I was thinking about this the other day when I heard there was another spate of bombings.
I think we've pretty much fulfilled our obligation to Iraq created, IMO, when we went and kicked out Saddam.
That does not mean I think we should bail, by any means. It does mean that if they fail, I won't feel like it is *our* failure, but rather *their* failure.
From here on out, as far as I am concerned, our investment in Iraq is and should be based strictly on standard enlightened self-interest. Iraq should not be considered any differently than any other country, except insofar as it presents different opportunities.
Thoughts?
I think we are obligated to stay and help the government until they ask us to leave. My understanding is they want us to leave eventually so I think our interests and our obligations coincide.
Despite the recent string of bombings I am confident the war in Iraq is coming to a successful conclusion from our perspective.
I hear nothing but conflicting stories about the Iraqi army's abilities.
Some say its a load of incompetant nothings that will fold within days of the US leaving and on the other side some seem to think its better than many of their neighbours. Both seem likely untrue to me but if its more towards the latter then its safe to go.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:09:45 AM
I was thinking about this the other day when I heard there was another spate of bombings.
I think we've pretty much fulfilled our obligation to Iraq created, IMO, when we went and kicked out Saddam.
That does not mean I think we should bail, by any means. It does mean that if they fail, I won't feel like it is *our* failure, but rather *their* failure.
From here on out, as far as I am concerned, our investment in Iraq is and should be based strictly on standard enlightened self-interest. Iraq should not be considered any differently than any other country, except insofar as it presents different opportunities.
Thoughts?
let's say you buy a new house, from a contractor. The contractor comes and start excavating. He proceeds with the foundations, lay the square of the house, then leave halfway through it. He leaves you all the materials you need, but he simply goes on the another job. You have a house. 4 walls and a roof. He says it's not his fault if he can't finish the work, there has been constant interruption from your neighbors and he has busted, way busted the allocated time to build your house.
Are you satisfied that it is not his fault for not delivering a complete project?
Viper, I don't think your analogy holds to what we have done in Iraq.
More like we built them 14 different incredible mansions, and they keep blowing them up. At some point, the latest mansion was done, and they tell us they love it, and would like us to stop with the mansion building.
This analogy sucks. Building a house isn't much like trying to create a stable democratic state.
Anyway, I am not suggesting that we leave at all - we will continue to spend billions on Iraq for a long time, and we should - but we should do so because it is in *our* interests to do so, rather than because we are obligated to do so.
They have been given a golden opportunity. Perhaps it will work out in the long run, perhaps not. We should suport them as much as we can, but in he end all we can do is lead the horse to water, build him a well, draw the water up for him, and even cool it off.
The horse still has to drink.
I am surprised that you would take the attitude that we have not spent enough blood and treasure in Iraq. How much more must we spend before we have spent enough?
I think that we have some responsibility, and/or vested interest, in at least short term help working with the Iraqi govt in combatting violence and other agendas which may come up over the next few years or more. I feel it's in our interests to assure that other groups or nation's agendas, which we and the Iraqis have been opposing, do not find it easy to pursue their goals just because the US is drawing down its commitment there. Iraq turning into a civil war, or ruled by more extreme tyypes, or even the extreme of becoming a failed state serves us badly, even if we feel that we've done our part.
However, after some time, not sure how long, a few years or up to a decade, depending on conditions, once the Iraqis are quite stable then it's really up to them. And I think they've made a lot of gains to be very stable now, though we don't yet know what other groups may be waiting for opportune times as the US leaves.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:09:45 AM
I was thinking about this the other day when I heard there was another spate of bombings.
I think we've pretty much fulfilled our obligation to Iraq created, IMO, when we went and kicked out Saddam.
That does not mean I think we should bail, by any means. It does mean that if they fail, I won't feel like it is *our* failure, but rather *their* failure.
From here on out, as far as I am concerned, our investment in Iraq is and should be based strictly on standard enlightened self-interest. Iraq should not be considered any differently than any other country, except insofar as it presents different opportunities.
Thoughts?
Agree on pretty much every point.
I didn't think we owed them anything in the first place.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:09:45 AM
... our investment in Iraq is and should be based strictly on standard enlightened self-interest.
:lol: Not those of the iraqis of course. As a matter of fact, I don't recall the iraqui people asking for the help of the US to get rid of Saddam either. Instead of trying to export democracy you people should focus on the home front where right wing conservative nutjubs are arming themselves.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 05, 2009, 11:10:48 AM
As a matter of fact, I don't recall the iraqui people asking for the help of the US to get rid of Saddam either.
The question is not what the Iraqi people did or did not want us to do six years ago but what they want us to do now.
How long did it take the US to end occupation of other places where they helped to reconstruct their societies e.g. Japan, Germany, Mississippi in comparison to Iraq?
Quote from: Strix on May 05, 2009, 11:15:44 AM
How long did it take the US to end occupation of other places where they helped to reconstruct their societies e.g. Japan, Germany, Mississippi in comparison to Iraq?
Occupation in Germany de jure ended in 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalvertrag_Treaty
Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2009, 10:16:27 AM
let's say you buy a new house, from a contractor. The contractor comes and start excavating. He proceeds with the foundations, lay the square of the house, then leave halfway through it. He leaves you all the materials you need, but he simply goes on the another job. You have a house. 4 walls and a roof. He says it's not his fault if he can't finish the work, there has been constant interruption from your neighbors and he has busted, way busted the allocated time to build your house.
Are you satisfied that it is not his fault for not delivering a complete project?
Move over, Marti, there is a new King of the Irrelevant Analogies! :lol:
I cannot even tell from this whether the US (either the US govt or the US people) is the buyer or the contractor!
Never do analogies, Vipe.
Quote from: Grallon on May 05, 2009, 11:10:48 AM
:lol: Not those of the iraqis of course.
:lol: Of course not. People acting in the interest of foreign countries at the expense of the interests of their own country are called "traitors."
QuoteAs a matter of fact, I don't recall the iraqui people asking for the help of the US to get rid of Saddam either.
Poor memory? There were lots of Iraqi exile groups calling for the US to get rid of Saddam, as well as groups in Iraq who lived outside Saddam's control.
QuoteInstead of trying to export democracy you people should focus on the home front where right wing conservative nutjubs are arming themselves.
Already done, though enforcing gun laws is not competitive with foreign policy, so your "instead" makes zero sense.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 05, 2009, 11:20:52 AM
Occupation in Germany de jure ended in 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalvertrag_Treaty
And, de jure, it was a UN, not US, occupation.
the "obligations to remove saddam" still doesn't wash.
the US acted acted then as now out of perceived self interest. much like every other country involved in geopolitics.
next time, use more soap.
Quote from: Grallon on May 05, 2009, 11:10:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:09:45 AM
... our investment in Iraq is and should be based strictly on standard enlightened self-interest.
:lol: Not those of the iraqis of course. As a matter of fact, I don't recall the iraqui people asking for the help of the US to get rid of Saddam either. Instead of trying to export democracy you people should focus on the home front where right wing conservative nutjubs are arming themselves.
G.
Right. Will do!
Thanks for the input, Mr. Left Wing Nutjob!
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:09:45 AM
I was thinking about this the other day when I heard there was another spate of bombings.
I think we've pretty much fulfilled our obligation to Iraq created, IMO, when we went and kicked out Saddam.
That does not mean I think we should bail, by any means. It does mean that if they fail, I won't feel like it is *our* failure, but rather *their* failure.
From here on out, as far as I am concerned, our investment in Iraq is and should be based strictly on standard enlightened self-interest. Iraq should not be considered any differently than any other country, except insofar as it presents different opportunities.
Thoughts?
Good for you.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 05, 2009, 11:35:58 AM
the "obligations to remove saddam" still doesn't wash.
I am sure it doesn't wash, but then, you just made up that quote, so it is hardly surprising.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:09:45 AM
I think we've pretty much fulfilled our obligation to Iraq created, IMO, when we went and kicked out Saddam.
Thoughts?
Apparently not.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 05, 2009, 11:35:58 AM
the "obligations to remove saddam" still doesn't wash.
the US acted acted then as now out of perceived self interest. much like every other country involved in geopolitics.
next time, use more soap.
No no no we are talking about our obligations after we removed Saddam.
I also do not understand the point of saying we consider our interests in deciding what to do....so fucking what? Grass is green and the sky is blue. That does not mean there are no other considerations. People are capable of having complex motives and not everything is black and white. There is a question of justice, after we went in and fucked up everything we do have a responsibility to build it back up again...and it so happens we benefit with an Iraq built back up and suffer with a failed Iraq also.
Semi-serious thought here, what really has changed since the campaigns of 10 months ago when many people were upset about "cutting and running" from Iraq? Is there just a growing sense that the Iraqi internal solution is just not working?
Quote from: PDH on May 05, 2009, 11:54:52 AM
Semi-serious thought here, what really has changed since the campaigns of 10 months ago when many people were upset about "cutting and running" from Iraq? Is there just a growing sense that the Iraqi internal solution is just not working?
I thought the sense was that Iraq was about on as firm a footing as it is going to be and the Iraqi government is feeling secure enough to start asking us to cut down force levels.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 11:57:17 AM
I thought the sense was that Iraq was about on as firm a footing as it is going to be and the Iraqi government is feeling secure enough to start asking us to cut down force levels.
That is why I asked. The recent month of violence seems to show that divisions and problems are still there, and was it just a sense that the Iraqi government can't get its shit together driving such thoughts as the IP? I don't know, that is why it was a question rather than a basic languish papal pronouncement.
Quote from: PDH on May 05, 2009, 11:54:52 AM
Semi-serious thought here, what really has changed since the campaigns of 10 months ago when many people were upset about "cutting and running" from Iraq? Is there just a growing sense that the Iraqi internal solution is just not working?
I can't speak for anyone else, but that is not my feeling at all.
My problem with the lefts "Cut and run" strategy was that it was motivated by a desire to ensure that the Iraq operation was seen as a failure. They wanted to, literally, cut and run.
What is going on now is that we are pullign out after achieving a level of success we feel comfortable with. I am very glad we are doing so for the right reasons, and can live with the left takling credit, since I care more about results than I do about ideology and 'getting" anyone.
So, what has changed, in my mind, is that I think the US and those allies who helped have achieved a basic level of success such that we can reasonably say (and by reasonably I mean reasonable to myself, not just cover for public consumption, which is a MUCH lower bar) that we ahve in fact led the Iraqi horse to water, and now it is up to them to drink, so to speak.
All the US could ever do is set up the conditions for Iraq to succeed - we cannot and could not do more. We could certainly do MUCH less - and in fact the "Hate Bush First" crowd insisted that we should in fact do much less. I think we have done enough, however, to say that we have given them a credible shot at making it work, and if it doesn't now, then it is mainly on them.
We can and should, of course, continue to help them, but on no different fundamental terms than we help any other country. We may help them a lot more, but only because there is a lot more potential gain from doing so, compared to the investment.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 10:09:45 AM
I was thinking about this the other day when I heard there was another spate of bombings.
I think we've pretty much fulfilled our obligation to Iraq created, IMO, when we went and kicked out Saddam.
That does not mean I think we should bail, by any means. It does mean that if they fail, I won't feel like it is *our* failure, but rather *their* failure.
From here on out, as far as I am concerned, our investment in Iraq is and should be based strictly on standard enlightened self-interest. Iraq should not be considered any differently than any other country, except insofar as it presents different opportunities.
Thoughts?
I'm curious, what defined the break point between our responsibility and their responsibility in your opinion?
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 12:08:01 PM
I'm curious, what defined the break point between our responsibility and their responsibility in your opinion?
That is a good question - not really sure I have a good, objective answer though.
I guess it is just an accumulation of the results and the costs, and the realization that I do not emotionally think that if we leave and a year later it has turned into a mess *I* would feel like we bailed on them, and it is our fault. I would feel more like we did our best, and if it wasn't enough, nothing would be.
Not a very satisfying answer, I know.
edit: and to be honest, I don't think there is a defined "breaking point" really - it was always a combined effort, no clear demarcation line, just a gradually shifting burden, I guess.
Whether or not a 'debt' has been 'paid' depends on how functioning states are formed (note that I deliberately do not mention democratic there).
There is little debate from the non-partisan scholars I have heard, met or read that the US ballsed up the initial occupation. No complaints about the military campaign: that worked superbly. But there were simply too few troops on the ground to enforce order, and local resources were mishandled. The decision not to bring the Iraqi army back to work to try and keep order is particularly roundly criticised.
As a result, the latent ethnic tensions and various actors' desires for power and profit combined to exploit the temporary anarchy. We've seen dynamics like this in Bosnia and Somalia - with the former only having held together because of concerted international pressure since 1995 (since 1994 if you consider the Croat-Muslim alliance).
I see some key parallels to Bosnia (I would, though, wouldn't I :P). Although it was not the direct fault of the West that the state collapsed, and there are other key differences in the nature of the combatants, some lessons were plain to see for the Coalition states in 2003.
Firstly, there are people whose interests are simply not served by peace. War or thuggery, for them, is a tool for political power or economic gain. Then there are political entrepreneurs can see an opportunity to whip up fear and hatred to solidify their own base (see Karadzic and Milosevic for examples of how to do this). And there are just people who are plain afraid of other ethnicities in such situations.
So an otherwise decent person has to therefore try to find safety in the local militia, or criminal gang. One great example of this was the initial defence of Sarajevo in 1992. The regulars were not ready, so the only thing between the Bosnian Muslims and annihilation in the city were the mafia. And the toxic links between government and crime because of that war persist to this day in all communities.
Even extensive international involvement, to the point of proconsulship, has been unable to scrub the Bosnian political class clean. Emotions are too strong; memories fresh; and the real issues that actually bother voters (especially corruption) remain untouched while the politicians scream at each other about secession and constitutional reform.
These are all lessons that had been learnt and extensively documented in the peacebuilding literature by 2000 - three years before Iraq.
The comparison has been made to occupation of Germany, where extensive local apparatus that generally functioned well existed. The German regime had been repulsive; but it had also been an effective, modern, bureaucratic state at plenty of levels. It also had a well educated population and a sound economic base, provided the Allies chose to help redevelop it. And the Allies had enough troops on the ground to impose order, and the locals had little appetite for resistance, so the project had a number of factors in its favour.
So my point is basically that assumptions that a functioning state apparatus can just emerge are overly naive; it is unfair to assume that the Iraqis could have just picked up the pieces given the nature of Saddam's state. Political violence, corruption, ethnic division and minority rule, had all characterised his regime. Remove the iron fist, and you have an extremely high risk of disaster. The Coalition did not do enough to mitigate this risk in Iraq. On this basis, I would therefore say the debt lies more heavily with the US; though of course we cannot excuse in any way the Iraqis who chose to abuse the anarchy.
Yet the US government and military made a genuinely sincere effort to address its failure - hence the Surge. I know political efforts have perhaps lagged because of domestic Iraqi difficulties.
But there can be no denying the blood and treasure America has expended in trying to rectify its mistakes. Whereas in 2004, British officers shook their heads at events up north as they put on their berets and smugly recounted 'the experience of Northern Ireland', in 2009 these same officers are quietly astonished and impressed by the capacity of the US military to sit down, learn, and implement.
So my conclusion would then be that this debt is probably paid off. However, that in no way excuses the initial, highly naive, assumption that you can knock a government like Saddam's down and expect there to be social harmony. It just doesn't happen. And that has to be figured into the planning and execution - anything less is negligence. On the other hand, this does not detract from the decision to stick it out and give the Iraqis another shot.
Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2009, 12:11:57 PM
So my conclusion would then be that this debt is probably paid off. However, that in no way excuses the initial, highly naive, assumption that you can knock a government like Saddam's down and expect there to be social harmony. It just doesn't happen. And that has to be figured into the planning and execution - anything less is negligence.
Agree, certainly. Even to the extent that if this "debt" I am talking about (which s really jsut a short hand way of referring to something considerably more complex and not nearly as "neat" as I make it out to be) existed, it was largely multiplied by the inept and naive handling of the war to begin with.
I guess that is the curse of our government system - it never really has much "memory" and has to re-learn lessons over and over again. the naivete of the administration after that military operations conclude is simply breathtaking in hindsight - but even worse, it was rather obvious at the time as well.
I haven't read much about the decision-making dynamics within the administration, but it is not the case that there were some warnings sounded from other parts of government and military? I heard someone once make a throwaway comment that the Bush team 'threw out the State Department plan'. Is this true in any way?
Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2009, 12:22:00 PM
I haven't read much about the decision-making dynamics within the administration, but it is not the case that there were some warnings sounded from other parts of government and military? I heard someone once make a throwaway comment that the Bush team 'threw out the State Department plan'. Is this true in any way?
There was plenty of warnings, from a variety of sources.
hell, we argued about it on languish plenty. I looked like even more of an idiot than usual, since I took the position that just because we didn't see a plan doesn't mean there wasn't one - that the plan was likely classified, and telling the insurgents your plan is a good way to tell them how to counter it.
Turns out I was wrong, and there really wasn't a plan beyond
1. Invade Iraq
2. ???
3. Democracy and Freedom!
But yeah, people in the military said they would need a LOT more troops, and the State Department was seemingly pushed aside.
I don't follow. In what way did America finally create the conditions for success? What were those?
I agree that at some point the issue is up to Iraq, but it's unclear at what point that is.
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2009, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 05, 2009, 11:20:52 AM
Occupation in Germany de jure ended in 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalvertrag_Treaty
And, de jure, it was a UN, not US, occupation.
And yet the brutal US occupation of Japan continues to this day. US rape-gangs prowl Okinawa day and night, looking for schoolgirls to ravage.
Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2009, 12:22:00 PM
I haven't read much about the decision-making dynamics within the administration, but it is not the case that there were some warnings sounded from other parts of government and military? I heard someone once make a throwaway comment that the Bush team 'threw out the State Department plan'. Is this true in any way?
It was a slam dunk.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 12:08:01 PM
I'm curious, what defined the break point between our responsibility and their responsibility in your opinion?
That is a good question - not really sure I have a good, objective answer though.
I guess it is just an accumulation of the results and the costs, and the realization that I do not emotionally think that if we leave and a year later it has turned into a mess *I* would feel like we bailed on them, and it is our fault. I would feel more like we did our best, and if it wasn't enough, nothing would be.
Not a very satisfying answer, I know.
edit: and to be honest, I don't think there is a defined "breaking point" really - it was always a combined effort, no clear demarcation line, just a gradually shifting burden, I guess.
Fair enough. I'm trying to get a handle on this myself, and I'm never satisfied with subjective answers, so I've been trying to find some metric on which to judge results. I was hoping you'd thought of something I hadn't.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 05, 2009, 11:35:58 AM
the "obligations to remove saddam" still doesn't wash.
:lmfao: Dude, it is your strawman, so don't knock it!
I agree that it doesn't wash, but since you have been the only person to attempt to raise the issue of this so-called obligation, I think if we ignore you the lack of washing doesn't matter.
Quotethe US acted acted then as now out of perceived self interest. much like every other country involved in geopolitics.
Exactly, and I think everyone here is arguing that position.
Quotenext time, use more soap.
Next time, use less straw.
Interesting question Berkut.
My gut instinct is that if the debt isn't paid yet, it's getting pretty damn close. However, I'll have to admit that that's not based on a particular in depth analysis but is rather instinctual; in fact it could be simple "Iraq fatigue" speaking.
Attempting to analyse it a bit I agree that the US has paid a significant cost in blood, treasure and other effort. It seems to me that Iraq's current state has improved significantly. There is still room for a lot of things to get better, but the cost of that, I think would be magnitudes higher. I am not sure it is reasonable to expect.
In the end, of course, whether now is a reasonable time to pull out really depends on what comes after. If Iraq goes straight to hell and gets super toxic, no matter how much good faith effort was put into the place previously, the US will share a significant part of the responsibility. Conversely, if it putters along more or less the same as it is now or with mild improvements then it's reasonably acceptable I think; Saddam is gone, many people died, Iraqis have some sort of chance to improve under their own efforts. Finally, if things start getting better and continue to improve significantly then obviously everything is good and the US can clearly be said to have paid it's debt.
The doubt is not about the US's effort, the US has certainly not shirked, but about the results.
He who pull out too fast leave rubber behind.
Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2009, 12:22:00 PM
I haven't read much about the decision-making dynamics within the administration, but it is not the case that there were some warnings sounded from other parts of government and military? I heard someone once make a throwaway comment that the Bush team 'threw out the State Department plan'. Is this true in any way?
Yes. As Berkut noted, the administration (and, specifically, Cheney) ridiculed the idea that anything like the State Department's detailed and expensive plan was necessary. Cheney knew he was brilliant enough to invent an occupation plan on the spot, and update it instantaneously as necessary.
Cheney failed miserably (and would have been humiliated had the press any balls), of course. Even in the absence of gods, hubris almost always results in an own goal.
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 12:33:04 PM
Fair enough. I'm trying to get a handle on this myself, and I'm never satisfied with subjective answers, so I've been trying to find some metric on which to judge results. I was hoping you'd thought of something I hadn't.
A fast-and-dirty mark is probably the provision of the second relatively free and fair election. The first one is almost always a goatfuck, with some areas not able to fully participate. The second one, if free and fair, creates a credible national government, and at that point the usurpers of the government have done their duty.
I actually wonder how the pullout is going...
Supposedly we were supposed to be leaving the streets next month, is that still happening?
Out of the loop since I'm back here...
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2009, 12:38:25 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 05, 2009, 11:35:58 AM
the "obligations to remove saddam" still doesn't wash.
:lmfao: Dude, it is your strawman, so don't knock it!
I agree that it doesn't wash, but since you have been the only person to attempt to raise the issue of this so-called obligation, I think if we ignore you the lack of washing doesn't matter.
Quotethe US acted acted then as now out of perceived self interest. much like every other country involved in geopolitics.
Exactly, and I think everyone here is arguing that position.
Quotenext time, use more soap.
Next time, use less straw.
the OP made explicit reference to an obligation. whatever.
I understood Berk's post as that the U.S. created an obligation towards Iraq when they removed Saddam, not that they had an obligation to remove Saddam. :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2009, 02:13:27 PM
I understood Berk's post as that the U.S. created an obligation towards Iraq when they removed Saddam, not that they had an obligation to remove Saddam. :unsure:
:yes:
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2009, 02:13:27 PM
I understood Berk's post as that the U.S. created an obligation towards Iraq when they removed Saddam, not that they had an obligation to remove Saddam. :unsure:
Is that where the confusion is coming from? Yeah I saw nothing in Berk's post that suggested that we had an obligation to Iraq to remove Saddam. I am not sure where Sask and Grallon got the idea that was what this thread was about.
Well, what worries me of the situation in Iraq is that Al-Qaeda has a vested interest in maintaining the war in Iraq going, so we cannot focus our combat power in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 10:11:46 AMDespite the recent string of bombings I am confident the war in Iraq is coming to a successful conclusion from our perspective.
Don't be so sure. The US has had to stop paying the Sons of Iraq under the SOFA, meanwhile the Iraqis still haven't hired many of them and, given that their budget has been cut by 40% in the last year, they couldn't even integrate them into the military if they wanted to.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 12:24:54 PMThere was plenty of warnings, from a variety of sources.
hell, we argued about it on languish plenty. I looked like even more of an idiot than usual, since I took the position that just because we didn't see a plan doesn't mean there wasn't one - that the plan was likely classified, and telling the insurgents your plan is a good way to tell them how to counter it.
I remember articles by experienced Arabists saying that Shia and Sunni would probably come to blows being dismissed because they were written by experienced Arabists, and thus prejudiced. I think I dismissed a few myself.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2009, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2009, 10:11:46 AMDespite the recent string of bombings I am confident the war in Iraq is coming to a successful conclusion from our perspective.
Don't be so sure. The US has had to stop paying the Sons of Iraq under the SOFA, meanwhile the Iraqis still haven't hired many of them and, given that their budget has been cut by 40% in the last year, they couldn't even integrate them into the military if they wanted to.
That is certainly concerning - but I imagine the hope is that the central government is strong enough (and the insurgency momentum is weak enough) that it won't matter...that much.
I am certainly not comfortable that it will all be sun and roses from here on out...but I do think our part as the primary player is largely done, and on generally positive terms, in the overall balance.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2009, 02:56:22 PMThat is certainly concerning - but I imagine the hope is that the central government is strong enough (and the insurgency momentum is weak enough) that it won't matter...that much.
But I think fighting an insurgent or a militia that's Sunni takes on a different character when there aren't very many Sunnis in many levels of the government. I mean I think around 70% of the Army's top brass have links with the Badr Brigades. The danger is that the government behaves like a militia with the legitimacy of a state, which I think it came dangerously close to prior to the recruitment of the Sons of Iraq.
I don't see how this is about a debt being paid. It's not like we took out Saddam just because he was extra 'evil.' If Iraq becomes hostile to US after we leave, the whole thing was for nothing.