Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[The Gaffer]

Got a link for that (transcript or text report ideally)?

Am trying to resist the temptation to speculate...

[hectorberlioz]

Well I was listening to it on the radio....I'm not sure there'd be a transcript of it this fast, would there?

[hectorberlioz]

If there is something stupider than the democrats - and some Republicans - trying to look independent and fresh by booing Bush's troop level increase, I have yet to see it.

It's one thing to be a Bush henchman, it's quite another to try and look opinionated and original when everyone already knows that 2008 is looming on the horizon, quite close.

Is there really a reason that the troop reinforcements won't do at least some more good for Bahgdad? And with the new "green light" for troops to search out Sadr city, and have more leeway, is there a good reason why at least something different and perhaps good -and dare we hope, successful- might happen?

And with all these new leeways, and supposed cooperation from Maliki, why exactly are troop reinforcements a bad thing?
It's almost like the Democrats WANT to lose. Sure they don't support the war, don't believe in it, but while we're in there, do they HAVE to crack the troop helmets?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

he issues again: because Ahmedinejad regards Israel as an occupying force, and therefore illegitimate state, he must have said that all Jews should be killed.

Are you saying that those translators in the Guardian were wrong? Why do you think they were not reported in more right-wing media? I think you really should question this deeply. You are being manipulated.

A new, relevant article has recently appeared on BBC News. Not only is the state illegitimate, according to these words (and, I think, according to the "wipe off the map" statement and the "rotten tree" statement), but it repeats again the earlier statements that the Zionist regime should be destroyed. To him it is illegitimate . . . and well deserving of destruction.

Originally Posted by BBC News

Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted by Irna, the official Iranian news agency, as saying: "The hegemony of the occupier regime [Israel] had collapsed, and the Lebanese nation pushed the button to begin counting the days until the destruction of the Zionist regime."

"God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

In October 2005, the Iranian president made a statement in which he envisaged the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state. This was widely translated as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

While he has repeated similar comments many times, he has insisted that Iran is not a threat to Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6733487.stm

I'm not planning to debate the issue this time. I think we've already all been over the relevant points in a lot of detail, which was good. But I thought I'd bring this up anyway, as it's new and strongly related.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's almost like the Democrats WANT to lose. Sure they don't support the war, don't believe in it, but while we're in there, do they HAVE to crack the troop helmets?

Ha, I think you've finally got it! And we wondered why they were comparing Vietnam and Iraq...well, there's your answer.

[Insidious Rex]

The new american "War Czar" Bush just appointed was recently quoted as saying the troop surge is likely to be useless if the Iraqis arent in a position to keep it that way which it clearly seems they arent. So whats the point again? Stuck in Iraq holding the dyke together? What was that about Vietnam?

[Lief Erikson]

On the other hand, Insidious, according to the Time, in the Anbar province "the level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters." The article goes on to talk about the difficulties that the largely Shi'ite government is having getting along with the Sunnis, but the victory in the Anbar province is a very significant one. Anbar has been a bastion of Al-Qaeda and among the most violent parts of Iraq, until now.

And about the readiness of the Iraqis to fight and their ability to win, it's worth noting about this success in Anbar that it is largely the result of "sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there."

The implications of this victory may have wider consequences too.

Originally Posted by TIME

The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as TIME's Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi insurgency.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...624697,00.html

Of course there are places in Iraq where this is not holding true, and Baghdad in particular is still a big problem. But Anbar has been one of the most central places where Al-Qaeda held power, so Al-Qaeda's defeat there is important.

[Lief Erikson]

Apparently this strategy extends beyond Anbar into the Diyala province as well. There, an alliance of nationalist insurgents is now helping the US to destroy Al'Qaeda. Afterward we might end up fighting them again, depending on how the diplomacy is handled and on whether or not our new insurgent allies will accept a compromise.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

our new insurgent allies

Yet again, I am reminded of the scene in 1984 when the Enemy morphs from Eurasia to Eastasia in an instant. You get the Doublethink Gold Medal for this one, Lief.

[Lief Erikson]

You're confusing me. You think it isn't helpful that we've gotten insurgent groups to work with our people and the Iraqis against other insurgents?

[The Gaffer]

Yes. If you don't have a problem with it, well I'm glad for you, but fear for your soul.

Nobody cares what these groups represent or atrocities they have committed, as long as they are opposed to groups associated with Al-Qaida and/or Iran. i.e. political expediency trumps principles yet again.

So we are shaping up nicely for a Sunni/US alliance against the Shia/Iran factions.

It's exactly what was predicted by people like me back in 2001/2 when an Iraq war was touted.

I suppose the fact that the Iraq Study Group findings are being given more house room by a consistently clueless and desperate Bush administration is some cause for optimism. However, it looks pretty bleak.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes. If you don't have a problem with it, well I'm glad for you, but fear for your soul.

Nobody cares what these groups represent or atrocities they have committed, as long as they are opposed to groups associated with Al-Qaida and/or Iran. i.e. political expediency trumps principles yet again.

I completely disagree. By that reasoning, we should never have accepted help from Russia during WW2 either. If Stalin hadn't been a major part of our alliance, we probably would not have won. Instead we chose to confront him after the war was over. There's an old saying, "an enemy of an enemy is a friend." Even if you and this "friend" will be killing each other again after your common enemy is destroyed, at least then you only have one enemy to deal with rather than two. Then it will be that much easier to root out the atrocities you're concerned about. Much easier than trying to fight everybody at once.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So we are shaping up nicely for a Sunni/US alliance against the Shia/Iran factions.

Most of the current government is Shia, and we have a strong relationship with them. We have ties on both sides, though yes, it is necessary to confront groups tied to Iran. That is only logical.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's exactly what was predicted by people like me back in 2001/2 when an Iraq war was touted.

I suppose the fact that the Iraq Study Group findings are being given more house room by a consistently clueless and desperate Bush administration is some cause for optimism. However, it looks pretty bleak.

One of my liberal professors and I at college were once having a debate about this war. I was pointing out to him various successes the coalition and Iraqi government has had. He responded to me, "if any of these 'successes' carry into the Anbar province, then come back and talk to me." Peace in the Anbar province is an important victory, and the alliance against Al'Qaeda likewise is a very important success that spans more than one province, and one can hope will continue to spread.

And of course there is bad news too, terrorists blowing up civilians and troops, and then there also are successful round-ups and killings of insurgents that rarely make the news. It's certainly not over, and I'm not trying to say it is. I'm just pointing out it's not all bad .

[The Gaffer]

Lief, this is the exact same logic that had us supporting Saddam throughout the 80s. And it is the exactly why people around the world have a rather hard time believing that the US intervention in Iraq is anything at all to do with principles such as freedom and democracy. However, I applaud your honesty, that it is driven by political expediency - opposing Iran - not by principle.

I should point out that Germany attacked Russia before the US entered the war.

It is good that in some areas, such as Anbar, things are improving. i.e. only a few attacks per week. But it's a long road. In Afghanistan (remember that? the one where we tooled up the locals?), they are talking about our troops being involved for many years yet. Iraq is an even bigger mess unfortunately.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, this is the exact same logic that had us supporting Saddam throughout the 80s.

Yep.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And it is the exactly why people around the world have a rather hard time believing that the US intervention in Iraq is anything at all to do with principles such as freedom and democracy.

I don't think I know of any country that acts at all in the world in a big way that is outside of its self-interest. The US is trying to create freedom and democracy in Iraq. That is obvious. There are other factors aside from the desire to free an oppressed people, though- otherwise we'd be at war with most of the rest of the world right now. The oil in Iraq makes it of great strategic importance. Allowing people who might use that oil money to attack the US through terrorism makes freeing the oppressed in Iraq a high priority.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, I applaud your honesty, that it is driven by political expediency - opposing Iran - not by principle.

Yes, it's about being practical. But I don't see it as opposed to principle at all.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I should point out that Germany attacked Russia before the US entered the war.

Yes, but the US supported Russia with machinery and weapons during the war.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It is good that in some areas, such as Anbar, things are improving. i.e. only a few attacks per week. But it's a long road. In Afghanistan (remember that? the one where we tooled up the locals?), they are talking about our troops being involved for many years yet. Iraq is an even bigger mess unfortunately.

I agree that it's a long road. It's also one that the Iraqis, not the US, will have to see through to its conclusion. We'll be there with many armed troops (or should be there) as long as they need us, and we'll probably continue to give them slowly declining support for many, many years ahead.

[Lief Erikson]

YES! Iraq's oil production has now exceeded the levels it was at before the US's invasion of Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7144774.stm

[The Gaffer]

Hooray! 4m refugees, 0.5-1m deaths and we're back where we started.

Go us!

[Earniel]

Lief, is that even a good thing? Years of war, a messed up country, death all around and the cradle of civilisation robbed and sold over the internet. And a higher oil outpour is all we've got to show for? That's rather pathetic.

[Insidious Rex]

Yeah but at least the oil barrons are happy.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hooray! 4m refugees, 0.5-1m deaths and we're back where we started.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Lief, is that even a good thing? Years of war, a messed up country, death all around and the cradle of civilisation robbed and sold over the internet. And a higher oil outpour is all we've got to show for? That's rather pathetic.

If everything was over now, and no further improvements were coming, I'd agree. I'm not saying a higher oil output alone is worth all of this cost. I am saying that it's a sign that things are getting better, at least for now.

I will just mention though, Gaffer, that those casualty statistics you gave are very debatable. Under 100,000 civilian casualties have been documented (iraqbodycount.org). Of course, there have certainly been many undocumented deaths, but the suggested tallies of available lists differ strongly in their estimates.

I don't yet have a view, myself, on what the casualty number in Iraq probably is.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yeah but at least the oil barrons are happy.

There was oil corruption during Saddam's day too. There was also huge economic corruption during the US, in the 19th century. That there should be economic corruption in modern Iraq, even a great deal of it, is not surprising giving the fragile state of the country's security and government at this time. But it is ridiculous to suggest that the improved economic capability of the country is not an improvement.

Even if ALL the money from the oil went into the hands of "oil barons," the increased production would be an improvement for Iraq, for in the past, Iraq was too unstable for this kind of production. Even if it ALL went away to corruption, the fact that the oil can be produced at all shows that Iraq is now more stable than it used to be, which is a good thing.

I do believe that the increased productivity is helping the common people in Iraq, though, even if a significant amount of oil revenue is lost to corruption.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If everything was over now, and no further improvements were coming, I'd agree. I'm not saying a higher oil output alone is worth all of this cost. I am saying that it's a sign that things are getting better, at least for now.

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. All depends on the existance of those future improvements and at this point we are miles away from realising them. If you ask me the very idea of future improvements is at this time even unrealistic.

Also, if the only thing achieved after years of causing so much long-lasting damage, is a couple of oil barrels more than before, then the current focus for repairing Iraq is disgracefully askew. Oil is a lousy choice of priority.