Thread: My solution to Iraq, part 1

If you are going to be successful in Iraq, you must first define success. In general, there is no such thing as 'winning' and 'losing'; that is, if I go to work everyday, I will not be a 'winner' - I will just be successful at what I do, and what I do is worth more than a bum who smokes crack all day - but someone could be just as successful at smoking crack as than being a doctor.

In truth, if success is defined as a government based on republican principles and western style of representation so codified in our precious documents, (DOI, CONST) then we are doomed to failure. We must realize that Iraqi'ians have different more's and traditions than we do, therefore, we cannot expect the same things to work in their situation.

So what to do?

The answer has to do with my interpretation of Thomas Hobbes's major point in Leviathan; that is, people will be warring unless overwhelmed by a common power that can surpass them all.
This has been taken to mean a strong central government. Yet, I find this term a little bit amusing, persay. A government, while it may be the owner of the majority of guns and welfare checks that people in this country recieve, its legitimacy depends solely on how well the citizens that live under the government view it. Even the most oppressive regiemes need to find a base of support somewhere; the only thing is that through technology, they may be able to find that base of support in places other than the majority population, or may be able to extend their influnece far beyond 'necessary and proper' length'.
Think about this a second - is this government strong because it is able to kill people in russia in a moments notice? Well, technically yes, but if it were to do so, it would alienate its power base; and as such, it would truly face instability. The true power in any government, in anything, rests in the ability of that thing to exercise control over something else. In a society where the government is all powerful, the ruler has no bounds. Loko at some of the central doctrine in many religions; god is all powerful, thus if you stray outside of his laws, he will strike you down. In a sense, he is the ultimate authority figure - something no human could compete against.

Therefore, I, and many other people, define success as we have a stable government in Iraq, that promotes a 'good' society.

So apply this neo-hobbesian theory to our familiar circumstances - us in the west. We desire certain things in life - electricity, food, water, clothing, shelter, love, wealth, liberty, autonomy, freedom, security, and so on and so on. And as such, the various governments are seen only as good as they are at giving us the things that we want; if we want liberty, then the government better give us liberty. Look even in the news of late, check the NY times frontpage at 11:57 on sunday night - there is a headline about John Edwards and his '08 presidential bid; we want a president, we want to know about our 'president', and voila, thar she blows, we have a story about a man who talks about 'two americas.' Even then, he is trying to appeal to our emotions - us, as good and freedom loving americans, must find it in our nature to help the poor or the middle class fight back against the evil corporations. He is trying to use that sense of being american, that common sense of 'this is the presidents goal, or should be', to become an authority figure and say 'no more poor people', or something like that.

So lets take a look at the circumstances, the reason for this post, in Iraq right now, that are causing a lack of a decent authority figure there.
As posted by me in the last thread:

1)Shia-on-Shia strife principally in the South;
2)Sectarian violence, largely in Baghdad;
3)Sunni insurgency
4)Attacks by Al Qaeda.

Why is it that Shiite's attack other Shiite's, but Shiite's also attack Sunni's, Sunni's attack Shiites, Sunni's attack Americans, Americans attack 'insurgents, Americans Attack Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda attack Americans, and everyone associated with them?
Forget the American involvment right now. Looking at this, I can see some things:
1) Gates is right not to call it a civil war, because there is no real unity endemic in any other group. Strictly speaking, being shhite does not guarantee protection from other Shiites. If there is no real unity, then it is really just Jahaliyah, or moral ignorance, by everyone - the only difference between this and the hobbesian state of nature is that some people are unified together under the banner of various Ayatollah's.
2) However, this does not mean that it would stop anytime soon - as a matter of a fact, gang killings go on forever until the participants say 'no more'. You can't control a few people shooting some other people - you can control a lot of people shooting a lot of people however.
3) IF you apply my hobbesian view of things, that you need to have a common power in the mind to overwhelm people, then a western-imposed government would not do the trick. It will always be seen as western imposed, as sort of coming from the 'top down', rather than the bottom up. So therefore, even if everyone participated in the elctions, which they didn't, it is still going to be a non-peoples government, even if it is a government OF the people. The real reason that the constitution was ratified and accepted as our national herritage was not because it was imposed by anybody, but because it was imposed by everyone at virtually the same time.
Taking this into account, you need to examine what it is that still unifies Iraq, what are some truths that everyone believes in, and work to build a national government from there.

Personally I think division is more practical than trying to unify different groups, especially ones who are so deeply opposed to one another.

yeah but thats not what we want, right?

Originally Posted by The_Bear

yeah but thats not what we want, right?

Sometimes want has to take second place to practicality. Trying to find a common ground (imo) would be extremely difficult and time consuming. A better approch would be to divide oil income and the region equally between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. That way they can be monitored more easily until a common ground is found.

eventually though, for us to be successful, we need a common ground.
the attempt of me here is to illustrate how i would achieve it

Originally Posted by The_Bear

eventually though, for us to be successful, we need a common ground.
the attempt of me here is to illustrate how i would achieve it

I agree, a common ground is required. However I think dividing the country first is a somewhat better strategy. Rather than make it a fully unified country, what do you think of a federation?

If Iraq is divided, it is only a matter of time before another powerful dictator comes into power and gains control of all three states again, and then we'll be right back in the same situation.

Originally Posted by Jet

If Iraq is divided, it is only a matter of time before another powerful dictator comes into power and gains control of all three states again, and then we'll be right back in the same situation.

Then what would you suggest?

my suggestion is unify them all because they are arabs and make a new goverment for arabs not shites or kurds or sunnis.

Originally Posted by AhabtheArab

my suggestion is unify them all because they are arabs and make a new goverment for arabs not shites or kurds or sunnis.

How would you go about this exactly?