Hey, I didn’t say they’d disarm, I said they would no longer have an excuse. For too long, despotic governments in the region have pointed to external forces to excuse their shoddy treatment of their own citizens. Take those excuses away, and their positions become more untenable.
Actually I’d say that they have a much better excuse than they had before. Now that we have shown a willingness to invade other countries that are weak and an unwillingness to invade countries like North Korea they have the perfect excuse.
—I said they would no longer have an excuse.—
I’d say the U.S., especially a U.S. willing to invade on flimsy pre-texts, is a pretty good excuse. It is, perhaps not a particularly rational one, given the inability to really pose any threat to the U.S., but it most certainly as much a real threat to these countries as the U.S. is to China’s interests in Asia (such as Taiwan).
So if anything, this gives them MORE excuses to arm, not less.
Pshaw, like the downfall of the Soviet Union kept us from being the largest military spender.
You mean, rather like when our excuses to invade Iraq fell by the wayside, we naturally abandoned a course of action we could not justify? Like when our position became untenable, as evidenced by worldwide disapproval, we thought better of it?
Like that?
Well, the relatively small, transitory U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia certainly had a stabilizing influence on Osama bin Laden. 
Hvae to disagree with you there: having a substantial permanent U.S. military force sitting right next door gives them an even better excuse to maintain large military forces.
Like the powerful Israeli army presence has restrained Hezbollah?
Cite, please, for Arab groups on the ground in Middle East who see the permanent presence of US military force in Iraq as a sign of hope?
Iraq is not Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden’s complaint was that U.S. troops were defiling sacred land. I suppose he’ll make the same complaint about troops in Iraq. The question is whether the Iraqi people will.
Yeah, a huge army worked great for Iraq, didn’t it? I could buy the argument that the huge U.S. presence could cause Syria to seek WMD, but it’s harder to claim that it needs a 400,000 man standing army.
But the real point is that having a despotic tyranny next door gave lots of cover for other dictatorships who weren’t quite as despotic. But if Iraq becomes prosperous and relatively free, it’s going to be a lot harder to make the case for your own dictatorship, y’know?
Syria controls Lebanon, and for political reasons Israel is fairly powerless against Syria. Israel withdrew from Lebanon under condition of a Syrian promise to disarm Hezbollah. That never happened.
The U.S. is in a far stronger position to put pressure on Syria. And if Syria doesn’t cooperate, the U.S. could smash Hezbollah in Lebanon if it wanted to.
Whether that is ultimately wise or not is another question, but at least there will be options.
The Kurds in Northern Iraq? The Shi’ites in southern Iraq? The population of Iraq as a whole? I’d say they’ve been lacking in hope for a long time, and the restoration of that hope through this invasion is what I’m talking about.
So what? Dictators do not follow the rules of a civil courtroom or a high school debating society. Your argument about the importance of “making a case” for their society is not credible.
It is not clear that even by being prosperous will a free Iraq convince the populations of other nations to change. Many people would prefer the installation of a strict Islamic culture. The presence of a prosperous Iraq would prove, to them, that a free Iraq is contaminated by infidels and represents a greater threat. This would justify an arms buildup, from their perspective.
What I want to know is, how exactly are Iraqis going to love the US when thousands of their sons, brothers, husbands and fathers have been killed by the “coalition”… And I’m not even talking about the time where their daughters and sisters had their head blown off by a misdirected bomb…
I have heard estimates of 100 thousands Iraqis soldiers dead in Gulf War I (?), surely this will be even higher in the sequel? Saddam or no Saddam, I’d be pretty pissed at the superpower that killed members of my family and statistically, this “liberation” must have touched directly or indirectly millions that lost people dear to them…
**
Most definitely, since Iraq contains the holy site of the Shiites. As US soldiers already found out when approaching a shrine, since a huge mob of locals with not very friendly expressions on their faces formed.
Is that so? I’d say a machine gun on a APC is a pretty good argument to make a case.
Yeah, the US could get is arse bombed out of the Middle East. They surely could do that.
Too bad they don’t see it that way. The Shi’ites already said that the US are at best tolerated, but not wanted, as help in removing Saddam, and have overstayed their welcome as soon as Saddam is gone.