U.S. Frees 'High-Value' Detainees from Iraq

[Bob's World]

People, we have facilitated the creation of a new government in Iraq, any overt efforts by the U.S. to counter their actions severely undermines their legitimacy in the eyes of their populace and increases perceptions of U.S. legitimacy over them. Both of these are exactly what should be our MAIN EFFORT to avoid.

This is not our country. These are not our citizens.

Additionally, in all populace-based conflict their must be a certain amount of healing and forgiving in order for the populace as a whole to move forward together. Lincoln and Grant understood this and stood up in the face of tremendous pressure from those who felt strongly that the South should be punished for its crimes.

You have to move on. Let it go. Not your call.

[Ken White]

You have to move on. Let it go. Not your call.

That's quite good advice...

[Courtney Massengale]

People, we have facilitated the creation of a new government in Iraq, any overt efforts by the U.S. to counter their actions severely undermines their legitimacy in the eyes of their populace and increases perceptions of U.S. legitimacy over them. Both of these are exactly what should be our MAIN EFFORT to avoid.

Appeasing a small vocal minority so that they will take an opportunity to have a disproportionate role in the aforementioned government doesn't undermine legitimacy? There are more powers that just the US the Iraqis fear their government of becomming a puppet of...

I know it isn't our call and all that... but it also brings up some real juicy questions about what kind of democracy we're creating.

[Bob's World]

A couple of additional thoughts for those who have a hard time letting go of control of other countries, their governments or their populaces ( All good Cold War strategy, but also a strategy that carried into the post- Cold War era has done much to foment the conditions of unrest aimed at the US that we call "GWOT":

1st: A government cannot "appease" it's own populace. When a government makes concessions in support of its populace its called "doing its job." When a government makes concessions that affect its populace in efforts to support another government, then THAT is appeasement. In this case, I believe it would only be appeasement if the Iraqi government made a decision counter to what they believe is best for their populace in favor of what the US believes is best.

2nd. As to "what kind of democracy we're creating": Really? Have you read any of our founding documents as a nation? We have absolutely no right (other than the right of might that we used to overthrow the existing government of this country) to dictate what form of government they decide to establish. The ultimate arbiter will be the Iraqi populace, and if this government heads in the wrong direction it is their duty and right to sort that out. When we start dictating terms of governance for another nation we do a couple of very serious things:

a. We take on the role of "legitimizer" of that government and are thereby responsible for all of their actions (or at least will be held responsible by their populace that probably believes that we have taken a role that belongs more rightfully to them);

b. We run 180 degrees counter to the express terms of the American Declaration of Independence, that we hold out to the world as the principles upon which we were founded and stand for. I hate hypocrisy. Most people do. Either rescind the declaration, or let these guys sort it out for themselves.

[Ken White]

I know it isn't our call and all that... but it also brings up some real juicy questions about what kind of democracy we're creating.

and it's not our call whether it is or not. "We're creating" smacks of a little arrogance and exemplifies one reason we are not well loved across the world.

That whatever government the Iraqis decide upon is slightly better than its predecessor should be adequate. Progress is progress.

[Courtney Massengale]

When a government makes concessions that affect its populace in efforts to support another government, then THAT is appeasement. In this case, I believe it would only be appeasement if the Iraqi government made a decision counter to what they believe is best for their populace in favor of what the US believes is best.

This seems to be a rather simplistic view that the only two stake holders are the US and Iraq and that any action by the GoI is a reflection of the relationship between the two.

Who do you think is out there lobbying for disproportionate representation of Sunnis in the GoI? It sure isn't the Iraqis... they've made that choice rather clear twice through free and democratic elections.

Oh wait, that must make the choice invalid since we're the ones who gave them the ability to choose their own representation. What a horrible predicament - we can't use voting or representation to find out what kind of government the people want since we don't have any right to impose a mechanism to form a government.

The only honorable thing to do would be to leave and allow another nation to impose its will since we don't have that mechanism spelled out in our founding documents.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs
I wasn't aware that the ones demanding Dr. Germ's release was al Qaeda...

[davidbfpo]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs
I wasn't aware that the ones demanding Dr. Germ's release was al Qaeda...

Mark,

I'd be very wary of citing a press story from 2004 as a good indicator of AQ interest in 2009, especially as Al-Zaqawi the cited spokesman is history.

davidbfpo

[bourbon]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs
I wasn't aware that the ones demanding Dr. Germ's release was al Qaeda...

Mark,
It was a grievance of the Sunni’s, and it was something AQI was demanding. The Sunni’s did not necessarily fully support AQI, but shared some of the grievances with them which allowed AQI to have a sanctuary in the population. Addressing grievances such as this enabled the turn by the Sunni’s against AQI.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

It was in nearly every major news outlet. Zarqawi's groups demands can be found pretty easy using Google. He was saying he'd basically exchange hostages to get the female prisons, 5 or so, out of custody...and the Iraqi government opposed.

Since we were talking about releasing these women and it happened in 04 it's much MORE relevant than talking about events that happened five years later, not less.