 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
"What working model? Saddam's regime? The people in the south won't put up with Ba'athists ruling them once Saddam is gone and there really isn't any other elites that the US could coopt to run the area (unlike the Kurdish north where there are somewhat functional institutions, where things should go relatively well unless the Turks **** with things to "protect" the Turkomen in Kirkuk)."
What I meant by installing order is putting down any inital rebellions- the model we have there is Saddam's military actions against the Shiite. If they can be crushed before they can be crushed again. In an absolute worst case scenario though where it appears democracy doesn't stand a chance in hell, though, we could install a number 8 scenario.
"In which case would people of a given religion be less inclided to secularism? One in which an Islamist government is oppressing you or one in which a adamantly secular government run by people of a different religion is tyrannizing you?"
It's hard to say. Hopefully there might be some connections between the two Shiite communities. It is really hard to tell whether the Shi'ites of the South would be willing to cooperate with a secular government. Keep in mind though Shiites are a majority but an overwhelming majority, so if a significant minority of Shiites are secular, the Islamist Shiites would not gain powe. As far as the adamantly secular government tyrannizing you, that may work towards our favor. They really hate Saddam and if we do replace Saddam with a government in which Shiites would have a say they might be grateful to the USA.
We should have a better idea of what is possible once our forces our on the ground there.
"I don't think there'll be all that much, the Bush administration's attention span isn't that long and there isn't the Communist Peril to goad the US into putting a lot of effort into it as was the case with Germany and Japan."
From Bush's speeches, he might pay attention. It sounds like he wants to make Iraq his big project for democracy in the Middle East.
"
Since they're a majority of the population, I guess that royally ****s your pretense to be for democracy, human rights, or anything other than a naked power grab."
In putting in another dictator, that would be a worst case scenario. I believe a #1 option should be possible.
Also if we wanted to a federation of warlords a la Afghanistan might not be completely impossible if we wanted to go that route. Simply arm local tribes and commanders, and keep order by making it clear if they piss us off we can side with other warlords in crushing them. Al Qaeda is Sunni, so we shouldn't have to worry too much about them getting support of the Iraqi Shiite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
Definitely Afghanistan-like, but not exactly the same due to the differing infrastructure and groups. The US will nonetheless bribe/cajole the differing groups to form a loose coalition which will be just about as successful as it is in Afghanistan.
However, the Afghanistan option is really just a first stage. It's still too soon to say what Afghanistan will look like 10-20 years down the road (except that it definitely won't be prosperous). As I said, I see Iraq looking like Afghanistan immediately after the war, but it could turn into a number of the other scenarios at a later date.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
"Right, they can be crushed in anything remotely resembling a set-piece battle but it might be hard to crush guerilla activity on their part without resorting to police state tactics."
Resorting to police state tactics, if in a worst-case-scenario type situation, could be an acceptable method for a US installed dictatorship. Better then lettitng fundie guerilla operate. Also keep in mind there are no rebellions right now against Saddam by the Shia. So long as we put in government that better then him I don't see them as any more likely to rebel, and we will have force in there to monitor against anybody forming new militias.
"That doesn't mean anything."
Well that is what those close to the President have been saying he wants. I think a democratic US friendly regime in Iraq would be immensely more benefical to us then a US friendly dictatorship there so I would imagine Bush would make a serious effort at it.
"Not really, except in the North there's no real independent elite to arm, Saddam's killed them off mostly."
No, I think there are still some local tribal chiefs still operating, though Saddam right now has them thoroughly puppeted.
"Personally I think the best-case scenario is something like present-day Bosnia."
I disagree. The best case scenario is Option #1, goes vaugely similiar to post WWII Germany and Japan. The Worst Case Scenario is option 8, we have to go with a Sunni Dictator. I don't think a Lebanon type situation is much of a threat, the Iraqi people can be forcibly controlled if need be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Definitely Afghanistan-like, but not exactly the same due to the differing infrastructure and groups. The US will nonetheless bribe/cajole the differing groups to form a loose coalition which will be just about as successful as it is in Afghanistan.
However, the Afghanistan option is really just a first stage. It's still too soon to say what Afghanistan will look like 10-20 years down the road (except that it definitely won't be prosperous). As I said, I see Iraq looking like Afghanistan immediately after the war, but it could turn into a number of the other scenarios at a later date. |
this is along the lines of what i think - said afganistan, on the idead that there will be a loose coalition formed with lots of US involvement/encouragement/manipulation - I wasnt thinking of the kind of geographic decentralization/war lordism you have in afgan - i agrre thats not likely here. But i think there will be no national elections anytime soon, but there will still be an attempt to get Iraqis involved seriously in the larger running of the country. Also maybe local elections as a start.
Will there be a shiite rebellion - dount it - Aytollah Bakr, the leader of SCIRI hasnt made any noises in that direction, and has been working with the rest of the opposition. If he launches a rebellion there are only 2 possibilities - 1. he loses 2 he succeeds, but ends up dependent on Iran as protector. If he refrains from rebelling he will probably end up as a major leader, and ultimately possibly president, of a united Iraq, under the protection of a US which will gradually turn away when its regional objectives are accomplished. I think the situation is quite different from Lebanon - in lebanon the Shiites are smaller per cent of the population. The israelis occupation was far more unpopular than I expect the US occupation to be, for a variety of reasons. Also the the Shiites in Lebanon were originally divided between Hezb and Amal (?) Hezb rise to prominence is associated to issues of Syrian intervention that dont apply in Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 07:35
|