US Involvement in Iraq: A Scaled Assessment (poll)

The following 4 summary perspectives should be used to answer the attached poll.

Summary #1: The US invasion of Iraq is part of the overall effort to combat extra-national terrorism. Regime change was necessary for the long-term safety of everyone and the development of a democratic state in the Arab world will have powerful long-term benefits. Though there are some aspects that should have been better planned/enacted, the overall effort has been worthwhile.

Summary #2: The US effort in Iraq, though connected to the war on terror, was not the most effective avenue for US military effort. While there will be positive results, and the removal of Saddam will be of value to the Iraqis, the linkage of this conflict to the overall war on terror has not been as clearly established as it should have been and portions of the effort have been ill-thought and minimally effective.

Summary #3: US efforts against the Saddam regime in Iraq, though technically correct under a strict reading of UN agreements with Iraq and resolutions passed by the UN, were poorly thought out as to long term consequences and effected despite the opposition of most UN members. A democratic Iraq would be a good result, but it is far to likely too splinter into separate enclaves and end in bloody civil war – regardless of what the US hopes.

Summary #4: US efforts against Saddam were an administration goal well prior to the terror attacks of 9-11-2001. The war on terror was simply an excuse for the US to smash a regime it disliked and to project US power into the Middle East. No consistent explanation of US efforts has been made because the only consistent explanation – a power grab – wouldn’t sell to the American electorate. If anything, the Iraq conflict has sidelined the “war on terror” or even made it worse. Any efforts after Afghanistan that the US has been involved in are largely – or totally – unjustified.

I voted for combination of summaries 2&3. I think that a Nation that have been held together by force will break up in Ethnic peaces. But i dont think that it will happen as long as the coalition forces are in Iraq.But they cant be there for ever. So basicly i see the development this way: In Southern Shia areas Irans influence will grow steady. In the Northern Kurdish area the separatistic feelings are already there. In the Central Sunni areas there is an huge possibility of the extremist Nationalist to take power, becouse the population is unhappy becouse their former glory has gone with the Saddams regime.
That is the reason that in my opinion Iraq should be divided in two countries: The Kurdistan and Iraq. I believe that in the long run the Shiias and Sunnis can remain in one State. But i believe it is simply wrong to force the Kurds to live in a state they dont want to be part off.:bow:

A combo of 3 and 4, altho I don't agree with all of the pieces of either, they best describe my opinion.

ichi:bow:

ps Seamus, did you guess right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

A combo of 3 and 4, altho I don't agree with all of the pieces of either, they best describe my opinion.

ichi:bow:

ps Seamus, did you guess right?

---

Yep -- though I disagree with you a good bit, you do express yourself clearly #1.

Though this has been discussed many times I say 4. Not saying it will be a symptom of blindness (IMO), and of course a contradiction to my previous posts regarding the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yep -- though I disagree with you a good bit, you do express yourself clearly #1.

---

*bows*

It is possible to disagree and still respect; You do good yourself mate.

ichi:bow:

I voted for a combination of #3 and #4, although I think there is more to it than either summary contains. I'm also more strongly against the war than such a vote would led one to believe, but my reasoning is rather different than the condemnation in summary #4.

Summary #1 is the most accurate.

4 is an excellent summary. Thanx!:bow:

Why does PJ get to vote twice? It's showing him twice for #1. Wondering how that happened?

Its called status... same reason OJ got off. Us VIPs eat nobodies like you for breakfast. ~;)

(I honestly have no clue, but I like it.)

Unsurprisingly, I voted for a combination of three and four. I do not believe in single-motive or single-effect analyses of foreign policy, although sometimes it is hard not to speak or argue about it in such terms.

On a side-note I am happy to see that our elusive Mormon has voted in the poll, thus proving that he is not entirely lost to the .org. They seek him here, they seek him there...

I went with #1. ~;)

#3 and #4 combo. Although I suspect that the invasion had more to do with very idealistic thinking (that seems to plague this goverment when it comes to foregin policy) and finishing "daddys job" and a few other stuff, than a speciffic power grab.

1 and 2

#2-3 combo for me

#4 is a joke IMO

3 and 4. It wasn't a power grab for the sake of power grabbing, but it has sidelined the real war on terrorism by sucking in resources that should be better used elsewhere. Once coalition forces leave, I believe there will be a civil war, as is usual in these circumstances.

A combination of 3&4 apart from......
Any efforts after Afghanistan that the US has been involved in are largely – or totally – unjustified.
that should be "some efforts are counterproductive and some efforts are unjustifiable"

Most likely a mix of 2/3.

#4 is absurd.

I voted for the 3&4 combo, though I don't think Bush would have dreamt of invading Iraq before 9/11 (though I do think the choice was made shortly afterwards) and I don't think it was a power grab, either. If I were to guess, it wass misplaced idealism.

Panzer did vote twice.....

I thought such things could only occur in Florida or Cook County, IL~D

Truthfully, I did not set up a multiple vote option, unless it was accidental. If so, I'd appreciate a moderater note so that I can avoid repeating the mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

On a side-note I am happy to see that our elusive Mormon has voted in the poll, thus proving that he is not entirely lost to the .org. They seek him here, they seek him there...

---

Hehe

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth... John 3:8

:curtain:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Panzer did vote twice.....

I thought such things could only occur in Florida or Cook County, IL~D

---

Or Texas...well, not twice...but he could vote after he was dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Panzer did vote twice.....

---

But it doesn't appear to help his position any. There's 8 votes right now - and 9 voters counting Panzer twice. Weird are the ways of the vote. :bow:

3&4 for me - I'm fully willing to believe the Bush Adminstration, or rather the individuals therein calling the shots in the context, had both noble and base motives - and even more willing to believe both sorts can cheerfully coexists in the same person.

Doesn't alter the fact they made a horrible mess out of the whole thing. And it seems to be getting worse by the month - not necessarily down in Iraq (where it seems to be something of a "nothing new on the Western Front" kind of situation), but in what it does to the heads of people involved.

3 & 4 combo.....4 providing the motives and 3 the cover for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hehe

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth... John 3:8

:curtain:

---

Ancient ancestor say: 'Small wind can raise much dust'. :chinese:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Ancient ancestor say: 'Small wind can raise much dust'. :chinese:

---

This sound like something an uncouth pagan would say, or perhaps....the Devil? :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This sound like something an uncouth pagan would say, or perhaps....the Devil? :devil:

---

Foreign devils of little concern to future master race. :chinese:

I say option 2.

I went with 2 and 3, but really any of them except 4 makes sense to me depending on what sets of information I'm trying to summarize at any given week.

Interesting....

A full 50% of the responses chose #4 or a combo of #3/4.

This suggests that half of the planet thinks, or at least leans towards the Iraq involvement being nothing but power politics and/or Bush's vengeance against Saddam. They are convinced, presumably, that the War on Terror was nothing but a fig-leaf.

Clearly Dubya and crew are not doing enough to make their case clear.

I wonder how the vote broke up in terms of geography? Can anyone give a rough read for me?

Quote:

---

I wonder how the vote broke up in terms of geography?

---

Take your pick, depending on your world view

http://atangledweb.typepad.com/photo...rthamerica.jpg


http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/co...jesusland2.gif

or perhaps,

http://home.planet.nl/~jvdriel/Shado...eline/map1.gif

Scamp.~D

:bow:

I voted for a combination of #3 and #4... although I'm probably closer to #4 than to #3.

There's plenty of evidence that "US efforts against Saddam were an administration goal well prior to the terror attacks of 9-11-2001."

Here's a couple of memory-jogging articles. The first is from Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary, a job that gave him a seat on the National Security Council when invading Iraq was first discussed:

Quote:

---

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.” LINK

---

Remember, that was all long before 9/11.

Why was Bush so gung ho about finding a way to invade Iraq as soon as he got into office? Well, for one thing, Bush and his people thought that in order to get their domestic agenda passed, it was necessary to become a "war president". Bush revealed this rather disgusting line of thought during interviews with a Bush-clan friend and author who had been chosen to ghost-write Bush's autobiography:

Quote:

---

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."...

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."

Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye...

Herskowitz's revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush's pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe 's David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: "It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam's weapons stash," wrote Nyhan. 'I'd take 'em out,' [Bush] grinned cavalierly, 'take out the weapons of mass destruction·I'm surprised he's still there," said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.'s father·It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush's first big clinker." LINK

---

Another group that was talking big before they got into power was the "Project for A New American Century" (PNAC), a neo-con thinktank that had almost all of Bush's closest advisors as members: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, and others. PNAC began laying out the foreign policy agenda that the administration would follow quite early. One of their planning documents stated that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." They were determined to project American power unilaterally and globally (even in space), and keeping American forces engaged and based in the Middle East was seen as a key to maintaining American global hegemony. The members of PNAC were the key players within the Bush administration pushing for an invasion of Iraq from day one. "Bush Planned Iraq Regime Change Before Becoming President"

There's a lot more, including: "Secret Plans for Iraqi Oil", "Woodward Shares War Secrets".

9/11 gave the administration a perfect opportunity to sell an invasion of Iraq by convincing the American public of the completely unrealistic scenario in which Saddam might give WMDs to al-Qaeda for use against the United States.

The fact that Saddam was unconnected to 9/11 and al-Qaeda meant that realistically, the "war against terror" (which is really a war against al-Qaeda), could have been prosecuted effectively and efficiently without diminishing our resources and destroying our moral credibility by invading Iraq. Instead of utilizing the global sympathy the US enjoyed in the wake of 9/11 to destroy al-Qaeda... we played into Bin Ladin's hands and gave al-Qaeda a wondrous opportunity to recruit, train, and deploy the next generation of terrorists.

But Aurelian.. that would mean that the American president was just playing politics and is not a god-like figure of peace and justice. You go to far traitor! Quickly, execute him for the good of the republicans.. I mean republic.. I mean America.