America in the Middle-East

[Eiade]

There was an article on the front page of the paper today, about a group of some 200 Iranian men and women who have pledged their willingness to be suicide bombers in order to kill Americans in Iraq and Israelis, and they had gathered at a cemetary to pledge their lives, accompanied by wives, husbands and children who supported them. This inspired me to make a new topic in the debate forum (even though we've had plenty of topics about the situation in the middle-east).

 

I'm kind of curious as to why we're still over there. All the people in the middle-east want us out, even countries that aren't directly affected by us, like Iran.

 

A lot of Americans think that we really should be over there, policing the world, staying over there until we have successfully westernized the place, because our way is the right way. Some people might say that "the middle-east is really just jealous of us because we're powerful." I strongly strongly disagree. Here's a quote from a spokesman from the suicide group: "Sooner or later, we will bury all blasphemous occupiers of Islamic lands." Yes, this also includes the Israelis, however, we're the ones who have remained in the country after seemingly accomplishing our goal.

 

A lot of people might say "Well, we're liberating the Iraqi people from a cruel and ruthless dictator." Saddam Hussein was captured how long ago? And we're still over there. Maybe it's because if we leave, then there will be a civil war. So what? That's their affair, not ours. If they can't take care of themselves without war breaking out, then maybe it's not worth our time.

 

Some people will say, "It's America's duty as the most powerful nation to help people out." I'd say what we're doing right now is misusing and/or abusing our 'power'. Staying in someone else's country just because we don't like how it is being run. And how are we 'helping' anyone? It has been shown to us time and time again that they want us out of their country.

 

Please, I am eager to hear some opinions.

[Malchik]

If Iraq descends into civil war it is because of the removal of Saddam Hussein. Whatever you think of him, civil war would be far worse. As it was the USA supported by Tony Blair (but not the British people) who removed Hussein they are morally and ethically obliged to stay until the country has peace. This will not be soon.

 

And from the US point of view the country collapsing into anarchy would lose the control over the oil. The ONLY reason they invaded in the first place.

 

The expression is 'you've made your bed, now you must lie in it'.

 

BTW I suspect there are more than 200 British people who would be prepared to die for the cause and also a lot already in the USA.

[surian]

Leaving Iraq now is not a good idea. We've uprooted the only stabilizing point in their country by getting rid of the Bath party (Saddam's group) and leaving will plunge them into civil war. To say that "It's not our problem if they go to civil war" is not a very responsible stance to take on the situation. I didn't agree with th reasons we went to war, I didn't agree with the decision to send troops into Iraq, I didn't agree with the way that the war was conducted, I didn't agree with just about anything that was done or said during the buildup to the war. However, now that no one listened to me and people like me when we said that by going in we would not be able to come out, we are stuck there and if we leave we will be directly causing a civil war because we will leave them without any sort of strong government. It is completely our fault that the situation is as bad as it is there right now and while it's up for debate about the rightness or wrongness of the war in general, there is no denying that we will have to be there for the forseable future. Estimates as to how long go from as low as several years to as long as 20 years (although I think the actual amount of time we will be in Iraq will probably be closer to around 5-10 years).

 

Again, the reason being that we got them into this mess and we have a moral obligation to get them on their feet again. Now, that's all well and good but the problem then becomes: "How do we do that?". That's not an easy problem to solve and sadly the general consensus seems to be that we should white-wash the problem and patch it up as quickly and sloppily as humanly possible while leaving the impression that we've done somthing helpful. The situation in Iraq is mind boggling because we are saying on the one hand that we want to give them a truely Democratic government while at the same time we realise that in a truely representative vote the Shiite majority will ultimately win and they are not what you would call the best group to lead a country. They are also not the most open to US policy. So what has already happened is that we've been gently and sometimes not so gently suggesting that the Iraqi people elect the people that we want them to. Kerry was completely correct when he said that the Interm Prime Minister of Iraq was a puppet of the United States.

 

So yes, I believe that there probably are, in fact, much more than 200 people in Iraq who are willing to suicide bomb Americans and that's a terrible thing. However, ask yourself this before you make snap decisions about a situation: "Why are they doing it?". The answer is not, as a certain US President keeps saying, that they "hate freedom". The answer is that they see themselves as fighting for their freedom. They are fighting for their freedom from the western world and what they believe to be its morally corrupt culture. Now, we may disagree with that idea but we can't deny that they are fighting due to more than just abstract hatered and blind zelotism to Islamic fundamentailst dogma. So what's the solution? Well, in an ideal world the solution would have been to not invade a country that considers our very culture a threat to their way of life. But now that we have invaded and we are occupying Iraq (and despite what the "talking heads" are saying on TV, we are occupying this country) we must stay there because the alternative is much worse.

 

As for Iran, it is actually being directly effected by us. First of all, they are afraid that we might turn our attention to them and decide to invade. Iran, like the rest of the world, understands now that the USA under president Bush is a far more dangerous and monsterous being than it ever was before because we have set precident for pre-emptive strikes without any support or concrete evidence to back up our claims. So, with good reason, Iran is not glad that the USA is currently building up forces so close to their cities. Iran is no angel though, so don't get me wrong when I say that they have every right to be angry and afraid. Iran has been trying desperately to keep on the good side of world opinion and they recently signed with the IAEA to insure that their nuclear program was not going to be persued anymore. But again, they see the US soldiers just around the corner and so they obviously don't want us there. The same goes for almost every other country in the area. The general public is afraid because they know that the USA can invade and might do so without cause or warning and the fundamentalists are also afraid becasuse they see this as another western attempt to destroy their way of life. So can you blame them for not wanting us there?

 

Also, let's just be very clear about this. Capturing Saddam was not the reason that we were over there. It is all about oil, it's so glaringly simple a motive that people dismiss it because they assume the real reasons must be more complex. The fact that we captured Saddam had no effect on the situation in Iraq for many reasons. First of all, as I just said, the war was never about getting him out of power in the first place. Getting Saddam out of power was just a step that had to be accomplished before the ultimate goal of securing the oil reserves could be managed. Secondly, his capture doesn't matter because it does not change the reality of the situation in Iraq at this moment. We still are obligated to maintian our precense there becuase the alternative is a civil war caused by our invasion. Now, it's pretty obvious if you look back through similar situations in US forgin policy that if Iraq did not have oil we, first of all, never have been there in the first place, but second we would not stay around after we overthrew Saddam to rebuild the country just because we were "morally obligated". Those words don't have any meaning in US policy.

 

And just so you don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that as the most powerful nation in the world we are obligated to help out those who are in need. I don't believe that first of all, and secondly we are only obligated to help the Iraqis because we invaded them and now we have to pick up our mess. The same is true with Afgahnistan (although you'll notice that we've pretty much abandoned any effort to rebuild that country, if you were paying attention you'll remember why we arn't doing anything there...).

 

While I understand your point by saying that we are abusing our power by staying there when they dont' want us there it is not exactly true. We were abusing our power by going into Iraq in the first place. Now we are abusing our power by trying to influence the forming government of Iraq. However, even though the real motives of our leaders are bad, keeping troops in Iraq is still the right thing to do.

 

Basically, this was a situtation that never should have happened but it did due to terrible leadership, lies, and oil. Now, as Malchik said, we have made our bed so we must sleep in it.

 

On a side note: Malchik, I hope you understand that the USA, like the UK, does not wholeheartedly support the actions taken in Iraq. While the UK is much more anti-war than the US is, there is still a large portion of our country that does not approve.

[Lord Hlaalu]

Let me ask this: Are the Iraqis truly better off now than they were before? Think about it, before the war, they had some limited freedom, steady jobs, enough gasoline, steady electricity, access to water and food, some degree of protection, plus they had a steady government, even though it was a dictatorship. Now they have none of those things, and they can't go out in the streets for fear of getting blown up.

[Mojlnir]

Let me ask this: Are the Iraqis truly better off now than they were before?

 

Yes and no. Large portions of the country, particularly the areas under the control of the Kurds (Northern Iraq) and the Shi'ia (Southern Iraq) are pretty peaceful. The area around Basra, for example, has seen comparatively little violence. The same was true, at least until the very recent past (as in yesterday) that Mosul was also fairly peaceful. These two groups were viciously oppressed under the Ba'athi regime and are beginning to "feel their oats" as it were.

 

Baghdad and the rest of the "Sunni" triangle are hot spots for rebellion for a number of reason, not the least of which being that the Sunni's are terrified of being ruled by those they once oppressed. Modern Iraq, like much of the Middle East, should be referred to as Winston's Folly in reference to British colonial gerrymandering in the region following the First World War. Malchik, I hear you coming but you must admit to the truth in what I say. My point is not to malign the Brits but rather to point out the historical lessons which should have been learned from that era.

 

You simply cannot lump groups of people together, who often times would rather kill their mothers than live together, into a single country for geopolitical reasons and expect everything to come out peachy. It simply doesn't work. Unfortunately, in many such cases a leader like Saddam is required to keep the whole thing from flying apart (Tito in Yugoslavia) and resulting in civil war.

 

The U.S. opened a can of worms far larger than any we anticipated and we are now feeling the squeeze of that miscalculation. We're long past the point of arguing whether we should have gone or not (the answer is no) but not past arguing that the whole shooting match was mismanaged on a grand scale. Not enough troops, no humint, overly rosey outcome scenarios and plan pigheadedness have landed us smack in the middle of a giant pile of dung.

 

How do we get out? Very carefully. Richard Clarke sees a picture with which I agree. Allow me to outline it briefly: The goal of America's Iraq strategy will quickly (within calendar year 2005) change from bringing democracy to hampering the growth of terrorism in Iraq. Following the "elections" Iraq will be left to pretty much self-determine. US focus will shift (and this has been announced already) from counter insurgency operations to a heavy emphasis on training Iraqi armed forces and patrolling with them jointly. As the Iraqi military becomes more self sufficient the number of American troops involved will begin to be cut back quickly (Bush can only ask for $80 billion so many times) leaving specialized hunter-killer teams to operate from a relatively small number of bases. These groups will be tasked solely with attempting to stem the growth of terrorist organizations in the significantly more lawless new Iraq.

 

We have created a terrorist breading ground. We are not hated because we have "freedom" and they don't. We're hated because of s**t like Iraq.

 

The economic damage is already being felt in America and around the world. Confidence in the dollar is tanking in the face of ballooning trade imbalances and a deficit projected to top out at more than $450 trillion for fiscal year 2004.

 

The societal repercussions will not be far behind.

[Peregrine]

There's a simple solution to Iraq, but unfortunately the politicians will never allow it.

 

1) Remove all US military forces from Iraq, with the exception of soldiers assisting in the rebuilding effort. But all the tanks/heavy weapons/most of the troops/etc all go home.

 

2) Begin (honest) rebuilding efforts. With most of the military gone, we can still invest huge amounts of money in this and end up paying less than before.

 

3) Begin issuing US security forces with bullets dipped in pigs blood and/or fat (I forget which is most effective at staying on the bullet with minimal interference). Therefore any terrorists shot attacking US soldiers will go straight to hell, instead of the heaven they seek. Watch as the supply of volunteers instantly disappears. Additionally, any captured and convicted terrorists will be executed by the same bullets, then burried with dead pigs.

 

Note: this is a proven tactic at ending rebellion. It's worked long ago in the past, and I imagine it will work just as well now. Fear of God is an effective motivation not to bother us.

 

4) If steps 1-3 fail to eliminate terrorist attacks, begint he following policy:

 

Any deaths of American citizens in Iraq to terrorist actions will result in a random Islamic holy site disappearing under a nuclear fireball. One sacred site per US citizen. Repeat until the terrorists run out of volunteers and/or holy sites.

 

Of course plenty of advance warning will be given to evacuate, so there will be only property damage. But it should still be effective motivation.

[Mojlnir]

Interesting position. It's true that the "Fear of God" or FOG approach can be sucessful in the short term, it has very real and dangerous repercussions.

 

Those lost in the FOG tend to focus on short-term solutions to what are invariably long-term problems. American foreign policy (hell, any long standing policy) is rife with FOG. Southeast Asia, Korea, Latin America, Iran, Afghanistan (don't forget we trained and funded good 'ol Osama) Haiti... shall I continue?

 

Beating the crap out of someone because you can doesn't address the core issues that caused the problem in the first place. The carrot and stick approach does not really work when all that is applied is the stick. The perceptions of Americans in Iraq is pretty much shot and we're going to need credible outside help in order to set the situation at least partially right.

 

Money can fix a lot of problems. But the Iranians and the French have shown that it can cause quite a few as well. A gradual step down in occupation forces, concerted efforts at rebuilding infrastructure and sincere (and equitable) offers of assistance will ease our egress from Iraq.

 

America cannot impose upon the world our set of beliefs and expect everyone to line up and play nice. Imperialism is not the best strategy, and neither is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Peregrine]

Beating the crap out of someone because you can doesn't address the core issues that caused the problem in the first place. The carrot and stick approach does not really work when all that is applied is the stick.

 

I'm not suggesting we beat anyone. If my plan worked as it should, there would be peace extremely quickly.

 

The majority of terrorist acts in Iraq have a heavy religious involvement. There is the belief that martyrdom in defiance of the Americans will earn a place in heaven. Not only that, but a large part of their problem with America is over religious differences. Right now there is a huge supply of willing martyrs to sacrifice their lives for damage to US forces and/or whatever makes a dramatic enough disaster.

 

However, with the methods I posted in place, in the minds of the terrorists, any attack they make will earn them a place in hell. Every terrorist shot by defending US soldiers will die committing a hell-worthy sin. Every terrorist will know that if they are captured and convicted, they will be executed in a way that will ensure their place in hell. And if more extreme actions are required, every potential terrorist will know that their actions will come at the price of their most sacred places. All of these things are in direct contradiction to the demands of their religion.

 

It might not stop the violence entirely, but that flood of willing martyrs would instantly disappear. Few religious fanatics are going to ignore the demands of their god to act on their hate for America. And that's all we need to have peace.

 

A gradual step down in occupation forces, concerted efforts at rebuilding infrastructure and sincere (and equitable) offers of assistance will ease our egress from Iraq.

 

*points to steps 1 & 2*

 

At the same time the religious motivation for violence is eliminated, the occupation is replaced by rebuilding. A rebuilding that can now happen in peace.

[Darnoc]

Peter Scholl-Latour, a German expert on the field of modern islam and the islamic revolution, wrote the following in his newest book "Weltmacht im Treibsand" (world power in quicksand). This is my translation of the German original quote:

 

Either the Bush-administration stiffens itself on the building of a proamerican regime in Badgad, which, under disregard of the will of the constituents with a lip service towards democracy and free opinion, tries to cheat the world public, similar to Karzai in Afghanistan. Since such a selected team, which must soon be put under the authority of a "strong man", will concede to the demand of the oil coorperations of the USA, will close a peace deal with Israel and will disregard the claim of leadership of the shiitish population majority, it won't have great chances of survival. The US-army would - weary of the constant guerilla-attacks - retreat out of Mesopotamia like the Sowjetunion from Afghanistan. Thereby they couldn't even be sure if their appointed governor will last as long as his companion in misfortune Nadshibullah in Kabul, who could withstand the growing pressure of the Mujaheddin for three years after the Sowjets had retreated.

 

The other option, whose critical evaluation is a major part of this book, is the following: The USA accept that the Shiits have the key to the future of Iraq and are the central factor for eventual stabilization. But with this the President has to accept that an Islamic Republic will be proclaimed in Iraq. This would not necessary be a copy of the theocracy, which was built by Ayathollah Khomeini in Iran. But a strict coranian, strong shiitish basic alignement of the new constitution can not be avoided with the religious mass enthusiasm.

 

 

I have to agree with him.

[Zmid]

There's a simple solution to Iraq, but unfortunately the politicians will never allow it.

 

1) Remove all US military forces from Iraq, with the exception of soldiers assisting in the rebuilding effort. But all the tanks/heavy weapons/most of the troops/etc all go home.

 

2) Begin (honest) rebuilding efforts. With most of the military gone, we can still invest huge amounts of money in this and end up paying less than before.

 

3) Begin issuing US security forces with bullets dipped in pigs blood and/or fat (I forget which is most effective at staying on the bullet with minimal interference). Therefore any terrorists shot attacking US soldiers will go straight to hell, instead of the heaven they seek. Watch as the supply of volunteers instantly disappears. Additionally, any captured and convicted terrorists will be executed by the same bullets, then burried with dead pigs.

 

Note: this is a proven tactic at ending rebellion. It's worked long ago in the past, and I imagine it will work just as well now. Fear of God is an effective motivation not to bother us.

 

4) If steps 1-3 fail to eliminate terrorist attacks, begint he following policy:

 

Any deaths of American citizens in Iraq to terrorist actions will result in a random Islamic holy site disappearing under a nuclear fireball. One sacred site per US citizen. Repeat until the terrorists run out of volunteers and/or holy sites.

 

Of course plenty of advance warning will be given to evacuate, so there will be only property damage. But it should still be effective motivation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This would be very effective for solving that single problem. Unfortunately, it would create many others, not least of which is that it would be seen as something that is no better than what the terrorists would do by every, or nearly every, other country in the entire world. This could, in turn, cause those countries to completely ostracise the USA, which would have a MASSIVE negative impact on the US economy, and could quite possibly cause a new Cold War, except this time it will be the US v the rest of the 'West', or perhaps the rest of the entire world.

 

This is probably why the politicians, as you correctly point out, would never let it happen.