A new reason for attacking Iraq added to the US list

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Going to war against Iraq was first justified by elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Then regime change was added.

After that, it was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

Now, a fourth reason has been added: 4 new US basis in the region.

-----BumbleBeeBoogie

April 21, 2003 - London Times
US plans Iraq bases to keep region in its grip
From Tim Reid in Washington

THE Bush Administration is planning to maintain a long-term military presence in at least four key bases in Iraq after the transfer of power to a new government in Baghdad.
The US intends to negotiate a "military basing relationship" with the Iraqi government, a move that will increase Arab suspicions that the war was launched to increase American military and economic influence in the region.

Meanwhile the bodies of the two British bomb disposal experts, who Tony Blair claimed had been executed by Iraqi troops, were found in a shallow grave near Basra. Sapper Luke Allsopp and Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth had been missing since an ambush on their Land Rover on March 23. The Ministry of Defence said the cause of deaths had not been confirmed and that execution was a possibility.

US military officials are looking at four bases that they believe will help the next diplomatic, and possibly military, challenges that President Bush has set for the region: ending the terrorist links and nuclear ambitions of Syria and Iran.

At the very least, Pentagon officials want basing-rights for troops and aircraft but they would welcome a more permanent presence, handing Washington great leverage in negotiations with Syria and, combined with US troops in Afghanistan, leaving Iran virtually surrounded by US forces.

Mr Bush said yesterday that Syria was "getting the message" not to harbour senior members of Saddam Hussein's former regime.

The bases would be located at the international airport outside Baghdad; at Tallil, near al-Nasiriyah in the south; at an airstrip in the western desert, near Jordan, called H1; and at the Bashur airfield in the Kurdish-held north.

Mr Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, have repeatedly said that US troops will stay in Iraq "not one day longer" than necessary.

In Baghdad, US troops have found more than $650 million (£412 million) in cash in one of Saddam's palaces. Each of 164 metal containers hidden in a false wall in an outhouse contained $4 million in sequentially numbered $100 bills.

The packs bear the markings of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Boston and Philadelphia. Papers indicated that the funds were taken from the Bank of Iraq after transfer from the Bank of Jordan. The US Army said the money would now be used for rebuilding in Iraq.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,293 • Replies: 31

No top replies

Hmmmm. I think we will soon realize that winning the war doesn't make it our country. If they want us to have bases there, well and good, but we have already seen that while these people can be beaten, they cannot be intimidated.

0 Replies

The anti-war faction continues to treat the multiple reasons given for action as separate and iterative. Dealt with in that fashion, each of the reasons for the use of armed force is weak enough that they can be discounted. The rational for military involvement in Iraq isn't that simple.

All of the reasons cited, and others left unsaid, should be regarded as a whole. The war was about:

Saddam's violation of agreements and UN resolutions (the legal basis for intervention);

promote regional stability and create opportunities for resolving political issues that have kept the region in turmoil for over fifty years;

reduce the danger of terror weapons to nations in Southwest Asia and to the risk that such weapons would fall into the wrong hands;

stop Saddam's support of terrorist organizations;

send a clear message to rogue states that the U.S. will no longer make idle threats when challenged;

expand American influence in the region as a palliative to state sponsored terror organizations;

liberate the Iraqi People from Saddam and the Ba'ath Party regime, and yes, even to insure oil supplies for American allies around the world.

Any one of these reasons (and some others, left unsaid for a number of reasons) can be challenged, but together they are much more persuasive.

0 Replies

I don't believe that anyone ever thought that victory in Iraq would make it "our" country to do with as we please. Though some would dispute it, I think our intentions were pure.

The Iraqi People will govern Iraq, just as the Japanese govern Japan. Once the situation stabilizes, and an Iraqi government structure is in place, American presence will be no greater than it is today in Japan. We will do our best to insure that democratic institutions are in place, because we firmly believe with a lot of evidence that is the form of government that most of our species prefer. How many people in the world really prefer being enslaved, and dominated by a small number of thugs who are above the Law? We will not tamper with their religious practices, though we certainly will encourage freedom of religion for all ... that is the American way.

While some critics both within Iraq and in the world have argued that the coalition forces are "responsible" for order and suppression of crime, that is ultimately the responsiblity of the Iraqi People themselves. If they are to govern themselves, they must learn that no one is going to do it for them. I'm encouraged to see Iraqi citizens stopping the looting, and helping restore the basic systems of the community. If our soldiers "did it all" someone might reasonably argue that we were only an occupying force little better than the regime that is now a dark spot on the page. The sooner Iraqi's take the lead, the better. An Iraqi government that delivers justice and opportunity for all will make our exit much easier and faster.

As to American bases inside Iraq, that is as much a benefit to the Iraqi People as it is useful to us. Iraqi territorial integrity must be guaranteed and secured against aggression by neighboring states, or terrorist organizations sponsored by enemies of democratic processes. U.S./British military bases need have no coercive effect on any Iraqi government that might be formed in the coming weeks and months. On the other hand, having those bases nearby will help to promote stability and support in the new Iraqi government.

0 Replies

Quote:

US military officials are looking at four bases that they believe will help the next diplomatic, and possibly military, challenges that President Bush has set for the region: ending the terrorist links and nuclear ambitions of Syria and Iran.

OK, this proves that the operation was important for providing facilities serving the essential security requirements of the USA. There is nothing wrong with this.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

The anti-war faction continues to treat the multiple reasons given for action as separate and iterative.

I can understand why you'd like to think this way, it's quite convenient. But the "anti war faction" did not make the case for this war. The advocates of this war did.

And they did so in segmented fashion leaving out details such as US bases in Iraq for good reason. The reason being that "let's get more military bases in the mideast" is not a good selling point except to those who already would have supported the war.

But if you want to ignore the way this war was sold and lay all the onus on those who oppose it, it's your prerogative.

0 Replies

Asherman - are you seriously trying to say that:

a. Any free, independent and representative Iraqi government will be happy to have US/British bases in Iraq for the long term?

b. That such bases would have no influence on the thinking and behaviour of such a Government?

And, as a sort of bonus:

c. That it is ethical for governments to lie about and conceal motivations for matters as serious as war, as you seem happily to admit that the Bush government has done?

Not whether it is JUSTIFIED, as I know you will say that it is, but simply whether you think it is right?

0 Replies

And now Rumsfeld is denying a media report that the United States plans to have a long-term military presence in Iraq ... ...

0 Replies

Well. if the bases are located on the Iraqi territory, they may help handling the situation in Iraq and prevent emerging of undesirable regime in future; this will just provide implementation of the goals of the war and irreversibility of its results. Ability to apply pressure on rogue regimes in Syria and Iran (this does not necessarily imply starting war, presence of military bases may be a strong pressurizing factor per se, just like American and Soviet ICBMs helped to keep the Cold War cold enough) also complies with the general startegic concept of the administration that started the global war against terror, and it includes pressure on the regimes that harbor and supply terrorists. Military bases close to the borders of such countries may be more convincing reason than hundreds of diplomatic notes.

0 Replies

"Military bases close to the borders of such countries may be more convincing reason than hundreds of diplomatic notes."

not unlike Cuba?

0 Replies

If this works, why not?

0 Replies

So I can kill my neighbour if it works?

0 Replies

Why should you? And how will it be helpful for you? And what about police, are not you afraid to be arrested for murder or manslaughter?

0 Replies

Again, if it works (which means I get what I want and get away with it), do you assert that I am right to do so?

My brother follows this line of reasoning, he says might is right.

I argue that might means success but not moral high ground by default.

0 Replies

Moral high ground - hmmmmmm - is moral high ground a somewhat pejorative term in your lexicon, Craven, or a neutral term?

0 Replies

Sigh my lexicon is outdated:

http://info.babylon.com/cgi-bin/temp.cgi?id=16224&layout=gt_new.html

tee hee. It's neutral. :-)

0 Replies

Craven,

I can't speak for the administrations botched efforts to "sell" the necessity of the war to the American People, and the world. However, I think if you review my remarks, and those of Timber, you will find that we've been saying for many months that the rational is not simple, nor confined to some single justification. We've said repeatedly that there are numerous reasons why we were convince that the war was justified and necessary.

Bunny, bunny, bunny,

Quote:

"Any free, independent and representative Iraqi government will be happy to have US/British bases in Iraq for the long term? "

Are the Japanese or German's particularly anxious to be rid of us? Are they "puppet" governments of the United States? South Korea occasionally whines a bit about our military presence, until the DPRK again demonstrates how dangerous they are. Saudi Arabia, I understand, is becoming restive, but then their economy doesn't benefit so much from our presence. However, to your question: I think the Iraqi People might be very happy to have a U.S./British military presence in country. We would guarantee their borders, relieve them of some military spending, and generally aid the economy. What's not to like?

Quote:

"That such bases would have no influence on the thinking and behaviour of such a Government?"

Of course, our presence would have some influence on the thinking and behavior of the new Iraqi government. Our assistance in rebuilding the country and in developing democratic institutions cannot help but have some influence. A positive influence, I might add. Does that mean that they would be our "puppets"? No more than the other nations who have benefited from American involvement in developing their countries.

As to your "bonus questions":

Quote:

"That it is ethical for governments to lie about and conceal motivations for matters as serious as war, as you seem happily to admit that the Bush government has done?"

I must have missed something. I never said, nor intimated that governments should lie about anything. The current administration hasn't done a very good job of explaining why this war was necessary, but then the LBJ administration failed just as badly explaining the necessity for Vietnam. Some things should not be publicly bandied about, as they would be counterproductive to the nation's best interest. Intelligence matters should almost never be openly discussed, especially if the information might tend to reveal methods, means, or endanger agents working on our behalf. Should the administration shoot itself in the foot by making public material that can be used against the nation by our enemies? I don't think so.

Quote:

"Not whether it is JUSTIFIED, as I know you will say that it is, but simply whether you think it is right?"

Yes, there are classes of information that it is right and proper to keep as closely held secret as possible. As a practical matter, I object to declassifying some information that is already 100 years old. As a historian, I'd like to dive into that information and thoroughly investigate a number of interesting historical questions. Oh well, there will be a gold mine for future historians in another hundred years.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Craven,

I can't speak for the administrations botched efforts to "sell" the necessity of the war to the American People, and the world. However, I think if you review my remarks, and those of Timber, you will find that we've been saying for many months that the rational is not simple, nor confined to some single justification. We've said repeatedly that there are numerous reasons why we were convince that the war was justified and necessary.

And I have repeatedly given multi faceted opposition. To be blunt you and timber speak from a militaristic criteria that I find morally bankrupt. That you made a more honest case than Bush does not detract from the fact that:

You and timber's justifications for this war generally have no legal basis (aside from WMDs and UN sanctions) and are part of the new militaristic vision for America that is expansionist.

AND

The administration speaks for America, not Asherman and timber. Asherman and timber don't have to concern themselves with legalities, Asherman and timber care less about sovereignty than American superiority. Asherman and timber make a broader case because they don't have to worry about many of the broad issues having no legal basis whatsoever for the war.

Again, the administration touted the legal basis then the argumentum ad misericordiam. Your more broad justifications are simply voicing the administrations motivation while not having to worry that there is no legal basis other than WMDs.

Again, when your individual morality supercedes that of the group lawlessness has won a round. Using your posts as a justification for this is simply pointing at what I consider a very blindly nationalistic propaganda spouting rationale for militarism, it does less to justify it than the administration did. The administration deviated from legalities and into rhetoric far less than you did.

0 Replies

For the above post I can provide attributed quotes and supporting arguments upon request.

-------------------------------

I was about to do a take on your condecending to dlowan but she can handle herself.

0 Replies

Clarification:

The reason I find your criteria for the war morally bankrupt is:

A) There are many strategic advantages for immoral acts. Strategic advantage alone is not justification.

B) Both of you have repeatedly claimed that this was a cost effective war in terms of lives. Simple math puts you off by thousands and forces you into the worst case scenarios to make your math add up.

C) Argumentum ad misericordiam is not a legally relevant argument.

D) Your disregard for international will, international law and the sovereignty of nations is in direct contrast with your contentions that this war is justified.

Justice is not about necessity, you could have made the case that it was necessary but you tried to call it just. I am more than willing to call you on this, is it just because you and timber say so? Is it just despite the disregard for law and sovereignty? When you made supporting arguments that I considered ludicrous I let them be, but now you assert that it was just and that "timber and I say so".

I can't help but call you out on this. I do not recall anything you posted that I agree with, referencing your own posts to support your arguments is circular logic that I will not quietly swallow.

0 Replies

A new reason for attacking Iraq added to the US list

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know