I’m an American, and I feel that, in general, my government does a fairly respectable job of managing those things which are in it’s portfolio. Our economy is not perfect, but it’s more dynamic and robust than many others at comparable levels of industrial development. Our institutions have their challenges, but by and large we’re muddling through in a practical and positive “can do” American manner.
Except when it comes to the near east and middle east. We’re not stupid people. We have huge universities with billion dollar endowments, we have well regarded history departments, we have war colleges, we have a large State Department full of experienced diplomats. In addition the US has intelligence services with billions of dollars in resources at their disposal, not to mention a proliferation of think tanks full of experienced old hands at real politik, and yet lately we keep stepping on our dicks, over and over again in the NEME.
And it’s not like all of this was some big mystery. Collunsbury, Tamerlane, and other SDMB members with experience in NEME history, more or less told us in advance what an abortion the invasion fo Iraq was going to be, and they were right.
Why do we keep three stooging it when it comes to the middle east? Where’s the malfunction?
My knee-jerk response to the question would be that, in dealing with the ME, it’s insanely difficult to separate economic instrests versus polictical agendas… or is it political interests vs. economic agendas? The fact that they’ve been a volitile area for a long time can’t help matters, either, where the echoes of even attempting negotiations with one country can effect future relations in any number of others. coughISRAELcough
I don’t think it’s a lack of understanding at the diplomatic level. Every country, including the US, has a corps of diplomats and academics who really know what the ME is all about, and are capable of advising appropriately.
Unfortunately, there is, at the higher levels (including the Administration and their hand-picked senior bureaucrats), a lack of knowledge, and a willingness to be swayed by political expediency. Therefore, they’re willing to listen to self-serving theories like those of Fukuyama (‘End of History’) and Huntington (‘Clash of Civilisations’) and those diplomatic or intelligence services that tell them what they want to hear.
So, like the OP said, there were plenty of people at lower levels in the US, Australia, Britain, Spain etc telling the politicians just how big a mistake they were making. However, the politicians willfully blinded themselves to the facts, with predictably crappy results.
I don’t understand why you consider the Iraqi war to be an “abortion”. What war and regime change are you comparing it too or are you just against the war in general? If you study war’s, it is the most successful (to date) of any war fought before.
The past is replete with dictators that wiped out millions of people. For once, in the history of man’s existence, we knock the weasel down before he runs amok.
Not only was the UN not responsible for this success, they did everything to keep the United States locked in perpetual Mid-East conflict. The solution (after 12 years of weapons inspections) was for the United States to continue occupying the region while the UN did … more weapons inspections. No end date, just keep looking. All the while the United States is vilified and attacked for occupying the “holy Land”. Not the UN.
During those 12 years of Iraqi babysitting, Pakistan perfected medium range nuclear weapons systems (as was predicted) and then proceeded to leak the technology to a region that makes Hitler look sane.
Too many people acknowledge Saddam as a dangerous tyrant but, in the same breath, condemn outside interference in a civil war that is already littered with mass graves.
Why confine the critique of US foreign policy to the Middle and Near East? Surely you can’t suggest that the US foreign policy in the Middle and South Americas is without blemish. The copybook is also well blotted in Europe and Africa as well.
Hell, where in the world has the policy of US intervention ever been successful, except in advancing US interests, of course?
I’m still stunned that you think that all is healthy and benign on the domestic front. You have entirely too many living in poverty and shunning education to feel too smug. Your ‘War on Drugs’ is walking backwards, the rate of illegitimate birth is astounding. Take a good close look at home first. There’re heaps of improvements to be made in your own country before thrusting the capitalistic brand of democracy on other sovereign countries.
Magiver, does this mean that you want to go to war with the Arabs in the Sudan now?
Is war the only way to handle “bad people”?
What happens when we become the bad people?
Astro, our public school systems are collapsing. Too often students are not being taught critical thinking skills or creative problem-solving. If a leader with the correct label says that something is so, then it must be true. We regurgitate whatever our party leaders claim. We get our news from biased sources, humorists, and political pundits rather than from cultural experts. We substitute critical reviews for critical viewing. We are unable to recognize propoganda techniques (from many sources) for what they are.
Your observations are correct. However, life’s a bitch in a free society. We’re not allowed to beat people into successful livelihoods. Liberty includes the freedom to fail. And yes, it pisses me off that I have to pay deadbeats to breed. I think the freedom to fail should be a little more absolute. I would love to rescue children from career losers but again, not allowed.
filled mass graves with his own people who were not powerful enough to overthrow him. (the reason we created the Northern AND Southern no-fly zones)
tortured his own people (not the panty wearing torture that is so popular in the news)
paid the families of terrorists who killed Jews.
built a traveling weapons program
ran the UN around for 12 years looking for weapons
That was after GW1. Prior to that he attacked Iran and then Kuwait. He has a history of large scale conflict combined with a desire to possess nuclear weapons. I’m not sure how many millions of people you have to kill to be judged a threat of Hitler proportions but I would say he is well on his way.
My point of argument was to contain Saddam before he had a chance to start another large scale war or succeed in procuring a nuke. Then it’s too late.
According to popular rhetoric I’ve been hearing for decades US public school systems have been “collapsing” for what, 30 to 40 years now (maybe longer) and yet we’re still able to make a damn good showing in the worldwide arts and sciences. The thing that saves us, and lets us excel (IMO) is our world-class universities.
I’m a parent of two kids raised in the public schools. Given the GIGO nature of K-12 public school education, my direct empirical observation of the limited intellectual capacity of many students and their parents, and the practical real world limits on making everyone a competent scholar, quite frankly I’m not that exercised about the continuous chicken little take on public education as long as the universities can do their job.
If the listed grievences were so horrible, why did we not act until now? Why did we not stop Saddam before the Iran-Iraq War? Before the gassing of the Kurds? Why did we not intervene and protect the Kurds? The no-fly zones protected the Kurds only from aircraft, and not even helicopters. They did a horrible job, and under the protection of the No-Fly Zones, the Kurds were gassed, while we turned a deaf ear.
Ran the UN around for twelve years? He’s also managed to run American troops on the ground around for at least twelve months with nothing to show besides a handful of relics from the Iraq-Iran war. I’m really beginning what your justification was…
If these are credible reasons to invade another country, why did we not invade Sudan, Bosnia, or Libya?
Alright. I could ask for cites on all of those, but I won’t. I’ll accept every one of your arguments at face value. Some are stupid (“leading the UN around”) and some are stupider (“filled mass graves” with who after we created the no-fly zones? I thought we were talking pre-GW1?)
Now, sir, address the question alien21010 already raised.
Why haven’t we invaded Sudan? Pakistan? DRC? North Korea? Cuba? China? Colombia? Russia? Hell, why not take the recent thread, and just invade all of Africa?
You DO realize that there are worse human rights hellholes than Iraq, correct?
Because invading all those despotic, human rights denying countries does not advance the economic interests of the US? They have nothing the US wants? Oil for example?
But how many young people miss out on attending a top university, due to being poorly educated by the public K-12 schools they attend? And how many miss out on attending any college at all, even a not so hot one, due to being poorly educated by our K-12 schools?
Re the actual thread topic, it could be that it’s not a matter of our govt officials being “a pack of retards” re the Near and Middle East, but rather that the people calling the shots did not listen to the people who knew their stuff. Alternatively, it could be that the people calling the shots knew perfectly well what they were getting into. Example: The lack of an exit strategy was not necessarily a mistake or oversight. It may be that there was never any intention of leaving.
This appears to be false. Seymour Hersh of The New Yorkerdissected the alleged assassination attempt and found that it was “factually incorrect,” and evidence that remote-controlled devices were used was discredited by independent U.S. experts. It’s generally believed now that the “assassination attempt” was a hoax perpetuated by Kuwaiti intelligence on Bill Clinton in hopes of getting the US to invade Iraq again.
Some of your other points are also questionable or flat-out wrong; here looks at the charges against Saddam prior to the 2003 Iraq war, and pokes holes in some of the arguments.
Finally, not mentioned in the article but worth reiterating is the fact that Saddam’s alleged mobile WMD laboratories have not been found, and appear to be mobile helium generators misidentified by the Bush Administration. There’s also no evidence to support the assertion that Saddam ever killed anyone with an “industrial strength plastic shredder,” either.
Saddam Hussein is certainly not a nice guy, but if you’re going to build a case against him, let’s stick with the stuff that’s true.