StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think it's fairly certain, at this point, that the US is going to invade Iraq whether we want to or not. So, the real question now is what are we going to do afterward? We're pretty much guaranteed a victory here. The only question is how long it's going to take.

So, what do we do after we've "liberated" Iraq? Snap our fingers and make them a democracy? Flood them with our cultural gems like reality TV shows and internet porn? Or do we just kill everyone, label that as collateral damage and steal the oil?

Durandal wrote: So, what do we do after we've "liberated" Iraq? Snap our fingers and make them a democracy? Flood them with our cultural gems like reality TV shows and internet porn? Or do we just kill everyone, label that as collateral damage and steal the oil?

Install a democratic government (or at least our puppets), flood them
with food, aid, etc, and porn. and of course American companies will get
first pick to rebuild Iraq from Saddam's neglect...

Internationally speaking, the best thing to do would be to have a coalition of forces occupying Iraq while the people choose a new form of government. We then leave Iraq, and deal fairly and evenly with its new government until/unless they show themselves to be the same kind of genocidal backstabbers Hussein is. We should not install a puppet government, as that will decrease our international credibility.

The Dark wrote:We should not install a puppet government, as that will decrease our international credibility.

No matter what kind of government we install, the peaceniks and
anti-american fools will call it a "puppet" government.

Unfortunately true. However, there's no reason we should make it true. I just feel honest dealings (along with minor espionage to make sure they're being honest) with our true allies and neutrals we can influence is the best policy. Nations that are our enemies, we nail to the wall. Nations that spy on us consistently, such as France and Japan, we keep a suspicious eye on. Nations where we depose rulers, we do not place our own rulers in charge. Imperialism is generally not a good thing.

We should not install a puppet government, as that will decrease our international credibility.

We still have International Credibility?
Don't get me wrong but I though everyone hated us already

Nah, Blair's still replacing Lewinsky in the current Oval Office .

I think Saddam could quickly be removed from power (although with a good amoubt of civilian casulaties), it would be hard setting up a stable government. I'd think we should look at the mistakes made driving the Taliban out, and try fixing them after removing Saddam from office. I'd say send some of the politicians we don't want over to head it.

Canceling all oil contracts with France will be the first item on the agenda. If we feel nice maybe the Russians can keep there's.

Canceling all oil contracts with France will be the first item on the agenda. If we feel nice maybe the Russians can keep there's.

Putin's been nearly as onboard as Blare but he did not have his parilment backing him up like Blare's so best to keep their contracts and cancel Frances...

kick out saddam, make irak a wealthy country and then most important: leave the country. if the angy irakis are turned into friendly irakis other arab nations are going to follow.

note: this is a optimistic scenario, the money could also be wasted.

US troops will have permanent bases in Iraq just like we do in Korea, Japan, and Germany for the next 40 years or so. That is the only thing Im certain of.

I hope there is not a prolonged period of sniping or guerilla activity that costs additional lives.

Durandal wrote:I think it's fairly certain, at this point, that the US is going to invade Iraq whether we want to or not. So, the real question now is what are we going to do afterward? We're pretty much guaranteed a victory here. The only question is how long it's going to take.

So, what do we do after we've "liberated" Iraq? Snap our fingers and make them a democracy? Flood them with our cultural gems like reality TV shows and internet porn? Or do we just kill everyone, label that as collateral damage and steal the oil?

Occupy the country while a provision government from the Iraqi National Congress is installed. Military occupation to maintain order remains until free elections under new constitution establishing Federal Republic of Iraq (with States specific for minorities that have certain rights seperate of the central government) can be held, with INC provisional government handling administration.

Once a freely elected government is in place and established, appropriate agreements are signed with it granting permanent basing rights similiar to those currently had in some European countries. Our troops are withdrawn from German bases, which are closed, and permanently stationed in new Iraqi bases. The occupation of Iraq is ended and the excess troops go home.

The new government has to established within limits - we can't expect to them grant all the freedoms of a western democracy overnight - but can be set up as a functional multiparty system, once the Federal Republic constitution has been established. The biggest problem will be organizing the State infrastructure, necessary to keep the ethnic groups satisfied, which may take several years, so the occupation phase may last that long.

We can expect low-level shootings and terrorist attacks against our troops concentrated in Iraq at about the same level as has been going on in the world post-9/11, but nothing that isn't an unacceptable level. As long as we're engaged in programs to rebuild the country, and have engineering units working there alongside the people, showing them the troops are doing something for them, the collateral damage from such attacks will be seen as terrorists killing Iraqis, not Iraqis caught in the crossfire of a Terrorist-US war.

Naturally, during this time, we'd re-train the Iraqi army and add in the resistance groups to it as well, most likely, to create the necessary force loyal to the central government to hold together the state system.

The entire process will probably take between 3 - 6 years.

After which the lame-duck government goes to shit, and its popularity goes into the toilet. The Americans must go in again to defend it, and ... well, we've seen this script before.

Darth Wong wrote:After which the lame-duck government goes to shit, and its popularity goes into the toilet. The Americans must go in again to defend it, and ... well, we've seen this script before.

You mean in like in Germany and Japan or Bosnia and Macedonia?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:After which the lame-duck government goes to shit, and its popularity goes into the toilet. The Americans must go in again to defend it, and ... well, we've seen this script before.

You mean in like in Germany and Japan or Bosnia and Macedonia?

Places whose pre-existing societal structures resemble that of Iraq soooooo closely

Darth Wong wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:After which the lame-duck government goes to shit, and its popularity goes into the toilet. The Americans must go in again to defend it, and ... well, we've seen this script before.

You mean in like in Germany and Japan or Bosnia and Macedonia?

Places whose pre-existing societal structures resemble that of Iraq soooooo closely

Lebanon 1958

Sea Skimmer wrote:Lebanon 1958

And Lebanon eventually collapsed into civil war, didn't it? These societies are not governable unless we're willing to invest a lot more into them than we have in the past. The societal problems run too deep.

I think that Iraq will have a better chance of succeding (puppet government) than Afganistan, mainly because it's more of an interest to America financially. But then again the same was true for Iran, and America chose to topel that democratic governmet... It would be interesting if it actually did work, you know democratic fair and free, and all that jazz, and Iraq still hated America and opposed Israel, wonder what would happen then.

Darth Wong wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Lebanon 1958

And Lebanon eventually collapsed into civil war, didn't it? These societies are not governable unless we're willing to invest a lot more into them than we have in the past. The societal problems run too deep.

Japan's societal structure in 1945 and that of Iraq today are actually closer than one might think. They're both on a top down autocratic model with a single ruler who has absolute power - whether it's the one who's supposed to or not - constitutions that create farce assemblies that serve as mouthpieces for the State, and in both cases, Iraq today and Japan in 1945, they're the most heavily industrialized countries in their regions in those time periods.

Yes - Iraq was the example of Arab industrialization. It was just that the two Persian Gulf Wars, of course, crushed a lot of the effort. But the groundwork for it still exists, and Iraq is considerably better off in terms of potential than many other Arab States. At one point Iraq even had a very highly developed civil society, though Saddam has mostly crushed it; but it can recover with the return of exiles, under an American occupational protection, and thus support Iraqi democracy.

A three to six year occupation to organize the government along appropriate Federal lines will most likely indeed be sufficient, along with the appropriate capital being invested into the Iraqi infrastructure to repair the damage from the three wars and in general improve it (and the efforts of our troops in that regard once the occupation has begun), to allow the new Iraqi government to smoothly take over once the occupation ends.

The only difference between Japan and Iraq (in very broad terms) which is extreme in nature, is diversity of Iraqi society, which is of course the reason for a Federal Republic. People make to big of a deal out of the Emperor system in Japan. In Iraq the people want us in for the most part - or at least they want us to get rid of Saddam for them - and that provides a vast advantage over Japan.

The mission, in the case of Iraq, is far from impossible. Certainly democracy is impossible for a long time to come in the likes of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but in the Levantine states and Mesopotamia, there is enough development to allow for it.

I should also note that the Lebanese collapse was in part due to the arrival of Palestinian refugees, who unbalanced a rather delicate ethnic power-sharing structure in the Lebanese State, which worked just fine until one group - Muslims in that case - increased in population by to much. Combined with the fact they brought the PLO along with them, it was a recipe for total disaster, but not the inherent fault of the Lebanese State (Though it certainly wasn't a strong state organization, Lebanon is hardly a considerable country to begin with).

Darth Wong wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Lebanon 1958

And Lebanon eventually collapsed into civil war, didn't it? These societies are not governable unless we're willing to invest a lot more into them than we have in the past. The societal problems run too deep.

A couple decades later, after a few tens of thousands thousands of armed PLO members showed up after being driven out of Jordan and set up camp and began launching a campagin of terror. Or did you forget that little part?

Your arguing that because the US has never established a stable government in Iraq, we won't be able to do so.

Please provide examples of nations America rebuilt before it went to work on Japan or Germany that had the same pre existing social structure.

SOmehow Duchess I doubt that it will work so perfectly as you wish it will.

For one, I wouldn't trust that Iraqi Nationial Congress as far as I could toss them. The only thing that keeps the varying factions together is the hope that they'll get in Iraq again. That's about all those Iraqis will ever agree.

And then you have a chairman who is convicted criminal.

At best your "government" will only hold with massive financial and military backing.

Dahak wrote:SOmehow Duchess I doubt that it will work so perfectly as you wish it will.

For one, I wouldn't trust that Iraqi Nationial Congress as far as I could toss them. The only thing that keeps the varying factions together is the hope that they'll get in Iraq again. That's about all those Iraqis will ever agree.

And then you have a chairman who is convicted criminal.

At best your "government" will only hold with massive financial and military backing.

Now now, the US has a couple dozen convicted criminals in Congress and it works about as well as any body that is given jurisdiction over several trillion dollars with few restrictions. Of course we could easily argue anyone who makes politics a career is a criminal as well.

Dahak wrote:SOmehow Duchess I doubt that it will work so perfectly as you wish it will.

For one, I wouldn't trust that Iraqi Nationial Congress as far as I could toss them. The only thing that keeps the varying factions together is the hope that they'll get in Iraq again. That's about all those Iraqis will ever agree.

And then you have a chairman who is convicted criminal.

At best your "government" will only hold with massive financial and military backing.

During the part where the INC is in charge there would be massive financial and military backing. It only ends after power has been smoothly transferred in a free and fair election which we've monitored and declared to be such. The INC's job would be to administer the country and provide legitimacy while we reorganize it for that election and the democratic rule to follow.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Japan's societal structure in 1945 and that of Iraq today are actually closer than one might think

If one is drunk,that is.Japan did not have the ethnical divisions that instead there are in Iraq.The kurds have de facto,although not the jure, their own little state.And this is just an example.Underestimating this issue would be foolish.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: along with the appropriate capital being invested into the Iraqi infrastructure

Sure,as everybody knows currently the Uncle Sam is plenty of money to invest in foreign countries.The economical crisis,the rising military expenditure for wars and procurements,the huge deficit,the Bush promise of not increasing taxation leave a lot of money for investments
Iraq has oil,but just enough for running the country (at least without additional investments on new oilfields,which will take time).Rebuilding it will require a lot of $$$$.Where these are going to come from is a question for which I would like to hear an answer.

Note please that US permanence in the european countries was justified by the threat of the Soviet Union.Such a threat does not exist in Iraq.What will you do when,let us say, ten years from now the democratic government will ask you to leave?