Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Scipio · 01-25-2004, 12:41 AM

Here's my Iraq schpiel. I'll try to keep it brief.

Short version: The administration's rhetoric about staying the course is not matched with adequate force on the ground. We have been successful in slowing the guerilla insurgency, but when a noted Islamic leader (al-Sistani) puts his foot down on the election issue, and we back down, it's clear that our power on the ground to influence the hearts and minds of Iraqis is limited. Do we have the political capital in Iraq to get the job done? It's politically advantageous for this administration to resolve the Iraq situation in some fashion before the elections. Are they willing to seperate politics and policy in Iraq?

A few more points (longer version): Inadequate planning for the post-war situation has put us in a whole. Had we gone in and immediately restored utilities and jobs, our efforts might have a greater blessing from the Iraqi people. Granted, these are difficult tasks, and perhaps impossible ones when there are guerillas blowing up power lines, but even if there weren't these externalities, no progress can be made without a plan, and there was no plan.

The importance of electricity in Iraq is manifold. It powers air conditioners. It would have been symbolic of our power for us to have it restored quickly. I've heard anecdotes about how the Iraqis were in awe of our ability to swipe Saddam aside like he was nothing. If we can do that, why can't we turn on the lights?

So, we're in the hole. When it comes to elections and winning over the people, we have little ground to stand on. We're at the mercy of religious leaders. The political divisions between kurds, sunni muslims, and shiia muslims are deep. If a straight up republic were established, the shiia would be running things, and that wouldn't be acceptable to the other two groups. A government setup would have to take power away from the shiia, but they naturally wouldn't want that to happen. On top of this, there is anti-sunni bias because of their connection to Saddam and to insurgency. On top of that the kurds haven't been a full participant in the nation of Iraq for a number of years. And we don't want to break up the country. This is not an easy problem to solve, and the right solution (if we even come up with it), might not be sellable.

01-25-2004, 12:41 AM	#14 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Here's my Iraq schpiel. I'll try to keep it brief. Short version: The administration's rhetoric about staying the course is not matched with adequate force on the ground. We have been successful in slowing the guerilla insurgency, but when a noted Islamic leader (al-Sistani) puts his foot down on the election issue, and we back down, it's clear that our power on the ground to influence the hearts and minds of Iraqis is limited. Do we have the political capital in Iraq to get the job done? It's politically advantageous for this administration to resolve the Iraq situation in some fashion before the elections. Are they willing to seperate politics and policy in Iraq? A few more points (longer version): Inadequate planning for the post-war situation has put us in a whole. Had we gone in and immediately restored utilities and jobs, our efforts might have a greater blessing from the Iraqi people. Granted, these are difficult tasks, and perhaps impossible ones when there are guerillas blowing up power lines, but even if there weren't these externalities, no progress can be made without a plan, and there was no plan. The importance of electricity in Iraq is manifold. It powers air conditioners. It would have been symbolic of our power for us to have it restored quickly. I've heard anecdotes about how the Iraqis were in awe of our ability to swipe Saddam aside like he was nothing. If we can do that, why can't we turn on the lights? So, we're in the hole. When it comes to elections and winning over the people, we have little ground to stand on. We're at the mercy of religious leaders. The political divisions between kurds, sunni muslims, and shiia muslims are deep. If a straight up republic were established, the shiia would be running things, and that wouldn't be acceptable to the other two groups. A government setup would have to take power away from the shiia, but they naturally wouldn't want that to happen. On top of this, there is anti-sunni bias because of their connection to Saddam and to insurgency. On top of that the kurds haven't been a full participant in the nation of Iraq for a number of years. And we don't want to break up the country. This is not an easy problem to solve, and the right solution (if we even come up with it), might not be sellable. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."