OT: Foreign Affairs in the 1990's [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Dutch

05-01-2005, 05:30 PM

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

05-01-2005, 05:58 PM

MrBigglesworth

05-01-2005, 07:30 PM

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?

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

05-01-2005, 07:34 PM

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

05-01-2005, 07:44 PM

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

05-01-2005, 08:19 PM

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

05-01-2005, 08:36 PM

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

05-01-2005, 09:23 PM

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

05-01-2005, 09:26 PM

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

05-01-2005, 10:40 PM

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

05-01-2005, 10:50 PM

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

05-01-2005, 10:54 PM

Here you go: Powell Docrine:

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

General Colin Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell) made famous the so-called Powell Doctrine as part of the run up to the 1990-1991 Gulf War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff) during the 1991 Persian Gulf War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War)) about the Iraqi Army:

<dl> <dd>"First we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."</dd> </dl> 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Weinberger), Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan)'s Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_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

05-01-2005, 11:06 PM

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

05-01-2005, 11:16 PM

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

05-01-2005, 11:22 PM

"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

05-01-2005, 11:26 PM

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

05-01-2005, 11:41 PM

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

05-01-2005, 11:42 PM

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).

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

05-01-2005, 11:55 PM

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

05-01-2005, 11:58 PM

...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

05-02-2005, 12:01 AM

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

timmynausea

05-02-2005, 12:04 AM

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

05-02-2005, 12:06 AM

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

05-02-2005, 12:12 AM

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-

05-02-2005, 12:16 AM

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

05-02-2005, 01:38 AM

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

05-02-2005, 08:39 AM

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

05-02-2005, 11:21 AM

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

05-02-2005, 11:46 AM

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/01/28/sotu.transcript/

[quote]

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

05-02-2005, 11:51 AM

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

05-02-2005, 12:27 PM

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

05-02-2005, 03:03 PM

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

05-02-2005, 05:05 PM

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

05-02-2005, 05:16 PM

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

05-02-2005, 05:38 PM

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

05-02-2005, 06:17 PM

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.

Dutch

05-02-2005, 06:18 PM

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

I just gave you 250,000 more US Soldiers from my magic bag. Where do you place them to stop the madness right now?

weinstein7

05-02-2005, 07:14 PM

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.

Dutch,

This is really what it all boils down to. Earlier on you made the statement that Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed thanks to the Powell Doctrine, but I think you just contradicted yourself pretty clearly here.

Again, I don't necessarily think you're wrong about the Powell Doctrine being overly restrictive and conservative, but I was just taking issue with your inital claim that the success of the invasion justified the Powell Doctrine.

Dutch

05-02-2005, 08:27 PM

MrBigglesworth

05-02-2005, 08:41 PM

Not trying to cherrypick. Just trying to prove you wrong. Don't go moving the goalposts... it's very bad form.
Well if you want to get into a semantics battle, I am correct in that he never mentioned freedom as a reason for the war. He merely expressed his belief that freedom is a good thing, which is hardly an original thought.

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.
Freedom = good. Now compare that to the hundreds of words spent on the non-existent WMD's, and it is clear that Bush's 'doctrine' is not spreading freedom thoughout the world.

I'm not arguing the fact that that is all he talks about now, I just don't agree with revising history to say that Bush (at least publically) cared in any substantial way about the freedom of the Iraqi people in the months leading up to the war. It was a secondary consideration, at best.

EDIT: Just read something germane to the conversation:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006233.php

weinstein7

05-02-2005, 08:46 PM

Fair enough, I see what you are saying. I don't mean to be confusing. I see two distinct seperate operations. One was the overthrow a the Baath Party regime and it's military, the second was the unpopular peacekeeping that has followed while they stand up a new government.

I am certain that we overwhelmed Saddam Hussein and his military. I am not so certain that overwhelming force will stop terrorist actions in Iraq. The primary mission of the US Military now is to prevent a civil war while the new government is stood up.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. I look at it more as one continuous operation, in that the opportunity for disorder was created by the overthrow.

Not a particularly important argument as these things go, but at least we came to an understanding.

MrBigglesworth

05-02-2005, 08:50 PM

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.
'Without exception' is a pretty strong phrase. Bangladesh is no picnic. Sudan is in the middle of a genocide. South Africa had apartheid up until about yesterday. Iraq was, is, and could be for a while, a hell hole. India is doing well, but not compared to non-colonial China or Japan. In fact, the success of China and Japan, who were never controlled by colonial powers, could be a good argument that the imperialism was bad for the world. Really, what colonies other than the US and Canada are functioning, human rights upholding democracies? (maybe you can't even hold the US to those rigours standards anymore, but that is another discussion) Like I said, imperialism has been a mixed bag for the countries involved.

Dutch

05-02-2005, 08:55 PM

MrBigglesworth

05-02-2005, 09:02 PM

You almost make it sound like if it were a primary consideration you would support the effort.
I don't mean to imply that I would. I don't think it's a good reason. A viewing of Full Metal Jacket would show why I think that. I was for the war initially, when I had some trust that the administration wouldn't just BS the entire country. As someone once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." I figured Saddam had nukes aimed at the White House for all the carrying on that was being done. An imminent threat is a perfectly good reason to go to war. A made up, overblown threat is not, and could be considered criminal. It's amazing how the administration is trying the same tactic with SS, and I think it's just that this time it is blowing up in their faces.

Dutch

05-02-2005, 09:48 PM

Some people love to say President Bush lied. They repeat it so much that it's almost believable. Lying is grounds for impeachment, without that, I will claim that anybody who says he is lying is just being slanderous.

The fact remains that Iraq was under intensive sanctions for over a decade due in large part to the WMD's. President Bush didn't make that up, neither did President Clinton, or Kofi Annan, or Tony Blair.

As for SS, it's an issue that needs to be reworked and Clinton tried and failed just the same. Everybody wants to get it fixed, but neither side wants the other to get credit for it. That's the major roadblock. Personally I think it would be suicidal for the Democrats to give in quickly on this issue because the true concern is that successful SS reform by a Republican agenda will be devastating to the Democratic platforn.

I think 30 years from now we will all care even less which side of the fence does the repairs when it comes to SS reform...but politicians will always remember.

MrBigglesworth

05-02-2005, 10:01 PM

Some people love to say President Bush lied. They repeat it so much that it's almost believable. Lying is grounds for impeachment, without that, I will claim that anybody who says he is lying is just being slanderous.

The fact remains that Iraq was under intensive sanctions for over a decade due in large part to the WMD's. President Bush didn't make that up, neither did President Clinton, or Kofi Annan, or Tony Blair.
I don't know if Bush knowingly lied to get us to go to war. But I think that the evidence makes it pretty obvious that his administration trumped up the case against Iraq and ignored dissenting opinions.

Everybody wants to get it fixed, but neither side wants the other to get credit for it. That's the major roadblock.
I think that the major roadblock is that the GOP wants to get rid of it and the Dems do not. That, and the Bush plan really doesn't make much sense in terms of being a social insurance program, and frequently the talking points me makes are misleading at best. The latest is Bush touting that you can put your private account money into US T-bills for a safe investment. The problem with that is that under his plan with the clawback, T-bills are guaranteed to lose you retirement money. That just doesn't have any intellectual honesty.

CamEdwards

05-02-2005, 11:05 PM

Well if you want to get into a semantics battle, I am correct in that he never mentioned freedom as a reason for the war. He merely expressed his belief that freedom is a good thing, which is hardly an original thought.

Freedom = good. Now compare that to the hundreds of words spent on the non-existent WMD's, and it is clear that Bush's 'doctrine' is not spreading freedom thoughout the world.

I'm not arguing the fact that that is all he talks about now, I just don't agree with revising history to say that Bush (at least publically) cared in any substantial way about the freedom of the Iraqi people in the months leading up to the war. It was a secondary consideration, at best.

EDIT: Just read something germane to the conversation:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006233.php

Good Lord. Now who's trying to cherry pick. You left out the sentence immediately before the one you quoted.

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. . . .

Or the statement he made to the United Nations (before the war began):

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.

Before the war, those opposed to it ridiculed the President for trying to bring democracy to Iraq. From Counterpunch (March 19, 2003):

he proclaims that his war against the people of Iraq will bring about something called "democracy" for the struggling peoples of the Middle East.

From Alternet (January 30th, 2003):

The ouster of Saddam Hussein, the administration claims, will allow the Iraqi people to establish a truly democratic government and serve as a beacon and inspiration for the spread of democracy throughout the Islamic world.

Now it's true that the spread of democracy was just one of the things the President talked about when it came to deposing Saddam Hussein. But for you to say the President never mentioned bringing democracy to Iraq before the war is patently false.

MrBigglesworth

05-02-2005, 11:18 PM

But for you to say the President never mentioned bringing democracy to Iraq before the war is patently false.
Sure he mentioned it, he mentioned a lot of things. But the fact remains that it was considered a nice possible side effect rather than a rationale, until everything else turned out to be bs.

Would anybody be thinking about using military power in Iraq in order to do a political experiment in Iraq in the hope that it would have positive political spillover effects throughout the region? The answer is no. That's not the kind of thing that leads a country like the United States to commit the kind of military forces that we're committing to this effort....There's no way.
There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people....The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk.
Is your point that Bush mentioned democracy in Iraq once or twice, or that it was a central rationale for war? If it's the former, then I think we agree.

CamEdwards

05-02-2005, 11:41 PM

My point is you're wrong. I'm going to quote you.

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.

This is what YOU said. I think I've demonstrated (and by the way, we were talking about what the President said, not what Feith or Wolfowitz said, right?) that the President was indeed talking about freedom and democracy before the war began.

If you want to change the point you were trying to make, fine by me. But your original statement was false, and I think I've demonstrated that. Bush mentioned it in his State of the Union address, he mentioned it to the United Nations. He mentioned bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq enough that the anti-war crowd ridiculed him for the notion before the war began.

You said he didn't, I've shown he did. The statement wasn't "he didn't talk about it enough to satisfy Mr. Bigglesworth?" The statement was "Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq". And I believe any rational person would agree that I've shown he did.

st.cronin

05-03-2005, 12:01 AM

'Without exception' is a pretty strong phrase. Bangladesh is no picnic. Sudan is in the middle of a genocide. South Africa had apartheid up until about yesterday. Iraq was, is, and could be for a while, a hell hole. India is doing well, but not compared to non-colonial China or Japan. In fact, the success of China and Japan, who were never controlled by colonial powers, could be a good argument that the imperialism was bad for the world. Really, what colonies other than the US and Canada are functioning, human rights upholding democracies? (maybe you can't even hold the US to those rigours standards anymore, but that is another discussion) Like I said, imperialism has been a mixed bag for the countries involved.

Imperialism has been a mixed bag - I concede that. But never mind that Japan and China were (or are) in fact Imperial powers THEMSELVES, or that Iraq was a part of the corrupt Ottoman Empire for much longer than they were part of the British Empire, or ... what's my point again? Oh, yes, that the spread of Democracy and Freedom to the entire world is the most noble cause I can imagine our country pursuing. It should be done pragmatically, and it may not ultimately be possible, but it is worth trying.

ISiddiqui

05-03-2005, 12:06 AM

I don't think one can say China was or is an 'imperialist' power in the sense that they had colonies that they exploited for resources. China was more of a country that annexed its conquests and made it part of the country itself. It's different.

MrBigglesworth

05-03-2005, 01:00 AM

...the spread of Democracy and Freedom to the entire world is the most noble cause I can imagine our country pursuing. It should be done pragmatically, and it may not ultimately be possible, but it is worth trying.
I will agree with you here, pretty much. We should be promoting Democracy and freedom when pragmatic. We may disagree about how we should do it though. Would I sacrifice my life for the Democracy of a middle eastern country? I don't think that I would. I don't have any children yet, so I can't say for sure, but I don't think I would sacrifice his or her life either. So I don't feel comfortable sacrificing other people's lives for it.

MrBigglesworth

05-03-2005, 01:21 AM

My point is you're wrong. I'm going to quote you.

This is what YOU said. I think I've demonstrated (and by the way, we were talking about what the President said, not what Feith or Wolfowitz said, right?) that the President was indeed talking about freedom and democracy before the war began.

If you want to change the point you were trying to make, fine by me. But your original statement was false, and I think I've demonstrated that. Bush mentioned it in his State of the Union address, he mentioned it to the United Nations. He mentioned bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq enough that the anti-war crowd ridiculed him for the notion before the war began.

You said he didn't, I've shown he did. The statement wasn't "he didn't talk about it enough to satisfy Mr. Bigglesworth?" The statement was "Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq". And I believe any rational person would agree that I've shown he did.
Ok, I see where the problem has arisen. What I said was: "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." I meant them to be read together, meaning that in the SOTU the case was made for WMD's and terrorist connections and not freedom.

The word you continually use is 'mentioned'. Would you say that Bush 'mentioned' that there were WMD's in Iraq? There is an obvious difference. Saying that the Bush doctrine is spreading freedom is revisionist and has a disconnect with reality. That is what my point is, sorry for not being clear about that earlier.

Desnudo

05-03-2005, 01:25 AM

Was Shakira here in the 90s or 00s?

flere-imsaho

05-03-2005, 08:53 AM

I am certain that we overwhelmed Saddam Hussein and his military. I am not so certain that overwhelming force will stop terrorist actions in Iraq. The primary mission of the US Military now is to prevent a civil war while the new government is stood up.

Take Fallujah as an example. Soon after the invasion, U.S. troops had to pull out of Fallujah because they lacked sufficient power to control the city. In the interim, Fallujah became a haven & training ground for insurgents. Eventually, when the Marines had more troops on the ground, they re-invaded Fallujah.

When "overwhelming force" is mentioned in conjunction with "providing security", this is what is meant.

st.cronin

05-03-2005, 09:06 AM

Saying that the Bush doctrine is spreading freedom is revisionist and has a disconnect with reality. That is what my point is, sorry for not being clear about that earlier.

It is in fact NOT revisionist - Bush announced this change in foreign policy shortly after invading Iraq (I believe in the LAST state of the union, or it may have been on another occasion.) This was not some offhand comment designed to justify past actions, it was an announcement of major import. It was a pretty big deal at the time - a very newsworthy announcement.

Of course, the left (as in moveon.org etc.) pretty much ignored it, so I can see how some people might have missed it.

Dutch

05-03-2005, 11:40 AM

Take Fallujah as an example. Soon after the invasion, U.S. troops had to pull out of Fallujah because they lacked sufficient power to control the city. In the interim, Fallujah became a haven & training ground for insurgents. Eventually, when the Marines had more troops on the ground, they re-invaded Fallujah.

When "overwhelming force" is mentioned in conjunction with "providing security", this is what is meant.

So you would put 250,000 troops from the "magic bag" into Fallujah? Forever or for just your brief moment in time? Your strategy is making no sense.

flere-imsaho

05-03-2005, 11:58 AM

So you would put 250,000 troops from the "magic bag" into Fallujah? Forever or for just your brief moment in time? Your strategy is making no sense.

Stop being childish.

My point is that the amount of stability & security in post-invasion Iraq has, as a major contributing factor, the size, or lack thereof, of the "overwhelming force" used to invade Iraq.

Speaking specifically to this:

I am not so certain that overwhelming force will stop terrorist actions in Iraq.

I would say this: had we gone in with enough troops to do the job thoroughly and correctly from the beginning, it's altogether likely that we would have seen less insurgency & terrorism in the past couple of years. I believe that type of outcome is what the Powell Doctrine sees as a good goal.

As supporting evidence, I'll suggest the news of today (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.main/index.html), that it would appear terrorists in Iraq are starting to lose morale, presumably in part because the increased, and increasingly effective U.S. presence has made life more difficult for them.

Imagine if we had had the number of troops on the ground in the beginning of the invasion as we have now. I imagine amongst the benefits we would have seen were:

Less terrorist & insurgent activity.
More stability in key regions.
Better security for utilities-related facilities.
Easier & faster development of an Iraqi government.

It's these kinds of things that I think the Powell Doctrine speaks to.

MrBigglesworth

05-03-2005, 03:05 PM

It is in fact NOT revisionist - Bush announced this change in foreign policy shortly after invading Iraq (I believe in the LAST state of the union, or it may have been on another occasion.) This was not some offhand comment designed to justify past actions, it was an announcement of major import. It was a pretty big deal at the time - a very newsworthy announcement.

Of course, the left (as in moveon.org etc.) pretty much ignored it, so I can see how some people might have missed it.
Like you said, the freedom rhetoric stepped up AFTER the invasion of Iraq. That's not in doubt. My point was that it was not there BEFORE the invasion, and that the administrations actions afterward in other countries (Russia, Venezuala, Sudan, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) belie the notion that the President's doctrine is freedom for all.

That's not to say that I disagree with all of America's foreign policy. Politics always makes strange bedfellows. I just think everyone has to realize that the United States does what is in it's best interests, and it's best interests aren't always freedom for all. Again, not that I necessarily disagree with that.

st.cronin

05-03-2005, 05:14 PM

Like you said, the freedom rhetoric stepped up AFTER the invasion of Iraq. That's not in doubt. My point was that it was not there BEFORE the invasion, and that the administrations actions afterward in other countries (Russia, Venezuala, Sudan, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) belie the notion that the President's doctrine is freedom for all.

That's not to say that I disagree with all of America's foreign policy. Politics always makes strange bedfellows. I just think everyone has to realize that the United States does what is in it's best interests, and it's best interests aren't always freedom for all. Again, not that I necessarily disagree with that.

I'm not sure about all those countries you named but Russia and Mexico both have open elections - there may be corruption in government, and their systems may not be ideal in other ways, but what the Bush Doctrine is about is primarily free elections. I am fairly certain that there is a lot of discussion/thought about Saudi Arabia and Sudan in DC - one can't do everything all at once, though, and until one is ready to flex one's power, one must be realistic.

Also, you are mostly correct, but you didn't draw the conclusion that I've heard described by members of the Bush Adminstration, which is that freedom everywhere IS in our self-interest; the countries most responsible for breeding/harboring terrorists are places like Syria, Iraq, etc. it is at least partially a pragmatic philosophy.

As a centrist, it annoys me that the left doesn't even speak to the Bush Doctrine, when really they should claim credit for it; it was at least partly shaped (or pre-figured) by Clinton.

-Mojo Jojo-

05-03-2005, 06:15 PM

Russia and Mexico both have open elections

Umm.. yeah, that's what all the dictators say... When the political opponents end up in prison, state runs the media, the President appoints the governors, and the political parties appoint the Duma representatives.. I'm not sure what you call that. But you definitely don't call it democracy..

-Mojo Jojo-

05-03-2005, 06:26 PM

As a centrist, it annoys me that the left doesn't even speak to the Bush Doctrine, when really they should claim credit for it; it was at least partly shaped (or pre-figured) by Clinton.

To the extent that the Bush Doctrine is to promote democracy, of course liberals support it. But that's not much of doctrine. Who doesn't want to promote democracy? The Bush Doctrine (aka the Neocon Doctrine) is to promote American Democracy through military force and intimidation. Diplomacy, tact, allies, human rights standards, a true Patriot needs not these things. I think that where the left has some problems with it...

MrBigglesworth

05-03-2005, 07:11 PM

I'm not sure about all those countries you named but Russia and Mexico both have open elections - there may be corruption in government, and their systems may not be ideal in other ways, but what the Bush Doctrine is about is primarily free elections. .
Mojo answered the rest I think pretty well, but as far as Mexico goes the mayor of Mexico City, Obrador, who was leading in early polls to unseat Fox, is potentially being jailed by the Mexican congress by murky charges. Not a word from the Bush administration, probably because Obrador is a leftist politician and part of his appeal is his wish to make Mexico less dependant on the US.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11479896.htm

Dutch

05-03-2005, 08:31 PM

Stop being childish.

My point is that the amount of stability & security in post-invasion Iraq has, as a major contributing factor, the size, or lack thereof, of the "overwhelming force" used to invade Iraq.

I would agree that "overwhelming force" is not present in post-war Iraq. Nor is it needed. Nor is it a force multiplier in peacekeeping operations. Stacking units on top of one another when terrorists are planting hidden bombs would only multiply coalition casualties, not enemy casualties.

I would say this: had we gone in with enough troops to do the job thoroughly and correctly from the beginning, it's altogether likely that we would have seen less insurgency & terrorism in the past couple of years. I believe that type of outcome is what the Powell Doctrine sees as a good goal.

What strategy that involves more troops are you referring to? You keep talking about more troops. Twice as many? If you recall, it's hard enough to get 80 billion dollars a year for this effort during surge operations, I don't recall any opposition strategy that was arguing we should spend more money.

As supporting evidence, I'll suggest the news of today (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.main/index.html), that it would appear terrorists in Iraq are starting to lose morale, presumably in part because the increased, and increasingly effective U.S. presence has made life more difficult for them.

There is no doubt that we are getting better at dealing with terrorists.

But another vastly over-looked reason is that it's very hard to harbour terrorists in a democracy that rejects terror.

flere-imsaho

05-03-2005, 08:49 PM

I would agree that "overwhelming force" is not present in post-war Iraq. Nor is it needed. Nor is it a force multiplier in peacekeeping operations. Stacking units on top of one another when terrorists are planting hidden bombs would only multiply coalition casualties, not enemy casualties.

Well, I disagree. Maybe I've heard/read too many interviews with commanders on the ground talking about how they could have used/could use more troops (typically quality troops, but still).

What strategy that involves more troops are you referring to? You keep talking about more troops. Twice as many? If you recall, it's hard enough to get 80 billion dollars a year for this effort during surge operations, I don't recall any opposition strategy that was arguing we should spend more money.

Again, part of the Powell Doctrine. I believe many estimates pre-war indicated a number around 250,000 - 300,000 - a number we're getting close to, these days, but which the Administration neglected to send originally. According to the Powell Doctrine, if you can't raise enough support to send these troops initially, to make this commitment, then maybe you shouldn't go.

Instead, of course, you end up in the situation, years after the initial event, where you have to continue to come to Congress & the American people, hat in hand, asking for more money, more troops.

Dutch

05-03-2005, 08:53 PM

There is no doubt that we are getting better at dealing with terrorists.

But another vastly over-looked reason is that it's very hard to harbour terrorists in a democracy that rejects terror.

I'm going to guess that since you had nothing to say about this part of my post, you agreed. You need to offer that olive-branch every once in a while, else I'll think you don't like me. :)

Klinglerware

05-03-2005, 09:37 PM

There is no doubt that we are getting better at dealing with terrorists.

But another vastly over-looked reason is that it's very hard to harbour terrorists in a democracy that rejects terror.

I would agree with the former assertion -- the counter-insurgency operations are increasingly effective.

This has very little to do with democracy--since the Iraqi government in its present form does not even have complete control over the country, let alone have enough strength to guarantee the civil liberties of its citizens.

If democracy were all that was necessary to eliminate terrorism, groups like the IRA, ETA, the PKK, FARC, M-19, MRTA, etc., etc., etc. would have been rooted out long ago.

Dutch

05-03-2005, 10:29 PM

I would agree with the former assertion -- the counter-insurgency operations are increasingly effective.

This has very little to do with democracy--since the Iraqi government in its present form does not even have complete control over the country, let alone have enough strength to guarantee the civil liberties of its citizens.

If democracy were all that was necessary to eliminate terrorism, groups like the IRA, ETA, the PKK, FARC, M-19, MRTA, etc., etc., etc. would have been rooted out long ago.

??? Those are anti-government groups fighting Democratically elected governments (at least the ones I recognize), they aren't being harboured.

flere-imsaho

05-03-2005, 10:33 PM

I'm going to guess that since you had nothing to say about this part of my post, you agreed. You need to offer that olive-branch every once in a while, else I'll think you don't like me. :)

Likewise (regarding my last post). ;)

I agree with you that we're getting better at dealing with the terrorists, but there's still a long, long way to go. And we're getting better tactically, but not strategically. That means that the folks on the ground, from the soldiers to the intelligence agents, are getting better at it, but the Administration that directs them isn't learning strategically.

As for your comment on terrorism & democracy, I didn't want to answer that here for fear it would lead us off on even more of a tangent. While an open & free democratic society may have less problems with terrorists, I don't think there's as strong a causal relationship there as you're attempting to portray. Klingerware mentions some of the counter-examples, but look, Saddam Hussein didn't have problems with local terrorists. Fact is, few dictators do. Given that, one could argue that the most effective government for dealing with a terrorist threat is a dictatorship.

I think there's a very, very interesting discussion to be had there, but I'd rather not bog down on that right now.

Suffice it to say, I don't think democracy by itself is the solution to Iraq's problems. Even today, as they continue to attempt to form an interim government, we're seeing problems with the Sunni minority and their lack of trust in the government that's being formed. Is it democracy that will solve that, and the unrest derived from it which begets the violence which enables the terrorists? No, not democracy alone. The solution to this problem will be one which satisfies the needs and desires of all three ethnic groups (Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish) and makes them all feel part of the process. I'm not sure what that solution is, but it's probably not democracy alone.

flere-imsaho

05-03-2005, 10:44 PM

??? Those are anti-government groups fighting Democratically elected governments (at least the ones I recognize), they aren't being harboured.

Ah, we both misunderstood you, I think. I took your comment to mean that democratic societies are more free from terrorism that others. It made sense in the context of recent reports from Iraq that we're getting better at fighting the terrorists over there.

What I think you actually meant is that democratic societies are less likely to harbor (or even support) terrorists. That's an interesting point, but does seem to be a bit of a digression from what we're talking about.

To digress, though, frankly, I think you overestimate the threat from Saddam-sponsored terrorists. Despite his bluster, Hussein wasn't very active on the world stage, from a terrorism standpoint. Yes, he sponsored regional terrorism, but he certainly wasn't the only dictator to do so. On the flipside, of course, Al-Qaida, for instance, had no significant presence in Hussein's Iraq, but they do now.

And there's the crux of the matter. We'd like to focus on state-sponsored terrorism, because it conforms to our experience in the 20th century as a whole (i.e. state-vs-state conflicts). It fits easily into our worldview. However, terrorism in the 21st century, I think all would agree, is a different game, and is definitely not limited to states. Al-Qaida, of course, is a very good example of this. This is not to say that we should ignore state-sponsored terrorism. It is to say that we need to focus on new methods of dealing with these new threats. It also means that you need to look at Iraq and compare what we stopped (state-sponsored terrorism) with what took its place (a fertile ground for the support of a decentralized terror network).

Klinglerware

05-03-2005, 11:01 PM

??? Those are anti-government groups fighting Democratically elected governments (at least the ones I recognize), they aren't being harboured.

My point here was to speak to your argument about democracy and the rejection of terror. Most of these organizations have operated for decades--in countries that are democratic (at least nominally), some of these countries actually have a very good track record with civil liberties (UK, Ireland, etc). But the fact that these organizations have operated for so long demonstrates that they are being harbored by segments of the population, and it also demonstrates that the presence of democracy alone is not always enough to quell the presence of terrorist groups especially since, as Flere notes, state-sponsorship is less of a necessity for the operational effectiveness of contemporary terror orgs....

To your point about democratic governments that have harbored or supported terrorist groups (to name a few): Ireland (IRA), France (Red Brigades), Greece (EOKA, PKK), India (Tamil Tigers), Israel (Lebanese Phalange) US (Contras, Mujahadeen, UNITA, Phalange), South Africa (UNITA, RENAMO)

st.cronin

05-03-2005, 11:14 PM

What I think you actually meant is that democratic societies are less likely to harbor (or even support) terrorists. That's an interesting point, but does seem to be a bit of a digression from what we're talking about.

I believe it is actually one of the theoretical foundations underlying Bush's philosophy...

Dutch

05-03-2005, 11:34 PM

To digress, though, frankly, I think you overestimate the threat from Saddam-sponsored terrorists. Despite his bluster, Hussein wasn't very active on the world stage, from a terrorism standpoint. Yes, he sponsored regional terrorism, but he certainly wasn't the only dictator to do so. On the flipside, of course, Al-Qaida, for instance, had no significant presence in Hussein's Iraq, but they do now.

I think we are beginning to agree on certain fundamental issues, this one bothers me still.

Hussein was in containment by the UN Sanctions and US/UK/Aus enforcement of those sanctions., that's why his activity was so limited. One of the reasons I supported action by the US coalition as far as the timing was because the next step with regards to Iraq was the fight with Russia and France over the legitimacy of the sanctions. They wanted those sanctions lifted ASAP so they could begin rearming Iraq for their own profit. France had a lot of Oil Contracts set up for when sanctions were lifted and the Russians had some unworldy ammount of Armored Vehicles (tanks) and weapons to sell for oil.

I am impressed with the way Al Qaeda moved right into Iraq (a nation they apparently had never been in before) and are *very* comfortable and hidden and effective there. It's almost like they have a support system already in place.

st.cronin

05-03-2005, 11:52 PM

2 points that I haven't seen brought up.

1 - Hussein was one of the key supporters of the PLO's various terrorist groups.
2 - Powell's Doctrine was formed mainly with Vietnam in mind.

ISiddiqui

05-04-2005, 01:28 AM

2 points that I haven't seen brought up.
1 - Hussein was one of the key supporters of the PLO's various terrorist groups.
"Key" is definetly overstating it. Saddam offered money to the families of suicide bombers, and only in like his last 2 years of power. Hardly a key anything. If you want see key supporters of Palestinian terrorism, you look to Iran and Syria formost (though Syria mostly just funded Hezbollah).

flere-imsaho

05-04-2005, 07:00 AM

I believe it is actually one of the theoretical foundations underlying Bush's philosophy...

I'd agree with that. However, just because it's one of the foundations of Bush's philosophy doesn't mean it's not flawed.

flere-imsaho

05-04-2005, 07:05 AM

Hussein was in containment by the UN Sanctions and US/UK/Aus enforcement of those sanctions., that's why his activity was so limited. One of the reasons I supported action by the US coalition as far as the timing was because the next step with regards to Iraq was the fight with Russia and France over the legitimacy of the sanctions. They wanted those sanctions lifted ASAP so they could begin rearming Iraq for their own profit. France had a lot of Oil Contracts set up for when sanctions were lifted and the Russians had some unworldy ammount of Armored Vehicles (tanks) and weapons to sell for oil.

I agree with you here, but with veto power on the Security Council (which the U.S. has hardly ever hesitated to use), it would have been trivial for the U.S. to have the sanctions continued.

I've maintained since the beginning that there were ways to keep Saddam controlled without sending U.S. Soldiers into harm's way. In another thread I quoted Cheney & Powell even saying so in 2001 & 2002.

Why use soldiers when you can use lawyers & diplomats?

I am impressed with the way Al Qaeda moved right into Iraq (a nation they apparently had never been in before) and are *very* comfortable and hidden and effective there. It's almost like they have a support system already in place.

Note I said "no significant presence". Perhaps I should have said "no active operational presence". Al-Qaeda's an international organization. They have networks in many countries including, probably, the United States. They also have significant resources.

Setting up a base of operations and commencing those operatings in an area of chaos is one of those things that successful terrorist organizations do.

flere-imsaho

05-04-2005, 07:08 AM

2 points that I haven't seen brought up.

2 - Powell's Doctrine was formed mainly with Vietnam in mind.

Are you suggesting this is a bad thing? Vietnam - perhaps the biggest confluence of political and military clusterfucks in the 20th century. What's astonishing, really, is that it took so many years for someone to develop a policy designed to help us avoid future Vietnams.

st.cronin

05-04-2005, 08:31 AM

Are you suggesting this is a bad thing? Vietnam - perhaps the biggest confluence of political and military clusterfucks in the 20th century. What's astonishing, really, is that it took so many years for someone to develop a policy designed to help us avoid future Vietnams.

I was just surprised nobody had brought it up. Powell's doctrine, honestly, isn't much of a doctrine - it's just common sense guidelines designed in order to avoid another Vietnam.

flere-imsaho

05-04-2005, 08:36 AM

I was just surprised nobody had brought it up. Powell's doctrine, honestly, isn't much of a doctrine - it's just common sense guidelines designed in order to avoid another Vietnam.

Ah. Fair enough, then.

Klinglerware

05-09-2005, 09:16 AM

On the issue of democracies and the harboring of terrorists, the United States is currently facing a conundrum--Luis Posada, an anti-Castro terrorist and a figure in the Iran-Contra affair, got into the US with a phony passport (in itself an embarassment for our new emphasis on homeland security) and requested political asylum. The Venezuelan government has requested the extradition of Posada for his role in bombing a Cuban civilian airliner in the 70s. The Cuban-American community is exerting a bit of pressure on the administration to grant Posada asylum.

It could be interesting to see how the administration deals with this--and we could be getting more clarification on how the US defines "terrorism" and when it considers a nation to be "harboring terrorists".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7750967/site/newsweek/page/2/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/national/09exile.html