Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

C

craner

Beast of Burden
Yes, but I'm not referring to the declarations of leaders, I'm referencing the host of arguments that went into the policy decisions of governments.
 
S

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
If you add the estimates of those killed under Sadam due to his wars, repression of Shia and Kurd uprisings and the sanctions (though sanctions figures are controversial) would the toll be less or more than the invasion, the insurgencies, the civil war, Isis, etc. ? (divided by 24 years and 13 years respectively I suppose)

Even with that I guess you still have the counterfactual of how the Arab spring would have effected baathist iraq; would it have had similar death tolls to syria?
 
C

craner

Beast of Burden
I don't know if you remember this, but Blair took the decision to invade Iraq to Parliament, and was prepared to resign if he lost.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
The subjugation (or conquest) of Iraq was a necessary consequence of the military campaign. That's what subjugation, conquest, etc, are.

These are not words with pleasant connotations, however. And therein lies a major source of doublethink: we want to (in effect) conquer a country without actually conquering it (war without warfare; the bad guys lose, but everyone still wins and goes home happy). In the dream scenario, we defeat one faction militarily, some magic happens, and then we end up with West Berlin.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
As an aside, Paul Collier makes the point in his book Wars, Guns & Votes that it is a category error to identify good government too closely with democracy. Elections are very far from sufficient (widespread confusion on this point has generally been a disaster for Collier's "bottom billion", since democracy was touted as the solution to development woes in the 1990s, and spread across the developing world). In reality an awful lot more cultural and institutional structure is needed to raise democracy above the level of dysfunctional (an insight that was not foreign to the ancient Greeks).
 
C

craner

Beast of Burden
It may have been "necessary" (and that's going into counterfactuals again) but it wasn't the policy. There was, tragically, no definite policy other than the vague DoD plan to hand it over to the INC and pay for reconstruction with oil wealth on the international market. But that would probably have been better than occupation. Most senior Iraqis in 2003 were saying, help us. When they were saying help us, the US did nothing, because there was no direction from Washington. Then when it fell apart, the senior Iraqis were saying, help us, but don't occupy us. And the Americans occupied them.
 
C

craner

Beast of Burden
Well, of course, like rule of law. And see also Tocqueville's critique of democracy without necessary correctives. But you seem to be suggesting that Middle Eastern countries could never develop these auspicious conditions, a notably pessimistic and even discriminatory analysis.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I mean, logically necessary.

I understand that there was no plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. That's the magical thinking. A more "realist" power would have declared martial law and installed a puppet government. Instead the US sat around waiting for Sunni and Shia to convert their country into West Germany.
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I'm not saying that the condition for democracy could never exist in the Middle East, by the way. But one should not expect to find them lurking just beneath the surface, waiting for the slightest touch from a friendly power to spring into place. The reality is that what we can achieve with military power is limited at best.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
And was able to do that because they were motivated by a particular ideal. But that ideal (the government derives legitimacy from the consent of the governed) cannot precede nation-building. It has to come after.
 
S

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
vimothy said:
And was able to do that because they were motivated by a particular ideal.
Click to expand...

He threatened a fatwa that would call on shia to join the insurgency. The shia popular mobilisation forces number in the high tens of thousands, imagine that turned against america (while also contending with the mehdi army and the sunnis). I don't think it was there ideals that made them receptive to sistani's ultimatum.
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
kNmAZD2.png
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
craner said:
I remember anti-war activists claiming they knew something which UNSCOM inspectors and all the international security agencies and even the Ba'ath inner circles didn't know in 2003, which was that Saddam had no active WMD programmes. On a different day, though, and sometimes the same day, sometimes even from the same mouth, it would be said that the US should not invade Iraq because they'd be caught up in an apocalyptic WMD quagmire on the outskirts of Baghdad.
Click to expand...

Sophistry & outright distortion.The IAEA and ElBaradei were clear in 1998 and UNMVIC was clear in 2003, with Blix going so far as to accuse the US/UK of exaggerating and dramatising claims - you should try reading Blix's book sometime. Even UNSCOM, saturated as it was with security and CIA involvement could only find 5 examples of non-cooperation out of 300 prior to Desert Fox.

This is what i mean by psychopathy. The fact that you continue to peddle this bullshit years after it has been confirmed as utterly false.

Shame can be a useful emotion, you should try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top