Letter On The Iraq War

[Jim]

Do you really feel like categorizing our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as a fight against Muslims is accurate? Do you think that the British Governments actions against the IRA could be best described as a non-specific fight against Catholics? Were US actions in the first Gulf War, and in Kosovo also best described as part of a fight against Muslims? Have the US attacks in Iraq and Afhghanistan - in which the overwhelming majority of the citizens are Muslims - been indiscriminately targeting all Muslims, their holy sites and shrines, etc - or is there a subset of the populations in each majority Muslim country that has been targetted, rather than the entire population? If this is a fight against Muslims that we're waging, why have there been no attacks on Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc?

 

I don't think there is much argument against us fighting radical Muslims in Afhghanistan, but that was not the issue in Iraq, nor was it even one of the false ones put up by the Bush adminstration. The chaos we have caused in Iraq has made it a cause celebra for some proportion of home-grown fanatics/Iran-supported groups/former Bathists thrown in with the Shia/Sunnie thugs and you have what you see. We kicked up that hornet's nest, flubbed what could best be call an ill-conceived (bordering on fanatic obsession)plan and now the neocons have back-pedaled on their predictions of flowers for the victor. They do, however, find it convienient to utter modifications of "the Russians are coming" and point eastward during key legislative debates and election time.

[JayB]

Thanks, Jim.

 

I'd be interested in reading your responses to the other questions I've posted if you have the time to answer them.

 

Also - couldn't one argue that our attacks on the Taliban have galvanized radical Islamists in Pakistan and everywhere else, and have had negative impacts on public perception of the US amongst Muslims of virtually all persuasions around the globe? If one posits that whether or not an action by the US inflames radical Islamist sentiments - or gives rise to a general sense of grievance or animus towards the US - in the Muslim world should be the primary litmus test by which the advisability or inadvisability of a particular action must be judged, wouldn't considerations of this sort have ruled out any military action against the Taliban as well? What implications would such a stance, if adopted, have on constraining US actions in light of the response to a particular set of cartoons established in an obscure paper in a small Nordic country? Is there ever a point at which the significance or an importance of a particular policy goal, or a crisis of a significant magnitude would warrant taking actions that were certain to arouse significant resentment against the US in the Muslim world, and increase the number of Jihadists intent on attacking US, or should any action that had the potential to bring about either be rejected out of hand?

[underworld]

The chaos we have caused

 

nice...

 

We kicked up that hornet's nest

 

yup...should have let the nest grow bigger. ..boiling frog...

 

predictions of flowers for the victor

 

ever talked to a soldier that's been there? i spoke with a mother of a soldier in the paradise parking lot a while back. she was pretty pissed about what she was seing here with the non-support of the troops. believe it or not, she was talking about the fresh flowers that the locals would put on her son's hummer every morning. and no, i'm not suggesting that is the case for all over there - but you can't say that your view is the overwhelming case either.

 

 

 

[jclark]

Jim...have you ever been to the middle east? Have you ever seen Iraq and Afghanistan with your own eyes?

[Jim]

Thanks, Jim.

 

I'd be interested in reading your responses to the other questions I've posted if you have the time to answer them.

 

Also - couldn't one argue that our attacks on the Taliban have galvanized radical Islamists in Pakistan and everywhere else, and have had negative impacts on public perception of the US amongst Muslims of virtually all persuasions around the globe? If one posits that whether or not an action by the US inflames radical Islamist sentiments - or gives rise to a general sense of grievance or animus towards the US - in the Muslim world should be the primary litmus test by which the advisability or inadvisability of a particular action must be judged, wouldn't considerations of this sort have ruled out any military action against the Taliban as well? What implications would such a stance, if adopted, have on constraining US actions in light of the response to a particular set of cartoons established in an obscure paper in a small Nordic country? Is there ever a point at which the significance or an importance of a particular policy goal, or a crisis of a significant magnitude would warrant taking actions that were certain to arouse significant resentment against the US in the Muslim world, and increase the number of Jihadists intent on attacking US, or should any action that had the potential to bring about either be rejected out of hand?

 

I think it could be argued that our attacks on the Taliban have inflamed some portion of the Muslim population. That would be an accurate observation, but does not eliminate our right to defend ourselves from a tangible threat. What we have done in Iraq however, is to inflame not only our enemies, but piss off neutral or marginally aligned countries, and even our closest allies can't fully support us. Our Iraq adventure has taken away from our clear moral imperative and good will we had going into Afghanstan. I would say the same for our secret renditions, the torture, and GitMo. And Iraq has served as a distraction to the real fight, sucking up resources which should have been used in Afghanistan.

[jclark]

Ok I hate to do this because I left that part of my life almost a year ago, but I am a former special operations officer in the Army with 4 combat deployments to the middle east. I would challenge any of you who say Bush lied to go to war. Was the war horribly mismanaged? YES. Did Rumsfeild have a clue as what needed to happen to win? NO. Did the govt lie to go to war? NO, I don't believe so. Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam also had a decade to to get rid of them.

 

Intelligence is very hard won in that part of the world. The arabic society is extremely difficult to penetrate. Saddam hid, discarded, sold and destroyed those weapons as we built our forces in Kuwait for the invasion.

 

In retrospect we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I think that is clear. The real issue other than Afghanistan is Iran and it has been all along. Remember hindsight is always 20/20...after Sept 11th the world was and still is a very confusing place.

 

I have had the opportunity to speak to countless foreign fighters we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their hatred of us is real and it is religiously based. It is not because we drive nice cars and have nice homes, although the economic disparities don't help the situation. They hate us because we are non-believers. They hate Shiites because they are non-believers too. Don't you get it? We cannot stop their hatred by not fighting them. We also cannot bomb them into submission. We must defend ourselves at all costs.

 

Why did I leave the military you may ask? Because I was sickened by how we managed the conflict. I like you am dismayed by the lack of judgement our GOVT=(democrat and republican) has displayed in the last few years.

 

I am sure I will entertain more than a couple responses to this post. I am merely speaking from my limited 27 combined months in those two countries...others of you may be far more experienced on this subject from magazines and the internet

 

 

[JayB]

J-Clark:

 

I have to get back to work, and asking this question feels just a bit ridiculous, but have you had the chance to read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright? If so - I'd be interested in hearing your take on it, if not - I think you might find it interesting.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

J-Clark:

 

I have to get back to work, and asking this question feels just a bit ridiculous, but have you had the chance to read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright? If so - I'd be interested in hearing your take on it, if not - I think you might find it interesting.

 

 

I heard the author of this book on talk radio a few months ago. He made some good arguments - have not read his book yet, but thought I'd throw it out there:

 

overblown

[fig8]

jclark... your job was to follow orders, and your orders were to help wage a war. I don't dispute at all that you have experiences in that area that most of us do not. However, part of this debate isn't how to manage the war, it is the politics of why we are at war, and if we should be... your experiences, as valuable as they are, don't qualify you beyond the rest of us in that part of the debate... the political debate.

 

What do your experinces tell you about whether or not the US should give as much money each year, as we do, to Israel? What do those experiences have to say about whether our CIA should have propped up the Shah in Iran? What about supporting a monarchy in Saudi Arabia?

[underworld]

What is your experience that makes you any more of an expert?

 

btw - if we knew what was going on for sure... spray would be filled with ONLY pictures of housecats. we CAN'T know. for the sake of all us deskjobbers/sprayers...don't let us know the truths!!!!!!!!!

[JayB]

Hey Fig 8:

 

I have some questions of my own for folks who make the argument that's implicit in your questions on the previous page. I hope that you'll answer them.

[fig8]

I didn't say I was more of an expert, only that he isn't more of an expert than the rest of us around the political debate. How is your reading comprehension doing?

[Crux]

Ok I hate to do this because I left that part of my life almost a year ago, but I am a former special operations officer in the Army with 4 combat deployments to the middle east. I would challenge any of you who say Bush lied to go to war. Was the war horribly mismanaged? YES. Did Rumsfeild have a clue as what needed to happen to win? NO. Did the govt lie to go to war? NO, I don't believe so. Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam also had a decade to to get rid of them.

 

Intelligence is very hard won in that part of the world. The arabic society is extremely difficult to penetrate. Saddam hid, discarded, sold and destroyed those weapons as we built our forces in Kuwait for the invasion.

 

In retrospect we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I think that is clear. The real issue other than Afghanistan is Iran and it has been all along. Remember hindsight is always 20/20...after Sept 11th the world was and still is a very confusing place.

 

I have had the opportunity to speak to countless foreign fighters we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their hatred of us is real and it is religiously based. It is not because we drive nice cars and have nice homes, although the economic disparities don't help the situation. They hate us because we are non-believers. They hate Shiites because they are non-believers too. Don't you get it? We cannot stop their hatred by not fighting them. We also cannot bomb them into submission. We must defend ourselves at all costs.

 

Why did I leave the military you may ask? Because I was sickened by how we managed the conflict. I like you am dismayed by the lack of judgement our GOVT=(democrat and republican) has displayed in the last few years.

 

I am sure I will entertain more than a couple responses to this post. I am merely speaking from my limited 27 combined months in those two countries...others of you may be far more experienced on this subject from magazines and the internet

 

 

I don't understand your assertion regarding the WMDs. At first, I thought you were going to argue the point made by Wesley Clark, that the invasion of Iraq was legal because Congress authorized it. But then you seem to base your assertion of legality on the old claim that we were threatened by WMDs -- and that there was, therefore, no lie in claims made by the presidency. I can understand how people argued this point years ago, but since President Bush himself has recently stated (correct?) there were no weapons of mass destruction, I'd figure the case is closed.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Crux

[fig8]

Feel free to pose specific questions to me... I'm not going to read all of your posts trying to figure out which questions pertain to my premise, which is that the attacks are largely a result of misguided US foreign policy with regards to Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

[lizard_brain]

You all go to hell, I'm going climbing.

[JayB]

Feel free to pose specific questions to me... I'm not going to read all of your posts trying to figure out which questions pertain to my premise, which is that the attacks are largely a result of misguided US foreign policy with regards to Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

 

Okay. The final questions are the ones that most directly pertain to people with your viewpoint, but the first three are germane as well.

 

What is the ethically and diplomatically sound way to deal with unsavory, undemocratic regimes when the forces likely to displace them are likely to be both more repressive and more hostile to both the West and many of the rights and freedoms that (small d) democrats around the world consider - or at least claim to consider - fundamental rights that no one should be deprived of?

 

Does the case of say - Iran - support the claim that active or tacit US support is either necessary and sufficient for the establishment of a repressive regime?

 

Have any of you considered non-political forces that promote the development and maintenance of repressive political models? If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation. In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent. My contention here is that no matter what the US or other western powers did in the region, there'd be very strong tendencies towards autocracy there, and that these tendencies will continue to present an obstacle towards democratic reform in the region for as long as oil provides sufficient revenues for the regimes that are currently in charge there.

 

...

 

I think the argument I've seen is that political repression in Arab countries has been dramatically higher as a consequence of US support - explicit or tacit - for the regimes doing the repressing, and that attacks by persons inhabiting these countries on the US and other Western powers are an outgrowth of and reaction to that repression.

 

I am curious what the consensus is amongst people who hold this view concerning what would transpire if the US were to immediately disavow anything that could be construed as support for, and abandon all regimes in the Middle East which are undemocratic and/or repressive. Would the repression end? Stay the same? Get worse? And what implications would this have with respect to the frequency and intensity of attacks carried out against the US by citizens of these states? Does the fact that a significant number of the terrorist attacks carried out against the US and other Western powers were conducted by persons who had either lived in Europe for a number of years, or were born there, and who thus never experienced or had escaped from the type of repression in question have any bearing on your thinking about the role of US-fostered political repression in bringing about attacks of this nature?

 

 

[fig8]

What is the ethically and diplomatically sound way to deal with unsavory, undemocratic regimes when the forces likely to displace them are likely to be both more repressive and more hostile to both the West and many of the rights and freedoms that (small d) democrats around the world consider - or at least claim to consider - fundamental rights that no one should be deprived of?

 

Are you aware, that Iran had a democratically elected prime minister from 1951-1953, and he was overthrown via a plot between the US and the UK, and replaced with the Shah?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

 

Perhaps we should let these people run their own lives and nations, rather than continueing to butt in to protect "our" oil.

 

I don't accept your premise, on which your questions are based, that we are engaged in an effort to spread democracy. We are just trying to protect oil, that some here feel we have a god given entitlement to.

[underworld]

and you contribute to every day...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are you aware, that Iran had a democratically elected prime minister from 1951-1953, and he was overthrown via a plot between the US and the UK, and replaced with the Shah?

 

OMG!! THE HUMANITY!!!

 

Of course this happened in a vacuum and had nothing to do with geopolitical realities following WWII. It was ALL about oil.

[ashw_justin]

This WAR is for REAL!

Wait I am not convinced yet. Can we invade another country to make sure?

[rob]

Are you aware, that Iran had a democratically elected prime minister from 1951-1953, and he was overthrown via a plot between the US and the UK, and replaced with the Shah?

 

OMG!! THE HUMANITY!!!

 

Of course this happened in a vacuum and had nothing to do with geopolitical realities following WWII. It was ALL about oil.

 

No, it was pretty much about oil, at least on the part of Britain. Look into it, the lid is pretty much blown off, there are plenty of books on it now.

[JayB]

What is the ethically and diplomatically sound way to deal with unsavory, undemocratic regimes when the forces likely to displace them are likely to be both more repressive and more hostile to both the West and many of the rights and freedoms that (small d) democrats around the world consider - or at least claim to consider - fundamental rights that no one should be deprived of?

 

Are you aware, that Iran had a democratically elected prime minister from 1951-1953, and he was overthrown via a plot between the US and the UK, and replaced with the Shah?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

 

Perhaps we should let these people run their own lives and nations, rather than continueing to butt in to protect "our" oil.

 

I don't accept your premise, on which your questions are based, that we are engaged in an effort to spread democracy. We are just trying to protect oil, that some here feel we have a god given entitlement to.

 

Refusal to accept an argument is one thing, a refutation is another. You don't need to accept the premise that an argument is based upon in order to refute it - actually disagreeing with the premise is quite helpful if this is your goal - so one would think that if my this were my premise (it isn't) and you were convinced that it was false, it would be a relatively simple matter for you to formulate a series of rebuttals which advance your own arguments to the detriment of my own.

 

For example, I don't accept the premise upon which Creationism is based, but this in no way prevents me from both answering a question that a Creationist might present me with, and using logic and facts to incorporate a refutation of the said false premises into my answer.

 

Moreover, whether you believe the US policy goals in the Middle East include spreading democracy or not, for example, this in no way prevents you from answering simple questions like "What would happen if the US completely disengaged from the Middle East?" If you believe that the US has been the single most important factor in suppressing, say - the emergence of modern political freedoms, protection for the rights of religious minorities, etc - in the Middle East, then one would think that the question would provide an opportunity to claim that absence of US involvement in the Middle East would be extremely beneficial for the people there, and provide whatever arguments that you could muster to support your assertion.

 

Anyhow - the response that you were able to provide is quite revealing, more so, in many respects, than any attempt to actually answer the questions might have been, so thanks. Thanks for the hot-tip about Mossadeq as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are you aware, that Iran had a democratically elected prime minister from 1951-1953, and he was overthrown via a plot between the US and the UK, and replaced with the Shah?

 

OMG!! THE HUMANITY!!!

 

Of course this happened in a vacuum and had nothing to do with geopolitical realities following WWII. It was ALL about oil.

 

No, it was pretty much about oil, at least on the part of Britain. Look into it, the lid is pretty much blown off, there are plenty of books on it now.

 

from Wikipedia:

 

"Cold war

 

For the U.S., an important factor to consider was Iran's border with the Soviet Union. A pro-American Iran under the Shah would give the U.S. a double strategic advantage in the ensuing Cold War, as a NATO alliance was already in effect with the government of Turkey, also bordering the USSR.

 

In addition, even though the appropriation of the companies resulted in Western allegations that Mossadegh was a Communist and suspicions that Iran was in danger of falling under the influences of the neighboring Soviet Union, Mossadegh declined to change course under moderate international pressure"

[ZimZam]

The troops are at war, the rest of America is out shopping.

 

The most profound sentence in the entire thread.

[Mal_Con]

Freedom is on the march!

More dead kurds