ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape

[K. A. Pital]

Let's be constructive now: what can you offer to the Sunni Arabs now? A Sunni-controlled Iraq? That is dead. There is no way to ressurect this vision, as Knife already said a few posts above. Money? The Gulf States and not-so-clueless oil buyers who get ISIS oil give them enough money already. Secularism? After spending a huge effort to discredit secularism and repeatedly pressure Middle Eastern nations on democracy, you've got only islamist movements in power. Some are moderate, others are extreme - like IS(IS).

What is your offer to the Sunni Arabs that is better than the ISIS offer? It might come as a horrible truth, but Sunni Arabs are not and will not be happy with Shia militias cleansing them (which is what happened in the Shia-controlled US-occupied Iraq while the US turned a complete blind eye). They also, by now, value the typical things you'd think of as valuable (human life, historic memorials, et cetera) very low. Life is shit. IS promises a life of jihad against the infidels, who are also simultaneously blamed for all the problems plaguing the Sunni Arabs in Iraq. That's actually how they managed to expand influence in Iraq so quickly.

Your strategy? I think that even a slow but more or less orderly partitioning of Iraq wouldn't have been as bad as what actually happened.

[The Romulan Republic]

Let's be constructive now: what can you offer to the Sunni Arabs now? A Sunni-controlled Iraq? That is dead. There is no way to ressurect this vision, as Knife already said a few posts above. Money? The Gulf States and not-so-clueless oil buyers who get ISIS oil give them enough money already. Secularism? After spending a huge effort to discredit secularism and repeatedly pressure Middle Eastern nations on democracy, you've got only islamist movements in power. Some are moderate, others are extreme - like IS(IS).

Definitely not a Sunni-controlled Iraq. Not even if its possible. I'm not a fan of countries controlled by only a single religious group.

Money and other aid is something we can give- I very much doubt there's anyone who can outbid the US if we're willing to sink enough money into it.

And I do think we need to encourage support for secular government in the Middle East and work with whatever support for it currently exists their. Indeed, I think its necessary for a long-term solution to that region's problems. But that's a long term project. Possibly a generational or even multi-generational project.

Also, I suppose we could make our support for the Iraqi government at least somewhat contingent on them guaranteeing better treatment of Sunnis. Not sure if that would have any effect or if they'd just turn to other factions like the Shiite militias more.

Of course, it could undermine the effort to fight ISIS, but we could still support the Kurds.

What is your offer to the Sunni Arabs that is better than the ISIS offer? It might come as a horrible truth, but Sunni Arabs are not and will not be happy with Shia militias cleansing them (which is what happened in the Shia-controlled US-occupied Iraq while the US turned a complete blind eye).

Yeah, right, I need you to tell me that people don't like being the victims of genocide.

And I did say we need to pick our allies more carefully.

They also, by now, value the typical things you'd think of as valuable (human life, historic memorials, et cetera) very low. Life is shit. IS promises a life of jihad against the infidels, who are also simultaneously blamed for all the problems plaguing the Sunni Arabs in Iraq. That's actually how they managed to expand influence in Iraq so quickly.

Does the majority of the Sunni population actually want ISIS rule? And if you claim that they do, can you provide any evidence for that?

In any case, you seem awfully confident in generalizing about the beliefs and desires of a vast number of people.

Your strategy? I think that even a slow but more or less orderly partitioning of Iraq wouldn't have been as bad as what actually happened.

People always trot out splitting up Iraq as if that'll solve the conflicts between the different factions. I tend to think it may just mean war between two or three states rather than a civil war in one state. Either these groups can live together or they can't, and I'm not sure redrawing some borders will change that.

[ray245]

Definitely not a Sunni-controlled Iraq. Not even if its possible. I'm not a fan of countries controlled by only a single religious group.

Money and other aid is something we can give- I very much doubt there's anyone who can outbid the US if we're willing to sink enough money into it.

And I do think we need to encourage support for secular government in the Middle East and work with whatever support for it currently exists their. Indeed, I think its necessary for a long-term solution to that region's problems. But that's a long term project. Possibly a generational or even multi-generational project.

Well it will have to be. The world has spend decades in discrediting the idea of a secular state in the middle east when almost every secular government they have experienced being dictatorship that kills off anyone who disagreed.

How do you educate the population that a secular democracy should be the ideal form of government on a scale big enough to have an impact?

Yeah, right, I need you to tell me that people don't like being the victims of genocide.

And I did say we need to pick our allies more carefully.

That's easier said than done. The major reason why the war dragged on for so long in Syria was because the west have no one they could legitimately support. Sure there are some secularist movement there, but they are just as likely to hold onto power as the chances of a socialist candidate being elected as president in the US.

People always trot out splitting up Iraq as if that'll solve the conflicts between the different factions. I tend to think it may just mean war between two or three states rather than a civil war in one state. Either these groups can live together or they can't, and I'm not sure redrawing some borders will change that.

Well it would have state-level government that the rest of the world could legitimately recognise and be less of a sectarian issue.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well it will have to be. The world has spend decades in discrediting the idea of a secular state in the middle east when almost every secular government they have experienced being dictatorship that kills off anyone who disagreed.

How do you educate the population that a secular democracy should be the ideal form of government on a scale big enough to have an impact?

I'd say that this is something we can't be pushy about- its an important issue, but westerners telling Middle Eastern countries what form of government they should adopt is likely to be badly received by many people. After all, who likes to be preached to? Its going to take time, carefully choosing pro-secularism allies to support, and not being heavy-handed about it.

In the long run, I think the internet is our friend with this issue, as its difficult to control and allows ideas other than Jihadi/theocratic bullshit to spread into a society and become more commonplace.

That's easier said than done. The major reason why the war dragged on for so long in Syria was because the west have no one they could legitimately support. Sure there are some secularist movement there, but they are just as likely to hold onto power as the chances of a socialist candidate being elected as president in the US.

This is going to become so funny in retrospect if Bernie Sanders wins the election.

Well it would have state-level government that the rest of the world could legitimately recognise and be less of a sectarian issue.

The first point has validity (though I don't know if the resulting governments are ones we'd want to recognize), but the second one... well, like I said, I'm worried it would just be a sectarian war between states rather than within a state.

What about some sort of partial autonomy for different regions as a compromise? Don't the Kurds have that now?

[ray245]

I'd say that this is something we can't be pushy about- its an important issue, but westerners telling Middle Eastern countries what form of government they should adopt is likely to be badly received by many people. After all, who likes to be preached to? Its going to take time, carefully choosing pro-secularism allies to support, and not being heavy-handed about it.

In the long run, I think the internet is our friend with this issue, as its difficult to control and allows ideas other than Jihadi/theocratic bullshit to spread into a society and become more commonplace.

Would it even happen even if we give them more time? The idea that they would necessarily chose secular democracy over theocracy is perhaps too big of a ask considering how difficult it was for those ideas to be adopted in the west. It's too arrogant of us to assume those ideas by themselves would be valued in the region.

This is going to become so funny in retrospect if Bernie Sanders wins the election.

The point is still valid irregardless of whether Sanders wins the election. Supporting a candidate with ideas not shared by the population at large isn't going to turn the nation into some liberal democracy automatically. You'll still have to reconstruct the west as an ideal political system that people of the middle east can buy into! How many people wants to see their society being reconstructed into a liberal, secular society in the same vein as the west? Even in East Asia, the west as a model is not entirely favoured all the time.

The first point has validity (though I don't know if the resulting governments are ones we'd want to recognize), but the second one... well, like I said, I'm worried it would just be a sectarian war between states rather than within a state.

At the least it would make some people less frightened about being oppressed if the country could not be run by a different ethnic group.

What about some sort of partial autonomy for different regions as a compromise? Don't the Kurds have that now?

You are still going to have problems with a central government either being too weak to do anything, or it being a constant tug of war between various factions that is absolutely frightened if someone else took control.

[Channel72]

That infuriates me that people defend that piece of human garbage, say people had it better under his rule while ignoring the huge numbers of dead. Its a bit like when some fuckwad Confederate apologist tries to defend the South by pointing to all the rights and freedoms people enjoyed under the stars and bars while ignoring the human beings treated as cattle. Its goddamn insane and pretty disgusting.

You're getting really tiresome. You seem to be literally incapable of understanding concepts like "lesser of two evils" and, um... any form of subtlety or prioritization of outcomes whatsoever. I will continue to defend Saddam's regime as the lesser of two evils, because it objectively was, by a wide fucking margin. Constantly citing the Kurdish/Shia massacres, or any other horrible atrocities he committed doesn't fucking change that. You're simply incapable of reacting to any sort of positive statement about Saddam Hussein with anything other than kneejerk bullshit.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed, it seems "lesser evil" is not very well understood. Probably because this is a purely retrospective concept (you cannot say whether something was a lesser evil until the events actually transpire). We can say that Saddam's rule was better than what's happening now. We cannot say what is the best option now that Saddam is gone and IS is there. Because we have no spice, damn you Paul Atreides Muhammad.

[Channel72]

There's also a difference between ideological mass murder, and reactionary mass murder. Hitler (and now ISIS) was an example of the former. Saddam Hussein and, say, Stalin, was an example of the latter. In my opinion, the former is a much worse form of evil.

Saddam didn't kill Kurds because they were Kurds. He killed Kurds because they opposed him. Saddam and his regime had no ideological reason to persecute any particular ethnicity. In fact, the opposite was true. The Ba'ath party was founded under a secular Pan-Arab ideology (which included ethnically non-Arab groups like the Kurds) - with the desire to unite Sunnis, Shias, and everyone into a single nation. Saddam called for this unification even as he was tried and hung. This was an admirable goal - unfortunately, Saddam's method of achieving this unification was brutally imposing his own rule and ego on the nation, and killing anyone who opposed him. Also, in practice, Saddam's wrath ended up disproportionately targeting certain ethnicities more often than others, (like Shia Muslims) because the pre-existing tribal politics made it more likely that certain groups would oppose his Ba'athist regime, because even though the Ba'ath party was, in theory, an equal opportunity party for all Muslims (and indeed, for anyone), in practice, it ended up being Sunni dominated.

Anyway, the difference between ideological mass murder and reactionary mass murder is an important one, in my opinion. Things like Nazism or ISIS promote an ideology that demands mass slaughter - their entire existence is incompatible with peace, even in theory. In that sense, I think they are much worse than Saddam Hussein. I would even say the same for Stalin, if it wasn't for the sheer outrageous magnitude of his body count.

[Simon_Jester]

Well it will have to be. The world has spend decades in discrediting the idea of a secular state in the middle east when almost every secular government they have experienced being dictatorship that kills off anyone who disagreed.

How do you educate the population that a secular democracy should be the ideal form of government on a scale big enough to have an impact?

I'd say that this is something we can't be pushy about- its an important issue, but westerners telling Middle Eastern countries what form of government they should adopt is likely to be badly received by many people. After all, who likes to be preached to? Its going to take time, carefully choosing pro-secularism allies to support, and not being heavy-handed about it.

The problem with this is that by and large, there are no pro-secularism allies left in the region. Back in 1965 there were secular nationalists, but these secular nationalists were encouraged by us to turn into borderline-fascist authoritarian parties... because the alternative was tolerating Soviet influence. After the end of the Cold War, it stopped being cool to support fascists for fear of communist takeover... but by that point, the fascists had suppressed not only the pro-communist factions in their own countries, but also the pro-democracy factions.

All that was left was the religious fanatics, because no government of a Muslim country has much chance of suppressing Islam, even if it wants to. So no matter how hard the government cracks down on people who "just want a secular democracy like Europe has," they can't destroy the Muslim Brotherhood and other similar organizations, without provoking a revolt too big for them to control.

As a result, there are really only two kinds of governments left in much of the Middle East: authoritarian states that could fall to fundamentalism at any time, and authoritarian states that already have fallen to fundamentalism.

In the long run, I think the internet is our friend with this issue, as its difficult to control and allows ideas other than Jihadi/theocratic bullshit to spread into a society and become more commonplace.

The problem with that is that it also allows jihadism itself to spread into a society and become more commonplace.

The Internet serves to amplify whatever people are already saying and thinking. It's a positive feedback mechanism, not a negative feedback mechanism. We can observe this by looking at the effect of social media on scandals. Do they result in fewer instances of a relatively small incident ballooning into a massive storm of outrage? Or do they result in more such instances?

On another note, I think that the Internet also tends to reinforce language barriers- because most of its content is user-generated, rather than being generated by large organizations that can afford to translate from foreign languages. So Arabic-speakers will primarily read the existing content in Arabic, created by other Arabic-speakers. If enough of that content is created by jihadists, then most Arabic-speakers will be reading jihadist content online.

Well it would have state-level government that the rest of the world could legitimately recognise and be less of a sectarian issue.

The first point has validity (though I don't know if the resulting governments are ones we'd want to recognize), but the second one... well, like I said, I'm worried it would just be a sectarian war between states rather than within a state.

States have legitimate reasons NOT to want to fight a war, which at least some of the time will override purely religious motivations for conflict. Even when the state is a theocracy, there is still usually administrative separation between church and state. The people who run the government bureaucracy are usually not literally the same people engaged in theological debates, and the people who carry out the bureaucrats' orders are not actually clergy. This if nothing else creates some friction and a layer of cutouts between the religious motives that might lead to warfare, and the actual ability to wage the war.

Whereas with a group like ISIL (or any Shi'ite militias now operating in Iraq) there is far less of such separation.

This is one of the reasons the Peace of Westphalia actually (sort of) worked in ending religious warfare in Europe.

[ray245]

The problem with this is that by and large, there are no pro-secularism allies left in the region. Back in 1965 there were secular nationalists, but these secular nationalists were encouraged by us to turn into borderline-fascist authoritarian parties... because the alternative was tolerating Soviet influence. After the end of the Cold War, it stopped being cool to support fascists for fear of communist takeover... but by that point, the fascists had suppressed not only the pro-communist factions in their own countries, but also the pro-democracy factions.

All that was left was the religious fanatics, because no government of a Muslim country has much chance of suppressing Islam, even if it wants to. So no matter how hard the government cracks down on people who "just want a secular democracy like Europe has," they can't destroy the Muslim Brotherhood and other similar organizations, without provoking a revolt too big for them to control.

As a result, there are really only two kinds of governments left in much of the Middle East: authoritarian states that could fall to fundamentalism at any time, and authoritarian states that already have fallen to fundamentalism.

I won't say Tunisia is an authoritarian state compared to the rest of the middle east. They are under threat from Islamic groups, but their government is still by and large secular and to a degree, democratic. Even if there are secular, pro-democratic groups in the region, they are by and large not heavily armed like other groups. Being non-violent is the basis which such groups attract international support in the first place, hence why we always hear stories about peaceful protest against dictatorship.

However, because most states in the region did not manage to monopolise the right to bear weapons, the end of a dictatorship regime give massive place for more violent, fundamentalist groups to take over the region against pro-secular, democratic groups who are not prepared for such a fight.

The problem with that is that it also allows jihadism itself to spread into a society and become more commonplace.

The Internet serves to amplify whatever people are already saying and thinking. It's a positive feedback mechanism, not a negative feedback mechanism. We can observe this by looking at the effect of social media on scandals. Do they result in fewer instances of a relatively small incident ballooning into a massive storm of outrage? Or do they result in more such instances?

On another note, I think that the Internet also tends to reinforce language barriers- because most of its content is user-generated, rather than being generated by large organizations that can afford to translate from foreign languages. So Arabic-speakers will primarily read the existing content in Arabic, created by other Arabic-speakers. If enough of that content is created by jihadists, then most Arabic-speakers will be reading jihadist content online.

Agreed. I think the thinking that democracy and secularism would somehow magically attract people to these ideas on its own is too arrogant. If we ignore the historical circumstances which post-colonial states found such ideas to be attractive in the first place, then we will tend to forget that ideas such as theocracy can be just as legit in the eyes of people fighting against a brutal regime.

[The Romulan Republic]

That infuriates me that people defend that piece of human garbage, say people had it better under his rule while ignoring the huge numbers of dead. Its a bit like when some fuckwad Confederate apologist tries to defend the South by pointing to all the rights and freedoms people enjoyed under the stars and bars while ignoring the human beings treated as cattle. Its goddamn insane and pretty disgusting.

You're getting really tiresome. You seem to be literally incapable of understanding concepts like "lesser of two evils" and, um... any form of subtlety or prioritization of outcomes whatsoever. I will continue to defend Saddam's regime as the lesser of two evils, because it objectively was, by a wide fucking margin. Constantly citing the Kurdish/Shia massacres, or any other horrible atrocities he committed doesn't fucking change that. You're simply incapable of reacting to any sort of positive statement about Saddam Hussein with anything other than kneejerk bullshit.

This is all built on the assumption that their are only two possible systems of government that could have existed in Iraq.

[The Romulan Republic]

Would it even happen even if we give them more time? The idea that they would necessarily chose secular democracy over theocracy is perhaps too big of a ask considering how difficult it was for those ideas to be adopted in the west. It's too arrogant of us to assume those ideas by themselves would be valued in the region.

I assumed nothing of the sort, though I do feel that secular democracy offers obvious inherent benefits. Their are pretty much no guarantees in politics.

But the alternatives are leading nowhere good, so we have to at least try to encourage people to choose a better direction.

The point is still valid irregardless of whether Sanders wins the election.

My little quip is valid regardless. I mean, a socialist winning the US Presidential election would make your comment quite ironic.

Anyway, our choices for allies may not be great and a victory for secularism in Syria may not be plausible at the moment, but we are talking about long-term change here, and unlikelier things have happened.

Supporting a candidate with ideas not shared by the population at large isn't going to turn the nation into some liberal democracy automatically.

Of course not. But its one step in that direction.

You'll still have to reconstruct the west as an ideal political system that people of the middle east can buy into! How many people wants to see their society being reconstructed into a liberal, secular society in the same vein as the west? Even in East Asia, the west as a model is not entirely favoured all the time.

I am not suggesting Middle Eastern governments have to be or should be exactly the same as western governments. "Secular democracy" covers a lot of different options, just as "authoritarian" can cover everything from a theocracy or absolute monarchy to Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany.

At the least it would make some people less frightened about being oppressed if the country could not be run by a different ethnic group.

Perhaps. On the other hand, when you have a state run by a particular religion or ethnicity, its a fairly safe bet that any minorities in that region are going to be oppressed if not outright expelled or killed.

You are still going to have problems with a central government either being too weak to do anything, or it being a constant tug of war between various factions that is absolutely frightened if someone else took control.

The trick would be to get a central government that is capable of putting up a real fight, but which still grants a degree of autonomy to different regions.

[Bernkastel]

I'd say part of the problem is something you say, that a plan for change would be a long term one. Even ignoring the substantial amount of support that would need to be committed, how likely is it that such support will be made available for the kind of time period needed?

Sorry if I'm jumping in, but I'd really like to see more of your thoughts on this matter. I may ask you a few more questions, if you don't mind.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not at all.

I admit that it will be hard for me to give specifics because I'm obviously not a professional in this area or anything like that. I can discuss the issue in moral/philosophical terms, and I have at least a little historical and political knowledge, but the policy details should be left to better minds than mine.

But if I had to take a crack at it...

I think we need a major effort to build good will in a region of the world where we have far too little of it (which is partly the fault of western governments) to address the issue of lack of support for western ideals that ray245's posting brought up, along with a concerted effort to reach out to those who are sympathetic to us and our ideals (or at least ideals that are not hostile and dangerous).

That isn't something that's likely to be achieved quickly, and it will require fighting our own internal political battles against isolationism and xenophobia.

It will also require a willingness to think on a scale that people seldom do, and to have priorities ahead of political gain because it will be unpopular with a lot of people. In other words, it will require genuine great statesmen with significant public support.

But it is the only decent chance for lasting victory. Unless their are properly functioning governments that abide by a reasonable standard of human rights in the Middle East, we are probably going to be back their fighting again and again until we succumb to xenophobia and authoritarianism, it all erupts into a vast nuclear war, or both. It is the lack of functional government and the long tradition of theocracy that allows a group like ISIS to flourish. Bombing them may contain them, but it won't eliminate the root cause.

Besides, its the right thing to do.

However, we can't force it. We can't role in an army and demand that the region do as we say. It requires tact.

[Simon_Jester]

...As a result, there are really only two kinds of governments left in much of the Middle East: authoritarian states that could fall to fundamentalism at any time, and authoritarian states that already have fallen to fundamentalism.

I won't say Tunisia is an authoritarian state compared to the rest of the middle east.[/quote]Which is part of why I said "much of the Middle East" and not "all of the Middle East."

Agreed. I think the thinking that democracy and secularism would somehow magically attract people to these ideas on its own is too arrogant. If we ignore the historical circumstances which post-colonial states found such ideas to be attractive in the first place, then we will tend to forget that ideas such as theocracy can be just as legit in the eyes of people fighting against a brutal regime.

Yes. To us, we look at those dictators and think they're evil because they're undemocratic. But to the people living under them, they're just as likely to look at those dictators, compare them to the leaders of their past (sometimes seen through rose-tinted glasses), and conclude "those dictators are evil because they are ungodly.

This is all built on the assumption that their are only two possible systems of government that could have existed in Iraq.

Literally no one ever had a real plan that would credibly result in any outcome other than the following:

-Saddam Hussein
-Fundamentalist warlords dominating anarchy
-Corrupt Shi'ite run republic which would predictably oppress Sunnis

If you had a fourth option in mind, I'd love to hear you explain what it was. If you can't explain, then would you please kindly stop whining about how there "must have been" a fourth option. Sure, maybe there was, but people who knew a lot more about Iraq than you either couldn't figure out how to do it, or couldn't mobilize the resources to do it.

Sometimes, you seem to have a problem with falling into the classic political trap of "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it." The problem is that this is exactly how you wind up with horrible messes spiraling out of control- by acting at times when you are not prepared*, because the current situation appears "intolerable."

One should think very hard about what one is and is not prepared* to tolerate.
___________________

*Not "are not willing," "are not prepared." I am certainly willing to win the lottery, but I don't have the necessary preparation of a winning ticket. I am willing to win the Nobel Prize, but lack the preparation of having done brilliant scientific research over a period of decades. I am willing to win a fight with an armed man using my bare hands (it beats getting shot), but I do not have the preparation of years of unarmed combat training. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you want, only what you are literally, physically, ready to DO.

[Channel72]

That infuriates me that people defend that piece of human garbage, say people had it better under his rule while ignoring the huge numbers of dead. Its a bit like when some fuckwad Confederate apologist tries to defend the South by pointing to all the rights and freedoms people enjoyed under the stars and bars while ignoring the human beings treated as cattle. Its goddamn insane and pretty disgusting.

You're getting really tiresome. You seem to be literally incapable of understanding concepts like "lesser of two evils" and, um... any form of subtlety or prioritization of outcomes whatsoever. I will continue to defend Saddam's regime as the lesser of two evils, because it objectively was, by a wide fucking margin. Constantly citing the Kurdish/Shia massacres, or any other horrible atrocities he committed doesn't fucking change that. You're simply incapable of reacting to any sort of positive statement about Saddam Hussein with anything other than kneejerk bullshit.

This is all built on the assumption that their are only two possible systems of government that could have existed in Iraq.

No, this is all built on the assumption that we're actually having a conversation about reality, rather than some fantasy version of events that may exist in your head.

And if you were paying attention, I already put forth earlier the best possible theoretical outcome: Namely, we needed an Iraqi Khrushchev - an internal Ba'athist politician to replace Saddam and then de-Saddamify the country by removing the cult of personality and police state, but keeping the technological, social and military infrastructure that Saddam built. But that never happened, and moreover, it probably wasn't likely to happen anytime soon - certainly not under Qusay Hussein, who would have taken control after Saddam died. Moreover, it's not even clear if somebody like Iraqi-Khruschchev could maintain control without resorting to brutality eventually, in the event that portions of the Shia population, or Islamist Sunni extremists, suddenly revolted, sensing that this new leader was "weak".

Also, I've never claimed that it's somehow absolutely impossible for there to be any outcome other than "brutal dictator" or "chaos" - just that given these two choices, the "brutal dictator" option is better, especially since this particular brutal dictator created a good life for many people. If you want to talk about how it could have been, that's another discussion.

My position is that imposing democracy on Iraq - at least the way we did it - had literally zero chance of resulting in anything other than a Shiite quasi-theocracy, since most Iraqis are Shia. Really, the Ba'ath party was better than any of this shit - secular Pan-Arabism was the best hope for the Middle East. Sadly, the Ba'ath party has been completely discredited due to the brutality of people like Saddam Hussein and Assad, not to mention the "de-Baathification" ideology imposed by the Bush administration. Really, to this day I don't understand exactly what the fuck the Bush administration was thinking by insisting we "de-Baathify" everything ... and replace it with what? The Iranian-backed Shiite Dawa party? How is that supposed to work out for the non-Shia?

[Simon_Jester]

The Bush administration did not comprehend the difference between the German Nazi Party and the Iraqi Baath Party.

The difference was this:

Naziism was one of many expressions of the German national identity. There were plenty of other, more wholesome, political movements within Germany that wanted Germany to remain a unified nation, but had different visions for what Germany's values ought to be.

Baathism was for all practical purposes the only expression of Iraqi national identity. All other political movements within Iraq were factional ones that drew support from one and only one of the ethnic/religious groups making up the population.

Therefore, when you de-Nazify you simply remove all the people with a particular unhealthy vision for Germany. But when you de-Baathize Iraq thoroughly enough, you are literally removing from power everyone who even thought the nation of Iraq was a good idea.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, this is all built on the assumption that we're actually having a conversation about reality, rather than some fantasy version of events that may exist in your head.

I'm not talking about a fantasy. I am well aware, of course, of how things played out in practice. But I dispute the idea that these are the only possible ways things could have played out, which frankly stinks of arrogance and prejudice.

As to what the alternatives were, you've already discussed that somewhat yourself, but I hope to get into it in more detail shortly.

And if you were paying attention, I already put forth earlier the best possible theoretical outcome: Namely, we needed an Iraqi Khrushchev - an internal Ba'athist politician to replace Saddam and then de-Saddamify the country by removing the cult of personality and police state, but keeping the technological, social and military infrastructure that Saddam built. But that never happened, and moreover, it probably wasn't likely to happen anytime soon - certainly not under Qusay Hussein, who would have taken control after Saddam died. Moreover, it's not even clear if somebody like Iraqi-Khruschchev could maintain control without resorting to brutality eventually, in the event that portions of the Shia population, or Islamist Sunni extremists, suddenly revolted, sensing that this new leader was "weak".

This is an interesting possibility. Not one that I consider ideal, but probably preferable to the Saddam-style dictatorship option, the utter chaos option, and the Islamic theocracy option.

Also, I've never claimed that it's somehow absolutely impossible for there to be any outcome other than "brutal dictator" or "chaos" - just that given these two choices, the "brutal dictator" option is better, especially since this particular brutal dictator created a good life for many people. If you want to talk about how it could have been, that's another discussion.

Sure, given those two choices, you can argue the dictator is better. I'm not sure I've ever said otherwise.

However, if you're going to defend the dictator, as you did, its not enough to say that he's better than the chaos. You have to show that their was no option that was better than either.

My position is that imposing democracy on Iraq - at least the way we did it - had literally zero chance of resulting in anything other than a Shiite quasi-theocracy, since most Iraqis are Shia.

You seem to be arguing under the delusion that I am defending the actions taken by the Bush Administration. I am not. I have been very, very clear on this point, yet people still seem determined to shove me into a box labeled "pro-war pro-Bush neocon".

What I am suggesting is that their might be alternatives besides perpetual Saddam Hussein style government and the one we took. That we pissed any such alternatives away does not mean they are not existent.

As to what they might be...

Well, back in the day, before we got rid of Saddam, one possibility (presuming we both agree that invading Iraq was a bad idea), would have been a "Carrot and stick" strategy rather than just treating Saddam Hussein as someone we needed to destroy. Sanctions in response to abuses by his government, lessening sanctions if he enacted reforms. How open he'd be to something like this I don't know, but we've negotiated with people who were just as bad or worse in the past.

Beyond that, we could have tried to support secular, democratic reformers/resistance inside Iraq, so that if Saddam Hussein's hold on power ever weakened, their would be a decent alternative.

Once the invasion went ahead... well, I'm not sure I've got anything better than your "find a Ba'athist Kruscheve" idea. Better in theory, sure, but that one seems a practical way to get at least some reform. So find someone who can fill that role, back them as leader of an interim government, and hope that when elections are held they win- but make it very clear that if they start with the atrocities, we'll withdraw our support.

And now... well, I've already expressed my thoughts on what we should be doing now in some detail.

Really, the Ba'ath party was better than any of this shit - secular Pan-Arabism was the best hope for the Middle East. Sadly, the Ba'ath party has been completely discredited due to the brutality of people like Saddam Hussein and Assad, not to mention the "de-Baathification" ideology imposed by the Bush administration. Really, to this day I don't understand exactly what the fuck the Bush administration was thinking by insisting we "de-Baathify" everything ... and replace it with what? The Iranian-backed Shiite Dawa party? How is that supposed to work out for the non-Shia?

"...and replace it with what?" seems to be the big question of the Iraq war that Bush never answered (that and "Where are the WMDs". Hence him being a criminally incompetent President.

[K. A. Pital]

In the view of Bush and other idiots, Iraq was a "nation-state" in the modern sense, full of hot-blooded patriots of their country who would keep it no matter what (not a tribal region held together only by the Baath government and its worn-out, but still existing ideology of secular pan-Arabism). They just had to explain democracy to them. And get rid of those pesky Baathists. In reality - as it usually happens - American politicians just projected the contents of their own badly-working brains onto others.

I like Channel72's concept of an "Iraqi Khruschev" because this would've meant massive improvements in Iraq. However, the "weaker" leaders (Khrushev, Mossadegh, Allende etc.) in reality were even more fiercely opposed by the US at first, because it sensed weakness. I am not so sure that if there'd be an "Iraqi Khrushev" the US wouldn't bungle the whole thing horribly by just backing some coup against him a-al the removal of Mossadegh, or something. Which would then result in a bad outcome, quite possibly.

Note that the liberalization of USSR and China occured while both nations were safe from invasion under a nuclear deterrent, and Cuba's ongoing softening happened under the US guarantees that it won't be invaded (though coupled with a horrible embargo).

Leaving people to their own devices works. Sometimes. At other times it doesn't, but mostly it does.

But the record has really shown the leaders of the Nasserist and Baathists governments in the Arab world that being brutal and concentrating on deterrent weapons works (see Kim) whereas being "weak" and "open to talks" eventually leads to your demise.

I think this might change if the US doesn't do something bad to Iran now that it has a deal. If the US gets the Iran deal and then invades or otherwise messes with the place... boo hoo. The last bits of trust will fly down the drain.

[The Romulan Republic]

That deal is still not a sure thing. The Republicans in Congress will no doubt do their best to torpedo it.

My guess is a deal won't be finalized, if it is at all, until a Democratic congress comes in during the 2016 elections (if that happens).

[Thanas]

However, if you're going to defend the dictator, as you did, its not enough to say that he's better than the chaos. You have to show that their was no option that was better than either.

What better options were there? Can you point some out? Because somehow you seem to know more than the entire non-US intelligentsia.

[Edi]

However, if you're going to defend the dictator, as you did, its not enough to say that he's better than the chaos. You have to show that their was no option that was better than either.

Wrong. In context of the situation, in order to win the argument about the better outcome, all that is needed is to show that one outcome was superior to another, regardless of whether there is a third even better outcome available. One that you keep harping about, but consistently refuse to bring forth.

What you are doing is the opposite of a false dilemma, you are appealing to an unspecified, unknown outcome that you insist must be available sometime, somehow, if only something else were to have happened because magic. You insist that there is this magical better outcome, then you had better start producing the evidence, or I will invoke the goddamn board rules on you and will levy the harshest possible punishments for failure to either produce the evidence or concede.

[Bernkastel]

Romulan Republic, it seems to me that the requirements you put forward would themselves need to be done via a long term plan.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wrong. In context of the situation, in order to win the argument about the better outcome, all that is needed is to show that one outcome was superior to another, regardless of whether there is a third even better outcome available. One that you keep harping about, but consistently refuse to bring forth.

What you are doing is the opposite of a false dilemma, you are appealing to an unspecified, unknown outcome that you insist must be available sometime, somehow, if only something else were to have happened because magic. You insist that there is this magical better outcome, then you had better start producing the evidence, or I will invoke the goddamn board rules on you and will levy the harshest possible punishments for failure to either produce the evidence or concede.

Isn't TRR's argument, though, simply that the current situation in Iraq being worse than it was under Saddam wasn't completely unavoidable? I don't think it's quite fair to say that means he is trying to appeal to some magic third option. I mean, he has even admitted that Iraq under Saddam was better than Iraq now. And the situation in Iraq now would be better had the US never invaded in the first place. But unless I am misunderstanding him, he isn't appealing to some magical third option, but just that the situation in Iraq now wasn't unavoidable given the US invaded. That is, that there is a conceivable world where Iraq is not as bad as it is now because the US had handled the occupation better. Isn't it it pretty self-evident that the US handled the occupation incredibly terribly, and is it really so outlandish for TRR to speculate that if the US hadn't been both incompetent and malicious in its occupation that the situation in Iraq wouldn't be as fucked as it is now? I mean, your argument seems to be that the current situation in Iraq was a complete inevitability and it couldn't possibly have turned out any other way, which is something that would also require evidence to support.

I just don't think you are fairly representing his argument, completely separate from whether or not I actually agree with him.

[Channel72]

Isn't TRR's argument, though, simply that the current situation in Iraq being worse than it was under Saddam wasn't completely unavoidable? I don't think it's quite fair to say that means he is trying to appeal to some magic third option. I mean, he has even admitted that Iraq under Saddam was better than Iraq now.

TRR is certainly correct that some hypothetical alternate series of actions taken by the US after 2003 could have resulted in less of a total cluster-fuck than what we currently have - or even, perhaps, something actually tolerable. However, TRR seems to be under the strange delusion that this (completely hypothetical and non-specific) potential outcome is actually some kind of actual rebuttal to the claim that life under Saddam Hussein was a superior option than what we have now.