[demograph68]

So about Chalabi, I get the sense from some of you that it's like this... "He's bad but if he was elected, so be it." Is that accurate?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

He said if UK troops were to remain in Iraq they should be under a UN mandate and there explicitly as peacekeepers. He was comparing that to the current situation of an occupying force which in his view (and that of many) is exacerbating tensions within Iraq.

Either Kennedy doesn't understand the UN Charter, or you don't. If you are talking about the mandate, then you are talking about the legal basis for the troop's presence. The current mandate of the troops in Iraq is a Chapter VI mandate. Chapter VI allows the permissive use of foreign troops on the soil of a member of the UN. Permissive meaning with the permission of the host country. That is what the situation became after Iraq reclaimed soverignty and the Iraqi government was readmitted to the UN. Legally speaking the occupation ended months ago. Legally speaking there are no occupation troops, there are troops there by invitation under Chapter VI. It is that Chapter VI mandate that is set to expire in December.

"Peacekeeping" is just a word for a type of Chapter VI operation. However, there is an operational distinction between types of Chapter VI operation which makes his talk of peacekeeping laughable if he is using the term narrowly. Classically, peacekeeping referred to a specific type of mission, and a specific type of force posture. In a situation where there is a ceasefire to enforce, a very lightly armed neutral force is inserted between two belligerants to enforce it. For example, the UN peacekeepers who patrol the line between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. If what he is saying is that he wouldn't send UK troops unless they performed a Cyprus style peacekeeping mission, then he is in effect saying that he would never allow UK troops to be in Iraq, because the Cyprus style peacekeeping mission simply isn't applicable to the Iraqi situation. There isn't a ceasefire to keep, no neutral position to take, and certainly no neat little line to patrol.

There is another possibility, which is the one I think he meant. If what he is saying is he would allow UK troops to stay under the same kind of UN mandate under which UN peacekeepers operate in other places that don't look like Cyprus-style peacekeeping. That would be a more robust form of peacekeeping such as was applied in places like Kosovo, Bosnia, or Somalia. Under that situation, the force is not neutral, their vehicles are painted camouflage, not white, and the troops carry heavy weapons, not just side arms. Their mission is more than just patrolling a ceasefire and keeping two sides apart. That mission can be called peacekeeping as well, although in the 1990s, the term "peace enforcement" was created, and most people regard that as more accurate.

However, both peacekeeping and peace enforcement are under the legal authority of Chapter VI. So are the troops in Iraq today. There is no legal distictition in terms of UN mandate at all between any of these three categories. The British troops in Iraq are as much under a UN mandate as the British troops in, say, Kosovo. So if he is saying that he wants the same kind of legal mandate as applies in places like Kosovo and Bosnia, he is simply saying he wants an extention of the kind of legal authority that already exists -- another Chapter VI mandate.

I think Kennedy understands all of this. That is why he refers to the current mandate and pulling out if it expires. He is just relying on the fact that most members of the public don't understand the details and misunderstand terms like mandate, peacekeeping, and how the UN Charter is written and what the different provisions of it mean. So he throws out meaninless fluff to win votes. And also some misleading stuff like calling a Chapter VI mission an "occupation" long after the legal authority changed.

In my opinion, Kennedy is a very smart politician, with a very low opinion of his voters. He's playing you like a fiddle.

[kemuri]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

In my opinion, Kennedy is a very smart politician, with a very low opinion of his voters. He's playing you like a fiddle.

Riiiiight.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by kemuri

Riiiiight.

Well, it is either that, or Kennedy is just stupid and likes throwing legal terms out without understanding them. I don't think that is the case, therefore I think he knows that what he is saying is legally nonsense. But it is nonsense that is calculated to be attractive to people who simply like the UN without understanding it.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The question is: are Iraqis happy? They (and not Maureen . . . Dowd) elected the government.

No, we're not happy. We are meant to have elections when most of us as are confused about who the hell half of these people are? We are meant to believe in a democracy that was created by the US and thrust onto us? We are meant to really trust the whole process while we think the US is a ****ing retarded nation who justify the whole invasion through laws they created and hoisted upon us?

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

So far, Iraq has taken a turn toward real democratic accountability, and we ought to be applauding that, and encouraging it instead of imposing our external political agendas.

So, we are meant to just put aside the whole process that led to the invasion of Iraq? That doesn't matter anymore, does it?> it's all cool because we are telling you that you are now part of civilised society due to us?

Who the hell is accountable for the war in the first place? You think the US and Britain have their hands clean on this matter? In this case, the end does not justify the means.

I find it hilarious that you mention "external political agendas". have you been to Iraq in the last 2 years? Have you seen how the Americans intimidate candidates who stand on issues that reflect poorly on the US? Do you know how many Sunni supporters were murdered in the last 6 months due to them merely supporting anti-US candidates? Do you even know that the whole invasion was one big politically motivated issue? Or do you prefer to brush aside such things and miss the forest for the trees?

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Iraq has huge problems. Most (probably all) emerging democracies face huge problems.

It's not exactly a good start for an "emerging democracy" when those who are shouting loudest of the benefits in this, are the very ones who are laying out how the democracy should be, who gets the funding, and intimidation of non-US backed parties.

It's a bit like saying "Here, you are now a democracy, but you may only choose from the above list".

Again, you may labour this point of the ends justifying the means, but you are deluded, or deliberately facetious if you think this is reality.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Vpro7

So, we are meant to just put aside the whole process that led to the invasion of Iraq? That doesn't matter anymore, does it?

That depends on whether you are interested in looking forward, or backwards, doesn't it. If you interest is in where Iraq goes from here, then in point of fact how we got here is irrelevant.

The only way that looking back is consistent with looking forward is if your idea of looking forward is simply to undo what happened. Would you really want to go back to Saddam's rule? I doubt that. Do you want to go back to the prevous rule by a minority population? Maybe, but that is inconsistent with modern concepts of self-determination. So looking forward is the only way. That means whether or not you are angry that the previous regime was deposed by an outside intervention, the way forward is self-government. Your challenge is to make it work, including real power sharing of the type that LBK referred to. But in the end only you Iraqis can do that, we can't do it for you.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The gov't there selected him, complain to them, it's their democracy.

The US took our government away from us, invaded us, reduced us to rubble, demoralised us, put up puppet candidates with full US-backing and others with none. And you're now saying it's our problem?


typical.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That depends on whether you are interested in looking forward, or backwards, doesn't it. If you interest is in where Iraq goes from here, then in point of fact how we got here is irrelevant.
.

That's laughabel. It's pretty much how the West gets to be who they are. No middle-road for you then, is there? We have no option but to look forward, but the ****ing bastards who are behind this ought to be brought to justice, otherwise we are doomed to let a continuation of such action be permitted. But, I'm sure you're well aware of the West's interests in Asia, and beyond. It has nothing to do wit democracy, but everything to do with subservience, and domination of resources and power.

Have you ever looked at a map of the Mid-East? We certainly didn't draw those ****ing great big straight lines. The same principles of then are being employed now. You're truly ignorant of history id f you think this has anything to do with merely helping a foreign nation into the modern world after they were a little naughty.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Why would anyone expect you to think any differently? Wouldn't fit with your agenda.

FYI, I don't agree with US ploicy either, we were too quick to turn things over and we aren't working hard enough to put down the insurgency. Oh well, the wonderful world of compromise.

I wouldn't worry about that right now. You've got Saddam propped up in luxury courtesy of the US. Currently being well-treated in order to ascertain the whereabouts of his vast wealth, and to sweeten him up before he is put on trial (not in the Hague) in order he doesn't blab about his past connections with the the Bushes, Rummi et al.

And as many of us predicated, he's now being trotted out out to appeal to any of his comrades in the insurgency to lay down arms.

How sweet.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Vpro7

Have you ever looked at a map of the Mid-East? We certainly didn't draw those ****ing great big straight lines.

Of course I have looked at the map. It's perfectly true that the lines are arbitrary, and weren't drawn by the people there. It's also perfectly true that each of the countries in that region would now go to war to defend those once-arbitrary lines. History moves on. If any of those countries wanted to exchange land with their neighbors they are perfectly free to do so. All you need to do is sit down together and discuss it, and reach an amicable agreement to move the line. Or if you like, we could just turn the clock back and give you all back to the Turks to rule.

By the way, which ethnic group of Iraqis do you belong to? Shia, Sunni, Kurd, etc?

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Of course I have looked at the map. It's perfectly true that the lines are arbitrary, and weren't drawn by the people there. It's also perfectly true that each of the countries in that region would now go to war to defend those once-arbitrary lines. History moves on. If any of those countries wanted to exchange land with their neighbors they are perfectly free to do so. All you need to do is sit down together and discuss it, and reach an amicable agreement to move the line.

By the way, which ethnic group of Iraqis do you belong to? Shia, Sunni, Kurd, etc?

Exactly! There's a veneer of "facts" that are trotted out by governments over the decades that attempts to paint a certain picture of how life is, what we should expect of each other, and how we perceive other nations, particularly non-Western ones. In reality, and what is obviously borne out of actions, is something altogether very different. This has been the way of the world ever since the East India company. So let's not pretend that this is anything to do with freedom, or the benefit of Iraq. It might sound great for rallying the troops back in the US, but most of us aren't as easily fooled.

I'm a Shi'ah, but have Kurdish, and Sunni parts to my family. In saying this, the actually "ethnicity" that we hear so much about in the West, is not nearly as important as some would like you to think. We are Muslims, and that comes first. Yes we have religious clashes, but so do Protestants and Catholics in the UK. this is another area which has been fostered by European interests in an attempt to divide us, much like the old adage of "divide and conquer" . Of course, Saddam didn't help much, but hey, who funded him for the most part? Who allowed the creation of him?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Vpro7

I'm a Shi'ah, but have Kurdish, and Sunni parts to my family. In saying this, the actually "ethnicity" that we hear so much about in the West, is not nearly as important as some would like you to think.

Good! That's what we are counting on. Now go make your country work. Don't worry so much about our intentions. Worry about building your country.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Good! That's what we are counting on. Now go make your country work. Don't worry so much about our intentions. Worry about building your country.

If you read closer, we already had that. Life in Iraq, even with Saddam, was NOT one big fear-party. We never walked around thinking " Oh no! an ethnic riot is about to kick off, run, run!!" It's a bit hard to formulate an accurate picture of ethnic tensions in another country when the media one relies on attempts to portray one aspect of it, for obvious reasons. Of course tensions grew after the first Gulf War, the coalition attempted to support a religious group against Saddam. Very clever. the same in the 80s with the Kurds.

But, in day to day life, it was no different than living in New York, in terms of ethnic tensions.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Don't worry so much about our intentions.

Nice try.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Vpro7

But, in day to day life, it was no different than living in New York, in terms of ethnic tensions.

Unless, of course, you were one of the unlucky ones who ended up in a mass grave.

What you had was a dictatorship, which is one way to achieve stability but is hardly a model for the way to structure a modern state. I don't think there is much support in Iraq for going back to that. Certainly, such polls as there have been and the election don't indicate much interest in going back to a dictatorship.

So now it is up to you to prove that you can build a modern state without the secret police, without mass graves, without a dictator. We've got faith you can do it. Muslims are as capable of self-government, accomodation, and power sharing as anyone else. Prove the doubters wrong.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Oh, and incidentally, the whole premise of this thread is mistaken. Chalibi is only the interim oil minister:

But five ministries -- including the key defense and oil portfolios -- remained in temporary hands and two deputy prime minister's slots were unfilled as Mr. al-Jaafari struggled to bring the disaffected Sunni minority into key posts while balancing the demands of other groups.

Mr. al-Jaafari particularly wanted the defense minister's job filled by a Sunni Arab as a way to draw the formerly dominant minority into the fight against an insurgency that is thought to be based primarily among Sunnis.

He will act as defense minister until consensus can be reached on a new one. Ahmed Chalabi, the Shi'ite deputy prime minister, was given temporary responsibility for the oil ministry.

Associated Press

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Good! That's what we are counting on. Now go make your country work. Don't worry so much about our intentions. Worry about building your country.

Lol! You really think the US would prefer to be dealing with an Iraq that had retained the strength of its nationalism as it had under Saddam? At one earlier stage in this war it did look like the Iraqis were uniting along nationalist lines to fight coalition forces. Had a strong nationalist resistance movement emerged it would have been the US's worst nightmare!

As it happened, the interim-government was formed along sectarian lines - not necessarily because the US was trying to divide Iraqi society at that stage, I don't think the US had a clue, but they thought that was the best way to govern Iraq. Evidently it didn't cross any US policy maker's mind that a bunch of Iraqi exiles, whose English was better than their Arabic and who hadn't been living in Iraq for several years might have a little difficulty connecting with the Iraqi population. It was from then on that the Iraqis began to worry about sectarian issues. All of this because the US - despite the lessons they could have learnt from when the British screwed up and were kicked out of Iraq many years ago - still doesn't understand Iraqi society.

I don't think the sectarian issue is going to disappear any time soon, which is unfortunate for the Iraqis, but not necessarily for US interests. A divided Iraq makes it easier for the US to get what it wants after all.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Or if you like, we could just turn the clock back and give you all back to the Turks to rule.

Not to take this completely off topic but part of the origins of Arab Nationalism lie in the building resentment they had towards Ottoman rule. So arguably the Ottomans were about to be kicked out anyway. So,

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Lol! You really think the US would prefer to be dealing with an Iraq that had retained the strength of its nationalism as it had under Saddam? At one earlier stage in this war it did look like the Iraqis were uniting along nationalist lines to fight coalition forces. Had a strong nationalist resistance movement emerged it would have been the US's worst nightmare!

As it happened, the interim-government was formed along sectarian lines - not necessarily because the US was trying to divide Iraqi society at that stage, I don't think the US had a clue, but they thought that was the best way to govern Iraq. Evidently it didn't cross any US policy maker's mind that a bunch of Iraqi exiles, whose English was better than their Arabic and who hadn't been living in Iraq for several years might have a little difficulty connecting with the Iraqi population. It was from then on that the Iraqis began to worry about sectarian issues. All of this because the US - despite the lessons they could have learnt from when the British screwed up and were kicked out of Iraq many years ago - still doesn't understand Iraqi society.

I don't think the sectarian issue is going to disappear any time soon, which is unfortunate for the Iraqis, but not necessarily for US interests. A divided Iraq makes it easier for the US to get what it wants after all.

Bottom line is it is still up to Iraqis to build their country. Even if there had been a perfect government in exile waiting to take power, even if every decision had been made with perfect omnicient precision, even if each change in circumstances had been perfectly predicted, it would still fall in the end to Iraqis to build their own country. All the rest, all the second guessing, and all the suspicions about dark intentions are simply a distraction from that reality.

As for kicking out the Ottomans, they left because they lost the First World War. Unfortunately, one of the big romantic myths about resistance is that it is able to work without outside help. As a rule that is never the case. There is usually, perhaps even always an outside sequence of events that precipitates a withdrawal, and quite often an out and out military alliance. So just as America could never have thrown off the British had the British not already been fighting the French, the idea that Arabs would have thrown out the Ottomans is romantic nonsense. Weakened as they were by the 20th century, they were not about to fall without being pushed by the stronger powers in the West.

Secondly, it is worth pointing out that those borders weren't drawn as colonies. They were drawn as League of Nations mandates with a view to independence. I agree with critics who say that the British and French in practice treated them as colonies, but there was a distinction that at least had symbolic importance. The stage was set for independence at the end of the First World War, and it was voluntary, not because of Arab nationalism, per se.

At a deeper level, talking about Iraqi nationalism is in any case a refutation of the myth of Arab nationalism. The myth of Arab nationalism is precisely that it doesn't have borders. The Umma is supposed to unite all Muslims, but that patently has never happened. In practice, Arab states have developed nationalism on rather western lines, attached to states and that is especially the case since the Second World War. Every attempt to build larger states has been based on a strongman (e.g. Nasser) and an unequal relationship, and they have always fallen apart. As you say, there is such a thing as Iraqi nationalism. And that is why ultimately there is hope that Iraq can develop as a modern pluralistic state. But that will be a lot harder if people can't get past their resentments. I don't blame you for that, and I don't think it is by any means all unjustified. It's is just that what is past is past and can't be made to go away. We don't have time machines. It would be much more positive to channel those resentments into proving westerners who believe that Arabs and Muslims are incapable of democracy wrong.

[Randman]

LBK, I've mocked you quite a bit from time to time.

But ....

I was going to say you've brought up some salient points in this thread. But honestly, your falling back on your blame-the-US-for-everything spiel is quite trite.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

However, both peacekeeping and peace enforcement are under the legal authority of Chapter VI. So are the troops in Iraq today. There is no legal distictition in terms of UN mandate at all between any of these three categories. The British troops in Iraq are as much under a UN mandate as the British troops in, say, Kosovo. So if he is saying that he wants the same kind of legal mandate as applies in places like Kosovo and Bosnia, he is simply saying he wants an extention of the kind of legal authority that already exists -- another Chapter VI mandate.

That seemed to me to be exactly what he did say. Maybe you misunderstood. Again...

There was also an emphasis on 'de-flagging' US and UK troops and seeking more involvement from muslim nations, both of which could contribute to improving the situation on the ground.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

So he throws out meaninless fluff to win votes.

As opposed to what, serious 'substance' politicians like George W Bush? You are too much sometimes!!

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

In my opinion, Kennedy is a very smart politician, with a very low opinion of his voters. He's playing you like a fiddle.

As if your opinion means anything in the context of a UK election. Remember, you were the one blathering on about how we are supposed to have 'parliamentary government' just the other day.

Also amused to see that you have decided I am a Lib Dem voter. Keep guessing, chuckles.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Good! That's what we are counting on. Now go make your country work. Don't worry so much about our intentions. Worry about building your country.

It seems fairly logical for Iraqis to worry about your intentions. You did, after all, prop up their last dictator for the larger part of his reign.

Well done for ignoring the part of Vpro7's post dealing with that though.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

TAs if your opinion means anything in the context of a UK election.

My opinion doesn't mean anything in the context of the British election, which is why you might want to listen to the analysis and do a little less knee jerking. I don't have much respect for Kennedy's positions, but I also don't have that much invested in attacking him. Not only do I not really care who wins the election tomorrow, but even if I did, I don't think that winner would be Mr. Kennedy.

What I am telling you is that his position is legally bunk. I won't repeat the explanation because I think I have done so reasonably clearly above. He made a rhetorical distinction that has no legal or practical basis, but that doesn't mean we have to give it anything more than political credit. I'd analogize it to Bush's insistance that the invasion was a liberation not an occupation. That's another situation where a politician makes a rhetorical distinction that has no legal basis because it plays well with unsophisticated voters (occupation is a legal term of art, liberation is pure rhetoric) but doesn't actually mean anything to those who know the subject.

The problem is that Kennedy is using his misstatement to deceive people into thinking he is making two promises at the same time, when in fact legally and practically he is making two inconsistent promises. Because they can't both be true, one or the other has to be for cosmetic purposes. That's not at all unusual in a politician, and I don't see why you are having so much difficulty admitting it.

Edit: let me add, if you are saying that you understand Kennedy to be saying simply that he would keep troops in Iraq if the current mandate is extended, then we come back to my first question: which way would a Lib Dem government vote in the UN? If he would vote for the mandate extention, then his statement about waiting to be asked by the UN really is just like the ventriloquist waiting to be asked by his dummy. That's misleading people. Alternatively, if he would vote no, then he shouldn't be telling people that he would respond to a request from the UN if he plans on torpedoing the request. That is also misleading people.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Unless, of course, you were one of the unlucky ones who ended up in a mass grave.

Or, how about the millions who didn't end up in any graves? Your answer doesn't really tackle the fundamental point I made, which was, the perception of communal, and ethnic violence wasn't what you might like to believe.

Anyway, talking of ethic cleansing. Whatever happened to those behind the Vietnam war? How's Kissinger these days?

[Vpro7]

The Ottomam Empire was one of varying brilliance. But... like any empire, it has its faltering moments and towards the end it resembles a dog dying, the tail wags a lot. There's a lesson in there for the US.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by nath

That seemed to me to be exactly what he did say. Maybe you misunderstood. Again...

Well, there's not much chance of that happening, since the agenda laid out by Europe and the US is not for giving real self-determination, or strength to Muslim countries in the Mid-East. You might see token Muslim nations taking part in UN missions in Iraq, but it really means nothing when Americans are marching up and down our countries, and calling the shots from elsewhere.

Token symbolism isn't what these people want. But, it'll take much, much more to turn this current situation around.

In saying that, I like Kennedy. If he is willing to take charge of the rhetoric on Iraq, then it's no worse than the blatant lies, and manipulation of the whole British public that Labour did.

Edit: Sorry, nath, I didn't properly quote the part I was replying to.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by Randman

LBK, I've mocked you quite a bit from time to time.

But ....

I was going to say you've brought up some salient points in this thread. But honestly, your falling back on your blame-the-US-for-everything spiel is quite trite.

Well, it is unfair to blame the US for everything, that's not obviously true. Although, for a number of reasons, the US does seem to be the principle force behind many a venture. Perhaps it's the new convert syndrome, but that's a dangerous process when mixed with politics.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Vpro7

Or, how about the millions who didn't end up in any graves? Your answer doesn't really tackle the fundamental point I made, which was, the perception of communal, and ethnic violence wasn't what you might like to believe.

If you go back and check, you will see that I have never emphasised communal or ethnic violence in Iraq. LBK has, I have not.

What is the case is that Iraq was previously governed principally by the Sunni minority over the Shia and Kurdish majorities, and that their rule was often rather bloody. Obviously, democratic government is likely to reverse that, and indeed, the elections did reverse it. This is undoubtedly painful. However, LBK is correct that Sunnis can't lose their voice in the reversal, and the current elected government that has just been sworn in seems to understand that. Indeed, they are still haggling over it.

You don't have to believe in Balkans-style ethnic strife to recognize that pluralism is a problem common to pretty much every country making a democratic transition. Indeed, it is an issue even in stable established democracies. Recognizing the challenge doesn't mean adopting the most extreme stereotype.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Bottom line is it is still up to Iraqis to build their country. Even if there had been a perfect government in exile waiting to take power, even if every decision had been made with perfect omnicient precision, even if each change in circumstances had been perfectly predicted, it would still fall in the end to Iraqis to build their own country. All the rest, all the second guessing, and all the suspicions about dark intentions are simply a distraction from that reality.

If we were discussing a revolution, I'd probably agree with you. However, the situation in Iraq is not the product of an internal movement against the state, it's the product of external factors. Yes of course a lot of our focus should be on what the Iraqis do now, but to ignore how their efforts are going to interplay with external actors would result in a seriously defunct evaluation of the result. What happens now will be as much a result of Iraqi action as it will be of the occupiers.

As for kicking out the Ottomans, they left because they lost the First World War. Unfortunately, one of the big romantic myths about resistance is that it is able to work without outside help. As a rule that is never the case. There is usually, perhaps even always an outside sequence of events that precipitates a withdrawal, and quite often an out and out military alliance. So just as America could never have thrown off the British had the British not already been fighting the French, the idea that Arabs would have thrown out the Ottomans is romantic nonsense. Weakened as they were by the 20th century, they were not about to fall without being pushed by the stronger powers in the West.

I'm not disputing how the Ottomans eventually left, I'm saying that whether the British had arrived to fight the Ottomans or not, ultimately the Ottomans were on their way out before the war even started.

At a deeper level, talking about Iraqi nationalism is in any case a refutation of the myth of Arab nationalism. The myth of Arab nationalism is precisely that it doesn't have borders. The Umma is supposed to unite all Muslims, but that patently has never happened. In practice, Arab states have developed nationalism on rather western lines, attached to states and that is especially the case since the Second World War. Every attempt to build larger states has been based on a strongman (e.g. Nasser) and an unequal relationship, and they have always fallen apart. As you say, there is such a thing as Iraqi nationalism. And that is why ultimately there is hope that Iraq can develop as a modern pluralistic state. But that will be a lot harder if people can't get past their resentments. I don't blame you for that, and I don't think it is by any means all unjustified. It's is just that what is past is past and can't be made to go away. We don't have time machines. It would be much more positive to channel those resentments into proving westerners who believe that Arabs and Muslims are incapable of democracy wrong.

Irrespective of the border issue, Arab Nationalism is not (and shouldn't be) ignored by anyone seeking to understand the Middle East. Regardless of whether it meets with its aim, it remains a powerful mobilising force in the region and is a phenomenon that can be used to understand major developments across the the Middle East. That's why it's not dismissed as a myth. It's not merely useful as an analytical tool for social scientists either, it still evokes sentiments from the Arabs themselves.

The closest we got to realising a real, visable and true Arab Nationalism seems to have died with Nasser. It was an extremely difficult idea to realise and that's attributable I think to how the Middle Eastern state evolved. The enclosed disparate populations that emerged and the nature of rule adopted to govern them made it very difficult for Arab nationalism to work in conjunction with all that.

Arab Nationalism is certainly no myth. Many Arab people believed in its various forms and for different reasons. And many still do.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The Umma is supposed to unite all Muslims, but that patently has never happened.

It does, you just don't understand it. But that's ok, because many in the West can't grasp it. One pitfall is to equate Muslim solidarity and unity with political events, and there outcome. Or, that nationalism and nation states provide evidence of the non-existence of the Muslim Umma.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

If you go back and check, you will see that I have never emphasised communal or ethnic violence in Iraq. LBK has, I have not.

Vpro is talking about the widely held perception in the West that Iraq has always been starkly divided along sectarian lines. And he's right when he points out that this was a misperception. Iraq was very strongly nationalist under Saddam. My point is that things have changed and now Iraq is becoming divided along sectarian lines.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Vpro is talking about the widely held perception in the West that Iraq has always been starkly divided along sectarian lines.

Yes, well I am afraid it irritates me to have someone attribute "the widely held perception in the West" to me specifically. If I have said something, then by all means question me on it. But don't assume that I conform to stereotypes.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

If you go back and check, you will see that I have never emphasised communal or ethnic violence in Iraq. LBK has, I have not.

In our discussions here, I think you asked me about my background, and thus it grew into the current talk on ethnic issues in Iraq.

In regards to ethnicity in Saddam's Iraq, it is a common fallacy to assume Sunnis were the only group involved n municipal, social and political areas. It's not true. Depending on where you were in Iraq, virtually every group (religious or cultural) held many positions in society. I don't want to gloss over what Saddam meant to Iraq and the Sunni situation, but we need to be honest here if we're to talk about the future rolls of these people.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Yes, well I am afraid it irritates me to have someone attribute "the widely held perception in the West" to me specifically. If I have said something, then by all means question me on it. But don't assume that I conform to stereotypes.

It's what comes across in many discussions, right up to the political level that we see today . Believe me, if I see anything to the contrary, I make a note of it; but if it's the same widely held beliefs I come across, I can only correct them as best I can.

Don't take it personally if it's not describing you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Vpro7

In our discussions here, I think you asked me about my background, and thus it grew into the current talk on ethnic issues in Iraq.

In regard to ethnicity in Saddam's Iraq, it is a common fallacy to assume Sunnis were the only group involved n municipal, social and political areas. It's not true. Depending on where you were in Iraq, virtually every group (religious or cultural) held many positions in society. I don't want to gloss over what Saddam meant to Iraq and the Sunni situation, but we need to be honest here if we're to talk about the future rolls of these people.

Which is presumably why the issue at the moment is the extent of de-Ba'athification. That's bound to be tricky. At some point you have to draw the line and re-integrate people into the new state, but without simply reinstating the old regime.

There are lots of models, some better than others. The Federal Republic of Germany dealt with it (or to be more exact, the Allies did), former Communist states have deal with it (or in many cases, not). And also places like South Africa, Chile, Argentina, etc. I can't say I have a simple answer, but then, I'm not claiming that this is a simple matter. I just think it is more complex, and more internal than blaming everything on the US. These problems would have existed no matter what caused the dictatorship to fall. The only thing that would have prevented them is simply keeping the old regime.

[Vpro7]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Which is presumably why the issue at the moment is the extent of de-Ba'athification. That's bound to be tricky. At some point you have to draw the line and re-integrate people into the new state, but without simply reinstating the old regime.

There are lots of models, some better than others. The Federal Republic of Germany dealt with it (or to be more exact, the Allies did), former Communist states have deal with it (or in many cases, not). And also places like South Africa, Chile, Argentina, etc. I can't say I have a simple answer, but then, I'm not claiming that this is a simple matter. I just think it is more complex, and more internal than blaming everything on the US. These problems would have existed no matter what caused the dictatorship to fall. The only thing that would have prevented them is simply keeping the old regime.

It's always going to be difficult, and there is nothing else but the tackling of matters at hand. There is a wider issue here, one that isn't easily ignored and which does (unfortunately) involve US meddling. The evidence is there of past interactions, intentions, and the signs are there for future events. That, though, is the way of the world today.

It is folly to ascribe blame to the US for everything negative that goes on, but the reverse of that logic is equally troublesome. In amongst all that, I hold that the US, and others, should be held accountable for crimes they commit; or at the very least, investigated and the results publicly made known, and action taken. This is exactly what the US is pushing for when they decide to rail against other countries, it should apply to them too, equally in vigour and resulting action.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Vpro7

The US took our government away from us, invaded us, reduced us to rubble, demoralised us, put up puppet candidates with full US-backing and others with none. And you're now saying it's our problem?


typical.

It wasn't your government. It was Saddam's.

The rest is full of baseless accusations.