No Sam Stone it isn’t. But then it’s not supposed to be – I was responding to a direct request from Elvis in relation to the base at Basram and with particularly regard to the alleged growing feeling of the US overstaying it’s welcome. In a developing story, I gave him what I could from what is currently online. It wasn’t intended to be evidence of Empire building, per se.
Given the ebb and flow of a thread, you may well have made an error. I hope it was that rather than a wholly unnecessary straw man.
Thanks, LC - but I’m not at all convinced. That was an interview with some bored soldiers out in the ass end of nowhere, not evidence of imperialism as far as I can tell. There is no departure date set for US forces in Afghanistan, that’s true, but it’s just as explicable (if not more so) as an acknowledgment the political impossibility of declaring the war on terrorism as “over” as long as Osama’s still out there uncaptured, along with much of his organization. Never mind the sudden morphing of the enemy by Bush - to make that work, he has to avoid reminding anyone of the previous enemy, and pulling out forces or setting a date to do so would do just that.
I also would not characterize the US administration conservatives as imperialists, beyond their alter egos as Big Oil businessmen - the psychological impulse isn’t to control the world, necessarily, just to feel secure within US borders. If that means kicking some asses, and letting the survivors sort it out, then that’s their problem. I’m not at all defending that outlook, but I think that better characterizes it.
"From a layman’s standpoint, it sure sounds like an ideal situation. A modern, western oriented king with solid credentials restored to a traditional throne by the U.S. "
Well, it is of interest to the extent it suggest how frighteningly stupid some people advising the Administration are, and how clueless they are about the region.
Last night I had some drinks with some Iraqis -Iraqi Iraqis that is. Friends of mine from a while back. They were heartily amused by the concept of restoring a Hashemite king. What did one fellow say… Something along the lines of “If you want to have Black Hawk Down Part II, you do this.” A Kurd, not anti-American per se.
Think carefully Sam, carefully.
It does, even if it worked on the basis of actually returning a Hashemite to the made-up-throne (not traditional Sam, made up colonial creation), it in no way solves the Iraq problem, or the Palestinian problem. In fact, I find it mind-numbingly stupid to think that it “solves” the Palestinian problem. As for “de-radicalizing” a large portion of the Middle East, I again fail to understand how this does so. A puppet, alien king whose family was only in Iraq at the behest of the colonial powers is returned to power in a frankly and obviously neo-colonial move in a plan which serves Israeli interests more than anything else.
The Middle East has a historical memory, it is not North America, I can see immediately how this would work. It would be a fucking recruiting program for al-Qaeda. Indeed, in my opinion the entire Iraq policy to date is a fucking gift to the Salafistes. A fucking gift. it is so incredibly misplaced, mistimed, mal-executed and misconcieved.
Commandos in Yemen on secret missions, that’s fucking sensible. Attacking Sadaam… Fucking idiots.
Brutus said some time back, I was too annoyed to reply to the idicoy of this, that there would be no reaction in the Arab world to Iraq, just like Afghanistan. Some other ignorant comment followed about getting Arab countries to outlaw al-Qaeda et al. Of course, al-Qaeda et al have always been illegal, that’s rather how the honed their abilities.
Ignorance. First, there has been a reaction. I have not noted such anger in re the US in a long time. It’s bad. Simmering. Simmering is bad. But let me note the important differences, for the malinformed and the ignorant.
Whoa there. I’m NOT supporting this idea. I said that I can see the appeal of it as a ‘grand solution’. I didn’t say it would ACHIEVE a grand solution.
I’m not quite as certain as you are that it would be an unmitigated disaster, but I also don’t see how it solves much of anything. I don’t see much evidence that Iraqis and Jordanians and Palestinians would WANT to live under an Israeli defensive umbrella. Nor do I see the Jordanians just allowing the Palestinians to relocate.
I’m a libertarian. As such, I have a great skepticism when it comes to governments trying to build societies from the top down. If I don’t trust the government to get a bloody health care system right, why would I believe that they are capable of tearing apart and rebuilding countries effectively?
The only thing I can say about this plan is that if Saddam goes, it’s possible that there could be a role for Jordan to play a part in a reconstruction. They have interests in the area, and Iraq will be a mess. I don’t know about a new Hashemite kingdom, but there might be an opportunity for a Jordanian effort to aid in stabilizing the country. And if Israel can play a positive role in some way, that might also be useful.
But I’m not holding my breath. Battle plans generally don’t survive the first shot in a war, and grand visions of a great restructuring don’t either.
And yeah, I saw Richard Perle’s and Paul Wolfowitz’s fingerprints on aspects of the current Bush policy towards the middle east (and the world. That new National Security Strategy looks like something Perle and Wolfowitz might have had some input into). And yeah, that worries me a bit. I’m not a fan of empire building or colonialism.
The first point of failure is the relocation. The Palestinians have not accepted 1948 or 1967 relocations, Jordan-bound ethnic cleansing is nothing but a horrible dream.
There is nothing that recommends a restauration. Nothing. To even float the idea is unbelievablely… insane, ignorant? I don’t know.
Well, that much is indisputable. Jordanian mediation, Jordanian assistance, all these things would not only be good, they would be indispensible in the right context.
I absolutely agree. I am not unnerved by the war itself. Worse case scenario, it takes several months longer and Sadaam actually uses some of his fabled WoMD. Aka chemical weapons, maybe biological. Nothing world shattering per se. Ex-actually provoking some pig-headed bull-in-a-China-shop response from Sharon if one of his piece of crap missiles actually lands in Israel. If so, then things get bad as Israeli assaults on Iraq concomittant with US (and one bloody well hopes at least fig-leaf Brit support) attacks would be poison.
The problem is apres-guerre. American troops in semi-pacified Arab cities. I am sure Sam you are old enough to recall Lebanon.
If but 5% of the population is tending toward Salafiste/Islamist politics that is enough for a nasty cell-based guerrilla war. Provoke reaction, American soldiers kill Arabs, some will be innocent. A nasty cycle emerges. Wonderful, we get a goddamned recruiting campaign for al-Qaeda.
Far from reducing actaul threat to the US, I see this policy has having better than even odds to increase medium term threat to the US. Sadaam is manageable, al-Qaeda is not.
They both disturb me. Wolfie actually believed that the French could have “won” with the right military campaign, and he believed the Algerian generals could “win.”
I remain convinced the US is stumbling into a policy blunder of Vietnam proportions. Fighting the wrong enemy, at the wrong time and positively aiding the real problem.
There we disagree. I think getting rid of Saddam is still key to calming the Middle East. Whether or not it’s a Democracy, a moderate, prosperous Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would be a very good thing. And I think it’s achievable.
There’s a big difference between Iraq and Vietnam. In Vietnam, the U.S.'s hands were severely tied by the deterrence of the Soviet Union and China. In addition, the Americans were not welcome.
I believe they will be welcome in Iraq, at least at first. From all accounts, Hussein has created one of the more repressive totalitarian regimes, with the people living in constant fear. In that environment, the Americans are as likely to be seen as liberators and not oppressors.
Oh hey, while we’re here, how would you like to revisit the ‘Axis of Evil’? Remember our little debate on that? You said that Bush’s remarks were stupid, and that it was going to push these countries away from the U.S. and radicalize the people. I said that it was going to cause the people to rise up against the government in Iran or pressure it to moderate, and that it would scare North Korea into toeing the line. I said Saddam was going to have to go.
Well, have you seen the latest poll out of Iran? I mean the one before the government shut down the polling firm. It found that 75% of Iranian citizens favored opening relations with the U.S., and that an astounding 48% of Iranians said that current U.S. policy was ‘to some extent correct’, which is about as high as the opinions in Europe, if not higher.
In the meantime, Saddam is playing games, but we’re closer to having effective inspections than at any time since 1992. Either that, or he’ll be going away like I said.
And how about North Korea? Well, wouldn’t you know, they have opened dialog with the United States, and they made a huge economic deal with Japan - a deal that was brokered by the U.S., which encouraged the relationship but stayed out of the picture to make it more politically palatable for the North Koreans. Remember that carrot and stick I kept talking about? There you go.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
There we disagree. I think getting rid of Saddam is still key to calming the Middle East. Whether or not it’s a Democracy, a moderate, prosperous Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would be a very good thing. And I think it’s achievable.
[/quote]
Bullshit on the first item.
Sadaam is a distraction, an obsession.
Prosperity is not going to come easy to Iraq now, nor is “moderation” – moderate is not a government that “likes” the US, see Egypt for the idiocy of that. Moderation is a populace that has moderated itself in terms of its own socio-cultural goals. In the world of magical realism we can assume Iraq gets to prosperity magically after a significant amount of combat is fought on its own territory. In the realm of reality,…
Don’t patronize me Sammie boy, especially you of all people in re FP. I am well aware of the differences.
I did not say, Iraq is like Vietnam, I said I see the present Iraq policy as an error of “Vietnamesque” proportions. That is, a major long-term policy error that looks good up-front based on a superficial read of the situation and a lack of understanding of the region in which it is situated.
That does not state that I am drawing a direct analogy, in fact the analogy I might draw would be to Algeria, even then it is indirect. I am more or less sure if you step back you are capable of discerning the differnce in the statements.
The issue here is not winning against a ragtag army in the next four months, it is the results over 5-10 years.
Welcome? 2-3 months there may be some welcome, but again, that’s not the goddamned fucking problem. It’s the 2-5 year range. It’s when the inevitable problems arise, and when the Islamic radicals, Shi’ite and Sunni start an inevitable campaign against the Americans occupying their country. Minority or not, the risks become large. You need a police state again, the army becomes occupiers, not facilitators.
I further seriously doubt there is the political will to deliver on rebuilding over the actual time period needed. Already Afghanistan is slipping, the actual dollars are not truly flowing.
Gladly, although attempting to get clear, non-reductionist thinking here is an exercise in pure futility.
Yes, and you were wrong as usual. Bush’ remarks were stupid, and had they continued to push that nonsensical Axis of Evil talk, things would have gotten worse. Luckily, one has not heard much of it since, except in strained justifications from the idiots in the conservative press.
Yes, I did see reporting on the poll. Post-hoc ergo prompter hoc, eh Sam? No matter the intervening events, etc.
I also recall the actual response to the Axis of Evil speech (not to be confused with the subsequent dropping of the moronic phrase, and concentration on Iraq.). First popularly supported mass demonstrations against America in years. Several months of the worst time for reformers in a couple of years, both of which informed sources attributed to direct reaction against the same speech.
Now, unless you have some evidence that the Axis of Evil speech had a positive effect, per se, it strikes me Sam that the most you have is the post hoc ergo prompter hoc logical fallacy. And Sam, be prepared for a close argument, I don’t intend to let logical fallacies slide.
So, there is presently a result that might very well, in a better handled and executed policy, be considered a victory. But because of clearly incompetent petulant rhetoric, it looks like a kind of victory for Iraq.
Of course, in your revisionist reading, this is a brilliant victory.
Give me a fucking break. Again, post-hoc ergo prompter hoc w/o the slightest rational regard to the actual chronology of events. No wonder you think every damned word out of idiot boy’s mouth is “brilliant” or just the right thing, your capacity for post-facto justification is boundless. Almost as good as your clinging to that bloody fake uranium story until it sank under the waves of facts.
What do we actually have, per my understanding? This is course is not my area, so I welcome informed correction.
Well, we had South Korea and Japan incensed over the bomb thrown into their ongoing negotiations with North Korea. You have the Bush administration backing off from the black and white characterization in the Evil speech and capitulating to the Japanese/South Korea views on continued engagement. What substantive changes to North Korean behavior are you citing to? And, Sam my boy, be careful in your citing. I’d like to see a close logical justification, not simple post hoc ergo prompter hoc.
Carrot and stick my ass. Strained post-hoc justifications is what I call it.
Oh yeah, right. You missed your calling Sam. Pravda would have made good use of your analyses.
Sigh. Why was I hoping that our recent rapproachment might lead to a civilized debate?
Well, here I go with my response. But be aware that I don’t have the patience these days for more abusive ‘debate’. So if I don’t get a reasonably civil response from you, I’m done.
I disagree. Saddam is an excuse for other countries to divert attention from themselves. Saddam is the reason the U.S. is sitting on Saudi ‘holy land’ which, according to Osama Bin Laden is what really got his panties in a bunch. Saddam is inciting hatred throughout the Middle East, and literally paying Palestinians for blowing themselves up.
Most importantly, Saddam’s brutal regime makes the other dictatorships around him look good by comparison, and his threat is the justification for these other countries to build huge armies. So in that sense he’s a distraction - a distraction away from the failed policies of his neighbors.
What would the effect of a relatively free and prosperous Iraq be on the citizens of, say, Syria? Or Lebanon? My opinion is that it would cause a lot of people to start looking at their own governments. That would be a good thing. However, I’ll add a big caveat to that, which I’ll get to later.
I’ll grant that it’s hard to ‘read’ the Iraqi people, because they have been under the thumb of Saddam for so long, and he is so brutally repressive of dissent, that it’s virtually impossible to find the real opinions of the people.
And I don’t know if you’re up on the Administration’s latest war strategy, but it is directly aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The current most likely plan is for the U.S. to try to avoid a large-scale war and simply target Saddam’s regime itself with both pinpoint strikes at his C&C, but also strikes at his palaces and key support bases like his home city of Tikra, which is his real power base. Not only will the U.S. do everything it can to avoid civilian casualties, but it apparently has a few propaganda tricks up its sleeve, like a new aircraft that can completely jam Iraqi TV and Radio and inject American programming directly into the homes of Iraqis. The point will be made repeatedly that the U.S. has no beef with the Iraqi people, and is simply removing Saddam. If all goes according to plan, this could be a very effective strategy.
However, I will grant you that this is very risky. If it goes wrong, it could devolve into urban warfare, and then all bets are off.
Hmmn… Maybe we’ve found the source of your hostility - you think I’m ‘patronizing’ you. You’ve gotta remember, we aren’t the only people reading this. If we always just engaged in shorthand that we know we’ll both understand, the conversation would be a lot less useful to casual readers. I tend to write responses to a broad audience - maybe that comes across to you as condescending. Rest assured, nothing could be further from the truth. I have the highest respect for your knowledge in this area. Hopefully, you’ll approach messages from me in that spirit, rather than assuming the worst.
Okay, here comes that caveat I promised. You’ll note in my first message, I said “I think the U.S. will be welcomed, at least at first”. The post-Saddam behaviour of the U.S. is absolutely critical. If the U.S. is seen as a colonial power, or in some way exploitative of Iraq, then that will be a disaster. If some pro-U.S. puppet gets installed as leader and immediately starts throwing his weight around with the people while cutting deals with U.S. oil companies, then your scenario will come true and we’ll be facing a really crappy situation five or ten years down the road.
We’ll just have to see which way that goes. I share your misgivings, but apparently have more hope for a good outcome than you do.
That’s not an argument, and it’s also not a good example of Post-hoc ergo prompter hoc reasoning. Because I predicted the outcome *before it happened.
Now, I’ll grant you that that doesn’t *prove that the two events are causally connected. On the other hand, your predictions did not come true at ALL.
Besides, back then I gave reasons for why I made those statements. I said specifically that the U.S. would treat all of those countries very differently. I said that they would bring down Saddam, and the fear of being in the gunsights would be parlayed by the U.S. into brokering deals with the North Korean government, and the Iranian people. And that’s exactly what happened.
But this is not an argument that can be proven, because causation IS to hard to attribute. And years of watching politicians from each party alternatively blame each other for actions taken long before and/or claim credit for things based on actions that have yet to take effect has taught me that it’s a losing game to try and debate an issue on these terms.
The ‘Axis of Evil’ speech wasn’t intended to be effective on Iraq. What it was intended to do was to put two other dangerous nations on notice, so that when Iraq was toppled they’d get the message, straighten up, and fly right. It appears to be having that effect.
I agree and disagree about the effectiveness of the Iraq campaign. In addition, since this card isn’t completely played out yet neither of us are in a position to know exactly which policies have been ham-fisted, and which ones were ploys to encourage a certain outcome. Also, the Bush administration is not operating in a vaccuum here - Saddam has actually been pretty shrewd in countering the U.S., and Khofi Annan has apparently blindsided Bush with his quasi-support of Iraq. I’ve heard that the Bush administration had an ‘understanding’ with him before Bush’s speech, and then went in a different direction. That may reflect naivete’ on the Bush administration’s part, or simple deceit on the part of Annan.
One thing I will say - the last Bush administration made a big mistake in underestimating Saddam’s staying power - they all throught he would be out of power within a year after the Gulf war. This administration so far seems like it may also be underestimating him - his manoevers after Bush’s speech undermined the support Bush had built, and it was also a very obvious response. I’m surprised the Bush administration did not anticipate it. Unless they did - like I said, we won’t really know what the ultimate motivations are until this all plays out.
As for North Korea, this is another causal relationship that we’ll just have to agree to disagree on. But I’ll note that the U.S. was extending private olive branches to North Korea at the same time they were making bellicose public noises. Carrot and stick.