Civil War In Iraq ????

[Venom-0]

Many folk in the business of figuring these people out indicate that one of the major hurdles and prerequisites of a positively progressing democratic society is the secularization of government.
Brett

We Can Also Use A Real One Here.

 

[Brett327]

We Can Also Use A Real One Here.

Please elaborate.

Brett

 

[Recidivist]

A4s is totally right about the oil, we wouldn't be there in the first place if it weren't there, and that's why we're going to have a hard time leaving.

I think its pretty much fair knowledge that we went to war on false pretext (Saddam's WMD and links to Al-Qaeda were the reasons, not that Saddam was a bad and ruthless ruler, not that Civil Rights violations were occuring, all of which are true, but were not the impetus for action). In keeping with that, the only agenda that we have managed to sucessfully advance is regime change, but the new regime is not exactly in the best situation for a developing government instilled by a foreign power.

To successfully move Iraq forward requires movement both politically and militarily. Security forces have to be protecting a government that they can believe in and that government has to provide for its citizens, in addition to infrastructure, education and other social benefits, security. I'm all for the idea that people should be able to elect their leaders, but if what people want most is to be able to go to work without worrying about being killed, or to get an education or turn on their lights at night, then that might be a good consideration in foriegn policy.

Indonesia under Suharto may be a good example. Supposedly democratic, but not really. Even when he was in power, infrastructure developed, schools were built and people were generally happy, without true democracy. Indonesia is a country with strategic importance and vast resources, but with whom the US was able to trade with fairly openly. No regime changes made, but the people finally were able to push the Suharto regime out and now have better elections and more freedom of speech. As was mentioned earlier, the people have to be the motivator for the process, otherwise its efficacy is very negatively influenced.

So, how this has to do with Iraq and civil war-
A foriegn government is trying to instill democracy on an area where Theocracy is also the preferred form of government. You can have both, but that only really works out when the constituency is not religiously divided. Not exactly what you have in Iraq. Since the US is promoting democracy there, and its not engendered by the people of Iraq, there are going to be problems. If the majority of the people were warring it would be a more serious concern, but as it stands right now its mostly just extreme groups, kinda like if those that wanted abortion totally legal were in an all out war with those that wanted it totally banned. Most people are somewhere in between. All out Civil war will progress if the more moderates are drawn in.

I think that the US has a moral obligation to mitigate the violence in Iraq. How to best accomplish that? well I'm not sure that's in the nature of this thread (nor am I sure exactly how to go about it). Moral obligations do not drive our foriegn policy, though. Economics do, so I suspect that we will be protecting our resources for a little while at least.

@ raptor10
The Idea of Total War is effective, yet very immoral. Take the arguably most successful ethnic cleansing in modern history as an example. It was cited by you as a success. Manifest destiny. We are not supposed to be occupying Iraq, its supposed to be an independent state, so the thrid option would be much more in keeping with our foriegn policy.

 

[zippy]

if you look at our constitution it states religious freedom--as long as the civil war is involving religion we have to remove ourselves or break our own laws. As soon as it is called a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis we are going to have to withdrawl.

The Preamble states "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Last time I checked, Iraq wasn't the 51st state...

 

[Fly Navy]

if you look at our constitution it states religious freedom--as long as the civil war is involving religion we have to remove ourselves or break our own laws. As soon as it is called a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis we are going to have to withdrawl. The shiites have to contain themselves or we will definately leave en mass as the French say.

Hypothetical question (or not so hypothetical given what's happening to Europe):

The muslim population in the USA booms. They become the majority minority. Unfortunately these aren't the peaceful muslims and they decide to mount a campaign to overthrow the government to make an Islamic state, such as Iran. What do you do?

(Yes, I know it's out there, but it's for the sake of argument)

You don't have to answer, it's rhetorical. Your freedom of religion ENDS when you start blowing people up. That's the most twisted application of the 1st Ammendment I have yet to hear.

 

[Brett327]

The Preamble states "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Last time I checked, Iraq wasn't the 51st state...

I missed that in bellebeast's post - good catch. That has to be the most whack interpretation of the 1st amendment I've ever heard. If he's teaching kids, I pray for their beleaguered souls.

Brett

 

[Brett327]

Hypothetical question (or not so hypothetical given what's happening to Europe):

The muslim population in the USA booms. They become the majority minority. Unfortunately these aren't the peaceful muslims and they decide to mount a campaign to overthrow the government to make an Islamic state, such as Iran. What do you do?

(Yes, I know it's out there, but it's for the sake of argument)

Interesting hypo. I (constitutional schollar that I am ) would suggest that the free exercises of religion does not include treason, sedition, or otherwise acting to bring on the demise of the established government. If things went down that road, I'd think the legal system would be used to prosecute individuals until things got out of hand. At that point, you call it a civil war and bring on the military to put down the insurrection. Sounds like it's got all the trappings of a Lifetime channel made for TV movie.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

Interesting hypo. I (constitutional schollar that I am ) would suggest that the free exercises of religion does not include treason, sedition, or otherwise acting to bring on the demise of the established government. If things went down that road, I'd think the legal system would be used to prosecute individuals until things got out of hand. At that point, you call it a civil war and bring on the military to put down the insurrection. Sounds like it's got all the trappings of a Lifetime channel made for TV movie.

Brett

Obviously it's an "out there" hypo, but a lot of hypos are to get a point across. I like your answer though, virtual rep

 

[Cate]

Call me naive (behind my back, if you please), but I think that a lot of the violent-vs.-nonviolent-Muslims has to do with environment. In most of the less-democratic Middle Eastern countries, societal displeasure is expressed in rioting and bombings because... that's how it's always been done. Violence tends to be the response when a group feels disenfranchised, that it doesn't have any other safe and reliable mode of expression (whether or not it's an accurate feeling). In many (but not, by any means, all) situations, when a group feels that it has a voice, a vote, and a reasonable amount of respect/recognition, it finds better ways of expressing itself (i.e. American Muslims).

That having been said - I don't think it's likely that, violent or nonviolent, Muslims would be able to gain any real headway into creating a theocratic US government. Consider that Christians are a majority majority in the US, and despite some notable attempts to establish, if not a theocracy, an acceptance of the idea of a "Christian nation" by simple majority, and there has been enough opposition to keep it down. And that oppositiong comes not only from non-Christians, but from Christians as well. Again, call me naive, but I like to think the same thing would happen with your theoretical Muslim takeover attempt.

 

[Fly Navy]

I thought I made it clear that it was a hypothetical and that yes, it was far out there. It was to make a point.

 

[raptor10]

The general consensus for our going into Iraq was to secure Iraqi oil. Why do we need to secure Iraqi oil? To ensure the security of our nation and our people. Oil is a weakness that we must ween ourselves off of, but it is one that we must deal with in the present. And that is the biggest obligation of the social contract that the government has to its people, to ensure the physical, emotional and economic well being of its constituents. The bottom line is that we should not be in Iraq for the Iraqi people but we should be in Iraq for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. If our actions hurt the American people then they are the wrong actions, if they benefit us in the long run then they are the right actions. As a human being it is "only human" to feel compassion for those around us, especially for the religious, however, religion breeds the idea of self sacrifice, which when applied to federal policy is criminal, as it leads the nation into a path of self-destructive behavior. So the humanitarian aspect of our nation in Iraq should exist only to help insure our security. There are other avenues besides the intervention of governtment to help the plight of the Iraqi people. There is no real reason to focus on what sort of governmnet that Iraq has as the only correct government for Iraq is a STABLE GOVERNMENT, that governmnet can be a theocracy, oligarchy, or anarcho-syndicalism, for all I care, as long as there is stability, which comes from a shared heritage, culture, and language, with a strong vanguard to back up its policies. Dividing Iraq up does look like the best solution, but not if we are the ones doing it. Let them do it, or let them think they are doing it, but remember the end goal... secure and protect US interests.

 

[Brett327]

The general consensus for our going into Iraq was to secure Iraqi oil. Why do we need to secure Iraqi oil? To ensure the security of our nation and our people.

While oil interests in the region are important, Iraq's contribution to US oil imports is marginal, with ~650 thousand barrels/day compared to over 7 million barrels/day by the next 5 largest oil exporters. In fact, the notion of warfare to protect our oil interests was much more applicable to Desert Storm. During most of the period between the two wars, we were importing zero oil from Iraq at a time when oil prices were at historic lows. So, the notion that we went to war in Iraq specifically for Iraqi oil is a bit off base.

Oil is a weakness that we must ween ourselves off of.

Easier said than done. Thats almost like saying, "Gee, it would be great if I didn't have to breathe anymore." (as the angry crowd chants, "No blood for air, no blood for air...)

Brett