Fade to Black

It strikes me that people in the Media, and Presidential Campaigns say how “complicated” the situation is in Iraq.  Perhaps this is because they believe the American people are so stupid that they cannot handle plot lines that are more complicated than Heroes, but then the ratings for that craptastic show are better than voter turnout now isn’t it?

The best way to understand Iraq is to understand the motives of the players involved.  Then we can formulate a plan to either fix the problems, or get the hell out of there and let countries deal with their own problems, its not like the oil prices will go down no matter what we do - and the oil profits seem to be rising as well guess they need more subsidies.

What follows are the motivations behind where we are now-

The United States - the Prime motivation for invading Iraq was to get George W. Bush a second term as President of the United States.  American’s are very hesitant to switch horses mid stream in a war no matter how how poorly things are going initially.  Reference Abe Lincoln and FDR, even LBJ perhaps would have received a new term, but decided not to run.

The secondary motivation was for the US to look tough.  The terrorist attacks shocked and were a decidedly large PR hit to the vulnerability to the lone Hegemon -Greek word meaning ultimate badass- on the globe.  Knocking out Afghanistan wasn’t all that impressive cause nobody knew where it was.  Even knowing that the Soviet Union couldn’t do what we did was no longer impressive because as it turns out nobody is impressed with what a dead empire did 30 years ago.

The last motivation was to make all the Arabs play nice and bring peace to an are of the world that has either been at war with itself, or war with the outside world, since God kicked Adam out of the garden of Eden.  Then it turned out that not all Arabs are the same and there are different dialects, ethnicities, religions, and we have a huge pile of mess with burning oil on the side.  The goal then became to stabilize it enough to go after Iran.

Great Britain-  Great Britai’s motivations fall squarely on the shoulders of one Tony Blair.  Prime Minister Blair has at his core the fundamental belief that International Organizations such as NATO, and the UN, can only be effective as organizations if they carry the credibility of force should mandates not be followed.  This point can be directly seen as to the British forces involvement in the military strikes against Serbia during the Clinton Administration.

US forces, namely politicians, were not interested in the least of having another Somalia situation where the death of 29 soldiers by combat related incidents caused huge uproars and demands that our forces be pulled - ironic now that in Iraq that total has topped 4,000- and the Republican Party criticized our forces even being present in Serbia because -meddling in other countries affairs is not the role of the United States- As such US forces were relegated to backup positions and air support.

It was the British forces that took the responsibility to carry out front line  operations and suffer the casualties that were inevitable.  So that the teeth of NATO could be seen in order to strengthen the resolve of the newly formed Countries caused by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Iraq -  The motivations that got Iraq invaded was Saddam Hussein making the right decisions, but at the wrong time.  Invading Kuwait was the correct decision, given the circumstances presented at the time.  The current President of the United States was the Vice President to Ronald Reagan- who had given aid to Iraq in its war with Iran due to the hostage situation that embarrassed the United States.  The same Ronald Reagan who was President when a terrorist organization in Lebanan- Hezbollah - attacked a Marine Barracks killing 241 American Service Men- and responded with complete withdrawal.  Ronald Reagan the Cold Warrior - became a cut and runner.

We must also place into context  that Kuwait was one of the only Arabic states who was pro-Soviet Union rather than pro-America during the Cold War.  Thus, one would assume that the United States would not be terribly beholden to keep said country form being invaded.  Combined with the US Ambassador April Glaspie, who told Saddam in a conversation, “We have no opinion in Arab-Arab conflicts”and “the Kuwait issue is not associated with America” -both of which come from transcripts published by the New York Times September 23rd 1990 issue-

This was an almost clear green light, and the tanks rolled and the world was shocked.  Saddam got his tail whipped, but still clung to power through intimidation of force and WMD.  That was his only card in keeping power in an area where assassinations, and coups are not all uncommon.  But Republicans who wanted to conquer the land of Babylon, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz- were determined to finish what they started.

Iran -  Iran’s motivations are actually quite simple.  They are the third Axis of Evil, and they have on either side of their border a country that was invaded and still holds large numbers of US military personnel.  Having the possession of neither Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons that would deter a US invasion, it is in their best interest to keep Iraq an utter disaster to literally keep the US occupied and unable to advance on Iranian soil.

The trick is that it would be devastating to Iran should Iraq fall apart for a variety of reasons.  The first of which is, nobody likes large number of immigrants and a dissolved Iraq would bring thousands to the door step of Tehran.  Second, Iran has a large Kurdish population that borders Iraq’s own Kurd population and would be deeply concerned the two would attempt a merger, and that would be unacceptable.  The third reason is that since the Iranian Revolution, the Mullahs have seen Iraq as the Gateway to export their Islamic Republic system throughout the Middle East, for it to disintegrate would be a fundamental blow for that goal.

Saudi Arabia - As the self seen leader of the Middle East because of the possession of the 2nd and 3rd most holy cities in all of Islam - Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia seeks to be the champion of the Sunni Islam.  They also realize that with the Saudi family’s close relationship with the United States, they would be a prime target for the Export of an Islamic Republic form of government should Iraq fall.  Thus to keep that from happening they too try to keep the flames of unrest burning, while not seeking to break the balance of power so the country dissolves.  This turns Iraq into a proxy war in much the same way Africa and Asia was between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Shia-  the European way of doing things was to put the minority population in charge of the majority through the giving of advanced weaponry money and placing certain rules on who can and cannot do something.  Apartheid was an extreme form of this legacy and was why the Sunni population was in control in Iraq.  The problem becomes that when you have no job, responsibility, money- the only thing to do is have babies, and then that majority becomes a lot bigger, and a lot more bitter.

Fast forward through the brutal nature that Saddam held onto power with, and you have a population itching to get some level of payback for all the past humiliation and the like.  It would be like giving Reverend Jeremiah Wright and a bunch of his friends truck loads of guns and saying, “work out your aggression now”.  They now want a piece of the pie and want to make up for the years of being ostracized and give the Sunni a taste of their own medicine.

Sunni -  Having just read that, the Sunni want to keep from being subjected to the same level of degradation they heaped on the Shia counterparts.  They don’t have the numbers to outright win a civil war, but do have the level of sophistication to make it very bloody and drawn out, almost to make the Shia believe they could win.  Power is a wonderful thing, and the Sunni have been at the front of the line gulping it down for a while, so they of course want to hold on to at least enough to make sure they still get a large oil money check.

Kurds - The Kurds want what it seems every ethnic group wants these days, to be an independent country.  The problem they face however is that such a country is not always viable, they were conquered at some point for a reason after all, and will need the assurances of the United States protection to even have a chance.  Having a longstanding terrorist group dedicated to unifying land that currently belongs to Turkey, doesn’t aid their cause.  So they seek to be the good soldiers waiting patiently and helping when they can to show they had intentions of making it work, and thus deserve a legitimate shot of independence.

Turkey - Once known as the Ottoman Empire that controlled all of the Middle East and was a rival to the great Empires of Europe, Turkey has drawn a line in the sand that no more territory will be stripped from their control.  This makes the statement Iraqi Kurds have said they are a part of “Southern Kurdistan” raised the question of where they think northern Kurdistan would be since that territory is Turkish.  Thus they are adamant that the Kurds remain a part of Iraq, as well as attempting to quell their own Kurdish independence problem.

There you go, the motivations and characters involved in Iraq.  I tried to use small words that even our President could use, so I will now…Fade to Black

Back Again

It is amazing the various things that can alleviate the undercurrent of pent up frustration, and thus distract from the necessary angst to supply the information provided on this site.  Meeting an interesting Chick, finding all of the hidden skulls on HALO 3, killing Arabs/Russians on Call of Duty 4 and Army of Two.  A sense of serenity takes hold and the world doesn’t seem as stupid and pointless - then of course one hears about the ultimatum set by the Iraqi “government” and it all comes crashing down.

The interesting chick turns out to be, not all that interested- the quest to find all terminal locations on HALO 3 needs to be started, and eventually killing Arabs/Russians becomes not entertainment or self preservation, but more of a muddle some task- I was as surprised as Israel at this revelation.

To fully understand the futility of the meaningless …or else statement issued by Washington- I mean Baghdad to the Shia’ militias is to gain insight into the stereotypical views of Middle Eastern culture.  Arabic culture takes on the premise that if you talk a good game and look tough, you will avoid the inevitable ass whipping they will receive.

To prove this point, as it is still the Easter season, a parable is in order, possibly even two.  In the waining days of the ‘91 Persian Gulf War, which is to say a couple days after it started, their were pockets of Iraqi forces that were camped out - and were told by their US counter parts to “Leave the area without your weapons by 9am or at 9:05 we will come in there and kill you.”

The Arab generals of course puffed their chest and replied with great zeal, “We will leave when we are prepared no earlier than noon, with all of our equipment and at a pace of our choosing.” This made the US officials smile and gently laugh among one another.  The US general then reiterated, “No, you will leave by 9 or we will come in there and kill all of you by 9:30.”

The Arabs then looked at one another, conversed, and replied, “In that case we will be gone by 7.”

This is the major culture clash that exists between the Middle East and Western civilizations.   By and large when Western Nations speak about invasions, military actions they follow through.  Arabic governments do not.  The reason for this in my mind, is that Western nations can afford to have a functioning, equipped, and competent military without fear of them taking over the country in a coup.  Arab nations do not have that luxury- and thus have the most dysfunctional, underfunded, group of muppets as there armed services.

To demonstrate this let us examine the Israeli experience.  Jews that had migrated before WWII, or had survived the Holocaust, were defend not even half of the land they currently posses, against the combined forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, as well as a presence from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.  To survive against such an alliance is to be impressed, but for the Israeli military to EXPAND the territory that would fly the star of David against such a force is a true accomplishment.

Surely the questions in your minds go something like this, “Oh great disperser of the true knowledge if this is the case - why are groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Hamas so hard for Western Powers such as Israel and the United States to stamp out.  The answer is that these organizations are run like Western Armies, only the fanaticism in their cause is notched up a bit, and the moral qualms are diluted.

For example, the leadership of Al Qaeda is not worried that the fighters they train to become martyrs will take part in an insurrection against them and take over their positions by execution.  There is a hierarchy within these organizations, as well as an indoctrination program to get these people all thinking of the cause, and not the actual planning of these events.

These men fight for a cause greater than themselves, and are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to see that the job is done, and seek to destroy as much of the enemy as they can- such a definition could refer to any number of Hollywood action movie protagonists.  In a moral vacuum it could refer to the enemy that we fight so valiantly today.

The greatest failing of the Bush Administration and the likely McCain Administration, is the inability either by desire, understanding, arrogance, or contempt, of making the Islamic world know- and believe that this fight is not in a moral vacuum.  Killing civilians by design is not the moral equivalent of  killing civilians through collateral damage.  That merely saying one is following the “words” of Allah does not make it so.  To challenge the Islamic world to truly define the Nature of Allah as best as mere mortals can, whether it would be a being of understanding or hate.  To put the terrorists on the defensive not only on the battlefield, but ideologically as well.

Republicans often bemoan the fact that Reagan the God-King is no longer present in their party.  Perhaps they are lucky, for the inevitable question would be asked of the Iraqi’s “Are you better off now than you were five years ago?”  When the violence of Saddam Hussein was at least predictable and avoidable, as opposed to now, when the violence is unavoidable and unpredictable, and a proud people must look to an occupying force for safety.  I for one would think Reagan would be ashamed…