Iraq: Has the inevitable Civil War begun?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Iran elected a president who is either completely insane or else incredibly, unbelievably, cartoonishly malicious. If that's the best they can come up with, I'm tempted to think the franchise ought to be pulled. To heck with sovereignty.

Iran elected somebody who used a foreign scapegoat to rile up public sentiment, calling any moderation of his opponent evidence of him being in bed with the enemy. By that standard, we aren't capable of governing ourselves either.

Iran is a controlled society. It's not logical to think someone can be insane come up through the party apparatus and vetting process.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? Who is not capable of ruling themselves? What makes them not capable of ruling themselves?

No, however, the region has shown that they are pretty much only capable of being run by thugs who maintain their power by stripping the rights of everyone else, outside of the ruling circle. Additionally, people them seem to be mighty intolerant of other views.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What we don't know, and still don't know, is how long it will last. It's possible it can last a long time. But the mission remains unchanged. Progress still moves forward. Stand up the Iraqi Military so that we can stand down. That will take a long time, and these Iraqi troops need experience. Well, lucky them, they are getting it. How long does it take to stand up a foreign army so they can fight terrorism in a land that have never had Democracy? Nobody knows the answer, but progress on that front continues to be made.

You and the Bush Administration have consistently underestimated the time, money, manpower and lives it has cost, and continues to cost, the United States to continue this endeavor.

As long as you continue to give low-end estimates about this endeavor, let's consider a high-end estimate:

Tell me, if it takes 20 years, 80,000 American lives, and $5 trillion of American taxpayers' money, will it still be worth it?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As long as you continue to give low-end estimates about this endeavor, let's consider a high-end estimate:

Tell me, if it takes 20 years, 80,000 American lives, and $5 trillion of American taxpayers' money, will it still be worth it?

As long as we're just pulling numbers out of thin air:

If we pull the troops out now and they nuke a city here in the US, was it worth the savings?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

As long as we're just pulling numbers out of thin air:

If we pull the troops out now and they nuke a city here in the US, was it worth the savings?

Or if we don't pull out and they nuke one of our cities, was it worth the cost?

It can cut both ways.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You and the Bush Administration have consistently underestimated the time, money, manpower and lives it has cost, and continues to cost, the United States to continue this endeavor.

Obviously I disagree completely with this suggestion.

[cartman]

Dola,

A sign things are getting out of control is when an old school neo-con, and one of the founders of the PNAC are saying it's time to cut bait and run.

hxxp://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=266122006

Neocon architect says: 'Pull it down'
ALEX MASSIE IN WASHINGTON

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.

"Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally."

Mr Fukuyama, one of the US's most influential public intellectuals, concludes that "it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly".

Going further, he says the movements' advocates are Leninists who "believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practised by the United States".

Although Mr Fukuyama still supports the idea of democratic reform - complete with establishing the institutions of liberal modernity - in the Middle East, he warns that this process alone will not immediately reduce the threats and dangers the US faces. "Radical Islamism is a by-product of modernisation itself, arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalisation and - yes, unfortunately - terrorism," he says.

"By definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."

[KWhit]

Those PNAC guys are scary.

[Dutch]

A sign things are getting out of control is when an old school neo-con, and one of the founders of the PNAC are saying it's time to cut bait and run.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now, the question is, after reading that, are you in agreement that we should abandon Iraq now?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now, the question is, after reading that, are you in agreement that we should abandon Iraq now?

No. My position all along has been that we need milestones to mark our progress. There is nothing right now to state where we are in the process of making Iraq self-sufficent. We keep hearing about how many Iraqi troops and policemen are being trained, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect at all on the stability over there. There is a limit to how much money and resources we can pump in to the situation. The scenario of Iraqi oil money paying for the reconstruction obviously will never come to pass.

But when members of the group that so ardently pushed for the invasion are starting to say the whole thing was a mistake, that should be a wake up call to the people who have been cheerleading with a blind devotion the whole time.

[Vegas Vic]

There are three main factions of people in Iraq (Sunni, Shiites and Kurds) who hate each other's guts, and no amount of willpower in trying to impose democracy on them is ever going to change that. This is just one of many things that the administration doesn't get, and it's been that way from the outset of the invasion (remember Cheney predicting a swift victory, with Iraqis throwing roses in the street?)

The biggest blunder of all was not repatriating the old Iraq army and using them to protect the border against Syria and Iran, which has become a sieve for terrorists to pour into the country. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, but there are thousands now. Another huge blunder was made in not adequately allocating resources for the repair and maintenance of the basic infrastructure (water, power, etc.). This caused suffering on a massive scale, and incredibly, it's still going on in some areas.

In order to save face, it's imperative for us to get the Iraqi security forces fully trained and up to speed, so we can get the hell out of there.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

No. My position all along has been that we need milestones to mark our progress. There is nothing right now to state where we are in the process of making Iraq self-sufficent. We keep hearing about how many Iraqi troops and policemen are being trained, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect at all on the stability over there.

Where do you expect to hear that information? Anything the administration says is propaganda. Anything the military says is propaganda? The AP and Reuters are mum about it because it's boring news. The White House is losing the information battle. They are being beaten to a bloody pulp and I do blame the White House for that. Bush needs to do a better job than the AP at reporting to us the situation. The news will listen to nobody but Bush on the matter. And even though anything he says that is positive will be buried in the last paragraph of an article talking about some bomb going off, we need to get that info out there so people don't start losing hope.

There is a limit to how much money and resources we can pump in to the situation. The scenario of Iraqi oil money paying for the reconstruction obviously will never come to pass.

I'm not sure anybody in this White House or in the military ever suggested we were going to get free gas out of the deal. But I agree, there is a limit, that's why I support the goal of getting them on the their feet. We'll give them a fair ammount of time to get up to speed, and there is progress on this front, but 6 months does not make an army. Think about it, the US military has military doctrines that cover decades, we have history, we highlight what we have done best and throw out what we do poorly, we have Generals with 35 years of experience, NCO's with 20 plus years experience. The Iraqi military? Some of their top guys are sitting with 2 years experience. It's progress, they are getting great training (and experience sadly), but realistically it won't happen over night. We all know that.

But when members of the group that so ardently pushed for the invasion are starting to say the whole thing was a mistake, that should be a wake up call to the people who have been cheerleading with a blind devotion the whole time.

People are allowed their opinion. If they think it was a mistake now and not then, that's fine. How could you possibly expect every single person who supported something in 2002 to still support it in 2005. People change. I think John Kerry proved that was okay, right?

This is and was a very grim situation. It's a mess, I agree. And over time, without any relativity, the negative press will make some supporters in 2002 waver. Propaganda can shake the will of anybody. We all know that by now. And right now, the media's job is to throw fuel on the fire whenever it can to get more readers (at best that is their intention).

The latest round of "proof" of a civil war probably cost the terrorists about 500 bucks in bomb making supplies and a soft target with high value to detonate the bombs in. If that's all it takes to destroy a country that is trying to shake a dictatorship, we're all in big trouble.

We all want America to succeed in standing up a good free state in Iraq. Why not? I do wish the world press would have the slightest bit of sympathy with what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. But I understand that's never going to happen. I just hope you understand the press is never going to tell us something boring like good news. Where's the body count in that?

[Buccaneer]

It was a swift victory but a botched post-victory.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

No, however, the region has shown that they are pretty much only capable of being run by thugs who maintain their power by stripping the rights of everyone else, outside of the ruling circle. Additionally, people them seem to be mighty intolerant of other views.

Who, the US or Iraq?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Where do you expect to hear that information? Anything the administration says is propaganda. Anything the military says is propaganda? The AP and Reuters are mum about it because it's boring news. The White House is losing the information battle. They are being beaten to a bloody pulp and I do blame the White House for that. Bush needs to do a better job than the AP at reporting to us the situation. The news will listen to nobody but Bush on the matter. And even though anything he says that is positive will be buried in the last paragraph of an article talking about some bomb going off, we need to get that info out there so people don't start losing hope.

I do want the information to come from the White House. But Bush has already stated that he will not comment on it. That is why he is getting blasted. Especially when one of his campaign points when he first ran for president was that there needs to be a timetable/forecast for the length of time troops are going to be deployed. Good milestones backed by facts and results would not be considered propaganda. Saying "we'll be there until the job is done", especially when the "job" is never really defined outside of saying "once the Iraqi people are back on their feet" is hard to take as anything other than propaganda.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not sure anybody in this White House or in the military ever suggested we were going to get free gas out of the deal. But I agree, there is a limit, that's why I support the goal of getting them on the their feet. We'll give them a fair ammount of time to get up to speed, and there is progress on this front, but 6 months does not make an army. Think about it, the US military has military doctrines that cover decades, we have history, we highlight what we have done best and throw out what we do poorly, we have Generals with 35 years of experience, NCO's with 20 plus years experience. The Iraqi military? Some of their top guys are sitting with 2 years experience. It's progress, they are getting great training (and experience sadly), but realistically it won't happen over night. We all know that.

There were many in the administration, led mainly by Wolfowitz, who assured people that proceeds from oil sales would finance the reconstruction. As for the inexperience of members of the Iraqi army, we have no one to blame but ourselves for that. As Vegas Vic already mentioned, we disbanded the military before checking to see if anything could be salvaged from it.

Originally Posted by Dutch

People are allowed their opinion. If they think it was a mistake now and not then, that's fine. How could you possibly expect every single person who supported something in 2002 to still support it in 2005. People change. I think John Kerry proved that was okay, right?

This is and was a very grim situation. It's a mess, I agree. And over time, without any relativity, the negative press will make some supporters in 2002 waver. Propaganda can shake the will of anybody. We all know that by now. And right now, the media's job is to throw fuel on the fire whenever it can to get more readers (at best that is their intention).

The latest round of "proof" of a civil war probably cost the terrorists about 500 bucks in bomb making supplies and a soft target with high value to detonate the bombs in. If that's all it takes to destroy a country that is trying to shake a dictatorship, we're all in big trouble.

We all want America to succeed in standing up a good free state in Iraq. Why not? I do wish the world press would have the slightest bit of sympathy with what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. But I understand that's never going to happen. I just hope you understand the press is never going to tell us something boring like good news. Where's the body count in that?

Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, and they are allowed to change those opinions. But when you are a signatory to a document from a group where one of their main goals was the overthrow of Saddam via any means necessary, that is a whole different level of having a change of opinion.

And it is more than just a bomb blowing up a mosque. It is the Sunnis fighting the Shiites. It has already had the effect of the Sunnis pulling out of the coalition discussions. These kinds of flare ups are going to happen no matter what, and will continue to happen long after we leave. That is a cold hard fact, and there is NOTHING we are doing on the ground to keep that from happening. If it is not happening, then how is the press supposed to report it? I just see too much resentment between the different groups in Iraq to have a stable free state. The press didn't create the ill will between the various ethnic groups in Iraq, so it's a bit of a strawman to blame the lack of progress in getting them to cooperate on the press and their negative reporting.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Helping Iraq prevent a civil war isn't easy, but it's possible, and I think the media is fanning the flames of civil war talk because of the recent violence. It can happen that Iraq can quell the terrorists. But I don't believe that abandoning Iraq is the right answer.

Chris Rock: THE MEEEEEDIA! THE MEDIA!!!

[Dutch]

And it is more than just a bomb blowing up a mosque. It is the Sunnis fighting the Shiites. It has already had the effect of the Sunnis pulling out of the coalition discussions.

I agree with that. The bad news is not a single milestone. It's a collection of bad news events.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Chris Rock: THE MEEEEEDIA! THE MEDIA!!!

So that's why you bumped the thread?

EDIT: Seriously, I realize I am in a very small minority on this sort of topic. I am not out to browbeat anybody with my opinion (Well, maybe Mr Bigglesworth, but nobody else, I swear). If you really want to discuss the topic with somebody with a polarized viewpoint, I don't mind, I love to see other people's opinions. I give you my opinion. I then asked for yours back and you wouldn't be so bold. And now this...anyway, I'll suspect you were just out to waste my time.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So that's why you bumped the thread?

EDIT: Seriously, I realize I am in a very small minority on this sort of topic. I am not out to browbeat anybody with my opinion (Well, maybe Mr Bigglesworth, but nobody else, I swear). If you really want to discuss the topic with somebody with a polarized viewpoint, I don't mind, I love to see other people's opinions. I give you my opinion. I then asked for yours back and you wouldn't be so bold. And now this...anyway, I'll suspect you were just out to waste my time.

My opinion is that we leave the Middle East. All of it. Now.

[biological warrior]

Meirsheimer was right.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The biggest blunder of all was not repatriating the old Iraq army

I also agree that we were a little overboard with the de-Ba'athification, especially in Sunni-dominated areas, but it is a double-edged sword. When we did it, it led to security forces dominated even moreso by Shia and distrusted by Sunnis, but if we hadn't done it, the security forces would be Sunni-dominated and distrusted by the Shia. It's easy to say in hindsight that we were too harsh, but finding that perfect balance at the time is more difficult.

and using them to protect the border against Syria and Iran, which has become a sieve for terrorists to pour into the country. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, but there are thousands now.

Slight nitpick on the no terrorists. At the least, Ansar al-Islam had set up shop in the northeast (and may have been getting support from Saddam, as a proxy against the Kurds.) On the rest, I'm all for putting Syria and (much more so) Iran behind a large part of the ongoing problems, as they are supplying a large portion of the money that is destabilizing the country, but I think you'll find that view somwhat unpopular in general, where most people seem to think Iraq exists in a bubble where the US is the only non-indigenous force at work.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by biological warrior

Meirsheimer was right.

If Mearshimer and the rest of the realists were right, we would have taken Iraq's oil and not bothered with this democracy. And we would have been right to do so. Personally, I think we've been overly "Realist" in our foreign policy since WWII, and it has consistently screwed us over down the road. It's high time we started trying to make the world a better place and shoot for the great, seemingly unattainable goals once again, especially while it is a unipolar world. Because even when the original experiment does not work as well as intended, the unexpected beneficial side-effects (sparking the debate on democratization in the Arab Middle East) are oftentimes greater as a whole.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If Mearshimer and the rest of the realists were right, we would have taken Iraq's oil and not bothered with this democracy. And we would have been right to do so. Personally, I think we've been overly "Realist" in our foreign policy since WWII, and it has consistently screwed us over down the road. It's high time we started trying to make the world a better place and shoot for the great, seemingly unattainable goals once again, especially while it is a unipolar world. Because even when the original experiment does not work as well as intended, the unexpected beneficial side-effects (sparking the debate on democratization in the Arab Middle East) are oftentimes greater as a whole.

I agree 100%. Instead of spending hundreds of billions on this war, we should've invested the money in TRULY getting out of the Middle East. Put the money into R&D for alternatives to Middle East oil. Completely remove ourselves from the situation.

[IwasHere]

Will the US be in that much more trouble if we just take the Sunni side in the civil war. Are there that many other foreign troops over there?

Wouldn't this put and end to most of this Bullshit?



If we can't go home until we pick a winner, lets just pick a winner and go home already.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If Mearshimer and the rest of the realists were right, we would have taken Iraq's oil and not bothered with this democracy. And we would have been right to do so. Personally, I think we've been overly "Realist" in our foreign policy since WWII, and it has consistently screwed us over down the road. It's high time we started trying to make the world a better place and shoot for the great, seemingly unattainable goals once again, especially while it is a unipolar world. Because even when the original experiment does not work as well as intended, the unexpected beneficial side-effects (sparking the debate on democratization in the Arab Middle East) are oftentimes greater as a whole.

I disagree with this reading of Mearsheimer slightly. I'm not sure that his theories on hegemonic behavior would necessarily predict that the US should take Iraq's oil and run. Security decision-making is cost-benefit that accounts for opportunities and threats in a holistic manner, and not just considers single-issues. The hegemon would take Iraq's oil only if the oil was worth the costs (considering financial costs, resulting security weakness on other "fronts", etc). Not sure what the answer is, but it certainly is not clean cut. Mearsheimer opposed the Iraq invasion from the onset, fwiw, since he did not see the invasion option as more beneficial strategically than status-quo containment.

Interestingly enough, I have become much more partial to realist views of international politics (though I am also sympathetic to constructionist explanations for realist theory) from an explanatory power standpoint. More liberal theories that emphasize cooperation over cooperation, liberal institution building over naked state power have an important place in global politics, but it seems that for these attempts at institutional and behavioral change to work, all parties have to be invested in the implementation. Unilateral attempts at change can only work with great difficulty.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

As long as we're just pulling numbers out of thin air:

If we pull the troops out now and they nuke a city here in the US, was it worth the savings?

yes. because then we can drop the big hammer on the entire waste of a region and finally be done with them.

all of them.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I disagree with this reading of Mearsheimer slightly. I'm not sure that his theories on hegemonic behavior would necessarily predict that the US should take Iraq's oil and run. Security decision-making is cost-benefit that accounts for opportunities and threats in a holistic manner, and not just considers single-issues. The hegemon would take Iraq's oil only if the oil was worth the costs (considering financial costs, resulting security weakness on other "fronts", etc). Not sure what the answer is, but it certainly is not clean cut.

I've never read his source material, only heard his views referred to, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think his views on hegemony render much of his work irrelevant. The whole argument that no state can become a global hegemon, but only regional hegemons underlie the basis for his power politics. Since I'd argue the US is a hyperpower and global hegemon at this point, I think the regional power politics argument, while useful in some respects, misses the big picture.

Interestingly enough, I have become much more partial to realist views of international politics (though I am also sympathetic to constructionist explanations for realist theory) from an explanatory power standpoint. More liberal theories that emphasize cooperation over cooperation, liberal institution building over naked state power have an important place in global politics, but it seems that for these attempts at institutional and behavioral change to work, all parties have to be invested in the implementation. Unilateral attempts at change can only work with great difficulty.

I think the main problem with both the realist and neoliberal/neoconservative (ironically, very similar) schools is that are too absolutist for effective real-world application. Under the realist view, states are monolithic actors with predictable actions, where in reality there are many different segments within the state. Under the neo view the majority of people in any given state want democracy and what is best for the country, and will take power if given the chance, while in reality the silent majority is usually more risk-averse than the extremist and reactionary elements.

So overall, I'd argue that the key is promoting secular democratic institutions (unbiased rule of law especially) but recognizing that there are a lot of reactionary elements that need to be killed or marginalized at the same time. Especially when they come from outside the original state, which is where I think our current policies are failing the most.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I've never read his source material, only heard his views referred to, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think his views on hegemony render much of his work irrelevant. The whole argument that no state can become a global hegemon, but only regional hegemons underlie the basis for his power politics. Since I'd argue the US is a hyperpower and global hegemon at this point, I think the regional power politics argument, while useful in some respects, misses the big picture.

According to Mearsheimer's view of hegemony (or at least my interpretation of his view), some states may strive for global hegemony, but they will not stay hegemons for long--other states will check the power of the would-be hegemon either because it is a perceived threat to their own security or because of hegemonic designs of their own. As you note in a previous thread, we will not be in a unipolar world for much longer (and some argue, from an economic standpoint, we never were). As predicted by Mearsheimer, other powers are making the initial steps in challenging unipolarity. To cite a couple of examples, just last year, the Russians and Chinese have formalized strategic cooperation with the aim of checking any perceived US strategic designs on continental Asia. The Europeans, via the Euro, have offered a potential challenger to the US Dollar as the global currency of choice.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think the main problem with both the realist and neoliberal/neoconservative (ironically, very similar) schools is that are too absolutist for effective real-world application.

A very good point, and an issue that you will notice popping up again and again in the field--IR theory (no matter what it is) is primarily descriptive. Academics and policy-makers have different motivations; while you will find many in both spheres that are interested in policy-relevant theoretical ideas, professional roles dictate whether they emphasize prescription (policy-makers and think-tank wonks) or description (academics), and often never the train shall meet.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So overall, I'd argue that the key is promoting secular democratic institutions (unbiased rule of law especially) but recognizing that there are a lot of reactionary elements that need to be killed or marginalized at the same time. Especially when they come from outside the original state, which is where I think our current policies are failing the most.

I do disagree with you here. Sweeping policy change imposed from above has a rather shaky history of succes. It is difficult to set policy as an outsider, no matter how well intentioned, unless the target population is also invested in those policies. In-group out-group mechanisms manifesting in a sense of nationhood (not necessarily "nation-state hood") makes it difficult for the target to stomach outside attempts at policy influence as well. It is one thing if the target is successful at marginalizing or destroying reactionary elements on its own, but if an outside power attempts it, it will be seen in a less favorable light...

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Slight nitpick on the no terrorists. At the least, Ansar al-Islam had set up shop in the northeast (and may have been getting support from Saddam, as a proxy against the Kurds.)

There may have been a small pocket of Ansar al-Islam.

As for Al-Qaeda at large, the thousands that are now in Iraq poured in after the invasion and overthrow of the government. Ironically, Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein as much or more than we did, but this all changed after the invasion.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

There may have been a small pocket of Ansar al-Islam.

As for Al-Qaeda at large, the thousands that are now in Iraq poured in after the invasion and overthrow of the government. Ironically, Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein as much or more than we did, but this all changed after the invasion.

The base on the Iranian-Kurdistan border comprised Ansar al-Islam, which I suppose could be best described as a smaller offshoot under al-Qaeda, although given the decentralized nature of the terrorist web that's a bad analogy. In reality, I think al-Qaeda in current form bears more resemblance to the previous Lashkar-e-Taiba than al-Qaeda pre-9/11/01. There have been other reports of the jihadis in Iraq (not just the ex-Baathists and other insurgents) throwing out Zarqawi as their leader, but that's obviously hard to confirm.

On the Osama/Saddam point, maybe you could explain to me why Osama tried brokering an alliance with Saddam during the 1990's? Indications are that Saddam more or less ignored it, but the idea that Saddam and Osama were so opposed to each other due to the secular/religious aspect that they couldn't work together are ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

According to Mearsheimer's view of hegemony (or at least my interpretation of his view), some states may strive for global hegemony, but they will not stay hegemons for long--other states will check the power of the would-be hegemon either because it is a perceived threat to their own security or because of hegemonic designs of their own. As you note in a previous thread, we will not be in a unipolar world for much longer (and some argue, from an economic standpoint, we never were). As predicted by Mearsheimer, other powers are making the initial steps in challenging unipolarity. To cite a couple of examples, just last year, the Russians and Chinese have formalized strategic cooperation with the aim of checking any perceived US strategic designs on continental Asia. The Europeans, via the Euro, have offered a potential challenger to the US Dollar as the global currency of choice.

The idea that hegemony will only last for a short while makes more sense, although I'm still not sure I agree with it completely. I did notice his strong opposition to our engagement with China, but I'm not as worried there, as I think India is the more likely candidate to come close to the US, but even there they are far enough behind it will take decades to lift the rural population out of poverty. (And in 20 years. let alone 50, the technological landscape will be so different as to render most predictions of the world order obsolete.) There's also Japan and South Korea, 2 of the top 10 militaries in the world, in Japan's case without really trying, that won't stand idly by and let China turn into a regional hegemon. On the Euro front, they are on the downside and become increasingly marginalized everywhere but the UN year by year. I'm a lot more worried about a new rise in fascism coming out of Europe as a backlash to the immigration issues than I am about Western European economies challenging ours. The only country I see seriously denting American global hegemony in the near future is Brazil in Latin America.

A very good point, and an issue that you will notice popping up again and again in the field--IR theory (no matter what it is) is primarily descriptive. Academics and policy-makers have different motivations; while you will find many in both spheres that are interested in policy-relevant theoretical ideas, professional roles dictate whether they emphasize prescription (policy-makers and think-tank wonks) or description (academics), and often never the train shall meet.

Being as I'm in a university setting, you can guess which one I feel over-exposed to .

I do disagree with you here. Sweeping policy change imposed from above has a rather shaky history of success. It is difficult to set policy as an outsider, no matter how well intentioned, unless the target population is also invested in those policies. In-group out-group mechanisms manifesting in a sense of nationhood (not necessarily "nation-state hood") makes it difficult for the target to stomach outside attempts at policy influence as well. It is one thing if the target is successful at marginalizing or destroying reactionary elements on its own, but if an outside power attempts it, it will be seen in a less favorable light...

I understand the nationalism and resentment against an outsider telling you what to do, but I think it can still be a worthwhile effort. As hard as it would be for me to argue that Iraq is now a democracy on par with Japan or Germany, I think even the most die-hard critics would find it equally hard to argue that Iraq's political system would be as far as it would be without the massive exogenous shock (that I would argue is also producing less noticeable but significant changes in dialogue across the Arab world.)

Now in a perfect world, Iraq would progress towards democratic capitalism (which I personally believe to be the most effective forms of governing, thus every society will eventually gravitate towards) at its own pace. It took the US 120 years before women were allowed in the political process and another 50 before black people were, so expectiing Iraq to turn into a success in 3 years is a little quick, but unfortunately, due to the wonders of globalization, we don't have the luxury of sitting back. If it was just another 9/11, meh, it happens, but a nuclear (or bio attack, I don't think chem would have the same effect) and the response are simply unacceptable.

So yeah, change is best achieved from the inside, but IMO outside forces can hasten it, and in this case I firmly believe we need to do all we can now, because on balance, if we are attacked before the region is reformed, 3000 civilians, 2000 soldiers and half a trillion dollars are going to be very small numbers.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CNN

Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded
No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

We are repeatedly told that 'as Iraq stands up, we will stand down', but as of this date, four years after the invasion, there are ZERO Iraqi units capable of fighting on their own, and it appears that we are going backwards in our training, ie the rate of our training can't keep up with the rate of decay.

So what is the best course of action? If we leave now, it looks like there will be civil war, but can staying in the country solve the underlying problems that will lead to civil war? Otherwise, there will just be a civil war whenever we do decide to leave, be it right now or ten years from now, so wouldn't it be wise to leave as soon as possible?

[rexallllsc]

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060314201834

Iraq Edges Closer to Open Civil Warfare

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 58 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses — men shot to death execution-style — as
Iraq edged closer to open civil warfare. Twenty-nine of the bodies, dressed only in underwear, were dug out of a single grave Tuesday in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bloodshed appeared to be retaliation for a bomb and mortar attack in the Sadr City slum that killed at least 58 people and wounded more than 200 two days earlier.

ay