VarSity

Last night, I was having a (rather drunken) debate with a good friend of mine regarding the war in Iraq.

Now my friend is very anti Iraq, and knocked out much talk about the lives lost, the futility of it all and the fact Iraq was doing quite nicely before we turned up… and it got me thinking.

What, in your opinion, have been the successes of Iraq in the context of the War on Terror.

Do you think its placed more stress on Terror trying to fight us in two places at once? Poor example, but that’s my problem when I argue with my friend, I struggle with things to argue with. Give me some ammo boys and girls!

S-2

"...the fact Iraq was doing quite nicely before we turned up… and it got me thinking."

Goodness. You are behind.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Oscar

_To make this country a beacon for democracy and to encourage other Arab countries to convert to democratic principles: The Arabs are still not convinced "by the facts on the ground" . And if they were they would be put into jail by their western-backed rulers because the West wants democracy and majority rule for Arabs but only when they agree with us.

_To put pressure on the Saudis who were seen as the real culprit behind 9/11 with their funding of islamic groups,etc.. (but unless you are suicidal you don't attack the main provider of oil to the world): do they feel that pressure? Do they want to reform? For what they have done 9/11 was enough for them to make them realise that they had completely screwed up

_To secure Iraqi oilfields and once again make the West less dependent vis a vis the Saudis: no

_To free the Shias from a Sunni dictatorship,to side with the Shias and to give them commands in Iraq, and that way counterbalance the Sunni domination in the region, responsible for what has gone wrong in the Middle East: The Sunnis feel threatened that's right but the Shias didn't get the message

_To put a "lively shia democracy" right in front of the islamic one so Iranians would feel compelled to reform and adopt a much friendlier tone with the US: no

_To destroy once and for all Arab nationalism with the fall of Saddam and pave the way for a recognition of Israel by the countries of the region "the road to Jerusalem goes through Bagdad":no

Dreadnought

Where do you ever come up with such ideas? As I would end this sentence very simular to yours posted above.NO

I for one in the U.S. find most references to "The U.S. in Iraq for oil" a wake up call to those that have zero idea what the West is doing there to begin with. It never was nor shall be about the oil. But its a very cheap accusation for others to throw when they have no other close at hand. Its about securing the worlds market for that oil and the safety of it during the Tanker Wars.

If we wanted oil I'm sure we could have worked out deals with Kuwait after we threw Saddam out once and for all. Afterall is was with Americans help that extinguished the blazing fields to begin with. Did we get oil? No we didnt. Does Kuwait still own they're fields. Yes they do and the proceeds from said oil. Does Iraq still own its fields and the profits from them? Yes they do. Do we the U.S. get oil for securing those fields? No we dont. Are the people supposed to share said profits? Yes they are.

So the U.S. in Iraq for oil rumors are now put to rest with common sense instead of conspiracy theories. The U.S. is NOT the only country with interests in securing the markets.
Japan and few others are concerned as well.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

S-2

I think the premises for our middle east involvement actually lie in oil/energy. The explanation, however, is quite simple.

We recognize the world's growing energy needs. So, too, at one time the Soviet Union. A Soviet mechanized thrust or "invitation" from the Iranian mullacracy would have required American intervention to contest a communist hold on the west's lifeline. While the invitation was unlikely, the mechanized thrust was not. Thus was born the Carter Doctrine.

The most blunt characterization of this doctrine's intent resides in the notion of hegemonic control. America will resist the emergance of regional hegemonic control of this resource. Global markets require uniform and equal access to present and emerging energy resources from this region, whether CAR or the gulf nations.

That means everybody if fair trading and commerce is to ensue and a collapse of global markets is to be avoided. That means access by any nation. As such, hegemonic control by the USSR, Iran, or Iraq was unacceptable and remains so.

I'm unaware of America receiving a single barrel of oil as booty/largesse for our efforts to date. If such a perspective has worked to the advantage of American energy corporations, so too has been the benefit of others. In any case, all those corporations experience market competition to develop and produce from present and emerging fields. The news indicates the involvement of Russian, French, Chinese, British, and Japanese companies in these projects.

There is therefore political and economic competition in the absence of clear hegemony. Obviously, that includes America. It's fair to say that we've NOT asserted hegemonic control of those energy resources.

Neither will we permit any other nation to do so.

Dreadnought

Well said S-2

dave angel

the argument that the US had no interest whatsoever in the Iraqi oil reserves only holds water if you genuinely believe that the top 10 decision makers in the US were unaware that Iraq sits on the 4th(?) largest oil reserves in the world, and that a democratic (ish), US-friendly, stable and capitalist - remember that the official US Phase IV was a single word plan: optimism - would be likely to pump more onto the world market (and therefore make it cheaper) than one S. Hussein inc.

much as it offends me to say so, those 10 people are not quite that stupid.

as for **** - The War Against Terror... - the three 'pro' arguments i've heard so far don't hold much water in the current circumstances (thats not to say they were really dumb ideas, just that they didn't turn out well)

a) create a beacon of liberal(ish), capitalist democracy(ish) that frees the 'arab street' from the kleptocratic, xenophobic, autocratic and corrupt dictatorships that have poisoned the Arab/Muslim mind against the west by attemptng to divert attention from their own failings - in short to create a state that Arabs/Muslims from accross the M/E would seek to emulate and in doing so provide a crippling blow to Islamic fundamentalism in particular and 'anti-westernism' in general.

not going that well at the moment, anyone you know looking to move to Baghdad?

b) remove a failing state from the board, ensure that it cannot become a springboard for AQ in the way A'stan became through strong national institutions.

errr.... moving on....

c) forget the first two, allow Iraq to become a charnel house, use it as bait to bring in as many nasties as possible so we can kill them - the 'fight them in Iraq so you don't have to fight them here' plan.

only works if you can kill them at a faster rate than you create them - and only as long as they stick to your plan. if you create them, but they stay at home, then the plan was *******s. the plan, as it affected the UK, was definitely *******s: the number of British Muslim terrorists created by Iraq? lots (two to four thousand according to the former head of the Security Service), the number of British Muslim terrorists who followed the plan and went to Iraq to get swatted? not many - maybe 10. of course, lots - perhaps 200 or so - have been to Iraq and learnt all there is to Know about explosive ambushes, car bombs, suicide bombings, and cutting peoples heads off on TV.

so that plan worked well....

any others?

__________________
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Dreadnought

Dave, You may be true in some statements but these people that say we went for the oil dont realize we have not recieved one drop. Our gas prices are as high as most peoples. We have spent billions and billions on Iraq. However we dont recieve reduced prices nor speacial earmarks from OPEC or anybody else. To protect that oil, probably, but to drink it as many assume and accuse just shows they dont concieve the bigger picture. We would love to get oil for pennies but that is not the case and never will be.

Oscar

The reasons I listed above are not mine but Richard Perle's and wolfowitz argumentation for an American intervention in Iraq.

It is not a criticism of the war in Iraq on the contrary I believe it was a very bold plan but they didn't put the means first hand to see it succeeding.

If you read closer S-2 your comment is very much in line with what I posted before: a constant worry not to see a dominant regional power emerging, a divide and rule strategy, and of course the freedom of trade maintained above all (means the end of the Saudi monopoly)..

S-2

Oscar,

This is what you've added-

"The reasons I listed above are not mine but Richard Perle's and wolfowitz argumentation for an American intervention in Iraq."

Then you should attribute it as such and provide authoritative links to these assertions. That allows us to compare their actual comments against your interpretation espoused here.

"It is not a criticism of the war in Iraq on the contrary I believe it was a very bold plan but they didn't put the means first hand to see it succeeding."

As an avowed neo-con, these "pretenders" squandered our accumulated and, post- 9/11, accelerated political capital by selling both Afghanistan and Iraq to themselves and others on the "cheap".

Are YOU a neo-con, Oscar?

"If you read closer S-2 your comment is very much in line with what I posted before: a constant worry not to see a dominant regional power emerging, a divide and rule strategy, and of course the freedom of trade maintained above all (means the end of the Saudi monopoly).."

My comments addressed a specific national security condition for which the U.S. would contest the mid-east with any emerging regional hegemons or external subjugation (i.e. the USSR).

This is what you said-

"_To make this country a beacon for democracy and to encourage other Arab countries to convert to democratic principles:"

As General Petraeus indicated in sworn testimony this week before Congress, neither Ambassador Crocker nor himself entertain notions of "Jeffersonian" democracy bursting forth anytime soon.

Nonetheless, to date, Iraq represents a considerable advance of these ideas over the prevailing regional paradigms of governance. This in spite of our numerous faux pas and absent the overt assistance of notable others within the region and throughout Europe. If you are truly a student of diplomacy and law then you'll understand the emerging forces at play in Iraq as a dynamic threat to regional patterns of "governance by repression".

"The Arabs are still not convinced "by the facts on the ground" ."

Which ones? Indeed, no Arab foreign minister has visited Iraq in the last year. Were you to ask Iraqi arabs, however, most perceptive observers would likely indicate that they prefer their own emerging political power and influence. Would you care to wager a bet on the al-Anbar voter turn-out this coming fall?

"...And if they were they would be put into jail by their western-backed rulers because the West wants democracy and majority rule for Arabs but only when they agree with us."

Repressive gov'ts are fighting a rear-guard action throughout the region. Consider Pakistan, Egypt, and Iran. Each possess considerable citizens in opposition to the established norms. Pandora's box has been opened, never to close. More to the point, with each passing week of American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq this becomes more so.

The apple cart has been upset and it will never be the same.

"To put pressure on the Saudis who were seen as the real culprit behind 9/11 with their funding of islamic groups,etc.. (but unless you are suicidal you don't attack the main provider of oil to the world): do they feel that pressure? Do they want to reform? For what they have done 9/11 was enough for them to make them realise that they had completely screwed up"

What has been the net result of this Saudi "awakening"? It's pertubations are unnoticed. The middle east isn't standing still while waiting for Saudi Arabia to reject wahabbism as antithical to their own self-interests. Still, even the Saudis now realize that the cannot isolate their kingdom from external influences. That said, we'll see which of those influences are welcomed over time.

However, as a matter of U.S. nat'l security policy, you've made no case that we explicitly targeted Saudi Arabia as a peripheral interest of our Iraqi invasion. Again, a link to this assertion from your would help clarify their exact thoughts.

"_To secure Iraqi oilfields and once again make the West less dependent vis a vis the Saudis: no"

Full and fair access to energy resources for all concerned. Our regional presence assures that for the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Iranians, U.A.E., etc. All oil is sold on the open market. Everybody is vulnerable to any price spike. Canadian, Venezuelan, Nigerian, Mexican, etc.- it's all one commodity bag from which we draw.

"_To free the Shias from a Sunni dictatorship,to side with the Shias and to give them commands in Iraq, and that way counterbalance the Sunni domination in the region, responsible for what has gone wrong in the Middle East: The Sunnis feel threatened that's right but the Shias didn't get the message"

Nonsense. You've ignored the effect of Kurds upon Iraqi politics utterly here. Simplistic. Please explain the alawite domination of a sunni-majority state in Syria? You've not given this serious thought and it's a poorly developed point.

"_To put a "lively shia democracy" right in front of the islamic one so Iranians would feel compelled to reform and adopt a much friendlier tone with the US: no"

A comparison between Iran's mullocracy and Iraq entails more than Shias. It's an emerging multi-ethnic democracy. That comparison, alone, shall suffice to draw favorable reviews.

"_To destroy once and for all Arab nationalism with the fall of Saddam and pave the way for a recognition of Israel by the countries of the region "the road to Jerusalem goes through Bagdad":no"

Only on the most oblique, circuitous path. Institutionalized arab nationalism is fascistic baathism. Not a bad objective to eliminate as a regional concept. It's influence was marginal, however. Nobody hastened to emulate Syria/Iraq's baathist model. As to recognition, doesn't Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey recognize Israel and done so well before 2003.

Nobody shall hold their breath to await Iran's recognition. That said, to suggest that ties are far closer between Israel and others who had abhorred it as a pariah state is more than fair.

Skull6

It's my opinion, that in the last election in Iraq, the people had more than one viable candidate to vote for.

Let's not forget all those pictures of folks holding up "inked fingers" while SMILING!

A country whose citizens feel that they have some say over their government & their own lives has less of a need to commit terrorist acts to draw attention to themselves.

__________________
If you know the enemy and yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. - Sun Tzu

ba1025

The only real ammo you see on this one are blanks. You can maybe argue we can't leave because it will be worse than staying but at what point do we stop being "liberators" and start being "occupiers" Are we there now "not to fail"?



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."-- Governor George W. Bush (R)-TX
I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment