Did Bush win the Peace? No! But it still needs to be done. How? U tell me.

[hope42mro]

Hi my name is Grace, I'm a high school student currently studying WWII in history class. And I am fascinated by the period in Germany between WWI and WWI, the time when the Germans temporarily experimented with democracy but choose/were overrun by/forced into a fascist form of government. I'm interested in studying why that happened.

That said, I fear the same thing could happen in Iraq if we don't win the peace soon.

From the news reports (which I know come through "the media's bias for violence")the U.S. position seems to be getting more precarious and the once semi-appreciative Iraqi's now seem full-out resentful of our presence. The Shiites seem to be getting more organized and galvanized against the U.S.This statistic shocked me: 50% of Iraq's polled said they supported the a calculated attack last Wednesday that left 4 Americans dead and two of their bodies charred and hanging from the rafter of a bridge. 50%!!! And the other 50% said they hated the Americans but thought displaying their bodies in such fashion was wrong.

And I thought we were making progress!:scared:

Personally I think we can't pull out until an Iraq government is firmly rooted in place and, this is the important part, it has enough popular support to contend with the militant cleric leaders.

But how do we do that? I want to know because one day I hope to be a public leader and it will be my responsibility to solve these sorts of complicated problems.

So as democrats, wise, open-minded, intellectual Democrats, how would you turn the tide of Iraqi discontent in our (and their) favor?:think:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. You are a very intelligent woman, Grace

I hope you have a ton of peers just like you.

Anyway, I fully agree we can't just pull out of Iraq now. We made a mess, and no matter how stupid that was to get in there to begin with, we now have a responsibility to see this through to the end. How we do that is turn full and complete control over to the United Nations. If we seek to set a government in place ourselves, it will be immediately overthrown and/or chaos will reign supreme. If we stay there much long, we will be seen (rightfully) as occupiers. However, if we give up control to the United Nations, they can more easily keep the peace while not being seen as exploiting their country. They can take the time necessary to put in a REAL government and they can defend that government until it's ready to stand on its own.

[worldgonekrazy]

5. Why would the UN take control?

This is obviously a great big mess. We can't just hand them the bag and say "clean up after us."

People on this board tend to act as if the UN has worldwide legitimacy. As much as I do like the UN, the truth is that in the Middle East (and other regions) it is widely regarded as being a figurehead for Western supremacy. Even if the UN were to assume responsibility for Iraq, I don't think they would have a much easier time than the U.S. has.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. It's not that the UN has a ton of legitimacy

But they still have far more than we do.

[hope42mro]

8. Oh yeah. The UN. I honestly forgot about them. heh, oops

Sirjwthebalck, you're totally right. I have a good excuse for forgetting about them. Bush and his admin. think th UN is annoying and would only give Iraq to them as a last resort.

I love the U.N. I have the U.N. flag hanging in my room. I truly wish the U.N. had more respect in the Bush administration. Making the U.N. irrelovant is not only irresponsible and wasteful, it's dangerous! France and England made the League of Nations irrelovant by handing Mussoulini Ethiopia before WWII. He attacked it angainst L of N law, they thought could have stopped him, but chose to ignore him. Thus he didn't even blink when they threatened him with L of N action when he and Hitler were being jerks.

Bush should protect the authority of the U.N. It has more respect worldwide then American power. He shouls see it as a tool, not an obstacle.

[Jacobin]

2. "Winning the Peace" is just republican double-speak

For a successful conquest of Iraq's resources. It means that the Iraqis stop fighting back to regain their country and are successfully repressed and occupied.

I don't think its going to happen. I think they will fight the occupation until it gets so bloody and expensive that we leave. Like Vietnam.

That's my opinion anyway

[mmonk]

3. I wouldn't worry about fascism in Iraq

More likely a turn to a more Islamic state. I would worry about erosion of democracy here though.

[hope42mro]

10. Why aren't Islamic states considered fascist? The taliban? Iran?

Those were/are opressive regimes. They encarcerate and execute people who practice religions other than Islam. how is that not different from Hitler's persecution of the Jews?

[mmonk]

11. Islamic states are theocracies based on Shuria.

Fascists states are fueled by party and certain private interests that benefit from war. One's ideologically religious and the other pushed on a sense of patriotic fervor usually also fueled by propaganda about a threat from others.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. These words describe just about every religious state...

that has ever existed, whether they are Islamic, Christian, or Jewish. The only difference is that the state propaganda has "moral guidance" and the "word of god" to back them up. The religion becomes the private interest that you speak of.

[mmonk]

15. I would like to make the distinction

that in fascism, the private interests have to do with industries. Theocracies, yes of course, base their laws on their religious laws and tradition (whether Quranic, Biblical, etc.)

[MsUnderstood]

14. Who are we to judge other nations?

Who are we to judge other nations? I know this appears to be a weak arguement because the mindset we have of WWII is that if we had not entered into the conflict Hitler would have invaded Europe; however, Sadam was not invading other countries (well at least not this century) he was managing his own.

We cannot try to be the "World Police". So many countries have problems with their leaders (our included) that jumping into internal conflicts with guns blazing will not resolve the already tense situation.

As a young person, how would you feel if we were invaded tomorrow? How would you feel if the family of George Bush was asssinated, our newspapers were shutdown, innocent citizens were killed, arrested, detained, questioned? What if your friend (or you) were picked up walking home from school because you looked suspicious and then interogated for several hours in a foriegn language before being released to walk home from a location miles away? How would you feel if the president were arrested by foriegn invaders and someone else's general began running the country. Don't forget while all of this is happening, national treasures are stolen or destroyed, water sources are contaminated, food is scarce, and foriegners with guns are patrolling your streets looking to shoot people.

Would you be willing to embrace the new system? Would you trust the invaders? Would you want them to setup the new government?

They way out of this conflict is to remember these are humans in Iraq, not pets. They have emotions that we have offended, traditions that we are ignoring, and beliefs that we are forgetting. To fix the situation, we need to remove the soldiers and replace them with conflict resolvers. We should get out of Iraq and let the UN fix it (and we should foot the bill).

[worldgonekrazy]

4. You can't. That is why Iraq is a classic "quagmire"

Just like Vietnam. It will end up being completely unresolved and the U.S. will have to pull out in shame. We won't be able to win over the populace as long as we are occupying their country, but conversely if we simply leave the country will fall into chaos. Neither option is desirable, but the latter is the only one that is possible, IMO.

[leftofthedial]

6. go back to the UN immediately

Give them ANY terms they need to take over in Iraq and replace the US military entirely with a multinational force.

Fund the huge majority of the UN effort.

Pull the US military out ASAP.

Allow the establishment of a true democratic process in Iraq, even if that means a Shia-controlled government.

As the new Iraqi state stabilizes, fund rebuilding the infrastructure we have destroyed, a la the Marshall Plan.

[Vladimir]

9. I don't even know

that the UN would have a mandate now, although I agree it would be infinitely preferable to the current situation. But any UN force would have to be composed almost excusively of troops from Arab countries which didn't support this war to have any kind legitimacy. And this is going to be very hard to put together, what is their incentive for sending soldiers to Iraq? And even that may not work because of the nationalist angle so often ignored when discussing the Middle East.

V

[leftofthedial]

16. could be that the UN would divisive

but not nearly as divisive as the US.

Multinational is key, but I know of no other organization with the capacity to try to manage the situation.

I fear there will be a massivley violent period there no matter what.

[Vladimir]

7. I disagree with the premise

because I think the only sensible solution is to pull out. Democracy installed from the outside does not work, as demonstrated in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afganistan etc. And you ignore the possibilty that the clerics may have majority popular support - after all the Iranian revolution had mass support originally. Now if you want to argue that its up the the US to prevent Iraq becoming an Islamic state, that's a different argument.

On the comparison with Germany, I don't think it stands because German democracy was not imposed from the outside. Again, the most pertinent comparison is with Afganistan, and we all know how that is going.

V

[SeekerofTruth]

17. Good question. Look at the history of U.S. 'Foreign Policy'

In our terms, many Middle East countries are nothing but barbarians. Look at Europe before the 17th century and you will see many similarities between how Europe treated its people and how the Middle East governments currently treat their people.

So, do these people need to be brought into 21st century civility? I believe the answer is "yes". But, how to change the culture?

There are 4 possibilities to change:
1) Do nothing and hope they eventually change. Doesn't work, because people are resistant to change. Cultures are very slow to change.
2) Work politically/economically at changing them. Has about 50% success rate. Some victories: U.S.S.R and eastern europe. Some failures: Cuba, Vietnam.
3) Force the change. (The quickest, simplest, and deadliest approach) The U.S. government believes this strategy has had the most success. Some victories: WWII(Japan, Germany, Italy), Panama, Kosovo, and Grenada.
4) Create a long term strategic plan and stick with it. This is the one the politicians have never tried! (Both Democrats and Republicans). Ask anybody what the U.S. foreign policy has been for the last 30 years and you will get a different answer from each person.

If you ask the same question on a 'conservative' web-site you will get completely different answers than you will on DU. Ask yourself, how do you convice other people to your beliefs? Then, how do you convince an entire society?

[kentuck]

18. First....stop the violence

Stop the killing.
Second, show respect. However, this does not mean appeasement. We will remain strong and able to defend ourselves. But we should not use our power to intimidate or to invade other countries that do not threaten us.
We use our diplomatic and economic powers to persuade certain allies to cooperate with our plans for peace. Peace is not a one-way street. We will talk with all parties involved. We will not make a statement that one leader is not worthy of our attention.

I think that would be a good start - a big improvement over what we now have in the White House.

[swinney]

19. Note number of bases being built in Iraq and other countries in region.

it is called Bases Exxon--Oil--

All about pumping oil and transporting it from Caspian Sea basin
for oil firms of usa. 100%.