Questions to ask supporters of US involvement in the Iraqi Civil War.

[hiaasenrocks]

The main question is: Who is the enemy?

Ask them. Then throw these at them:

Who is the enemy in Iraq? Are we fighting Sunni insurgents? Al Qaeda foreign fighters? Some mix of the two?

Are we fighting to secure a Shi'a government that would be aligned with those in the majority in Iran?

Are we fighting alongside only those who want a stable government, and if so, who makes up that group?

And what of the link between the freely-elected Maliki and Sadr's militia? How do we decide where to draw the line there?

If they can't answer these questions in a way that makes sense, ask them exactly why they're supporting something they can't even explain.

[patrice]

1. You're absolutely right. Many of them have extremely mistaken

notions about who the enemy is.

Your Socratic approach to revealing this is also way more effective than trying to bludgeon them into submission. It's possible to do this as a dialogue in which they do most of the talking and then your last question just knocks them off their feet. Very effective for any listeners too.

[hiaasenrocks]

2. I am in the process of conducting this exercise on another board that is

majority conservative. It's a board related to a college sports website forum, a sort of "other topics" board.

Anyway, no answers yet, and the questions were posted about 30 minutes ago...

[patrice]

3. That's a very good thing to do. Good luck!

I copied your questions into my note file and will try a LTTE based on them. It IS a fundamental issue I've noticed over and over when reading blogs where regular folks post. There is definitely a fundamental misunderstanding of who exactly it is that we are fighting in Iraq. Folks apparently think all Muslims are the same.

[hiaasenrocks]

8. I would be interested in seeing your LTTE, if you don't mind...

when you complete it. Sounds great!

Here's an update: going on two and a half hours now, and still no attempts to answer the questions on the other board I mentioned. LOL. I think we're onto something here...

:)

[Lord Byron]

4. There's no enemy. We're peacekeepers

It's like when Nazi Germany intervened in Yugoslavia to stop the Ustase (who were backed by Fascist Italy) from continuing their massacres of Serbs and also to stop the Serb Partisans and the Chetniks from avenging themselves. It's to prevent regional destabilization. Sometimes it hurts more than it helps.

In this case, it doesn't seem to be working.

[oblivious]

5. Peacekeepers? God, that's a stretch.

[uppityperson]

6. Prevent regional destabilization? Peacekeepers?

So peacekeeping, preventing regional destabilization actually makes more problems, since the region would've been better off not as stable as it is and not as peaceful as it is? War is Peace.

[Lord Byron]

7. We're supposed to be peacekeepers

We're SUPPOSED to disarm militant factions in a civil war. We don't have a specific enemy. And that makes it all the more difficult. Should we withdraw? I think so. Since we're obviously not going to be able to settle this ourselves.

[uppityperson]

10. Well, invading and occupying and causing the civil war sort of overrides

any "peacekeeping" that we can do now. Way over rides it.

[hiaasenrocks]

9. What "peace" are we trying to keep?

I think I know what you're saying, but with all due respect, I think that's a real stretch.