The Middle East/Iraq

[ardcarp]

Is the US going to get involved again, and will Cameron be standing shoulder to shoulder?

[ahinton]

Is the US going to get involved again, and will Cameron be standing shoulder to shoulder?

God - and/or indeed anyone else - forbid! That said, US does seem to be making noises suggestive of its possible involvement, which alone clrifies that they've learned nothing from history there.

(Iraq, by the way).

[Richard Barrett]

From The Nation:

... here are five straightforward lessons—none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in [the USA]—that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:

1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.

2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.

3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.

4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the US military is incapable of winning its wars.

5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the US military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.

[jean]

The only problem is that it was the original invasion (misguided as it was) that caused or exacerbated what is being experienced now.

That being so, if a request for help from the Iraqi government is ignored or denied, isn't that an abrogation of responsibility?

[Ferretfancy]

The only problem is that it was the original invasion (misguided as it was) that caused or exacerbated what is being experienced now.

That being so, if a request for help from the Iraqi government is ignored or denied, isn't that an abrogation of responsibility?

I understand your argument, but since Maliki has been unable to raise a quorum in his own government in order to decide what should be done, where should a request for American help come from? Let's not forget that Maliki was placed there by the Americans, and has proved useless, as predicted.

[Richard Barrett]

The only problem is that it was the original invasion (misguided as it was) that caused or exacerbated what is being experienced now.

That being so, if a request for help from the Iraqi government is ignored or denied, isn't that an abrogation of responsibility?

As detailed with plenty of examples in the article I linked to above, there has been no case since the Second World War where military intervention by the US has resulted in a more peaceful situation than before. They promised to rebuild Iraq after their murderous sanctions of the 90s, and the war they began in 2003, and they haven't done so, leaving it instead in a poorer, more dysfunctional state than it was in when they arrived. Is it any wonder that the resulting power vacuum is being exploited by violent and unscrupulous elements? If the US government were now to say "let's spend the money we would have spent on killing people on rebuilding the infrastructure of your country, giving you a reason to support our supposedly peaceful and democratic way of doing things" - assuming anyone would believe them, which most reasonable people would find extremely difficult given past form - that would be taking their responsibilities seriously. But the chances of this are approximately zero.

[ahinton]

If the US government were now to say "let's spend the money we would have spent on killing people on rebuilding the infrastructure of your country, giving you a reason to support our supposedly peaceful and democratic way of doing things" - assuming anyone would believe them, which most reasonable people would find extremely difficult given past form - that would be taking their responsibilities seriously. But the chances of this are approximately zero.

Probably even less that that, sadly - yet were it genuinely to do this, its international standing would increase enormously and, on the basis that, when America sneezes, everyone else catches a cold, the prospect that other nations might then feel encouraged to follow such an example would be more welcome than can be imagined and the potential results could in time be of social benefit globally. But of course America seems long since to have gotten itself into the seemingly unshakeable mindset that its most salient characteristic is "power" as manifested in its avowed status as the world's chief police officer authorised (by itself) to exercise its military might and force regardless of the adverse consequence for others, not the "power" to make restitution and aim towards reducing (instead of causing and aggravating) international strife.

[ardcarp]

Perhaps the concept of 'war' has changed. The idea of two powers pitting themselves against each other and stopping when one side admits defeat seems to have no meaning. In the case of nuclear war the likely outcome would be mutual annihilation, but leaving that aside, does conventional warfare exist any more? Dissident factions have learned that attrition works, and they can never be 'defeated' in the traditional sense. They just need to melt away, re-group and maybe re-name themselves. The major powers' armed forces, OTOH, are still trained and maintained as battle-winning entities

[Richard Barrett]

Perhaps the concept of 'war' has changed. The idea of two powers pitting themselves against each other and stopping when one side admits defeat seems to have no meaning. In the case of nuclear war the likely outcome would be mutual annihilation, but leaving that aside, does conventional warfare exist any more?

Not since the war in Vietnam in fact. And, as you say, the "major powers" appear not to have realised that; but actually their bloated "defence" industries exist more to make enormous profits than for any reason connected with defence, and their lobbyists carry more weight than the realities of 21st-century conflict so I don't imagine the situation is going to change any time soon. On the other hand, while the US and other military powers aren't able to "win wars" they certainly are able to spread death, destruction and misery as well as they ever could.

In answer to your initial question, though, I'd like to think that any attempt by Cameron to join Obama in some kind of military escalation in Iraq is going to fail like the idea to "intervene" in Syria did.

[ahinton]

Not since the war in Vietnam in fact. And, as you say, the "major powers" appear not to have realised that; but actually their bloated "defence" industries exist more to make enormous profits than for any reason connected with defence, and their lobbyists carry more weight than the realities of 21st-century conflict so I don't imagine the situation is going to change any time soon. On the other hand, while the US and other military powers aren't able to "win wars" they certainly are able to spread death, destruction and misery as well as they ever could.

Dead right (if you'll pardon the expression in the context concerned); however, I also cannot help but wonder, in the light of your salient reference to "bloated "defence" industries" which "exist more to make enormous profits than for any reason connected with defence", just what proportion of the world's defence industries is funded directly or indirectly from private equity and private finance sources rather than from overstretched and reluctant taxpayers (by which I specifically mean taxpayers who deplore this misappropriation of their "contributions" to their states' budgets, rather than just people who resent paying tax at all).

In answer to your initial question, though, I'd like to think that any attempt by Cameron to join Obama in some kind of military escalation in Iraq is going to fail like the idea to "intervene" in Syria did.

Fair enough, but I would prefer to hope (however vainly) that no such attempt on Mr Cameron's part even be contemplated, let alone made, "special relationship" or no "special relationship"...

[teamsaint]

I thought this was a very interesting article, which seems to make a good job of outlining the current crisis.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21604230-extreme-islamist-group-seeks-create-caliphate-and-spread-jihad-across

[Richard Barrett]

I thought this was a very interesting article, which seems to make a good job of outlining the current crisis.

True, thanks for the link, except that (being in the Economist) the article does seriously downplay the role of the USA and its satellites in creating the conditions for the present situation to evolve, don't you think?

[teamsaint]

True, thanks for the link, except that (being in the Economist) the article does seriously downplay the role of the USA and its satellites in creating the conditions for the present situation to evolve, don't you think?

oh absolutely.

You certainly have to read everything on situations such as this with more than one eye on who is feeding lines, whose interests are being served, and so on. Governments and others are very good at getting their message into the mainstream and treated as "givens".

I do think it is probably a very difficult task to describe the evolving situation in the area clearly , and to provide a serious historical context risks the writer embarking on a book rather than article.

One problem I suspect is that there are myriad interests at play on the American side alone. CIA, arms manufacturers, politicians with domestic agendas, wider US foreign policy goals (!!!) military leaders, oil and engineering powers, and so on and so on. Disentangling even these is certainly hard enough.

[ardcarp]

The current position, according to news programmes last evening, is that Cameron has opted out of 'boots on the ground' but offered intelligence co-operation (big deal...it's all shared anyway) but Obama hasn't ruled anything out. He did sound far less gung ho than his predecessors, and my bet is that he'll deploy air or rocket power....stuff which doesn't mean body bags (American ones, that is).

One incredibly knowledgeable interviewee pointed out that all the Middle-East problems arise from the lines in the sand drawn by the Brits and the French in the last century; lines which ignored racial and religious boundaries. In his opinion it would have been best for these to be sorted out (e.g. fought over) without Western interference. All well and good, except for the West's dependence on oil....oh and maybe Israel's expansionism, and...well it's probably more complicated than we can ever know.

[ardcarp]

We seem to be cosying up to Iran [I've spelled it right, I hope!]. Presumably this is on the basis of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Good Idea, or Politics of Last Resort?