Just *why* are we at war in Iraq? - Page 8

Does the law matter to you at all?

I gotta admit, the fact that they actually ARE dancing in the streets of Baghdad is a pretty great thing and goes along way to make this seem like we did the right thing . . . .

I'd hate to have to eat all of my words . . . .so I won't . . . at least not now

Regretfully, no communications are possible between us on this issue.

Good Day.

Actually, a *great* day!

April 9, 2003: Iraqi Independence Day.

Aries 1B

While I am completely overwhelmed with joy at seeing the images of people dancing in the streets, and while I am happy that the really rough urban warfare seems to be more or less over (for the moment), I'm waiting to see what happens. I must admit that I personally had feared/predicted a MUCH more drawn out urban conflict.

House to house fighting sucks, but our guys have been REALLY trained in it. Trust me, we'd have done pretty well given the opposition.

We'll probably have to use it in SH's home town, so be prepared; this war isn't over by a long shot.

Look at the body language of the dancing Iraqis. Do you see the immediate reactions after their joyous acts of defiance? Do you see the fear of expected punishment/reprisal in their postures? Can you imagine the lives that these poor people lived?

The stories that are going to come out.... Our generation is in for one hell of a shock, I suspect. The 1941-45 generation was horrified by the reality of the Nazi Concentration Camps. Dictatorships keep meticulous records. Stories are coming....

Aries 1B
"Slutty and Fallen Women" Man, that's wonderful!

Yes, I realize it must be difficult dealing with someone that points out your flawed arguments.

pfflam and midwinter:

You two are hereby invited to come on over to the good side. The only ribbing you will get is a quick noogie.

I'll see that you are protected as I guide you through the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Groverat: sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been buried under a pile of freshman comp essays that require grading. I am also, at the moment, working my way through a fifth of Basil Hayden (a *fine* bourbon), so please pardon any weirdness.

Replies will be sporadic until Wednesday next (4/15), but I'd like to continue this discussion.

Anyway.


Well, I'm *no* fan of Bush's. At all. If it is possible, I believe I despise him more than I did Clinton. For different reasons, of course. Clinton gave a bad name to liberalism. (I have argued ceaselessly that he was, in fact, a republican, and that it was his success in co-opting republican initiatives and getting them passed that was the root of the right-wing hatred of him. But that's another discussion.) Bush, on the other hand, is a hair-do and I want him gone.


I have to admit that this is a compelling position, mostly because it's rooted in that aphorism that "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I think, to a certain extent, we're on the same page here. SH is a turd and something must be done about him. Sanctions are incredibly problematic, and very probably do more harm to the people we want to help than to the government we're trying to punish. But the difference between us, I think, is that I think that in situations such as the current one, there are ways to go about accomplishing or goals without killing so many people, which is dangerous in terms of the geopolitics of the region. As I've said elsewhere, war is always a failure of the imagination. There are always ways to avoid it. The situation is SH is not the same as the one we faced in WWII (where we held out and held out until we were finally pre-emptively attacked by Japan); there was no aggression; there were no attacks; all the evidence attempting to link all the little pieces together were, shall we say, crappily done. There is always a better way.


Sure. There's no argument here. And there are, of course, many, many other examples we might bring up of the evils of tyrannical despots. I honestly don't know if the doctrine of containment had emerged fully by the end of Stalin's reign. But as you, I think, pointed out to me once, this reluctance to "do anything" coincided with the falling away of what had been the traditional American isolationist attitutude toward world affairs. My point is that it's not particularly remarkable that we didn't do anything about Stalin (barring, of course, our very clear knowledge that he had just beaten the Germans--a feat no one else [and I only grudgingly admit that we "beat" them] had ever been able to do...save for Japan, and those were relatively minor incursions). My god, man, look at the battle of Kursk. It must've looked like something out of the Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, my point here is that pick our fights carefully. And some not so carefully. Taking on Stalin would have probably ended in defeat. And a really, really nasty one.

There are other fights that we choose not to pick, as well. And my argument throughout this post-9/11 administration has been that if you want to take out one "bad guy" you have to take them all out. Anything other than that is hypocrisy.


Amen. To which I would only add that, sometimes, action can be equally tragic.


Well, I'll put it this way: judging by your profile, you're probably around the age of the students I taught on 9/12/00 (freshmen in college in the Fall 2000). I taught the next day. They were scared. They were confused. They were angry. I decided to chuck our scheduled assignment so we could talk about things (it was during a unit on American political rhetoric during war, so it wasn't all that out of place).

I answered a few questions about all of it, and I did my best to keep my political positions out of the fray (as I always do...I over-compensate so much that most of my students think I'm a republican). Many of them didn't know where Afghanistan was. Most of them didn't know anything about the history of our involvement in the region (and I include Iraq, Israel, and Saudi in this group). I tried to explain, and I made sure that they knew we were in a non-teacher/non-classroom mode.

Did the world change for them? Sure. Did it change for me? No. I had been tempered by the first WTC bombing and (much more close to home) the Murrah bombing, and I knew that "terrorism" (I abhor the term, which you know, of course) was a very real threat. I'm not saying that "we got what was coming to us," but I am saying that I am not surprised that there was, at last, a successful attack on American soil. The world changes ever day. Every minute. Every second. I'm not so arrogant as to think that my moments are the same as everyone else's (and I'm not suggesting that you are, either).

I guess, now that I wind this up (and find myself longing for another glass of Basil Hayden), I'm asking this question: did the world *really* change on 9/11?

Cheers
Scott

PS
Thanks for welcoming me into the fold.

That was a good posting, but I'm your age, so allow me to answer your semi-rhetorical question:

"did the world *really* change on 9/11?"

Yes. It did.

Well, I was kind of looking for more of a "how" that would follow that answer...

Care to elaborate?

Cheers
Scott

midwinter:


Amen!


I never saw that better way, and there were 12 years.
I think what the mythical "international community" had been doing with Iraq was little more than ignoring the issue, beating them down so they didn't pop up and bother us. Like beating the hell out of your kid and stuffing him in a closet instead of listening to what he says and what he needs.

To me this makes the question of timing invalid, because it's a problem that needs to be dealt with, and you can't address a problem like that too soon, it's impossible.

And it will even make me choose a less-than-ideal solution, because the ideal solution wasn't there. And, in my opinion, with a guy like Saddam in power there could be no bloodless solution. The route we chose was less bloody than the one we had been on for 12 years (I believed it would be and it turned out to be so), so I was and am pleased with this.


Exactly. We can handle Saddam's regime with relative ease.

This now-catchy phrase "winning the peace" is the hard part, but it's not like they won't SEEK a stabilized state of affairs (and by "they" I mean the people of Iraq). They are a modernized people with a potentially booming economy and decent infrastructure to get there with a history of solid education, I don't know why people are so pessimistic about their future, I have a lot of faith in them.


I disagree, I think you "take out" who you can and deal with others in different ways. You can't fix everything, but you need to fix what you can. I don't like the idea of just curling up in the corner because we can't/won't do *everything*


I think it did, absolutely.
And I reason that out by seeing the reaction. The reaction to the WTC bombing was relatively limited. We took some guys out, jailed some others. International terrorism wasn't addressed very fully, supportive governments weren't addressed. The Murrah bombing brought about even less action, we kind of grieved for a while, developed a tasty hatred for McVeigh and moved on.
But with 9/11 it changed the way we addressed the very vital and real problem that we had been ignoring for a long time, the middle east/Arab world. What we see in Iraq is directly connected to this new attitude, not because Hussein helped the 9/11 terrorists, but because it changed the way we deal with these problems, maybe we will go back to ignoring it, but for now we are active.

And if America is acting out after years of relative inaction the world has definitely changed. We annihilated Iraq's ruling regime, Afghanistan's ruling regime and have essentially fired warning shots across the bow of a few other regimes/institutions we consider dangerous.

It seems many people in the government saw the events of 9/11 as a manifestation of the idea that America is weak, that it is a paper tiger. This is an idea bin Laden expressed, saying we wouldn't fight hard and that we could be defeated. Well he was sorely mistaken.

I think this amazingly quick and decisive military victory in Iraq will gain measured fear/respect among many of those who might otherwise think about harming the US. If you let them know that there will be retaliation they will be less willing to act, it's human nature.

So yes, the world has changed because of 9/11.

He's won, you've lost. Well done.

OBL is trying to forment an apocalyptic war between Islam and the West. His type don't care about dying (rather he does but his boys don't), so forget about fear helping you one bit. What the US has done is make more individuals hate it more. You're dancing his tune.

Are these the people you think will fear retaliation? Terrorist groups? You can't invade al Qaeda.

Or do you mean the countries around Iraq? Like Iran, who you actually said you would protest in the streets about if the invasion looked on?

...been listening to Beck, have you?

Its a win win situation folks, I find it funny that UN european countries want a hand in it now afterwards... follow the leader...

What the hell are you talking about?

Harald:


He's failing miserably.


His boys also care about living. As do the thousands and thousands of terrorists who do nothing every day. Nothing stopping more suicide bombers in Iraq. Except a sense of mortality.


Been hearing it since 10/11/01. It becomes less and less compelling as time goes on.


You can destroy terrorist groups, freeze their funding and topple supportive regimes (or at least get them to change their ways).

Fighting terrorism can't get a treaty and perfect peace, but it sure as hell can produce results (or, in this case, can prevent results).


If we go into Iran right now I will protest in the streets, you bet your ass.
Countries "like" Iran? Why do people lump everything into one category like that? Weak.

--

der Kopf:


Great song, great album.

Osama bin Laden:
"The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

I wonder if that ****wad cares to change his statement. He sure is brave hiding and telling other people to die for his cause.

Uh, dude ...

What?

I've finished my grading, so now I'm free to fill up these boards with mindless drivel! At least for now.


What's most interesting to me about this response is that one could argue that this "change" that you're seeing is little more than the difference in foreign policy that the Bush administration has brought with it. Clinton was, despite the Balkans, Somalia, his isolated bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently a believer in containment. Bush and his admin are most definitely not. In some places (i.e. no containment for Iraq; containment for NK). To which I must add that the reaction to Murrah was probably a little more intense that you remember. The Clinton admin took it in the nuts over its treatment of the militia movement in the US (there was an *awesome* documentary about Waco on TV tonight), and Murrah was largely a retaliation against that policy. Think Waco and Ruby Ridge. It was, of course, no coincidence that all of this occurred during a time when the *extreme* right wing saw the federal government as being led by the anti-Christ.

At any rate, I would argue that the change you're detecting is Bush's reaction, not some world-changing event itself. I'm completely off the top of my head here, but I suspect that if Clinton had been president during 9/11, he might've used the same kind of precision strikes/proportional response that he employed in '93 against Afghanistan. If that had been the case, if we had *not* invaded Afghanistan, would you still think everything had changed? I suppose it's a moot point, since what changes the world to me ain't what changes the world to you.... But I'm curious, and it's a sincere question.

So...was it 9/11 that changed the world, or the Bush administration's policies that did so?


Yup. And again, I would argue that that's policy changing, not the world. The policy, I'm suggesting, was in place already; 9/11 let it out of the box. Maybe we're talking about the same thing here.


I don't know. It's not like there was ever any question--anywhere--about whether or not we could "take" Iraq. We can just about conquer any country we choose (barring, perhaps, Russia, and maybe even Texas ). But I just don't see it quite as "rosily" as you do here. I don't see *increasing* the fear of the US as a good thing. We're talking about desperate people here, and it's not like they don't know that there will be some kind of retaliation. In many cases (and this is usually the case in Israel), they're counting on some kind of disproportionate retaliation, since it serves to galvanize the base of supporters and helps sway potential converts to the cause. This is all long-term, of course, and I have no crystal ball, but I do not think that your last sentence there takes into consideration the value of martyrdom to lots and lots of people.

Cheers
Scott

midwinter:


Well, that is arguable.
Bush said in the presidential debates that he did not like our armed-forces being used to build nations. And now we're doing exactly that.


Well I meant the administration's reaction to the terrorist act.


If we had not invaded Afghanistan then no, I would not consider it such a change because it would have been our usual pointless response. Drop a bunch of bombs and then go home.


Well I think 9/11 changed Bush's ideas about foreign policy. Sure, there were already hawks embedded in the administration, but there was also Powell. Bush is the man who makes the final decision (idiotic caricatures aside) and he definitely changed.

Like Pearl Harbor changed our isolationist policies.


Yes, we are. I think our policy has a huge impact on the world so when our policy changes the world changes.

If there's one thing that can't be denied, it's that our new policy has had a big effect on the world.


Well, there have been many who question our ability to take these nations, Scott Ritter included. Beside that, there is a huge difference in having the abstract knowledge that it could happen and then seeing Marines roll into the center of Baghdad unimpeded, helping the people tear StatueSaddam down.

I always knew that terrorists could fly planes into buildings, but that didn't prepare me for watching the towers crumble live on television.


Not just fear, fear/respect. Not the kind of fear that keeps them trembling, not knowing whether or not we'll kill them, but fear that we *will* act, which was a big question. Is the US a paper tiger like bin Laden says?

If they respect our power they will be nicer, and that's the goal. We don't have to hurt them at all. Rumsfeld saying Syria is being "unhelpful" right now is causing shockwaves. I don't advocate bombing anyone, but they have got to remember that they can't literally fight us and expect no retaliation.


Well many years of a "proportionate retaliation" strategy didn't help either.

Israel is the big problem, I think. I don't think their main gripes are with us, per se.


That applies more to Israel, even suicide bombers in Iraq are screaming about this merely being an extension of Zionism. Of course martyrdom is important to many, but I think peace is important to many more.

I think this is why we are at war in Iraq....

.....unless you can prove that Bush's stated reasons are a lie, you guys are pissing in the wind.

All you've got is conjecture....what good is that?

.... and while you are speculating, Bush/Blair are racking up major goodwill and are in possession of Iraq proper---whining won't do much but show how desperate you guys are to concoct an excuse to piss on the current administration.

......one hypothetical after another, Bush is lying, etc., etc.,....all from a bunch of intellectual giants that can't even tell when the next update for OSX will come out.



Geopolitics should be so simple!

Hey I stopped conjecturing and whining awhile ago!

even though I think that things will unfold in strange and not all foreseen directions for many years to come.

I'm jumping into this late. I just skimmed the subsequent posts. (I'll go back and read them fully after I post this.) I don't think you resolved this contradiction. Either your point is we should pick our fights carefully or your point is we should take them all out. Which is it?