Comments on: Iraq http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/35 Ian Lance Taylor Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:38:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/35/comment-page-1#comment-3716 Ian Lance Taylor Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:52:26 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/35#comment-3716 Throughout the course of the war the administration has been saying that better news is around the corner. I simply no longer believe them. I read the Iraq news pretty carefully, and in my view the occasional positive progress is significantly outweighed by the negative. Among the most troubling happenings is that, while Iraq used to have a solid professional middle class even under Hussein, most of those people are leaving the country or being killed. The more the country loses its educated people, the harder it will be for it to recover. In your comments about Al Qaeda, I think you may be confusing the organization that attacked the U.S.--the original Al Qaeda--with the organization in Iraq--Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The two organizations are known to have some contact, but they are different organizations, with different people and different objectives. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia appears to be something of an ultra-violent fringe organization, with little native Iraqi support. U.S. forces have even had some success cooperating with Sunni forces against AQiM, although the Sunni people seem to otherwise barely talk to the U.S. The most well known AQiM leader, now dead, was actually Jordanian, not Iraqi. AQiM is virulently anti-Shia, and as such is restricted to the Sunni majority areas of Iraq. The original AQ is not quite so exclusionary, but is still an exclusively Sunni organization. I don't see either of them becoming significantly worse threats if the U.S. leaves Iraq; they would still be facing the Shia majority in Iraq, not to mention Iran. In any case, AQ already has a safe haven in the Pakistani tribal areas. Throughout the course of the war the administration has been saying that better news is around the corner. I simply no longer believe them. I read the Iraq news pretty carefully, and in my view the occasional positive progress is significantly outweighed by the negative. Among the most troubling happenings is that, while Iraq used to have a solid professional middle class even under Hussein, most of those people are leaving the country or being killed. The more the country loses its educated people, the harder it will be for it to recover.

In your comments about Al Qaeda, I think you may be confusing the organization that attacked the U.S.–the original Al Qaeda–with the organization in Iraq–Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The two organizations are known to have some contact, but they are different organizations, with different people and different objectives.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia appears to be something of an ultra-violent fringe organization, with little native Iraqi support. U.S. forces have even had some success cooperating with Sunni forces against AQiM, although the Sunni people seem to otherwise barely talk to the U.S. The most well known AQiM leader, now dead, was actually Jordanian, not Iraqi.

AQiM is virulently anti-Shia, and as such is restricted to the Sunni majority areas of Iraq. The original AQ is not quite so exclusionary, but is still an exclusively Sunni organization. I don’t see either of them becoming significantly worse threats if the U.S. leaves Iraq; they would still be facing the Shia majority in Iraq, not to mention Iran. In any case, AQ already has a safe haven in the Pakistani tribal areas.

]]> By: fche http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/35/comment-page-1#comment-3712 fche Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:59:17 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/35#comment-3712 This view is dependent on a couple of empirical propositions: * we are not able to keep the peace * The Iraqi police and military are showing no signs of being able to do the job themselves * This argument was used during the Vietnam War, and it proved completely false. * the Iraqis didn’t want us there either / many Iraqis said “thanks for removing Saddam Hussein; now please leave” and there is at least some evidence to the contrary for each of them. Obviously there is not enough to convince anti-war folks, but there does exist enough better news to invalidate use of absolutes like "no progress at all". You'd need to look for such in Michael Yon's dispatches, for example. Another thing - Al Qaeda is not a "potential" enemy. It has been at war with the US for over a decade. They already have set up shop in Iraq, and have had to be beaten back out from several areas. Leaving would give them a safe haven from which to plan future attacks up on the US. The potential harm from this is of course arguable, but it's hard to neglect. This view is dependent on a couple of empirical propositions:

* we are not able to keep the peace
* The Iraqi police and military are showing no signs of being able to do the job themselves
* This argument was used during the Vietnam War, and it proved completely false.
* the Iraqis didn’t want us there either / many Iraqis said “thanks for removing Saddam Hussein; now please leave”

and there is at least some evidence to the contrary for each of them. Obviously
there is not enough to convince anti-war folks, but there does exist enough better
news to invalidate use of absolutes like “no progress at all”. You’d need to look
for such in Michael Yon’s dispatches, for example.

Another thing – Al Qaeda is not a “potential” enemy. It has been at war with the
US for over a decade. They already have set up shop in Iraq, and have had to
be beaten back out from several areas. Leaving would give them a safe haven
from which to plan future attacks up on the US. The potential harm from
this is of course arguable, but it’s hard to neglect.

]]>