It's the right that's been naive about Iraq

I hate to say it but we told you so!

from JoeUser Forums

    I love how some on the right try to say that "liberals" secretly wished Saddam was back in power. Apparently, in the right wing universe, not toppling Saddam in the exact manner that the right had in mind equals being a buddy of Saddam. Meanwhile, they'll paint the entire left with the broad stroke of craziness and naiveté because a few loonies went over to Iraq to act as human shields.

    Balderdash!

    The right will proudly talk about "Jacksonian" principles. But the left has principles too in the form of Wilsonian. Wilson was an interventionist too. It is not that we on the left oppose any military action ever. We simply prefer to pick our battles carefully. Bide our time if necessary. To that charge, the right will claim how each day women and children died in Saddam's death camps. True. He was a horrible man. But guess what? He has been a horrible man for decades. So spare us the bullshit that we had to send in the troops into Baghdad right that damn second.

    The left isn't naive. It is, in fact, the right that suffers from immense naiveté. The left correctly saw that Saddam wasn't an imminent threat. Yes, he was doing dastardly things like helping Palestinian suicide bombers. But that was chicken feed compared to the aid Iran's been sending over. It never occurs to the right wingers that yea, duh, we get it. We know the whole domino concept of taking out Iraq, putting up a democratic US friendly government right there in the middle of all the action where the US can turn on the pressure cooker on Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran and through success show the Islamic world that the Western way is the better way. WE GET IT. WE JUST THINK IT'S A STUPID PLAN. Why? Because the United States is not willing to do what it takes to really make such a plan work.  We have 150,000 troops over there. Many of them national guard units. Anyone with an ounce of military and logistic sense knew before the attack that the US did not have the military capacity to exert overwhelming presence in that area. Our troops are great but they're not wearing red capes with big S's on their chests.

    That's why we wanted to form a broad coalition. That means France, Germany, Pakistan, along with money from countries like Japan. If we could secure their help then the bridgehead plan in the Middle East might possibly work. Probably not. 150,000 troops scattered across a country the size of California are not going to establish a stable democracy in anywhere near the time to be relevant in the current struggle. So now our troops are tied down to a single unnecessary mission. Iraq should have come last, not first. That is what we were trying to point out. That is what the UN was trying to point out. That Iraq did not constitute an immediate danger and that going in there was just as likely to create more terrorists than eliminate them. Iraq becomes a rallying cry for terrorists.

    Most liberals recognized Saddam was a bad man and needed to go. But he was a long term concern. Something that we would deal with over time. Our more immediate concern should have been to completely eradicate Al-Qaeda. That means having enough forces in reserve to put real fear into Pakistan if their cooperation waned in dealing with their own Al-Qaeda problem.

    After 9/11 the United States had immense good will bubbling for it. The right likes to dismiss it but it really was there. And that good will, in democracies (you do know that the west is made up of Democracies) translates to active aid for our cause. We've squandered it with this unnecessary adventure in Iraq. Saddam was already in a box (good for Bush, he got the sanctions on Iraq taken seriously again, he should have left it at that and put pressure on Iran).

    So now we're over-stretched with little sympathy behind our cause. We've created a terrorist magnate that will haunt us for decades to come. And we're stretched to our limit requiring national guard units to be on extended active duty. But hey, the neocons will just ignore these facts and try to accuse the left of being against any action at all, put the strawman argument of "what about the children of Iraq?" into play, and pretend that the only reason we're against all this is because we have some irrational hatred of Bush.  The right needs to wake up out of their stooper and realize we have a situation. A situation that the left loudly was trying to make clear but the right ignored, choosing to highlight the nutty actions of a handful of extreme left wing kooks.

    Now we're stuck in Iraq. I'm not sure what to do. If I were Bush, I'd be talking to Putin. Give him what he wants to help us out with troops there in Iraq so that we can free forces to get back to the real work of eradicating Al-Qaeda and then do an inventory on where the war on terror is before taking another action. The left isn't against military force when necessary. We're against brute force military techniques when we lack the necessary forces to effectively accomplish our goals from brute force. This was a case where we should be picking our battles carefully, not trying to rearrange the middle east with a smidgen of troops.

politics
10,195 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
No plan is without risk. But I think you are looking at things from too pessmistic a scope.

Are you suggesting that the mission in Iraq is a failure? What specifically would you and those who agree with you have done instead? What was your plan?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
One could try to decide on the failure or not of the Iraqi invasion by trying to answer a few questions:
- The main question: would a more peaceful approach have worked. I believe so, as it seemed that the UN was making progress, thanks a lot to the pressure of a potential attack.
- How many people died (civilian or military, Iraqi or foreigners) ? How many people would have died without the intervention ?
- Is the region more stabilized, or not ? As Bush pointed out in his letter to congress in March, Iraq had helped in some way in the attacks of 9/11. Has the intervention in Iraq lowered the terrorist threat, or has it made it bigger ?

I think there are two ways to look at this. The international way is that there is no way to undo the situation, and everyone should collaborate to make things better. I think it would be good if more countries would be involved, and if there was a more international leadership of the reconstruction, to make it look less like an invasion by one country. From the domestic (American) point of view, there is the question of deception by the administration, which we (non Americans) can comment as much as we want, but can't do anything about since we don't vote here. It's a struggle for political powers, and as such I'm sure it will become uglier before it gets nicer.

As concerns the original article, I really enjoyed reading it, and I agree with most of it. Thanks for this refreshing non conventional point of view.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brab, just because you choose to misread Bush's letter to congress doesn't make your opinion fact. You are reading way too much into a 2 paragraph letter. He is referring to laws passed by congress, he is not making assertions.

As for your other questions, that could be applied to any war. Perhaps American action in Europe in WW2 was a mistake too using the same criteria. But I don't think so.

If the UN was "making progress" I sure didn't see it. Just a few years before the French and Co. wanted to lift sanctions all together.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol,

As you probably know, I am not a native English speaker, and before making this assertion, I've read the letter carefully. Let's look at it.

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Could you please explain what points 2 says, if it does not say what my limited knowledge of English grasps. And Dick Cheney's as well.

As your other point, I do not see the connection with WW2, except that our comments apply to all wars.

And yes, I do also believe that easing up the sanctions might have helped the situation, and that progress was made. But as you said, it's just a question of interpretation.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's too bad that you and the people you select as representitives are too busy protecting us from Republicans and not Al Qaida or Hezbollah or other Islamic extremist's.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anthony,

I do not know toward whom your comment was directed, but I fail to see how it makes a point.

It sounds a lot like the propaganda "if you're not with us, you're a terrorist". And it feels a lot like one does not have an answer.

The sad part is I'm not surprised anymore.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
We seemed to have entered the war in Iraq with a plan, which we executed. I think that the general perception at the time, with all respect to brab_alan and perhaps only in the US and UK, was that a dangerous situation existed and the UN was NOT dealing with it in an effective manner. It now seems that the danger was not as imminent as we thought. Regardless of the existance of WMD or lack thereof, we are there now. But if there is a plan for forging peace in Iraq, we are doing a poor job of communicating the specifics of that plan.

I don't know how long we plan to be there, how we transit power over to a future Iraqi government, what role our allies are to play and how we see Iraq as helping to stabilize the region. Maybe the plan calls for US forces to be there for 5 years. Maybe 3. Maybe 10. I don't know.

My experience tells me that bad things happen when we don't have defined missions. That is not a lack of patriotism, that is reality. Is our mission to unseat Saddam? Done. To unseat Saddam and establish a democratic government? Okay, then we need to move onto phase II. To unseat Saddam, establish a democratic government in Iraq and to end terrorism in the region? Thats going to take a while (like a decade or two.) But even that is better than the current "blank check."

We all make decisions based on what we believe are the facts. I am okay with President Bush and PM Blair saying that the information that they had was misleading, but that they really believed that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction. On the other hand, if they lied or concocted evidence to mislead the people, they should be removed from office. IMHO, there is no threat greater than a leader that missleads his people.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great post, Larry. I was in the US (I still am) when the decision was taken to go to war, and I did hear many people disagreeing with the assessment of the danger (but I work in a university, where people seem to disagree most of the time with the decision taken by the administration, so this does not mean anything). But as you said, from a practical point of view, the US and UK armies are in Iraq, and it is not clear what their mission is. In fact I believe it would be bad for Iraq were they to leave right now, I guess the country would be in a worst state as before the war, with religious fanatics probably taking power (and maybe this is why the US did not support the uprising against Saddam right after the first gulf war).

In fact, I am in favor of sending an international force in Iraq, with a well defined agenda. But as you said, the latter seems to be missing.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nice to see that not every one in the US comes from the right. The reality is guys, the war has happened and right or wrong, and I have to say all the arguments put forward by Mr's Bush, Blair and Howard(he's the Prime Minister of Australia, yes I am from here so let me bitch about this little man as well) were generally flawed, he was not part of the terror network, in fact he was on their hit list, fact. As admitted by Richard Butler there were no weapons of any quantity left and the UN team was doing a good job of cleaning up what if any were left. Hwoever I must say that I was glad to see the down fall of Mr Hussan. Not that this helped our combined images in the arab states, nor has it solved the problems there, or minimised the threat of terror, in fact most Intellegence agancies will tell you that we have increased the threat. SO other than ousting Saddam, have we achieved much in the positive. A big No. Is Iraq stable or safer, no. Have we replaced one threat with another yes. Give it some time and the power vacum in Iraq will be filled by Iran. I think its time we stopped sticking our noses in where we have no right and worried about our own backyards. Why do Arabs hate us, not because we are Christian, not because we are not Arab. They hate us because of things going back as far as the crusades , exploiting their oil, invading them and creatinh states then proping them up, supporting leaders with money and arms which may be sympathetic to our needs, despite the needs and treatment of their own people, and I can go on. So when the right says we are naive to say we should get out , I say have a good look at history, and think about how you would feel in the same place, I think you would be bombing the crap out of someone too. Lets be honest, we have no right to the oil or anything else. Give up the idea that if we move out and leave it to the UN we will some how become targets, I can assure the best way to diminish the threat is to listen to what these people are saying and that is a big @%#$ off to the west, of course this won't happen , as we need an enemy, so we can continue to build large armies and deploy large quanties of Weapons of mass destruction, and of course this has nothing to do with money does it. Put simply we care more about our own economies than we do about the rights of these people or their well being which it is acceptable to kill a few inocent people along the way.

The left are not naive nor are we weak, we just care about our fellow man and respect their rights. If we want the same we must first give it, for up to now our record is very poor in this area world wide.

I recently heard a debate as to whether Australia should sign a free trade agreement with the US, one of the Panel was a professor of Economics from India. His answer was yes. His reasoning was as follows. " Yes Australia should sign, so when you get the rough end of the stick, you will understand what it feels like to be treated in the same maner as you and the Us and Uk have treated Asia and Africa and SOuth and Central America, and we wonder why Balie and Sept/11 happened?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's the kind of apologist clap trap that infuriates so many Americans.

Oh I see, so trade disputes make the murders of thousands of innocents a reasonable action? Come on.

Besides Osama Bin Laden and his ilk had never suffered one iotoa due to the west.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reality show endures in Iraq; there's little we can do about it now, just as the Reality shows on TV are apparently here to stay. Once war has begun, by definition its variables are unpredictable--anxieties are with us; for how long we don't know.