From WaPo (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html?hpid=topnews%22):
quote:
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'
Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job....[more] (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html?hpid=topnews%22)
/Emphasis mine. The position is already filled. It's called the Commander-in-Chief.
quote:
"So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.
That's funny.
That's a cute story. We have three former military officials who've turned the job down. Oh where Oh where could we possibly go to find someone to fill the job? Maybe the other innumerable thousands of other military officials who are left.
I love stories that cite phantom sources "close to the situation."
or govt. sources that speak on a 'condition of anonymity'
i guess w cant be expected to be commander in chief decider.
Why not pick a CNN or NBC producer to run the war? They've pretty much run the direction of it in the court of public opinion anyhow.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That's a cute story. We have three former military officials who've turned the job down. Oh where Oh where could we possibly go to find someone to fill the job? Maybe the other innumerable thousands of other military officials who are left.
I love stories that cite phantom sources "close to the situation."
The people he is asking, presumably the one's that are the most knowledgeable and able, are turning him down. Not once, not twice, but thrice. At least. Duty-bound folks are turning down requests from the President.
What, the military is a large organization and eventually he might find
somebody? How is that supposed to make me feel better?
As for unnamed sources...they
have spread more manure than John Deere in the last six years. But I'll take the info and wade through it myself, thank you. In this case, Sheehan actually has a name, and he seems to confirm that he was one of the three.
quote:
The people he is asking, presumably the one's that are the most knowledgeable and able, are turning him down. Not once, not twice, but thrice. At least. Duty-bound folks are turning down requests from the President.
You're making more out of the story than it says. The Washington Post story doesn't give you an objective look at the search. It merely went and found individuals who declined the position, big deal.
Will they do a story on the people who are considering taking the job, or the one who does accept it...probably not, but that's not as fun as Bush bashing now is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Why not pick a CNN or NBC producer to run the war? They've pretty much run the direction of it in the court of public opinion anyhow.
Why not give it to a Fox producer? Them Iraqis would be in their "last throes" before sunset. Or at least, that's what the little crawler at the bottom of the screen would tell me...and that's all that matters. Sheesh.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Why not pick a CNN or NBC producer to run the war? They've pretty much run the direction of it in the court of public opinion anyhow.
Why not give it to a Fox producer? Them Iraqis would be in their "last throes" before sunset. Or at least, that's what the little crawler at the bottom of the screen would tell me...and that's all that matters. Sheesh.
Yeah. That's why the Kurdish National Party ran ads exclusively on Fox News thanking the American people (//%22http://links.streamingwizard.com/1stuk/theotheriraq/ustvspot1m.asx%22) for taking down Saddam, because Fox hates the Iraqi people and wants to see them all die. Good call.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Why not pick a CNN or NBC producer to run the war? They've pretty much run the direction of it in the court of public opinion anyhow.
Why not give it to a Fox producer? Them Iraqis would be in their "last throes" before sunset. Or at least, that's what the little crawler at the bottom of the screen would tell me...and that's all that matters. Sheesh.
Yeah. That's why the Kurdish National Party ran ads exclusively on Fox News thanking the American people for taking down Saddam, because Fox hates the Iraqi people and wants to see them all die. Good call.
Sorry if I touched a nerve...you're absolutely right. If we only had eight Faux News Channels, we'd be hearing more of that
Good News from Iraq TM, pat.pending, instead of "isolated events" and media sensationalism (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3gkpkmhC9Uk&refer=home%22). Dude, they're blowing up the parliament building...in the middle of the green zone. This thing is over. Generals know it. I know it. Most of America knows it. How long before "You decide."?
As for the Kurds, if that's our "over the horizon" position, then fine. Turkey ain't gonna like it, but they wouldn't be the first country Muslim country we've enraged this week.
quote:
Sorry if I touched a nerve...you're absolutely right. If we only had eight Faux News Channels, we'd be hearing more of that Good News from Iraq TM, pat.pending, instead of "isolated events" and media sensationalism (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3gkpkmhC9Uk&refer=home%22). Dude, they're blowing up the parliament building...in the middle of the green zone. This thing is over. Generals know it. I know it. How long before "You decide."?
Yet again with this overused canard that the "genruls" want us out. Ballocks. The generals that YOU quote do, because they fit your opinion. For every 1 general that says something negative there are 10 who say differently, and generally they are the ones ON THE GROUND right now.
And I hate to inform you, but this is FAR from over, and the only way the US can lose is if we choose to do so. Militarily we cannot be defeated, but politically we can be.
Walking away would create an untenable situation and would create a humanitarian crisis the likes of which would make Darfur and Rwanda look like a cake walk. Like it or not we are committed to the task and hand, and leaving simply isn't an option to anyone who gives a damn about the Iraqi people.
There are only two options.
1. The first is to stick this out until a peace can be brokered; or
2. To pull out and watch as mass destruction and genocide take over and be forced to re-commit troops back to the region to quash the inevitable genocide being perpetrated against either the sunni or shia, whichever group gets the short end of the stick. I would assume that to be the sunni since Iran is currently funding the shia uprising.
Do yourself a favor and read the letter Zarqawi wrote which was intercepted in Kurdistan. See if you're not playing right into his hands:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/31694.htm
5. The Work Mechanism
Our current situation, as I have previously told you, obliges us to deal with the matter with courage and clarity and to move quickly to do so because we consider that [unless we do so] there will be no result in which religion will appear. The solution that we see, and God the Exalted knows better, is for us to drag the Shi`a into the battle because this is the only way to prolong the fighting between us and the infidels. We say that we must drag them into battle for several reasons, which are:
1 – They, i.e., the Shi`a, have declared a secret war against the people of Islam. They are the proximate, dangerous enemy of the Sunnis, even if the Americans are also an archenemy. The danger from the Shi`a, however, is greater and their damage is worse and more destructive to the [Islamic] nation than the Americans, on whom you find a quasi-consensus about killing them as an assailing enemy.
2 – They have befriended and supported the Americans and stood in their ranks against the mujahidin. They have spared and are still sparing no effort to put an end to the jihad and the mujahidin.
3 – Our fighting against the Shi`a is the way to drag the [Islamic] nation into the battle. We speak here in some detail. We have said before that the Shi`a have put on the uniforms of the Iraqi army, police, and security [forces] and have raised the banner of preserving the homeland and the citizen. Under this banner, they have begun to liquidate the Sunnis under the pretext that they are saboteurs, remnants of the Ba`th, and terrorists spreading evil in the land. With strong media guidance from the Governing Council and the Americans, they have been able to come between the Sunni masses and the mujahidin. I give an example that brings the matter close to home in the area called the Sunni Triangle -- if this is the right name for it. The army and police have begun to deploy in those areas and are growing stronger day by day. They have put chiefs [drawn] from among Sunni agents and the people of the land in charge. In other words, this army and police may be linked to the inhabitants of this area by kinship, blood, and honor. In truth, this area is the base from which we set out and to which we return. When the Americans disappear from these areas – and they have begun to do so – and these agents, who are linked by destiny to the people of the land, take their place, what will our situation be?
If we fight them {and we must fight them}, we will confront one of two things. Either:
1 – We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter.
2 – We pack our bags and search for another land, as is the sad, recurrent story in the arenas of jihad, because our enemy is growing stronger and his intelligence data are increasing day by day. By the Lord of the Ka`ba, [this] is suffocation and then wearing down the roads. People follow the religion of their kings. Their hearts are with you and their swords are with Bani Umayya (the Umayyads), i.e., with power, victory, and security. God have mercy.
I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi`a with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis. Someone may say that, in this matter, we are being hasty and rash and leading the [Islamic] nation into a battle for which it is not ready, [a battle] that will be revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we want, since right and wrong no longer have any place in our current situation. The Shi`a have destroyed all those balances. God's religion is more precious that lives and souls. When the overwhelming majority stands in the ranks of truth, there has to be sacrifice for this religion. Let blood be spilled, and we will soothe and speed those who are good to their paradise. [As for} those who, unlike them, are evil, we will be delivered from them, since, by God, God's religion is more precious than anything and has priority over lives, wealth, and children. The best proof [of this] is the story of the Companions of the Ditch, whom God praised. [Imam] al-Nawawi said that this story contained proof that, if the city and the desert fought each other until all without exception perished unless they professed belief in the oneness of God, this would be good. Persons live, blood is saved, and honor is preserved only by sacrifice on behalf of this religion. By God, o brothers, with the Shi`a, we have rounds, attacks, and dark nights that we cannot postpone under any circumstances. Their danger is imminent, and what we and you feared is most certainly a reality. Know that those [Shi`a] are the most cowardly of God's creatures and that killing their leaders will only increase their weakness and cowardice, since with the death of one of their leaders the sect dies with him. It is not like when a Sunni leader dies. If one dies or is killed, a sayyid arises. In their fighting, they bring out courage and hearten the weak among the Sunnis. If you knew the fear [that exists] among the Sunnis and their masses, your eyes would cry over them in sadness. How many mosques have been converted into Husayniyyas (Shi`i mosques), how many houses have they demolished on the heads of their occupants, how many brothers have they killed and mutilated, and how many sisters have had their honor defiled at the hands of these depraved infidels? If we are able to strike them with one painful blow after another until they enter the battle, we will be able to [re]shuffle the cards. Then, no value or influence will remain to the Governing Council or even to the Americans, who will enter a second battle with the Shi`a. This is what we want, and, whether they like it or not, many Sunni areas will stand with the mujahidin. Then, the mujahidin will have assured themselves land from which to set forth in striking the Shi`a in their heartland, along with a clear media orientation and the creation of strategic depth and reach among the brothers outside [Iraq] and the mujahidin within.
1 -- We are striving urgently and racing against time to create companies of mujahidin that will repair to secure places and strive to reconnoiter the country, hunting the enemy – Americans, police, and soldiers -- on the roads and lanes. We are continuing to train and multiply them. As for the Shi`a, we will hurt them, God willing, through martyrdom operations and car bombs.
2. – We have been striving for some time to observe the arena and sift the those who work in it in search of those who are sincere and on the right path, so that we can cooperate with them for the good and coordinate some actions with them, so as to achieve solidarity and unity after testing and trying them. We hope that we have made good progress. Perhaps we will decide to go public soon, even if in a gradual way, so that we can come out into the open. We have been hiding for a long time. We are seriously preparing media material that will reveal the facts, call forth firm intentions, arouse determination, and be[come] an arena of jihad in which the pen and the sword complement each other.
3 – This will be accompanied by an effort that we hope will intensify to expose crippling doubts and explain the rules of shari`a through tapes, printed materials, study, and courses of learning [meant] to expand awareness, anchor the doctrine of the unity of God, prepare the infrastructure, and meet [our] obligation.[/i]
Yeah. Let's play right into their hands and just walk away giving them everything they wanted...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Do yourself a favor and read the letter Zarqawi wrote which was intercepted in Kurdistan. See if you're response isn't playing right into his hands:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/31694.htm
I've never understood why some people are so willing to let a handful of radical creeps determine our next move for us. Zarqawi is a dead thug. Just like Saddam. Ahmadinejad is a blowhard. I certainly understand that there is an cavernous void where there should be a US Middle East policy, but since when are the motormouth ravings of zealots a reasonable facsimile? Nostradamus may have something to say about bears and flashing lights, does he get a vote, too?
Our next move should be ours. Our President can't seem figure it out. And he's running out of reasonable men, brave men, who think "Staying the Course" is anything more than a bumper sticker cliche.
I think half the problem is you've got a bunch of knuckleheads in the administration who jump up every time someone in the Middle East shoots his mouth off, instead of keeping their cool.
This thing in Iraq is done. Let 'em have their civil war without us. It's already going now; it's just in a slower motion. All American troops are doing is prolonging the inevitable.
quote:
I've never understood why some people are so willing to let a handful of radical creeps determine our next move for us. Zarqawi is a dead thug. Just like Saddam. Ahmadinejad is a blowhard. I certainly understand that there is an cavernous void where there should be a US Middle East policy, but since when are the motormouth ravings of zealots a reasonable facsimile?
That was the exact same attitude we had towards OBL before 9/11, in fact the exact same attitude this country had when we were given the opportunity to take him out. We ingore these fanatics at our own peril.
quote:
This thing in Iraq is done. Let 'em have their civil war without us. It's already going now; it's just in a slower motion. All American troops are doing is prolonging the inevitable.
So, you're okay with the impending genocide once we leave, is that correct? you'd rather have a mass humanitarian crisis than an attempt to broker peace.
Personally I'd rather have a hand in controling the violence and protecting the Iraqi people, unless you feelt they don't deserve to be protected from these militant islamic goons.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
QuoteThere are only two options.
1. The first is to stick this out until a peace can be brokered; or
2. To pull out and watch as mass destruction and genocide take over and be forced to re-commit troops back to the region to quash the inevitable genocide being perpetrated against either the sunni or shia, whichever group gets the short end of the stick. I would assume that to be the sunni since Iran is currently funding the shia uprising.
#3 The Decider's choice. Sit there. Stall. Drag it out through the next election cycle. Then it's somebody else's quagmire. There is no peace in sight. Honestly. Is there?
Our soldiers have been giving it their best for four long years. And they are the best there has ever been. In spite of this, the Sunnis and Shias are having their civil war. Is there any good reason for our soldiers and Marines to continue getting shot at from both sides? They're tired. They're exposed. It's time to get out of the way.
quote:
#3 The Decider's choice. Sit there. Stall. Drag it out through the next election cycle. Then it's somebody else's quagmire. There is no peace in sight. Honestly. Is there?
There is most certainly hope, but it's not to be found by someone who's committed to and hoping for defeat so that their political party wins the next election.
quote:
Our soldiers have been giving it their best for four long years. And they are the best there has ever been. In spite of this, the Sunnis and Shias are having their civil war. Is there any good reason for our soldiers and Marines to continue getting shot at from both sides? They're tired. They're exposed. It's time to get out of the way.
These factions are being driven by outside forces and Al-Qaeda on the inside, and can, eventually be controlled. Simply walking away and letting genocide happen is not only callous, but reprehenisble and quite honestly very selfish.
Even Hillary Clinton has said in recent weeks that after the official conflict is over, there will be need to keep about 50,000 troops on the ground to protect "sensitive" interests.
How do you people feel about 800,000 killed in genocide in Rwanda?
Badly, but there's nothing we could have done about it, either. The killings in Rwanda happened so fast, that by the time an effective number of troops would have arrived, it was all but over.
Ditto for the Balkans.
If you have a society that's so diseased that religious sects start killing each other, intervention is going to contain only a little of it, if at all. And that's assuming you can get the intervention there fast enough.
(Please note this is different from the Nazis setting up concentration camps in conquered countries. I'm talking about civil wars here.)
To effectively keep the Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other, we would need triple the number of troops we have now, maybe more. Those are troops that we don't have. And the guy in charge doesn't want to institute a draft.
So we're stuck. And so is Iraq.
Those are the facts, folks. I wish I could change that, but I can't. And I see no point in a commander-in-chief that's half-hearted on this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I've never understood why some people are so willing to let a handful of radical creeps determine our next move for us. Zarqawi is a dead thug. Just like Saddam. Ahmadinejad is a blowhard. I certainly understand that there is an cavernous void where there should be a US Middle East policy, but since when are the motormouth ravings of zealots a reasonable facsimile?
That was the exact same attitude we had towards OBL before 9/11, in fact the exact same attitude this country had when we were given the opportunity to take him out. We ingore these fanatics at our own peril.
So, knee-jerk reaction to the ravings of fanatics...that's our foreign policy?
We've been down this road before. You seem to think that diplomacy and intelligence is an either/or choice. This isn't the cold war. We aren't squared off against states. States are potential allies. You build good relationships with the good guys, kill the really bad ones, and watch everybody else like a hawk. Fact is, if you are good at diplomacy, you create the elbow room you need to allow the rest to work effectively.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Badly, but there's nothing we could have done about it, either. The killings in Rwanda happened so fast, that by the time an effective number of troops would have arrived, it was all but over.
Ditto for the Balkans.
If you have a society that's so diseased that religious sects start killing each other, intervention is going to contain only a little of it, if at all. And that's assuming you can get the intervention there fast enough.
(Please note this is different from the Nazis setting up concentration camps in conquered countries. I'm talking about civil wars here.)
To effectively keep the Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other, we would need triple the number of troops we have now, maybe more. Those are troops that we don't have. And the guy in charge doesn't want to institute a draft.
So we're stuck. And so is Iraq.
Those are the facts, folks. I wish I could change that, but I can't. And I see no point in a commander-in-chief that's half-hearted on this issue.
So basically, pull out, leave it in total anarchy as opposed to semi-anarchy and leave it up to survival of the fittest. And let God deal with those who are wrong.
I'm as tired as anyone else of this war. No, actually, I think I'm more tired of the divisiveness in our own country about it.
I've never seen Bush as half-hearted on it, he's always been full-steam-ahead and never considered an alternative to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I've never understood why some people are so willing to let a handful of radical creeps determine our next move for us. Zarqawi is a dead thug. Just like Saddam. Ahmadinejad is a blowhard. I certainly understand that there is an cavernous void where there should be a US Middle East policy, but since when are the motormouth ravings of zealots a reasonable facsimile?
That was the exact same attitude we had towards OBL before 9/11, in fact the exact same attitude this country had when we were given the opportunity to take him out. We ingore these fanatics at our own peril.
So, knee-jerk reaction to the ravings of fanatics...that's our foreign policy?
We've been down this road before. You seem to think that diplomacy and intelligence is an either/or choice. This isn't the cold war. We aren't squared off against states. States are potential allies. You build good relationships with the good guys, kill the really bad ones, and watch everybody else like a hawk. Fact is, if you are good at diplomacy, you create the elbow room you need to allow the rest to work effectively.
The alternative would be after they've detonated a nuclear device in Israel, London, New York, or elsewhere: "Gee we should have taken those nuts a lot more seriously."
<Conan wrote:
I've never seen Bush as half-hearted on it ...
<end clip>
I disagree. Scads of generals in the Pentagon begged him to deploy many more troops in Iraq. But they were ignored.
And it IS anarchy in Iraq now. You have a government that that can't or won't (I'm betting on the latter) to restore public order. Plus you have a president there that's in bed with the Shiite extremists. He has no incentive to stop the bloodshed.
And if you're sick of the divisiveness over the war, that happens when a war is going badly -- as it should. There were many, many bad decisions over this thing, and it's good that people are mad and want to hold others accountable.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
#3 The Decider's choice. Sit there. Stall. Drag it out through the next election cycle. Then it's somebody else's quagmire. There is no peace in sight. Honestly. Is there?
There is most certainly hope, but it's not to be found by someone who's committed to and hoping for defeat so that their political party wins the next election.
That's beyond the pale and you know it. Americans of all stripes are grappling with this thing. And many of us would agree that the President's pride is not worth the life of a single soldier. I don't give two sh*ts about his legacy. I do care about who he might be willing to sacrifice to protect it.
What I was saying is that it's not a partisan issue; it's not about who the next president is. It's about this President. Is he a boy king with an underdeveloped soul? Is man enough to face failure? 20 months is a long time and lives hang in the balance.
quote:
These factions are being driven by outside forces and Al-Qaeda on the inside, and can, eventually be controlled. Simply walking away and letting genocide happen is not only callous, but reprehenisble and quite honestly very selfish.
You don't have any idea what will happen. Nobody does. I'm supposed to be the speculation and hyperbole guy, remember?[;)]
quote:
That's beyond the pale and you know it. Americans of all stripes are grappling with this thing. And many of us would agree that the President's pride is not worth the life of a single soldier. I don't give two sh*ts about his legacy. I do care about who he might be willing to sacrifice to protect it.
I could care less about his legacy either, but nor do I think his "pride" is the reason we are still in this fight.
There were many, many good and justifiable reasons for deposing Saddam, not the least of which were about a half dozen critical human rights concerns. Unfortunately Al Qaeda elements within the country have inflamed already ignitable factions for no other purpose than they know that is the ONLY WAY to defeat us.
We cannot simply walk away at this point and pretend as if we can just wash our hands of the situation. One way or the other we are STUCK there. Either by our choosing, or by being later compelled by the ensuing humanitarian crisis.
quote:
You don't have any idea what will happen. Nobody does. I'm supposed to be the speculation and hyperbole guy, remember?[;)]
Well, let me wear your crown for a moment[:P].
It's guaranteed genocide just as it was in Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur when these factions go unchecked. This was the ultimate end game of these nihilistic cave dwellers from the beginning. Did you read that game plan by Zarqawi? Sectarian violence was their ace in the hole, and someone is still carrying that plan on despite his absence.
It would be great if they just killed one another, but that won't happen. They will en mass kill innocents, and then turn on the Kurdish in the north (per Zarqawi) until they are exterminated.
If we pull out you will end up with either a
Sunni Al Qaeda stronhold or a
Shia Iranian proxy state.
Which one do you prefer?
Does it make any difference what we do?
It looks like right now it's an Iranian Shiite republic. And that's with the U.S. as kinda-sorta occupiers.
Thanks a lot, Bush, for going after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, screwing it up big time and thus destabilizing a huge chunk of the Middle East. I'm sure that's the result you wanted. Sheesh.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Does it make any difference what we do?
It looks like right now it's an Iranian Shiite republic. And that's with the U.S. as kinda-sorta occupiers.
Yes it does matter what we do if you give a
damn about the people there. Right now there is a genuine attempt at creating a SECULAR democracy with all parties involved and no particular sect having control.
If you want to ENSURE that one sect wins and the ensuing theocracy gets to oppress all teh other minorites, then understand we'll be right back there in 6 months to stop the bloodshed.
quote:
Thanks a lot, Bush, for going after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, screwing it up big time and thus destabilizing a huge chunk of the Middle East. I'm sure that's the result you wanted. Sheesh.
What a bunch of sloganeering babble. I thought you were through throwing out these worthless canards. Again with the 9/11 line? It's not even worth addressing.
Secondly, I hate to inform you, but the ME was unstable already, and the Saddam regim had begun the process of collapsing upon itself for quite some time and frankly, I'm glad we were the ones who chose time and place. And I also hate to be the one to inform you, but if you think any of the non-secularize regimes in the area are our "friends" you are sadly mistaken. Those who are annry now would hate us regardless.
To your last comment:
1. After 12 years of stonewalling we can now ENSURE that WMDs will never be purchased by Saddam or used on his neighbors as was done twice before. So, the ability to certify Saddam as disarmed, rather than simply believe a psychopathic autocrat.
2. No more concerns over Saddam paying off UN inspectors like Rolf Ekeus who stated for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe by Tariq Aziz.
3. The overthrow of Baathism and targeting of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi, moved from Afghanistan to Iraq right before the coalition intervention, even naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. So we are fighting them over there and not here. Unless you are willing to say that Al Qaeda could never attack us here.
4. The subsequent roll-over of Libya over WMD which was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
5. No more ability for Saddam to pursue a nuclear program because Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein.
6. No more concern for Saddam to purchase banned weapons. Because his agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea.
7. Peace for by the Kurdish people now without threat of extermination.
8. The gruesom deaths of thousands of OBL infiltrators into Iraq from Afghanistan, and the hope of greatly enlarging this number.
9. The prospect of a secular government.
10. The return of hundreds of thousands of exiled Iraqis to their homeland.
Yeah. You're right, that just
SUCKS.
You have these 12 reasons it's good we overthrew a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. I can counter with 12 on why it wasn't:
1. It destabilized the entire Middle East, which is quite a neat trick.
2. It created MORE terrorist attacks around the world. Invading a country that didn't attack you will do that.
3. Instead of a relatively stable country, we now have one plummeting into anarchy. Nothing like yesterday's bombing of Parliament and a major bridge in Baghdad to point that out.
4. Iraq distracted us from helping make Afghanistan more stable.
5. The invasion of Iraq led to more extreme elements taking over Iran.
6. The war led U.S. soldiers to the shameful acts of torturing detainees, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and thus kept us from being on the moral high ground.
7. 600,000 dead in Iraq and counting, and little to show for it.
8. A destabilized Middle East means higher oil prices, thus providing more profits to the terrorist-funding despots (i.e., Saudi Arabia).
9. Instead of a secular government in Iraq, we have an Islamic republic. Ditto for Iran. Which means more extremists.
10. This long exercise in Iraq has severely strained our military forces and their ability to act in other world crises.
11. The U.S. has suffered a loss of stature on the world stage. At a time when we can use the help, other nations are telling us to screw off.
12. Big friggin' deficits, which leads the red Chinese to lend us more money. Niiiiiiice.
I could add more.
Iplaw, I know you're digging through tons of crap in an effort to find a pony. But the fact remains that this misadventure that is Iraq is one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in our history, and will take decades to recover from. It's time to stop being in denial and face up to the ugly truth.
"7. 600,000 dead in Iraq and counting, and little to show for it."
Hey, that's still 200,000 to 400,000 less than were killed in Rwanda in about three or four months. Can't we be proud of that?[}:)]
Both "lists" are somewhat valid assertions. I'll admit I tend to agree more with IP, but I won't summarily dismiss RW's list either. How long are we going to continue to hammer on each other on this issue? I think the usual suspects have all weighed in and I don't believe anyone's positions have changed in the 9 or so months I've been hanging around here. Other than there are a few who don't visit the political arena snake pit anymore.
The media is probably the worst place to get any info on the war. The more liberal outlets are telling us it's all bad, it's stupid, poorly run, etc. People who never watch Fox believe it's all bad, and see no good. Conservative talking heads are all telling us it's all roses and we are close to winning.
I have a very strong feeling that even if this had been a 12 month milk run there are dyed-in-the-wool liberals who would still find fault with the war because in their mind W stole the 2000 election and anything he does is just stupid and wrong. At the same time there are some people who would blindfold themselves and fall off a cliff walking behind Bush.
Fact is, without a lot of the information that our government cannot release to the public, it leaves much up for open, and sometimes wrong conjecture.
A friend of mine who is in the military was in town a few weeks ago. He works with the reserve state-side in the capacity of dealing with the families of troops when they are deployed as to benefits, counseling, etc. When the troops return home, he helps acclimate them back to life here.
He's been deployed to Iraq since the invasion doing intel work. I asked point blank what the consensus and feeling is amongst the troops. He said by and large the troops support that we toppled the Hussein regime, but that they are tired of being there as a police force.
The war on terror is NOT limited to those who were involved in 9/11...should I speak More slowly, or should I use smaller words?
No one cares that Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11. It simply isn't pertinent to the discussion of deposing Saddam.
quote:
1. It destabilized the entire Middle East, which is quite a neat trick.
Nonsense. The region has always been in a state of destablization, and eventual crumbling of Saddam's regime with or without intervention would have us essentially in the same place we are in today.
quote:
2. It created MORE terrorist attacks around the world. Invading a country that didn't attack you will do that.
Ballocks. Why don't you just simply state that the cause of terrorism is the resistance of it, tuck your tail between your legs and go hide...
Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan certainly pissed these people off, would you have preferred we not go there?
Lastly, we were obliged to depose Saddam under the terms of 1441. We didn't need any other reason than that.
quote:
3. Instead of a relatively stable country, we now have one plummeting into anarchy. Nothing like yesterday's bombing of Parliament and a major bridge in Baghdad to point that out.
Only someone who is completely uneducated about pre-war Iraq could say it was a "relatively stable" country.
Yes we have sectarian violence in the interim, but we no longer have the threat of extermination of the Kurds or Shia, nor his neighbors. No more indiscriminate genocide and the terrorizing of innocent civilians.
It makes me giggle when people who supposedly care about humanitarian issues still wish the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
quote:
4. Iraq distracted us from helping make Afghanistan more stable.
Nonsense. There are ample forces which remain in Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban uprising. Again, more troops won't secure Afghanistan, they need a viable national Army and economic reform, neither of which the US army can supply.
quote:
5. The invasion of Iraq led to more extreme elements taking over Iran.
How bout some proof on this one...I can't wait to see what you drag up, just please don't cite a story from Al Jazeera while you're at it.
quote:
6. The war led U.S. soldiers to the shameful acts of torturing detainees, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and thus kept us from being on the moral high ground.
Rediculous. A handful of rogue soldiers are now representative of the entire military? You should be ashamed of yourself for creating that implication.
quote:
7. 600,000 dead in Iraq and counting, and little to show for it.
Taking numbers from that widely discredited report again hmmm... You do know that that number is absurd and no one accepts that report as correct...well, other than you.
quote:
8. A destabilized Middle East means higher oil prices, thus providing more profits to the terrorist-funding despots (i.e., Saudi Arabia).
So another no-no in the WOT is now assuring we don't pissing off countries which produce oil. They get a pass on terroism simply because you don't want to pay higher gas prices...great.
quote:
9. Instead of a secular government in Iraq, we have an Islamic republic. Ditto for Iran. Which means more extremists.
Really? What gives you that idea. Last time I checked they had a constitution and participation from all elements within the country. Would you have preferred a CIA installed military government?
Laughable again, that by implication you believe Iraq would be even approaching the thought of secular democracy if Sadddam was still there...
quote:
10. This long exercise in Iraq has severely strained our military forces and their ability to act in other world crises.
So because it was difficult and costly it wasn't the right thing to do? I'm glad you weren't in charge of the D-day invasion.[xx(]
quote:
11. The U.S. has suffered a loss of stature on the world stage. At a time when we can use the help, other nations are telling us to screw off.
Horse sh@t. The US has lost stature with nations who had no regard for it in the first place. Investigations into Oil-for-Food have illuminated the exact reasons for the EU's abstention over the Iraq war, namley France and Germany. The rest of the tyrranical regimes in the ME will hate us regardless.
quote:
Iplaw, I know you're digging through tons of crap in an effort to find a pony. But the fact remains that this misadventure that is Iraq is one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in our history, and will take decades to recover from. It's time to stop being in denial and face up to the ugly truth.
It only ugly to those who refuse to face the facts about the warranted and sanctioned nature of the Iraq war.
The ultimate freedom of the Kurdish people from extermination, and the demise of the only regime in the region to not once, but twice use chemical weapons on civilians, and the deposing of a tyrranical despot who terrorized his own people.
If we are not forced to capitulate by cowards like yourself, we may well, in the not too distant future, have an Iraq that is a secularize democracy. Our protection is their best hope.
The only way to ensure that democracy NEVER takes hold....is to listen to people like you.
Sorry Conan I couldn't resist, but I agree.
Now iplaw says I'm a coward and anti-democratic. The latter's really rich, especially after I've used that anti-democratic right to free speech.
My dad always said that the ones who resort to name-calling first are the losers of the argument.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Now iplaw says I'm a coward and anti-democratic. The latter's really rich, especially after I've used that anti-democratic right to free speech.
My dad always said that the ones who resort to name-calling first are the losers of the argument.
[}:)]
I don't mind calling names where appropriate. Also, I never said you were anti-democratic...you're just indifferent as to whether people in Iraq will have the same freedoms as you and I do, which I think is worse. As long as your gas is cheap and France and Iran are still pretending to like us, you're happy.
From the sidelines one has to exert little effort to determine the shill in the noble justification of the postings.
The solution of all of today's problems are at the end of the gun barrel. The dead proves we are right.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
From the sidelines one has to exert little effort to determine the shill in the noble justification of the postings.
The solution of all of today's problems are at the end of the gun barrel. The dead proves we are right.
I wish the guy from the sideline could speak English.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How do you people feel about 800,000 killed in genocide in Rwanda?
How do you feel about genocide in Darfur?
The truth is: Both the US and the UN have a policy of non-involvement in full blown civil warfare, with or without genocide.
Bottom line, genocide in itself is not cause for invasion, period. This foreign policy was fortified under Reagan and Bush, with folks that felt the US Military was so valuable that it should NOT be used to "police the world." It's a policy that I haven't always agreed with, I thought we should have gotten involved in Rwanda and today in Darfur, but I do understand the policy. Our Military is extremely valuable, we have to be careful in the way we use it.
The only reason we're involved in this civil conflict right now, is because we started the ball rolling. Had this started five or ten years ago without our help, we'd likely be at a point now where we'd be using our influence to divide the country or come to another solution.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How do you people feel about 800,000 killed in genocide in Rwanda?
How do you feel about genocide in Darfur?
The truth is: Both the US and the UN have a policy of non-involvement in full blown civil warfare, with or without genocide.
Bottom line, genocide in itself is not cause for invasion, period. This foreign policy was fortified under Reagan and Bush, with folks that felt the US Military was so valuable that it should NOT be used to "police the world." It's a policy that I haven't always agreed with, I thought we should have gotten involved in Rwanda and today in Darfur, but I do understand the policy. Our Military is extremely valuable, we have to be careful in the way we use it.
The only reason we're involved in this civil conflict right now, is because we started the ball rolling. Had this started five or ten years ago without our help, we'd likely be at a point now where we'd be using our influence to divide the country or come to another solution.
Saddam wasn't deposed simply because he committed unspeakable acts of genocide, which he did. We had previously standing post war resolutions with automatic enforcement provisions as well, which he was in breach of. Both these are in addition to his active involvment with terrorist groups, which are unrefutable.
Lastly, please explain to me how the US was the instigator of the current Darfur crisis...this should be rich...
Thank you I.P. and Conan for putting a smile on my face on this Sunny Sunday....Many beers on me If I ever get the opprutunity.....
Maybe if I was drunk it would be easier to hear "Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11" over and over and over and over again as if it has anything to do with us taking him down.
Just on a side note...what did all you anti-Bushers think when Clinton unilaterally bombed an aspirin factory...how about the unilateral bombing of Taliban training camps...or the actions in Rwanda...or the actions over Kosovo.
What were the vital national interests that he protected in Rwanda or Kosovo?
Clinton did a great job giving the go ahead to shoot cruise missles at un-occupied terrorist camps....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Saddam wasn't deposed simply because he committed unspeakable acts of genocide, which he did.
Exactly. Genocide was not the reason for the War. Genocide is not in itself a reason for invasion in US foreign policy.
quote:
We had previously standing post war resolutions with automatic enforcement provisions as well, which he was in breach of. Both these are in addition to his active involvment with terrorist groups, which are unrefutable.
Invasion ran counter to US foreign policy established under Bush and Clinton. Containment was the policy, the only known reasons for Invasion were the same reasons for Containment. The only thing that has changed is an increased emphasis on terrorist activity, post 911.
quote:
Lastly, please explain to me how the US was the instigator of the current Darfur crisis...this should be rich...
No one said that. We're not involved in Darfur, because we (in all likelyhood) did not start that conflict. We would not be involved in a full scale civil conflict in Iraq, if we hadn't started it. The US does not intervene in full scale civil conflicts. Only when a US presence can make a significant strategic difference in a civil conflict, is engaging even considered. We allowed the civil conflict in Bosnia to go on for years, before the US found it's strategic opening.
In other words, pick your battles carefully.
Or else you end up in a quagmire.
quote:
Exactly. Genocide was not the reason for the War. Genocide is not in itself a reason for invasion in US foreign policy.
Though it was in Kosovo for Clinton...I bet you, as a good democrat were all for it at the time. I never met a democrat who argues otherwise.
quote:
Invasion ran counter to US foreign policy established under Bush and Clinton. Containment was the policy, the only known reasons for Invasion were the same reasons for Containment. The only thing that has changed is an increased emphasis on terrorist activity, post 911.
And what an extremely important change in foreign policy that was. After 9/11 we understood the danger posed by simply looking the other way when it came to terrorists, or assuming that they were not sophisticated enough to attack us internally. Bush and Clinton were looking at the world from a totally different viewpoint. The viewpoint that America was somehow hermetically sealed from terrorism the likes of what we saw on 9/11. It's simply impossible to compare the times.
Also, if you understood the situation in Iraq pre-invasion, and you were being honest with yourself, you would have to concede that containment was ineffective, as we STILL don't know what happened to all that WMD, and we know for a fact that he was in negotitations to buy long range Nodong missiles from NK in late 2002. Interesting for him to be buying Nodong missiles for WMD he didn't have...
The only way to guarantee compliance with UN mandates was a deposing of Saddam, becuase 12 years of toothless UN activity certainly didn't account for his WMDs. Still to this day we don't know where those WMD went, and someone, somewhere has them.
quote:
No one said that. We're not involved in Darfur, because we (in all likelyhood) did not start that conflict.
Sorry for the misinterpretation.
quote:
We would not be involved in a full scale civil conflict in Iraq, if we hadn't started it. The US does not intervene in full scale civil conflicts. Only when a US presence can make a significant strategic difference in a civil conflict, is engaging even considered. We allowed the civil conflict in Bosnia to go on for years, before the US found it's strategic opening.
That's not entirely the case. Saddam's regime had been slowly imploding for a long time. Most scholars would concur that his regime would have cracked entirely or began crumbling within 5 to 10 years by itself. There were too many forces pushing on it, both inside and outside. And with thousands of pounds of chemical/biological weapons still unaccounted for, that was a gamble that no one after 9/11 could make, well, at least anyone with a conscience and an interest in protecting the US and Israel, could take. Here is an excerpt from Christopher Hitchens about the state of affairs in the region:
In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced.
Many people write as if the sectarian warfare in Iraq was caused by coalition intervention. But it is surely obvious that the struggle for mastery has been going on for some time and was only masked by the apparently iron unity imposed under Baathist rule. That rule was itself the dictatorship of a tribal Tikriti minority of the Sunni minority and constituted a veneer over the divisions beneath, as well as an incitement to their perpetuation. The Kurds had already withdrawn themselves from this divide-and-rule system by the time the coalition forces arrived, while Shiite grievances against the state were decades old and had been hugely intensified by Saddam's cruelty. Nothing was going to stop their explosion, and if Saddam Hussein's regime had been permitted to run its course and to devolve (if one can use such a mild expression) into the successorship of Udai and Qusai, the resulting detonation would have been even more vicious.
And into the power vacuum would have stepped not only Saudi Arabia and Iran, each with its preferred confessional faction, but also Turkey, in pursuit of hegemony in Kurdistan. In other words, the alternative was never between a tranquil if despotic Iraq and a destabilizing foreign intervention, but it was, rather, a race to see which kind of intervention there would be. The international community in its wisdom decided to delay the issue until the alternatives were even fewer, but it is idle to pretend that Iraq was going to remain either unified or uninvaded after the destruction of its fabric as a state by three decades of fascism and war, including 12 years of demoralizing sanctions.
The disadvantage of an American-led intervention, it might be argued, was that it meant the arbitration of foreigners. But the advantage was, and is, that these foreigners at least have a stake in the preservation of a power-sharing system. Iraq has only three alternatives before it. The first is dictatorship by one faction or sect over all the others: a solution that has been exhausted by horrific failure. The second is partition, which would certainly involve direct intervention by all its neighbors to secure privileges for their own proxies and would therefore run the permanent risk of civil war. And the third is federalism, where each group would admit that it was not strong enough to dictate terms to the others and would agree to settle differences by democratic means. Quixotic though the third solution may seem, it is the only alternative to the most gruesome mayhem—more gruesome than anything we have seen so far. It is to the credit of the United States that it has at least continued to hold up this outcome as a possibility—a possibility that would not be thinkable if the field were left to the rival influences of Tehran and Riyadh.
-- Christopher Hitchens, Slate
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
In other words, pick your battles carefully.
Or else you end up in a quagmire.
Nonsense. I noticed you didn't bother to answer my questions about your take on Clinton foreign policy...seems like you just enjoy Bush bashing, because the exact same unilateral actions, taken by Clinton were given a pass by the same people decrying it now.
What exactly was the question about Clinton's foreign policy? You've written so many reams of material, I couldn't find it.
And quoting a nearly insane drunkard like Chris Hitchens doesn't exactly bolster your case.
And then there's this:
<begin clip:
That's not entirely the case. Saddam's regime had been slowly imploding for a long time. Most scholars would concur that his regime would have cracked entirely or began crumbling within 5 to 10 years by itself. There were too many forces pushing on it, both inside and outside. And with thousands of pounds of chemical/biological weapons still unaccounted for, that was a gamble that no one after 9/11 could make, well, at least anyone with a conscience and an interest in protecting the US and Israel, could take.
<end clip>
Yahoo. We not only have a regime that was in its last throes, but hoarding WMDs that didn't exist. Did you get your intel from Bush's pals?
Keep digging for that pony.
quote:
Yahoo. We not only have a regime that was in its last throes, but hoarding WMDs that didn't exist. Did you get your intel from Bush's pals?
Keep digging for that pony.
Keep half-reading my posts and you'll be just fine...
My questions about Clinton are on this thread if you care to respond.
WMDs that didn't exist? What the hell happened to all the WMDs that HE DECLARED, and that were NEVER ACCOUNTED FOR? Would you care to give us an answer, or do you not care?
Even if they did destroy all of their WMD, which they didn't, the destruction of them, without any accounting to the UN inspectors was yet another violation of 1441.
As for your half-baked comment about not taking out a regime like Saddam's in its last days, a thorough and less superficial reading of Hitchens' discussion on the topic will answer your question directly without the need for me to translate. And it's funny that you would disparage Hitchens, as he is consistently the only supporter of the war that is welcomed by even the farthest left leaning groups as a rational voice, despite his viewpoint.
So what if he violated a U.N. resolution. That doesn't give you the excuse to invade a country that wasn't responsible for 9/11, plan poorly for it, lay waste and screw it up so badly that you can't extricate yourself from it, further destabilize a region and thus harm your military's ability to respond to other crises around the world.
There are plenty of other ways to punish a country without such a huge drain on blood and treasure. It's called containment. It worked against the Soviet Union.
To me, it sounds like you're trying every excuse in the world, no matter how ill-advised, lame or dubious, to justify a war that you supported and now is turning into a miserable failure.
quote:
So what if he violated a U.N. resolution.
The resolution had automatic enforcement provisions which green lighted an invasion based upon violations of 1441; that's so what.
quote:
That doesn't give you the excuse to invade a country that wasn't responsible for 9/11,
I'm not going to address this issue anymore. Only a complete ignoramus would keep regurgitating this.
quote:
plan poorly for it lay waste and screw it up so badly that you can't extricate yourself from it
Such was the fate of any action in the region...doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done...
quote:
further destabilize a region and thus harm your military's ability to respond to other crises around the world.
You're smoking crack if you think the region was "stable" to begin with.
quote:
There are plenty of other ways to punish a country without such a huge drain on blood and treasure. It's called containment. It worked against the Soviet Union.
Apples and oranges. Also, containment was ineffective with Saddam, are you completely unaware of his attempted missile purchases in 2003? Is that "containment" to you?
quote:
To me, it sounds like you're trying every excuse in the world, no matter how ill-advised, lame or dubious, to justify a war that you supported and now is turning into a miserable failure.
And you are simply regurgitating every uneducated opinion about Saddam and the pre-invasion status of Iraq that has been hatched by moveon.org. I bet you still believe that Iraq was sunshine and butterflies with childrend flying kites before we got there just like Michael Moore told you was true.
And still you refuse to answer my question about WMDs...
My answer: He lied.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
My answer: He lied.
Despite the fact that Saddam delcared that he had them and never accounted for their dissapearance, you give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Congratulations. Doesn't it feel good to side with a psychopathic, genocidal despot.
Do you deny that he delcared them to the UN?
I didn't say I sided with him. But politicians are notorious for bluster, especially those in the Middle East.
Containment was the best option. There was plenty of contradictory intelligence about whether Saddam had those weapons. If you're doing something as grave as going to war, you'd better be damned sure you know they're there or you'll look mighty foolish.
We did, they're weren't, we did.
quote:
I didn't say I sided with him.
But unfortunately that's the ultimate outcome from your POV.
quote:
Containment was the best option. There was plenty of contradictory intelligence about whether Saddam had those weapons.
No. There wasn't any contradictory information. Everyone knew he had WMDs; there was no information otherwise. They knew he had WMD because he
declared that he had WMD. No responsible president, post 9/11 could have believed him, and if 5 years down the road we would have had a chemical attack in a major US city Bush would have been responsible for allowing that to happen. That's a gamble I wouldn't take. In fact, I think we played the same game with OBL...no one believed that he was a threat despite intelligence saying otherwise.
Unfortunately, someone has inherited those WMD because no one forced Saddam's hand on the issue 12 years ago.
As for "containment":
Define the term "contained." He was still, 12 years after GW I trying to acquire banned weapons. What about that is "contained" to you?
Why would he need Nodong missiles if he didn't have anything to put in them? Seems like an awfully arbitrary purchase of such expensive weapons for absolutely NO purpose.
Maybe successful "containment" to you was allowing him to continue giving aid to and harboring Taliban refugees after the war in Afghanistan?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Though it was in Kosovo for Clinton...I bet you, as a good democrat were all for it at the time. I never met a democrat who argues otherwise.
There's kind of a "genocide policy loophole" there. I would argue that it was mostly about stability in Europe, than "genocide" specifically. The loophole in the case of Kosovo and Bosnia, was 1) due to primarily location, intervention was strongly encouraged and supported by both the UN and NATO, and 2) tactically, a large part of both conflicts could be stopped by going directly at Serbian units.
There IS a loophole in regards to Iraq too, but the no one really wants to admit it. If all else fails, Oil is covered by foreign policy as a strategic interest of the US. It does not relate to genocide necessarily, but if genocide causes problems with the flow of oil, US foreign policy would allow for intervention.
Excerpt from Eisenhower Archives (//%22http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/midleast.htm%22)
quote:
The reason for Russia's interest in the Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East.
This region has always been the crossroads of the continents of the Eastern Hemisphere. The Suez Canal enables the nations of Asia and Europe to carry on the commerce that is essential if these countries are to maintain well-rounded and prosperous economies. The Middle East provides a gateway between Eurasia and Africa.
It contains about two thirds of the presently known oil deposits of the world and it normally supplies the petroleum needs of many nations of Europe, Asia and Africa. The nations of Europe are peculiarly dependent upon this supply, and this dependency relates to transportation as well as to production! This has been vividly demonstrated since the closing of the Suez Canal and some of the pipelines. Alternate ways of transportation and, indeed, alternate sources of power can, if necessary, be developed. But these cannot be considered as early prospects.
These things stress the immense importance of the Middle East. If the nations of that area should lose their independence, if they were dominated by alien forces hostile to freedom, that would be both a tragedy for the area and for many other free nations whose economic life would be subject to near strangulation. Western Europe would be endangered just as though there had been no Marshall Plan, no North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The free nations of Asia and Africa, too, would be placed in serious jeopardy. And the countries of the Middle East would lose the markets upon which their economies depend. All this would have the most adverse, if not disastrous, effect upon our own nation's economic life and political prospects.
The Eisenhower Doctrine, though specifically talking about Soviet interests, states clearly that Middle Eastern oil is a part of US national interest. Force can be used to protect the flow of oil. That would be about the only explanation for US covert ops in toppling the Iranian PM in 1953. In a roundabout way, it also explains the CIA toppling of Guatamala's President Guzman in 1954, over threats of nationalizing United Fruit Company.
Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, do not generally have many "loopholes". If Peru fell in to all out genocide, the US would likely call for it to end, and look the other way. US and NATO's interest in these areas is limited at best. The UN doesn't have the capacity or desire for invasion, only peacekeeping. It gives the appearance sometimes, as in the case of Darfur or Rwanda, of racism. It's not racism, it's national interest. Whether or not that needs to change, is another topic.
quote:
There's kind of a "genocide policy loophole" there. I would argue that it was mostly about stability in Europe, than "genocide" specifically. The loophole in the case of Kosovo and Bosnia, was 1) due to primarily location, intervention was strongly encouraged and supported by both the UN and NATO, and 2) tactically, a large part of both conflicts could be stopped by going directly at Serbian units.
I should have started by saying that I agreed with Clinton on this one...and we have subsequently discovered the reasons for UN/EU abstention on Iraq after our expose on the oil-for-food scandal. There were far too many EU crooks like Chirac manipulating the system for them to seriously consider deposing Saddam.
quote:
There IS a loophole in regards to Iraq too, but the no one really wants to admit it. If all else fails, Oil is covered by foreign policy as a strategic interest of the US. It does not relate to genocide necessarily, but if genocide causes problems with the flow of oil, US foreign policy would allow for intervention.
Interestingly enough, though not for the same reason, I agree with you.
Anyone who says that oil is not worth going to war over is mentally challenged. Keeping oil out of the hands of state sponsors of terror is always a valid reason for intervening where funds could be used for the purchase of weapons or the financing of terrorists.
Saddam was using oil-for-food to do both.
Going to war simply for financial gains from oil is reprehensible, and standing contracts which entitle the Iraqi people to royalties from their own oil have insured that will not happen in this instance.
quote:
The reason for Russia's interest in the Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East.
Not to mention their hatred of the Jewish state is futhered also. Interestingly enough, there is a coup brewing in Russia as we speak, being financed and orchestrated by a Russian exile in Britain...
quote:
Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, do not generally have many "loopholes". If Peru fell in to all out genocide, the US would likely call for it to end, and look the other way. US and NATO's interest in these areas is limited at best. The UN doesn't have the capacity or desire for invasion, only peacekeeping. It gives the appearance sometimes, as in the case of Darfur or Rwanda, of racism. It's not racism, it's national interest. Whether or not that needs to change, is another topic.
If not for these specific issues like genocide, what else is the UN good for? We have an international bill of human rights...maybe they should cook up an interest in policing it.
The UN simply does not have the capacity for invasion. The UN does provide logisitics and peacekeeping, the UN has provided at least logistics to the African Union peacekeepers in Darfur. But UN actions are directly related to the desires of the council members, and capacity of UN members.
The difference between Kosovo and Darfur, is primarily that France, UK, US, and Russia, (four permanent UN Security Council members) were very interested in solving Kosovo. And also, NATO (perfectly capable of full scale invasion, and including 3 permanent UN council members) by it's very nature was interested. Darfur may or may not eventually have that kind of luck.
You're exactly right. The UN is at the mercy of its member states who comprise countries like Syria, Venezuela and China who are all constituents on it's human rights council of all things. It's a laughable community with self-serving participants. Oil-for-food was neither the first, nor the last scandal to ever expose the UN for the sham of a community that it is.
The UN's first and foremost job should be denouncing and encouraging intervention in situations like Darfur.
To your point about troops...that would be the US military, whether we like it or not the military arm of the UN.
Syria and Venezuela have near zero power in the UN. China does have power being a permanent UNSC member, but China in regards to genocide would most likely abstain. China has for years been near 100% predictable. Russia would either abstain or go with the US, UK, and France. Neither Russia nor China have the military capacity to provide even minimal logistics for most conflicts.
The US, UK, and France run the UN. If any of those three chose to make genocide in Darfur an issue, it would be an issue. But it mostly requires the US. UK and France won't give substantial support to activity in Darfur, unless the US is on board. The US, to a great extent, controls the UN.
More at Yahoo! (//%22http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070418/ts_nm/sudan_darfur_dc%22)
quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and Britain, ratcheting up the pressure on Sudan, threatened it on Wednesday with sanctions and other punitive measures unless it agreed to accept a robust U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur.
Better late than never.
The Fall Guy selected.
From Tulsa World (//%22http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_CZAR?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT%22)
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday chose Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Pentagon's director of operations and a former leader of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, to oversee the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war czar.
"General Lute is a tremendously accomplished military leader who understands war and government and knows how to get things done," Bush said, capping a difficult search for new leadership in the wars that have defined his presidency.
It was a difficult job to fill, given the unpopularity of the war, now in its fifth year, and uncertainty about the clout the war coordinator would have. The search was complicated by demands from Congress to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and scant public support for the war. The White House tried for weeks to fill the position and approached numerous candidates before settling on Lute.
In the newly created position, Lute would serve as an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, and would also maintain his military status and rank as a three-star general.
The White House has avoided the term "war czar." Bush called Lute the "full-time manager" for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lute has been director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff since September. Before that, he served for more than two years as director of operations at U.S. Central Command, during which he oversaw combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"He has already earned the respect and trust of the officials with whom he will be working in his new role," Bush said.
The new job comes as administration tries to use a combat troop buildup in Iraq to allow security and political reconciliation to take hold.
The White House has sought a war coordinator to eliminate conflicts among the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies. Lute will seek to cut through bureaucracy and deliver fast responses when requests come in from U.S. military commanders and ambassadors.
His addition will help Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, who monitors hot spots around the world.
Bush's move is part of a lengthy reshuffling of war leaders. Yet critics have questioned whether a new coordinator will help so late in the Bush presidency or will instead add confusion in the chain of command.
Lute's appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
Until now, Hadley and other West Wing officials have tried to keep turf-conscious agencies marching in the same direction on military, political and reconstruction fronts in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the public's patience for the war has long eroded, and lawmakers - including members of Bush's own party - are pushing a harder line in ensuring that the Iraqi government is making progress toward self-governance.
Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Lute comes into the job with a stellar background in combat operation and agency coordination.
Yet the nature of the job poses an enormous challenge. Lute won't be able to deal with civil agencies the way he did with military officers, and his lack of budget authority or ability to reshape regulations could limit his clout, Cordesman said.
"You really need strong leadership and planning from the ambassador and from the commander in Iraq. They're the ones who have to interact with the Iraqis," he said. "In effect, you're a czar in a support role to field commanders and an ambassador 7,000 miles away."
A West Point graduate, Lute, 54, has had an extensive military career. He fought in the 1991 Gulf War.
From 1998 to 2000 he commanded the Second Cavalry Regiment at Fort Polk, La. He served next as the executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs for 14 months before joining the 1st Infantry Division in Schweinfurt, Germany, as the assistant division commander. He also served in Kosovo for six months in 2002 before being assigned to U.S. European Command in January 2003.
Jon Soltz, who leads an organization of veterans critical of administration's war policy, said there is already a war czar - Bush.
"The troops are now depending on Lt. Gen. Lute to do something the President wouldn't - listen to commanders who are telling him we need more diplomacy, not escalation," said Soltz, an Iraq veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org.
Retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan was approached about the job, but declined because he thinks that decision-making in Washington lacks connection to a broader understanding of the region.
"These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff," Sheehan wrote in The Washington Post, explaining his reasons for not wanting to be considered.
From WaPo (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501612.html?referrer=email%22)
"In choosing Lute, Bush picked a key internal voice of dissent during the administration review that led to the troop increase. Reflecting the views of other members of the Joint Chiefs, Lute argued that a short-term "surge" would do little good and that any sustained increase in forces had to be matched by equal emphasis on political and economic steps, according to officials informed about the deliberations."
I think politically and strategically, this is a good pick. He doesn't sound like a "yes" man.
I think it's a good political strategy. I don't know that it's technically necessary, but it's a good strategy.
One of two things is happening.
It's possible that we are finally seeing a true "change of course". The "War Czar" is an after effect, you've got Condi talking to Syria, the US finally allowing talks with Iran on the ambassador level. There's a possiblity that the Administration is shying away from the "they're bad bad people" line, and is getting serious about getting something done in Iraq. A "War Czar" that agrees with that, even if he's only there for cover, is a good strategy.
The second possibility is that the Administration sees Iraq as a no win situation. If the Administration looks at this and says "this thing is winding down," and "we can't win on our terms, it's not worth it." So many people mention throwing somebody "under the bus", if it comes to that, here's your guy. Either way, it's a good political strategy.
Everytime I've given this administration the benefit of the doubt, they've failed. But we'll see. There's a decent probability that they are now, "changing course." The signs are there.
I really don't see that they have much of a choice other than to make changes. The Iraqi gov't doesn't seem to be stepping up to the plate, the war is bogging down other initiatives on the home-front, and I don't even need to comment on public opinion. I took the "equal emphasis on political and economic steps" to mean that along with a surge they are looking to force Iraq to step up.
I have disagreed with the policy of no diplomacy with Syria and Iran from day 1.
Now whether or not it's just window dressing by saying: "I picked someone who isn't in lock-step with the rest of the admin." I dunno.
Hopefully this is a move in the right direction.
I hope you're right, Michael C.
However, I see this as an abdication of responsibility. Isn't the commander-in-chief the "war czar"? Why does he need one? Is Bush trying to hand off the mess that he created to someone else?
Sorry if I sound cynical. But with this bunch, I draw no other conclusions.
As for winding down the war, I'll believe it when I see it. I think Bush has taken a "leaving is losing" mantra, and won't really do anything until a new guy takes over in 2009.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I hope you're right, Michael C.
However, I see this as an abdication of responsibility. Isn't the commander-in-chief the "war czar"? Why does he need one? Is Bush trying to hand off the mess that he created to someone else?
Sorry if I sound cynical. But with this bunch, I draw no other conclusions.
As for winding down the war, I'll believe it when I see it. I think Bush has taken a "leaving is losing" mantra, and won't really do anything until a new guy takes over in 2009.
I had read the take on CIC being War Czar elsewhere.
I think he's admitting he's getting bogged down with the war, better to delegate so he can have some sort of focus on other matters.
Abdicating of responsibility, nah. Politically wise delegation of duties, yes. Ostensibly, Lute has been involved already so it's not like they walked in some poor boob off the street to take a bunch of flak.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I think he's admitting he's getting bogged down with the war, better to delegate so he can have some sort of focus on other matters.
Not to get to technical, but in a way, that's the definition of abdicating responsibility. "It's bad, I'm getting out and giving it to someone else." Instead of the "President says", we can start saying the "War Czar says". If it goes down badly, it's a very good out.
I'm big on responsibility. Example: Going back to the idea that "the military should make these decision about leaving and troop numbers," it's mostly true on a tactical level. But if you do that on a strategic level, that throws all responsibility on the military. If this gets any worse, I will not blame General Petraus, or anyone else in the military. They do their jobs as best they can. I don't want them to be responsible for Strategic Interests, they shouldn't be responsible for that. That's a civilian responsibility.
I'm not sure Bush
is abdicating responsibility. It's possible, I hope not. I do try to optimistic about these things. There are certainly signs that things are changing now. The "War Czar", as useless as it may seem, could very well be one of those signals.
Michael, I'm slowly getting used to your technicalities. [:P]
As a leader, you have to delegate to be effective. I can't say I agree with every choice he's made as to whom responsibilities are delegated to and I think some traditional roles of Presidential administration have been over-stepped (and poorly handled) in this admin. However, holding the lightning rod for the Iraq conflict for so long has made him fairly ineffective on domestic issues and foreign policy elsewhere.
As a two-term President whose entire legacy to date has been defined by an unpopular conflict, I can't say I fault his judgement on getting the focus of the war onto someone else. Let someone else with military experience be the liaison between the admin and military. Let someone else be the face of the war within the admin and work to change the legacy to include some positive accomplishments. He won't ever be able to erase Iraq from his dossier.
I think this frees the President up for the next 1.5 years to try and focus on domestic issues which have been neglected during his administration due to so much focus on Iraq, both from within the administration, and as well from his opposition.
Abdicate, delegate- you guys can parse if you like.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Abdicate, delegate- you guys can parse if you like.
It's a little bit of the same thing, and a little bit not. The difference is basically motives, which are all theoretical at this point.
Like I said, I'm not sure he's abdicating responsibility for the Iraq War. I'm not sure he's delegating either. Seems to me, the "War Czar" could be mostly a symbolic position. If they're already planning on heading his direction, they probably don't need him. And I really don't know what this guy is supposed to do.
Beyond all that, no matter what the "War Czar" does, the one place he's needed most in this Administration is credibility. It's severely lacking. Just like changing Secretary of Defense, the new face will have more credibility by default. There's almost no way, that this move is a negative for the Administration.
Holy crap! Did Hell freeze over? We seem to agree on something.
IMO, War Czar sounded like a redundant position as well.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Now iplaw says I'm a coward and anti-democratic. The latter's really rich, especially after I've used that anti-democratic right to free speech.
My dad always said that the ones who resort to name-calling first are the losers of the argument.
[}:)]
As long as your gas is cheap and France and Iran are still pretending to like us, you're happy.
Although I'd like cheap gas as much as anyone else, I must take exception to your statement. Iran, since the fall of the Shah, has never liked us, made no bones about it, and has never pretended to like us. And France, well, they have disdain for everyone.