I am sooooo shocked...

There is nothing mythical about British European and American imperialist designs for the middle east Asherman. And its all to do with securing oil. Right back almost exactly 100 years ago when the Royal Navy made the fateful decision to have its capital ships oil fired. (Giving great performance advantages, Admiral Jacky Fisher said an oil fired battle fleet would ALWAYS defeat any comparable coal fired fleet....and in those days Britain had NO oil). Today our modern economies are oil fired, even your president admitted America was hooked on oil. I am the first to criticise Islam and the theocratic sytem in Iran. But we would not have Islamic terrorists over here, if we were not over there pushing them out of the way in our desperate attempt to extract more oil. Moreover conventional oil reserves that are left are increasingly concentrated in the middle east, and overall oil supply is about to peak. There is no debate about this, just speculation as to when we hit peak 5 10 years out or HAVE DONE ALREADY.

Some here took a principled stance against the war. I have to admit that once it was clear USUK were going to war whatever, I supported the idea of a quick campaign to get rid of Saddam. But I did so assuming

a) our intentions towards the people of Iraq were honourable
b) the so called New Iraq could be fairly easily established
c) we would actually win.

I dont believe now our intentions were honourable. We went in for the oil and the profits for large western corporations. Clearly we have failed to establish a new democratic Islamic Iraq as a model for the region. Finally if we have not exactly lost yet, we are not winning either. Every day scores of people are killed, and the situation seems to be spiralling into civil war.

I said America made a mess of Iraq because this was primarily an American adventure. I dont think Britain would have invaded Iraq alone. What really infuriates me is that having decided on invasion, we didnt do it PROPERLY with enough troops to flood the cities, nip any insurgency in the bud, and hence get the reconstruction going strong from the outset.

Now in the south, Iran controls the show. British forces have lost control. The people just want us out, and so do the troops.

Doubtless, oil is part of the equation, but not all of it. The international situation is not reducable to simple, much less single causes. Historians labor mightely to identify and understand causes, but that is backward looking. Diplomacy and national policies will do well to be informed about the sources of current trends and events, but in the end one must just use their best judgement as to what will best serve their national and world interests now and in the immediate future.

I know more about the historical evolution of the Korean Peninsula for the last 500 years than anyone is likely to be the least interested in. The applicability of that knowledge to dealing with Kim Jong-Il and the DPRK in 2006 is very limited, yet the whole history of the Peninsula is historically relevant to understanding the region. I once had a history professor who taught that virtually all 20th century political history was the result of the Congess of Viena at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. I argued with him then, and still think that he was over simplifying and over valuing a historical event. The patterns of history may not change much from Age to Age, but ultimately history does not repeat itself, nor is a guide to a risk free future.

In each period, in each set of circumstances, every nation is confronted with complex issues. No one ever completely understands all the existing factors, much less the long-term implications of any particular policy. There are guideposts to aid the policy maker, and the most successful heed those guideposts. In our system the executive places the Constitution and the interests of the People (as the policy maker understands them), over his personal or partisan interests. We are the heirs of Western Civilization with its humanistic values and passion for individual liberty and equal justice. Our world view is founded, whether we like it or not, on the Judaic/Christian branches of Abrahamic religion.

From those values and notions of right and wrong, policy makers look out on the world and all of the pressing issues confronting them. I think it was Daniel Boone who was given the parental advice, "Fig'r out whats right, then go ahead". That's what our leaders have been doing, with greater or lesser success, since the late 1700's. Sometimes in retrospect we cringe at the policies, and sometimes we are filled with pride ... depends a lot on our personal views, doesn't it. Would the U.S. and the world at large be "better" today if we had not filled the continent from "sea to shining Sea"? Perhaps this is a nice question for folks like Setanta and I to muse over, but it has zero relevance to the Executive sitting in Washington sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and nation. In retrospect was it "good" or "bad" that the U.S. held a protectorate over the Philipine Islands, and how does that inform foriegn policy in the post-9/11 environmewnt.

True. But it would be comforting to think the President of the United States understood at least some of it.

Welcome to posting too fast ... I hate it when it does that!!

Anon

Depends on what you mean by 'honorable'. Our expressed intent was to create a republican, non-tyrannical government to be run by Iraqis with as much democracy as they could sustain. I believe that is honorable. Nothing serious in this world is ever easily done. If easy is your standard, you will achieve nothing.

What is your factual basis for this assertion? Iraq is a relatively minor oil producer, and, apart from some transitory contractsd in support of construction and security operations, there have been relatively few benefits for "large western corporations". Certainly nothing new has arisen that would change a rational earlier view on this aspect of things.

Scores of people were being killed daily by Saddam and his thugs, albeit in a more quiet and orderly manner. Tyrannical rule by an oppressive minority has been replaced by a fractious competitive struggle among contenders who must eventually learn to live together. This is merely a necessary precursor to democracy.



Had we used the several hundreds of thousands of troops so confidently advocated by armchair strategists, we would have been unable to sustain the force there for more than two years or so without prohibitive economic and political costs. It was always clear that we would be ultimately faced with an insurgency that would attempt to exhaust our abilities, patience and political will with a protracted struggle. Economy of force, using no more than we are able to sustain for a long period was and is the key to our ultimate success. Unfortunately the self-appointed savants don't know this and, when they do realize it, don't acknowledge their previous errors.

the secret plan (bug out when noone's looking and call it peace with honor)

Can't bug out dyslexia; got to invade Iran.

They're not kowtowing to us and they have oil.

Remember what Bush said; you either with us or against us.

If your against us and have oil your dead meat.