US Needs Help In Iraq

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This bit about "gathering support from other nations" is a very nicely worded way of describing their position of "we'll do whatever we want, and if you don't agree with us then fuck you". Their attitude toward the international community was PRECISELY the same as their attitude toward the UN.

Well, obviously the UN needs to be destroyed, but the problem is that nobody has dealt with series bilateral diplomacy in a long time. Ever since the institution of the League of Nations there's been an unfortunate trend towards the centralization of the diplomatic process and the creation of a bureaucracy of diplomats owing allegiance to no State, but rather to some idealized concept. This has caused many problems for the world as they pursue certain aims of their own in the diplomatic system rather than the aims of the respective States. This system needs to be ended, and the steps taken so far have at least been partially effective in negating it, which is better than nothing.

The problem is that there's nobody alive today with any experience in how to work in a non-UN world. Basically, you have to re-learn the traditional diplomatic processes, which should be in theory more successful for the States involved in them. However, hostility from the diplomats who have been raised in the UN idealism, and general leftist hostility due to their wedding to the ideal of the UN utopianism, combined with the simple reality of that inexperience, has created some serious problems. The negotiations with Turkey were an example of this--we quite simply blundered like stuck pigs when trying to get the basing rights there. The idea has been right, but the execution has been in many cases, bluntly, horribly flawed, and I'd say this was inevitable; it's horribly flawed because nobody has tried to play this game in a long time.

[Darth Wong]

it's horribly flawed because nobody has tried to play this game in a long time.

... and it didn't work out that well the last time it was played.

[Sea Skimmer]

... and it didn't work out that well the last time it was played.

The world is a harsh place and it's quite likely that that cannot ever be changed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

... and it didn't work out that well the last time it was played.

I'd disagree with that, Mike. European diplomacy under the traditional system kept the peace from 1815-1914 without any major wars. The League of Nations failed in two decades and it looks like the UN will be failing after six.

One could also argue that had Bismarck's Grand Design been followed by the Germans, WWI could have been entirely averted and the European Peace maintained for an even longer period of time, at least until Russia reached an economic capability to challenge Germany independently--and so the system had, in theory at least though not in how it ended up turning out, some more life in it than it did. Also, had the Germans been victorious in WWI or had the allies been able to impose a traditional sort of peace settlement without Wilsonian interference, it is entirely likely that the system would have continued to operate and perhaps the realignment would have been sufficient to prevent another major conflict for far longer than Wilsonian idealism did. Ironically we bear the blame for WWII, in part, because of the idiocy our President forced on Europe.

[HemlockGrey]

Er, didn't Wilson argue for lenient terms...?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Er, didn't Wilson argue for lenient terms...?

Exactly--and due to the realities of diplomacy, got a watered-down compromise that did nothing; both punishing Germany and leaving Germany quite capable of revenging itself. Considering the nature of the war and the sufferings of the allied combatants, the only realistic peace, I would argue, is the one that Theodore Roosevelt had called for: One dictated by the "hammering of guns, not the chattering of typewriters!" We should have chopped Germany into its component pieces, incapable of serious military action, and dismembered Prussia. You cannot make do with half-measures.

[Knife]

Price? What, you mean admitting American fucked up and it needs help? I'll let you in on a secret: The world is already shaking it's head at America's losses. Admitting you need help is going to merely shift you from arrogant incompetents to incompetents on this.

Europe is, who else? ?Alot of countries are willing to help with some political 'go ahead' from an international group. Nobody wants to allienate themselves from the world by giving a bear hug to the US when alot of countries are against it. If the US gets a deal with the UN, then various countries would send troops. Again, reports indicate that India, who has zero interestes IFAIK in Iraq, would send thousands of troops there to help out.

I am not opposed to UN help, I am opposed to turning the show over to those guys. What major conflict have they solved? We need help, not a replacement.

[Thunderfire]

Again, reports indicate that India, who has zero interestes IFAIK in Iraq, would send thousands of troops there to help out.

Inda has its own islamist problem. A destabilized Iraq could turn into a
terrorist hell hole. This would be not good for everyone with a islamist
problem.

[Sea Skimmer]

Inda has its own islamist problem. A destabilized Iraq could turn into a
terrorist hell hole. This would be not good for everyone with a islamist
problem.

Actually preexisting Islamic terror groups are likely going to be drawn into Iraq rather then attacking their normal targets around the world, which will benefit many nations.

[Vympel]

It's all well and good to point to a greatly reduced KIA count in Iraq and compare to that to by comparison horrific death tolls in Vietnam, Korea, WW2, ad nauseum, but the fact remains it's a perception problem that will not change. Such low casualty rates as 1 per day (on average- it's kinda wierd, 3 days will go by with no casualties then the next day 3 American soldiers will die, as if like clockwork) may be pussy-footing around to other countries, but not to America. It's also a problem of "why are any of our troops dying if we were greeted as liberators?" And as yet, I'm totally unconvinced of them all being 'Saddam loyalists'.

Then there's the way they're doing the casualty counting. Take a soldier who dies in a HMMWV crash. Accident, right? Well, no, because in reality the HMMWV came under ambush and they put the pedal to the medal to try and get away- got in a crash. That may be trivially honest but it isn't really an accident now is it? Are the ones dying from pneuomonia (honestly- why?!), car crashes, ammo dump explosions, any less dead? And more importantly, if they had been home, would they be dead? The answer is no.

[Stuart Mackey]

Senator Byrd is fearmongering with the article. Imho The U.S.A. made the bed and should sleep in it. That how it is said, right?

Yes, the phrase is right, Anvil. Bush and Co. have made a very uncomfortable bed for themselves, and Sen. Byrd is pointing fingers and saying "I Told You So."

Of course, Byrd is the oldest Senator still serving, iirc, which means that he has seen what happened when the US tried to move into Korea and Vietnam. Byrd was also the only Senator to publically oppose the Iraq invasion, and I wish I could find some of the rhetoric he used in that speech.

Personally, I think that several people in Washington would do well to listen to the Old Byrd. His years in the US Senate have given him a shrewd wisdom and insight into politics both home and abroad.

You want to listen to Byrd? Sen. Byrd, imo, has lost his marbles. We currently passed 140 KIA in Iraq, now go back and check that against the KIA in Vietnaum or Korea. While I lament the death of the 140, it is in no way indicitive of some sort of massive failure in Iraq.

Compared to Korea Veitnam or even the aftermanth of the world wars, sure..but this is politics so its also irrelivant in this context

I would be for a watered down UN resolution if only to let some countries who really want to help, help. India would send, IIRC 15000 troops to Iraq but politicaly needs UN mandate. Fuck France and the like, but lets get some sort of UN resolution passed to untie the hands of those who legitimately want to help.

You would find that a lot of nations would be willing to help sort out Iraq, what a lot of nations are not willing to do is help America sort out Iraq for American interests under the overall direction of America.

[Stuart Mackey]

... and it didn't work out that well the last time it was played.

I'd disagree with that, Mike. European diplomacy under the traditional system kept the peace from 1815-1914 without any major wars. The League of Nations failed in two decades and it looks like the UN will be failing after six.

snip.

Balance of power combined with the political repression of the Metternich system kept the peace, the aristocracy didnt want a repeat of that egalitarin stuff again.
Diplomacy had nothing to do with it, mutual self interest was a much better bit of motivation.
Take out that balance of power and you will always have the risk of war, simply because some nations tend to be theiving bastards.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Balance of power combined with the political repression of the Metternich system kept the peace,

Which had long since collapsed before 1914? And what about Bismarck's successful isolation of France? There was no balance of power for some time on the continent....

[Knife]

Compared to Korea Veitnam or even the aftermanth of the world wars, sure..but this is politics so its also irrelivant in this context

Only because it is glossed over. Putting things in perspective is always helpful. Now there are extremist on one side or another who would perfer not to have anything put in perspective but....

The media drones on about the death toll, the people who opposed the war in the first place drone on about the KIA's and now its a quagmire. Putting the situation in perspective is relivant in such a way as to counter the rampant proliferation of a differing view, namely this asinine view of the horrific death toll in Iraq.

You would find that a lot of nations would be willing to help sort out Iraq, what a lot of nations are not willing to do is help America sort out Iraq for American interests under the overall direction of America.

I agree with that, but the flip side is that the US doesn't want to give up all control of the situation so that alot of countries can then sort out Iraq for their interests.

Like I said, there has to be a nice comfy middle where the US can retain some control and the UN can wave its magic wand and people and countries who want to help can.

[Axis Kast]

Time Magazine ran an interesting quote from an Indian reader - “It was a great way to end a horrible régime, and a horrible way to begin a good régime.”

I acknowledge that the White House was over-enthusiastic about Iraq to the point of bungling unpreparedness, mind you – although I’m not about to buy the analysis that says we’re doomed for absolute failure based on the results of the first five or six months, either.

As for the UN, it provides a nice springboard for cooperation between superpowers by which to manage potent flashpoints in the Third World. Other than that however, it’s fast becoming both archaic and ridiculously self-serving. It changes utterly the calculus of power for second-rate nations.

[Stuart Mackey]

Balance of power combined with the political repression of the Metternich system kept the peace,

Which had long since collapsed before 1914? And what about Bismarck's successful isolation of France? There was no balance of power for some time on the continent....

Oh, and like Britian dissapered from when Bismark became chancellor and only reappeared in 1902 in time to shake up the RN? There was a Balance of power, why else do you think Bismark kept on tolerable terms with the Russians?

[Stuart Mackey]

Compared to Korea Veitnam or even the aftermanth of the world wars, sure..but this is politics so its also irrelivant in this context

Only because it is glossed over. Putting things in perspective is always helpful. Now there are extremist on one side or another who would perfer not to have anything put in perspective but....

The media drones on about the death toll, the people who opposed the war in the first place drone on about the KIA's and now its a quagmire. Putting the situation in perspective is relivant in such a way as to counter the rampant proliferation of a differing view, namely this asinine view of the horrific death toll in Iraq.

This is a political beast, if peoples perception is that its a mess, putting things from the past in present perspective means nothing. People are getting killed for little decernable reason in a country that does not really like you much, and what makes it more interesting is that if people think that you are there for spurious reasons. Perspective of a current situation is everything, facts mean jack shit in politics.

You would find that a lot of nations would be willing to help sort out Iraq, what a lot of nations are not willing to do is help America sort out Iraq for American interests under the overall direction of America.

I agree with that, but the flip side is that the US doesn't want to give up all control of the situation so that alot of countries can then sort out Iraq for their interests.

Like I said, there has to be a nice comfy middle where the US can retain some control and the UN can wave its magic wand and people and countries who want to help can.

There wont be a comfy middle, cause no one trusts you because of there very reasons that got you there..or lack of reasonable reasons therof.
Quite frankly, America has shat in its bed, so you are going to have to clean it up.

[Gil Hamilton]

I've been hearing on the radio the same thing that I've been hearing for a while. Experts who have actually gone and talked to the Iraqi people to poll their opinion on how they want things run seem to agree on one thing; they want the UN in Iraq, rather than the whole show be run by America, because appearantly the Iraqi people are having a hard time not seeing American forces as occupiers rather than a transitional thing and would be more comfortable with the UN running the show.

(Note that I'm not supporting or against that position, I'm just reporting what I've been hearing from quite a few sources.)

[Knife]

There wont be a comfy middle, cause no one trusts you because of there very reasons that got you there..or lack of reasonable reasons therof.
Quite frankly, America has shat in its bed, so you are going to have to clean it up.

Again not true, points to India again. They want to help but for internal political reasons are waiting for UN approval or resolution of some sort.

There are countries that would help if the US bows out and the UN takes full control. Fuck em. There are also other countries who would help if the US backs down a little to the UN. Fine. Then there are the 19 or so countries who are helping right now.

[Stuart Mackey]

There wont be a comfy middle, cause no one trusts you because of there very reasons that got you there..or lack of reasonable reasons therof.
Quite frankly, America has shat in its bed, so you are going to have to clean it up.

Again not true, points to India again. They want to help but for internal political reasons are waiting for UN approval or resolution of some sort.

Internal political reason? who would have thought it? a nation having to take account of its populations expectations

There are countries that would help if the US bows out and the UN takes full control. Fuck em. There are also other countries who would help if the US backs down a little to the UN. Fine. Then there are the 19 or so countries who are helping right now.

Jesus fucking Mary... you have nations helping thanks to the US strongarming them..and you have nations that will not help you serve your own interests. The US wants outside assistance to help fix your fuckups, and then has the temerity to list the conditions by which others will give you assistance? It is the US who can get fucked if you take that attitude.

If the UN is allowed to organise it most nations would be perfectly happy to go in there..but no one is going to willing go there to help the US fix things in its own interest. The world does not exist to futher US policy goals.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, and like Britian dissapered from when Bismark became chancellor and only reappeared in 1902 in time to shake up the RN? There was a Balance of power, why else do you think Bismark kept on tolerable terms with the Russians?

More like Britain disappeared in 1815 and reappeared after Morocco. Continental disengagement was an intentional policy. Part of what destroyed Germany's hegemon status, of course, was bringing in a stronger outside power from out of the region--by challenging British naval supremacy under Kaiser Wilhelm II.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've been hearing on the radio the same thing that I've been hearing for a while. Experts who have actually gone and talked to the Iraqi people to poll their opinion on how they want things run seem to agree on one thing; they want the UN in Iraq, rather than the whole show be run by America, because appearantly the Iraqi people are having a hard time not seeing American forces as occupiers rather than a transitional thing and would be more comfortable with the UN running the show.

(Note that I'm not supporting or against that position, I'm just reporting what I've been hearing from quite a few sources.)

Can any of these "experts" even speak Arabic? The English-speaking and educated elite of Baghdad is totally worthless as a weather-vane for judging how the country will go and how it will succeed in the long term, I'd submit; we must win over the majority of the people.

[Gil Hamilton]

Can any of these "experts" even speak Arabic? The English-speaking and educated elite of Baghdad is totally worthless as a weather-vane for judging how the country will go and how it will succeed in the long term, I'd submit; we must win over the majority of the people.

I don't recall saying who the people in question the reporters talked to or even who the source was, yet you managed to infer that they had weren't qualified and only spoke to a select few English speaking individuals when I said Iraqi people. You know, Marina, the Amazing Randi is offering alot of money for people with psychic powers and with your Jean Grey-like mind reading abilities, you could make a mint.

Anyway, since you are clearly more qualified and have many more first hand experiences than people who have actually gone to Iraq, and thus have your finger on the pulse of the Iraqi street, why don't you tell us then what Joe Q. Basra thinks of America and an American occupation as compared to a UN one? Not second hand accounts from "experts", since people who have gone over there obviously don't know a thing about what they are talking about, but rather from your vast (and I mean vast) personal experience with the Iraqi people.

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh, and like Britian dissapered from when Bismark became chancellor and only reappeared in 1902 in time to shake up the RN? There was a Balance of power, why else do you think Bismark kept on tolerable terms with the Russians?

More like Britain disappeared in 1815 and reappeared after Morocco. Continental disengagement was an intentional policy. Part of what destroyed Germany's hegemon status, of course, was bringing in a stronger outside power from out of the region--by challenging British naval supremacy under Kaiser Wilhelm II.

In one sence you are right, britians disengagement was more or less formal policy. But given Britians power and also given that Britain has never tolerated a european hegemon, I have to find fault with any assumption that there was no balance of power at the time in Europe.

[Stuart Mackey]

I've been hearing on the radio the same thing that I've been hearing for a while. Experts who have actually gone and talked to the Iraqi people to poll their opinion on how they want things run seem to agree on one thing; they want the UN in Iraq, rather than the whole show be run by America, because appearantly the Iraqi people are having a hard time not seeing American forces as occupiers rather than a transitional thing and would be more comfortable with the UN running the show.

(Note that I'm not supporting or against that position, I'm just reporting what I've been hearing from quite a few sources.)

snip, I'd submit; we must win over the majority of the people.

Regualr power and water would help. However I dont think that will solve your problem.. They might thank you fro deposing Saddam, but they stilll dont want you there.