What will happen in Iraq before 2010

[Mazer]

I'm just curious what people think the events in Iraq will be before the close of this decade. Vote for all the events you think will occur and then, if you want to, post a timeline of the ones you voted for.

[floydian slip]

I dont see it getting better until the U.S. Military complex leaves, I dont see them leaving before 2010 either, if at all. I see it as a China Russian Islamic proxy war at the expense of the Iraqi people draining America's(the coalition) money and military. I think there will be more bombings and explosions growing in intensity and sophistication. Its a no win situation. They will hate us for staying and hate us for leaving them hanging in the wind.

Can a country be given a democracy at the point of a gun? Or is it something the people need to do on their own. What if France invaded the colonies in 1750 and drove out the British... then they set up some military bases and told us were are free All the while patroling our strees for insurgents.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by floydian slip

Can a country be given a democracy at the point of a gun? Or is it something the people need to do on their own. What if France invaded the colonies in 1750 and drove out the British... then they set up some military bases and told us were are free All the while patroling our strees for insurgents.

you can't force people into democracy - they have to be willing to stand up and fight for it on thier own. if they are not willing or able, they are not ready. independence day for Iraq will be the day the US leaves.

[albed]

Yep, just like the US fought for it's democracy with no help at all from the french. That's the way it's gotta be alright.



Not to mention post war Germany and Japan. No one forced democracy on them at the point of a gun eh?




public schools
-

[Mazer]

My timeline for the above options: December 2005 the constitution will be ratified, mid 2007 the infrastructure of Iraq will be mostly rebuilt to include roads, oil pipelines, water and power utilities, and industrial complexes, late 2007 a phased pullout of US troops will begin that will last at least three years, and around the same time terrorist activity against Iraqi citizens will step up, and in 2010 a separatist movement will gain a large following but will be mostly unsecessful as Iraq's economy and military gain strength early in the next decade.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

Yep, just like the US fought for it's democracy with no help at all from the french. That's the way it's gotta be alright.



Not to mention post war Germany and Japan. No one forced democracy on them at the point of a gun eh?




public schools
-

the 13 colonies stood up and initiated the fight for their freedom on thier own because they wanted it that bad. the iraqis didn't want freedom bad enough to start the fight for it, they don't want it bad enough to sustain the fight on thier own, and they aren't going to get freedom from us.

meanwhile, post-war germany and japan are completely irrelevant comparisons. both had been industrialized, relatively well-educated societies with experience in democracy prior to WW2 - iraq is a tribal, relatively undeveloped society whose primary religion is incompatible with democracy.

so the discussion of any "timeline" is a euphemism for the casualtie rate of the brave men and women who will be cannon fodder for Bush's disastrous foriegn policy fantasies, because the unsaid assumption is that X number of them will have to die for your timeline. perhaps that might be a more relevant poll to measure these goals - in bodies rather than time: how many American deaths is the Iraqi constitution worth to you? or re-establishing iraqi infrastructure? or propping up the Iraqi economy? or the establishment of iraqi civil rights?

the answer is zero.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

the 13 colonies stood up and initiated the fight for their freedom on thier own because they wanted it that bad. the iraqis didn't want freedom bad enough to start the fight for it, they don't want it bad enough to sustain the fight on thier own, and they aren't going to get freedom from us.

I would have thought a liberal propaganda machine like you would at least recall the recent uprising brought about by Bush one's encouragement after Desert Storm.


Here's a few more examples to help you understand that Iraqis want freedom bad enough to start their own fight for it.

The Great Iraqi Revolution. May 1920-Feb. 1921-Rebellion by Iraqi Arabs against the rule of the British Mandate. The rebellion was suppressed by the British military. This can be considered the First Anglo-Iraqi War.

Kurdish Revolt. 1922-1924 -Rebellion by Iraqi Kurds against the British Mandate.

Shia Tribal Revolt. 1935-Shiite uprising against the Iraqi government.

Kurdish Revolt. 1943 (July to October)-Rebellion suppressed by the Iraqi Army and the British RAF.

Kurdish Revolt. 1961-1970. After a period of relative calm, Iraqi government promises of Kurdish autonomy, or self-rule, went unfulfilled, sparking discontent and eventual rebellion

Kurdish Revolt -March, 1974 - In March, 1974, Kurdish rebels led by Mullah Mustafa Barzani (having survived an assassination attempt) rebelled against the government. The Kurds felt that the government was not living up to the agreement which ended the previous revolt. The Iraqi Kurds were supported by the Shah (King) of neighboring Iran, who sought to put pressure on the Iraqi government over a border dispute. The Kurds were also assisted by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who opposed the Iraqi government due to its friendly relations with the Soviet Union. After an agreement between the Shah of Iran and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 1975, (which temporarily settled the border dispute until the Iran-Iraq War began in 1980), the Kurds collapsed under intense Iraqi military pressure. The CIA, allied to the Shah, also suspended aid. Kurds cite this betrayal by two key allies as evidence supporting their future distrust of American attempts to incite them to fight Saddam Hussein’s forces in the 1990s and in the early years of the 21st Century.

Kurdish Revolt.1983-1988. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Iraqi Kurds, aided by Iran, fought against Iraqi government forces. In 1987 and 1988, the Iraqi military used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds (including many civilians) in a successful effort to break the back of the resistance.

Kurdish Revolt.1991. Encouraged by the stunning defeat of Saddam’s forces in Kuwait and spurred by appeals by President George H. W. Bush of the U.S., Kurds rose up against the Iraqi government With the bulk of his elite forces having escaped from the fighting in Kuwait and southern Iraq, Saddam was able to quell the revolt, causing hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees to flee into neighboring Turkey and Iran to escape.

Shiite Revolt. 1991. Encouraged by the stunning defeat of Saddam’s forces in Kuwait and spurred by appeals by President George H. W. Bush of the U.S., the Shiites of southern Iraq rose up against the Iraqi government, only to be crushed by Saddam’s forces. Sporadic guerrilla resistance continued, with the bulk of the Shiite fighting forces seeking refuge in neighboring Shiite Iran.

http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_iraq.html

Originally Posted by theknife

meanwhile, post-war germany and japan are completely irrelevant comparisons. both had been industrialized, relatively well-educated societies with experience in democracy prior to WW2 - iraq is a tribal, relatively undeveloped society whose primary religion is incompatible with democracy.

They were forced into democracy at the point of a gun. That was the point I was making. It can be done.



Hmmm...CIA Factbook Iraq:
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 13.6%
industry: 58.6%
services: 27.8% (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...s/iz.html#Econ

I recall reading the Iraqis were generally well educated as well.
Pretty impressive cities too for being relatively undeveloped.
Christ knife do you actually know anything at all about Iraq?

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

meanwhile, post-war germany and japan are completely irrelevant comparisons. both had been industrialized, relatively well-educated societies with experience in democracy prior to WW2 - iraq is a tribal, relatively undeveloped society whose primary religion is incompatible with democracy.

I'll have to disagree with this entire paragraph. It takes a relatively high level of industrial sophistication to efficiently harvest crude oil and process it into usable chemicals, not to mention a large workforce of college educated geological engineers. Iraq has a very high literacy rate, and prior to Hussein's war with Iran, and his invasion of Kuwait which led to UN sanctions against him, Iraq had a very strong economy like all OPEC nations had. Iraq does have it's tribal and nomadic traditions, but then America has Amish and Mennonites and they don't represent the majority either. While Iraq has been under the rule of one monarch or an other since it's present borders were drawn this doesn't preclude them from governing themselves. Islam is far from incompatible with Democracy and I give you Turkey as an example.

If you think the cost of this war should be measured only in American deaths then so be it. I think if you study previous wars we've fought in the past you'll find that the price we're paying now is relatively cheap, and it's costing Iraq much, much more than us. They once had a great army of brave soldiers, but because their leader lacked the conviction to train, dicipline, and properly arm them, their lives have been a terrible waste. Had they been better prepared we wouldn't have considered an invasion and they'd still be alive today. They died in vain fighiting our soldiers, but they died so their nation could be free. And the death of an Iraqi soldier is as great a sacrifice as the death of an American soldier. How dare you cheapen their sacrifice and the price they've paid by measuring this war only in American deaths? Iraq is paying the greatest cost for their former dictator's greed and lust for power. Never forget that.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Iraq is paying the greatest cost for their former dictator's greed and lust for power. Never forget that.

not true. iraq is actually paying the greatest cost for Bush's greed and lust for power. never forget that.

[floydian slip]

You guys are labeling iraq sadaam or bush, the powers in charge always suck, always greedy, always lie and always courrupt. The people get fucked until they have had enough or have nothing else left to loose. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I heard General Myers saying on Cnn today that all goals and milestones have been met. The iraqi people have been in control of their country since 2004 and 8,000,000 people voted. C'mon 8,000,000 out of 25,000,000 is worse than America. So have we also exported voting apathy along with freedom?

[Nicobie]

I think I'd worry more about Iran.

This nuke shit isn't going to go down very well. Same with Israel's crap.

Somebody is going to get nuked within the next 5 years.


Got passports?

[Mazer]

Hmm, only two people think Iraq will have a constitution within five years?

After the USA declared its independence it took just under five years for the Articles of Confederation to be ratified. It only took our fore fathers that long because at the time there were very few precidents. And they didn't get it quite right the first time so they wrote a new one that was ratified six years later, and the current constitution is the oldest one still in force on this Earth. You'd think with that kind of experience under our belt, and with dozens of other consitituions and charters in force around the world, that with the help of American and UN ambassadors Iraq should have a working constitution very soon.

Look guys, I think the people of Iraq deserve the chance to govern themselves, and I think they're fully capable of doing so. Is what is happening now really so unbelievable?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Hmm, only two people think Iraq will have a constitution within five years?

After the USA declared its independence it took just under five years for the Articles of Confederation to be ratified. It only took our fore fathers that long because at the time there were very few precidents. And they didn't get it quite right the first time so they wrote a new one that was ratified six years later, and the current constitution is the oldest one still in force on this Earth. You'd think with that kind of experience under our belt, and with dozens of other consitituions and charters in force around the world, that with the help of American and UN ambassadors Iraq should have a working constitution very soon.

Look guys, I think the people of Iraq deserve the chance to govern themselves, and I think they're fully capable of doing so. Is what is happening now really so unbelievable?

i don't see that there is much about iraq that is analgous to America's fight for independence 200 years ago. we organized, rose up and confronted an oppressive colonial power, took some help from other countries who also wished to see that power weakened, and eventually prevailed thanks to determination, luck, and good leadership. our government came together from people who shared that struggle and shared common goals.

iraq is a whole other ballgame: it was an oppressed country who was invaded by an major power without invitation or consent of it's people. it was stripped of it's bureaucratic infrastructure and left in ruins - now it's being ostensibly handed back to a group of people who have competing interests and hidden agendas (including fronting for other countries like Syria, Iran, and the US). the pressure for a constitution is being set, not by thier own efforts, but by the US, who is in a hurry to make the process look successful.

not that it will really matter: the constitution, like the january elections, are paper milestones. out in the street, many see the oppressor is us and so the battle rages on.

[Sinner]

Good Little article........


The Unsavory and Popular Alternatives to Democracy


It's out in the open now. American commanders are making plans to reduce troop levels next year. That all depends on Iraqi security forces being able to get sufficiently trained and organized to deal with the political and criminal gangs. Over two years of recruiting and training new soldiers and policemen, coalition military advisors believe that the Iraqis can do the job. But the problems the Iraqis face are more than dealing with criminals, it's dealing with a criminal (to Western eyes) mentality that pervades much of society.

While the political gangs get most of the media attention, especially al Qaeda terrorists, the criminal gangs are a bigger long term threat. Like many parts of the world, Iraq does not have the kind of national unity and sense of community that we take for granted in the West. It's a matter of culture, and you can see the many varieties of non-democracy all over the world. It's no accident that totalitarian governments have been so common in this region. Either that, or a strongman, often a monarch, who negotiates deals with the various groups, and enforces them with lots of threats and guns. This is accompanied by lots of corruption. Just about everything, except control of the government, is for sale. The government, however, is seen as the ultimate scam, a means to steal as much as possible for those in charge.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq upset a centuries old political arrangement. For all that time, the Sunni Arab minority was in charge. This seemingly illogical setup was the result of religious and ethnic politics in the region. It was all about Sunni versus Shia Moslems, and Arabs versus Iranians. The Arabs were Sunni, and represented the majority religious thinking in the Moslem world. The Iranians were Shia, a minority sect they embraced partly to be different from the Arabs. Most of the time, during the last five thousand years, the Iranian tribes dominated the region, with Iraq being a border area between the Iranian and Arab heartlands. Since the Iranians controlled the area most of the time, their cultural and religious influence predominated. Thus most Iraqi Arabs are Shia, as are many other Arabs along the Persian (another word for Iranian) Gulf coast.

Shias were tolerated in countries run by Sunnis as long as the Shias "knew their place." But in the last few decades, Shias throughout the Middle East have been getting more assertive. They are no longer willing to be second-class citizens. This is the root cause of much of the bloodshed in Iraq today, and for the last few decades there as well. It's no secret that Sunni Arab governments in the region (especially Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan) have tolerated the Sunni Arab terrorists fighting in Iraq. This, despite the public stance by these governments that they support American efforts to pacify Iraq. The Middle East wants peace in Iraq, but is not really comfortable about the Shia majority running the country. It just doesn't seem right. It smacks too much of the beginning of another Iranian invasion, and age of Shia domination. Few Sunni leaders want to say this out loud. But on the street and in the coffee shops, you hear it a lot. It's a real fear.

As if ancient politics weren't enough of a problem, an even larger one is the corruption endemic to the region. One big advantage of democracy is, if it is to work, you get rule of law. That means a lot less corruption. Westerners who spend any length of time in the Middle East, soon become aware that just about everything is for sale, including whatever laws were on the books. You can't make a democracy work with this attitude, and it's uncertain if the Iraqis will be able to change their habits quickly enough to establish a stable government.

The corruption has many negative effects. It makes the police less effective in going after the gangs. It makes reconstruction less effective, because much of the money goes into the pockets of dishonest officials, rather than into building public works. Corruption discourages initiative and the founding of new business. All of the economies that made spectacular advances in the last half century, did it via rule of law and education. This pattern has been noted in the Middle East, and there is a movement to give that approach a try. This, oddly enough, is one of the appeals of Islamic radicalism. Al Qaeda wants strict rule of law. That catch is, it must be Islamic law. That means education that is heavy on religious instruction, and not much for girls at all. Islamic law, after several attempts, has proved not very hospitable to economic progress. This has been noted in the Middle East as well. As a result of all this, many Iraqis are more comfortable with the corrupt old ways, than with proposed alternatives like Islamic dictatorship or democracy.

But Iraqis have to decide. There is already jostling between factions in the Shia Arab community, with the idea being one of them would dominate and establish a Shia Arab dictatorship. Many Iraqis are ready to live with another dictator, as long as it's one that is like them. The Sunni Arabs and Kurds fear a Shia Arab dictatorship, and all the coalition can do is encourage all Iraqis to get behind a democracy. Everyone in Iraq, except for the Islamic conservatives, say that democracy is the way to go. But, so far, not enough Iraqis have walked the walk and come down on corruption in a big way. Too many people are willing to offer, or take, a bribe. What could happen in Iraq is a democracy in name only. A strongman gets elected, and then re-elected via rigged elections. You could see this pattern in many of the new countries carved out of the former Soviet Union. Then again, many of these new countries did turn into well run and prosperous democracies. What's Iraq going to turn into? An Arab version of corrupt Belarus, or democratic and prosperous Estonia? No one knows yet, and everyone is nervous about finding out.

[theknife]

nice read, sinner

btw, well-informed daily commentary about iraq can be found at Professor Juan Cole's blog - arguably some of the best coverage online.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

iraq is a whole other ballgame: it was an oppressed country who was invaded by an major power without invitation or consent of it's people. it was stripped of it's bureaucratic infrastructure and left in ruins - now it's being ostensibly handed back to a group of people who have competing interests and hidden agendas (including fronting for other countries like Syria, Iran, and the US). the pressure for a constitution is being set, not by thier own efforts, but by the US, who is in a hurry to make the process look successful.

Iraq, like other countires formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, have only made this kind of progress under the stern direction of western nations. Nationalism is a relatively new practice in the Islamic world which has struggled through the centuries to remain unified, but most Islamic nations now have well defined borders and central governments. Iraq is in a special situation in which three ethnic groups occupy the historical boundry line between Sunni and Shi'a dominated reigions (as the melting pot of the Islamic world Iraq is a cultural analog to the United States), and the resulting animosity is why they have been lagging behind their neighbors. Iraq is going through some growing pains, and I think that's how these times will be remembered in the history books. Even if you view their new democracy as a sham, it's still progress. It is not only the Iraqis who want peace and prosperity for themselves but also their neighboring Islamic states, if only to keep Iraq from sending more armies across their borders.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Mazer

It is not only the Iraqis who want peace and prosperity for themselves but also their neighboring Islamic states, if only to keep Iraq from sending more armies across their borders.

I don't know about that, I think the neighbors are a part of the problem,

---Each of the neighbors is hostile for a different reason. The Turks are afraid that the Iraq government will give the Iraqi Kurds too much autonomy, and tolerate Iraqi Kurds supporting Kurdish separatism in Turkey. As far as the Turks are concerned, this is already happening. While most Iranians want the Iraqi democracy to succeed, the Islamic conservatives who run Iran do not. The Iranian hard liners are encouraging and supporting the Iraqi Arab Shia radicals to try and take control of the government. This is a long shot, and troublesome even as it fails.

To the south, Kuwait wants Iraq to settle down, but cannot forget that even a democratic Iraq will probably still believe Kuwait should be part of Iraq. Some Kuwaitis believe that Iraq should be kept weak, lest there be another invasion of Kuwait. Saudi Arabia would rather have the Iraqi Sunni Arabs running Iraq, preferably as a dictatorship. The Saudis will always want that, but in the meantime, they have to work with the current Iraqi government because Islamic radicals are fighting democrats in Iraq as well as royalists in Saudi Arabia. Jordan is in a situation similar to Saudi Arabia, made worse by the fact that Jordan was always, for economic reasons, been an ally of Saddam Hussein. Syria is another dictatorship that does not feel comfortable with a democracy next door. Syria’s situation is further complicated by the fact that Syria is run by non-Sunni Arabs, who belong to the Alawite sect. Moreover, the Syrian leadership share a common political philosophy with the deposed Saddam Hussein government. There have long been feuding Iraqi and Syrian factions of the Baath party. While Syria was a long time foe of Saddam because of this, they would prefer to have an Arab dictator (preferably Shia) running Iraq. But for the moment, Syria will be nice to whatever government runs Iraq.

Most of Iraq’s neighbors would like coalition forces out of Iraq, now, so that they can interfere on the side of their favorite faction, in an Iraqi civil war. That could get very ugly, but one thing most of Iraq’s neighbors agree on, anything is preferable to an Iraqi democracy.---

[albed]

A lot of writing to say what Bush said. A successful Iraqi democracy will encourage the people of nearby countries to want democracy.

Another domino theory sort of.




A shame that everyone screws the Kurds over.




I think the US and other powers want to keep the whole region divided and weak.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by albed

A lot of writing to say what Bush said. A successful Iraqi democracy will encourage the people of nearby countries to want democracy.

And that is what we need to have happen, but I believe it will a take civil war, esp. in the neighboring countries. The People have to want it and will have to stand up and take it. Freedom is not Free.

[naz]

A federal democracy in the Iraqi context doesn't work. it's not a natural country in that it had it's borders drawn for it. Democracy in the Middle East is a hard enough thing to achieve anyway, but especially in this case when you have three very different countries subsued into one.

Personally, I expect the insurgency to gather pace, us and uk public opinion to force them to declare victory and leave, large scale civil strife between the shiites and sunni populations and kurdistan to decalre independence. Iran could make things difficult down south too.