Anatomy of Iraq. How Did We Get to This Baffling Scenario?

[TexasZagFan]

Another worthwhile read from Victor Davis Hanson:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjdkOTA2NmUxYzkwY2U4NzcyYTYwN2VhZDdmMTkxOWQ=

[LongIslandZagFan]

Point of fact is that it was a debacle from the get-go. Even his father had enough brains to leave Saddam in power. Now you have invited all of the middle east to join in a nice civil war that our troops are going to be caught in the middle of.

The proper thing to do would have been to take care of Afghanistan... period.

[lothar98zag]

The proper thing to do would have been to take care of Afghanistan... period.

Based on the recent reports and comments I've heard about Afgh - it looks like the situation there has almost worked its way back to where it was before 9/11...

(Taliban gaining power, OBL setting up new training camps, etc.)


:fingergun:


It's all just really sad.

[former1dog]

Question for Lothar and LIZF,

Did Iraq start the problems in the middle east?

Do you believe things would have been much better had we left Saddam in power?

If so, how do you quantify or qualify much better?

[lothar98zag]

sorry f1d. not going to be posting about iraq. just wanted to add my little comment about Afg and leave.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Question for Lothar and LIZF,

Did Iraq start the problems in the middle east?

Do you believe things would have been much better had we left Saddam in power?

If so, how do you quantify or qualify much better?

Actually, no... they did not. That prize would go to three other countries before Iraq... namely Syria, Iran, and Israel.

Yes I do think things would have been better. Why? Because you wouldn't have this breeding ground for terror groups and a place for them to practice warfare like they do now. If we could have focused our efforts better against the real source of terror (Al Queda) and waited on better intelligence in regards to Iraq, we'd be much better off financially and thousands of American lives would likely have been spared.

Now your turn... explain how we are better off with him out of power and in the quagmire we are in now?

[former1dog]

On second thought, haven't we had this debate about ohhh, a couple dozen times at least...

We aren't going to get anywhere. Lets call the whole thing off.

Lothar, wise as usual.

Of course, LIZF may taunt me into a real response, but I'll try to be strong.

[LongIslandZagFan]

On second thought, haven't we had this debate about ohhh, a couple dozen times at least...

We aren't going to get anywhere. Lets call the whole thing off.

Lothar, wise as usual.

Of course, LIZF may taunt me into a real response, but I'll try to be strong.


Come on F1D... you know you want to...:horse:


Come on out and :boxing:

;)

[former1dog]

Come on F1D... you know you want to...:horse:


Come on out and :boxing:

;)


Lets talk about ManBearPig, instead... :clap:

[TexasZagFan]

Sorry for the quick hit...

Troops start coming home in October, "with honor" using Cheney's term.

The surge works well enough to allow Iraqis to sufficiently beef up their forces, and Maliki announces in 6-8 months that they can handle the bulwark of the dirty work.

Part of the reason the surge works is that a lot of the bad guys left for Iran and Syria while the getting was good. They're biding their time until we've brought home 40-50K troops.

Once the troops start coming home, the focus on the presidential nomination focuses on the future, instead of the past, as Iraq will lose its effect as a unifying force for both parties. Dubya will anger everybody with another "Mission Accomplished" photo op.

The Republicrats and the Democans will get what they want by summer, in the form of comprehensive immigration reform. Dubya signs it with great fanfare, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the 100 remaining conservatives in Washington.

On an unrelated note, there will be no further hearings on Halliburton now that Soros is the largest shareholder.

Finally, I think the appointment of GEN Petraeus was past due. The reassignment of GEN Casey to Army Chief of Staff was a disappointment, as if it was done to keep him off CNN for the remainder of Dubya's term. Only my opinion as an ex-platoon leader and battery commander, but it was his responsibility to look out for those under his command. When the rules of engagement got political (i.e. hands off on favorites of Iraqi politicians), it was his responsibility to protest those orders, and if necessary, resign his command.

Can you imagine how that would have played out?

[LongIslandZagFan]

The likelihood of that actually happening is somewhere between slim and nil. The surge will not work and the region will slide closer and closer to civil war.

[former1dog]

The likelihood of that actually happening is somewhere between slim and nil. The surge will not work and the region will slide closer and closer to civil war.

Sorry, can't help myself. The civil war you speak of has been going on for, oh, a little over a dozen centuries. We didn't precipitate it, it was already there.

Saddam curtailed it in his time by brutally killing any and all who opposed his absolute power. Of course that little war between Iraq and Iran that killed 1 million + was the same war.

It is a religious war, always has been and always will be.

[TexasZagFan]

The likelihood of that actually happening is somewhere between slim and nil. The surge will not work and the region will slide closer and closer to civil war.

Will LIZF be right and receive an :allhail: or will

TZF be right and the vast majority of the board members

:vomit-smiley-007:

Either way, it's still Friday: :cheers: PROSIT!!!!

[UberZagFan]

It is a religious war, always has been and always will be.

If only our leaders understood this 5 years ago.

[xjzico]

Are you characterizing this as a religious war with in Islam or is this the clash of civilizations some like to suggest?

Well let's hope the meeting (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/831386.html) in Baghdad will prove productive and the situation will start to stabilize a bit. Of course it would be just our luck to have Iraq simmer down and then to have Afghanistan further deteriorate or Hezbollah/Israel decide to get into it again (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1438090.ece).

[229SintoZag]

It is a religious war, always has been and always will be.

So I assume you must be fuming at our President for claiming that Iraq was about WMD, terrorism, our national security, etc? Right?

I mean, do we Americans really give a damn whether the Shiites or the Sunnis are correct in their view of Islam? Do we have a dog in that fight? If we do, is it one worth 3000+ american lives, 15,000+ injured, and a half trillion dollars--as well as eroded credibility everywhere in the world?

[former1dog]

So I assume you must be fuming at our President for claiming that Iraq was about WMD, terrorism, our national security, etc? Right?

I mean, do we Americans really give a damn whether the Shiites or the Sunnis are correct in their view of Islam? Do we have a dog in that fight? If we do, is it one worth 3000+ american lives, 15,000+ injured, and a half trillion dollars--as well as eroded credibility everywhere in the world?

Most things regarding Bush's presidency have made me cringe, 229, truth be told. Never felt the need to be to vocal about it on the OCC, though, 'cuz its just the same tune everyone else is singing.

And, although I agree that Bush has generally mucked up most things, I tend not to agree with most of you guys as to what he should have done instead.

About the only thing I'm totally with Bush Co on was tax cuts.

I digress. Back to the main topic. I was on the fence regarding the Iraq war at the outset. Much less sure of the circumstances and call to arms than most democrats in congress at the time.. :D

As for no WMD's, that doesn't outrage me. The guy had them, most thought he still did, he had used them against the kurds and Iran. Any reasonable and logical individual would assume that he still had them because of his non cooperative status with UN inspectors. The fact that we didn't/haven't found large stock piles just worries me. Where the hell are they?

Did they never exist? I think thats a bit of a naive viewpoint.

Did Saddam destroy them? Possible, but I don't really think its likely.

Did he hide them really good? Maybe, Iraq is large country.

Did he give them to someone for safekeeping? This is the most likely scenario IMO, but I hope I'm wrong because we might see them used at some time in the future.

So, anyway, back to the original question. I was on the fence about whether or not we should have. We did. So be it, mistake or not. The fact that we did overthrow the regime gives us a serious responsibility as a country. It is my considered opinion that we now have the resposibility, whether the democrats like it or not, to do whatever it takes to stabilize that country.

If we don't we'll get another post Vietnam SE Asia situation, where millions were slaughtered after we retreated. Often times people forget or ignore the after math of that debacle and think it was a good thing we lost the political will to do the right thing.

As for the larger cultural battle that X asked about, do yourself a favor, look into what Imam's are saying in Mosques all around the world. If you haven't already, learn a little about Sharia law. Certainly don't take my word for it or any conservative talking head like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

Look into what Salman Rushdie says, a political liberal on almost every other topic except the subject of militant Islam. Read about the social issues arising all over Europe. France and the Netherlands in particular.

Read about what is happening in Thailand, in the Phillipines, in Darfur. Hell, wherever there are acts of terrorism. Who's doing it and why are they doing it?

Oh yeah, remember Bosnia?

[siliconzag]

And our involvement in Iraq helped this problem, how?

Sili

[former1dog]

And our involvement in Iraq helped this problem, how?

Sili

In the short term, it probably made things worse.

Any student of militant Islam, though, will tell you that the current Jihad trend was brewing long before the Iraq war and that it had strong legs with or without Iraq.

[gamagin]

There is a wealth of reading about the middle east and our role in it.

the best book I've read so far for an overall quick look out our history of overthrowing enemies is this: "Overthrow: America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq." It is not pretty but it is all there.

Re Iraq specifically, I'd start with George Packers, "The assassin's gate." But there are many, many incredible books out right now about Iraq.

I suggest these two would substantially change this thread and your lives

[former1dog]

All due respect, Gamagin, I am not moved by the American Apologist position. I am not ashamed of my country and you shouldn't be either.

[TexasZagFan]

All due respect, Gamagin, I am not moved by the American Apologist position. I am not ashamed of my country and you shouldn't be either.

...where the American apologists will control the levers of power in Washington. It may be Barack, it may be Hillary, it may be some effing RINO.

Now that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner on the use (non-use) of military force (with the help of a select group of Republicans), you can expect folks like me to take on a more isolationist tone. Wherever the next flareup occurs, the response to our "allies" will be "where the hell were you when we asked for help in The Long War?" No more expending our blood and treasure overseas!

Speaking of apologists, the silence on this board regarding Bill Maher's remarks last week (regarding VP Cheney's trip to the Middle East) was thunderous, and damning. I had no expectations from a crowd that openly chortles at their Reductio ad Hitlerum attitude about the current administration.

Just keep working on those nonbinding resolutions...that's the ticket! As Congress fiddles, more of us will be devoured by the Alternative Minimum Tax. Maybe we can get an offset on AMT by buying carbon credits from Global Investment Management.

[gamagin]

<< I am not ashamed of my country and you shouldn't be either.>>

so, your saying you haven't read the books, but that doesn't stop you from this insight ?

their contents are either facutal or not. Up to you to determine. the writers either are credible or not. up to you. the books have been widely read and widely quoted and mostly recognized as authoritative (certainly not perfect, nothing is) by respected americans no matter what their political stripe.

I am not sure where your shame comes into it. Neither books makes an apology, either, so I'm not sure why you refer to your need to apologize or not.

Both books, like most good books I've read like it, leave shame and apologies up to the reader.

And neither has been seriously challenged as factually in error or conclusively anything other than enlightening; the kind of information most caring, fair-minded and curious individuals need to know inorder to help them make an informed opinion. versus, say, blowing smoke.

[former1dog]

so, your saying you haven't read the books, but that doesn't stop you from this insight ?

Not quite sure how you got whether I read the books or not from my post. For the record, I haven't read either.


And neither has been seriously challenged as factually in error or conclusively anything other than enlightening; the kind of information most caring, fair-minded and curious individuals need to know inorder to help them make an informed opinion. versus, say, blowing smoke.

Pretty broad strokes, Gamagin.

The point is, that many people like to gnash teeth and prostrate themselves for the evil American imperialism. They just know that if it weren't for the evil American's, every one would love us and we would all get along and their would be world peace. Bullocks!

The US, like every other country in the world, has rightfully looked out for the interests of its citizens and business community throughout its history. There naturally have been mistakes made along the way and some downright criminal behaviour. But, if you think that this excuses the acts of terrorists groups and terror supporting countries around the world, you are sadly mistaken.

These aren't noble Islamic knights looking out for the poor in their countries and save them from the evil Satan USA, they are religious extremists looking to subjugate those who oppose their fundamentalist view of Islam.

An example of their utopia on earth was the Taliban, just so we're clear.

[maineblackbear]

f1d argues: "Any reasonable and logical individual would assume that he still had them because of his non cooperative status with UN inspectors"

this is embarassingly untrue. Saddam agreed to the most invasive weapons inspection scheme in the history of humanity. he agreed to it, the UN went everywhere they wanted and looked everywhere they suspected and the professional weapons inspectors concluded he had no weapons. before the war.


whether you are in favor of the neo-con mission or opposed, let us get rid of this canard (along with the Saddam had something to do with 9/11 stuff).

we went to war for reasons advocated persuasively by both Cheney and Wolfewitz. Those reasons, the need to remake the world and make it safe fore democracy are valid reasons and should be debated.

mbb

[gamagin]

your answers tell me you haven't read the book.

that's why i suggested to all on this thread that looking at a couple of good reports would help.

if you can grit your teeth and push your way through "overthrown" i believe you will have a different outlook. some perspective.

not my outlook. your own.

that's all i was suggesting earlier.

[siliconzag]

f1d argues: "Any reasonable and logical individual would assume that he still had them because of his non cooperative status with UN inspectors"

this is embarassingly untrue. Saddam agreed to the most invasive weapons inspection scheme in the history of humanity. he agreed to it, the UN went everywhere they wanted and looked everywhere they suspected and the professional weapons inspectors concluded he had no weapons. before the war.


whether you are in favor of the neo-con mission or opposed, let us get rid of this canard (along with the Saddam had something to do with 9/11 stuff).

we went to war for reasons advocated persuasively by both Cheney and Wolfewitz. Those reasons, the need to remake the world and make it safe fore democracy are valid reasons and should be debated.

mbb

This was the rally call of President Wilson. That was the purpose of WWI he said. We have learned that fighting wars even for meritorious reasons in countries where our values are not those of the indigenous people is frought with danger. Or at least I thought we learned that. Besides history shows that this region has been a hot bed of tribal violence since the time of Alexander the Great. Now, I don't know about you fellas, but I knew Alexander the Great, and George Bush is no Alexander the Great.

Sili

[former1dog]

This was the rally call of President Wilson. That was the purpose of WWI he said. We have learned that fighting wars even for meritorious reasons in countries where our values are not those of the indigenous people is frought with danger. Or at least I thought we learned that. Besides history shows that this region has been a hot bed of tribal violence since the time of Alexander the Great. Now, I don't know about you fellas, but I knew Alexander the Great, and George Bush is no Alexander the Great.
Sili

:lmao: Alright Shirley Maclane, I think we've found some common ground. Agreed, GWB is no Alexander the Great.

[LongIslandZagFan]

but it should be illegal to put GWB and the word Great in the same sentence.

[TexasZagFan]

but it should be illegal to put GWB and the word Great in the same sentence.

ummm...who did THAT? :confused:

I will agree with you if we can also make it illegal to post on the OCC without proper spelling, punctuation and grammar. If mencken were alive, I'd allow an exception for him. There's no one currently posting on OCC deserving of a similar exemption.

Fair trade?