Iraq 2007: Still Smokin'

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by adamark

Excellent article on the progress two democrats found in Iraq and the political arm wrestling that's occuring.

If by "democrats" you mean "long-time advocates for the war and the surge" then sure, they're democrats.

And their documenting of this supposed progress was contradicted by the actual data everywhere that it was not fallaciously unverifiable propaganda.

And even then the most they can claim is a definition of "win" that equates to resignation to endemic slaughter, at some hypothetical reduced level.

Who is setting up IEDs in the road and driving cars packed with explosives into markets crowded with civilians? It's NOT the Americans.

No, we just conduct airstrikes on a more or less continual basis.

This just happens to be a tough situation that the Iraqis and Americans got caught up in.

No, it's a hellish situation which we Americans actively created and continue to perpetuate.

The tide of this war is changing once again, and it's turning toward the American/Iraqi advantage.

Except there's no such thing as "American/Iraqi" advantage, as no aspect of our armed occupation of Iraq is in any way to the advantage of Iraqis.

Occupy.

Yes, that is correct.

[adamark]

Originally Posted by ¡El Diablo Quinto!

And even then the most they can claim is a definition of "win" that equates to resignation to endemic slaughter, at some hypothetical reduced level.

That seems to be the best that can be hoped for at this point. Like some European countries and very much like Israel, which experiences terrorist acts often, Iraq may continue to suffer car bombings and suicide attacks. If things remain relatively stable and the government can 'manage' such threats, they will be OK.

No, we just conduct airstrikes on a more or less continual basis.

Civilian losses suck, but there is a major difference between accidents and deliberate terrorizing. The military does the best they can. I don't think the U.S. military can be compared with the insurgents who deliberately attack civilians, even when they are celebrating a national victory.

No, it's a hellish situation which we Americans actively created and continue to perpetuate.

George W. Bush created it illegally and unconstitutionally. But regardless of how it was started, the only responsible thing to do is work toward the best possible outcome, which involves strengthening the Iraqi police and army and furnishing the government with the tools they'll need to get their country back on track.

Except there's no such thing as "American/Iraqi" advantage, as no aspect of our armed occupation of Iraq is in any way to the advantage of Iraqis.

A third party peace-keeper is constructive. It lessens the chance of an all-out civil war, which almost happened last year. That country needs some time for the wounds to heal.

[Zilla]

This isn't an all-out civil war? No really, that's a question meant to be read without sarcasm, however you can manage that, but really, IS this a civil war or not?

[Fifthfiend]

But regardless of how it was started, the only responsible thing to do is work toward the best possible outcome, which involves strengthening the Iraqi police and army and furnishing the government with the tools they'll need to get their country back on track.

Even if that were the case, it's still the case that George W. Bush is still in charge of the war.

A third party peace-keeper is constructive.

But we're not a third party or a peacekeeper in any sense in which those words have meaning. We're a first-party invader and occupier imposing our will on a subject nation which correctly views our presence as hostile and illegitimate. Everything we do serves to create and exacerbate divisions among the indigent population and deepen their antagonism towards ourselves and each other.

The military does the best they can.

I really have no idea how a missile strike on a domestic residence based on an anonymous tip in which reported civilian deaths are responded to with perfunctory denial can possibly be described as "the best they can."

This isn't an all-out civil war? No really, that's a question meant to be read without sarcasm, however you can manage that, but really, IS this a civil war or not?

Basically, yes it is.

[Bells]

The situation is at an spike where the US Troops CANT leave withou causing a HUGE mess (yes bigger) because if they leave NOW Iraq will get worst, and everyone will blame the US, and there will be a tremendous spike of fear that the US may be attacked again (which just might be true on that scenario)

Thus, the US now has 2 choices, to piss on a minefield or to crap on their own hats

the difference being that one solution can cause MORE deaths
and the other one is just stupid

[Fifthfiend]

Anyway, this -

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L12364166.htm

BAGHDAD, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Years of economic policy mistakes after the fall of Saddam Hussein left unemployed young Iraqis easy targets for recruitment by al Qaeda and other insurgents, a U.S. Defense Department official said on Sunday.

Paul Brinkley, deputy under-secretary of defense for business transformation in Iraq, said Iraq's shattered industrial base had to be revitalised to bring down unemployment levels of about 60 percent and help reconciliation.

He said political, social and economic stability would be much easier if factories, many left idle since the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam, could win even a small fraction of the trade the United States conducts every year with economies like China, India, Indonesia and Thailand.

"If we could just get some of that factored into Iraq we'd uplift the lives of every Iraqi and al Qaeda wouldn't have any people to recruit," Brinkley told Reuters in an interview.

Brinkley said early economic planners had made the understandable mistake of assuming that a free market would rapidly emerge to replace what he described as Saddam's "kleptocracy", and create full employment.

This mistaken assumption led to a series of decisions which "sowed the seeds of economic malaise and fuelled insurgent sympathies" after industrial production collapsed and imports flooded in to replace locally made goods.

The Coalition Provisional Authority, headed by American Paul Bremer, was set up by the western allies after the fall of Saddam and largely ran Iraq until June 2004 when an interim Iraqi government took over.

Brinkley said unemployment and under-employment of the proportions in Iraq would create unrest in any country. In a recent Military Review article he said Iraq's unrelenting violence "is in no small part a result of economic distress".

Increased industrial output creating more jobs would help Iraq achieve the reconciliation between the warring Shi'ite majority and the Sunni Arab minority dominant under Saddam that politicians have so far been unable to bring about.

"The job of political reconciliation is infinitely simplified when you have people trading with each other," said Brinkley, who heads a task force, formed in late 2006, which works closely with the U.S military in Iraq.

TRADING AMONG THEMSELVES

Current policy needed to reflect pre-2003 conditions, when more than a decade of U.N. sanctions on Iraqi products had the indirect effect of leaving Iraq's Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds with no choice but to trade among themselves.

Brinkley's task force is now assessing factories across Iraq's industrial base, from textiles to petrochemical industries, engineering and agriculture, to find suitable candidates for micro-financing grants.

"These factories used to sell to each other. They couldn't export, so Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd traded with each. They haven't done that for several years," he said.

Nine factories, from among 65 assessed by Brinkley's task force, have already received funds from $50 million designated this year by the U.S. Congress for industrial revitalisation.

Brinkley said the $50 million was about $150 million short of what some estimates said would be needed but the U.S. and Iraqi governments would likely be easily persuaded to contribute more if early successes were made.

Iraq's deputy industry minister, Sami Al-Araji, said his department was working on a plan to have a small number of Iraqi textile products like men's suits in U.S. department stores by Thanksgiving or Christmas this year.

"We thought we'll start modestly," Araji told a news conference. "You could call it a public relations campaign."

I think this goes further to illustrate how the US presence has created and deepened the sectarian strife it now purports to combat. Under a functioning regime*, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis at least had to be able to do business with one another. Economics are just one more social tie we severed with our invasion, an effect which further serves to stratify and antagonize the local population.




*Standard disclaimer: Yes, Saddam Was A Horrible Person.

[Althane]

I just gotta wonder, at what point why are you just acting like a dick, blowing the people up who are trying to rebuild basic needs for your towns?

I mean, hell, if I just got freed from a genocidal dictator, and had the people who dumped that say "Hey, we'll station a few troops in here for peacekeeping until you're running on your own, and in the mean time, let us help you build some stuff", I'd say "Sure, why not. Just, when we're ready, you can leave."

Which is, as far as I can tell, what's been said.

Really, the problem is with all the infighting between the people, which, as far as I can tell, is retarded on the level of, oh, I dunno... Friends or something (I dun know any sitcoms. <_<)

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Althane

I mean, hell, if I just got freed from a genocidal dictator, and had the people who dumped that say "Hey, we'll station a few troops in here for peacekeeping until you're running on your own, and in the mean time, let us help you build some stuff", I'd say "Sure, why not. Just, when we're ready, you can leave."

Which is, as far as I can tell, what's been said.

You know just to start with, I would think that the Iraqi response to America's military presence in their country being so wildly different from your expectations would be the first sign that the reality of the situation is not quite so benign as what your hypothetical posits as the case.

EDIT: On a tangental note, all this.

[Althane]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

You know just to start with, I would think that the Iraqi response to America's military presence in their country being so wildly different from your expectations would be the first sign that the reality of the situation is not quite so benign as what your hypothetical posits as the case.

Probably, but I'm a passive person until you piss me off anyways.

Besides, I mean, hell, it's a chance to juice the Americans for as much as possible. Why the frick not?


Then, once they've built you into a superpower, you can flaunt it in their face later.

LONG term, folks, LONG term, not SHORT.

Short will just get you killed over there.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Althane

Besides, I mean, hell, it's a chance to juice the Americans for as much as possible. Why the frick not?

Because, regardless of our intentions or how well we ever lay any plans for rebuilding their society, they hate us and will continue to do so, and nothing short of, yes, leaving will get them to quiet down about us and initiating so, so very many actual terrorist attacks in the middle east.

But I dunno, maybe Petraeus is gonna do something.