Iraq-what should we do now?

O.K., we are all familiar with the arguments that perhaps the Bush administration rushed into this based on faulty intelligence and that the WMD thing was way overy-hyped. Reports were "sexed up," dressed-up, and polished-up to give an inaccurate portrayal of what the situation was like on the ground. Inspite of all of this, what should we do now in Iraq? What exit strategy should be pursued that would allow the least amount of Iraqi civilian deaths to occur and for radical Islamists to not come to power there?

Can there be an Iraq not ran by radical Islamists? I am not a Middle East scholar, nor do I live there, so my opinion is just that. If there is no influence by the outside in Iraq, or more specifically, put Iraq into a hermetically sealed container. Essentially you then would have tribal warfare with the most powerful and determined tribe come out on top. To me the key word here is determined. And keep in mind, the most determined and radical group will do anything to come into power.

You can not isolate Iraq by itself, because there will always be outside influence in the Middle East region. Some say because of oil. The US claims we are in Iraq to keep the region stable, fight terror abroad and not at home. Others are there in Iraq, specifically the surrounding Islamic countries, to get the US out.

My opinion is, when we pull out, the tribe that stands for the beliefs of the surrounding Muslim countries will come to power. I believe this will happen no matter how peaceful we leave, or how well trained the Iraq police and army will be. Besides, we are training bakers and storeowners to be military and police. As soon as we are gone how well do you think they will stand up to the Republican Guard when they resurface. We disbanded the army of hundreds of thousands when we arrived, and they are still there.

I think we should train their army, and pull out. I unfortunately think we will always be there. I hope not. The bad thing is, it is too late to handle this diplomatically. It is not just Iraq we need good relations with; it is the entire Middle East, and we have very few friends in the region...if any at all.

I apologize for being long winded and hope after all that rambling I got some sort of point across.

Interesting article in today's Washington Post.

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Click to expand...

Funny, it's maintained that if we leave, chaos will break out and that the whole world will be destroyed in anarchy. I believe that if we do pull out, the foreign rabble-rousers who are creating such havoc will no longer be welcoemd in Iraq. I'd like to see how Bush & Co. will explain this one. It's a shame when the views of the occupied citizens isn't your own.

Divine Forbearance

Having cheated my way through four years of high school Latin, I had to google for the translation of the "Carpe diem” quotes, and came across this delightful page, with translations and sketches:

http://www.waxoil.com/oilwax/life/carpe-diem.php

Reading this thread makes me think of Islam in general as much as Iraq in particular.

Some months ago, I joined

http://www.progressiveislam.org ,

which is founded and run by Laury Silvers, daughter of the late Phil Silvers, comedian of the 1950s-60s situation comedy, "Sergeant Bilko". I was an avid fan of that show during my early childhood.

The above website frequently posts photos of Muslim scenes of worship. Those photos strike me because of one thing in that they all possess in common, namely, an enormous group of identically clad people moving in precise unison. Today, I watched on PBS educational television some film clips of the crowds of one million, encircling the Kaba during Hajj. The next scene was of crowds of Shia males, rhythmically marching/dancing in unison as they flagellate their backs. Such scenes remind me of the society of bees or ants. People who are attracted to such things find beauty and strength, security and comfort in conformity. There is safety in numbers.

Personally I detest conformity. I admire freedom and individuality. After years of experimenting with various different religions and forms of corporate, congregational worship, I reject it as something unrewarding, and choose instead, solitary, introspective activity producing words and ideas.

During the first two years of the Prophet Mohammed’s ministry, the direction of Kibla or bowing was Jerusalem. There is an account in the Hadith about the day when, during public prayer, the Prophet was bowing toward Jerusalem, when suddenly, he leapt up, swung about, and bowed to Mecca. Of course, the entire crowd who was following him, also leapt up and swung about. Allah has revealed His will. The Kaba was now captured and cleansed, and a suitable direction for bowing. However does someone like Thoreau or Jefferson or T.S. Eliot or Camus or Emily Dickenson come to be and thrive in such a culture?

Freedom and Democracy are words which point to certain ideas, beliefs and values.

It is hard for us to comprehend the mind-set of peoples in a distant land of such radically different culture and religion.

We cannot help but notice how angry Muslims become if they feel that Islam or their Prophet Mohammed has been insulted. The remarks of Pope Benedict are only one recent example of such a reaction. There is one Surah in the Qur'an which goes on at some great length about some old man and woman who insulted Mohammed. That Surah elaborates how wretched things will be for that old man and his wife in the afterlife.

It is curious to compare such reactions of indignation with the passages in the Gospels where one is told to expected to be insulted and reviled and deemed the off-scourings of the earth, and falsely accused of various things. America and Australia were magnets for misfits and nere-do-wells who don't quite fit in where they came from.

I compare the Christian world's reaction to Kazanzakis' "The Last Temptation" with the Islamic world’s reaction to Rushdie's "Satanic Verses."

In the 16th century, Tulsidas, who re-wrote the Ramayan epic in Hindi, stated that “God abides in forbearance.” Forbearance and equanimity are two very important keywords for me.

If there is a supreme being behind all this creation of ours, then I find it hard to image such a being getting very angry or very pleased about any one particular person or event.

Don't worry about Iraq - think Iran

A declassified CIA document now says that the world is more dangerous since the USA started their Holy War on Terror. Iraq is a mess of a country being torn apart by civil strife and is no longer a safety valve to keep those crazy Iranians in check. Iran will thus proceed to dominate Iraq and extend its influence across the region.

My friends, I think we're screwed! There's nothing to do about Iraq. The sad truth is, the world needed a passive dictator like Saddam in Iraq to keep an agressive fundamentalist country like Iran under control. The USA won't likely start an open war against Iran because that would get all the Islamic fundamentalists on the rise. They can't put a new dictator there for appearence's sake either. And if they leave they'll just speed up the process of Iraq being swallowed by Iran.

I say we just wait for Iran to get Nuclear Bombs and sort this out in WWIII. Until then, let's just enjoy ourselves.

Heteronym said:

I say we just wait for Iran to get Nuclear Bombs and sort this out in WWIII. Until then, let's just enjoy ourselves.

Click to expand...

Why would Iran be stupid enough to start WWIII? They want nuclear weapons for the same reason that anyone else wants them: as a deterrent against other nuclear-armed countries.

Interesting discussions going on here, and I'm enjoying it. I find myself as the only apperance here who is living in the Middle East and you don't how much I find it thought-provoking to discuss such matters.

I find Iraq as a very complex situation. Many people here (in the Middle East) have different ideas about the War in Iraq, but there's a majority who believe that this war is intended to target the Muslim lands and it's resources, and thus have a strong hatred against their invader i.e. the US and their allies. That's why many Muslims around the world try to revenge in some ways.

Well, I personally see that the US goverment is happy to stay in Iraq as long as it takes and benifits the unstable situation so that there isn't a unified force against it, but rather different armed mililtia from different sects who sometimes aim their weapons on each other. The greater pressure the US goverment is targeted with is the pressure from it's own citizens. After all, I restate my theory that it's more complex and what's happening under the table is what matters and what appears to the public is just 25% ( you might as well call it the ice-berg theory )

Wintergreen said:

Why would Iran be stupid enough to start WWIII?

Click to expand...

You mean, besides the fact that they're human beings

I didn't mean to say Iran would start WWIII. No one plans a world war, it just happens. And I'm afraid everyone is working together to make sure it'll happen. The nuclear weapons race on the rise again, worldwide hatred for the USA, paranoia over oil supply, complete disrespect for diplomacy and international laws, religious fundamentalism on the spread. It's a scary world, and scared people are unpredictable.

Samerron said:

Interesting discussions going on here, and I'm enjoying it. I find myself as the only apperance here who is living in the Middle East and you don't how much I find it thought-provoking to discuss such matters.

I find Iraq as a very complex situation. Many people here (in the Middle East) have different ideas about the War in Iraq, but there's a majority who believe that this war is intended to target the Muslim lands and it's resources, and thus have a strong hatred against their invader i.e. the US and their allies. That's why many Muslims around the world try to revenge in some ways.

Well, I personally see that the US goverment is happy to stay in Iraq as long as it takes and benifits the unstable situation so that there isn't a unified force against it, but rather different armed mililtia from different sects who sometimes aim their weapons on each other. The greater pressure the US goverment is targeted with is the pressure from it's own citizens. After all, I restate my theory that it's more complex and what's happening under the table is what matters and what appears to the public is just 25% ( you might as well call it the ice-berg theory )

Click to expand...

It is great to get some input from a non-western point of view!

I know many Americans who say "who cares what other people think about us!" When speaking of how international community views us. I think they are missing the point, we should always try to see ourselves as others see us. It may not be too much farther up the pike when the table could turn. Bottom line...we all need to be more emphatic!

Funny, the USA doesn't care what the world thinks, and the world can't take its eyes off America

Oh but many, many Americans care very much what the rest of the world thinks of us. And more importantly what we think of ourselves. These good people just aren't in power right now, but hopefully that will change in the next couple of years. Because of our processes, change here doesn't happen overnight. This is a very stable society that moves in seemingly imperceptible increments. But there are many who have learned the brutal, bitter lesson of the falsehoods that brought us into Iraq. Many people will make it a point to vote against those who cooked up this mess.
I can't imagine when it's going to be safe to pull out of Iraq. I think we should do what the majority of Iraqis want. I feel so inadequate to this topic.

The Turtle and the Scorpion

Samerron said:

Interesting discussions going on here, and I'm enjoying it. I find myself as the only apperance here who is living in the Middle East and you don't how much I find it thought-provoking to discuss such matters.

I find Iraq as a very complex situation. Many people here (in the Middle East) have different ideas about the War in Iraq, but there's a majority who believe that this war is intended to target the Muslim lands and it's resources, and thus have a strong hatred against their invader i.e. the US and their allies. That's why many Muslims around the world try to revenge in some ways.

Well, I personally see that the US goverment is happy to stay in Iraq as long as it takes and benifits the unstable situation so that there isn't a unified force against it, but rather different armed mililtia from different sects who sometimes aim their weapons on each other. The greater pressure the US goverment is targeted with is the pressure from it's own citizens. After all, I restate my theory that it's more complex and what's happening under the table is what matters and what appears to the public is just 25% ( you might as well call it the ice-berg theory )

Click to expand...

I must share with you all this one joke, which is pertinent to this thread.

Once upon a time, there was a turtle who lived on the banks of the Jordan river. One day, a scorpion came along, and said to the turtle "Oh please Mr. Turtle, wont you help me get to the other side of this river, to visit my mother." The turtle was very reluctant and said, "But, Mister Scorpion, it is well known by all that you have a fatal sting and a mean temper. I am afraid that if I take you across the river, that you will sting me."

Mr. Scorpion said, "Oh, no , my brother, you have my solemn word. If you do me this favor, you will be helping me so much. Why would I ever bring harm to such a benefactor as you."

The turtle said, "Very well, then. I will trust you. Hop on my back and I will swim across the river, and you can get off safely on the other side."

When the turtle reached the middle of the stream, the scorpion stung the turtle in the head. The turtle screamed in horror, "Why did you do that!? Now, I will die and sink, and we shall both die, because when I sink, you will drown."

The scorpion shrugged his shoulders and replied, "What can I tell you. This is the Middle-East!"

I don't mean to be a "post hog", but I am sitting here, as the witching hour approaches, sipping my Coors Light, and additional thoughts come to mind, that are pertinent to this thread.

Gandhi was famous for saying, "Ahimsa is the highest form of Dharma" which, translated out of Sanskrit-Hindi into plain English means, "Non-Violence is the highest form of righteousness." The last time I mentioned this, some clever fellow wrote me to ask what the LOWEST form of righteousness might be. I had an equally clever answer for him, which I shall post tomorrow.

Anyway, if hypothetically, one were to take Gandhi's wisdom to heart, then one would choose death or slavery rather than engage in violence. Some years ago, I pointed out that, if the entire world took Gandhi's words to heart, and , tomorrow, en masse, converted to Islam for the sake of world peace, why, there would still be bloodshed, because of sectarian divisions within Islam itself.

Now, if one looks at the nature of Islam, and its origins from the Prophet Muhammed and the Qur'an, one would assume that all Muslims would be of one mind, and be monolithic. The fact is that Muslims are divided into Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, etc. In fact, there are dozens if not hundreds of divisions in Islam over the centuries. If you read Moses Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed", you will often see mentions of the Mutakallimum, who Maimonides opposed, who were a rationalist sect among Muslims. Hadith mentions something about Mohammed saying that, "There will be 73 sects of Islam, and only one shall be correct." Over the centuries, Islamic theologians have performed various mental contortions to hammer all the various sects into just 73 to conform with the Prophet's prediction.

It is the sectarian devisiveness of Muslims which saves the world from a greater degree of Islamic colonial aggression. Could you imagine the force of Islam if one sixth of the worlds population, the one billion plus Muslims, were a monolithic cohesive united and determined force of unilateral will!?

I have tried to pose reasons why of necessity there must always be sectarian division in any ideology, in a post entitled "The Survival Advantages of Mortality and Discord."

There are genetic and evolutionary reasons why we can never all agree on any one issue of great importance.

The other thing which saves us from further agression is the seductive nature of Nike, Revlon, and McDonalds (not to mention Anheiser Bush breweries).

and don't forget NK

Flor, I too feel rather inadequately equipped to reply to this topic, but as a vo0ter in a Western country, my opinion matters (to me at least)

I think we should take what has happened in Iraq as an indicator of how not to handle the current North Korea situation. Granted, the circumstances are different (Iraq, from all acquired evidence, did not have WMD, while North Korea are at least carrying out nuclear testing). I think we have all learned that charging in, guns blazing, is only going to foster negative international relations, which may lead to WW3. WW3, unfortunately, will never be a replica of WW2, just as WW2 was vastly different to the first World War. Unfortunately we have entered the age of nuclear arms, which makes the possibility of WW3 an extremely terrifying notion.

Why has Bush gotten away with this? I understand why technically, of course, but I assume he will be voted out in the next election? My friends in the US with a shred of humanitarian compassion, tell me I'm right!

Anyway, to answer the question.....I don't know what we should do now.Various MPs here are promising withdrawal of Australian troops after the next election, but you know politicians. Does anyone know what we should do? Was there a plan going in about what would happen after Saddam was overthrown? Was Bush not warned that it would throw the nation of Iraq into turmoil, not to mention affording nearby nations the opportunity to exploit a now weakened nation? I don't think western soldiers have the training to uphold a country recently robbed of its leader.

Mmmm...not a very informed post, I'm sorry. This is something that I do feel strongly about, I just don't know what we should do.

Peronel, you're doing everything you can by remaining a voter in your neck of the woods. Bush can't run again. But he's not the problem. He's an affable front man for some people who have waited years and years to have control of the House and Senate here. Some people call them right wingers, neocons, ultra conservatives. Whatever the name, those are the people I think we all have to watch out for, in whatever country. Their "conservatism" has been very costly and, as a whole, they operate in a dogmatic fashion. And I'm thinking they may have blown their wad with the deceitful manueverings that first hollered "regime change" then, when that didn't whip up enough sentiment, "WMD", now "maintaining democracy". Many here are tired of the gamesmanship and attempts to exploit public sentiment. The neocons wanted Saddam from the very beginnings of the Bush admin; they should have said so, used their mandate in Congress and gone balls to the wall to get public support to get him for honest reasons, just the fact that he was a vicious dictator. Which is sort of what they did, only they used the emotions of the people after 9/11 to bolster what I believe they knew were flimsy intelligence reports. I really don't think it was about the oil. It was going to happen regardless, like a train wreck, because the ultras don't look to the left or right when they are on a path they feel is ordained and favored. They zigged to Iraq when they should have zagged to go fully after AlQaeda, imho. It's so complicated and I'm getting rambly, but I'm voting for social liberals with pocketbook sense. Still doesn't answer your question!

Well, things should get interesting in the states. With the democrats taking the house and senate, Bush won't get his way on Iraq. Hopefully, something good will come about because of this. He's had six years to do what he wants and he screwed up.

Also Rumsfield is not calling the shots anymore, so with that and the Dems controlling house and senate I agree, it should get interesting...

Justin91 said:

Also Rumsfield is not calling the shots anymore, so with that and the Dems controlling house and senate I agree, it should get interesting...

Click to expand...

Now that was a shock. Even last week, the president was adamant about having Rumsfeld with him for the duration of his term. So much for all that loyalty garbage he and his cronies allegedly have for one another.

I guess Rumsfield wanted to resign before, but he waited for the right moment...he's the scapegoat.