What do we win with Iraq?

The advantage of not having to deal with a situation similar to North Korea in 5 to 10 years, that is my take on it Mama.

I agree, entrance and EXIT strategies are vital to any action being labeled as "successful".

Historically, we have done an excellent job of the former and a horrendous job of the latter.

Let's hope this time will be different.

Good question.

My opinion:
1) Reduction of one source of materials for terrorists to use against the US, Israel, and others.
2) As Max stated, eliminating Saddam Hussein's ability to blackmail the world with nukes.
3) The liberation of Iraqi citizens, as we did for the Afghani people--who are beginning to flourish and live!

I think I've been listening to Bob Novak too much.

The problem is that almost everybody thinks the same of Saddam Hussein. I just don't think war is something that should be gone into like this - it almost never goes the way it's supposed to. And there's a lot about this whole situation that is just scary to me.

Lash - I'm with you up to the last. I think it's arrogant to think that everybody in the world wants to be like us, or that we should try to make them so. And Afghanistan, from what I've been reading, is really not too much different from what it was.

mama--I didn't say they were like us or wanted to be.

But they're not being dragged out of their homes and shot to death in the public square for showing too much ankle; forced to 'marry' clerics or military authorities; hiding education; being beaten on the street if a veil slips; walking past dead bodies hanging on the street corners as a sign of Taliban rule... Have you read the reports of how wonderfully improved life is in Afghanistan?

Surely, you know it is a drastic improvement. Healthcare has improved.. I could go on and on. Try some news links to Afghanistan. It will swell your heart.

edit-- PS mama
I'm scared, too. I am horribly concerned for the innocent Iraqis in the event of war. But more concerned for the world, in which a Saddam has nukes.
Bob's not that bad, huh?

Lash,

Ypur heart swells very easily. Afghanistan isn't doing well at all.

Incidentally I'm not "with you" on your first two points but won't bother going into it.

I guess we see things differently, Craven.

The mere absence of the horrors of the Taliban, if you are imagining living under those conditions, is the difference between a living Hell and peace with freedom. I can't understand how you could deem this anything but a drastic improvement.

Add to that re-institution of education and healthcare... I will pursue confirmation on other aids and assists before stating them.

I'm kind of with you on Lash's last item, mamaj. This "liberation" phrase always sounds like what the old Soviet Union used to use as a euphemism for war of conquest. What happens after the war, if it happens is the concern of everyone doing some serious thinking on the subject.

I think the best we can hope for is to destroy the existing weapons and the potential for creating nuclear weapons. If we set them back another decade, that's about the best we can hope to accomplish. We cannot make them be free, and I don't even have any ideas on the people problems.

"Liberation" seems to have some political baggage. I just meant that the Iraqis would be free of Saddam, like the Afghanis are free of the Taliban.

I didn't mean we would orchestrate their government once Saddam was gone. It has been widely reported that the Iraqi people hate Saddam, and for very good reason.

Their freedom from him would be a good by-product of his removal. They can do as they please with that freedom.

Lash,

I do think Afghanistan has improved. I also think it was dealt a bum deal. They could have been helped more and they weren't. The Taliban were a bunch of idiots, I've hated themsince they blew up the Buddah. But we have done little to replcae the Taliban in areas they were good. Like in the combat of the opium trade and roving bandits.

Roger,

By set them back a decade you mean their weapons program right? Not their society?

Craven--I hear what you are saying. Here is my opinion on the rebuilding. We are often criticised for 'nation building'. We spent the money and effort to rid them of the Taliban. We spent untold money on food, clothing and medical supplies. Don't you think countries closer to them, or other countries who have not already given as much as we have should take up the slack, and help them rebuild...

We are criticised for thinking we are the End All, Be All... Why doesn't someone else show up on the scene and take the lead?

If you disagree with this, what is your opinion of what we should do next?

Lash,

No I don't. We changed the status quo it's our responsibility.

Right after the war there was diplo-speak to the effect that "we payed for the war, you guys pick up the tab now".

We declared war on them, we should do our best to rebuild. We did not do our best.

What should we do?

Our best! I thought afghanistan would be different. I thought that we'd do an exemplary job this time. I was terribly disappointed. Afghanistan is on the back burner now.

I thought it was crass to try to leave as much of the peace keeping and nation building to other nations.

The reason we are criticized for nation building is because there s a perception nthat we only do it when it's to be built to our liking and if we can have our wishes without doing a good job at it we won't bother doing a good job.

And proximity is not nearly as important a factor as responsibility and ability.

Understand and respect your opinion.

We have given money to Karzai to rebuild. I better check my facts before going much further. (Don't know the amount.)

Isn't it best to give it to the new gov't. If we stay on and run it ourselves, we would be open to criticism such as you just said, "only help build when it's to our liking."

Was it wrong to give rebuilding money to the new govt? If so, what branch of our govt would you have running the project? Would it be to our specifications or theirs? What if they don't have planners with twentieth century knowledge of city planning? Having two govt's bickering over details would take twice as long. They are the ones who must forge a new way of life. The longer the US hangs on there, the longer Afghanistan's independant identity is in the womb. My opinion.
Interested in your insights.

Almost needless to say, Craven, I meant to say "set back their weapons programs a decade" not the society. Though exactly how you inhibit a nation from employing technology in the 21st century that was functional in 1945, I do not know. I am making the observation that both nerve gas and nuclear weapons had been developed by that time, with mustard having been employed in the 1st world war.

So far as a change of government producing a desirable outcome from our standpoint, the choices so far look to be between bad and worse. Maybe c.i. actually has the solution. Just keep UN inspectors on the scene for the next 25 years if need be. That seems a terrible choice, but the others aren't looking so good either.

Lash,

We gave money to Afghanistan, we provided security for the president. We trained their men. What we did not do is give enough to enable the fledgling government to project power.

Roger

You raised questions about the very concerns I have. How can you set back the weapons programs when the science involved has been divulged for soo long. I must have said this ad nauseum but I'm all for the "inspectors till Sadaam croaks" option. I think it's the safest (provided this can be ensured, it might be hard to maintain the war drums that might be needed to coax compliance). But I know that some don't only have WMDs in mind. Regime change might have been decided prior to all of this, while I like the idea I think it's the trickiest option.

Widely reported? By whom? We have such a disinformation system going on here, plus a tightly controlled Bush/Rove propaganda machine, that it's difficult to believe almost anything. We all say Hussein is this and that - and choose to believe that the Iraqis hate him and want to be rid of him ---but suppose that's not true. And, if we remove Saddam Hussein, then who and what unifies the country? This is very dangerous. Chaos and civil war could easily erupt. As Max mentions, no exit strategy seems to have been thought of.

As far as Afghanistan. Among some of the things I've read are that many women continue to wear the burkha (although now in different colors). Many of the Taliban have not gone; they melted back into the very groups they came from. And women emerging into the workforce, schools opened to girls, unveiled faces - these are all things that were in place before. Women doctors were plentiful there. It is we who went in, tried to destroy a group we had originally helped set up, then left. And last I heard, the prime objectives are still not met. Osama binLaden has not only not been caught, he's been allowed to fade from the the public eye, along with the mullah. Although I believe we sent in plenty of bombers to destroy whatever places we thought he was. And have still not built the needed roads.

What I deplore most about the Iraqi situation in particular is that such an inept, almost non-existent foreign policy should cause us to be looked upon by the rest of the world with disrespect, with disbelief. And this feeling is growing. And I, as an American, am increaasingly uncomfortable with it. I do not want, for example, to walk into my friend's house in Spain and be greeted with derision, no matter how friendly. There's always been banter, but now there's a harder edge.

I love that thing about female chimps, Craven!
Afghanistan, sigh. I think things have improved, but permanently? I don't know.
Iraq? it's citizens have more rights and freedoms than any other Arab country, I've read. I have a feeling that will change for the worse. The difference is the religion. Saddam is not into it, so doesn't make his people behave to accomodate it. That may be the only area in which the citizens are fortunate, but it's a BIG one.
There is a theory that all of this is just a pathway to US control of specific Asian/ME lands, for the purpose of getting hold of Russia and it's environs, as they still have tons of WOMD and are still a superpower because of that.
Maybe it's bull, I don't know, but here's a link:
Why Washington Wants Afghanistan.
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
Please let me know what you think, and if you find any untruths, I'd like to know what they are. thanks!

An overview of the wonderful freedoms of Iraqi citizens...

The human rights dossier, released earlier on Monday, contains graphic first-hand accounts by Iraqi victims of torture, with methods including eye gouging, piercing of hands with drills and acid baths.

It accuses Saddam Hussein of introducing severe penalties like cutting off ears and tongue amputation for criminal offences and speaking out against him.

Women are allegedly raped, tortured and summarily executed. Prisoners at one jail are said to have been kept in steel boxes like those found in mortuaries with only half an hour a day allowed for light and air.

The dossier says Iraq "is a terrifying place to live" with "fear Saddam's chosen method for staying in power".

"Torture is systematic in Iraq. The most senior figures in the regime are personally involved," the dossier begins.

The report concludes by describing the Iraqi leader as "ruthless", adding: "A cruel and callous disregard for human life and suffering remains the hallmark of his regime."

[URL=news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2533229.stm]The complete article with a link to the Dossier.[/URL]

How can anyone think the Iraqi people don't hate this guy?

I don't think that story contains all the info from the one
I just posted. here is more:
Not only is Russia spectacularly large, with incalculable wealth, mostly untapped, but it is the only world class nuclear power besides the U.S. Contrary to popular opinion, Russia's military might has not been destroyed; indeed, it is arguably stronger, in relation to the US, than during the early period of the cold war. It has the most sophisticated submarine technology in the world.

If the U.S. can break up Russia and the other former Soviet Republics into weak territories, dominated by NATO, Washington would have a free hand. Despite talk of Russia and the U.S. working together, this remains the thrust of US policy. [3]

Afghanistan is strategically placed, not only bordering Iran, India and even, for a small stretch, China (!) but most important, sharing borders and a common religion with the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union (SU), Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These in turn border Kazakhstan, which borders Russia.

Central Asia is strategic not only for oil, as we are often told, but more important for position. Were Washington to take control of these Republics, NATO would have military bases in the following key areas: the Baltic region; the Balkans and Turkey; and these Republics. This would constitute a noose around Russia's neck.

Add to that Washington's effective domination of the former Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the south, and the US would be positioned to launch externally instigated 'rebellions' all over Russia.

NATO, whose current doctrine allows it to intervene in states on its periphery, could then initiate "low intensity wars" including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, also officially endorsed by current NATO doctrine, in 'response' to myriad 'humanitarian abuses.'
The story is here: http://www.firethistime.org/articlesfromaftermath911.htm
Scroll down an inch or so to:
Why Washington Wants Afghanistan

Amnesty International secretary general Irene Khan disagreed.

She said: "This selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists.

"Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International's reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf War.

"They remained silent when thousands of unarmed Kurdish civilians were killed in Halabja in 1988."




Lash, I think knowledge of torture and deprivation of rights were known, but, on the other hand, Irene Khan of Amnesty International makes a very good point. It also points out that a lot of this was going on back at the time of George the elder's war, but apparently was not considered a strong enough point until now.


Few of us doubt some of the torture accounts, but we are also aware of the same kind of reports from many parts of the world. And yet, the disclosure now, of these reports, makes the whole effort look more cynical, rather than a just reason.

But none of us can say whether or not all the Iraqis hate Hussein, because we just plain don't know. If I remember, part of the original rosy accounts of our having a quick win over there was that we would be greeted with roses and cheers. Today they're not so sure.