What you may now know about Iraq.

[jamnww]

False analogy, false analogy, false analogy, and um, false analogy...
The biggest difference among many that makes these analogies false is that the revolution was accomplished by Americans creating their own future.

The revolution was finally brought to a close by the intervention of the French on our behalf...their high seas fleet and army forced needed assets away from N America and therefore drew it to a close...it could have easily gone the other direction...

To say that to be an analogy something has to be exactly the same is a questionable argument to say the least. All that needs to be presence is a similarity on any number of factors. In this case the instability and fragility of early nations.

The constitution was written by Americans, any of whom could have walked away at any time.

It was also based in part on the Iroquis (sp?) government and while they could have walked away at any time, just as in Iraq, if they had the country would never have lasted...

What in the world do the British Navy and/or Mexican Army have to do with anything?

The British Navy has everything to do with the anology...at the time it "occupied" the seas and literally controlled commerce. For the early US that was as vital to security as the oil wells in Iraq.

What army is massed on Iraq's borders? External threats usually have a unifying effect, and yet I'm not seeing much unifying, unless its the Kurds and Shiites unifying against the Sunnis...Sorry, your post doesn't make sense.

External threats do not always have a unifying effect, case in point the War of 1812. Furthermore the largest reason that there isn't an "armed massed on Iraq's border" is the coalition presence. Even ignoring that there is some evidence of Iran interfering inside Iraq and that doesn't even consider the threat from terrorists who may want to use it as a base of operations. All that withstanding there is some sense of unification against insurgents though of course not much.

In all of American history (for the sake of argument, we'll say 1776 onward), Americans have made decisions for themselves and then borne the consequences of those decisions. Iraq has not. Ever. After it's so-called independence it was a puppet of British oil interests and later, American anti-Iranian interests.

Concerning Iraq, that may be so but that doesn't mean that they are incapable of it. Earlier than that they do have a history of moderate self government, though admittedly you have to go way back.

On the issue of Americans making decisions for themselves...well that isn't really that hard when you have oceans completely isolating you from all enemies, at least conceptionally. Then again if you look prior to 1776 the US was "occupied" so to speak and were the pawns of European rulers.

This crawling before walking thing is another interesting Bushism that appeals to our sense of order but is just plain not true in the case of modern states. Can you name me any state that formed and built infrastructure, provided services, began extending rights to its citizens, etc., without first providing for its own security, both external and internal?

How about post WWII Germany (well West) and Japan, neither of which provided their own security for a while after the war. In fact in Germany there was an Anti-American insurgency not unsimilar to modern Iraq. The currently Palestinian state didn't provide for security before starting to control populations.

Even in the United States, all else is subject to security concerns. If you mean that their security forces need to crawl before they walk, I'm not sure how that would go either. This whole, "As they stand up, we'll stand down," thing again sounds nice, but doesn't hold water. How do we know when/if they're "standing up?" And once the U.S. leaves, for what are they going to stand up? You realize, the U.S. could be training and equipping the most lethal police force in the Middle East? These guys could support the next dictator for decades. Wonderful.

Yes security often trumpts all else, then again the southern US border kind of is an exception to that. As for standing up the Iraqis before we stand down...well do you have a plan that would work better? Yes it could mean that we train a police force capable of supporting the next dictator, its a risk and you can't avoid that. Then again we train hundreds of foreign police officers, military officers, and pilots so what if they become our enemies down the road? Unfortunately I can't fortell the future, can you? What will Iraq stand for when we leave? Well thats for them to decide in due course...we will all have to see...

Finally, if indeed building a successful state does take decades (implying that we'll be providing the Iraqis a well-armed incubator for at least, say, one decade), why wasn't the American public informed of this in early 2003? Or did that just slip some speechwriter's mind?

I will have to remember that when I become President...but no seriously, there are things in every administration that we don't like, its going to happen but that doesn't negate the fact that now we need to see it through...

As for the feel good thread...well, I am sure we are all "big" people and can deal with a little uncomfortableness...

 

[IRfly]

My eyebrows have just about left my forehead, reading your reply. Just three things...
1) Would you please tell me when Iraq has ever had any self-government prior to 1921, when the British cobbled together the Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra to form the modern Iraqi state?
2) There is no Palestinian state. There never has been a Palestinian state. There is no Palestinian entity that performs any functions that are remotely state-like except for the Palestinian Authority (formerly the PLO) that negotiates with Israel on behalf of an bewilderingly amorphous group of people with ever-changing demands.
3) I'm sorry. I acknowledge that analogies don't need to be perfect, but to compare even being surrounded and besieged by enemies to actually being occupied is too much of a stretch.

I'm not going to rip into you like some folks here on AW probably would, and I respect your right to think what you want about Iraq. But if your thoughts are based on the version of history you just presented, I would suggest a revaluation.

 

[jamnww]

1) Would you please tell me when Iraq has ever had any self-government prior to 1921, when the British cobbled together the Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra to form the modern Iraqi state?

Prior to their inclusion in the Ottoman empire...I will have to read into it for a specific date but will try to get back to you on that...

2) There is no Palestinian state. There never has been a Palestinian state. There is no Palestinian entity that performs any functions that are remotely state-like except for the Palestinian Authority (formerly the PLO) that negotiates with Israel on behalf of an bewilderingly amorphous group of people with ever-changing demands.

If the state exists now or not is open for debate I will give you that, however if you recall Isreal was carved out of what was Palistine if not immediately before then prior to occupation by the Ottomans...

3) I'm sorry. I acknowledge that analogies don't need to be perfect, but to compare even being surrounded and besieged by enemies to actually being occupied is too much of a stretch.

I was not comparing that...I was comparing the relative instability with new nations...if that didn't come across or you failed to get it then sorry about that but that was the intent...

I'm not going to rip into you like some folks here on AW probably would, and I respect your right to think what you want about Iraq. But if your thoughts are based on the version of history you just presented, I would suggest a revaluation.

Then what version of history would you like to base yours on? I would be interesting in hearing how you have interpretted global history. I am always open to new views and new information however I see nother factual that you have offered to contend with my view...

 

[IRfly]

Prior to their inclusion in the Ottoman empire...I will have to read into it for a specific date but will try to get back to you on that...



If the state exists now or not is open for debate I will give you that, however if you recall Isreal was carved out of what was Palistine if not immediately before then prior to occupation by the Ottomans...



I was not comparing that...I was comparing the relative instability with new nations...if that didn't come across or you failed to get it then sorry about that but that was the intent...



Then what version of history would you like to base yours on? I would be interesting in hearing how you have interpretted global history. I am always open to new views and new information however I see nother factual that you have offered to contend with my view...

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Look, I'll admit that I don't know jacksh!t about many things (flying being one of them, at least for now), but the Middle East I know.

1) There had never been any such thing as Iraq. The closest you can come is the Abbasid Empire that had its capital at Baghdad. This was the second Muslim Empire after the Ummayads. The time from was from the mid-8th century until the mid-13th. Baghdad was the razed by Mongols and ruled by the Ilkhanid.

2) There never, ever, ever has been a state of Palestine. After the fall of the Abbasid Empire, the region we now call Palestine experienced time principally as part of the Fatamid Caliphate, Mamluk Egypt, and the Ottoman Empire. Throw the Crusades in for good measure. Israel was carved out of British Mandate Palestine, which included all of the territory west of the Jordan River (Israel, Gaza, West Bank) and significant territory east of the Jordan (what we now call the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). During the 500 or so years prior to the British Mandate, "Palestine" consisted of three different administrative zones (called "sanjaks") in the province of Syria.

This is not my interpretation. This is historical fact. Look it up.

Finally, I agree that most new nations go through some period of instability. The ones that survive and thrive are the ones that learn to deal with it themselves.
And I'm going to go find some limes to squeeze.

 

[jamnww]

1) There had never been any such thing as Iraq. The closest you can come is the Abbasid Empire that had its capital at Baghdad. ...

2) There never, ever, ever has been a state of Palestine...

This is not my interpretation. This is historical fact. Look it up.

Finally, I agree that most new nations go through some period of instability.

I am willing to admit that I may have been mistaken on the areas concerning the middle east, I apparently had some bad sites and misunderstood what they were saying. Anyway, I will consent to that. I am much more comfortable with US history than some of the other areas...

I will however point out that it seems that you now confirm my assertion about the instability inherent in early nations. While obviously it would be best for a country to do it all by themselves there are factors here that preclude that while avoiding a large risk of unnecessary bloodshed. And yes, I know that there is a lot of bloodshed going on over there right now but if Iraq can recover without completely destroying their infilstructure and setting them back economically several decades then it is worth some cost...Where that cost becomes too great is the matter for discussion.

I think it important to note that during the US didn't "do it all on our own" and had help from other countries during our early development.

 

[IRfly]

The central point, though, is this...In most of the Middle East, and especially in Iraq, there is very little loyalty to the idea of a central government. There is almost no sense of "Iraqiness." Sure, the Brits and French came along and drew lines in the sand, installed puppet governments, and tried to form the region into their own image (something they could manipulate easily), but maybe it's time to say that it didn't work. In the Middle East, the chain of loyalty goes something like this: immediate family, larger extended family, clan, tribe, and then maybe city-state. You asked for my suggestion as to what to do better? Throw out the whole pretense of a constitution, federalism, and an Iraqi state. The Kurds want to run their own show? Fine. Let them have their own state. The Shiites don't want to be dominated by the Sunnis anymore (the situation maintained for centuries by the Sunni Ottomans)? Fine. Let them do what they want. I doubt they'd join up with Iran, but so what if they did? We could still buy oil from them (it's about time the U.S. got over the Iran complex as well). And the Sunnis? Well, for them it's all about maintaining disproportional influence over the others... Iraq since 1921 was a recast in the image of the old empires where one clan or tribe dominated the others (the current situation in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Syria, and many others). Let them break up. The Sunnis lose influence, but they've had it coming for a long while. Besides, I don't think that the Saudis would leave them out to dry for too long--Iraqi Sunnis would continue to be the bulwark against the spread of the Shii heresy.

Is the history important? Vitally so. If you believe in the fiction that's been Iraq for the past eighty years, then a constitution, etc., all makes sense because it appeals to the American sense of how things should be done. Yes, when the cost becomes to great is certainly a matter for discussion. But I think, personally, that the direction is all wrong, and that 135,000 U.S. soldiers are the only glue holding Iraq together right now, and that all the money and lives lost since Saddam fell have been lost to the canonization of a fiction that EVERYONE in the Middle East acknowledges as such, but the U.S. can't seem to figure out.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

But during which of those years was the U.S. under the loving guidance of heavily armed foreign occupation?

One could certainly say the the Germans or the Japanese were under the loving guidance of heavily armed foreign occupation. Let's also not conveniently forget that we spent three years after WWII before George Marshall gave his commencement address at Harvard for the "European Recovery Program"... common refrain in those days was asking how long our boys would stay in Europe (in post Vietnam-terms "what's our exit strategy?!?!?)... even Eisenhower was planning US disengagement before 1960... why was Europe our problem??

Granted, there's a degree of false analogy there too in that both Germany and Japan were industrial societies... Germany having some limited democratic tradition and a higher education system... so there was something to work with...

As far as what we're getting out of this? I dunno, but I'd think a democratic, stable Middle East is good for everyone... whereas a militaristic regime sitting on a pot of excess wealth is a powder keg...

Take out Iran or North Korea? You really think they won't do something stupid that'll invite it themselves eventually?

 

[IRfly]

Germany and Japan are decent examples of occupied countries becoming democratic, etc...There are, though, a few key differences. The first and most important is that the citizens of these countries strongly identified with a national ideal--national language, culture, pride, etc. "Iraq" is not a national ideal for anyone except for Sunni Arabs as a mechanism of domination. The second is that the war was over--the Emperor encouraged the Japanese to stand down, and although there was some little resistance in Germany, the majority of Germans were heartily sick of the war. Finally, you mentioned the industrialized societies. It's not a terrible analogy, but perhaps not too applicable.

A democratic, stable Middle East would be great! So, too, would it be great if when I walked outside a big bag of unmarked, small denomination bills would fall from the sky. Just being there and losing people doesn't mean we're getting any closer to that lofty goal.

Out of curiousity, though...Which do you think is preferable? A democratic Middle East or a stable Middle East?

 

[eddie]

Stable; that's how I sleep at night knowing we keep the House of Saud in running order...