aussie troops in Iraq...
About sending more troops to Iraq, and similarities with Vietnam... The following is a comment I left on Kyte's blog and I liked it so much I've also posted it here (with minor changes):
I was against the war. Still am.
But I see our role now as much more like a peace-keeping operation. Our troops are going to be providing protection to Japanese military engineers rebuilding infrastructure. I don’t see too much wrong with that. We flattened the place, so fixing some of it before we leave seems fair. I think if you look at what the Australian military tasks actually are, they are quite benign.
Pull the troops out? I think the Yanks (and the Poms) should pull out and an international UN presence to provide interim security is ok and we could play a part in that.
Without US/UK interefence, how would Iraq remake itself? It was a socialist state before, so should the Baathists (socialists) now resume power? Should Iraq be run by a few corrupt oligarchs, or a pro-capitalist democracy dictated-to by the WTO, the IMF, and the Wold Bank? A theocracy perhaps? Fragment into three parts (Kurdiraq, Sunniraq, and Shiairaq)?
We shouldn’t have gone there. But that was then and this is now. There is now a fledgeling democracy there. Will it degenrate into a corrupt US puppet regime like South Vietnam was? Dunno. Putting more troops in does smell a lot like Vietnam.
But there are differences too: The Iraq insurgency is mostly Sunni/Baathist, a minority, whereas the Vietcong represented a clear majority - that’s why the (democracy loving?) Yanks disallowed elections in Vietnam.
The Iraq insurgency is alienating (and killing) a lot of Iraqis and not a lot of occupiers. They are murderous lunatics. They murder hostages who are sympathetic or neutral to their cause - I can think of no quicker way to lose the support of their own people and the world at large.
They have no idea about strategy. They are chaotic. The Vietcong had brilliant strategies and were highly organised. The Iraqi insurgency (as an effective force) is almost certainly doomed, the Vietcong could never have been defeated.
No, I don’t think there are worthwhile similarities and that’s why I think the outcome will be vastly different too.
Now that elections were held and a constitution is being drafted, it’s all over for the validity of armed resistance. The stupid bastards don’t know how to use democracy to shape their own future. All they know is how to kill indiscriminantly to vent their rage. I will not condone that. I cannot condemn one lot of killing and condone another. I will not condone violence as a means of resolving conflict. I do condone the use of military power in a peace-keeping role. And this is the role I see possible for us there now and I think Howard (to give him his due) has quietly been moving us into just such a role.
I think leaving now would hand Iraq to a bunch of bloodthirsty murderous lunatics who don’t even know how to mount a sane, effective resistance, let alone govern a country.
I was against the war. Still am.
But I see our role now as much more like a peace-keeping operation. Our troops are going to be providing protection to Japanese military engineers rebuilding infrastructure. I don’t see too much wrong with that. We flattened the place, so fixing some of it before we leave seems fair. I think if you look at what the Australian military tasks actually are, they are quite benign.
Pull the troops out? I think the Yanks (and the Poms) should pull out and an international UN presence to provide interim security is ok and we could play a part in that.
Without US/UK interefence, how would Iraq remake itself? It was a socialist state before, so should the Baathists (socialists) now resume power? Should Iraq be run by a few corrupt oligarchs, or a pro-capitalist democracy dictated-to by the WTO, the IMF, and the Wold Bank? A theocracy perhaps? Fragment into three parts (Kurdiraq, Sunniraq, and Shiairaq)?
We shouldn’t have gone there. But that was then and this is now. There is now a fledgeling democracy there. Will it degenrate into a corrupt US puppet regime like South Vietnam was? Dunno. Putting more troops in does smell a lot like Vietnam.
But there are differences too: The Iraq insurgency is mostly Sunni/Baathist, a minority, whereas the Vietcong represented a clear majority - that’s why the (democracy loving?) Yanks disallowed elections in Vietnam.
The Iraq insurgency is alienating (and killing) a lot of Iraqis and not a lot of occupiers. They are murderous lunatics. They murder hostages who are sympathetic or neutral to their cause - I can think of no quicker way to lose the support of their own people and the world at large.
They have no idea about strategy. They are chaotic. The Vietcong had brilliant strategies and were highly organised. The Iraqi insurgency (as an effective force) is almost certainly doomed, the Vietcong could never have been defeated.
No, I don’t think there are worthwhile similarities and that’s why I think the outcome will be vastly different too.
Now that elections were held and a constitution is being drafted, it’s all over for the validity of armed resistance. The stupid bastards don’t know how to use democracy to shape their own future. All they know is how to kill indiscriminantly to vent their rage. I will not condone that. I cannot condemn one lot of killing and condone another. I will not condone violence as a means of resolving conflict. I do condone the use of military power in a peace-keeping role. And this is the role I see possible for us there now and I think Howard (to give him his due) has quietly been moving us into just such a role.
I think leaving now would hand Iraq to a bunch of bloodthirsty murderous lunatics who don’t even know how to mount a sane, effective resistance, let alone govern a country.
posted by The Editor at
11:29 AM
8 Comments:
As I was reading the comment, I wondered why it wasnt a blog post. And here it is.
Its a good comment and a good post. I don't necessarily agree with all you said, but you said it very well :)
Thanks for the kind workds, Kyte. I'll continue the debate with you on yours (till it fizzles), and I'll debate it here with anyone else who cares to comment here. Well, that's the plan, anyhoo. :-)
Gerry writes:"I think leaving now would hand Iraq to a bunch of bloodthirsty murderous lunatics who don’t even know how to mount a sane, effective resistance, let alone govern a country. "
And you say you still oppose the war! Pull the other one Gerry. You're sounding liek a cheer squad for the occupying forces.
Anon, I can see why you could read it that way. If I say "I think it's going to rain to day" and our Prime Minister says "I think it's going to rain today", Does that mean I'm in agreement with everything he stands for? No. It just means we both think it's going to rain today.
Your straw man is dead, anon.
Read _all_ of what I said above, and then go over to Kyte's bolg and read my other comments there. If you still think what I'm saying is inconsitent with my being a pacifist please let me know.
But please don't try any more logical fallacies.
And hey, yeah, by all means point out any logical fallacies on my part, as I don't claim to be perfect in how my attitudes are arranged on this and many other issues.
Go dude! :-)
erm.. Anon... Gerry said he was against the war in the first paragraph. The other things he said don't indicate to me that somehow that doesnt apply.
Colour me confused.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Kyte. In future, sniper attacks by people hoping to hide behind "anonymous" tags will be deleted unless they at least use a pseudonym when signing off on their comments. I'm getting sick of gutless bullshit artists. The wanker probably wouldn't even know what the word sophistry means...
Onya Gerry. yes, it does just mean you both think its going to rain, but I know you would have a raincoat and sometimes I wonder about the common sense of our leader.
The Iraqis had a very big army, which was not badly trained. I wonder why it can't be reconstituted to defend those Japanese for itself?
I am not being facetious. The election, even though it took the country in a direction that appals me, legitimised the new Iraqi government. It could raise an army that would keep public order.
They will get it soon, anyway.
- barista
Hi Barista. About the Iraqui army - good question. I don't know if it would be respected by the people i.e. the Shia or the Kurds unless it was clearly seen to have a different modus operandi and different leadership "style". One of the things our army is doing is training the Iraqi army, so maybe that's a way of extricating ourselves sooner. Dunno. Then again, the insurgency wants to blow up the invader-trained trained soldiers and police. So stuffed if I know.
We're in a transition period now. The invasion was wrong/ illegal/ criminal. But what do the current protestors want? I don't see them putting up a cogent counter plan. Who's going to throw the Yanks/Poms out, eh? And to suggest that if everyone else left that this would imorove the situation, I have yet to read a scenario that's not idiotically naive. The UN? Have we forgotten that the insurgents don't want the UN there either? They want no Westerners there at all. Perhaps we should all piss off and leave them rotting in the mess we created.
Is that what the peace movement is suggesting (it seems I'm now deemed to be pro-war because of the comments I made, so I take it I'm persona non grata to the peace movement now. Amazing how quickly you get trashed if you express an opinion that doesn't sit well with them. Quite fundamentalist really. (Yes, I'm still smarting about that dickhead's comment, and the fact that a while back I was summarily chucked out of the Not Happy John email list because I accused two of the posters there of being not anti-violence enough for my liking. I was literally accused by the list owner of being an ASIO agent-provocateur sent in to cause dissention and division - you musn't argue about anything you know. Bloody lunatics.) Grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========