Why Stay in Iraq?

[johnc]

I'm also a little skeptical of the report that John shared the other day that said the fences have "won" the war against terrorism in Israel.

 

I don't think that article said Israel won the "war." I think is said that Israel had won the latest battle (the "Intifada") in a long war.

[johnc]

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." - John Kerry on CNN's Crossfire in 1997.

[Dan Baldwin]

SportZ2: "You really believe that Isreal is a stand alone country?"

 

That was sorta my point. We've supported them for long enough, time for them to be weaned off American tax payer dollars (not gonna happen of course), and let them stand on their own.

 

jmortensen

Wonders never cease! FWIW, I wasn't calling both sides EVIL outright, but evil CLEARLY is at work within them, as it is in our own country, and in our own hearts. To recognize that is to begin to be able to FIGHT evil (something which Bush and his cronies have no comprehension of).

 

Speaking of evil working within our country, John, what about the active Al Queada cells in our own country? Shouldn't we invade ourselves? I guess we ARE at war with ourselves when the exec. branch gives itself the authority to suspend all liberties of ANYONE it calls a "terrorist", regardless of any relevant evidence. If OBL/Al Queada HATE freedom, they must be pleased with the current administration, we're certainly well on our way to totalitarianism.

Anyway, I KNOW you don't *SERIOUSLY* think that Iraq contributed to any significant degree to Al Queada's horrifically successful attacks against us, do you?!

 

Vote for ME! (this is the first presidential election I'm old enough to run in)

[Dan Baldwin]

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." - John Kerry on CNN's Crossfire in 1997.

 

Never said I agree w/ Kerry. But I find it hard to believe ANYBODY could be as reckless with our military as Bush and krewe. FWIW I voted for Clark in the primary (voted for McCain in 2000).

 

How do we wind up with these dickholes?!

[wheelman]

Geez Dan, why don't you tell us how you really feel.

 

Wheelman

[johnc]

"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips." - Joe Lockhart, Kerry's Press Secretary, referring to Ayad Allawi.

 

There's a time and place for this kind of criticism. IMHO... right now is the wrong time. Allawi is risking his life (and will most likely be dead by the end of next year) to bring some form of democracy to Iraq. Its absolutely in our national interest that Allawi succeeeds regardless of your political leanings. Allawi is a brave man trying to move his country forward who's already had family members killed. Joe Lockhart is a chicken-sh*t political hack.

 

I mean, WTF is Kerry going to do if he wins? How is he going to work with Allawi and the new Iraqi government after allowing statments like this? My guess: Kerry already knows he's going to lose so he's trying to fire up the Democratic base for 2008.

[Guest Z-rific]

I could have sworn that a bi-partisan commission concluded that there were NO ties between Saddam, Iraq and 9/11, which is what this is all based upon. Unless you're Cheney who claimed he had information the Commission didn't have...to which they immediately rebutted they had every piece of info Cheney had and several times more.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, there were no Iraqis involved with 9/11 and no link between Saddam and Al Queda, as supported by several investigations. In fact, the same Iraqis that claim Al Queda cells trained in Iraq also claim that Saddam and OBL severely disliked one another.

 

There are clearly more countries that are far more dangerous to the US and it's interests than Iraq. Why don't we deal with them first, as there was obviously no need to go into Iraq when we did. We had nothing but time to handle them.

 

As for Allawi, our troops are in more danger than he is. That man is guarded like Fort Knox.

[Dan Baldwin]

"

There's a time and place for this kind of criticism. IMHO... right now is the wrong time. .

 

Right now is EXACTLY the right time for any and all valid criticism of what's going on. This administration has been given a pretty much FREE REIGN and it's clear they're a bunch of f***-ups. No more should we stand idly by in the name of "patriotism" or whatever while our leaders take us further down the path to our ultimate DESTRUCTION!

 

(enough hyperbole for ya or do you want more )

[JMortensen]

Dan it's nice that you're always so level headed and easy to talk to...

[Heavy Z]

Comparing Israel to Iraq? ROFLMAO.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

If you want to compare situations, at least find one that is similar in motivation...Algeria or Lebanon for example.

 

Isn't it simplistic to think terrorists are doing what they do because they are like the "evil" comic book villans from our youth - like the Penguin or Lex Luthor, doing bad just because they enjoy it? Do you really think they are puting their lives on the line and have nothing better to do than hate OUR freedom? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

 

Identifying their motivation is crucial to any realistic assessment of Iraq and the war on terrorism, provided we have the stomach and patience to explore all angles thoroughly. The alternative is to keep portraying them as carricatures of our favorite cartoon evil-doer. Remember though, a failure to understand the enemy has been a big mistake in many a war, despite the short-term euphoria it often invokes.

 

Here's a good one on the situation in Iraq from the other day, based on some of the latest stats. Sorry it's lacks the heart-warming, unrealistic BS that Allawi's been slinging lately, but it does make for worthwhile reading:

 

If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?

by Juan Cole

 

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

 

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

 

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

 

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

 

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

 

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

 

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

 

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

 

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

 

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

 

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

 

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

 

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

 

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

 

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

 

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

 

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

[wheelman]

Z-rific,

Bush and his administration have never stated that Saddam was directly involved in 9-11. What they have said is that he was a supporter of international islamic terrorism and that, along with all the other reasons stated (ignoring UN resolutions , firing on our jets, invading neighboring countries, using WMD on his own people, etc...) is why we went in there. It's also mighty convenient that it will place a democratic progressive country in a strategically important location, hopefully.

 

As for Allawi being guarded like fort knox, no place in Iraq is truely safe period. This guy is putting his life, along with the lives of all his family members at risk in an effort to improve the plight of his people. Is he trying to put the best face on the situation in Iraq, Yes. Why? So our liberal do nothing politicians, left leaning media and fickle American public will support him in what he's doing. Are any of you who are bitching about the war going to say that what he's doing is wrong and needs to be stopped?? I thought not, so think about it a second, ask yourself how you wouold handle it and don't be so quick to jump on the band wagon of nay sayers and bad mouth the guy for being optimistic about his country. I'm sure the statements are for public consumption and he knows full well exactly what's going on in his country. Now ask yourself what would happen if he was completely upfront about the state of affairs over there. How would the liberla media and American people handle the truth? We would hear a huge cry to bring the troops home because see, even the Iraqi president thinks things are bad. GIVE ME A BREAK!!

 

Wheelman

[johnc]

Comparing Israel to Iraq?

 

No. The article compares Israel's response to terrorism with our own.

 

If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?

by Juan Cole

 

Chewbacca Defense!

 

I could have sworn that a bi-partisan commission concluded that there were NO ties between Saddam, Iraq and 9/11, which is what this is all based upon.

 

Its not all about 911. Its not all about WMD. Its not all about Saddam. Its not all about Iraq.

 

Its all about terrorism.

 

Its about the Achille Laurel, its about the Munich Olympics, its about the US soldiers shot in the back of the head on a TWA jet, its about Pan Am 103, its about the Cole, its about WTC 1993, its about Kenya, its about 911, its about the Indonesian night club, its about the Madrid trains, its about the beheadings...

 

This is a "War on Terror" and Iraq is just one battle in that on-going war. There will be more battles in more countries regardless of who we elect President in 2004, 2008, 2012, etc.

 

Nothing about this has changed:

 

...We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

 

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

 

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

 

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

 

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

 

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans...

[Heavy Z]

Are any of you who are bitching about the war going to say that what he's doing is wrong and needs to be stopped??

 

What we say is of little consequence, what matters to Iraqi insurgents is that WE put him in charge. From there, a quick look at Allawi reveals he was historically distrusted equally by all the various factions. This makes it a hard sell since he wasn't exactly Mr. popularity.

 

Now ask yourself what would happen if he was completely upfront about the state of affairs over there. How would the liberla media and American people handle the truth?

 

Make-believe better than good 'ol fashion reality? Isn't the truth worth a damn anymore? Can any strategy possibly work while ignoring it?

 

Its not all about 911. Its not all about WMD. Its not all about Saddam. Its not all about Iraq.

 

Its all about terrorism.

 

You say that because the 'ol WMD/911 connection are both disproven, and blaming it on terrorism is ambiguous enough to avoid being cornered.

 

That was also not the main reason given by Bush to invade, my machiavellian friend.

 

Another point to consider is that when Saddam was found in his spider hole, he was in possession of a memorandum sent to all his generals to resist working with any extremists (i.e. Al Quaida) coming into Iraq. Saddam said the extremists' goal was to turn Iraq from secular Baathist into a religious, Iranian-style govt, meaning if they win they have no room for Saddam. Doesn't sound like a match made in heaven to me. At the end of the day, I guess there isn't much left than to pick up the war drum and blame it all on terrorism.

 

The way we made Guatemala 'safe' from communism (using an earlier version of today's war drum in the 1950's) by removing their democratically-elected president and puting our own guy in shows a few similarities. The names of those involved have changed of course, as have the names of the companies who profitted in both undertakings. The former making United Fruit 'safe' from communism, the latter attempting to make Halliburton, Allawi, and the 14 US bases being built in Iraq 'safe' from terrorism. Something tells me this part of the world doesn't take to bribery as easily as some places in Latin America did...

 

P.S. As for "Chewbacca Defense," put professor Cole's hypothetical you speak of in the balance with Allawi's kaleidoscopic view. If Cole seems nonsensical to you(thought you'd like his use of stats ), then what are your thoughts on Allawi, who prefers to blow smoke up places in avoidance of the hard truth? Believe me, I know why he said what he said, he had no choice. But just as an ill-timed wookie howl, it doesn't help his credibility much.

[johnc]

You say that because the 'ol WMD/911 connection are both disproven, and blaming it on terrorism is ambiguous enough to avoid being cornered.

 

Back on 9/20/2001 Bush said, basically, "Its all about terrorism." A transcript of the speech is here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911jointsessionspeech.htm Nothing's changed. Its still all about terrorism and Iraq is the second battle (Afghanistan was the first) in this long war.

 

That was also not the main reason given by Bush to invade, my machiavellian friend.

 

The invasion was part of the "Bush Doctrine" as first stated publically at the West Point Commencement address in 2002:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html

 

And codified as national policy as National Security Strategy in September 2002:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

 

Here are the reasons we added Iraq to the battle list from the speech Bush gave two days before the invasion:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

 

The invasion of Iraq was not some willy, nilly, evil plan by Neocons. Its also was not a last minute, off-the-cuff, dumb idea foisted on the American people by a bunch of Texas morons.

[johnc]

Some other highlights from the War on Terror:

 

NATO has agreed to expand its involvement in Iraq, over resistance from Germany and France. Its training mission geared toward training Iraqi security officers will expand from 50 to roughly 300 personnel.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43088-2004Sep22.html

 

Syria has agreed to cooperate with the United States and Iraq in stemming the flow of terrorists and funds across the Iraqi-Syrian border.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040923-121017-7285r.htm

 

Syria has also started removing its 20,000 troops from Lebannon.

 

Afghanistan has passed its major political challenges reasonably well since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 – forming a transitional cabinet, drafting and approving a constitution, maintaining a steady civilian government in Kabul. The next milestone, Afghanistan’s first free presidential election in over a decade, also looks to be a qualified success. For now, that’s quite an achievement.

 

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_oxblog_archive.html#109601319970239588

[Guest Phil1934]

What Bush says is irrelevant. He had a chance to testify to the 9/11 committee and refused. That says it all for me. And don't give me that national security or executive rights BS. If they can question one President about his sex life, they sure as hell can ask another why we are spending over a thousand lives and a quarter trillion dollars in a stink hole half way around the world. I grew up in the '50's when we were taught the USSR is trying to force its way of government on the rest of the world and we must stand in their way. I wonder what Russian school children were taught?

[tannji]

Ask some ex-russian-children and find out. They might tell you that living under totalitarian leadership sucks, and that they support what the US is doing.

[JMortensen]

What Bush says is irrelevant. He had a chance to testify to the 9/11 committee and refused. That says it all for me.

 

Phil, you need to start reading the newspaper or watching the news or something. Bush and Cheney answered questions for the 9/11 Comission together (I want to say for 8 hours, but that's from memory so might be a little shaky), they just didn't do it publicly. I don't blame them. The Comission even released a statement thanking them for being so forthright afterwards.

 

Did you watch any of the hearings on CSPAN? I watched them interview Condoleeza Rice (sp?) and let's just say that they weren't fair and impartial.

 

Clinton didn't testify publicly either. Is he a bad guy too for not doing it publicly.

[Guest Phil1934]

You're falling for his half truths. He said he would be happy to "talk" to the commission, but he would not testify. And he had to have Cheney there at the same time, and they could not call him back. This is not about public or private, it's about swearing to tell the truth and facing impeachment if caught lying under oath. Sound like an honest man to you?

[Doug71zt]

At the risk of getting flamed from all sides, I'm going to state my opinion.

 

I honestly feel sorry for you guys, because you are trying to decide who is the lesser of two evils. I don't think that there is an up-side to this election. I think that the main debate is whom will cause your country the least damage.

 

If you truly want to try and 'save' the middle east from itself -forget about installing a democratic government. Stop buying their oil! Develop Alaska - Raise CAFE and stop buying trucks to drive around the city. Kick Israel off the gravy train and let them duke it out themselves. We turn a blind eye to genocide in Africa all the time, so why not in the middle east? Remember the Kurds?

I wouldn't go as far as saying that American foreign policy created this terrorist back-lash, but it certainly fans the flames and feeds the beast.

Iraq was not a great threat to America when Bush 2 invaded. It certainly is now. Progress? - I don't think so. Saddam was a threat to the US administration because one of his stated goals was to unify the Middle East.

The UN/US sanctions had reduced it from a prosperous country to a bunch of beggars with guns. Did Saddam deserve it? - Absolutely. Did he pay the price? - Nope, the innocent people paid the price. I went with over a 1/3 of the UN BOMVIC inspection flights - and there was nothing there to inspect. The wreckage of a country.

I spend most of my life overseas, and most times not in nice places. Iraq, Sudan, China, Iran, Saudi, UAE, Bosnia, Various splinters of what used to be the USSR, Somalia, Burma. One of the things that I've learned is that there are many different cultures that just don't appreciate the Carrot and Big Stick approach to diplomacy.

 

Tannji - Believe it or not, Ex-Russian children (Republic of Georgia), have a love/hate duality with the USSR. They are glad to be 'free', but hate the cost. Everything worked when the Russians ran the place, they had power, the elderly didn't have to choose between starvation or suicide in the winter. But, then again, they love Stalin here, even though he killed off half of their brain-trust. He's a local boy that did well for himself. It is another culture, and there is no understanding it using a western frame of reference.

It's entertaining going to the bar here in Tbilisi. CIA, Titan, Dyncorp, Rangers, US Embassy people, all hanging out in this backward little no-account country. Why? - an major oil pipeline.

 

As for the Human-Rights/saving the people from their government angle on Iraq, why hasn't Bush invaded China? Lots of human-rights abuse there.

 

What happens when Canada becomes 'A threat to national security' due to water shortages in the west/southwest?

 

 

We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." - John Kerry on CNN's Crossfire in 1997.

 

Just replace 'Iraq' with 'Canada' in that quote.

 

Doug