|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > The Real World > World Events > Victory in Iraq | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
MichaelEhart
Sage
      
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 2/12/2007 7:26 PM (GMT -5) |   | "You know Mike I think I'm acctually quite jealous of how you earn your money."
LOL, Nathan, you must not have spent much time around politicians--- even the ones you like and admire tend to be type-A narcissists.
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, coming soon!
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, March 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Better Fiction, Spring 2006
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jordan Lapp
Ebony & Ivory
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2951
| Posted 2/13/2007 6:52 PM (GMT -5) | | I'm jumping into this rather late I guess... but here's my two cents.
The Iraqi situation has some parallels with colonials which argue for staying. In countries like Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and Rwanda, colonial powers pulled out virtually overnight. Citizens that had no administrative training (mainly poor, rural blacks) now had to govern nations with little or no experience. Tribal leaders were able to step into the power gap left by the Europeans, and that is why we have all of the problems that we now have in Africa. If the US was to pull out of Iraq now, you would have virtually the same reaction.
That said, according to a recent article in the Economist, Bush's "surge" is actually a good plan. The US needs to stablize the region as soon as possible. Jeff, you said that an indefinate tie is unacceptable. I agree. That's why the US needs to send those additional troops. Right now, the army clears out a neighbourhood and doesn't have the men to keep it clear after they leave. The surge might help to build a secure zone around the capital that the elected officials could govern from.
The reason the US shouldn't pull out are too numerous to mention (so I'll just throw some ideas out there).
1) Regional conflicts tend to spread. Witness Yugoslavia circa 1914.
2) The world weeps for Rwanda and Darfur. We could have another situation like that in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites if things get out of control. Where will the guilt for such an atrocity lie?
3) Iraq could very well be a model of democracy in action for the rest of the autocratic, oppressive arab world. Provided it gets its chance.
4) Curtailing Iranian influence. This country is run by the Mad Hatter with Nukes. Need I say more?
Whatever the reasons for the US invasion, whether they were misguided or not, now that they're there, they need to stay. Pulling out now would do irreparable harm.
Jordan Lapp | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 2/13/2007 8:23 PM (GMT -5) | | Jordan Lapp said...
Tribal leaders were able to step into the power gap left by the Europeans, and that is why we have all of the problems that we now have in Africa.
I'm pretty sure Foreign Affairs had an article in the last couple of years solidly refuting that idea. Training/education wasn't an indicator of how they faired. Besides, Iraq once had one of the better-educated populaces in the region. They're all grey beards now, but there also exists a large, well-educated population in exile. If it was safe, many would return.
1) I agree, but there's already conflict there.
2) With a whole lot of people, including their sectarian leaders and the US. Pretty much the same people responsible for the current mess.
3) Fledgling democracies are more likely to attack their neighbors, not less likely.
4) The Mad Hatter doesn't run the country, but he sure likes pushing our buttons. A democracy with a Shi'a majority is going to curtail Iran?
As I've said before, I'm in the "you broke it, you bought it" camp. But I move closer to the edge of it every day. There comes a time when it hurts us more to stay than it does to leave, and I'm not convinced we aren't past that point already. I've been reading a lot of "what to do next" opinions from smart people familiar with the situation. None of them triggered my "now there's a good idea" response.
--Jeff Stehman
"The Goblin Hunter," Jim Baen's Universe (Feb 2007) | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 2/13/2007 11:32 PM (GMT -5) | | This is indeed a difficult issue. At least we are not at the point where we were three years ago, where any questioning of the whole idea was shouted down as traitorous, or being "objectively pro-Saddam"-- not here, of course. The discourse here is generally civil, and on the few occasions not, at least entertaining :)
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, coming soon!
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, March 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Better Fiction, Spring 2006
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jordan Lapp
Ebony & Ivory
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2951
| Posted 2/14/2007 11:24 AM (GMT -5) | |
Jeff Stehman said...
Jordan Lapp said...
Tribal leaders were able to step into the power gap left by the Europeans, and that is why we have all of the problems that we now have in Africa.
I'm pretty sure Foreign Affairs had an article in the last couple of years solidly refuting that idea. Training/education wasn't an indicator of how they faired.
1) I agree, but there's already conflict there.
2) With a whole lot of people, including their sectarian leaders and the US. Pretty much the same people responsible for the current mess.
3) Fledgling democracies are more likely to attack their neighbors, not less likely.
4) The Mad Hatter doesn't run the country, but he sure likes pushing our buttons. A democracy with a Shi'a majority is going to curtail Iran?
As I've said before, I'm in the "you broke it, you bought it" camp. But I move closer to the edge of it every day. There comes a time when it hurts us more to stay than it does to leave, and I'm not convinced we aren't past that point already. I've been reading a lot of "what to do next" opinions from smart people familiar with the situation. None of them triggered my "now there's a good idea" response.
1) I'm not sure how this refutes my argument. Regional conflicts tend to spread.... does it matter that there's already conflict there?
2) Again, it looks like you are agreeing with me here. I'm not sure what country you live in, but if I lived in the US I wouldn't want to be responsible for another Rwanda.
3) Examples, please. Again, I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that fledgling democracies are more violent than. say, dictatorships? Still, snide remarks about the US aside, most >true< democracies are a least accountable to their people and don't pursue wars of conquest, tending to lose their stomach for any conflict over time.
4) Um. Yes. Just because they're Shia, don't lump them under Iran's umbrella. That's as ridiculous as arguing that Germany and England should have been friends in 1936 because they were both Christian. The US could use a friendly Shia government as an ally so that Shiites in general could see that they are not automatically assumed to be enemies of the West... as you seem to have done.
I'd be interesting in hearing about what Foreign Affairs thinks is the reason for the current mess in Africa, but as long as we're citing articles, check out last week's Economist. They solidly refuted the idea of pulling out and actually >reluctantly< advocated the troop surge.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jordan Lapp
Ebony & Ivory
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2951
| Posted 2/14/2007 4:40 PM (GMT -5) | |
Specfiction said...Instead of surging the British have a timetable for withdrawal and should be completely out by the end of the year. The Aussies, who have criticized Dems for wanting out, have a whole 1400 troops in Iraq and are debating withdrawal. I guess they >reluctantly< think it’s a good idea for someone else.
True. And this is a big problem in the world today. Dictators and massacres like Darfur are allowed to continue because it's always "a good idea for someone else". The US, much as the Left loves to villify them, at least has the guts to go into tought situations like Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, ...etc. While others stand by and watch the body count rise, the US has at least taken action. Sure they "cherry-pick" their conflicts, I'll admit that, but why should they not? It costs money to rescue failing nations.
Jordan Lapp | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/14/2007 5:17 PM (GMT -5) | |
Jordan Lapp said...
nathan said...
Next year Canada could run rouge then you can send me pictures of Bush with the PM.
Yes, we'll take our boat and our tank and our 7 foot soldiers and kick your ass ! ! !
Um... actually, we are the only nation to win a military victory against the US on US soil. As I recall, we burnt the White House to the ground.  
Torry bastards 
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Specfiction
Neophyte
Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 2/14/2007 6:02 PM (GMT -5) | | | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 2/14/2007 9:24 PM (GMT -5) | | Jordan Lapp said...
1) I'm not sure how this refutes my argument. Regional conflicts tend to spread.... does it matter that there's already conflict there?
2) Again, it looks like you are agreeing with me here. I'm not sure what country you live in, but if I lived in the US I wouldn't want to be responsible for another Rwanda.
3) Examples, please. Again, I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that fledgling democracies are more violent than. say, dictatorships? Still, snide remarks about the US aside, most >true< democracies are a least accountable to their people and don't pursue wars of conquest, tending to lose their stomach for any conflict over time.
4) Um. Yes. Just because they're Shia, don't lump them under Iran's umbrella. That's as ridiculous as arguing that Germany and England should have been friends in 1936 because they were both Christian. The US could use a friendly Shia government as an ally so that Shiites in general could see that they are not automatically assumed to be enemies of the West... as you seem to have done.
1) If there's already conflict there, "conflict spreads" isn't a reason to stay.
2) You say that like it's a bad thing. I'll have you know that I've agreed with some of the best and the worst that this world has had to offer.  I think you'll find that most Americans have limits on how much they're willing to give up--as a nation and as individuals--to prevent such events from happening.
3) Yes, fledgling democracies are even more prone to violence than authoritarian regimes. Take Ethiopia as a recent example. (If this topic interests you, I suggest Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War by Mansfield and Snyder.) Mature democracies generally don't fight one another, but we're not likely to see one of those in Iraq. (Mature democracies do like to bump off fledgling democracies and replace them with authoritarian regimes, but that's for later down the road when we decide we don't like Iraq's new government.)
4) I don't lump them under Iran's umbrella. There's a Persian/Arab divide. But the sectarian connection is a very strong one given the Shi'a stance in Arab states, and I see Iran exerting influence on Iraq's Shi'a population. I certainly don't see many of Iraq's Shi'a preferring Washington's company to Tehran.
Jordan Lapp said...
I'd be interesting in hearing about what Foreign Affairs thinks is the reason for the current mess in Africa.
That depends on who's writing the article, but it is a common topic, and they review books about Africa in every issue. (There are issues when I find the book reviews more useful than the articles.)
--Jeff Stehman
"The Goblin Hunter," Jim Baen's Universe (Feb 2007) | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/15/2007 6:05 PM (GMT -5) | | Just caught a glimpse of Murtha's brilliant plan to block the troop surge and it occurred to me that this question exists on a couple of different levels. That is; is more American troops better for American global interests or for the Iraq stradegy? I concede not the argument on these two points, but rather the point is that there can indeed be a legitimate argument back and forth and I think all those arguments should be listened to.
However there is another level to this argument and here I think Jeff maybe spot on. The other level could be the differences in how the same people answer the question differently depending on the way its considered or phrased.
Level #1: "Dear Mr. Combat Serviceman: Do you think a troop surge is the answer for Iraq?" Now "The Answer for Iraq" may get you a host of answers depending on the personal variables.
BUT...
Level #2: "Mr. Serviceman: For the next two years at least, regardless of Congress or the Senate, the president is keeping you in Iraq. The Commander-in-Chief has decided to take the battle to the militias in Baghdad and An Bar. Now, would you rather have a Marine or Army unit on your 3' or 6' o-clock or a possibly militia infiltrated Hajj unit?"
The answer--except for some very limited cases with specific units (e.g. Iraq 36 Commando)--you will of course hear is service members say they would rather have American units backing them up or fighting beside them than Iraqi.
If you can't stop Bush from going after the militias and you can't force him to pull out now then it comes down to this fact: blocking a troop surge leaves Mike's son and my service days buddies with allies of dubious ability. Our troops are safer surrounded by more of our troops--even if a start of offensive operations (as oppossed to training and security ops) means more soldiers become casualities than in the months prior to the surge.
I can understand Supporting The Troops: Pull Them Out. I can't understand Support The Troops: Deny Them Dependable Help While They're Stuck There.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
| | |