For months, the Bush administration has pressured the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take steps toward bringing the warring groups together and tackle Iraq's violent militias and corruption. But the Iraq Study Group recommends withdrawing U.S. support if the Iraqis fail to show advances....
For some Iraqis, the statement suggested that the report's authors did not grasp, or refused to acknowledge, the diverse ambitions, rivalries and weaknesses that plague the government. The Kurds have dreams of creating an independent state. The Sunnis appear leaderless, yet seek a political voice. The Shiites are riven by feuds. There are disagreements over partitioning Iraq, over whether to restore members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to their old jobs, over whether amnesty should be given to opponents of the government and the U.S. occupation....
Sammarai, the Sunni lawmaker, said the Bush administration has a responsibility to fulfill its pledge to bring democracy to Iraq, in which minorities will have a voice. "Because of their mistakes, it is so complicated now," Sammarai said. "Now, they say, 'We're going to leave the Iraqis to solve their problems.' "
December 7, 2006
"It is a report to solve American problems, and not to solve Iraq's problems."
Iraqis respond to the Iraq Study Group's report.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Whatever will all those terrorists do if our boys and girls come home? Millions of terrorists instantly sprung to life when the first American boot was placed on Iraqi sand. Will they now return home to herd goats and sell Western knock-offs and cloth, after their victory-over-the-infidel parades that is? Will they find easier pickings elsewhere, like car bombs at resorts where infidels flock to wallow in decadence and sin? If you can blow up armed American troops, you sure ought to be able to shred some fat tourists in hotels. It would be like some well earned R&R for the lads. You know...take a month off Abdul, go to an infidel beach, feed the seagulls with their body parts, relax, get some sun, listen to the waves. We are entitled to this worrisome consideration, after all, we wrung our collective hands when women's panties were placed on the heads of prisoners.
What will they do? Well, they'll kill each other for a while, until some top Islamic leader will remind the ones that are left, that Israel is just over the hill. They will be assured that Americans will not intervene in that battle, except for Bill Clinton ("I'll grab a rifle...").
Thank goodness Southerners didn't consider Grant and Sherman "outside intervention!" "See? They're Americans just like me!"
Derve, I've read your comments to this post a couple of times, and for the life of me, I can't figure out the point you're trying to make. Is it just aimless anger.
Simon,
Yeah, "we". As in America. I for one would love to place all the blame entirely on the idiots who created this war and mismanaged the occupation, but since it was my country that invaded, I get a share of the blame. So do you. So does Derve.
Incidentailly, Derve is lamenting that we're going to bail on the Iraqis. Maybe you didn't understand that part.
Xanthippas said...
"Incidentailly, Derve is lamenting that we're going to bail on the Iraqis. Maybe you didn't understand that part."
How is that incidental, and how can you seriously suggest I didn't understand that part? That was the whole point I was making: Derve is "lamenting that we're going to bail on the Iraqis," ("bail[ing] on the Iraqis" being a coy euphemism for "cutting and running") despite the fact that "bail[ing] on the Iraqis" is the policy and the platform of the party she supports. If Derve is so cut up about cutting and running, maybe she shouldn't have supported a Democratic Congress!
Or will the rhetoric dominate, like we still haven't realized the stake at hand, the scope of things unleashed from the Pandora's box we have opened.
I'm rather surprised hearing this kind of thing from you. Usually, the punch-line, after this kind of buildup, is "Let's nuke Mecca!" Or possibly some other invitation to genocide.
In all honesty, though, I think that what you have said is really applicable to the populations in the Middle East -- or rather, the dictators who have led them, and the criminal gangs (e.g. Hizbullah) who control them from the margins, had no idea what they were preparing when they spent the past 50 years cultivating their hatred of the US. It bubbled over in 2001, and they're getting massive blowback. Sow, reap whirlwind, sleeping dragons lie, etc. The blowback is comparatively mild, at the moment, even if it's toppled two governments already, but I think, before this is finished with, that there is far greater suffering in store for them and their peoples.
--
All that aside--
re:
"It is a report to solve American problems, and not to solve Iraq's problems."
Uh, James Baker headed the group. Can anyone be even remotely surprised that this is the case?
I suggest they hold that conference in Munich.
I esp. appreciated Cedarford's comments here. The Sunni Arabs are beleagured now because they have been murdering innocent civilians with increasing abandon and brutality. They are trying to use this brutality to regain control, or at a minimum, gain much greater power in the country than can be justified given their 15-20% of the population.
This critique of Baker-Hamilton by Robert Tracinski is great: Captain Obvious to the rescue. It reveals Baker-Hamilton's basic tautology:
"The problem in Iraq is that we can't withdraw US troops because the Iraqi military is not adequately trained to maintain security on its own? Well then, the ISG tells us, all we need to do is to train the Iraqi military so that they can maintain security on their own, and then we can withdraw our troops.
The problem in Iraq is that the Iraqi government won't approve a crackdown to dismantle the Shiite militias? Well then, all we have to do is to convince the Iraqi government to approve a crackdown to dismantle the Shiite militias."
More at the link.
Bart
Just because you couldn't talk to our adversaries, or work out a deal, it doesn't mean that someone else can't. If we're afraid we might get a bad deal, then we're sending the wrong people to negotiate.
The model we should follow is Libya 2003. Remember them? They had all kinds of nasty chem/bio weapons, much more advanced than Saddam ever had. But the U.S. and Brits worked out a great deal with back-door diplomacy, behind the scenes. No more WMD, and routine inspections. I know this doesn't give you, or neocons a big boner, but really, it seems to me the best end result.
"The model we should follow is Libya 2003. Remember them? They had all kinds of nasty chem/bio weapons, much more advanced than Saddam ever had. But the U.S. and Brits worked out a great deal with back-door diplomacy, behind the scenes."
The reason that the Libyans gave up their weapons in 2003 wasn't just because we cut them a deal, it was precisely because, in 2003, it looked like the United States were both willing and able to get tough with regimes like Iraq and Libya! They gave up those weapons because we'd just flattened Saddam, and they were terrified that they were next!
The reason that the Libyans gave up their weapons in 2003 wasn't just because we cut them a deal, it was precisely because, in 2003, it looked like the United States were both willing and able to get tough with regimes like Iraq and Libya! They gave up those weapons because we'd just flattened Saddam, and they were terrified that they were next!
I'm sure your're is at least partially correct. But if you're totally correct, we should be able to pack up and go home, and not worry about the ME again. There are some decent articles in the WSJ Opinion Journal, (if you can stay away from Judy Miller) on the Libya deal.
But really, the internet is raining idiots saying we can't talk to any country, under any circumstances, and cite some bullshit WWII analogy. The fact is, alot of our "enemies" have cooperated with us fighting terrorism.
The model we should follow is Libya 2003. Remember them? They had all kinds of nasty chem/bio weapons, much more advanced than Saddam ever had.
Oh, forget Libya. The model we should follow is South Africa<, which actually succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, and had one of the most advanced chemical and biological weapons programs in the world. And then gave it up.
Of course, our failure to contain South African weapons development back in the 70s is probably one of the reasons we ultimately decided to invade Iraq. They told us (and the Soviets) they'd terminated their weapons program, after the Soviets detected what they thought was a nuclear test. They lied (shockingly enough). It just went underground.
Anyhow, given that South Africa is, I think, our one successful experience with putting the genie back in its bottle, that ought to be among our guiding cases.
Of course, our failure to contain South African weapons development back in the 70s is probably one of the reasons we ultimately decided to invade Iraq...
We invaded because they didn't have WMDs, not because they did. They were warned not to invade by several Arab countries who knew better, but truth be damned. Israel reduced a country to rubble over a few kidnapped soldiers, but wouldn't take action against Saddam's weapons stockpiles, or a nuke program?
We would have just bombed sites, instead of sending tens of thousands of Americans into a hellfire of chem/bio weapons, IMO.
The Jerk said...
"That isn't true. Read the Suskind book for an account of what actually happened."
You mean the Suskind book that cites absolutely no sources, and that everyone denies contributing to? I'm sure it makes for great reading, but I'm not sure we should resort to borderline fiction to understand history. You might as well tell someone that they can understand what was really going on in the Soviet Union in the 1980s by reading a Tom Clancy novel, although at least then they'll know they're being swindled.
It was a system working for the majority.
I'm pretty sure the Sunnis comprise only about 20% of the Iraq population. Not sure how you figure that to be a majority.
We destabilized their country.
Iraq was "stable" under Saddam?
Corporational
??
If we leave before things are stabilized, they have every right to be pissed at us. However, that's what the democrats have been pushing for since day 1, so not sure where a lot of the complaints from that end are coming from...
We invaded because they didn't have WMDs, not because they did.
What I mean is that in the past, we'd been told by other powers that "yes, our nuclear program is over and done with," and we were lied to. So when the Iraqis came up and told us that they'd terminated their nuclear program, we knew not to take them at their word. They wouldn't show the all remnants of the program, establish chain of custody, etc. -- the stuff necessary to verify. They were playing games with us, the UN, and the inspectors, so we came down on them.
You are correct, though, that if they had nuclear weapons already, we wouldn't have risked invading.
But whatever happens, don't you dare avert your eyes and look away. You can watch and remember, if that's the least you do.
This is good advice for the wreck we (or rather, we and our European allies) made of the entire Middle East after WWII. Saddam, Assad, Sadat, Mubarak, the Shah, Khomeini, the Saudis -- they are all of them emblematic of our failure in the Middle East. We were, and in some cases, still are the enablers for their crimes. They could not have come to power without us, or without the Soviets, or the French, or the British, and so on down the line. We looked away before, and were content with the annual sacrifice of innocents, with the rape rooms and the electrodes, with the mass executions and the occasional slaughter, so long as the oil continued to flow. That was, in retrospect, a mistake. And it will be the same mistake again, if we choose that solution for Iraq.
With tears in our eyes, as necessary.
But whatever happens, don't you dare avert your eyes and look away. You can watch and remember, if that's the least you do.
And then show me how much chest thumping the US does. (That's us you're referring to, right? the United States?)
What the hell
Actually, the problem goes back before WWII, to the aftermath of WWI, when the victors were splitting up the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Some have placed the blame on Churhill, but others on Gertrude Bell. She conceived of Iraq and groomed its first monarch, Emir Faysal of Mecca. She loved the Sunni Arabs, but apparently had a deep distrust for the Shia. She blamed them for the revolt against the British at the end of the war, and they didn't fit her picture of the romantic Arab. And the Shia recipricated her dislike. So, she made sure that her type of Arabs ran the country. And the rest is history. Except for a brief period of time between when Faysal's grandson, Faysal II, was overthrown in 1958 and another coup in 1963, the Sunni Arabs ran Iraq for the intervening 80 years. As the Sunni Arabs became ever more beleagered, esp. after the First Gulf War, they became ever more brutal in their subjection of the Shia and Kurds.
So, after we overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Shia and the Kurds effectively took control of their country, in keeping with their now approximately 85% of the population. But violence and brutality worked before, so it should work again, and that is what the foreign born terrorist, notably those under Zarqawi, and the Ba'thists tried to do, upping the ante as their power disappeared.
But this time, they didn't have the guns or the army to back them up. Rather, they were now in the hands of their enemies, the Shia and the Kurds, thanks to our intervention. So, they got ever more brutal in their indiscriminate mass murder of innocent civilians. And finally, after years of cautioned restraint by their clerics, the Shiites finally started striking back (though mostly in a much more highly targetted manner against those who have participated in the murder of Shiites and their families). And that is why many think that there is a civil war going on now.
I suspect part of the commission's problem is that they listened a lot to some of our traditional allies in the Middle East - esp. the Saudis. But the Saudis are also the ones who talked the former President Bush into abandoning the Marsh (Shiite) Arabs and the Kurds in the aftermath of Gulf War I, after he had pushed them to rebel.
The Saudis are grossly compromised here as far as their objectivity. As noted above, they see this as a war between Sunni Islam, led by themselves, and Shia Islam, led by Iran. And after 80+ years of brutality by their type of Arabs keeping the Shia and the Kurds under their thumb, it is now payback time. And the Saudis would love an excuse to jump in and protect the remaining Sunni Arabs in Iraq. This would accomplish a couple of things. First, and probably least important, it might save some of the ever more beleagured Sunni Arabs in Iraq. More importantly, it would split the forming Shiite crescent in the heart of Islam, running from parts of Pakistan and Afganistan, through Iran, Iraq, and into Lebanon and Syria. It would also contain Iran, completing its encirclement of that country.
But because of this, if the Saudis themselves, or some surrogate of theirs, intervenes, the Iranians will most likely feel compelled to do the same. And blood will flow. A lot of it.
Nevertheless, they would still love for us to give them the excuse and the cover to do so.
Re: Cedarford:
No, all you do by blaming America and other nations is cast Muslims as helpless little children not responsible for their own messes. The same transnation forces are at work globally and no other region save Africa is as dysfunctional as the bulk of the Muslims are.
They are, of course, responsible for throwing up tyrants and dictators and the like. And no one ever told them to set up rape rooms or to torture dissidents or whatever (I think -- frankly, I wouldn't put it past Carter, because as has come out in the past few years, his government actually gave the go-ahead on the Kwangju Massacre in Korea).
But we are responsible too, because we actively intervened by picking and choosing among the forces at work then, and choosing the forces we thought would work best for us. Given our wealth, when we decided to put our influence, weaponry, and knowhow at the disposal of the people who emerged as the middle east's new rulers, after the collapse of the earlier (saner) Ottoman empire, we made it very difficult for rival powers to establish themselves. Not impossible -- the revolution in Iran demonstrated that. And many of the Arab states played us and the USSR off against each other. But difficult.
Infantilising the people Middle East is, obviously, an asinine thing to do, whether it's the old "Wogs can't do democracy" thing, or the more modern "Whites ruined everything" thing. But while they're all their own peoples, screwing up catastrophically as people tend to do, we shouldn't shy away from the fact that we have proven, in the past, a decisive influence in Middle Eastern affairs, and that we're dealing with a system that emerged out of the choices we made in the postwar period, both after the Great War, when the European powers divided the Middle East up, and after WWII, when we and the USSR divided the world up. And in retrospect, many of those were bad choices. Understandable at the time, but if we could go back and make them all over again, I don't think we'd do it quite the same.
I agree with most of what Bruce says, but it can be boiled down quite a bit. If America is a nation of principle rather than realpolitik (and it used to be, sometimes), then there is a principle at stake here.
Any statement about revised policy has to begin with words like these:
'Because the American commitment to democracy and peace is based on self-determination of the peoples, the United States supports and will defend the existence of a free and independent Great Kurdistan.'
Full stop, as the Brits say.
Of course, if we did that, the Turks, Russians, Persions and Arabs would be pissed at us. There's no downside, is there?
My position before this idiot war was started was that if you wanted to bring down Saddam, all you had to do was arm the Kurds.
I thought our pledge was to rid Iraq of WMDs not bring democracy to Iraq. Or was it to topple Saddam? Or was it to fight the Taliban over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here? Or was it to bring democracy to the region? Or was it to build a democratic and independent Iraq? Or was it WMDs again?
I dunno. What? me worry?
No wonder there is no way out. Damned if we stay, damned if we leave. This is a fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie.
Post a Comment