Given that Saddam was Osama’s enemy, that makes no sense at all. I simply see no evidence that the war against Iraq ever had anything to do with terrorism, save as an excuse to invade. Nor do I see any reason to believe that Bush and friends care all that much about terrorism, except as an excuse.
Fewer wars instigated by America for a generation or two, hopefully. A weakening of radical Islam. The eventual possibililty of democracy in the Middle East. Leaving Iraq will aid all those causes. By staying there, we provide the Islamic fanatics with targets, propaganda and recruits; we effectively run a propaganda campagn to convince the locals that democracy = anarchy and mass death; and a departure in failure will hopefully chastise America into more civilized behavior for a while.
Of course, many people, including me, think that’s what will happen no matter what we do. And after what we’ve done, the people of Iraq will be our enemy for generations, no matter what else happens.
Then we should stop doing things like conquering Iraq, and producing people who have a justified burning hatred for America, nothing to live for, and nothing to lose. People who would be willing to use nukes on use no matter the consequences.
That’s outright nonsense. WE opened the door for Al Qaeda; Saddam opposed them. Iraq was a lesson that America is beyond negotiation or reason or appeasement; that nothing but sufficient force will keep it from attacking. A mad dog of a nation.
Then we should stop trying to convince the world that democracy is a synonym for evil and death. And stop doing thing that make so many people hate us that any deomcracy reflecting the will of it’s people will be our enemy. And stop behaving in such a way that getting nukes and pointing them at us is the only sane choice.
Note: I posted this post and the next out of sequence. I recommend reading post 83 first, then this one.
It was working pretty well up until 2001. Excepting the GOP unwillingness to sufficiently fund efforts to account for and secure former Soviet nuclear materials, everything was pretty much under control.
Right now, it looks like we’re moving back in that direction, and with some success. Bush has tentatively agreed to Agreed Framework Redux with North Korea. Iran has periodically been interested in some sort of overarching deal with us on nukes, recognition, and the like, and there are reports that both sides want to talk now.
All those centrifuges and whatnot are still pretty demanding from an engineering standpoint. Not to mention the expense, the dependence of a lot of poor nations on Western assistance, and their reluctance to get into a ballgame that they aren’t ready for.
At any given time, for some time yet, there will only be a few countries at a time threatening to join the nuclear club. That’s what diplomacy (backed by at least the possibility of force) is for.
Is it 100% guaranteed to work? Of course not. Is there a better way? I don’t see that you’ve proposed one.
Exactly. That means doing what Bush initially suggested we were going to do in the wake of 9/11: get the Muslim world at large on our side, and isolate the terrorists and other bad actors. Dry up the sea that they swim in.
Like it or not, in the long run, we depend on the good will of the rest of the world. This is the fundamental reason why the Bush/neocon approach is a failure.
And how has that worked out? The lesson Iran seems to be drawing from our adventure in Iraq (correctly so, IMHO) is that we don’t have a credible threat against them.
I agree with you there.
And you’d need to show it can be done. We’ve just been trying to do that in Iraq. We’re far further from our goal than we were four years ago.
I don’t know what’s going to work long-term. I’d say it’s the best approach for the next 15-20 years. That’s about as far as one can see, the way the world changes.
Most significantly, there doesn’t seem to be an alternative approach here, other than “installing self-policing democracies.” You see the cost of trying to do so, and the dubious prospects of success, in a country that appeared, five years ago, to be fairly fertile ground for one in many ways. At this rate, even if it works, we can only afford to ‘install’ one such democracy every 10-15 years.
Why should I argue back? First, you’d have to place evidence on the table that it’s Bush’s strategy. And then you’d have to similarly show that it’s grounded in reality - that there’s a prayer that Osama’s going to let himself be suckered into this game.
Well yeah, that was the neocon goal in Iraq, but that’s a pony 'way beyond other ponies by now.
There are differing opinions on that. But three things are for sure: (1) Things have been getting increasingly chaotic with us there, and there’s no reason why that should change as long as we’re there. (2) As long as we’re the ones pulling the strings of the Iraq government, they’re not going to develop any political strength or credibility of their own. For instance, everyone knows Maliki’s a puppet, which pretty much destroys his effectiveness. (3) The Bushies can’t keep their hands off the strings.
As a result, there’s no real chance that things can get better if we stay. But they might if we leave. Al Qaeda in Iraq won’t have nearly as many suicide-bombing recruits if the Great Satan’s not in town. They will either exist at the tolerance of, or get thrown out by, the Sunnis, who with us gone will be in a position to organize openly in the Sunni areas of Iraq, and (after some internal power struggles) actually govern there.
‘Enemy’? Quite possibly. Who can blame them? Most important, that’s their choice. But ‘formidable’? Not for awhile. Right now, thanks to us, they’re the basket case of the Arab world. Their oil revenue will be consumed by rebuilding for quite some time.
No, they’re not. I’ve been saying that this was going to be at least a 15-20 process since before we invaded. We’re right about where I thought we’d be, smack dab in the middle of the 6-10 year civil war that was inevitable following the conquest of Saddam’s regime and the establishment of a replacement government. Frankly, we’re doing better than I thought we would be doing, which is surprising considering the incompetence of the Bush administration in running this war. I thought we’ have at least 20K dead Americans 4 years into the conflict, I’m pleased to have been wrong about that. Also, as much as you anti-war folks might hate to admit it, Scylla is right, about the scope of the conflict and the resolve needed if not quite on the mark by advocating Sherman’s methods (which I don’t think he has actually done. He’s held Sherman up as an example of the attitude needed rather than as blueprint for tactics). This war is hard. This war is going to be long. Unfortunately, the only thing worse than this long hard war would be the consequences of shrugging our shoulders and walking away. Not only would we crucify our reputation, gut our armed forces and shame our nation, we would be encouraging handing our enemies, present and future, a blueprint for beating us, “When the going gets tough, the Americans go home”, plus making further terror attacks on the continental US inevitable and imminent. Those are sacrifices that I’d rather not make.
Finally, I had a question for RTF. The article he linked lamented that the Bush administration was not including bomb casualties in their lists, and that doing so skewed the numbers and led to a false impression that the “surge” was suppressing violence in Baghdad. That’s a fair criticism. The same article goes on to state:
Granted charting swings in something like this on a month to month basis is not going to give an overall picture, and any one month could be an aberration, but if the deaths have gone from 361 up to 520 and then to 323 as the “surge” started to take effect, wouldn’t that mean that bombing deaths are…down also? Doesn’t that invalidate most of the hand wringing in TFA?
Nonsense. This war is not large, it’s just Iraq. It’s over for us the moment we leave. And there is no great, grand purpose to it. This is not a war on terrorism and never has been; there IS no war on terrorism, at least from America. It’s a war on and in Iraq. And nothing we do in Iraq will do anything but strengthen radical Islam and anti-American terrorism; not if we stay there forever.
All of which the war has already done.
They know we have no interest in permanent occupation; therefore they know they can outlast us. It’s their home after all; we can stay there another year, another decade, another century and they’ll still be there. Unless we kill everyone in Iraq; do you support that ? And staying there is hardly going to discourage terror attacks; quite the opposite.
My previous brilliant reply is now so much ground up hamster thanks to the boards hiccough.
Can we just go straight to the part where you are all converted over to my point of view, and congratulate me on my acumen, thus saving me the trouble of rewriting it?
It’s implied in this thread that because the track record of carbombings isn’t included by the Pres, and they do occur, it means the security drive is a failure, even though these have been stated by General Petraeus that ‘they’re something that won’t go away for a long time and can’t be reduced 100%’
What happens if sectarian murders are down, but carbombings are up? How can you call it a failure if in this situation one cause of fatality goes down and another method goes up? Carbombings kill alot of people, but they’re spectacular attacks, designed to give the impression of constant carnage, where we have seen, it’s usually the thousands of kidnappings and murders by various militias which constitute the majority of deaths in Iraq.
I didn’t say I didn’t want to include carbombings into my measure of progress over there, I was stating the reasons as to why people in the military or Government wouldn’t want to have it put up as the benchmark of security, since like people have said on here, reducing carbombings to zero is impossible.
My measure of success is the Iraqi Governments ability to function despite these attacks, and the Coalition Iraqi security forces ability to impede Al Queda and Mahdi death squads from going on the rampage. That’s what’s more important, since it’s like I said, the majority of deaths stem from. More importantly, I’d like to know what the average Iraqis level of support is for the government they elected, and as to whether they would support even after we left. Those are the kind of things which spell victory or defeat.
It does not change the remedy. Though does give reason to act sooner than later - the longer the war continues the more enemies the west makes and the greater the threat to the USA from nukes.
Oh and I just wanted to disagree with you about something and this minor point was the only thing I could find.
As best as I am able to recall, you were awfully quiet about that here on the Dope in the run-up to war. You were an advocate of the war, but of course the idea that it would be a long, protracted, complicated struggle would have been a deal-breaker at the time. It would have been a self-defeating pro-war argument here on the boards, too.
First of all, I think it’s of limited utility to make decisions based on what other people (or, in this case, countries or other organizations) might think about you. So nuts to that. It’ll all wear off after a couple of decades anyway.
This war IS hard. The current approach is stressing our military capacity like nothing else has in the third of a century of the volunteer army. There’s no reason to believe we can do any better within that capacity in the next four years than we have over the past four years. As in Vietnam, our adversaries live there, and want us gone. Eventually we will be gone; it’s just a question of when and how. The cost to our military of persevering, of ‘resolve’ may quite likely turn a victory into a Phyrric one, in the extremely unlikely event that we’re able to ‘win.’
Also, there’s especially no reason to believe things will get better over the next 21 months. Bush will still be President, and during this time, the only choices are his way or departure. The internal contradictions of his goals is something I’ve already discussed.
Finally, there’s the very real possibility that our presence is a big obstacle to progress in Iraq. There’s been no movement on the political front for a good while now. Why should there be? As long as the Shi’ites think they’ve got us in their hip pocket, why should they make concessions to the Sunnis? And how can they find real leaders of their own when we’re pulling the strings? Maybe some of this will change under the next President, but it won’t under this one. And if the next President is a control freak like Giuliani who understands the Islamic world no better than Bush does, it probably won’t change then either.
It might, if we knew nothing about April. (Although, like you say, that would just be one month, and fluctuations happen.) But we have one day in April (the 18th) when roughly 200 people got killed in a single wave of bombings. Unless the rest of the month was pretty quiet, bombing-wise (Iraq Body Count suggests otherwise for the first week of April, which is as recent as they’ve got), then April’s right back up.
Yes, But in what order should I reply? IN WHAT ORDER?
Yes, it was working well, and it will continue to work until we reach the point where groups like Al Quaeda can get their hands on nukes. Then it won’t work at all.
We need to be doing something now to address that future.
I maintain that MAD is an effective deterrant. We could go with Wildfire and just hold the entire Islamic worl hostage, but we both don’t like that idea.
We could hold individual nations hostage for what happens within their borders and for what organizations within their borders do, and we could actively pressure other countries into policing themselves and adopting reponsible citizenship removing the ones that fail to comply.
I like this idea.
You haven’t exactly addressed my issue. Let me reclarify. Like you, I have some degree of confidence that at the Nation level we can manage and force nuclear responsibility with diplomacy and the possibility of force. My concern is when we get beyond that point. What strategy will be using to when Nukes are attainable by organizations smaller than the nation state… or organizations like Al Quaeda that are not nations themselves?
We agree on that.
I disagree. It’s not necessary that like us, or trust us in order for them not to attack us or be complicit in an attack. You can’t stop a bomb with goodwill.
Maybe. I don’t know what they’ve decided.
The world yes. Technology no. Progress will progress. Getting nukes will be easier. There’s really no way around that that I can see. Because it’s inevitable. 15-20 years is just a guess. It’s probably a good one. But, I don’t think we can afford to guess especially when even if that guess is accurate we need to be doing something now to prepare.
We have to change the global environment so that terrorism is inviable. We have to make it an automatic failure.
The self-policing democracies is simply the best outcome. Other outcomes work too. One outcome would be that we remove the government of any country that supports terror or is not diligent in policing itself in a hard-assed and proactive manner so that no country dares even allow the appearance of being sympathetic to terrorists. This tactic is probably going to require some scorched earth type examples to make the point, so it’s not exactly preferrable. The next outcome is that we do what we did and maintain the 9/11 strategy. We wait until we get hit and then we remove the country that was responsible.
I prefer the proactive response now, because while it is bloody now, in my opinion it stands the best chance of averting a holocaust.
First on that list would be Iran, I suppose, since they support Hezbollah. But it should be obvious that removing that government is not a realistic option, with the resources we’ve got left (or, for that matter, with the resources we had in 2003). Can’t think of any other government that would be a realistic option for removal, at the moment.
Before the war, of course, Iraq was not supporting terror – there were al-Qaeda or similar terrorists operating in Iraqi Kurdistan, but that was the part of the country the government did not (thanks to our intervention) control.
That’s simply isn’t logical. If you are right about everybody getting nukes, then it’s useless because the “Islamic world” will nuke us in retaliation; MAD works more against us than them, because we are stronger. And if you are wrong about everybody getting nukes, it’s just pointless genocide.
Because we will be applying it to others. I doubt you’d like it if we were forced to play by the same rules.
None. We’ve made ourselves too much hated, with too many enemies who hate us too much, and we refuse to use methods that might work. If smallish organizations get nukes, and we act the way we are or the way you want, we WILL get nuked, and nothing we do will stop it. We will flail about uselessly, kill lots of people, and accomplish nothing. Stopping that sort of thing is the work of intelligence agencies and police work with allies; not brute force and fear, going it alone, which is all we seem capable of.
Actually, it is. If they hate and distrust us they will naturally do everything they can to hurt us. And if they don’t trust us threats won’t work because they won’t trust us not to attack anyway. And . . . as a rule, people with goodwill towards you don’t bomb you. When was the last bombing raid by Britain on America ?
Then we should stop promoting it with things like the Iraq war, or funding it ourselves. Our behavior makes it an automatic win; the terrorists, thanks to us, have an endless stream of people with the hatred to be terrorists, and with nothing to lose. And plenty of funding, since so many people hate us so much.
And it won’t work against a country with nukes; the same nukes you try to justify this behavior by saying everyone will have them. Your idea is either unnecessary or unworkable. It’s pointless or worse if they have no nukes, and unworkable if they do. And the aggressive behavior that America is indulging in and you encourage make sure that any sane country will want nukes, to aim them at us.
:rolleyes: The 9-11 strategy is to wait until attacked and then destroy a defenseless third party that the people who attacked us hate. NOT a useful method of discouraging terrorism; quite the opposite.
You figure suicide bombers are going to be deterred by mutual assured destruction? Isn’t that pretty much what they’re already doing?
Are you planning on invading the United Kingdom? They’ve got terrorists inside their borders.
But I suppose you mean countries where the governments support terrorists. Like Afghanistan used to be. It’s a good idea and that’s why nobody’s complained about us invading Afghanistan.
However, we’re talking about Iraq. Well, Scylla, this may be news to you but Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and didn’t have any al Qaeda bases. If we were looking for a place to fight terrorists, we picked the wrong country.
You mean like the Nunn-Lugar Act, which was designed to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands? It was proposed back in 1991 when some people were worried about what was going to happen to all those Soviet nukes. Isn’t that the one that Newt Gingrich cut funding for in 1992? Of course everything changed on 9-11-2001, when President Bush boldy …refused to restore the funding. (Hey, all you Bush-haters have to admit, taking a position in support of nuclear terrorism was a bold move after 9/11.)
