Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Assessing the Decision to Intervene in Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    There is no way in hell that US would withdraw from the Middle East as long as oil remains a primary strategic concern. Simply put, Middle East currently contains 60% of well known explored reserves of oil capable of supplying the world's demands for close to a century. Oil is the lifeblood of America's economy and the rest of the world.

    As for Israel, there's a limit to everything. If America have decided that the costs of being Israel's friend outweighs significantly the benefits and the internal desire of assuaging US's deserved or not guilt about WWII Holocaust, then she will bluntly tell Israel you are on your own. But I don't think it will come to that in the near future because, in Middle East, only one country with a powerful military and economy is stable and that is Israel. Dubai is stable country but is not a strong military power or even an economic power. Saudi Arabia is a strong economic power but is militarily weak and the regime is not that stable.

    So after looking at all these, I am not surprised if the Bush Administration saw a golden opportunity to create a Germany or Japan , preferably, out of an Arab state, namely, Iraq. The US tried to do that with Iran and failed spectacularly and miserably. The Bush adminsistration thought Iraq was different because it did not display any symptoms of the Islamic ideology that the Bush Administration found anathema. Granted, the Bush administration did not understand the Iraq culture that well but neither did US understood the German culture or the Japanese culture. It was only after the invasion of Germany and Japan did America strive to understand either country's culture. They did make mistakes and they did encounter levels of insurgencies that would give Americans pause if given the information. I am sure if you were to study the history of US occupation in Germany and Japan, the level of casaulties received by US troops would be comparable to present day occupation of Iraq.

    Simply put, Iraq is going through the necessary growing pains that had been put on hold when Saddam overthrew the regime in 1980 and when the Baathist party took power during the 70s. Take a look at India when it became independence. India got partitioned and suffered a lot of casaulties through its growing pain stage. India still suffers from spates of violence in the NE sector and Maoist insurgency across several states.

    Yes the Bush administration made a lot of mistakes, some of them that should have not been made and was costly. However, I do not think that we are heading into a quagmire and we still have the ability to repair the situation and set Iraq on a course that will be viable and sustainable. We just have to "hold our ground and face the onslaught and stand ready" however that does not mean we stand blindly at the onslaught but we take steps to ensure that we come out on top.

    Whether the Iraq invasion is worth it or not will be answered by the historians not by us because the effects, consequences, and changes are too, how do I put it, too spatially close to us that we can only see the trees, not the forest.

    My advice to you, Stephen Metz, to instead of writing another book joining countless others of saying, "We told you so. Here's the problem" and identifying the problem but really proposing no solutions, and then patting on themselves as if they were geniuses for pointing out the problems not coming up with workable solutions and putting them into practice, that you write a book of how you would solve the current Iraqi problems today and what steps you propose to take to rectify the situation. That would be a far more effective way of getting your views out there.
    I posted a few pages of a 500 page manuscript so let me suggest that wasn't really enough for those who looked at this thread to draw assessments (and make critiques) about what the book does or doesn't do.

    It is not, though, recommendations on how to solve the current problem. Such a book would have a shelf life of a few months so it's unlikely that a publisher would be interested.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by SteveMetz View Post
      ...The administration made other assumptions that I consider weak at best. Here's what I think is an accurate summary of the administration's case (drawn from my book chapter)...
      If your book is about the public face of the Bush's case for the military overthrow of Saddam, then your summary is complete, accurate and and historically useful to those who have not debated the topic ad nauseum, as we have here.

      But if your book is about the real reasons we went to war in Iraq, then you'll need to go beyond the WMD syndrome and view the entire picture starting from 1947 when Israel was created through to 9/11, when we finally "got ours" as the Islamic world would say. Having failed for decades to establish a peaceful place for Israel in the ME and watching instead the diehard opponents in the region gain strength until they finally found a way to inflict real pain on us, we finally realized that there is no other solution than a military one.

      Iraq just happened to be ideal starting point, in part because of its geographical location, but more so because of its suspect record on WMD and brutal leadership. The point I hope to make is that our vital interests in the ME were being increasingly threatened as time passed and that 9/11 not only illustrated that in a very graphic way, but gave us the opening we needed to reverse our weakening position in the ME.

      The case on WMD put forth to the American people as an excuse to take out Saddam was far easier to argue than the geopolitical case. Unfortunately, it turned out to be all wrong. So, we find ourselves in a war being fought for the right reasons, but started for the wrong reasons. As someone suggested earlier, it would be good if someone wrote a book taking in the whole panoply, not just starting at the moment of decision.
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
        If your book is about the public face of the Bush's case for the military overthrow of Saddam, then your summary is complete, accurate and and historically useful to those who have not debated the topic ad nauseum, as we have here.

        But if your book is about the real reasons we went to war in Iraq, then you'll need to go beyond the WMD syndrome and view the entire picture starting from 1947 when Israel was created through to 9/11, when we finally "got ours" as the Islamic world would say. Having failed for decades to establish a peaceful place for Israel in the ME and watching instead the diehard opponents in the region gain strength until they finally found a way to inflict real pain on us, we finally realized that there is no other solution than a military one.

        Iraq just happened to be ideal starting point, in part because of its geographical location, but more so because of its suspect record on WMD and brutal leadership. The point I hope to make is that our vital interests in the ME were being increasingly threatened as time passed and that 9/11 not only illustrated that in a very graphic way, but gave us the opening we needed to reverse our weakening position in the ME.

        The case on WMD put forth to the American people as an excuse to take out Saddam was far easier to argue than the geopolitical case. Unfortunately, it turned out to be all wrong. So, we find ourselves in a war being fought for the right reasons, but started for the wrong reasons. As someone suggested earlier, it would be good if someone wrote a book taking in the whole panoply, not just starting at the moment of decision.
        I think I gave the wrong impression by throwing out a tiny sliver of a big project. The preface might give a little better picture of the overall approach.
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by SteveMetz View Post
          I think I gave the wrong impression by throwing out a tiny sliver of a big project. The preface might give a little better picture of the overall approach.
          Judging by the preface and your firsthand experience, I would be a willing reader of the finished product. I couldn't tell from it how far ranging you will be in tracing the reasons for Iraq. I'll take your word that it will go beyond the WMD case. Well written and enticing. When is publication?
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • #50
            I'm probably reading you wrong (and I absolutely KNOW you're reading ME wrong, if you imagine I'm using 'Limbaugh-isms'), but it seems you advocate doing what aQ wants, in order to spare us the conflict with 'em.

            I know you'll deny saying that, but really, aren't you advocating not provoking them by leaving the region as soon as we're able? I mean, is that not THEIR objective, to drive us from Muslim lands? And have they not threatened to do exactly as they've done until we do exactly as the demand? So, when we withdraw under the Metz Doctrine, will Sheikh Osama not look even MORE the Lion of Islam to the Arab Street? He rightly took credit for driving the Soviets from Afghanistan, but it's equally significant to a Muslim that evaluates him that he can plausibly claim to have driven the US from the Holy Places. Oh, I know, we left of our own volition; I know that. I'm talking about PERCEPTION, here, and frankly, I don't want to help ObL load his guns that he's using to such great effect in the Information Operations battle anymore than we already have.

            If we withdraw, we'll do exactly that, and that's one thing that Carter never figured out: look weak and act weak, and you ARE weak.

            I read what you wrote re: the stupidity of doing something just because somebody may dare you to, and it was related to my assertion that American rights and freedom of action in the region (an ENLIGHTENED view, not, as you may imagine me advocating agressive war for any pretext). Well, I still believe that not being chased away and withdrawing so that we can allow aQ to climb down and not kill anymore of us is a principle worthy of the current effort, whether we need any of the region's resources or not. Like the 'freedom of navigation' operations against illegally-claimed territorial waters don't net us anything, but invite any amount of risk to ourselves, there IS a point to asserting our rights and perogotives, and this is particularly true when threatened violently if we do NOT surrender those rights.

            In short, I'm not inclined to run from the likes of THEM, and every single time we DO, it just gets harder to fight 'em.

            You may not like Rumsfeld, but here's a great quote that's absolutely true: 'Weakness IS a provocation.'

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
              I'm probably reading you wrong (and I absolutely KNOW you're reading ME wrong, if you imagine I'm using 'Limbaugh-isms'), but it seems you advocate doing what aQ wants, in order to spare us the conflict with 'em.

              I know you'll deny saying that, but really, aren't you advocating not provoking them by leaving the region as soon as we're able? I mean, is that not THEIR objective, to drive us from Muslim lands? And have they not threatened to do exactly as they've done until we do exactly as the demand? So, when we withdraw under the Metz Doctrine, will Sheikh Osama not look even MORE the Lion of Islam to the Arab Street? He rightly took credit for driving the Soviets from Afghanistan, but it's equally significant to a Muslim that evaluates him that he can plausibly claim to have driven the US from the Holy Places. Oh, I know, we left of our own volition; I know that. I'm talking about PERCEPTION, here, and frankly, I don't want to help ObL load his guns that he's using to such great effect in the Information Operations battle anymore than we already have.

              If we withdraw, we'll do exactly that, and that's one thing that Carter never figured out: look weak and act weak, and you ARE weak.

              I read what you wrote re: the stupidity of doing something just because somebody may dare you to, and it was related to my assertion that American rights and freedom of action in the region (an ENLIGHTENED view, not, as you may imagine me advocating agressive war for any pretext). Well, I still believe that not being chased away and withdrawing so that we can allow aQ to climb down and not kill anymore of us is a principle worthy of the current effort, whether we need any of the region's resources or not. Like the 'freedom of navigation' operations against illegally-claimed territorial waters don't net us anything, but invite any amount of risk to ourselves, there IS a point to asserting our rights and perogotives, and this is particularly true when threatened violently if we do NOT surrender those rights.

              In short, I'm not inclined to run from the likes of THEM, and every single time we DO, it just gets harder to fight 'em.

              You may not like Rumsfeld, but here's a great quote that's absolutely true: 'Weakness IS a provocation.'
              "Is it your position that aQ thrives because there's not enough daycare centers and dental clinics?" = Limbaughism
              "And again, I think that's the accepted narrative from the Washington Post's editorial board"= Limbaughism

              I expected a little higher level of discourse here than the kind of adolescent "You're a dumb liberal" remarks.

              What I was suggesting above is that I don't find the argument persuasive that if we disengage, AQ will trumpet it as a victory. If we stay engaged, they use it to prove American imperialism. Which do you think is going to generate more recruits and more donations—that the infidels are on sacred soil killing Muslim women and children, or that the infidels left the land of Islam and that shows our strength? What that comes down to is whether most of AQ supporters do so because they think they are defending Muslims against infidels, or because they want to conquer the world. I personally think it's the former. If so, disengagement makes the most strategic sense. Phrased differently, just because your enemy will taunt you if you withdraw doesn't in itself make withdrawal the wrong decision. Well, it might in a junior high school fight, but not in strategy.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by SteveMetz View Post
                What I was suggesting above is that I don't find the argument persuasive that if we disengage, AQ will trumpet it as a victory. If we stay engaged, they use it to prove American imperialism. Which do you think is going to generate more recruits and more donations—that the infidels are on sacred soil killing Muslim women and children, or that the infidels left the land of Islam and that shows our strength? What that comes down to is whether most of AQ supporters do so because they think they are defending Muslims against infidels, or because they want to conquer the world. I personally think it's the former. If so, disengagement makes the most strategic sense. Phrased differently, just because your enemy will taunt you if you withdraw doesn't in itself make withdrawal the wrong decision. Well, it might in a junior high school fight, but not in strategy.
                There are four areas of contention within Islam as regards America.
                Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
                Whether or not AQ trumpets a withdrawal from Iraq as a victory, or whether that doesn't matter because it's juvenile not strategic, the resentment over the other three still remains. So where is the strategic gain?
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by SteveMetz View Post
                  "Is it your position that aQ thrives because there's not enough daycare centers and dental clinics?" = Limbaughism
                  "And again, I think that's the accepted narrative from the Washington Post's editorial board"= Limbaughism

                  I expected a little higher level of discourse here than the kind of adolescent "You're a dumb liberal" remarks.

                  What I was suggesting above is that I don't find the argument persuasive that if we disengage, AQ will trumpet it as a victory. If we stay engaged, they use it to prove American imperialism. Which do you think is going to generate more recruits and more donations—that the infidels are on sacred soil killing Muslim women and children, or that the infidels left the land of Islam and that shows our strength? What that comes down to is whether most of AQ supporters do so because they think they are defending Muslims against infidels, or because they want to conquer the world. I personally think it's the former. If so, disengagement makes the most strategic sense. Phrased differently, just because your enemy will taunt you if you withdraw doesn't in itself make withdrawal the wrong decision. Well, it might in a junior high school fight, but not in strategy.
                  Oh, blow me.

                  Just kiddin'.

                  Seriously, you ARE reading me wrong.

                  I'll call you, if that's alright. I find that this 'over-and-out' typing to one another is a terrible means for actually communicating subtle and meaningful ideas, so if you don't mind, I can try the only practical medium that may serve to bridge the gap that this simply won't cover. Cool?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                    I'll call you, if that's alright. I find that this 'over-and-out' typing to one another is a terrible means for actually communicating subtle and meaningful ideas, so if you don't mind, I can try the only practical medium that may serve to bridge the gap that this simply won't cover. Cool?
                    Steve,
                    I highly recommend talking to Bluesman over the phone. You'll rarely - if ever - find a more intellectually stimulating and enjoyable conversationalist. :)
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Dr. Metz, don't listen to HIM; I have photos of him in my hot tub, and he's afraid of me.;)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by SteveMetz View Post
                        What I was suggesting above is that I don't find the argument persuasive that if we disengage, AQ will trumpet it as a victory.
                        There's is a danger both in playing the perception card and in rejecting it. On the one hand, arguing for further sacrifice in life and resource for the sake of image alone is wrongheaded IMO. But what if the image itself is the difference between winning and losing? If we disengage and AQ claims victory, which undoubtedly they will, the chances are that the Islamic world will endorse their claim in the convoluted way opinion is shaped in the ME. Then the question becomes, what affect would a restored AQ that have on our interests in the ME and our ability to influence events in the region? If right image is condusive to success on the larger stage, then it seems to me the sacrifice is justified.


                        If we stay engaged, they use it to prove American imperialism.
                        That depends on how we leave Iraq. We're already imperialists in their eyes and that won't change if we leave before the job is done. But if we leave behind a restored and vibrant Iraq, we'll give imperialism a better image,:) not that burnishing the word imperialism should remotely be a goal.

                        Which do you think is going to generate more recruits and more donations—that the infidels are on sacred soil killing Muslim women and children, or that the infidels left the land of Islam and that shows our strength?
                        hmmm...well, it doesn't surprise me that our enemy has friends who are willing to help their cause, but I wonder what mainstream Muslims think about their own brethern killing Muslim women and childen intentionally with suicide bombs and nighttime executions.

                        What that comes down to is whether most of AQ supporters do so because they think they are defending Muslims against infidels, or because they want to conquer the world.
                        I think you're over-simplifyng the picture. Sure, many AQ supporters are devout Muslims who sincerely buy into the infidel line, but the leadership exploits Islam for political goals which are unmistakeably a threat to us and our allies. So the question comes down to, how does AQ revive the foward movement it had before we hamstrung it in Afganistan and Iraq? One way, is for us to loosen the noose and depart allowing it to come out of the shadows as the victor and continue the fight against us.
                        Last edited by JAD_333; 27 Nov 07,, 04:47.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Better than I could have said it.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                            Better than I could have said it.
                            I don't know about that, but does it mean I get a dip in the hot tub.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                              I don't know about that, but does it mean I get a dip in the hot tub.
                              C'mon over; suit optional. Drinkin', NOT.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                                C'mon over; suit optional. Drinkin', NOT.
                                Thanks. I'm putting that down as primo places to visit next time I get to shakey town.:))
                                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X