DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on May 17, 2007, 12:15:54 PM
-
Iraq 'facing grim future'
By James Robbins
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
[........]
The leading foreign policy think-tank, Chatham House, is warning that Iraq faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation.
A new report from the London-based Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, argues that the Iraqi government is now largely powerless and irrelevant in large parts of the country, as a range of local civil wars and insurgencies are fought.
The report urges a radical change in American and British strategy to try to rescue the situation.
It is not the first time Chatham House - a highly respected foreign policy institution in London - has been highly critical of American and British strategies in Iraq.
This latest paper, written by Dr Gareth Stansfield, a Middle East expert, is unremittingly bleak.
Dr Stansfield, of Exeter University and Chatham House, argues that the break-up of Iraq is becoming increasingly likely.
In large parts of the country, the Iraqi government is powerless, he says, as rival factions struggle for local supremacy.
The briefing paper, entitled Accepting Realities in Iraq, argues that "There is not 'a' civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power."
Dr Stansfield says that, although al-Qaeda is challenged in some areas by local Iraqi leaders who do not welcome such intervention, there is a clear momentum behind its activity.
Iraq's neighbours too have a greater capacity to affect the situation on the ground than either the UK or the US.
The report accuses each of Iraq's major neighbouring states - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments".
The briefing paper says "these current harsh realities need to be accepted if new strategies are to have any chance of preventing the failure and collapse of Iraq".
Need for change
Dr Stansfield contends that the American security surge is moving violence to different areas, but is not overcoming it.
Certainly there is a growing sense in London and Washington that the American Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, is likely to ask for more time to continue the surge later this summer in order to deliver results.
That will confront the Bush Administration with a real dilemma.
The president has vetoed a bill that would have set a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
The bill was approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Congressional opponents of the war believe the veto signals that now it is the president alone who must take responsibility for continuing America's involvement, and the casualties.
The report urges the governments in London and Washington to change track.
It says the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, leader of the Mehdi army (one of the major Shia militias), should be included as a political partner - no longer treating him as an enemy.
And it also calls for increasing the involvement of other countries in the region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6664457.stm
-
What do you think, Lanya?
-
Certainly there is a growing sense in London and Washington that the American Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, is likely to ask for more time to continue the surge later this summer in order to deliver results.
===========================================================
This was pretty much what happened in Vietnam. The Viet Cong would succeed in some offensive, and the US commander (Westmoreland, Abrams, Whoever) would call for more troops.
They would draft more troops and send them, and the Light was always at the End of the Tunnel. The End of the war was ever within our grasp.
Except, it wasn't. The US could not win a Vietnamese Civil War, just as they cannot win an Iraqi Civil War.
Juniorbush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bremmer screwed it up so badly at the onset that they guaranteed a civil war.
I think that the Juniorbush strategy to to keep a war going for as long as possible. This reduces the oil supply and keeps thew prices up (Bushes LOVE high oil prices) and also makes a lot of contractors and arms suppliers very happy selling crap to the military. They are so grateful that they continue pouring money into the GOP re election fund. Think Cold War, Military-Industrial Complex Gratifying Plan, Redux. Eternal war as in 1984.
Of the twelve GOP candidates, only Ron Paul was not gung-ho about the war and the need to continue fighting it.
None of them mentioned health care for Americans.
Curiously, part of the Juniorbush plan was to assure Iraqis of a "first-class health-care system" to win over their hearts and minds.
I find it strange that any American president would see the healthcare of Iraqis as more important than that of his fellow Americans.
-
What do I think? I'm alarmed. I see there have been recent attacks on the Green Zone in the last few days, 2 people killed, and now people are told to wear flak jackets (I think) if they go outside or if they're in certain buildings. That's highly alarming.
-
Whatever the merits of the withdraw-soon versus winning-will-be-a-boon-for-mankind debate, this comment by XO is sheer horseshit: "I think that the Juniorbush strategy [is] to keep a war going for as long as possible. This reduces the oil supply and keeps the[w] prices up (Bushes LOVE high oil prices) and also makes a lot of contractors and arms suppliers very happy selling crap to the military."
-
this comment by XO is sheer horseshit: "I think that the Juniorbush strategy [is] to keep a war going for as long as possible. This reduces the oil supply and keeps the[w] prices up (Bushes LOVE high oil prices) and also makes a lot of contractors and arms suppliers very happy selling crap to the military."
================================
Oh really?
And why do you say this, O great doméd one?
Did not Olebush send Jim Baker to Saudi Arabia to demand that the Saudis cut production and RAISE oil prices?
Are not contractors and arms merchants making a killing like never before?
What justification od you have for calling this horeshit?
The obvious humanitarian qualities of Dick Cheney, perhaps?
-
What do I think? I'm alarmed. I see there have been recent attacks on the Green Zone in the last few days, 2 people killed, and now people are told to wear flak jackets (I think) if they go outside or if they're in certain buildings. That's highly alarming.
Those are not surprising occurrences for a country at war.
-
Whatever the merits of the withdraw-soon versus winning-will-be-a-boon-for-mankind debate, this comment by XO is sheer horseshit: "I think that the Juniorbush strategy [is] to keep a war going for as long as possible. This reduces the oil supply and keeps the[w] prices up (Bushes LOVE high oil prices) and also makes a lot of contractors and arms suppliers very happy selling crap to the military."
The sheer horseshit I see is denial on your part.
Write the word "Halliburton" on the blackboard as many times as it takes before you suddenly see the light. Then stand and deliver a report to the class of the figures of monies that are missing on their Iraqi account books.
Grow up.
The Neocons love guys like you. They go to war with the selfish purposes of those behind the corporate curtains and have you out there singing like a doof, providing at call ringing endorsements and patriotic puffery.
Are you aware that there are several holes in the security blankets of our troops because the military rejects certain proven and preferred equipment, and are awaiting development in corporations they eat lunch with a the country club?
I believe Ike referred to it. Wonder what Ike would think of your comprehension of it?
-
The report accuses each of Iraq's major neighbouring states - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments".
Do tell?
-
Write the word "Halliburton" on the blackboard as many times as it takes before you suddenly see the light. Then stand and deliver a report to the class of the figures of monies that are missing on their Iraqi account books.
Grow up.
The Neocons love guys like you. They go to war with the selfish purposes of those behind the corporate curtains and have you out there singing like a doof, providing at call ringing endorsements and patriotic puffery.
Are you aware that there are several holes in the security blankets of our troops because the military rejects certain proven and preferred equipment, and are awaiting development in corporations they eat lunch with a the country club?
I believe Ike referred to it. Wonder what Ike would think of your comprehension of it?
=================================================================
I don't see how it is not obvious to Domer that there are not those who are ecstatic about all this war profiteering.
There have been few, if any, wars with as much as corruption and profiteering as the present Iraq War.
You can go duck and cover, but I won't do this ever again.
JUst because SOME corruption prevents the miloitary from buying some weapons does NOT prove that others are overjoyed at providing functional, partially functional and entirely nonfunctional crap for the military.
Surely you do not believe that theses companies would be better off without the war.
The War in Iraq is EXACTLY what Eisenhower warned us against. The outsourcing to Blackwater, Halliburton and other subcontrastors would have him ranting more than I ever will.
So hear, hear, crane.
-
XO and Crane: your theories are both reductionist and ridiculous. XO originally stated that Bush continues the war to assure high oil prices. Not only I have I rarely heard so outlandish a charge, positing the most venal and base motives to, perhaps, the most "sacred" undertaking a national leader can undertake, the core of not only his public covenant but also his private worth as a human being, but the implied attribution of "cause" (the need for high oil prices) and "effect" (war, to accomplish that purpose) is not drawn at all except in the most absurd way: "Bush greedy fuck, kill people for money."
-
I think there's a lot of different ways this war can be profitable for Bush and for the interests he represents and serves. High oil prices are quite possible, but the pricing of oil is complex and the real question is whether it could have been manipulated behind the scenes without the necessity of going to war? OTOH, it could be that behind-the-scenes manipulation had reached its limits, and that maintaining high oil prices was just one more benefit that could be added to the basket of goodies that the war would bring (and has brought) to those interests.
The "reconstruction" of Iraq, paid for from oil revenues, was probably the biggest boondoggle this little venture held out. In that regard, Halliburton took the lead but others - - private security contractors included - - are also finding a bonanza. Just in the sheer waste of military equipment through combat action and accelerated wear-and-tear also guarantees a replacement market for virtually every defence contractor in the business.
I think you'd have to be nuts to deny the obvious financial benefits that this criminal aggression has brought to Bush's financial and industrial backers. It's a fucking bonanza. At that's without even considering the geopolitical advantages of controlling the world's second largest proven oil reserves. But of course all that pales into insignificance beside the real goal of the enterprise, which is to remove weapons of, ooops, I mean which is to "bring democracy" to the democracy-starved people of Iraq. Isn't that really what America is all about?
-
They would draft more troops and send them
One of the big differences with that strategy in Vietnam and this "surge" strategy in Iraq is that these "new" troops aren't new at all. They are simply extending the tour of old troops or shortening the rotation time of soldiers that have been out of Iraq. Those that have used the adjectives "new" or "additional" have been somewhat misleading the people.
Except, it wasn't. The US could not win a Vietnamese Civil War, just as they cannot win an Iraqi Civil War.
There are many important differences, but the one I would focus on is that the goals should be different. I agree that we lost Vietnam when we first took over for the French. It was a stupid choice of wars and certainly a multitude of other options were possible.
I disagree with the invasion of Iraq as a just war, but we did it. Now we owe the people of Iraq a moral obligation. Our goal doesn't have to be to "win" a civil war. You're right, we cannot win that war. The best we can do is to confine the sectarian violence as much as possible and hopefully convince the Sunni Muslims that they will not be punished for their years of brutal rule over the Shi'a and Kurds. That has to be our goal.
We can make the majority of Iraq a safe place for the Iraqi people. If they want an Islamic Republic - so be it. But we have to ensure that the Sunni are protected and we need to stop the Saudis from funneling weapons and funds to them.
-
Being forced to defend to the limits of its rationality and wisdom the Bush venture into Iraq -- something I haven't done in these latest exchanges til now and then only reluctantly given the political calendar and the dictates of a more enlightened electoral politics -- is nonetheless something I can do with blinders on, and deftly, for one overriding reason, and all its corollary virtues: truth. But, alas, I am soon off to Pennsylvania and will leave this project temporarily unaddressed, hoping in the meantime that you, my friend, don't perish of anticipation.
-
I think you'd have to be nuts to deny the obvious financial benefits that this criminal aggression has brought to Bush's financial and industrial backers. It's a fucking bonanza.
Is it so obvious that we should ccept it sans evidence?
-
<<Is it so obvious that we should ccept it sans evidence?>>
Yeah, I think so, unless you want to believe that Halliburton and the military-industrial complex are donating their goods and services to the cause for free and that high oil prices are BAD for the big oil companies.
-
<<Is it so obvious that we should ccept it sans evidence?>>
Yeah, I think so, unless you want to believe that Halliburton and the military-industrial complex are donating their goods and services to the cause for free and that high oil prices are BAD for the big oil companies.
Pardon me for being a sceptic .
Haliburton is a huge company , Iraq is not that large to them , how much risk would you run to improve your income by 1/2%?
Big Oil benifits from high oil prices , and ti is proof of what? That they cause everything that raises oil prices? Does this prove that big oil writes Acmananejad's speeches?
Accepting as true anything that bolsters ones favoriate opinion is hardly scientific.
When dealing with sceptics one must bring proofs.
-
<<When dealing with sceptics one must bring proofs.>>
Yeah, but I'm a skeptic too, plane. I'm skeptical when the "President" says, "We must go to war because tiny little Iraq is able to menace our very lives with its weapons of mass destruction."
And I'm skeptical too when a "President" who has never shown the least scintilla of interest in bringing "democracy" to Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or the West Bank or Jordan tells the world, "Well, yeah, there isn't a threat of WMD, but we must stay in Iraq because we need to bring them democracy."
And I'm a skeptic when someone tells me, "Sure, high oil prices might be good for Halliburton, but Halliburton couldn't possibly have any influence on the Bush adminsitration's Middle East plans."
And I'm a skeptic when someone tells me, "Sure it would be good for the U.S. to control the second biggest proven oil reserves in the world, but they'd never try to take them by force."
Hey, when you get right down to it, plane - - I'm just as big a skeptic as you claim to be. More so, because I'm even skeptical when the U.S. government declares itself to be the single greatest force for peace, goodness and justice on this planet. MAN, am I skeptical!
-
<<When dealing with sceptics one must bring proofs.>>
Yeah, but I'm a skeptic too, plane. I'm skeptical when the "President" says, "We must go to war because tiny little Iraq is able to menace our very lives with its weapons of mass destruction."
Could you quote him directly? with a link , context is important.
And I'm skeptical too when a "President" who has never shown the least scintilla of interest in bringing "democracy" to Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or the West Bank or Jordan tells the world, "Well, yeah, there isn't a threat of WMD, but we must stay in Iraq because we need to bring them democracy."
You wanted War with all of them at once? You are the hawkist hawk on Earth.
And I'm a skeptic when someone tells me, "Sure, high oil prices might be good for Halliburton, but Halliburton couldn't possibly have any influence on the Bush adminsitration's Middle East plans."
Haliburton does not depend on high oil prices , their involvement in the war was as a building , supplying contractor , there were few companys availible who could do the work , should Shlumberget have been considered?
And I'm a skeptic when someone tells me, "Sure it would be good for the U.S. to control the second biggest proven oil reserves in the world, but they'd never try to take them by force."
You are worried about Canadian oil?
Hey, when you get right down to it, plane - - I'm just as big a skeptic as you claim to be. More so, because I'm even skeptical when the U.S. government declares itself to be the single greatest force for peace, goodness and justice on this planet. MAN, am I skeptical!
Name a bigger one