War isn’t a surgeons knife. It is indiscriminate in nature. I would strongly disagree with the idea you present - that we could build a better Iraq with bombs. Saddam was was wretched, but he was in many ways a product of his environment. Given the internal contradictions of Iraq the state required a strongman. It was the only way to contain sectarian strife and ensure the rule of law.
It appears ISIS is avoiding the Kurds for now while they focus on Maliki. They’re also moving with surprising speed, using captured supplies to sustain their offensive. This is an experienced and disciplined force - operating with the support of the Sunni tribes. They could very well topple the government.
That’s always the rub isn’t it. Some situations are so inherently unstable that no amount of military intervention can fix it. Long term occupation and use of force to maintain peace is about the best that’s possible.
I said nothing of the sort; I said it might have been better, because sure as shootin’ what we ended up with was awful, and it could hardly have been worse. I also at least strongly implied that I feel the entire invasion was unwise, even if justifiable from some legalistic point of view. In fact, I agree that you can’t bomb a country into improvement, though there might be a case where the removal of a person or a cadre might improve things. But usually, it just makes things worse with unintended consequences.
The destruction of the Iraqi state destroyed the very idea of an Iraq. To make matters worse, we created a political system that enfranchised sectarian identities and in turn promote sectarian strife. The whole thing was madness, top to bottom.
I would disagree, I think it can be in certain situations. It’s certainly not a one-size-fits-all tool that can better any circumstances but it’s defensible in certain situations. Iraq wasn’t one of those situations though.
Good to hear. I’m glad that’s stopped. I wonder if people are lining up to thank us for killing a ton of people and triggering a descent into lawlessness and civil war in exchange for this improvement? I’m guessing not.
Well, I don’t really see “inept” here, I see a deal cut between the Islamists and some clan leaders.
The central leadership? Yea, they’re inept, as shown in their complete inability to suppress Islamists in their heartlands, but it’s not really due to lack of force…
Crazy conspiracy-theory talk: Perhaps the Iranians are hoping that Iraq falls apart so they can claim Basrah, etc., hence the lack of strong response from the Shiites in Iraq. Is it even conceivable for Iran and Turkey to conspire over Iraq? I find that hard to believe, but I don’t know who else the Iranians would be conspiring with around there instead. Obviously ISIS and Iran are enemies, or should be, anyway. Could they make a deal with the Kurds? Also seems unlikely, but perhaps at least conceivable.
Seems a bit much that it would be coordinated, but I could see Iranian forces coming into Iraq to help the Shiite government. Hell, I can see the Iraqi government inviting Iranians in.
How could he not get a majority much less a quorum for a state of emergency when they’ve lost their own cities to an invader? I realize it’s a minority government, but come on. Surely there is some provision for martial law if the MPs refuse even to show up?
I’ve been thinking about this all day, and I’m honestly wondering if this is something we should even try to prevent. It seems like the most likely outcome is partition, with Kurdistan going its own way, the southeast falling into Iran’s sphere completely (probably as a puppet regime rather than outright annexation), and the rest sort of merging with Syria into an anarchic mess. The probable outcome of this realignment:
Kurdistan has a chance to improve. They’ve already done a good job as a semi-autonomous entity within the Iraqi state, but being able to cut loose from the basket case that is the rest of the country can only help them. The biggest challenge I see is the resulting tension with Turkey as the least integrated (and worst treated) ethnicity in Turkey now has an ethnic nation-state right next door, tempting them to try to secede.
The Shiite east will probably stay about like it is currently. It’s a shithole, but being under the explicit protection of a neighbor with regional aspirations might protect it from ISIS.
ISIS territory (aka everywhere else) will get worse. I don’t know if it’ll be a lot worse, because how much space is there below the current status quo? Consolidation with Syrian rebels might finally put an end to Assad, and at this point I think just ending that goddamn civil war is the best thing that can happen, regardless of what kind of assholes it puts in power. Or we could just end up with a Somali-esque hellhole. But honestly, I think the best possible outcome is an anti-American Islamist state. I’m sure we can somehow endure one more hostile regime in the world, and unless they get into Joseph Kony or Lil’ Kim territory any government is better than no government.
None of this is a good thing (except Kurdistan becoming independent), but is there a realistic outcome that’s any better? If so, is that outcome worth the blood and treasure we’d have to spend to get it?
The difference between “lawful” and “lawless” stops having a whole lot of meaning when the law says that the government can arbitrarilly decide to torture, rape, and murder you.
In most societies, the law is intended to protect you from things like that. In Iraq, the law was a facilitator of those horrors.
That’s really not an issue any longer. Turkey has become the enabler of kurdistans success since the US withdrawal and the relations between Iraqi Kurds and turkey are dramatically better than they were just a few years ago.
The building boom in Kurdistan has been done through Turkish construction companies, the new malls in Kurdistan are serviced by Turkish retail companies and the Kurds huge oil and gas reserves are flowing to turkey. The coalition government is so pissed off at the Kurds and Turks that they have basically stopped giving the Kurds their share of oil revenue and Kurds in turn have completely shut the Baghdad government out of any of the money come in via the Turkish pipelines.
Turkey needs the gas and oil the Kurds have, the Kurds need the money and protection of the Turks so far at least the time being they are all buddy-buddy.
The Sunni groups aren’t going to side with Maliki. The Kurds quite frankly are pretty happy because this chaos enables them to consolidate their independence from the south. The only support Maliki could really hope to get is from other Shia groups and with Maliki having always been a proxy of al-sadr and the Iranians, I would imagine a fair number of Shia groups are looking to cut their own deals.
I’m really glad to hear that. I know Turkey has had longstanding problems with their Kurdish population, and given the current Turkish government’s bad habits I expected them to also be stirring the pot of ethnic antagonism.
By the way, I found an excellent article written by someone from the Army War College.
No doubt, but I can see the Kurds putting up a much stiffer resistance than what the Iraqi defence forces gave. My impression is that the Iraqis essentially handed over the keys to the city to a much smaller force. There’s little likelihood that the Kurds would do that.
