil, to help ease financial burden.
* Stream American culture into their nation through every TV, computer, and print source they've got.
* Very slowly, and starting at the most local levels, institute a republican political systems. Gradually, and I mean graaaaaduuuuuuuaaaaalllllyyyyyyyy expand the republican political system to larger areas. Again, start at neighborhood levels, before even thinking about city-wide politics. Ease them in.
* Provide massive incentives to get Americans to live in Iraq. Promote teaching of English to Iraqis, Arabic to American settlers. Do not confiscate Iraqi land or resources. Settlers/the government must buy land and homes at full market value. Provide soldiers with extra incentives as reward for their service.
* In tandem with the above step, provide incentives, or hell, practically force corporations to get involved in Iraq. Get them to run the telecommunication networks that will be possible once you finish laying all this fiber-optic cable, which is being done by Iraqis to employ them, New-Deal-style.
* Build and teach Iraqis to run more advanced services. Transportation, communications, sanitation, other "-ations." :P
* Employ people as much as possible. Especially angry young men.
* Slowly bring the nation together, until finally, maybe a decade or fifteen years later, national elections are possible.

That's the plan. And no killing if it can be avoided. The military we would garrison there would be more like police than military, and should be trained as such.

I think it's a humane plan, and one that has great chance of improving Iraqi lives.

Oh, and quickly, I'd like to check and make sure that I'm not pressing all of your (fifth's) buttons, 'cause I'll totally stop posting in this thread, no problem, if I'm just pissing you off. I don't want to do that unnecessarily. Also, these long posts don't annoy you too much, do they? I'm just trying exta-hard to be civil and not make a ruckus, since I'm kind of on probation, almost.

[Fifthfiend]

Oh, and quickly, I'd like to check and make sure that I'm not pressing all of your (fifth's) buttons, 'cause I'll totally stop posting in this thread, no problem, if I'm just pissing you off. I don't want to do that unnecessarily. Also, these long posts don't annoy you too much, do they? I'm just trying exta-hard to be civil and not make a ruckus, since I'm kind of on probation, almost.

Naw you're cool. I mean as far as this thread I actually think we probably agree on a lot of this, more than may be readily apparent.

Anyway I'm the last person to say anything about people being long winded. I don't think anyone's gonna stress it too hard as long as you're not being long winded and getting pissed off at people at the same time.

* Use our military as their police/military, since theirs is nothing more than a roving Shia militia.
* While using our soldiers to maintain security (as much as can be had), invest billions into rebuilding their nation. Start with basic services, expand immediately after to oil, to help ease financial burden.
* Stream American culture into their nation through every TV, computer, and print source they've got.
* Very slowly, and starting at the most local levels, institute a republican political systems. Gradually, and I mean graaaaaduuuuuuuaaaaalllllyyyyyyyy expand the republican political system to larger areas. Again, start at neighborhood levels, before even thinking about city-wide politics. Ease them in.
* Provide massive incentives to get Americans to live in Iraq. Promote teaching of English to Iraqis, Arabic to American settlers. Do not confiscate Iraqi land or resources. Settlers/the government must buy land and homes at full market value. Provide soldiers with extra incentives as reward for their service.
* In tandem with the above step, provide incentives, or hell, practically force corporations to get involved in Iraq. Get them to run the telecommunication networks that will be possible once you finish laying all this fiber-optic cable, which is being done by Iraqis to employ them, New-Deal-style.
* Build and teach Iraqis to run more advanced services. Transportation, communications, sanitation, other "-ations." :P
* Employ people as much as possible. Especially angry young men.
* Slowly bring the nation together, until finally, maybe a decade or fifteen years later, national elections are possible.

In all honesty yeah, that's probably about what I do think America owes the Iraqi people.

Minus the part about us piping in American culture, I mean, I don't think we're doing anybody any favors there.

But mainly it's just that all that is politically and logistically impossible, for a lot of reasons. And - and this part's pretty important - even if we were capable of bestowing such largess, I think by this point things might just be so far gone that the Iraqis as a whole would never accept such an offer from us.