Iraqi Letters

Amen to: "let us be grateful for this small step".

It appears hypocritical but maybe the U.S. is learning on the fly how to correct itself.

I think it is exciting news.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Negotiations took place with a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein regime and the senior representative of what he called the nationalist insurgency. I thought you were admonishing us for not understanding the distinction. Is it not conceivable that members of Saddam Hussein's regime may at certain points over the past 24 months interacted with the 'forces of darkness' - Fallujah comes to mind?

In today's news, The New York Times reports "Radical Islamist groups that originated in Iraqi Kurdistan are responsible for most of the attacks now taking place in the northern insurgent stronghold of Mosul, senior Kurdish officials say."

The New York Times also discloses that "the insurgents have a deep understanding of the complex network of pipelines, power cables and reservoirs feeding Baghdad." "The shadowy insurgency is a fractured movement made up of distinct groups of Sunnis, Shiites and foreign fighters, some of them aligned and some not. But the shift in the attack patterns strongly suggests that some branch of the insurgency is carrying out a systematic plan to cripple Baghdad's ability to provide basic services for its six million citizens and to prevent the fledgling government from operating." "The overall pattern of the sabotage and its technical savvy suggests the guidance of the very officials who tended to the nation's infrastructure during Saddam Hussein's long reign, current Iraqi officials say."

Hopefully, the negotiations are taking place with this branch of the insurgency. If so, they're coming to the table from a position of strength.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I just posted with the belief that my country had "learned something" but a few minutes ago it hit me like a load of bricks: (I hate to be cynical about my country) but Bush probably decided to allow negotiations because of what I have just read--recruiting in the U.S. is at an all-time low.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

If an independent Iraqi government sits, the US negotiations with the resistance don't matter.

The only useful negotiations would be between the Iraqi government and the resistance, and the Iraqi government could, as a courtesy if it chooses, relay any message to the Americans.

Why start negotiating now, between the elections and when the new government sits?

The good interpretation is that the US is concerned that the new government could come to an agreement that does not satisfy US interests, so the US wants to at least try to commit the resistance and the Iraqi government now to terms acceptable to the Americans.

The bad interpretation is that the US intends to maintain colonial control over Iraq indefinitely and therefore really are the party with which the resistance should be negotiating.

Because in theory, pretty much nothing the current US-installed and controlled government does is binding on the future government, if the good interpretation is true, it represents to some degree waste of effort on the part of the Americans.

I'd rather the Americans concentrated on getting the government seated more quickly, or at least announcing a date.

I take the fact that the seating of the new government apparently is being delayed by the Americans as a bad sign short term and a good sign long term because it shows the Americans are not confident in their ability to control the new government.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Question for Abu Khaleel:

What do you and those around you think about this wait?

Did you expect the new government to be seated sooner after the elections?

Are you hearing any rumors or signs about what positions the next government will take?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Charles,
Admit that you never thought it would come to this, an enduring insurgency has forced Rumsfeld to the negotiating table-shades of Vietnam! Interesting how everything(the election,etc.) gets spun by the media, except such self evident facts. Please remember this moment next time you recommend pre-emptive attacks on Syria or Iran. 'There are more things in heaven and earth (and hell) than are dreamed of in Bush's[your] philosophy.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles, as usual:

"How has the imperial US exercized this mystical power to 'delay' the process? I mean, is Bush making crank calls all day to distract them from their work? Has he put the officials under house arrest so they can't go to work?"

Mystical powers.

How much influence do you, Charles, think the US has over Allawi's current Iraqi government?

Everyone else:

If you're interested, the first claims that the election results were falsified have been made by Scott Ritter.

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

"Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%."

Maybe its true, maybe not. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about the elections soon enough.

When the next government sits, we'll see what its members say and what the Iraqi people say.

I am disappointed that that the Americans, through their installed indirect government under Allawi, have not at least set a date for the new government to sit. I had hoped they would actually be sitting by now.

But I have to be at least as patient as the Iraqi people.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Maybe admin hacks were reading blogs and over-saw some blogger saying "I wonder why they don't find out what the resistance wants, I'm sure they don't want to just go blowing stuff up all the time..."

At least, I think that's what I said.

And I guess that's what you said, and I guess word gets around. Still, it is just "word".

I might believe it if I saw a national conference with all resistance factions.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I thought some of you may appreciate some immediate reaction in Iraq about choice of Dr Jaafary. I was listening to a Baghdad radio station which serves predominantly Shia audience. They held a phone in about the announcement and asked callers to name one priority for Jaafary to work on. Of the 20-25 calls broadcast I would say that about two thirds said national reconciliation was their top priority. Nothing scientific but a good indication of mood in Baghdad.
I should also mention that one caller wanted the new government to alter the newly established official weekend from Friday/Saturday to Thursday/Friday as his top priority... Perhaps he was one of those Mungawungans!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I think in my naiive way we should be less cynical about ANY negotiations. In America we have a way of constantly reinterpreting life in new ways. Maybe it's due to our Christian background of renewal and the celebration of the resurrection of Christ every Spring.

But it's time to be positive for Iraq.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Katya,

I am afraid other Iraqis are too busy queuing up for gas to be reading the comments here!

"You see, since the US imperial magistrate is guaranteed Sat/Sun as weekend due to his allegience to US norms, adding Thrs/Fri would extend his weekend to 4 days = guaranteed!"

That won't work Charles.. Those poor US Embassy staff would have to work round the clock if the weekend shifts to Thursday-Friday. One possible solution would be to split the 3000 staff into 2 groups of 1500. Then one group can take US weekend and the other one follow Iraqi weekend. This assumes of course that there are 2 staff to man every one of those functions of representing the US in Iraq. But then that would be a waste of American tax payer money. It would be far more efficient to ask Allawi to scrap the Iraqi weekend before he departs from the Green Zone. With 70% unemployment most Iraqis don't benefit from the decision anyway.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Can anybody post comments on this Blog, Abu, or does your name have to be Charles? Nine of the last 22 are his - appalling American manners I guess.
Your date palm article was very interesting. I’ve long been fascinated for some reason by the transition from hunter-gatherer to farming societies, and you’re of course at Ground Zero for that. (Traditionally put at about 10,000 years ago, but I gather current thinking looks much further back, with the transition intermittently forced by population pressures - it was actually a lot easier and healthier to be a hunter-gatherer. Must try it sometime.)
I guess to Western minds (mine anyway) the word Arab conjures up visions of (a) desert dwelling nomads and (b) Islam, whereas of course the reality is that there’s a history of civilisation, and a gene pool, in the area that long predates Islam. Shove Jafaari in a skirt, give him a spear and a helmet and he’d be a dead ringer for Hammurabi or someone like that. (Chalabi would make a very good fat Pharoah.)
(Interesting here in NZ because archaeology has now firmly established the human presence here as only about 800 years old. I recall recently standing on a rocky Australian shore where they were excavating a shell midden that was dated back at least 40,000 years.)
Anyway, the point I guess is that this whole insane conquest has in a sense been a clash of cultures and civilisations, the brash young US version (which is perhaps not a continuation of European culture but, under illiterates like Bush, something much newer and nastier) versus a people much much older and wiser. Presumably the neo-cons didn’t aim to produce a state that would be aligned with Iran, and probably allied with it before long.
Great going, Charles. Keep the Comments coming. See if you can hog the whole Blog, in your friendly engaging American way.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Bruno:

[
Unless, of course, the Bushies are scared that Iraqis come to an agreement that does not take US plans into account (Mr Democracy’s ‘good’ alternative) – which to my mind is not all that good.
]

I just meant good in the sense that it would be one indication that the US has given up on imposing an Afghanistan-style indefinite puppet regime on Iraq.

We have to see. I'm still hopeful. Maybe the Iraqi people are winning.

We'll know a lot more when we see who sits, hear what they have to say and see and what aspects of the country the new government controls.

If the Iraqi people win, maybe the Afghan people will force the Americans to cede independence by mounting a more effective resistance.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles: "Since I am the only person participating here that does not view the US as an 'hegemonic evil empire' or 'dimwitted brute' (depending upon which paradigm suits the particular moment), it leaves me with a lot of work to balance out the lock step uniformity of your ideas."
In other words: "Since I am in a minority here, I have a God-given duty to post as frequently and as repetitively as possible, far beyond the bounds of good manners or good sense."
Do you have any actual evidence that you have changed anyone’s mind about anything?
If not, do you think you might further your cause more by restraining yourself to less frequent and more thoughtful contributions?
How about a summary, from your point of view, of the main errors your country has made in this whole enterprise? That would indicate a real attempt at detached thought, honesty, humility and dialogue, and might earn you some respect from the rest of us. Depending on what you say, I would then be happy to reciprocate by listing whatever positives I can think of.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I think we all have one thing in common: that Iraq should have her day in the sun.

And Charles is a part of our democracy right here so he deserves to have any point of view he desires.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Hadi,
It's good news that the Shia people are open to reconciliation and the election of Jaafari over hard-headed Chalabi looks good. But I don't see a mechanism for properly including the Sunnis in the process, thanks to the 'premature' election. One impossible scheme would have the Sunnis appeal directly to Sistani for an ironclad commitment, another would be to strengthen the 'de-federalization'of Anbar.
I was reading the campaign of the Roman Emperor Julian[a better man than GW Bush] 360AD(Ammianus Marcellinus)in Mesopotamia. Julian actually fought a battle at Fallujah and was mysteriously killed near Samara. The various towns were like city-states, some fighting fiercely, others negotiating terms. Maybe it will come down to a city by city solution.
Allawi is sounding rather sensible lately, having nothing to lose or gain.
Charles,
Something tells me you don't really mind being called 'hegemonic imperialist'.
FYI,it's not a term of endearment.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

yeah and Scientologists are brainwashing people...

(Sorry just had to add them they truly scare me).
 
_____________________________________________________________________

In my opinion, US is negotiating becouse:

1.) Iraqi Resistance is killing and seriously wounding enough US soldiers and mercenaries;

2.) Iraqi Resistance is in control of all ground routes of supply and challenging the air routes ones;

3.) There is not enough US troops to send to Iraqi and a draft is impossible without another 911 false flag;

4.) US is spending much more money than US is taking by stealing Iraqi oil;

In conclusion: US lost the war - militarily and economically - and is negotiating the withdraw of its troops.

To Charles: be cool. After the withdraw, you will not loose your well paid troll's job. Surely there will be Syrian or Iranian blogs for your work.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

He may be a troll but he's not being paid to troll!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I really shouldn't do this but:

Charles, this is what I wrote:

"I take the fact that the seating of the new government apparently is being delayed by the Americans as a bad sign short term and a good sign long term because it shows the Americans are not confident in their ability to control the new government."

Read it slowly. You are probably the only one who read it who did not understand the statement the first time.

I am to some degree honored that you have found nothing to admit you take issue with in my posts in this thread besides your own inability to understand the use of the words "fact" and "apparently" in the same sentence.

Anyway, this forum without Charles would just give Abu Khaleel an incredibly inaccurate understanding of how people think in the West.

It would take five or six more Charles' for a reader of these comments to get a clear perception of the values and ideas that motivated the invasion.

I would guess that is why Charles' more repetitive posts aren't deleted though the moderator could delete them.

More substantively, I think this delay in seating and transfering power to the elected government is an indication that the US has not been able yet -- through bribes using Iraq's money or blackmail using, among other things, Hussein's old security files -- to retain the level of control over the Iraqi government it hopes for.

I don't know of any reason in theory that power could not have transfered to the new legistlature as soon as the results were known.

The legistlature could then, on its own terms and at the time of its choosing, then transfer executive power from Allawi to its own prime minister.

But for that to happen, Allawi has to transfer power to the legistlature.

I'm sure everyone here remembers the reports of how many people called for postponing the elections but George Bush stood firm and insisted they be held on the original date.

There were no mystical powers involved. The head of state in Iraq, the person for whom the United States paid $200 for campaign assistance is a former CIA asset with no constituency in Iraq outside of the US Embassy. He does what the US Embassy tells him to do.

It seems that George Bush is now standing firm and delaying the transfer of power to the elected government.

As I said before, I think that is an indication of a possible victory for those Iraqis who fought and struggled, violently and non-violently, for Iraq to be -- unlike Afghanistan -- free of US control.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Hadi,

It seems that that lot made the best choice out of three unappealing alternatives. I am impressed.
____________________

Mr. Democracy,

You are perfectly right regarding why I do not delete some of those repetitive comments. Charles is giving me useful feedback on how many people in America think and feel!!! I can’t say I’m much impressed though!

I don’t think they are serving the intended purpose.

Having said that, Charles has as much right as any of us in commenting on issues as long as he remains within the bounds relevancy and decency (even though I sometimes find myself stretching these a bit for his sake:)
____________________

Charles,

I find that the 4th and 5th paragraphs of your latest response to Circular at 1:32 am outline your position regarding my post quite clearly. Wouldn’t it have been enough to use them in the first place and save yourself a lot of effort? Talking (or typing) too much can be counterproductive, don’t you think?

Some of the things are repetitive and I frankly find the recurring “quotes” and one-liner responses slightly annoying to the extent that I sometimes find myself skipping whole paragraphs. You do want us all to read what you write after all.

I am assuming of course that you have no intention of trolling the comments section of this blog ;-)
____________________

Circular,

You raise such an important point regarding the impression you have of Iraqis and Arabs. I assure you that you are not alone. I don’t know whether you still remember the stereotype the media portrayed of this part of the world in the 60’s and 70’s. I know. I followed it closely… and it gave me the ulcer. It was a most massive ‘smear’ campaign sustained for decades. It was done for another purpose and another war!

I find it hilarious that people who devised policies and designed plans for this region, and for Iraq in particular, were themselves unwitting victims to that campaign. They based their assumptions on those media images and not on the actual thing. It was a major reason why some of those dreams went against a wall. Those plans were destroyed by a reality they were not aware of. Serves them right. Poetic justice, don’t you think?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

AK,

Yes they have. I still don't trust him. But Dawa Party has my respect for all of their sacrifices. Salam Pax once said he wishes if we were giverned by an alliance of Dawa and ICP! He has a fetish for fighting corruption which is good news too. He could start with Chalabi of course:-)

Circular,

The civilisation thing is interesting. I don't know if you ever seen the series of documentaries by Prof Michel Wood "Legacy". He covers the civilisations of Iraq, Egypt, India, China, Aztec and current Western. Concludes that Iraq's was not only the cradle. But also the biggest conributor to the renaisance as well as a link between all the others and present day civilisation. He makes a memorable comment about Gulf War 1. "Do these Americans realise they are bombing the origins of their own civilisation?" A full circle you can say!!

Anon 1.34AM,

No need to worry about the mechanism for including the Sunnis. It is already in motion. But where is it all leading to is another question. See my answer to Bruno below.

Bruno,

Don't feel too elated. The reconciliation issue runs deep and I believe it is our biggest fault line now. The Baath Party had over 2m members. Contrary to what Fox News analysts think, not all are Sunnis!! What are we to do with them all? Some are already acting as supporters of the insurgency whilst having day time jobs at sensitive ministries. Take the story of the 6 Baghdad Municipality workers. They were having a late planning meeting. Someone (no doubt a colleague) tips off the boys and they wait for them outside the building and have them all shot in the head when they leave the meeting. How on earth can you reconcile with people like this some Iraqis would argue. I myself believe that South African styled Truth and Reconciliation may go some way to help. But we would still have many Iraqis unwilling to forgive when the wounds are so fresh and happening daily. On the other hand ordinary Iraqis are tired... Very tired... They want to get on with their shattered lives and are happy to start a new page on all fronts as long as they can return to some sort of near normality.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Khaleel:

The beginning of negotiations is the best possible news. Why must everyone in your comment section attempt to spin this news to fit their own political agenda or world view? The prospect of settling political differences through dialogue, compromise, and democratic institutions is so vastly preferable, from both a moral and practical standpoint, to violence that it should be embraced without reservation. By this I mean that it should be embraced by all persons of goodwill, be they an American hawk, Global Leftist, European Pacifist, pro-UIA Iraqi, or Insurgent Iraqi. At some point in time in every conflict, each party’s past mistakes and grievances become far less important than moving forward to build a better future. To my mind, this is such a point in time.

Political violence, in general, is morally indefensible in all but the truly exceptional case. In this relatively less polarized, post Soviet Union world, there remain precious few political debates that could ever rise to the level of gravity that would justify settling them with massive death and destruction. For example, are the issues of whether a democratically elected Iraqi government leans more toward social democratic or free market policies, chooses to buy European, Russian, Chinese, or U.S. technology, or pursues closer relations with Iran or the U.S. really worth mass bloodshed?

When you boil down all of the posted partisan comments to their essence, there is really only one main point of contention, that is, the amount of influence the U.S. intends to wield in Iraq. On the one side, Charles posits the U.S. will leave with no strings attached, if asked, on the other side Bruno insists that U.S. must tightly control Iraq in every way to pursue its goal of global empire. The reality is probably somewhere in between, that is, the U.S. will want security guarantees from the new Iraq concerning issues of international security before it withdraws. However, those guarantees are unlikely to be anything that Iraqis haven’t been living with since the end of the Gulf War, such as, limitations on the size of the Iraqi army (big enough to deter aggression by neighbors, but too small for offensive operations), as well as possession of WMDs, offensive missile systems and nuclear weapons materials. An agreement might also include a long term basing rights deal (30 years?), but I think that issue is still up in the air. The economic issues are usually not subject to treaties, but rather depend on the maintenance of good relations between nations. Are such issues really worth all the death and destruction? I think not!

Abu Khaleel, where are all the "moderates," those who openly embrace political dialogue and compromise without all the reservations and self-serving spin? They seem to be quite scarce around here.

Regards,
Mark-In-Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark
"...where are all the "moderates," those who openly embrace political dialogue and compromise ..."
Well, they were pretty thin on the ground in the first GW Bush administration, weren’t they?
You write as though commenters here have expressed disapproval of, or opposition to, any negotiation between the US and the insurgency. I can’t see anywhere that anyone says that. Abu Khaleel’s post was simply expressing a healthy scepticism about the US’s apparent belated admission that there might be a national resistance, having clung last year to a firm belief that all the trouble was coming from foreign fighters and extremist fanatics.
It is important because it seems to me that the key issue at this stage determining the rate and date of any US withdrawal is not, as you suggest, that the U.S. will want security guarantees from the new Iraq: that can come much later. Treaties are in any case made to be broken or revised.
The key issue now for the US in my view is simply achieving sufficient stability within Iraq to allow withdrawal without too much loss of face for GW Bush. He has to be able to say, "there you are, we’ve brought you peace and democracy," because that has become his stated aim for public consumption. You imply that Charles is overly credulous but he represents Bush’s core constituency, much more than the "kill ‘em all" fanatics who infest the Internet.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mpeach:
Is it true that America has 13+ military bases in Iraq?

Are they permanent? I guess we don't know that yet!?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Hadi
Re: Civilisation
I haven’t seen the series you mention. I derive some of my thoughts from Jared Diamond, "Guns, Germs and Steel" (or something similar) where he relates the growth of civilisations partly just to the availability of domesticable plants and animals - hence no "civilisation" in Australia, despite its long history of human settlement, lots of civilisation in the Middle East because of the appropriate cereals plus sheep, goats, cattle. Climate obviously also has a bit to do with it - rice cultivation partly dependent on monsoon or extensive irrigation schemes, etc.
Mind you, if Monsanto is able to spread its "Terminator" genes around the world, the face of agriculture may well be changed for good anyway.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Don’t want to do a Charles and post too much, but could I recommend this article from the latest Time magazine?
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,1029937,00.html
I think it relates rather well to what some of us have been saying on this Blog about US attitudes that are not founded in reality.
Developments in Iraq should possibly take a more reasonable direction if this emerging awareness of the limitations of THE superpower leads to a less heavy-handed approach there.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Bruno:

You wrote, "The only reason that I can think of is that the US fears that a democratic Iraq might conceivably oppose its plans and allies in the region, and hence it would be best to retain control of Iraqi foreign policy in the form of limiting its military capabilities."

You really ought to read a little more history and use a little more imagination. Several times in recent history, a serial aggressor that has lost a significant war has been punished by limitations on its military capabilities. See e.g., Weimar Germany, as well as post-WWII Japan and Germany. Such actions have been taken even when the old regime, that was responsible for the aggression, had been removed. The reason for such limitations is absolutely obvious, that is, the victors don't wish to re-fight the same war if the losers re-arms and once again become aggressive.

In the case of Japan, it currently retains the pacifist constitution imposed on it by the U.S. after WWII. It is my understanding that many in Japan are quite attached to that document and have strenuously resisted international pressure to expand the Japanese military in order to carry its fair share of the world security burden.

Thus, your suspicions and innuendo concerning nefarious U.S. intentions for seeking military limitations are ill-founded. Also, as Iraq will one day rebuild and be a relatively well off country in the region, its neighbors (Israel for sure, but also are the KSA, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, etc.) are also keen on ensuring that Iraq's military is limited in some reasonable way. Or perhaps, you prefer the specter of a future Middle East arms race being touched off, if another Iraqi despot were to gain power.

Further, after all of the suffering that Iraq has endured as a result of its and other's military adventures, I seriously doubt whether there is currently much support in Iraq for building the large military necessary to sustain substantial offensive capabilities. As such an endeavor would drain a substantial amount of resources away from rebuilding the devastated economy, I suspect a properly conducted survey would find support for the aggressive spending necessary to regain Iraq’s offensive military posture to poll in the low single digits.

Furthermore, what legitimate purpose would such a large, offensively configured Iraqi military serve?

As to how I would react to the U.S. being bound by similar limitations on its military, I would be absolutely thrilled, provided that there was practical, less costly mechanism to ensure U.S. and international security than having the U.S. maintain a disproportionate share of the global security burden. For example, the other nations of the world, particularly the relatively rich European ones, have woefully inadequate power projection capabilities, to the extent that, their military forces would be nearly impotent (without U.S. logistic support) should intervention in a world hot spot become necessary (e.g., substantial worsening of the conflicts in Darfur, Bosnia or Kosovo). Now, if you South Africans (or Kiwis, Circular) would just pick up the European’s slack and develop five or six aircraft carrier groups, significant airlift capabilities, and a few strategically located foreign bases, we Americans could put some of our military budget to better use on domestic projects at home.

Mark-In-Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Bruno:

You wrote, "The only reason that I can think of is that the US fears that a democratic Iraq might conceivably oppose its plans and allies in the region, and hence it would be best to retain control of Iraqi foreign policy in the form of limiting its military capabilities."

You really ought to read a little more history and use a little more imagination. Several times in recent history, a serial aggressor that has lost a significant war has been punished by limitations on its military capabilities. See e.g., Weimar Germany, as well as post-WWII Japan and Germany. Such actions have been taken even when the old regime, that was responsible for the aggression, had been removed. The reason for such limitations is absolutely obvious, that is, the victors don't wish to re-fight the same war if the losers re-arms and once again become aggressive.

In the case of Japan, it currently retains the pacifist constitution imposed on it by the U.S. after WWII. It is my understanding that many in Japan are quite attached to that document and have strenuously resisted international pressure to expand the Japanese military in order to carry its fair share of the world security burden.

Thus, your suspicions and innuendo concerning nefarious U.S. intentions for seeking military limitations are ill-founded. Also, as Iraq will one day rebuild and be a relatively well off country in the region, its neighbors (Israel for sure, but also are the KSA, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, etc.) are also keen on ensuring that Iraq's military is limited in some reasonable way. Or perhaps, you prefer the specter of a future Middle East arms race being touched off, if another Iraqi despot were to gain power.

Further, after all of the suffering that Iraq has endured as a result of its and other's military adventures, I seriously doubt whether there is currently much support in Iraq for building the large military necessary to sustain substantial offensive capabilities. As such an endeavor would drain a substantial amount of resources away from rebuilding the devastated economy, I suspect a properly conducted survey would find support for the aggressive spending necessary to regain Iraq’s offensive military posture to poll in the low single digits.

Furthermore, what legitimate purpose would such a large, offensively configured Iraqi military serve?

As to how I would react to the U.S. being bound by similar limitations on its military, I would be absolutely thrilled, provided that there was practical, less costly mechanism to ensure U.S. and international security than having the U.S. maintain a disproportionate share of the global security burden. For example, the other nations of the world, particularly the relatively rich European ones, have woefully inadequate power projection capabilities, to the extent that, their military forces would be nearly impotent (without U.S. logistic support) should intervention in a world hot spot become necessary (e.g., substantial worsening of the conflicts in Darfur, Bosnia or Kosovo). Now, if you South Africans (or Kiwis, Circular) would just pick up the European’s slack and develop five or six aircraft carrier groups, significant airlift capabilities, and a few strategically located foreign bases, we Americans could put some of our military budget to better use on domestic projects.

Mark-In-Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark
"...provided that there was a practical, less costly mechanism to ensure U.S. and international security than having the U.S. maintain a disproportionate share of the global security burden ..."
US security? What possible threat is there to the US of invasion by anyone in the foreseeable future? How much of your armed forces are really needed for defence against this?
The UN is very far from perfect, but it can work effectively as a world mechanism available to deter naked international aggression, as in Kuwait. (Or Korea, many years ago.) Particularly in the post cold-war environment. But this sort of conflict is I would suggest likely to be very rare in the next few decades.
Much more complex is the question of whether and when the UN should intervene in countries with internal problems, usually ethnic/religious (Rwanda, Yugoslavia) or those with corrupt, repressive or rogue regimes (Iraq, North Korea, Burma.)
These are matters to be worked on, but I would suggest that the solutions will not be helped by the single superpower unilaterally deciding where and when and how it will intervene. Action in Iraq would have gone much better if time had been allowed for the world to reach a substantial measure of agreement that it was absolutely necessary. Germany and France and Russia were rightly not convinced by the WMD evidence. In time they may have come to see the necessity of freeing Iraq from the Hussein regime. But it wasn’t vitally urgent.
A good leader leads above all by example. A well-intentioned superpower is probably an asset to the world and would be a testimony to the greatness of America. But you yourself have stated that US motives (or George Bush’s motives) in Iraq were, at best, mixed.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I must admit, I do not keep up with the situation in Iraq as closely as I should. Much as many Iraqi's know nothing of my situation, but only of the policies set by a Government that is elected by us, yes, but from an Aristocratic pool of "Politicians" which means that we, as American people, are not able to affect much change simply by voting for one of the choices we are given.

This comment is not addressed to the Iraqi people, or any group, but only to Abu Kahleel, because I do not know the general views of the Iraqi people, but only those he has stated on this site.

My question for you is this. What do you want from us? You do not seem to give Americans any options. In your previous article you talk about Binary America (which is no further from the truth, it is only Republicans and Democrats who adhere to that philosophy, who unfortunately happen to be the "pool" of which I spoke) and then in this one, you lay out two options, both of which make Americans wrong. Which is not even binary, it's just nary.

If you allow yourself to make broad generalizations of the American people based off of the policies of our government, how do you expect the American people to be above making the same generalizations where the Middle East is concerned?

I would suggest attempting to get to know some of those American soldiers who are doing their duty by going where our government sends them on a more personal level, but I know they'd probably shoot you if you tried, as most of your country-men who have approached them in such a manner had bombs strapped to their chests, and they have seen peices of their best friends scattered accross the road.

If Americans could understand the goals of people who fly 747s into sky scrapers, we might be able to understand that, though many in the Middle East might share those goals, they are not all fanatics, and do not agree with the methods terrorists utilize.

Insurgents are different from terrorists, in that they are common men defending their homeland against our invasion. Whereas terrorists brutally attack civilians for reasons we cannot understand. If their goal is for America and "Western Civilization" to stop interfering in their affairs, how did they expect such an attack to succeed?

If your goal is to have the world leave you alone to govern yourselves, then it is your duty to speak out against people in your own community that would instigate hostilities. The sooner the Iraqi people stand up for their right to live in the manner they choose for themselves, the sooner the world will leave them to it.
 
_____________________________________________________________________