All you naysayers are full of it. If Iraq isn’t going well how come they have a brand new currency? Hmmmmm?
Answer that one.
Posted by Scylla:
Iraq has a new currency because it has a new government, established and supported by the force of American arms, and they have to have some currency, and the old stuff was unsuitable because it had Hussein’s picture on it, so the government decided it was time to issue a new currency.
But just because the Iraqi people will accept and spend the new government’s dinars doesn’t mean they support that government or the U.S. occupation. All it means is that they have some level of confidence that the new dinars will be worth something, at least for now.
Posted by Scylla:
Iraq has a new currency because it has a new government, established and supported by the force of American arms, and they have to have some currency, and the old stuff was unsuitable because it had Hussein’s picture on it, so the government decided it was time to issue a new currency.
But just because the Iraqi people will accept and spend the new government’s dinars doesn’t mean they support that government or the U.S. occupation. All it means is that they have some level of confidence that the new dinars will be worth something, at least for now.
I was trying to make a funny.
I got it, big guy. Didn’t roll around on the floor gasping for breath, or anything. But I got it. Not as funny as Cheney’s speech to the American Enterprise Monarchists Club, of course.
Now that was funny!
You are a bit higher than guarded optimism from what you wrote… everything will go the way you said if the resistance basically does almost nothing I think.
Militarily is one of the few aspects in which the situation in Iraq is not a disaster.
Exactly. And what a terrible situation to unleash unless there is a dire compelling reason to do so.
It is in the haziness of these reasons that Iraq is seen as a disaster.
At the time the Bush administration began pushing for war with Iraq, we had just barely completed a war in Afghanstan to topple the Taliban, who harbored and supported the Saudis who planned the 9/11 attacks.
Once they were gone, we needed to create a positive, pro-American sentiment in the region, so that anti-American terrorist efforts could not easily regain support there. This would be especially difficult in light of the fact that Afghanis felt we had abandoned their country after the Soviets left so many years ago, and that we had funded those who eventually became the oppressive religious hegemony.
There were many unanswered questions:
Is Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11 actually dead? If not, how can we keep him from organizing another devastating attack on us?
Is the al Qaeda organization he led capable of functioning to the same deadly potential without him?
Is Pakistan a trustworthy ally, or must wee fear that they harbor the same threat within their borders that Afghanistan under the Taliban did?
Is American domestic infrastructure imporved to the point that an attack like 9/11 can not easily be repeated.
Is a man who is incapable of pronouncing the name of the weapon that makes the nation he leads supreme in the world capable of overseeing such an effort, and if not, who is actually overseeing it for him?
Maneuvering through this situation would require a great deal of attention in the part of any administration.
Whence Iraq then?
It was too easy to see ingenuous reasons to divert attention away from Afghanistan.
One, the rebuilding of that country was not going satisfactorily.
Two, Bush wanted to bolster his numbers, and a great number of Americans were of the opinion that we had never “finished the job” with Saddam Hussein.
Three, his family fortune was build on oil, and full American control of the Iraqi oil fields would certainly be a boon to his pursestrings.
Given the uncertainties in Afghanistan, it would take some serious complelling reasons to suddenly take on Iraq, the main one being an imminent threat of attack by that nation or agents supported by it.
Other reasons put forth, such as his brutality as a dictator, rung hollow. There are at least a dozen dictators across the globe at least as brutal as Hussein, and we certainly were not about to go after all of them.
Plus, given that every top member of the administration at one time or another had warm professional dealings with SH, it was hard to believe that they suddenly genuinely found his leadership practices so distasteful, or that the plight of the Iraqis, whom they had had been well enough satisfied to ignore previously, suddenly tugged at their heartstrings.
Therefore the only cause for war other than one of the greedy reasons mentioned above would be possession by Iraq of the means and intention to attack America or one of its allies immediately, or a clear link between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.
The administration has backed off the latter claim, and its claims to the former are undermined daily.
The oil fields are not up and running for anyone’s benefit, and the Iraqis are not a whole lot better off than before we came, given that a lot of the work that has been accomplished serves merely to recreate the infrastructure that we mowed down during the war.
For what, then, are we losing even one soldier a week in Iraq?
Many Iraqis feel they have traded one oppressor for another, instead of gaining self-control.
Al qaeda has continued its attacks around the globe.
Pakistan has proved to be a less than willing ally when it comes to dismantling them, which may eventually force us to turn on that ally.
The new government in Afghanistan controls only Kabul, the rest of the country controlled by a hodgepodge of kings/warlords/strongmen.
Having disrupted both countries on either side of it, the Bush administration has hinted at designs on Iran.
They have invited Turkish soldiers into Iraq, who will almost certainly attempt to put down the Kurdish population of Northern Iraq as a means of dispiriting Turkish Kurds who dream of independence. As the Kurds were our allies for the last 12 years, we will have to choose between allies, or wash our hands of both of them, gaining us enemies in either case.
In other words, within a region stretching from the Black Sea to the Indian Ocean, we have, using astoundingly inept foreign policy, increased anti-American sentiment in a part of the globe that had no lack of it to begin with.
Elsewhere, we have engendered a deep distrust of our government and its motives. We have also set a “pre-emptive strike” example which anyone, including our enemies, can now point to for justification of whatever actions they care to undertake.
At home, we are hardly more secure than before, and have given up significant freedoms for an illusion of safety.
Bush will eventually be out of office, but we will be left to savor the fruits of his incompetence.
And for WHAT? What, in any sense, from the altruistic to the cynical, has ANYONE gained from this war?
It is in this sense that Iraq is seen as a disaster.
scotandrsn said:
You need to back this up, since this is the whole question of the thread, with plenty of evidence on both sides. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.
How about the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis that were being shot and dumped in mass graves? Do they and the future victims of Sadadm’s brutality count?
Your message just rehashes a bunch of conspiracy theories and assigns silly motivations to this war. Is there ANYONE besides rabid Bush haters who think this war was fought to ‘deflect attention from Afghanistan’? I submit that this is a ridiculous assertion on its face. Bush wasn’t suffering AT ALL in the polls because of Afghanistan. And the notion that you deflect criticism of invading a small country by invading a much larger one in the very center of the world stage is ridiculous.
Besides, not everyone thinks that the situation in Afghanistan required any ‘deflecting’. Afghanistan’s economy grew 28% last year. Little girls get to go to school. Massive amounts of foreign investment are moving into the country. There is a democratic government. All in all, it’s way better off than it was under the Taliban, and getting better. But of course, the Bush Bashers were going to find fault with anything less than Afghanistan turning into Iowa overnight.
For suitably small values of ‘many’. The majority of Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone, accepting of the occupation, and ready to work with the new government. In the more oppressed areas, wherever Americans go they are treated like heroes. Your characterization just doesn’t wash.
Uh huh. But I note there haven’t been any more attacks in the U.S. – does Bush get credit for that, since you’re willing to blame him for everything else?
This is a truly amazing statement. Do you REALLY believe that the Iraqi people have not gained from this? If so, they disagree with you.
If the security situation comes under control, and the economy in Iraq comes back, this war will have been spectacularly successful. It will have ridded the world of one of the most dangerous tyrants. It will have put a functioning democracy right in the heart of the middle east. It will help stabilize oil prices, help to diversify the economy of the middle east, and give us millions of Arabs who are on our side. It will give citizens of neighboring dictatorships an example of how things can be without a dictator.
There is still lots of things to be done, and lots of fair criticism of the way reconstruction has gone so far. But you go one step further, declaring that the war has absolutely been a disaster, and that NO ONE has benefited from it. This is a ridiculous claim.
Posted by Sam Stone:
If, if, if. Please bear in mind what we’re up against. It’s a challenge without precedent in our history since Reconstruction.
First, the occupation is never really going to be popular. In some quarters the people might cheer U.S. troops in the streets, but that doesn’t mean they still want them to be there next year. Hussein’s thugs were brutal, but they were Iraqis, and mostly Arabs and Muslims. The people could understand them. There was no mystery to them. But now the country is occupied by Americans – strange foreigners, very few of them Muslims or Arabs. Nobody likes to have their country occupied by foreign troops, not even when that is visibly better than what came before. It only makes it worse that those troops are visibly supporting foreign business executives who have taken over the national oil industry, and might or might not keep their promise to use its revenues to rebuild Iraq. It’s not like it was in Japan – when the U.S. occupied Japan, there was an acknowledged national leader, Emperor Hirohito, who told his people to cooperate, and so they did. But there is no such leader in Iraq, not since Hussein went down. And there are many Iraqi factions who hate the U.S. occupation for different reasons, and the masses are uncomfortable with it for obvious reasons. I think we must expect that partisan resistance to American troops will continue until the last soldier boards the last ship home.
And after that, what? A functioning democracy? I sure hope so. But Iraq has absolutely no history of democratic government. It has absolutely no tradition of public service as something other than a way to gain advantages for the public servant’s family. And there are many powerful factions aiming at something entirely different from democracy, and they are not going to go away. In the meantime, the new government the U.S. has put in place lacks perceived legitimacy, because the U.S. put it in place. And that’s not likely to change either – in fact, that stigma will continue to attach to the government, even after the occupation ends and even after elections are held.
Furthermore, Iraq, like most Arab countries, has an underdeveloped sense of national identity. The Iraqis might hate foreigners but that doesn’t mean they like each other. Do you think a Basra Shi’ite looks at a Baghdad Sunni and sees a fellow Iraqi? At best, he sees a fellow Arab; but he probably feels he has more in common with the Arab Shi’ites of southwestern Iran. And the Kurds are not Arabs and don’t even want to be part of the Iraqi nation at all, if they can find a way out of it.
If all this leads to anything other than a stable, functioning national democracy, that will destabilize oil prices. Hussein continued to pump and sell Iraq’s oil throughout his reign, because what else was he going to do with it? Any established national government will have the same attitude. But if a civil war breaks out, people will have more pressing concerns than working the oil rigs, and the fighting is sure to disrupt transportation routes, and pipelines can get blown up at any time. And sooner or later, we are going to feel that at the gas pump. Unless we commit ourselves to keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely, just to guard the oilfields and keep the highways open.
Hussein was a psychotic tyrant, and this war might indeed have been the best thing for the people of Iraq. But it was not the best thing for the people of anywhere else. The United States and the whole world would have been better off if Bush had just let bad enough alone.
You know, its funny. Mostly conservatives present themselves as hard-headed realists. Its really disconcerting when they take off on flights of boundless optimism.
Afghanistan’s economy has increased 28%? Wow! Of course, opening two functioning Mcdonalds in Kabul might well have accomplished that. Afghanistan’s economy was a basket case, and they still owe money on the basket!
And where, o where, do you get your facts? Has the Heritage Foundation put out a brochure? Foreign investment is flooding into Afghanistan? From where? Who, in thier right mind, is going to invest in Afghanistan? On what security? With what collaterall? We have installed a perfectly decent fellow as mayor of Kabul, and thats ok. Really, that is an accomplishment that no doubt has pleased the people of Kabul. But have you the slightest evidence that his authority extends one kilometer outside of Kabul?
They are? Then why are they getting shot at? Honestly, did you read this before you posted it, Sam? And as far as a lack of attacks on the US, which you are eager to laud GeeDubya for…does anyone, in this world, have the slightest idea what al-Queda is, much less what they are up to?
Yes, its true. If everything goes swimmingly, if the gods conspire to make your fondest dreams come true, if a blind hippopotamus can toe dance through a mine field without a scratch…
But Sam…how many lottery tickets have you cashed?
Same poster. Same thread.
If you’re going to cut and paste from the National Review, it would be courteous to credit it, too.
You do know, don’t you, that that’s where the majority of the people live, right? Please explain why you choose to use the name, which looks to some of us as a crude form of spin.
I never cut and pasted anything from the National Review. Haven’t even read it in weeks.
And there’s no inconstistency to what I said. The fact that foreign workers are targets of a small number of terrorists in no way changes the fact that the majority of Iraqis are glad to be liberated.
Yes, I do know t hat the majority of people live in the Sunni Triangle. I never said otherwise. What does that have to do with anything?
Why did I choose the name? Uh, because it’s descriptive. I’ve been known to refer to cars as cars, too. And once and a while I’ll even call a spade a spade.
And once again ElvisL1ves treats us to a 100% content-free jab at another poster, rather than providing anything positive of his own.
Why attack the US if Bush is making himself the villain in the international arena ? What does Iraq have to do with terrorism ?Y’know, when you say stuff like this, it sounds like you WANT Afghanistan to fail. It’s also incredibly snobbish.
You guys are just engaging in Shadenfreude. You take delight in thinking that this whole venture is turning out badly. Every piece of bad news allows you to nod smugly and say, “See? I told you so.”
It’s too bad that you can’t see beyond this to the reality of what is going on in these countries. You’re hopelessly biased towards wanting to believe that the whole house of cards is collapsing in on the Bush administration, and it blinds you to the facts.
Afghanistan IS attracting significant amounts of private investment. They just set up a 100 million dollar line of credit with India for reconstruction. About 2 billion is coming from the U.S. next year. Canada now has 3,000 peacekeepers in country. There is a 50 million dollar Mariott being built in Kabul. Over 800 civil reconstruction projects have been completed by the army corps of engineers.
Here’s a report from the Asian Development Bank. Among the conclusions:
As for Karzai being the ‘Mayor of Kabul’… It’s certainly true that warlords control many of the outlying areas. It will probably be that way for a long time. But that doesn’t mean they are at war, or that commerce can not happen. Agreements between regions, enforced by the U.S. military and other international peacekeeping forces, can help them work together. This has already happened - there have been major surrenders and agreements already between warlords and the coalition forces, and many of them may become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Afghanistan will probably evolve some form of government other than a national democracy. Perhaps a disonnected republic or some other structure that allows for growth and cooperation, while allowing the warlords to maintain control of their regions.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Bush hating.
You seem to take delight in thinking the whole venture is turning out marvelously. Every piece of good news allows you to nod smugly and say "See ? Bush is good. I told you so.Sam, pointing out inconsistencies in facts used is hardly “personal”. It’s been pointed out to you, multiple times, your convenient dismissal of any debunking of your arguments as a personal attack, but it doesn’t fool anyone.
No, you weren’t talking about “a majority of Iraqis”, you said "wherever Americans go they are treated like heroes… ". Are you so caught up in your adoration of anything Republican that you don’t even notice your own contradictions when they are shown to you? Is there any contrary news that makes it through your filters?
I did make it clear that use of the term “Sunni Triangle” is spin, and why, with negative implications for the credibility of those who use it. Now why do you use it? Because the CentCom press releases to which you give total unquestioning credence do?
This “Wanting to fail” stuff is tiresome, too, partly because of its utter falsehood and partly because of its petty and insulting nature. That is a direct personal attack on everyone who disagrees with you, and that’s a damn big lot of people here. Please don’t try to explain the responsibilities of citizenship to us, or to anyone else IRL, either, until you’ve shown you understand and accept them yourself.
hhmm… there is a lot of “wanting to fail” all over the world… but not by most Dopers. Even if rooting for US failure real Dopers should have more chances of seeing thru media buzz and bias.
I have a few friends who delight in reading about US soldiers getting killed in Iraq for example. Can’t blame them thou… anything to get Bush out is the prevalent mentality. Being more sympathetic to military personell myself I feel they just got sent into a very bad deal and its sad they are getting killed for Bush.
If the war in Iraq is going well, why does the Administration have to use fake letters from “our brave servicemen” to sell the war?
Really sinister stuff... plus the CIA leak... seems some people dont feel unethical behaviour is going too far.How is the administration behind it? Judging from the story, it looks like a soldier wrote a letter and asked other soldiers to sign it and send it if they agreed with it.
Isn’t it sad that our soldiers have to mount a letter-writing campaign to get Americans the good news about what’s going on there?