The Iraq War - Chapter 2

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

The Bush Administration has lied about the reasons why we invaded Iraq, and the National Press Club is just as guilty for not reporting that our oil interests are the main reason we are still there, with our troops getting killed daily.

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/st...02/11/120.html

Miulang

[subsailor]

A little history...

We went there to overthrow Saddam and install a democracy because of his known crimes (gassing Kurds and other genocidal crimes, invading, pillaging, and raping Kuwait, promoting terrorism, opressing his people, contributing to the overall instability of the region, etc). That they were an oil rich country is an important but ancillary matter.

They did not die for Oil. They died for Saddam's overthrow.

We went in to Iraq on the basis of flawed intelligence concerning WMD programs and flawed intelligence of Saddma/al Qaeda links. You might want to read House Joint Resolution 114 (introduced in late 2002, passed in early 2003...this was the bill that authorized US action in Iraq). If you want a section-by-section breakdown of my analysis of it, click here.

However, my personal opinion is that oil had a lot to do with it, and the people of Iraq had very little to do with it. It would be nice to say we invaded and "liberated" Iraq for altruistic reasons, but it would be wrong to say that; read that bill, read up on the Bush Administration's constant justifications in the leadup to the war, and you'll see it was all about the (nonexistant) WMD's, with a bit of al Qaeda sprinkled on for seasoning (al Qaeda, while possibly having cells in Iraq, had no real ties with the Hussein government...philosophically speaking they didn't even like each other that well, bin Laden viewing Hussein as too secular).

Another fact you may want to consider...a large part of the blame for bin Laden's al Qaeda network and Saddam's previous stockpiles (and use) of chemical weapons rests with the United States. We supplied Saddam with weapons to use against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (late '70's/early '80's); Reagan sent a special envoy (Donald Rumsfeld) to meet with Hussein in brokering the deals in the early '80's (a bit of Googling will get you a nice picture, in fact). Interestingly enough we also supplied Iran arms (remember Iran-Contra?). The CIA was active in setting up bin Laden and his group in the caves in Afghanistan back when the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and we had a big hand in setting up the Taliban regime as well (we were playing two devils against each other, as we were opposed to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)

I've said it a lot, and I believe it to be true...we are now seeing the fruits of years (no, decades) of really bad foreign policy. Our supplying of Iraq with chemical weapons resulted in the second largest death toll by WMD's in world history (over 100,000 Iranians died from those US supplied weapons at the hands of Iraq...that is only topped by the Japanese deaths from nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...goes a long way to explaining why Iran hates us, too). We played both sides in that conflict, we've poked our noses in to the Israel/Palestine/rest of the Arab world issues (sometimes for good, sometimes for bad). We talk of human rights abuses and repressive regimes, but are in bed (up to the satin sheets) with nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I'm not saying we "asked for it" or deserved it, but 9/11 is a direct result of decades of resent-causing involvement in the Middle East, and that involvement was rarely for humanitarian reasons. If there weren't billions of barrels of oil beneath the sands of the Middle East I doubt the various administrations of the U.S. would have really given a damn what happened. There are abuses of human rights, genocide, and really, really bad situations the world over (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia, several places in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans), but it's not often we get involved in those areas, with the possible exception of the Balkan region.

The United States would do well to examine it's motives and methods, and look to the real root causes of anti-American terrorism; our dealings in the Middle East have been very high-handed and arrogant at times, and the ill will and resentment we foster there will come back to bite us in the backside in years to come (the ill will and resentment we fostered in the past there is biting us now).

[1stwahine]

Re: A little history...

GUTSY for submitting the post and being in the Military. I'm just a mom of three soldiers and I get scolded everytime I try to express my views (not by anyone here @ hawaii threads). What you posted, I salute you! Well done and I agree with you TOTALLY. I'll just tell um' 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM TO EXPRESS MYSELF"!

[subsailor]

Re: A little history...

GUTSY for submitting the post and being in the Military. I'm just a mom of three soldiers and I get scolded everytime I try to express my views (not by anyone here @ hawaii threads). What you posted, I salute you! Well done and I agree with you TOTALLY. I'll just tell um' 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM TO EXPRESS MYSELF"!

I occasionally catch hell for my views at work (the Master Chief I work for is very conservative and a Bush fan to the max). But I've often found it odd that the military is so "pro-war" as to be blinded to the truth of many wars, and to consider those who speak out against wars to be somehow unpatriotic. Me, being in the military I'd like to see war and armed conflict be the absolute last resort...I'm the one going in to harm's way. I recognize the necessity for use of force in some cases, but it should be a last resort when all other means of resolving the issue have failed and/or there is an imminent danger to our nation.

Iraq didn't meet this criteria, in my opinion. I question the motives of Bush and his advisors in the Iraq invasion; I don't think it was motivated by any desire to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. It was, the way I see it, a means to save family face (Bush elder and Iraq 1991), grab some oil, and for Bush to fulfill his desired role as a "war president".

I'm surprised often by the blind loyalty he generates in so many in uniform, given the cavilier way in which he throws around our military power. To me, the indiscriminate use of the military (which always results in deaths/injuries) would make those who rattle the saber less popular with the saber they are rattling...not more.

Don't even get me started on Bush's domestic mess. When it comes to social/economic issues, the man is a menace.

[pzarquon]

Re: A little history...

It would be nice to say we invaded and "liberated" Iraq for altruistic reasons, but it would be wrong to say that; read that bill, read up on the Bush Administration's constant justifications in the leadup to the war, and you'll see it was all about the (nonexistant) WMD's, with a bit of al Qaeda sprinkled on for seasoning (al Qaeda, while possibly having cells in Iraq, had no real ties with the Hussein government...philosophically speaking they didn't even like each other that well, bin Laden viewing Hussein as too secular).

First off, it's great to have to aboard, Subsailor. Whether or not we agree (though in this case we do), it's always nice to have another sharp thinker in the mix with whom to toss around ideas.

Secondly, I just wanted to do an AOL and "Me too!" this statement, which is as clear a phrasing as I've seen yet. I hate being pigeonholed with rabid Bush-haters and other unreasonably angry liberals for my position on the war. (I too work for a GOP and NRA member, but thankfully, in my case he's the most level-headed fellow I know. My last office would go all a-titter if I dared to say anything critical of the government.)

The fact of the matter is, the reasoning for going into this war was wrong, if not purposefully distorted. The end result of the conflict, I imagine most everyone hopes, will be a free and peaceful Iraq. I was as happy as anyone to see the polls open, and a growing number of brave and proud Iraqi civillians stepping up to rebuild. But even if everything eventually comes up roses, we can't fail to hold some big feet to the fire for leading the charge in the first place.

If liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East was our real rationale, after all, you'd think we'd have worked a little harder to bring some of our allies on board. Instead, we flushed Colin Powell's considerable clout down the toilet in a half-hearted attempt to appear reasonable, then barrelled into Baghdad, knocked down a statue, and then seemed completely overwhelmed and surprised by the chaos that followed.

Indeed, being unprepared for post-Saddam Iraq is probably the second biggest mistake the U.S. made.

Before we go wagging our big stick at other countries that annoy us, we need to clean up the mess in Iraq first... and do some housecleaning in our government, as well.

[subsailor]

Re: A little history...

<snip>The fact of the matter is, the reasoning for going into this war was wrong, if not purposefully distorted. The end result of the conflict, I imagine most everyone hopes, will be a free and peaceful Iraq. I was as happy as anyone to see the polls open, and a growing number of brave and proud Iraqi civillians stepping up to rebuild. But even if everything eventually comes up roses, we can't fail to hold some big feet to the fire for leading the charge in the first place.
<snip>
Indeed, being unprepared for post-Saddam Iraq is probably the second biggest mistake the U.S. made.

Before we go wagging our big stick at other countries that annoy us, we need to clean up the mess in Iraq first... and do some housecleaning in our government, as well.

I had a co-worker ask me, on the day after the Iraqi elections, something to the effect of "well, I guess you were wrong, see, Iraq had elections, are you so sure the war was wrong now?"

My reply...I'm happy for the people of Iraq, and it would be my highest hope that out of the mistake that was the Iraq invasion a free and democratic Iraq would emerge. Granted, I knew full well that there would be a lot of Bush and Co. chest thumping, but what struck me was a poll conducted shortly before the election (see this post at Taegan Goddard's Political Wire). It showed that 70-80% or more of Iraqi's (and over 80% of Sunni Iraqis, though they didn't show in as great of numbers for the election) want us out...the sooner the better. This to me says the high election turnout and Iraqis braving some really nasty conditions (and I don't mean the weather) to vote was a desire for real freedom...both from Saddam's regime and our occupation.

There are many pairs of feet that need held to the fire for not only the invasion but the aftermath (read "quagmire"). From Abu Ghraib, to equipment shortages (and how some of our troops have been treated for "scrounging") to Guantanamo, to intelligence issues. And in light of the continuing questions of how the Bush administration handled terrorism issues prior to 9/11 (the recent Clarke memo just reinforces the suspicion in my mind that Bush and Co. were ignoring the issue until the planes hit), I'd say the 9/11 Commission wrapped up too soon, and probably didn't probe deeply enough.

The other thing that often gets my goat...people who say the government (especially the executive) shouldn't be questioned in wartime. A friend and fellow sailor brought this up over lunch one day...that we shouldn't question the war and the administration until later, when the war is over. To me, the time to question is during (if not before). When we as citizens abrogate our role in holding our government accountable, we essentially give up the freedom our predecessors fought to secure for us.

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

About the only good thing to come out of the Iraq war is the citizens of Iraq proved, by the votes, that they want to determine their own fate. Even though the Shia party with Ayatollah al Sistani won by an overwhelming majority (but not the 60% majority required for it to be able to establish its own government), the new government will have representation from both the Shiites and Kurds and Sunni.

Before the election results were announced this morning, Iyad Allawi was reported to be attempting to form some sort of coalition with the Kurds so that his party would have some representation in the new government since his party ran a very distant third.

So the new prime minister will be from the Shia party, and the new president will probably be Kurdish, and Allawi's party will have some representation as will the Sunni.

The Shias are being very very politically savvy by saying that they are willing to allow all parties to be represented in their new Congress. It shows that at least for the time being, they are more concerned about bringing their countrymen together than in keeping the various religious factions apart. The Kurds were even more smart; rather than dividing themselves among the many Kurdish factions, they told their voters that they were a united party; hence the huge turnout and results in the national election. So long as all sides agree to this proposal, there is a very good possibility that there will not be the kind of civil war that has been predicted.

So when can our troops come home? Or is it "next stop, Iran"? And the governments of Syria and Turkey (which also have large populations of Kurds) are quaking in their boots at the resurgence of Kurdish power in Iraq.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7066

[subsailor]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

About the only good thing to come out of the Iraq war is the citizens of Iraq proved, by the votes, that they want to determine their own fate. Even though the Shia party with Ayatollah al Sistani won by an overwhelming majority (but not the 60% majority required for it to be able to establish its own government), the new government will have representation from both the Shiites and Kurds and Sunni.
<snip>
So when can our troops come home? Or is it "next stop, Iran"? And the governments of Syria and Turkey (which also have large populations of Kurds) are quaking in their boots at the resurgence of Kurdish power in Iraq.

I'd imagine the Iraqis are mainly desiring to be rid of outside control and get on with running their nation.

As to us...I think Iran would be a foolish endeavour. First off, the more troubling spot in my mind is North Korea; we know they've got "the bomb" (and they are quite proud of it), and the approach we are insisting on isn't one they are amenable to. While we need to tready very carefully (and not run in with guns blazing like in Iraq), we should save our "big stick" for a bargaining chip to get North Korea back to the table. A little Teddy Roosevelt diplomacy (with a bit more restraint on the "big stick").

Iran is at the table...with Europe. We've given that avenue the brush-off, which I think is a mistake. Once again, our foreign policy seems to be "my way or the highway", and just how does the "other side" likely feel when treated in a high-handed manner like that? Probably generates a "screw you" mindset. What's the old saying about attracting more bees with honey than with vinegar...

The Iraqi situation will either pan out to a compromise that the Sunnis may not be thrilled with but can swallow (they did boycott the vote in large numbers, so lack of representation is in a large part their fault)...or the situation will devolve into civil war. I certainly hope that civil war is not the result; I feel for those people, their lives in the past several years have been hell, and they really deserve some peace.

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

When the results of the Iraqi elections are finally certified in 3 days, here is the complex formula that the new government will use to determine who gets what.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8089.htm

The party of our hand picked candidate Iyad Allawi lost big time, and our only hope of retaining any kind of influence in this fledgling government is if the Kurds look upon the US and Allawi favorably.

In any case, when Zogby International polled 805 Iraqis just prior to the elections on what kind of new government they most wanted, over 50% said they wanted a government that emulated the United Arab Emirates and not the US or Syria or Saudia Arabia.

If the Sunni are embraced whole heartedly by the new government and given some power, more than likely the insurgents will have no longer have any support from their countrymen.

Miulang

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8048.htm

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

Well, the United States and Great Britain gave the Iraqis a taste of what it was like to live in a democracy by enabling them to cast their ballots last month. Now we need to let them determine their own destiny as they craft their new constitution.

We're soooo worried about the Shia majority wanting to put Islamic rule into their Constitution. My question is, why is that so different from our having a White House that has an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives? Is it because what the Iraqis want is not what we want for them? They will never convert to Christianity, so we'd better disavow ourselves of that thought pronto.

Miulang

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6965081/

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

I don't know if this is true or not, but according to the Asia Times, "...it emerges that there is a strong movement in southern Iraq for the establishment of autonomous Shi'ite provinces as a precursor to introducing vilayet-e-faqih (rule by the clergy) in the whole country.

Of these calls for autonomy or federalism, the most disconcerting for US authorities is the call for religious rule. Already, leading Shi'ite clerics in Iraq are pushing for "Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution".

To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to "nip the evil in the bud".

"...the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US military cargo aircraft at Chaklala [Pakistan] airbase in the past few weeks. The aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq.

The US-armed and supported militias in the south will comprise former members of the Ba'ath Party, which has already split into three factions, only one of which is pro-Saddam Hussein. They would be expected to receive assistance from pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's Iraqi National Accord. ..."


More on the article here.

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

In a story from the New York Times last October, was reported that Iyad Allawi was causing trouble among the Sunni by trying to return many of the people who used to run the government back in power. By insinuation and his previous association with the White House, this means that the Bush Administration was already hedging its bets that it would lose the national election.

And now he has the nerve to ask for $82 billion in a "supplemental budget" (i.e., not in his proposed FY 2006 budget) to support the troops in Iran and Afghanistan. Out of all of this money, only $75 million will actually go to the troops; the rest is slated to go to such line items as "building a new American Embassy in Baghdad" and awarding some funds to countries like Pakistan for their support of our efforts in Iraq. Yup, the money going to Pakistan will probably be used to pay for Pakistani weapons to arm the Baathists in the south of Iraq, some of whom will be fighting against our troops.

I guess the Bush Administration figures as long as the insurgents aren't using US arms, then they can't be implicated in this power struggle.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, after all is said and done, it's discovered that our Christians in Action might have had a hand in the assassination today of Lebanon's ex-Premier Rafiq Hariri in Beirut earlier today. Now Israel, Syria and Iran are blaming each other for the catastrophe.

Wouldn't it just be soooo delicious if Israel went to war with Iran and Syria sided with Iran? What would the US do then? Wouldn't we have to come to the defense of our good friends the Israelis?

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 2

If India's proposal to extend the proposed gas pipeline between Iran and India (by way of Pakistan) all the way to China, it could be very bad news for the Bush Administration in its attempt to control the Middle East oil reserves.

If India and China get more of the oil resources from Iran, it means less for us, and with China in bed with the Russians for their oil sources, I would say that the Bush Administration has painted itself (and us) into one big oil-depleted corner. Of course, this would then justify oil drilling in Alaska, Montana, Colorado and Wyoming, and destroying our environment in the process.

Do you get the picture that everything ties in to everything else?

Miulang