It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the future of iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   
As Iraq descends back into a state of all-out war, it is becoming increasingly clear that there can be no short term solution for the problems in the country. The creation of a democratic state in iraq, which has been the central objective of the coalition forces (for iraq itself rather than self-interest issues such as oil, I mean) seems totally unworkable in the current military climate and is perhaps even unworkable in the long term due to the deep rooted ethnic hatred in the Iraqi state.

For the creation of a peaceful and democratic Iraqi state to be possible, these ethnic differences must be eroded to the extent where people become human first and sunni, kurd or shiite second. This is the central problem for the coalition forces. By entering iraq, setting up military rule, and attempting to create a viable democratic state within a year, the coalition has given themselves an unworkable timescale to solve differences that have lasted centuries. Democracy cannot be transplanted onto a state as volatile as Iraq and there is therefore no possibility of a short term solution.

Furthermore, even if ethnic differences are resolved (and in my opinion, looking at the Ireland troubles, this could take upwards of fifty years before any improvements at all are registered) an Iraqi state governed by a shiite majority would almost certainly become an Iranian pawn, thus creating an anti-west hegemonic power in the middle east. This would obviously be totally unacceptable for the west and is therefore a political impossibility. So thats short and long term democracy for Iraq ruled out.

And so I turn to the three-state solution, which creates even more problems than the last scenario. The shiite state would be absorbed into Iran, leaving the Sunni state isolated militarily and politically and creating unworkable political instability in the region. The Kurdish state in the north would either lead to mass migration of Kurds from surrounding areas, or requests for their own sovereign land. Again this is unworkable.

So my question is: Is there a solution to the problems in iraq?

And before any of you say it, it IS our problem. We invaded and we therefore have a moral, political and legal responsibility to sort the mess out. Evacuation of troops is not an option.




posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
solution, is to let them have their islamic state, force burkas on the women, etc, etc, what ever laws they want. Just make sure they have no capabilities to have a military force or develop weapons. Let them rebuild and deal with their country and their people as they wish. If they want to kill kurds, shi'ites or sunnis, let them go ahead, genocide happens all the time and we don't get involve...look at rwanda. Let them fight for their own rights, laws, etc, among themselves.

it may not be the most thought out solution, but i say let them be. They will be fighting among themselves and won't be able to blame anyone else but themselves for their failures and poverty.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
i know what you mean, and i think that the solution may have to be based on accepting violence as unavoidable for decades.

But doesnt this leave us back where we started? are we now saying iraq was better off socially and politically under saddam than it is now?



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
i think we all agree that Saddam was a bad man, however, instead of invading and submitting the country to shock and awe under the false pretense of WMD's threat, was not the way to go about removing him.

Covert operations, secret funding, instigating rebellions, that sort of tactic should have been used, allowing the Iraqi people to make the change for themselves if they really wanted it.

so by the way in which saddam was removed, it left the country in a worse situation that it was in while saddam was in office...understand what i'm trying to say?



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
yes, i understand what you say, but a political vacuum would be created regardless of the methods used to remove saddam.

the central problem with post-war iraq is that there is no natural successor to saddam (not that i want him back) and no natural solution to the deep rooted problems there.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
No, there isn't a solution. At least there isn't a short term one. These people have been fighting over the same land and the same unprovable religious dogma for almost all of their recorded history. Why would anyone think they will stop now?

We could pull out completely and it wouldn't make any difference. If there is no one else to fight, they will fight each other, even if they have to invent reasons to do it. Sadly, there is no hope at all for the current generation of Islamic Fundimentalists. I'm afraid they are going to make us kill them all. Unfortunately, we have to stay there. We can't leave. To do so would be to doom the world to Islamic Holy War as long as these Fanatics exist. We are going to have to drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, or they are going to try to drag all of us back to the 6th Century. I'm not just talking about Iraq now, but they are the test case.

I've said this before, but their hatred is toward Western Culture and what it represents. The US just happens to be the biggest and most extreme example of it.

What are the biggest differences between Western Culture and their Theocratic States?

1. Freedom to Worship how you want.
2. Increased Freedom for Women

Both of these things undermine their powerbase to the point that they know that our Culture spells the eventual end of their current way of life. They will band together to fight us rather than give up their religious excuses to pillage and plunder their people and enslave 50% of their population.

We have to be there for a long, long time. Culture is can only be absorbed by osmosis. This process takes time, but it absolutely must happen. Their barbarian culture has no place in a world where technology brings us all so close together.

Oh, the oil. Well sure. At once their greatest resource and their most lethal curse. With the oil comes people to buy it. Then you have money and all the things that come with it, like the rest of Western Culture.

The future of Iraq is going to be a rough ride, for us and them. It may take a generation until enough people can be born and raised without being tought that God wants them to hate.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
i think we all agree that Saddam was a bad man, however, instead of invading and submitting the country to shock and awe under the false pretense of WMD's threat, was not the way to go about removing him.Exactly, look how they removed Jessica Lynch, I know thats a weird example, but their intelligence is better then just dropping bombs like shock and awe, they could of removed him without shock and awe....

Covert operations, secret funding, instigating rebellions, that sort of tactic should have been used, allowing the Iraqi people to make the change for themselves if they really wanted it.
I agree.................. Everybody knows they saw the American gov/military/media/agencies as the Great White Satan, why would they now want them in there to set up a government when they don't like how them in the first place??? That's why I say American gov has an agenda, and they just simply have no regard for the people of Iraq..... Hence all the gun battles today.... Iraqi people are not going to give up their country to the "great white satan"
so by the way in which saddam was removed, it left the country in a worse situation that it was in while saddam was in office...understand what i'm trying to say?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join