Iraq stability could take 10 years: Jack Straw

[ECH1969]

LONDON - Iraqis may have to wait up to 10 years before their country becomes a stable democracy, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.

Despite a bloody insurgency against the Shi’ite- and Kurdish-led government which has seen thousands killed, Straw said Iraq was “on track” to establish a democracy.

“I am optimistic about Iraq, I think in 5 to 10 years we will see it becoming stable,” Straw said during a BBC television debate late on Wednesday.

Straw said Britain had no timetable for the withdrawal of its 8,500 troops in Iraq.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/October/focusoniraq_October73.xml§ion=focusoniraq

[autorank]

1. Jack Straw and Tony bLIAR can move there for 10 years.

That is their just desert, living in the Hell that they created. Who do they think they're kidding? We're out of there, and out soon!

[anotherdrew]

19. that was my first thought too

Move bush and blair and all their cronies there and see how they do.

[FloridaPat]

2. At $6 -7 billion a week that gives us how many months to go belly up?

[noahmijo]

3. You mean before it even becomes an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC

Please don't gimmie that shit. Iraq will NEVER see Jeffersonian like Democracy ever in our lifetimes.

Do the math, look at its history, its people are not evil but it is a civilization that never embraced Democracy and never fought for it.

The only way you can get Democracy from the barrel of a gun is if those who want Democracy are the first to fire it.

[Porcupine]

5. Uncle Sam's selling chickens in round white boxes as it is.

There are only a few damn fool, true-believer, republicans that still spout the "Iraq war is a noble cause bullshit." They all seem to be busy polishing thier shoes with horseshit at the moment though.

[oioioi]

4. The more things change.... (pictures)

British and Indian troops under General Maude finally seized Baghdad on 11 March 1917. This photograph shows the 1st Division of the 4th Hampshire Regiment entering the city past a large crowd of local onlookers. The division was, in fact, based at a garrison just outside Baghdad and was ordered to march into the city specifically for the purposes of this staged photograph.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/battles/p_baghdad.htm

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. Will it take that long for the next Saddam to emerge?

[MADem]

7. Jack Straw is correct, which is why we need to beg for UN intervention NOW

A multinational peacekeeping force is the only way to play it. Occupiers cannot get the job done, regardless of motives. So long as we look covetously at their oil, we will never be regarded as liberators, and we know damn well the whole exercise was a load of bullshit to begin with.

[enigma000]

8. Who do you have in mind? n/t

[MADem]

9. In terms of UN nations??

I say go max multinational, like we did in the Sinai. And mix it up, too, so you have Egyptians serving alongside the French, the Americans, the Tunesians, whomever. Arab speakers to the extent possible, and make language learning a part of the deployment. Get 'em over there, and give them training every day--it is a bitch to write, not as hard to speak...

[enigma000]

10. I don't think they are interested

The French? What would you say to them?
mon amie, the Iraqis are kicking our asses, how about you send some of your troops to die in vain?

Mais oui! Our men will gladly die for your stupid American folly!

As for Arab nations, these are the same countries from where the foreign insurgents are coming from - I can't see the Shiites liking that very much.

[Bridget Burke]

11. How will we know until we ask?

Of course, I can't imagine Bolton accomplishing anything useful at the UN.

There are alternatives to your suggestions. For example, The Republic of Ireland has a Permanent Mission to the UN: www.military.ie/overseas/

[MADem]

16. You do not understand at all what I am proposing

Their role would be PEACEKEEPING, not occupation. They would work in close concert with whatever group ends up running that hellhole. It would be similar to the effort in the Sinai after the Arab Israeli business.

The role of the peacekeepers would be simply to keep law and order, not hunt down insurgents, nor participate in the political process in any way, shape or form. They would not be involved, like we are, in nation building, reconstruction, or any of that shit.

And the French would be wearing, like everyone else seconded to the UN, the light blue helmet.

Finally, it would not be a question of who was interested or not. If we could sell the Security Council on it, it would happen, and they would go along. As would any other nation that wants to continue to enjoy the benefits of UN membership.

I only wish our present government could see that benefit, but with Bolton as our hatchet man ambassador, that is not likely until his recess appointment runs out....

[enigma000]

17. So other than being used as target practice

would these "peacekeepers" do anything? I can't see the insurgents suddenly saying, "oh, these are French infidels coming to help us" or "look at the pretty blue helmets" let's not shoot.

The last time the UN set up a presence in Iraq, their building was blown up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/19/sprj.irq.main/

Besides, the UN oversaw the oil-for-palaces fraud, what makes you think the Iraqis like the UN and more than the US?

And as for the Iraqis, has their "government" ever asked for UN peacekeepers? I mean, PM Jaffari is Iran's man, so certainly he has the independence to ask for such.

[MADem]

18. Uh, they were not there in force--that was a fucking outpost

Security, at the time of that explosion, was being provided, rather poorly, by US. They did not have peacekeepers with them, and only a minute security cadre of PSD types. That was an administrative effort, not a peacekeeping one. They were counting on US, and we let them down.

No one would blow those guys up for two reasons--first, they would have overwhelming presence, as opposed to the threadbare, limpdick effort we have going on, and second, they would have no axe to grind with guys from Egypt, China, Japan, Africa, everywhere. The UN forces would take direction from the sitting government, not the other way around. The force of the world would be upon the nation--if you are an opposition bomber, you don't know if you are blowing up a Saudi, an Egyptian, a Tunisian, a Turk or a Canadian.

That is not to say that the insurgency would not continue, but they'd be going after each other, and since we would be gone, they would not be going after us.

Right now, the Iraqi government is the US government. We need to leave them to their own devices, and let them take the lead. But someone needs to direct traffic, ensure public tranquility, and provide basic security until they can fashion an army that suits THEM, not us. We cannot do it, we do not have the credibility, and we are targets. But somebody has to, unless you want to see Iraq head in the direction of Afghanistan, and then see a swift invasion and annexation of the southern region by Iran, and a swoop up north of the Kurds consolidating their stake which will lead to further instability in Turkey and Iran. This leaves the Sunnis to have the shit territory in the west, full of sand and snakes and butt up against the Syrian border...hell Syria might as well have that, no one else wants it.

[LatinoSocialist]

12. too long for me...

pack up and leave boys.

[goforit]

13. Yep, let them live in their own mess.

[gratuitous]

14. Nuh uh! Dick Cheney said the insurgency is in its last throes

No way it could be 10 years. What kind of a traitor is Jack Straw? Why does he hate America so much? Doesn't he support the troops?

Any other clichés I missed?

[bemildred]

15. Throwing darts at the dartboard again. nt

[Megahurtz]

20. And we're supposed to put up with this shit for 5 to 10 more years???

NOT!