Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 07 Jul 2016, 12:45 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ip-hammond

Our Foreign Secretary (who as a backbench opposition MP voted for the war in 2003, and who was the Defence Secretary from 2011 to 2014), has linked the policy implemented right after the occupation to the following travails, and by extension that includes the rise of ISIS (we know that Ba'athist Sunni Arabs have been among the sympathisers for rebel groups including AQI, which morphed into the IS).

“Many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a programme of debaathification,” Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, told the foreign affairs select committee.

“That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome.”

He added: “It is clear a significant number of former Ba’athist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [Isis] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organisation the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations.”

He said the current regime of Haider al-Abadi, the Iraqi prime minister, had “a clear policy to reverse and to end the debaathification programmes and reintegrate Ba’athists into civic life but he is unable to get through the political system because it has become a touchstone of the Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq”
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Jul 2016, 5:14 pm

I guess I don't agree that this was the main cause of the problems in Iraq. The root cause is that religious and racial identities are stronger than any national identity. A partition of Iraq into three--The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites each having separate nations joined in some sort of commonwealth with splitting of oil revenue--was theoretically possible but never got off of the ground. The other option was a strongman similar to Hussein. For obvious reasons, that was not possible. So you have a mess.

I am reading "Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" by Juergen Habermas. It is very interesting and difficult to understand analysis of how a distinct public vs private sphere developed in the West. What you have is this idea of a public space where people can freely debate ideas without censorship by the government or religion. Without that ability you really do not have a true democracy because voters otherwise are just voting by acclamation. Government in a democracy should be subject to pressure/influence brought to bear by "public opinion". One of the critical requirements to this is that religion must become a private matter.

You have to wonder about the future in democracy in Muslim countries where it is not possible to debate any issue that has been decided by religion. There is no public space for argument because religion has encompassed the whole field. When Turkey was founded a secular public space was created but that does not appear likely to be repeated and it is questionable as to whether it remains in Turkey.

Here is a copy of the above article (written on a bit).
http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/course ... sphere.pdf
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 08 Jul 2016, 12:20 am

I am not convinced that would have worked. It would just as likely have spurred Kurdish independence moves, there would have been a lot of wrangling over the borders, oil and areas with large minorities. Indian partition was a bloody mess.

The point being made was that as a major national institution, as well as having to be the body (or precursor to it) that we handed security back to, the Iraqi Armed Forces were crucial. The means used - sending many of them away with no money but keeping their guns, excising huge proportions of the officer classes, and politicising it - crippled the armed forces and created an instant pool of rebellion.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Jul 2016, 12:38 am

Clearly, an argument could be made that discharged officers had to make a living and so some of them became part of ISIS and were probably doing mischief prior to that. But when guys who supported the war say if only we had done the aftermath better...it was probably going to be bad no matter what. It's hard to assess the negative aspects of not cleaning out the military. If we had not kicked the officers out of the military instead of ISIS we might have had military coups. It's choose your poison, I think. I don't think it was a crazy idea to try to prevent the prior ruling class from reasserting itself. But maybe the biggest negative of getting rid of the officers has been how poor the Iraqi army has been.

Now that ISIS is acting in a more conventional military fashion former officers fill a need for them. But from what I recollect from 2003-2008 it was lot of roadside bombs. A lot of terrorism. Was that really due to ex-military? Were they really involved in that?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 08 Jul 2016, 1:45 am

freeman3 wrote:Clearly, an argument could be made that discharged officers had to make a living and so some of them became part of ISIS and were probably doing mischief prior to that. But when guys who supported the war say if only we had done the aftermath better...it was probably going to be bad no matter what. It's hard to assess the negative aspects of not cleaning out the military. If we had not kicked the officers out of the military instead of ISIS we might have had military coups. It's choose your poison, I think. I don't think it was a crazy idea to try to prevent the prior ruling class from reasserting itself. But maybe the biggest negative of getting rid of the officers has been how poor the Iraqi army has been.

Now that ISIS is acting in a more conventional military fashion former officers fill a need for them. But from what I recollect from 2003-2008 it was lot of roadside bombs. A lot of terrorism. Was that really due to ex-military? Were they really involved in that?
There was more to it than that, which is why Fallujah had to be recaptured at least once between 2003 and 2010.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 08 Jul 2016, 12:25 pm

I thought some might find this interesting...

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/features/2/8602/with-god-on-his-side-tony-blair-s-faith-and-the-decision-to-go-to-war-in-iraq