Allawi apprehensive about new Iraq (a shockingly accurate prediction on Iraq's future)

Washington Post ^ | February 18, 2005 | David Ignatius

[jmc1969]

Ayad Allawi says he dreamed for years of two things -- toppling Saddam Hussein and establishing a democracy in Iraq. As an opposition leader and then interim prime minister, he helped achieve both goals. But as he prepares to leave office, Allawi worries that his country remains on the edge of a precipice.

[caver]

I like your idea. I don't think the killing is going to stop until one side is defeated. Right now, the Sunnis and the Shiites are settling scores and it will continue until one side gives up.

[jmc1969]

As long as Maliki refuses to use the Iraqi Army with US help to stop the killings the situation is going to keep going downhill until the point where even a change of government can't stop it as the Iraqi Army itself breaks apart.

My great fear is that President Bush will hold onto his hopes that the Maliki government (if you want to call it that) will finally do something and by the time he figures out it isn't going to happen, its too late and no change will matter anymore.

[jmc1969]

No,

you don't get it, trust me when I say its still pretty much only the Militias like the Madhi Army involved in the killing. When the Iraqi people really get into it (which would mean a real civil war) if they ever do I will be the first to tell you.

[SC DOC]

I found this posted on another blog. Doubt the accuracy, but thought I'd pass it along to show what is out there:

Bush Secret Plan for Iraq

It starts with freeing Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Minister

Here is the plan, paraphrased briefly, as proposed by the source who serves as an authorized back-channel link to the insurgent groups:

Leaders of the organized Sunni resistance groups are seeking immediate meetings with top American generals towards the goal of a cease-fire. Meetings with lower-level US officials already have occurred.

The resistance groups reject the ability of the al-Maliki government to unify its government, and therefore wants an interim government imposed before new elections can be held. The former Baathist-dominated national army, intelligence services and police, whose leaders currently are heading the underground resistance, would be rehired, restored and re-integrated into national structures under this plan.

Multinational Force [MNF-I] activities aimed at controlling militias to be expanded.

The US-controlled Multi-National Force [MNF-I] would be redeployed to control the eastern border with Iran.

A Status of Forces agreement would be negotiated immediately permitting the presence of American troops in Iraq for as long as ten years. Troop reductions and redeployments would be permitted over time.

Amnesty and prisoner releases would be negotiated between the parties, with the Americans guaranteeing the end of torture of those held in the detention centers and prisons of the current, Shiite-controlled Iraqi state.

De-Baathification edicts issued by Paul Bremer would be rescinded, allowing tens of thousands of former Baathists to resume military and professional service.

An American commitment to financing reconstruction would be continued, and the new Iraqi regime would guarantee incentives for private American companies to participate in the rebuilding effort.

[McGavin999]

I think he already knows. Remember, he just had Abazaid in Washington for a talk and Abazaid went right to Iraq afterwards for a talk with Maliki.

Malike is not cut out to handle the reins of power, especially not in this situation.

[Gideon Reader]

Excepting the civilized Kurds residing mostly in the north if Iraq, the "sand savages" are deeply rooted in the 7th century and simply NOT ready to live in the here and now of THIS century, culturally, religiously, socially and certainly not politically.

Those poor sincere people who proudly displayed their ink stained voting fingers have been the victims of backward children in adult bodies toying with 20th century weapons who do not understand even the most basic concept of democracy or civility. They are tribal and politically (and most likely genetically)inbred; defaulting to the self destructive position at every turn.

My answer? Divide the "nation" with the U.S.Military repositioning to the north into a civilized, friendly and politically progressive Kurdistan, and nation build the crap out of it as a shining example of what might have been achieved with better quality Iraqi protoplasm.

The Azeris of Iran would take note and THAT would be a migraine for downtown Mullaville in Iran.

[jmc1969]

Maliki was Sadr's second choice after Jaafari. Both men were extremely weak and easy to push around, they always said the right things, but never had action to back up their words.

Did you know that Maliki opposed in 2003 the US overthrow of Saddam, because he abhors violence and that this summer he stopped a US-Iraqi Army assault on Ar-Ramadi because it would involve too much killing?

[jmc1969]

You don't have a good grap on history in Iraq.

After being freed from Saddam in 1991 the Kurds butchered each other for years in a terrible civil war. But, they had to with US help learn how to work out their differences peacefully not in the old way. All of this took a decade.

[bert]

.......in a land of conniving politicians.....

That is having a large Blue Zone.

[libstripper]

You're right. The problem, as I see it, is that Muslim culture just does not accept the idea of a government independent of religion (Islam) and Islam is based on the idea of a totalitarian caliph who rules everything to the smallest detail. Hence, when Muslims are allowed to vote, they vote Islamic, as they did a few years ago in Algeria, and enthusiastically run right back into the very prison from which they have just been released. Thus, as long as Islam is essentially the state religion of any country, the idea of even evolving to a western style of democracy can be kissed goodbye.

The only thing that seems reasonably well to work in such an environment is a somewhat benevolent dictator, like the former Shah of Iran. Such an individual can do the wet work we are loathe to do by ourselves and can often be a reliable ally, provide we are willing to support him, something Carter definintdely did not do with the Shah. Then, over time, it's possible such a society could evolve into a democratic one.

The problem, of course, is well illustrated by what happened in Iran. The mullahs were infuriated by the Shah's reforms that were directed to moving Iran at least into the nineteenth century, took skillful advantage of Carter's perverse and self-destructive fascination with "human rights," overthrew the Shah, and imposed a retrograde regime that has no respect for human rights at all.

Above all, we must not be squeamish about what a leader we install in an Islamic country needs to do to bring order and we must support him. The alternative is always someone who is far worse.

[newfreep]

...what mixing politics and Islam would do to Iraq.

islam is a political movement, not a religion, who's goal is to control the world using any and all evil means. As such, it cannot co-exist with democracy.

[newfreep]

OT: how does one add a "tagline"?

[caver]

I don't disagree with you, but aren't the militias backed by the public and doing the deeds that the people would like to see done?
How much percentage of the population belong to the militias?

[jmc1969]

Democracy is the goal we still should be after, but we need to take it very slow with democratic reforms and we also need to be aware from now on that having elections before a country is ready is a very bad idea.

[Hildy]

I've been away for two weeks, without phone, internet, newsapers or TV. I decided to do a little experiment. I bought myself a little transistor radio and only listened to the news for 15 minutes a day on a CBS affiliated Radio station. This is what I learned: Every day hundreds of people are being killed in Iraq in Bush's broken war (their words) and every day Iraq is slipping aninevitable civil war. EVERY DAY this is what I heard. This is the first time I I've been on the internet (check email yesterday) So now I'll find out what's really going on.

But let me tell you, if all I listened to were headlines from msm news outlets, I'd hate Bush too. I'd hate him with a vengeance and I'd certainly hate this war.

[jmc1969]

The average Iraqi hates the militias and would like security resorted by a national Army and police force. However, they also fear that if there local militia just went away that they would just end up being butchered by a rival militias. That is why the government needs to be evenhanded going after them.

All the militias combined (not counting the Peshmerga) as well as the insurgency are probably no more then 100,000 men.

[caver]

OK, thanks for the info. I'm just hopelessly uninformed.

[Gideon Reader]

My grip on Iraqi history is firmly rooted in reality and the present.
The Kurds are doing very well and seem to be building a nation where their fellow Iraquis seem to be destroying even the possibility of a nation.

The contrast is startling the Sunnis and the Shiites are grinding underfoot the opportunity to have a future a la the cantonments of the Swiss(not that Iraq is EVER going to be Switzerland)or a cohesive single nation.

While they are doing this the Kurds embrace freedom and build, build, build.

Am I wrong, or did I miss something?

[jmc1969]

The Kurds didn't immediately embrace freedom, after they first were free of Saddam they killed each other by the tens of thousands for years.

[kanawa]

http://i10.tinypic.com/2cg0ebk.jpg

When you reply to a post.
Right below the "your reply" entry field
is the "tagline" field