Iraq falling apart?

[Tamas]

The situation which forms after your military invasion and during your military control is fully your responsibility.
I don't understand how is this even debatable?

Are you telling me that stuff like the post-WW2 rebuild success stories have nothing to do with the foreign powers being involved in West Germany and Japan for example? Than what is the point of military intervention?

[Martinus]

  

The most successful troll on Languish - his success is that noone ever calls him a troll.

[Berkut]

The situation which forms after your military invasion and during your military control is fully your responsibility.

To some extent that is true - fully? Absolutely not.

And we are not talking about the situation after our invasion of Iraq, but the situation after our invasion, and after nearly a decade of post-invasion rebuilding.

Are we resposible now for Iraq forever and ever, no matter what they do themselves? Can they never be responsible for themselves ever again?

I don't understand how is this even debatable?

I don't understand either. The basic idea of self rule seems to be a pretty established principle by now.

Are you telling me that stuff like the post-WW2 rebuild success stories have nothing to do with the foreign powers being involved in West Germany and Japan for example?

Of course not - why would you get any idea like that? Have you read anything I've said, or just listened to Raz and Marty?

Than what is the point of military intervention?

Generally to take out some threat. What is the point of your question?

[Berkut]

You can make a compelling argument that the entire war was a mistake (although your strawman reasons for why the US went to war make your argument weaker), but that doesn't mean you can make a compelling argument that the US is responsible if Iraq cannot create a stable state.

The problems with Iraq today, to the extent that they exist, are intrinsic to the region and the people who live there - they were not created by the actions of the US. At worst, the US removed the temporary "solution" that kept a facade of stability in place as long as Saddam was willing to simply murder anyone who opposed him.

So no, the chain of casualty does NOT lead to the US, it leads to Saddam Hussein and those who supported him. Why would you stop the chain at GF2, rather than follow it back to GF1, and what started THAT war? Absent Saddam invading Kuwait, he is likely still sitting in one of his many palaces killing people who are trying to depose him.

Finally, if you want to call Iraq even pre-GF1 "stable", it shows a somewhat simplistic view of the country. Like all dictatorships, Saddams hold on the country was based on fear and war. He had a war with Iran that went on damn near forever, and left his country in debt to Kuwait to the tune of some $30 billion. He had wars with his own people. He manufactured claims to Kuwait, and invaded. The war with Iran ended just two years before the invasion of Kuwait.

Is that stability? A state the relies on being at war with its neighbours in order to keep its own populace in line, and when that doesn't work, it simply goes to war with its populace instead?

The idea that the US (rather the UN really, since it was a UN operation) should have just sat back and let him happen so as to not be responsible for what might happen in Iraq some 20+ years later is rather...well, crazy. Hell, the Brits were the first to tell Iraq to back off from Kuwait back in the 60s when they threatened to take it over. Guaranteeing the integrity of Kuwait was not some crazy idea thought up by the crazy Americans.

The "chain of casualty" that ends in Iraq today goes back much further than GF2. Absent GF2, there is no reason to believe that Iraq would be in better shape today, or with a better opportunity for a stable future, than they have right now.

Firstly, claiming that the regime change argument that was advanced as justification for the war is just a "strawman" that I happened to make up is simply risible and mind-numbing in its dishonesty. 


Secondly, the chain of responsibility for the US for the current situation does begin at Iraq 2, because (a) everyone knew the situation was fucked up in the first place,

SO everyone knowing that the situation was fucked up somehow makes the fact that it WAS fucked up somehow not matter in evaluating the current situation? Huh?

How does that make any sense at all? Yes, prior to GF2 the situation was a mess, and everyone knows that. The doesn't somehow reset responsiblity for how it got that way.

and (b) the US decided to take it upon itself to manufacture a war there in 2003. 

That is a rather telling way to look at the situation, that illuminates your entire agenda in the argument.

But in any case, whether the US "manufactured" a war or not, it doesn't change the fact that if the US had NOT engaged in GF2, it is crazy to pretend like everything in Iraq would be just fine absent GF2. It would not be, Iraq would be a disaster, just like it has been since 1979.

Stating that, "well, there was instability there in 1980!" may be true, but it is irrelevant, because the US completely voluntarily intervened in 2003 and overthrew the existing order. As such, it then assumed considerable responsibility for the ensuing order. 

I would agree that the US did in fact assume responsibility for Iraq by taking over - my point is that that does not mean that the US is forever and ever responsible for Iraq, and by extension Iraq can never be responsible for themselves. The US has fulfileed, and then some, the responsibility they created by their actions. If Iraq fails at this point, it is on them.

And I most certainly do not agree with this revisionist history that Iraq was a-ok before the US stuck its nose in. The US stuck its nose in as a direct result of Iraq being a freaking disaster in progress. That may have been a mistake, but not because it means that the US is forever responsible for the future of Iraq.

Notice how nobody (except perhaps a lunatic fringe) holds the US responsible for instability in say, Nepal, because the US has no meaningful involvement there.  The same can't be said for Iraq.

Of course - but the lunatic fringe does hold the US responsible for Iraq, well beyond any reasonable understanding that the problems in Iraq were not created by the US. The reason that Iraq falls apart (if in fact they do fall apart) will not be because the US created an unstable situation from a stable one, or destroyed a working state.

At worst, you can say the US tried to create a working state from a non-working state, and failed, and that was stupid because they should have known it would fail. But that is vastly different from the idea that Iraq would actually be better off (much less their neighbors) if only the US hadn't fucked the place up.

[Razgovory]

What is your "agenda", Berkut?  And how does it differ from PP's "agenda".

[The Brain]

The US has fulfileed,

Great, now I'm hungry.

[Berkut]

What is your "agenda", Berkut? 

To remember how pointless it is to engage in any discussion with you.

[Camerus]

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

[Berkut]

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

My disagreement with you has nothing to do with your temerity to suggest that the US fucked up in Iraq, as I've made clear several times.

My disagreement is with the claim that because the US intervened, they are now forever and ever responsible for whatever happens in Iraq, no matter what they do and how much we've spent to give them the opportunity to create or re-create a better state.

I think that is both unfair to the US, and even more unfair to the Iraqis - they are not little children who are somehow innately incapable of self governance, and hence someone else has to be responsible for them.

My point is very simple, and frankly I am surprised it is even debated. To the extent that Iraq fails to create a successful and stable state, it will be because of intrinsic problems that existed in that country long before the US got involved in GF1 or GF2.

To use one of Marty's famous analogy's, the house was on fire before we came along. We may have failed to put the fire out, but we didn't start it to begin with. And at the least we kept it from spreading.

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

[11B4V]

 

[11B4V]

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

[The Brain]

I think that is both unfair to the US, and even more unfair to the Iraqis - they are not little children who are somehow innately incapable of self governance, and hence someone else has to be responsible for them.

Is this why the US stepped in and took responsibility for them?

[11B4V]

Eh, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink it.

[Valmy]

*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.

[grumbler]

Obviously the US took part in the situation that ended with Iraq in an unstable state. That doesn't make them responsible for it, when actions taken by Iraq directly precipitated the response that ended with them on the losing end of a war they started.

And the fact that the US took a part in creating instability has no bearing on whether or not Iraq itself is primarily responsible for their own stability and security once the US and allies have done all that is reasonably necessary to allow them to succeed assuming a basic desire and capability to do so. The US fucked up Iraq, and then the US paid through the nose to give them every chance to put things back together.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force them to drink. We fucking built the horse a gold plated river of water right up to its nose. Now it is up to them to decided if they want to drink, or would rather just fall apart. More to the point, I don't think the US staying longer will matter in the long run anyway. They are either capable of governing themselves, or they are not. If they are not, us keeping them from trying for another decade won't help, and may very well hurt.

The argument that Iraq was stable before it engaged in the invasion of Kuwait is absurd.  Iraq had military coups in 1941, 1958, 1963, and 1968, and civil wars/rebellions almost constantly since it was created.  Calling the US a "major source" of Iraqi instability is like calling your leaking faucet a "major source" of the Great Lakes.