OT: Monumental Iraqi Elections

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

A theory based on what I know to be true. I was in Qatar at the time supporting airlift directly supporting those troops on the ground so I do know that a very high priority for those troops was to prevent ethnic cleansing (along with looking for WMDs). I also know they were not given specific guidance to stop the looting, so obviously that was not a priority.

As for troops on the borders and getting third nation support, that's a whole different subject. I know Gen Franks maintains there were agreements with certain third party nations to come in and help that were not kept. Gen Franks also claims the number of troops in Iraq was his call, not Bush or Rumsfeld. Maybe he's just being the good soldier taking the heat for the brass. Who knows?

I'm not a ground security expert so I really don't know if it was even possible to secure the borders, look for WMDs, and protect Sunnis all at the same time. Could very well have required more troops than we and any alliance we could have negotiated could have mustered. I'm sure this will be fodder for discussion at West Point for the next 50 years.

Wow, going by what you said you did, where you are, and that you are shown as being in the Carolinas, you could be my mother's BF. odd....

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

They don't have a constitution yet (which makes it unlikely that anybody scoffed at it). Yesterday's election was to select people who will participate in a constitutional convention of sorts. Link here.

It is my understanding they are operating under a provisional constitution, or at least a document/set of laws that establish the existing governing council, and provides rights to minorities.

I'm not saying you're wrong about what this election was about, you're not. I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure the Interim Government is governed by an Interim Constitution. One of the problems with the existing document, is that Western officials contributed to it, so it pretty well has to go. These people have to arrive at an equitable result on their own.

I'm hoping at least that the "convention" was established in such a way that minority rights will be represented, respected, and meaningful. I just can't see the Kurd or the Sunni representatives signing onto a constitution that fails to represent them, so I hope their accent is required to some degree. I would say I'm sure it was laid out that way, but I've gotten used to being disappointed by how things have been handled.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Anyway, the Shiites and Kurds did not gun down Sunnis then, when they had the best opportunity to do it, therefore it is highly, highly more unlikely they'll start doing it now with an actual government and security force in place.

That's a theory.. I think a reasonable alternate theory is that they are waiting exactly until there is a government and security force in place. Because it will be their government and their security force. They have been desperate to push this process forward. The turnover of sovereignty was accelerated at the request of the Shiites. The election was accelerated at the request of the Shiites. They want this government to come into being ASAP, and they want control of it. Once that happens, what do you think will happens when Sunnis bomb a Shiite target (as they've been doing on a regular basis)? I'm guessing there will be a swift, bloody, and disproportionate response against a Sunni population by the Shiite-controlled military. And that's when things start to turn ugly. We've seen this movie before.

Do you really think that the Shiites have forgiven and forgotten the massacres, pogroms, and torture they suffered at the hands of Hussein? Are they just going to turn the other cheek for the many bombings and assassinations that Sunnis have visited on them the past two years and the attacks that continue even today? Are these angels in the form of man? Or are they just playing power-politics and biding their time until they can get their hands on the machinery of state?

Iraq is a dungheap. What you need to do to stabilize Iraq (breaking it into independent parts), is exactly what you cannot do without destabilizing the whole region. Going there without a plan of what to do about this is of the same order of stupidity as fighting a land-war in Asia or going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If that's what you took from what I wrote, there's no point continuing this conversation. The idea that I believe that "the only evil force on this planet is President Bush" is ludicrous.



George Bush seems to think so: "You're either with us, or with the terrorists."

And likewise, if that's all you have gotten from George Bush, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

They don't have a constitution yet (which makes it unlikely that anybody scoffed at it). Yesterday's election was to select people who will participate in a constitutional convention of sorts. Link here.

I think I am confusing the actual constitution with the work they did a few months ago. I forget what that was called. Maybe an interim constitution of sorts. But I did think it was the basics that won't be removed, such as the right for women to vote.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And likewise, if that's all you have gotten from George Bush, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Yeah, uh, that was my point.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Bush Admin has smartly never discussed specific numbers (well, they did with WMD, and it bit them in the ass, but nevermind....). However, they certainly gave the impression that it would be a short matter of months.

I disagree completely. You have to look at the context. If the context is the creation of a revolutionary software system (something that normally takes years) and I answer it will be done "as quickly as possible". I doubt anyone is expecting the project to be done in a few months.

When you look at the historical context for the institution of a democratic form of government, 10 years would be about average. Therefore, 5 years would be extremely fast.

The problem here is that many in the media (and that oppose the Bush plan) have conveniently forgotten the historical context for instituting a democratic form of government. This allows them the ability to parse "as quickly as possible" as meaning a few months. Of course, it doesn't make it any more valid.

[flere-imsaho]

I disagree. The context in which I look at their statements is their own rhetoric of the time, which indicated that they expected it to be a quick operation (for the record, I never thought it would be) and that a transition to an already in-place Iraqi power structure would be relatively quick. Of course, when it turned out that their "hand-picked" person to assume control of this power structure (Ahmed Challabi) had some serious corruption and other issues, that should have been their first clue that this would take some time.

Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. clearly felt that we would waltz in there, depose Saddam, and the exiled Iraqi government (which one, though) would come back to the country admidst all the celebrations ("they'll greet us with flowers"), assume command of existing power structures, and be ready to go very quickly.

That's what I remember. Clearly you remember differently.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem here is that many in the media (and that oppose the Bush plan) have conveniently forgotten the historical context for instituting a democratic form of government. This allows them the ability to parse "as quickly as possible" as meaning a few months. Of course, it doesn't make it any more valid.

But it seems that the Bush administration also forgot the historical benchmarks for instituting democratic change during their planning and marketing of the Iraq campaign. I do remember the administration painting a pretty rosy picture for the American people at the time about how quickly Iraq can democratize and how easily the dominoes will fall in the Middle East once the Saddam regime was deposed.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I disagree. The context in which I look at their statements is their own rhetoric of the time, which indicated that they expected it to be a quick operation (for the record, I never thought it would be) and that a transition to an already in-place Iraqi power structure would be relatively quick. Of course, when it turned out that their "hand-picked" person to assume control of this power structure (Ahmed Challabi) had some serious corruption and other issues, that should have been their first clue that this would take some time.

Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. clearly felt that we would waltz in there, depose Saddam, and the exiled Iraqi government (which one, though) would come back to the country admidst all the celebrations ("they'll greet us with flowers"), assume command of existing power structures, and be ready to go very quickly.

That's what I remember. Clearly you remember differently.

The problem is you have no specifics on this. I have historical context and the fact that no rational human being would think that Iraq would be built into a stable democracy in a few months. So, unless Bush or his Administration said "We expect to have a democratic Iraq in 3 months", I don't know how anyone can read into their vague statements and get such a ludacris conclusion.

[Chubby]

I'm just glad that we are wasting billions of dollars that could have gone to actual US citizens and thousands of US lives over this, but at least it's over.

Oh wait, it's not.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

But it seems that the Bush administration also forgot the historical benchmarks for instituting democratic change during their planning and marketing of the Iraq campaign. I do remember the administration painting a pretty rosy picture for the American people at the time about how quickly Iraq can democratize and how easily the dominoes will fall in the Middle East once the Saddam regime was deposed.

I am still waiting for a specific quote from the administration saying this task would take less than a year. I have never seen one. Again, when someone says "as quickly as possible" that does not mean a few months. That seems to be the pitfall in all this - ie, the administration used "quick" wording which led the media to use a backdrop of the initial military assault (which only took months) and assume the same for the stabilization of Iraq.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

But it seems that the Bush administration also forgot the historical benchmarks for instituting democratic change during their planning and marketing of the Iraq campaign. I do remember the administration painting a pretty rosy picture for the American people at the time about how quickly Iraq can democratize and how easily the dominoes will fall in the Middle East once the Saddam regime was deposed.

Couple of things both addressed to you, Klingler, and Flere.

Bush did say it would be a process not measured in months but years, and that it would potentially costs thousands of American lives. Those statements are all but forgotten, along with any other reasons for invasion save WMDs, but they were made.

I do agree that the Admin fundmentally and monumentally underestimated what would happen in post war Iraq. In fact I acknowledge that what I have said is a huge understatement. They completely botched planning for post war Iraq. Period. I guess where I start to disagree with you, is that you seem to be of the opinion that they are continuing to screw the pooch with regard to everything they are doing there. I don't believe that is the case. I think things are getting incrementally better, and will continue to do so. I also believe that is happening because of the things the administration/pentagon/Iraqi government are doing.

[flere-imsaho]

Whatever. The Bush Administration painted a picture that:

1. There was an alternative Iraqi government (hello Mr. Chalabi) ready and waiting to step right into Saddam's vacated place.

2. The infrastructure (bricks & mortar as well as governmental and social institutions) would mostly stay in place after "liberation" and would be good to go once they replaced Baathists with hand-picked Iraqis.

3. Iraqis would be so overjoyed at "liberation" that they'd not only not rise up against American troops, but create an environment in which insurgency could not take hold.

All of these assumptions turned out to have major flaws. If it had gone based on these assumptions (remember Wolfowitz's "it'll be like post-WWII France"?), then it would probably be all over by now.

[Arles]

I don't disagree that Wolfowitz overestimated the willingness of Iraq to join with the coalition in the new government. But even with his stance, this was always billed as a "long, hard road ahead" (to quote Bush) and nothing that would be completed in a year.

If you want to say that Bush, Rummy and esp Bremer/Wolfowitz did not anticipate the insurgency issue correctly, I think that's fair. But that does not in any way equate to an assumption that this task of bringing a democratic form of government to Iraq would be easy or only take a few months. Just on its face, that belief is silly and until I see a quote from one of these guys saying as much I don't see any way a rational person could believe it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I do agree that the Admin fundmentally and monumentally underestimated what would happen in post war Iraq. In fact I acknowledge that what I have said is a huge understatement. They completely botched planning for post war Iraq. Period.

Thanks.

I guess where I start to disagree with you, is that you seem to be of the opinion that they are continuing to screw the pooch with regard to everything they are doing there. I don't believe that is the case. I think things are getting incrementally better, and will continue to do so. I also believe that is happening because of the things the administration/pentagon/Iraqi government are doing.

Actually, I agree that things seem to be getting incrementally better. However, that doesn't change my belief that we'll still see a problematic, theocratic state, with a serious sectarian problem (and Kurdish problem) within 2-3 years.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Whatever. The Bush Administration painted a picture that:

1. There was an alternative Iraqi government (hello Mr. Chalabi) ready and waiting to step right into Saddam's vacated place.

2. The infrastructure (bricks & mortar as well as governmental and social institutions) would mostly stay in place after "liberation" and would be good to go once they replaced Baathists with hand-picked Iraqis.

3. Iraqis would be so overjoyed at "liberation" that they'd not only not rise up against American troops, but create an environment in which insurgency could not take hold.

All of these assumptions turned out to have major flaws. If it had gone based on these assumptions (remember Wolfowitz's "it'll be like post-WWII France"?), then it would probably be all over by now.

1...There was no installation of Chalabi planned. Elections were always the plan. I do believe that certainly you are correct that Chalabi would have been the horse backed by the White House. Well, at least until his exposure to power revealed his true colors.

2... and part of one really. The Administration's or the Pentagon's notions of post war Iraq more closely followed that they believed that we could "cut off the head" while "preserving the body". They thought they could chase Saddam out of power, while the rest of the government remained intact. When the whole thing fell apart...we essentially had egg on our face. Biggest screw up of the administration...period.

3. Am I the only one who remembers the video of the Iraqis joyfully greeting the American troops? I mean to say that we weren't greeted with flowers or as liberators seems to be a bit of an overstatement to me. A hell of a lot of the Iraqis were happy to see the Coalition forces. Not all of them...but yes we were greeted as liberators. I agree it wasn't that way everywhere, but to deny that at one time the vast majority of Iraqis viewed this as a liberation seems to be a bit much. That is not to say that the whole "It will be like post WW2 France" notion was hand in hand with the other monumnetal underestimations made by the Administration's advisors.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Couple of things both addressed to you, Klingler, and Flere.

Bush did say it would be a process not measured in months but years, and that it would potentially costs thousands of American lives. Those statements are all but forgotten, along with any other reasons for invasion save WMDs, but they were made.

I do agree that the Admin fundmentally and monumentally underestimated what would happen in post war Iraq. In fact I acknowledge that what I have said is a huge understatement. They completely botched planning for post war Iraq. Period. I guess where I start to disagree with you, is that you seem to be of the opinion that they are continuing to screw the pooch with regard to everything they are doing there. I don't believe that is the case. I think things are getting incrementally better, and will continue to do so. I also believe that is happening because of the things the administration/pentagon/Iraqi government are doing.

I would rather that my comments be criticised on its own, and not lumped with other posters' comments. While I do agree with what Flere has to say on some things, I disagree with him on other things and I don't think our views are one and the same. I never said anything relating to the administration's handling on Iraq in the present day. Actually, I think that the Bush administration has adjusted its policy as best as it could in light of changing realities.

I only referred to the Bush administration's views on democratization during the planning/early onset stages of the Iraq campaign. Democratization was never really a goal of the administration, regime change to a pro-US government (of any kind) was. It was only after the al-Qaeda and WMD links failed to materialize (this was about 6-7 months after the end of conventional military operations), did the administration shift the emphasis to Iraqi democratization as blueprint for global change. Because of the sudden shift in priorities, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the administration had not completely considered the contingencies--resulting in their underestimation of problems in the post-war period. For what it's worth, in April 2003, Rumsfeld pegged a democratic transition at under two years--which would seem pretty optomistic today.

hxxp://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030413-secdef0103.html

I am not going to attack Rumsfeld for his estimate, since hindsight is 20-20 and all that. He did, in the same interview, characterize that same period as "some period of months"--so while it is debatable that he was trying to intentionally mislead the public, he certainly wanted to cast the post-war period in as optomistic a light as possible.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's what I remember. Clearly you remember differently.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken.

- President Bush, February 26, 2003.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Actually, I think that the Bush administration has adjusted its policy as best as it could in light of changing realities.

I agree with this, and the rest of your post from which it came. I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I agree with this, and the rest of your post from which it came. I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.

I also just wanted to clarify my position--no offense to your posts were intended and I hope none was taken...

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

That's a theory.. I think a reasonable alternate theory is that they are waiting exactly until there is a government and security force in place. Because it will be their government and their security force. They have been desperate to push this process forward. The turnover of sovereignty was accelerated at the request of the Shiites. The election was accelerated at the request of the Shiites. They want this government to come into being ASAP, and they want control of it. Once that happens, what do you think will happens when Sunnis bomb a Shiite target (as they've been doing on a regular basis)? I'm guessing there will be a swift, bloody, and disproportionate response against a Sunni population by the Shiite-controlled military. And that's when things start to turn ugly. We've seen this movie before.

Do you really think that the Shiites have forgiven and forgotten the massacres, pogroms, and torture they suffered at the hands of Hussein? Are they just going to turn the other cheek for the many bombings and assassinations that Sunnis have visited on them the past two years and the attacks that continue even today? Are these angels in the form of man? Or are they just playing power-politics and biding their time until they can get their hands on the machinery of state?

I think my theory is sounder than yours, and history of Iraq and the Arab people in general back me up. In Iraqi history, outside of Saddam's bad old days the Shiites and Sunnis have coexisted very well. The beef Shiites had and have is not with Sunnis, but with the Baath party. Now it just so happens the Baath party is predominantly Sunni, but one could argue the Republican party is predominantely Christian as well. Doesn't make Dems vs Republicans a holy war any more than tensions with the Baath party are a religious issue in Iraq. In fact, the driving force of the Baath party is not Sunniism but a socialists agenda from an Islamic perspective.

As for Shiites pushing for a new government, this plays back into why Shiites won't attack Sunnis. Shiites want a new government because they want to be rid of coalition forces. They want the occupation to end. In Arab thinking, the world is divided into different families. The first family is the immediate family. Then the tribe, then the Arab nation, then Islam, then everyone else.

Coalition forces fit into the everyone else, thus we are not a part of their family at all. Meanwhile, the Sunnis fit the Islamic family and the Arab family. Shiites are presented with an occupation force outside the family, coalition forces on one side and inside the Arab family Sunni forces on the other. If the Shiites were going to fight anybody it would be the coaltion forces. And for the most part, they have chosen not to fight coalition forces. And trust me, in their way of thinking they have far more motivation to fight our forces than their Arab, Sunni brothers.

Therefore, it stands to reason that Shiites don't really want to fight anybody. They just want to build a government so they can get rid of our forces as quickly as possible and rebuild there nation.

Now on the other hand we have Zarqawi trying to start a civil war by stirring up Sunnis. Yes, he can get former Saddam followers and Baath party members to join him because living by the way of the gun is all they know and they know they will have no role in the new Shiite dominated government. Therefore, taking it back by force is there only perceived alternative. But this is not Sunni thinking. This is Baath party thinking, former Saddam supporters thinking, and Zarqawi's demented al Qaeda thinking.

I think the only way you are going to get Shiites going after Sunnis is if Zarqawi and the former Baathists make things simply so intolerable for the Shiites that they are left with no choice but to fight back. Granted, that is entirely possible. But if tomorrow the Shiites had majority control of the government and US forces left, I don't see Shiites indiscrimintly gunning down Sunnis in the streets. There's no historical precedent for it and it would be both very un-Arabic and un-Islamic behavior.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Wow, going by what you said you did, where you are, and that you are shown as being in the Carolinas, you could be my mother's BF. odd....

Who's your daddy?

Seriously, I can fairly well assure you I'm not. I'm married, got two kids and a dog and in fact am currently not even in the United States. Now if your mother's BF fits that description then maybe we should carry this discussion on in private.