Apprently, Iran would have significant influence over Iraq while the situation stresses the U.S militarily and financially. Meanwhile it boosts Iran’s oil revenues which makes it all but impossible for the U.S to seriously threaten Iran at this point. Iran has legitimate reason to stall the country which labelled it as part of the axis of terror.
Syria would also benefit from the american energies being taken by Iraq as it also is (but not as much as a few years ago it seems) on chilly terms with the u.s.
I assume that Venezuela’s unfriendly government, and, to a lesser degree, North Korea’s junta (they have nukes so they’re off limit) are also delighted by this state of affairs as it gives them a partner keener to make diplomacy work and more willing to concede terms.
I venture that a significant part of the world’s population feels some glee at the humiliation of the arrogant and bullying superpower, moreso than during Vietnam I suspect. I am not sure to which actual governments this extends to, though.
Putin’s assertive Russia probably makes a good chunk of change selling weapons and may benefit from american exhaustion and is trying to broaden its sphere of influence and increase power.
China, by becoming America’s banker, is neutralizing the U.S with loan money and making itself completely indispensable to their partner’s economy as ever increasing amounts of stuff are made in China and south east asia, where China’s influence is real. Or maybe China is just being a good partner…depends how you look at it.
Very observant of you, elucidator. A disorganized retreat of the U.S from Iraq suddenly means that the Iraqis successfully resisted occupation and threw out the invaders.
This returns a lot of face to the Iraqis, who are very proud.
All of them, I think. Anything that discourages America from throwing it’s weight around so much will help other countries with their ambitions, whatever they may be.
Even America would benefit, in the long run; the war in Iraq and it’s occupation was and is a stupid thing. Discouraging us from similar stupidities is a good thing.
You didn’t say anything about a “disorganized retreat”, but, of course, neither did you give us any other clue as to how you defined “failure”. So, I can’t accuse you of moving the goalposts seeing as how you never set any to begin with.
Perhaps you should start with some definitions of such plastic and flexible terms as “failure”, or “victory”. Or anything, for that matter.
Whatever is seen by the Iraqis and/or the world at large perceive as a disorganized retreat. I presume it would mean leaving Iraq a quagmire, or perhaps, worse than it was before the war.
Maybe the words “disorganized retreat” are not the best way to put it. I assure you, elucidator, that I am as uncertain about goalposts as you are. I have to trust that your and other people’s personal interpretations of failure are reasonable ones.
In the eyes of many, the U.S have already failed and can only make things worse.
Clearly, the “disorganized retreat” you mention would be a form of failure. Were you meaning to include “surrender” as another? Are we talking about a panic stricken stampede to the Kuwait border, or a few bits of mobile armor being misplaced, here and there, as we stroll to the embarkation points?
To be abruptly frank, I detect a faint whiff of agenda in the (perceived) angle of your wording. Nothing wrong with that, as such. One might easily understand (or misunderstand, still not sure…) the question as a variety of “Outside of the liberal moodbat surrender-mokeys, who else is anxious for our national humiliation?”
And, theres another form of “failure”. Suppose a marginally united Iraq kicked us out? Perhaps the only possible basis for agreement between the hostile factions is a shared hostility towards us? If such a humiliation were to result in a comparatively peaceful Iraq, could we consider that a “success”?
I think the purported goal of transforming Iraq to a bourgeois parliamentary democracy, with a firm and warm support of US policy and a moderate, secular culture…well, “failure” is hardly the word.
Come on people! It has always been about oil and the US will be in Iraq until the oil it is gone.
Here is how the geopolitic lines up.
And the oil analysts and the Russian analysts in the Bush admin new this was the way it lined up back in 2003.
Oil, after all, is a WMD.
Failing in Iraq, not! McCain for President! Beat the terrorists, keep the oil flowing, and set Iraq up with a nest egg for the next 50 years. (if that is what they want?)
[QUOTE]
On Iraq, Obama says he will pull out all US troops by next year, but his staffers have several times conceded this is aspirational and that a final decision will depend on military advice available only to the president. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23718648-5013948,00.html
[QUOTE]
Obama and his advisers are fools and idiots(with respect to Iraq)!
Pulling out has nothing to do with military advice!
Since when did the military provide advice on policy of strategic, national or world interests.
PS. Study those cites closely, there some other very interesting points of view from France and Australia.
The goal of the current Administration seems to be to stay. Accordingly, it sees as enemies those internal Iraqi factions, such as the Sadrists, that are most eager for us to leave. So it sides with the Maliki government, which has become dependent on the U.S., in hopes of taking out the Sadrists.
But most important to this Administration is that there be an enemy: no enemy in Iraq = no politically plausible excuse to stay.
I definitely want us to fail at enemy creation. The world’s enough of a complicated and potentially dangerous place without creating additional trouble for oneself.
By now, I think I understand your position concerning us in Iraq. But just to clarify, would you prefer that the U.S. succeed or fail in Iraq? Keeping in mind that succeeding would mean that the country is back on it’s (shaky) feet with free elections and no murderous dictator.
That would not be success, since any such country would be our mortal enemy. Success would be Iraq being a stable puppet state, oil resource and military base for us. With the Iraqi public ground into poverty while American companies batten on the oil profits. And probably with mas conversions to Christianity.
If what we have accomplished now isn’t failure, the standards must be amazingly low.
Unfortunately, I think our elected leaders do have very low standards for military success. In fact, I think that’s a typical trait of militaristic people (who may or may not be military people).
It’s most emphatically true of terrorists, who apparently believe that they have not lost until 100% of them are dead. I was bemused by the results of the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon a couple years ago. That Hezbollah apparently follows the Black Knight’s definition of defeat didn’t surprise me. What bewildered me was that Israel also seemed to accept that standard.
Anyway, given that George Bush seems to define success as staying in the fight, the “insurgents” define it as staying alive, and the Iraqi government defines it as staying in existence, it’s possible that no one will ever fail in Iraq. This win-win situation could go on for a hundred years!
You’ve said this about 10,000 times on the SDMB and never once provided even a logical basis for your claim. You don’t seem to have any reason for saying it aside from general hatred of the United States.
A genuinely free Iraq would no more be a “mortal enemy” of the United States than, say, Brazil is. Countries don’t set up “mortal enemies” unless they have a specific strategic reason to do so. A country will not waste the time and energy targetting another as a mortal enemy unless they feel it’s in their concrete interests to do so.
The United States and Iraq became enemies for particular reasons, and would remain enemies only if those reasons continued to be the current state. Since that’s not likely to be the case, they are unlikely to remain enemies.
I think your cynicism is unsupported. Let us recall the evidence for a less imperialistic, less malignant and more rational and more benign US trading relationship:
The Threat to nationalize was always an expected negotiating gambit of the Saudis. And why would we want to attempt to maintain control of ARAMCO in light of the Jewish occupation of a homeland in 1948. What the US got was a friendship which has lasted for 57 years.
Now, only time will tell, how Iraq will turn out. But, I am sure that the American sense of fairness and good capitalistic savvy will prevail.
:rolleyes: We invaded them for no good reason, wrecked their country, and slaughtered thousands of them. What more reason do they need to hate us ? I’m simply attributing normal human emotions to them.
Did we recently invade and devastate Brazil when I wasn’t looking ?
Or unless the general public has a burning hatred towards the other country, especially in a democratic country where public opinion matters more.
:rolleyes: Yeah, right, I’m sure they’ll just shrug off what we’ve done to them.
America has proven that is a nation of amoral predators. “Fairness” is not something valued by most Americans. Killing foreigners and greed are.