|
Kilometers Davis posted:I'm still not convinced Saddam wouldn't have continued his push into Assadlike terror/torture/control attacks and empowered insurgents anyway. He was a terrible human being. That said sometimes it's better to have a vicious leader in actual "control" than a huge melting pot of insanely violent rebels running around free. It's a shame they all can't just kill each other off really but that's pointless hope and not something that often happens in reality. The only real benefit of Saddamn staying in power would be that the lands doctors, scientists and engineers wouldn't all have packed up their things and fled back in 2003. I think maybe 1/4 of the doctors at my local hospital are originally Iraqi. Nothing quite sets off brain drain like war.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:No, I was saying that Arab Spring would've still happened. That's why I stopped midway through typing it, but that was poor framing on my part. SedanChair seemed to be jumping in with the "This is all because of Iraq" narrative, and it's a bit simplistic to me. Obviously the Iraq war, specifically debaathification and the power vacuum combined with a lot of pissed off Sunni's who no longer controlled the government, played a massive role in creating a sectarian hotbed in Iraq. But those aren't the only factors that have played a role in instability in the region, or the rise of jihadist forces throughout the MENA. Tyranny has also been a major issue. It was tyranny specifically that led to uprisings in Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. There's no telling whether a Saddam-controlled Iraq would have also been on that chopping block, and even if not, there's little to suggest that the rise of Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, etc is closely linked to Iraq. Takfiri ideology has just become incredibly pervasive, and it is supported by some of the deepest pockets in the Middle East. It was going to grow, and alongside that, the tensions in the region that were ready to explode into unrest. The US is guilty of lighting the match (as an analogy, not to diminish the scale of the crimes committed by US forces in Iraq), but the powder keg was already there, and it's highly unlikely that it was going to be kept together by oppressive regimes pointing a gun at it in the long term. Thanks for the clarification. Those are some interesting points and I'd honestly never considered the implications of the Arab Spring on a theoretical Ba'athist Iraq in a non-US invasion scenario. In any case it seems futile to speculate on could-have-beens in regards especially to the Middle East, but it's probably safe to say the US's goal of using the Iraq invasion to ostensibly fight extremism was at the very least an extraordinary failure, which is pretty much par for the course in regards to its policies in the region.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:I'm still not convinced Saddam wouldn't have continued his push into Assadlike terror/torture/control attacks and empowered insurgents anyway. He was a terrible human being. That said sometimes it's better to have a vicious leader in actual "control" than a huge melting pot of insanely violent rebels running around free. It's a shame they all can't just kill each other off really but that's pointless hope and not something that often happens in reality. He paid them very well. Wealthy officers, Republican Guard, pride in the military, all that jazz.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think that without OIF the Middle East would look so radically different that one can't even speculate about the political situation in Tunisia, Egypt or elsewhere. Who can say? Thousands of geopolitical variables would be completely different. Obama wouldn't be president, just to name one. Maybe there would have been an eventual series of protests and uprisings across the ME, maybe not. We can't really hypothesize about these scenarios, but we can, and in this one there's no ISIS. It just seems to me that you're using "The Iraq War has hosed this entire region up" as a starting point and working out from there, and while it's not far off, it's still inaccurate and doesn't expose the whole picture. al-Qaeda obviously existed and was only gaining support before the war. We could look at the immediate aftermath of the Arab Spring, when al-Qaeda was at its weakest point due to its entire premise that violence was the only way to incite regime change looking completely false, and look at what could have changed the outcomes of those. Deeper support for the Libyan government to salvage the security situation, providing a NFZ to enable the opposition in Syria to overthrow Assad and begin negotiations with the regime before ISIS and JaN had established a foothold, countless other things that played into how things got to where they are today just as much as Iraq. The last decade was going to be one of the most critical in the history of the Middle East regardless of what happened there. There's just no telling what would have happened if Saddam would have stayed in power. I really don't think "Everything would look exactly the same as it did in 2000" is any more likely to be accurate than thinking Saddam's regime was unsustainable, and that the sectarian divide still existed albeit with the Sunni's in control of the Shia's, bubbling under the surface, while surrounded by Shia regimes. Also, it's still really likely Obama would be President. Red Pyramid posted:Thanks for the clarification. Those are some interesting points and I'd honestly never considered the implications of the Arab Spring on a theoretical Ba'athist Iraq in a non-US invasion scenario. In any case it seems futile to speculate on could-have-beens in regards especially to the Middle East, but it's probably safe to say the US's goal of using the Iraq invasion to ostensibly fight extremism was at the very least an extraordinary failure, which is pretty much par for the course in regards to its policies in the region. Of course, but countries in the Middle East are more than chess pieces moved around by the West and Russia. I always hate the framing that goes beyond taking into account what external actors have done in those areas, and only takes into account what external actors have done in those areas. There's a lot of people in those countries with their own thoughts and their own opinions, and they have a tremendous effect on how things play out. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
What's the source on that FGM thing? I ask because the Islamic texts regarding the sanctioning of FGM are pretty weak, and the Salafist/ISIS types are probably well aware of it and reject them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
I was going to go through point by point, but if you think that there is any chain of events that leads to Obama being president without an Iraq War...I mean wow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I was going to go through point by point, but if you think that there is any chain of events that leads to Obama being president without an Iraq War...I mean wow. He was getting hyped up for it before the Iraq War was even unpopular. His 2004 DNC speech that put him on the map in the rest of the country, and established him as a legitimate candidate didn't even mention opposition to the war. But this is off topic as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:He was getting hyped up for it before the Iraq War was even unpopular. His 2004 DNC speech that put him on the map in the rest of the country, and established him as a legitimate candidate didn't even mention opposition to the war. But this is off topic as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Obama was put on the map in 2004 with that speech. That said, I wouldn't quite say the Iraq War was not unpopular then. It of course hadn't hit the nadir of its popular support yet (it truly cratered in 2006, with disapproval rising over approval in every metric), but in 2004 approval dropped to 50% from highs of 70%. 50% isn't popular, but it also isn't unpopular. Obama was going to play a very big role in 2008 even if support for the war held at 50%, which would have made it near irrelevant in the polls. That's the same scenario as if we had not invaded Iraq at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Exioce posted:What's the source on that FGM thing? I ask because the Islamic texts regarding the sanctioning of FGM are pretty weak, and the Salafist/ISIS types are probably well aware of it and reject them. ISIS fanboys are saying it's fake, and while they're not known for reliability I've yet to see it independently confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:ISIS fanboys are saying it's fake, and while they're not known for reliability I've yet to see it independently confirmed. With the number of typos in that thing I wouldn't be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:I'm still not convinced Saddam wouldn't have continued his push into Assadlike terror/torture/control attacks and empowered insurgents anyway. He was a terrible human being. That said sometimes it's better to have a vicious leader in actual "control" than a huge melting pot of insanely violent rebels running around free. It's a shame they all can't just kill each other off really but that's pointless hope and not something that often happens in reality. Assad-like? Saddam has been doing all those things since he first came to power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Xandu posted:
Yo Xandu, any English translation or news story or something available? None of my friends know arabic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Wasn't wikileaks a factor in Tunisia? Like the public was under the impression that the regime had unconditional US support, but the diplomatic cables regarding Tunisia emboldened them? No Iraq, No Pvt Manning, etc. As Sedan Chair said, there's way too many variables to make any definite speculations, and it doesn't change the present reality. 'What difference does it make?'
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Tias posted:Yo Xandu, any English translation or news story or something available? None of my friends know arabic. I can't transcribe this word for word right now, but basically the first part is how the "prince of believers" Baghdadi made the circumcision decision, and the rest of it is telling religious tales and examples of why circumcision should be done and that it is what the Prophet would have wanted. The end is a Ramadan/victory prayer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Of course not. No collapse of the Baathist government, no mass firings and dissolving of the army by Paul Bremer. No dissolved army and civil service, no sectarian war and training ground for militants. Man, the gently caress was with Paul Bremer anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Wasn't wikileaks a factor in Tunisia? Like the public was under the impression that the regime had unconditional US support, but the diplomatic cables regarding Tunisia emboldened them? No Iraq, No Pvt Manning, etc. Wikileaks was a major factor in both Tunisia and Iraq as well - with the Parliament citing leaked documents as justification to non-renew US force presence. I guess for the counter factual you'd have to decide if it was US war crimes in Iraq (which might still have happened somewhere else) or the Army's atrocious treatment of transgender soldiers that "really" drove Manning to leak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Man, the gently caress was with Paul Bremer anyway? The old story of a dumbass appointed for his ideologically correct views rather than any kind of competence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
The Arab Spring was most likely bigger than the Iraq War, but it probably wouldn't have happened without the 2007 rise in food prices and then the global economic crisis soon after it. However, obviously the Iraq war has had an big impact on Syria and now there is an obvious "synergy" happening between the two. In 2002, a lot of the problems still going on today were already happening: discontent in Egypt, private funding of extremism, I/P and sectarian divides...I just think the Iraq war made it even worse. Also, so did in the Libyan war to a lesser extent. Btw, a lot of the militants that were pushed out of Northern Mali during the French intervention sat up shop in the Southern Libyan desert.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Whatever happened to Paul Bremer? One would think that if you gently caress up that badly, you fade away gracefully. Right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whatever happened to Paul Bremer? He has taken up the pastime of choice for Americans who hosed up Iraq. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whatever happened to Paul Bremer? Only America Can Prevent a Disaster in Iraq - L. Paul Bremer
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Poop just doesn't get flushed in our system, does it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:50% isn't popular, but it also isn't unpopular. Obama was going to play a very big role in 2008 even if support for the war held at 50%, which would have made it near irrelevant in the polls. That's the same scenario as if we had not invaded Iraq at all. It would certainly have made Clinton much more likely to get the nomination. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
It is hard to imagine what a clusterfuck Iraq was at the beginning. Don't forget, the whole thing was going to be masterminded by the Neoconservatives (who, among others, had been violently howling for Saddam's head on a stick since the mid 90's) who had the whole thing down pat. We'd come in, depose Saddam, the people would love us and instantly transition to a stable democracy, and we would have another permanent ally in the middle east, in the same vein as Egypt or Israel. Oh, and when we helped them with their Oil situation we could stick them with the bill for the war, because they would have all that oil money now. Except that nothing turned out the way that it was in the minutes of their meetings. Almost immediately, rule of law broke down and US troops weren't permitted ROE to keep the peace, so people were basically just looting in broad daylight. Infrastructure had been damaged not only by the invasion, but years of bombing. The Neocons listened to Achmed Chalabi (a fraud who was hot to depose Ba'athism and become the sole leader of Iraq), although thankfully I think that ended when he lost an election (I can't remember which one, but the damage had been thoroughly done). Paul Bremer was an idiot who was way out of his league, although from what I understand of First Hand Accounts of the early days of post-invasion no one really knew who exactly was in charge. How or why they picked Bremer for such a monumental task I'll never know. Then there was De-Baathification and shortly after that the insurgency started rearing it's head, and from then on it was just going to be a grind towards nothing, which it was. Even if you believe the invasion of Iraq was completely unholy or think we should have just left Saddam in power, there was no reason to handle the conflict that badly. I don't remember a whole lot of it, but it seemed like the administration was very closed to outside advice and ideas, and planned on sticking the course with the war plan they had. When people started to criticize the plan they only latched onto it harder. By '07 it seemed pretty evident that no one had anything resembling a cohesive plan for at least three years at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:It is hard to imagine what a clusterfuck Iraq was at the beginning. Don't forget, the whole thing was going to be masterminded by the Neoconservatives (who, among others, had been violently howling for Saddam's head on a stick since the mid 90's) who had the whole thing down pat. We'd come in, depose Saddam, the people would love us and instantly transition to a stable democracy, and we would have another permanent ally in the middle east, in the same vein as Egypt or Israel. Oh, and when we helped them with their Oil situation we could stick them with the bill for the war, because they would have all that oil money now. Fiasco, recommended to me in this very forum (thread?), is a very good accounting of the total lack of organization and ideological blinders that doomed the immediate post-invasion years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:It is hard to imagine what a clusterfuck Iraq was at the beginning. Don't forget, the whole thing was going to be masterminded by the Neoconservatives (who, among others, had been violently howling for Saddam's head on a stick since the mid 90's) who had the whole thing down pat. We'd come in, depose Saddam, the people would love us and instantly transition to a stable democracy, and we would have another permanent ally in the middle east, in the same vein as Egypt or Israel. Oh, and when we helped them with their Oil situation we could stick them with the bill for the war, because they would have all that oil money now. A guy named Jay Garner was in charge at the very start, military guy, and was so completely useless that he was replaced after a couple months. I just read Imperial Life in the Emerald City, which is about the Green Zone in the year or so after the invasion. It contains a bunch of interesting details about how stupid/poorly planned the post-war "governance" was. A big part of the book is how the neocons via the Pentagon and somewhat the White House kept control away from the State Department and the CIA. Trouble was it was the latter two organizations that had years worth of planning, hundreds of people, decades of experience and all sorts of other things that would have made running the place a lot easier. Extensive State plans were simply dropped, their staff was sent home, funds transfers blocked, etc. Loyal junior republican staffers took the place of entire teams of experienced people. Quiet gross.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
I had read something (maybe even here?) about how the number one priority was to get the Baghdad Stock Exchange up and running before the oil and gas infrastructure had even been given proper consideration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:I had read something (maybe even here?) about how the number one priority was to get the Baghdad Stock Exchange up and running before the oil and gas infrastructure had even been given proper consideration. If you're married to the idea that the free market cures all, you'd see seeing up a 'free market' as the #1 priority. Also, you'd be dumb as a box of rocks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:I had read something (maybe even here?) about how the number one priority was to get the Baghdad Stock Exchange up and running before the oil and gas infrastructure had even been given proper consideration. I've heard that in this thread but it was not mentioned in the book. The job of setting up the stock exchange was given to a 20 something who had worked on Wall St. He wanted to completely modernize the whole thing but by the time he left they were still using white-boards to record purchases and sales.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:He has taken up the pastime of choice for Americans who hosed up Iraq. And none of them are as good a painter as Hitler. It's embarrassing, our war criminals can't even watercolor properly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:And none of them are as good a painter as Hitler. It's embarrassing, our war criminals can't even watercolor properly. Tony Blair got made into a Middle East UN Peace Envoy, and still is.  However he seems to be well primed to returning to current UK politics. Google results show he's recently been looked at for shady deals with private firms and banking.  Fun part of that article is the admission that they don't have a loving clue what he's up to a lot of the time. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:He has taken up the pastime of choice for Americans who hosed up Iraq. This reads like an onion article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
You don't understand how hosed it was. You don't. Read Cobra II. They were playing 'how few troops can we take over a country with'
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Except that nothing turned out the way that it was in the minutes of their meetings. Almost immediately, rule of law broke down and US troops weren't permitted ROE to keep the peace, so people were basically just looting in broad daylight. Infrastructure had been damaged not only by the invasion, but years of bombing. The Neocons listened to Achmed Chalabi (a fraud who was hot to depose Ba'athism and become the sole leader of Iraq), although thankfully I think that ended when he lost an election (I can't remember which one, but the damage had been thoroughly done). Paul Bremer was an idiot who was way out of his league, although from what I understand of First Hand Accounts of the early days of post-invasion no one really knew who exactly was in charge. How or why they picked Bremer for such a monumental task I'll never know. Then there was De-Baathification and shortly after that the insurgency started rearing it's head, and from then on it was just going to be a grind towards nothing, which it was. This is a pretty interesting lecture that brings a lot of this together. I've time stamped for when Leffler starts talking about how Bremer got selected, and the divisions this created within the leadership that led to such an incoherent strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNOYU37Ia8I#t=67m47s
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
limited posted:That's alright, at least it's artistic. He also runs the Tony Blair
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whatever happened to Paul Bremer? From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/opinion/06bremer.html?_r=0 quote:Moreover, we were right to build a new Iraqi Army. Despite all the difficulties encountered, Iraq’s new professional soldiers are the country’s most effective and trusted security force. By contrast, the Baathist-era police force, which we did recall to duty, has proven unreliable and is mistrusted by the very Iraqi people it is supposed to protect. What a stupid little man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Within the green zone, there was a tent with 2 guards, where a Halliburton accountant sat in front of a safe with $3m cash refilled daily. All you needed was an paper invoice to get money, there is no controls other than that. That should tell you the efficiency of rebuilding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:This reads like an onion article. Paul Bremner posted:“Watercolors are more difficult,” he says. “You can’t go back and paint over a mistake like you can in oils.” Pack it in, Onion, reality has overtaken you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
limited posted:That's alright, at least it's artistic. Does this actually involve him doing anything? There's a lot of not-peace in the Middle East right now and he's invisible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:15
|
|
