Iraq Declining Into Civil War? How About India After 1948?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Iraq Declining Into Civil War? How About India After 1948?
CJH 9/3/2006 2:26:55 PM

Is there anything unusually difficult about establishing a stable civil society in Iraq? How did India and Pakistan ever survive independence? Wasn't their situation worse? How many people died by tribal violence between Hindus and Muslims when India and Pakistan split up?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

jastayme3 India after 48 9/3/2006 7:48:45 PM

Is there anything unusually difficult about establishing a stable civil society in Iraq?

How did India and Pakistan ever survive independence? Wasn't their situation worse?

How many people died by tribal violence between Hindus and Muslims when India and Pakistan split up?

Quote Reply

Plutarch 9/4/2006 1:24:45 AM

India and Pakistan survived because their populations moved around by the British. some 15 million people were moved before the partition. The actual death toll is not known but is estimated aorund 500,000. It would have been worse if the British though had tried to stick it out with India as one country.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#India

Quote Reply

reefdiver 9/7/2006 6:20:39 PM

So should the US just leave and let Iraqi's kill so 500,000 (or millions) of their own people? Is ethnic cleansing the only way to peace? Should Iraq be split into new independent Kurdish, Sunni, and Shite countries and let each of those countries cleanse itself of all others?

Quote Reply

Plutarch 9/7/2006 6:47:37 PM

Well ideally US and Allied troops are there to stop the violence. Since they are unwilling or unable to stop the violence what are they doing in Iraq? Would the violence be greater if US troops left in December, or in 2009, or less? What side are we preventing from murdering the other...the Sunni or the Shia? Will the newly trained Iraqi Armed Forces be more effective than the US military in defeating the insurgency, or less?

I don't know the answers to these questions, nor do I pretend to know. All I do know is there is a great deal of violence in Iraq that hasn't disipated in any meaningful way since US troops invaded in March of 2003, and despite our best efforts it doesn't look like it will go away anytime soon.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym 9/7/2006 7:42:59 PM

"Well ideally US and Allied troops are there to stop the violence."

US troops are there to support the Iraqi Government and to build up their police and military. You thinking that anyone can stop the violence is a poorly formed attack on the War, as it does not relect any form of reality seen in the area for the last 5000 years...

"Since they are unwilling or unable to stop the violence what are they doing in Iraq?"

Trying to make sure we don't have to go back.

"Would the violence be greater if US troops left in December, or in 2009, or less?"

More, for a while. Until the Shia and Kurds finished massacring the Sunni. Since the Turks came to Iraq and left the Sunni in charge the Sunni have piled up quite a list of atrocities and they are now witnessing Karma.

"What side are we preventing from murdering the other...the Sunni or the Shia?"

The Sunni the fight the Sunni, the Shia fight the Shia, and they fight each other. The only group that seems able not to kill their own "friends" seems to be the Kurds.

Will the newly trained Iraqi Armed Forces be more effective than the US military in defeating the insurgency, or less?

"I don't know the answers to these questions, nor do I pretend to know. All I do know is there is a great deal of violence in Iraq that hasn't disipated in any meaningful way since US troops invaded in March of 2003, and despite our best efforts it doesn't look like it will go away anytime soon."

In other words, let's cut and run. Then we can totally go isolationist until a muslim eventually nukes us or Israel and a massive HOLOCAUST ensues.

This game was okay to put on the backburner, until the people who think suicide bombings are ok decided to build nuclear weapons.

But hey, the job is too hard, too many people are dying, lets just leave and watch the Israeli's get forced into a nuclear war. Wonder how many will die when that happens?

Quote Reply

Plutarch 9/7/2006 8:42:20 PM

"In other words, let's cut and run. Then we can totally go isolationist until a muslim eventually nukes us or Israel and a massive HOLOCAUST ensues.

This game was okay to put on the backburner, until the people who think suicide bombings are ok decided to build nuclear weapons.

But hey, the job is too hard, too many people are dying, lets just leave and watch the Israeli's get forced into a nuclear war. Wonder how many will die when that happens"

Slippery slope argument aside, I don't think a muslim is going to nuke the USA, or Israel (we are in the wrong country if that is your worry anyway). I didn't advocate cut and run, but if our presence in Iraq is counter-productive we can redefine the mission or move to a more strategic location like Kurdistan. How is the building of the Iraqi Army going by the way...last I heard they were at 300,000 and had taken over most of the commands. So is it time to go now? Or do we have to wait until the violence decreases? Since you assert that the violence will never decrease do we just want Iraqis to kill Iraqis so the US can back out?

I don't understand your position on Iraq Psuedo, how does having American troops as targets for insurgents in Iraq prevent the Iranians and Pakistanis from obtaining/using nuclear weapons?

We are not doing enough about the violence and like you say we are not there to end the violence, or even contain it, so US troops are just there as what, target practice? It only takes a few thousand adivsers to train an army so tell me why we are in Iraq.

Quote Reply

reefdiver 9/8/2006 12:29:56 PM

Maybe it would be best to put all the US troops in Iraq on the border to prevent interference by Iranians and Syrians, and around the oil fields to protect the Iraqi governments income, then let the Iraqi's decide their own fate in the rest of the country.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym 9/8/2006 5:27:43 PM

"Slippery slope argument aside, I don't think a muslim is going to nuke the USA,"

Yes, let's all base our hopes on your guesses. Suicide bombers and nuclear weapons, put two and two together.

"or Israel"

Every Muslim country in the area wants to kill all the Israeli's, one particular one comes to mind. Did you miss the part where the nation striving for nuclear weapons talked about wiping Israel off the map? Since I know you don't believe what I say, go learn what that countries President did during the Iran Iraq War in the Basiji.

"(we are in the wrong country if that is your worry anyway)."

So when millions die in a nuclear holocaust that cuts off oil from the middle east for the next couple centuries we have nothing to worry about.... You obviously learned nothing from history, like half our country, which is why I have come to the conclusion that we are doomed to repeat it....

"I didn't advocate cut and run, but if our presence in Iraq is counter-productive we can redefine the mission or move to a more strategic location like Kurdistan."

In other words, let's cut and run from the mission we have set out upon. Redefine mission = cut and run from bringing effective government to the area. Bush has laid out the ONLY strategy yet that has any realisitic hope of winning this war. He is President because your Party did nothing but point fingers and make excuses, give us another option, we were, have, and are listening for one, but you guys have nothing.

"How is the building of the Iraqi Army going by the way...last I heard they were at 300,000 and had taken over most of the commands."

Most of the officers are woefully undertrained, they are rife with tribal and religious corruption, some of them highlight as death squads, etc.... The job is far from done. Building an INSTITUTION takes time, if you do not spend that time your efforts are all a waste and the organization you built fails and you wind up right back where you started..

"So is it time to go now? Or do we have to wait until the violence decreases?"

Didn't I answer this question last time? It has nothing to do with the level of violence, it is about bringing effective government to the area as a way to counter Islam and Tribal warfare spreading out in Terrorism in the nuclear age.

"Since you assert that the violence will never decrease do we just want Iraqis to kill Iraqis so the US can back out?"

No we want the Iraqi's to control Iraqi's so WE DONT HAVE TO DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM. The reason this war must be fought by our military instead of police forces is that THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENTS FOR US TO WORK WITH.

"I don't understand your position on Iraq Psuedo, how does having American troops as targets for insurgents in Iraq prevent the Iranians and Pakistanis from obtaining/using nuclear weapons?"

It doesn't, but since you do not understand the simple idea of EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT as I have stated numerously, I doubt saying it yet again will matter. What do you think the Pak's and Iranians will think when we run from Iraq? Will the likelihood of religious fanatics, which both countries are populated by, using or possessing nuclear weapons will increase or decrease? On the subject of Pakistan, did you notice how Mushareff has ceded control of the Tribal areas to the tribes and said we cannot go there? I see Mushareff understands the political situation just as well as I do, and realizes he can now start pushing back at us. He never has or will be our ally, but he understood there was a big gun pointing at his countries head, now that gun is being put back into its holster by your party.

"We are not doing enough about the violence and like you say we are not there to end the violence, or even contain it,"

We are there to contain it, by building EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENTS who can govern their own damn countries so we don't have to. How dare we make them do their job, how dare we...

"so US troops are just there as what, target practice? It only takes a few thousand adivsers to train an army so tell me why we are in Iraq."

In other words, instead of getting in the middle of all this and stopping the GENOCIDE from happening in Iraq against the Sunni first, then possible the Kurds, we should only leave a few ppl behind to train them. Do you understand the simple idea of leverage? Of the ability to enforce your words and make ruthless people obey? Why would they listen to us if we left? They are doing their level best to ignore us WHILE WE HAVE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND GUNS POINTING AT THEM. What do you th

Quote Reply

Plutarch 9/9/2006 10:55:23 AM

“Yes, let's all base our hopes on your guesses. Suicide bombers and nuclear weapons put two and two together.”

Well there is a huge difference between a suicide bomber and a nuclear weapon. One must first know how to obtain/make, use and deliver a nuclear weapon before actually using it, not an easy task.

”Every Muslim country in the area wants to kill all the Israeli's, one particular one comes to mind. Did you miss the part where the nation striving for nuclear weapons talked about wiping Israel off the map? Since I know you don't believe what I say, go learn what that countries President did during the Iran Iraq War in the Basiji.”

No doubt Ahmeadjhadi, whatever is crazy but Israel has 200 nukes of its own, so that whole MAD and nuclear deterrence thing come into play. Israel will be okay.

”So when millions die in a nuclear holocaust that cuts off oil from the middle east for the next couple centuries we have nothing to worry about.... You obviously learned nothing from history, like half our country, which is why I have come to the conclusion that we are doomed to repeat it....”

You are making a slippery slope argument; you are equating US withdrawal from a country in the middle of a civil war with the coming of a nuclear war. The two are not linked even in a historical sense. What evidence do you have that nuclear war would break out if American troops left Iraq?

”In other words, let's cut and run from the mission we have set out upon. Redefine mission = cut and run from bringing effective government to the area. Bush has laid out the ONLY strategy yet that has any realistic hope of winning this war. He is President because your Party did nothing but point fingers and make excuses, give us another option, we were, have, and are listening for one, but you guys have nothing.”

Have you read the new issue of National Review? In it is a symposium of writers who supported the war, but all state in the magazine we are losing the war now and a new strategy is needed. We need a redirection in the war, a fresh strategy because the old one isn’t working. Bush doesn’t have enough American troops on the ground and is unwilling or unable to send more and we can’t train the Iraqis fast enough to quell the violence, as you say.

”Didn't I answer this question last time? It has nothing to do with the level of violence; it is about bringing effective government to the area as a way to counter Islam and Tribal warfare spreading out in Terrorism in the nuclear age.”

It has everything to do with violence, if a country is to have an effective government there has to be stability or marked progress towa

Quote Reply

olive greens 9/9/2006 12:29:50 PM

Some things India was blessed with at the time of Independence (and relevant to your question):

#1 A largely de-militarized society. Before World War II there were just 300,000 men under arms, and even after World War II, just 2 million had served in the BIA. Apart from the Pathan tribals in NWFP and tribals in Indian North-East, there weren't many people with access to violence (on modern scale). Small arms were heavily regulated (and still are).

Iraq, on the other hand, is a highly militarized society. Saddam's Army was disproportionately large – thus instilling violence in a large section of its society. There were very active – and successful – guerrilla units like the Kurdish peshmerga. The lack of a systematic disarming (the only proactive step the US forces could take) meant that Iraq is more like post-War Japan... except everybody retains their weapons. Proclivity to violence + Access to modern weapons = disaster!

#2 Relative isolation, but sufficient exposure. British had, for reasons of their own, isolated their Indian subjects from the post-WWII power. I don't think I need to emphasize how touchy they were to Russian (or Soviet) presence anywhere around India. Longtime snobbish Anglo-Indian families (who basically ran India) also kept out the Americans even during World War II (carefully chaperoning GIs while stationed there for Gen. Stillwell's CBI campaign). But future Indian leaders nonetheless had sufficient experience in the outside world – mainly in London.

Iraq is wide open to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, China, France (in decreasing order of meddlesomeness) and many others. Sometimes these smaller powers are more destructive than the super-powers. With regard to the necessary exposure, I am not privy to how good or bad current Iraqi leaders who lived abroad are seen as... but if Chalabi is seen as an example, its not very good.

A very illogical, but popular belief: Iraq is "cursed" with oil while India had been looted into bankruptcy by then, so who would bother meddling India? India certainly was much poorer than it had been a thousand or 300 years back, but seeing how Cold War super-powers were willing to contest the Koreas and Vietnam I see no reason why they might not have done so in India if they had a chance. And business people (who presumably are after Iraqi oil) work in mysterious ways incomprehensible to this engineer... sometimes they fight for a penny, but glady share million other times.

Finally: Calling the violence of the Partition "tribal" is not only technically incorrect, but trivializes the whole issue into something primeval - which it explicitly wasn't! It was a fight over interpretation of what a modern state means: All tribal wars, like say the German drive to unite all Germanic people and enslave others, (aka World War II - I am lovin' this) fall in a completely different category of warfare compared to the wars of religion. There are no Muslim "tribes" Jinnah and Iqbal (founders of Pakistan) argues, but Islam itself is a "tribe" worthy of nationhood (never mind the fact that Indians dont even recognize "tribe" as a sufficient identity for nationhood!!!). The fundamental problem in calling Hindus and Muslims tribes is, Are Jose Padilla (a Muslim) and your average Catholic Hispanic different "tribes"?

The violence of the Parition was a precursor to 9/11 and London bombings, as well as the continuing US-Afghan War in its denial of sovereignty of any state except one founded on Islam... whereas in Partitioning India the iSlum'o fascists won, I certainly hope they dont win this time.

Quote Reply

1 2