Iraqi's vote for a radical Islamic Iraq: what do we do?

[88Comrade2000]

The majority of Iraq's population is ****es. They look to Iran as to the model they really want. What happens if the ****es majority votes in a radicial state that's anti-American/Anti- Western.

Then what will we do? I'm being serious. This is something that could happen when the Iraqis actually hold elections for a permanent government.

[Sarge]

Behind the scenes negotiations by the US will not allow them to set up another crazy-assed radical muslim government. It would defeat the purpose. Personally, I would hand them the Constitution and say, "Here you go".

[RiggoDrill]

But where is the tradition and/or foundation for democracy in Iraq? Who says the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds want to share power? If we do set up a democratic system and get out, what's to stop an Islamic party from getting elected legitimately?

The Baathists were murderous *******s, but they did keep everthing under control.

What I fear is going to happen is that Iraq will become another Afghanistan, with a US-friendly govenment that no one wants and only holds power in the capital and over critical resources, while the rest of the country descends into separatist chaos.

Creating a lasting, successful and willing democracy in Iraq will require almost a complete transformation of Iraqi culture to embrace it. That takes a LOT of time and money, and I don't think we're going to devote the resources necessary.

As I warned y'all before the war: Careful what you wish for.

[Sarge]

We have plenty of resourses to pay for things now. After all, we are sittng on top of the second biggest proven oil reserve in the world.

[TennesseeCarl]

This is going to sound real ugly and demeaning, but if that's what they want, go to it, guys.

Yeah...another lame-*** fundamentalist totalitarian regime where initiative is virtually a crime, entrepeneurial activity a sin, and the nation's wealth goes for third rate military goods to be handed over to a fourth rate military. That's the ticket.

Models abound throughout the Middle East. If that's what New Iraq really wants, go for it. It insures that they can never be a serious threat to us.

[Art]

It could happen, though I suspect we'll work against it. What we need to do is get the new government in place soon though so we can sign a treaty giving us neverending rights to a military base in Umm Qasr. If we're stationed there full time it changes much even if Iraq goes to a Muslim leadership position.

[Jagsbch]

Sounds good Art,

Bush has another war on his hands with this one. Look's like Bush is going to have a hell of a time trying to establish a government free from Islam's rule on it. Do you think that Bush has the right to establish a government in Iraq that is separated from religion? Is it possible?

I agree with Bush's stance on this issue, I think in order to bring peace into the region, freedom of religion is the key. I understand why the Muslim leader's are reeking havoc with the peace process; by stirring the people to wrath against the troop presence in the region. I mean they don’t want to loose any authority over the people, by having the influence of Christianity for example enter the region and take some of the followers away from their control. Did not our troop’s fight for liberty and freedom over there. What a slap in the face if the Government established in Iraq makes it illegal to be a Christian. Bush definitely has his hands full with this one. So does Bush force the People of Iraq into establishing a Government free from Religion, because the way I see it that’s the only way that is going to happen. I don’t see why we don’t Arrest the religious leader’s who called for a Jihad, when we invaded the country in hopes to liberate the people; I mean where they not acting as soldier’s when they gave that order? Hello!

[TennesseeCarl]

a) Much as it might be helpful to have a base, I think everyone would go nuts if we demanded such. It would confirm the worst suspicions of many of our enemies in the region - that we acted with the motive of territorial aggrandizement.

Does not contemporary Islam require that it's adherents not suffer themselves to live under non-Muslim rule? I've read it and heard it on t.v., but I can't find a source for that. Am I off-base or is that one of the distinctions between Sunni and Shi'a?

c) I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter in the slightest what the masses are chanting in Muslim nations. It's not an accurate reflection of popular opinion - or at least no more so that scenes of joyful Muslims in Iraq welcoming the Coalition forces.

[Art]

TC,

To be terribly honest, we don't care what anyone says. More importantly, the base will be established with the informed consent of the new Iraqi government and will be written up in a similar fashion to what we have in Cuba where both sides have to agree to break the deal else it can never be broken.

Importantly though, a base in Iraq solves so many of our problems that it goes without saying that it is the key to a post-Saddam Middle East. Right now the nut cases in the region are furious that we are on holy ground in Saudi Arabia. Being in Iraq removes MUCH of the reason groups like Bin Laden's have for screaming against us. More importantly, a station in Iraq for all time allows all nations in that region to know that we no longer have to negotiate with anyone to stage equipment and launch attacks. We can be in their air space in minutes instead of hours to respond to provocations.

I've always thought the war was less about oil than it was about establishing a permanent base of operations which would serve as a control mechanism for the region.

[Sarge]

I've always thought the war was less about oil than it was about establishing a permanent base of operations which would serve as a control mechanism for the region.

Bingo, Art. You win the prize of the day. Oil is going to be a nice consolation prize, but a base in a remote region of Iraq will consolidate a grip on the area from which we can exert a modicum of control and send an occasional message to those that don't want to live like civilized people. I love it when a plan comes together

[Riggo-toni]

Putting a base there is a horrible idea, just as leaving thousands of soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia was. Doing so will provide more fodder for terrorists, and our troops will be subject to attacks similar to the one that occurred on the Khobar Towers. We can always place troops in Kuwait, so I seriously question the strategic value in light of the propaganda tool you'd be handing the very same fundamentalists we are all so concerned about.

In preliminary talks, the U.S. has been careful to include equal numbers of Kurds, Sunni and Shia- even though the Shiites make up 60% of the country. Clearly we are trying to arrange some kind of power-sharing that will prevent any tyranny of the majority in general, and more specifically Iraq becoming a satellite government of Iran. The final (or maybe I sould say, ideal) outcome is liable to be a collection of autonomous republics, a Swiss style of democracy, with the Shiites controlling the South, the Sunni the West, and the Kurds the North. The sticking points are liable to be Baghdad and Kirkuk, which are ethnically mixed and also of significant importance to each side.

Of course, the Shiites may reject all this and insist in ruling the country. Should that happen, one must remember that the Kurds are the strongest military presence in the country now. If they are faced with a Shiite takeover, they will overrun Mosul and Kirkuk, and gain even more of a de facto independence from the rest of the country. Their strongest faction, the PDK, has been a solid US ally for decades. Barzani, like his father, is both moderate and an excellent military leader. We would likely be welcome to put a base in the Kurdish enclave (as much to protect them against Turkish hostilities as Shia actions).

In the meantime, the Shia want us to leave as soon as possible, primarily because they believe they are strong and numerous enough to avoid any kind of power sharing. Such thinking is strongly encouraged by the fact that all their opposition groups were financed and given refuge by Iran (ie the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution). Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for. Numerical strength doesn't always equate to winning the struggle for leadership. Witness the ascension of the Alawites to the presidency in Syria, or the continued Hashemite rule in Jordan, or for that matter the Sunni rule over Iraq before we intervened.

I told friends before this war started that we would lose more soldiers to Iranian backed post-war terrorist attacks than in the war itself. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I may not be.

[Art]

Shifting sands, RT. There may come a time in which Kuwait says we can't use their land. There may come a time in which Saudi Arabia says bye. There is never a time Cuba can say go, and that's what we should establish in the Middle East. We would absolutely not be exposed to the type of anger and threat we are exposed to in Saudi Arabia. That whole nation is considered Holy ground. Iraq isn't. Iraq has some Holy spots, but, it's on a different level. We'd actually gain more friends by not having to be in Saudi Arabia than we'd lose by being in Iraq.

You wouldn't be handing the fundamentalists ANYTHING by stationing yourself in Iraq. The fundamentalists have stood by and watched like sheep as Muslims were slaughtered by Saddam. They aren't going to act against us when these people are free and perhaps ruling Iraq if we're down by the ocean running missile drills .

If what happened in Iraq with Saddam was in Saudi Arabia over these years, Muslims would have long ago taken him out. But, that's not the case. Fundamentalists have known about Saddam and while Bin Laden may want to hitch his wagon to any cause that can be seen as anti-American, the fact is, until 9-11 he never mentioned Palestine and he hates Iraq. You don't get a call to arms from a man who doesn't really believe in either cause and fundamentalists don't care one bit about Iraq OR Palestine. Arabs do, but not fundamentalists.

[webnarc]

Two words - Baghdad recount.

It would be ironic if their first democratic action was a vote to outlaw democracy.

[Sarge]

Should that happen, one must remember that the Kurds are the strongest military presence in the country now.

Not quite. The Kurds are the strongest indigenous force in the land, but the US is far and away the strongest force in both the country and region now. They may talk a bunch of sh!t, but a B-1 or 20 will, for the foreseeable future, be something to give them pause.

[Riggo-toni]

Art,

I am strongly hoping we take our troops out of Saudi Arabia ASAP. Having removed Saddam, we now have a pretext to do so without losing face. The Central Asian republics which border the Gulf countries are actually asking for an American presence to counter any kind of radical Islamic fundamentalism taking root in their countries. All these republics are far more secular, and wish to stay that way. Putting bases there might not be quite as strategically viable as in the Gulf countries themselves, but we made it through a cold war and an Iranian revolution without any bases there. Despite all the rhetoric floating around, Syria's conventional forces aren't even squat compared to what Saddam had in '90. There are no significant conventional armies that truly necessitate any bases there other than perhas Egypt, whom we've managed to buy off anyway (not to mention they'd be no match for their Israeli neighbors).

Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of Arab Muslim cultural/religious sensitivities. Leaving military there long term will be seen as proof for all the clerics who claimed we went there as conquerors, not as liberators.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

Not quite. The Kurds are the strongest indigenous force in the land, but the US is far and away the strongest force in both the country and region now. They may talk a bunch of sh!t, but a B-1 or 20 will, for the foreseeable future, be something to give them pause.

No shiite Sherlock, I was discussing the post-US withdrawal scenario in this thread. :doh:

[TennesseeCarl]

Actually Art, Iraq has as many 'holy' places as Saudi Arabia and particularly to the Shi'a denomination. Ali's tomb is in Karbala, I believe.

The same arguments against placement of any infidel troops in Saudia Arabia can be made against placing troops in Iraq insofar as relgious objections are concerned. And there are plenty of religious zealots in that part of the world to make those arguments.

If we need a base in the Muslim world, we have a pretty strong presence in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Yemen.

But I think you're right, Art, in that it really doesn't matter where we have a base in the Muslim world (or even IF we have a base in the Muslim world). Guys like bin Laden are going to be gunning for us.

Nobody roots for Goliath and in military terms, we're Goliath these days.

[Sarge]

No shiite Sherlock, I was discussing the post-US withdrawal scenario in this thread.

My point, Sherlock, was that people are still operating under old paradigms that the US is just going to let them do whatever they want, like the good schmucks we have usually been about this sort of thing. We will not allow a radical islamic government to be established there. It defeats the purpose of cleaning the place out. They are going to have a government that can act and get along with the civilized world, and they are going to like it. There really is little point in discussing a US withdraw at this time or any other time in the foreseeable future. It's not going to happen.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by Art

It could happen, though I suspect we'll work against it. What we need to do is get the new government in place soon though so we can sign a treaty giving us neverending rights to a military base in Umm Qasr. If we're stationed there full time it changes much even if Iraq goes to a Muslim leadership position.

Keep on dreaming on that one. Sorry but Iraqi people will not allow to have a base being established in their country. They will fight our troops tooth and nail. They don't want Americans there.

No arab wants Americans or another other country in their lands. By having a base in Saudi Arabia help seethed the anger in those radicals like Osama that they decided to target us.

Already Iraqis are protesting are presence and demanding that the troops leave. They want to establish an Islamic state.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by Art

TC,

To be terribly honest, we don't care what anyone says. More importantly, the base will be established with the informed consent of the new Iraqi government and will be written up in a similar fashion to what we have in Cuba where both sides have to agree to break the deal else it can never be broken.

Importantly though, a base in Iraq solves so many of our problems that it goes without saying that it is the key to a post-Saddam Middle East. Right now the nut cases in the region are furious that we are on holy ground in Saudi Arabia. Being in Iraq removes MUCH of the reason groups like Bin Laden's have for screaming against us. More importantly, a station in Iraq for all time allows all nations in that region to know that we no longer have to negotiate with anyone to stage equipment and launch attacks. We can be in their air space in minutes instead of hours to respond to provocations.

I've always thought the war was less about oil than it was about establishing a permanent base of operations which would serve as a control mechanism for the region.

I don't see it happening. You have constant terrorist attack on a American base by Iraqi people. They Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone but they don't want Americans in their country. After being dominated by Europeans after the fall of the Ottoman Empire; the Arabs detest any occupation by any non-arabs.

I know you guys think Iraqis will accept this. They won't. The hatred will build and any interim government will be toppled and a radical state established.

The initial joy and welcoming of American troops was more celebration the end of Saddam; then welcoming Americans as liberators. Now that Saddam is gone, they are free to excersise thier opinions and the last thing they will want is for Americans to have permanent presence in their country. The longer the troops are there, the more Iraqis turn against our troops.

You will brand me as whatever you choose. I'm just telling you what the people there will do if we stay long.

[Art]

Skins2000,

As a liberal I recognize that it is your way to think the absolute worst is not only likely, but inevitable. You are not allowed, as a liberal, to simply be thoughtful. You must be hysterical. That is the way of the liberal. We must constantly hear about the greatest combination of dangers that should limit our actions. It's always the same with a liberal and therefore it's a tad tiresome.

Again, I don't care what one Arab wants. I don't care what 100,000 Muslims in Iraq want. It's simply ludicrous for you to presume that the very same people who did absolutely nothing for a generation when Saddam was killing them would rise up and fight against us tooth and nail as you've said in one of these threads.

Think man. These people are mostly free to speak for the first time in their lives. They can march openly. They can protest openly. They can pray openly. They can live each day without the constant threat of torture, rape, death or some combination thereof.

I wouldn't think of branding you. I would simply point out that each and every worst case scenario your type would have led us to believe was inevitable prior to engaging Iraq proved to be well off the mark. You can't live your life worried each moment that something you do will irritate someone else. At some point you have to live your life knowing that you don't care about that anymore and you will do what you feel is necessary to protect yourself. That point was Sept. 11. Clinton is right how that day changed our current outlook and will on the world.

I realize, though, as a liberal, that's a negative thing. It's just not so to the rest of us.

[luckydevil]

I beleive we should flex our muscles towards the middle east. Bin Laden didnt attack us, because we are a powerful imperialist power( though that false notion might have fuled his hatred). He attacked us, because he had the notion that we were a paper tiger. How do I know this, he wrote it down.

[StuckinIA]

Originally posted by luckydevi

I beleive we should flex our muscles towards the middle east. Bin Laden didnt attack us, because we are a powerful imperialist power( though that false notion might have fuled his hatred). He attacked us, because he had the notion that we were a paper tiger. How do I know this, he wrote it down.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, there is only one language that is universal in this region. Double unfortunately, it costs human lives to speak it.

[Art]

LD is PRECISELY correct.

The reason attacks against America grew in force and audacity is because we didn't respond. Terrorism wasn't really on the last administrations radar in terms of something to care about. Dancing with Arafat and delivering groceries to people with our military were more important. We have, absolutely, opened the door to attacks against us by appearing to be weak and unwilling to hit back.

Bush and Sept. 11 has altered that. The Arab world now knows we'll hit back. We all know Bin Laden's group is in disarray and if it hasn't already folded it's nearly so. These people do understand and respect strength. They certainly haven't begrudged us for using our strength because we haven't used our strength in years.

I'll take it a little further than LD did when he said we should flex our muscles a little. I think it's time we stopped treating Mosques and Holy sites as off limits. In my view that is empowering these idiots to prance around like fools because they think we're afraid of Islam. They are already heated in their rhetoric. They are already too bold for their own good. And this is all while we prevent ourselves from taking out legitimate targets both in a military sense and in a psychological sense.

I guarantee you the next time troops from a nation we're fighting go running into a Mosque that if we blow up that Mosque it won't ever happen again because the Muslims themselves will prevent the soldiers from going that direction. It's time in my view to start taking out the symbols of the insanity that breed these sorts of fanatics. We are still fighting with the gloves on. Just imagine what would happen if we took them off.

[luckydevil]

A lot of people argue that it should be the Iraqies who decide their government. If this is true than there is a very good possibility that they will elect another corrupt, oppressive, and anti-western régime and as far as I am concerned that’s a risk, I’m not willing to take. I believe we need to take an aggressive role in the future of Iraq. If that means having a government that is run by the United States for many years, than so be it. Some might argue that means we will act as an imperlist power, while this may seem controversial or even extreme, so what. Did we act as imperlists with Japan after WW2, yes we did. And it was justified. What has the results shown, amazing success, last time I checked Japan is one of our best friends. Too often we have taken a soft approach towards the Middle East, what has it accomplished, more hatred. You cannot appease to an enemy who wants you killed. There are 2 sides to choose, to be the hunter or the hunted. I choose to be the hunter.