To win a moral victory in Iraq, I agree with everything you say. Sadly however, realism dictates otherwise. Right now, the people in Iraq with the clearest political agenda are Al-Qaeda terrorists. Shiities, Sunnis, Kurds, overseas exiles etc. etc. now all jostling for power. Coupled with the insurgency, Iraq will really fall into pieces without the US. All those new Iraqi policemen and soldiers surrendered to al-Sadr's militia in Najaf and many even joined him.Originally posted by Viper52:I have no doubt of this fact, nor do I wish for the US to pullout or to lose in Iraq. The consequences of that would be terrible for the world. Neither am I interested in "I told you so" to the pro-war gallery.
But that is the exact reason why I'm pissed to death of the actions of the Americans. Yes, Saddam had to go, but surely that could be waited till Al-Qaeda was weakened even further. At the very least, with Saddam in charge, no way in hell Al-Qaeda would run wild in Iraq.
But take a look at current US actions in Iraq. Is it working towards that end which it claims to be working towards? It is playing favourites and sidelining groups who MUST have a say in the process of nation-building in Iraq. They must work with people like Ayatollah al-Sistani (to sideline Sadr) in Southern Iraq and even the Sunni groups who fervently resist them in places like Falluja and Ramadi. And no most of them are not Al-Qaeda, they just do not want to be marginalized in the new Iraq and American actions are doing precisely that.
Winning the peace in Iraq will not be accomplished by M1A2s, JDAMs and bullets. It will be won by Bush first admitting he was wrong to invade, to put a truly representative Iraqi government in place and cedeing control of Iraq to the UN with American troops serving under a UN banner. The UN has many faults, but at the very least, it is a lot more of an honest broker than the Americans.
And one last thing, get the "contractors" out of Iraq. If one looks deeper into these, they would realise these people are operating out of American civil and military law, as well as local Iraqi law. Legalized banditry in other words.
The problem in this case is, you cannot achieve a military victory over Al-Qaeda in Iraq without first winning the moral victory. There are 100,000 Yanks in Iraq, with a couple of thousand Al Qaeda (Again, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are NOT Al Qaeda). The Iraqis see the Yanks and the occupiers and the biggest problem, simply because they are more high profile. That does not mean they support Al Qaeda. Only by winning a moral victory and convincing the Iraqi people that they are working for Iraq, can the Iraqis see that the biggest threat to their country is from Al Qaeda.Originally posted by Langley:To win a moral victory in Iraq, I agree with everything you say. Sadly however, realism dictates otherwise. Right now, the people in Iraq with the clearest political agenda are Al-Qaeda terrorists. Shiities, Sunnis, Kurds, overseas exiles etc. etc. now all jostling for power. Coupled with the insurgency, Iraq will really fall into pieces without the US. All those new Iraqi policemen and soldiers surrendered to al-Sadr's militia in Najaf and many even joined him.
A UN command may bring more legitimacy but it sux big-time in military operations. Somalia was under UN control and look how it turned out. Since then, the US has, quite rightly, insisted on the right of command.
Originally posted by Viper52:The problem in this case is, you cannot achieve a military victory over Al-Qaeda in Iraq without first winning the moral victory. There are 100,000 Yanks in Iraq, with a couple of thousand Al Qaeda (Again, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are NOT Al Qaeda). The Iraqis see the Yanks and the occupiers and the biggest problem, simply because they are more high profile. That does not mean they support Al Qaeda. Only by winning a moral victory and convincing the Iraqi people that they are working for Iraq, can the Iraqis see that the biggest threat to their country is from Al Qaeda.
Somalia was under UN Command, but the Americans in the Battle of Bakara Market were under US Command not the UN. Why pick Somalia as an example of UN inadequacy where there are success stories like Cambodia? And lots of US military interventions caused more problems than they solved.
All you say is true. But I dun think a moral victory is that easy to achieve. I use an analogy from inter-personal relationships. You may do everything to make people around you like you. But still, it may not work. There are always gonna be people who dun like you despite all that you do because they are prejudiced against you. From what I understand of Arab psychology, they are a people who nurse very deeply-held grievances and do not easily forget and forgive. From the Al-Qaeda terrorist to the ordinary Arabs with their tribal blood vendettas, I sometimes think it is useless to argue or talk reason with them because they let emotions get to their head.Originally posted by Viper52:The problem in this case is, you cannot achieve a military victory over Al-Qaeda in Iraq without first winning the moral victory. There are 100,000 Yanks in Iraq, with a couple of thousand Al Qaeda (Again, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are NOT Al Qaeda). The Iraqis see the Yanks and the occupiers and the biggest problem, simply because they are more high profile. That does not mean they support Al Qaeda. Only by winning a moral victory and convincing the Iraqi people that they are working for Iraq, can the Iraqis see that the biggest threat to their country is from Al Qaeda.
Somalia was under UN Command, but the Americans in the Battle of Bakara Market were under US Command not the UN. Why pick Somalia as an example of UN inadequacy where there are success stories like Cambodia? And lots of US military interventions caused more problems than they solved.
You're absolutely right, a moral victory against will not be easy to achieve, but there is absolutely no other way.Originally posted by Langley:All you say is true. But I dun think a moral victory is that easy to achieve....