Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---I will paraphrase something JMA told you recently--it is far easier as you do to tear something about-but then that is what your and mirhond both tend to do calling it debate.

Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.

Finally say something that means anything, finally have your own opinion---unless you can counter the Robert concept of rule of law and good governance then not say anything. If you noticed which you did not I was paraphrasing Robert not putting words in his mouth which you tend to do.

My opinion, as I've stated in numerous discussions with Robert and others, is that law, good governance, and inclusion evolve locally. They cannot be externally imposed and there's very little that outside powers can do to move the evolutionary process along.

Yes, inclusive government and good governance would be wonderful in Iraq. They'd be wonderful in Afghanistan. Hell, they'd be wonderful in America. Neither the US nor any other outside power can impose or otherwise create inclusive government in Iraq or Afghanistan until the local political cuture evolves to the point where it's ready to accommodate them. That is not within our power. We could impose the structures and institutions that we think appropriate, but as always, structures and institutions that are not compatible with the prevailing political culture will simply be bypassed or ignored. The US cannot transform Iraq into Massachusetts, not with all the blood and treasure on earth. Whatever Iraq's political future will be, it will have to be determined through an evolutionary process driven by Iraqis. That process is likely to be messy and violent, as it has been in most places.

Do I as a superpower having invested say at the least 1 tillion USDs with a big T, having lost 4.4 KIA over 200K WIA and had one MIA until 2009---have I actually "pressure" power to get an inclusive government if I play my game correctly. This "pressure" is also not counting at least 160K troops inside your country and oh by the way the corruption money you are making off of me in the millions of USDs counts as well as "pressure" does it not?

Of course it's pressure. There are things pressure can't accomplish. Transforming Iraq into a an inclusive democracy is one of them.

The actual question should be if you read carefully my comments---just why did not "we" play the "game?

We did play the game. We lost. We lost because we failed to achieve our objective. We failed to achieve our objective because the objective of transforming Iraq into a democracy was never realistic in the first place.

If we wanted to hold the arbitrary construct of "Iraq" together, we should have left the army intact and handed it over to a new dictator... moot point of course because US domestic politics made that an unacceptable option. Having declined that option, we get to watch that arbitrary construct fall apart, which may not be the worst of all possible outcomes. Is it really our function to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together?

The lesson, if any, is that we should have a practical, realistic, achievable end game plan in hand before embarking on regime change. "Install democracy" does not exactly meet those criteria.