"There are precious few people who’ve been right about

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"There are precious few people who’ve been right about Iraq."
www.slate.com/articles/news_a...troops_in.html

The US (read: 'Obawma administration') never should have withdrawn troops from Iraq.

I'm not saying that I was right about Iraq from the start. I fell for the fake satellite photo just like Bush II did. And I had no reason to doubt it. Bush II, a blandly anti-intellectual combination of moral crusader and benevolent dictator, supported the US (and probably British) war and oil industries. If you go looking for a war to fight, you will surely find one in the Middle East.

However, as with most nations, the situation in Iraq is and was more complex than it seemed at first glance. Sunnis and Shias are fighting an internal Jihad to determine which vaguely justifiable interpretation of the Quran shall rule Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an external threat, but the real threat was cultural, not political.

The Bush II administration knew about the cultural conflict, but chose to ignore it in favor of fighting the easier battle, the one they knew the US could easily win. Soon after I learned about the cultural conflict, I realized that eliminating Hussein will actually do the Jihadists a huge favor. The real threat to US national security is the Jihadists, not Saddam Hussein. I knew this long before the Iraq II, yet I was duped by "whoever" into believing that Hussein was stockpiling WMDs, thus making Hussein the greater threat. (I was also disgruntled with UN inspectors in Iraq whom I was led to believe were being paid to look the other way.)

Once the invasion was completed, it was the US's (i.e., the Omama administration's) duty to keep troops in Iraq until true stability and self-reliance was obtained. Instead, in 2011, Obammy chose to divest himself of all responsibility for the situation in Iraq and blow sunshine up the ass of the entire world by lying and declaring that stability and national self-reliance was achieved.

This year, the Obammy administration was fully aware that Iraqi Jihadists were encamped in Iraq while they prepared for a new assault on their cultural opposition. But the Oblammy administration chose to ignore this threat - of course. Because the official position of this Presidency is that Iraq is stable and self-reliant. A stable and self-reliant Iraq is not prone to such things, although all the evidence pointed to the fact that Iraqi police don't know which part of a gun to hold onto, and furthermore, that they have nothing left to defend, culturally speaking, "democracy" being only an empty abstraction to them relative to 1500 years of Islamic history and its powerful psychological and cultural influence.

So of course the half-hearted and morally vacuous Iraq police and army abandoned their posts. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Zarathustra]

To be fair, Bush is the one who set up the timetable for withdraw from Iraq (though Obama still took the credit for it). However, I suppose Obama could have chosen to delay that if he'd wanted, so it's still on him to some extent. And now I hear we're going to do air strikes? This is starting to feel very familiar ...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I can see the logic of staying until everything is fixed, adhering to the maxim of "you broke it you fix it"; however, I think less damage will be caused in the long run if we simply leave quietly and completely given that we should never have stuck our nose in their business in the first place.

[ussusimiel]

I think Iraq (as well as many other Western adventures in the ME) shows a profound misunderstanding of the importance and persistence of culture, and a profound misunderstanding of democracy. Put simply, democracy is a western cultural value. To invade a country, dispense with its existing power structure, and then expect democratic principles to do their magic (because they are obviously 'good') is naive.

As has been pointed out in the OP, Islamic culture has been dominant in the ME for 1500 years. It is a form of arrogance to intervene in such a culture (in its myriad forms) in the expectation that it will simply go away and be replaced by some 'enlightened' Western version.

The West (especially the US) is involved in the region for the wrong reasons (geopolitics, oil etc.), and the effect is a clash of value systems. As has been pointed out by others (e.g. Cail and Hashi) probably the best form of contact between cultures that have little in common is economic. Pressure can be applied economically to countries. If you don't like the way they do things you don't buy their produce (e.g. oil).

I am in favour of a world body like the UN, but it is hamstrung by its reliance on the US for its military heft, and by the ability of the largest members to use the veto. A less powerful, but more evenly balanced (and centrally funded) body like the UN could be more effective. By taking on the role of world policeman it might lessen the need for US unilateralism. While it might not be able to stop individual countries from acting in their own interests, it would be free to isolate and levy direct criticism at countries it felt were behaving in a generally destructive/destabilising manner.

u.

[SoulBiter]

As I recall the Iraqi government asked us to leave.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I can see the logic of staying until everything is fixed, adhering to the maxim of "you broke it you fix it"; however, I think less damage will be caused in the long run if we simply leave quietly and completely given that we should never have stuck our nose in their business in the first place.

Assuming we should never have done so. However, that's not my point, and I realize you're not trying to make my point.

Taking out Iraq's leadership in order to create a new democratic ally in the region is a valid strategic move. There is nothing wrong with wanting oil, and if you'll recall, Iraq nationalized many of the oil fields they now possess in 1972 simply because they wanted more profit from oil sales.

To destroy a brutal dictatorship is not, in itself, a bad thing. To offer political freedom to a people who have never experienced it is not a bad thing either. But they need to be given time to adjust. To simply hand over freedom where it has never been experienced before and expect it to work is either proud, stupid, or arrogant.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

To be fair, Bush is the one who set up the timetable for withdraw from Iraq (though Obama still took the credit for it). However, I suppose Obama could have chosen to delay that if he'd wanted, so it's still on him to some extent. And now I hear we're going to do air strikes? This is starting to feel very familiar ...

Yes, Bush did set some kind of timetable as I recall - as stupid and utterly ignorant as it is to inform the enemy when you're planning on withdrawal while turning a blind eye to its existence.

However, Obama didn't have to follow that timetable.

[Avatar]

To destroy a brutal dictatorship is not, in itself, a bad thing. To offer political freedom to a people who have never experienced it is not a bad thing either. But they need to be given time to adjust. To simply hand over freedom where it has never been experienced before and expect it to work is either proud, stupid, or arrogant.

Agreed. And as always, my problem is not the removal of brutal dictators, but their removal only where it suits them.

--A

[ussusimiel]

To destroy a brutal dictatorship is not, in itself, a bad thing. To offer political freedom to a people who have never experienced it is not a bad thing either. But they need to be given time to adjust. To simply hand over freedom where it has never been experienced before and expect it to work is either proud, stupid, or arrogant.

Agreed. And as always, my problem is not the removal of brutal dictators, but their removal only where it suits them.

Agreed. And when countries act unilaterally they are inevitably going to do so out of self-interest.

I also think that 'political freedom' is relative term. One group's political freedom leads to liberal democracy, another's to a religious state, another's to fascist dictatorship. To build a genuine global society one vision/ideology cannot dominate. This is why, IMO, international decisions and actions need to be generally approved rather than unilaterally taken.

u.

[Vraith]

I also think that 'political freedom' is relative term. One group's political freedom leads to liberal democracy, another's to a religious state, another's to fascist dictatorship. To build a genuine global society one vision/ideology cannot dominate. This is why, IMO, international decisions and actions need to be generally approved rather than unilaterally taken.

u.

Hmmm...there has to be some flexibility in "political freedom"...or else there isn't really any freedom. You're right there.
And [skipping a couple lines] one vision has a similar problem from the outside/between separate regimes.

But isn't ideology slightly different from vision?...referring back to the skipped sentences...if it is pure it evolves into a kind of dictatorship. [or it prohibits the formation of dictatorship...depending on its axioms]
It may be possible to have some sort of religious state that also has political freedom...
But I don't think it is possible to have a dictatorship...fascist or otherwise...that includes political freedom.
I suppose some politically free folk could choose a dictatorial form initially...but once that's done, the freedom is gone. The foundations the things depend upon are mutually exclusive.

One could have one vision, though...that included, say, that power was divided...a sort of anti-trust/anti-monopoly law. [which is similar, but not necessarily identical to, the U.S. theoretical/ideological investment of power to states and people. We aren't doing it very well in a number of ways...for instance, if we were serious about it, we'd break up the Dem and Rep parties, among other things].

But to your earlier point on ignoring the preexisting culture: I don't know why we keep doing that. We've had enough lessons on it. We should know by now that the quick in-out won't get us what we say we want in these situations. [[assuming what we want is a freer, more just/humane gov't that lasts]].

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Taking out Iraq's leadership in order to create a new democratic ally in the region is a valid strategic move. There is nothing wrong with wanting oil, and if you'll recall, Iraq nationalized many of the oil fields they now possess in 1972 simply because they wanted more profit from oil sales.

To destroy a brutal dictatorship is not, in itself, a bad thing. To offer political freedom to a people who have never experienced it is not a bad thing either. But they need to be given time to adjust. To simply hand over freedom where it has never been experienced before and expect it to work is either proud, stupid, or arrogant.

The United States was not founded on the principle of "removing regimes which do not adhere to our beliefs about personal liberty"; thus, it is not our job to remove brutal dictatorships. That job/responsibility belongs to the people under the brutal dictatorship. There is no nation on the planet whose military is so powerful that if enough citizens rose up the government could quash them all. Even if they did then there wouldn't really be a country left to govern anymore, so the point would be moot.

Even as a young child, the first political lesson I learned by watching the news was that our support of the Shah of Iran, whether real or perceived, led directly to a revolution and a double handful of hostages being taken.

[Cybrweez]

The United States was not founded on the principle of "removing regimes which do not adhere to our beliefs about personal liberty";

You sure? I mean, the Native Americans didn't adhere to "our" beliefs. Nor the Mexicans. Nor the Hawaiians.

Foreign policy never a simple thing.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It isn't my fault that our predecessors didn't know any better. I would have advised them to take wiser courses of action in all those cases.

You are correct, though, that foreign policy is not simple. That being said, not telling some other nation how to run its business and not funding or aiding the opposition to that nation's government are simple.

[Avatar]

The United States was not founded on the principle of "removing regimes which do not adhere to our beliefs about personal liberty";

You sure? I mean, the Native Americans didn't adhere to "our" beliefs. Nor the Mexicans. Nor the Hawaiians.

Haha, good one 'Weez.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, not the Egyptian goddess) has taken control of most of a key refinery facility in Baiji, Iraq. This group is primarily Sunni so naturally Iran is now vowing that it will not tolerate any moves against Shiite holy places or people. The potential is there for Iran and Iraq to finally get back to being at war with one another.

Meanwhile, on the one hand the Obama Administration is looking into the prospects of working with Iran to stop ISIS but on the other hand the Administration is also looking into a limited drone strike program in Iran like we still have in Yemen. Make up your mind, Mr. President--either work with that government or drone them but don't try to do both.

My advice would be to get out of the region completely to let the Sunnis and Shiites finally go at it until one side decisively wins once and for all.

[Vraith]

What fun we're having there now...

Besides the already existing chaos of relations, two new little tidbits for everyone's food thought plate:

Apparently it only took between 4 and 800 of these guys to take a city of over a million people. Most of the Gov't troops and cops just dropped the uniforms and deserted.

Also apparently besides Syria...who we hate, of course...most of the rest of their support comes from Saudi Arabia. You know, our best friend in the M.E. besides Israel.

[wayfriend]

Middle Eastern Politics - A Love Story

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The Obama Administration would like to see Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resign from his office.

Is Mr. al-Maliki the duty elected representative of the Iraqi people? Did he win a majority of votes, either by the people directly or by Members of the Iraqi Parliament? If yes, then Iraq is free to ignore Washington's wishes and may continue to have its own government without our influence.
The problem with asking him to be out is this: whatever government gets put together after him will be seen as a puppet of the United States and this will undermine whatever legitimacy and credibility it had. We would be shooting them in the foot before they took their first step.