Iraq's Salvation

Iraq has been called an "artificial nation". The groups that live there have no sense of unity. The solution, I believe, would be the formation of an Iraqi Nationalist Government, one that creates an Iraqi spirit of Iraq being a real nation. This could perhaps have its base in the unique Mesopotamian ethnicity of Iraqis. Perhaps the languages of old could be revived in the country. Though they'd maintain Islam, they would replace their Arab identity.
Such a government could unify the country in defeating the ISIL.

Dassault Papillon: In fact, after the ISIL was defeated this would result in a capitalistic, secular, modernizing Iraq which would spend the 21st century growing in size.

Dassault Papillon: Economic size, that is.

Dassault Papillon:

I think a big solution would be just leave them alone and let them work it out themselves.

The people groups in that part of the world are some of the oldest civilizations in human history - maybe if the "international community" *cough cough* would just leave them be, they could sort it out themselves instead of others being essentially backseat drivers.

Blackflag: Gaddafi was a socialist.

nzlockie: Not really. The groups do not identify with ancient Mesopotamians. Saddam Hussien tried to reinvigorate Iraqi nationalism by rebuilding Babylon and other ancient sites, but his plan backfired.

They have also proven incapable of sorting things out for themselves. That is the problem to begin with.

Progress and democracy do not go well together. What the new government has done a lot of is creating new positions that attract lots of corruption and ambitious power hungry politicians. When you want actual change, you start a revolution, ie, civil movement. There isn't any way around it.

Even when you do achieve progress through revolution, you will quickly discover the first premise that governments and progress do not go hand in hand, while elements at the other end of the spectrum will rise up and start their own revolution.

Dassault Papillon: He was also a nationalist

He was also a socialist too, but he was of a different breed than the socialists we see today.

Socialist republics from the Cold War offered almost no welfare whatsoever, and were pretty fiscally conservative, yet they backed education systems and made land reforms.
A good example would be the Ethiopian Derg.

Blackflag: No. By "sorting it out themselves" I fully expect that bloodshed will be involved, the occasional despot, and maybe even the formation of a religious state that oppresses some peeps.

That's kind of par for the human course. What has been proven time and time again NOT to work, is some other state, with nothing really in common with those people, and no great history of demonstrating awareness of the region's history or culture; stepping in and imposing what they "think" is the right thing to do.

How about we all just take a big ol step back and leave them to it?

At the moment it seems Turkey prefers an Islamic State to a Kurdish State, which is why they are bombing the Kurds.

The Kurds are the best hope for defeating ISIS, and instead of supporting the Kurds America puts $500 million into training 54 Syrian troops.

Dassault Papillon: The groups that live there have no sense of unity
That kind of goes with many muslim nations in the middle east. Persia included, being the big one. The divisions of Islam are a big factor in them killing each other. But they WILL unite to kill Israelis. But that kind of goes way back to Ishmael and Isaac; that's why there's so much tension between the Jews and the Arabs. It goes way back to those two people thousands of years ago.

And yes, those are the oldest nations in history. When Noah and his family left the ark and spread across the Earth, the center point was most likely Iraq.

We should go in and defeat Islamic extremists, not leave them to themselves. I don't understand why the United States doesn't just launch an all out military force and stop them.

nzlockie: I fully expect that bloodshed will be involved, the occasional despot, and maybe even the formation of a religious state that oppresses some peeps.
Do not mistake me, I mostly agree.

Iraq's "salvation" HAS to come from Iraqi's.

Living in metropolitan Detroit, one of the most impoverished cities in America, I have some personal experience in how this works. Pouring money and resources into the city hasn't solved anything, and more people continue to go into poverty each year.

We drain taxpayers all across the country to sustain 40% of the population artificially on welfare, despite there being enough jobs for everyone. No one wants to work blue collar construction jobs or as a farmer, they are not desirable, but there happen to be 10,000's of these jobs available in the metro Detroit area (and they pay a lot). Likewise, there are 1000's of goods and services that are not produced ingeniously in Michigan that people could profit on, but why would they when a family of three can make 20,000 dollars a year on welfare? While they collect welfare payments, they are setting the economy back billions each year, while the actual wealth of Detroit citizens stays the same, along with unemployment.

There was an Italian UNISEF worker who served about 12 years across Africa giving food and money to local villages. He came to resent his job, as he realized that the economic state of these communities were not improving at all, and more generations continue to go in poverty.

Iraq is a divided country. The people need to see their own government defeat the insurgency. The last thing that Iraq needs is for the US military to go in and do the work for them. It will backfire for the same reasons our federal government pouring more money into cities like Detroit and Cleveland backfired.

@nzlockie With that said, there is a difference between charity and assistance.

The most successful aid programs have offered assistance and not charity. OPEC, a self sufficient organization me and admin once debated, trains 5000 small businesses a year on how to make their companies more efficient and profitable. The program is wildly successful.

UNISEF used to pour millions on villages, but people like the Italian officer I mentioned in my last post protested and started their own programs that consulted local businesses throughout the third world, instead of giving them money. You saw instant results and growth.

Iraq does need to win their battles for themselves. It is the basis of my entire political belief system. The problem is that they usually fail in their attempts.

When the Islamic Caliphate was first established, I supported the US and NATO nations to send logistic officers over to Iraq to make the military more efficient and weed out corruption within the ranks. Instead, we sent officers which took command of Iraqi units, and an airforce to bomb the enemies the Iraqi people were supposed to be fighting to begin with.

@nzlockie At the same time, I understand other's frustration.

In another thread, I stated how an organized NATO attack on Mosul involving special forces units and combined arms assistance from the Iraqi army south of the city would result in less than a dozen casualties when properly executed. I then stated that if we were to wait for the Iraqi army to gain the resources to capture Mosul effectively alone, close to 600 people would die by the hands of Daesh fighters within a given year.

I was correct, because since we had that discussion, 500 unarmed combatants have been executed or slaughtered by Daesh fighters around Mosul. This is one of the instances where I hate to be wrong, because it is likely that 3 times the # of people I originally stated will be killed by the time Mosul is recaptured by the government.

When it comes to the question of intervention, we need to ask whether the lives of 1800 unarmed combatants are necessary collateral for having the Iraqi armed forces take back Mosul for themselves.

*in less than a dozen "allied" casualties when properly executed

We should go in and defeat Islamic extremists, not leave them to themselves. I don't understand why the United States doesn't just launch an all out military force and stop them.
I think that would further diminish people's faith in the government we put into power. Iraqi's need to believe their government isn't a puppet. As long as Iraq continues to resort to US military aid to solve its problems, extremists will continue to have a popular justification for advancing their causes.

Blackflag: Iraq hardly even has a government.

Besides, if we don't intervene, Islamic extremists groups will get stronger, as history as proven. It's either we beat them now or have a hard time beating them later when they're a lot stronger.

Krazy: Iraq hardly even has a government.
How are you under that impression? They obviously have a government, and a pretty large military too.

Besides, if we don't intervene, Islamic extremists groups will get stronger, as history as proven
History has proven that the more Western powers intervene in the Middle East, the stronger extremist groups become.

No seriously, I have about a dozen examples of radical groups who rallied the populace around anti-imperialist sentiments in the Middle East.

If you send a non-native army back into Iraq, many people will join Daesh out of disdain for a foreign presence in their country.