What to do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[1Voltaire1]

My, how the world has changed. 60-70 years ago, we would have kept on fighting them till they gave up.

I don't know that times have changed that much. After all, if you're refering to World War II then there isn't really much of a comparison.

WWII: states, organized military structures, clear hierarchies of command and control (politically and militarily), conventional war

Iraq: disparate actors within a state being confronted by an external state, disparate actors who have relatively diffuse command and control structures, using unconventional tactics, with diffuse goals, who have a steady supply of warm bodies from sorrounding countries - sound familiar? it should

 

[Fighting Madd]

He didn't refer to WW2 or anything specific as far as I can tell. Let's stick to terrorism over the last 60 or 70 years, not conventional campaigns.

we would have kept on fighting them till they gave up.

Britain continued to fight the IRA from the 1960s onwards, even with the USA funding and arming the terrorists, until they gave up and decided to seek peaceful settlement. Canada fought the FLQ terrorists in the 1970s until they gave up. Russia continues to fight the Chechyn terrorists and will continue to until they give up. The Sri Lankans have been fighting Tamil terrorists for decades, even though Canada continues to fund their campaign, and will likely not quit until the terrorists give up. In the Phillippines, Manilla continues to wage war against Islamic terrorists in the south islands.

Of course, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, so let's drop that endless debate and argument now, particularly in the case of Sri Lanka (where we could argue for days on the nasty behaviour of the Sengalese towards the Tamils, etc...). IMO, once you start using car bombs and covert weapons in buses, post packages and public spaces specifically to terrorize and kill innocent, civilian populations in the name of some religious, fanatical or nationalistic or ethnic cause, you're a terrorist and will be dealt with accordingly.

 

[1Voltaire1]

oops..

 

[1Voltaire1]

He didn't refer to WW2 or anything specific as far as I can tell.

I didn't say he did. Hence I prefaced my comment with "**IF** you are referring to..." Nonetheless, if he wasn't referring to WWII I'd be real curious to know what he was referring to that happened 60-70 years ago... the end of the Great Depression?

Britain continued to fight the IRA from the 1960s onwards, even with the USA funding and arming the terrorists, until they gave up and decided to seek peaceful settlement. Canada fought the FLQ terrorists in the 1970s until they gave up. Russia continues to fight the Chechyn terrorists and will continue to until they give up. The Sri Lankans have been fighting Tamil terrorists for decades, even though Canada continues to fund their campaign, and will likely not quit until the terrorists give up. In the Phillippines, Manilla continues to wage war against Islamic terrorists in the south islands.

Your IRA and FLQ examples of states, the UK and Canada respectively, who triumphed over "terrorists" using unconventional tactics are, with all due respect, tenuous at best. There are substantial differences in scale, geography, economics, and ideology that differentiate those examples from Iraq. The most glaring of your examples, Chechnya, shows why the attitude 'we should just fight
until we win' is problematic. The Russians followed by the Soviets followed by the Russians have been trying that attitude for approximately 250 years and it still hasn't worked. Stalin was responsible for the death of roughly 50% of the Chechen population when he shipped the entire Chechen population to Kazakhastan for alledgedly collaborating with the Nazis. In the 90's Yeltsin flattened Chechnya and what was a national liberation movement became an extremist Islamist movement. Then Putin proceeded to flatten what was not flattened during the first war in the late 90's. What was the result, nothing, but a lot of pissed off people and international condemnation for human rights abuses.

This being said, there is no doubt in my mind that in certain instances you have no choice but to respond to force with force, however that does not mean that the force in itself will allow you to achieve your goals. I'll return to my original sentiments and say the U.S. finds itself in a real difficult situation.

The UN withdrew most of its forces when its embassy and special representative were killed a couple of years ago. The security situation has not improved since then, therefore the UN re-entering Iraq in substantial numbers is unlikely in the near term unless the security situation drastically improves. There certainly aren't a lot of countries lining up to get into Iraq and until such time as security improves there won't - in fact if anything countries are leaving or limiting their committments, witness Spain, El Salvador, and Italy as well as others.

The Iraqi army is in its infant stages and has a long way to go before it will be a force capable of mainting law and order. The country is rife with unsecured munitions from the defunct army and recruits flow in from sorrounding countries. Mounting U.S. fatalities in Iraq are putting increasing pressure on the American administration to come up with a wihthdrawal date from Iraq, or at the very least clearly defined strategies and tangible progress. But even as Donald Rumsfeld himself admits, they have no "metrics" to measure success in Iraq. Even pro-war Republican Congressmen are starting to criticize whats going on Iraq. I could go on but I'm starting to bore myself.

Getting back to the original point of the thread, the U.S. does not even know what their going to do, at least at this point in time.

 

[blixa442]

The US should have attacked Syria (and maybe the Saudis) instead of Iraq. Dubya made a pretty stupid decision based on personal feelings towards Hussein as opposed to the prevailing reality on the ground.

 

[boiler2000]

^ One problem: all-out war in Saudi Arabia = end of civilization

 

[BuildTO]

Iraq should be left to govern itself. For all the damage done there by the US, it needs to be given the funding to rebuild itself. And who are we to dictate how it rebuilds itself? While we might like to help, the truth is that the governments of countries such as Canada and the US tend to have only their own interests at heart.

We (the people) would like to help, especially when we hear about countries that are suffering under dictatorships and oppression. But the fallacy in all of these arguments is that we are not invading in order to remove the "bad guys" and then leave the country running as a democracy with complete freedom for all.

We have seen an unwanted invasion, and the key word here is "unwanted". The idea that the Iraqis were welcoming the invaders with open arms was Bush's propaganda. The invaders bombed the sh*t out of the country, intentionally killing innocents. Soldiers were ordered to fire on unarmed men, women, and children. Iraqis under Hussein saw nothing that approaches entire cities bombed to ruin, people shot to death for no reason, prisoners humilated and tortured, the Qur'an desecrated, and hospital patients prevented by armed soldiers from receiving treatment, while doctors stand helplessly nearby.

GB wrote:

Well, withdrawl isn't an option at all, unless one wanted the Mid-east to become even more of a basket case.

But the occupying forces cannot do any good as long as Iraqis resent their presence. All the Iraqis want is for the invaders to leave.

The only way out I see it is to rebuild the economies of the respective countries such that extremism would be denied by the majority of the populace.

How? Extremism will continue to thrive as long as Iraqis are forced to live under a "democracy" that was not created by them, but has been imposed on them.

Fighting Madd wrote:

Any protests or marches demanding immediate withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan are illfounded.

Based on your comments here, what you don't realize is that the majority of the people marching know a lot more about what is going on in these countries than you do.

Mislav wrote:

I actually tried talking to some of these protestors and they seem to ignore the fact that withdrawal means giving the country away to a doctrine far worse than that of Saddam Hussein.

As I've stated above, Iraq under the US is far worse off than they were. No one liked Hussein, and no one defends his actions. But the US has accomplished nothing. The standard of living for Iraqis is far worse now, and the future looks bleak. As long as the occupation continues, Iraqis will suffer.

The protestor will often give a simple argument such as "If the Americans stay there, people will keep dying". But my question to them is that if they leave, what guarantee is there that these terrorists won't start killing people who don't satisfy their demands?

Iraq before the invasion was not a country which saw daily bombings by "insurgents". This is a situation which has resulted from the invasion. Your question shows a basic misunderstanding about the reasons for the terrorism.

Fighting Madd:

I imagine if the USA offered full US citizenship and relocation to the US to the people of Iraq, 99% of them would up and leave. My point? The anti-American feeling we see presented on the news is IMO likely exaggerated for the cameras.

Your prespective is similar to most Americans, who really do believe that the majority of the world's people want to live in the US and be just like Americans.

The anti-American sentiment you see on the news is the tip of the iceberg. The mainstream media report very little of what is really going on in Iraq.

A friend of mine visited Iraq. He actually saw soldiers pick up a wounded child, and pose for the cameras as if they were trying to help. When the photo shoot was finished, they dropped the child and even prevented the child's mother from coming to the child's aid. It's a story I could hardly believe myself when I heard it, but I got the story first-hand. It's just one small indication of the chasm between what you read in the papers and see on tv, vs. what is actually going on.

A doctor in Iraq has started travelling to tell the stories of atrocities he has witnessed in hospitals in Iraq. Soldiers have blocked access to medical treatment for patients (in violation of the Geneva Conventions) and even killed one patient in his bed.

I have met Michael Hoffman, one of the founders of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). He explained how dire the real situation is for the soldiers, and the myth behind Bush's statement about "winning the war". At this point, the attacks on the occupying forces are accelerating, and American analysis of the tactics used shows the "insurgents" are becoming more experienced and sophisticated. The occupying forces spend most of their time holed up in their camps, hiding away. The bombings are thus killing the Iraqi forces, which is the only reason the death toll of Americans has dropped off. If the "insurgents" can't reach the Americans, they will target anyone working with them. Michael says the US simply cannot continue to pour billions of dollars into this invasion effort; something is going to have to give soon.

Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), formed by 2 people, now has 2000 members. To Americans, it is stunning to see a growing movement within the military itself, speaking out against the occupation. The truth about the deaths of soldiers is being publicized to fight army propaganda.

In addition, American army recruiters are having a hell of a time. Working-class Americans and minorities have finally started to realize that their prospective future as army recruits will likely involve getting shot or bombed in the front lines. They are refusing to join; for the first time, parents are getting involved and forming campaigns to discourage young men and women from joining. For at least a few consecutive months, recruitment has fallen far short of the already downward-adjusted targets. The situation has gotten so bad that even recruiters themselves are starting to go AWOL.

With public sentiment strongly against implementing the draft, the US is up the creek. What they need to "win" this invasion is far more troops, and that is something they can't achieve.

I have met and spoken to soldiers who have fought in Iraq. They tell stories of being ordered to shoot at cars and people, for no reason. One soldier questioned why women and children simply walking on the street should be shot; he was told by his superior that if they were on the street, where a shooting had taken place, then they could be considered guilty and that it was their fault for being there.

Anyone recall the news footage, played and replayed many times, of the injured Iraqi who was shot by the American soldier as he lay on the ground?

And let's not even go into the abuses made public at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.

What have Americans done for Iraq (and Afghanistan)? Steal oil. Install a puppet government that is sympathetic to American interests. Privatize services, and give resonstruction contracts to American corporations, or those of their allies.

Take cell phone service as a small example. The Americans made it a priority to bomb the existing cell phone infrastructure at the beginning of the invasion. When the bombing was done and the "rebuilding" began, the new cell phone system was built to American standards - meaning that cell phones in Iraq are useless throughout the rest of the Middle East (and beyond). And guess who was given the first cell phones, as the systems came back online? Was it doctors, who would have been able to accomplish more, and faster, with cell phone communication? No, the first cell phones were given to... pizza restaurants, so that soldiers could order dinner. Sound to you as though Americans are in Iraq to help?

BTW: remember Afghanistan? Most of the population still doesn't have access to safe water supplies or reliable electricity.

The point of all this is: the Iraqis have no delusions about the Americans' motives. They have seen it all. They know exactly what the Americans are in Iraq for. It is no wonder the occupiers are not trusted, and not wanted. So what good can occupying forces do? Is it any wonder they are resented?


Since before the start of the invasion, I have been involved in the anti-war movement and all related campaigns (war reisters, anti-Islamophobia, civil liberties, etc.). I know a lot of the founding members of these campaigns, and I am researching, and working with those involved almost daily.

I take part in every demonstration, rally, and march, if I can. I do so because I know the real story about what is going on in Iraq, what the media are doing to distort the truth, and how our politicans have made Canada complicit. I do so because the general public doesn't know enough about what is really going on, so education is vital.

Those of you who still doubt should attend the frequent meetings, demos, etc., and listen to the speakers' stories. It is by listening to American soldiers, Iraqis (both from Iraq and in Canada), and victimized Muslims that you start to really understand.

I know this is late, but for those who are available Friday night, there is one event:

Friday, July 15
7:30pm
Steelworkers Hall
25 Cecil Street
Toronto
(one block south of College, one-and-a-half blocks east of Spadina;
take Spadina streetcar south from Spadina subway station; get off at College Street)

F A L L U J A H
The truth at last . . .
How the US murdered a city

A public forum featuring:

Dr Salam Ismael
Dr Salam is a twenty-nine year-old medical doctor from Iraq who was the head of junior doctors in Baghdad before the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Because the Canadian government has denied Dr Salam entry into Canada, he will be joining us at the meeting through a live phone hook-up. If we encounter any technical difficulties, we will be screening as a back-up a thirty-minute video presentation of Dr Salam speaking on the same topic at a meeting in London, England.

Other invited speakers:
Alan Slater
Member of Christian Peacemakers Team who toured occupied Iraq, including Fallujah, for three months in early 2005
Darrell Anderson
Former US soldier who served seven months in Iraq and received a Purple Heart; now a war resister seeking sanctuary in Canada
Michael Mandel
Professor of international law at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University and author, How America gets away with murder

Organised by the Canadian Peace Alliance and the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War.

Canadian Peace Alliance
L'alliance canadienne pour la paix
www.acp-cpa.ca cpa@web.ca 416-588-5555

Toronto Coalition to Stop the War
www.nowar.ca stopthewar@sympatico.ca 416-795-5863

 

[Fighting Madd]

army recruits will likely involve getting shot or bombed in the front lines.

As opposed to what? What do you think you have an army for? Armies are for sending into combat to kill people. Casualties are expected and planned for. Army recruits have always known this. If US recruitment is down, it's not because they've suddenly realised that they might get shot, but more likely because they don't support the war in Iraq.

In Canada, if we think of our army at all, we think its role is disaster relief and UN peacekeeping duty. This is wrong, and is an insult to our military history. Canadian (colonial and post confederation) soldiers have been fighting and falling at the front lines from the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Boer War (there are 261 Canadian war dead buried in South Africa), WW1, WW2, Korea, GW1, Afghanistan, etc. It was a Canadian unit that took the surrender of the Boers at Paardeburg, a Canadian corps that routed the Germans at Vimy Ridge and Amiens, Canadian warships which convoyed half of all maritime traffic across the Atlantic during the second world war, Canadian infantrymen who held the line at Kapyong in Korea, Canadian aeroplanes which dropped one third of all the Nato bombs on Yugoslavia in 1999, and Canadian soldiers who died in Afghanistan fighting the War on Terror last year.

When the going got tough at Srebrenica, the Dutch packed up and left. Not many miles away, when the Croatian army had moved in to massacre the population of the Medak pocket, the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry met them head-on. Outnumbered, outgunned, under intense and prolonged fire from machine-guns, mortars, and artillery, the PPCLI held their ground and forced back the murderers, saving the lives of hundreds of defenceless civilians.

The soldiers who performed these tasks so successfully fully expected to get shot at and bombed, and fully understood that they might not survive. They were not duped by recruiters.

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

BuildTO

Iraq should be left to govern itself. For all the damage done there by the US, it needs to be given the funding to rebuild itself. And who are we to dictate how it rebuilds itself? While we might like to help, the truth is that the governments of countries such as Canada and the US tend to have only their own interests at heart.

Ultimately self-governance is and should be the goal - anything else reeks of colonialism. That being said, as it stands right now, however, Iraq is a time bomb if self-governance is forced upon it; self-governance does not equate to, or guarentee good governance, and in this example, all signs point to a country ripping itself apart violently without some external cohesive force.

And as to who we are to dictate how Iraq rebuilds - normally I'd agree, but in this case, the stakes are too high to regional and global stability - and that, by itself, is not "self-interest", but an interest to all.

We (the people) would like to help, especially when we hear about countries that are suffering under dictatorships and oppression. But the fallacy in all of these arguments is that we are not invading in order to remove the "bad guys" and then leave the country running as a democracy with complete freedom for all.

Completely agree - but there is the equal fallacy that no intervention should take place because any intervention is ultimately based on self-interest. Obviously, realpolitik does to a certain extent validates the latter, but self-interest in peace and security for all is an issue that transcends borders. Like it or not, our world is globalized, and that national boundaries reinforced by the transmission speed of people, information, etc no longer exists.

But the occupying forces cannot do any good as long as Iraqis resent their presence. All the Iraqis want is for the invaders to leave.

And then what? Rip itself apart in a blood civil war, resulting in a situation that begs for international intervention once again? This is a no-win situation - clearly, the first priority is to make sure it doesn't become worse than it already is.

How? Extremism will continue to thrive as long as Iraqis are forced to live under a "democracy" that was not created by them, but has been imposed on them.

Then the issue is making sure Iraqis create their own democracy with the help of others, while making sure that in no uncertain terms that civil war, intolerance and wholesale extremism has no place in that country.

I am not saying this is either easy or remotely resembles what is being practiced right now, but clearly withdrawl of external intervention at this point, without ensuring the modicrum of stability, is a disaster in the making.

GB

 

[Fighting Madd]

Rip itself apart in a blood civil war, resulting in a situation that begs for international intervention once again?

Iraq won't need to beg for foreign intervention once civil war breaks out. The Iranians will quickly "liberate" the 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people who identify themselves as Shiites. Not to be undone, the minority Sunni Muslims in Iraq will call for assistance from the Muslim League, with military assistance likely coming from as far as Malaysia and as near as Saudi Arabia, Syria. The Kurds will fight well alone, with material support from their friends in Turkey and the 'stans.

End result will be: a larger Iranian territory; an established Kurdistan (or a Kurdish exodus into Turkey); possibly an expanded Syrian and/or Jordanian territory covering the former Sunni areas of Iraq; a new home for Bin Laden types; nuclear proliferation as Iran ramps up its offensive capability; massive refugee waves hitting the west.

All this can be acheived without any intervention from the USA or the Europeans. It will be very bloody for a decade or so of course, and the Israelis will be uncomfortable will this long battle taking place in the region, but they'll figure muslims killing muslims is better than muslims killing Israelis.

 

[BuildTO]

army recruits will likely involve getting shot or bombed in the front lines.

As opposed to what? What do you think you have an army for?

Good point. Do we have an army which invades a country for no reason other than to kill innocents and secure services for western corporations to privatize? Is that what young people are enlisting and dying for?

One young man was killed inspecting a truck coming into an army base. The official word was that the truck carried food supplies; the truth was that it carried new carpeting for the office of the army general. (This info from MFSO.)

Recruiters are indeed lying, telling young people that they will be able to get a college education and that they won't be sent to Iraq. Once young people enlist, they find that the army is not held accountable for the lies and that the young recruits have no recourse.

And you are right that part of the reason that recruitment is down is that more Americans do not support the occupation. A majority of Americans now supports the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

 

[BuildTO]

Then the issue is making sure Iraqis create their own democracy with the help of others, while making sure that in no uncertain terms that civil war, intolerance and wholesale extremism has no place in that country.

I am not saying this is either easy or remotely resembles what is being practiced right now, but clearly withdrawl of external intervention at this point, without ensuring the modicrum of stability, is a disaster in the making.

Sorry, but I think this is naive. Sure, your scenario is ideal, but the fact is that it is not going to happen that way... mostly because the US, Britain, and Canada have no interest in making it a reality.

Democracy has never been the goal, although we are always told it is. Witness the history of the US in removing democratically-elected leaders and installing dictators. It all comes down to which leader/government/political group will be able to further and protect American interests.

The idea of preventing extremism is also something we are obssessed with, and I reiterate that the main cause of the vast majority of the extremist actions are the invasion and occupation, which is why continuing the occupation is a losing proposition.

Imagine for a moment that Iraq invaded the US (regardless of the motive). Cities are bombed, women and children shot, resources plundered, etc. The obvious result would be Americans dusting off their precious guns and thanking god for their right to bear arms. They would be organizing ambushes against the invaders, planning bombings, sniping at the occupation force... and they would be regarded as heroes. They would be "freedom fighters", not "insurgents" or "terrorists". When would they stop? You can bet, with their love of country and fierce and noble determination, that they would not rest until they had driven the occupation force out.

 

[Fighting Madd]

Is that what young people are enlisting and dying for?

I suspect you haven't a clue why people ever would enlist in the armed forces; and it's not for a free education, unless you consider putting your life at risk as free.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"If US recruitment is down, it's not because they've suddenly realised that they might get shot, but more likely because they don't support the war in Iraq."

Or maybe they don't mind either the danger or serving abroad and don't care if the war is justified or not, but they just don't want to be blown up in a car bomb at a security checkpoint outside Baghdad. That wouldn't be what I signed up for. I wouldn't want to be assigned to a semi-permanent post guarding people that don't all want you there with guerilla warfare and terror attacks going off at random around you.

What branch of recruitment is down the most? I wonder if it's the reserve/national guard sort of recruitment that's down because people used to think it was a way to serve with a much smaller chance of being placed in danger or sent abroad. Whether or not anyone supports the war, the fact is it is a fundamentally different operation now than two years ago and maybe Americans just aren't all that attracted to peacekeeping duty, especially if they weren't expecting to get called up to go to the Middle East, as has happened to thousands of national guards and reserves.

 

[BuildTO]

I suspect you haven't a clue why people ever would enlist in the armed forces; and it's not for a free education, unless you consider putting your life at risk as free.

I've talked to a number of those who have enlisted, as well as the military families and those (in Canada and the US) who make it their business to find out about the realities of the situation in the US in order to do a proper analysis of the situation.

In a lot of areas of the US, people had been enlisting because it is the only way answer to high unemployment and a complete lack of job prospects. It has been regarded as the only way out of a dead end (aside from crime), and the only way to get a higher education. It is referred to as the "economic draft".