...Ken...

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about Iraq and then the comments of the so many knowledgeable military/ex military types in here. Lotta you folks been there/done that or at least know a damn sight more about it than most.

As a starting point I think we all agree that, for anyone who has bothered to read the actual Iraq War resolution and the vote totals that went with it and has been paying any attention at all for the last 12 years and 4 Presidents, the removal of Hussien was inevitable.

If that is agreed, then it is obvious that there is NO leaving until
Hussein is dead or in US custody.

At that point, what can be expected to happen? I don't know enough about the relationships and histories of Suni's, Shia's and Kurds to have a feel for what's possible and what's probable.

Is a unified, democratic Iraq with the existing borders a pipedream?

What is the Saudi, Syrian and Iranian role in the future?

Logically, if it is worth going in as we did, and I think it was, then it must follow that it is worth fixing things to some extent in order to prevent needing to come back.

Talk to me about 'extent'.

I've toyed with that concept, but aren't ready to come forward with it yet. But I will say that Hussein has to be accounted for (dead or alive). Unification amongst those historically warring factions will be tough. Maybe the creations of three districts within the nation of Iraq might work, don't know.

Look how long we have been in Bosnia/Kosovo, Korea, Europe, or Japan. It won't be as quick as the major battles were. Rebuilding takes a while and when there are still ongoing hostilities progress slows to a crawl.

Right now I am bouncing around between the 40th anniversary of JFK's assassination or a countdown to the elections. Let me mull it around some more, who knows this might move up on my list.

Originally posted by Larry Gude
[BIs a unified, democratic Iraq with the existing borders a pipedream? [/B]

I'm not military, but I can offer some historical background.

After World War One, Britain and France redrew the maps on three continents (Europe, Africa, Asia) to reap the spoils of war. In fact, they had agreed to the dismemberment of the decaying Ottoman Empire even before the war began. They combined a lot of ethnic and cultural groups that didn't always get along, like the Serbs and the Bosnians, the Czechs and the Slovaks, and the Kurds and the Arabs. The Kurds were royally shafted, because they were promised nationhood after the war but saw their land parceled out to Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

But I doubt the Bush Administration would want to separate Kurdistan from the rest of Iraq. That might upset Turkey, where Kurds have been rebelling against Ankara.

...whomever TOTALLY welcome to join the fray!

Communism has collapsed everywhere but China and they are (seem to be) moving steadily towards privitization and maybe even democratization, including ownership. Reason to hope there, it seems. They are the key to North Korea.

Russia is a mess BUT if they can stick with it, then, the next generation or two may see their wild, wild west overdose settle into a democracy. Hope here to.

That leaves the Middle East. What of democracy, Islam and history?

This is what drives me INSANE about our good friends on the other side of the aisle. Democracy is the key to world peace and freedom and the party named after the idea is vehemently oppossed to even being part of the discusion.

So, do they know something? Is the Saddam model a simple inevitability? Are we wrong? Are we wasting our kids?

Not just democracy, but free enterprise and freedom of the press. I think American entertainment and American consumer goods were two of democracy's secret agents in the successful struggle to bring down communism. After Gorbachev opened up things a bit in the '80s, Russians and Eastern Europeans got a look at what they had been missing for the last few decades. That opened the floodgates.

The Arab situation is trickier. National Geographic notes that this part of the world has undergone more changes in the past 60 years than in the previous 1,000 years. I think that's why the militant form of Islam is becoming more popular. Believers see it as a source of comfort and stability in a very unstable and scary world. (That's the same impulse that has led to the growth of fundamentalist Christianity in America.) Demagogues like Hussein, Khomeini and bin Laden take advantage of that instability to wield power. They tell their followers that the US is to blame for all their troubles.

We could relieve this somewhat by playing a more even-handed role in the Israeli/Palestianian conflict. But that's not going to fix most of the problem.

Not just democracy, but free enterprise and freedom of the press

...it's all those things where individuals start to matter.

I mean the Christian right in the US is feared for absolutley silly things. Ask Judge Moore. His ass got fired and rightly so. A handful are crying over him and I'll be stunned if he get's elected to Guv or whatever he's after. It's when people get away with crap because of a real fear, a real power.

Believers see it as a source of comfort and stability in a very unstable and scary world

...I'm with you there to. It takes time (and stability) to move away from the literalist interpretation of faith and become comfortable with the individual believing (or not) of their own accord.

I'm fascinated by the bombings in Istanbul and Rihyad (sp) and all the other ones in the Pacific rim. Plus the UN, Red Cross, Italian and other attacks in Bahgdad.

At some point, at least that's the hope, people will see we are ALL a common enemy of the fundamentalist wing of Islam. It's not hard for us to understand how this works. Hell, we used to burn witches!

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...it's all those things where individuals start to matter.

Exactly.

In some ways, it's like the Middle East is in a time warp. During Europe's Dark Ages, the Arabs preserved much of the learning and the sciences of ancient Greece. They passed it on to the Moors, who then passed it on to the Spanish. But later, the Middle East never went through the Renaissance and Enlightenment like Europe did. In fact, the focus of the Enlightenment was the worth of the individual.

I've come under fire in the Middle East and have been there as a civilian defense contractor. Here's my take on things there:

1. You shouldn't look upon The Middle East in the same way you would America. The residents of the nations out there do not like one another and look down upon anyone from another country. There's no sense of community there, so it's not like Texans and ... okay, everybody hates Texans, bad example. It's not like the rivalries between states here in the US. A Saudi would just as soon spit on a Jordanian as look at him, Jordanians think that Lebanese are subhuman, and on and on. There's also a strong sense of have/have nots as the big oil states like Saudi Arabia give money to the countries that don't have oil riches, but they meter the cash out with an eyedropper and don't give one riyal more than they have to.

2. The Middle East is very similar to Europe from the time man set foot on the continent out to 1945. There are always one group or another out to make a power grab either within a country or between countries. To quote Bill Clinton - "there's no controlling legal authority." :biggrin: It took the United States throwing a blanket of security over Europe, which allowed younger leaders to depose those who were raised on conflict, to get that region to the point they are in now.

I think that people who have reasonable objections to what we're doing (not the Bush bashers) should look at Europe since 1945 and see what we can do with The Middle East. We started out with one solid Democracy, Great Britain, three collapsed dictatorships (Spain, Germany, and Italy), and a bunch of socialistic/communistic states, and what do we have now? A well unified group of nation states, led by leaders who were brought up in an era of tolerance that enables them to bicker and argue over issues that 70 years ago would have led to war. There's no reason that we can't do the same in The Middle East, provided we have the courage and resolve to do it.

I agree that religious differences are an issue, just as geo-political differences were an issue in Europe and Asia decades ago. If we are to overcome them we need to maintain stability in the region long enough for new blood to take over leadership positions. People who live with death and bloodshed all of their lives just don't know any other way to deal with issues. If we can keep the peace until a new generation takes power, all will be ok. It took us the better part of 50 years to do it in Europe and Asia, and it will probably take that long in the Middle East. What's sad is that about the time that things stabilize out there the oil will run out and no one will give a damn about the Arabs.

3. I hate to tell you Tonio, but American and European goods were widely known in the Soviet Union long before Gorbachev came to power. I went to Russia in 1974, and the teens in Red Square knew all about Levis, and records, and Juicy Fruit chewing gum (which was more widely used as currency out there than rubles were. I bought a huge Soviet Army officer's leather great coat and belt for two 18-stick packs of Juicy Fruit. The coat and belt we're worth about $200 even back then.) :biggrin:

Every country in the Middle East that I've been to has a shopping mall or two, and all of them sell western goods. You can buy Pringles, Dawn dishsoap, Tide, and Cocoa Puffs in every mom and pop store. And traveling through Kuwait City, Riyadh, etc., will make you think you're right outside a Ford or Chevy plant as there are Crown Victorias and Caprices everywhere you look.

4. My biggest concern with Hussein was that he saw himself as an Allah-appointed uniter of the the Muslims, and had his sights set on bringing all of the nations in the Middle East under his control. That would have been as big a disaster for us as having all of Europe under Nazi control would have been for us in the 1940s, and so we had to take action.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
3. I hate to tell you Tonio, but American and European goods were widely known in the Soviet Union long before Gorbachev came to power. I went to Russia in 1974, and the teens in Red Square knew all about Levis, and records, and Juicy Fruit chewing gum (which was more widely used as currency out there than rubles were. I bought a huge Soviet Army officer's leather great coat and belt for two 18-stick packs of Juicy Fruit. The coat and belt we're worth about $200 even back then.) :biggrin:

I knew some of that already. I wasn't just talking about consumer goods, I was talking mostly about popular entertainment and information from the West. I was suggesting that was like anti-propaganda. It did a lot for exposing the lies of Soviet totalitarianism. Many Czechs say the same thing about Frank Zappa's music, which came to symbolize the freedom of expression that the Eastern Bloc nations didn't have.