Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Iraq a mistake?

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

  • #31
    Wait...did Iraq sign the cease fire? Did the cease fire agreement include the no-fly zone? You're telling me that we need UN's sanction on the cease fire agreement now? If Iraq did not agree, why didn't it protest to the UN BEFORE signing
    The cease-fire agreement is or was codified through the UN resoultions. If you remember the first war it was authorized by the UN; making it a UN vs. Iraq war much similar to the Korean war. The no-fly zones were intially tri-laterally imposed on Iraq and then France dropped out and only the US and UK kept imposing them absent any resolution from the UN.

    We actively participated in WW2 when we were "neutral." We shot at, and killed the members of German military BEFORE Germany declared war on us. Roosevelt lied us into the war. We entered the war under false pretenses.
    Then Roosevelt should be blamed for it, not only would he be in violation of various US laws but also the Kellogg-Briand Act.

    So your information is better than the leading intelligence agencies of the world. Tell me, what is North Korea's capability? How about Iran? How far are they along? How much of a threat are they? Maybe we should put you as head of world intelligence.
    The issue isn't capability with these states its if they become a threat. Chemical weapons technology has been around since WWI, it isn't hard to develop, and there are some 40 countries who have nuclear technology. And no thanks on head of world intelligence if being an intelligence analyst breeds the type of arrogance Bluseman displays.

    Al Queda showed the world that you don't need ICBMs to strike at America. Do you want to take a chance of even the remotest possibility that AQ might get an unconventional weapon and launch it in America?
    Good interdiction efforts, improved intelligence, stepped-up border security tagreted assassination can all be used against terrorist organizations to improve our safety, and they all fall short of invading and occupying a country that didn't attack us.

    If anything, we know Saddam did not follow logic in his actions. He invaded Kuwait. No one thought he would do that. Did you know he's going to to that? He gassed his own people. He invaded Iran. He was a loose cannon, unlike the Soviet Union which we could predict with fair accuracy.
    Well Iraq did try to invade Kuwait before Saddam so there was precedent for it. He also made known his displeasure with the Kuwaiti regime via diplomatic channels.

    Resolution 1441
    Not an automatic trigger of force, there was no authorization for force, only serious consequences. The US had to go back to the UN to secure a second resolution to use force, something the US failed to do.

    How final is final? Is final opportunity the last resort? Or is it just before? What is the last resort? Usually military action is the last resort, unless it's the last last resort, a resort after last.
    Again further authorization from the UN was required.


    The Council passed resolution 1441 on November 12, 2002, but it provided no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq obstructed their activities. Russia, France and China have all stated they understood resolution 1441 permitted no automatic use of force. Subsequently, in fact, members of the Council were unwilling to adopt a proposed resolution that would authorize force to enforce Iraqi disarmament. Resolution 1441 states affirmatively that in the event of a material breach by Iraq of its obligations to cooperate, serious consequences would follow. But, again, the resolution does not say what serious consequences would follow. Nor did it provide any right of unilateral US/UK enforcement.

    The argument in the March 20 US letter to the Security Council that Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under resolution 687 resulted in the termination of that resolution is also problematic. Analogizing to multilateral treaties, the argument is that a material breach of the obligations terminated the formal cease-fire in resolution 687 and returned the parties to the pre-ceasefire legal situation, specifically the situation created by resolution 678. Resolution 678 allowed the use of "all necessary means," including, presumably, taking the defense of Kuwait to Baghdad and ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.

    Scholars raise at least three problems with this argument: first, resolutions are not treaties and do not automatically terminate upon material breach. Second, the argument that resolution 687 lapsed and resolution 678 revived is inconsistent with the legal position staked out by the US and UK for the last 12 years, and, third, resolution 678 never authorized the forcible change of Iraq's regime in the first place.


    ASIL Insights: Armed Force in Iraq, addendum

    http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

    There are SO MANY stupendously bad assertions being made here that it would take me all night to demolish them, not due to their reasoning, which is execrable, but just the sheer numbers of really awfully poorly-made points.
    Is this directed at me? Bluesman you may hold sway here but what I have read of your posts doesn't impress me. I respect your service and your beliefs but you come off as biased and arrogant, two traits that don't serve any analyst-intelligence or otherwise-well. I certainly hope you show a little more objectivity in your professional career than you do on the internet. I've often noticed in life those who yell the loudest have the least to say.

    Comment


    • #32
      Anyway regardless of the reasons for the war, it was done. I didn't see a national security imperative, but there are other rationale for the war; human rights, democracy, changing the Middle East. I have some philosophical objections to these reasons but that doesn't de-legitimize them as reasons for the war.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
        There are SO MANY stupendously bad assertions being made here that it would take me all night to demolish them, not due to their reasoning, which is execrable, but just the sheer numbers of really awfully poorly-made points.
        We'll wait....take your time...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
          Why yes, we should.
          What is stopping the US or anyone for that matter?

          Mugabwe is a candidate.

          And so is China!


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            Anyway regardless of the reasons for the war, it was done. I didn't see a national security imperative, but there are other rationale for the war; human rights, democracy, changing the Middle East. I have some philosophical objections to these reasons but that doesn't de-legitimize them as reasons for the war.
            I believe it improved our national security.

            I don't buy the human rights, democracy stuff. Those are just fringe benefits. We fight wars for our national interest. It's just that most of the time our national interests is better for this world than someone else's national interest.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              I believe it improved our national security.

              I don't buy the human rights, democracy stuff. Those are just fringe benefits. We fight wars for our national interest. It's just that most of the time our national interests is better for this world than someone else's national interest.
              Fair enough, if that is your opinion. Nothing will be solved by re-arguing the case or non-case for war at this point in time; the only thing to do is move forward.

              Comment


              • #37
                Ray Reply

                Brigadier,

                "What is stopping the US..."

                There are caveats- prudent and practical. China isn't prudent and Zimbabwe isn't practical.

                "...or anyone for that matter."

                Who else did you have in mind? Both India and Turkey could have been key additions to ISAF. Most everybody, it seems, prefers that we do these jobs and be weakened in the process.

                Contributions from others remain niggardly and less than generously offered.

                You'll therefore understand and appreciate that we're moving at best speed forward and shall get to those we've heretofore missed in due course. In a world of finite resources and infinite challenges, we do our best.

                Do others?
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by We The People View Post
                  My question was consiidering the overall results for America, was it the right move?

                  Oil price was under $20 before start if Iraqi freedom and is now threatening US/Western economies as it approcahed $150 p/b today. Iran will likely go nuclear in years ahead and has been one of the biggest benefactors from removal of Saddam as a new Iraq-Iran alliance emerges. What exactly did America/American people gain from removal of Saddam's bad, secular autocracy that would make the great cost of this exercise worth it?
                  You have two questions here. To the first, I believe that in terms of the overall results for America, it was the right move.

                  You second question doesn't follow. You ask what did American people gain from Saddam's removal. The reason this question don't follow is that our primary purpose in going into Iraq wasn't simply to overthrow Saddam. If it had been I would have voted no.

                  You cannot assess our going into Iraq without considering our vital interests. There are only 3 or 4 of them and our entire military and foreign policy rests on them. The two that influenced our going into Iraq were 1) to counter threats to our national security and 2) to protect access to our trading partners. I am not going to go into a lengthy analysis of why invading Iraq was a direct respone to threats on both counts. but if you study the expansion of the threat from Islamic fundamentalism & its primary tool, terrorism, to our security and our access to oil routes going back well before we entered Iraq, you will see that lack of action on our part would have allowed these threats to grow. 9/11 broke the camel's back. Iraq was not responsible for it, but taking the fight to the terrorists required a geographic center. Iraq proved ideal for this because its leader was anathema not only to the west but to the ME and it sat between the two principle state supporters of terrorism, Iran and Syria, both of which had ambitions for dominating a sphere of influence which was a threat to our trading routes: Syria over Lebanon and much more so Iran, whose ambition is to dominate the Gulf region through which most of the international trade in oil passes.

                  In light of that geopolicial picture, I voted yes, though to be honest I cringe at the innocent lives lost along the way. The question, however, comes down to Machievelli's dictum: a country that does not act forcefully to protect its interests is doomed.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Ray View Post
                    What is stopping the US or anyone for that matter?

                    Mugabwe is a candidate.

                    And so is China!
                    Not so, sir.

                    Mugabbee is a tinhorn tyrant, but no threat to the US. The US can and will work to see him topple, but unless he embarks on a massive ethnic cleansing, we won't send in troops.

                    China is a threat that can be countered by military strength like the USSR was. It's economic threat is competitive. It is a major trading partner. Just as with Japan econmic competition swings back and forth. There is no compelling need to take military action against China.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      To JAD & Other American Military Professionals,

                      Respectfully,

                      With the costs in lives and treasure this war in Iraq consumed, and the drain on available US military resources that it imposes, do you still feel that Iraq remains the most urgent threat to the USA, or at least a target that required immediate action? Do you in your professional opinion think that certain failings of US strategy in this campaign could and should have been avoided?
                      Last edited by Triple C; 21 Jul 08,, 18:59.
                      All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                      -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        [QUOTE=Triple C;519384]To JAD & Other American Military Professionals,

                        Respectfully,

                        With the costs in lives and treasure this war in Iraq consumed, and the drain on available US military resources that it imposes, do you still feel that Iraq remains the most urgent threat to the USA, or at least a target that required immediate action?
                        For whatever reasons may be cited for our involvement in Iraq, the fact remanins that we accomplished three things.
                        1.Unseated and executed a tyrannical regime.
                        2.Forced AQ to meet our armed forces on a battle ground instead of NYC or any other American soil.
                        3.Planted the seeds of democracy and freedom in a region otherwise devoid of such.

                        Do you in your professional opinion think that certain failings of US strategy in this campaign could and should have been avoided?
                        Absolutely. But to criticize for the purpose of blame is simply armchair quarterbacking and is not constructive. To learn from those mistakes is what needs to be focused on. When you say if certain problems "could have" been avoided, I would have to ask how. Because if they could have been avoided in the first place then I'm sure they would have or at least been tried to be avoided.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                          To JAD & Other American Military Professionals,

                          Respectfully,

                          With the costs in lives and treasure this war in Iraq consumed, and the drain on available US military resources that it imposes, do you still feel that Iraq remains the most urgent threat to the USA, or at least a target that required immediate action? Do you in your professional opinion think that certain failings of US strategy in this campaign could and should have been avoided?
                          "...do you still feel that Iraq remains the most urgent threat to the USA...?"

                          No, I've never felt that way. Iraq never was a direct threat to us and it still isn't. Your question reflects the way you think about the invasion of Iraq. In a way you are right. The invasion makes little sense if you think it was all about Iraq and Saddam. It makes more sense when you think about the whole Middle East and the political changes then taking hold in the region.

                          If you study the situation there as it existed in 2001 and trace back the evolution of the situation 50 years previous and then project forward to where it was heading, and might be by, say, 2012, you might have well concluded that the time had come to act forcefully to meet the threat posed by terrorism to the security of the US and its allies. Iraq was clearly not the sum total of that threat, but it was the lynchpin in derailing the threat because of its ideal geographical location. That it was led by a whacko only made it easier to go in.

                          Saddam had maintained the figleaf that he still had WMD long after he had little or none. His object was to give his neighbors pause should any of them be tempted to move on him. He did this despite UN resolutions that he rid himself of WMD by a date certain. Inspectors could find nothing, but given his deceptive behavior they could never be sure Iraq was clean.

                          Saddam fooled the world. He believed that the UN would never sanction military action to settle the issue once and for all. He might have gotten away with it if it weren't for 9/11. Once the US concluded diplomacy would not stop state sponsorship of terrorism in the ME, force was all that was left. Iraq was at the top of the list because it afforded a geograpical advantage in the region and took out an unpredicatable enemy.
                          Last edited by JAD_333; 22 Jul 08,, 01:12.
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            No, I've never felt that way. Iraq never was a direct threat to us and it still isn't. Your question reflects the way you think about the invasion of Iraq. In a way you are right. The invasion makes little sense if you think it was all about Iraq and Saddam. It makes more sense when you think about the whole Middle East and the political changes then taking hold in the region.
                            So why choose Iraq then to start this experiment of political change? Lebanon is more amenable to Western values and democracy, Saudi Arabia is more repressive, Egypt has more people and thus probably a wider middle class, Iran is a greater enemy of the US and used terrorism more efficiently than Iraq, Syria used terrorism against Israel more than Iraq did. Iraq seemed the least logical choice, what with its ethnic and religious divisions, the slow attrition of its middle class by sanctions and war, and its relative (to its neighbors) non-use of terrorism.
                            If you study the situation there as it existed in 2001 and trace back the evolution of the situation 50 years previous and then project forward to where it was heading, and might be by, say, 2012, you might have well concluded that the time had come to act forcefully to meet the threat posed by terrorism to the security of the US and its allies. Iraq was clearly not the sum total of that threat, but it was the lynchpin in derailing the threat because of its ideal geographical location. That it was led by a whacko only made it easier to go in.
                            But how big of a security threat was or is terrorism really? Sure there is al Qaeda but its operations were disrupted in Afghanistan, and it seemingly never operated in Iraq before the invasion. Beyond al Qaeda there was Hezbollah which is state sponsored by Iran, and whose last major attack against the US was in 1995. Beyond Hezbollah, (and al Qaeda) there isn't really an organized terrorist group that specifically targets Americans in the Middle East.

                            Israel is a different story but terrorism against Israel has been down since the Oslo Accords and also due to improved interdiction efforts there has been a decline in attacks.

                            Table of Contents
                            Fatal Terrorist Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles

                            Terrorism itself is not what it once was as state sponsorship has decreased since the end of the Cold War:

                            Total International Terrorist Attacks 1981-2003

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
                              So why choose Iraq then to start this experiment of political change?
                              Concerning the first part of your question, it was geography and legal pretext, but mostly geography. Political change was not the primary goal, but an important element in the rebuilding process.

                              Your use of the word "experiment" is cynical. If you go into this subject with an overly negative or positive attitude you get nowhere because you just end up reinforcing your opinion of the war. We have to be objective.

                              There are hundreds of considerations, large and small, to be weighed in deciding to go to war. You cannot isolate one consideration and use it to argue for or against the war. It all has to be taken together. You seem to see Iraq as a political "experiment", and appear to use your view to reject the whole rationale for the war. If that was the whole rationale, then you'd be right, because we have no business launching wars simply to bring about political change.

                              We could debate whether going to war was necessary. You seem to be going in that direction. Just keep in mind that to win on the con side, it would be necessary to prove that terrorism was not the growing threat to the security of the US and its allies that we thought it was. And that would have be done in the context of the dynamics in play in 2001-2002.

                              We can't use set-backs, mistakes, casualties, and cost as arguements because they are peripheral to the debate because they are indemic to all wars in some degree or another. Only by seeing things from the point of view of our national interests can we have a valid debate.

                              Nor is disagreeing with the set of national interests that form the basis of our foreign and military policy a valid argument. All nations more or less share the same vital interests, although not all have the same degree of power to enforce them. Countries that could but don't act to protect their basic interests fade into oblivion.

                              Mindset determines everything. We have in this country many people who are opposed to war as a matter of conscience. No argument will sway them. When faced with a threat to our security or keeping the sea lanes open, they would have us use diplomacy ad infinitum or retreat into isolationism. Nothing in their view justifies war.

                              If these people become a majority, they can alter our national interests and eliminate war as an instrument of countering threats. If that were to happen, we would be arguing the same set of dynamics but reacting differently.

                              We might concede to Iran its right to build nukes or recognize its control of the Straits of Hormuz. We might cease being an ally to Israel, quit NATO, abandon the Monroe Doctrine, stop all arms shipments. We might open our borders to free immigration. We might defer to the UN in all international matters. However, until then...


                              Lebanon is more amenable to Western values and democracy, Saudi Arabia is more repressive, Egypt has more people and thus probably a wider middle class, Iran is a greater enemy of the US and used terrorism more efficiently than Iraq, Syria used terrorism against Israel more than Iraq did. Iraq seemed the least logical choice, what with its ethnic and religious divisions, the slow attrition of its middle class by sanctions and war, and its relative (to its neighbors) non-use of terrorism.
                              Pretext and geography made Iraq the best choice.


                              But how big of a security threat was or is terrorism really? Sure there is al Qaeda but its operations were disrupted in Afghanistan, and it seemingly never operated in Iraq before the invasion. Beyond al Qaeda there was Hezbollah which is state sponsored by Iran, and whose last major attack against the US was in 1995. Beyond Hezbollah, (and al Qaeda) there isn't really an organized terrorist group that specifically targets Americans in the Middle East.
                              Well, we may never find out. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't, isn't it. Had we not acted, we can only assume that the growth of organizations like Hezbollah and AQ would have continued on track and at some point countering them would have become much more difficult. But we'll never know. What if we had stayed out of WWII?


                              Israel is a different story but terrorism against Israel has been down since the Oslo Accords and also due to improved interdiction efforts there has been a decline in attacks.

                              Table of Contents
                              Fatal Terrorist Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles
                              The frequency of attack is down but not the magnitude of them, which would suggest that these groups were becoming better organized and equipped, and therefore more of a threat.

                              Terrorism itself is not what it once was as state sponsorship has decreased since the end of the Cold War:

                              Total International Terrorist Attacks 1981-2003
                              [/QUOTE]

                              Yeah, the Soviets got out of the business, but if you localize terrorism to the ME and ME-grown organizations and consider their decision to target the US and its allies, the threat was increasing from our perspective.
                              Last edited by JAD_333; 22 Jul 08,, 06:43.
                              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                                To JAD & Other American Military Professionals,

                                Respectfully,

                                With the costs in lives and treasure this war in Iraq consumed, and the drain on available US military resources that it imposes, do you still feel that Iraq remains the most urgent threat to the USA, or at least a target that required immediate action? Do you in your professional opinion think that certain failings of US strategy in this campaign could and should have been avoided?
                                Triple C,

                                I would quibble with the construction of the first part of your question. The lives and funds that have been sacrificed should have no bearing on the future decisions about Iraq, except to inform policymakers about what the potential future costs may. They are "sunk" costs that cannot be recovered.

                                Thus, the equation is not past costs + future costs < or > future benefits, but rather, are future costs < or > future benefits.

                                So, I'd pose your first question as to whether the costs of leaving are greater than the costs of staying, which is a gross oversimplification since there are options in between those two extremes, but it removes the distortion from the phrase "the most urgent threat".

                                To answer your second half, there have absolutely been mistakes, to include the fact that there really wasn't a resourced grand strategy developed, and even though we have a grand strategy developed now, it still isn't properly resourced in most minds, leading to an inbalanced use of the instruments of national power.
                                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X