Iraq falling apart?

[Berkut]

*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.

Meh people are not going to be charitable to us.  Especially since politicians in the US will not be and blame each other for failing in Iraq.

Oh, I realize that.

Doesn't mean I have to sit there and listen to people spout the stupid without comment though.

It's like blaming the Obama administration - it might be easy to do (and I am sure the conservitards will do so because why wouldn't they), but that doesn't make it accurate, and bullshit should not go unchallenged.

[11B4V]

*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.

Meh people are not going to be charitable to us.  Especially since politicians in the US will not be and blame each other for failing in Iraq.

True, but the US doesnt need any charity and I for one wouldnt want it or need it anyway.

[Sheilbh]

I think we failed and are responsible for the collapse of the Iraqi state.  But I'd make three points on this.

Firstly I don't think the status of Iraq as a failed state (and an unstable one) prior to the war matters.  We would hardly have gone to war, seeking regime change and to stabilise the Middle East, with a stable and successful state.  If the problems of Iraq were insurmountable then that doesn't excuse the war or our actions, it just further damns them.  If we went into a war that could not possible succeed in achieving our goals - which were humanitarian - then our leaders deserve even more condemnation than they get for invading and fucking up.

Secondly I think we are responsible for the Iraqi civil war.  The reason the surge happened and was necessary in 2006 was because for 3 years we had not put enough troops to provide security, from a British perspective this is particularly the case.  We enabled extremists like al-Qaeda to provoke a civil war through attacks on the Shias and were the occupying power while Shia and Sunni death squads ethnically cleansed neighbourhood.  We failed to provide the security necessary for a settlement in Iraq for 3 years while the situation got worse.  So, I think, problems that arise from that civil war are our responsibility.  In my opinion most problems that are currently coming to a head in Iraq do stem from the civil war.

Third is that the surge did provide security.  As I've always said it would provide security but would mean nothing without a political settlement.  The hope of the surge had to be that it would enable a settlement, that the pause in the violence would allow the parties to come together.  The fear I had was that actually the Shia parties would consolidate power and Americans would end their role in Iraq with the Shia clapping them out and the Sunni wishing they'd stay.  Sadly, I think that's happened.  This isn't our responsibility except for one detail.  Bush had a Putin moment with Maliki and basically saw into his soul and decided to back him very strongly.  I think that was probably an error.  But aside from that in this period I think there's little the US could have done that they didn't.  The surge worked, but didn't lead to a settlement.  Biden as Senator, with Bush's position, and as VP has been trying for years to work a deal out with the Iraqis.  He's on the phone to different Iraqi leaders on a daily basis trying to broker a deal and his personal commitment to trying to solve the problems I think reflects well on him and more general US policy.

From here on in it's ridiculous to assign blame.  I said in 2008 that Obama and McCain would have the same policy on Iraq.  The policy for the past 3 years has been set by the SOFA that was agreed by Bush and was the longest running it could have been.  Short of unilaterally re-occupying the country it's difficult to see what could be done to stop an authoritarian PM getting rid of you as agreed.

[11B4V]

It's like blaming the Obama administration - it might be easy to do (and I am sure the conservitards will do so because why wouldn't they), but that doesn't make it accurate, and bullshit should not go unchallenged.

IMO, he(Obama) got handed at shit sandwich.

[Valmy]

True, but the US doesnt need any charity and I for one wouldnt want it or need it anyway.

Um I obviously did not mean charity I meant giving us the benefit of the doubt.  You want everybody to assume the worst of us and wouldn't want it any other way?  Weird.

[grumbler]

How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?

Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?

I am the unstable one.

Took you long enough! 

The only way to avoid instability is to avoid responding to Raz's comments.  You cannot enter a Raztroll and expect an intellectual argument to break out.

[11B4V]

True, but the US doesnt need any charity and I for one wouldnt want it or need it anyway.

Um I obviously did not mean charity I meant giving us the benefit of the doubt.  You want everybody to assume the worst of us and wouldn't want it any other way?  Weird.

Ah, your clarification changes that. I dont want their benefit of the doubt.

[Valmy]

Ah, your clarification changes that. I dont want their benefit of the doubt.

Well good for you.  Anyway I was not saying what you wanted just stating what I believe to be true.

[grumbler]

I love how Berkut suddenly ascribes to me a hidden "agenda" of some kind, when in fact it is simply a manifestation of his paranoia at those who would criticize some element of America's foreign policy. I love the US, and fully support its ideals and think it is positively a force for good in the world, and I challenge you to think of a time when I was irrationally criticizing it.  But because I have the temerity to suggest it might have fucked up something (i.e. the current situation in Iraq), Berkut concludes I must have an "agenda."

I would certainly argue that you choose your words for their rhetorical effect, not their semantic content.  The US didn't "manufacture" the Iraq crisis in 2003; things had been going to shit there for a very long time, a fact that you have ignored in all of your pronouncements.

I'm afraid if anyone on this board has an "agenda" whenever discussions of US foreign policy come up, it is not me.

Your lack of self-knowledge is unsurprising.  I don't think anyone is fooled by you but yourself, however.

[11B4V]

Ah, your clarification changes that. I dont want their benefit of the doubt.

Well good for you.  Anyway I was not saying what you wanted just stating what I believe to be true.

Understood and good to go. Moving on.

[grumbler]

I think we failed and are responsible for the collapse of the Iraqi state.

You may have failed, and you may, indeed, be responsible for the collapse of the Iraqi state, but when did the Iraqi state collapse, what caused it to be restored to its current, uncollapsed state, and what, exactly, did you do?

Firstly I don't think the status of Iraq as a failed state (and an unstable one) prior to the war matters.  We would hardly have gone to war, seeking regime change and to stabilise the Middle East, with a stable and successful state.  If the problems of Iraq were insurmountable then that doesn't excuse the war or our actions, it just further damns them.  If we went into a war that could not possible succeed in achieving our goals - which were humanitarian - then our leaders deserve even more condemnation than they get for invading and fucking up.

Disagree, because the outcome of the invasion isn't a binary outcome.  You can argue that the resulting Iraqi state isn't strong enough nor brings sufficient benefits to its people, but you cannot argue that thet status of Iraq in the absence of an intervention is a factor in deciding on whether or not to intervene.  I think that your success in achieving your goals cannot be determined as yet; if you had the benefit for the people of Iraq as your objective, then only the Iraqis themselves will be able to say whether or not your efforts were a mistake, and even then only in hindsight.

Secondly I think we are responsible for the Iraqi civil war.  The reason the surge happened and was necessary in 2006 was because for 3 years we had not put enough troops to provide security, from a British perspective this is particularly the case.  We enabled extremists like al-Qaeda to provoke a civil war through attacks on the Shias and were the occupying power while Shia and Sunni death squads ethnically cleansed neighbourhood.  We failed to provide the security necessary for a settlement in Iraq for 3 years while the situation got worse.  So, I think, problems that arise from that civil war are our responsibility.  In my opinion most problems that are currently coming to a head in Iraq do stem from the civil war.

I think this is a valid confession.  You didn't put in the needed troops to fulfill your responsibilities.  Had you (and your allies) committed sufficient troops, the Iraqi Civil war would have been delayed by years.

[The Brain]

People here should relax a bit. The important thing is that Iraq didn't turn into another Vietnam.

[PDH]

People here should relax a bit. The important thing is that Iraq didn't turn into another Vietnam.

Not enough jungle.

[Razgovory]

How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?

Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?

I am the unstable one.

Took you long enough! 

The only way to avoid instability is to avoid responding to Raz's comments.  You cannot enter a Raztroll and expect an intellectual argument to break out.

Congrats Berkut, you got Grumbler on your side.  And he's paraphrasing Marty analogies.  You know you are the winning side now.

[grumbler]

People here should relax a bit. The important thing is that Iraq didn't turn into another Vietnam.

That's because Abdul don't surf.