Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: What will the government of Iraq be in the future?
Democratic Iraq, pursuing freedom and equality for all citizens
8
29.63%
Recurrent civil wars without a clear outcome for many decades
11
40.74%
Ascension of a dictatorial strong man to control the area
Progress — and Peril George Will is a member of the Washington Post Writers Group.
The first civilian leader of the U.S. occupation, Jay Garner was talking about putting in ninety days in Iraq and then heading home. . . . At dinner in the Hilton restaurant (in Baghdad in April 2003) . . . Garner laid out his timetable: reconstruct utilities, stand up ministries, appoint an interim government, write and ratify a constitution, hold elections. By August, Iraq would have a sovereign, functioning government in place. There was a stunned silence. Someone at the table said, "Which August?"
— George Packer "The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq"
Eccentric language often is symptomatic of peculiar thinking, and when the history of America’s Iraq intervention is written, attention should be paid to the interveners’ frequent use of the locution "to stand up." It carries the thought that things — institutions such as armies and ministries, and even entire nations — might be knocked over, but then one simply stands them back up.
Last weekend Iraqi voters stood up a constitution. Before the vote, President Bush’s national security adviser, Steve Hadley, said that, "Whatever Iraqis decide, this is progress." Perhaps.
The administration’s theory, which cannot be dismissed as foolish just because it is dogmatically cheerful or because history contains ominous counterexamples, is that there could not have been a bad outcome from last weekend’s vote: The mere fact of voting, by drawing Iraq’s tribal factions into politics, enmeshes them in the democratic process and its civilities.
Perhaps. But from 1929 through 1933 the turnout in German elections was especially high, because so were the stakes. In Germany’s turmoil the issues included which mobs would control the streets and which groups would be persecuted. In Iraq’s turmoil the issues include, or are thought by many Iraqis to include, the same things.
The Bush administration deserves high praise for overseeing the drafting and ratification of Iraq’s constitution, another hurdle in the administration’s transformative war to remake an entire region. The administration should, however, refrain from further strained analogies between Iraq today and America at its constitutional founding.
Yes, America’s Constitution was a second try, after a stumbling start with the Articles of Confederation. And, yes, America’s Constitution was ratified only after, and perhaps only because, amendments were possible and were promised. But the salient difference is this: America’s Constitution was written to strengthen the central government for a remarkably homogeneous society. Iraq’s constitution was written to make a strong central government impossible for a violently tribal society. Its basis — federalism based on ethnicity — replicates the condition that contained the seeds of America’s Civil War: the deepest political cleavages coincide with regional cleavages.
Still, the Bush administration’s increasingly skillful engagement with Iraq’s political evolution proves how much it has come to terms with the fact that, as The New Yorker’s George Packer writes, "victory in Iraq is a process, not an event." The tardy recognition of that fact was costly.
When America’s Constitution was ratified in 1789, federalism was an unfinished fact. (It still is, but today’s adjustments of states’ rights and responsibilities are minor matters.) If the federal government of 1789 had not grown in strength, relative to the states, far more than most ratifiers of the Constitution anticipated or desired, the United States probably would not have remained united.
So the question today, which will be answered in coming years by the political process framed by Iraq’s new constitution, is whether that constitution "stands up" a nation, or presages the partitioning of it, perhaps by the serrated blade of civil war.
We have much debated the wisdom, or lack thereof, of entering into a war in Iraq. We have discussed the morality of the war, right or wrong. Please avoid turning this thread into a rehash of those discussions.
The intent here is to discuss the future of Iraq. What do you think will be the likely long term outcome of the restructuring of government in Iraq?
If possible support your opinion with an explanation of your reasoning.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Last edited by CardLogic; October 18th, 2005 at 08:37 AM.
I voted for civil wars, but I hope I am wrong. I think that our peace planning was absolutely inept. Had we done a better job, Iraq may have had a decent shot at democracy, but I just don't see it right now, unfortunately.
I voted for: Democratic Iraq, pursuing freedom and equality for all citizens.
This weekend we saw men and women of Iraq went to the polls to vote in a referendum on approving the new Constitution.
The good news of course just isn't that the Constitution will be approved.
The real news is that the Sunnis came out big numbers in their provinces in an attempt to defeat it. Back in January the Sunnis boycotted the process hoping that world opinion would conclude that without their participation the elections would be illegitimate - they concluded wrong.
In the January election - about 60% of the total population went to the polls, which actually shocked the world. The Sunnis, for deciding to stay home paid the price...they got 17 seats in the Parliament rather than the 50-or-so which their 20% of the population would have indicated.
This time they urged their people to go to the polls and vote "No." So in essence the Sunnis (who have controlled Iraq for the saddam years)... have decided to use the ballot box to make their point.
Just like a democracy is expected to do.
By mid-December...when members of the Parliament will be elected - the Sunni political parties will get their supporters revved up to vote.
Just like a democracy is expected to do.
Last edited by Djaughe; October 18th, 2005 at 08:56 AM.
I voted for: Democratic Iraq, pursuing freedom and equality for all citizens.
This weekend we saw men and women of Iraq went to the polls to vote in a referendum on approving the new Constitution.
The good news of course just isn't that the Constitution will be approved.
The real news is that the Sunnis came out big numbers in their provinces in an attempt to defeat it. Back in January the Sunnis boycotted the process hoping that world opinion would conclude that without their participation the elections would be illegitimate - they concluded wrong.
In the January election - about 60% of the total population went to the polls, which actually shocked the world. The Sunnis, for deciding to stay home paid the price...they got 17 seats in the Parliament rather than the 50-or-so which their 20% of the population would have indicated.
This time they urged their people to go to the polls and vote "No." So in essence the Sunnis (who have controlled Iraq for the saddam years)... have decided to use the ballot box to make their point.
Just like a democracy is expected to do.
By mid-December...when members of the Parliament will be elected - the Sunni political parties will get their supporters revved up to vote.
Just like a democracy is expected to do.
That's what I hope happens, and what I think will happen.
I voted for civil wars, but I hope I am wrong. I think that our peace planning was absolutely inept. Had we done a better job, Iraq may have had a decent shot at democracy, but I just don't see it right now, unfortunately.
Specifically what about the plan was inept? What could/should have been done differently?
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Specifically what about the plan was inept? What could/should have been done differently?
I think that there should have been a lot more soldiers on the ground. The ones that were there did the best they could, but they were asked to do too much, IMO.
We should have been in there with a lot more people restoring water, electricity, etc. and stopping the looting.
I think that there should have been a lot more soldiers on the ground. The ones that were there did the best they could, but they were asked to do too much, IMO.
We should have been in there with a lot more people restoring water, electricity, etc. and stopping the looting.
I don't know of anyone that would argue that more resources would not have been good. However, one should consider the law of diminishing returns. Doubling the size of the force would not promote a two-fold increase in the positive results being sought.
I think that there is a strong likelyhood that the planners knew exactly what to expect upon the ouster of Saddam's government in Iraq; and they were prepared to accept the outcome, knowing that our involvement would require a long term commitment. Again, the commitment would not necessasarily been significantly reduced even making a significant increase in resources.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Specifically what about the plan was inept? What could/should have been done differently?
Methinks I would agree that more troops to secure the areas is something that should have been done...looking back at 2003...we definately mixed up our prioritys.
To begin with in our rush to Baghdad...all we did in securing weapons caches was put a lock on them. Of course we all know now that you can't simply put a lock on ammunition dumps that stretched for several square miles...those same dumps that would provide a steady source of weaponry for the insurgency.
It didn't help that after GW announced that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" - General Tommy Franks moves his headquarters from Qatar to Tampa, Fla.
Rumsfeld's orders the disbanding the army and civil service (400,000) was pretty stoopid too. Thousands of civil servents that went to the insurgency (not just soldiers) - took with them useful knowledge of Iraq's electrical grid and water and sewage systems.
Making the search for WMD's the highest intelligence priority prevented the US from adequately fighting growing insurgents. Granted things were political here in the US to find those WMDs...but resources (i.e. analysts, translators, field agents) were all shifted away from the military.
In essence by shifting our resources to the WMD search - we lost touch with the contacts that were providing information (maps, photographs and addresses of former Baathist militants, safe houses and stockpiles of explosives) regarding the insurgency.
Lt. General David McKiernan (head of the U.S. military's land component) is ordered to move his headquarters to Florida, removing from Iraq hundreds of intelligence officers. Some U.S. intelligence officials view the loss of these assets as the gravest error in the battle against the insurgency. In essence once General Sanchez takes over - he has to restart intelligence gathering from scratch.
Rummy by September 2003 not recognizing that we were facing a classic guerrilla-type campaign...which created an allience between the baathists and AQ.
Being too slow in meeting with the various ethnic factions/tribes...primarly because all our translators were focusing on WMDs...which ended by December 2003...
Specifically what about the plan was inept? What could/should have been done differently?
Almost everybody outside of the White House, the GOP and their shills, including a number of recently retired and very well respected generals.
The one overriding mistake was we needed far, far more boots on the ground after the 'Mission Accomplished'. Everybody [except possibly GW] knew it but didn't want to pay for it.
I voted for civil war, but I think that eventually a combination of the last two options will take hold. It will be some sort of autocratic theocracy like Iran.
Do you suppose we should keep bumping this thread for the next 15 years to see if our predictions hold up?
I voted for civil war, but I think that eventually a combination of the last two options will take hold. It will be some sort of autocratic theocracy like Iran...
Linear Mode
