So is this the "Turning Point" in Iraq?

[joe1347]

Quote:

President Bush today called the formation of a new Iraqi government "a turning point,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss

#######################

Quote:

Baghdad -- Excluding the capital's nearly daily bombings, new Iraqi government documents show that more Baghdad residents died in shootings, stabbings and other violence in May than in any other month since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The numbers and accounts from residents depict neighborhoods descending further into violence and fear.

Last month, 1,398 bodies were brought to the central morgue, according to Ministry of Health statistics, 243 more than April. The count doesn't include soldiers or civilian victims of explosions, on whom autopsies are not usually conducted.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGBSJ89RK1.DTL

Quote:

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Gunmen in commando uniforms snatched at least 50 people from travel agencies in central Baghdad in an apparent kidnapping, as 11 students were shot dead elsewhere in the Iraqi capital.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060605/ts_afp/iraqunrest

I guess that a turning point don't necessarily have to be for the better!

[Nyarlathotep]

Sure it s a turning point. Iraq just went from being a squalid, anarchic, hellhole to simply being a squalid hellhole. Any fool can see that's quite an improvement.

[Apollyon]

Could someone explain how the formation of a new government in Iraq is a guarantee of peace or is a hedge against increases in violence in their largest city?

It also seems that violence has been an epidemic in Iraq for quite a few years, extending far back beyond the US invasion. How do the deaths of Iraqi civilians under Saddam compare to now, other than the fact that the murders are sectarian in nature rather than government sanctioned?

Oh, and hi folks. Obviously I'm new here. I'd like to state from the outset that I'm a registered Independent and never voted for Bush. In fact, I truly despise the guy. However, as in most internet forums, the discussion over Iraq often seems couched in terms of non-sequiturs and red herrings, and frequently appear to be driven by appeals to emotion. I was hoping this forum would be a bit different since there seems to be so many level-headed and logical people here.

Is it possible to discuss Iraq without some of the shoddier characteristics of debate creeping in?

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Is it possible to discuss Iraq without some of the shoddier characteristics of debate creeping in?

No.

Welcome!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Is it possible to discuss Iraq without some of the shoddier characteristics of debate creeping in?

Sure it's possible. It's about as likely as Ed McMahon showing up at your door with a million dollar check and a pony, though. Sadly, skeptics seems as prone to losing it over politics as the rest of the population.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Could someone explain how the formation of a new government in Iraq is a guarantee of peace or is a hedge against increases in violence in their largest city?

It also seems that violence has been an epidemic in Iraq for quite a few years, extending far back beyond the US invasion. How do the deaths of Iraqi civilians under Saddam compare to now, other than the fact that the murders are sectarian in nature rather than government sanctioned?

Oh, and hi folks. Obviously I'm new here. I'd like to state from the outset that I'm a registered Independent and never voted for Bush. In fact, I truly despise the guy. However, as in most internet forums, the discussion over Iraq often seems couched in terms of non-sequiturs and red herrings, and frequently appear to be driven by appeals to emotion. I was hoping this forum would be a bit different since there seems to be so many level-headed and logical people here.

Is it possible to discuss Iraq without some of the shoddier characteristics of debate creeping in?

Welcome, Apollyon.

Yes, there is a good bit of reasoned debate here, but you do have to search for it. Since it is an open forum, you cannot keep what I shall euphamistically call "non-moderate views" from creeping in. You can, of course, find those non-moderates and use the "ignore" function to weed the screed, but I don't like doing that. I find that almost every poster has something interesting to say on occassion.

A few of my favorite political posters (of various persuasions and in no particular order) are Athon, Ziggurat (as long as you don't get his dander up), Luke T, Skeptigirl, Eos of the Eons, Peptoabysmal, Earthborn, Davefoc, Mycroft, Headscratcher4 (master of esoterica), and Darat. I'm sure I've missed some, so no poison pen letters from the rest of you rabble, please.

But it is kind of funny that although we are mostly skeptics here, we tend to have strong and unshakable views on politics. It is by far the most eclectic of the various forums here.

Stick around, give us a chance, and try to see past the bluster. You may be pleasantly surprised.

[Luke T.]

Didn't the US establish a government whilst in the middle of an independence revolution that last for another 6 or 7 years? Would the establishment of that government be rightly called a turning point?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Didn't the US establish a government whilst in the middle of an independence revolution that last for another 6 or 7 years? Would the establishment of that government be rightly called a turning point?

Yeah. The government that another country established for them was what they were rebelling against.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Yeah. The government that another country established for them was what they were rebelling against.

I suppose the government the Iraqi "rebels" want is more like what they have in Iran. Or else what they had under Saddam.

[Apollyon]

Thanks for the welcome.

Tricky, I'm looking forward to reading replies from those and others. Some of the names I recognize since I've been lurking here for a short time.

Quote:

Yeah. The government that another country established for them was what they were rebelling against.

The Colonists rebelled because they had no real voice in government. The Iraqis elected theirs. Though if they want to rebel against the government they elected, that's their right. There doesn't seem to be any major movement in that direction though.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

The Colonists rebelled because they had no real voice in government. The Iraqis elected theirs. Though if they want to rebel against the government they elected, that's their right. There doesn't seem to be any major movement in that direction though.

It could be argued that the Iraqis didn't have a full voice in their government either. Certainly no government that was openly hostile to the US would have been permitted. I'd even bet that if "Islamic Theocracy" were one of the choices, it would have given democracy a run for the money.

But I think we can all agree that there are major differences between the way the new government of Iraq came about and how the US government came about.

Originally Posted by Luke T.

I suppose the government the Iraqi "rebels" want is more like what they have in Iran. Or else what they had under Saddam.

Possibly. The Iraqi "rebels" are a much less homogeneous group than the US revolutionary soldiers were.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Tricky

It could be argued that the Iraqis didn't have a full voice in their government either. Certainly no government that was openly hostile to the US would have been permitted. I'd even bet that if "Islamic Theocracy" were one of the choices, it would have given democracy a run for the money.

Yes, it could be argued, except that the Iraqi election is already history and the US didn't intervene.

The possibility of an "Islamic Theocracy" was one of the choices in the election as well. Fortunately that's not what the Iraqis opted for.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by joe1347

"President Bush today called the formation of a new Iraqi government "a turning point," "

I guess that a turning point don't necessarily have to be for the better!

Isn't this is about the 43rd turning point in Iraq since the 'mission accomplished' incident?

[joe1347]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Isn't this is about the 43rd turning point in Iraq since the 'mission accomplished' incident?

Probably, but this may be the first announced turning point just before the start of what apparently ended up being the worst month (in terms of violence) in Iraq. When the President made the "turning point" announcement about a month ago, I remember thinking that maybe all of the hundreds of billions spent and lives lost may finally start paying off and that we would begin to see some evidence of the Iraq insurgency wearing down.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Yes, it could be argued, except that the Iraqi election is already history and the US didn't intervene.

The possibility of an "Islamic Theocracy" was one of the choices in the election as well. Fortunately that's not what the Iraqis opted for.

Maybe they didn't intervene directly (and I wouldn't bet the ranch on that) but the fact that they are there as an occupying force almost certainly had a lot to do with the outcome. Lots of Iraqis, especially Sunnis, didn't vote because they thought it was rigged. You could be right, but I'll be interested to see how the vote goes once the US isn't there to "observe" things. Of course, that is assuming that the democracy manages to survive without being propped up.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Is it possible to discuss Iraq without some of the shoddier characteristics of debate creeping in?

This is quite civil, in comparison.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Maybe they didn't intervene directly (and I wouldn't bet the ranch on that) but the fact that they are there as an occupying force almost certainly had a lot to do with the outcome. Lots of Iraqis, especially Sunnis, didn't vote because they thought it was rigged. You could be right, but I'll be interested to see how the vote goes once the US isn't there to "observe" things. Of course, that is assuming that the democracy manages to survive without being propped up.

Timor is having a similar problem of surviving without being propped up. And now they are asking for the UN to come back and help them survive.

An infant democracy is a fragile thing.

[Bikewer]

We do tend to try to simplify the goings-on in Iraq, along the lines of the good guys (who presumably want a nice, pro-Western democracy) and "The Terrorists", who want....Whatever it is they want.

I listened to a recent analysis of things on NPR's Talk Of The Nation (forget which show, I listen to it daily) where the panel was discussing the diversity of competing groups.
Not enough to have Sunni vs. Shia, or Pro-Saddamists against Democracy; in addition to these, there are numerous groups, militias, neighborhood cells, tribal groups, and so forth all of whom have their own agenda and are trying to carve out their piece of the pie.

We have major ethnic groups, differing religious sects, tribal loyalty, and more besides. One of the panelists ran down a list of 7 or 8 named "organizations" in or around Bagdhad, all of which were at odds with each other, as well as us.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Maybe they didn't intervene directly (and I wouldn't bet the ranch on that) but the fact that they are there as an occupying force almost certainly had a lot to do with the outcome. Lots of Iraqis, especially Sunnis, didn't vote because they thought it was rigged. You could be right, but I'll be interested to see how the vote goes once the US isn't there to "observe" things. Of course, that is assuming that the democracy manages to survive without being propped up.

The first time around the Sunnis didn't vote in any numbers because, frankly, their leadership was acting like petulant little children. Sunnis had been the de facto holders and maintainers of power in Iraq for decades. They had always been unfairly represented in Iraqi politics in relation to their percentage of the population and they felt that trend should continue. As such, the Sunni clerics issued fatwas against voting hoping it would be a roadblock to a successful vote. When a wildly successful vote was held anyway without the Sunnis, they finally realized that that their lack of participation hurt only them. It didn't prevent the political process from moving forward.

So in the most recent election the Sunnis finally joined the fray. Voter turnout (or lack thereof) really had little to do with the charges of it being rigged, though that claim was passed around as propaganda to discourage some voters. Considering the large numbers that came out to vote, the charges of rigging had little effect.

Whether or not the US intervened in the voting process or had any affect on how Iraqi people voted is pure speculation. Nothing has been proven concerning that claim. Additionally, it kind of seems akin to a CT-ish sort of claim (It's the US government behind it all!") I don't like to deal in that sort of baseless speculation. Besides, the vote was overseen by an international group from the UN, not by the US.

I guess what gets my goad about the whole Iraq situation is the blatant pessimism demonstrated by those who were opposed to the war. 'Iraq will never form a democratic government. It's not their way.' 'If they do form a government it will be a theocracy.' 'Any Iraqi government will merely be a puppet of Iran.' And so on, and so forth...endless pessimism. There's no secret about what motivates that pessimism either. I can comprehend that motivation as well. It's easy to despise the Bush admin and most of the GOP today (and many of the Democrats too, for that matter). What I don't understand is why people can't see past their partisan noses on this issue? This is not about us anymore. We already opened the box and it cannot be closed. At this point in time it is about Iraqis and their future, yet people are using their personal biases to color their thought on the issues and in the process we are playing with the lives of 27+ million people rather cavalierly, with some assist from the media. I find that attitude downright disgusting.

[andyandy]

sure there's been turning points in Iraq....plenty of them needed too when you keep going round in circles......

[kalen]

Originally Posted by andyandy

sure there's been turning points in Iraq....plenty of them needed too when you keep going round in circles......

... and you end up where you started.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by andyandy

sure there's been turning points in Iraq....plenty of them needed too when you keep going round in circles......

Like millstones, grinding exceeding small.

Originally Posted by kalen

... and you end up where you started.

That would mean Turkish rule again. Not likely but, you know, never say never. Maybe they could take back the Caucasus as well.

This is just another event in the post-Ottoman re-arrangement of the region. One day, when the oil is gone and the people there are left to their own devices, they'll get themselves sorted out. The process might not be pretty but at least there'll be something solid at the end of it. I very much doubt it will include something called Iraq, which was constructed by the Brits from the provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. Add in Damascus, and the skeleton of a federal structure emerges from the mist.