Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[Plastic Photon]

if this region is so critical to the entire ME, then everyone has an interest in keeping things under control as much as possible.

So then why is just about everyone else leaving?

Because everyone else is paying the US to fight this war. The Sauds helped finance this war and the first against Iraq. When demand runs dry, supply should then run dry as well. That at least is economics 101.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Because everyone else is paying the US to fight this war. The Sauds helped finance this war and the first against Iraq. When demand runs dry, supply should then run dry as well. That at least is economics 101.

How are they paying us to fight this war? Who and how much? I don't know about this.

A link would help.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Because keeping the Middle East under control is not as important to the Chinese or Russians. They would prefer the Middle Eastern dictatorships control the region, not have the United States have any influence in the area. Those countries do not want a strong United States.

I was talking countries like England, France, and Germany, and the UN.

They tried ordinary diplomacy with Saddam Hussein and it didn't work. The United States had plenty of reason to invade Iraq. I agree though that it was rather ridiculous to just invade and not consider that anarchy would break out with all authority gone and no police.

I'm talking about regional solutions, not negotiating with terrorists.

Because the government forced a social experiment on the United States military that involved forcing it to accept women into all sorts of positions, for equality. If they enact the draft, it will have to include equal numbers of men and women.

]

Well now that's a reason to allow the destruction of western civilization. How about this one: Initiate a draft tomorrow and the war will be over in a month because the public will demand it. The reason: It was based on lies.

 

[WheelsRCool]

I was talking countries like England, France, and Germany, and the UN.

Because they're too anti-war, and the U.N. is a very corrupt organization (remember the UN "Oil for Food" program). They (the European nations) will not go to war until they're literally being attacked on the homefront. One only need to look to World War II to see that.

Also, the French and the Germans had a lot of business interests regarding Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a buyer of French military equipment. By invading Iraq and toppling Hussein, the French lost a good deal of money.

Well now that's a reason to allow the destruction of western civilization. How about this one: Initiate a draft tomorrow and the war will be over in a month because the public will demand it. The reason: It was based on lies.

The war was not based on any lies whatsoever. Every major leader in the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and said he had to come clean. If it was based on lies, then George Bush is one heck of a lot more intelligent than the world media and political community like to say he is, to pull off a stunt like that.

Furthermore, however, the United States didn't need any evidence of WMDs in Iraq whatsoever to invade. WMDs were just one amongst seven reasons to invade Iraq, the one the media concentrated on the most.

Now I'm not saying those seven reasons were enough to justify invading Iraq, that's debatable (in my opinion it could be either/or).

But to say that the war was just based on "lies" simply isn't true.

And there are plenty of military folk out there who would love to enact a draft.

 

[Astronuc]

Furthermore, however, the United States didn't need any evidence of WMDs in Iraq whatsoever to invade. WMDs were just one amongst seven reasons to invade Iraq, the one the media concentrated on the most.

WMD is the principal justification proposed by the Bush administration for going to war.

The war was not based on any lies whatsoever. Every major leader in the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and said he had to come clean. If it was based on lies, then George Bush is one heck of a lot more intelligent than the world media and political community like to say he is, to pull off a stunt like that.

OK, the Bush administration just fabricated evidence. Actually, Bush and Cheney were lying, because they were telling the US and the world that they had hard evidence, when they didn't. Rather than scrutinize and challenge any evidence, they grasp what little they could get there hands on and fabricated a convincing story. After the fact, the Bush case for war has been discredited.

Vietnam was not any counter-insurgency war.

The Pentagon and CIA would disagree. Vets whom I know from Special Forces would disagree.

 

[BobG]

True, but withdrawal too soon would lead to disaster. Remember, Iraq is a counter-insurgency war and on average, those last about ten to twenty years to complete.

Also, we do not want Ahmedinejad to go in and take over the place.

Why do counter-insurgency wars (especially ethnically motivated civil wars) last so much longer than conventional wars?

And, how do these wars usually end? Do they ever end by the opposing sides agreeing to a peaceful settlement where all parties share power in the government?

In fact, can you give any examples where any civil war ended because both sides chose to settle their differences by sharing power in the government? (There are some, by the way, just an incredibly low percentage when compared to the number of civil wars since the end of WWII.) And are there lessons from those examples that can be applied to Iraq?

If you want a quick end to the war in Iraq, just give one party (Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds) an insurmountable advantage and the war will end very quickly. It will be a pretty ugly end for two of the sides, but at least it will be quick.

Damp out the worst of the war and you maintain a balance that allows each side to continue fighting for eternity - unless you can find a way to convince them to commit to a shared government to the point that their very existence depends on the success of that government. If they have the means to protect themselves in the event the government process breaks down, they will eventually walk out - happens over and over again.

How do you get them to make that kind of commitment? Can a foreigner inspire them to make that kind of commitment? Are there any Nelson Mandelas wandering around Iraq waiting for the chance to unite their own country? In fact, is there any leader in Iraq that outshines Muqtada al-Sadr? He's not likely to encourage a decrease in Shiite power and probably needs to be eliminated before there can even be a slim chance of success in Iraq.

Once al-Sadr's gone, do we just keep eliminating leaders until we get lucky and someone with charisma that's committed to a united Iraq finally emerges?

There's an awful lot of problems with Iraq that depend solely on Iraq. The US will never have full control of a solution just because we're outsiders. It's not a hopeless situation, but the odds are incredibly bad - the chances of success are probably less than 5%, maybe in the low teens at best.

And don't count on a civil war of just 10-20 years. Ten years is short for ethnic civil wars. Twenty to thirty is about average for ethnic civil wars and some have been going on for about 60 years, now. As long as the opposing sides have a means to fight and a means to get new weapons, they'll keep fighting.

 

[WheelsRCool]

WMD is the principal justification proposed by the Bush administration for going to war.

No it wasn't. That's what the media got people to think.

OK, the Bush administration just fabricated evidence. Actually, Bush and Cheney were lying, because they were telling the US and the world that they had hard evidence, when they didn't. Rather than scrutinize and challenge any evidence, they grasp what little they could get there hands on and fabricated a convincing story. After the fact, the Bush case for war has been discredited.

They didn't fabricate any evidence. The evidence they had was very good, but it turned out later on to have ultimately been wrong apparently. Also, President Bush was not the one who originally made it U.S. policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein, that was done by Clinton. Bush just actually went ahead and did it.

The Pentagon and CIA would disagree. Vets whom I know from Special Forces would disagree.

The Vietnam War could have been considered a counter-insurgency war in that it was a population of people rising up against a government, but in terms of how it was fought by the United States, it was very much not any counter-insurgency war. It was very much a conventional war with targets that were practically begging to be hit.

After the United States defeated the Northern Vietnamese conventionally, it became a full-on counter-insurgency war, with regards to re-building the country and so forth, but since the war had already been dragged out for ten years and most of the public had no idea how the war had actually been conducted anyhow and just wanted out, America pulled its troops, and all funding to the Southern Vietnamese, out, thus causing South Vietnam to fall to the North.

And I can't blame them at that point.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Why do counter-insurgency wars (especially ethnically motivated civil wars) last so much longer than conventional wars?

And, how do these wars usually end? Do they ever end by the opposing sides agreeing to a peaceful settlement where all parties share power in the government?

In fact, can you give any examples where any civil war ended because both sides chose to settle their differences by sharing power in the government? (There are some, by the way, just an incredibly low percentage when compared to the number of civil wars since the end of WWII.) And are there lessons from those examples that can be applied to Iraq?

If you want a quick end to the war in Iraq, just give one party (Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds) an insurmountable advantage and the war will end very quickly. It will be a pretty ugly end for two of the sides, but at least it will be quick.

I don't think the war can be ended quickly for those reasons though. One primary reason fori nvading Iraq was to create a democratic nation in the Middle East. Now I'm not saying that's possible, but that was the idea. To just turn power over to one group I doubt would result in such a country.

Damp out the worst of the war and you maintain a balance that allows each side to continue fighting for eternity - unless you can find a way to convince them to commit to a shared government to the point that their very existence depends on the success of that government. If they have the means to protect themselves in the event the government process breaks down, they will eventually walk out - happens over and over again.

I agree.

How do you get them to make that kind of commitment? Can a foreigner inspire them to make that kind of commitment? Are there any Nelson Mandelas wandering around Iraq waiting for the chance to unite their own country? In fact, is there any leader in Iraq that outshines Muqtada al-Sadr? He's not likely to encourage a decrease in Shiite power and probably needs to be eliminated before there can even be a slim chance of success in Iraq.

Once al-Sadr's gone, do we just keep eliminating leaders until we get lucky and someone with charisma that's committed to a united Iraq finally emerges?

There's an awful lot of problems with Iraq that depend solely on Iraq. The US will never have full control of a solution just because we're outsiders. It's not a hopeless situation, but the odds are incredibly bad - the chances of success are probably less than 5%, maybe in the low teens at best.

And don't count on a civil war of just 10-20 years. Ten years is short for ethnic civil wars. Twenty to thirty is about average for ethnic civil wars and some have been going on for about 60 years, now. As long as the opposing sides have a means to fight and a means to get new weapons, they'll keep fighting.

I agree. Iraq is frought with problems. When I mentioned about counter-insurgency wars lasting a lot longer than conventional wars, my point was more along the lines that just because the U.S. has been in Iraq for four years now doesn't mean the situation is hopeless, because such wars tend to have such problems which make them last long.

As I'm sure you know, there are many in the media who make comments like, "This war has lasted longer than WWII," as to imply that that automatically means the U.S. continuing in Iraq is utterly hopeless, which I disagree with right now, as I think it is still too early to make that call.

 

[baywax]

I have to retract some of my earlier statement about the necessity of becoming an Iraqi citizen in order to change the way the country handles its affairs. In the case of Nazi Germany there was an overwhelming reason to invade and take over the machinations of that country because of the effects it was having on the countries it was invading. The way it was treating its own citizens also came into the mix of reasons to invade but only until much later into the war.

Admittedly Iraq did show a tendency to invade neighbouring countries when it attempted to invade Iran and did invade Kwait (sp).

Whether Iraq was instructed to make these invasions by foreign influences or not doesn't matter. The fact that Iraq made the final decision to invade shows lack of restraint and autonomy as well as a callous disregard for the sovereignty of other nations. However, after these attempts at invasion, Iraq was left to deteriorate under UN sanctions for 12 years with no further attempts at invasion or other violent means of influencing other nations. So, does the history of Iraq justify the US invasion and occupation of that country? Please note that 60 years and 50 years after the wars with Germany, Japan and N Korea the US still occupies strategic areas of those regions.

 

[BobG]

As I'm sure you know, there are many in the media who make comments like, "This war has lasted longer than WWII," as to imply that that automatically means the U.S. continuing in Iraq is utterly hopeless, which I disagree with right now, as I think it is still too early to make that call.

The media started making comments about the length of the war only 13 days after the war started.

But, then again, that's because of comments out of the White House and the Pentagon.

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Who's famous words were these?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm

The criticism about the decision to invade and how Iraq was handled after the invasion are warranted.

I do agree that a quick complete withdrawal might not be the best option, though. The picture has to be expanded and a reasonable solution for the entire Middle East situation has to take into account the likelihood of a failed Iraq. Until we have some idea of how we're going to at least limit the damage to Iraq, it would be a little rash to leave.

Proposed ideas haven't been very forthcoming. A few candidates might hint at the seriousness of the situation, but there aren't very many inspiring campaign slogans to be drawn from "We've stuck our hand in the meat grinder and I aim to get out of this situation with three fingers left on our hands."

 

[Plastic Photon]

How are they paying us to fight this war? Who and how much? I don't know about this.

A link would help.

The outcome of the first world war was the set of countries we have in the Middle East today: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. Here we are 80 years later still fighting for this damned country. Why?

 

[mheslep]

The media started making comments about the length of the war only 13 days after the war started.

But, then again, that's because of comments out of the White House and the Pentagon.

Who's famous words were these?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm

I think it is fair to say Rumsfeld was thinking about how long it would take to defeat Saddam Hussein's regime when he said that, and on that score he was about right. It appears he hadn't considered the 'after' as a significant problem, and on that point he was completely wrong.

 

[jostpuur]

Because they're too anti-war... ...They (the European nations) will not go to war until they're literally being attacked on the homefront.

Defense forces should be used for defense, not to destroy other countries that pose no threat to the outside world.

I didn't know that people, who actually believe that US is defending itself by its actions in Iraq, exist at all anymore.

 

[mheslep]

Defense forces should be used for defense, not to destroy other countries that pose no threat to the outside world.

I didn't know that people, who actually believe that US is defending itself by its actions in Iraq, exist at all anymore.

Context? Please provide an an example of where the US has ever been defending itself by military action, aside from Imperial Japan/Pearl Harbor.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Defense forces should be used for defense, not to destroy other countries that pose no threat to the outside world.

I didn't know that people, who actually believe that US is defending itself by its actions in Iraq, exist at all anymore.

The best defense is a good offense. You don't wait for the enemy to literally start attacking you before defending. For example, when Hitler began his massive military buildup right prior to WWII, Europe should have prepared and maybe told him, "You can do that, but if you start attacking anyone, be prepared for war." Or, "You aren't allowed to do that, so we're coming after you if you don't stop." Instead, they sought "peace" negotiations, then when Hitler began his attacks, they STILL sought peaceful negotiations. You try to appease the crocodile you just get eaten.

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein did not "destroy" Iraq. It has actually improved the livelihood there for many Iraqis, with overthrowing Saddam and now improving the infrastructure. The problem is they didn't have enough manpower to squash the terrorists flat-out. And yes Iraq did pose a threat to the outside world, a few threats really, but even those weren't needed to warrant invading Iraq. One, there was the WMD belief, which has turned out to be wrong. Second, at least according to Alan Greenspan, was the threat Saddam posed because of his control over a crucial oil route for ships, which if he shut down, could've severely hamstringed the world economy.

But furthermore was the belief that building a strong, Democratic Iraq would serve to help the U.S. in battling terrorism. Terrorism is a long-term war, one that will probably last at least a generation I would imagine. Saddam gave the U.S. plenty of reasons to invade, plus there was the fact toppling Saddam was made part of the U.S. foreign-policy agenda under Clinton. Until 9/11, the reasons still weren't enough to warrant invading, but after 9/11, it became apparent that setting up a strong country in the Middle East would be very helpful in battling terrorism.

But they had to mess that up as well. I am no military commander, but one would think it would be common sense that if you intend to invade a country and topple the authorities there, dictatorship or not, anarchy will break lose if you don't establish some police presence immediately after. Even the Nazis knew that when they "liberated" the Russian people from the Soviets in early WWII.

I believe the Generals had told Bush that they needed at least half a million troops to really invade and properly control Iraq, but that would've required upgrading the size of the military too much in too short a time. IMO they never should have shrank the ground forces down to the extent that they did.

Context? Please provide an an example of where the US has ever been defending itself by military action, aside from Imperial Japan/Pearl Harbor.

I'm assuming you mean examples from after WWII, well indirectly Korea and Vietnam were two primary examples, because they were to stop the spread of Communism. Korea stopped the spread to the South, and Vietnam, while probably the greatest strategic blunder of a war in history, did manage to forstall the spread of Communism to the other Southeast Asian nations long enough to allow them to build up their capitalist economies and develop their democratic governments.

The notion that the "Domino effect" in Asia simply "didn't happen" isn't quite true; it might well have happened, and was likely prevented by the U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

The U.S. could have crushed the North Vietnamese Communists though and ended the whole problem in 1965 if the politicians hadn't try to fight the war in a "peaceful" way.

 

[chemisttree]

No one is talking about running - that is a strawman and an example of why I don't trust the Republicans anymore and probably never will again.

I consider Bill Richardson's stance on Iraq 'running'. Out in six months... no residual force.
That's pretty clear to me... no strawman.

 

[jostpuur]

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein did not "destroy" Iraq. It has actually improved the livelihood there for many Iraqis, with overthrowing Saddam and now improving the infrastructure.

That's a lie. According to numerous interviews, things were bad in Iraq when Saddam was in power, and now things are even worse.

And yes Iraq did pose a threat to the outside world, a few threats really, but even those weren't needed to warrant invading Iraq. One, there was the WMD belief, which has turned out to be wrong. Second, at least according to Alan Greenspan, was the threat Saddam posed because of his control over a crucial oil route for ships, which if he shut down, could've severely hamstringed the world economy.

A country should not considered to be threat only because it controls its geographic area.

 

[mheslep]

That's a lie. According to numerous interviews, things were bad in Iraq when Saddam was in power, and now things are even worse.

That's a lie. According to numerous interviews, things are bad in Iraq now, but when Saddam was in power things were worse.

Ok maybe we could resort to actual evidence now instead of assertion.

 

[jostpuur]

In the Saddam's time innocent civilians were not dying randomly in bombings like when US attacked. In the "Why we fight" document some Iraqis say very clearly how they lost basic security when the war started.

In Fallujah civilians had water and electricity cut off by US forces as part of the attack, and they seem to be having this problem still

http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/news/2007/11/21/3112955.htm

An Oxfam International report released in July found that 70 percent of Iraqis do not have access to safe drinking water.

In Saddam's time murder was still a crime, and murderers could be punished, but when Iraqis are being killed now, they cannot do anything. They cannot complain to anyone. They just have to accept, that they can be denied water and electricity, and that they can die.



In Saddam's time taxi driver's didn't lose their job because their cars were ran over by tanks.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1651789,00.html

Abuse worse than under Saddam, says Iraqi leader

The torture problem wasn't solved by the US forces, either.

I must admit I'm not expert on this, and I don't know big names, places and events that could be relevant. My knowledge has come from random documents and interviews. Besides, this is getting off topic, so I might as well promise to not continue. But I had to make clear that I'm not believing that propaganda WheelsRCool is throwing here. In fact he almost looks like he is getting paid for explaining that. If he's not, still he could be or should be getting paid.

 

[mheslep]

In the Saddam's time innocent civilians were not dying randomly in bombings like when US attacked.

Quite right, it wasn't random. Instead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs#Since_1991" murdered and tossed in mass graves.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1651789,00.html

The Allawi quote is dated, from '05, at the height of the Sunni/Shia violence. Conditions are not like that now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I consider Bill Richardson's stance on Iraq 'running'. Out in six months... no residual force.
That's pretty clear to me... no strawman.

Okay, there are certainly people who want immediate withdrawal, like a lone governer, but no one of consequence in the deciding body of the democrats supports this. You won't hear this from Congress or the leading Presidental candidates. In fact they have specifically addressed this issue many times. However, you will hear the Reps spin this position every time. The Bush admin has sought to portray any plan to leave, ever, as running.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sen Jim Webb just returned from Iraq and offers his opinions and observations, on Meet the Press:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Here is the republican's version of not running:

...if you want bases in Iraq for the next 50 years, which is what the Republican leadership now is finally openly saying—Mitch McConnell said it on the Senate floor several weeks ago, “This, this should look like Korea 50 years from now”—then you’re going to have one sort of approach, which you ought to be open about it. So we’re voting for these things, where in there you have money that’s directed toward ongoing operations, but you have all these other sorts of things as well, and so, you know, the question becomes how you draw the line.[continued]

 

[mheslep]

Sen Jim Webb just returned from Iraq and offers his opinions and observations, on Meet the Press:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Senator Webb is far and away the most responsible voice on the war in the Democratic party. [disclosure] he's my senator [/disclosure]. He's a serious guy and makes serious critiques. You won't find him taking snide cheap shots at the US like say, all the rest of the D. party: Harry "the War is lost" Reid, Dick "www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101654.html"[/URL] Durbin . Schummer, Dean, etc., none of them belong in the same room w/ Webb.

 

[chemisttree]

Okay, there are certainly people who want immediate withdrawal, like a lone governer, but no one of consequence in the deciding body of the democrats supports this. You won't hear this from Congress or the leading Presidental candidates. In fact they have specifically addressed this issue many times. However, you will hear the Reps spin this position every time. The Bush admin has sought to portray any plan to leave, ever, as running.

I guess you and I have a different idea of what is meant by 'no one of consequence'. I consider anyone running for president and their supporters to be 'someone'.

And... you were pretty quick with the strawman slap.

 

[BobG]

The current situation in Iraq: Iraq's government rules the Green Zone in Baghdad. Most of the decrease in violence is due to US troops, segregating warring parties from each other in separate walled neighborhoods, and local militias. Refugees are beginning to trickle back into Iraq only to find their old neighborhood is completely changed and may not want them.

Iraq Calmer, But More Divided

Baghdad Safer, But It's A Life Behind Walls

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-refugees_sly_dec09,1,3438242.story

Which brings up a big question about when/if to end the surge.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hEXlu9vmLmZ2TVuVVbn9v_gtnGnwD8TE134G1

The first test comes within the next 2 to 4 weeks when the British pull out of Southern Iraq. Although mostly Shiite, even the Shiites are broken up into local militias that have maintained somewhat of a truce. It will be interesting to see if the truce between different militia groups holds after the British troops are gone.

 

[binzing]

First, we (and really more so the Iraqis) are screwed pretty much either way, thanks Georgey. Second, the Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting forever, we didnt start that, and likely it won't stop anytime soon.

 

[Pelt]

First, we (and really more so the Iraqis) are screwed pretty much either way, thanks Georgey. Second, the Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting forever, we didnt start that, and likely it won't stop anytime soon.

Saying Sunnis and Shiis have been fighting forever is like saying Chinese and Uyghur, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, or Scottish and English communities have been fighting forever. A country's prospects for success doesn't depend on some cheap shot about a religious, ethnic or cultural division. Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'a have spent most of their millenia and a half long history under a unified political system, be it Arab, Persian or Turk, and have done so without wiping one another out. The same goes for other countries with huge Shi'a or Sunni minorities, like Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, etc.

 

[BobG]

First, we (and really more so the Iraqis) are screwed pretty much either way, thanks Georgey. Second, the Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting forever, we didnt start that, and likely it won't stop anytime soon.

Saying Sunnis and Shiis have been fighting forever is like saying Chinese and Uyghur, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, or Scottish and English communities have been fighting forever. A country's prospects for success doesn't depend on some cheap shot about a religious, ethnic or cultural division. Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'a have spent most of their millenia and a half long history under a unified political system, be it Arab, Persian or Turk, and have done so without wiping one another out. The same goes for other countries with huge Shi'a or Sunni minorities, like Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, etc.

I tend to agree with Pelt's post more than binzing. The last serious fight between Sunnis and Shiites was over 200 years ago.

That doesn't mean that there still aren't some serious tensions between the two groups. Whether those tensions would eventually bubble up to the surface regardless of Iraq is debatable, but Iraq definitely makes the Sunni-Shiite divide one of the major fears among Arabs.

Sunni-Shiite Tension Called Region's 'Most Dangerous Problem'

Choosing a Sect

Right now, Arab states themselves are doing more to diffuse the issue than the US is:
The Sunni-Shiite Folly (the article focuses more on the US role, but mentions how Arab states have reacted to the situation).

 

[BobG]

In fact, at least for the next 13 months, I'd say the Middle East is pretty much on its own to resolve its own problems, a fact that's not been lost on them. Tough to say exactly how things will play out, but US influence will probably be less important in Jan 2009 than it is today. As far as Iraq goes, that might be good - withdrawal won't be a disaster for the region as a whole. As far as the Middle East goes, it's hard to tell how reduced influence will affect the US. One thing is almost certain - Bush will be one of the most significant Presidents in US history. His policies will affect us one way or the other for decades to come.

Friendlier hands across the Gulf - Arab countries are at least as concerned about nuclear weapons in Iran as the US is, but they're not relying on the US to resolve the issue.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/872/op5.htm - Why Egyptians think Arabs should think seriously of striking a strategic alliance with Iran.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iN4qVW4CTNToVdVroXL2KcFT04wA - Throwing stones at Satan may seem like strange diplomacy, but it's the first time since 1991 that Iranians have been allowed to stone Satan in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2007/12/21/2008_year_of_weakness_and_confusion/1583/ - Why Arab nations are looking to solve their own problems.

Middle East 2008: A fallow year - Yet another view of what's to be expected in 2008.

The End of the Bush Doctrine - How Israel sees US policy in the coming year and beyond affecting them.

 

[Astronuc]

The last serious fight between Sunnis and Shiites was over 200 years ago.

The Sunni/Shii conflict seems to come up in the context of the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980's. Although oil, land and secular vs religious-based (theocracy) society was also part of the equation. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did apparently support Iraq over concern of Iran's (predominantly Shia) influence in the region.

Saying Sunnis and Shiis have been fighting forever is like saying Chinese and Uyghur, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, or Scottish and English communities have been fighting forever.

Perhaps Catholic vs Protestant (in N. Ireland) would be a more appropriate analogy.

 

[Pelt]

The Sunni/Shii conflict seems to come up in the context of the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980's.

Except when you figure that the bulk of the Iraqi Army was Shia and the front largely remained along the borders of Shia-majority Iraqi provinces.

Although oil, land and secular vs religious-based (theocracy) society was also part of the equation. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did apparently support Iraq over concern of Iran's (predominantly Shia) influence in the region.

Yet there's not much of a radar blip before the 1979 Revolution.

Perhaps Catholic vs Protestant (in N. Ireland) would be a more appropriate analogy.

Not sure how. Northern Ireland's troubles begin with a lasting ethnoreligious and political struggle between Britain and Ireland that lasted for centuries. There's no comparable political situation in the history of Arab, Persian and Turkish rule of the Middle East. I brought up those other analogies because they were apt ones; they're historical to contemporary spurts of animosity between two groups that have, for most of their history, lived peaceably with one another.

 

[binzing]

My point was that they have been fighting for a long time, not about exact dates. Also, I was going to throw in the Catholic Protestant analogy (or for that matter any other similar situation) but didn't bother because it is an obvious one.

 

[Pelt]

My point was that they have been fighting for a long time, not about exact dates. Also, I was going to throw in the Catholic Protestant analogy (or for that matter any other similar situation) but didn't bother because it is an obvious one.

I'd argue there's a difference between a few fights scattered across centuries and a continuous, generational struggle.

 

[Astronuc]

Except when you figure that the bulk of the Iraqi Army was Shia and the front largely remained along the borders of Shia-majority Iraqi provinces.

I believe most Shia were conscripted and if they didn't serve, then someone or someone's family would be killed. IIRC, the officer corps were primarily Sunni. The Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units tended to be Sunni from tribes associated or allied with Saddam Hussein.

Those Shia-majority Iraqi provinces just happened to be along the border of Iran and Iraq.

Yet there's not much of a radar blip before the 1979 Revolution.

No, it seems Rezh Pahlavi and Saddam Hussein tolerated each other. There was no love between Khomeini and Hussein.

Not sure how. Northern Ireland's troubles begin with a lasting ethnoreligious and political struggle between Britain and Ireland that lasted for centuries. There's no comparable political situation in the history of Arab, Persian and Turkish rule of the Middle East.

Well, the Sunni-Shii conflict (animosity) seems to be a more recent development along the lines of the more recent troubles between Catholic and Protestant in N. Ireland.

I do think that one can find parallels of ethno-religious and political struggle in the Middle East and the British-Irish conflicts, however the situation in ME is much more complicated given the larger area and number of ethnic groups. There were periods of dominance by one ethnic group, e.g. the various Persian Empires, then the ascendancy of the Arab influence and Islam starting around 633 (and fall of the Persian Empire), then the Ottoman Empire, then the European colonialization. The various Imperial powers and European colonial powers tended to exploit populations along ethnic, tribal and/or religious lines.

I don't imply that the conflict of Sunni and Shii was inevitable nor has it been historically wide spread, but I do think that there are individuals who have exploited the perceived differences once the control of Saddam Hussein and his regime was removed.

 

[Pelt]

I believe most Shia were conscripted and if they didn't serve, then someone or someone's family would be killed.

The same can be said of Iran's armed forces.

IIRC, the officer corps were primarily Sunni. The Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units tended to be Sunni from tribes associated or allied with Saddam Hussein.

Not only were they were Sunni, but they were heavily from Tikrit and Mosul. Neither of which changes the fact that the bulk of killing on the field occurred between Shiis.

Those Shia-majority Iraqi provinces just happened to be along the border of Iran and Iraq.

Which doesn't change the fact that the bulk of the fighting occurred in Shia-majority provinces.

No, it seems Rezh Pahlavi and Saddam Hussein tolerated each other. There was no love between Khomeini and Hussein.

Which has nothing to do with a Sunni-Shia dispute.

Well, the Sunni-Shii conflict (animosity) seems to be a more recent development along the lines of the more recent troubles between Catholic and Protestant in N. Ireland.

Much of the Sunni-Shia animosity stems from the old Tikrit and Mosul monopoly of military power after 1932. That said, it differs significantly from Northern Ireland not only in intensity over the duration but in the lack of background contest between two sovereigns driving the animosity.

I do think that one can find parallels of ethno-religious and political struggle in the Middle East and the British-Irish conflicts, however the situation in ME is much more complicated given the larger area and number of ethnic groups.

More importantly, Middle Eastern politics and borders are historically more fluid than continuous evolution seen in the Irish-British conflict.

There were periods of dominance by one ethnic group, e.g. the various Persian Empires, then the ascendancy of the Arab influence and Islam starting around 633 (and fall of the Persian Empire), then the Ottoman Empire, then the European colonialization. The various Imperial powers and European colonial powers tended to exploit populations along ethnic, tribal and/or religious lines.

Well Persia never really fell, and remained more or less a power unto itself aside from a five century interlude starting in the 11th century. A Persian Empire in one form or another existed alongside the Ottoman Empire all the way into the 20th century. Moreover, her independence found an unusual benefactor in an Anglo-Russian contest for influence in Iran.