Defeat or victory in Iraq?

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-11-09 11:11pm

Let's try to have an honest discussion here. What do you actually think will happen in Iraq from now on? Will we win or will we lose? By victory I mean defeating the insurgency and then creating a semi-stable democracy (early pullout shortly after January elections can only be consued as defeat). Other possibilities like Iraq turning into a fundemental theocracy are less easier to judge, so we'll say that only if the end regime supports America will there be victory. Defeat means anything short of those goals.

Right now, I see nothing but defeat in the future. Without any more troops we cannot hold any insurgent ground, and any Iraqi forces we build get's quickly demolished time and time again because they are unwilling to fight. Since the Sunnis are now not so hot about democracy anymore, we'll be seeing insurgency probably getting bigger and stronger after the elections as the Sunnis see the Shiites win the election as expected. This will soon lead to either civil war if the US pulls out, or just more insurgency if we stay. Either way, the eventual outcome is "defeat." You thoughts?

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-11-09 11:14pm

Slight clarification: Creating a democracy does not count as victory unless the democracy stands a meaningful amount of time. Creating a nondemocratic government but stable will be construed as victory if that government is pro-US and open to us, and defeat if that government is not open to us.

GeneralTacticus · Post by **GeneralTacticus** » 2004-11-10 05:20am

What if a stable, anti-US democract emerges? Would that be a victory or a defeat?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-11-10 05:24am

The Moment the US pulls out the nation of Iraq stands an excellent chance of going fundimentalist. There is enough Islamic fundimentalist to make it possible, and they have the {probable} will to make it happen.
A stable democraticc nation is not something you can put into existance by law or regulation of government, it is evolutionary and those conditions that allow for it do not exist and cannot be made to exist by force of arms.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-11-10 05:25am

GeneralTacticus wrote:What if a stable, anti-US democract emerges? Would that be a victory or a defeat?

That would be France

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-10 07:14am

So what happened in Japan after WWII? They had no democratic tradition (Germany had a weak republic for what? 20 years after WWI? So I'll leave it off the table has to wheter or not it had a democratic tradition.) Before the occuipation and whatever else their social/political problems they are a stable functioning democracy.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-11-10 07:39am

frigidmagi wrote:So what happened in Japan after WWII? They had no democratic tradition (Germany had a weak republic for what? 20 years after WWI? So I'll leave it off the table has to wheter or not it had a democratic tradition.) Before the occuipation and whatever else their social/political problems they are a stable functioning democracy.

Japan had a far more rigidly structured society to begin with and a completely different cultural mentality (not to mention ethnic, cultural and religious uniformity), so it is not comparable to Iraq, which is a patchwork of different ethnicities, religious sects (Shia, Sunni, some Christians) and those lines blur and run into each other at points. Then there are all the political problems of nothaving a strong leadership and having a lot of people with no compunctions about blatantly using force to get what they want. It's not looking good.

Edi

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-10 07:44am

That doesn't answer my question. I will accept that it was a different situation and has such no bearing on Iraq itself, but my question remains.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-11-10 08:00am

Ah, sorry. The thing is that the factors enumerated above allowed a relatively smooth transition to a democratic rule that was done from the top down by decree.

It is quite interesting that the pre-reform class structure survived relatively intact, albeit in a superficially changed form. The old samurai families were still top of the heap, and it might be an interesting little tidbit that brands like Honda and Kawasaki are the names of old samurai families. These people owned the businesses and were pretty much the top dogs in politics (and still are, probably).

The point is that their social structure did not get completely upended, so there was no huge, widespread outrage that would have led to rebellion. They kept most of it and just grafted on some new features.

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-10 08:05am

The Japanese religion worshipped a leader who formally surrendered to the Americans. It's an understatement to say that this situation is not the same.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2004-11-10 08:55am

One of the things that I have been realizing recently due to the fact that I have been actually taking some cultural anthropology. The political structure in Iraq is almost completely family-based. This is why we didn't get Saddam to start off. This is why Fallujah hasn't been that quick or easy. Everyone in a faction almost considers themselves to be "family." I say to our men, good luck, you're going to need it.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2004-11-10 09:10am

As I've been saying alot today, we fucked it up.

It won't work. A fundamentalist Theocracy or another militarist regime will rise from the ashes of our clumsy attempt at giving these people freedom.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-10 09:16am

Darth Wong's point was huge. Japan and Germany were defeated nations in every respect. Their cities lay in ruins, their populations were decimated, their fighting capacity totally annhilated. They simply couldn't resist, and since the centralized political structure had capitulated totally to the American and Allied occupiers there was no one left to fight back. The population really had only one option: accept reform.

That's not the case in Iraq, and won't until all other options have been reduced. Democracy *can* be imposed with force of arms, but at a toll that no democratic country today is willing to pay.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-10 09:38am

frigidmagi wrote:So what happened in Japan after WWII? They had no democratic tradition (Germany had a weak republic for what? 20 years after WWI? So I'll leave it off the table has to wheter or not it had a democratic tradition.) Before the occuipation and whatever else their social/political problems they are a stable functioning democracy.

Japan did have a rather stable parliamentary democracy from the 1870s, instituted as central to the Meiji Reforms, so it was not as if there was no democratic tradition to begin with. Further, as their culture was oriented toward order and stability, U.S. assistance to restore both was welcomed, particularly after it was made clear that the Imperial institution was going to continue. Japan is not a valid example to compare to Iraq.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-11-10 09:49am

anybody else see a "Balkanization" of Iraq happening...???

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-10 10:48am

The stability of Iraq will depend largely on the new Iraqi military. If the US manages to build a functioning loyal army then Iraq will probably work out somewhat decently. If that fails then the options are Saddam mk2, Ayatollah Sistani and all out civil war with intervention from all surrounding nations.
It will be intresting to see how capable the Iraqi military is in the coming months, if the Iraqis don't want to decide their own fate a fate will be provided for them and the odds are that it will be a very bad one.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-10 10:54am

theski wrote:anybody else see a "Balkanization" of Iraq happening...???

You mean A-Q & Sunni against Kurd and Shia with Saudi & Syrian support.
Shia against Kurds & Sunni with Iranian support.
Turks against Kurds & also with Sunni against Iran and Shia.

No no chance whatsoever, all the problems in Iraq are a result of the US precence. Everything would work out great if only the US left...

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-10 12:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:The Japanese religion worshipped a leader who formally surrendered to the Americans. It's an understatement to say that this situation is not the same.

Yes! Soon God himself will surrender to us!

Then the universe is ours.... ::Imperial March Plays::

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-11-10 01:23pm

I have a feeling that the active insurgency is only the tip of the iceberg and its primary goal is a distraction (and something to keep the young hotheads occupied with). The real insurgency is operating behind the scenes, infiltrating its people into the new armed forces and police to bide their time until the US pull out.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-10 02:22pm

I'm hearing rumours about three family members of the Iraqi prime minister Allawi, including his wife, have been kidnapped earlier?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-11-10 02:47pm

Korvan wrote:I have a feeling that the active insurgency is only the tip of the iceberg and its primary goal is a distraction (and something to keep the young hotheads occupied with). The real insurgency is operating behind the scenes, infiltrating its people into the new armed forces and police to bide their time until the US pull out.

I doubt it is that well-organized. It certainly is large, though:

NEW YORK - U.S. officials have raised their estimates of the size and financial support of Iraq’s insurgency, The New York Times reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources.

advertisement

The resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 rebels, counting foreign fighters, the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and home-grown insurgents, the Times cited the officials as saying. When sympathizers are added, the number burgeons to more than 20,000, the newspaper said.

Those estimates are greater than earlier intelligence reports — in which the number of insurgents has varied between 2,000 and 7,000, the Times said.

According to military and government officials in Iraq and Washington cited by the Times, the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on “unlimited money” from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and relatives of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

That financing is supplemented in part by wealthy Saudi donors and Islamic charities that funnel large sums of cash through Syria, the newspaper said, citing officials with access to detailed intelligence reports.

Only half of an estimated $1 billion sequestered before the war by the Iraqi government in Syrian banks has been recovered, the newspapers said. There is no tally of money flowing through Syria to Iraq from wealthy Saudis or Islamic charities, but the Times quoted a Pentagon official as saying the figure is “significant.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6304304/

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-11-10 02:55pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Korvan wrote:I have a feeling that the active insurgency is only the tip of the iceberg and its primary goal is a distraction (and something to keep the young hotheads occupied with). The real insurgency is operating behind the scenes, infiltrating its people into the new armed forces and police to bide their time until the US pull out.
I doubt it is that well-organized. It certainly is large, though:...

Probably not, I'm just a bit of a closet tinfoil hatter at times. The Saudi link is interesting, though. I do wonder why the US keeps letting the Saudis screw them six ways from Sunday.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-11-10 03:03pm

Korvan wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:
Korvan wrote:I have a feeling that the active insurgency is only the tip of the iceberg and its primary goal is a distraction (and something to keep the young hotheads occupied with). The real insurgency is operating behind the scenes, infiltrating its people into the new armed forces and police to bide their time until the US pull out.
I doubt it is that well-organized. It certainly is large, though:...
Probably not, I'm just a bit of a closet tinfoil hatter at times. The Saudi link is interesting, though. I do wonder why the US keeps letting the Saudis screw them six ways from Sunday.

Here's your answer:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

The vast majority of Persian Gulf oil imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (71%),

This is old(which means the total amount is probably higher), but:

http://www.saudia-online.com/saudi.htm

Saudi Arabia imported more than $6 billion in products from the United States alone in 1995.

Bruc Lee · Post by **Bruc Lee** » 2004-11-10 06:08pm

Iraq falls into the hands of the extremist religious leaders more and more every day. Soon the US will have to force the Iraqis to vote for their candidates like Allawi. If the elections were truly democratic then the extremist leaders would be able to take part in the elections and they would win. The US therefore will ban these extremists from taking part. And democracy will be none existent, but it will be branded a success. Kind of like that extremist group in Turkey that won the elections fairly but that was banned for being and extremist muslim group. Forced democracy

But what other choice is there? None really. Its either the US way or the extremist way. Such a mess.