Printable View
So you go into Iraq for a variety of reasons loosely based on the goal of regional stability. Having done the easy bit you make a half-arsed attempt to occupy and rebuild in the face of great hostility. Then you get fed up and decide to leave. Have you helped achieve regional stability?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
But of course is Bush right after all! Especially when spending money for the right things! A good deal of it he sunk for finding non-existant weapons of mass-destruction, building up a country he destroyed and catching its number one target. And all had of course no influence on the public dept. No, not at all.
US Public Dept
01/22/2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
01/17/2008 9,187,584,466,089.71
from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
:idea2:
I'm still not entirely sure exactly what our (the US government's) goal in Iraq was in 2003 or is today. It's pretty difficult to determine if something is "successful" if you don't have any success criteria defined.
The original statements made by those in charge were that Iraq posed a serious threat to our national security, both because they were developing WMDs and that they were harboring terrorists. So, one COULD argue that our success criteria was to remove that threat. Except these threats never actually existed.
I can only imagine how the the Citizens of the USA would feel if they were attacked by say, the Soviet Union, because the Soviets mistakenly thought that we posed some kind of nebulous and yet unproven threat to them. The outcry would be heard for centuries.
So now we have to ask ourselves if those who made the above claims actually knew beforehand that they were false. I mean, being wrong about the economy or domestic policy is one thing. Being wrong about your pretense for invasion is... well, quite another. So we can either assume that the Bush administration had another purpose for invading Iraq the entire time, and the reasons they gave the public were a "cover story," or we can assume that they truly did believe their incorrect information.
Once the original success criteria in Iraq were proven irrelivant, a new set of criteria was set before us: To transform the Iraqi government into a self-sustaining democracy. Once again, I must question whether this criteria is the legitimate goal of our leaders, or just a "cover story" for the public. In any case, I do not believe that a this particular goal is possible in the region, for a variety of reasons. The formost of which is the religious unrest which is the primary cause of the sectarian violence so far. In fact, I suspect that the moment that the US (and the rest of the countries involved in this adventure) pulls out of the region, a massive shift in power will occur, either within Iraq itself or from foreign intervention (hello Iran). I do NOT think that it will make any difference whether we pull out tomorrow or 10 years from now.
But there's something else we should be looking at as well, and that's NOT weapons, or insurgents, or even the Iraqi government. It's the distribution of Iraq's most valuable resource... oil.
According to Alan Greenspan, Iraq has somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 oil fields. Legislation has been pushed through the new Iraqi democractic government which sells the rights to 60 or so of these oil fields to American held companies. That seems... rather a lot. One must begin to question if this is simply an opportunistic endeavor by profiteers, or was this part of the plan all along. I mean, that's a LOT of oil. And considering how oil-starved we are becomming it would make a LOT of strategic sense to get our hands on it before the brown stuff hits the proverbial fan.
So, when one asks the question "Was Bush right?" I think you really have to respond to that question: "About what?"
If the invasion of Iraq was indeed to gain control over a large quantity of oil in the middle east, then I'd say he was right on the money. Big time.
But if that's not the case, then I'd have to say that Bush hasn't been right about a single part of Iraqi War II since he started scaring us with WMDs back in '02.
I'm not 'fed up' so much as out of hope for a good outcome in this half-century. Hey, I've been waiting for ShogunII:totalwar for 7 years - I'm a patient, persistent kind of guy. And by nature, an optimist. But as Rameusb5 wrote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
That's how it looks to me as well. And I'm beginning to actually listen to the conspirasist's theories about the oil, as Ramebus5 (again) brilliantly analyzes above. If leaving Iraq next Thursday means I have to walk to work the next five years vs 5,000 or more US soldiers must die in that time, pursuing a "for the convenience of Americans" strategy of oil procurement: foot, meet sneaker.Quote:
In fact, I suspect that the moment that the US (and the rest of the countries involved in this adventure) pulls out of the region, a massive shift in power will occur, either within Iraq itself or from foreign intervention (hello Iran). I do NOT think that it will make any difference whether we pull out tomorrow or 10 years from now.
And I guess I'm meant to answer:
I support the increase in troop strength levels, which the 'surge' provides, (that should have been maintained from the beginning). More eyes, ears, and heads looking, hearing, and thinking = fewer IED casualties. And the increased numbers make our departure more of a withdrawal, than a 'rout of Saigon' scenario, IMO. "Covering overwatch" tactic, and so on. Safer for soldiers, and better to coordinate their redeployment to Afghanistan, where we have more undone work to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
After which we should leave, also.