I too am concerned with the appearance of colonization because that's exactly what we say we will not do---but what we do NOT want is another Afghanistan type government and the way we allowed the warlords to keep their weapons. We didn't have much choice there but we cannot allow it to happen in Iraq.
perception, I do not believe there is a danger of an Afghanistan type war lord takeover of Iraq. Saddam has pretty much squashed that kind of revolt. The ex-patriots of Iraq from different regions are meeting to develop their new government after Saddam. The only potential split I see are between the two major Islam factions, not like the many warlords that existed before the US got involved in Afghanistan. c.i.
C.I.
Yes I agree but the point I want to make is that we must not allow any group to lay false claim prematurely and that we must absolutely disarm the entire bloody population---if we don't there will nothing but trouble that we can't contain. At the end of the military action we will not be beholden to anyone like we were in Afghanistan. We really let the northern alliance outmaneuver us but we allowed it for expediency, nothing else.
When I say absolute Mililtary control and marshal law that's exactly what I mean. No more that one person should ever be allowed the even think about causing trouble. We must be ruthless but fair to all. This will require a large occupation army and relentless pursuit and jailing of trouble makers. There is no other way to be successful. We must show the people of Iraq that if they cooperate and play the game they will be relatively free to live their lives without oppression--break the rules and be punished by their own people under Islamic law.
Yes, and a large occupation army for some years into the future must be composed from the international community. c.i.
perception,
There are no warlords so the rivalries will mainly be about how the post war goes. I think trying to make things fair and not come across as occupiers is more important than a disarmament wjich is logistically troublesome, not needed (since there are no militias) and would go down very harshly.
Perception,
You are doing better. However, you are still over the top. Slow down and think these things through. Disarming the entire population of a country like Iraq may be a nice goal, but it is not practical. Absolute power vested in a foreign Military Governor is likewise probably not doable.
It would indeed be nice to have the sort of Military Governor that McArthur was in Japan. A new Constitution based on that of the United States drafted and believed in by the national leadership would be wonderful. The situation that is likely to exist in post Gulf II is not, however, likely to favor that dream.
Asherman
For one who is so hawkish you have a soft streak. If we don't do as I suggest we will never be able to control the country and if we don't control the country all of the casualties will be for nothing.
I would as I say set up Islamic courts to deal with those that break the rules but I would determine what the rules are, such as violating curfews, reprisal actions, using prohibited firearms, stealing, and most of all preaching hate and intolerance. I think all moderate Muslims have had enough of hate being forced down their throats.
The most difficult part will be keeping the various ethnic factions separated and to try and teach them to tolerate each other.
It is the intolerance that I would suggest is the worst element of the militant extremist form of Islam that is the worlds enemy. Not just the enemy of the US.
Craven
Just because we are occupiers does not mean we are going to act like conquerors---there is a difference you know. You seem to have the mistaken idea that we can go in and say---OK---we're here now do as we say. There will be a certain amount of force required and if you thing we can allow a bunch of hoodlums to ride around in pickup trucks with AK-47s I think you're being naive.
This is exactly what happened and is still happening in Afghanistan.
Wrong way to go.
Asherman
Regarding what form of gov't will eventually evolve in Iraq---It would be foolish of me to predict that but that comes much later than now. For now recontituting the same form of gov't they had minus Saddam and thugs, will work until the Iraqis determine the form of gov't best suited for them. Perhaps the same form of gov't as in Turkey----I am not suggesting that our form of democracy should be implemented. But until all of this is determined we must control the country with a military governor just like MacArthur. Can you think of anything better?
Turkey has a republican parliamentary democracy - like most other democratic countries, which don't have a federal system.
Did you chose Turkey, perception, because of geography?
Or, because Turkey is an islamic state as well?
Craven
You say there are no warlords. They still have a tribal culture and if we let them I think it is very possible that they would digress back into that life.
If we allow them to keep weapons----lots of our guys will be picked off by snipers----there will still be a tremendous amount of hatred that will not disappear overnight.
Look we are going to lose a lot of good men---I would not want to lose more because I didn't take the forceful actions required to provide a reasonably safe invironment for the occupation.
Walter
I chose Turkey because they are an Islamic country and they have shown that it will work in an Islamic country.
Intolerance and chauvinism, both endemic to Abrahamic religions, are indeed a major part of the problems the world sees in Southwest Asia.
Unfortunately, no one has yet to discover a way to change the human heart. Bitterness and hatred run deep in the region, and that won't go away just because we wish it so. In fact, the attempt to enforce tolerance is something of an oxymoron. I don't believe any nation has done so much to wipe out prejudice and intolerance as the United States in the last half of the 20th century. Yet racial/ethnic intolerance still exists here within every ethnic community in the land. For us to attempt healing the divisions within Islam would be arrogant and ultimately would increase the hatred of the West. A better hope, I think, is to nudge Southwest Asian governments toward constitutions that separate church and state.
Philosophically we want and strive toward a world where the values expressed in the United States Constitution are universal. Not only do we seek the blessings imbodied in the Bill of Rights, we passionately believe that government should reflect the Will of the People. That puts us in a bit of a quandry when dealing with States and cultures so very different from our own. What if the Will of the People is for a despotic radical Islamic dictatorship? A great many, perhaps most of the Pakistani people are supporters of Al Queda and the Taliban. Yet we support the current military dictator because it is in our vital national interests to do so. Many of the governments in the region are torn between supporting the West as their best hope for national progress toward a better and more secure life for their citizens (let's give them the benefit of the doubt here), and the radical Islamic demands of the masses. Even when the secular government has no better motivation than to remain in power, the secularists are preferable to governments like those in afghanistan, Iran, yemen, etc.
Though we may easily find fault with Israel, it is an ally in a vital region where the prevailing popular sentiments are violently anti-Western. Israel is not likely to turn on us, and is the most competent regional military force. An Israeli nuclear capability actually has some deterrent value, and is arguably necessary to preserve the peace in the region. It is highly unlikely that Israel will actually fire its nuclear device(s) on any neighbor so long as it isn't in dire danger of total national extinction. On the other hand Iraq has demonstrated its willingness to use any and all weapons at its disposal against its neighbors and Israel.
Asherman, Very well put! c.i.
Asherman, agree with a lot of what you say and I accept this is taken out of context but:-
"Philosophically we want and strive toward a world where the values expressed in the United States Constitution are universal. "
Seems a trifle arrogant to me.
"values expressed in the United States Constitution are universal. "
Simply debatable under the best of days. I contend the USA is currently moving away from them!
At least it seems valuable as well, to have a look at some other constitutions, for instance here:
Constitutions worldwide
Asherman
I'd like to address one line in your post:
Quote:On the other hand Iraq has demonstrated its willingness to use any and all weapons at its disposal against its neighbors and Israel.
This claim gets a lot of play, but it's not really accurate. Against Israel - some skuds is it, yes? Kuwait didn't get chemicalled, yes? Wouldn't the sentence be more accurate if worded "Iraq has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons, including gas in two instances"?
Blatham,
Yes, it would be more accurate but no more true. Saddam has demonstrated his willingness to invade neighbors and kill large numbers of people to maintain and extend his power. He has used chemical weapons on civilian populations. Is there any doubt that Saddam would release biologicals if it suited him? Does Saddam need a nuclear device to protect himself from Jordan, or the tiny oil states along the Gulf? To be sure, my statement is a bit more rhetorical than it is unvarnished fact.
BillW,
That isn't quite what I said, and your interpretation is at odds with the clear meaning of my remarks.
Steve,
You are right. Our assumption that the values inherent in the Bill of Rights are universal is somewhat arrogant. However, folks generally only hold opinions they believe to be true. What American, or citizen of any of the Western inducstrial states for that matter, doesn't value personal freedom? My point was and is that there are whole populations who don't value personal freedom so highly as they value religeous correctness and the maintenance of their traditional cultural values. Wasn't I clear?
Cicero,
A very good resource. Would you please add it to the political links at the head of this forum?
Well, that's exactly how I see it:
today, some (not only) in the USA value their religious correctness and the maintenance of their cultural values higher than personal freedom.
