TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- They Were a Success for Most Iraqis but...

They Were a Success for Most Iraqis but...

They Were a Success for Most Iraqis but May Yet Lead to Failure for the United States

By Frank Smyth

The failure of the U.S.-backed election in Iraq is not that it was illegitimate for most Iraqis but that the exercise has only deepened Iraq�s sectarian divisions and perhaps moved the country closer toward the specter of a full-scale civil war.

Progressives should remain critical of the January 30 election but not for the reasons that most have articulated so far. Many anti-war critics were so busy pooh-poohing the balloting as a farce engineered by the Bush administration that they forgot that Washington had only agreed to the election under Iraqi Shi�ite pressure. The first U.S. plan for Iraq was to hold indirect elections through regional caucuses, a process that would have lent itself far more easily to American manipulation. But Iraq�s Shi�ite grand ayatollah, Ali Sistani, and other Iraqis said no. Actually, the election results are not likely to enhance American influence over Iraq. According to the reliable Arab-run polling firm, Zogby International, more than two-thirds of Iraq�s Shi�ites want U.S. forces out of Iraq either immediately or once the elected government is in place. That goal may be unrealistic, since any sudden withdrawal of U.S. forces could well plunge Iraq into civil war, but it underscores that the election was a step forward for Iraqi sovereignty, despite the conditions of U.S. military occupation in which it took place. U.S. progressives could help Iraqis reach their goal by ensuring that a transfer of power actually occurs.

Frank Smyth is a freelance journalist writing a book on the 1991 uprisings against Saddam Hussein, which he covered at the time from inside Iraq for CBS News, The Economist, and The Village Voice. He is the co-author of Dialogue and Armed Conflict: Negotiating the Civil War in El Salvador and of El Salvador: Is Peace Possible? and a regular contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org) His clips are posted at www.franksmyth.com.

See new FPIF Policy Report online at:
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0502after.html

With printer-friendly pdf version at:
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/0502after.pdf

What failure exactly?

If it is a failure it's only because the people of Iraqi failed to take control of their own country.
The U.S. gave them their country back on a silver plater and they risk loosing it all due to their own greed and sibling rivalries.
Of course they'll blame the States for anything that goes wrong because that would disolve themselves of any actual taking of responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The U.S. gave them their country back on a silver plater and they risk loosing it all due to their own greed and sibling rivalries. Of course they'll blame the States for anything that goes wrong because that would disolve themselves of any actual taking of responsibility.

Rivalries that predate our own country's very existence, which have occured amongst the 2,000+ multiethnic tribes in a country that was initially founded as a British Colony after the invasion of Ottoman Mesopotamia.

(The Brit's were the first to use chemical weapons in Iraq, btw - dropping poison gas on the Kurd's back in 1925)

I was actually just doing a little research on the Sykes-Picot agreement. Developing a historical understanding of the region, especially in regards to it's history of Colonial Imperialism, etc., is one of the keys to understanding our current debacle in the region

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/sykes.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What failure exactly? If it is a failure it's only because the people of Iraqi failed to take control of their own country.

Anyway, don't you people ever grow tired of the half-hearted apologetics?

So now if our invasion of (the once sovereign nation of) Iraq doesn't bear fruit, it's all the Iraqi people's fault? LMAO

I'm beginning to think that you guys would happily attempt to justify anything using your power of deceit.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X [color=#33ccff] So now if our invasion of (the once sovereign nation of) Iraq doesn't bear fruit, it's all the Iraqi people's fault? LMAO

Are you actually suggesting they were better off with Saddam??!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Are you actually suggesting they were better off with Saddam??!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

No, but I'm suggesting that you're an idiot.

It always amuzes me that when people are faced with facts how childish some can be...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It always amuzes me that when people are faced with facts how childish some can be...

What facts? The fact that you tried to put words in my mouth?

I'm not about to fall for your BS.

You talk about being faced with facts, yet you clearly don't understand much of what you argue about on this forum. I'd call that idiocy, just as I did in my last post.

Lets just leave it at you have your POV and I have mine.
Calling me an idiot does nothing for your POV and arguements other than point out the fact that you can't stand another's opinion other than your own.
Unfortunate since you do have some good arguement material...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What failure exactly? If it is a failure it's only because the people of Iraqi failed to take control of their own country. The U.S. gave them their country back on a silver plater and they risk loosing it all due to their own greed and sibling rivalries. Of course they'll blame the States for anything that goes wrong because that would disolve themselves of any actual taking of responsibility.

Thats why we should have never went there in the first place. It would be extremely naiive to think the motivation behind the war was truly to bring "freedom" to Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Calling me an idiot does nothing for your POV and arguements other than point out the fact that you can't stand another's opinion other than your own.

Well, I guess you could say that I felt compelled to take drastic steps in a last ditch effort to bring myself down to your level.

And on the contrary, I revel in listening to other's viewpoints no matter how dissenting - just so long as they are somewhat formulated and/or intelligent. I would classify yours as neither/nor.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild It would be extremely naiive to think the motivation behind the war was truly to bring "freedom" to Iraq.

But that's what the pundit's want you to believe. In many cases it seems to be working for them.

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Are you actually suggesting they were better off with Saddam??!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Are you actually suggesting that it's irrelevant just how many rationales and justifications Bush has used up to go to war with Iraq, irrelevant just how many facts were bent for justification, irrelevant how many American lives have been lost, the hundred thousand or so Iraqi lives that have been lost, irrelevant on the hundreds of billions we're currently paying when we're in a massive deficit in our own right, irrelevant to the fact that just 2 weeks ago the CIA confirmed what we already knew - that Iraq is NOW the world's biggest hotbed haven for terrorist activity, thanks in ALL part to our invasion, irrelevant to the fact that every damn country except fucking Poland hates our guts because of our fucking global empire stance, just so long as we get rid of a hapless dictator, one of an assorted handful around the globe who posed no "imminent", "serious", or "grave" threat to us in any manner?

Ha.

Ha ha ha.

Man, I just can't follow up with giddy laughter like you. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Are you actually suggesting they were better off with Saddam??!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

wake the fuck up and relize that this war was not about Saddam and WMD.It is all about excpanding American empire,and once again they fucked up big time since Iraq will have mullahs in control and there is not a damn thing Americans can do about it since thats what the people choosed.

Good job Bush for giving power to the extremists and for atttracting terrorists into Iraq

At least when Saddam was in charge there was some control and no terrorists could breath in Iraq,but now all terrorists can blow the shit out of Americans everyday.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Are you actually suggesting they were better off with Saddam??!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

you must work at the whitehouse.


seriously state me some reasons why this is better than Saddam. Oh ya no Freedom please, it's beyond a joke now.

Why is it no one ever seems to take of the view of the actual people involved; the Iraqi people.
It's too easy to be armchair critics on this side of the world when one's not involved.
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy or take overnight.
Everyone here sounds like they know what they're talking about but no one has had a convincing enough arguement yet about why Iraq shouldn't have liberty and freedom.
Try turning your backs 180 degrees and try facing the future because we all know damn well they didn't have one before.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 ...that Iraq is NOW the world's biggest hotbed haven for terrorist activity, thanks in ALL part to our invasion...

Really?
I've never read that anywhere nor seen any media mentioning this at all...
Please enlighten us...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Really? I've never read that anywhere nor seen any media mentioning this at all... Please enlighten us...

What happened to the 200,000 insurgents? They haven't dissapeared just because 60% of the Iraqis voted in an election. Just because the election went well doesn't give us justification to be there in the first place. Do you honestly think the US government gives a rats ass about the Iraqi people? Or that we cared about the well being of the Kuwaiti people when Saddam invaded them in the 90s? Hell no, we love power and money and oil, we don't give a damn about human rights or fake "freedom" which Iraq still doesn't have. you must be like 12 and just spitting out what you see on the news.

you keep coming in here asking for people to "enlighten" you but you need to get off your own ass and do the research for yourself

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Why is it no one ever seems to take of the view of the actual people involved; the Iraqi people.

Yes, why don't we ask the Iraqis what they think of us and our actions?:

quote:

Sunni Arabs who say they will vote on Sunday: 9% Sunni Arabs who say they definitely will not vote on Sunday: 76% Shiites who say they likely or definitely will vote: 80% Kurds who say they likely or definitely will vote: 56% Sunni Arabs who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 82% Shiites who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 69% Sunni Arabs who believe US will hurt Iraq over next 5 years: 62% Shiites who believe US will hurt Iraq over next five years: 49% Shiites who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 84% Kurds who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 64% Sunni Arabs who want to postpone elections: 62% Sunni Arabs who consider guerrilla resistance against the Americans legitimate: 53% Iraqis who would support a religious government: 33% http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957

quote:

It's too easy to be armchair critics on this side of the world when one's not involved.

While there's certainly a ring of truth to it, I fail to see how that dismisses someone who's rightly able to observe and criticize our grave missteps.

quote:

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy or take overnight.

Yes, Mr. Bush, we're all aware of it being "hard work". That is wholly irrelevant and fails to address any of the criticisms I gave earlier.

quote:

Everyone here sounds like they know what they're talking about but no one has had a convincing enough arguement yet about why Iraq shouldn't have liberty and freedom.

If you're seriously thinking any one of us has stated or believed that Iraqis don't deserve freedom and liberty, methinks you're either not reading very well or are deliberately distorting our points. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, and hopefully you can step away from Hannity's talking points and read carefully what I've written on this subject.

That's an incredibly silly point to make, one that doesn't even need to be addressed. But if you're so willing to dismiss all the consequences of our actions, dismiss all the distortions and debunked rationales for taking us to war, literally dismiss all the unbelievable means just so you can pat yourself on the back for having the end result of a subjective definition of "Iraqi freedom" that bears no resemblence in any way to the freedom here in the States, well I really don't know what to say to you. It's both sad and frightening.

quote:

Try turning your backs 180 degrees and try facing the future because we all know damn well they didn't have one before.

Do you any clue as to what they have now? You think a religiously-run Muslim country that's become the hotbed for international terrorism bears any resemblence to our definition of "freedom"? I'm as happy as the next guy that Saddam is gone, but what good does it do to replace him with this?

Oh, about your comment:

quote:

Really? I've never read that anywhere nor seen any media mentioning this at all... Please enlighten us...

Happy to:

quote:

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01 Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank. Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists. President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war. "At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity." Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government. Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both." But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents. "The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says. According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology. At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat. Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)." The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device. The council is tasked with midterm and strategic analysis, and advises the CIA director. "The NIC's goal," one NIC publication states, "is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy." Other than reports and studies, the council produces classified National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies on specific issues. Yesterday, Hutchings, former assistant dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, said the NIC report tried to avoid analyzing the effect of U.S. policy on global trends to avoid being drawn into partisan politics. Among the report's major findings is that the likelihood of "great power conflict escalating into total war . . . is lower than at any time in the past century." However, "at no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux as they have in the past decade." The report also says the emergence of China and India as new global economic powerhouses "will be the most challenging of all" Washington's regional relationships. It also says that in the competition with Asia over technological advances, the United States "may lose its edge" in some sectors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

Feeling "enlightened" yet?

You think I don't support my assertions with evidence?

Welcome to the Political Forum, sir.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Really? I've never read that anywhere nor seen any media mentioning this at all... Please enlighten us...

You've never heard that the Sunni Triangle is now the home of large amounts of terrorist acts carried out by insurgents? I know you guys have Fox News Channel up in Canada, but I think even they've mentioned 1 or 2 deaths of American soldiers since Saddam was caught in his hole. Remember when the only "proof" they had that Iraq was harboring Al Qaeda was that Zarqawi was in a hospital somewhere? It seems he's made a few friends and I don't remember any car bombs going off in downtown Baghdad before we invaded.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Why is it no one ever seems to take of the view of the actual people involved; the Iraqi people. It's too easy to be armchair critics on this side of the world when one's not involved. Nobody ever said it was going to be easy or take overnight. Everyone here sounds like they know what they're talking about but no one has had a convincing enough arguement yet about why Iraq shouldn't have liberty and freedom. Try turning your backs 180 degrees and try facing the future because we all know damn well they didn't have one before.

I have a question: Why Iraq and not say Sudanese freedom, Saudi freedom, Congolese freedom, or even North Korean freedom? You guys seem to totally block out the WMD fiasco and act as if that was never the reason we were told we HAD to go to war, so then why Iraq and not somewhere else if this was all about delivering freedom?

I'm all for people having democracy, but look at the results of the elections. A party led by a Shi'ite cleric pummelled Allawi's party. Bush is not going to get the type of democracy he wants. In fact Iraq may very well go into civil war and not have democracy, because the Sunnis and Kurds aren't sharing the same views of what should be the democratic government as what the majority party does.

I'd also argue that there wasn't a democratic future under Saddam, but many Iraqis were much better off in a socio-economic sense before we imposed sanctions on them that devastated many lives. Look at how many children were reported to have died from lack of simple medicines that had been relatively well available before. Look at how many Iraqis studied at prestigious universities all over the world. Now many don't even have water. There were better ways to bring them democracy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.