Why the pessimism?

[Oncle Boris]

Even though I rank into the commie-anti-American group of this forum, I am sincerely hopeful - but not really optimistic - for Iraq. If things are done right, but only if, the Iraqis might end with something much better than Iran or Syria.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


well the VC WAS gutted during Tet. But then the NVA came in to continue the war. Who plays the role of the NVA in Iraq (in any case Iraq even in the worst months hasnt been as bad as VN routinely was in '66 and '67)

You miss the point-Oerdin asks "why the pessimism?", and people who supported the war come out with the standard statements: media bias, lefty bias, blah blah. I am pointing out why I am not optimistic: we have seen before times of optism-but of course, the optimist don;t know all that is afoot anymore than the pessimists.

My pessimism is based on history-I have not seen real movement towards ending the underlying political rifts in Iraq yet, and certainly no consensus yet on the role of political Islam either. When and if the Kurds are asked to disarm their independent militias, we will see what happens-when a final constitution comes up to figure out the permenant role of Islam in politics, we will see. That the worse case scenerio has not come to pass is no more proof against pessimism than the best case scenerio not having come to past is proof of pessimism.

Which is why I bring up Tet as an exmaple-in 1967 there was plenty of optimism about our efforts in Vietnam-all that optimism had 0 to do with what was really going on at the ground with respects to what the other side was planning. I did not mean it in any way as a case example of what is goign on right now militarily, which is what LoTM seems to have taken it as.

[DinoDoc]

Someone quoted me? I feel special.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


My pessimism is based on history-I have not seen real movement towards ending the underlying political rifts in Iraq yet, and certainly no consensus yet on the role of political Islam either. When and if the Kurds are asked to disarm their independent militias, we will see what happens-when a final constitution comes up to figure out the permenant role of Islam in politics, we will see. That the worse case scenerio has not come to pass is no more proof against pessimism than the best case scenerio not having come to past is proof of pessimism.

Point taken. But in that regard are not the opinions of Iraqis particularly important? Is not their view on interethnic rivalries, willingness to compromise, particularly important? Alot of the pessimism seems to be based on A Priori reasoning - third world countries with ethnic divisions, and where there has been a minority ruling group inevitably result in civil war. Thats a powerful concern, I agree, but its what we knew in February 2003. Indeed, its what we knew in April 1991. On this question alone, have we learned anything new during the occupation?

Second point - Oerdin I think was addressing what he sees here - and i will vouch that what you see here is not atypical on RL concerns here in the US (I think euros are even more pessimistic) and the mass of that pessimism is NOT focused on the long term political prospects in Iraq, and is only to a limited degree aware of the short term political maneuverings. Rather it is based on the steady drip of US and Iraqi casualties. And the news about reconstruction, which mostly seems to focus on whatever is the problem at the moment - when there was no power, the focus was on power. When the power was getting fixed the focus was on water and oil. When that was fixed the focus was on the unemployment rate. Now thats come down. etc.

WRT casualties a comparison to VN IS illuminating. The first week in March passed with only one US combat death, IIRC. Now news outlets RIGHTLY did not highlight that - we've had weeks with Zero US combat deaths followed immediately by weeks with 15 or 20 deaths. The numbers are so low and based on so few incidents that the weekly rate jumps around dramatically, and only monthly numbers are useful in looking at trends. Which is quite a contrast with Viet Nam, when the weekly death toll WAS newsworthy, and the first week with zero US combat deaths WAS big news. US combat deaths are headlined any day they take place, which would have been absurd in VN.
Yes, I know that this is different, and that comparinng casualty rates is not evidence of eventual success - I am simply making a point about media coverage and public impressions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


This is one huge reason for pessimism.

If only people's perceptions created reality.

There are obvious different political aims for each group-aims not yet worked out-the most torublesome is that of the Kurds. And then the question of how Sunni's will accept their minority status, and how much authority the mayority Shiites, now at the cusp of power, will seeded away into a Federated system.

All it takes is a spark, and optimism turns into internal strife and killing.

Except there have been numerous sparks, including the recent mosque bombings, and they HAVENT created civil war. I mean compare Iraq to Kosovo - in one country 180 deaths at the hands of Sunni extremists result in restraint from the Shia - while in Kosovo three deaths and the whole place is in flames.

As for the Kurds I expect them to behave RATIONALLY. Which means foregoing independence. If one could argue that Saddam was fundamentally rational and therefore deterrable (as was argued before the war) why should we expect the kurds to behave irrationally, and bring on a civil war they cant win?

[lord of the mark]

On the role of the Kurdish militias, and the Iraqi transitional constitution generally, heres an interesting article from the New Repubic.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=scholar&s=levy031704

[East Street Trader]

Maybe a political leader is in process of emerging who commands the trust and respect of the Sunni tribal chiefs, the Shi'ite tribal chiefs, the leaders of the Kurds, the clerics, those with oil interests, the US, the Turks and the neighbouring states.

And maybe he or she (although I guess not a she in that part of the world ) will prove to be incorruptible, hard working and long lived.

As even Ghandi could not prevent the breaking up of India and Pakistan (amidst dreadful bloodshed) when India achieved independance, this leader will need to be lucky as well as wise and charismatic.

But such a thing is not wholly unknown. Despite even even more unpromising circumstances Lawrence of Arabia united the arabs once before. Although only their ability to fight together was tested in the end, not the rather harder task of living together without fighting.

Nevertheless if the coalition forces stay put for a while such a leader may conceivably come forward.

God, or Allah, knows how he will be recognised.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Point taken. But in that regard are not the opinions of Iraqis particularly important? Is not their view on interethnic rivalries, willingness to compromise, particularly important? Alot of the pessimism seems to be based on A Priori reasoning - third world countries with ethnic divisions, and where there has been a minority ruling group inevitably result in civil war. Thats a powerful concern, I agree, but its what we knew in February 2003. Indeed, its what we knew in April 1991. On this question alone, have we learned anything new during the occupation?

No. The fact we did know it is why we did not go all the way in 1991-and the fact the admin. dismissed it all in 2003 was one of the reaosn I feared and still fear their approach.

Second point - Oerdin I think was addressing what he sees here - and i will vouch that what you see here is not atypical on RL concerns here in the US (I think euros are even more pessimistic) and the mass of that pessimism is NOT focused on the long term political prospects in Iraq, and is only to a limited degree aware of the short term political maneuverings. Rather it is based on the steady drip of US and Iraqi casualties. And the news about reconstruction, which mostly seems to focus on whatever is the problem at the moment - when there was no power, the focus was on power. When the power was getting fixed the focus was on water and oil. When that was fixed the focus was on the unemployment rate. Now thats come down. etc.

I have said before and I will say again-to me "personal experiences" can at best illustrate points, but are NOT proof of anything. I am sure plenty of psy-ops people in Vietnam in '67 could tell you about the hopeful S.Vietnamense they knew. As for my pessimism is not built on the drip of casualties or any particualr attack- I still have not seen any real fixing of deep divisions. Iraqis have yet to vote on any issue yet-those are the tests of what the future will be.

Yes, I know that this is different, and that comparinng casualty rates is not evidence of eventual success - I am simply making a point about media coverage and public impressions.

Why I bring up 1967- certainly in 1967 the weekly casualties were mich higher than today-and the public back then was far more willing to accept those higher casualties than we are today, wheened on the promise of cost free computer wars-so the effects were not huge-again, Tet is a turning point NOT becuase it cause huge amounts of US casualties, but becuase it showed as false the opinion that we were winning and the end was around the corner. Up to then the public was willingly taking the deaths-becuase we were "winning". Once it was shown that was not true, all those men died and still the enemy pulls of Tet-were we being lied to they asked themselves..what has been the point?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
On the role of the Kurdish militias, and the Iraqi transitional constitution generally, heres an interesting article from the New Repubic.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=scholar&s=levy031704

Never had Levy in school-barely ever saw him.

I am dubious about the notion that stability in Iraq might be partly derived by Kurdish fears of Turksih intervention if they attempt independence. He also fails to address the possibility that somoene might get tired of the checks and balances he sees and moves to rmeove them- the US is really alone in holding its constituion as some sacred text never to be changed.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander


So why don't you fill us in on those "routine" gunfights from your vantage point in...where are you again?

Check out the reports coming from Iraq. There are gun fights on a routine basis. Oh I forgot, there's a massive international conspiracy by The Left-wing Media Inc. to distort the news?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hmmm, one might say the same about yours. Unless of course you were not trolling and you were simply being a jerk.

See, now that's the type of pointless, ignorant comment that we expect from you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The soldier who spends his nights inside the highly protected Green Zone may be completely oblivious to the routine gunfights occurring in the city.

Oerdin isn't in the Green Zone IIRC.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Agathon
What are the girls like, Oerdin?

Let's say that most of them aren't even near my type. The modern westernized ones look ok but in the rural areas most of the women walk around in the Darth Vader outfits.

The prettiest girls I've seen have been Kurds (who also seem to be the least religious and most pro-western). The last time I was in Kirkuk (Iraqi Kurdistan) I saw a red haired, green eyed Kurdish girl who's face & complection was very European.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The prettiest girls I've seen have been Kurds (who also seem to be the least religious and most pro-western).

That's because all the leading Kurdish parties are commies.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
The problem is that you equate working through the UN as multilateral and working through groups of allies as unilateral.

Doing 95% ourselves and 4% one partner and 1% 29 other partners is working through allies? Come on, this Coalition of the Willing is BS and you know it. 90% of them are names on a peice of paper contributing nothing substantial.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the military was claiming all was going well, and we were on the cusp of victory.

Highlighted, because this is different from what you said. 'cusp of victory' and saying we have already won are two totally different things. Especially considering both circumstances, of not gaining much land in North Vietnam in the 60s and conquering all of Iraq in the 00's.

[chequita guevara]

No one the U.S. is afraid of getting into a war with is supplying the insurgants or jihadists.

[debeest]

Oerdin, I want to bump my question. What do you see as a reasonably likely positive outcome in Iraq?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

the military was claiming all was going well, and we were on the cusp of victory.

Highlighted, because this is different from what you said. 'cusp of victory' and saying we have already won are two totally different things. Especially considering both circumstances, of not gaining much land in North Vietnam in the 60s and conquering all of Iraq in the 00's.

We HAVEN'T WON in Iraq, unless it is you who live in some far away lalaland.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Maybe a political leader is in process of emerging who commands the trust and respect of the Sunni tribal chiefs, the Shi'ite tribal chiefs, the leaders of the Kurds, the clerics, those with oil interests, the US, the Turks and the neighbouring states.

And maybe he or she (although I guess not a she in that part of the world ) will prove to be incorruptible, hard working and long lived.

As even Ghandi could not prevent the breaking up of India and Pakistan (amidst dreadful bloodshed) when India achieved independance, this leader will need to be lucky as well as wise and charismatic.

But such a thing is not wholly unknown. Despite even even more unpromising circumstances Lawrence of Arabia united the arabs once before. Although only their ability to fight together was tested in the end, not the rather harder task of living together without fighting.

Nevertheless if the coalition forces stay put for a while such a leader may conceivably come forward.

God, or Allah, knows how he will be recognised.

I would say that the emergence of democracy in former british colonies has been hampered by the emergence of charismatic leaders, not helped, EG Kenyatta, Kaunda,Nkrumah, Mugabe, etc. Im NOT sure that is what Iraq needs.

Indian partition was a complex event, conditioned by decades of history under the Raj. I dont see Iraq going the same way - are you thinking of the Sunni arabs or the Kurds in the role of the Muslim League?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We HAVEN'T WON in Iraq

Of course we have! We are simply doing mop up / occupation stuff. This is a characteristic in any conquest. So you don't think the US took over the Phillipines until around 1930 instead of when we actually did around 1900 because of the revolt?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

We HAVEN'T WON in Iraq

Of course we have! We are simply doing mop up / occupation stuff. This is a characteristic in any conquest. So you don't think the US took over the Phillipines until around 1930 instead of when we actually did around 1900 because of the revolt?

Victory is based on objectives. IF our objective was removing the WMD threat and liberating Iraq, then yes, we are done-so why are we there still?

This is an excercise in NATION BUILDING. As everyone and their uncle was saying, the Occupation, or day +1 was what mattered. We have not won until we accomplished that goal- so NO, we have not won.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Doing 95% ourselves and 4% one partner and 1% 29 other partners is working through allies? Come on, this Coalition of the Willing is BS and you know it. 90% of them are names on a peice of paper contributing nothing substantial.

And in Afghanistan were the percentages significantly different? They were not and you know it. Yet everyone says that Afghanistan WAS multilateral, and Iraq was not. They are using multilateral as a euphemism for "approved by a certain organization located at 1st Avenue and 43rd Street in Manhattan"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Iraqis have yet to vote on any issue yet-those are the tests of what the future will be.

I agree with you that elections, and the political alignments resulting therefrom, will be KEY milestones. Much more important than arbitrarily looking at a one year anniversary. But I do not agree that we havent learned anything in the last year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Victory is based on objectives. IF our objective was removing the WMD threat and liberating Iraq, then yes, we are done-so why are we there still?

This is an excercise in NATION BUILDING. As everyone and their uncle was saying, the Occupation, or day +1 was what mattered. We have not won until we accomplished that goal- so NO, we have not won.

This may be an exercise in national building, but to say we haven't 'won' is silly. Did we lose in Afghanistan because the nation building there hasn't been totally successful? Of course not! When the Taliban fell we won in Afghanistan and then the nation building began. Same in Iraq with Saddam.

[GePap]

And in Afghanistan were the percentages significantly different? They were not and you know it. Yet everyone says that Afghanistan WAS multilateral, and Iraq was not. They are using multilateral as a euphemism for "approved by a certain organization located at 1st Avenue and 43rd Street in Manhattan"

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/14627.htm

If you look at the NATO contributions, compared to the the total forces, specially since the US has about only 1/10th the forces in Afghanistan as in Iraq, the percentages appear to be significantly higher.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


This may be an exercise in national building, but to say we haven't 'won' is silly. Did we lose in Afghanistan because the nation building there hasn't been totally successful? Of course not! When the Taliban fell we won in Afghanistan and then the nation building began. Same in Iraq with Saddam.

We didn't go into Afghanistan for nation building-we went to hunt down AQ, and in that sense, we have certainly not won there yet either, also given the resurgence of the Taliban in various areas.

You don;t win a war and continue to conduct military operations against the same enemy 2 years after.

We have not won in either place-which is why Bush no longer event mentions his little plane escapade.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don;t win a war and continue to conduct military operations against the same enemy 2 years after.

We aren't. I don't think the Iraqi army is blowing up buildings, do you?

And yes, we've won in both places. We are now dealing with the AFTERMATH of the wars.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


We aren't. I don't think the Iraqi army is blowing up buildings, do you?

Ahem... Afghanistan? I remember Plato's thread about a new spring offensive....

And yes, we've won in both places. We are now dealing with the AFTERMATH of the wars.

You don;t hold "spring offensives" in the aftermath period, that for afghanistan.

For Iraq, given that twice as many soldiers have died in the 'Aftermath' than in the toppling of the regime, even if you accept us having won the war against the Baath regime, we have not won against the insurgency. Maybe you have forgotten, but fi you look at any hisotry book, the Philipinno revolt is seen as distinct conflict from the Spanish-American war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don;t hold "spring offensives" in the aftermath period, that for afghanistan.

Of course you can... to deal with with the rebels.

For Iraq, given that twice as many soldiers have died in the 'Aftermath' than in the toppling of the regime, even if you accept us having won the war against the Baath regime, we have not won against the insurgency.

Is Israel currently in a war against Hamas?

fi you look at any hisotry book, the Philipinno revolt is seen as distinct conflict from the Spanish-American war.

Exactly... it was the aftermath of the war and became a seperate conflict entirely. If this erupts into full fledged warfare, it'll be another conflict, not Gulf War II.