Welcome In A Hot, Uncomfortable Place.
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
As many of you have surely already read, the Iraqs big cities are currently falling into chaos. Read about it <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/ticker/ticker.rhs.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>, <a href='http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=396051' target='_blank'>here</a>, or <a href='http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,244354,00.html' target='_blank'>here</a>.
Coalition forces are said to hold themselves in the background at the moment, which I can understand from a strategic standpoint - better secure your forces supplies and bases before getting into the next big mess, but the current situation is nonetheless horrible: Even Baghdads hospitals, which are overcrowded with wounded people, aren't safe anymore.
Personally, I believe that this only shows one thing: The coalition (and as soon as possible additional UN forces) need to go in there and enforce (operative term: 'force') law and order.
Stop checking whether this is truly me writing.
I feared and talked about a possible 'decay' of Iraq as a result of the war from day one, and this could be the first step in such a direction. Every day that criminals can roam freely means a day in which they can increase their power - by obtaining money, weapons, technical devices, and followers. Every day in which anarchy reigns is a day in which ethinc tension will increase.
It must not happen. Iraq must not become a second Somalia.
I believe that the beginning of civil tension we see in these raids shows that the war was wrong, but it happened. Now, we, the Western World (not only the coalition countries) are obliged to prevent further misery.
Coalition forces are said to hold themselves in the background at the moment, which I can understand from a strategic standpoint - better secure your forces supplies and bases before getting into the next big mess, but the current situation is nonetheless horrible: Even Baghdads hospitals, which are overcrowded with wounded people, aren't safe anymore.
Personally, I believe that this only shows one thing: The coalition (and as soon as possible additional UN forces) need to go in there and enforce (operative term: 'force') law and order.
Stop checking whether this is truly me writing.
I feared and talked about a possible 'decay' of Iraq as a result of the war from day one, and this could be the first step in such a direction. Every day that criminals can roam freely means a day in which they can increase their power - by obtaining money, weapons, technical devices, and followers. Every day in which anarchy reigns is a day in which ethinc tension will increase.
It must not happen. Iraq must not become a second Somalia.
I believe that the beginning of civil tension we see in these raids shows that the war was wrong, but it happened. Now, we, the Western World (not only the coalition countries) are obliged to prevent further misery.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And I can speak from direct experience with this in Haiti. Hopefully Nem was old enough to remember that or I will be very saddened again...
And I use parentheticals way too much, I have come to realize...
There is no arguing that the riots won't go on forever, but they're nonetheless the first minute after the 'zero hour'. It's not yet clear who will have the power in post-war Iraq, and you may bet that the impression of an 'apathic' occupier will shape peoples opinion, and thus also cooperation, for a long time. To get back to your favorite example: One of the reasons the Germans accepted their defeat after WW2 was that nobody left a doubt about who was in charge now. If the coalition fails to accomplish the same in Iraq, it'll have a much harder - or maybe even impossible - stance to make.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...] try to argue with logic and data rather than just simple emotion, as all you do otherwise is irritate people here that cannot argue back with your heart heart, only your brain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could everyone find back to discussing instead of stating thesises?
Yes, far better! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But 'hell' was a bit more appealing though ;-)
Yes, far better! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But 'hell' was a bit more appealing though ;-) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or perhaps more... <i>inflamatory</i>?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH *cough cough*
Basically, after 30 years of not being able to say 'Saddam is a very bad man' without literally fearing for your life, it's a very natural thing for the people to swing the other way and loot every building in Iraq that stood for him. There is very little danger of the world letting a true vacuum exist in Iraq though. Certainly not the european states, whcih depend on that country and its neighbors for all their oil. Which wouldn;t be quite as necessary if you would all go nuclear. Damned Green Party screwing you over again. I mean, germany made a nuclear plant for the Iranians (now being used, along with additional Russian nuclear assistance, for making an atomic bomb. GG.). Why not help yourselves too?
I know, I know, I know waaaaaay off-topic. Just venting.
Blah blah blah I agree with you that it's dangerous blah blah blah and I think you just need to give it time blah blah.
Yes, far better! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But 'hell' was a bit more appealing though ;-) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or perhaps more... <i>inflamatory</i>?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH *cough cough* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
?_?; that was bad :/
In any case, I was listening to NPR the other day, and they quoted a Baghdadi as saying "I will now use my right to free speech for the first time in my life: I want you [the U.S.] out of here as soon as possible."
It's going to be a tricky process of keeping Iraq stable while we try to set up a working government, not just a matter of "let's show 'em who's boss" - after all, we <b>already</b> showed 'em who's boss, there were a lot of Arabs and Iraqis who were pretty shocked that Baghdad fell so quickly. And it's going to be hard to convince people to go along with outsiders/invaders and persuade them that it's for their own benefit. Even though they're liberated, if coalition forces stay there too long and they don't have a good amount of visible success, things will get really tough.
To discuss UN involvement in post-war Iraq, <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=28796' target='_blank'>this</a> thread is more appropriate.
I fear what will happen if people get into a habit of rioting and looting though. As it is, it's just replacing one form of fear with another (more visible and less sinister) one.
So what would you do Monse? You're dealing with a region where ethnic, religious and cultural hatreds go back centuries; you can't just walk in and say "Right, stop fighting!" and everything will be peachy. "Europe" isn't a singular entity; the continent itself is divided up into seperate and highly independant nations who see their agenda as looking out for their national interests. It's not the job of "Europe" to police the Balkans, and even if it was, short of nuking the whole region settling these differances is well nigh impossible.
You could argue that Europe stands to gain from a stable Balkan region and you'd be likely correct. But it's almost impossible to achieve.
And when Europe did get involved in the Balkans from 1911 - 1914 it ended up in a massive global conflict. Understand that Europe might not want to get involved in such a region again.
13 years of UN sanctions and terror bombing from the U.S. imperialists (responsible for the deaths of at least 1.5 million Iraqis) is really an important part of the "decay" that you referred to in your original post. Iraq was one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the arab world before the first gulf war.
And we wonder why the Iraqis don't appreciate foreign intervention.
And we wonder why the Iraqis don't appreciate foreign intervention. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really...
I only wonder how long it will take until the Syrians feel 'freedom'
Looters ransacked government buildings, hospitals and schools, and the National Museum, taking or destroying many of the country's archaeological treasures.
A museum employee arrived overnight to find the administrative offices trashed by looters. The only thing she could salvage was a telephone book-sized volume.
She refused to give her name. With tears, she said, "It is all the fault of the Americans. This is Iraq's civilisation. And it's all gone now."
An elderly museum guard said hundreds of looters attacked on Friday and carried away artifacts on pushcarts and wheelbarrows.
The two-storey museum's marble staircase was chipped, suggesting looters might have dragged heavier items down on pushcarts or slabs of wood.
Glass display cases were shattered and broken pieces of ancient pottery and statues were scattered everywhere.
The National Museum held artifacts from thousands of years of history in the Tigris-Euphrates basin, widely held to be the site of the world's earliest civilisations.
Before the war, the museum closed its doors and secretly placed the most precious artifacts in storage, but the metal storeroom doors were smashed and everything was taken.
"This is the property of this nation and is the treasure of 7,000 years of civilisation," said museum employee Ali Mahmoud. "What does this country think it is doing?"
On Baghdad's chaotic streets, it appeared American troops were doing nothing to curb the feverish looting.
Troops could be seen waving looters through checkpoints and standing idly in front of buildings while they were being pillaged.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guess this was the best place to put this.
As a history student I'm well nigh appalled that the US isn't curbing this looting in Baghdad. The destruction or loss of these artifacts is an afront to not only Iraq's people and heritage but the cultural history of Europe and the Middle East. The US could easily stop this if they so chose, but for some reason they arn't.
I'm just plain mad that this was allowed to happen.
This should not be the case with Iraq.
Without using the "O" word, Iraq is of great value to the US; and therefore, the US <b>shouldn't</b> have a problem investing into the restructuring of Iraq, as they will be getting something in return. This would not have been the case if they invested in Afghanistan, where Afghanistan has nothing of value to US, except perhaps Bin Laden's head.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that the damage has already been done is bad enough. The marines were standing around not stopping anyone: you're telling me that a few marines couldn't stand in front of a museam and stop a couple of looters?
When i took part in police operations in the USMC, we would use PR-24's or fiberglass riot batons. That was after being specially equipped and trained. And it still didn't look too nice to see a rioter holding his fractured elbow when we used them in Cuba and Haiti.
What's your suggestion, from your experience in these sorts of operations?
Most people think mobs can be dealt with easily. Fire off a couple rounds, right? Force is a delicate thing, and you can't just think that the prescense of armed forces will stop it. COUGH LA COUGH
If the mod turned rowdy and actually started shooting then I'm certain the marines would be fully justified in returning fire.
And besides, according to CNN doesn't every Iraqi in Baghdad love America and it's Brave Armed Forces? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Its obvious that if you remove the government and army/police (pretty much one unit in Iraq) that you'll have civil unrest in an oppressive regime. I don't believe that the planners of the war would have failed to see this elementary fact.
Solutions - I have none - You're stuck between the rock of looting and the hard place of being seen as an invasionary force. The coalliton has pitched it so they can tut at the disturbances without any immediate reflection on themselves - for all the reasons you've outlined above.
If the mod turned rowdy and actually started shooting then I'm certain the marines would be fully justified in returning fire.
And besides, according to CNN doesn't every Iraqi in Baghdad love America and it's Brave Armed Forces? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell you what. You take 22,000 Marines (of which about 12,000 are combat troops - riflemen, machine gunners, anti-armor, artillery, and AFV's). You drop them in New York City or London (same population as Baghdad). You have them protect the whole town from 5,000,000 people robbing the place blind, WITHOUT hurting them on a super-sensitized TV-monitored world stage. That's 1 combat Marine for every 417 Iraqi's, in an area of a 900 square miles. Remember, you are not armed with non-lethal weapons and have not recently been trained in crowd restraint (although some of your older troops will have some experience in this).
If a rowdy mob was shot by US Troops, you would be screaming for war crimes trials, and you know it. Unacceptable solution.
Shooting guns in air? That's how half the civilian casualties occured during Baghdads bombardment. Ever hear of gravity? Unacceptable solution.
There are MP's, federal police, judges, and more on the way. But the rioting has already died way down, just as I said it would. It's a natural reaction that happens EVERY time in this situation and CANNOT be easily stopped, no matter how much people want to believe it's true.
You are frankly all out of your depth in this area, trust me.
As we're all aware, you've had experience in these areas that we can never aspire to, or would want to (well, some of us).
What would you suggest? How would you hope to provide a peaceful solution? Do you even think there is one? Or has teh speed of the advance precluded that. I'm genuinely interested.
1. You place as many troops out on the street as possible - this was done.
2. If someone is being attacked as part of looting, you stop it (this is a time where rules of engagement allow deadly force - this has been done).
3. If a building is merely being emptied of TV sets and you are one of 2 Marines on a street corner against 500 looters, you stay out of it - this has been done.
4. In a few days when the civil affairs unints arrive in force, you let them take charge and operate as a strictly reactionary force (see 2,) - this has been done)
5. You work with local groups to get their own people under control - this is the REAL answer (not smashing people's skulls in with riot battons, let me assure you, those who went from liberal to conservative in 5 seconds as soon as you heard someone stole a 5000 year old vase) - this has been done.
6. Re-equip your troops with non-lethal weapons once the area is mostly pacified, so that if they have to mix it up no one gets killed. - will be done, when appropriate.
The only way to successfully quell civilian rioting and looting with a professional military force is to a) enforce martial law and shoot on sight when you see rioting - i.e. the traditional european/asian response through history, or b) get the people to internally police themselves and stop the behavior themselves. If every single member of the Coalition was in bagdhad right now (even cooks, mechanics from aircraft carriers, helicopter pilots, supply clerks, etc.) on anti-looting duty, you would still have 15 bagdhadians for every soldier. A soldier that is not armed properly to stop the looter with anything except shoot him or smash his teeth out with a rifle butt, in front of Al-Jaseera. Because you cannot threaten mobs with guns - you can only shoot mobs. And as soon as people see that you are not going to to shoot them, they are going to ignore you. Which creates far larger problems later.
Involving those few troops on the ground right now in this is only a good way to get people killed over meaningless material things. By waiting a couple days (as all the experienced US and British Marine commanders did, having been through this many times before - especially the Brits), things will settle down internally far faster than if you flame the fires Tianemen square style.
So my suggestions are what in fact were done. Good enough for everyone?
Am I the only one who thinks that this'll set a somewhat wrong sign for some of the tribal leaders, which're in many cases not better than Afghani warlords?