Is a civil war in Iraq bad?

I've been enjoying reading several excellent posts, to which I believe you give short shrift, or dismiss out of hand, which is unfair and unworthy, in my opinion. Just as an example, because it's one of the most recent, you say, "Saddam was offered exile - which he refused. That pretty much disproves the last part of your assessment." that's in response to Grizzled's, "I think this administration wanted to invade and to invade alone so they could determine what was to happen afterwards, namely to effectively gain control of Iraq."

A rather narrow interpretation on your part, Hayes. Saddam was scrambling to prevent an invasion. He offered to allow the US to send in the FBI (if memory serves) or just about any number of people we might want to place in Iraq to look for WMDs. Saying that Bush "offered him exile," so that gives Bush a pass on what followed is, pardon me, ridiculous. There were a host of options available. I've said this several times, and said it during the run-up to the invasion, that I would give Bush great credit (mad props, using the current vernacular), if he were able to have Saddam make all the concessions he was offering. Bush ignored them.

Why you think offering Saddam and his immediate family exile was "fair," and would ever have been accepted by Saddam, or any other despot with his history, is just silly. Bush and company knew he wouldn't accept the offer... that's why it was made. It's the same mindset that Austria-Hungary used with the Serbians to provoke a war that they fervently desired. To their astonishment, and the astonishment of Europe, the Serbs accepted the outrageous terms, using the same desperation that Saddam was using just prior to the invasion. The difference was that the Serbian government weren't told to go into exile. Even Austria-Hungary didn't make that ludicrous demand. Austria-Hungary invaded anyway, and it proved a disaster to them, leading to the destruction of the empire, WW I, and the deaths of millions.

Hayes, you deny it (and I don't blame you!), but you're bending over backwards to justify Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, using the most narrow parameters, when it benefits Bush, and wide ones when it doesn't. I'll give you an example, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm doing this using what I remember... you talk about the Balkans being an example of a destructive civil war, with US intervention being successful in ending it, late or not, and without widespread negative results in the region. (still playing out, to be sure) It simply can't compare to Iraq, and the region that it's within. Yugoslavia was a collection of ethnic groups held together by a despot, true (although one of a far different type than Saddam), that fell into conflict when he died, but it was surrounded, overwhelmingly, by advanced, 1st world European democracies, or democracies on the cusp of 1st world status. Nothing could be further from being in the same ballpark, regarding the neighbors of Iraq.

I just don't see the situation in Iraq as you do, Hayes. Bush didn't make a serious attempt to treat with Saddam during the run-up to invasion, he ignored the advice of top people in the military, and those others with vast experience, like Colin Powell, because it didn't fit his preconceived notions of how this should play out, the results being a disastrous plan for post-invasion Iraq. I could go on at length in that vein. He promoted and praised those who gave him the terrible advice he preferred to believe, and pushed out those who he should have listened to in the first place. The result is this on-going nightmare, and a civil war that has been underway, in my opinion, for quite some time.

Just what are you trying to prove here? If someone give you a complex answer, you tend to say, "Thanks for the post!" If they give you one that you don't care for, and that gives you an opening, you dissect it into little pieces, leaving the impression that the post being dissected was wildly off-base.

What's up, Hayes?


(wnes, please let the Chinese stuff go for the moment... it's a "derail" we really don't need in a very interesting thread, one you've contributed to.. save it for another time, pleae! )



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Good one, deckard. There is one problem though, you probably should have replaced every occurrence of "Bush" in your post with "neocon."

 

did the attack take place before or after the 48 hour period?

 

All right Hayes - I've given you enough grief over this thread without allowing myself the enjoyment of blithely typing away a rebuttal to the source of my condescension, knowing full well that little will come of it other than continued arrogant postures from both you and me.

I admit, that while I have read almost all of this thread, it is quite likely that I will reiterate points already made. If so, I urge you Hayes to not see it as redundant, but as further evidence that you are, at a minimum, outspoken. However, it is for more likely that such would be indicative of inherent errors in your opening question, and the implications it harbors.

Here we go.

Your implication then is that civil wars lead to developed states. You assume that civil wars are beneficial. Obviously you know that civil wars can also be simply precursors to continued or new despotic regimes. Even in the event that liberal government is established, the costs and chaos resulting from said war are not a small matter (more on that below). One might question why your opening statement does not compare the probability of civil war in Iraq resulting in such a different outcome.

Of course not. But your question ignores whether or not Iraqis desire our "version" of self-determination. It also ignores that the vast majority of Americans had little interest in aiding Iraq with such a fight. Our concern was security for the US - not altruistic notions of democratic Iraq. Is "establishment of Iraqi democracy after a bloody civil war" a trump card that will excuse misleading/false WMD claims?

I know you'll try to claim that your question is independent of this issue, but I disagree. You are asking if the "ends justify the means", but you are not asking the other question, "are these ‘ends’ what Americans were willing to go to war for?" You (and I gather a small subset of similar-minded people) think so - but that's hardly sufficient justification to send innocent people to war - and it still ignores the disingenuous techniques used to acquire support. More importantly, it allows you to avoid discussing the unpleasent truth of the situation.

I can't disagree that a democracy would be better than a dictatorship - but the neoconservative vision was not the rationale for entering. Like it or not, that mantra is not supported by the American public. More importantly, the very question (ends justify means) moots US democracy - the same democracy we desire to spread. It's ok to deceive the american public since in the end Iraq achieves "self-determination" through civil war? One can ignore the mandate from the people, since it's for the sake of neocon-style democracy? It's irony, and it's a terribly worded question. Hayes, you trumpet factual truth, clarity, and consistency - and you post with enough obvious intelligence to make it hard for me to believe this question was so poorly framed unintentionally.

Perhaps the reason the American public (and the administration responsible for the whole mess) fears such a result from our "invasion" is that it means we would be little more than warmongers who sparked a national crisis in Iraq. The US invasion would go from finding WMDs, to the ousting a tyrant, to instilling democracy, to encouraging a civil war for "self determination". Hardly the best excuse for a "preemptive strike". Once again, the question is framed irresponsibly.

Furthermore, we don’t deny them that right, but we do wish to deny them the aforementioned pain and suffering. You conveniently “brush off “ the terrible price of civil war with the ludicrously trite “casualties” statement below. We don’t deny them any right to democracy or “self determination”, but we’d like to deny them the right to kill each other in mass quantities as a result of our unwise and irresponsible invasion.

Bad comparison. We were protesting the sudden lack of representation we had with the British court. What are the Iraqi's fighting for? Little more than the total lack of government. That's anarchy, and I believe history will bear me out as showing that in such situations, usually the most ruthless despot prevails.



EDIT: Damn good post Deckard. Props.

 

Here is the key problem I have. Who is "they?" The people who are starting this civil war aren't the average Iraqis who DO NOT want war and do not care to partition the state into three pieces. The people who are starting this are leaders with their own political interests (Al Sadr, Kurdish leaders, Sunni clerics and leaders) and these people are rallying militants and extremists to fight the battle.

The actual amount of people who WANT civil war is so small that this isn't a mandate of the Iraqi people but a mandate of Iraqi political interests who have wanted to split the country up for years. This is no expression of an Iraqi right to self-determination. Originally, the voting booth was supposed to be their tool to express their will but now you're saying the battlefield is their tool?

You've said the following earlier...
" On what basis do we deny their own right to fight for self determination?"

"If the end result is that the people of what is now called Iraq, an artificial conglomerate of different 'tribes,' get self determination - can we say that outcome is bad?"

Yes the outcome can be bad and no this isn't a fight for their right to self-determination. This is a fight so that the political elite in Ira

 

thats where i fundamentally disagree. people aren't asking to be bombed while praying or going to the market or being in line at the police station. that isn't something they wanted. and it isn't something they can avoid. there isn't a willful forfeit or anything. its a brutal result of a civil war which the US initiated by invading and causing a power vacuum.

 

He was given 48 hours. He could refuse the offer, change his mind, refuse it again, then ultimately decide to accept all within a 48 hour period.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. attacked prior to the 48 hours being up. You can try and rationalize that if you wish, but he wasn't given the 48 hours promised by the U.S.

 

Wow Hayes, just wow. What a frivolous reply.


Telling.

 

I have been given 48 hours to make a decision about work before. In that time I have changed my mind what seemed like a dozen times. If someone gives you 48 hours, then you have 48 hours. If they act prior to that 48 hour period it is safe to say they weren't serious.

Like I said if Saddam was given 48 hours, he is free to change his mind one or a thousand times within that 48 hours. Until that 48 hours is up nothing he does is final. That is of course providing the 48 hour offer was made in earnest.

Whether or not Saddam would have ultimately accepted doesn't really matter until that 48 hour period is up.

 

My God - I'm psychic!

 

When starting a war because of the answer, making absolutely sure that the answer is the final one, and allowing the 48 hour period is not too much to ask. The onus should be on the person actually starting the war to make sure.

 

If these are "genuine answers" your question is not only disingenuous as I originally laid out - it's really stupid. Here I'll save you loads of time:

No.

We aren't denying them this.

No.


You might as well have just asked:

Would have saved us all 12 pages of bull****. But you didn't. That's the real issue Hayes. You framed the question to excuse "the means" for the "end".

If you didn't want to get lamblasted in this way you should have thought a little harder about how you portrayed your question. Everyone here knows that you supported the invasion, and continue to preach neocon doctrine. Acknowleding this, it's stupid to think that this reaction would not have been forthcoming.

I'll take you at your word here and refrain from calling you a liar - but your credibility has been shot. Symbolic, no?