OT: Foreign Affairs in the 1990's

[INDalltheway]

Lets see who can name some important foreign affairs that affected the US in the 1990's... (Yes I have a US History project)

[MrBigglesworth]

The first Gulf War was kind of big.

[wishbone]

I think the big things were Desert Storm and it's aftermath, the Bosnian conflict and the continued breakup of the Warsaw Pact nations/ (former)USSR. As the USSR broke apart we had to recognize a bunch of different nations... You could also look at terror acts committed against American Embassies and military resources.

[timmynausea]

Bosnia
Kosovo
George Michael got caught being gay (total shocker).

[MrBigglesworth]

Somalia, first WTC bombing

[JeeberD]

US History class studying the 1990's.

Gawdamn that makes me feel old...

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

US History class studying the 1990's.

Gawdamn that makes me feel old...

I think they move onto this as soon as they complete the final exam on the lyrics to "We Didn't Start the Fire."

[INDalltheway]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think they move onto this as soon as they complete the final exam on the lyrics to "We Didn't Start the Fire."

pretty close. We listened to that about two weeks ago.

[judicial clerk]

How about the ratification of the EU?

[ISiddiqui]

For the US, Somalia was pretty important, IMO. It was a small war, but kind of solidified the Powell Doctine... which, I know, was jettisoned by the administration that had Powell as a member.

[TazFTW]

NAFTA

[Klinglerware]

Dissolution of the Soviet Union, transition of US foreign policy-making paradigm away from stable superpower confrontation with the USSR/Warsaw Pact towards an uncertainty of what the new world order would bring...

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think they move onto this as soon as they complete the final exam on the lyrics to "We Didn't Start the Fire."

::shivers::

[Easy Mac]

Isn't it against the ethics policy in college (and at least high school) to solicit outside help for projects, exams, papers? I know my school had a strict policy as to where you could solicit assistance. I know it was against the rules to openly ask for help on specifics from anyone, either on the internet or friends/family. Granted, they couldn't really find out, but it violated the ethics policy and could get you failed.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

For the US, Somalia was pretty important, IMO. It was a small war, but kind of solidified the Powell Doctine... which, I know, was jettisoned by the administration that had Powell as a member.

I think the Powell Doctrine's ability to dismantle the Saddam Hussein's regime in less than a month was pretty spot on.

The terrorism that has followed is exactly what the west has always said Hussein was harboring behind his government.

Two seperate conflicts completely. The terrorists could be wiped out easily if we took the occupation hats off of the military and put back on their helmets. But this would cause a lot of civilian casualties. Something the press only allows if it's done by terrorists (and sensationalized and thus encouraged at the same time... but I digress).

[weinstein7]

My understanding of the Powell Doctrine is that the US should follow three rules before engaging in any conflict:

1) Establish clearly defined goals
2) Have a clearly defined exit strategy
3) Go in with overwhelming force.

The invasion of Iraq meets the first, is questionable on the second, and certainly didn't fit the third.

Even if you consider it a success, I think it has to be considered a success in spite of the Powell Doctrine, not because of it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The terrorism that has followed is exactly what the west has always said Hussein was harboring behind his government.

If Canada invaded and you fought back, would it be apt for them to just dismiss you as a terrorist that has always been harbored behind the US government?

Originally Posted by Dutch

The terrorists could be wiped out easily if we took the occupation hats off of the military and put back on their helmets. But this would cause a lot of civilian casualties. Something the press only allows if it's done by terrorists (and sensationalized and thus encouraged at the same time... but I digress).

Violence against the civilian population is part of what causes the creation of insurgents, so by escalating the violence we just create more insurgents and a new generation of middle easterners that despise the United States and everything we stand for (which, in their minds, is torture, death, and destruction).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

My understanding of the Powell Doctrine is that the US should follow three rules before engaging in any conflict:

1) Establish clearly defined goals
2) Have a clearly defined exit strategy
3) Go in with overwhelming force.

The invasion of Iraq meets the first, is questionable on the second, and certainly didn't fit the third.

Even if you consider it a success, I think it has to be considered a success in spite of the Powell Doctrine, not because of it.

Agree on 1 and 2, not on 3. I guess it's a matter of opinion. It was my opinion that the toppling of Saddam in 30 days (or so) was far ahead of schedule, considering I believed the entire operation would be roughly 4 months.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If Canada invaded and you fought back, would it be apt for them to just dismiss you as a terrorist that has always been harbored behind the US government?

I think what is being overlooked is the method of violence. If I fought Canadian troops, I would consider myself an insurgent. If I killed women and children to get on TV, I think terrorist would be more realistic.

Violence against the civilian population is part of what causes the creation of insurgents, so by escalating the violence we just create more insurgents and a new generation of middle easterners that despise the United States and everything we stand for (which, in their minds, is torture, death, and destruction).

I didn't say it was a good idea! I just was pointing out that if we fought the Iraq war the same way we fought against Germany or Japan, they wouldn't be having this long drawn out continuation--after the fact--insurgency. Because they would be sick and tired of warfare, I think that's fair to say.

The true "Shock and Awe" was that we overpowered Saddam before the populace even realized it. The drawback to that obviously is the ensuing terrorism. I don't even think a true insurgency exists. This is simple terrorism by numbers that could range less than a hundred for all we know.

[weinstein7]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Agree on 1 and 2, not on 3. I guess it's a matter of opinion. It was my opinion that the toppling of Saddam in 30 days (or so) was far ahead of schedule, considering I believed the entire operation would be roughly 4 months.

It's not worth getting into a whole thing over, but I don't see how you could argue that the US went into Iraq with "overwhelming" force.

One of the whole points of the operation was to demonstrate the capabilities of a fast, light, mobile, combined-arms military - in other words to demonstrate that the modern army didn't require overwhelming force, that it could get by on superior technology and soldiering as well as brilliant planning. Rumsfeld's views on this were basically completely contrary to the Powell doctrine.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

My understanding of the Powell Doctrine is that the US should follow three rules before engaging in any conflict:

1) Establish clearly defined goals
2) Have a clearly defined exit strategy
3) Go in with overwhelming force.

The invasion of Iraq meets the first, is questionable on the second, and certainly didn't fit the third.

Even if you consider it a success, I think it has to be considered a success in spite of the Powell Doctrine, not because of it.

My problem is with #2. We don't really have an exit strategy at all. That was the problem with Somalia.

[Dutch]

I don't think there is a better exit strategy than the one currently in place which is "Don't leave the new Iraq until it is stable." If there is, I'd like to hear it, seriously and honestly, I mean that.

It's not something I suggest any administration should "rush".

The real question is when will the end of the insurgency be? But nobody knows that. And how can one predict anything beyond what was predicted, "That the work is not done and there will be many tough days ahead and the US will not abandon a new free Iraq until they can sustain themselves." Which the administration stated after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

It's kind of like surgery to save a man's life from a gunshot wound. The first order of business is to get the bullet out of him and secure the wound. But after that, the exit strategy is "When the bleeding stops and the man can sustain life on his own." It's really hard to rush it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

It's not worth getting into a whole thing over, but I don't see how you could argue that the US went into Iraq with "overwhelming" force.

One of the whole points of the operation was to demonstrate the capabilities of a fast, light, mobile, combined-arms military - in other words to demonstrate that the modern army didn't require overwhelming force, that it could get by on superior technology and soldiering as well as brilliant planning. Rumsfeld's views on this were basically completely contrary to the Powell doctrine.

By overwhelming force, I define it as how long an enemy can sustain itself against an offensive maneuver. In this case, Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Army folded within moments of engagement each and every time. I guess you can say that we had too few men or too few smart bombs or not enough aircraft or whatever you want to say, but at the end of the day, the enemy was defeated easily with the forces that engaged. Overwhelmingly, I would say.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't think there is a better exit strategy than the one currently in place which is "Don't leave the new Iraq until it is stable." If there is, I'd like to hear it, seriously and honestly, I mean that.

"Don't leave the new Iraq until it is stable" is not an exit strategy at all, just as "when the bleeding stops and he can live on his own" is not an exit strategy. For the Dr., the exit strategy is, "stitch up the wound, give him antibiotics, leave him in the hospital until under supervision until he can get around on his own". "Don't leave the new Iraq until it is stable" is more of a hope than a strategy. How do we make it stable? Is an Islamic theocracy a stable outcome? What conditions must be met to have it be stable? On what parameters does it count as a success? These are questions that the administration has failed to answer, at least in public, and, judging by their actions, in private as well.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't think there is a better exit strategy than the one currently in place which is "Don't leave the new Iraq until it is stable." If there is, I'd like to hear it, seriously and honestly, I mean that.

Um... as said before that isn't an exit strategy at all. Under the Powell Doctrine, an exit strategy isn't "Don't leave until the situation is stable", incredibly vague strategy if I've heard one. An exit strategy is we'll leave after a specific objective, such as get rid of a warlord or get a country out of somewhere. The best example of the Powell Doctrine was the first US-Iraq War. We got Saddam out of Kuwait and pulled most of our troops out. We weren't fighting that war a year later.

After all, the Powell Doctrine was to avoid another Vietnam, where the exit strategy was wait until South Vietnam is stable and can hold off the North Vietnamese by themselves.

[ISiddiqui]

Here you go: Powell Docrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_doctrine

General Colin Powell made famous the so-called Powell Doctrine as part of the run up to the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

Powell believes that forces should only be deployed when national interest, commitment, and support have been established.

However, once those conditions have been met, there should be use of overwhelming force in the military encounter - rather than proportional response.

This part is perhaps best illustrated by his quote (as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War) about the Iraqi Army:

"First we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."

After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers.

It has been argued that the Doctrine follows from principles laid out by Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense and as such Powell's former boss:

• Is a vital US interest at stake?
• Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
• Are the objectives clearly defined?
• Will we sustain the commitment?
• Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
• Have we exhausted our other options?

--

(emphasis mine)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... as said before that isn't an exit strategy at all. Under the Powell Doctrine, an exit strategy isn't "Don't leave until the situation is stable", incredibly vague strategy if I've heard one. An exit strategy is we'll leave after a specific objective, such as get rid of a warlord or get a country out of somewhere. The best example of the Powell Doctrine was the first US-Iraq War. We got Saddam out of Kuwait and pulled most of our troops out. We weren't fighting that war a year later.

After all, the Powell Doctrine was to avoid another Vietnam, where the exit strategy was wait until South Vietnam is stable and can hold off the North Vietnamese by themselves.

For arguments sake, what could the exit strategy have been that you would have found acceptable. Obviously we are talking about specific conventional objectives, I'd like to hear them.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For arguments sake, what could the exit strategy have been that you would have found acceptable. Obviously we are talking about specific conventional objectives, I'd like to hear them.

Dutch, I think right here you have stumbled upon the fundamental reason why the invasion of Iraq has failed the Powell doctrine. Your question has no answer, really.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

"Don't leave the new Iraq until it is stable" is not an exit strategy at all, just as "when the bleeding stops and he can live on his own" is not an exit strategy. For the Dr., the exit strategy is, "stitch up the wound, give him antibiotics, leave him in the hospital until under supervision until he can get around on his own". "Don't leave the new Iraq until it is stable" is more of a hope than a strategy. How do we make it stable? Is an Islamic theocracy a stable outcome? What conditions must be met to have it be stable? On what parameters does it count as a success? These are questions that the administration has failed to answer, at least in public, and, judging by their actions, in private as well.

I can assure you that there is much more than hope involved when dealing with Iraq. If what you are asking for is a guaranteed outcome of a future event, then I'm afraid you won't get it. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein has risk. There are no guarantees that Iraq will become the model nation of planet Earth.

But let's not sugar coat the threat that Saddam Hussein was before we invaded and got rid of him. If the worst that happens is we end up where we started from, well, at least we tried. What we do know is that Iraq lost their WMD that the UN inventoried, but we also found out that they were preparing to restart their nuclear ambitions the moment the UN sanctions were lifted. We put a stop to that. So I already feel like we are better off.

I am with you though, I could care less what happens to the people of Iraq at this point. But we do know that the Afghan people turned against us when we abandoned them after the Afghan/Soviet war and let the warlords take over. Staying in Iraq to give their fledgling democracy a chance to survive on it's own is something I think we should support. If it takes a year or two or three so be it. But to sit here and say we should tell the terrorists the date we will leave is foolhardy.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Dutch, I think right here you have stumbled upon the fundamental reason why the invasion of Iraq has failed the Powell doctrine. Your question has no answer, really.

Then the Powell Doctrine really has no bearing in this situation. We still were under threat from Saddam Hussein's WMD's before we invaded him and we still knew that he was harboring terrorists. Those things still had to be dealt with. Just because the answer was squeaky clean does not remove the threat Saddam posed.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then the Powell Doctrine really has no bearing in this situation. We still were under threat from Saddam Hussein's WMD's before we invaded him and we still knew that he was harboring terrorists. Those things still had to be dealt with. Just because the answer was squeaky clean does not remove the threat Saddam posed.

I think you are mistaken, in that the all of the reports coming out of Iraq are that:

1) Iraq had no WMD's
2) Iraq had no connection to anti-American terrorism
3) Saddam was not a threat in any sense of the word

I believe that the 9-11 Commission and the CIA, among others, are clear on these points. But, entering your theoretical Universe where these three points are false, and Saddam did constitute a credible threat to the United States, then simply getting him out of power and destroying/confiscating his weapons would be a clearly definable goal where we can say that we succeeded. Iraq in the throes of a civil war is better than a madman with a nuke aimed at us.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For arguments sake, what could the exit strategy have been that you would have found acceptable. Obviously we are talking about specific conventional objectives, I'd like to hear them.

In this war, there would be no acceptable exit strategy from the view of the Powell Doctrine, so under its formulation, we shouldn't have gone in, but just choked Iraq with sanctions (which, btw, is originally what Colin Powell wanted to do with Iraq in 1991 when he was head of the JCS).

Originally Posted by Dutch

We still were under threat from Saddam Hussein's WMD's before we invaded him and we still knew that he was harboring terrorists.

Um... except both were proven wrong .

Though, as a neoconservative, I have no problem with going into Iraq to get rid of an evil dictator, it decidedly did not fit into the Powell Doctrine. And there were no WMD and Saddam was not harboring terrorists. The best reasoning for taking him out is the obvious one. The guy was a brutal dictator. Though I wish we continued on the path of taking a hard line and go after Burma (at least in our words) next, since they are perhaps the most brutal regime on the planet.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think you are mistaken, in that the all of the reports coming out of Iraq are that:

1) Iraq had no WMD's
2) Iraq had no connection to anti-American terrorism
3) Saddam was not a threat in any sense of the word

If you can be so sure on any of those 3 points, it's directly because of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power by the actions of the USA and it's coalition partners. Before that, the UN sanctions were in place because of his worldly threat. A the real world, perception must be taken seriously.

I believe that the 9-11 Commission and the CIA, among others, are clear on these points. But, entering your theoretical Universe where these three points are false, and Saddam did constitute a credible threat to the United States, then simply getting him out of power and destroying/confiscating his weapons would be a clearly definable goal where we can say that we succeeded. Iraq in the throes of a civil war is better than a madman with a nuke aimed at us.

Another finding was that Iraq was even more dangerous than thought. If their findings are legit, they also have a bit of documentation on Iraq's wishes to bring about it's nuclear ambitions once the UN sanctions were lifted.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

...except both were proven wrong .

Not by the use of UN sanctions.

But you know, when Libya negotiated a truce with the US, they allowed UN inspectors to come in to their nation to inventory and destroy their WMD stockpiles. Did they exist before being declared by Ghadaffi? The answer is that they did, we just didn't know and never found out about them without being told where they were.

[Dutch]

I gotta get some sleep. So you can have the last word on the matter. See ya later.

[timmynausea]

Nobody gives a shit about the 90's anymore.

When did Ghadaffi switch over to the G? For years you only saw it with a Q as in Qadaffi or on special ocassions with a K like Khadaffi.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I

I am with you though, I could care less what happens to the people of Iraq at this point.

Charming, aren't you ? Kill a few thousand civilians (as per all individual reports) and you couldn't care less ?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you can be so sure on any of those 3 points, it's directly because of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power by the actions of the USA and it's coalition partners. Before that, the UN sanctions were in place because of his worldly threat. A the real world, perception must be taken seriously.

Wait, wait, wait... are you seriously arguing that the War on Iraq was good because it was the only way to definitively prove we were wrong about all the reasons to go to war in Iraq?!

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Another finding was that Iraq was even more dangerous than thought. If their findings are legit, they also have a bit of documentation on Iraq's wishes to bring about it's nuclear ambitions once the UN sanctions were lifted.

They did find that Saddam wanted to reconstitute his weapons programs, but I don't see how that makes Iraq more dangerous than we thought. The administration thought that they had WMD's and active weapons programs. How can it be more dangerous to want to someday have weapons programs than to actually have them?

There is one element of U.S. policy that was vindicated by these findings, that being that around 2000-2001 some of the European nations were considering dropping the sanctions, while the U.S. (and I think the U.K.?) fought to keep them in place. Given what we now know, the U.S. was completely right on that point. The sanctions were working, and Saddam planned to be a bad boy if they were eliminated.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait, wait, wait... are you seriously arguing that the War on Iraq was good because it was the only way to definitively prove we were wrong about all the reasons to go to war in Iraq?!

It does seem to me that that is what Dutch is arguing. While that is a positive outcome, I can't accept that as a good reason to go to war because the logical end of that line of reasoning is that it is moral to go to war at any time. "Is China thinking of invading Taiwan? Only one way to know for sure--let's invade them!"

I can see the argument for getting rid of a brutal dictator, but that doesn't persuade me. There will always be brutal dictators, and endless war based on our own cultural norms is not in the best interests of the world or us.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I can see the argument for getting rid of a brutal dictator, but that doesn't persuade me. There will always be brutal dictators, and endless war based on our own cultural norms is not in the best interests of the world or us.

That's pretty much the Bush 'doctrine' as of now. He's promised to spread freedom and democracy to the entire mideast region, and eventually the world. While that may or may not be in OUR best interests, I don't know how you can argue it's not in the best interests of the WORLD. Seriously, what could be better?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's pretty much the Bush 'doctrine' as of now. He's promised to spread freedom and democracy to the entire mideast region, and eventually the world. While that may or may not be in OUR best interests, I don't know how you can argue it's not in the best interests of the WORLD. Seriously, what could be better?

That's not the Bush doctrine at all. Have you heard anything from him regarding the democracy abuses in Russia? Venezuala? Mexico? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Check his State of the Union speech from right before the start of the Iraq war. Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq. Only after it became politically expediant (i.e., once the other rationales were pointed out to be BS) did Bush start up his freedom and democracy rhetoric. I honestly can't say what the REAL Bush doctrine is, at least on foreign policy. He props up as many dictatorships as he derides.

As for what is in the best interests of the world, imperialism has been a pretty mixed bag over the centuries. I see no reason to assume that we could do it better.

[CamEdwards]

[quote=MrBigglesworth]That's not the Bush doctrine at all. Have you heard anything from him regarding the democracy abuses in Russia? Venezuala? Mexico? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Check his State of the Union speech from right before the start of the Iraq war. Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq. Only after it became politically expediant (i.e., once the other rationales were pointed out to be BS) did Bush start up his freedom and democracy rhetoric.QUOTE]

Umm.. here's the transcript of the 2003 State of the Union Address. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...tu.transcript/

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. . . .

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

And from his address to the UN in 2002:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

And from a month before the war (as quoted on Newshour on PBS):

There are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.

So there ya go.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The terrorism that has followed is exactly what the west has always said Hussein was harboring behind his government.

Good thing we went in with enough "overwhelming force" to provide enough security on the ground to neutralize those terrorists we knew about....

[weinstein7]

Dutch,

I know you're getting attacked on multiple fronts from the anti-war crowd, and our specific debate is fairly academic and unimportant. However, I find it fairly interesting, so I'll keep it going for now.

I think you caught yourself in a bit of a contradiction. You argue that, on the one hand, the exit strategy is to leave when the situation is stable. You also argue that the force was overwhelming because it defeated the enemy. However, based on the first point, for the amount of force to be "overwhelming," it should have been able to ensure stability, not just triumph on the ground.

There's although the whole issue of to what extent the insurgency was part of Hussein's plan from the very beginning and how much of it is being run by former allies of his, but I don't think we really have those answers.

At this point, I'm not arguing whether or not the war was a success or a good idea. I'm simply arguing that the architects of the war were in many ways deliberately attempting to operate in ways that explicitly contradicted the Powell Doctrine. If you consider the war a success, then I think a necessary corollary is that the Powell Doctrine is overly restrictive on military action and is unnecessary (an entirely legitimate postion, although not necessarily one that I'd agree with).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And from his address to the UN in 2002:



And from a month before the war (as quoted on Newshour on PBS):



So there ya go.

You're cherry picking quotes to attempt to draw a pattern that just isn't there. In the whole State of the Union, that's all that talks about freedom. How many paragraphs are devoted to WMD's? Freedom was an afterthought, therefore it is not part of his doctrine, just as sending a manned mission to Mars is not a major part of his agenda despite him mentioning it once in his SOTU.

My most salient point still stands: Bush says nothing about the regressive path of democracy in Russia, Venezuala, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The women in Saudi Arabia are oppressed more than the women in Saddam's Iraq ever were.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You're cherry picking quotes to attempt to draw a pattern that just isn't there. In the whole State of the Union, that's all that talks about freedom. How many paragraphs are devoted to WMD's? Freedom was an afterthought, therefore it is not part of his doctrine, just as sending a manned mission to Mars is not a major part of his agenda despite him mentioning it once in his SOTU.

My most salient point still stands: Bush says nothing about the regressive path of democracy in Russia, Venezuala, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The women in Saudi Arabia are oppressed more than the women in Saddam's Iraq ever were.

This isn't something he mentioned once, and got laughed at so hard he hasn't brought it up again; this is a tune the administration has repeatedly and consistenly sung for over a year now. And while the history of Empire may well be a mixed one, there is an argument to be made that the last century would have been better off with MORE Empire, not less.

Consider, for example, the former territories of the British Empire. Without exception, there are neighboring countries that are vastly worse places to live today. You can't seriously argue that the British Empire was bad for the world. I hope our country is prepared for a similiar undertaking.

[CamEdwards]

Check his State of the Union speech from right before the start of the Iraq war. Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq.

Not trying to cherrypick. Just trying to prove you wrong. Don't go moving the goalposts... it's very bad form.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Consider, for example, the former territories of the British Empire. Without exception, there are neighboring countries that are vastly worse places to live today. You can't seriously argue that the British Empire was bad for the world. I hope our country is prepared for a similiar undertaking.

Which neighboring countries are you comparing?

It is not empire in and of itself that makes the colony a better place (empires are invariably set up to economically benefit the home country, not to better the lives of the natives) -- it is how the imperial power treats its subjects and how well they prepare them for a transition to independence (some colonies were run completely by and for the expats, while others, had the native population run the civil service, etc.). As you say, the British were amenable to native self government in many of their colonies, but other colonies were left completely unprepared for self-rule...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

Dutch,

I know you're getting attacked on multiple fronts from the anti-war crowd, and our specific debate is fairly academic and unimportant. However, I find it fairly interesting, so I'll keep it going for now.

I find it interesting as well, and no I don't mind the debate at all. I may poke fun but I do try not to be mean-spirited about it. Sometimes I slip, but I don't take anything personally. I always listen and am not trying to push my opinion of things on others, just trying to explain it, albeit poorly, as most people do not agree with me at all.

I think you caught yourself in a bit of a contradiction. You argue that, on the one hand, the exit strategy is to leave when the situation is stable. You also argue that the force was overwhelming because it defeated the enemy. However, based on the first point, for the amount of force to be "overwhelming," it should have been able to ensure stability, not just triumph on the ground.

I say "overwhelming" in the war against Saddam Hussein. I'm not sure how many more soldiers it would take to stop the terrorists from striking a civilian gathering where there are no soldiers to realize what is going on. Terrorism is pretty much indefensable. At some point the new Iraqi government will have to investigate the who and the where and the what and begin a "crackdown". I would believe that once the Iraqi government is strong enough and it's army is trained and it's police force can control certain aspects of city life, they will ask us to leave, we will be more than willing, and then they are going to just go to town on internal threats. It won't be pretty, it won't be civilized, but it will be very effective.

Our job is to wait until they can stand on their own two legs. It will happen.

There's although the whole issue of to what extent the insurgency was part of Hussein's plan from the very beginning and how much of it is being run by former allies of his, but I don't think we really have those answers.

Hussein has allies that blow up civilians? That's an odd thing to suggest if you believe Hussein didn't support terrorism.

At this point, I'm not arguing whether or not the war was a success or a good idea. I'm simply arguing that the architects of the war were in many ways deliberately attempting to operate in ways that explicitly contradicted the Powell Doctrine. If you consider the war a success, then I think a necessary corollary is that the Powell Doctrine is overly restrictive on military action and is unnecessary (an entirely legitimate postion, although not necessarily one that I'd agree with).

I think the Powell Doctrine fits perfectly around a particular case-study (The first Gulf War), but at some point you have to modify your gameplan, because the enemy sure is modifying their's.