 |
| Welcome
Sign Up Log On |
|
|
Messages: (31) 1
Stratfor sent one of their frequent updates last night. This issue covered the mess Bush finds himself in as a direct result of not telling the public the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. (He's bounced around from the imminent threat of WMD's to elimination of an evil despot to planting the seeds of democracy.)
They've previously laid out what they firmly believe to be the main line of reasoning behind the invasion. It's not a conspiracy theory, and is in fact a much more plausible and "acceptable" reason (relatively speaking) than spreading democracy... but Bush and his team can't bring themselves to spell it out.
It bugs me that nobody seems to be discussing this view (not the media, not the other sites I read, nobody).
Anyway, their mailing said it was ok to share it, so I'm attaching a copy of the article to this post.
Yes, it's lengthy, but it's worth the time to read it.
[Top]
Why doesn't the administration talk about this more? They've sort of talked around the edges of it occasionally (Bush's speech about democracy in the ME in general), but if you think there's a firestorm over American policy now, can you imagine what that would be like around the world if the U.S. said that by the war on terror what it really means is destablizing existing ME regimes in order to facilitate a political realignment of the Middle East? Going from nation building to sub-continent re-building?
Even in this country, I'd think coming out saying that we're involved with a likely decades-long war against radical Islam and the autocratic states that foster it would guarantee Bush a trip home in November. Nobody, except the neocons, wants to go there, apparently.
[Top]
On 4/16/04, Brian Carnell said:
>Why doesn't the administration talk about this more?
Do *you* think the war on Iraq is part of the reshaping of the ME, and therefore part of the war on terror? You mainly seem to be telling me what other people think, but I'd like to know what YOU think.
Unless you consider yourself a neocon, in which case you already answered that question.
(I do think you've hinted at agreement with Stratfor on this issue, but it's not clear.)
Seth
[Top]
That's one of the things that's clear in debating the Iraq war over at Mark's site. If Americans are unwilling to accept casualties as low as 2-3 deaths per day in a war zone (and this does seem to be the threshold, especially given the Bush administration's bumbling) then this strategy is simply impossible, regardless of whether or not it is wise.
One of the things that surprises me about the debate over 9/11 and Iraq is that no one seems to have asked the question about whether 9/11 might have been prevented is how things might have been different if Bush I had finished the job in Iraq back in 1991 instead of pulling up short much like Clinton would do later in confronting terrorism. That might have really changed the landscape.
[Top]
As for casualties and acceptance, try looking up counts from Iwo Jima or Korea to see just what can be tolerated. We pay these folks to fight, not just get a cheap ticket to college.
Continuing to allow the disease that is extreme islasm, wahabbism and the like, to fester can no longer be tolerated. If they can't grasp the value of coexistance with the west there's really no other choice than to eliminate them utterly. After all, that's what they're convinced they have to do to us.
But then again, the governments of Europe thought appeasing National Socialism was a good thing too. Doubtless they'll be proved wrong again, at a cost far too high, on all sides.
[Top]
On 4/20/04, Bill Kearney said:
>Preventing 9/11 by pursuing Iraq in 1991 is a fantasy of hind-sight
Who said anything about 1991?
I just love it when you post, Bill. Except for the rare occasion that you say something about cycling -- the only topic in which you *never* come across badly -- you always make me feel better about myself and my world-views. Mostly by contrast, of course.
You and Don Larson should should meet. You're both into these "drive-by postings" (a phrase I've borrowed from Mark Morgan), and seem to have the same views on the war.
Seth
[Top]
[Top]
[Top]
And, in retrospect, it was a mistake to only treat the symptom rather than the disease. I think the American public would have accepted the occupation of Iraq just as well as they are today (initially there would have been lots of support which would have gradually waned somewhat). One of the reasons the occupation of Iraq wasn't pursued was that the destruction on the Highway of Death (much of it caused by the Iraqi's own extensive mines) was causing negative reactions in Arab media, which is, in retrospect, one of the reasons the occupation probably should have been pursued.On Apr 20, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Brian Carnell wrote:
I raised the issue of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.S. and its allies stopped short of deposing Hussein because of rather short-sighted near term political reasons.Short sighted near term political reasons? They were in the Persian Gulf to liberate Kuwait, not depose Iraq's government. There's no way the public would have tolerated that. Perhaps the public would have accepted a targeted assassination of Hussein, but not the occupation of Iraq.
Islamic jihadist terrorism was one of the direct results of the invasion of Iraq even without occupation. So we ended up in the lose-lose situation of anti-American jihadic terrorism without getting rid of Saddam. In hindsight, it would have been better to just bite the bullet, eliminate Saddam and weather the storm of international disapproval.I wondered what might have happened if Iraq had been occupied by allied forces then and the process of creating a democratic state there that Bush wants to undertake in Iraq had already been ongoing for 10 years.Hm... let me guess: the allies would have sparked the current explosion of islamic jihadist terrorism then instead of now, and something like 9/11 probably would have happened many years sooner. Nothing has been better for the jihadists than occupying Iraq. It plays right into their hands and gives them the ammo they need to recruit new people.
[Top]
On 4/20/04, Jim Roepcke said:
>Nothing has been better for the jihadists than occupying Iraq. It >plays right into their hands and gives them the ammo they need to >recruit new people.
So I guess you strongly disagree with stratfor's report.
Did you read it?
Seth
[Top]
[Top]
This, unfortunately, seems all too common these days. Not as an insult Jim, of course, but to question the failure of people to educate themselves.
[Top]
[Top]
On 4/21/04, Jim Roepcke said:
>Failure to educate myself... that's almost funny.
Please stop. I've already asked him to stop posting, don't tempt him by rebutting his attacks.
Seth
[Top]
Not the public per se; their governments. There was little or no backbone in the spines of the politicians to take the initiative. Of course there was plenty of initiative by the French, Germans and Soviets to continue engaging in trade with them, however.
>Perhaps the public would have accepted a targeted assassination > of Hussein, but not the occupation of Iraq.
Not practical as such isn't legal (at least not by US law).
> Hm... let me guess: the allies would have sparked the current explosion > of islamic jihadist terrorism then instead of now,
Yeah like how the arabs got all uppity after losing the 7 days war too. All talk, no action.
Would it have been better is rather pointless, we're here now.
> and something like > 9/11 probably would have happened many years sooner. Nothing has been > better for the jihadists than occupying Iraq. It plays right into > their hands and gives them the ammo they need to recruit new people.
No, it would have likely ended up killing more of the leadership cadre sooner. As it stands now, it seems like only the passing of the next two generations will cure the situation. Iran's lurching closer and closer to democratic behavior is probably the best thing going in the region. Besides, doesn't the report sort of say just the opposite?
[Top]
[Top]
Um, read the thread perhaps?
> I just love it when you post, Bill. Except for the rare occasion that > you say something about cycling -- the only topic in which you * never * > come across badly -- you always make me feel better about myself and my > world-views. Mostly by contrast, of course.
Ah, I see you've found comfort in stooping to the lowest of levels.
> You and Don Larson should should meet. You're both into these "drive-by > postings" (a phrase I've borrowed from Mark Morgan), and seem to have > the same views on the war.
And somehow I'm not encouraged to comment further, wonder why?
[Top]
Bill,
I've been encouraging you to stop posting here for a long time, but you're not getting the hint.
The last six weeks have given me something of a priority shift. Dealing with your unpleasantness -- and forcing the other readers to deal with your unpleasantness -- simply didn't make the cut.
Please stop posting to my site, about anything at all. I'm sorry if you don't understand my reasons for this, somehow, but I don't want to deal with this anymore.
Seth
[Top]
[Top]
On 4/21/04, Mark Morgan said:
>I haven't read through all their archives so I don't know if they have >an answer to a very important question: why Iraq? There are a lot of >places we could go and play Empire and try to establish Pax Americana, >some of which are a lot more dangerous to us. (North Korea? Saudi >Arabia? Syria?) Why Iraq?
Strategic location. They've hammered on that point repeatedly.
[Top]
[Top]
[Top]
[Top]
[Top]
[Top]
[Top]
[Top]
This seems to be a facet of the discussion many folks fail to grasp.
If someone leapt back in time to, say, the 1960's and suggested China would be engaging in the sort of lurching steps toward democracy and world commerce seen today, they'd have refused to believe in the possibility. There was just NO reason to imagine such a turnaround could happen.
I think much of the west (government and population) has hoped that by taking the approach of ignoring their issues, that the Muslim countries would take it upon themselves to move toward more cooperative governance. Sadly this has not been happening. Worse yet the disgruntled factions have taken to exporting their dissatisfaction to other countries (to put it mildy).
However, is it a 150 year wait? Or is there something that could accelerate it? I'd be reaching if I thought I could pose a comparision of the situation in China to that of the middle east; frankly I just don't known enough in depth about either to make the connections. But if the Chinese after Mao's purges can make the sort of turnaround we've seen the perhaps there's similar hope for the middle eastern situations.
-Bill Kearney
[Top]
[Top]
Excellent summary.
> But in Muslim countries we have an extremist ideology that has > established spiritual purity, not economic success, as the standard.
It's just boggling how disconnected these countries have kept themselves from western culture. One thing that concerns me lately is how poorly the western countries are at articulating larger social issues. Things we take for granted (rule of law, voting rights, etc) have significance that's lost on our own citizens, not to mention utterly foreign to those never having benefitted from them for themselves. It's almost as if there was a time (here in the US anyway) that it was possible to articulate these messages such that they empowered the people to live up to them. Now the public has gotten itself so utterly divorced from those ideals that it's become "unmarketable" to pitch them. Thus the failure to pitch them, Thomas Paine-style, to the masses in the middle east. It's almost as if the need to educate these populations is equally matched in the west, if for different reasons. One to project hope and the other to appreciate it's bounty.
I'm not claiming economic success as a superior to spiritual purity. But the style of 'purity' being practiced hardly seems so. In this measure it seems they're matched in hypocrisy. False piety and rampant greed seem to be running a neck-and-neck race.
Or something like that.
-Bill Kearney
[Top]
BTW, the other problem with the strategy is what happens if it does work -- are we going to do the same thing in Asia and Africa, where Muslim extremism is becoming an major problem (just look at the recent wholesale intra-Muslim slaughter in Sudan or what's happening in Nigeria). Even if the U.S. alters the status quote in the Middle East, that will just drive Al Qaeda types to Africa and Asia and embolden Muslims when they see that the clear effect and goal is to drag their societies and religion through the same process of secularization that Christianity experienced centuries ago.
[Top]
<- Previous Thread:
The Second Devil
Next Thread: ->
Practice Destroying the World
Until August 31
My Amazon sales
benefit the PMC
Apr 1 - Aug 31
Ad revenue
benefits the PMC
|
TruerWords
is Seth Dillingham's personal web site. From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. - WC |
