Saddam's Death May Bring Reprisals?

Carrera

It's not that Iraqis don't deserve democracy but it has to come at the right time. I recall an old Soviet writer once state that she hoped nobody would ever try and rush to impose democracy in the USSR as she feared it would doom her country to destruction. Amazingly, she was proven right.
Iraq under Saddam was the economic powerhouse of the Gulf. It had an economy that matched Greece in Europe and the world's third biggest army. As Kofi Anan admitted, Iraqis could at least walk the streets in safety.
Now, Iraq is a failed state, torn apart by ethnic hatred, civil war plus instability. You can't enforce reform.
The USSR too is "knackered" for want of a better word. The successes in space, sputnik, the Olympic gold medals, the free education system and zero unemployment is now gone. Ask Yan Ullrich about that. He was trained under the old State athletics program.
Instead of that, you have a fairly oil-rich Russia but split from Ukraine and most of the other Soviet Republics joining the E.U. Gorbachev is now the most hated figure in Russia and very much blamed for being an idealist.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

CDAKIAHONDA

[QUOTE=slovakguy simply superimposing a template drawn from western history will not explain the mess in iraq or the almost inevitable failure of the u.s. sponsored government in afghanistan...[/QUOTE]
SG

If your asking "why bring simple historical analogy to bear on a complex current problem?" I can appreciate that. I'm not trying to make light of issues, and while I can't write for Carerra, I doubt he is either.

For myself, I can't be a part of:

"Iraq is a mess." Why? "because Bush is a FUCKING Idiot!" and the Iraqis? Why don't they get it? "because they're FUCKING idiots too." End of line, period.

I can't do that ANYMORE. I don't think that's your position either.

Carrera

I've just been reading Melanie Phillip's views with regard to Bush's latest plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq e.t.c. She is also advising taking the war to Iran which I definitely wouldn't agree with unless Iran was proven to be a major threat (i.e. it was about to create a bomb).
Of course, I have little doubt Bush is planning on taking the war into Iran and he'll probably bypass the American electorate by somehow provoking Iran into striking first. After all, this is a guy who's on first name terms with God.
What Melanie Phillips forgets and ought to bear in mind is this is in no way similar to WW2 where wars were conducted between territories such as Japan and Germany. In actual fact, this seems to me to be far closer to the ideological war the Romans fought against Christianity that had militant, apocolyptic factions.
I don't really know how Melanie figures instability in Iraq has made the world a safer place or how instability in Iran would make the world a safer place. In this kind of war, if the U.S. destabilises and removes Governments, the WMD threat and militants will simply scatter to other countries or even within Europe. More members will be recruited in Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and even in Europe.
The proof of the pudding is instability now arising even in former safe places such as Thailand and Indonesia.
So, I don't figure how Melanie, on this occasion, considers the U.S. will be able to afford to send troops to all these remote locations to fish out the millions of displaced extremists they will create (or already created).
At any rate, my bet is Bush will go ahead same as in Vietnam and stake all on a last ditch attempt. He may even try to engage Iran and create a crisis situation to save his political career. He knows the U.S. electorate will back him if there is some concept Iran attacked first (maybe shoot down a plane).
However, I agree with the Democrats you cannot win an ideological war via military force. There has to be an analysis of the causes behind extremism. Who knows what will happen.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

CDAKIAHONDA

What's your opinion on the "possibility" that the strategy is an attempt to keep (or prolong) the conflicts at this level? The level of the "ideological war" instead of a "war of territories." It's bad, but it could be worse. That could be consistant with the idea, however misguided, that Bush believes the conflict is inevitable, ordained by God or whatever. We hear a lot about "fighting it over there, so that it we don't have to fight it here," in Bush speeches and in administration rhetoric.

The lesser of two evils approach?

CDAKIAHONDA

I was looking up "war by Proxy" and notice this in Wikipedia...



Asymmetric warfare and terrorism

In the light of present events two different opinions have been formed.

One view is that asymmetric warfare is synonymous with terrorism. Terrorism is sometimes used as a tactic by the weaker side in an asymmetric conflict. Asymmetric warfare is sometimes called terrorism by those wishing to deny the political aims of their weaker opponents and to exploit the pejorative connotations of the word. Likewise, occupying powers often label partisans "terrorists" as part of propaganda campaigns to maintain support in the occupying power's home country, and to win over the occupied people so as to cut off the partisans' principal support base. This is the root of the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The other view is that asymmetric warfare is not synonymous with terrorism, even though terrorism is sometimes used as a tactic by the weaker side. It is typical, in an asymmetric conflict, for the stronger side to accuse the weaker side as being bandits, pillagers or terrorists. These accusations are usually part of propaganda campaigns, although they are sometimes true. In fact we could say that terrorism is more likely to be synonymous with war itself, as causing fear to the enemy is always an advantage, whether this means simply banging your shield and yelling voices or killing thousands of civilians.

One example of asymmetric warfare involving terrorism is the use of terrorism by the much lesser Mongol forces in the creation and control of the Mongol empire. The other is the use of terrorism by the superior Nazi forces in the Balkans, in their attempt to suppress the resistance movement.



Examples of asymmetric warfare



20th century asymmetric warfare



Second Boer War


Boer commandos


The Second Boer War was the first major war of the 20th century and one in which asymmetric warfare featured prominently. After an initial phase, which was fought by both sides as a conventional war, the British captured Johannesburg, the Boers' largest city, and captured the capitals of the two Boer Republics. The British then expected the Boers to accept peace as dictated by the victors in the traditional European way. Instead of capitulating the Boers fought a protracted guerrilla war. Between twenty and thirty thousand Boer commandos were only defeated after the British brought to bear four hundred and fifty thousand troops, about ten times as many as were used in the conventional phase of the war. During this phase the British introduced internment in concentration camps for the Boer civilian population and also implemented a scorched earth policy. Later, the British began using blockhouses built within machine gun range of one another and flanked by barbed wire to slow the Boers' movement across the countryside and block paths to valuable targets. Such tactics eventually evolved into today's counter insurgency tactics.

The Boer commando raids deep into the Cape Colony, which were organized and commanded by Jan Smuts, resonated throughout the century as the British adopted and adapted for later use the tactics used by the Boer commandos.

Carrera

I thought about it. I do know David Icke made a number of prophesies that now seem to have come true and he's still doing the lecture circuit. Even more interesting when you consider Wurm's view of Bush apparently knowing about 9/11 beforehand and the situation in Russia where it's now being claimed Putin himself blew up flats within Moscow in order to invade Chechnya e.t.c. e.t.c. Conspiracy is fashionable.
At any rate, if Bush is deliberately trying to provoke war in the Middle East, it's true this will distract Islamic extremists away from targeting the U.S. and Europe for a time. However, sooner or later, the instability and repercussions of a Middle East war would have to spill over into all sorts of negative implications for the U.S.
Nope, I suspect Bush's plan was to build a base in the Middle East and palm Iraqis off with the notion they're been "gifted" democracy out of the warmness of Bush's heart. I don't think he expected anything like the current resistance. However, the resitance doesn't surprise me at all since Bush and Rumsfeld simply lack the expertise and foresight to accomplish such a task as they had in mind.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

"Channel 5 is to screen a documentary on Boxing Day called David Icke: Was He Right? In January 1999, he wrote that "between 2000 and 2002, the United States will suffer a major attack on a large city". In his 1990 paperback, Truth Vibrations, he declared: "The years after the millennium will see gathering conflict all over the world to the point where the United Nations will be overwhelmed." And in the same book he predicted severe hurricanes around the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans after 2000.
"People think I'm some kind of prophet but I'm not someone who gets my information from the ether," says Icke. "I've been given the coordinates about how things work."

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

CDAKIAHONDA

Okay I'm not really into conspiracy theories, but what if the only thing worse than an Iraq in turmoil is a stable Iraq?

The US has two allies in the region with seemingly divergent interests,
except one: Iran.

An unstable Iraq ties up Iran to a pretty big extent extent, it prevents the probable alliance of Iran and Iraq against Israel. An ustable Iraq keeps Iraqi oil off the market and benefits the Saudis. War by proxy.

Iran would be a pretty tough nut, if you were looking for a soft spot wouldn't Iraq have fit the bill the best? Plenty of intelligence from our years as allies, a previous war and already a volitile mix of interests under a brutal dictator with a dubious history.

Even entering Iraq was at best a problematic endeavor to begin with, and when the puppet government of Ahmed Chalibi was quickly deemed untennable isn't there a possibility that the logical outcomes of Iraq were weighed? Not many (any?) winnable situations present themselves to the coalition. But plenty of bad scenerios are easily identified.

Our comittment to Israel almost on its own could explain this theory.

So Bush can be and Evil Idiot, or an Evil manipulator? Okay, it's easy to believe the former about Bush, but Cheney, Blair......et al?

CDAKIAHONDA

I agree, but once the initial plan failed, Chalabi was exposed, and the quick easy solution of plan A didn't materialize.....is it probable that the Bush Bunch sat down and weighed the alternatives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Davis Hanson wrote: @

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...ar_of_endurance

Creating new political systems on the ground is far more difficult than simply blasting away terrorist concentrations. Such engagement demands that American soldiers leave the relative safety of ships, tanks and planes to fight subsequent messy battles in streets and neighborhoods. Once that happens, the United States loses its intrinsic military advantages

First, the Islamists have just enough Western arms — automatic small weapons and explosive devices — to achieve parity with individual Americans on the ground. Our billions spent on aircraft carriers, drones and stealthy jets were not intended to fight hundreds of terrorists hiding in houses.

Second, when losses mount, they are viewed differently by the two sides. Violent death and endemic poverty are commonplace in the Middle East, but not so in the West. We aim to avoid casualties in our war making; the Islamists want only to inflict them, whatever the cost to themselves.

Third, everything our soldiers do is subject to Western jurisprudence and ethical censure. Americans distinguish soldiers from civilians to avoid collateral damage. Jihadists deliberately hide among women and children to ensure that our restraint provides them sanctuary. Our utopian moral expectations can never be met; their very lack of such considerations means we are accustomed to rather than are outraged by their beheadings, kidnappings and suicide bombings.

Fourth, in the process of reconstruction, Americans are held responsible for keeping the electricity and water on to ensure that life for Afghans and Iraqis gets better. Jihadists win only by destroying such efforts. And it is always easier to tear down than to build.

"So we are at an impasse. Now after five years of fighting, Americans have two stark choices in the war against terrorists.

One, we can withdraw ground troops and return to punitive and conventional bombing — tit-for-tat retaliation for each attack in the future. That way, the United States stays distant and smacks the jihadists on their home bases below. Few Americans die; terrorists sometimes do. The bored media stay more concentrated on the terrorists' provocations, not on our standoff response from 30,000 feet in the clouds.

Or American forces, at great danger, can continue to change the political and economic structure of the Middle East in hopes of fostering constitutional governments that might curb terrorism for generations. This current engagement demands our soldiers fight jihadists on their vicious turf, but by our humanitarian rules. For this, we must pay the ensuing human and materiel price — all broadcast live on the evening news."

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

So the Admistration is faced with some pretty grim reality. A government becoming an American ally in Iraq becomes a pretty remote possibility, and a military withdrawl would most likely result in an Iranian freindly government. Bush would probably have a hard time being the facilitator of a strengthened member of the "axis of Evil." "Failure is not an option."

Saudi Arabia does not want Iran to release it's oil, especially if it controls Iraq's vast reserves as well. Israel doesn't want newly pacified religeous zealots (now pretty well trained in the Iraq theatre) to now start leaving a stable fundamentalist Iraq for Lebanon.

Military casualties and/or costs are lower under the current "plan" than under either of Hanson's two alternatives.

What about Russia's influence in the region with an Iranian puppet of Iraq?

Is the only thing worse than an unstable Iraq, now that the initial goal of a pro-western Iraq seems pretty remote, a stable Iraq?

CDAKIAHONDA

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/new...t-cold-war.html



http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2006/...i-alliance.html

wolfix

I think the talk here of Bush attacking Iran is a premature. There has been very little conversation on capitol hill of such an attack. Besides Israel will beat anyone to it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242261,00.html

And I would hate to see more conflict, but Israel has a very strong motive to do so..... And it might be justified in Israel's case.....

As I read this thread I get the impression that most posters give Bush far more power then he actually has. He has steps to follow.
Bush cannot just make the decision to go to war, he has to go before others.
In the case of the Iraqi mess, he went through these steps and had the authorization of many of those now screaming. The mantra of "We were lied to" is being used as a political tool. They went to war after authorization of many based on bad information. Even Nancy Peloski[?}, the most out spoken liberal with power wants to move on. That is why the extremists are turning on the Democrats now.
The conspirecy theories are fun for internet conversation but they do not play in the real world.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

sogood

There may be motives, but it is not justified for Israel to attack Iran when Israel has not been harmed.

__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac

Carrera

"An unstable Iraq ties up Iran to a pretty big extent extent, it prevents the probable alliance of Iran and Iraq against Israel."

The opposite I think. Iran stands a very good chance of controlling Iraq via the new Shia majority in the Government Bush created. This is not in Israel's interests whatsoever since Israel needs good relations with its more tolerant Arab neighbours, many of whom do accept Israel as a Middle Eastern State.
What has been gained from Bush's war we should ask?:
(1) It has destroyed the secular Bath Party in Iraq and united the country with Iran through militant Shia armed brigades and a Shia majority.
(2) It has damaged NATO and damaged the image of the U.S. overseas (the scenes of Saddam's hanging seem to link the U.S. with hooded terrorists).
(3) Blair and his Labour Party are probably finished (as so many people were sickened by those images on top of others showing POW abuse). Indeed Gordon Brown has been forced to condemn what took place i.e. the secretive lynching in a dark cellar carried out to jeers and taunts.
(4) The Muslim World has become more anti-West and more intolerant and membership of Al Quaida has multiplied a hundred fold, with bombings in Indonesia, Madrid, Thailand, London and Saudi Arabia.
(5) 3000 U.S. troops have been killed and some 40,000 maimed, wounded and crippled but for what? Where are those WMD?
(6) Thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of civil war and the violence created in that country.
So, this is hardly a positive development and we all lose out. I can find few positives and Bush's policy goes against everything his predecessors ever did.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

The problem is there's a knock-on effect. Without the invasion of Iraq, the current leader of Iran (an extremist) wouldn't have been elected as the Iranians had been previously reaching towards reform. However, the invasion of Iraq convinced many Iranians they could be targeted next (Axis of Evil).
Neither should we forget North Korea's reaction to the invasion of Iraq. It now turns out they have sophisticated nuclear bombs that can be loaded onto their Korean designed rockets.
War-mongering and interference, provoke intolerance and more war-mongering. Does Bush really want a Third World War, you can only wonder?
Without Bush Junior, the world would be a far safer place than it is without Saddam, so I believe. His actions have been reckless and, as they say, like a toddler with a hand-grenade.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."