Best case scenarios for Iraq

From yesterday’s USA Today:

emphasis mine

If this statement is an accurate representation of the Bush admin’s goals, and I believe it is, we’re in deep trouble. Let’s say for the sake of argument Congress does forks over another multi-billion check for Iraq reconstruction, and let’s say that progress moves smoothly and the infrastructure is rebuilt quickly and with minimal loss of life. Let’s even go so far as to say that democracy takes root in Iraq. Then what? That still leaves Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and a dozen other states infested with terrorists and the social machinery that produces new terrorists (i.e. rampant poverty, severe economic inequality, lack of political representation, the perception/ reality of Western hegemonic exploitation of oil resources, etc.).

Does Bush expect the corrupt regimes of these states to see the shining example of new Iraq and turn over a new leaf? Or does he expect the repressed masses to take up arms (or stones) against the tanks and American F-16’s of their respective tyrants? Or failing either of those two scenarios does he intend to topple and rebuild those regimes one by one at $200+ billion a pop? Or is he going to pull a N. Korea and just close his eyes and hope everything turns out okay in the end? What is his endgame? Does he even have one?

So even if by some miracle out of Iraq springs up a desert blossom I don’t believe we any closer to resolution in this War on Terror. If you ask me you don’t kill a patch of weeds by trying to plant a flower in their midst, you go for the roots.

You assume, of course, that Bush gives a rat’s ass about whatever civilian government takes over in Iraq, or what happens in neighbor countries.

The only thing he has EVER been concerned about is control of the oil fields, to line his family’s and friends’ pockets.

The plan ALWAYS was, spew some crap about Iraqi threats to the US, mow the evil Hussein down, raise a US flag over the oil pumps, and when gas prices plummeted back here at home, we’d all stop caring about the details. He’d come out smelling like a rose on all sides.

Now he smells like something else. His administration and their agents have done NOTHING, IMO, to reveal a shred of concern for the real welfare of the Iraqi people, or the ramifications of activity in that country on the rest of the geopolitical-economic situation.

Talking about what his “plan” might be for Iraq is a charming fantasy. He knows nothing about international politics and is proud of it. He has no grasp of how a democratic society is actually meant to function, and couldn’t care less, much less create one out of thin air.

He simply wants the stink of Iraq off of him as soon as possible. Whatever might get it off of him, he will now try.

Really, how exactly, does that work? Which companies do I have to invest in to reap these rewards?

As polite as I can say this, you’re talking through your hat and it has nothing to do with the question.

Best case scenario is the death of Saddam at the hands of his own people. Total removal of the Bathist party. An establishment of some form of democracy that the differing ethnic/religious groups can rally behind. Total withdrawal of the US from the region. The Saudi’s (Wahabis) are not fond of our life style and I don’t expect that to change in my life time. It’s time to move on.

Everybody was behind us when we stopped the takeover of Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia. Nothing but the sound of crickets chirping when it comes time to baby-sit the region for the following 10 years. Personally, I’m tired of always being the heavy.

We don’t use Iraqi oil and we don’t need Saudi oil. If states like California don’t want to drill on their own land and are comfortable with higher fuel prices then I respect that. However, we have the oil reserves in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to carry us forward for another 20 years. We have the ability (and the ecological duty) to drill for our own oil, on our own land.

So in closing, I would wrap up things in Iraq as soon as possible and go our separate ways. Let the UN baby-sit the World. I would make them BEG for our support next time it is needed. I’d like to see the US veto every frickin resolution for the next 10 years.

Does Islam figure at all as a component of this social machinery?

And as per “Western hegemonic exploitation of oil resources”, the natives didn’t seem to have too much use for the black stuff until some wacky Westerner came up with that whole internal combustion engine thing…

The idea is not that the regimes will change, but the example of a prosperous, free Iraq will make the PEOPLE want to change the regimes, much as was done in Eastern Europe.

I don’t know if it will work or not, I’m just trying to explain what the administration is thinking.

Magiver and adaher… I think you missed the subtle inference the OP was making. EVEN IF Iraq is sucessful… what are “benefits” of it ?

If you need to make a war and a 2 year occupation plus US$ 200 billion for every bad guy in the Middle East your not proving that democracy is better… just that you need a lot of blood and money to change things.

The phrase -> “The faster Iraq is stabilized and secure, the faster our troops can leave and the faster we’ll be more secure”

Do you think the US leaving the region shows “commitment” to a new Middle East ? In and out and magically the middle east is better ? The OP targets this. We arent discussing if Iraq will be better… but EVEN IF they go perfect… is the US admininstration really aiming for something better in the long term.

It is quite easy really.

Gulf war I: Iraq invades Kuwait unprovoked and for no valid reason. This is a threat to international stability and so the world community, represented by the UN, condemned the attack and authorised the use of force against Iraq in order to restore the previous situation.

Gulf war II: The USA invades Iraq unprovoked and for no valid reason. This is a threat to international stability and so the world community, represented by the UN, does not approve or condone this attack.

Does anyone remember the price of gas in 1971 and then in 1972 when the Arabs cut off the supply? Well since my family was in the oil distribution business I’ll tell you:

1971: Average gas price $.25

1972: Average gas price $1.25

That is a 500% increase in one year! It has been national policy to conserve our oil resources and use the resources of other nations for many years and many administrations. The thinking is in 50 or so years (maybe longer) the world’s oil reserves will be dwindling and we will be sitting on a larger share of this reserve.

Currently nothing happens if the flow of oil stops. Nothing gets manufactured OR delivered. The Arabs need us because we are consumers of their product. Our consumption affects their standard of living. They were able to shut off the oil in 1972 through OPEC of which Iraq was a participant. If Iraq alignes itself with western interests the cost of oil will drop. There is no reason why the price of a gallon of gas could not go back to the 1971 price level except that a cartel controls the supply and colludes on the price. This same thing can be shown with any other artificially “precious” commodity.

Take diamonds and other gems. If the cartels which control the distribution of these resources were to put every available product up for sale you would see 1 carat D flawles diamonds selling for $10! The oil relationships are a little more complicated but the same or greater amount of collusion occurs. If Iraq democritizes and pulls away from OPEC then the western countries SHOULD have lower fuel prices IF there is no further collusion but that’s being optimistic.

Another thing to remember is that there are other countries on the “Axis of Evil” list which have not been hit yet. To allude this to the general population at present would stir even more backlash. What we have right now is an attempt to stablize our gain and then once accomplished have a sally point to continue the course of eliminating the other “Axis” participants. I’m not pro for this. I’m just merely trying to illustrate a particular view point.

Still after the Iraq debacle… do you really think even fervent “interventionis” wanna risk invading other countries ? Iraq is far from a sucess story in “creating” anything. Even if one year from now we have a so called democracy in Iraq it will be a shitty one and voters will be questioning the blood and dollars spilt for it.

Winning a war against a ragtag army is easy… creating a “new” nation isnt. Oil prices are in fact rising in the US arent they ?

It has nothing to do with oil. Here’ the bottom line - the Middle east is full of failed and failing states. There is rampant poverty, oppression, and anger. There are large populations of angry, unemployed, radical young men. It is a breeding ground for terrorists. And the oil revenue money they have is the gasoline being thrown on the fire. Africa is full of failing states as well, but they are poor and therefore not nearly as dangerous.

The Democratic side seems to think the war on terror will be ‘won’ by waiting for terrorists to boil out of that seething cauldron and kill someone, then to institute police actions to capture them and bring them to trial. Bush’s solution is to go to the heart of what is causing terrorism in the first place and reform it.

I prefer that solution. If I have a wasp problem in my house, I can either spend all my time swatting individual wasps, or I can go find the damned hive and destroy it. I know which option is more effective.

So my line of questioning would be this:

  1. Do you agree that the middle east needs to be reformed before we can ‘win’ the war on terror?

  2. If so, what is YOUR plan for doing so? Bush has a credible plan which will be very difficult and carries some risk and a high pricetag, but at least it is a reasonable plan, and he’s carrying it out to the best of his ability.

Here’s how I see the ‘policing’ scenario play out, if a Democrat gets elected: The ‘internationalist’ government will work with the U.N. to ‘solve’ terrorism. The U.N. will turn out to be wholly ineffective, seeing how many of its members are part of the problem and not the solution. So it will waffle, debate, pass resolutions, and ultimately achieve very little. In the meantime, the Middle East will get worse, and we’ll inch closer to the day when terrorists manage to get their hands on a nuke or something else really awful. So we’ll muddle along suffering minor attacks for a few years, then a major attack will happen that will dwarf 9/11, and the Democratic president will wind up doing the same thing Bush is doing now, only several years down the road.

Nice point Sam!

If GWB Sr. Had of finished off Sadam we wouldn’t be in the mess we were in right now. But at that time we didn’t have any skyscrapers falling in Manhatten to get the public angry enough to support the current actions. I made a similar point in another thread about if not now when? At least the conflict is centralized in the mid-east and not in the central mid-west where american civilians would be counted among the casualties.

“The Democratic side seems to think the war on terror will be ‘won’ by waiting for terrorists to boil out of that seething cauldron and kill someone, then to institute police actions to capture them and bring them to trial. Bush’s solution is to go to the heart of what is causing terrorism in the first place and reform it.”
:rolleyes:
Do you seriously believe all the **** you put out ?
Can you point to any Democrats who have actually suggested this as a strategy?

Any serious strategy to fight terrrorism isn't about waiting for the terrorists to strike and then trying to capture them but using intelligence to eliminate their networks before they strike. To do this the US needs to cultivate inteilligence co-operation with as many countries as possible around the world including the regimes of the MiddleEast. 

As for reforming the ME sure the US should try to nudge the region towards liberal democracy. However its leverage to do this is limited. Fighting a war which alienates moderates and inflames the radicals in the region is not a rational strategy to advance that goal. There is no evidence that the war has advanced liberal democracy in the region.

The Iraq was has no rational connection to the war on terror either. On the contrary it has probably set it back:

  1. It has diverted vast quantities of resources which could have been used for homeland defence or intelligence or hunting down Al-quaeda.
  2. It has reduced co-operation from countries like Syria who were vital sources of intelligence before the Iraq war.
    3)As mentioned above it has inflamed radicals in the region and increased their recruitment and provided them with a convenient target in the region.

Iraq wasn’t a rational response to 9-11 or terrorism. It was a cynical attempt to use 9-11 to win support for a pre-existing ideological agenda. It has left US national security worse than before.

You missed my point and you left out the 10-year babysitting job in Saudi Arabia. That’s what pissed off the Wahabis and that is what caused 9/11. The UN sat on its ass while we played policeman to the world.

As far as Gulf war II is concerned, the UN authorized the use of force for that also. They just left out the support. Just as they left out the support for the bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan (which president was that?). Again, OK for the US to police the World so long as the UN doesn’t have to get it’s hands dirty. American aircraft were subject to 10 years of anti-aircraft missiles. No problem. Saddam attempted to murder Bush Senior. No problem.

The UN would have been satisfied to let the US stay in the region for perpetuity while Muslims take out their anger on Americans. I don’t recall the UN offering to replace the United States in the Mid East. All talk, no action.

Yes, you are absolutely right. If Bush Senior had taken out Saddam we wouldn’t be in this mess. However, the war turned into a turkey shoot and the bad publicity worldwide effectively ended it without a decisive kill.

Everything we’ve done except the invasion of Iraq.
Allocate the funds and manpower that went into Iraq toward Afghanistan. Capture UbL, and rebuild Afghanistan to a position where they have something to lose. Let Afghanistan, UbL, Taleban, and al Qaeda be an example to terrorist arboring countries.
Major combat operations in Afghanistan ended the same day as those in Iraq, for goodness sakes. Why not actually go after the perpetrators of the 9-11 tragedies first, before we go after potential badguys?

Why not finish going after the wasp nest already in your house before you go after wasps that might come into your house? Why just knock the nest down and piss 'em off and then go after some more wasps that aren’t even in your house yet?

I must confess to some impatience with those who decry our rather astonishing recent efforts in the ME by harping about the fact that OBL may still be alive. Good god, if he is, he’s in WAZIRISTAN, with US planes flying over his head and spooks of various nations trying to bribe locals into coughing him up.

Dead or alive, let him stay there.

Was WWII a failure because we didn’t “get” Hitler or Hirohito? Hitler took himself out in the bunker at the very end. Hirohito admitted that he was not in fact God, and hung around while the US rebuilt his country for seven years.

Iraq’s not going to turn into Sweden overnight-- granted. But they’ve already been given a governing council in which the Sunni AND the Shi’a are represented. This is a rich country, at least in theory. I think the US is capable of overseeing a switch to transition government that while not outrightly democratic from the git-go, at least has some degree of financial transparency and shares the wealth with the citizenry. Saddam, let us not forget, was not only a murderer… he was also a kleptocrat of Mugabean proportions. Let the people have at least the chance to enjoy the fruits of their country’s wealth for a bit.

It’s going to be hellishly expensive. And I think it will be worth it. The Persians and the Syrians can see beyoind their own borders.

That’s a great plan except we would have to invade Pakistan. They are already politically shakey. It would be conceivable that a religious government could emerge if we started crossing the Afghanistan border to chase Bin Laden. NOW you have nukes in the hands of Fundamentalists.

The WTC was unthinkable before 9/11. We dodged a bullet when they missed hitting the White House or Congress. It is possible that the World’s stock markets would have collapsed at such an event. Was once was unthinkable, now has an address (and it’s our’s).

The crux of the biscuit is that al Qaeda attacked the US and Iraq did not. al Qaeda is a threat to the US and Iraq was not.

This might make sense. Maybe. If Iraq were the source of the wasps. However, insofar as the wasps have a source, it’s Saudi freaking Arabia. So to follow up on your analogy, by invading Iraq, the US has in effect hammered on the wall next to the wasp nest. Really, really bright. I can see you have a profitable career as an exterminator ahead of you. :rolleyes:

Why, tell me, why do you persist in parrotting the Bushista lie that Iraq had anything to do with terrorist attacks on Americans?

Well, really, if you want to come right down to it, bin Laden is Yemeni, so perhaps, according to this line of reasoning, we should just have hit Yemen. And Dr. al-Zawahiri, the real brains of al Qaeda, is an Egyptian, so by this line of reasoning we should have dropped bombs on Mubarak and Cairo.

And what was this nonsense about Germany in WWII? After all, it was JAPAN that attacked Pearl Harbor. Why did we ever go after those nice Germans?

Literalism is fun.

Al Qaeda is not a “country”. You can only attack “countries” or “the guys who did or planned the bombing.” Al Qaeda is some nebulous organization. And you can’t attack a nebulous organization. So everyone should have just gone home.

There was no problem with Islamic-fascist terror in the Middle East proper, correct? That was all just a myth. And Saddam didn’t finance any of it, and wasn’t one of its most enthusiastic proponents, was he? So the whole thing was just a waste.

Silly Seppos.