Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Well recently the United States had a study group so to say on the situation in Iraq and theat study group said that we should have Iran and Syria to join us in our fight to promote democracy, peace, and order in Iraq. I really have mix feelings on the subject so I was wondering what are your views on the matter? Should we let Iran and other Middle East countries join the fight or should we just leave them out of the situation?
I for one desire Iran and other Middle Eastern countries to join us in quelly this uprising in Iraq and to attempt to make Iraq self relient. I know what happened in the past and what is happening now int the Middle East but maybe we should instead ask for Islamic nations to help which could improve our relations between our two nations.:yes:
Iran and Syria are an interracial part of the situation. Regardless the policy of the United States, Iran, and to a much lesser extent Syria, will be involved in Iraq. Iran is considered a Shiite country that happens to also be the majority of Iraqâ€™s population. Therefore they could probably have the most influence over the greatest number of people in Iraq. Saddam was a Sunni, but led a secular government, just a bit of background on the subject.
The United States has almost no political capital with Iran, and very little with Syria. Currently Iran has no reason to help our cause. We threaten them with military or economic sanctions for their nuclear program. Our thanks for their help on the war on terror (Afghanistan) was to add them to the axis of evil list. We aided Saddam against them, arming him with chemical weapons which he used to massacre the Iranians, as well as his own people. We are the largest supporter of Israel; Israel exists because of constant support form the United States, which inflames the relations between America and other Arab nations, who see much of the Israel doing as ethic cleansing, numerous human rights and treaty violations and or abuses. We have a history with Iran, that goes back a long time, it starts with the CIA influencing there elections, then a backlash as the Iranian people other threw that government, and captured and killed Americans in there country, in the resulting power vacuum, radial religious powers took control of the country. (This is a massive simplification of what happened.)
Given the situation, Iran has no reason to help the US, except that Iraq is their neighbor, and perhaps fellow Shiites will die. Therefore given the already terrible relations between the United States, and Iran being the country with the most influence over Iraq, considerable reparations would likely be demanded from the United States.
Even if Iran steps in, what could they do? There are very few things they could actually do. First of they could send troops to Iraq, it would be a logistical miracle for these armies to work together. Considering the bad blood between each, things would be very tense for quite some time. Once Iran also occupies Iraq, how do we know they wont betray us? All in all, Iran sending in troops seems like an overwhelming logistical nightmare, that would probably only make the situation worse.
Secondly, Iran could stop sending IEDs to Iraq, that would have an immediate effect on the amount relation attacks that could be taken place. Syria also does a lot of this, which needs to stop â€“ but probably wont until Sunni Integrants, and Al-Qaeda fighters stop massacring Shiites. So if the United States could convince Iran and Syria to stop aiding the Shiite death squads that would be plus.
Third Iran and Syria could condemn the Violence, and cut off founding and support to religious and political leaders who donâ€™t follow suit. This would also help the situation, because for the most part the Shiite death squads and militias are lead by religious leaders. Without support from Iran and Syria, then Iraqi government could step in much more easily and arrest leaders of suspected militia/death squad ties.
Countries less talked about, Saudi Arabia, and other bordering countries of Sunni inclination, need to put just as much pressure on there own people to stop the violence. The Iraqis know Al-Qaeda isnâ€™t something they want in there country â€“ they werenâ€™t there before America was. The Sunnis support them for now, essentially because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Once the Sunnis have little reason to have a powerful military ally â€“ such as Al-Qaeda (that is the violence stops) Then Al-Qaeda will be disposed of, probably violently.
The surrounding regions is playing a role, currently they are adding fuel the fire, with some notable exceptions like turkey, as of yet Saudi Arab isnâ€™t really involved. Weapons trafficking through Iran and Syria are the biggest problems, and if stopped the situation would improve. But why would Iran help us.
There is no military solution to this problem, according to one American General. If America can get all outside parties involved, get everyone to the table, and make sure the Sunnis, Turks, and Shiites get a countries, where they can all do well, then and only then will the violence stop. The price for America will likely be huge â€“ depends on how generous the Iranians feel, if its two high, will be forced to redeploy our troops, of suffer the fate of the former soviet union, and I stress former.
This is all if feel like writing for now, but there is way more to be said on the subject.
Short answer: yes, we need the support of Iran.
I think Forged explanation perfectly sums up how hugely complex the situation in Iraq is. It's not just a case of an anti-American insurgency fighting against coalition troops. It's a case of groups of armed militias of different religious and political factions fighting against each other and, in many cases, the coalition forces as well.
The intervention of Iran and Syria may be dangerous as, as forged said, these countries have their own religious and political agenda, and could be seen to favour one side over another.
One thing I will say is that al-Quaeda is cellular.. It's not an 'organization' so much as an umbrella ideology with many subordinate organizations. Even people who have gone to al-Quaeda training camps don't start getting orders from Osama Bin Laden, they're usually sent home and told to start recruiting a cell of their own, or put in contact with an existing cell which they can then fit into.
This really is the only way to run any secretive organization, if everyone knows everyone, a tiny slipup can collapse the whole pack of cards. As it is, if a cell dies, it's like a branch on a tree, it drops off, but the tree remains intact. I don't think it's just going to be a case of 'diplomatic settlement = everyone's happy = al-Quaeda goes away.' I think we're stuck with al-Queda for the forseeable future.. The best which can be hoped for in any diplomatic settlement is an end to the sectarian conflicts.
It's been my observation of history that terrorist organizations generally can't be killed. Eventually, they burn out their fuel sources and collapse, but as long as there is a percieved war to fight, someone will fight it.
Last edited by The_Giant_Mantis; December 9th, 2006 at 09:14.
It depends on what you want from buying the support of the countries. Each has its pros and cons.
Iran has the ear of the Shiite community, although it is possible that it's not entirely responsible for the funding of insurgent groups any more (Iran has been shown to have had a part to play in the founding of Muqtada's Mahdi Army, but not really its sustenance after that, for example), and there's almost certainly some resentment for the Iraq-Iran war. If Iran plays a major part in the reconciliation, then they need to be kept away from the government unless you want a theocratic Iraq; Iran would almost certainly push its own shiite goals at the expense of the sunnis (the kurds are more or less their own country now, so that's not worth worrying about). This is more or less what's already happening now anyway, given Iraq's shia majority, and shiites unfettered by Iranian support may end up being stronger and more independent of Iran than those who have been dependent on its support.
Syria has been identified as the main route into Iraq for foreign jihadis, and so getting the help of the Syrians may well help ease the Class of '05 Problem (Class of '05 problem) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, quite apart from providing a valuable ally. The Syrians aren't quite so partisan as the Iranians, and so would be less inclined to push a single sector of the population. I'm not sure I understand the Syrians enough to comment any further, although they have tended to interfere with the kurds for their own purposes, which may be a bad thing.
All in all, it depends on how you want things to go. Although I'm not sure the US is prepared to let anyone interfere too much with their nationbuilding "baby" at the moment, and I'm not really sure either will make much difference.
Well, I think a diplomatic fix between the major groups in Iraq - mostly over oil money and the amount of freedom each province will have, can large get the leaders of each group happy. That would calm some of the sectarian violence. Then, more Iraqi brigades actually in Baghdad would be helpful to end the revenge killings.I don't think it's just going to be a case of 'diplomatic settlement = everyone's happy = al-Quaeda goes away.' I think we're stuck with al-Queda for the forseeable future.. The best which can be hoped for in any diplomatic settlement is an end to the sectarian conflicts.
A simple solution to province freedom could be any federal laws require a 66% percent majorette. Thus, Shiites who make up roughly 60% of the population of Iraq, cant simply ram through legislation they want - for example to pass a national law requiring women to dress in accordance with Islamic law, which the Sunnis who make up about 35% of the population wouldn't like, and neither would the roughly 5% of rest of the population. Provinces however, could make up their own laws, so long as they don't violate any of the rights of Iraqi Citizens, or national laws. This would prevent legislation ramming, while still allowing the country the flexibility to adapt to an ever changing world, and allow some areas of the country to follow more religious laws if they choice to.
Now the oil money, the real kicker, my solution is to nationalize the oil. Then, under strict transparent oversight, divide the money between citizens of Iraq, this money would count as income. Iraqis flat tax would be replaced with progressive tax, 45% of the top 2%, 35% from the top 20%, 14% from the middle class, 5% for the least well off.
Now all Iraqis would have a vested interest in getting there oil working. People tend to be less violent when they know they will have food to eat the next day, and water to drink, money generally ensures this, and oil is selling at high prices, thus lots of Iraqis would make money.
The Tax revenues would then go towards Iraq's government, and then to aid provinces, by a percentage of population. Thus if they had money left over, they could redistribute the money back to provinces, but only by population, thus no favoring one group over the other.
Provinces could then set up tax systems as they see fit - similar to states in America - I don't really know how Parliaments work as a government system, but they probably aren't that far off from Americas system.
I think this is the political solution that will best solve the waring factions issues. Once solved, support for Al-Qaeda will disappear, allowing those branches to be pruned. Will the violence ever go away totally? No, there is violence is every part of the world, but this can make it more reasonable. And get American troops out of Iraq, and where they belong: home.
Nationalising the oil is not going to happen, plain and simple. Why? Because none of the groups see themselves as Iraqis, and also there is already a stipulation regarding that in the Iraqi Constitution; that is, existing oil fields are plumbed according to a national scheme, but any new oil fields will fall under regional governmental control. And given that Iraq's federalism has created Kurdistan and has the potential for both Shiastan and Sunnistan within it, I doubt that's going to be changing soon.
And I wish people would get away from the notion that al-Qaeda is the only terrorist organisation in Iraq. After some digging, I've idenitifed just over 40 possibly operational groups (as part of my undergraduate dissertation, spending days trawling through databases and news reports, so I hope I know my stuff). While some of these (the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, Ansar al-Islam, Jama'at Taqwid wal Jihad and al-Qaeda in Iraq to name the main ones) do have connections to the al-Qaeda "mainstream", many don't. Those that don't will keep on fighting if al-Qaeda is somehow pacified or destroyed, which I doubt will happen. In the first case because it's a Wahabbist organisation that deems all Shias apostates who need to be killed, and in the secondly because al-Qaeda is more than just an organisation, if it's an organisation at all; it's a technique too. The translation ("the base", "the foundations" or "the fundamentals") can be applied in equal measure to both an organisation and a technique.
Moreover, many of these groups are very independent anyway, not attacking overtly much if at all (the majority of the groups I've found have been identified in less than 4 attacks each since 2003), making them hard to trace by their "noise". And, given the cellular nature of each organisation on top of that, destroying one cell won't kill the group off.
In short, it's incredibly awkward and difficult to resolve. I hope I've given a decent account of why it's so.
Yes, but we know organizations like Al-Qaeda have cells all over the world - but most of them cant do anything. For example, in the roughly 30 year existence of Al-Qeada they have launched only 2 successful attacks against the United States. (Granted they where quite successful) However our biggest protection from there group, is our people are generally happy, like the country, and don't want to see other Americans killed. Thus finding shelter in the general population becomes extremely difficult. Once the sectarian violence stops - assuming it ever will - The terrorist organizations wont be able to operate so freely, as the Iraqis just like any population of people don't like living in constant fear. And will eventually takes up the means required to make these terrorist attacks occur much less frequently. Forty terrorist groups, commenting 4 attacks, would be 160 in the last 4 years, thats quite high, in my opinion.Moreover, many of these groups are very independent anyway, not attacking overtly much if at all (the majority of the groups I've found have been identified in less than 4 attacks each since 2003), making them hard to trace by their "noise". And, given the cellular nature of each organisation on top of that, destroying one cell won't kill the group off.
I believe the united states explanation for the importance for stopping these terrorists, was that there attacks tend to be the larger in scale, then the sectarian attacks. For example the attacks where 3 car bombs detonate withen seconds of each other, killing 50 people, and woulding 100 more, is often speculated as organized by a terrorist cell, rather then militias or insurgents, because of the indiscriminate killing, and lack of political objective.
I don't have much to add to this discussion, however I saw this in my browser. Might have something to do with this?
Just a comment, Iraq's utilities, are still in worse shape then before the US invaded. The only thing i think the United States could help with, would be facilitating negotiations. Getting our troops out would be nice.think the problem would be better resolved if the U.S and other countries had minimal troop presence, finished whatever rebuilding there is to be done,