Should Pakistan send troops to Iraq?

arjun,

.......... ``eat fish``???? .......what about last night ?.........you are beginning to sound like romair .......... i wish it could have been the cubsor the sox, but fish is okay too.........

......... as for this iraqi thing, i just hope we (yup, that would be me and bubba) stay over there for the next fifty years ......... abdul was ever ready for self government, and you can`t leave him to his own devices - just look at the mess we have made in pakiland since the white man pulled out ............ the american enterprise institute is right - it is america`s burden to civilize the world ............. and no, it was not a ``stupid`` war as fuzair suggests, but it would be stupid to pull out ............. so we loose a soldier or two every other day - it is not a big price to pay for abdul`s freedom ................

.......... but with fools, sisssies and liberals running around, wringing their hands, and labelling sane folks as neo-cons and bigots, i am afraid bush might do something stupid .......... he already has by allowing the incorrigible afghans to frame hteir own constitution ......... for god`s sake, what does a goat herder know about constitutions!.......... so the niswar shalwar crowd has come back with the same old koran and sunnah crap, and lo and behold they will rename the hell-hole formerly called the emirate of afghanistan as the new and improved ``islamic republic of afghanistan`` ! .......... now that is what i call a waste of american lives and tax payer`s money!.......... where is the aei when you need it?............ what are these fools in washington thinking?............

Hasanji, Iraqi resistance is what stands between an ultra-aggressive nation and an impotent community of nations. The security council members are there to protect their own interests. Foreign troops in iraq will free the american military to launch its next adventure, probably against syria. India certainly should not be involved..

#39 SameerJB
``Pakistan should send forces in Iraq if asked. US is going to be around as superpower for at least another 100 years and Pakistan will always need US in the forseeable future.``

Co-operation with U.S should not mean blindly giving in every time U.S asks for something, without weighing how it will impact our own national interests. It might be hard to understand but it is true that sometimes what U.S asks for might be against our national interests.

``More US and Pakistan cooperate, better it is for Pakistan`s security, economy and even for the human rights of women and minorities in Pakistan.``


The last time U.S & Pakistan cooperated (back in Mard-e-Momin`s days), our internal security, human rights for women and minorities took a pretty steep and swift Southward dive. The economy went well till the CIA $$ kept coming in and then it also ended up joining our human rights. At the bottom of the pit!

hamidm2,

I think Romair deserves an article all to himself.

In his various nicks (himself,ahmadzai,HisExcellency,etc) he has contributed more to Indo-Pak animosity on chowk than any other single person.

While one can see he takes superficial care to avoid recognition (posting at different times, slight variation in writing), his bombastic, blustering, I-know syle shines through.

He`s an articulate and well-read person. Someday in the future we may hold a book in our hands written by an ex pak military man named Raja something...and we may smile thinking `so this is/was Romair`!

There seems to be a big deal being made out of a recent survey done in Iraq, about the Iraqi`s views about the USA military staying there. Interestingly, very few people are willing to provide the details of the survey and all the questions asked. And, most importantly, information about who funded it.

The only result that is presented is that a high percentage of the Iraqis want the US military to stay there. Depends on how you look at it. I also think the USA military now has to stay there, until the UN can take over. It cannot leave everything in vacuum, after having displaced everything. An Iraqi doctor in Iraq described it the best on Canadian TV. He said that Iraq is like a patient on which the USA is carrying out forceful surgery. The Iraqis did not want the USA to initiate the surgery. However, now that the USA has forced surgery upon Iraq, it cannot leave half way through the operation.

This is completely different from presenting the US occupation as something the Iraqis want, i.e. the Iraqis want the US military to stay there, becasue they approve of the invasion. Quite the contrary.

Anyways, here if the full information about the survey, which should put all confusions to rest, and will show that neo-cons will cling to straws to justify their views. Interstingly, the title of the survey report actually states, ``Opinion poll underlines Iraqi distrust of America``:

1. Who funded the survey: The American Enterprise Institute. For those who don`t know, AEI is the hardcore think tank of the neo-cons. It was the biggest supporter of the Iraq invasion. And its members flew all over the world to push it. This itself, should put some doubts on the results. Kind of like Saddam surveying everyone in Iraq, asking them, if they support his actions.

2. Number of Iraqis who took part in the Survey: 600. Only six hundred people were intereviewed. Not a very high no. on which to base one`s conclusions.

3. Cities in which people were interviewed: Mosul, Kirkuk, Ramadi, and Basra. So no one in Baghdad was interviewed. Which is the hotbed of anti-US feelings and violence. And I think only Ramadi is in the, ``Sunni triangle.``

Now if you read the survey`s results on the American Enterprise Site, they create a completely different image of the results, than what is shown on the site of the organization, that actually carried it out. Here is what the actual surveyors, who physically talked to the Iraqis, state the result of the survey to be:

a) ``most Iraqis do not trust Americans and want to be left alone``

b) ``like most Arabs, Iraqis want to ``control their own destiny``, without the intervention of outside forces, and are confident in their own ability``

c) ``Iraqis broadly agree, but for different reasons, with the Bush administration`s stated goal of handing over power and getting out as soon as possible``

d) ``Asked if the US and UK should help make sure a fair government is set up in Iraq, or if the Iraqis should work this out themselves, 31.5 per cent wanted help while 58.5 per cent did not.``

e) ``Some 38.2 per cent agreed that democracy could work well in Iraq, while 50.2 per cent agreed with the statement that ``democracy is a western way of doing things and it will not work here``.

f) ``Asked whether in the next five years the US would ``help`` Iraq, 35.3 per cent said yes while 50 per cent said the US would ``hurt`` Iraq.``

g) ``Asked the same of the UN, the figures were almost reversed, with 50.2 per cent saying it would help and 18.5 per cent the opposite``

h) ``Reguarding US and British troops, some 31 per cent wanted them to leave in six months and a total of 65.5 per cent in a year. Some 25 per cent said they should stay two years or more.``

The neo-cons, and some on this site, have, interestingly only mentioned h). And even on h), they have conveniently taken only the, ``65.5% want US troops to leave in a year,`` and spun it to indicate, as if the Iraqis are welcoming the USA. When, in actuality, the Iraqis are only setting the quickest possible deadline for the USA to leave, without leaving the whole country in a vacuum.

Interestingly, the neo-cons do not mention f), which indicates that a much higher percentage of Iraqis actually think that the US will, ``hurt`` Iraq than help it.

These results are all in line, with what I stated, in my previous repoly. Even though they were funded by the AEI and did not take into account Baghdad, which is the heart of public opinion in Iraq, and is anti-US. So the actual results would be even more anti-USA.

It is quite unfortunate to see individuals continuously spin the situation and use half-truths to justify the USA`s killings and actions in Iraq. If the only argument that anyone can make is that the USA is (maybe) doing less killing than Saddam. And that to only in a debatable fashion. Then I don`t think that portrays the US as the great savior of Iraq. It just shows the USA to be as destructive or (arguably) slightly less destructive towards Iraq than Saddam. Certainly doesn`t paint the USA as a good guy.

hamidm,

hear hear!

-YLH

Romair:

I wasn`t defending US policy in invading Iraq and I never echoed the current US Administration line that the war was to ``liberate`` Iraq from the evils of Hussein. I was actually opposed to the invasion, not on pointless human rights or sanctity of the UN or some other nonsense grounds, but on the grounds that deposing Hussein would open a Pandora`s Box that would have truly serious consequences. I quite agreed with Molly Ivans when she said that it would be a very easy war and the peace from Hell. I was simply answering the point you raised when you said that the US was causing very high Iraqi civilian casualties.

Certainly the Iraqi civilian casualties (both sanctions caused and war caused) are, at one level of analysis, the ``fault`` of the Americans. However, my point was that this is a stupid level of analysis as it ignores the underlying reality. As far as your criticism of US policy is concerned, I don`t really have any substantial disagreement with most of your comments. The US did support Iraq against Iran for its own (perceived) national interest reasons. As I`ve said before, and probably will say again, the only objection I have to the Pax Americana is that its run by idiots. The same idiots who supported Hussein (in a relatively minor way, as compared to the level of support he got from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Brazil, USSR, France, etc) also supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians. Both were stupid policies but you are in favor of one and against the other. Hmmmm.

Now, for a truly devout Christian, I believe, sins of omission are as bad as sins of commission. However, for normal people, the latter are much worse than the former. Yes, the US could have done much more than it actually did in opposing Hussein and to a certain degree it was responsible for helping him stay in power BUT so were many other countries. Certainly France helped Hussein much, much more than the US ever did but I don`t see you criticizing the last 25 years of French policy regarding Iraq. The US is far from perfect but lets give it the same benefit of the doubt that people automatically give, e.g., France.

Winston Churchill (I think it was) said that you can always count on the US to do the right thing, once it has exhausted all the other possibilities. Can you ever count on the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians, the Pakistanis to do the right thing? Saying that ``America doesn`t suck,`` (to quote P J O`Rourke) is not the same thing as saying ``America is the greatest.``

So lets stay off the moralizing. Yes, Iraqis are dying, but when weren`t they? So to say that the US war on Iraq is ipso facto ``evil`` is to betray your own biases. I would say that the US war on Iraq is stupid (not evil, big difference) because one can`t know what the final outcome will be BUT, now that the US is in, I am as opposed to it leaving as I was to it going in.

US spent 80+ plus billion dollars to occupy Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. The military strength of Iraq was the most open sercret to the world before the war started. Lack of military supplies and parts had reduced Iraqi military to almost nothing. Their planes could not fly and only weapons they had was small and medium range guns. It was more of a police action by US than a war for US.

Why did they spent so much money? Because they wanted to decrease american casualty? Not really. Saving another 50-100 soldiers from death using high tech weaponary is only part of the reason. The high price of war due to very expensive and top of the line accurate weapons used to minimize civilian casualties more than saving few US soldiers. Who cold have stopped US to win the war for 20 or less billion dollars using conventional indiscrimanate weaponary wth high civilian casualty. Why have they just approved another 87 billion dollars package for Iraq and Afghanistan?

US is acting for the long term interest of a superpower in which domainating role on world stage is much more important than oil, deposing Saddam etc. To make this design work, US can not afford alienating Iraqi population through forceful and deadly submission.

One of the thing happened to Iraq since the occupation of US is tremendous rise in the freedom of human rights, freedom of movement and freedom of expression being the obvious ones. More than 100 new magazines and newspapers have been born in Iraq and most of them are anti-US. Some of the new magazines are even supportive of Saddam.
Despite tremendous resistance and difficulties, the stronger, more humane and more liberal and democratic structure have started to appear. Sooner people realize the benefit of peaceful means of solving problems, sooner US troops will move to selected garrisons like in Germany and Japan. With defense needs taken care of from US taz dollars, all earnings of Iraqis will be spent on development.

Can you imagine, US paying the bill for Pakistani defense leaving all resources for the development of the country. Pakistan has already reaped decent benefits from US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The clock on Taibanization of Pakistan has been set much back than before. Many countries have gotten direct or indirect concessions from this phase of a superpower asserting her will. US could have gone it alone without concession by simply making a phone call to Musharraf that would have cause him to pee in his pajamas.

Pakistan should send forces in Iraq if asked. US is going to be around as superpower for at least another 100 years and Pakistan will always need US in the forseeable future. More US and Pakistan cooperate, better it is for Pakistan`s security, economy and even for the human rights of women and minorities in Pakistan.

End justifies the means. If the end is defined as best interests of Pakistan, relationship with USA is most important but if end is defined as a berth in heaven after death, then hating USA is one of the possible mean - although not the best one.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

they don`t call him captain clueless for nothing!

``Again and again, Pakistan ends up in a position, where its actions can decide the Presidential elections in the USA.``

.............. romair mian lives in a world of his own where pakistan`s economy grows by rabbit leaps and bounds , where mushy is a democrat, imran khan is aristotle, the us is dependent on pakistan , where madonna is a virgin and pigs fly..................and he says it all so very authoritatively with ``I`` said this, and ``I`` said that, and ``I`` met so and so and ``I`` know so and so personally and up close ............. he lives in a fantasy world where he has breakfast with najam sethi, lunch with imran khan and dinner with mushy .............and then he has to bore us to death by writing these long winded posts and rambling on on on without any regard for the sick and the dying .................talk about living in la la land ...........

............ and if this sounds like a personal attack it is - he must be stopped ............. i want to propose that the air marshall should be banned from taking up bandwidth for six weeks ............. anyone want to second that ? ............ he is driving me nuts!

#26 by Romair

``10,000 soldiers aren`t going to make much of a difference, where 140k soldiers have not made a difference.``

1. 140k soldiers have deposed the worst mass murderer in Middle Eastern history.

2. Iraq today is the only Arab country with a free press. The only Arab country where you can openly criticise the government and stay alive.

3. The Governing Council has sufficient power to reject the US standard CDMA cellular telephony for the European GSM variety.

140k soldiers have not made a difference?

Cordially
OM

P.S. ``Live two days under that man (Saddam) and then oppose the war.`` Iraqi Shiite

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Fuzair #30: Following is some more information about the gassing of the Kurds and the USA`s reaction, to point out that Saddam vs. USA is not an either/or situation. Both are bad guys for Iraq, and both have been part and parcel of destroying the country.

``The official U.S. government reaction to Halabja? At first the government downplayed the reports, which were coming from Iranian sources. Once the media had confirmed the story and pictures of the dead villagers had been shown on television, the U.S. denounced the use of gas. Marlin Fitzwater told reporters, ``Everyone in the administration saw the same reports you saw last night. They were horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries of why chemical warfare should be banned.`` But as Power observes, ``The United States issued no threats or demands.`` The government`s objection was that Saddam had used gas to kill his own citizens, not that he had killed them. Indeed, subsequently State Department officials indicated that both sides - Iraq and Iran - were responsible perhaps for the gassing of civilian Kurds. [History News Network, ``He Has Gassed His Own People,`` July 16, 2002]

Shortly after the massacre at Halabja, Senators Claiborne Pell, Al Gore, and Jesse Helms introduced legislation to impose sanctions on Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 unanimously passed the US Senate just one day after being introduced.

So what did the Reagan Administration do? Reagan vetoed this Act, of course. Conventional Wisdom says that he did this because in those days Iran was the Bad Guy, and anyone who was an enemy of Iran was on Our Side.

The Reagan administration, which had been providing Iraq with $700 million a year in credit guarantees, saw Hussein`s Iraq both as a potential security partner in the volatile Persian Gulf and as a promising market for American products and investment.

Secretary of State George Shultz denounced Iraq`s use of chemical weapons, but others in the administration seemed more concerned about the Iraqi reaction should the sanctions become law. (Senate passage of the Pell legislation produced the biggest anti-American demonstration in Baghdad in 20 years.) Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act.

While past error is no indication of future action, the Kurds have not forgotten that Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security adviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan`s decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds. Dick Cheney, then a prominent Republican congressman and now vice president and the Bush administration`s leading Iraq hawk, could have helped push the sanctions legislation but did not. [Peter W. Galbraith, ``The Wild Card in a Post-Saddam Iraq,`` The Boston Globe Magazine, December 15, 2002]
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/08_gassing.html)

Fuzair #29: I must say I am amazed at the lengths people will go to, to give the USA a clean chit on everything. Given, that the USA is a good place to live, and has provided many of us with wealth, but that does not mean it has done the same for many other countries.

Can you seriously tell me that the US would have gotten rid of Saddam right now, if he was still pro-USA. It got rid of him, because he is anti-USA. When he was pro-USA, all the points you mentioned about his atrocities, seemed immaterial to the USA.

``Lets be really coldbloodedly rational about this. What is the net increase in the number of Iraqi deaths? That is, what is the average number of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussain per six month period of his rule and compare that to the number of Iraqi deaths caused by US military action.``

This is a correct argument, only if the actual reason for the USA to invade Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussain, at the invitation of the Iraqis. This wasn`t the actual reason. There is no proof justifying this to be the actual reason. This has only become the reason, since there is no other justification left. In fact, the only reason presented to get rid of Saddam Hussain, himself, was WMD.

Iraq was actually a pretty good place to live, relatively speaking, even under Saddam, pre-Gulf War 1 and pre Iraq/Iran war. If you don`t believe me, then, please ask the Pakistanis who use to line up to migrate to Iraq. Apparenlty, it was a better place to live than Pakistan (or India). Or ask the Iraqis themselves. Or just ask Donald Rumsfeld, who visited their on Reagan`s behalf, in 1983, on a goodwill mission.

Since then, Iraq has been screwed by Saddam and by the USA. One cannot thus prefer one over the other. One has to put blame on both. The USA has succeeded in creating an either/or logic, which you seem to have bought into also, i.e. well, we are killing Iraqis, but they were dying anyways. This is dangerous logic. When the real solution is to get rid of both Saddam and US`s influence in Iraq. Saying that I killed four of your family members and someone else killed three, does not make that someone else a better person. The actual solution is to get rid of both.

If use your logic then the USA could justify invading so many countries in the world, for its own benefits.

Now to your individual comments:

``Do we attribute the 500,000+ Iraqi children deaths to Hussain or to the US/UN sanctions? I vote for Hussain``

Your vote is immaterial. It is the vote of the Iraqis that counts. One cannot just sanction a country into death. Iraq was being screwed by Saddam and furthur screwed by USA. The deaths do not negate each other. They add up. The USA knew full well that it was the Iraqi common person who was being effected by the sanctions. And not the ruling elites. Ruling elites never get affected by sanctions in any country. Yet it continued with them. Please read Madeline Albright`s comments, about it being worth it. I am surprised you can give the US such a clean chit. Why not blame both Saddam and USA? They are both responsible for the deaths of Iraqis.

After all, why didn`t the USA just get rid of Saddam after Gulf War 1? And why didn`t the USA install a democracy in Kuwait, after Gulf War 1, if demcracy in Middle East is so important? The Sabah family of Kuwait actually stayed in a US Sheraton, and was re-installed by the USA in Kuwait. Why sanction the country and then starve it, and then attack it ten years later, to get rid of the same person?

``Therefore, it is still better to look at his entire track record... before we decide.``

``Kurds gassed``

Could you point out the US stance when Saddam gased the Kurds? Could you also point out the US reaction to the Kurds killed by Turks. I can never figure out, why people start sympathesing with Kurds, just when they are needed to justify a military action. No one really cares about the Kurds. Much less the US govt. It would not be as closely allied with Saddam before and with the Turks, if it was concerned about the Kurds.

``Infants dying of malnutrition.``

Infants were actually quite healthy in Iraq, when there were no sanctions. The infants died as a direct result of sanctions. Infants were alright, even when Iraq was fighting Iran. So again another false excuse. Why is that the USA starts worrying about women under Taliban and infants dying in Iraq, right before it wants to invade. Why not worry about them before when it is supporting those regimes.

``Sunnis fed into the cannon`s mouth of the Iran-Iraq war, etc)``

What was the USA`s stance in Iran-Iraq war? Who was it supporting? Whom was it egging on? According to CIA`s head, during those days, the USA provided Saddam with sattelite photos of Irani troops during that war. A bit late to worry about Sunnis being fed to the cannon`s mouth.

Many of us were opposing Saddam when the US was pals with him. I now find it quite strange that the USA is all of a sudden so concerned about Iraqis, to help them out by getting rid of him. Obviously, the US interests lie somewhere else.

``So, now, are the Iraqis better off or worse off?``

You will have to ask the Iraqis. Which is my whole point. The neo-cons cannot decide this by thesmelves. And every Iraqi I have talked with does not trust the USA. Even the few who supported the invasion. And even the odd Kurds I have heard or run across, do not trust the USA.

The Iraqis will be worst off, if the USA is not kept in check and is allowed to install Challabi type invdividuals to rule over Iraq. After all, Saddam was a US ally at one time. The Iraqis will be better off, if the EU and rest of the world can keep the USA in check, under a microscope, and not let it get away with destroying Iraq furthur. Luckily, the resistance faced by the USA and the pressure by the EU has kept the USA in check.

Countries don`t, out of the blue, just invade another country, for the benefit of the citizens of that country. They do so, because they have ulterior motives. Like, maybe, did you consider that all this has something to do with Oil.

I think the Chaudhary of Chakwal is a confused main. One day he rails against sending troops to Iraq. Another day he thinks it okay as long as some stupendous amount of money is paid in. Dude needs to get a grip on reality.

I used to respect him but his emotionalism and constant whinying is a bit of a turn off.

{{
No Pakistan will not send its troops to Iraq even after the new UN resolution on the matter. Now expect to see the increased anti-Pakistani stance by the fanatic anti-Pakistani lobby in the USA.
}}
Dont be too sure!!! unless you are Mushi personified!!!

mmm... back to 6 headed Scylla.... u know the proverb about the dogs tail?
...my prev post...

-CC