Haloface

With the recent can of worms being opened in our favourite Middle Eastern country, with talk of Civil War, with more resistance than at the start of the occupation, and with a looming 90 day deadline to hand power over to an Iraqi governing body on the horizon, I gots me thinking aboot the future of the country.

How will it look in a years time? Five years? What are the hopes of seeing a generally peaceful, democratic and unified Iraq? Well let's consider the situation.

The deadline. I think this has evolved in to something more than a mere deadline. It's become symbolic. Of what? Well the implications extend beyond Iraq. Perhaps "those who were smart enough to get on the boat" (Edit: I mean Bloody Colonials!) amongst us can explain (without turning this in to a fookin election debate) what it means for Bush if the deadline is put back, is abandoned, or is simply not met. With my limited political knowledge, even I can forsee a public opinion disaster if any of the above were to happen.
So what could this mean?
Well with the current upsurge of new enemies and heavier resistance, it could possibly well mean the increasing involvement of coalition reinforcements in an attempt to concentrate both on security and control, and also on the political and social structures that are currently being rebuilt or simply fixed.
This is something that earlier hopes had saught to avoid. It certainly is damaging, credibility wise, to have to commit more at the eve of supposedly handing power over - ie less commitment on our part, more on Iraq's part.
It also could lead to a "at all cost" situation. Rushing the process. Forcing it. How disasterous could this be? Well, very. For one it would reduce the power to nothing more than a notion. The government would be more for show than anything else. Depending entirely on the occupying forces, essentially existing as a "puppet" government while things are being sorted out.
Does the deadline bring any real advantages? Would it have been better all round if there was no deadline, certainly not one so premature? It seems, from my perspective, that it's radically turning in to a "loose, loose" situation. If it's not met, militant resistance and terrorist elements can only better from it, while Bush certainly will feel the effects at home. Global opinion - specifically from Europe - will, if it's possible anymore - lower, and hopes all round will most likely take a hit. A shallow one? Who knows. Perhaps it won't harm the coalition as much as it could. Worse case scenario? We could have another Spain on our hands.
I'm pretty sure Japan doesn't need many more kicks to bring itself in to serious consideration about its stance on the occupation, especially with the current Japanese civilians who are being held captive.

But let's assume the deadline is met. Let's assume tommorrow, the nobhead Cleric Sadr is captured, his supporters appeased, and the forces go back to securing and controlling cities.
It's likely. And I hope it bloody happens. I for one thought it was an action that redefined the word stupidity - opening up another fierce opposing front so close to the deadline. 90 days.. it could well happen. So Let's assume on June 30th, power is given to an Iraqi governing body.


What can we expect then? What power, exactly, will be given? What support can the government hope to recieve from Iraqi's? Will they depend soley upon the coalition? And if so, is this going to achieve negative reaction from those opposing the occupation (currently 58% of Iraqi's news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3600025.stm)?
I don't know. Personally I would hope to see - although currently unlikely - less of an Anglo-American participation in events. There can be, surely, no progress with continuing military force, especially at a time of reconstruction. No one here can seriously entertain the idea that resistance in Iraq can be completely pacified. It's like saying terrorism can be eradicated from Earth, forever.
The opinion seems to be that this invasion is seeming less of a liberation, and stinking more of an occupation. But that is of course nonesense. Liberation isn't a one week job. I know that, idiot_joe hopefully knows that. But how do you go about it? Mounting military pressure? Making enemies out of, seemingly, every Iraqi faction that exists?
So here it is. The proposal the UN-haters (which most likely makes out about 99% of this forum) will laugh at.
The UN needs to take the role. A multi-national, global approving force needs to take the lead. If not for the sake of legitamcy and logic, then surely to give the stretched and currently strained Anglo-American forces a break. Neither we nor the People Who Were Smart Enough To Get On The Boat surely wish to send more people over there. There are, what, 130, 000 Americans out there now? 10, 000 British? The UN could provide both a larger force and a more economically diverse funding scheme. With the participation of Germany, France, Russia.. hell Spain, the rebuilding process would be considerably bettered.
With an Iraqi governing power ruling, dependent and supported by UN forces and funding, this could all be less an Anti-Anglo-American demonstration of global dissaproval and more a multi-national task of helping, aiding, and truly rebuilding Iraq.

Right now I've no doubt Bin Laden is rubbing his hands in delight at the situation. He couldn't have sustained such an Anti-American attitude if he had tried.

Get the world involved. Open Iraq up to every nation possible. This *needs* to work. If it doesn't, if it's dragged out in to a centre of Chaos Theory disaster, a situation descending in to Palestinian/Israeli conflict, a continuing breeding ground for terrorism and anti-Western ideals... well in 20 years we could be where we are right now: trying to stabalize Iraq while fighting several fronts at once, attempting to transfer power and establish a democratic government. Who can tell how many Western and Iraqi people will be dead? Tens of thousands?

Of course, there will be the inevitable opinion - drenched with pride and patriotism - that the "UN don't get to help, 'cause it fucked with us duedz". The invasion was in violation of international law. Of course the UN opposed.
But it's needed. If anything then to give the entire mess some better PR, some relief to the coalition, and just some plain sense of global approval to the entire thing.

I strayed from my point. I was going for a positive aspect :P
So lemme try again. Let's say resistance is appeased, forces are concentrated on security and stability, and rebuilding is fully and more freely underway.
How would Iraq govern itself? If the various factions aren't fighting the coalition, they'd be fighting themselves. Will a future Iraq be an Iraq divided? Will we see the country split in to Sunni, Shia and Kurdish provinces? Let's be realistic, the only reason these people had to live with eachother was because of the good old UK's past decisions (ignorant Western Powers intervening in foreign places = never a good conclusion).
Will that idea, as ghastly as it sound, actually be more to the world's advantage? It seems, in an extreme way, logical. We all know what it's like when Palestinians and Israeli's get together on the same piece of land. If we ever sort the regime out - what hopes can we have for the segregated peoples?
Can you unify a nation divded by fiercly opposing people?

Just some things to think about. Right now most people can't see beyond June 30th, most don't want to. What implications can a deadline that's met, bring? Or not, as it were.

Elemak the Enchanter

Well hopefully it will do substantially better than Kosovo has, as far as UN ventures go. I think a big part of what people need to remember is that when we hand over soveriengty we won't be pulling out, we will still have a very large part in the security of Iraq.

This assclown Sadr needs to, and probably will be caught soon and killed/jailed I hope for the former but thats on a personal level, and likely he will only be jailed. either way he needs to be put away be in six feet under or behind bars.

The problem we run into in stabalizing Iraq, is many of the people just don't know how to respond to being free, they're used to living in fear of a dictator, if they tried rioting like this before they would have been killed.

Problem is the few anti-US/UN guys seize this opertunity to take matters into their own hands and push their own violent agendas. From what I've read most of the other muslim clerics believe that Sadr is a young punk. However the rebel is usually popular with the youth, and they are the ones that fight back, even when they don't really understand what it is they're fighting against.

I've seen the same thing here in the balkans with the recent rioting here. A couple of people start it, then the locals get caught up in the heat of the moment and so they fight, not even necessarily understanding exactly what they're rioting about, other than it's fun and they think they have been wronged.

So the Coalition forces have their work stacked up for them, how to quell the riots without loss of life on friendly sides, and preferably without having to kill 'civilians' that are rioting.o

You throw in the local cells of Al Quaida who have moved into town and things get worse, soon instead of just rioting you have all out combat against coalition forces. The people fighting say it is to get rid of the coalition, but in reality all they do is prolong our stay there.

If any of the fucking retards in charge were to sit down and think about it, they'd just lie low for a few years till we pull out, then start shit up.

But then again if they were smart enough to do that then they would probably understand that fighting against western civilization is a bad idea, and getting out of abject poverty and dank caves is a good idea.

But then in a perfect world Iraq would have been a peaceful democracy, and Saddam Hussein wouldn't have been a mass murdering fuckhead.

Osgiliath666

I see an Iraq with a 7-11 on every corner and McDonalds every other mile.

Elemak the Enchanter

"Gonna put up a mother fuckin super Wal-mart" - DSgt. Rogers

Willgatus Airslasher

There is no chance of a coherent government emerging. The only functionally lasting form of unification between the three main factions which are internally divided to begin with can occur only through bloodshed and repression on a scale that the coalition is understandably unwilling to enact (read: emulating Saddam.) The odds of a working democracy forming in Iraq are akin to those of Lyndon LaRouche winning the presidential election or Andorra emerging as the next world power.

The only real relevance of June 30th in the greater scheme of things is the fact that it happens to be my birthday

Haloface

'or Andorra emerging as the next world power.'

- It could happen!!

So what does the date mean to you, other than your birthday? :P
I just, personally, cannot see it happening. And as I said, if it doesn't, it will have several, potentially bad, consequences. There will be a hurrendous backlash from us Nay-sayers, of course. World opinion will most likely go down the shitter. Bush will perhaps get his arse kicked and we may see Kerry getting his town halls sucked in the White House. The terrorists, of course, will have a field day. The Iraqi civilians will most likely sigh heavily. "Liberation?"
It just seems increasingly hopeless.
Need to get the UN in. I for one do not want any additional Anglo-American participation. Reinforcements? Urgh. Very urgh.

ShosaTheMonk

Elemak, I beg to differ here - I think its not that people need to learn how to live free. The problem is, that all the people who didn't want Saddam to rule the land, are now eager to show that they can do better. Therfor there are mulitple of different factions and groups of 'to be rulers'. They all know better and want to show that. They all collect support among people - and people do follow them.

In our western (mostly demokratic) civilizations, there are mechanisms to control that, be it some quote system or simple financial means, etc. pp. In Iraq those are completly missing, so you get all the crap who usualy never would get a chance to speak up loud enough to be heard, also.

And that is the major problem.

As long this isn't solved, we will always run into problems in the middle eastern theater. But I give you that, as long people aren't educated enough, not to listen to such crap, the best regulation systems are useless. And education is usualy not the first thing people cry for - first comes a job to earn money, food, medical supply - you know, all the 'basic stuff'. If that is a given thing, education can kick in.

I personaly think that this deadline is bullshit. It is simply impossible, as it looks now, to bring up a working goverment, which realized all those problems and is willing to solve them, in 90, 120 or even 365 days. And has ontop of all the support of the people.

I truly hope that time will show me that I am wrong, but I doubt it.

Garrath

You know whats funny, if they (the extremists in Iraq) would just shut up until 6/30 and not blow anything up we would leave and they would get their chance then to do whatever they want. Instead, they choose to fight us which will only keep us there longer.

Pretty poor strategy if you ask me. If i were this Al-Sadr guy or his ilk, I would take my chances against the fledgling governement / police force on 7/1 instead of the US Military on 4/9.

Sage Garrath Moore
Arcanist
Final Destiny

Ibudin

Why in the hell do people confuse with handing over governmental control with US forces leaving Iraq? You can bet well have bases and occupy Iraq for the next 10 years. We will most likely be in charge of their armed forces as well and anything to do with policing/protecting the country for a long time to come.

Talveran Shadowbomb

They can be guarenteed the Saddam and Chemical Ali won't gas them again...