Iraq open thread #7

Hi. I’m traveling back from London to Virginia today. I’ve been working a little on writing a post about British attitudes to the Iraq war– in the wake of the Basra bust-up earlier this week and in the lead-up to the Labor Party conference of next week.
But it’s not ready yet. And I might not get onto a good connection to post it here before I get home this evening.
So let me leave this open thread for y’all to discuss the US-Iraq war in my absence from cyberspace.

10 thoughts on “Iraq open thread #7”

  1. Where are the leaders in the Democratic party, and our need to withdraw from Iraq? They constantly ask me for contributions,and yet not action on getting out. Are they ashamed because they were sucked into voting for war by Bush?
    I frankly do not understand the situation.
    Someone explain it to me.

  2. My guess is that most still ascribe to the Pottery Barn rule. You have to admit that there is something wrong about cruising into a country, breaking everything and then taking off, leaving bloody anarchy in our wake.
    One idea I had recently regarding how to fix this is perhaps tying our withdrawal to Sunni acceptance of this or a future constitution. Basically, we say publicly that we leave as soon as there is a constitution ratified and a government elected under it. This would force the Sunni Arabs to decide which they hate more, the US occupation or whatever constitution the Kurds and Shi’ites pass over their heads. Of course, there is always the likely possibility that they will just keep fighting no matter what, but to me, this looks like the best plan in a field of bad plans. Opinions?

  4. Shochu John wrote:
    “This would force the Sunni Arabs to decide which they hate more, the US occupation or whatever constitution the Kurds and Shi’ites pass over their heads.”
    Such a constitution would be completely inacceptable to many Sunni’s, because it would have been imposed on them by the same means as the present one: the presence of the occupation army, now used as a weapon of blackmail. Many Sunni’s (and possibly some Shia groups) would reject it out of hand. A constitution cobbled up in the hope that the occupier would keep its promise and leave (and there’s no guarantee that the Americans would keep their promise) would be a farce.
    The point is that if you are occupying a country your options are limited. you can try to pretent to be a kind of benign political force, gently pushing the natives into a political settlement for their own benefit, and without trying to mould that settlement into something beneficial to you, but no one would believe you.
    In the end you have only one option as a occupier: to stay or to leave.

  5. Great post, Menno, except the last few words. There is indeed only one option. Which is to leave.
    It is a truth universally acknowledged, from Machiavelli to the literature of the 20th century anti-colonial struggles, that occupation is a self-doomed enterprise.
    The Yankee must go home, that’s all.
    There is no way out, but out.

  6. Dominic wrote:
    “There is indeed only one option. Which is to leave.”
    You are right, of course. I wrote “option”, but I meant “choice”.

  7. Would a constitution established by a military coup, and reinforced over a period of time by repeated military crackdowns, religious suppression, and mass execution, be more acceptable to the Sunni?
    I am certainly glad that my fellow Brits are happy to extend the blessings of liberty to the world. After all, British democracy was a straight and progressive journey from King Alfred to Bevin, right?
    Enjoy your labor conference, and continue to wring your hands about saving the lives of our soldiers from a gang of fanatics.

  8. Given how much influence Iran exerts in Iraq, why are the EU and the US going out of their way to stir up conflict? I have been baffled all along why the EU is escalating the confrontation. Is this just currying favor with the US or is this policy serving the national interests of the Europeans. I have to conclude that the US is trying to provoke Iran as a excuse for us to bomb them, but why would the Europeans go along with this? The Iranians could cause the US a lot more grief in Iraq, and the US seems to be willing to risk it, but why the Europeans?

  9. “…why would the Europeans go along with this?”
    Hint: Check out the range of the missiles that Iran claims to be developing. They will reach far beyond Israel.

  10. Diane O wrote:
    “Given how much influence Iran exerts in Iraq, why are the EU and the US going out of their way to stir up conflict?”
    It is amazing indeed. Iran has no nuclear weapons, but is surrounded by countries that have them themselves (Israel and Pakistan) or in which the USA, which has the nuclear power to blow up the world many times over, has bases: Turkey, Kuwait, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Afganistan. And if that’s not enough, there’s the American fleet in the Persian Gulf. But we are supposed to feel threatened by Iran!

Comments are closed.