You are obviously not aware of the thread…after the war!!!
I agree with the fact that Saddam is an idiot and owing to the threat he places against the National Security of his neighbours, and his obvious aggressive nature towards the UN and the US, and that if he is found to be in violation of the UN Security Coucil resolution, that yes action is most definitely warranted.
Are the citizens of Iraq out of control or endangering other people? I must have missed that part of the news…
However, I will never agree to invading any sovereign country, just because a separate country does not agree with their administration.
If that were the case, than most of the world be in a constant state of war.
The whole concept of sovereignty and diplomacy is based on not invading a completely separate country.
No country, regardless of how powerful we may be, has the “right” or “privilege” to invade another separate and sovereign country…period.
You know France does not agree with us, maybe we should bomb Paris, too?
Ah, but then the question becomes, how broadly ought we define those “interests.” For example, do we have a legitimate interest in obtaining oil, or in obtaining cheap oil? Exactly what “interests” do you believe we are defending by attacking Iraq?
And I’m not sure the US has the best track record for demanding cooperation with the UN or other international organizations.
Well, we have these two statements by you that seem to be somewhat contradictory.
Yes, action is warranted by the UN because of Saddam’s actions.
No, the US has no right to ever invade another seperate and sovereign country.
Why does the UN get this right and not the US? If the UN fails to act when it should the US cannot get involved?
And that second statement:
No country, regardless of how powerful we may be, has the “right” or “privilege” to invade another separate and sovereign country…period.
This is what I was getting at earlier. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and I appretiate you coming out and saying it.
But, your position on this is laughable. We had no right to invade Afghanistan under this standard. Nor, for that matter, did we have a right to invade Germany, Japan or Italy during WWII. Using your standard, if Saddam used Weapons of Mass destuction on Isreal, then we would have no right to invade them? How about if they were proven to be behind terror attacks against the US?
How about if Saddam rounded up half the population of his country tomorrow and started gassing them killing 10,000 a day. They are still a sovereign country that we have no right to invade, correct?
I am still having trouble believing that you actually feel this way. If you do, there isn’t much hope for any kind of rational discussion with you on this issue. Perhaps you would like to add a few exceptions to this statement?
Defending one’s country is not the same as invading it. In case you have not read up on your history lately, you might know that in all three cases, we or our specific interests were directly attacked. We then defended against this illegal invasion of another country into our soveriegnty. Invading is the first act, not the second. As in assault and self-defence.
Rational discussion? What would someone like you who wishes to kill others know about rational?
Have you ever been in combat? Have you ever seen the effects that war has on the people of that country?
Well, some of us have, and I can assure you, if you had, you would understand that war, although sometimes unavoidable, should, however, be avoided through diplomacy if at all possible.
When diplomacy fails, than by all means, defend your country to the last man, because freedom is worth it.
Is Saddam murdering 10,000 people every day? No! So stop with the ridiculousness. Because you have obviously missed several points already…
Dinsdale,
I apologise for my tardiness in my response…
While I was still in the Army, I worked in the Divisional Command Group for about 18 months. While there, we had a “formula”, but
I no longer recall what that was,
it was not really very accurate, besides, it would have to depend upon many variables, such as types of weaponry, dispersion of population, military centers in vicinity of civilian population centers, and so forth.
I am sure that the government has some high-tech computer program to show how much collateral damage can be estimated, but I have been out of the US service for about 10 years.
I am now with the UN, working on more peaceable means to help countries seek peace and rebuild.
Hey, I asked nicely a couple of times if that was what you really meant. It’s not my fault you are making ridiculous statements that any sane person would disagree with.
royjwood, I respect the fact that you have served in the Army. I would like to value what you have to say. You make it difficult however, when you continually contradict yourself post after post.
I am also hoping that there isn’t a war with Iraq. Just by taking a hard-line stance, Bush has already gotten a lot of consessions from Saddam, such as the entry of the inspectors. Hopefully, he will keep giving in to the pressure and a war won’t be needed. I don’t want US troops, our allies, or the Iraqi’s to die.
Ahh, you finally start making some revisions to your no war ever for any reason stance. You never had this defense makes invasion OK clause before now.
Now, it’s ok with you to go to war simply over our interests? I though that No country, regardless of how powerful we may be, has the “right” or “privilege” to invade another separate and sovereign country…period.
If you think there is a diplomatic way to get Saddam to stop killing his people and pursuing WMD then I am all ears. I don’t think he is rational enough to understand anything but violence. The only time he seems to respond to demands is when he is afraid of being physically removed from power.
I never said I was completely against war, however, I believe that it should be the final option…period. If you wish me to type my entire thesis on my beliefs on war or war against Iraq or what happens after, we could be a here awhile. The thread was related to what happens after the war. And that is not for us to decide, that is for the Iraqi people, and no one else.
Our ships are sunk, our harnours are bombed, our cities are attacked, that is our interests, iis it not? We then respond with defense.
If I hit you, or your wife or child, and you hit me back. I would be guilty of Battery, but you would only be acting in self defense. Where lies the contradiction?
As you may have noted from my earlier posts, I never condemned the war against Iraq, in fact, I supported it as long as it is legal, such as I already stated: if he does not cooperate with the UN Security Council Resolution. There is not any evidence to support the idea that Iraq has attacked the US, nor supported the group that did. This is only about the UN Security Council Resolutions. With the backing of the UN, the attack would be legal, just as it was when we acted in defense against Afghanistan.
Invasion and defense are two totally separate things. One precipitates the other.
No, but you are advocating the killing of others by advocating a war. Hence expressing your wishes to kill.
But I don’t want to get to sidetracked by this. I want to get some facts, some opinions by experts, etc… that explain what’s going to be accomplished by this war and how. What are we getting into?
So far all I’ve gotten is essentially “Everything’s gonna be hunky-dory, don’t worry about it.”
I currently work in East Timor with the UN trying to Rebuild this country after the TNI and militias destroyed it.
Anyone who thinks that life will be perfect just because we destroy a country is way off track.
It is now more than three years after the destruction, and this place is still suffering many problems.
The UN will need to send in a lot of people to help rebuild and train the Iraqi’s to govern themselves. This will take time, but it can be done. The one most important factor, however, is the wil of the people. If we force someone upon them that they can not trust or respect, we may only create more problems, such as what happened here in ET with the PM.
We will need to donate millions of dollars to rebuild the infrastructuer that our military will expertly destroy, I mean electricity, communications, water, agriculture, health, and education.
And we will need to do all of this while trying to reassure them of their safety and our concern for their “best interest”.
This will be a monumental task, we are still learning how to do it over here in ET. It is not easy, but it is worth it.
I think what surprises me the most in these “war with Iraq” threads is the ignorance of the region, people, religion and history usually displayed by those that actually support going to war. I am new to posting: my first posts were in the Pit, of all places, and I managed to stay level-headed, so hopefully I can do so here.
I have spent the last 12 years of my life in the Middle East, in one way or another, as a military member and as a private citizen. I used to brief teams that came into the area; I am fluent in Arabic, strong in most dialects, and have taken the time to study the culture, the history, the religion, and the people. I still live in the Middle East, right in the middle of where all this is going to occur if the administration gets its way. So I’d like to make a few comments…
To directly respond to the OP: is there a plan for what happens after the war, as espoused by the administration? I mean, no matter what you or I may want, that is the important question. And as much as they may be trying to come to some kind of agreement, there is little proof that there is any real structure in place. The Middle East experience of the people that will be drafting said plan is pitifully weak: look at your main players, and tell me who, if any, have any expertise in this field. One of the main reasons we didn’t go to Baghdad in the first episode was the political instability that would be unleashed; I can assure that the idea of going to Baghdad and “finishing the job” was discussed, but was ruled out. Primarily, the stumbling block was “and then what?”; the question has still not been answered - lots of conjecture, but there just isn’t the experience to come up with even a shaky plan at best.
Let’s look at the options, and try to lay them out in a logical fashion, by answering the “and then what?” question:
Remove Saddam with force: don’t compare this new military action with Desert Storm, Afghanistan, or Vietnam. It will be none of the above; this will have to be a completely different campaign if it is to succeed quickly. And the administration’s future hinges on the “quickly” - if it takes too long and gets too bloody, the protests that are already occurring will be trivial compared to what is to come. We will have to be prepared to hit Baghdad with everything we have; they will fight back, as, regardless of what some may believe, the populace has both the reasons and the will to do so. Even in the face of the military might of the US, to which they know they will eventually bow, there is one thing that will hold them together: WE ARE INVADING THEIR COUNTRY. And for what? Saddam? A man that has existed as their leader (either directly or de facto) for 30+ years? And now, all of a sudden, the US says enough is enough, and we are going to assume the right to remove him? Your average Iraqi has had a hard enough life, for which, believe it or not, they blame us, the US. It has been easy for Saddam to tell his people that we are starving them, that we hate Arabs (look at what we support in Palestine and the Occupied Territories), that we will never allow Iraq to be a nation again. So assuming we remove Saddam, how much of his infrastructure do we remove with him? Do we arrest his entire clan? All of those he has supported in power around him? All of those that have curried favor to get into positions of authority within his party and the government? Where do we stop? This will be the hardest part of all: once we militarily force our way into Baghdad, who guides us in the surgical removal of the government infrastructure, cutting out what is bad and keeping what is good? If you point to the Iraqi Opposition (in exile) as an example; these people have NO credibility in Iraq, and many haven’t been there for years. I am friends with a man who was quite close to both Udey and Qusay, or as close as one would dare to get; he hasn’t been back to Iraq in 5 years, and even he would be hard-pressed to separate the good guys from the bad ones. Our intel community is woefully un-prepared for the task; start taking a look at simply how many Arabic analysts work with any of the three-letter agencies, and you will see quickly that there aren’t that many with long-term experience in the region. So our only real option would then have to be removing all of the government apparatus, by either forced exile or imprisonment, at least for the time being, leaving us with the task of completely re-building the infrastructure. A Marshal Plan would be the only answer; but are we willing to bear the cost? What we did in the 40’s and 50’s was considered an amazing feat, both then and now; in both Germany and Japan, however, you had fairly homogenous populations, with similar religious and cultural backgrounds. This is not the case in Iraq: you have the Kurds in the north straining for autonomy, the Shi’a in the south waiting for assistance from Iran, and then the Baghdad region, mostly Sunni but with a Christian minority, who make up the bulk of the middle class and professional workforce in the country. In Desert Storm, Saddam was left in place to keep these forces from erupting; there was a logical fear that, with Saddam gone, there would be action from the Turks to quash the Kurds before they got out of hand as well as action from the Iranians to reclaim the Shatt al-Arab and unite with their Shi’a brethren in the South. This would leave an isolated Baghdad, with the Iranians in control of the only port and dangerously close to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (which, although the majority of the country is Sunni, is predominantly Shi’a). For those that don’t know, the Eastern Province is where the majority of the Saudi oil fields are located, so it is a very sensitive area. This whole scenario could only have been avoided with a massive investiture of troops and money on the part of the Allied Coalition, and was pretty much dismissed out of hand. So what has changed that will make any of this any easier? Nothing. What has changed to make any of this any harder? A lot: no allied coalition; a grinding urban campaign through, at the least, Baghdad, if not other key cities; lack of cooperation from local countries; renewed fighting in the Occupied Territories, leading to a lack of confidence among Arabs in the US. Few, if any, Arabs will see us as having the moral high ground, and that is an important distinction; without it, it’s just a battle for the oil, and to show everyone that we could do it.
Remove Saddam into exile: unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot to recommend this concept, either. Just removing Saddam will not end the problem: taking out his supporters, the internal police structure, and the infrastructure that the Ba’athists have built for the past 30 years may get you to a starting point, but that is a fairly drastic exile plan, and not likely to be accepted by the current group in power. This option has been put forward by the Saudis as a way of forestalling a war; I think in many ways they know that it will a) actually get Saddam out of the way, without allowing too much to really change in Iraq, or b) will postpone any war til late in the summer, effectively causing it to go away. The Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal, is an intelligent, clever man, who has kept Saudi in a balancing act for quite a while; if anyone has the ability to sort this out, he could do it, although the present atmosphere leaves him little room for maneuver. This could change if the military options were put on indefinite hold, however.
Let the UN inspectors work, with support, and enter into a dialogue on removing sanctions: I realize this may seem absolutely nuts to the more conservative of you out there, but you really don’t understand the effect the sanctions have had. Though I won’t do it here (this is long-winded enough already), there is little evidence that the sanctions have done anything other than hurt the opposition groups and common Iraqi in the street; I realize that the first response is always “well, that’s because Saddam lies to them and redirects what funds they do get…” Sure, that happens, but if there were no sanctions, and money and business flowed into the country, the overall economy and living conditions would improve. Western companies would go back in, Saddam would have to still bargain with OPEC and the world markets, try to negotiate with neighbors, and generally have play nice both economically with the world if he wanted to grow. The more Iraq grows, the more education that is required, and the harder it is for him to stay isolated. Iraq was never North Korea – he would still be under a microscope, with the threat of force always close. And if it wasn’t working, we could always go back to the military plan, as we will continue to be right next door, so to speak.
No matter what the administration decides, we will be stuck there for years to come; though there may be some that feel that having a new US friend in the region will be a good thing, there is no evidence to support the supposition that the region would stabilize due to our methods. We would most likely radicalize the situation in Iran, and probably take out what little chance the reformers currently have; the Saudi tribesmen that begat the wave of suicide bombers that gave us the horrific 9/11 memory would have much closer targets; and the elusive al-Qaieda cells would most likely receive an upswing in the local roll calls. Just because we think everyone in the world wants to be us, does not necessarily mean that they do.
Make no mistake: it is not our right to remove any other world leader from power. Period. If we act as part of the global community, if we enforce the will of the global “neighborhood” to protect the whole from the danger of one of the parts, that is one thing. To act unilaterally sets a precedent that may very well come back to haunt us; Grenada and Panama were not exactly sterling examples of America at its finest, but had nowhere near the inherent volatility that Iraq has the potential for unleashing.
No apologies necessary for the length. It was interesting to hear your perspective as someone in the area and some knowlege of the cultures there.
I wonder if the conservatives in this forum agree with your assessment of the Bush Admin’s readiness to deal with the consequences. Should be interesting.
The thing missing from that long analysis is your plan for an alternative.
This is what really bugs me. The argument against going to war in Iraq boils down to, “It’s risky, it is going to cost a lot, it’s going to take a long time to stabilize the region.”
This is all true. But let’s hear your alternative. If we don’t remove Saddam, what do you think will be the result of that? Where will we be in ten years? Twenty?
So, let’s hear it, you opponents of war: What is your alternative plan, what are the risks of that, what is your vision for what the Middle East will look like in 20 years, and why is this course of action preferable?
Here’s the way I see it:
[ul]
[li]If the U.S. backs off now, Saddam’s stalling will have paid off. He will be seen to have faced down the mighty United States - and won. This is going to embolden radicals throughout the world who are trying to attack the U.S. It will be a major pyschological victory for the enemies of the United States.[/li][li]If Saddam is left in power, he will continue to build weapons of mass destruction at a rapid pace. The lesson of North Korea is obvious - get a nuke, and you won’t be attacked. [/li][li]The other despotic nations in the region and elsewhere have a vested interest in seeing Saddam get the bomb. They may be scared of him, but they are probably more scared of having the United States overthrow an Arab nation and possibly kick off a major restructuring in the Middle East. So you can expect a major build-up of weapons of mass destruction among all the countries that are the enemy of the U.S.[/li][li]The inspections will be useless. Saddam is playing games now - imagine what he’ll do once the threat of war abates. [/li][li]Once Saddam has the bomb, he’s going to threaten someone with it. Probably the U.S. and Israel. Kuwait won’t be too happy, either. The first thing you can expect Saddam to do is demand that the U.S. and Britain stop defending the no-fly zone. [/li][li]All of this is going to make the entire war on terror much more difficult, and within ten years there are going to be nuclear weapons in Iraq, and a new war all over again - this time, with nuclear weapons in the mix.[/li][/ul]
So, absent a war, tell us how we avoid these bad things.
Nice try, but that wasn’t the subject of this thread. The “alternative” already exists, war is the change in status quo. You have to explain what the consequences of this war will be to justify why it is better than what we have already.
Actually one of the main objections of this thread is “Nobody’s explained how this is going to magically happen. So what the hell is going to happen?”
Preferable to what? That’s the whole point of this thread. We’ve heard plenty of doom and gloom about the consquences of Saddam from the administration, but they have done much in the way of PR to explain what’s going to happen to Iraq. Even the conservatives on this board don’t seem to have a clue.
Sam, the OP asks “what’s your plan for Iraq after the war?” [italics mine]; I was trying to give an overview of the possible options, so there was at least some idea of the scope of the whole issue from a “local” perspective. My personal opinion is: war is a foolish idea. I remember back when I was a young Republican, getting ready to vote in my first national election (in ’84); I was happily ready to vote for Reagan, and did. I then got on a plane and spent a year going to school in Europe; my opinions and my outlook became radically altered by how I saw us from the outside. Do you remember the justifications for Panama and Grenada? Aren’t they echoed in your response above? And do you (or anyone else) think that if we had left these countries alone, there would have been some kind of cabal formed that would have brought down the US? Both countries are still economically insignificant, and neither has changed very much from what they were previously; I posit that the only thing we did by invading was make ourselves look worse in the world community, to simply serve domestic political and economic issues. However, you bring up several questions, so I will try to stay on topic and answer them the best I can.
You ask what the future will be in 10 or 20 years, and I’m not a prognosticator; however, the region will be very different, even if we step back and do nothing. In 20 years, Saddam will be dead, most likely, as will all of the ruling oligarchy in Saudi as well as the main Ayatollahs in Iran. In 20 years, there will have been massive infrastructure changes in all three of those nations, if not actual revolutions; in the meantime, the rulers of Jordan and Syria will have matured, the smaller Gulf countries will have grown even further, and, if we play our diplomatic cards right, the US could be firmly entrenched as a strong and loyal ally. Obviously, I am making assumptions, but so are you: your comments imply that the region is inherently unstable, and, though there is much rhetoric abounding to that effect, I don’t see where there is any more instability here than anywhere else in the world. The Intifada has created problems for Israel, granted, but, with the exception of Afghanistan, most of the countries are relatively stable (especially when compared with Asia, South America, or Africa); even in Iran, most Iranians feel that change is coming, though the pace is slow. And if Khatami keeps up the pressure, they may even be able to do it without a revolution; of course, assistance from the West would help, but the administration is far too short-sighted to ever make the offer.
Sam, there aren’t many “radicals” out there that support Saddam; the Taliban didn’t, the Shi’a don’t, al-Qaieda never has (absolutely no evidence anywhere, though the US intel community has looked long and hard). The Saudi radical groups look up to bin Laden, who is diametrically opposed to anything Saddam represents. The only reason anyone has come to his defense (including myself) is because the US has made him out to be “enemy number 1” at a time when there are many other pressing concerns. In the US, more and more people are seeing that this is a “manufactured” case against Saddam; in the Arab world, they are convinced. If the US increases the dialogue, and starts to unclench the fist, so to speak, there will nothing like what you describe. Hell, he crowed that he had beaten us when we walked out of Iraq in the first Desert Storm, and many Arabs felt that he was right. It did nothing to strengthen al-Qaieda, the Taliban, or any other “radical” Islamic group; in case no one noticed, Iraq is a secular country, which has been the main criticism by all of the above-mentioned “radicals.” And where is the “psychological” victory if we back-off? We forced him to bow to the UN mandate, and we will always have the upper hand, both morally and ethically, if we step back and let the Iraqi people sort their own mess out; if we go in there and get our noses bloodied, forcing them to do our bidding, and the war is even slightly protracted and nasty, how many do you think will come after us then, in revenge of their “Muslim” brothers? Do you seriously think we can somehow “frighten” them off by using force? We handily chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan, but terror attacks are still coming; what you fail to see is that war only makes the situation worse, by inflaming passions for the support of yet another “oppressed” Muslim community. Up until we started waving the big stick, Iraq was always considered, even by the Arabs, as secular; a war will only serve to strengthen what the mullahs and imams in the mosques are saying, which is that Iraq will be only the first in a string of conquests, all directed towards the Muslims. It is a very slippery slope for us, and very short-sighted: it doesn’t take into account the culture or history of the region, to any degree.
Really? And where is your evidence for this? Do you have any idea of the state of Iraq’s weapons programs? You don’t, and neither does anyone else, save them. However, do you remember when the Israelis took out the Osiraq plant in 1981? Who do you think has better intelligence on the country, us or them? Although the administration makes a lot of noise about WMD, I can tell you from personal experience that, although he has tried, it will take serious cooperation from outside sources for Iraq to pursue and build a nuclear device. I was a member of analysis teams on Iraqi capabilities in the 90’s, and their programs were fairly basic, with little to no real progress. His military forces were in a terrible state of dis-repair even before Desert Storm, and have not been substantially upgraded since; a massive influx of outside aid would be needed to develop any of these programs beyond the “nuisance” level. Don’t get me a wrong, a bomb would provide him with serious stature in the Arab world and beyond (from his way of thinking), but it isn’t as easy as all that to get one, or he and others would have had one long ago. And you have over-simplified the North Korea situation by making it sound like the only reason we aren’t threatening them with an attack is because they may have a nuclear capability; that is patently false. There are many other concerns in N. Korea, not the least of which is that the terrain and their well-supported military would make an invasion or other military action hellish; not to mention that the PRC would not be all that happy with our moving into the region in such force. Iraq is a lone gunman, with what we perceive as little to no support and in a state of preparedness that would allow for a relatively easy conquest; Saddam’s actions make it easy to develop a case of “moral indignity” against him, and the self-righteousness of our current administration have turned him into another obstacle in the way of progress that needs to be knocked down. The two situations are inherently very different; I don’t think you can use one as a case against the other.
And I don’t see where you get the basis for the assertion that he will build nukes “at a rapid pace”; whether he wants to or not, it isn’t all that easy. And I pointed out that not only do we already have a strong presence in the region, but we have a good observation point; it is a big country, where many things can be hidden, but, as most of the inspectors that deal with this will say, a nuke cannot be built in a vacuum or completely hidden. The technology to build all but the most clumsy of devices is substantial, expensive, and complicated; his core of scientists has been whittled down over the years of purges and power consolidations, and the technology being taught in Iraqi universities is decades behind, even by Mid-East standards. If you, or the administration for that matter, have any proof that this is not the case and Saddam is on the verge of throwing together nukes and delivery systems, I think the whole world would be interested in seeing it. You and they are the ones that want the war: prove why such a drastic step is necessary. Besides invective and rhetoric, no one has produced any real evidence for support of their claims.
This whole paragraph
has no basis whatsoever in reality. Give one piece of evidence for your extremely over-the-top claims here; which despotic nations are you talking about? And, once again, where would they get this WMD? If we strengthen the UN and the world community, instead of constantly stepping in its way and acting unilaterally, using it as our punching bag, etc., then we might be able to create an organization that would be able to effectively police the region and elsewhere. We are now back to the argument that the world stage is like the Wild West, with everyone fending for themselves; every nation in the region has an interest in stability, and will do what it takes to promote it. If this revised “Domino Theory” (with all that entails historically) is really a threat, as you propose, who’s next if we leave Iraq alone? Yemen? Iran? I would really like to see the next despot lurking in the shadows that is waiting for a crack at us, if you have some examples.
OK – this is getting longer than I wanted, so I will lump the next three “points” together. Inspections will eventually find pretty much what we expect them to find; yes, Iraq is a huge area to search, and they can hide things just about anywhere. But what about North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India or, for that matter, Yemen or Iran? Who is inspecting them? Do we inherently trust them? Come on: inspections are artificial, and will have no real effect other than to stymie or slow down any possible weapons development in Iraq. If the inspectors leave, he goes back to trying to put together a weapons program; however, all the way back in 1981 we and the Israelis knew what he was up to, without having inspectors in the country. Do you not believe our intel capability has increased since then? That we wouldn’t have people in and around Iraq, keeping an eye on their progress? It is a basic tenet in intelligence: open countries, like the US, are easy to spy on. If you let Iraq open up, businesses pour in, and Westerners once again become involved in the country, it will be much easier to keep tabs on them. Do you know how hard it is to have spies in a country as miserable, closed and paranoid as Iraq is right now? Very, very tough; and, though we can do amazing things with imagery and electronic spectrum analysis, people on the ground are important.
As far as his having the bomb: if we ever let him get it, sure, he would probably become even more posturing than before. Its actual use, however, would mean instant annihilation; and historically, Saddam has been a survivor, not suicidal. We are now talking the idea of a whole country acting as one big “suicide bomber” with a nuke strapped to its collective waist; there are many ways to avoid this scenario, primarily by being involved in the region’s development, and not forcing Iraq into a “circle the wagons” stance.
Make the “war on terror” more difficult? I fail to see the argument here; going to war with Iraq will make the “war on terror” practically impossible, not difficult, as every half-baked Islamic radical will now have many, many martyrs to choose from. By going to war with Iraq, we play right into bin Laden’s hands; do you remember who trained him, BTW? The CIA did, and they focused on insurgency tactics: get your enemies divided, aim them in the wrong direction, and they will be much easier to get. I am oversimplifying, of course, but that is exactly what we are doing. Our “knee-jerk” reactions to Iraq and Hussein have done nothing to support our “war on terror” whatsoever. We are not going to beat “terror” the way we are currently going, no more than the “war on drugs” has had any effect on either the drug trade or drug usage. However, a real war on Iraq will have far-reaching consequences for the region and the world that will not be positive. The idea that we go in there, tear it all down, build it into something we like, and, bam, everyone will be happy is ridiculously naïve; the colonizers of Africa, India, and the Mid-East all had the same opinions once, and where has that gotten us? I think anyone that wants this war needs to spend some serious time studying history because, God knows, we are about ready to be “doomed to repeat it.”
First off, there is the mess in the streets of Baghdad, cleaning up all those rose petals strewn in the path of our soldiers as they march into the capital. And confetti as well. Then the tricky decisions involved as regards the best way to allocate Iraqi oil production held “in trust” for the Iraqi people. Given the fulsome patriotism of our oil men, some tricky diplomacy will be required to choose which shall be permitted to fling thier spreadsheets into the fray. British Petroleum’s impeccable record of integrity will stand it in good stead, as will, no doubt, Halliburton’s. Russia’s Gasprom will likely find itself between Iraq and a hard place.
And then choosing new leadership to guide Iraq on the path to full democratization. Something along the lines of “Iraqi Idol”, with an expert panel analyzing who can most sincerely and fulsomely sing the praises of a firmly avuncular Bush Augustus, as well as the decision making skills involved in knowing what to kiss, and when, and to what degree of abject adoration.
History shows that when America wins a war, our streets are strewn with restaraunts of a new ethnic flavor, in this case Iraqi. I have some minor trepidation there. I am unable to eat Middle Eastern food, it makes me fell awful.
(All kidding aside, kudos to the Crazy Greek. Well said, sir.)