Why is the US to blame for problems in Iraq?

Published on October 1, 2004 By Rightwinger In Politics

I may be beating a dead horse here, but I'm just curious; why are we responsible for the violence and unrest plaguing Iraq right now?

Flashback to 2003: Saddam Hussein is ousted by the US-led forces fighting the Iraqi army. The statue falls, and there is dancing and celebrating in the streets. US and British troops are kissed and hugged and hailed by the Iraqi people as liberators. Right about here is where things started to head south.
These supposedly peaceful, devout Muslims who, again supposedly, live by the strict laws of their faith, quickly began looting everything in sight. This is seen as a bad thing. However, instead of chastising the Iraqi people for their hysteria and bad behavior, world opinion seems to be that it's the US's fault for not forseeing it and having enough troops in place to maintain order. Shame on us for not stopping these idiots from victimizing themselves.
Not long after this is when the real violence began; fanatical remnants of the Ba'ath Party and other Saddam supporters align themselves with terrorists from Islamic Fundamentalist groups filtering in from other countries, trying, seemingly, to resist US and British efforts to restore basic amenities to the country.
They take advantage of the unrest created when it is realized that the US can't whip out its magic wand and restore power and other utilities overnight, much less restore the infrastructure of the nation.
The Iraqi people understandably start to get antsy when they can't flip a switch and have lights, or turn on a faucet and have water . But this is because their own people keeping blowing up power stations and water lines we're trying to rebuild.
Once again, instead of chastising these groups for hampering our efforts to restore comfort and basic needs to Iraq, the world opinion seems to be that it's the US's fault for not taking proper control.

You know, I'm tired of this. We got rid of Saddam for them; they loved us for it.
Then, when we couldn't make it right for them in a couple of days, they joined the world and got pissy with us. We hear now that more and more Iraqis are joining the enemy because of our lack of control.
The insugents and pro-Saddam factions (which seem to be relatively small, relying on the terrorist insurgents for aid) keep the situation stirred up by destroying the things that provide what their people need.
Why is the bad behavior of these people our fault? If it hadn't been for these fanatical groups and malcontents, we might have been out of there already, but we can't leave because the situation just keeps getting worse. We're trying, and I hope that the majority of the Iraqi people realize that. And I hope that they realize that it's not us; it's these sadists in their midst, their own people, who keep fighting the efforts we make to normalize life for them.

Comments

drmiler

on Oct 01, 2004

You tell em!

russellmz2

on Oct 01, 2004

the answer can be found in history.

from an latimes.com article on athens' sicily invasion:

Occupying Sicily would require many soldiers, Nicias insisted, because it meant establishing a new government among enemies. "Those who do this [must] either become masters of the country on the very first day they land in it, or be prepared to recognize that, if they fail to do so, they will find hostility on every side."

that's the reason.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-garson23sep23,1,3935955.story
(you need to register your email to read it)

we failed to provide security and then fired the iraqi army, thereby putting hundreds of thousands of armed vets into the unemployment pool.
not enough troops were sent in, we needed hundreds of thousands but currently have less than 150,000 i think.

so, yes, the insurgency is blowing up stuff. but had we gone in prepared with a post war occupation plan, the insurgency would not have been so very effective in recruitment. we fucked up the post war and our troops are paying the price.

drmiler

on Oct 01, 2004

Reply #2 By: russellmz2 - 10/1/2004 2:03:15 PM
we failed to provide security and then fired the iraqi army, thereby putting hundreds of thousands of armed vets into the unemployment pool.
not enough troops were sent in, we needed hundreds of thousands but currently have less than 150,000 i think.

And then pulled over 100,000 back out of the unemployment pool and trained them as soldiers and policemen.

Rightwinger

on Oct 01, 2004

not enough troops were sent in, we needed hundreds of thousands but currently have less than 150,000 i think.

so, yes, the insurgency is blowing up stuff. but had we gone in prepared with a post war occupation plan, the insurgency would not have been so very effective in recruitment. we fucked up the post war and our troops are paying the price.

Though I agree with everything in your post, I have to say that I agreed with getting rid of the Iraqi army. They seemed, at the time, too much of a liability. In hindsight, like so much of the war, not such a good idea.....
We did need many more troops....I always said that. But that doesn't explain away the people's poor reactions in the post-war.
I still fail to see why another's improper behavior is our fault. They could have been a little more patient with their liberators, is what I mean. After all, it wasn't like we weren't making any effort at all; and, besides that, we had to rebuild everything we destroyed in getting Saddam out...so cut us some slack here, people.

Rightwinger

on Oct 01, 2004

And then pulled over 100,000 back out of the unemployment pool and trained them as soldiers and policemen.

Thanks, drmiler....you saved my bacon on that one. I didn't point that out before I submitted.

drmiler

on Oct 01, 2004

Reply #5 By: Rightwinger - 10/1/2004 2:15:19 PM
And then pulled over 100,000 back out of the unemployment pool and trained them as soldiers and policemen.

Thanks, drmiler....you saved my bacon on that one. I didn't point that out before I submitted.

To be quite honest had I not watched the debate last night, I would have never known that tidbit. GW mentioned this a couple of times I believe

sandy2

on Oct 01, 2004

I am not sure what you have been smoking, but the United States was not celebrated by all in Iraq. Yes, we did something for them, but the point of the war was the security of the USA. We rushed in without a plan, we went in without the support of our ally countries, and even without a large support of the countrymen. We did not set out a proper plan to allow for the unrest that should have been expected. What should we have expected? People to allow their country to be occupied by a percieved "evil"? We can't blame the people there for feeling that we are an evil, considering that the actions they see us taking now are consistent with the propaganda that was spread about us to the people in Iraq before. Of course we are to blame, or more actually Bush's administration is to blame. If he had taken the time to go in with other countries then we wouldn't have to take the blame, but because we lead the invasion, it is our responsibiltiy to end the invasion. Further, it was prematurely declared "mission accomplished", when in fact more people have died after the war than during the war. We are blamed because WE went carlessly and with haste.

CrispE

on Oct 01, 2004

Rightwinger:

The army that fought for Iraq in the war and then broke and ran we LET GO. Many have become part of the problem (perhaps 1/2). The second problem is that outside of Baghdad and Basra, the Iraqi "police force" works for either the Muslim Clerics or the insurgents.
Link The link describes one such case but there are other examples.

Our real problem in Iraq now is that we can't leave. Iran is poised on the Iraqi border with perhaps as many as 250,000 troops waiting for that to happen (and coming soon....armed with nukes). So we can't stay...can't leave.....can't win...No exit strategy.

We aren't to blame for what is happening now but we can't escape the reality that blame is no longer the issue. The issue is finding a way to avoid Viet Nam all over again. So far, I'd say the score was Viet Nam 1 U.S. 0.

russellmz2

on Oct 01, 2004

And then pulled over 100,000 back out of the unemployment pool and trained them as soldiers and policemen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/

But documents prepared by Defense Department officials and given to lawmakers show that fewer than 100,000 will be trained by the end of this year.

The Pentagon also said on Monday that only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training.

The documents, obtained by Reuters, show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. And it will be July 2006 before the administration’s new goal of 135,000 fully trained police is met.

and dude, it's been well over a YEAR. where do you think those other pissed off, ak-47& rpg trained guys went? where a huge chunk of the other po'ed unemployed young men went: to the insurgency.

still fail to see why another's improper behavior is our fault. They could have been a little more patient with their liberators, is what I mean. After all, it wasn't like we weren't making any effort at all; and, besides that, we had to rebuild everything we destroyed in getting Saddam out...so cut us some slack here, people.

we blew up their country and failed to take control. if we want them on our side we had to get the utilities back up, provide security, and let them know we're not assholes. instead we let looting happen, we secured their oil ministry first of all, dawdled in providing water and electricity, and have not provided a secure environment outside the green zone.

suppose we were under some oppressive dictator's thumb, but had sorta the economic status or lower as we do now (this is a whatif, obviously we wouldn't have this level of economy under a dictator). and then UN came in to save our asses.

after they came in, our water's iffy, kids are playing in raw sewage, the power's out 1/3 to 1/2 of the time, there are few police on the street, in fact few un soldiers to keep us safe either, and roving gangs of punk kids and neonazis are running around. all this a year after they came in to liberate us. how much slack do you give those guys? and that's a -better- version of what's going on in iraq.

if we don't want a failed iraq we need to do and plan better.

-----

on Oct 01, 2004

We rushed in without a plan, we went in without the support of our ally countries,

WE WENT TO THE UN, AND NATO for assistance, the pretty much gave us the finger..... *coughs* smile, you've been srewed by countries who have been getting rich from iraq, i.e. oil for food, french gov't loaning money to iraq--iraq was paying them back when we proposed going in, they sure as hell didn't want us to do that, they wouldn't get mone......

Rightwinger

on Oct 02, 2004

So, instead of one maniac issuing orders for the brutal yet efficient murders of any number of people who he thinks stand in the way of his power, we now have any number of maniacs wielding RPGs and rifles running hither and yon, slaughtering whomever they see as standing in the way of their power. (And they're so brave and staunch in their beliefs, thumbing their noses at us from behind those face-obscuring scarves and standing over the prostrate form of a sobbing old man, tied on the floor and covered by half a dozen automatic weapons. These are truly the courageous warriors of Islam!)
To facilitate the unrest that brings more of the unhappy to their ranks, they keep hampering the efforts we make to restore order and bring comfort to the masses.
This tells me that their agenda has little to do with how they feel about us, and is more about how they want things in Iraq to be.
If they were doing all this to help Iraqis resist the "invaders", and they really had the best interests of their people at heart, do you really think they'd be doing all they can to make life harder for their fellow Iraqis? Would they still be blowing up the power plants and water treatment plants? No, they wouldn't. I mean, how is blowing up a water treatment plant that could bring fresh water to thousands of people hurting us, other than ideologically?
It isn't...it's hurting the people they purportedly want to "help" in their resistance of us.
They do what they do because they want the people to hate us. That's because we do, indeed, represent a threat to their ideology of rabid, unreasoning hatred. We represent a form of progress and enlightenment that they've been resisting for a thousand years.
Besides, if western-style democracy takes hold in Iraq, it could spread to other Middle Eastern nations, and where will the crazies go, then?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!