What are we doing in Iraq?

[Undertoad]

Either I just plain don't know or it's still too difficult to sum up. There are so many schools of thought here. Plus I'm describing a discounted theory... let me try.

To start, "Terrorism" is actually code for "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" or perhaps, "the network of support in money, safehousing, and weapons that permit these assholes to do what they do."

One theory would say that the US should remain as active as possible overseas, because it is a benefit to the world, and necessary for orderly trade and diplomacy etc.. for *somebody* to be policing it.

That said, one thing you might do to stop "terrorism" is to pressure to reform or eliminate countries that are known to be friendly to such things. Countries that actually use terrorism, house terrorists, fund terrorists that sort of thing.

You can't change the entire Islamic world, so you just change the squares on the chessboard that will give you more influence, and -- in the worst case -- take the squares that will give you bases with 500 miles of flight, without refueling or overflight problems, if you have to run sorties to the other trouble countries.

So... where's most of the worst shit coming from? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Can we eliminate and pro-US-ize two of the others, and thus pressure the other three to reform? Let's see: S.A. is OUT, since that will cause ALL of Islam to go fundamental on our ass. Iran is out, because they're Persians, and won't affect the Arab world at all. Afghanistan is an easy choice, now who's next?

The reformation of Iraq into a pro-western democratic nation was also to provide an example for the Arab world of a nation that succeeds. Iraq has a history of being more western, somewhat more educated society than many other Arabic nations. The Arab world needs a non-Western model for how Democracy can work for them. They resent the west their success, they need more of a self-made success of their own.

That was the point of view, but it's kind of in tatters now.

[Spexxvet]

Before the invasion:
"Saddam has WMD and will give them to Al-Q who will attack us with said WMD, as they did on Sept 11"

After the invasion (long after):
"Well, it appears that there were no WMD, and in fact Saddam had no contact with Al-Q, but the world is a better place with him out of power, so we did the right thing"

On-going, during the occupation:
"We must stay the course - we only lose by pulling out" translated "we're in a situation that we didn't plan for, and don't know what to do, but we can't admit we're wrong or look weak".

Now:
"We'll leave when Iraq has a sturdy democracy safely in place" translated "if we leave now, all hell will break loose, and Iraq will make pre-invasion Afghanistan look like a tea party"

My paraphrases of the administration's message. Translation is mine.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They resent the west their success, they need more of a self-made success of their own.

You have to remember every time they do have success we have torn it down. Iran was a democracy in 1950 but we took it down and reinstated the shah because it wasn't a US/British approved democracy.

I think that may have happened in Palestine as well but I'm not sure.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Either I just plain don't know or it's still too difficult to sum up. There are so many schools of thought here. Plus I'm describing a discounted theory... let me try.

To start, "Terrorism" is actually code for "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" or perhaps, "the network of support in money, safehousing, and weapons that permit these assholes to do what they do."

One theory would say that the US should remain as active as possible overseas, because it is a benefit to the world, and necessary for orderly trade and diplomacy etc.. for *somebody* to be policing it.

That said, one thing you might do to stop "terrorism" is to pressure to reform or eliminate countries that are known to be friendly to such things. Countries that actually use terrorism, house terrorists, fund terrorists that sort of thing.

You can't change the entire Islamic world, so you just change the squares on the chessboard that will give you more influence, and -- in the worst case -- take the squares that will give you bases with 500 miles of flight, without refueling or overflight problems, if you have to run sorties to the other trouble countries.

So... where's most of the worst shit coming from? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Can we eliminate and pro-US-ize two of the others, and thus pressure the other three to reform? Let's see: S.A. is OUT, since that will cause ALL of Islam to go fundamental on our ass. Iran is out, because they're Persians, and won't affect the Arab world at all. Afghanistan is an easy choice, now who's next?

The reformation of Iraq into a pro-western democratic nation was also to provide an example for the Arab world of a nation that succeeds. Iraq has a history of being more western, somewhat more educated society than many other Arabic nations. The Arab world needs a non-Western model for how Democracy can work for them. They resent the west their success, they need more of a self-made success of their own.

That was the point of view, but it's kind of in tatters now.

I guess that leaves the question: what are we doing there now? Does anybody have a plan, now?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Flint

I guess that leaves the question: what are we doing there now? Does anybody have a plan, now?

Have you been watching who is where? The real president is Cheney. And he has not changed his agendas. He has no respect for last November's vote as should be obvious at Poor Old Dick. He is visiting leadership where?

Meanwhile, only the foreign press is noting dangerous actions. Massive numbers of Air Force air refueling tankers are moving to the Middle East. First the Eisenhower was surged to the Gulf. Now the Stennis. Truman and Nimitz may be less than a month from deployment; both now in at sea. A Marine Expeditionary force has been suddenly deployed. What is Cheney talking about to leaders in all those adjacent nations?

These are all symptomatic of a one shot strike on Iran.

So what are our plans? Well an attack on Iran could forestall the British withdrawal from Iraq - a need to desperately protect an exposed supply line to American combat units. Cheney - from his "I know what really are threats" attitude - knows the world will not withdrawal support for sanctions against Iran. Appreciate who this man is. He has no regard for American ethical or popularity standings in the world. His attitude is to fix things now; also with contempt even for American voters. He says the presidency does not have enough power - his comtempt for American principles are that great.

If it were anyone else, a one shot and surprise attack on Iran would not be reasonable. But what is reasonable to Cheney means even perverting US intelligence to prove Saddam is a threat. The man sees enemies in terms of black and white. The existence of an enemy justifies anything to destroy that enemy - and that included Amb Wilson and Valery Plame. Cheney has no compulsion about exercising power for his personal agenda.

Well maybe this buildup is because NATO situations in Afghanistan may have become tenuous. That remains a possibility because actions wasted in Iraq mean Afghanistan is also going downward.

So what is our plan? It is not a plan for victory. That would require a plan based in reality such as from the Iraq Study Group. Cheney rejected that before it was released. The one thing we know. What is our plan? Well what is the mindset and political agenda of Dick Cheney? It is that simple. The complicated part is second guessing Cheney.

Have you been watching this sudden deployment of 'one-strike' type weaponry? I have for more than a month now. We are preparing to attack something. Question is what.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

I guess that leaves the question: what are we doing there now? Does anybody have a plan, now?

The only reason that I have heard that makes any kind of sense is that withdrawl right now would probably result in a Taliban-type government, or civil war. Oil flow would likely stop, and terrorists/Jihadists would flock there to train and plan. All the other "reasons" that I've heard are bullshit.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The only reason that I have heard that makes any kind of sense is that withdrawl right now would probably result in a Taliban-type government, or civil war.

The message from Congress: Iraq better get its shit straight, soon. (not that this means anything)

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The only reason that I have heard that makes any kind of sense is that withdrawl right now would probably result in a Taliban-type government, or civil war.

One or both of those things will happen anyway. Do you want them to happen after America spends more years getting hated even more? Or do you want them to happen when Americans still have some respect of Iraqis?

The Iraq Study Group was the only viable option we had left. It was about minimizing the defeat. It was about getting a problem solved by end of 2007. Anything else only makes this problem fester - makes Americans even more hated. But the ISG also means the defeat is on the legacy of George Jr (President Cheney). That is not acceptable to extremists whose legacy and agenda is more important than America.

The longer Americans occupy Iraq, then the more Iraqis hate Americans. When do 3000 attacks on Americans every day become 4000 attacks? This is why Military Science 101 - the planning for the peace - why nation building must be accomplished in that first six months. At the end of a year, the occupying power either pulls out and is loved - or the nation hates that occupying power.

As everyone knows, America did zero attempt to 'nation build' in Iraq for the first seven months. 'Nation building' is contrary 'big dic' thinking. George Jr foolishly confused a tactical victory with a strategic objective. Defeat in Iraq is now inevitable. The question is whether we can minimize that defeat. How? Iraq Study Group. ISG is the only viable solution left because extremists made the exact same mistake they created in 1991. They failed to plan for the peace.