posted on May 3, 2003 11:12:19 AM new
I'd be interested in hearing your opinions about what the US is starting to do in regards to establishing the 'new' Iraq. Any links you might want to share would be appreciated as would your comments.
This link is: 10 Nations to Send Troops to Iraq
UNDER THE PLAN, Iraq would be divided into three sectors patrolled by troops from at least 10 nations led by the United States, Britain and Poland.
"The idea is to have all the countries, ready to engage, there by the end of this month," Poland's Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz told reporters on the sidelines of an EU foreign ministers' meeting on this Greek island.
A Bush administration official said on Friday 10 nations had so far offered soldiers with expertise from medicine to mine-clearing for a three-division force separate from the 135,000 combat troops still in Iraq six weeks after a U.S.-led invasion.
"We understand that it is our responsibility to stay there," said Cimoszewicz, whose country was in the U.S. led coalition that invaded Iraq to depose President Saddam Hussein.
"Not only guaranteeing the security and order but we believe we have a lot of know-how of how to democratize the political system," the polish minister said.
Asked about Poland taking a leading military role, he said: "I would not say leading, I would say important."
The exact size of the new force has not been determined, but the United States, Britain, Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Albania have offered troops for the policing effort. The three future sectors of Iraq have not yet been drawn up.
The Philippines, Qatar, Australia and South Korea have offered to support the effort but their contribution is not yet clear, according to the U.S. official, who said Washington hoped that more countries would join the force.
Washington and London are pressing for a major international effort to stabilize Iraq and promote rapid rebuilding, which would also help them more quickly replace tens of thousands of combat troops in the unsettled country.
Under the plan, one full U.S. division of up to 20,000 troops would patrol one of the sectors, while the other two would each have a division of multinational troops under Britain and Poland.
The U.S. official made clear that the stabilization force would be under the command of U.S. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the invasion of Iraq, and that [b]the United Nations would not have a part in it.
posted on May 3, 2003 11:49:10 AM new
KD - Your country's troops are in Afghanistan right now aren't they? What are they doing there?
This beginning process in Iraq *IS* exactly what we did in Afghanistan when the war there was first completed. Setting up a coaliation of nations who were willing to come in and help.....just like I believe your country is now doing. Getting the children back in schools, etc.
Of course in Afghanistan we bombed a lot of caves....don't think we're planning on rebuilding those.
I'd really like to see this discussion stay focused on Iraq and how others view the US actions as they begin to pull in other nations to help with the process. Especially since it appears to me we're NOT, at this point, turning the 'reins' over to the UN.
posted on May 3, 2003 12:02:59 PM new
Iraq seems to want to incorporate religion with politics, that's why they want to choose their own leaders. I think that's going to be a big problem because of their brainwashed, radical thinking. While they may be free people, their minds aren't free and I think that's going to be a big hurdle to get over.
posted on May 3, 2003 01:29:59 PM new
This will be good to finally get something going in the region, I understand why they are reluctant to support it, but it is good they are going to.
I think France and Germany are concerned about being cut out all together if they disagree anymore.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on May 3, 2003 07:16:50 PM new
We'll see how it's handled if they freely and democratically want to vote in an Islamic government. Sometimes the devil you know is better than ........
"Iraq's greatest challenge is an old one"
Drafted by Matthew Riemer on May 03, 2003
One of the greatest obstacles facing those attempting to introduce the
concept of democracy to Iraq is a problem that is actually centuries old:
the complexities of the nation-state. Unlike the fledgling United States and
many European regions during the 17th and 18th centuries, the geographical
puzzle and political, religious and ethnic arrangement now referred to as
Iraq is not -- and really never was -- conducive to the coherent formation
of a modern day Western-inspired nation-state.
Not widely discussed is that Iraq is a fusion of three former Ottoman
provinces -- Basra, Baghdad and Mosul -- devised by the British in the inter-
war period last century. While many regions within modern day Iraq have
cultural and historical homogeny, Iraq, unlike, say, Iran, has no distinct
history, ethnicity, or language with which to create a national identity in
the modern sense. The people who happened to be living in the Ottoman
provinces at the time of the British demarcation were many: Arabs and Kurds;
Muslims, Christians, and Jews; Shi'a and Sunni.
The events in Iraq over the last three-quarters of a century since its
inception as a nation-state have reflected this diversity and the inherent
conflict it presents -- a host of coups took place in the late '30s and
early '40s and then in 1958 King Faisal II was ousted by army officers; and
today, following the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party --
pervasive and almost ancient institutions in a country so young -- major
political groups within Iraq are moving in disparate ideological directions.
The various visions espoused by the different groups follow the traditional
lines of religion, ethnicity, geography and occasionally doses of
sectarianism.
The Kurds live in the northern part of the country and consider the lands
inhabited by their people in Iraq and three bordering countries -- Turkey,
Iran, and Syria -- Kurdistan. This de facto ethnic-state, representing a
splotch on an ethnographical map, has been the region the Kurds have fought
for and from for centuries as a distinct people.
In more recent decades, the Kurds have fought for their own nation-state --
one that would surely exclude most of current day Iraq -- insofar as they
desire complete independence and absolute self-rule. The Kurds are primarily
interested in their own sovereignty and any commitment to a greater Iraq is
secondary. Because of this, the greater Kurdish movement, outside of its
many parties, is fundamentally one aimed at an ethnic-state -- not one that
is ethnically exclusive but simply with a single ethnicity as its defining
quality.
The only appeal for the Kurds of a "democratic Iraq" -- aside from the fact
that such a situation precludes the existence of Saddam Hussein -- is an
increase in regional independence and, perhaps, power, not necessarily an
integrated Kurd-Arab political entity called Iraq, which would surely
contain many elements competitive with if not hostile to Kurdish interests.
The Shi'a Muslims, on the other hand, seek political legitimacy through
their religion, Shi'a Islam, and its tenets. The Shi'a, though Muslims like
the Kurds, conceptualize a religious-state rather than one based on
ethnicity. This subtle yet significance difference is manifest in the desire
for an Islamic Republic by many Shi'a, which -- depending on one's view --
the Iranian revolution of 1979 establishes both an inspirational and
frightening precedent for. An Islamic Republic founded within Iraq would
symbolize the aspirations of the religion-state, one where religious
affiliation is the primary defining characteristic and form of identity.
The Shi'a Muslims of central and southern Iraq are also spiritually aligned
with Iran. The United States has already warned of "outsiders" interfering
with Iraq's political rebirth and has directly mentioned Iran regarding the
matter; the Ayatollah Khomeini also spent time in Iraq at Najaf during his
exile under Iranian dictator Mohammad Reza Shah. Washington has now
commented on the fact that they underestimated the organizational skills of
the Shi'a and are wary of what may arise.
Sheikh Abd-Jabbur Manhell, head of the Baghdad office of the Society of
Honorable Scholars of Najaf, a Shi'a group, is quoted by Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty as saying: "We won't rush to declare a Jihad against
Americans; we'll wait and see if the U.S. sincerely wants a free and
democratic Iraq. If it's up to the Iraqi people to choose their own
government, I'm sure that up to 70 percent of the Iraqi population will want
an Islamic state."
Secular Arabs and Western administrators represent a third stream that seeks
to reconcile the many differences and create an integrated government in
which all interested parties are fairly represented. This approach, however,
sometimes ignores the fact that many Iraqis don't primarily think of
themselves as "Iraqis" and that Iraq itself contains the perfect elements
for the emergence of competing regional powers.
Many of these individuals are aligned with the United States and are
intimate with the concept of the nation-state as perceived by Washington
policy makers. Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), is
one of these people. His group has received tens of millions of dollars in
funds from the United States and is enthusiastically approved of by the
Pentagon. Because of this relationship, many Iraqis are suspicious of the
Western educated Chalabi and his intentions now that he's returned to Iraq
after a decades-long absence. On April 28th, RFE/RL described Chalabi's
organization's offices: "The INC occupies an impressive building of the
Iraqi Hunting Club in Baghdad's prestigious Mansur neighborhood, once
favored by top members of the former regime. Now, hundreds of the INC's
camouflaged men, called the Free Iraqi Forces, stand at checkpoints around
Baghdad."
Jay Garner, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, is also a key political
figure in the proceedings. Garner, with his Western background, is also a
member of this third group that has the most unified vision for Iraq -- one
based upon neither ethnicity nor religious affiliation but upon a political,
administrative, and economic whole. Garner recently said, "The reason I am
here and General Tim Cross, my deputy, is here is to create an environment
in Iraq which will give us a process to start a democratic government, which
represents all people, all religions, all tribes, all the ethnics, all
professions, and to begin that process so that we can have a government that
represents the freely elected will of the people."
So there are three very different, powerful groups within Iraq all pulling
the country in politically dissimilar directions. Members of each at times
will seemingly reconcile their differences, but the fundamental schisms
between the various ideologies are great.
It is these conditions, the same ones that have prevented Iraq from becoming
a coherent nation-state, that will be the same ones encountered and indeed
that may prevent the infusion of Iraq with some kind of Jeffersonian
Democracy. Religion, race, and idealistic integration are all still battling
each other in the philosophies and hearts of the new and old Iraqi policy
makers.
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication
that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various
conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches
a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral
judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This
report may be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such
reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.pinr.com. All
comments should be directed to [email protected].
posted on May 4, 2003 09:01:12 AM new
Actually, Twelvepole
Some of those stories in the last link are in support of your position. I was, with an unusual degree of generosity, trying to give you warmongers an undeserved thrill.
