Nasty, Brutish and Short (Op-Ed on Iraq))

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:43 am

I found this editorial piece in the NYT quite interesting.

Nasty, Brutish and Short
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The U.S. operation in Iraq is hanging by a thread. If it has any hope of surviving this Hobbesian moment, we need three conversations to happen fast: George Bush needs to talk to his father, the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons — and daughters — and we need to talk to the Iraqi Governing Council.

President Bush, please call home. You need some of your father's wisdom right now. The old man, Bush 41, may not have had the vision thing, but he did have the prudence thing. He understood that he could not expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait without a real coalition that included Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other key Arab states, not to mention all the NATO allies and the U.N. America would not have had the legitimacy to operate in that theater for the length of time required without Arab and European cover.

What was true for expelling Saddam from Kuwait was triply true for expelling Saddam from Iraq and is quadruply true for expelling the die-hard Baathists from Falluja and the Shiite radicals from Najaf. The deeper we try to penetrate Iraqi society, especially with tanks and troops, the more legitimacy we need.

When things were going all right in Baghdad with the political process, America could have its way by buying legitimacy with cash or imposing it with muscle. But when you are talking about killing rebellious Iraqi young men and clerics, you can't buy the legitimacy for that and you can't compel it. Iraqi moderates are just too frightened to stand up and defend that on their own. Indeed, they will run away from the U.S. Only a real coalition of the U.N., Arab and Muslim states and Europe — the Bush 41 coalition — might bolster them. It may be too late for that now, but the Bush folks had better try. We have a staggering legitimacy deficit for the task ahead. I am glad El Salvador is with us, but when Iraqis get satellite dishes, they don't tune in TV El Salvador. They tune in TV Al Jazeera.

If it is America alone against the Iraqi street, we lose. If it is the world against the Iraqi street, we have a chance.

And we need two other conversations. I have nothing but respect for the Kurds of Iraq. They have a democratic soul. But in the debate in the Governing Council over Iraq's interim constitution they overreached, and the Bush team made a big mistake in letting them overreach, by giving the Kurds effective veto power over Iraq's final constitution. I believe the Kurds need and are entitled to some form of protection. I would support any U.S. guarantees for them. But too many moderate Shiites, led by Ayatollah Sistani, are feeling that the Iraqi interim constitution tilts so far in favor of minority rights that it unfairly limits majority (read Shiite) rights. If the interim constitution has any hope of surviving this fighting, and being accepted by the moderate Shiite majority, it needs to be recalibrated — through a dialogue among Iraq's factional leaders and with us. Otherwise, a stable transfer of power is impossible (if it isn't already).

Arab leaders also have a vital interest in working with the U.S. to quell the turmoil in Iraq and to re-empower the potentially moderate center. As unpleasant as it may be for them to help the Bush team — and as worrisome as free elections in Iraq might be to unelected leaders of the Arab world — having oil-rich Iraq taken over partly by Baathist radicals happy to work with Al Qaeda and partly by Shiite radicals happy to work with Iran will be even worse. It will empower radicals across the Arab region, and freeze the infant reform process there.

And that's why the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons and daughters. If the Arabs miss yet another decade of reform, because Iraq spins out of control while the world speeds ahead, they will find themselves outside the world system and dealing with plenty of their own Fallujas. Talk to Arab youth today and you will find so many of them utterly despondent at the complete drift in their societies. They are stuck in a sandstorm, where opportunities for young people to realize their potential are fading.

What is going on in Iraq today is not only a war between radical Islam and America, it is, more importantly, a war within Islam — between those who want an Islam with a human and progressive face that can meld with the world and those who want an Islam that is exclusivist and hostile to the world. So, yes, we need all the Arab and Muslim support we can get to see Iraq through to some decent outcome. But the Arab-Muslim world needs a decent outcome in Iraq just as much — if not more.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 1:45 pm

But in the debate in the Governing Council over Iraq's interim constitution they overreached, and the Bush team made a big mistake in letting them overreach, by giving the Kurds effective veto power over Iraq's final constitution.

Thing is, the Kurds weren't willing to opt into the deal of a unified nation without that unstated guarantee. Like I said a year ago, here: Iraq isn't one country, it's three. The Sunnis have the middle, the Shi'a naturally gravitate in the south towards Iran, and the Kurds in the north want full autonomy and a homeland. If a brute in charge with a club isn't around, the only way to keep all three together is to make sure each thinks it has control over the others--and that's bound to fail, when intelligent people in each observe what's going on. But Dubya can't offer autonomy to the Kurds, because the Turks will invade; and if the Turks invade, the Iranians have promised to do so, as well.

It's quite a mess. Good thing we decided to show everybody how easy the rest of the world's messes are to solve, innit?

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:35 am

I still don't understand why Bush & Co. thought they could just waltz in and make Iraq a democracy. Even I knew it wouldn't work.
Bush might not be the brightest man in the world, but what about people like Blair and Powell? Didn't they see this coming?
Also, you would indeed think that the rest of the Arab world would somehow jump in. Every country in the region needs a stable Iraq.

ObsidianReturns · Post by **ObsidianReturns** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:56 am

They may need a stable Iraq, but they'd rather have a piece of it.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:42 am

Plan of Action for Iraq

1. Invade Iraq
2. ???
3. Democracy!

It's just that all of the underground gnomes... err I mean world leaders assumed someone else knows what the second step is.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:31 am

Re: Plan of Action for Iraq

Originally posted by Vicsun
1. Invade Iraq
2. ???
3. Democracy!

LOL! That about sums up the attitude not only of Dubya and his friends, but the seductive message they try to send out to everybody. And look at how well it's gone in Afghanistan: the national government, supported by a host of international donors (including the US) is now democratic throughout its reign--which is limited to Kabul, the capitol. Away from that, minus the Taliban, the country has simply returned to the situation which existed after the US armed the various warlords and the Soviets left, a host of little fiefdoms. And since the warlords aren't getting funds any longer from the US, they've restarted growing hard drugs for export, which was banned successfully by the Taliban. Afghanistan's back at #1 for interntional drug export in 2003, according to the UN.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:21 pm

It's the same with Bosnia and Kosovo. Funnily, nobody covers it in the media anymore.

The ethnic cleansing committed by the Albanians against the Serb population is far worse than the crimes NATO and the US used as an excuse to attack. The "victorious" UCK and KLA has refused to honor any agreement made with the UN and NATO, and has turned the place into a bandit state which hasn't been seen in Europe since the Dark Ages, a few tired KFOR troops trying to stem the tide. It's the main transit state for hard drugs and human trafficing in Europe, and is completely run by crimelords, warlords and gangs. Funnily enough, the mighty US with their rocket jockeys are nowhere on the horizon. They don't even cover the Milosevic trial anymore, having clamped a lid on it due to "sensitive information" being revealed. The UN research reports on the aftereffects of 2 million rounds of DPU shells burried in the soil has been labeled "sensitive" and vetoed by the US. Meanwhile, scales for cancer and children with birth defects are going through the roof.

So each time Almightica saddle up their horses and come charging to the "rescue" to the mantra of "Freedom and Democracy," which to the rest of the world translates to "God, Guns & Gasoline," I just lean back and think "another place back in the stone age." This time, however, they/we have made a big mistake: ground troops. Every US-led military operation involving ground troops has always been a complete mess, and this one is proving no different. One would have thought they'd learned their lesson in Vietnam, but nooooooo. So while the casualties mount, the White House reptiles are having their tails nailed to the wall in the 9/11 hearings and "American" is becoming a swearword to an increasing part of the worlds population, I can't help thinking things have once again come full circle, and we're back in 1974. Soon Condoleezza (how the heck do you come up with a name like that? Sounds like something contagious) will take the fall for the rest of the scumbags, go on national television and say "I'm NOT a crook!" Powell will be blamed for the war, and the failiure of the occupation. And then there's the circus in September... Can't wait.

America! Coming to a country near you!

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:12 pm

@moonbiter: out of curiosity - where are you from?

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:33 am

@Vicsun

Jeg er naboen rett over havet.

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:12 pm

Anyone hear about the siege going on in Iraq at one of their cities. Supposably the marines are shooting women and children even under the flag of truce. What's important about this is that its getting most of the Iraquis up in arms, and even turning the fence sitters against the US. I hear a whole platoon of US trained Iraquis Army soldiers just refused to fight.

America does not have experience being a real imperial power, we can't absorb losses necessary for maintaining imperial colonies, and frankly our soldiers aren't much good against fighting the kind of fighters that are becoming more prevalent in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This because frankly American soldiers depend to much on technology and when they come up against people who have no technology who have to survive Americans come up short. Maybe after a few more imperial actions then American soldiers would be capable of fighting, of taking losses, of thinking beyond training, in short become real warriors rather then what they call themselves.

In any case, the military is grasping at straws, panicing almost, almost the same way they did in Vietnam, they kill indescriminately in some cases because they are not equipped to fight mentally I mean, best equipped military in the world, but when it comes to our soldier mental ability we aren't that good.

Some have talked about imperial power, we will only be a imperial power when our best soldiers can beat their best fighters without thinking technology will solve it.

Plus if we want to be a imperial power, we got to have better education, and yes the dreaded cultural studies we have to understand the culture we subjugate not just think that our model will work through sheer force.

Bush and his cronies tried to install a imperial power, somehow I don't think they knew what being a imperial power meant, they lived in a pseudo world of delusion in which our glorious forces would push aside all opposition, and create a perfect government for America; whats amusing is reality is poking its way through, he's finding that people get killed in this war not just the sand ni****s (who aren't very important apparently), that you have to pay for rebuilding, that you actually have to understand them to work with them, that Iraq is a diverse country that really should never have been a country which means only force is capable of holding it together, and lastly that maybe just maybe people don't like them.

Oh yes they are finding what a imperial power means, we are finding what a imperial power means, and believe me it will get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Edit- Infinite Nature, I strongly suggest that you DO NOT use that N-word again. Thanks. - Maharlika

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:50 pm

Infinite I want you to link to anything proving that because I read your statement and laugh. I mean without anything you sound like a nut. Our soldiers have been trained in nothing but how to fight these soldiers for a long time now and I have heard nothing of shooting of woman and children and I listen and read all forms of right and left wing media.

the only argument you could have you dont even mention... heh. Please post references or edit it with a disclaimer "I heard this from a guy behind a liquor store"

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:34 pm

Oh, look, yet another place we can all discuss the evils of the US

Originally posted by InfiniteNature
Anyone hear about the siege going on in Iraq at one of their cities. Supposably the marines are shooting women and children even under the flag of truce. What's important about this is that its getting most of the Iraquis up in arms, and even turning the fence sitters against the US. I hear a whole platoon of US trained Iraquis Army soldiers just refused to fight...

It wasn't a platoon, it was a brigade. And I don't much blame them, considering the situation.

But I'm with Thug on the other point: your assertions are laughable. Especially in light of more substantiated violations of the rules of war by the Iraqis; such as using women and children in combat; and, using mosques and temples to snipe from.

I think your comments would be more readily accepted at democractic underground, or moveon.org, where the Bush=Hitler rhetoric is par for the course.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:19 pm

Re: Oh, look, yet another place we can all discuss the evils of the US

Originally posted by Lazarus
But I'm with Thug on the other point: your assertions are laughable. Especially in light of more substantiated violations of the rules of war by the Iraqis; such as using women and children in combat; and, using mosques and temples to snipe from.

So, you'd prefer it if they stood in the field like American soldiers, fought like American soldiers, and died like American soldiers, but minus all the fun toys and gadgets of American soldiers? I don't follow that line of thought. The Iraqi's who are fighting the Coalition forces are fighting for their Iraq, and they know a head up fight is suicide. Hell, I would bet that the vast majority of these Guerilla fighters are former Iraqi soldiers, but that's somewhat off topic. Anyway, when it comes to fights with the states, it's a simple fact of technology and equipment. No country can equal the american army for it's gizmos, so forces fighting them have to fight in a manner that levels the playing field.

Now, I personally don't find anything wrong if a man, woman, or child decides to pick up a weapon and fight, as long as they aren't simply meat shields, then there is a problem. As for attacking from Mosques and Temples, well, hell, what happened to every saying Islam preached this sort of thing, so why be surprised... Unless, of course, people only claimed that when it suited their purpose in a debate...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:15 am

@Aegis

I think the point he was making was Infinite was making it sound as if American soldiers were slaughtering instead of fighting. I agree. I have said before and will say again that I believe for a poor nation suicide bombers are not evil but a very effective tool of war. Directing them at the enemy aka our soldiers is not a horrible as when they do it to innocents, its war. Sniping from mosques or using women as weapons is nothing new or anything that trajic, its war and its two fighting styles.

As for attacking from Mosques and Temples, well, hell, what happened to every saying Islam preached this sort of thing, so why be surprised... Unless, of course, people only claimed that when it suited their purpose in a debate...

Could you elaborate that I may be a little sick this morning but I dont grasp your whole point there, blame the sinus cold.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:28 pm

With the amount of people who use the argument that Islam is a violent religion, one that openly declares war on any non-believers, making a commet with the connotation that attacking from a mosque or temple is hypocritcal. So, I see even mentioning fighting from such locations, especially when brought u by someone who in the past has made allusions to such comments and arguments, somewhat moot.

there is nothing different about attacking from a Mosque, temple, church, etc. It's been done before, it'll happen again. I don't see the point of even bringing it up.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:27 pm

Re: Re: Oh, look, yet another place we can all discuss the evils of the US

Originally posted by Aegis
The Iraqi's who are fighting the Coalition forces are fighting for their Iraq

No they're not. They're fighting for Muqtada Al'Sadr, because US forces have an arrest warrant for him, in relation to the murder of a rival cleric, and he doesn't want to cooperate. They're fighting because the US forces haven't shown much tact in their handling of the country, and they're a little bit peeved. They're fighting because they know the Sunni Triangle is already a hotspot, so spreading the discontent might cause America to withdraw prematurely. They're fighting because they know if that happens, then Al'Sadr and his militia can carve out a personal fiefdom. They're not fighting in the interests of the Iraqi people.
But most of them aren't fighting. The Shias make up the majority in Iraq, and they know that democracy is in their best interest. That's why Ayatollah Sistani, the highest ranking Shia cleric in Iraq, cooperates with America, and urges his followers to show restraint.
Shias don't need to fight for their Iraq, it's coming anyway, and the insurgents don't represent majority Shia opinion.

As for attacking from Mosques and Temples, well, hell, what happened to every saying Islam preached this sort of thing, so why be surprised... Unless, of course, people only claimed that when it suited their purpose in a debate...

That argument has never been used by the coalition, whose official stance is that Islam should be treated with great respect, and who as a rule of thumb try not to incite hatred unnecessarily. If that argument has been used, it wasn't in any of the debates, or by any of the people, that matter. Bush and Blair have more sense than that.

But attacking from Mosques does show the kind of insurgency this really is. They tried parading butchered corpses, a la Mogadishu and they've tried taking hostages, in a very calculated attempt to destroy American domestic support for the occupation. It didn't work.
The reason they attack from Mosques is that if the US forces respond by blowing up that Mosques, it's a propoganda coup for the insurgents. It's not as if they give particularly good cover or protection, more than other buildings in an urban environment. Mosques were chosen with very deliberate, calculated cynicism, which shows that this is not some idealistic freedom struggle for 'their Iraq'.

P.S. What you said about child soldiers is intriguing, but a debate about it might veer off the topic at hand, so I'm starting a new thread for that debate.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:50 pm

IMO a vast majority of the Iraqis from all factions hate the Americans, and the Americans are fighting for their own reasons AND ONLY for their own reasons. The effects, positive or otherwise on the Iraqi people doesn't enter into their thinking.

And just for the record- my opinion of George W. Bush: Here is a seriously unwise person.

(I know this is not really contributing to the thread, but I just wanted to get my opinions out there.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:06 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
With the amount of people who use the argument that Islam is a violent religion, one that openly declares war on any non-believers, making a commet with the connotation that attacking from a mosque or temple is hypocritcal. So, I see even mentioning fighting from such locations, especially when brought u by someone who in the past has made allusions to such comments and arguments, somewhat moot.

there is nothing different about attacking from a Mosque, temple, church, etc. It's been done before, it'll happen again. I don't see the point of even bringing it up.

@Aegis:The first sentence quoted above is, I believe, grammatically incomplete. So forgive me if I have mis-interpreted what you say here, but may I ask: are you accusing me of having described Islam as a "violent religion?" I do not believe I have ever done anything of the sort, and would request that you either explain your statement more fully, or take back the allusion.

In your earlier statement, you ask: "So, you'd prefer it if they stood in the field like American soldiers, fought like American soldiers, and died like American soldiers, but minus all the fun toys and gadgets of American soldiers? I don't follow that line of thought." You needn't follow that line of thought, as it is not mine. If you ask me what I would "prefer," I would prefer that the Iraqis not attack our soldiers at all. Hell, I would prefer we had never invaded Iraq (which I stated numerous times prior to the invasion). But wishing won't make it so, eh?

I mention the incidents I do because US soldiers are being accused of killing women and children, and indiscriminantly destroying holy sites (and Lord only knows what next). But when you see the context - i.e. that snipers are using those holy sites, and women and children are participating in action against our soldiers, then you get a whole new perspective, don't you?

Tom2 · Post by **Tom2** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:15 am

Re: Plan of Action for Iraq

Originally posted by Vicsun
1. Invade Iraq
2. ???
3. Democracy!

It's just that all of the underground gnomes... err I mean world leaders assumed someone else knows what the second step is.

I don’t believe that the current administration wants a democratic Iraq (nor do most Iraqi’s now). Sistani has sided with the USA up till now but when he backed democratic elections and the US didn’t neither side was very happy. From the beginning this war was about oil and strategic influence in the region, a council appointed by the US will be a hell of a lot easier to control than a democratically elected ayatola.

As I see it the plan was
1. invade Iraq.
2. ???
3. grateful puppy state with lots of oil and 100.000 US troops on the borders of Iran and Saudi.

I am tom by the way - I lost my account so had to set up a new one. I like my new name alot, the lone range has gone of to be alone so now i am ... lone tom2.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:16 am

Re: Re: Plan of Action for Iraq

Originally posted by Tom2
I don’t believe that the current administration wants a democratic Iraq (nor do most Iraqi’s now). Sistani has sided with the USA up till now but when he backed democratic elections and the US didn’t neither side was very happy.

Most Shias still want democracy, because, as the majority group, they'll get a lot of control. That's just about the only reason Sistani is supporting (that's probably too generous a term) the US. When he backed democratic elections, rather than a caucus system (only for choosing the interim government, not the final product), the US backed down. Sistani, and the US, both know that his support is crucial if they ever want to have order in the country, and he wants democracy.

With regards to profiting from a non democratic Iraq - the coalition has publicly promised many times that Iraq will be democratic. It'll be hard to get out of that, especially considering the situation on the ground. They definitely won't allow an Iranian style theocracy, Al'Sadr's prefered option, and they can't maintain an expensive occupation indefinitely. Democracy, if they can make it work, is the easiest way to delegate expensive tasks, make massive PR capital, both at home and abroad, rattle other 'rogue states', and have oil supplies reasonably secure.
Of course, Bush would probably like to rule the country by diktat, but given the reality of the situation, democracy is the solution that makes the most sense, and he knows it.

Besides which, oil production is way down from Ba'athist days, and is only beginning to pick itself up. It hasn't covered the cost of occupation yet, and it seems fairly likely it never will, especially if infrastructure continues to be threatened by insurgency and terrorism all the time.

ps: Is that Tom as in the man with the Tigger avatar?