News Revolving door of Iraq war reasoning-This time it's OIL

[outsider]

People on this forum are smarter than the average bear...so come on -- think outside the Bush propaganda box (to honor the nearly 2,000 Americans who have already died let's send more to their deaths...sounds like "throwing good money after bad" -- you Republicans should understand this ain't right) or maybe take a logic class. And for heaven's sake, stop enabling this horrible man who continuously invokes the tragedy of 9-11, or now the disaster in New Orleans...be appalled and maybe a little disgusted.

Agreed.

when you grow up rich like the president, you can afford to gamble in this fashion... as long as you double up your bets in a 50/50, you will eventually come out a winner. Mathematically it is sure fire as long as your pockets are deep enough to sustain the bets.

Now that Bush's image is shot to bits, I'm afraid that he'll just do whatever he wants. I believe Osama bin laden started out in a similar way. Instead of being a shame to his country, Osama was just a shame to his family. When you are an outcast, you have contempt and just want to ruin it for everyone. I just hope this isn't the case for GWB.

 

[Hurkyl]

As the so-called "reasons" for invading Iraq have been changing every 10 minutes

Wouldn't this be cleanly explained if there was more than one reason to invade Iraq, and there is more than one reason to remain in Iraq?

He has yet to come up with any solutions that are original

So? Being unoriginal isn't a bad thing.

I can't understand why some members never make any concessions when valid opinions are made and alternative solutions are brought to the table.

Probably because those who bring what you call "valid opinions" and "alternative solutions" are more interested in lashing out at those who disagree than defending their own opinion or solution.

How do you expect me (or anyone else) to give any sort of serious consideration to your "solution" if you absolutely refuse to discuss any of the negative consequences of your solution?

however there appears to be certain individuals who instead of finding common ground to work from rather oppose opinions in favor of defending the Administration.

Just like certain individuals who instead of finding common ground to work from rather prefer to oppose the Administration, right?

 

[vanesch]

Wouldn't this be cleanly explained if there was more than one reason to invade Iraq, and there is more than one reason to remain in Iraq?

That's exactly what I tried to do: take all official and unofficial reasons, and find out, for each of them, whether they still justify STAYING.

To repeat:
-WMD: ok, they're not there NOW (whether there were some or not, doesn't matter ; right NOW, WMD are NOT a reason to stay).
-Bringing a dictator down. That's done now, so no reason to stay.
-Having the Iraqi people vote: that's done too, no reason to stay.
-Fighting terrorism. Either way (staying or leaving) there's a problem (things don't seem to IMPROVE on that side by staying).
-Oil: can go either way, not clear if staying improves getting Iraqi oil.
-Give state contracts to friends of the administration: that's done now, so it is no reason anymore to stay.
-have a military lab: that's a reason to stay. It's a great lab.
-create a stable, Western-friendly democracy: I think this is IN ANY CASE not going to work, whether you stay or not.

Chances are that Iraq, whether you stay or not, is heading for a civil war, and the situation, with the current level of military presence, is not going to be stabilized. The so-called constitution is 1) OR going to instore a theocracy in Iran style, OR going to lead to civil war.

So I think the worse option is to stay at current levels of presence: it costs you a fortune (and soldier lives), it is propaganda for OBL, and it won't in the end avoid a civil war.

The only alternative to pulling out (with also a lot of negative consequences) is to INCREASE SERIOUSLY your presence there, and rule with an iron hand, for many years to come. It is the only way to shut up the terrorists and avoid a civil war.

 

[russ_watters]

If you have none then why are you arguing?

Well that's just it: is this meant to be an argument or a flame-fest? Whether intentional or just because its easier, most of these threads are just bash-the-US threads, without any real discussion of how things could be made better. Ie:

A year ago we were begging everyone to "Vote Kerry."

"Vote Kerry" says nothing whatsoever about what to actually do in Iraq.

My understanding is that Kerry's philosophy was more along the lines of "We will bring troops home..." And he specified January 2005 for a beginning to that. He didn't specify how many troops.

And that's one of the reasons I didn't vote for Kerry - he didn't have any more ideas than the people in this thread! A vague - 'start bringing troops home in Jan 2005' says nothing whatsoever about how to deal with the problem, unless what he meant is that he intended to simply abandon Iraq to anarchy, which, as Ape pointed out, Bush is currently being criticized for!

As others have posted above, the OP is about the ever changing reasons for the war, not how the war should be managed.

Yes, and as still others have pointed out, the OP is wrong about what the article says. Oh, I understand where he wanted this thread to go, its just that the basis for it was a misunderstood article. Remove the article and the discussion could simply be about the motivation for going to war in the first place, not what to do about it now. Frankly, though, I think what to do about it now is a far more important (and more ignored) question.

I don't believe a timetable for withdrawal will affect insurgency, turned into terrorism, back to insurgency verging on civil war. In fact, I think the "anti-U.S. opposition" would decrease--it would have to if we aren't there to attack. Unfortunately this would presume that Bush is sincere in his intentions regarding the Iraqi people, and that other countries would participate despite Bush's (...to be kind...) lack of diplomacy.

I think this is about the third time I've offered this solution.

Well, its better than not providing a solution at all, but its tough to put unpredictable events on a schedule. I'd prefer to see withdrawal tied to a criteria or event, like 10 days without a terrorist attack, or something like that. But I'm also comfortable with simply looking at the situtation, saying "not good enough" and keeping the troops there until we can look at it and say "ok, now its good enough".

 

[vanesch]

I'd prefer to see withdrawal tied to a criteria or event, like 10 days without a terrorist attack, or something like that. But I'm also comfortable with simply looking at the situtation, saying "not good enough" and keeping the troops there until we can look at it and say "ok, now its good enough".

The question is: is the parameter you want to see reaching a certain value before withdrawing, going in the right direction ?
Take yours. Is the time lapse between successive terrorist attacks actually INCREASING, so that we can hope for it to reach your threshold (10 days) ?

I have the serious impression that things are getting worse. And what is SERIOUSLY getting wrong-headed is that constitution. It might even face the same problem as the European one (and, I think you'll admit this, the European situation isn't as bad as the situation in Iraq ). That after A LOT OF NEGOCIATION AND COMPROMISE, it is finally put to vote, and many people, for different reasons, simply say NO.
But that constitution is heading terribly wrong, and there's nothing to be done about. Sistaniani or what's his name will always head for a theocracy which will give unsolvable problems with the two other ethnicities. The country is heading for a civil war and gets every day CLOSER to it.

So again, what criterium to use for withdrawal, which has some hope of being reached (which is FACTUALLY IMPROVING) ?

 

[russ_watters]

The question is: is the parameter you want to see reaching a certain value before withdrawing, going in the right direction ?
Take yours. Is the time lapse between successive terrorist attacks actually INCREASING, so that we can hope for it to reach your threshold (10 days) ?

The frequency and severity is fluctuating pretty wildly due to specific events like the election and the signing of the Constitution, so I'm not sure if there is an overall trend. But the government of Iraq is being built, and that is progress.

As, I think you pointed out in another thread, there is a catch-22 with withdrawing because a withdrawal, while it takes away a target for attack, it may also be taken as a sign of victory by the terrorists. I think there is probably a "tipping point", where the government becomes inherrently stable, terrorism starts to drop, and removing troops only increases stability. I think we should be looking for that tipping point, and continuing to build the government is the way to achieve it.

 

[vanesch]

I think there is probably a "tipping point", where the government becomes inherrently stable, terrorism starts to drop, and removing troops only increases stability. I think we should be looking for that tipping point, and continuing to build the government is the way to achieve it.

If only that were true. Hopefully we'll reach the "terrorist peak" before the "oil peak" then

 

[Skyhunter]

As i pointed out earlier the best solution is to give it an international face, not an American one. Bush has made this option nearly impossible.

If you want help with solutions, why not start by admitting it was a mistake, or if you don't believe it was a mistake at least admit it has been handled badly.

I have had to take over projects that were terribly bungled. Once I take over the project I am the one who gets all the blame for the project from that point on. Many times it is more costly to fix than it would have been to build from scratch. I don't accept that responsibility until there is an admission of failure, otherwise the mistakes made by the previous builder become mine.

If you want to have an "Ideas to end the Iraq debacle thread". Start by admitting there is a problem and allocate the blame for the past failures. Otherwise I am not interested. Let Bush assume responsibility for Bush's gross incompetence.

 

[alexandra]

To get back to the OP:

Here we go. The kooks and nuts of America who thought this war was about oil from the beginning---I say this because many Bush apologists have minimized those who espoused this reasoning as the real reason as said crazies---have been vindicated.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/

I'm feeling verklempt now. Talk amongst yourselves---here, I'll give you a topic "The war in Iraq is for oil not democracy, not WMD, not the WOT, but for oil."

My contribution on this topic is to suggest that there are strong arguments pointing to the truth of the view that the Iraq invasion was always about oil in the first place and to recommend that those who are interested in finding out a likely scenario for how future wars are on the cards, read Michael T. Klare's book, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict

Here is book review from http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?chunk=25&mtype=&wtopic=Nature%20Natural%20Resources&qwork=5711984&page=1&matches=18&qsort=r&browse=1&full=1 :

About this title:
From the oilfields of Saudi Arabia to the Nile delta, from the shipping lanes of the South China Sea to the pipelines of Central Asia, Resource Wars looks at the growing impact of resource scarcity on the military policies of nations. International security expert Michael T. Klare argues that in the early decades of the new millennium, wars will be fought not over ideology but over access to dwindling supplies of precious natural commodities. The political divisions of the Cold War, Klare asserts, have given way to a global scramble for oil, natural gas, minerals, and water. And as armies throughout the world define resource security as a primary objective, widespread instability is bound to follow, especially in those areas where competition for essential materials overlaps with long-standing territorial and religious disputes. In this clarifying view, the recent explosive conflict between the United States and Islamic extremism stands revealed as the predictable consequence of consumer nations seeking to protect the vital resources they depend on. A much-needed assessment of a changed world, Resource Wars is a compelling look at warfare in an era of rampant globalization and intense economic competition.

 

[pattylou]

"Vote Kerry" says nothing whatsoever about what to actually do in Iraq.

Whereas "Vote Bush" did?

 

[vanesch]

My contribution on this topic is to suggest that there are strong arguments pointing to the truth of the view that the Iraq invasion was always about oil in the first place

Yes, but even assuming that, it didn't turn the way it was intended, no ? In what way has the US now ensured Iraq's oil to be theirs ? Imagine that after a civil war, a part becomes a theocracy leaning strongly with Iran, and another part (say, Kurdistan) becomes another nation. Now that would seriously piss off another loyal friend of the US, namely Turkey (who has troubles with his own Kurds). In what way does such a (likely) scenario give "oil advantage" to the US on the long term ?
And on the shorter term, it is not really helping them either.
So even if this was the goal, it is seriously bungled too, no ?

 

[vanesch]

As i pointed out earlier the best solution is to give it an international face, not an American one. Bush has made this option nearly impossible.

Not only Bush. Terrorism worked perfectly. In fact, I think quite some other nations think that getting involved will only get them trouble (even if it were for the "good of the world on the long term"). There's of course the fear that getting involved will attract the attention of terrorists, and there's nothing to gain. Not from "sympathy of the US" (which were probably the real reasons countries like Spain got involved) or for "international image". As the outcome is very uncertain, and it is not clear at all where the eventual oil profits will go to, economically there's probably nothing to gain either.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do think that the PF community is not your average community which is why I enjoy being on PF, however there appears to be certain individuals who instead of finding common ground to work from rather oppose opinions in favor of defending the Administration. Let's drop the defense and work on improving the world. It is not my intention to hate the USA or blame America for anything.

It's hard to find common ground with people who only want to throw around exagerations, conspiracies, and propaganda. You can't deal with a problem unless you can look at it objectively. Patty and I were getting started on speaking objectively about ideas of what can be done. This got drowned out pretty quickly though by the next wave of exagerations and lashings out. By the time I got back the discussion had degraded once more.

 

[ray b]

begining to see oil was the reason for the war

to keep the oil OFF THE WORLD MARKET to RASE THE PRICES

at leased the former IRAQ ruler keep some oil flowing on to the world markets

 

[edward]

It's hard to find common ground with people who only want to throw around exagerations, conspiracies, and propaganda. You can't deal with a problem unless you can look at it objectively. Patty and I were getting started on speaking objectively about ideas of what can be done. This got drowned out pretty quickly though by the next wave of exagerations and lashings out. By the time I got back the discussion had degraded once more.

Nothing can be done now that can repair the mistakes that were made when we entered Iraq. Not enough troops, our assuming that the Iraqi's would welcome us with open arms, poor intelligence, no armored vehicles, troops with poor body armor. ect.

Hell most of the soldiers lived in tents or slept on the ground while living on MRE's in the 120 degree heat during the first two summers. Just getting enough bottled water to them was a challenge.

We are now stuck trying to fight fire with baseball bats. More troops could possibly end it faster, but politically neither side will go for that.

Even if Iraq stabilizes to a point that we can pull out, there are no guarantees that it will stay that way.

With the recent higher oil prices the big oil companies aren't about to lobby for an accelerated resolution of the situation in Iraq.

Not knowing how much money we are willing to spend in Iraq, I am at a loss for ideas on what to do now. With the exception that if we would just go ahead and pull out now, in 10 years the situation in Iraq will still end up being nearly the same as it would had we stayed.

Our national pride will never allow us to do that. I leave the floor open.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure that the actions of the insurgents will stop if we leave. There have already been those that state the current Iraqi government is illegitimate. How do we know that they won't simply turn their attention towards the "illigitimate" government facilitated by the US once the US is gone?
I'm not saying that the US can't leave or shouldn't but just repeating that I think they need to be careful about it.

 

[vanesch]

If you want help with solutions, why not start by admitting it was a mistake, or if you don't believe it was a mistake at least admit it has been handled badly.

I have had to take over projects that were terribly bungled. Once I take over the project I am the one who gets all the blame for the project from that point on. Many times it is more costly to fix than it would have been to build from scratch. I don't accept that responsibility until there is an admission of failure, otherwise the mistakes made by the previous builder become mine.

If you want to have an "Ideas to end the Iraq debacle thread". Start by admitting there is a problem and allocate the blame for the past failures. Otherwise I am not interested. Let Bush assume responsibility for Bush's gross incompetence.

This is a very correct assessment. In fact, that was the main "bonus" that Kerry could have had (even if he was probably just as clueless as Bush, or everybody else as what to do now): he could have said exactly that: "ok, because of my predessessor, we've bungled up dearly over there, but now I'm another guy and I'm asking everybody to help".
In fact, I think many European leaders were quite happy that Bush won, because then they didn't have to answer that nasty question and talk themselves out or get involved in that hornet's nest over there!

 

[outsider]

Stop defending him and just think...

I will not quote the person who decided to be pity as he knows who he is... so I will quote the parts of my previous post that he purposely chose to disregard:

Let's drop the defense and work on improving the world. It is not my intention to hate the USA or blame America for anything.

I feel that if enough thought is put to this, hopefully some solutions will come of it that "someone" may actually be watching this board and take the solution to where it needs to be.

Bush needs to look at his situation and rearrange his priorities. You should not worry about saving other people, when your own family is starving and dying. (Yes, I'm talking about the victims of Katrina) As for the war on terrorism, this should be a war that the world would agree with which should be discussed in the UN. He should try to get the consultation and approval of the UN on how to fix the current situation.

having said that, why not start spending money on subsidizing the purchase of hybrid/ hydrogen vehicles to drive down the oil demand?

Lower demand will lower the price... and in the longterm, that will mean a cleaner environment and less dependency.

Rather than throwing all these lives and financial resources to such a pointless cause, just reverse the demand. Why not make each individual help towards the "cause" by being energy smart? If you hate terrorism, don't support their business. Easier said than done, I agree... but this is like the "path to righteousness"... no one ever said being good was easy.

Terrorism exists all over the world and it will never be quashed. Just like gun laws, the war on drugs and prohibition... call me a pesimist. So long as someone makes guns, drugs, alcohol & rocknroll, there will always be customers. So, if you really want to put an end to the cycle, it will require education or re-education until these things go out of style completely.

America should be separating from the Bush Admin to say that the Admin acted out on their own... so that America can hold some credibility after this Admin moves on. It's really a shame, but my opinion is related to what Skyhunter said earlier about holding an international face.

If you believe that this president and Administration are making rational decisions, then you have the right to follow him and support him, however it is only reasonable to rethink your position from time to time. (This is not the same as supporting a baseball team... it's more like a career choice... sometimes you have to switch because your job situation changed while you were doing it (ie. a new manager / supervisor).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

America should be separating from the Bush Admin to say that the Admin acted out on their own... so that America can hold some credibility after this Admin moves on. It's really a shame, but my opinion is related to what Skyhunter said earlier about holding an international face.

No. America should be in there trying to help clean up the mess. It doesn't matter if they don't like the guy that made the mess, it's their President, their military, their country(this includes me though I may be devorcing myself in the wording). Also it is in the world's best interest that this situation is taken care of. It's the bigger thing to help and lend support. I'm not saying to agree with having gone there in the first place just help clean up the mess that's been made. Sure, let it be known that you don't agree with the invasion, but to sit by and only criticize is useless.

 

[outsider]

No. America should be in there trying to help clean up the mess. It doesn't matter if they don't like the guy that made the mess, it's their President, their military, their country(this includes me though I may be devorcing myself in the wording). Also it is in the world's best interest that this situation is taken care of. It's the bigger thing to help and lend support. I'm not saying to agree with having gone there in the first place just help clean up the mess that's been made. Sure, let it be known that you don't agree with the invasion, but to sit by and only criticize is useless.

"NO!"- who says that? who are you to determine that there are no other alternatives? You may as well forget about discussing alternatives when you are clearly closed to discussion.

Who says that an all out relentless fight is what is required? There are many ways to skin a cat and brute force is not always the one that works. The people who have decided to walk into this situation have not fully assessed their enemies... this in itself is pure danger. Where's the proof you might ask? - Well, we know that things are not going according to plan already simply because they are looking for more recruits. We know things are not going well because this is taking much longer than was originally implied. We know the plan is somewhat shif-on-the-fly as the reasons and focus continues to shift. (One may say that this is a war on terrorism overall, but that's the same as a guy who's goal is to get rich, but has no career direction... sure, there is a chance for success... but that's just gambling)

Believe me, I was not always this opposed to fighting. If the world suddenly resorts to bedlam, I wouldn't expect to do too badly as I'm a survivor. I just know that creative people never run out of options and I would use every trick in the book before having to exert force.

TSA, Thank you for your input... Everyone knows your point of view... you've made your point loud and clear. Now please let others continue discussion on alternatives. In otherwords... just get out the way.

 

[Skyhunter]

It's hard to find common ground with people who only want to throw around exagerations, conspiracies, and propaganda. You can't deal with a problem unless you can look at it objectively. Patty and I were getting started on speaking objectively about ideas of what can be done. This got drowned out pretty quickly though by the next wave of exagerations and lashings out. By the time I got back the discussion had degraded once more.

Exaggerations, lashing out. I thought everyone was being quite restrained, when you consider that we are powerless to do anything. A let's face it historicly cooperation with neo-cons is not exactly pleasant, to quote Grover Norquist 'Bipartisanship is another name for date rape'.

Quite frankly I would love to discuss workable solutions to the Iraq situation, and I tried back during the last election. I was called a traitor, a wimp, America hater, and more. Now I am asked to offer solutions because what I and others could plainly see as an historic mistake is starting to play itself out.

Well I am willing, but let's hear some admission from the right that they were wrong first and then I will be more willing to stop bashing Bush and talk more constructively. Until then I will do everything in my power to expose his incompetence to everyone I can!

Here is my idea;

Identify and elect new congressional leaders in 2006.

Have real congressional hearings and rip the veil of secrecy off this White House.

Impeach Bush for the lies he told to justify the war.

Prosecute the rest of his cabinet for complicity.

Then with a credible president (Colin Powell anyone?) we can then go to the rest of the world, and get some cooperation with the Iraq problem.

As long as Bush & Co. is in the WH, there is no solution because they are going to do what they want and screw anybody who disagrees with them!

Wake up!

Why do you think Colin Powell left the Administration?

Because he knew it was a mistake and wouldn't say 'me too'. Oh, I don't forgive him for playing along. I think he took the loyal good soldier thing to far, but that is just my opinion. He is, at this juncture the only person I know of with enough stature and bi-partisan appeal to be accepted by a divided nation.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not sure that the actions of the insurgents will stop if we leave. There have already been those that state the current Iraqi government is illegitimate. How do we know that they won't simply turn their attention towards the "illigitimate" government facilitated by the US once the US is gone?
I'm not saying that the US can't leave or shouldn't but just repeating that I think they need to be careful about it.

I agree -- I'll say it in less uncertain terms. The Iraqi government is a primary target of the insurgents. Whenever I read up on the latest bombings, the bulk of the actions are always against Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military. Yet, some people still seem to think all the conflict over there is Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops. (Fortunately, I haven't noticed this in this thread)

 

[Hurkyl]

Terrorism exists all over the world and it will never be quashed.

Crime exists all over the world too, and it will never be quashed either. Would you suggest that we shouldn't fight crime?

By the way, it would really help if you would clearly state the point you're trying to make. You certainly seem to be implying that the use force is futile, and that it shouldn't be used... but if you read what you wrote, you'll see never actually said anything along those lines.

Now please let others continue discussion on alternatives. In otherwords... just get out the way.

He can't get out of the way of what isn't there.

The problem is that you staunchly refuse to discuss with one of the biggest problems, so all of your "alternative" "solutions" are moot.

For example, how do hybrid vehicles keep Iraq from collapsing into anarchy? Why do you think this is an "alternative" to using troops to defend the government? As far as I can tell, the two are entirely unrelated.

 

[Skyhunter]

I agree -- I'll say it in less uncertain terms. The Iraqi government is a primary target of the insurgents. Whenever I read up on the latest bombings, the bulk of the actions are always against Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military. Yet, some people still seem to think all the conflict over there is Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops. (Fortunately, I haven't noticed this in this thread)

You are correct. The Iraqi government is the primary target. One of the most dangerous places for an Iraqi to be is in a line to apply for a job with, originally the CPA and now the interim Gov't. I see two reasons for this.

1. They are softer targets than the US military.
2. They are considered traitors by the insurgents.

If we could get the rest of the world to do more than offer some weak words of support, maybe the Iraqi insurgents will start to see a better alternative than to fight a jihad with the "great satan", which is the kind of propaganda they are being fed. Our actions over there are just fueling that propaganda.

Killing them all is not a viable solution. For every one of them we kill, we create ten more. Face it as long as the current administration has control we are powerless to change anything!

 

[alexandra]

I agree -- I'll say it in less uncertain terms. The Iraqi government is a primary target of the insurgents. Whenever I read up on the latest bombings, the bulk of the actions are always against Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military. Yet, some people still seem to think all the conflict over there is Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops. (Fortunately, I haven't noticed this in this thread)

It seems to me that the targets of the Iraqi insurgents are, as you say, the Iraqi government - Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military - and it seems that this is because they are seen as the servants of a 'puppet government' that has been installed by the US administration and will do its bidding - in other words, they are seen as collaborators who are working against the interests of Iraq. That is just the sense I get from online blogs and articles I have read. Whether or not this perception is accurate is irrelevant - but that seems to be what is happening.

So yes, Iraq's 'civil war', which was predicted by many, is on. I don't see how the US troops either staying or leaving will change that. If US troops leave, the current government will be overthrown (so the Bush administration will not withdraw troops because then they will lose the foothold, however insecure it is, that they have gained in the region). If US troops stay, the insurgents may not be able to overthrow the current government, but will keep on trying and the killing and chaos will continue. This is my reading of the situation, in any case.

 

[Art]

Crime exists all over the world too, and it will never be quashed either. Would you suggest that we shouldn't fight crime?

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism. Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests.
That is why in lieu of a rational discussion by some western leaders we have the soundbites such as "they hate our freedom" or they "hate our existence" and other such peurile contentions to justify the lack of dialogue, and the use of force by the west to suppress them.
Churchill once wrote "better jaw jaw than war war" and this is still good advice today

 

[alexandra]

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism. Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests.
That is why in lieu of a rational discussion by some western leaders we have the soundbites such as "they hate our freedom" or they "hate our existence" and other such peurile contentions to justify the lack of dialogue, and the use of force by the west to suppress them.
Churchill once wrote "better jaw jaw than war war" and this is still good advice today

I agree with everything you write here, Art - but would lilke to make one modification: you write, "Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests". I would replace the words "national interests" with the words "the interests of the ruling class". Slight modification, but important. There are no 'national interests', in my view. The working class always gets the raw end of the deal, no matter what. Look at what's happening to the price of fuel in the US now - but look at the share values of oil companies for a stark contrast - both prices are going up. Not good for workers; very, very good for owners of oil companies. And this is just one example...

 

[Anttech]

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism. Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests.

[sarcasim]

Ohh stop with your liberal cr@p.. I mean how could this ever work, with your reasoning talking out greavences (and acting on the outcomes) might acutally quash hatred and violance...


ohh wait, The IRA are dispanding, after deplomacy and action in the context of the NI peace treaty... Imagine that

[/sarcasim]

;-)

 

[pattylou]

I'm not sure that the actions of the insurgents will stop if we leave. There have already been those that state the current Iraqi government is illegitimate. How do we know that they won't simply turn their attention towards the "illigitimate" government facilitated by the US once the US is gone?
I'm not saying that the US can't leave or shouldn't but just repeating that I think they need to be careful about it.

Ya know what just occurred to me ---

Everyone says "We can't leave" because we're afraid that things will get worse...

Why on Earth couldn't we just *return* if that happened? It's not like leaving then returning would be any weirder than invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses to begin with.

 

[1123581321]

You mean like preventing hundreds of deaths due to a "suicide bomber" or the threat of one during a pilgrimage?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=iraq+stampede&btnG=Search+News

and what do you think will happen if we leave now?

 

[pattylou]

and what do you think will happen if we leave now?

Ummmm.. hard to say?

I *guess* we could always... return if leaving didn't work out...

What are you afraid of?

 

[russ_watters]

Whereas "Vote Bush" did?

Certainly! It says "stay the course". Whether or not you believe that Bush has a coherent plan, I assume that when making your decision you figured that a Bush win would mean the troops would be staying for quite some time.

 

[TRCSF]

and what do you think will happen if we leave now?

The same thing that will happen when we leave later.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems to me that the targets of the Iraqi insurgents are, as you say, the Iraqi government - Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military - and it seems that this is because they are seen as the servants of a 'puppet government' that has been installed by the US administration and will do its bidding - in other words, they are seen as collaborators who are working against the interests of Iraq.

That's the catch-22 discussed earlier. And the solution, as I said, is to reach that "tipping point" where the Iraqi government becomes inherrently stable, then pull out. No, the attacks do not have to stop first, the new government has only to be strong enough to withstand them. Then, if your theory is right (and it may well be), with American forces leaving and the Iraqi people getting more and more control over their government, the "insurgency" should fade away.

Can anyone provide an alternate course of action? As others have said, I see a lot of criticizing of the current course of action, but not a lot of suggestions for an alternate one.

 

[russ_watters]

Ummmm.. hard to say?

I *guess* we could always... return if leaving didn't work out...

What are you afraid of?

If we did that, we'd be starting over from scratch. Do you consider the chance of success to be worth that risk? Give me a number: if we pull out now, what do you consider the odds of Iraq not slipping into anarchy or reverting to despotism, tribalism, etc?

 

[vanesch]

If we did that, we'd be starting over from scratch. Do you consider the chance of success to be worth that risk? Give me a number: if we pull out now, what do you consider the odds of Iraq not slipping into anarchy or reverting to despotism, tribalism, etc?

Just a guess: 20%.

And if you stay: also 20%, but it will last longer.

 

[Art]

Can anyone provide an alternate course of action? As others have said, I see a lot of criticizing of the current course of action, but not a lot of suggestions for an alternate one.

Why not provide a time-table for withdrawal as the Sunnis have requested? If this could be agreed it would take a large number of insurgents out of the equation. Perhaps the Iraqi security forces would be strong enough to handle what's left.

 

[SOS2008]

[sarcasim]

Ohh stop with your liberal cr@p.. I mean how could this ever work, with your reasoning talking out greavences (and acting on the outcomes) might acutally quash hatred and violance...


ohh wait, The IRA are dispanding, after deplomacy and action in the context of the NI peace treaty... Imagine that

[/sarcasim]

;-)

So you or I may not agree with a member's ideas for solutions. Then suggest one yourself.

In the meantime, we know what has been done to date has not gone well. The war on drugs is the analogy most often used, in that you can't fight it in a conventional way, i.e. wars against nation states. We can decrease terrorism more effectively by changing our policy of intervention overseas, and in the meantime focus on truly defending our nation with meaningful homeland security measures (NOT a Patriot Act!) but better ID and securing our borders.

That's the catch-22 discussed earlier. And the solution, as I said, is to reach that "tipping point" where the Iraqi government becomes inherrently stable, then pull out. No, the attacks do not have to stop first, the new government has only to be strong enough to withstand them. Then, if your theory is right (and it may well be), with American forces leaving and the Iraqi people getting more and more control over their government, the "insurgency" should fade away.

Can anyone provide an alternate course of action? As others have said, I see a lot of criticizing of the current course of action, but not a lot of suggestions for an alternate one.

The problem is the Iraqis are not showing significant, consistent progress in becoming stable. So if we "stay the course" it will be a very long and costly path...to where? Assuming there would be a time when it is felt there is enough stability (trained military/police, etc.), the chances of civil war and anarchy still exist. It is a no-win situation. Worse, it saps U.S. resources and actually fuels terrorism in the meantime. In looking at the pros and cons, an exist plan is a no-brainer IMO, and as stated above, we should try for an international solution in conjunction with pulling troops out. Actually Kerry would be a good envoy for this (having grown up in Germany and speaking French, etc.).

Let's face it, Bush supporters don't want to admit the invasion to be a mistake, and sure as heck don't want to concede anything to other countries, and certainly not to leaders in our country who are not in their Republican circle. We will all go down in flames together because of the prideful stupidity.

 

[Art]

The true irony is, based on the draft constitution, if the US does 'stay the course' they will be expending men and equipment at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to eventually create a mirror gov't of Iran which they purport to despise so much.

 

[pattylou]

Certainly! It says "stay the course". Whether or not you believe that Bush has a coherent plan, I assume that when making your decision you figured that a Bush win would mean the troops would be staying for quite some time.

You can't be serious. 'Stay the course' has no meaning when there is no charted course.

Are you claiming that there there has been a coherent strategy in Iraq?

*I* am claiming that Kerry's presidency would have had at least as much guidance as Bush's, wrt Iraq. Would you like me to find the letters from former military commanders that claim time and again that there was no viable exit strategy? How about the ones that claim that the reasons for *invading* were questionable? How about the ones from the pentagon showing global terrorism up 3 fold over last year, which was 2 fold over the year before? Or the ones that state clearly that majorly insufficient troops were thought sufficient, in March 2003?

Are you seriously saying that Bush has any clue as to what we're doing there? If so, please tell me what that reason, and "plan" is.

 

[pattylou]

If we did that, we'd be starting over from scratch.

No, we wouldn't.

We'd be starting from having residual troops there, and recent history, and relationships with the police forces we're training, and on-the-job know-how of the armed forces that were stationed there, and bases that have been built, and a non-Saddam government in place...

How can you argue that we're making progress and should stay the course, and then turn around and argue that leaving would revert back to square one? Do you recognize the illogic here?

My mind boggles.

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

 

[pattylou]

The true irony is, based on the draft constitution, if the US does 'stay the course' they will be expending men and equipment at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to eventually create a mirror gov't of Iran which they purport to despise so much.

Yes. That is very ironic. I agree competely.

 

[outsider]

Why do you think Colin Powell left the Administration?

Because he knew it was a mistake and wouldn't say 'me too'. Oh, I don't forgive him for playing along. I think he took the loyal good soldier thing to far, but that is just my opinion. He is, at this juncture the only person I know of with enough stature and bi-partisan appeal to be accepted by a divided nation.

Agreed to this... I have personally made this mistake in my life... this is why I know what is up with the Administration. Just that their "jack moves" are on an even larger scale than those I've been involved with. Believe me, I did benefit... I don't think it was right... but it's all said, done and money spent... so there you have it...

 

[outsider]

Crime exists all over the world too, and it will never be quashed either. Would you suggest that we shouldn't fight crime?

there is more than one way to reduce crime you know... how about feeding people?

By the way, it would really help if you would clearly state the point you're trying to make. You certainly seem to be implying that the use force is futile, and that it shouldn't be used... but if you read what you wrote, you'll see never actually said anything along those lines.

you will only see what you choose to see.

He can't get out of the way of what isn't there.

?

For example, how do hybrid vehicles keep Iraq from collapsing into anarchy? Why do you think this is an "alternative" to using troops to defend the government? As far as I can tell, the two are entirely unrelated.

you don't even realize that there are resources being spent daily that are not "investments" into the future. you are so in a box... i really feel for you.

 

[Hurkyl]

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism.

(1) You need police to protect against criminals while you're tackling the causes of crime.
(2) You need police to protect against the remaining criminals after you've tackled the causes of crime.

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

 

[Burnsys]

(1) You need police to protect against criminals while you're tackling the causes of crime.
(2) You need police to protect against the remaining criminals after you've tackled the causes of crime.

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

The problem here hurkyl is that those who control the police are the causes of crime!.

Your government is the cause of terrorism, if Us government didn't supported saddam and osama bin laden and the mujaidin, i am sure you shouldn have such a fierce resistence now in irak, if your government didn't overtrown the democraticaly elected government in iran, now it wouln't be a problem. if your government stop suporting and helping current dictator of ubekistan i am sure tomorrow you will not have to worry about terrorists from ubekistan...

 

[Hurkyl]

Your government is the cause of terrorism

This is a red herring: nothing you've said addresses the question of whether one needs the ability to confront terrorism with force, when necessary.

But, I'll respond to it anyways.

Are gun dealers the cause of shooting murders?

The U.S. government is not the cause of terrorism. You may (or may not) be able to make a compelling argument that the actions of (previous!) U.S. administrations has made the problem worse, but resorting to such gross hyperbole only weakens your argument.

 

[Art]

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

Which perhaps just proves that you are missing the point. If the root causes are addressed there will be little or no terrorism to confront.

 

[Hurkyl]

If the root causes are addressed there will be little or no terrorism to confront.

(1) If there is little terrorism to confront, it is still likely one would need to confront it when it does arise.

(2) This line of reasoning is about what to do in the long-term, and tells us nothing about what to do now to deal with the terrorism that is happening now.

 

[Skyhunter]

(1) If there is little terrorism to confront, it is still likely one would need to confront it when it does arise.

(2) This line of reasoning is about what to do in the long-term, and tells us nothing about what to do now to deal with the terrorism that is happening now.

Addressing terrorism at this juncture is secondary to addressing the the insurgency, although the two are connected. The insurgency is a more immediate problem.

The path Bush chose to fight terror was to follow the PNAC blueprint and establish a strong military presence in the middle east. I don't believe he plans to leave. Under these circumstances I don't think the insurgency will go away until we kill a few million Iraqis.

I don't agree with this solution, I believe we need to abandon this strategy. The strategy that Russ laid out is possibly workable, provided the Iraqi gov't can reach the threshold of being able to fight the insurgents.

As Patty pointed out, we may be able to achieve that sooner if we set a timetable, let the terrorists give it their best shot and deal with them all at once. If we can appease the Sunnis, who are the ones feeding the insurgency we can possibly render the foreign agitators impotent.

This strategy would be easier to implement if we had the rest of the world with us and helping.

The other problem is the guy that Bush had dismantle and privatise FEMA is the same crony who is working the deals in Iraq. And that is the other thing feeding the insurgency. Iraqi's have been watching the New Orleans disaster and gross incompetence in their country for 2 years!