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 (http://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.

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.

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

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

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 :p

'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.

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.
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.

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

we would leave and they would get their chance then to do whatever they want.

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.

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

The 6/30 date is nothing but political at this point. Bush will stick to it at any cost because it is key to his re-election. The US will "hand-off" control to some form of Iraqi figurehead government, no matter what....even if it's just symbolic.

Iraq's future...grim IMO. These factions will fight for control of the government and will turn violent anytime they feel they don have it. This goes for the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. Any government the US tries to install will most likely fall as soon as the US pulls military/police support. This isn't what I hope will happen, but it is what I think will occur.

Going with the common consensus here, I too think that Iraq's future is grim indeed.

Quite frankly, I believe an all out civil war will break out in the next two years. Any government that the US sets up is not going to have credibility with the majority of the Iraqi people. And honestly, I can't blame them for mistrusting a government set up by an occupying force.

But I seriously doubt the ability to have a government comprised of all three major reglious groups where everyone is treated fairly and power is evenly distributed. What works as Govt here in the US (Debatable I know but that isnt the point of this thread) isn't going to work in Iraq. I would hope that we would have learned that lesson by now, but I'm not so sure we have.

As far as the UN setting up the Govt, hell, give them the chance. The UN pulling out last year was a mistake anyway, hopefully they'll have a more healthy respect for perimeter security this time. Maybe the average Iraqi citizen will have a bit more respect for a govt set up by the UN, enough at least for them to give the govt a chance to get started on rebuilding and establishing order.

'As far as the UN setting up the Govt, hell, give them the chance. The UN pulling out last year was a mistake anyway, hopefully they'll have a more healthy respect for perimeter security this time. Maybe the average Iraqi citizen will have a bit more respect for a govt set up by the UN, enough at least for them to give the govt a chance to get started on rebuilding and establishing order.'

- Hear, hear. Couldn't agree more.
Needs to be done.

Crap. Halo agreed with me.

kill yourself now

In actual fact, YOU agreed with me :P

The local radio station sent one of their talk show hosts to Iraq for a couple weeks to do his show. He had several Iraqi citizens on his show today and he flat out asked them that if the US turned over peacekeeping duties to the UN or even France would it make a difference and slow or stop the violence. All of the Iraqi's on the show said "no" it would not make a difference or if it did it would make a very small difference. I know these few do not speak for the country as a whole but It did raise an interesting question, at least for me.

What if we are beyond any help that the UN or international community can offer to slow or stop the violence, what options would really be left other than complete withdrawal or all out warfare?

Garrath,
I disagree completely with your analysis.

al-Sadr have no political base, and he is quite impopular with the top shiite clergy. He was marginalized, and would have remained marginalized. His ONE chance to grab power was to incite desperate people against America. He could never have gotten any popular support by attacking a shiite government, so he had no other choise then to act quickly.

My analysis above does, of course, assume that al-Sadr is nothing more and nothing less then a powerhungry Hitler-wannabee. And that is what I will believe for now. Him grabbing power, that's the ultimate worst case scenario. His ONLY powerbase is violence, and it is by that powerbase he would rule. Crown himself messiah and absolute ruler. Kill of the top clergy of his own faith, and the leaders of all the other factions. By the way, this is what Mao did to keep China in his grasp. Send out huge armies of unorganised and uneducated rabble to tear everything down, including killing off the rival communist leaders.

If al-Sadr manage to grab power, it i quite likely that Iraq will be much worse off then it ever was under Saddam. :|

However, his chances to take over Iraq are still very slim. It is more likely that he will be killed, either by the Coalision or by one rival or another. And it's not even certain that the chances for democracy are less now then they was a few weeks ago. It might be that the problems are merely more obvious now.

I think the problem really began several weeks ago, when grand Ayatolla al-Sistani (or however his name is really spelled) started preaching that democracy is a very good thing, but that the first rule of democracy is that the country is ruled by the majority. It is not certain how this snide remark was aimed. The american media I read interpreted it as a attack on the kurdish minority, but in retrospect I find it more likely that he was talking about how USA was setting up the country to be owned by american comnpanies and still have much of policy dictated from Washington for decades to come.

Now, the council is critizising the coalision, and appears to at least pretend to be independent. Perhaps they can still take power, and hold it. If USA is replaced by NATO or whatever, the iraqi might feel that they have driven out the colonial invaders and won theor freedom. A moral victory, but even moreso a economic one.

I consider this to be a very possible scenario, but sadly also a unlikely one. Stability is dwindling, there's a huge risk that the iraqi factions wont manage to stick together, and perhaps most importantly it would mean a loss of prestige for Bush and for major corporations like Haliburton. If Bush would get the chance to chose between freedom for the 25.000.000 citizens of Iraq and power & money & prestige for himself and his buddies, what would he chose. I don't know. :(

I'm just amazed that a post started by halo hasn't been torn down into a flame war yet.

But yeah, I agree that the UN needs to get in there and help. It would make the whole thing "look better".

Especially as I remember George Bush saying, in Dublin when he came to Britain, that the UN would play "a vital role in post-Saddam Iraq".

'I'm just amazed that a post started by halo hasn't been torn down into a flame war yet.'

- Oh it's early days yet mate. Early days.
Mirdorr, Akipt, you about?

You were right about one thing Halo..

The Darkness kicks ass.. WRU 1987!!

A-thank you.

Mirdorr, Akipt, you about?

No, was on Easter vacation. Back now :)

But yeah, I agree that the UN needs to get in there and help. It would make the whole thing "look better".

The UN was there - they got bombed - they turned tail and ran back home.

And I suspect once the UN's corruption in the Oil-for-Food program becomes more public (after June 30) the Iraqis won't have much use for them anyway.

Ironically, the UN mission got the bejeezus bombed out of it because they didnt listen to their US Military Security advisors when they told the UN mission leader that it was an inherantly bad idea to only have a 20 meter perimeter around your headquarters building.

They didnt want the building to look imposing to the average Iraqi citizen, which is a nice sentiment, but it's still a warzone. Hopefully the UN will take a few more security precautions this time. Hopefully.


ps The Darkness sucks. Well thats not true, musically the band is great, but whats with that singers voice. Yikes. Sounds like two cats in heat.

At least ONE good thing came out of Blair's visit to Bush..

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3633523.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3633523.stm)

'Tony Blair will be quietly delighted he has apparently won the president around to the UN being given a central role in that transition of power. '

'He underlined the need for the United Nations to have a "central role" in moving towards the power transition and hoped there would be a new Security Council resolution over Iraq.'

Hoorah.