Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (159375)	3/21/2005 1:00:15 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Mike. No, I admit that my 6 months time line for you to change your mind was not accurate. The Bush administration tried to push the "Iraqi sovereignty" concept several times to placate not only the Iraqis, but also a more and more skeptical American electorate. First it was the governing council, then it was Allawi, now it's getting closer with the latest partial elections. That does give some credibility to the claims that we're there to promote "freedom." Before we buy that used car, however, we better look under the hood. First, it seems to me that there are some nearly unsurmountable problems with a "free" Iraq. The Kurds will remain "Iraqis" only as long as they are, in effect, autonomous. If the Shiites attempt to actually govern the Kurds with the power of their Shiite "majority" the Kurds will not tolerate it. In addition, the Kurds seem adamant about securing more of the traditionally Kurdish areas that also happen to be rich in oil. I think you'll agree that those are two big problems that aren't solvable by "one man one vote." Second, the Sunnis are in nearly open rebellion now. They are only marginally participating in the elections and new government and there has been some real bloodshed on the part of the Shiites. It is amazing that the power of the Shiite clerics is so great that they have been able to keep the Shiites from retaliating. (That should be a lesson to Bremmer and Bush and all neocons who thought they could create a secular state and shut out the clerics.) How long that will last is, however, debatable. In the meantime it's our young who stand between the two sides and balance the power so strongly on the side of the Shiites. Thirdly, we have not yet had a crisis develop where the United States is told, "get your ass out of our country and don't expect any permanent bases or any special access to, or right to control access to, oil reserves. When and if that happens we will see how well our "altruistic" motives stand up to our "strategic" interests in controlling the flow of oil and establishing bases to intimidate the nations of the region. Will that crisis develop? Why wouldn't it? What common interests do Iraqis have with Americans? What common culture or beliefs tie us together? How many have died or been mistreated at our hands? It seems to me that as long as we're useful to the real powers in Iraq, (hint, it's not the elected officials) then we'll be able to continue to stay and serve their interests with our money and our blood. When our usefulness ends, then so will our reluctant welcome. The Bush people are working hard to insure that we're continuously needed to prop up a Shiite majority rule but in the end they will fail and when that happens and we leave, what will we leave? I think we'll leave a hotbed of antiAmericanism, a breeding ground for terrorists, a huge blood toll from the war the later chaos of civil war, an oil producing country with huge reserves and an agenda that runs counter to our interests, a country part of which may nominally be a "democracy" until the leadership is faced with a potential of losing at which point it will no longer be a democracy, and, finally, the realization that we spent a huge amount of blood and money and have decades to wonder, "why?" We will also have left our credibility, our "high principles" and our adherence to the rule of law far behind us. But it won't be another Vietnam. We've shown that we're willing to bend with the strong winds of opposition and the American people have shown that as stupid as they are, they're not stupid enough to send another 50,000 of their children to die in a country on the other side of the world, at least not for reasons that are based on foolishness and lies. Although we're still losing men and women, I believe we're turtling more and getting between the Iraqi factions less. So is there good news? I think so because it looks like we might be smart enough to stay out of their way and cut our losses. But when you hear how "freedom" is taking hold in Iraq, remember that Bush's silly pronouncements about how "free people" don't engage in terrorism, don't threaten their neighbors, prosper, etc., are too simplistic to take seriously. History is replete with failed democracies and evil leaders, even some who are elected. At this point in history almost all of the news out of Iraq is controlled by our own military press corps, (populated by the way with people selected based on the Bush loyalty tests) or by the Iraqis in power. No reporters are safe to travel in Iraq, maybe not even in the "green zone," and speak to the opposition or sniff out the views of the average Iraqis. That means that the NY Times, the Washington Post and the network news broadcasts are filling space with largely sanitized news. In a few instances where there are stories about the true state of affairs in Iraq from military sources that prefer to remain anonymous, those stories are universally depressing. Time will tell if the ending of this adventure is really bad or just bad. I'll have to wait. Ed