Victory In Iraq
I am getting so sick and tired of talking heads and politicians playing tug-of-war over, well, the war. Every time the issue of iraq-related budgetary issues arise, the administration always repeats the same mantra- we can't win the war without that particular multibillion dollar commitment without accountability or even a clear goal. How can people be debating "winning" and "losing" the war when no one has outlined what the winning and losing conditions are? I've heard a few suggestions which I will outline as follows- please add or subtract as you see fit:1. "Fight them there so we dont have to fight them here"
2. Foster democracy in Iraq to foster democracy in the middle east
3. To deter nations from seeking/developing WMD
Let me treat each one of these ideas seperately:
1. That stated goal is patently idiotic. Who are "they" and what do they have to do with Iraq? Islamic extremists are perfectly happy to let us stir up 1000 year old hatred and foster chaos in a country ripe for them to take hold of once we "win" there. In a perverse way, the premise becomes true since as long as we're doing the terrorists work for them, they leave us alone... Is it possible that the terrorists don't need to hit US on its soil on a regular basis for their goals to be accomplished? It seems to me that their success on 9/11 is so complete, they dont have any NEED to hit us yet. We reacted in the most helpful way for them by attacking Islamic countries, forcing widespread hatred and disillusionment worldwide; by toppling a secular regime in Iraq and enflaming ages old ethnic and religious rivalries, we all but assured that whatever ends up in Iraq will be friendlier to Al Qaeda then it is to the US- and the longer the US is in Iraq the more damage we do to our goodwill in the Arab world. Al Qaeda's mission is to create a Pan Arabic, Pan Islamic Khalifate. with a small prod, they used us to do more to make this possible then any amount of exploded buildings in New York. But even if we were to accept that this premise is valid, I humbly propose that the stated goal (to not fight them here, so to speak) would be better served by investing in our borders and foreign intelligence rather then 2bn/wk and 160k boots in Iraq.
2. "Democracy" isn't an ipso facto useful goal for American interests, particularly because the people in the middle east dont like us very much. during the cold war we overthrew democratically elected governments because they were unfriendly to us; have we really forgotten those lessons?
3. Iraq had no WMD. they got sacked. moral of story- get WMD. We have neither the moral right or practical way to stop a determined nation from obtaining weapons for, ahem, "self defense"- especially when the self defense is from us. We can use bribery, but even then there is little incentive for the other party to keep its part of the bargain (see: North Korea, Iran.) The best way to eliminate WMD proliferation is to try to diffuse fear and tension- historically, we HAVE been able to control the WMD aspirations of foreign nations such as Libya with a combination of brinksmanship and reward. Calling nations members of an axis of evil won't accomplish that, and our continued coddling of nations like Pakistan which DOES have WMD is only validating the race for weapons.
But even if we were to accept that force can be a good deterrent for nations from pursuing and obtaining WMD, It only works if you can completely beat down the example nation to submission. I dont see any "submission" in Iraq; if the US is unable or are unwilling to subdue the opposition in Iraq, you encourage the "intimidees" to go study to wax on, wax off with Miyagi-san (or is that Lil'Kim Jung Il -san) to make sure they can karate chop us evil white dudes with our superior dojo (forgive the silly analogy, I hope you get my point.) So far, we are not pursuing this kind of war in Iraq.
War is not always undesirable- to the contrary, its often profitable; thats precisely what I'm trying to determine about our war in Iraq. if it is not profitable, then I think its perfectly legitimate to decry the "waste" of soldiers and any other valuable resource on it.
So what WOULD constitute "winning" in Iraq? The administration party line, at this point, is clinging to the mantra that we will be victorious when Iraq is stable. how does this help our interests, and help repay the $300Bn+ investment we sunk in it so far? how would you react to a foreign power invading your home country, occupy your city by force and then having their armed soldiers presume to tell you how to live your life? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like it very much. I also wonder how you would view their enemy agents that are engaged in a covert guerilla warfare against them; once that country (Iraq) is stable, what gives anyone the idea they will be FRIENDLY to US? "winning" implies a positive outcome to a conflict. What's so positive about Iraq being "a country able to defend itself from internal as well as external upheaval?" I'm sure its fine, if you're an iraqi, but as the one with the tax bill and dead brothers and sisters I sure dont get it.
10:18 - 2007-Mar-5
| Last Page | Next Page |
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Send Email Archives My Photo Album
LinksThe Studio Barbuzznet Recent EntriesVictory In IraqStar Trek getting a 40 Year Anniversary Facelift Immigration and Its Effect On Our Medical System Apple "allows" running Windows XP on new Intel Macs Brokeback Mountain Family Values | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||