What's the effing point?

[StarvingStudent47]

(Disclaimer: these are the musings of a depressed, intoxicated SS47)

I've been thinking a lot recently. I supported the Iraq War from the start, not because I believed in any Saddam-Bin Laden link, but because I truly believed in bringing democracy and liberation to the Arab world. But I've been becoming more and more frustrated as time has gone on. ****, we've done all we can, and I really have to wonder if the Arab world just doesn't want freedom. I'm wondering whether it's at all worth it to try and free other peoples. I used to believe very strongly in FDR's statement "We are the great arsenal of democracy"...but I'm wondering about that now.

I know it isn't some inherent problem with Arabs--the Arab-Americans I've had the pleasure of working with over the years have been, with only a couple exceptions, truly great people. Intelligent, friendly, and of high moral character. And I know it isn't something with Muslim countries as a whole--our state-building in Afghanistan is still a work in progress, but I have full faith we'll be successful there from how things are going now. But I just can't think of a single intervention in the Arab world, by ANY country, that has ever been successful, and that's weighing on me.

So what's the point? Are we really ever going to be able to establish democracy in the Arab world? Can we ever bring freedom to the Arab world by force? Or should we just cut our losses, realize that we cannot spread democracy in this part of the world, and prevent further casualties to our troops?

Now, keep in mind that I am NOT in any way unpatriotic. I've lived my entire life in the USA, and goddamnit, I love this land with every bone in my body. But I'm wondering whether 280 million people can really be the police officers for 8 billion; why it's our job to do so. Plato said "only the dead have seen the end of war," and I'm wondering whether I've been naive to think that the USA can bring about world peace and freedom. I used to really believe that we could really change the world--first through aid and social action (in my ultra-leftist days) then through "whatever means necessary" (in my neocon days, which I guess goes right through now). But I'm really wondering...well I'm wondering what I've said above.

I realize this is an open-ended post with no clear question, but I'd still appreciate feedback of whatever form.

[mocking_loudly_died]

You are dealing with a basket case region - I think we f*cked up. I could make some intellectual points in an attempt to justify my point of view but I'm to tired.

I hope we can get out of this with out setting off a massive civil war or even more regional insecurity.

Maybe I'll be proved wrong....

[SeanAshi]

I really have to wonder if the Arab world just doesn't want freedom.The arabs don't want democracy to work in Iraq, Palestinian territories, Syria, Lebanon, so on....and its obivious why.

[Argyll]

Pass me another beer my friend ;)

My answer,trying to impose a democracy is not the way to go about it,I said so when this war kicked off,you cannot make someone do something you want them to do,if it is not within them.

The need for change comes from Within........not from outside.
The only people who so far,who have gained significantly in Iraq are the Kurds,they have what they wanted,and are working with the Coalition to make it better.
The Sunni's who had everything have nothing.........and they're going kicking and screaming

The Shia's heve been pretty passive,other than Sadr's mob........they still need to see the trust from the Coalition..............but recent event such as the abuse scandals have tarnished that trust.

Right now Iraq is split into 3 ,and the June 30th handover is not going to make a blind bit of difference to them.
On the 1st July they could order all Westerners Corporations out of Iraq,and order all Coalition Troops out as well,will they do as they are asked.........but leave all the Financial aid behind?...........I doubt it,so where does that leave the country?
As long as there's people like Sadr on the ground then Iraq needs to be patient.

If the Iraqis do ask the West to leave,and that will take months in its own right to do so,Sadr will make his move against the ruling Government,and stage some kind of Coup-detat,imposing himself as the Grand leader of Iraq,and I can really see the Sunni's being thrilled about that,and the Kurds for that matter........then civil war will ensue,leaving more Iraqis dead than the what have been killed so far,and this time it will be at their own hands.Leaving a very unstable country with no protection from the Wolves on their borders such as Turkey,Syria,Iran and Saudi.

So far nobody else has come up with a credible soloution to the problems,so why bother mate ;) Even the people who come here and slate the Foreign policies offer no soloutions other than to add flames to the fire ;)

[Ballistic]

Hmm been thinking about this too, unfortunately I'm not drunk though as I've stopped drinking. ;)

Is it in our best interest to do these people any good whatsoever any more ? Perhaps they are just too backwards to even see the best path for their future. Maybe we should just pack up and leave, and better ourselves and our countries and advance our cultures, and let them fight each other to death. Then those who opposed any action in Iraq and Afghanistan will be the ones screaming for something to be done, and perhaps our answers can be.. "Sorry, we tried, you didnt help the first time, it's not our problem anymore"...but then again...

I believe what the coalition did was the right thing to do, we removed a dictator from power and ended 3 decades of corrupt rule and gave the Iraqi people a chance at a better future, it seems they havent grasped that and it just isnt going to plan. Maybe the passed 3 decades are so ingrained into their society that they are unable to see whats best for them anymore. But I'll stand by our troops, Aussie, Yank and Brit and all the other contributing nations for them to do their best within a pretty buggered up situation.


The need for change comes from Within........not from outside.

Do you really believe that will happen ? Would be good if it could.

Send our troops home and let them (Iraqi's/Middle East) do with themselves what they will, or send more in... what would be the best route to take in your opinions ?

[16 OBr SpN]

This is off-topic but I have a question for you Argyll.

Since you've been there recently, how would you describe the situation on the border sectors with Syria and Iran? Have the coalition forces been able to secure them? Just curious.

And one more question: Have you met any Russians there?

Of course, I completely understand OPSEC matters, but any information would be appreciated! :)

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[Argyll]

This is off-topic but I have a question for you Argyll.

Since you've been there recently, how would you describe the situation on the border sectors with Syria and Iran? Have the coalition forces been able to secure them? Just curious.

And one more question: Have you met any Russians there?

Of course, I completely understand OPSEC matters, but any information would be appreciated! :)

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

I honestly don't know mate,as the route from Baghdad to Jordan is OOB,we never get to hear much about Western Iraq.
Russians or Ukrainians? ;) ........Seen plent Uk's in Uni
Private or regular ;)

[16 OBr SpN]

As for the discussion topic, I personally, was against the occupation of Iraq, and not because I don't like Bush/America, etc.

But only because Saddam was the guy who was actually capable of stopping the spread of the fundamentalist ideas.
Yes, he supported Palestinian terrorists, but which Arab leaders didn't/don't?
Yes, he was a tyrant, but again the whole Middle East is filled with them.

Now, I think that withdrawing troops will be a disaster. What I see happening right now is a gradual transformation of the insurgency from nationalistic to religious slogans. If the Americans decide to withdraw it will be viewed as another "victory over the Great Satan", and you can be sure that fundamentalist ideas will gain even more popularity.

Unfortunately, to me personally, it seems like the US government doesn't have a clear strategy. We made the same mistake during the 1st Chechen war. Yeltsin just simply wanted to take Dudaev out because he didn't like his "cocky attitude", but there was no clear plan of actions afterwards. The rest is history.
Moreover, US is losing (if not already lost) the information war, not only in the Arab world, but also many Western countries. Latest prisoner pictures just added another fuel to the fire.

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[Hullebullen]

Hmm...how should I phrase this? I think the likes of Sadr and the other "boys" don't want stability and progress. Maybe later, when they have grabbed power but until then, chaos works for them. In an organized democracy he and his likes would be viewed in proper light as the eccentric madmen they are. Dangerous, quite possibly, but something that exist on the fringe of society.

For now, I think the only option are to continue the strife to build an Iraqi society that can deal with these people on their own and help them to deal with those people on the way.

As Argyll said, the other option is to watch Iraq break apart 'cause I don't believe in a second that the Kurds, Shiite and Sunni will sit together around a camp fire and sing Kumbaya the second the Americans and the coalition leaves. More likely, we'll be discussing wether to send troops in to stop the genocide or not and people will probably blame the US for the genocide because they left...

[GazB]

Leaving a very unstable country with no protection from the Wolves on their borders such as Turkey,Syria,Iran and Saudi.


Yes, those evil Turks, Syrians, Iranians, and Saudis are just waiting to invade any neighbour that shows weakness.

What are you drinking... it seems to have effected your brain... why not add the kuwaitis to your list of wolves they are as likely to invade Iraq as the other countries you listed.

Turkey and Iran will deal to any Kurdish state but otherwise I doubt they will bother doing more than strengthen their borders.

[Argyll]

Gaz,
I never used Kuwait as they do not really have offensive capabilities,or the significant numbers to do so,it's nothing to do with drink either,but what you're arguing against is that it's not possible at all?

Syria.......perhaps not either.

Turkey has the reasons as do the Iranians,I never said it was a definite,I said it could happen,but care to offer your insight to the debate then?

[GazB]

The Turks and Iranians have no recent history of wanting to invade neighbouring countries for the purpose of taking land. The Turks and the Iranians have had cross border raids to attack Kurdish training camps but if the Kurds didn't use those training camps to train people to commit terrorist acts in Turkey and Iran then I am sure both countries would ignore them. Turkey is supposed to be your ally and member of NATO. You'd think if anyone would want Saddam out it would be Turkey, but they saw, quite correctly, that the Kurdish problem is much bigger for them and an invasion would just make that situation worse... and it has.


The simple fact is that it is the Kurds that want to recreate Kurdistan and the old Kurdistan included large areas of Turkey and Iran. Iran might support what they will call freedom fighters in Israel, but so what? The old one mans freedom fighter rule applies, you can no more pull them up on that than you can for the US supporting the Taleban, Saddam, and many other people and organisation that think more about themselves than their people.

If anyone is really to blame then you'd have to point the bone at Britain. It drew arbitrary lines on maps to create the countries we now see in the ME, if they had drawn the lines alone ethnic lines perhaps there would be fewer problems. Of course the divide policy has kept oil prices low all this time so in that regard it was very successful... to the cost of many lives.

[Threelions]

Can we ever bring freedom to the Arab world by force?

That my friend is the root of your problem. It is a very interesting question and one that could clearly spurn hours of political drunken debating. personally i would giv e this question a huge, and very loud NO! You cant bring "Freedom" to anyone by force, cause that is counter to the whole idea of freedom. "Freedom" is a choice that must be chosen. I dont believe that "Freedom" in relation to government is the natural state of mankind, and we therefor cant expect it to just work when we say "work". In the grand scheme of governments throughout mankinds history this is a very new concept, and one that takes alot of work by all people to work. If we added up all the nations and states throughout history "freedom" would perhaps take up 2% of all governments. We just can't expect for people to understand how "freedom" works, and thus use it, it must come about organiclly as a product of the populations understanding.


I'm wondering whether 280 million people can really be the police officers for 8 billion; why it's our job to do so

No. That is the quick answer. The long answer, America can't be the worlds police because no one wants that. If i woke up tomorrow and paul martin suspended all rights in canada and became a tyrannical leader, and a bunch of yanks showed up for "operation Canadian freedom", i would fight the yanks. Why? Cause what right do they have to tell me what is good for me? That is the essence of why you cant be the worlds policmen. Why is it your job to be the police? Its not. Its something that the USA fell into as a means of spreading its influence accross the globe. Same reason the British Empire was the cop of the world. Why spread influence? I think (personal opinion here) it boils down to a neccessity within capitalist systems, more influence leads to more customers, and more custyomers is more money for us (the west)!

If 280 million people are "policing" 8 billion, but not at the request of those 8 billion, then we arrive at a point that is completely opposite to the whole purpose of "policing". Rule by minority is deffinetly not "freedom"!

Cheers

[Threelions]

Even the people who come here and slate the Foreign policies offer no soloutions other than to add flames to the fire ;)

I'm one of these people who slags off foreign policy, and for good reason. O would love to present a viable plan to deal with iraq, but there isn't one. Well, thats not true, there is in my eyes a logical one, but it hides as many evil pit falls as the current situation.

Iraq reminds me an awful lot of the former Yugoslavia. Both nations are politicaly designed products of foreign powers. Both states are conglomerates of ethnic nations, which were held together by the strong fabric of a very strong central government. The solution in yugo was devolution, sure it involved alot of death and mayhem, but that was the price. Perhaps devolution is the way to go about iraq. Kurdistan, assyria, Sadr-land, sunni-ville, and so on. Then again, i'm a Pommie Chelsea supporting anthropology major living the good life in Canada, so what do i know about the real Iraq.

Cheers

[Dalleer]

I was against this war from the beginning, but as operation "Iraqi freedom" got started and all I figured that once they got started then they'd better finish the job as well.

So they did. And even Saddam's behind bars at the moment.

It's the aftermath that continues, or should I say that the war never ended but instead transformed itself to another "level" - The guerilla warfare that we see daily.

As I've thought things over, I've come to the conclusion that a democracy like the US, just like any western country fighting a war like this must be having huge problems of keeping the "war effort" together back home.

You've got elections coming, right ? Of course alot of the voters agree with Bush at the moment but his got someone to oppose him as well (I don't know if it's Kerry anymore).

Then there's the ever-present "casulty list" that can be used as a weapon by the opposing party. Not to mention the families of the soldiers and civilians getting killed there almost daily.

The press can and will write about the good and the bad events in Iraq, so the public is informed constantly (Sometimes the information is of course a bit one-sided) .

Think about a scenario in which Iraq would've attacked a neighboring country ? I doubt there would be that much information flowing around about casulties and the last thing we would be seeing is Iraqi people protesting Saddam's attacks in Iraq and demanding their sons and fathers back home...

A Democracy in war has it alot harder sometimes when it comes to an "offensive campaign" than a country run by dictators.

A dictatorship doesn't have to explain it's actions, it just violates every rule and shows it's middle finger to the rest of the world.

Finally, all I know is, that this war won't be fought forever. One way or another Iraq's going to be a very different country in the distant future.

[American Patriot]

I wish I was over there right now as an 11B :(