|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
so what incentives do the leaders of the various factions have to make peace with one another? That's what is crucial. Right now that incentive is missing for too many key players.
|
Well, Samir Sumaida'ie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, can better answer that question.
| Samir Sumaida'ie wrote: |
Iraq's National Identity Is Alive and Growing
Five years after Saddam Hussein was toppled from power, Iraq and the U.S. face important choices for their future relationship � choices that will have profound long-term ramifications for both countries.
Iraq, freed from a ruthless dictatorship, has chosen plurality, democracy and federalism as a system of government. It is struggling to implement them against a formidable set of internal and external challenges. The leaders of the new Iraq must further demonstrate resolve to defend their choices and rise above parochial interests.
Having intervened and committed itself so deeply, the U.S. is debating the level and cost of its engagement. I submit that it cannot afford to lose this fight to its enemies. The destinies of the U.S. and Iraq have become intertwined and their national interests very closely linked.
The big test for Iraq is to find the necessary internal accommodations between competing political interests, enabling the country to keep outside interference at bay and ensure its internal cohesion and national unity. The big test for the U.S. is to maintain its resolve while adjusting its tactics and policies to achieve success in Iraq.
Those who see only serious problems within the Iraqi government and society miss the point. Iraqis are the first to admit to their shortcomings. What is important is that they are determined to overcome them. They also know it will be a long and painful process of incremental progress, punctuated by setbacks.
Those who argue that Iraq is fractured and hopelessly broken � a Humpty Dumpty that can never be put together again � are wrong. Many countries have experienced great difficulties and emerged united and strong. Iraqi national identity has been weakened, but it is alive and kicking, and will embarrass all of those who rushed to write its obituary.
A year ago some people were convinced that Iraq was sliding into a civil war. It was precisely the sense of Iraqi national identity that helped to avert it.
Others considered Iraq lost to terrorists and militias. Again, it was the sense of national identity, as well as a tradition of tolerance, that made the communities in Al Anbar and elsewhere rise up against al Qaeda. This same sense of national identity was behind the widespread rejection of proposals to carve up the country into federal regions on a sectarian basis.
The convulsions of a society battered by decades of brutality and deprivation are all too evident. But the resilience, tenacity and commitment to national unity are no less evident. The glass may be half-empty, but it is also half full and filling up. Slowly perhaps, but surely. The achievements which Iraqis have accomplished under fire spanning the security, economic and political spheres stand as a testimony to their determination to succeed.
Yet the challenges the Iraqi government still faces are daunting. In addition to fighting terrorists and extremists, the government needs to reform its security forces and bureaucracy, purging them of sectarian discrimination and debilitating corruption. Only by doing this will it be able to deliver better services to its citizens and obtain full legitimacy.
Today, the world is facing a new and dangerous threat of international extremism and terrorism. The epicenter of this confrontation is Iraq. The new enemy is harder to defeat because it is not confined to a state, though some states are involved in its creation and promotion. It is diffused throughout many societies. But this enemy can and must be defeated. As the struggles of the last century shaped our world, this struggle will shape the world for generations to come.
This is not to say that this struggle is simple: the good versus the bad. It is complex. In Iraq, there are many layers of competing visions, interests and political objectives existing simultaneously. The people of Iraq were traumatized for decades. They are as vulnerable to the worst elements among them as they are to external forces. But there are enough of them with the will to fight for their future and their country.
This was demonstrated by the recent events in Basra, where the Iraqi government decided to pursue outlaws and armed militias engaged in criminal activities and the terrorizing of communities. It was a brave attempt given the circumstances, and was supported by all the political groups in Iraq except for the Sadrists. This was Round One. The fight will continue.
The salvation of Iraqis and the interests of the U.S. coincide. They lie in the defeat of the terrorists and extremists, and the frustration of the ambitions of all those who want this joint American-Iraqi endeavor to fail. This endeavor is costly, in every sense. But failure would be immeasurably costlier. That is why we need to build a long-term strategic alliance, and to make it work. It is in this context that we must look at the current negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq to reach a Status of Forces Agreement and a Strategic Framework Agreement.
After a bumpy learning curve, the U.S. has started to do things better in Iraq. The surge, applying the counterinsurgency principles of Gen. David Petraeus, has produced tangible results. It is not time to give up. |
LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting article, even though it's nothing that hasn't been said before by many, many people.
| Quote: |
Gen. Paul Eaton: In Iraq, where is the cavalry?
Posted: 11:21 AM ET
The Bush administration has chosen to abandon our under-equipped and over-burdened military to fight alone in Iraq.
After successfully alienating potential allies in the prosecution of our war in Iraq, this Administration continues to view our first truly interagency war as a purely military event. The absence of credible State Department participation in this fight and the absolute failure of the rest of the Executive Branch to participate in this war leaves the entire burden upon the shoulders of our Soldiers and Marines.
To witness press and Congressional preoccupation with the military commander at this week�s hearings and mild interest in State�s man, Ambassador Crocker, one would surmise that they don�t understand, either.
Iraq is not the plains of Germany during the Cold War. Iraq is an insurgency.
Our commanders need the application of the full power of the United States to bear upon the fight in Iraq. We need a focused and determined Diplomatic Surge within Iraq � and without. Every interested player �- and that includes all border countries, Israel and Egypt �- needs a seat at the table. Interests need to be identified and let the negotiations begin. Not unlike the Egyptian/Israeli accord or Dayton.
This is hard diplomatic work, and is apparently beyond our current Secretary of State�s intent or capability. The recent example of Turkey�s attack into Iraq is the most recent indicator of our failure to work a competent diplomatic program. A fully engaged diplomatic effort would address internal tensions that bedevil the Al Maliki government and foster competent internal government.
We need to get angry Arab men off the street, gainfully employed. The rest of the President�s cabinet and their departments are very much needed by our military. We need a reinvigorated Provincial Reconstruction Team program � new life to an idea that worked very well for the French in Algeria. In the words of one commander, �I don�t need more combat troops, I need agriculture and water experts.� Yet Commerce, Transportation, Education, Treasury and the rest of the President�s cabinet have been AWOL in this war.
General Petraeus was polite during the hearings. He never once complained. He never asked the President: �Where is the cavalry?�
- Maj. General Paul Eaton, U.S. Army (Ret.), former commander of Iraqi Armed Forces and their development command |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
so what incentives do the leaders of the various factions have to make peace with one another? That's what is crucial. Right now that incentive is missing for too many key players.
|
Well, Samir Sumaida'ie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, can better answer that question.
| Samir Sumaida'ie wrote: |
Iraq's National Identity Is Alive and Growing
Five years after Saddam Hussein was toppled from power, Iraq and the U.S. face important choices for their future relationship � choices that will have profound long-term ramifications for both countries.
Iraq, freed from a ruthless dictatorship, has chosen plurality, democracy and federalism as a system of government. It is struggling to implement them against a formidable set of internal and external challenges. The leaders of the new Iraq must further demonstrate resolve to defend their choices and rise above parochial interests.
Having intervened and committed itself so deeply, the U.S. is debating the level and cost of its engagement. I submit that it cannot afford to lose this fight to its enemies. The destinies of the U.S. and Iraq have become intertwined and their national interests very closely linked.
The big test for Iraq is to find the necessary internal accommodations between competing political interests, enabling the country to keep outside interference at bay and ensure its internal cohesion and national unity. The big test for the U.S. is to maintain its resolve while adjusting its tactics and policies to achieve success in Iraq.
Those who see only serious problems within the Iraqi government and society miss the point. Iraqis are the first to admit to their shortcomings. What is important is that they are determined to overcome them. They also know it will be a long and painful process of incremental progress, punctuated by setbacks.
Those who argue that Iraq is fractured and hopelessly broken � a Humpty Dumpty that can never be put together again � are wrong. Many countries have experienced great difficulties and emerged united and strong. Iraqi national identity has been weakened, but it is alive and kicking, and will embarrass all of those who rushed to write its obituary.
A year ago some people were convinced that Iraq was sliding into a civil war. It was precisely the sense of Iraqi national identity that helped to avert it.
Others considered Iraq lost to terrorists and militias. Again, it was the sense of national identity, as well as a tradition of tolerance, that made the communities in Al Anbar and elsewhere rise up against al Qaeda. This same sense of national identity was behind the widespread rejection of proposals to carve up the country into federal regions on a sectarian basis.
The convulsions of a society battered by decades of brutality and deprivation are all too evident. But the resilience, tenacity and commitment to national unity are no less evident. The glass may be half-empty, but it is also half full and filling up. Slowly perhaps, but surely. The achievements which Iraqis have accomplished under fire spanning the security, economic and political spheres stand as a testimony to their determination to succeed.
Yet the challenges the Iraqi government still faces are daunting. In addition to fighting terrorists and extremists, the government needs to reform its security forces and bureaucracy, purging them of sectarian discrimination and debilitating corruption. Only by doing this will it be able to deliver better services to its citizens and obtain full legitimacy.
Today, the world is facing a new and dangerous threat of international extremism and terrorism. The epicenter of this confrontation is Iraq. The new enemy is harder to defeat because it is not confined to a state, though some states are involved in its creation and promotion. It is diffused throughout many societies. But this enemy can and must be defeated. As the struggles of the last century shaped our world, this struggle will shape the world for generations to come.
This is not to say that this struggle is simple: the good versus the bad. It is complex. In Iraq, there are many layers of competing visions, interests and political objectives existing simultaneously. The people of Iraq were traumatized for decades. They are as vulnerable to the worst elements among them as they are to external forces. But there are enough of them with the will to fight for their future and their country.
This was demonstrated by the recent events in Basra, where the Iraqi government decided to pursue outlaws and armed militias engaged in criminal activities and the terrorizing of communities. It was a brave attempt given the circumstances, and was supported by all the political groups in Iraq except for the Sadrists. This was Round One. The fight will continue.
The salvation of Iraqis and the interests of the U.S. coincide. They lie in the defeat of the terrorists and extremists, and the frustration of the ambitions of all those who want this joint American-Iraqi endeavor to fail. This endeavor is costly, in every sense. But failure would be immeasurably costlier. That is why we need to build a long-term strategic alliance, and to make it work. It is in this context that we must look at the current negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq to reach a Status of Forces Agreement and a Strategic Framework Agreement.
After a bumpy learning curve, the U.S. has started to do things better in Iraq. The surge, applying the counterinsurgency principles of Gen. David Petraeus, has produced tangible results. It is not time to give up. |
LINK |
Eh that didn't answer my question at all. Repeat: what incentives do the players have to unite the country?
The kurds want their own state. If they manage to make Kirkuk a part of Kurdish territory, then they have oil fields. They definitely have NO incentive to make the iraqi government stronger and more able.
The Sunnis? Right now they have an incentive to keep the peace but no incentive to form a solid, strong central government. Why? Because if they were to help create a viable central government, the US would decrease aid, and eventually pull out. Guess what then? The Sunnis are screwed.
And the Shi'ites? There are many different factions, but one thing is certain: they are the majority of citizens in the country, so they can put down the other two groups if it becomes a free-for-all.
I'm giving a simplistic answer but you get the idea. And you need evidence? Just look at the total lack of progress in political development in the country. That itself is enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
