What are we doing in Iraq?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... Iraq is the bigger solution that the right came up with to address the bigger problem of islamist terrorism.

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it.

Start at Iraq, take me through the middle part, step-by-step, and then end on Terrorism. It's the middle part I'm not getting.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it.

Start at Iraq, take me through the middle part, step-by-step, and then end on Terrorism. It's the middle part I'm not getting.

It's the like the underpants gnome scheme:
1. Steal underpants
2. ???
3. Profit

It's a common solution to sticky problems.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I suspect that you [we] are in Iraq because, in some way that I have yet to discern, it was considered by the Bush administration to be politically expedient.

They were telling the american people that these little airplanes could send in biological weapons. People were out buying duck tape and plastic to seal themselves inside.

Then there was the big mushroom cloud imagery Bush and Cheney used to scare people into voting their way.

This is what made it expedient in the beginning.

[Undertoad]

I don't think I can do it that way. It'd be like explaining a car by starting with the muffler.

[barefoot serpent]

There was a shortage of Devil's Food so there was an elevated demand for yellowcake.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it.

Start at Iraq, take me through the middle part, step-by-step, and then end on Terrorism. It's the middle part I'm not getting.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I don't think I can do it that way. It'd be like explaining a car by starting with the muffler.

Oh... I see, sorry. I guess what I mean is: starting at the War on Terror, explain a middle part that ends with us being in Iraq.
I just stated it the way I usually hear it, which is "Iraq, blah blah blah, Terrorism." It's that elusive middle part that confounds me.

[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.

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm not asking this to be smart-ass, but I've serisouly lost the plot on this one. Without getting into an involved back-story of political debates, can someone please just explain to me in simple terms: What are we doing in Iraq? Why are we in Iraq? That simple question should have an answer that can be clearly stated and clearly understood. If someone could explain it to me, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Stealing oil.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Flint

Undertoad: He's just this guy, you know?

NonoNO! It's "Eh, heez juz zees guy, you know?"

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by grant

It's the like the underpants gnome scheme:
1. Steal underpants
2. ???
3. Profit

It's a common solution to sticky problems.

Bahahahahaha! I was just thinking that before I saw this.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Flint

Oh... I see, sorry. I guess what I mean is: starting at the War on Terror, explain a middle part that ends with us being in Iraq.
I just stated it the way I usually hear it, which is "Iraq, blah blah blah, Terrorism." It's that elusive middle part that confounds me.

If you look back at the PNAC stuff the war makes sense in the world view of the folks who wrote it. The ultimate goal was a less dangerous middle east that would respect Israel and keep the oil flowing. To do that, if you are a true believer, you roll Saddam and set up shop like UT said. Folks in the region would see how good the Iraqis have it and are motivated to demand reform.

The unfortunate thing is that using force to get people to do the right thing is almost always a non-starter. Given your choice of enemies, do you pick someone who looks like you and shares a common religious heritage or do you fight the foreign guy trying to impose a completely different system on you? Its psychologically easier to fight the foreigner than to reform your neighbor.

[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?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because as long as we stay, we won't have lost yet.

This is why we're there now.