Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Iraq a mistake?

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

  • #61
    I wonder what he would say about the link between Nasrallah and Hezbollah in Turkey, or Hezbollah in Mauritius? I guess there is a big Hezbollah consipracy out there.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Stan187 View Post
      Where does the Intifada fit into that assertion?
      The Intifada was an upswing in violence but only temporary, the link I used showed that by 2002 the violence had subsided. As for the number of casualties that number has decreased since 2002 as well, dramatically:

      Victims of Palestinian Terror since Sept 2000

      On the whole, historically, Israel has not suffered too badly from terrorism:

      Terrorism deaths in Israel- 1920-1999

      The attacks in the 2000s have been less but, in '01 and '02 there was an increase in casualties probably due to better technology in bomb-making, and genuine Palestinan anger over al-Aqsa. But better interdiction efforts by Israelis, the death of Arafat, and the subsiding of Palestinan anger have all led to a decrease in both attacks and casualties since then.

      Comment


      • #63
        No point in wrestling over terminology. Call it an experiment; call it a plan element. Bottom line, when the dust settles, it cannot be business as usual. The best possible result is to leave a functioning democracy behind. Democracy may be alien to much of the ME, but even Saddam made a pretense at it, so it's not entirely an aberation in the arab mind.
        The best possible result is to leave behind a valuable and loyal ally, that aligns with the US's interests. Democracies are notriously fickle given their make-up, dictatorships can be more reliable, but then they too can be fickle. I think the main problem I have with it is that a democratic Iraq is assumed to be peaceful with its neighbors, and I think that is a dubious assumption.

        Not at all. The debate always begins from fundamental national interests. That does not mean the debators will arrive at the same conclusion. The contention is always: Is the current state of events beyond the ability of diplomacy or other peaceful means to resolve, and if so, do they present a threat to our vital interests sufficient to warrant the use of force to alter them in our favor?
        But how is invading and occupying a country that did not attack us (by your own assertions) fundamental to our national security? Because of its geography, yes, but that is pretty cynical. And this is to deal with a problem (terrorism) that relative to say communism, or Nazism has killed very few people. Deal with the terrorists yes through a variety of ways; sanctions, assassinations, rendtion, internatioanl pressure, etc. But not through the one thing that terrorists compalin the most about and give them more fodder; invasion and occupation.

        I am sorry, but this is splitting hairs. AQ was in Afghanistan because he was hounded out of the ME and had nowhere else to go. Islamic fundamentalism main breeding grounds is the ME and if you are going to go after terrorism, state sponsored or otherswise, that's where you have to go--first to neutralize or moderate the state sponsors and second to bolster the others so they will act against Islamic terror group operating on their territory. Saddam had to go first and his loss was not particularly mourned by countries that had felt the effects of Salladin-like ambitions--Iran, SA, Kuwait--and other relatively stable ME countries.
        Well AQ and bin Laden were hounded out of the ME about 5 years before 9/11, so they did plan and execute all of their major attacks from Afghanistan; Embassy bombings, Cole, 9/11. I would also take issue with likening Saddam's invasion of those countries with Saladin-like ambition. Those conflicts predated Saddam's tenure. Saddam brought them to a head yes, but nothing post-Gulf War suggested that Saddam could or would attack his neiighbors, and anyway that is a completely different reason to invade, from terrorism.


        What's to debate? They are enshrined in US policy like the Ten Commandments. You can disagree with them, but that doesn't change them.
        They are, if you will, the constitutional basis of our foreign and military policy.
        So are the policy perscriptions enshrined as well? Does preemptive war have a constitutional basis? The only precedent in American history is the Caroline incident and that was just the take-over of one ship. http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconte...ntext=expresso

        Well, yes, you can disagree on policy but whatever policy finally emerges, it had better be compatible with out national interests or we are going to be in trouble when the poo hits the fan.
        I have no disagreement with that.

        You speak of something different. I was speaking to the principle of democratic decision making, e.g., IF a majority opposed war as the ultimate solution to a threat, they could create a new set of national interests that reflect that. I meant to underscore the principle and to show where it could lead.
        Well then the US should be very careful with the use of force, and not use it frivolously lest that majority arises.

        I respect your personal opinion. I don't accept it, however, because I don't believe we can on this thread lay out a comprehensive picture of the status quo and the direction it was moving in the ME at the time. We don't have full access to intel. But one thing is sure, there are many more groups than AQ and there is/was a surging fundamentalist jihadist movement being stoked at the mosque level.
        If that is the case, and I am not saying it isn't, the answer to this rising fundamentalism is to shove tanks and and bombs down their throats? We are going to change a violent culture with more violence? Islamic fundamentalism is nothing new, even vitrolic strains of it. Gen. Gordon fought the whirling dervishes at Khartoum. Yes, we should kill the bad guys, but prevention through education, public relations, interdiction should be tried to head off potential recruits in the mosques.

        Lack of caution leads to accidents in the workplace; precaution prevents accidents, or does it? In the absense of accidents we can only assume that precaution prevents them. So when people complain of the cost of precaution, what do the advocate of precaution have to justify the cost and effort?
        We should be cautious, but not go overboard. If country A has the potential to do unspecified bad things to unspecified other countries that may include the US and/or its allies, is war an absolute necessity to deal with country A? I know the arguments for the war, Saddam had 6 billion chances to come clean, 9/11 changed everything, its better to be strong and wrong then weak and right, etc. I've heard it all. But the converse WWII analogy could also be used. To be too aggressive, too willing to wage preemptive war, and then find the pretext for said war was not as valid as you believed, what are the consequences then? Iran develops or is developing or could develop nuclear weapons, and yet the US hesitates.

        You point being...?
        My point being that the violence against Israel is not that bad, but I've addressed that already.

        Comment


        • #64
          good and bad in both ways depends on how u look at it

          bad because
          • saddam was a socialist and had no relation whatsoever to 9/11.
          • al queda and the various other islamist fanatics were never in iraq.
          • iran was not filled with the chest beating bravado and threats of violenece it has now.
          • a perfectly stable country was destabilized
          • kurds weren't being killed because of the US-UK no fly zones
          • gitmo, abu-grahib, haditha, blackwater, rendition flights just to name a few of the serious flaws that affected america's moral standing in the world
          • there were no nukes


          good because
          • a dictatorship was pulled down
          • democracy would flourish
          • more freedom
          • though iraq would be a success if it weren't for incompetent policies by the bush administration and especially bush who had a lot of problem acknowledging Intel failure and the rise of ethnic violence that could well be defined as civil war.
          • but on the other hand the violence has gone down since the surge al queda is on the run again fighting for survival in iraq
          • the govt is starting to take on a life of its own without constant US prodding in getting the iraqis to start governing themselves


          lets just hope the next president is sensible enough to stay in iraq till its stable and strong enough to fend for itself and gets out of iraq and moves on to Afghanistan once the job is done

          Comment


          • #65
            All in all, I would say yes. It took our resources, both militarily and those of "spirit" and tied them in a region of the world that was not the focus of the counter attack. Further, it has given much momentum to those who want to essentially turn 180 and ignore that there are terrorist forces that wish to harm the US......and stopping warfare and building hospitals instead is not going to change their mind about harming the US (although it "might" influence their own cultures against them).

            Personally, instead of getting involved in a war, I believe we should have worked with the security forces of other countries to approach terrorism and should it had been necessary to remove Saddam, then that action should have been the option of Iraq's neighbors.

            Now, all that said, essentially we cannot just say we aren't going to fight anymore and turn away. We've made a mess of the situation and I don't know how we can solve it the quickest ....... but we have to solve it. We can't just quit.
            _____________________________________________
            ("What did you say? He's going to kill us all?"--Insp. Clouseau about Colonel Sharky
            "Well, unless you can convince him to change his mind."--Sir Charles Litton, (w,stte), "Return of the Pink Panther")

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by SnowLeopard View Post
              Personally, instead of getting involved in a war, I believe we should have worked with the security forces of other countries to approach terrorism and should it had been necessary to remove Saddam, then that action should have been the option of Iraq's neighbors.
              So who do you suggest to remove Saddam? Iran?
              "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


              • #67
                Originally posted by Shek View Post
                So who do you suggest to remove Saddam? Iran?
                More likely Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. Although the war between Iran and Iraq, while horrible, did "nicely" tie up the two.
                _____________________________________
                ("You need a bag man? Me?"--Insp. Callahan, (wtte), "Dirty Harry")
                Last edited by SnowLeopard; 30 Jul 08,, 13:18.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by SnowLeopard View Post
                  More likely Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. Although the war between Iran and Iraq, while horrible, did "nicely" tie up the two.
                  _____________________________________
                  ("You need a bag man? Me?"--Insp. Callahan, (wtte), "Dirty Harry")
                  Do you honestly think that any of the above would have engaged in a war against Iraq to remove Saddam, and if so, could you place a % on the probability of them doing so? Thanks.
                  "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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Shek View Post
                    Do you honestly think that any of the above would have engaged in a war against Iraq to remove Saddam, and if so, could you place a % on the probability of them doing so? Thanks.
                    Well, since we are talking vast hypotheticals here......the Saudis might have, with our money at least, because he did tend to worry them. Jordan and Turkey might have if he concerned them enough to their own security.

                    Maybe, could be, if. All rather a moot point now. But both between not tying down US resources and world opinion, having the local neighbors do the dirty deed could have been a better solution.

                    After all, it was Tanzania that ousted Idi Amin.....and who complains about that?

                    Hypothetically.
                    _________________________________________________
                    ("It may be possible to recharge our crystals using photons, hypothetically."--Spock
                    "Where would we find such photons, hypothetically?"--Kirk, (wtte), ST IV: TJH)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Shek View Post
                      So who do you suggest to remove Saddam? Iran?
                      Sir,

                      The core assumption therein would seem to be that removal of Mr. Hussein was an imperative to begin with. In strategic terms, there is most certainly reasonable doubt that such was not the case.

                      Critically and objectively, one might rate the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a mistake at the strategic level: Mr. Bush chose to trade predictability and stability for uncertainty and instability.

                      On a more practical level, the Iraq war would appear to be a mistake for the fact that we chose to threaten Mr. Hussein's supreme interests at a juncture where our supreme interests were clearly not threatened. On a related note to this idea, Mr. Hussein had less to lose than the U.S. did/does which flys in the face of the admonition of the Ancients about Princes doing business with paupers.

                      We wagered blood and treasure against a few coppers and pocket lint and ended up launching a frontal assault against an ammunition dump occupied by hostiles with the whole shebang located squarely on a piece of real estate that has been a well known mantrap since Chalcolithic times.

                      Various arguments have been put forth that the war was not a mistake because Saddam was a bad man and did terrible things, we were making the World safe for Democracy, etc., but ultimately these appeal more to the emotions than the intellect.

                      When we strip the whole mess of all of the verbage and look at it clinically, we arrive at the exact same questions that Gibbon says were on the minds of Imperial power brokers when considering war: "What might we get out of it?" and "What will the other fellow do to us?". Neither of these questions has been satisfactorily answered as near as I can tell so I lean more towards the Mesopotamian Campaign being a mistake though I will certainly entertain arguments to the contrary.

                      Simply put, I never did see a convincing cost v. benefit analysis.

                      Straying from topic slightly, now might be a good time to consider the net result of two hundred years of Western military intervention in the region at the front of the last Millenium: the power and influence of the entities that launched the Crusades was broken and the Middle East looked about the same in 1200 as it did in 1000.

                      We have been engaged in Iraq for five years and I am not convinced the impact in the region has been particularly satisfactory from and interests and policy standpoint up to this point. The ardour of Pan Islamic radicals is not exactly dampened even though we shot a bunch of 'em in Iraq, regional actors are still pursuing WMD capabilities, medium to long term energy security for our European and Asian allies is still in doubt, competing Great Powers are pushing forward their agendas in the region to our expense, etc.

                      For all of our high hopes, the valor of our volunteers, American ingenuity and hard work, the cooperation of our Allies and whatnot it seems the Middle East is going to look about the same in 2010 as it did in 2000.

                      Best regards,

                      William
                      Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        SwiftSword Reply

                        "...it seems the Middle East is going to look about the same in 2010 as it did in 2000."

                        I don't see it. Both Iraq and Afghanistan look far different than in 2000, right now, and promise a continuing transformation- however slow by our impatient standards- that will only accentuate the differences between 2000.

                        If all goes right.

                        As to cost-benefit, 9/11 made clear the cost of the status quo ante. A paradigm shift was/is required and transformation (the unspoken neo-con rationale) remains paramount as the downstream benefit.

                        Change is necessary. This is one geo-strategic region which needs it's apple-carts turned over. The process of our good work continues...:)
                        "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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                          I don't see it. Both Iraq and Afghanistan look far different than in 2000, right now, and promise a continuing transformation- however slow by our impatient standards- that will only accentuate the differences between 2000.
                          Hello S-2,

                          Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan look different, but look along their borders: terrorists are still terrorizing, plotters are still plotting, proliferators are still proliferating, the U.S. is still propping up autocratic regimes, etc. Regionally, the status quo appears to be in full force.

                          Too, even if Iraq and Afghanistan look different, a lot of demographic parameters and other metrics appear to be unchanged. Toppling a government and installing a new one might not be as much of a change as it appears.

                          If all goes right.
                          Over the last Century, the U.S. has failed at nation building on the order of 4:1. All going right would be exceptional, not normal, based on what we already know.

                          As to cost-benefit, 9/11 made clear the cost of the status quo ante.
                          Does it?

                          Instability and uncertainty in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan that can be attributed to U.S. action would seem to favor transnational, violent non state actors.

                          Ultimately, when you get down to the brass tacks, Pan Islam and the Bush Administration are working to the same goal: a network of weak states susceptible to overarching, transnational control and/or meddling.

                          The United States handed al Qaeda a major strategic victory and we are extremely lucky that bin Laden's people were more inept than all the President's men on that occasion because they were unable to exploit it in their mindless lust for blood.

                          Furthermore, replacing strong, authoritarian regimes with weak, proto democracies is not exactly helpful to the counter terrorism cause because the latter class of regimes is historically the least able to combat terrorism.

                          Too, creating a power vacum of such a great convenience to the Iranians did not exactly do great things for U.S. interests. We solved a whole bunch of problems for them.

                          A good case can be made that the old status quo was a superior framework within which to combat the transnational terror problem.

                          If rolling back terrorism was the agenda, then regime change in Iraq in Afghanistan was contraindicated.

                          A paradigm shift was/is required and transformation (the unspoken neo-con rationale) remains paramount as the downstream benefit.
                          Those Neocons think they can defeat an abacus with a sword which is usually the sign of a pretty dim bunch.

                          They also have not managed to grasp the the meaning of what the Arabs say about sand which means they are never going to get very far against "The Terrorists".

                          If the Neocons say we require a paradigm shift, I would venture to say that we probably don't.:)

                          Change is necessary. This is one geo-strategic region which needs it's apple-carts turned over. The process of our good work continues...:)
                          But then you have to ask yourself the following question: do we want our European and Asian allies eating Russian apples or Middle Eastern apples?

                          Friendly disagreement kind of regards,

                          William
                          Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            Hello S-2,

                            Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan look different, but look along their borders: terrorists are still terrorizing, plotters are still plotting, proliferators are still proliferating, the U.S. is still propping up autocratic regimes, etc. Regionally, the status quo appears to be in full force.

                            Too, even if Iraq and Afghanistan look different, a lot of demographic parameters and other metrics appear to be unchanged. Toppling a government and installing a new one might not be as much of a change as it appears.
                            I would argue that by invading Iraq, we forced AQ to meet us over there, on our terms. We forced them to commit resources fighting us on their land rather than conserve that same resources and commit them here in the states. Bush's priority is to protect the homeland, by whatever means necessary.

                            It's hard to fight terrorists by trying to prevent them from committing an act of terror. It's much easier to force them in the open, meet us on the battlefield, and bleed them dry.

                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            Over the last Century, the U.S. has failed at nation building on the order of 4:1. All going right would be exceptional, not normal, based on what we already know.
                            I would say we did a pretty good job rebuilding South Korea, Japan, West Germany, France, and Italy.

                            We failed Vietnam.

                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            Does it?

                            Instability and uncertainty in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan that can be attributed to U.S. action would seem to favor transnational, violent non state actors.

                            Ultimately, when you get down to the brass tacks, Pan Islam and the Bush Administration are working to the same goal: a network of weak states susceptible to overarching, transnational control and/or meddling.

                            The United States handed al Qaeda a major strategic victory and we are extremely lucky that bin Laden's people were more inept than all the President's men on that occasion because they were unable to exploit it in their mindless lust for blood.
                            Maybe you give too little credit to our guys. Maybe we have them figured out and this is our plan.

                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            Furthermore, replacing strong, authoritarian regimes with weak, proto democracies is not exactly helpful to the counter terrorism cause because the latter class of regimes is historically the least able to combat terrorism.
                            Instead of keeping them bottled up with an authoritarian regime like Saddam, we removed the lid, let them come out, and kill them. That might have been the plan all along.

                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            Too, creating a power vacum of such a great convenience to the Iranians did not exactly do great things for U.S. interests. We solved a whole bunch of problems for them.
                            I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too. It's a trade off and Iran, as a state, is easier to deal with than AQ on the loose.

                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            A good case can be made that the old status quo was a superior framework within which to combat the transnational terror problem.

                            If rolling back terrorism was the agenda, then regime change in Iraq in Afghanistan was contraindicated.
                            I think the plan was to bleed them dry by forcing them to meet our military all along. Regime change was just a fringe benefit.

                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            Those Neocons think they can defeat an abacus with a sword which is usually the sign of a pretty dim bunch.

                            They also have not managed to grasp the the meaning of what the Arabs say about sand which means they are never going to get very far against "The Terrorists".

                            If the Neocons say we require a paradigm shift, I would venture to say that we probably don't.:)
                            Our homeland hasn't been attacked since 9-11. Surveys conducted after 9-11 showed a majority of Americans believed that we would be attacked on our homeland within 6 months. I don't think AQ hasn't tried. It's just that they had to waste resources facing our military in Afghanistan and then Iraq. If they don't, then they would have lost "street cred" in the Arab world.


                            Originally posted by Swift Sword View Post
                            Friendly disagreement kind of regards,

                            William
                            Likewise. :)
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                              An irredentist baath-fascist regime headed by Saddam Hussein and his sons/cronies in Tikrit is no more. No more Iraqi invasions of Kuwait or Iran. No more gassing of Kurds or Shias. A democratic government possibly emerging. All vestige of WMD removed for the forseeable future.

                              All that's changed for the better in five years and can continue to improve if carefully nurtured. Will you do so?
                              The handling of the war pre-surge was a mistake. But as S-2 says the end result of the war itself is a good thing. I would also add to the list killing off most of the jihadi wannabe's. The first direct talks with Iran in decades and getting US forces out of Saudi Arabia.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                zraver,

                                The first direct talks with Iran in decades
                                i'm not sure how this follows as a result of the Iraq War?
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X