What the heck is going on over there?!?

[Legion]

The UN charter, which the U.S. signed, states that countries can only attack in self-defense, (and I think perhaps to stop genocide as well). The situation, while appallingly bad, was not genocide. And we were not attacked.

If that is how it reads i can easily see why any government wanting to remove the thrawls of dictators would ignore such a law.

I can also see why the US and its supportors would have a solid case for attacking Iraq.

 

[Clashman]

The terrorists attacked both the red cross and the UN. They are well organized and prepared to take over Iraq as soon as they get a chanse.

As I said before, distinguish between the people doing suicide bombings, who do not have the support of anyone in Iraq, and the people firing RPG's at Humvees, who have the support of significant portions of the population. There are (at least) two or three different groups involved in this. They have different tactics and different motives.

To them there is no difference between the UN and the US. They don´t want democracy in any form or way.

I disagree. And I think that most popular support for the guerrillas would dissipate once the U.S. pulled out.

So it´s important to stop the terrorists first. And to do that all borders must be better controled and more soldiers and police must be patroling the streets in all cities.

As long as the U.S. is in charge, I think there's going to be tons of people lining up waiting to blow their brains out. To stop the terrorists, the U.S. needs to forfeit, or at least vastly reduce, its role in the political, economic, and military reconstruction of the country.

Most countries in the UN will not be interested in getting involved and send troops. Sure they want to get involved politically. But they don´t want to fight a war against terrorist that will hate them and do everything they can to kill UN soldiers.

So I think it will be very difficult to get any serious help from the UN at this point.
It will probably be possible to get some money from the UN. But no military help.

Once again, I (probably not going to shock you on this one) disagree. The people of the world don't want to participate in what they view as an imperialist war to line the pockets of Bush's buddies. I think once it is apparent that the U.S. is not going to benefit from this [edit: AND is taking a role of humility instead of arrogance for a change], people will line up to help the Iraqi people rebuild.

 

[Clashman]

To Mr. Anderson: In all seriousness, how would such a plan be worse than what we have now? Why would attacks and instability increase of the U.S. was no longer running the show? I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's better than what we have now, in that at least it might save a few kids lives.

 

[Legion]

I disagree. And I think that most popular support for the guerrillas would dissipate once the U.S. pulled out.

As would any hope of Iraq becoming a stable nation.

Why do you feel these attacks would stop especially considering the terrorists and their motives?

How do you judge they have support of "significant" portions of the population?

As long as the U.S. is in charge, I think there's going to be tons of people lining up waiting to blow their brains out. To stop the terrorists, the U.S. needs to forfeit, or at least vastly reduce, its role in the political, economic, and military reconstruction of the country.

Honestly i would be far to worried about a number of UN countries trying to establish illegal trade with a number of terrorist factions in the area or setting up a dysfuctional democracy.

Why again do you think the terrorists would be less likely to target soldiers under UN guidance?

Once again, I (probably not going to shock you on this one) disagree. The people of the world don't want to participate in what they view as an imperialist war to line the pockets of Bush's buddies.

I think Anderson would agree that their motives have nothing to do with this at all. Infact many of the countries of the UN have waged their own "imperialistic" wars or are dictatorships bent on exploiting their populaces.

I think once it is apparent that the U.S. is not going to benefit from this [edit: AND is taking a role of humility instead of arrogance for a change], people will line up to help the Iraqi people rebuild.

To leave the UN to take a role of arrogance and for soldiers under their leadership to be attacked.

 

[Legion]

To Mr. Anderson: In all seriousness, how would such a plan be worse than what we have now?

Noting the UN's history with dictators it could be worse. Since many in the UN don't feel obligated to contribute to rebuild Iraq, as anderson said, the Iraq reconstruction would be likely a hack job.

Why would attacks and instability increase of the U.S. was no longer running the show?

I think a better question would be why would they decrese as there are numerous reason why they would increase. I would site neglegence on behalf of the UN as one valid reason.

I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's better than what we have now, in that at least it might save a few kids lives.

How do you know it would be better than we have now?

 

[RM. Andersson]

There are probably two major terrorist groups. Saddam supporters and Islamic terrorists. The Islamic terrorists are part of a international organisation and they know what they are doing. They have a clever plan.

Their first goal is to prevent the UN or other nations from getting involved. That´s why they attack the UN and the red cross.

They also want the costs for the US to be as high as possible. Because they think that eventually the US will have to give up. They think international and US opinion will help them with that.

And if the US leaves Iraq because of that the terrorists will be ready and prepared and a Islamistic totalitarian state will be reality soon.
Unless ,of course, Saddam supporters will win that fight. But I don´t think they will.

The best option, IMO, is to build a very big and powerful army in Iraq that is pro democracy and pro US.
Then the US can support that army with money and state of the art weapons and equipment. That army will depend on US money and weapons. The higher officers will be very loyal to the US because they want money and power and will have a lot to gain personally from supporting US policy.
When this is in place the US can let the loyal Iraq army do all the fighting and will only need to pay for it. It will be much easier for US public opinion to swallow that long term. I guess most people in the US will not think the conflict is a big problem if no or very few US soldiers get hurt.

 

[Clashman]

As would any hope of Iraq becoming a stable nation.

Not if they were replaced with UN peacekeepers.

Why do you feel these attacks would stop especially considering the terrorists and their motives?

Let's differentiate between terrorists and guerrillas. Terrorists deliberately target civilians, like the Red Cross and Mosque bombings we've witnesses recently. Guerrillas are those specifically attacking U.S. military targets. The guerrillas have repeatedly condemned the civilian bombings, which leads me to believe that they are separate groups, with separate motives. Nonetheless, I think a main tenet of both is that they want the U.S. out. If you take the U.S. influence out, that weakens the motive for continued attacks.

How do you judge they have support of "significant" portions of the population?

You know, those crowds dancing around burning U.S. vehicles after they've been hit with roadside bombs? I tend to think that's a bit of a sign. There's also a local reporter here who spent, I think around 5 or 6 months in post-war Iraq, and was one of the first Americans to actually interview the Iraqi guerrillas. She said that, especially recently, Iraqis are turning out in droves against the U.S. occupation. While many of them are not actively involved in the guerrilla uprising themselves, they do have the moral support of vast swaths of the Iraqi population. Even in the Shi'a areas, many are now fed up with the occupation and cheer on the guerrillas.

Honestly i would be far to worried about a number of UN countries trying to establish illegal trade with a number of terrorist factions in the area or setting up a dysfuctional democracy.

On what historical precedent do you base that statement?

Why again do you think the terrorists would be less likely to target soldiers under UN guidance?

Because, frankly, people are more hostile towards the U.S. I don't know if you've followed international opinion for the past year and a half or so, but we are not held in high esteem by anyone except Israel. And I don't think the fact that Israel counts us as their best friends acts as positive reinforcement in Iraq.

I think Anderson would agree that their motives have nothing to do with this at all. Infact many of the countries of the UN have waged their own "imperialistic" wars or are dictatorships bent on exploiting their populaces.

Maybe you're right, maybe it's not an imperialist war. Try telling that to anyone in the Arab/Muslim world. It sure seems as though Bush and Co. have done a good job of making it look like one.

To leave the UN to take a role of arrogance and for soldiers under their leadership to be attacked.

Last I checked, UN soldiers have come under far fewer attacks in their post-war reconstruction efforts than the US has in Iraq. I don't honestly see how you can look at the sitation and think the guerrillas must be taking it easy on the US and are just waiting for the UN to take over so that they can unleash their full wrath. It's just ludicrous.

 

[Clashman]

The best option, IMO, is to build a very big and powerful army in Iraq that is pro democracy and pro US.
Then the US can support that army with money and state of the art weapons and equipment. That army will depend on US money and weapons. The higher officers will be very loyal to the US because they want money and power and will have a lot to gain personally from supporting US policy.

Yup, that sure sounds like pre-'79 Iran, er... I mean democracy, to me.

When this is in place the US can let the loyal Iraq army do all the fighting and will only need to pay for it. It will be much easier for US public opinion to swallow that long term. I guess most people in the US will not think the conflict is a big problem if no or very few US soldiers get hurt.

And how do you suppose they'll raise this massive, pro-U.S. army? Given the situation right now, that sure seems like a stretch.

 

[RM. Andersson]

To Mr. Anderson: In all seriousness, how would such a plan be worse than what we have now? Why would attacks and instability increase of the U.S. was no longer running the show? I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's better than what we have now, in that at least it might save a few kids lives.

As I explained I think a democratic government in Iraq must take over as soon as possible. And that government must be protected by a Iraq army that can be trusted and is pro democray and friendly to the US and the rest of the western world.

Eventually US troops can go home. I think help from the UN would be a good idéa if possible.

 

[RM. Andersson]

The best option, IMO, is to build a very big and powerful army in Iraq that is pro democracy and pro US.
Then the US can support that army with money and state of the art weapons and equipment. That army will depend on US money and weapons. The higher officers will be very loyal to the US because they want money and power and will have a lot to gain personally from supporting US policy.

Yup, that sure sounds like pre-'79 Iran, er... I mean democracy, to me.

When this is in place the US can let the loyal Iraq army do all the fighting and will only need to pay for it. It will be much easier for US public opinion to swallow that long term. I guess most people in the US will not think the conflict is a big problem if no or very few US soldiers get hurt.

And how do you suppose they'll raise this massive, pro-U.S. army? Given the situation right now, that sure seems like a stretch.

The army must be loyal to a real democratic government in Iraq. It´s goal must be to protect democracy and fight terrorists.

I think there are enough people in Iraq that want democracy and would be intersted in joining this army. If they are payed well and there are plenty of personal benefits involved it would probably be possible to find enough people. Of course the officers must be very loyal. But you will only need to find a few hundred pro-democray people that you can really trust fully for those jobs.

 

[Clashman]

Well, what if people come to a democratic agreement that they don't want the U.S. there? It seems like having an Iraqi government that is both pro-US as well as pro-democracy would be hard to come by. People don't like the US right now, so any government taking a pro-US stance is unlikely to be viewed as representative of the Iraqi people.

 

[RussSchultz]

Well, what if people come to a democratic agreement that they don't want the U.S. there? It seems like having an Iraqi government that is both pro-US as well as pro-democracy would be hard to come by. People don't like the US right now, so any government taking a pro-US stance is unlikely to be viewed as representative of the Iraqi people.

This must be why a overwhelming majority of the people polled don't want the coalition to leave in the near future.

 

[Legion]

Not if they were replaced with UN peacekeepers.

If they were replaced by UN "peacekeepers" was what i was suggesting.

Let's differentiate between terrorists and guerrillas. Terrorists deliberately target civilians, like the Red Cross and Mosque bombings we've witnesses recently. Guerrillas are those specifically attacking U.S. military targets.

Is it possible the Guerrillas are attacking US troops because there happen to be more US troops then any other forces present? How are you determining that they that are targeting the US soldiers for reasons specific to the US?

The guerrillas have repeatedly condemned the civilian bombings, which leads me to believe that they are separate groups, with separate motives.

They have? How does this suggest their motives are specifically antiamerican and not antiforeign?

Nonetheless, I think a main tenet of both is that they want the U.S. out.

I think one could logically deduce the reason for this is because the US has the only real presence there and not because there is some specific hatred shared for the US.

If you take the U.S. influence out, that weakens the motive for continued attacks.

That depends on your perception of the attack.

You know, those crowds dancing around burning U.S. vehicles after they've been hit with roadside bombs?

And there are a lot of them? They wouldn't dance around burning UN vehicles if there were more in supply?

I tend to think that's a bit of a sign.

Why? You have no solid evidence of these people's intentions, specific motives, or of their reflection of the Iraqi community.

There's also a local reporter here who spent, I think around 5 or 6 months in post-war Iraq, and was one of the first Americans to actually interview the Iraqi guerrillas. She said that, especially recently, Iraqis are turning out in droves against the U.S. occupation.

Who was this reporter and what news groups posted her material? She said this but did they say this?

While many of them are not actively involved in the guerrilla uprising themselves, they do have the moral support of vast swaths of the Iraqi population. Even in the Shi'a areas, many are now fed up with the occupation and cheer on the guerrillas.

Can you provide mere substantive figures and not terms like "many" or "vast." How do you know they have such support?

On what historical precedent do you base that statement?

Many. The existance of Communist China, Jordanian occupation of the westbank, the toleration of Communist Russia's illegal occupations of various lands, Kosovo, Rwanda, toleration of African slavery, etc. It appears to me the UN's support is really nothing more than a way of them stroking their own ego's.

Because, frankly, people are more hostile towards the U.S.

Who are more hostile?

I don't know if you've followed international opinion for the past year and a half or so, but we are not held in high esteem by anyone except Israel.

We never have been. Generally for reasons they themselves are currently/historically guilty of as well. Why is this so special now?

And I don't think the fact that Israel counts us as their best friends acts as positive reinforcement in Iraq.

Which of course could be viewed as hostility towards the Iraqi reconstruction.

Maybe you're right, maybe it's not an imperialist war. Try telling that to anyone in the Arab/Muslim world.

Try telling them that their fundamentalist dogma has bred centuries of massacres and genocides.

It sure seems as though Bush and Co. have done a good job of making it look like one.

I wonder if the Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda feel similiarly about the UN.

I have no reason to believe the "arab world" feels this way. I only see pockets of resisitance - which of course was predictable.

Last I checked, UN soldiers have come under far fewer attacks in their post-war reconstruction efforts than the US has in Iraq.

Could that also be do to the fact there are less of them in Iraq? Or perhaps they are less involved in situations that would put them in the line of fire?

I don't honestly see how you can look at the sitation and think the guerrillas must be taking it easy on the US and are just waiting for the UN to take over so that they can unleash their full wrath. It's just ludicrous.

I odn't see how you can make so many assumptions as to the specific motives of these so called guerrillas.

 

[Clashman]

This one seems a little more mixed than that:

http://www.epolitix.com/data/html/n...7798E1040A0F463339140C66D000000D8CEC00000.htm

And I wouldn't say this one had Iraqis "Overwhelmingly wanting the U.S. to stay in":

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...1023/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_poll_031023165708

Also, I think you're trying to deliberatly distort my response. I'm not saying that the U.S. should pull out and leave nothing behind. I'm saying they should be replaced by the United Nations personel. That's a big difference, one that none of the polls in Iraq have touched upon. I would like to see an Iraqi poll that said Iraqis "overwhelmingly favor" a U.S. presence to a UN one. If you know where I can find one, please let me know.

 

[RM. Andersson]

Well, what if people come to a democratic agreement that they don't want the U.S. there? It seems like having an Iraqi government that is both pro-US as well as pro-democracy would be hard to come by. People don't like the US right now, so any government taking a pro-US stance is unlikely to be viewed as representative of the Iraqi people.

As soon as that army is in control the US will not need to stay and can go home.

I´m sure a lot of people in Iraq would like the US troops to go home if possible. But they are still friendly and likes the US.
Not wanting US-troops in Iraq is not the same thing as hating the US.
So I don´t think a government that wants friendly relations with the US would be a problem if there are no longer any US troops in Iraq.

The purpose and goal of the army must to protect the Iraqi people and democracy. It must be the peoples army. Not someone that takes orders from the US.

 

[Clashman]

Her name is Hannah Allam. She is a reporter with the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the second largest paper in the state behind the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. You can read an article she wrote awhile ago here:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/6763724.htm
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/4658246.htm

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[DemoCoder]

Clashman, US soldiers won't stop coming under attacks just because they are under UN control, and US soldiers won't want to be under UN control. They want to go home already, you think they want an even longer tour of duty in Iraq, but not even commanded by their own country?

Secondly, the UN has noted that Iraq needs about 250,000 peacekeepers to reach similar ratios to Kosovo. Just where do you think the other 150,000 are going to come from? Keep dreaming. Iraqi's have said they don't want neighboring Muslim countries involved, and other Western nations like France and Germany don't have the resources to contribute.

Sierra Leone is the biggest UN peacekeeping operation in the world, and it only has 17,500 soldiers. You think the UN can raise 250,000 troops to maintain law and order?


Apology? Get real. Ain't never gonna happen, and although I opposed the war on the pretext used, most people did not oppose one of the outcomes: the removal of Saddam. We're sorry we removed Saddam? Germany and Japan were called on to apologize because of the way their armies pillaged, and the total devastation caused by the wars they started. This is no where near that scale.


Finally, there is no way the US is going to pack up and go home, give control to the UN, but continue to pay $87 billion for peacekeeping and reconstruction while rich nations like France and Germany pay nothing, but channel lucrative backdoor contracts through the UN.

On this part I completely agree with the US: If the US is going to foot the majority of the bill, it also reaps the majority of the reward, which is to have most of the political control in the reconstruction process, e.g. dictate how it's funds are used. The principle is that those who pay have a say.


Try again. Your solution is politically naive. It would work if Americans didn't care about $87 billion, or that they have given blood. No president or congress will hand control and money to the UN on top of apologizing for removing Saddam. Japan still hasn't been able to apologize for WW2, and they have way way more to be sorry for.


More over, the idea of US troops with a UN flag automatically becoming non-targets is naive. Have you planned for the fact that maybe this won't be true?


The better outcome is to have another 150,000 Iraqi police and army on the streets under a democratically elected gov.

 

[Clashman]

And I say you're even more naive if you harbor any illusions that this is going to stop as long as the US or any US-backed Iraqi council is in control. It will become the next Palestine, although Palestine is probably too tame to describe Iraq.

 

[Silent_One]

It's No Vietnam
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
October 30, 2003. NYT

Since 9/11, we've seen so much depraved violence we don't notice anymore when we hit a new low. Monday's attacks in Baghdad were a new low. Just stop for one second and contemplate what happened: A suicide bomber, driving an ambulance loaded with explosives, crashed into the Red Cross office and blew himself up on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. This suicide bomber was not restrained by either the sanctity of the Muslim holy day or the sanctity of the Red Cross. All civilizational norms were tossed aside. This is very unnerving. Because the message from these terrorists is: "There are no limits. We have created our own moral universe, where anything we do against Americans or Iraqis who cooperate with them is O.K."

What to do? The first thing is to understand who these people are. There is this notion being peddled by Europeans, the Arab press and the antiwar left that "Iraq" is just Arabic for Vietnam, and we should expect these kinds of attacks from Iraqis wanting to "liberate" their country from "U.S. occupation." These attackers are the Iraqi Vietcong.

Hogwash. The people who mounted the attacks on the Red Cross are not the Iraqi Vietcong. They are the Iraqi Khmer Rouge — a murderous band of Saddam loyalists and Al Qaeda nihilists, who are not killing us so Iraqis can rule themselves. They are killing us so they can rule Iraqis.

Have you noticed that these bombers never say what their political agenda is or whom they represent? They don't want Iraqis to know who they really are. A vast majority of Iraqis would reject them, because these bombers either want to restore Baathism or install bin Ladenism.

Let's get real. What the people who blew up the Red Cross and the Iraqi police fear is not that we're going to permanently occupy Iraq. They fear that we're going to permanently change Iraq. The great irony is that the Baathists and Arab dictators are opposing the U.S. in Iraq because — unlike many leftists — they understand exactly what this war is about. They understand that U.S. power is not being used in Iraq for oil, or imperialism, or to shore up a corrupt status quo, as it was in Vietnam and elsewhere in the Arab world during the cold war. They understand that this is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched — a war of choice to install some democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

Most of the troubles we have encountered in Iraq (and will in the future) are not because of "occupation" but because of "empowerment." The U.S. invasion has overturned a whole set of vested interests, particularly those of Iraq's Sunni Baathist establishment, and begun to empower instead a whole new set of actors: Shiites, Kurds, non-Baathist Sunnis, women and locally elected officials and police. The Qaeda nihilists, the Saddamists, and all the Europeans and the Arab autocrats who had a vested interest in the old status quo are threatened by this.

Many liberals oppose this war because they can't believe that someone as radically conservative as George W. Bush could be mounting such a radically liberal war. Some, though, just don't believe the Bush team will do it right.

The latter has been my concern. Can this administration, whose national security team is so divided, effectively stay the course in Iraq? Has the president's audacity in waging such a revolutionary war outrun his ability to articulate what it's about and to summon Americans for the sacrifices victory will require? Can the president really be a successful radical liberal on Iraq, while being such a radical conservative everywhere else — refusing to dismiss one of his own generals who insults Islam, turning a deaf ear to hints of corruption infecting the new Baghdad government as it's showered with aid dollars, calling on reservists and their families to bear all the burdens of war while slashing taxes for the rich, and undertaking the world's biggest nation-building project with few real allies?

I don't know. But here's what I do know: If Mr. Bush doesn't treat the next year as his second term, when he must do all the right things in Iraq without regard to politics, it is the only second term he's going to see.

 

[DemoCoder]

It won't stop while the US is there, and it won't even stop after elections are over, since no doubt, there will be violence during the elections. It will be a long time before the violence stops and the resisters finally accept the outcome of the election.

But it ain't gonna stop just because the UN is in "control" It may stop the tribal blood feud revenge killings against US troops, but UN control can't placate Sunni's are are angry that they now have lost all the power and privilege they had during Saddam's reign.

It also won't stop foreign terrorists, whose goals don't neccessary have anything to do with just US troop presence. Terrorists attacks soft targets, anywhere they think Westerners have any influence. Was the Bali nightclub a US occupation force?

Bin Laden's group may wish to thwart any Iraq democracy, simply because it may have good relations with the West, possibly peace with Israel, and take away one more haven and excuse for his group. Chaos in Iraqi benefits recruitment for terrorists.


So you're solution is unworkable (and naive), and my solution, which is to simply accept the violence, but strive to get the constitution, election, and Iraqi police/army plus other institutions back to work before we leave is worse than your idea of putting a handful of weak UN peacekeepers in charge?