More Iraq stuff [Archive]

Jon_in_london

1st July 2003, 11:19 AM

Well, just saw a channel 4 'exclusive' on a US humvee that had been hit by an rpg- assuming it killed everyone inside. The humvee behind it bugged out (god idea oh lord!) and a civillian truck next to it was also set on fire. I dont know how many US troops were killed in this attack but prolly between 2 and 6 killed or injured.

*disclaimer: yes I know I have posted pretty prevocative stuff here in the past, but thats just as devils advoate, this is serious stuff*

Now, what I found disturbing was not that the attack took place but the attitude of the Iraqi bystanders and the US troops who arrived as backup a few minutes later.

The attitude of the Iraqis before the US troops came onto the scene seemed to be one of "thats really terrible but, hey! they got it coming to them"

Now enter a US soldier- helmet, body armour, grenades hanging from his chest, rifle in his shoulder. Runs in and begins shouting at a bystander "WHO WAS IN THE HUMVEE?!?! THE HUMVEEEE!?!?! THE___HUMMMM____VEEE!!!!!!!! (dumb Arab cant understand American so have to speak slowly)"

Now a few seconds ago this guy looked like he was willing to help!

"GET BACK!!! GET BACK!! GET AWAY!!!"

Instead the guy gets understandably defensive, retreats into the crowd and vents his spleen amongst his mates et al. and the camera man.

So now all the Iraqis are pissed off and dont want anything to do with the US troops. In fact they probably are a bit glad this happened. Where are their jobs? Where is their democracy? How are they supposed to live in the country as the US has made it? At least under Saddam they had jobs .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .

What the US needs to learn is the practical application of the 'hearts and minds' concept. You dont win hearts and minds by making people unemployed and unemployable. You dont win hearts and minds by treating poeple like ignorant natives. You dont win hearts and minds by alienatinf people like the US soldier in question did above...................

ceo_esq

1st July 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
At least under Saddam they had jobs
No they didn't. In February 2000, Time magazine reported that the unemployment rate in Iraq was between 60% and 75% (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/notebook/intl/0,9485,1107000228,00.html). Press reports now suggest that the postwar unemployment rate is ... 60% (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/fjun/16_umqasr.html).

If those figures are anywhere close to the mark, the national employment situation in Iraq is not sharply worse now than it was before the war. Particularly if one doesn't include those Iraqis who previously held jobs that badly needed downsizing (Republican Guards, Baath party bureaucrats, secret policemen and the like).

In addition, the coming development boom is going to give Iraq a better employment rate than it's had for many years.

Dancing David

1st July 2003, 12:02 PM

I think that this is the sad part of ocupation, the germans and japanese did it too.

And it just seems trite to say , ship them a bunch of american goods and translators. But I really belive that some cultural savvy and flash lites and toilet paper would go a long way to help.

Jon_in_london

1st July 2003, 12:06 PM

c0rbin

1st July 2003, 12:14 PM

So is my wife

Yes...she...is...:o

Landis

1st July 2003, 12:17 PM

The most recent poll numbers coming out show that support for the US going into Iraq has now dropped to 52% (according to CNN news). I think this is because most of the rather dense American public are beginning to reallize that we have gotten ourselves into a Vietnam Like quagmire from which there will be a long steady stream of American Casualties. When that number drops below 50 % watch out, it spells big trouble for George W.

The American Public likes their convenient little TV wars. We cheer on our troops like it was somekind of football match. But when the enemy starts "hitting and running" it becomes very disturbing.

Mr Manifesto

1st July 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

No they didn't. In February 2000, Time magazine reported that the unemployment rate in Iraq was between 60% and 75% (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/notebook/intl/0,9485,1107000228,00.html). Press reports now suggest that the postwar unemployment rate is ... 60% (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/fjun/16_umqasr.html).

If those figures are anywhere close to the mark, the national employment situation in Iraq is not sharply worse now than it was before the war. Particularly if one doesn't include those Iraqis who previously held jobs that badly needed downsizing (Republican Guards, Baath party bureaucrats, secret policemen and the like).

In addition, the coming development boom is going to give Iraq a better employment rate than it's had for many years.

You should look at your source a little closer. The article is about shipping, not about Iraqi unemployment. It says:

estimated unemployment rates of up to 60%.

But doesn't say how it came to that estimate. Did they call a bunch of Iraqis and ask them if they have a job on the phone lines that don't work? The article doesn't say, probably because the article doesn't really care about being accurate about Iraqi unemployment since the actual rate is beside the point: it's high, that's all you need to know.

Meanwhile, here's (http://www.bakersfield.com/24hour/iraq/aid/story/911340p-6347605c.html) an AP article, which supports other articles I've seen, which says that even if you have a job, you may not be getting paid for it in Iraq:

Yet two months after U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad, marking the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime and the beginning of a U.S.-led occupation, security is sketchy, basic services are still hobbled and the salaries of many civil servants remain unpaid.

So in the end, let's give America a big hip-hip hooray for everything they've done for the Iraqis, and a big boo-sucks to the Iraqi spoilers who are sending the brave American troops home in a box one at a time, one day at a time.

peptoabysmal

1st July 2003, 10:18 PM

You have soldiers, trained to kill, suddenly being put in the position of being peace officers.

What are the options at this point? Back out of the country and let them have a bloody civil war?

If we let the Iraqis have elections right now and elect whoever they want, years later the US will be blamed for creating another Saddam.

It's going to take a while to restore order to Iraq. How about the Iraqis and the rest of the world having some understanding for how difficult it is for our troops?

Drifterman

1st July 2003, 11:01 PM

peptoabysmal posted:
How about the Iraqis and the rest of the world having some understanding for how difficult it is for our troops?

No understanding is deserved.

Why?

Because we don't think our troops should be there in the first place. :rolleyes:

We should have waited until the gun-owning Iraqis threw off their tyrannical dictator for themselves. :D

ceo_esq

2nd July 2003, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Oh great. So all Iraq needed was some corporate streamlining?

Come on, Jon. I was merely suggesting that there are a certain number of people (quite possibly a statistically significant number in a country with a prewar workforce of less than 10 million) the loss of whose employment can't reasonably be viewed as any sort of net loss to the country. One can sympathize with the civil servant who complains that his job has been eliminated, but not (for example) with the paramilitary death squad member who complains of the same thing.

All this is quite subsidiary to my chief observation, but that's no excuse for your deliberately obtuse interpretation of my point.
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You should look at your source a little closer. The article is about shipping, not about Iraqi unemployment. It says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimated unemployment rates of up to 60%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But doesn't say how it came to that estimate. Did they call a bunch of Iraqis and ask them if they have a job on the phone lines that don't work? The article doesn't say, probably because the article doesn't really care about being accurate about Iraqi unemployment since the actual rate is beside the point: it's high, that's all you need to know.
Your conclusion that the estimated unemployment rate is sufficiently unrelated to the subject-matter of that article that the Wall Street Journal (the original source of the reprinted article) would "not really care about being accurate" is probably unwarranted. But at any rate, that 60% estimate has appeared widely, most recently in yesterday's Agence France Presse wire about reconstruction efforts. There, the figure was attributed to Paul Bremer. I don't know how accurate it is, nor how it was arrived at, but the Coalition Provisional Authority is relatively well-placed to make such an estimate.

At any rate, I didn't specifically vouch for the accuracy of either the pre-war or post-war unemployment estimates. I simply noted that if they were roughly correct, nationwide unemployment in Iraq has not risen especially sharply in the wake of the war.
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
... even if you have a job, you may not be getting paid for it in Iraq
I have no difficulty believing that; on the other hand it was undoubtedly also the case (to precisely what extent, I don't know) under Saddam. It was revealed prior to the conflict, for example, that police in parts of northern Iraq had not been paid for months.

Tony

2nd July 2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Drifterman

We should have waited until the gun-owning Iraqis threw off their tyrannical dictator for themselves. :D

Isnt challenging the status quo, opposing oppression and advocating internationalism what liberalism is all about? I guess I was wrong.

Jon_in_london

2nd July 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
You have soldiers, trained to kill, suddenly being put in the position of being peace officers.

Maybe thats the problem. Maybe US troops should have some more peace-keeping operations training.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
What are the options at this point? Back out of the country and let them have a bloody civil war?

Options:
Increase employemt and pay those that are employed.
Get your troops to stop alienating the population.
Bring in some form of self-government, even if only at the most basic level.

BillyTK

2nd July 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Isnt challenging the status quo, opposing oppression and advocating internationalism what liberalism is all about? I guess I was wrong.

Yes. That's socialism you're thinking of. Btw, invading other countries ≠ internationalism.

Tony

2nd July 2003, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Yes. That's socialism you're thinking of.

Socialism? Opposing oppression? Thats a laugh considering some of the world's worst dictators were socialists.

Btw, invading other countries ≠ internationalism.

huh?

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 05:35 AM

This Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/932605.asp?0dm=s138k), which is mostly about Liberia, illuminates why we are having such problems in post-war Iraq.
Because of its massive advantages and extraordinary skill, the American military will win any future war quickly and easily. The regime it is fighting will collapse, leaving disorder and chaos in its wake. Within weeks the Army will no longer be engaged in war, but instead in policing, law and order, aid deliveries and political negotiations. And this will take not weeks but years.
...

American soldiers are the best in the world. But 22-year-old Marines are trained to fight, not to rebuild houses, manage group rivalries, adjudicate legal claims and help found civic groups. What we need in Iraq—and what we would quickly need in Liberia—are armies of engineers, aid workers, agronomists and, most important, political and legal experts to negotiate the myriad problems of peace.

...

For the past three decades America’s foreign-affairs budget has been slashed while military spending has remained high. This has starved the civilian agencies of resources and turned them into disgruntled, ineffectual organizations. Meanwhile, the military, the only agency with money, has been pushed into areas well beyond its core competence. The result is that we’re untouchable at war but clumsy at peace.

The US is very good at breaking things, but not at fixing them.

Dancing David

2nd July 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
What are the options at this point? Back out of the country and let them have a bloody civil war?

It's going to take a while to restore order to Iraq. How about the Iraqis and the rest of the world having some understanding for how difficult it is for our troops?

These are good points but why wasn't there more planing given to post war occupation?

Sould they not have forseen the need for translators and stronger implementation of policing?

Who made the policy decision to not have more soldiers to act as police and train them as police. Rumsfeld maybe?

Landis

2nd July 2003, 09:35 AM

posted by peptoabysmal
What are the options at this point? Back out of the country and let hem have a bloody civil war?
__________________________________________________ __

Sounds like a good idea to me. Baghdad is a quagmire for the US. None of the 3 major warring factions really want us there. The Kurds in the North are just waiting for us to leave so they can use the weapons they took from Saddam's retreating forces to establish an independent Kurdistan in the Northern part of Iraq. The Shiites in southern/eastern Iraq want to establish a theocratic government based on Islamic fundamentalism, and the old Baathist want to re-establish their control, with or without Saddam. I say, let them fight it out. I was opposed to ever going into Iraq. It wasn't because I'm a peacenik, but because I could see the long term problems associated with nation building.

You cannot impose a truly democratic system of government on another country by force. Democracy is something that has to grow from the grassroots level of a society. If the Iraqi's want to have a democratic form of government, then let them fight it out and establish one. The US's own democracy required a bloody revolution and the sacrifice of thousands of lives. France gave us some back up military aid at the last minute, but it was the will of the people that enabled us to throw off the yoke of tyranny.