Things Get Worse

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
Have we now reached a civil war situation?

On the all time list of Foreign Policy disasters this one is starting to take its place on the historical pantheon, with barely any of the objectives seemingly being met. The WMD falicy is clearly exposed beyond all reasonable doubt now. But its the numbers that are starting to add up now with a seemingly irreversable momentum that is something we just can't carry on ignoring.

Now I accept that gathering reliable information is tough bordering on the impossible, but I'll submit the following on the day that another 150 are killed in a bomb blast, for thought.

Not deterred by his WMD and 45 minute assertion, Tony Blair stated in November 2003, that the allies had uncovered the graves of 400,000 Iraqi's. He repeated the claim in December on the Labour Party Website. "The remains of 400,000 humans have already been found in mass graves". Now although this wouldn't be impossible in terms of a percentage body count of a population, it seems unlikely. Rwanada, Cambodia and the Holocaust would have been higher, and although Saddam undoubtedly ruled with an Iron fist, and wasn't adverse to mudering opponents, I'm struggling to believe he could have been operating on this scale. Even if we take Blair's figures though (Downing Street later revised the figure to 5,000 in the Summer of 2004 after an investigation by the Observer incidentally). Then last months UN report that put the figure for 2006, at 34,000 is starting to make very uncomfortable reading for those who have sought to shift the wars justification and objectives into areas such as democracy and freedom etc

Saddam came to power in 1979 and was toppled in 2003. Now even I can work out that means about 24 years. In crude terms according to Blair he was killing something like 16,600 per year therefore.

Or to view it another way, the consensus seems to be that things are likely to continue to detriorate. If we continue to cause death at a rate of 34,000 PA, then over the same time period of 24 years, we're on target to kill 816,000 :what: Crudely twice as many as Saddam

Now I realise this is a gross over simplification of disputable figures, but at what point do we start to conceed that the Iraqi's might have been better off under Saddam? I'd have thought your capacity to survive a brutal Dictator with a well established command and control and civil obedience regime is higher, than one of indiscriminate sectarian civil war when the command and control of a society has broken down
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Feb 3 2007, 11:44 PM
but at what point do we start to conceed that the Iraqi's might have been better off under Saddam?
Click to expand...
We don't.

We sort the problem out and if that means more troops, then we should send more troops. I love the way it is the same people who are most opposed to this that are the same people who love to use the civil-war/half-a-job argument against the politicians.

Also are you advocating that we should not have tried to save the lives of innocent Iraqis from their brutal dictator in case we failed?

Surely better to try and fail, than not try at all.
 
What part of the history of the world made people think that, no matter how successful (or not) the US/UK campaign turned out to be, civil war wasn't completely inevitable anyway?
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Feb 4 2007, 01:24 AM
Surely better to try and fail, than not try at all.
Click to expand...
I agree here, no one expected it to turn out as bad as this but at least they have tried to help the innocent iraqi's by removing Saddam.
 
Good point Gareth....

It seems perverse to say that someone who quite happily gassed thousands of his countrymen doesnt quite qualify as a truely awful dictator. Myabe just a bit of a badly behaved one eh?

Has it occured to anyone too that the civil war might juts be the fault of the Iraqis? Big mistakes in execution of the invasion and so on, but was it so very utopian to have expected the country to seize the chance for a thriving democracy which could develop? Perhaps so. Such a hate filled part of the world.

and i agree that it was better to have tried. I would happily endorse the west knocking over a few other disgusting regimes and attempting to kick start countries into our way of life

The western style liberal democratic model has completely and totally and comprehensively, sent packing any other style of goverment you can care to mention. Something we should be proud of.....
 
Also note an "administration error" resulted in 15 17 year olds being sent to Iraq, against the policy of the MOD of not sending anyone under the age of 18 into a combat zone.

Apparently they were all out within 3 weeks so it's ok :)
 
Originally posted by Colin Phillips@Feb 4 2007, 12:17 PM
Touch of tautology there, Clive!
Click to expand...
:lol:

I assume he's advocating liberal militarism.

I think there's a number of factors that need to be considered, and I for one don't sign up for the better to have tried idea, which I think is naive. The country is an artificial creation in the first place that resulted from previous western impositions of convenience. That it brought together 3 distinct groups meant that it was a powder keg waiting to happen, and this was foreseeable. That Bush thought he was going to walk in to a heroes reception was just blind arrogance or ignorance.

Saddam realised the parlous state he had, and not unlike many other leaders whose grip on power was tenuous, he set about putting a repressive apparatus in place, to ensure his survival. How many people he murdered remains debateble, we don't know, but as Downing Street now admits, it's not remotely close to the scale originally claimed. Indeed more Iraqi's would have been killed in a war against a neighbour which we in the West were only too happy to encourage given that it was being waged against a fundamentalist Islamic country.

What you had prior to this ill-conceived war was a repressive regime that was able to impart a degree of internal stability on a secular state, through a brutal iron fist. Had he been left in power (and its not as if the West hasn't been prepared to turn blind eyes to worse offenders in the past, and even fund them from time to time) then there's no reason to believe that Iraq today would be any different to what it was in 2001 say?

What we now have I believe is the following

* A country that hitherto wasn't, now showcasing global Islamic militancy/ terrorism
* In doing so, this country where radical Islam had no foothold, now serves as the best recruiting sergeant AQ could have asked for, even more so given that its a Frankenstein monster of our creation, that AQ couldn't have banked on having at their disposal. In other words a gift wrap conflict in a country where they had no influence, thats sufficiently remote from them so as not to threaten them either.
* Valuable resources in terms of manpower, hardware and finance being directed into solving (or failing to solve something) that never existed in the first place, and thus diverting attention from more legitimate priorities
* Regional threats (ultimately more dangerous ones) being allowed to go comparatively unchecked
* A steady stream of failure helping to undermine the domestic resolve of the West, and sowing deep seeds of dis-trust regarding the integrity of the people and institutions who sold the more gulliable members of their domestic populations a sack of lies to get there in the first place
* A civil war where the body count is seemingly eclipsing what went before it
* The emergence of an apparent home grown threat
* A steady stream of military deaths which is just starting to show the first signs of eating into the collective pysche of the sponsoring western nations (recruitment figures are well down)


I would have expected anyone embarking on such an unnecessary venture to have conducted a thorough risk analysis and options appraisal as a part of a much wider strategic overview. Anyone doing this accurately would have concluded that much of what's happenend was forseeable. Indeed, GH Bush was later to recall that he needed a strongish and stable Iraq to act as a bullwark against Iranian ambitions, and that this was instrumental in his decision "not to go to Baghdad"

On a slightly different issue;

Can any of the longer standign forum members remember whether anyone posted a poll on the subject around Feb 2002?
 
he set about putting a repressive apparatus in place, to ensure his survival
Click to expand...

Set about? I think that he was repressive from the off. Are you George Galloway or something? when were those chemical weapons used?

Home grown threat? Sorry Al Quaida will go for us regardless. They see the sucess of our system and the utter failure of their beliefs and thats the real problem. Events have proved that it doesnt take a grievance for them to attack

On a side note....havent the Birmingham Imans covered themselves in glory this past week? no wonder the civilised world continues to turn its back.....
 
Set about? I think that he was repressive from the off. Are you George Galloway or something? when were those chemical weapons used?

I thought you were going to ask where they came from, and who sold them to him?

Home grown threat? Sorry Al Quaida will go for us regardless. They see the sucess of our system and the utter failure of their beliefs and thats the real problem. Events have proved that it doesnt take a grievance for them to attack

Most young UK Muslims wouldn't even have heard of AQ before 2001. The total number of attacks against UK interests prior to then was precisely zero I believe? That other regional conflicts most notably Palestine have rumbled on for decades (well centuries in that case) without spawning any domestic militant insurgent broadening of the theatre of conflict (to use an Americanism) is I believe a fact? The only time we've come into the cross hairs (UK mainland and hence civilian targets) is post Iraq. That the perpatrators appear to be 'home grown' (strange phrase, but I'm sure we can live with it for discussion purposes) is also largely undeniable.

In short you've got absolutely no evidence to suggest AQ would have gone for us regardless. There was certainly nothing in their 'previous' to suggest that they weren't really occupied by anything other than America. Similarly, I'm far from convinced they actually have gone for us in a co-ordinated way.

Let me try another angle? I wouldn't dispute the 9/11 connection (nor that it also represented the UK's single biggest terrorist attrocity, even though the target was archetypal American). I'm less convinced the London bombers were an out and out AQ attack. One ringleader and few impressionable and disaffected who could be manipulated once they could be persuaded to breath the oxygen. In a commercial sense AQ had become a 'brand' and an association thus. Hence this phrase that the media created of "Al Queda inspired attacks". These weren't necessarily AQ directed attacks, and I haven't really seen any evidence to suggest they were? Which begs questions like where did they come from? and why? Now it might be too simplistic to point the finger at Iraq, but the correlation is there. Before Iraq, none. After Iraq one, and how many foiled we don't yet know. It's difficult to imagine that the four currently on trial don't fall into the same category. You've got to suspect that any group capable of successfully attacking the Pentagon, :blink: US Embassies, US warships and the WTC, would have the ability to detonate 4 seperate bombs?

So it's in this context that I associate Iraq with the emergence of the home grown element. I don't seem to think the French and Germans (western powers and successful and prosperous countries) have been targeted to date.

My biggest argument with this whole Iraq 'thing' is the complete unnecessariness of it, and the absoulte tactical howler that it's become, made worse by the fact that it was easily foreseeable, and the naked lies that were used to justify something that had limited (if any) military value in prosecuting the so called war on terror. I can only assume that the respective American and British administrations were being incredibly stupid on a Jade Goody scale, or that different objectives were directign their actions?
 
Going slightly off the point.... has anyone got any strong views on whether Turkey should join the EU? Will this exacerbate tension? I'm going to show my ignorance now but I'm thinking in terms of the supposed 'clash of civillisations' of Isalm and Chrisitanity and whether or not they can ever co-exist in any kind of harmony.

I do think that the West has some kind of need for a menacing 'other'.
 
Simply dont agree

If I recall rightly there were plans to attack london and Paris before 2001 anyway. And Rome too.

The militant muslim mindset is extreme racism. They will not rest until they have killed all "non believers". They dont even deny that aim
 
There were certainly some plans for possible attacks though the one to blow up the Eiffel Tower I seem to think, was the only one with any serious substance behind it. In many respects this illustrates the point I was making though.

Sustained terrorism is to some extent a numbers game. It was something Patrick Magee hit on accurately when he said "You have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once" with regard to Brighton. Indeed, our own security services have frequently acknowledged that the attack on London was a case of when rather than if.

It stands to reason therefore, that the more people you can bring forward, and the more diverse their backgrounds become, (as they emerge from increasingly difficult to identify places/ environments) the chances of getting a few through increases? It's not rocket science, and was again easily foreseeable. Before Iraq, activity was much easier to monitor. The cells were smaller, and those engaged were more stereotypical. Now it's getting harder, as we've all but guaranteed a supply of volunteers from a much bigger pool.

Had the war been launched against AQ, then I would have found it a much more palitable risk. That it was launched against a country with no AQ links, (and one which had already demonstrated that if anything they were on your side by virtue of starting a war against the rise of radical Islam) just beggars believe? :blink: . It was, and remains, a complete 'no brainer'

Now I'm quite prepared to take a fight when I feel it's necessary, but I do believe it's imperative that in doing so you understand why, and the possible consequences of your decision. It's essentially part of the risk evaluation, and not somethign you enter into lightly (or should enter into lightly). IMO, Iraq was demonstrably unnecessary, in the face of infinately more pressing priorities by way of threat, and as such the web of consequences (direct and indirect) should have alerted any prudent judge, that the risks, well outweighed the reward. The possible opening up of a second domestic front in your own back yard was foreseeable in the light of the equally foreseeable Iraqi resistance, and the perceived killings and abuses of civilians (again equally foreseeable) that would inevitably accompany any invasion/ war.

You always get extremists from all radical thought/ philosophies/ cause etc, and it's not something that Islam has an exclusive copyright to either. Accepting this sad inevitability as being pragmatic, the onus has to be on controlling it. One way of doing this of course is to try and cut off the life blood. Taking on pointless assignments with no obvious benefits other than the recruiters just isn't consistant with the whole war on terrors 'alleged objectives'. Considering it was supposed to be a war on terror, it might not be inappropriate to revisit the countries who Bush identified on his axis of evil

I tell you what, there's more than just a few anomolies by way of inclusion and ommissions :brows:
 
Warbler....ill read your post more closely tomorrow!

But

Does the west always have to consider the risk of action from the militant minority when any action is taken which affects (adversely or otherwise) the islamic world?

FFS ...it it only takes a bloody cartoon for them to be shouting for "infadels" to be murdered doesnt it?

And in Birmingham they are so patheticly led that they have imans making pig noises in reference to jews and then claiming at the same time that they are being persecuted like the jews were by the nazis (although i thought they denied that happened?)
 
acidnotbombs.jpeg
 
I can understand what you say warbler but the very last consideration when taking any action should be "what would AQ think". Then they would have won....

To an extent they have already. Witness the dismal RoY hattersley about last weeks arrests. He simply wrote that "the police had better had got it right this time" (words to that effect). Or what exactly Roy? The same Roy who wouldnt condem the proposed exectution of someone who wrote a novel.

whether Iraq was "necessary" or not is debatable depending where one would feel that the priorities should have been. I think toppling Saddam was definately desirable (its not a numbers game) and the utopian goal of a democratic forward moving Iraq setting the standard in the middle east (although they arabs should look to isreal...lol) was perhaps fair enough. Unfortunately the timing was probably bad (with afganistan unfunished business)and, the planning dismal. And its fair to assume that that wasnt the only factor driving the war (although the oil argument is nothing like a simplistic as some think and the re-construction one just a bit over the top rfrankly)
 
Back
Top