Magish

iTrader: (2)

Today, while I was helping my grandparents (still alive and kicking in their 80's) move into their new house, I was discussing with my Grandfather about what we thought Iraq will turn out to be in the long run. He is a registered Republican, was a congressman in the 60's as a Republican, but recently due to the war and the republican party turning against everything he thought it once represented (strict interpritation of the constitution, FISCAL RESPONSABILITY) he has recently started voting Democrat (since ~2000, though he voted for Bush in '00). He has done a lot of research and most of this is his idea, but some was mine. When we came up with this, I was wondering what other people on here thought would be the LONG TERM forecast for the political stability of Iraq.

My/My grandfathers feelings
First, the steady stream of forign insergents will be slowly cut off, but there will continue to be some getting through to commit bombings for years and years to come. However, a constitution will get passed, only becasue the Suni's dont have enough votes to kill it. The central Iraqi government will NOT be very strong, and will only really control foriegn affairs issues and boarder security to some extent. They will also control the military, which will be well trained, but will have a hard time working together (Suni, Shi'ite, Kurd). Due to this separation between the three groups, the more powerful people than the central government will be those who control the reigons. The Kurds will be the most "well behaved" and the most friendly tward us (as they have been). They will act on their own as much as possible, and not get mixed up in between the other two groups fighting. The Shi'ites will put on a happy face tward us, but will really lean tward being more friendly to Iran. The Suni are the "wildcard" and could be the biggest problem. They used to hold all the power, and now they have very little. They have the least Oil, the least power, and the least influence. Thus, they are going to be either really nice to us, or be pissed off at everyone. They, with the help of foriegn fighters are the most likely ones to try to, or succed in initating a Civil War. The suni's and the shi'ites will most likely for some time have a conflict somewhat like what the Palistinians and the Isrelies have.

Will Iraq be a shining beacon of Democracy in the Middle East? Maybe, but how it looks right now it is not looking great. They will be a democracy, but due to the lack of partnership within the three groups the central government will probably not have enough muscle (without our "steroids ) to change much. If/when Iran goes back to a democracy, it will not be becasue of Iraq, but will be becasue of the youngest generations of Irani (is that what they are?) who do not like the totalitarian government in place right now. Iran HAS tasted democracy before, before the Iatola took over. The most likely place in the Middle east for democracy to flourish is Leabanon though IMHO. They want Siria out, and Hesbolah has turned more into a legitimate political force in Lebanon than a terrorist group. They also have had democracy, and it seems obvious from the protests they have had that they want it again. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to change much. They have no reason to, besides a relatively small group who want change (in comparison to say Iran). We are too reliant on them to put much muscle into trying to get them to change.


So that is what we came up with, what do you all think will happen?
-Jeff

Salty

iTrader: (14)

The Sunnis have complained about not being a bigger part of the government. The problem is that they know it was their own damn fault for not participating in a Democracy. I think they'll eventually work harder to achieve what they chose not to have or risk being left behind.

I hope this will unite the shiites, sunnis and kurds based on opportunity and freedoms, not religion. Then they will hopefully single-out those terrorists and insurgents that continue to oppose the very freedoms and opportunity they've become accustomed to. I hope that this happens in order to suppress any idea of a civil war.

I think the occasional bombing will happen for some time though... maybe even decades. But if my prediction is correct it won't matter. The occasional bombing won't disrupt the way the Country works and how it will steadily advance. It goes back to my reference regarding how the horizon is not infinitely flat. You may hear about a major 50car pile-up or bank robbery gone terribly wrong in Wichita, Kansas. But the fact of the matter is that you'll carry-on with your life and may possibly forget about the incident by nightfall. Regardless, their dependency for democracy will become stronger every time some ignorant camel ****er tries to take it away from them. Basically, in the same sense a teenager disobeys their parents. They are already considered thugs to most Iraqis, so…

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Good read that deals with this topic. I've always stressed the fact that we as nation must be moblized for war. It has appeared from the beginning that only DOD is making sacrifaces and the rest of the nation is going about life as if nothing happened.


The Iraq Panic
Zarqawi's bombs hit their target in Washington.

Monday, June 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

"It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."--Senator Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), June 27, 2005, U.S. News & World Report.

"And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying and there really is no end in sight."--Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.), June 23, 2005, Armed Services Committee hearing.

The polls show the American people are growing pessimistic about Iraq, and no wonder. They are being rallied against the cause by such statesmen as the two above. Six months after they repudiated the insurgency in a historic election, free Iraqis are continuing to make slow but steady political and military gains. Where the terrorists are gaining ground is in Washington, D.C.

This is despite tangible, albeit underreported, progress in Iraq. In the political arena, an Iraqi transition government has formed that includes representatives from all ethnic and religious groups. Leading Sunnis who boycotted January's election are now participating both in the parliament and in drafting a new constitution. The Shiite uprising of a year ago has been defeated. The government now has three deadlines to meet: drafting a constitution by August, a referendum on that constitution in October and elections for a permanent government in December.

This political momentum vindicates the decision to hold the January election, despite warnings that it was "going to be ugly" (in Joe Biden's phrase). Some of those who predicted the worst because the Sunnis refused to participate--Mr. Biden, the Hoover Institution's Larry Diamond--are the same people who now say again that disaster looms. Clearly the smart strategy was to move ahead with the vote and show the Sunnis they had to participate if they wanted a role in building the new Iraq. So why should we believe these pessimists now?

As for security, the daily violence is terrible and dispiriting, but it is not a sign of an expanding insurgency. As U.S. and Iraqi military targets have hardened their defenses, the terrorists have turned to larger bombs delivered by suicidal jihadists aimed at softer targets. This drives up the casualty figures, especially against Iraqi civilians, but it does not win more political converts.

Insurgencies that have prevailed in history--Algeria, China, Cuba--have all had a large base of popular support. That more of the bombers seem to be coming from outside Iraq is cause for worry, since it means there will be a continuing supply of suicide bombers. But it also means that the insurgency is becoming an invasion force against Iraq itself, which means it lacks the native roots to sustain it.

The trend is in fact toward more civilian cooperation with Iraqi and U.S. security forces. Calls to the military hotline have climbed to 1,700 from 50 in January, according to U.S. commanders, and better intelligence has led to the recent capture of key insurgent leaders, including a top deputy to Musab al-Zarqawi. An Iraqi TV show profiling captured jihadists--"Terrorism in the Hands of Justice"--is a popular hit.

Everyone wishes that Iraqi security forces could be trained faster to replace U.S. troops, and to secure areas from which terrorists have been ousted. But here, too, there has been progress. About 100 Iraqi units are now able to conduct special operations on their own. General George Casey, the Iraq theater commander, says there has not been a single failure of an Iraqi military unit since the election. And new recruits continue to volunteer, even though this makes them terrorist targets.

Regarding Mr. Kennedy's "quagmire" claim, General Casey had this response: "I thought I was fairly clear in what I laid out in my testimony about what's going on in Iraq, that you have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day. Senator, that is not a quagmire."

So why the Washington panic? A large part of it is political. As Democrats see support for the war falling in the polls, the most cynical smell an opening for election gains in 2006. The Republican Hagels, who voted for the war only reluctantly, see another opening to assail the "neo-cons" and get Donald Rumsfeld fired. Still others are merely looking for political cover. Rather than fret (for the TV cameras) about "the "public going south" on the war, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham could do more for the cause by trying to educate Americans and rally their support.

It isn't as if the critics are offering any better strategy for victory. At last week's Senate hearing, Carl Levin's (D., Mich.) brainstorm was that the U.S. set a withdrawal schedule if Iraqis miss their deadline in writing a constitution. But U.S. officials have all stressed to Iraqis how important that deadline is. Mr. Biden delivered a lecture last week that boiled down to letting France train 1,500 Iraqi "gendarmes" and pressing for 5,000 NATO troops to patrol the Syrian border. Both are fine with us, assuming Mr. Biden gets to negotiate with the French, but neither is going to turn the tide of war.

The proposal to fix a date certain for U.S. withdrawal is especially destructive, inviting the terrorists to wait us out and Iraqi ethnic groups to start arming themselves. The only important idea we've heard from Congress is John McCain's suggestion that if Damascus keeps abetting the insurgency, the U.S. is under no obligation to honor Syria's territorial integrity when pursuing terrorists seeking sanctuary in that country.

President Bush plans to speak about Iraq tomorrow, and we hope he points out that this Beltway panic is hurting the war effort. General John Abizaid of the U.S. Central Command stressed this point last week. Troop morale, he said, has never been better. But "when I look back here at what I see is happening in Washington, within the Beltway, I've never seen the lack of confidence greater."

He added that, "When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me. And they're starting to do that." Mr. Bush will no doubt remind Americans of the stakes in Iraq, but he also needs to point out that defeatism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Magish

iTrader: (2)

Link?

Besides that, I'm suprised more havn't put their thoughts in :-/

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

It's too early and most of us don't have access to the info we really need in order to make that decision. Who knows.

















I think it will depend alot on if people actually listen to a guy like this...

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

On a US-military-involvement-front, I think Iraq will be in a similar situation to what it's in now until the next war happens in the region. The reason I think this is because I don't beleive the US Military actually wants to withdraw. We as a country like having operational military locations, especially in 'trouble' regions like the middle east. Regardless of how well the new Iraqi military is trained and how subdued the insurgency gets, I believe we will keep troops active in Iraq for a long time. The thing is, that region is very volitile and several of Iraq's neighbors present as much (or more) of a threat to the US and the international community than Iraq ever has. For this reason, I'm almost certain that there will be another war within the next 10 to 15 years. And our troops will still be in Iraq when that war starts, hopefully giving us some type of advantage.

Politically, I can't see any country as religiously-devout-but-fragmented as Iraq ever REALLY getting a representative democracy that actully makes any one of their citizens happy. If they somehow convince everyone to vote for a STRICT and COMPLETE seperation of church and state (more of a seperation than we have here even...), there would be a chance. However, I don't beleive this will happen due to the zeal many people in Iraq have for their particular religion. And if religion is at all involved in the politics/rule making of the 'new Iraq', there will almost surely be civil war. I can't think of ANY independant state on this planet that has several religions represented equally in their system of government. Eastern Europe is a good example; many of the states there have split along religious/ethinic type lines to enable governments to involve religion/culture in their politics.

Economically is where the new Iraq will shine. In a relatively short time (1-2 years), I'm pretty sure both US and Iraqi companies in Iraq will begin making major money as the people of Iraq resume relatively normal trade and commerce. Iraq has a great oil supply, and once the internal economy stabilizes and is backed at least partially by the US economy, Iraq will be able to capitolize on their largest natural resource like they never have before.

Socially, Iraq will be just fine. I believe that many people that are my age (early 20s) in Iraq realize that in order for Iraq to flourish on a world level, their society needs to change in certain aspects (such as women's rights and seperating church and state).

All in all, I really do believe that the Iraq we have now will not change drastically in the next decade, other than economically (where they may do very well, but the profits will most likely end up in the hands of few or even in the hands of US companies). Saddam was a particularly bad leader, but the nation of Iraq will be amorphous, leaderless, and fragmented as long as Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and everyone else who calls the cradle of life their home insist on maintaining their governments as partially religious ones.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I understand that the Sunni's lack of involvement is their fault. And it angers me that they are now complaining. BUT, what else are they really supposed to do now that they already left themselves out? For the sake of Iraq as a country and our invovlement there, I think those who are not Sunni should be uberwilling to let the Sunnis be fairly represented. Or, like I mentioned above, make it illegal to even voice a religiously based opinion in the new Iraqi government. But insisting that 'the Sunnis desearve to be left out, it was their own fault' can only possibly hinder the US and Iraqi efforts to unify/pacify the country.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

You don't give their involvement enough credit. There have been a significantly higher amount of Sunni involvement since the Association of Muslim Scholars ( makes me laugh every time I hear that groups name) staged the boycott. Even though the majority is still with the Shiites, the Sunnis have been allowed seats by those in parliament since February 2005.

Hell, they even went as far as allowing former Baathists positions of power which they took away. Some thought it was a punishment because of the heightened insurgency attacks of that time.

You see, life works on the choices we make and they made a bad one. Their government makes a mockery of the very Democracy they’re striving when Iraqi officials make an exception for a Sunni seat . Those Sunnis that have been allowed positions are damn lucky.

Like I said above:

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Regardless of their current involvement in the Iraqi government, and regardless of how the situation came to be in terms of Sunnis boycotting the new gov't, they still MUST be included in the government in numbers that correctly represent their percentage of the population if a government that acknowledges religion is to flourish there. I still maintain, however, that without a completely and totally secular government Iraq is doomed.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I agree and so does the Bush Admin.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Good let's hope it's not just lip service then.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Lip service? We're not as involved in the Iraqi government as you think we are. It's not like Bush can control the Iraqi government like chess pieces. Bush and Rice can give their opinions all day long without it ever being considered by the powers in that country. One of the main ideals in our involvement is to pass the torch to their governing body. And don't forget what influences the Shiite and Kurd seat holders - they were oppressed by the Sunnis and Baathists, remember?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

You're right, it's not up to the Bush admin. My comment was misdirected.
I hope that the Shiites and Kurds, along with the others, realize that the future of Iraq depends on every religion being fairly represented (or all religions completely omited) from the new gov't.