Iraq after the war? - Page 2

Ned · March 5, 2003, 22:35

I failed to see the option where America installs a brutal imperialist military puppet government, kept in power and taking orders from US occupation forces, even while permitting corporate friends of Bush to drain Iraq of its oil and make themselves and the Bush family enormously wealthy.

MichaeltheGreat · March 5, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

The Iraqi Shi'ite have been crushed before when they tried to rise up. If needed, they can be crushed again.

Since they're a majority of the population, I guess that royally ****s your pretense to be for democracy, human rights, or anything other than a naked power grab.

MichaeltheGreat · March 5, 2003, 22:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
I failed to see the option where America installs a brutal imperialist military puppet government, kept in power and taking orders from US occupation forces, even while permitting corporate friends of Bush to drain Iraq of its oil and make themselves and the Bush family enormously wealthy.

Well, that's a given.

MichaeltheGreat · March 5, 2003, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This is exactly the impression I got from Bush's speech about creating a functioning democracy in Iraq...

Mouthing platitudes in Washington for domestic public consumption is a bit different from actually doing something on the ground, in the midst of nationalist, religious and ethnic rivalries of which we have little understanding, while dealing with outside political interference, power maneuvering and influence games from our erstwhile "allies" and the Iranians.

St Leo · March 5, 2003, 22:43

Where's the "Saddam's loyal army destroys that of the invading imperialist lackeys of the Great Shaitan and goes on to recreate the Arab empire." option?

Ned · March 5, 2003, 22:43

MTG, Of course.

I was watching a reporter conduct a survey of the Arab street to ask their opinion of the upcoming war. Of course, they were against it. When the reporter asked why - the answer was uniform: OIL. Bush was after the OIL.

Why, even I would be against the war if that is what I thought it was about.

Drake Tungsten · March 5, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Mouthing platitudes in Washington for domestic public consumption is a bit different from actually doing something on the ground, in the midst of nationalist, religious and ethnic rivalries of which we have little understanding, while dealing with outside political interference, power maneuvering and influence games from our erstwhile "allies" and the Iranians.

I was mocking Ramo's pronouncements on Bush's "political disposition", as if he has any idea what Bush is really thinking on the matter. I have my doubts about how successful American attempts to introduce democracy to Iraq will be, but I'm not so far gone as to believe that a ruthless dictator is Bush's best case scenario...

SlowwHand · March 5, 2003, 22:52

Why not just do the Iraqi people's dirty work, dusting Hussein and son's asses, then go away ?
Give them a chance to do it right, or not.

I don't want the US to turn into full-time babysitters.

Shi Huangdi · March 5, 2003, 22:58

"What working model? Saddam's regime? The people in the south won't put up with Ba'athists ruling them once Saddam is gone and there really isn't any other elites that the US could coopt to run the area (unlike the Kurdish north where there are somewhat functional institutions, where things should go relatively well unless the Turks **** with things to "protect" the Turkomen in Kirkuk)."

What I meant by installing order is putting down any inital rebellions- the model we have there is Saddam's military actions against the Shiite. If they can be crushed before they can be crushed again. In an absolute worst case scenario though where it appears democracy doesn't stand a chance in hell, though, we could install a number 8 scenario.

"In which case would people of a given religion be less inclided to secularism? One in which an Islamist government is oppressing you or one in which a adamantly secular government run by people of a different religion is tyrannizing you?"

It's hard to say. Hopefully there might be some connections between the two Shiite communities. It is really hard to tell whether the Shi'ites of the South would be willing to cooperate with a secular government. Keep in mind though Shiites are a majority but an overwhelming majority, so if a significant minority of Shiites are secular, the Islamist Shiites would not gain powe. As far as the adamantly secular government tyrannizing you, that may work towards our favor. They really hate Saddam and if we do replace Saddam with a government in which Shiites would have a say they might be grateful to the USA.

We should have a better idea of what is possible once our forces our on the ground there.

"I don't think there'll be all that much, the Bush administration's attention span isn't that long and there isn't the Communist Peril to goad the US into putting a lot of effort into it as was the case with Germany and Japan."

From Bush's speeches, he might pay attention. It sounds like he wants to make Iraq his big project for democracy in the Middle East.

"
Since they're a majority of the population, I guess that royally ****s your pretense to be for democracy, human rights, or anything other than a naked power grab."

In putting in another dictator, that would be a worst case scenario. I believe a #1 option should be possible.

Also if we wanted to a federation of warlords a la Afghanistan might not be completely impossible if we wanted to go that route. Simply arm local tribes and commanders, and keep order by making it clear if they piss us off we can side with other warlords in crushing them. Al Qaeda is Sunni, so we shouldn't have to worry too much about them getting support of the Iraqi Shiite.

Kontiki · March 5, 2003, 22:58

Definitely Afghanistan-like, but not exactly the same due to the differing infrastructure and groups. The US will nonetheless bribe/cajole the differing groups to form a loose coalition which will be just about as successful as it is in Afghanistan.

However, the Afghanistan option is really just a first stage. It's still too soon to say what Afghanistan will look like 10-20 years down the road (except that it definitely won't be prosperous). As I said, I see Iraq looking like Afghanistan immediately after the war, but it could turn into a number of the other scenarios at a later date.

Ramo · March 5, 2003, 22:58

Quote:

I was mocking Ramo's pronouncements on Bush's "political disposition", as if he has any idea what Bush is really thinking on the matter. I have my doubts about how successful America attempts to introduce democracy to Iraq will be, but I'm not so far gone to believe that a ruthless dictator is the best case scenario...

Why do you think you have any idea what Shrub is really thinking on the matter? Because he said it in a public speech?

It's very likely Shrub wants to maximize US authority. The quickest, cleanest, simplest way to do that is to put a more loyal Sunni dictator into power. Which is why I said it's the best case scenario.

Of course, Shrub isn't quite the brightest guy that's ever been in a position of power, so I have my doubts. I really hope Iraq doesn't turn into another Lebanon, but Shrub has shown some remarkable incompetence in terms of international diplomacy.

Shi Huangdi · March 5, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why not just do the Iraqi people's dirty work, dusting Hussein and son's asses, then go away ?
Give them a chance to do it right, or not.

I don't want the US to turn into full-time babysitters.

Because if we do this, this is where the leftists worst case scenarios keep talking about have a chance of coming into play and we could end up with a government worse then Saddams.

MichaeltheGreat · March 5, 2003, 23:02

Drake - I figured as much - I don't even bother to mock some of the more absurd pronouncements here.

Drake Tungsten · March 5, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Why do you think you have any idea what Shrub is really thinking on the matter?

I don't think I ever claimed to know what Bush is thinking. I was just pointing out that your view has no basis in reality, although I'm wondering now why I even bothered...

SlowwHand · March 5, 2003, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Because if we do this, this is where the leftists worst case scenarios keep talking about have a chance of coming into play and we could end up with a government worse then Saddams.

Maybe, maybe not.
People deserve a chance.
So we go to Phillipines. Stay there.
Go to Iran. Stay there.
Go to Samolia. Stay there.
Go to N. Korea. Stay there.

Nahhhhhhh. Thanks for the opportunity, but no.

DuncanK · March 5, 2003, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Mouthing platitudes in Washington for domestic public consumption is a bit different from actually doing something on the ground, in the midst of nationalist, religious and ethnic rivalries of which we have little understanding, while dealing with outside political interference, power maneuvering and influence games from our erstwhile "allies" and the Iranians.

I was mocking Ramo's pronouncements on Bush's "political disposition", as if he has any idea what Bush is really thinking on the matter. I have my doubts about how successful American attempts to introduce democracy to Iraq will be, but I'm not so far gone as to believe that a ruthless dictator is Bush's best case scenario...

Drake,

The idea that Iraq could be turned into a Democracy is not founded in reality. That would be a disaster. At the most they will have more freedoms than they have now, and then we can say that we made improvements to their society.

Ramo · March 5, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

I don't think I ever claimed to know what Bush is thinking. I was just pointing out that your view has no basis in reality, although I'm wondering now why I even bothered...

Yes you did. " I'm not so far gone to believe that a ruthless dictator is the best case scenario." This implies that you have a belief of what the best case scenario might be. Which implies that you believe you have some idea of what Shrub wants in Iraq.

My view has no basis in reality? The Turkish alliance isn't important to the US? Preventing a Saudi coup isn't important to the US? Preventing a civil war in Iraq isn't important to the US? Preventing Iran from gaining power isn't important to the US? I would argue that your belief of democracy in Iraq isn't based in reality.

Drake Tungsten · March 5, 2003, 23:34

Quote:

The idea that Iraq could be turned into a Democracy is not founded in reality. That would be a disaster.

This statement really, really scares me...

Quote:

Yes you did. " I'm not so far gone to believe that a ruthless dictator is the best case scenario." This implies that you have a belief of what the best case scenario might be.

No it doesn't. Of course, you can't see why calling a ruthless dictator the best case scenario is ridiculous, so why would I waste time debating it with you? Go ahead and believe what you want; forget I said anything.

Ramo · March 5, 2003, 23:37

You didn't say anything. Nothing of any substance anyways.

Drake Tungsten · March 5, 2003, 23:40

Quote:

You didn't say anything. Nothing of any substance anyways.

Oh no. I'm starting to turn into you...

Adam Smith · March 5, 2003, 23:53

The fact that there are so many plausible scenarios suggests that we shouldn't be invading in the first place.

Ramo · March 5, 2003, 23:56

Quote:

Oh no. I'm starting to turn into you...

No, you'd have to get a world view based on reality first.

Drake Tungsten · March 6, 2003, 00:05

Quote:

No, you'd have to get a world view based on reality first.

An anarchist accusing me of being out of touch with reality? I've heard it all now...

Bosh · March 6, 2003, 01:11

Quote:

I failed to see the option where America installs a brutal imperialist military puppet government, kept in power and taking orders from US occupation forces

More or less: "The US installs a Sunni Arab general who turns out to be not all that different from Saddam"

Quote:

If they can be crushed before they can be crushed again.

Right, they can be crushed in anything remotely resembling a set-piece battle but it might be hard to crush guerilla activity on their part without resorting to police state tactics.

Quote:

It is really hard to tell whether the Shi'ites of the South would be willing to cooperate with a secular government.

If it was democratic they wouldn't mind, but the rest of the population would have a hard time putting up with the Shia majority running the show.

Quote:

From Bush's speeches, he might pay attention. It sounds like he wants to make Iraq his big project for democracy in the Middle East.

That doesn't mean anything. He promised Afghanistan (and Pakistan etc.) billions of aid that never materialized, probably the biggest reason that the Turks are holding out is that they want something more concrete than Bush's promises.

Quote:

Simply arm local tribes and commanders, and keep order

Not really, except in the North there's no real independent elite to arm, Saddam's killed them off mostly.

Personally I think the best-case scenario is something like present-day Bosnia.

Bosh · March 6, 2003, 01:14

Oh and a Syrian joke about Iraq is that Saddam came up with an idea about how to end illiteracy. He'd get all Iraqi's assembled and hold up a sign that says "duck." Then machine guns would fire at head level.

SlowwHand · March 6, 2003, 01:17

Suggestion, Ramo.
Cut the name games. It's infantile, and distracts from your point.

Bosh · March 6, 2003, 12:51

go ramo go

Shi Huangdi · March 6, 2003, 21:57

"Right, they can be crushed in anything remotely resembling a set-piece battle but it might be hard to crush guerilla activity on their part without resorting to police state tactics."

Resorting to police state tactics, if in a worst-case-scenario type situation, could be an acceptable method for a US installed dictatorship. Better then lettitng fundie guerilla operate. Also keep in mind there are no rebellions right now against Saddam by the Shia. So long as we put in government that better then him I don't see them as any more likely to rebel, and we will have force in there to monitor against anybody forming new militias.

"That doesn't mean anything."

Well that is what those close to the President have been saying he wants. I think a democratic US friendly regime in Iraq would be immensely more benefical to us then a US friendly dictatorship there so I would imagine Bush would make a serious effort at it.

"Not really, except in the North there's no real independent elite to arm, Saddam's killed them off mostly."

No, I think there are still some local tribal chiefs still operating, though Saddam right now has them thoroughly puppeted.

"Personally I think the best-case scenario is something like present-day Bosnia."

I disagree. The best case scenario is Option #1, goes vaugely similiar to post WWII Germany and Japan. The Worst Case Scenario is option 8, we have to go with a Sunni Dictator. I don't think a Lebanon type situation is much of a threat, the Iraqi people can be forcibly controlled if need be.

DuncanK · March 6, 2003, 22:18

In the news conference tonight Bush emphasized the word 'federation' for post-war Iraq. I can't see a weak central government taking power. Strange. Maybe it was just BS.

lord of the mark · March 7, 2003, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki
Definitely Afghanistan-like, but not exactly the same due to the differing infrastructure and groups. The US will nonetheless bribe/cajole the differing groups to form a loose coalition which will be just about as successful as it is in Afghanistan.

However, the Afghanistan option is really just a first stage. It's still too soon to say what Afghanistan will look like 10-20 years down the road (except that it definitely won't be prosperous). As I said, I see Iraq looking like Afghanistan immediately after the war, but it could turn into a number of the other scenarios at a later date.

this is along the lines of what i think - said afganistan, on the idead that there will be a loose coalition formed with lots of US involvement/encouragement/manipulation - I wasnt thinking of the kind of geographic decentralization/war lordism you have in afgan - i agrre thats not likely here. But i think there will be no national elections anytime soon, but there will still be an attempt to get Iraqis involved seriously in the larger running of the country. Also maybe local elections as a start.

Will there be a shiite rebellion - dount it - Aytollah Bakr, the leader of SCIRI hasnt made any noises in that direction, and has been working with the rest of the opposition. If he launches a rebellion there are only 2 possibilities - 1. he loses 2 he succeeds, but ends up dependent on Iran as protector. If he refrains from rebelling he will probably end up as a major leader, and ultimately possibly president, of a united Iraq, under the protection of a US which will gradually turn away when its regional objectives are accomplished. I think the situation is quite different from Lebanon - in lebanon the Shiites are smaller per cent of the population. The israelis occupation was far more unpopular than I expect the US occupation to be, for a variety of reasons. Also the the Shiites in Lebanon were originally divided between Hezb and Amal (?) Hezb rise to prominence is associated to issues of Syrian intervention that dont apply in Iraq.