Iraq - Were they right?

[smokingjacket]

If the USA had not been so pro active in trying to topple the Assad government ISIS would be nowhere near as powerful as they are. Assad would of mobilised his miltary and likely instructed them to take limited prisoners. Instead because there is no functioning miltary in Iraq or eastern Syria they were able to grow and form a miltia which has since swelled in ranks as they took large amounts of territory relatively unopposed.

All very true. Brings me back to the point of the OP though. What is the correct way to foster the growth of democracy and human rights around the world as per the UN charter. Invasion and forced democracy was clearly a both a flawed idea and poorly executed. Is the support of local moderate democrats against dictators also flawed?

 

[Slax]

All very true. Brings me back to the point of the OP though. What is the correct way to foster the growth of democracy and human rights around the world as per the UN charter. Invasion and forced democracy was clearly a both a flawed idea and poorly executed. Is the support of local moderate democrats against dictators also flawed?

If you really want to foster growth and democracy, do it by providing opportunity to the citizens. Democracy doesn't happen overnight, it is a slow process that takes time for people to understand properly how it works. Look at Eastern Europe 25 years after the break-up of the former Eastern Block and democracy is still encountering problems and not properly established. Considering this how the hell can you expect a country like Iraq to change overnight, it won't.

But providing opportunity allows the growth in wealth and the standard of living, this then leads to improvement in education, which leads to more debate about how to lead the country. Once this debate is actually established it leads to a dilution of the powers held up the dictator as the growing middle class demand more say in how things operate. Lybia and Tunisia are examples of how this happens, it still won't lead to a smooth transistion, but honestly nothing will, but it will lead to one that is much quicker and causes less trouble than one forced on it by a foreign power.

Iraq was in 1990 in the early stages of this, they were the most open country in the region, had a rapidly improving standard of living and growing middle class structure. It was a religiously tolerant society, as shown by the fact Saddam's deputy was a Coptic Christian (over 10% of the population were Christian, now it is less than 1%). unfortunately some wanted immediate change and did so without even working out who they were going to put in charge, worse still they then cleaned out the whole senior government administration and army so there was a massive vacuum of leadership in the country thus creating the problems we have today because those who filled the position were not experienced enough to do so.

 

[little graham]

All very true. Brings me back to the point of the OP though. What is the correct way to foster the growth of democracy and human rights around the world as per the UN charter. Invasion and forced democracy was clearly a both a flawed idea and poorly executed. Is the support of local moderate democrats against dictators also flawed?

It was communism that defeated those 3 German armies in the 1940's, that saved all those Jews, its communism leading the fight against ebola, it was communism that saved Nelson Mandela from going the same way as Saddam Hussien.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good crusade.

 

[smokingjacket]

If you really want to foster growth and democracy, do it by providing opportunity to the citizens. Democracy doesn't happen overnight, it is a slow process that takes time for people to understand properly how it works. Look at Eastern Europe 25 years after the break-up of the former Eastern Block and democracy is still encountering problems and not properly established. Considering this how the hell can you expect a country like Iraq to change overnight, it won't.

But providing opportunity allows the growth in wealth and the standard of living, this then leads to improvement in education, which leads to more debate about how to lead the country. Once this debate is actually established it leads to a dilution of the powers held up the dictator as the growing middle class demand more say in how things operate. Lybia and Tunisia are examples of how this happens, it still won't lead to a smooth transistion, but honestly nothing will, but it will lead to one that is much quicker and causes less trouble than one forced on it by a foreign power.

Iraq was in 1990 in the early stages of this, they were the most open country in the region, had a rapidly improving standard of living and growing middle class structure. It was a religiously tolerant society, as shown by the fact Saddam's deputy was a Coptic Christian (over 10% of the population were Christian, now it is less than 1%). unfortunately some wanted immediate change and did so without even working out who they were going to put in charge, worse still they then cleaned out the whole senior government administration and army so there was a massive vacuum of leadership in the country thus creating the problems we have today because those who filled the position were not experienced enough to do so.

Agree very much with the direction that you're going but you seem to have forgotten that Libya required the establishment of a no-fly zone by Western powers to stop Gaddafi wresting back control. Similarly the first moderate forces in Syria that the US supported were the very sorts of people you're talking about. Moderate middle class democrats who were demanding a greater say in their country. All I'm saying is, if you believe in international democracy and human rights, how do you support those groups in countries fighting for those very things without interference on some level? The other option is the abandonment of the US led mission to liberalise the world and adopt a more Chinese approach but that carries significant risks too.

Hitler had Jewish friends too. Just because Iraq contained a large assortment of minorities doesn't mean they weren't persecuted at various times under Saddam.

 

[smokingjacket]

It was communism that defeated those 3 German armies in the 1940's, that saved all those Jews, its communism leading the fight against ebola, it was communism that saved Nelson Mandela from going the same way as Saddam Hussien.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good crusade.

Hats off comrade, I didn't know there were still unreformed Stalinists among us. How many people do you get to your meetings these days?

Do you really hold the view that the defeat of one totalitarianism by the other justifies it's worth or do you just have NFI what I'm talking about in the larger sense? That is, how do we as support the globalisation of human rights to account for the globalisation in capital.

Nowhere have I given any indication that I'm a violent neo-imperialist so if you consider the spread of democracy and human rights by as peaceful means possible a "crusade" then I'm very comfortable in my opposition to you.

 

[little graham]

Hats off comrade, I didn't know there were still unreformed Stalinists among us. How many people do you get to your meetings these days?

Nowhere have I given any indication that I'm a violent neo-imperialist .

You sure about that?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Hats off comrade, I didn't know there were still unreformed Stalinists among us. How many people do you get to your meetings these days?

Do you really hold the view that the defeat of one totalitarianism by the other justifies it's worth or do you just have NFI what I'm talking about in the larger sense? That is, how do we as support the globalisation of human rights to account for the globalisation in capital.

Nowhere have I given any indication that I'm a violent neo-imperialist so if you consider the spread of democracy and human rights by as peaceful means possible a "crusade" then I'm very comfortable in my opposition to you.

Getting worked up by Little Graham? You're new here i take it?

 

[smokingjacket]

You sure about that?

Yes. As the thread is but 2 pages long you're welcome to find evidence of when I've advocated for the US, or any imperial power for that matter to use it's military for regime change.

From the OP.

The war to me was a criminal waste of human life on all sides and as it occurred when I was studying I was exposed to a number of different arguments with pieces that I agreed with from many different hawkish sides of the spectrum but I still struggled to come to the conclusion that it justified the destruction of Iraq and the bankruptcy of the US.

 

[smokingjacket]

Getting worked up by Little Graham? You're new here i take it?

Thought I knew my way around by now but clearly not

 

[Slax]

Do you really hold the view that the defeat of one totalitarianism by the other justifies it's worth or do you just have NFI what I'm talking about in the larger sense? That is, how do we as support the globalisation of human rights to account for the globalisation in capital.

But this is all that has been happening in the so called war on terror since its beginning. In Iraq we got rid of one totalitarian regime and replaced it by another who discriminated against the groups previously in power. Afghanistan is the same, in many ways worse as it has completely unsettled a nuclear state in Pakistan. Egypt again might have a different government, but they sure as hell are no better than what went before them, but we claim it is progress.

People think that if you change the government from one that was totalitarian the government that replaces them must be better, sorry but in many cases the one that immediately follows is actually worse than the one before it as it seeks revenge on those that supported the previous regime.

 

[Todman]

People like strong leadership. when a strongman rises, others will bow at his feet.

 

[Play by Numbers]

People like strong leadership. when a strongman rises, others will bow at his feet.

Your point?

Cretins like you worship authority?

The same way Hussein or Assad gains support, is the same way the Abbott's, Putins and Bushes gain support. The angry, the ignorant, the greedy and fearful

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Your point?

Cretins like you worship authority?

The same way Hussein or Assad gains support, is the same way the Abbott's, Putins and Bushes gain support. The angry, the ignorant, the greedy and fearful

I think that's his point. Take the US of A for example, all of that talk about FREEDOM but one terrorist attack and they can't wait for some leader to take away their liberties, or Ebola, then quarantine people without legal authority, ban flights whatever.

 

[blackcat]

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

It's just a question of whether retrospectively the Iraq War can be justified at all.

Help me out here, I can't have my first thread on this board go straight through to the keeper.

One word answers will be accepted or Bay13 style OP abuse. Anything to break the duck.

The Coup
Play by Numbers
pokerspiv
Brown Bottle
medusala
Floor Pie

no, was not justified.

and you took an arbitrary date:0 for when Hitchens would like to call "game on". No,not game on then. Game on when Mossadegh is thrown out in53, and James Baker gives Saddam a nod to invade Kuwait for slantdrlling, and for Madelaine Albrights justified sanctions on Iraq. Pretty silly putting the day zero to the 2001 9-11 conflagration

 

[blackcat]

smokingjacket have you see how the R2P doctrine is a sham, been used as figleaf, and was never a geopolitical mandate that held a fragment of realism.

Why not Africa? Why not Palestine? Why not Kurds in Iraq in 88. It is a shame creation from DC and the UN in Manhattan for relevance deprivation.

 

[smokingjacket]

Hey blackcat thanks for the response. Been lazy in not getting back to Stax earlier too. Going over history in this way seems a bit like off season banter when you have something current to shout at but I still should've engaged a bit earlier.

no, was not justified.
and you took an arbitrary date:0 for when Hitchens would like to call "game on". No,not game on then. Game on when Mossadegh is thrown out in53, and James Baker gives Saddam a nod to invade Kuwait for slantdrlling, and for Madelaine Albrights justified sanctions on Iraq. Pretty silly putting the day zero to the 2001 9-11 conflagration

I know what you're saying but I do think you're being somewhat unjust to his views. Hitchens had a lifelong hatred of realpolitik, most famously writing one of the better polemics about Kissinger in The Trial Of Henry Kissinger. His wasn't blind to the fact that the US had been meddling often calamitously in the region, far from it. However in his words he differed from Noam Chomsky in that he didn't see the history of US foreign policy being one long line of theft and murder but that different regimes made a large difference. In his view the Kissinger years and the realpolitik philosophy that underpins them generally coincided with the nastiest periods in US history. His support for the Iraq War was, what may seem quite absurd now, to put right what had been done to Iraq and the Middle East by imperial powers.

smokingjacket have you see how the R2P doctrine is a sham, been used as figleaf, and was never a geopolitical mandate that held a fragment of realism.
Why not Africa? Why not Palestine? Why not Kurds in Iraq in 88. It is a shame creation from DC and the UN in Manhattan for relevance deprivation.

What has occurred so far under the R2P doctrine has indeed for the most part been a sham. Remember though the concept is fairly new, maybe not historically but in it's current International Law usage. Gareth Evans ex Labor bloke has been influential in it's spread. I included this in the OP, somewhat scurrilously to hide my future shame if I had to defend some ugly positions.

Is humanitarian intervention and R2P an inherently flawed concept that's just a form of new imperialism? Is it a noble cause but one that experience has shown us that once you let it out of the jar the smut of cynicism and international politics will degrade it?

I think(?) what I'm trying to get at is if humanitarian intervention is a flawed concept, and I think in it's current use it is. How does someone who domestically believes in social-democracy sit by in a globalised world without considering the awful situation others are in and whether we're ethically bound to help? What replaces it? What framework replaces the concept that we should help civilian populations who're having their most basic human rights shredded? Western governments might be the problem but what is the solution? It concerns me.

 

[little graham]

Western governments might be the problem but what is the solution? It concerns me.

They have nothing to offer this world, like the sandpit pit bully. So to remain strong they knock down everyone elses castle, like a sand pit bully.

It is how it is.

 

[blackcat]

They have nothing to offer this world, like the sandpit pit bully. So to remain strong they knock down everyone elses castle, like a sand pit bully.

It is how it is.

or, like you imply, to keep everyone else in conflct while you have encroachment of power. See: Vietnam. See: Afghanistan. See: Zbigniew Zrzezinski
smokingjacket "what is the solution"?

Why does there need to be a solution. Was history supposed to be anything other than the messy warring flux that it was?

The fallacy is "there is a solution". Your first premise should be instead "there probably is not a solution, and hypothetically, if some solution existed, what would it look like?"

The error in involving one in another one's conflict. i) you make it worse ii) you embroil yourself and then have a blowback on the domestic front iii) you are left with weael words like "quagmire" where you now have a new problem of your own where you need a "solution" to extract yourself. ponzi like, meta conflicts about humanitarian interventions at the point of their gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson
http://www.thenation.com/article/blowback

 

[blackcat]

I think(?) what I'm trying to get at is if humanitarian intervention is a flawed concept, and I think in it's current use it is. How does someone who domestically believes in social-democracy sit by in a globalised world without considering the awful situation others are in and whether we're ethically bound to help? What replaces it? What framework replaces the concept that we should help civilian populations who're having their most basic human rights shredded? Western governments might be the problem but what is the solution? It concerns me.

again. fallacies prevail. lets call them phallusies.

if you wish to have them disappeared: Cairo
if you wish to have them tortured: Damascus
if you wish to have them interrogated: Amman.

#ourBastards


cryptic point. Dont saddle up to tyrants and sell them chemical weapons and other munitions and CIA satellite photos of encampants of the their enemy(Iran, when in Iraq Iran war they were giving the satellite photos to Saddam)

dont shake hands with Saddam. Im calling u Donny Rumsfeld.

So instead of this handwringing, thing about what let to the tyrants getting power in the first place, and how most have been US puppets. The R2P doctrine, gotta start there innit

 

[smokingjacket]

Why does there need to be a solution. Was history supposed to be anything other than the messy warring flux that it was?

The fallacy is "there is a solution". Your first premise should be instead "there probably is not a solution, and hypothetically, if some solution existed, what would it look like?"

Yes it was meant to be different. Where's my technological utopia already?

You're probably right though. I should've said what is theoretically possible, not imply that there is a current solution.

cryptic point. Dont saddle up to tyrants and sell them chemical weapons and other munitions and CIA satellite photos of encampants of the their enemy(Iran, when in Iraq Iran war they were giving the satellite photos to Saddam)

dont shake hands with Saddam. Im calling u Donny Rumsfeld.

So instead of this handwringing, thing about what let to the tyrants getting power in the first place, and how most have been US puppets. The R2P doctrine, gotta start there innit

Well that's kind of the point though. The US for years has reasoned with realpolitik that the Middle East and oil rich countries better serve the interest of Western powers and the US by being 'stable' secular dictatorships and to hell with the people of the region and whoever might disagree with said dictator in that country. All the while claiming to export liberal democracy and the UN Charter around the world. It's a vile hypocrisy and it's done far more than the Iraq War or Afghanistan could ever do to foster the growth of violent Islam because conservative Muslims have felt powerless and disenfranchised at the same time as Saudi (US puppet) money and Wahhabi doctrine flood those regions. Some saw the Iraq War as a way to correct that worldview and empower the people of the region. It was however botched from the start and the cynical or realists might say that the point was always to botch it and leave Iraq an exploitable mess and not a strong united democracy but that wasn't the view of Hitchens that I referenced earlier.

I'm aware of and very sympathetic to the Chomsky view of international relations but I'm not old enough yet to just say - it is, what it is. I have to believe that some governments can be different, can act in the best interests of the world and we can make global progress.

The view of the "messy warring flux" you describe is true enough but in the current situation it's a run up to a World War scenario. The two prevailing thoughts around the medium term future are that we sort ourselves out globally and technology saves the day, say endless energy from fusion or something. The other is a rising power in China and an unhinged US comepte at the same time as global resource competition. China is currently fortifying the South China Sea in disputed territories much closer to Vietnam and the Philipines, filling in coral reefs and garrisoning them with naval and airforce assets. All the while stockpiling vast quantities of resources so that they could last a war in which the US attempts to cut off their supply lines. The threat is real enough that the Chinese are willing to do this sort of thing at huge cost both diplomatically and financially and why wouldn't they be when they see the nutters elected in the US midterms.

As I said I'm just not quite at the stage where I see global war as inevitable and that we can't find a way to work together. If it needs to be led by someone else or another body because of the problems of historical western imperialism then fair enough. I just don't see where this is coming from, I just see more of the same and new imperialists.

 

[blackcat]

Yes it was meant to be different. Where's my technological utopia already?

You're probably right though. I should've said what is theoretically possible, not imply that there is a current solution.



Well that's kind of the point though. The US for years has reasoned with realpolitik that the Middle East and oil rich countries better serve the interest of Western powers and the US by being 'stable' secular dictatorships and to hell with the people of the region and whoever might disagree with said dictator in that country. All the while claiming to export liberal democracy and the UN Charter around the world. It's a vile hypocrisy and it's done far more than the Iraq War or Afghanistan could ever do to foster the growth of violent Islam because conservative Muslims have felt powerless and disenfranchised at the same time as Saudi (US puppet) money and Wahhabi doctrine flood those regions. Some saw the Iraq War as a way to correct that worldview and empower the people of the region. It was however botched from the start and the cynical or realists might say that the point was always to botch it and leave Iraq an exploitable mess and not a strong united democracy but that wasn't the view of Hitchens that I referenced earlier.

I concede this. I am not saying they should not play with Cairo and Riyadh and Tiblisi and Amman.
it is not the either-or. Saddle up to the dictator/tyrant, or is it side up to the dictator, whatevs, You can still do business with them, and on a state level, you are endorsing the totalitarianism and tyranny and oppressive regime(s), by weight of your actions. ie: our bastards. And you can still talk about freedom to the domestic populace and constituents who vote you in, in DC. That is, hypocrisy, but I can deal with that, this is government(s), are governments and Western Powers we speak of. But this is not the meta-freedom they give motherhood statements to freedom for all peoples, whilst being a partner to suppressive regimes. That cant square that paradox. But, like you say. realpolitik, realism, pragmatism. You can have your freedom at home, but you dont wanna see how the sausage is made. it aint pretty. <leviathan quote> + Thucydides maxim.

nb. so i was not advocating false dichotomy, they either get Assad to torture their extraordinary renditioned terrorists, or go into Iraq to save from ISIS or some other tyrant. middle ground exists, i stress. U can still by Oil from Saud and Bandar Bush. And you can still tell me the BS, but I wanna know for MYSELF i am getting fed bs. My mom and u folks, more fool to u guys if u wish to believe it. (thats generic btw, not calling anyone a fool apart from Meds, cos that is self evident)

 

[smokingjacket]

I concede this. I am not saying they should not play with Cairo and Riyadh and Tiblisi and Amman.
it is not the either-or. Saddle up to the dictator/tyrant, or is it side up to the dictator, whatevs, You can still do business with them, and on a state level, you are endorsing the totalitarianism and tyranny and oppressive regime(s), by weight of your actions. ie: our bastards. And you can still talk about freedom to the domestic populace and constituents who vote you in, in DC. That is, hypocrisy, but I can deal with that, this is government(s), are governments and Western Powers we speak of. But this is not the meta-freedom they give motherhood statements to freedom for all peoples, whilst being a partner to suppressive regimes. That cant square that paradox. But, like you say. realpolitik, realism, pragmatism. You can have your freedom at home, but you dont wanna see how the sausage is made. it aint pretty. <leviathan quote> + Thucydides maxim.

nb. so i was not advocating false dichotomy, they either get Assad to torture their extraordinary renditioned terrorists, or go into Iraq to save from ISIS or some other tyrant. middle ground exists, i stress. U can still by Oil from Saud and Bandar Bush. And you can still tell me the BS, but I wanna know for MYSELF i am getting fed bs. My mom and u folks, more fool to u guys if u wish to believe it. (thats generic btw, not calling anyone a fool apart from Meds, cos that is self evident)

Middle ground all over the place I agree. My modern social-democracy that I referred to earlier is middle ground all over the place. Possibly just all over the place.

My concern is that if you take out the parts of international law pertaining to human rights and only concentrate on the more easily enforceable ones like economic/trade agreements then you end up with a global system similar to Hong Kong. All the free markets, all the exploitation of resources, all the movement of capital. Not so much agency for the common Ricky Ponting.

 

[MaddAdam]

If the USA had not been so pro active in trying to topple the Assad government ISIS would be nowhere near as powerful as they are. Assad would of mobilised his miltary and likely instructed them to take limited prisoners. Instead because there is no functioning miltary in Iraq or eastern Syria they were able to grow and form a miltia which has since swelled in ranks as they took large amounts of territory relatively unopposed.

Assad massively assisted with the creation of ISIS.

 

[Slax]

Assad massively assisted with the creation of ISIS.

I'd argue that USA middle East policy on how to deal with Northern Iraq and Syria had a far bigger influence on the creation of ISIS than Assad. The lack of direction the USA has on how to deal with them means that they are getting into bed with Iran over how to deal with them, the fact this has lead to the easing of a number of UN sanctions against Iran that has gone unreported is interesting.

 

[Slax]

Assad massively assisted with the creation of ISIS.

I'd argue that USA middle East policy on how to deal with Northern Iraq and Syria had a far bigger influence on the creation of ISIS than Assad. The lack of direction the USA has on how to deal with them means that they are getting into bed with Iran over how to deal with them, the fact this has lead to the easing of a number of UN sanctions against Iran that has gone unreported is interesting.