So Good It Needs a New Name MY on Progressive Realism, and "drama" in Democratic Foreign policy. more framing. Matt also has a Strauss post up. Unfogged is looking a little not with it. The kool kids are all talking Schmitt and Strauss. God knows why.
We were talking about what a mistake it was for Sweden to try to hold onto that bit of Pomerania it held in the 17th century despite the lack of a naturally defensible border long before it was cool, Bob.
There will always be an element that believes that anti-war activists such as A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink have distracted the public from focusing on what we are trying to do in Iraq. It is obvious to me that the "war" was won pretty decisively, but the "occupation" has been problematic. But I also think that we need to see what other actors are participating in the "occupation". There are many (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) that are actively trying to keep the insurgency going long enough for the people of the United States to get tired of seeing the blooshed on their TVs every night. This low level, 4th generation warfare is very easy to sustain, even without support from the local population. I totally agree with 122 that Iraq was just setting the stage for the war with Iran. Oh, and by the way, when that war comes, those of you who don't think that the US armed forces will win decisively on the battlefield are delusional. What will happen after the fall of the mullahs? The Shah's son has been making alot of noise.
Oh, and by the way, when that war comes, those of you who don't think that the US armed forces will win decisively on the battlefield are delusional.
TLL, I don't disagree with anything you say in your first five sentences, though I would probably dispute the importance of the outside help to the ability of different militias and other insurgent groups to perpetuate themselves. But, if "delusional" is your pejorative of choice in what I quoted, how do you describe people who think that is the most important, or even a particularly relevant, question? "Spittle dribbling off their chin, so disconnected from reality that they're scared of their shoes, nuttier than a Snickers bar crazy"?
I'm sorry, I missed the quote you are referring to. My point is that the United States, should it choose to, would make short work of the Iranian Army, Navy and Air Force. Irregular forces are a different matter, as we are seeing in Iraq. I further feel that Rumsfeld has been too focused on "transformation" and has a bean counter mentality that leads him to believe that small numbers of highly trained, special ops types backed by UAVs etc. will in the long run be more effective, and cheaper by reducing manpower costs. This hasn't helped in Iraq, and won't if we have to occupy Iran as well.
TLL, my comment (140) begins with italic text, that italic text quotes you. In that text you described people who hold a particular view as delusional. I asked, rather harshly, why holding that view or not is relevant to anything. Also, I call invading Iran while fighting an insurgency in Iraq, "asking to be double enveloped," though there is probably no force in Iraq with the organization to do it.
As to being double enveloped, we are in Afghanistan also, so the map is looking like the early stages of a game of Go.
As to what mitigation, I think the fact that there have been several elections and a duly constituted Parliment counts for something. Look, I for one do not expect Iraq to be Denmark by next year, but deposing the tyrant was a necessary first step. Bush 41 did not want the headache that Bush 43 has, but our our betrayal of the Sunni uprising in 1991, and our lack of manpower immedeately after the fall of Baghdad has allowed factions who cannot allow a liberal democracy to develop in Iraq to make tcertain parts of Iraq unstable.
"Several elections" have resulted in a government in charge of nothing much, really, beyond Shi'a death squads. Hell, there were elections under Saddam. Color me unimpressed.
Well, since you asked, I think that the 9/11 attacks changed the way that Americans look at the world. We were no longer in our splendid isolation , and did not have to travel to foreign countries to be menaced by terrorists. So, since the primary job of any government is to protect its citizens, the decision was made to change some of the underlying dynamics. Who is the largest sponsor of global terror, why it's our friends the Saudis, and our former friends, the Iranians. Shall we depose the house of Saud, and restore the Hashemites, or perhaps even a democracy. We cannot, for we have no casus belli, and further disruption of the oil flow will be difficult. Who do we have a casus belli with? The Butcher of Baghdad, who has violated the ceasefire agreement repeatedly and is flaunting the UN sanctions. France and Russia are lobbying to remove the sanctions. Time to fix this problem once and for all. And he has the second largest reserves to boot, so reliance on the House of Saud becomes less of an issue. I think that these are the opening scenes of what the President has said will be a long war. I also agree that the President has made a fundamental mistake by not galvinizing public support for this venture by asking for shared sacrifice.
I think that the 9/11 attacks changed the way that Americans look at the world.
Which is to say, we as a country peed in our pants when twenty morons and associated support staff were able to kill .001% of our citizenry; when the invasion of Afghanistan went too well, and it looked like we might be able to wrap up the killing of the people who actually attacked us well before Toby Keith had fallen off the charts, we decided to invade Iraq.
SCT- I don't know if it was that we peed our pants and more that after Beirut, Khobar, the USS Cole the Kenyan Embassy etc, the reaction was, hey these guys really are trying to kill us.
Dude, we weren't in splendid isolation before 9-11; most Americans simply didn't pay attention to international news. (And US embassies, even ones located in Africa, count as sovereign land.)
"Well, since you asked, I think that the 9/11 attacks changed the way that Americans look at the world."
To what question could this possibly have been a response?
Is this a correct paraphrase of the rest of your argument: "Because al-qaida flew planes into the world trade center and pentagon, it became necessary for us to invade Iraq, who was not directly tied to those attacks, in the stead of Saudi Arabia"? If not, please explain. If so, please explain much further.
155 was to 151. It kind of addresses 153, too, though, by indirectly making the point that, yes, Islamic fundamentalist violence was a gathering problem during the 1990s, and that a lot of the people who only started paying attention after 9-11 have embraced some fairly stupid ideas about how to deal with it.
[T]he primary job of any government is to protect its citizens....
If we have to talk about a primary job of government, how about: doing whatever those things are which would be really difficult to do without coerced collective action. Certainly national defense is a very prominent one of those. But really, the only people who should go around saying what you said are minarchists.
[T]he decision was made to change some of the underlying dynamics.
Ok, but by change the underlying dynamics do you mean, as you appear to say, make sure that Saddam wasn't running Iraq (no matter what happened to Iraq after this) and either expropriate or get a really good deal on their oil? I can say that I don't think the American blood and treasure we've spent wasn't worth it to achieve those goals, to say nothing of the Iraqi lives lost.
Does 157 say, "the lives of every Iraqi has only instrumental value to me?" That's how I read "to eventually topple the regimes in both Saudi Arabia and Iran it is necessary to invade Iraq." And the goals of those subsequent invasions will be to topple the regimes and replace them with whomever survives chaotic civil wars, right?
151: So, since the primary job of any government is to protect its citizens, the decision was made to change some of the underlying dynamics.
And they're all now changed, for the worse. "Opposing the tyrant" was a necessary first step to destroying Iraq, precipitating a civil war and papering over the ugly realities with cosmetic elections, constitutions and parliaments. The war is now a terrorism recruitment and training bonanza which looks set to be expanded beyond Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran or Syria or both.
But the oil barons are making out like bandits and the permanent bases are coming along nicely... oddly enough the two things that most hawks constantly denied as possible motivations for the war. And whoever said it above was dead right: no matter how miserable this situation becomes, there will always be someone saying "well, at least Hussein is gone!" Just like there will always be someone "discovering" that "there really were 'WMD'!"
Also, I think that winning a war against Iran would be a lot harder than you think. A lot of Iraqis were happy to have us invade. When Iraq and Iran were fighting after the Shah fell, the stories were that political prisoners who had been military officers under the Shah begged to be let out of jail in order to fight for the new regime. Because it was their country. That kind of morale means a lot, and if you balance it against the incredibly crappy morale our forces would have pursuing a third war--for some of the career guys, a fourth war--in the Middle East (and are we going to supply it with troops and materiel as well as we did the last one? And by "well" I mean "badly"), I'm not so sure you can just assume it'll be a cakewalk.
159- I'm only serious in that I've heard him speak and I know he's trying to get attention. I don't think anyone takes him seriously, though. I have no idea how long "eventually" is, although if events in the Levant spin out of control, I think it will be sooner rather than later.
160- yes, I think that making sure Saddam wasn't running Iraqis key. He was willing to sell the oil, and we were willing to buy, so I don't think that that was the case. But what he did with the funds after the sale was the issue. As for the innocent Iraqis- I am tempted to be glib and say the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must, but in fact the slaughter of the innocents is being accomplished by the insurgents. Our responibility is to help the nacent Iraqi government regain control without resorting to the thuggish behaviour of its predecessor.
It is obvious to me that the "war" was won pretty decisively, but the "occupation" has been problematic.
Here's the thing. We got the bomb. We can win any war we want quite decisively. Everything's pretty peaceful once everyone's dead.
But raw military strength isn't what we're talking about, and if we are, we shouldn't be talking about it. We can blow up the world many times over, but that's not what winning a war means these days, if it ever did. Winning the War on Terror? Give me some precise conditions and I'll let you know if it's possible.
Winning the war in Iraq? Not accomplished just by defeating the Iraqi army, especially if you think it's part of the War on Terror. Demolishing Iran's army? Probably harder, but certainly doable. But winning the war isn't about our ability to kick some small country's ass; if it's about anything, it's about improving American security with a side of spreading democracy.
On the measure that matters, we are not good at winning wars. We're good at beating armies. We have little success against guerilla warfare. We ain't doin' so hot at rebuilding. Moving the goalposts? Maybe. But that's what you get when you want to be a benign superpower. Killing people is easy.
162- It may be insane, but I guarantee you it was the thinking. And it won't be a cakewalk if we have to fight Iran. We will have alot more casualties than we are used to seeing. But I also don't think we will attack Iran without some sort of provocation that will allow us no choice, much like 9/11 and Afghanistan.
164- I concur, and I think that it has been a failing of the Army especially to shy away from the "nation building" thing. It is probably not the Army's job, but it has to be done if we decide we are going to topple regimes. Which may I preemptively say- we have neither the manpower or collective will to do everywhere it needs doing.
With regards to 163 part 2: I wasn't making the oil point, I thought you were when you said, "And he has the second largest reserves to boot, so reliance on the House of Saud becomes less of an issue."
I think Bush's greatest failure was in not spelling out what would need to be done, and the sacfrifices that would be necessary. I think that the administration was snookered by Chalabi, and they thought they could do the nation building on the cheap. But the Republicans have won the elections because the Democrats ahve yet to put up a set of policies that addresses the post 9/11 mindset of the electorate.
please explain how 157 is not encapsulated in 156 (and is not insane).
The two countries are relatively close to each other. Otherwise I cannot see how invading one has anything to do with toppling the other. If anything the rising price of oil and the rising appeal of militiant islam--two direct results of the war thus far--have been very good for the Saudis.
"The post 9/11 mindset of the electorate" isn't some given that just appears out of nowhere.
It's partly a creation of politicians who have a vested interest in that mindset developing in a particular way. There are a number of ways the state can respond to that kind of terrorist attack and not all of them involve creating and exploiting a climate of fear in the electorate.
Lots of other nations have been subject to terrorist attack* and not all of them have promoted the same climate of fear.
* Of course, none have experienced individual attacks of such scale but several have experienced cumulative attacks over decades ...
Yeah. I do wonder if everyone who thinks that the US is obviously 'at war' with 'terror' because the 9-11 attacks were acts of war against it also thinks that the UK was 'at war' with 'terror' when the IRA was blowing up bits of London every so often. Or is it only a war on terror when it happens to us?
To bring the discussion full circle, it will be difficult to use the "stabbed in the back" meme when nothing has been asked of us. What have we failed to do.
170- geographic proximity, and the ensuing logistics are precisely the point. It may be insane, but I'm not a doctor.
what are the ensuing logistics? Saudi Arabia had a vested interest in Iraq not producing oil--which it is now not doing. Hussein wanted to sell oil when the sanctions were lifted, and several countries (not use) were very interested in buying. What side of the war debate does this put the Saudis on, exactly?
Precisely, and I think that people from the US are often unaware of the level of IRA campaigns over decades. Occasional attacks sort of understates it.
There were well over 1000 bomb attacks in 1972 alone -- over 20 on a single day in a single location, in one particular incident. Most of them on a fairly small scale but the cumulative number over the 30 years of the 'Troubles' is pretty mind-boggling.
I think Bush's greatest failure was in not spelling out what would need to be done, and the sacfrifices that would be necessary.
He two choices: tell the truth about the cost of his moronic plan, or get his war. He couldn't do both.
But the Republicans have won the elections because the Democrats ahve yet to put up a set of policies that addresses the post 9/11 mindset of the electorate.
I've never bought this. I think Dems haven't convinced the American public that we're "to
At any rate, the war was not sold to the public via the "let's knock out the Saudis by punching that other fellow standing next to them first" rationale, and I doubt it would have been a successful sale had that been the slogan.
174- If our troops are already in Iraq- it is easier to invade Saudi Arabia. Why else do you think we are building those permanent bases? We are moving out of Europe and into the Middle East. The difference is- without some sort of external threat the way the Soviets were to Western Europe, will the Arabs of any nation want us there?
But the Republicans have won the elections because the Democrats ahve yet to put up a set of policies that addresses the post 9/11 mindset of the electorate.
I've never bought this, though Dems didn't help themselves by shillyshallying all over the place on Iraq. The real problem is that Dems haven't convinced the American public that we're "tough enough to do the job." And the worst way to go about creating such an impression is to run from fights that the Republicans bring. If, during one of the debates, John Kerry had cold-cocked George Bush and peed on him, he wouldn't have become President. But neither would George Bush.
179- it depends on which war you are talking about. The invasion of Iraq, taken in isolation, has little justification other than 'freedom" for the Iraqis. Taken as a small part in the war against Islamic fundamentalism, it makes sense as the beginning of a long process to change the political landscape of the Middle East. But for 9/11, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. We would have let the sanctions expire, and Uday would Qusay would eventually have taken over.
Didn't we already have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia before this war? Don't the Saudis in fact depend on us for support? The best way to topple the Saudi regime would be to simply have withdrawn troops from the area.
We didn't need permanent bases in order to stage the Iraqi invasion. The Saudis barely even have a military. We're building the bases for military purposes, surely, but not directed against Saudi Arabia.
The war only makes sense as a part of long process to conquer the middle east, yes. But in what way does that goal make sense, and how is it at all feasible?
If we toppled the Saudi royal family, what the HELL would replace them? From what I've read, the folks waiting in the wings in Saudi Arabia could be fairly characterized as theocratic nutcases.
Thanks for the response to my question about young Pahlavi. While it's a bad sign that he's actively jockeying for relevance, I'm glad to hear that he's still not considered a serious contender.
I forgot about this: after Beirut, Khobar, the USS Cole the Kenyan Embassy etc, the reaction was, hey these guys really are trying to kill us.
We should have known before. Mostly, I think that's just the cost of doing business in the modern world. I assume we were doing similar in other countries, through proxies. And we absolutely could have (and probably did) respond to each and every one of those without invading another country.
Ok- too glib. What are the "root causes" of terrorism? I state that political frustration caused by despotism and abetted by radical fundamentalism and sponsored by vast sums of oil revenue are the root causes. How do we, as Americans, or westerners or just people who do not want to be attacked respond to this threat? The actions being taken are certainly one way of addressing these causes. If there is a better way, let's hear it. And, "not the way your doing it now" is not very enlightening.
The actions being taken are certainly one way of addressing these causes.
For a long time, being a conservative meant believing that it was really, really hard to address cultural root causes. If one doesn't believe that we can't affect urban blight, I have no idea why one would think we can completely change a region of the world while under hostile fire.
I think that what we are doing in Iraq is proving to be very hard. It may get easier, soon, depending on what happens in the Levant. I think the dominoes are falling.
The dominoes are falling? The only way I can see the recent progess of events as trending favorable to the US is if the regional Shia-Sunni war distracts Muslims from attacking the US.
I want to thank the commenters here on unfogged for engaging in a civil dialogue in what is obviously a contentious issue. I'll check in later, I'm sure.
(1) take military action against Afghanistan (which we did) to scour, over the course of several years, that country and neighboring countries for al-qaida members (which we did not do). Maintain a military presence in Afghanistan. This should never have been a "war on terror"--and it never really was; the word "terror" was used to encompass a bunch of vague, heterogeneous goals--but a war against a specific entity which had committed a greivous act. A war against al-qaida and al-qaida alone could have been won.
A lot of people would stop at (1). But I don't think American influence in the world at large is wrong, and at any rate, the public seems to desire it. Intolerant governments always present threats. The thing to do is to diffuse the threats, where possible, before starting a war--not to start a war on the pretense that a threat might exist.
I would treat islamic governments as we treated the soviet union. Ramp up the rhetoric, contain them. Intolerance is to be opposed abroad and at home. But we're not playing Risk here. Invading an intolerant part of the world is not likely to make its populace more tolerant, or more supportive of our way of life.
The goal should have been containment of islamic governments, focusing on change in the more tolerant nations. Turkey has a long cultural history, a respectful one. Change can be accomplished from within. It sounds fuzzy and lame, but really, the way to win over people who dislike us is to act as a benevolent force, not to invade.
Turkey has a long cultural history, a respectful one.
My recollection is that Turkey de-Islamicized sort of violently, but I defer to anyone who is not working off of a forgotten article in a forgotten magazine.
No, there wasn't really any actual violence, but it's not exactly the paragon of a civil-liberties-infused republic. Insofar as the freedom to practice religion is a human right (is it? Some people certainly consider it as such) and the deprivation of a human right is violence, then yeah, it's violent.
The thing is, Turkey isn't really all that de-Islamicized, especially not now under the AKP (a religious party). All that's been done is remove all appearance of religion from government. A lot of it was more about being similar to Europe, like, say, changing the weekend from Friday/Saturday to Saturday/Sunday, which seems silly, to not have off on the day 90% of your population considers sabbath/equivalent, just so you can be more like France or whatever.
there's a right wing move that goes: "well if not invasion, then what? See, you're bereft of ideas."
It just seemed to me that if we were going about things as we had been under Clinton, and if we'd kept Europe on our side, the place to look for westernization would be Turkey. I'm fairly ignorant on the subject, but just wanted to point out that there are interventionist strategies beyond invasion.
not to mention that the move itself is disengenuous. There are all sorts of things for which there's no easy answer, and an obviously wrong answer isn't a better alternative than thinking about it for awhile.
Does anyone else read Iraq The Model? Were they the ones accused of being paid flacks? Doesn't matter, I have a "death of a friend" post saved which gives them creds enough for me.
No More Half Solutions Gonna be, gotta be WWIII. Bring it on, says Mohammed. And he is nearer the target zome than me.
re: 131
I think one of the lessons of the last few years is that the tinfoil hat wearing crazies aren't always crazy.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:40 AM
130: was there _any_ part of the right which would have settled for that at the beginning of the war?
Posted by Andrew Brown | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:28 PM
War What is it Good For Am I pwned by Carl Schmitt? Can't tell yet.
So Good It Needs a New Name MY on Progressive Realism, and "drama" in Democratic Foreign policy. more framing. Matt also has a Strauss post up. Unfogged is looking a little not with it. The kool kids are all talking Schmitt and Strauss. God knows why.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:20 PM
We were talking about what a mistake it was for Sweden to try to hold onto that bit of Pomerania it held in the 17th century despite the lack of a naturally defensible border long before it was cool, Bob.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:23 PM
Really Bob? There are very few Carl Schmitt mentions, and they're mostly Emerson mentioning him.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:36 PM
There will always be an element that believes that anti-war activists such as A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink have distracted the public from focusing on what we are trying to do in Iraq. It is obvious to me that the "war" was won pretty decisively, but the "occupation" has been problematic. But I also think that we need to see what other actors are participating in the "occupation". There are many (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) that are actively trying to keep the insurgency going long enough for the people of the United States to get tired of seeing the blooshed on their TVs every night. This low level, 4th generation warfare is very easy to sustain, even without support from the local population. I totally agree with 122 that Iraq was just setting the stage for the war with Iran. Oh, and by the way, when that war comes, those of you who don't think that the US armed forces will win decisively on the battlefield are delusional. What will happen after the fall of the mullahs? The Shah's son has been making alot of noise.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:38 PM
The shah's son? Jesus wept.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:40 PM
Oh, and by the way, when that war comes, those of you who don't think that the US armed forces will win decisively on the battlefield are delusional.
Well, as long as you plan to think US will have won, at least you don't plan to blame the anti-war movement for making us lose.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:42 PM
Oh, and by the way, when that war comes, those of you who don't think that the US armed forces will win decisively on the battlefield are delusional.
TLL, I don't disagree with anything you say in your first five sentences, though I would probably dispute the importance of the outside help to the ability of different militias and other insurgent groups to perpetuate themselves. But, if "delusional" is your pejorative of choice in what I quoted, how do you describe people who think that is the most important, or even a particularly relevant, question? "Spittle dribbling off their chin, so disconnected from reality that they're scared of their shoes, nuttier than a Snickers bar crazy"?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:48 PM
, but the "occupation" has been problematic.
Is it just that you can't spell "unmitigated disaster"?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:02 PM
I'm sorry, I missed the quote you are referring to. My point is that the United States, should it choose to, would make short work of the Iranian Army, Navy and Air Force. Irregular forces are a different matter, as we are seeing in Iraq. I further feel that Rumsfeld has been too focused on "transformation" and has a bean counter mentality that leads him to believe that small numbers of highly trained, special ops types backed by UAVs etc. will in the long run be more effective, and cheaper by reducing manpower costs. This hasn't helped in Iraq, and won't if we have to occupy Iran as well.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:05 PM
I think that the disaster has been quite mitigated.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:06 PM
TLL, my comment (140) begins with italic text, that italic text quotes you. In that text you described people who hold a particular view as delusional. I asked, rather harshly, why holding that view or not is relevant to anything. Also, I call invading Iran while fighting an insurgency in Iraq, "asking to be double enveloped," though there is probably no force in Iraq with the organization to do it.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:15 PM
I think that the disaster has been quite mitigated.
By what, exactly?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:18 PM
145: Well, the war profiteers are making out handsomely...
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:21 PM
As to being double enveloped, we are in Afghanistan also, so the map is looking like the early stages of a game of Go.
As to what mitigation, I think the fact that there have been several elections and a duly constituted Parliment counts for something. Look, I for one do not expect Iraq to be Denmark by next year, but deposing the tyrant was a necessary first step. Bush 41 did not want the headache that Bush 43 has, but our our betrayal of the Sunni uprising in 1991, and our lack of manpower immedeately after the fall of Baghdad has allowed factions who cannot allow a liberal democracy to develop in Iraq to make tcertain parts of Iraq unstable.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:35 PM
but deposing the tyrant was a necessary first step.
Because...? First step to...?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:37 PM
147: Shi'a uprising. </pedantry>
"Several elections" have resulted in a government in charge of nothing much, really, beyond Shi'a death squads. Hell, there were elections under Saddam. Color me unimpressed.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:49 PM
I think that the disaster has been quite mitigated.
By what, exactly?
That probably should be more like "by whom?" so that the answer could be Ali al-Sistani.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:50 PM
Well, since you asked, I think that the 9/11 attacks changed the way that Americans look at the world. We were no longer in our splendid isolation , and did not have to travel to foreign countries to be menaced by terrorists. So, since the primary job of any government is to protect its citizens, the decision was made to change some of the underlying dynamics. Who is the largest sponsor of global terror, why it's our friends the Saudis, and our former friends, the Iranians. Shall we depose the house of Saud, and restore the Hashemites, or perhaps even a democracy. We cannot, for we have no casus belli, and further disruption of the oil flow will be difficult. Who do we have a casus belli with? The Butcher of Baghdad, who has violated the ceasefire agreement repeatedly and is flaunting the UN sanctions. France and Russia are lobbying to remove the sanctions. Time to fix this problem once and for all. And he has the second largest reserves to boot, so reliance on the House of Saud becomes less of an issue. I think that these are the opening scenes of what the President has said will be a long war. I also agree that the President has made a fundamental mistake by not galvinizing public support for this venture by asking for shared sacrifice.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:55 PM
I think that the 9/11 attacks changed the way that Americans look at the world.
Which is to say, we as a country peed in our pants when twenty morons and associated support staff were able to kill .001% of our citizenry; when the invasion of Afghanistan went too well, and it looked like we might be able to wrap up the killing of the people who actually attacked us well before Toby Keith had fallen off the charts, we decided to invade Iraq.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:06 PM
SCT- I don't know if it was that we peed our pants and more that after Beirut, Khobar, the USS Cole the Kenyan Embassy etc, the reaction was, hey these guys really are trying to kill us.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:14 PM
Except none of them had jack to do with Iraq.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:15 PM
Dude, we weren't in splendid isolation before 9-11; most Americans simply didn't pay attention to international news. (And US embassies, even ones located in Africa, count as sovereign land.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:18 PM
"Well, since you asked, I think that the 9/11 attacks changed the way that Americans look at the world."
To what question could this possibly have been a response?
Is this a correct paraphrase of the rest of your argument: "Because al-qaida flew planes into the world trade center and pentagon, it became necessary for us to invade Iraq, who was not directly tied to those attacks, in the stead of Saudi Arabia"? If not, please explain. If so, please explain much further.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:21 PM
No- the correct paraphrase would be that in order to eventually topple the regimes in both Saudi Arabia and Iran it is necessary to invade Iraq.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:24 PM
155 was to 151. It kind of addresses 153, too, though, by indirectly making the point that, yes, Islamic fundamentalist violence was a gathering problem during the 1990s, and that a lot of the people who only started paying attention after 9-11 have embraced some fairly stupid ideas about how to deal with it.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:25 PM
157--I can only wonder at the timeline for that "eventually."
But please tell me you weren't serious about the Shah's son.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:30 PM
[T]he primary job of any government is to protect its citizens....
If we have to talk about a primary job of government, how about: doing whatever those things are which would be really difficult to do without coerced collective action. Certainly national defense is a very prominent one of those. But really, the only people who should go around saying what you said are minarchists.
[T]he decision was made to change some of the underlying dynamics.
Ok, but by change the underlying dynamics do you mean, as you appear to say, make sure that Saddam wasn't running Iraq (no matter what happened to Iraq after this) and either expropriate or get a really good deal on their oil? I can say that I don't think the American blood and treasure we've spent wasn't worth it to achieve those goals, to say nothing of the Iraqi lives lost.
Does 157 say, "the lives of every Iraqi has only instrumental value to me?" That's how I read "to eventually topple the regimes in both Saudi Arabia and Iran it is necessary to invade Iraq." And the goals of those subsequent invasions will be to topple the regimes and replace them with whomever survives chaotic civil wars, right?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:30 PM
151: So, since the primary job of any government is to protect its citizens, the decision was made to change some of the underlying dynamics.
And they're all now changed, for the worse. "Opposing the tyrant" was a necessary first step to destroying Iraq, precipitating a civil war and papering over the ugly realities with cosmetic elections, constitutions and parliaments. The war is now a terrorism recruitment and training bonanza which looks set to be expanded beyond Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran or Syria or both.
But the oil barons are making out like bandits and the permanent bases are coming along nicely... oddly enough the two things that most hawks constantly denied as possible motivations for the war. And whoever said it above was dead right: no matter how miserable this situation becomes, there will always be someone saying "well, at least Hussein is gone!" Just like there will always be someone "discovering" that "there really were 'WMD'!"
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:38 PM
157 is, imho, insane.
Also, I think that winning a war against Iran would be a lot harder than you think. A lot of Iraqis were happy to have us invade. When Iraq and Iran were fighting after the Shah fell, the stories were that political prisoners who had been military officers under the Shah begged to be let out of jail in order to fight for the new regime. Because it was their country. That kind of morale means a lot, and if you balance it against the incredibly crappy morale our forces would have pursuing a third war--for some of the career guys, a fourth war--in the Middle East (and are we going to supply it with troops and materiel as well as we did the last one? And by "well" I mean "badly"), I'm not so sure you can just assume it'll be a cakewalk.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:45 PM
159- I'm only serious in that I've heard him speak and I know he's trying to get attention. I don't think anyone takes him seriously, though. I have no idea how long "eventually" is, although if events in the Levant spin out of control, I think it will be sooner rather than later.
160- yes, I think that making sure Saddam wasn't running Iraqis key. He was willing to sell the oil, and we were willing to buy, so I don't think that that was the case. But what he did with the funds after the sale was the issue. As for the innocent Iraqis- I am tempted to be glib and say the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must, but in fact the slaughter of the innocents is being accomplished by the insurgents. Our responibility is to help the nacent Iraqi government regain control without resorting to the thuggish behaviour of its predecessor.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:47 PM
It is obvious to me that the "war" was won pretty decisively, but the "occupation" has been problematic.
Here's the thing. We got the bomb. We can win any war we want quite decisively. Everything's pretty peaceful once everyone's dead.
But raw military strength isn't what we're talking about, and if we are, we shouldn't be talking about it. We can blow up the world many times over, but that's not what winning a war means these days, if it ever did. Winning the War on Terror? Give me some precise conditions and I'll let you know if it's possible.
Winning the war in Iraq? Not accomplished just by defeating the Iraqi army, especially if you think it's part of the War on Terror. Demolishing Iran's army? Probably harder, but certainly doable. But winning the war isn't about our ability to kick some small country's ass; if it's about anything, it's about improving American security with a side of spreading democracy.
On the measure that matters, we are not good at winning wars. We're good at beating armies. We have little success against guerilla warfare. We ain't doin' so hot at rebuilding. Moving the goalposts? Maybe. But that's what you get when you want to be a benign superpower. Killing people is easy.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:53 PM
162- It may be insane, but I guarantee you it was the thinking. And it won't be a cakewalk if we have to fight Iran. We will have alot more casualties than we are used to seeing. But I also don't think we will attack Iran without some sort of provocation that will allow us no choice, much like 9/11 and Afghanistan.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:54 PM
164- I concur, and I think that it has been a failing of the Army especially to shy away from the "nation building" thing. It is probably not the Army's job, but it has to be done if we decide we are going to topple regimes. Which may I preemptively say- we have neither the manpower or collective will to do everywhere it needs doing.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:01 PM
Which is a good argument for not invading Iraq. It's not like Iran was an unknown threat, nor that Iraq was as large a one as it was made out.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:03 PM
With regards to 163 part 2: I wasn't making the oil point, I thought you were when you said, "And he has the second largest reserves to boot, so reliance on the House of Saud becomes less of an issue."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:06 PM
I think Bush's greatest failure was in not spelling out what would need to be done, and the sacfrifices that would be necessary. I think that the administration was snookered by Chalabi, and they thought they could do the nation building on the cheap. But the Republicans have won the elections because the Democrats ahve yet to put up a set of policies that addresses the post 9/11 mindset of the electorate.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:10 PM
please explain how 157 is not encapsulated in 156 (and is not insane).
The two countries are relatively close to each other. Otherwise I cannot see how invading one has anything to do with toppling the other. If anything the rising price of oil and the rising appeal of militiant islam--two direct results of the war thus far--have been very good for the Saudis.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:13 PM
"The post 9/11 mindset of the electorate" isn't some given that just appears out of nowhere.
It's partly a creation of politicians who have a vested interest in that mindset developing in a particular way. There are a number of ways the state can respond to that kind of terrorist attack and not all of them involve creating and exploiting a climate of fear in the electorate.
Lots of other nations have been subject to terrorist attack* and not all of them have promoted the same climate of fear.
* Of course, none have experienced individual attacks of such scale but several have experienced cumulative attacks over decades ...
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:16 PM
Yeah. I do wonder if everyone who thinks that the US is obviously 'at war' with 'terror' because the 9-11 attacks were acts of war against it also thinks that the UK was 'at war' with 'terror' when the IRA was blowing up bits of London every so often. Or is it only a war on terror when it happens to us?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:19 PM
To bring the discussion full circle, it will be difficult to use the "stabbed in the back" meme when nothing has been asked of us. What have we failed to do.
170- geographic proximity, and the ensuing logistics are precisely the point. It may be insane, but I'm not a doctor.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:20 PM
what are the ensuing logistics? Saudi Arabia had a vested interest in Iraq not producing oil--which it is now not doing. Hussein wanted to sell oil when the sanctions were lifted, and several countries (not use) were very interested in buying. What side of the war debate does this put the Saudis on, exactly?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:22 PM
that's "(not us)"
CURSES
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:23 PM
re: 172
Precisely, and I think that people from the US are often unaware of the level of IRA campaigns over decades. Occasional attacks sort of understates it.
There were well over 1000 bomb attacks in 1972 alone -- over 20 on a single day in a single location, in one particular incident. Most of them on a fairly small scale but the cumulative number over the 30 years of the 'Troubles' is pretty mind-boggling.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:27 PM
I think Bush's greatest failure was in not spelling out what would need to be done, and the sacfrifices that would be necessary.
He two choices: tell the truth about the cost of his moronic plan, or get his war. He couldn't do both.
But the Republicans have won the elections because the Democrats ahve yet to put up a set of policies that addresses the post 9/11 mindset of the electorate.
I've never bought this. I think Dems haven't convinced the American public that we're "to
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:33 PM
At any rate, the war was not sold to the public via the "let's knock out the Saudis by punching that other fellow standing next to them first" rationale, and I doubt it would have been a successful sale had that been the slogan.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:33 PM
Let's get out of this bullshit strategy talk. I don't care why the elections turned out as they did. Give me a compelling rationale for this war.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:35 PM
174- If our troops are already in Iraq- it is easier to invade Saudi Arabia. Why else do you think we are building those permanent bases? We are moving out of Europe and into the Middle East. The difference is- without some sort of external threat the way the Soviets were to Western Europe, will the Arabs of any nation want us there?
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:35 PM
Most Arabs view us as the external threat.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:37 PM
Fuck. Following on:
But the Republicans have won the elections because the Democrats ahve yet to put up a set of policies that addresses the post 9/11 mindset of the electorate.
I've never bought this, though Dems didn't help themselves by shillyshallying all over the place on Iraq. The real problem is that Dems haven't convinced the American public that we're "tough enough to do the job." And the worst way to go about creating such an impression is to run from fights that the Republicans bring. If, during one of the debates, John Kerry had cold-cocked George Bush and peed on him, he wouldn't have become President. But neither would George Bush.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:37 PM
Coup de tête! Coup de tête!
text, I think that rationale would have sold. Most of the country likes beating up on people we think are bad.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:44 PM
179- it depends on which war you are talking about. The invasion of Iraq, taken in isolation, has little justification other than 'freedom" for the Iraqis. Taken as a small part in the war against Islamic fundamentalism, it makes sense as the beginning of a long process to change the political landscape of the Middle East. But for 9/11, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. We would have let the sanctions expire, and Uday would Qusay would eventually have taken over.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:45 PM
Didn't we already have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia before this war? Don't the Saudis in fact depend on us for support? The best way to topple the Saudi regime would be to simply have withdrawn troops from the area.
We didn't need permanent bases in order to stage the Iraqi invasion. The Saudis barely even have a military. We're building the bases for military purposes, surely, but not directed against Saudi Arabia.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:45 PM
We removed our troops from KSA to Qatar.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:47 PM
Uh, our troops were already in Saudi long before we invaded Iraq...
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:47 PM
and Uday would Qusay would eventually have taken over.
Who, by all accounts, were dim-witted psychos. They would have been topped within a year by the military.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:48 PM
Weiner-pwned. The point still stands, and Qatar is just as close to KSA as Iraq is.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:50 PM
The war only makes sense as a part of long process to conquer the middle east, yes. But in what way does that goal make sense, and how is it at all feasible?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:50 PM
And the admission from a supporter of the war is frankly chilling. Do you work in government?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:53 PM
If we toppled the Saudi royal family, what the HELL would replace them? From what I've read, the folks waiting in the wings in Saudi Arabia could be fairly characterized as theocratic nutcases.
Thanks for the response to my question about young Pahlavi. While it's a bad sign that he's actively jockeying for relevance, I'm glad to hear that he's still not considered a serious contender.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:55 PM
I forgot about this: after Beirut, Khobar, the USS Cole the Kenyan Embassy etc, the reaction was, hey these guys really are trying to kill us.
We should have known before. Mostly, I think that's just the cost of doing business in the modern world. I assume we were doing similar in other countries, through proxies. And we absolutely could have (and probably did) respond to each and every one of those without invading another country.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:56 PM
SCMTim gets it so right in 188. That might have been the best possible outcome, actually.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:58 PM
182- SCT- I totaly agree. Would have been funny to watch.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:02 PM
190- conquer is an ugly word. reshape the political landscape is what we are going for.
191- text, I'm not that much of a leech.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:07 PM
reshape the political landscape is what we are going for.
The Middle East is not clay to be sculpted, and the US army is no scalpel.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:09 PM
You are just playing with words now. Alexander the Great reshaped a lot of political landscapes.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:13 PM
Ok- too glib. What are the "root causes" of terrorism? I state that political frustration caused by despotism and abetted by radical fundamentalism and sponsored by vast sums of oil revenue are the root causes. How do we, as Americans, or westerners or just people who do not want to be attacked respond to this threat? The actions being taken are certainly one way of addressing these causes. If there is a better way, let's hear it. And, "not the way your doing it now" is not very enlightening.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:25 PM
The actions being taken are certainly one way of addressing these causes.
For a long time, being a conservative meant believing that it was really, really hard to address cultural root causes. If one doesn't believe that we can't affect urban blight, I have no idea why one would think we can completely change a region of the world while under hostile fire.
Posted by SomeCallMetim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:31 PM
I think that what we are doing in Iraq is proving to be very hard. It may get easier, soon, depending on what happens in the Levant. I think the dominoes are falling.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:36 PM
The dominoes are falling? The only way I can see the recent progess of events as trending favorable to the US is if the regional Shia-Sunni war distracts Muslims from attacking the US.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:44 PM
I want to thank the commenters here on unfogged for engaging in a civil dialogue in what is obviously a contentious issue. I'll check in later, I'm sure.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:00 PM
We try. We fail frequently, but we try.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:01 PM
TLL, I said some unduly harsh things to you in this thread, my bad.
Posted by washerdryerr | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:15 PM
Well I hope you do return, TLL.
Here's my response, for what it's worth:
(1) take military action against Afghanistan (which we did) to scour, over the course of several years, that country and neighboring countries for al-qaida members (which we did not do). Maintain a military presence in Afghanistan. This should never have been a "war on terror"--and it never really was; the word "terror" was used to encompass a bunch of vague, heterogeneous goals--but a war against a specific entity which had committed a greivous act. A war against al-qaida and al-qaida alone could have been won.
A lot of people would stop at (1). But I don't think American influence in the world at large is wrong, and at any rate, the public seems to desire it. Intolerant governments always present threats. The thing to do is to diffuse the threats, where possible, before starting a war--not to start a war on the pretense that a threat might exist.
I would treat islamic governments as we treated the soviet union. Ramp up the rhetoric, contain them. Intolerance is to be opposed abroad and at home. But we're not playing Risk here. Invading an intolerant part of the world is not likely to make its populace more tolerant, or more supportive of our way of life.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:53 PM
The goal should have been containment of islamic governments, focusing on change in the more tolerant nations. Turkey has a long cultural history, a respectful one. Change can be accomplished from within. It sounds fuzzy and lame, but really, the way to win over people who dislike us is to act as a benevolent force, not to invade.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:08 PM
Wait, are we talking about Turkey? Did I miss something?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:10 PM
Turkey has a long cultural history, a respectful one.
My recollection is that Turkey de-Islamicized sort of violently, but I defer to anyone who is not working off of a forgotten article in a forgotten magazine.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:12 PM
No, there wasn't really any actual violence, but it's not exactly the paragon of a civil-liberties-infused republic. Insofar as the freedom to practice religion is a human right (is it? Some people certainly consider it as such) and the deprivation of a human right is violence, then yeah, it's violent.
The thing is, Turkey isn't really all that de-Islamicized, especially not now under the AKP (a religious party). All that's been done is remove all appearance of religion from government. A lot of it was more about being similar to Europe, like, say, changing the weekend from Friday/Saturday to Saturday/Sunday, which seems silly, to not have off on the day 90% of your population considers sabbath/equivalent, just so you can be more like France or whatever.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:19 PM
there's a right wing move that goes: "well if not invasion, then what? See, you're bereft of ideas."
It just seemed to me that if we were going about things as we had been under Clinton, and if we'd kept Europe on our side, the place to look for westernization would be Turkey. I'm fairly ignorant on the subject, but just wanted to point out that there are interventionist strategies beyond invasion.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:27 PM
not to mention that the move itself is disengenuous. There are all sorts of things for which there's no easy answer, and an obviously wrong answer isn't a better alternative than thinking about it for awhile.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:43 PM
That's all for tonight, folks. Stay tuned next week when I continue to Say Obvious Things That We All Agree About In General Terms.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 9:01 PM
Does anyone else read Iraq The Model? Were they the ones accused of being paid flacks? Doesn't matter, I have a "death of a friend" post saved which gives them creds enough for me.
No More Half Solutions Gonna be, gotta be WWIII. Bring it on, says Mohammed. And he is nearer the target zome than me.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 9:46 PM