POL - Interesting Article on Bush's Course in Iraq

[Warhammer]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html

I found this to be a very interesting piece.

Discuss.

[Arles]

Here's another interesting article on a similar issue by the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110500770.html

[Cork]

That was some nice republican propoganda.

-Cork

[cartman]

I read an interesting piece in the paper the other day by Ron Paul, the libertarian (little L, since he ran as a Republican) Congressman from Texas. He made an interesting point that I hadn't heard discussed before. He says why is it people are taking it as a unassailable fact that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here? He said the same people pushing this statement are the same ones who told us that there were definitely WMDs in Iraq, that were ready to be unleashed upon us at a moment's notice. Since that 'fact' was so far from being true, why is it the new fact is no readily believed?

He said to look back to recent history to Vietnam. The main reason for staying in Vietnam was so we could fight Communism while it is still on the other side of the world. We pull out of Vietnam, and conventional wisdom held that the rest of the poorer countries in the world would topple like dominoes into the clutches of communism. When we left Saigon, pretty much the opposite happened. About 15 years after the last American troops left, the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War was over.

Interesting points to discuss.

[JPhillips]

But Bush, being the wise and moderate politician that he is

He forgot to mention visionary, strong and huge-cocked.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Orson Scott Card

I hope somebody emerges in one of the parties, at least, who commits himself or herself to continuing Bush's careful, wise, moderate, and so-far-successful policies in the War on Terror.

Is he serious? Can he actually look at what is going on in Iraq (and let's not forget Afghanistan) and say these tactics have been successful, much less wise?

When there is no hope of deliverance, the people have no choice but to bow under the tyrant's lash, pretending to be true believers while yearning for relief. In Russia it came ... after more than seventy years.

Where did that relief come from, Mr. Card? Oh, yeah, the Russian people. It wasn't a foreign power that overthrew the Soviet Union. It crumbled from within. It might take time, but it still happened.

Instead, President Bush has offered something quite different. We don't want to turn you into mini-Americas, he says. We offer you, instead, democracy, in which you can choose for yourselves what parts of western culture to adopt. You will govern yourselves. It isn't a choice between wickedness and righteousness, it's a choice between freedom and oppression.

Yes, it's freedom. It's democracy. But only if you elect leaders that we approve of. Only if you follow the constitution that we helped you write. You will govern yourselves, but only as long as you do what we say. And you will be grateful to us, for we have delivered you from Saddam Hussein and have given you freedom.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Yes, it's freedom. It's democracy. But only if you elect leaders that we approve of. Only if you follow the constitution that we helped you write. You will govern yourselves, but only as long as you do what we say. And you will be grateful to us, for we have delivered you from Saddam Hussein and have given you freedom.

Better than letting them run wild and free like the Weimer Republic, but I digress.

It's more fair to say that we are assisting them to get them on the right track and so they can get their feet on the ground, do we not owe them at least that? Sure it's up to them to not install another tyrrant, but republics are weak in the beginning.

Suggesting that we are there to oppress them is quite a stretch.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Is he serious? Can he actually look at what is going on in Iraq (and let's not forget Afghanistan) and say these tactics have been successful, much less wise?

I think you missed the point of the entire article then.

His point is that fighting the war in this manner is what we must do to win. Iraq is becoming more prosperous and that the insurgents are basically telling everyone that we will go home if they kill enough of our guys over there.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Where did that relief come from, Mr. Card? Oh, yeah, the Russian people. It wasn't a foreign power that overthrew the Soviet Union. It crumbled from within. It might take time, but it still happened.

Again, that is what he is arguing about. That in Iran it is possible that it will happen sooner rather than later. That is why Iraq is so important.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Yes, it's freedom. It's democracy. But only if you elect leaders that we approve of. Only if you follow the constitution that we helped you write. You will govern yourselves, but only as long as you do what we say. And you will be grateful to us, for we have delivered you from Saddam Hussein and have given you freedom.

You really think that the make up of the government is the way we want it? You think we wanted to have such a large percentage of religious figures in the government?

The interesting item in all of this is how he ties the whole region together which I have always felt to be the primary importance of going into Iraq. The parts about the Persian and Arab sects of the Shi'ites makes sense, but I never thought about it that way though, since I did know about the dislike those two ethnic groups have for one another.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sure it's up to them to not install another tyrrant, but republics are weak in the beginning.

Especially when they are established due to the actions of outside forces instead of internal.

Suggesting that we are there to oppress them is quite a stretch.

Was I suggesting that we were there to oppress them? I was pointing out how Card was saying we were offering them democracy, but not really. It's democracy with strings attached. So, more of a limited democracy, if you will.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Especially when they are established due to the actions of outside forces instead of internal.

The internal action was repulsed in 1991 when we didn't help them and the price to pay for that failure without our help was pretty steep.

Was I suggesting that we were there to oppress them? I was pointing out how Card was saying we were offering them democracy, but not really. It's democracy with strings attached. So, more of a limited democracy, if you will.

Japan wasn't allowed to reinstate a dictator, Germany wasn't allowed to reinstate a dictator, and neither will Iraq. So yeah, there are certain strings attached, but they are safeguards against allowing thugs like Al Qaeda from taking over before the people who voted get a chance to see their fledgling democracy get started.

And yes, without the US and the allies involved, another thug dictatorship would have already taken over through violence. Nobody prefers that.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think you missed the point of the entire article then.

His point is that fighting the war in this manner is what we must do to win. Iraq is becoming more prosperous and that the insurgents are basically telling everyone that we will go home if they kill enough of our guys over there.

But it was the "wise" and "correct" tactics that got us stuck in Iraq in the first place. The only reason why Iraq is involved in "The War on Terror" is because we made it so. Don't you see that invading Iraq was the worst possible course of action we could take. We did all the terrorist groups a huge favor by invading.

Again, that is what he is arguing about. That in Iran it is possible that it will happen sooner rather than later. That is why Iraq is so important.

In other words, we should just leave Iran alone and it will self-destruct? Then why not let Iraq become a new Iran?

You really think that the make up of the government is the way we want it? You think we wanted to have such a large percentage of religious figures in the government?

How would it be possible otherwise? That would be like saying you don't want a lot of Christians in the US government. Good luck with that.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

I read an interesting piece in the paper the other day by Ron Paul, the libertarian (little L, since he ran as a Republican) Congressman from Texas. He made an interesting point that I hadn't heard discussed before. He says why is it people are taking it as a unassailable fact that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here? He said the same people pushing this statement are the same ones who told us that there were definitely WMDs in Iraq, that were ready to be unleashed upon us at a moment's notice. Since that 'fact' was so far from being true, why is it the new fact is no readily believed?

He said to look back to recent history to Vietnam. The main reason for staying in Vietnam was so we could fight Communism while it is still on the other side of the world. We pull out of Vietnam, and conventional wisdom held that the rest of the poorer countries in the world would topple like dominoes into the clutches of communism. When we left Saigon, pretty much the opposite happened. About 15 years after the last American troops left, the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War was over.

Interesting points to discuss.

We had the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the communists in Grenada, and you had some stuff in Angola as well, if I remember. So yes, you had a number of places that moved into the communist sphere, at least briefly after Vietnam.

[JPhillips]

So Vietnam was about Grenada?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And yes, without the US and the allies involved, another thug dictatorship would have already taken over through violence. Nobody prefers that.

I think there are quite a few Iraqis who would prefer a dictator over what's going on right now. People will gladly give up freedom for security.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

We had the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the communists in Grenada, and you had some stuff in Angola as well, if I remember. So yes, you had a number of places that moved into the communist sphere, at least briefly after Vietnam.

But that doesn't change the fact that communism did not become the force that it was projected to be after we left Vietnam.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

But it was the "wise" and "correct" tactics that got us stuck in Iraq in the first place. The only reason why Iraq is involved in "The War on Terror" is because we made it so. Don't you see that invading Iraq was the worst possible course of action we could take. We did all the terrorist groups a huge favor by invading.

No I don't. I didn't hold with the reasons the government made and constantly shifting the reasons. There were a good 4-5 reasons why we should have gone into Iraq which I would have supported. We used WMDs as the reason de jure which I disagreed with only going in based upon that one issue. But, that was the one reason why the people of the US would have supported action there.

I don't think we did the terror groups a favor by invading. How does it help them? If we stay the course there, they are thoroughly discredited. They will lose face in the Islamic community.

For the record, I think Iraq was a logical choice of a place to go into to change the face of the Middle East. Where we failed was the lack of sending enough troops to get the job done. I have often said that our reduced military (size) will be unable to wage a major war. This is not a major war, and we can lose this easily.

It is intersting in the article that Arles posted that in the northern part of Iraq we will be turning it over to Iraqi forces soon. The problem is in the Bahgdad area. I have often thought this to be the case. The insurgency is in some areas and not in others. Iraq is not a state in flames, but some Iraqi states are in flames.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

In other words, we should just leave Iran alone and it will self-destruct? Then why not let Iraq become a new Iran?

Yes and no. His contention is that we need to nudge Iran over the edge, but that does not mean we need to launch a full scale invasion of Iran. I seem to remember a few years ago where the Iranian government reportedly had an airplane ready to take the top leaders out of the country due to a possible coup that never developed.

I also know that a college friend of mine was in Iraq and many Iranians that came over the border after the war pleaded with him to come help them in Iran as we did in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

How would it be possible otherwise? That would be like saying you don't want a lot of Christians in the US government. Good luck with that.

We don't have a ton of ministers or national religious leaders in the government. We don't have catholic priest involved in the government or Jewish rabbis, etc.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't think we did the terror groups a favor by invading. How does it help them? If we stay the course there, they are thoroughly discredited. They will lose face in the Islamic community.

I don't understand this. How will they lose face by fighting us, the nation that is so hated in the ME? If anything, they've gotten more recruits because of our actions in Iraq.

We don't have a ton of ministers or national religious leaders in the government. We don't have catholic priest involved in the government or Jewish rabbis, etc.

Maybe not directly in government, but religious leaders play a huge role in our politics. When you have religious leaders having weekly phone chats with the president, I think that says it all.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I think there are quite a few Iraqis who would prefer a dictator over what's going on right now. People will gladly give up freedom for security.

I do give the media credit for getting into Iraq and giving us information. Something that was never truly available on a day-by-day basis prior to 2003.

Take it for what it's worth, it's Amnesty International, but I figured the source would at least be believable in your eyes.

At least I can recognize that the terror-insurgency isn't there to win "better" democracy. It's there to win back the dictatorship...or worse, an Al Qaeda theological dictatorship.

Iraq 1999

Suspected political opponents, including possible prisoners of conscience, continued to be arrested and tens of thousands of others arrested in previous years remained held. Scores of Kurdish families were forcibly expelled from their homes and members of targeted families detained. Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners and detainees were widely reported. According to reports, at least six people had their hands amputated as punishment. There was no further news on the fate of thousands of people who “disappeared” in previous years. Hundreds of people, including political prisoners, were reportedly executed; some may have been extrajudicially executed. Death sentences continued to be imposed, including for non-violent offences. Human rights abuses were reported in areas under Kurdish control.

Iraq remained under the economic sanctions imposed in 1990 by un Security Council resolutions. Deaths of thousands of civilians, including many children, owing to malnutrition and lack of medicines as a result of the sanctions continued to be reported. In September, during consideration of the report on Iraq under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Rights of the Child observed that children had been most affected by the sanctions.

Reports of arrests of suspected political opponents, including possible prisoners of conscience, continued throughout the year, although it was not possible to ascertain the number. Thousands of suspected political opponents and others arrested in previous years in connection with anti-government protests remained held incommunicado.

In February President Saddam Hussain reportedly ordered the release of hundreds of Arab prisoners, including Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Egyptians. More than 50 Jordanians had been released in January. All those freed were believed to have been held on criminal charges.

In January the authorities issued an order for the forcible expulsion of 1,468 Kurdish families resident in the Kirkuk province to provinces under kdp or puk control, citing the “security and geographical importance” of the area as the reason for the expulsions. The order also stated that one person from each targeted family must be detained. By the end of June more than 100 families were said to have been expelled and further expulsions were subsequently reported. Members of the targeted families were detained as “hostages” until the expulsions of their respective families had been completed.

Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners and detainees were widely reported. Methods used included electric shocks to various parts of the body, long periods of suspension by the limbs accompanied by beating, falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), cigarette burns and solitary confinement.

In August, six members of a group known as Fida'yi Saddam (Saddam's Fighters) reportedly had their hands amputated by order of 'Uday Saddam Hussain, the President's eldest son. They were reportedly accused of theft and extortion from travellers in the southern city of Basra.

There were further reports of executions of prisoners, including political prisoners (see Amnesty International Report 1998). In June more than 60 prisoners were said to have been executed at Abu Ghraib Prison near Baghdad. Most had reportedly been arrested in the aftermath of the March 1991 uprising against the government. In September at least 100 political prisoners, including 21 women, were reportedly executed and their bodies buried in mass graves.

Amnesty International sought clarification from the government of reports that hundreds of prisoners had been executed in late 1997 in Abu Ghraib and al-Radhwaniya prisons. A list of 288 alleged victims was enclosed. The organization also expressed concern that trial procedures in the case of four Jordanian nationals who were executed in December 1997 (see Amnesty International Report 1998) violated Iraq's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iraq is a State Party. Clarification of the fate of the five men and one woman who were sentenced to death in 1997 (see above) was also sought. In June the government responded and accused Amnesty International of repeating the same allegations as in the organization's previous reports, and claimed that the list of people reportedly executed in late 1997 lacked details that would “facilitate finding the truth”. However, the government failed to respond substantively to reports of mass executions and to Amnesty International's concerns about other human rights violations.

In April Amnesty International expressed concern at the expulsion of Kurdish families from Kirkuk province. In June it expressed concern about the killings in April and June of two senior Shi'a Muslim clerics (see above) and sought information about the circumstances of the killings as well as details of any judicial inquiries carried out. No response was received by the end of the year.

In April Amnesty International wrote to the kdp and raised concern at the killing in Arbil of two members of the iwcp (see above). The organization sought details of any inquiries carried out into the killings. In May the kdp responded that an investigation had been immediately launched and one person had been arrested, but the full results were not known by the end of the year.

In November and December Amnesty International called on the us, uk and Iraqi governments to ensure maximum protection of civilian lives in accordance with international humanitarian law. In its response the uk government indicated that in any military action by uk forces “everything possible will be done to avoid civilian casualties”. No response was received from the us and Iraqi authorities.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So Vietnam was about Grenada?

Afghanistan, Cambodia, Thailand, Grenada, Nicaragua, etc.

The ideal we operated under was containment.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I'm afraid I'm missing your point. We all know Hussein was bad. We all know al-Qaeda is bad. We all know that terrorists are bad.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I don't understand this. How will they lose face by fighting us, the nation that is so hated in the ME? If anything, they've gotten more recruits because of our actions in Iraq.

If we stay there, they lose. Each day we stay there we win a little more. If we pull out, we will lose face and it will embolden our enemies. Look at the Soviet Union moving into Afghanistan in the 80s, that can be seen as a direct result of reading public opinion in the US. All we did was raise money for the opposition there.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Maybe not directly in government, but religious leaders play a huge role in our politics. When you have religious leaders having weekly phone chats with the president, I think that says it all.

That does not violate the separation of church and state. When you have actual religious leaders in government you run the risk of theocracy, or being ruled like one. For one, I actually like the fact that we have a president that feels he needs to talk to religious leaders for ethical and moral guidance. Heck, we'd be a better nation if more people in this country had better ethics and morals.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I'm afraid I'm missing your point. We all know Hussein was bad. We all know al-Qaeda is bad. We all know that terrorists are bad.

His point is that he really doubts they would prefer a dicatator after they had all these things happen to them under Hussein's dictatorship.

I think it points out the fact that what we did in overthrowing Hussein could be seen as a triumph of the human rights movement, if we can bring stability to the country.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If we stay there, they lose. Each day we stay there we win a little more. If we pull out, we will lose face and it will embolden our enemies. Look at the Soviet Union moving into Afghanistan in the 80s, that can be seen as a direct result of reading public opinion in the US. All we did was raise money for the opposition there.

I still don't see how us staying there is going to change anyone's views on us. I guess it's just a difference of opinions.

Heck, we'd be a better nation if more people in this country had better ethics and morals.

But only as long as those ethics and morals reflect yours. Would you feel the same if the president was so friendly with Pagans? Or Muslims? Or any other non-Christian faith?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

His point is that he really doubts they would prefer a dicatator after they had all these things happen to them under Hussein's dictatorship.

I think people love freedom, but will give it up freely if they don't feel secure. And as for most Iraqis, how often did they suffer from Saddam's wrath? As long as they didn't do anything wrong, I'm sure they felt like they didn't have anything to worry about. That all changes with chaos. Now walking down the street is terrifying. You don't know friend from foe. At least with a dictator, you know where you stand.

(Not that I would want to live that way, mind you, I'm just saying that's how a lot of people think)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Afghanistan, Cambodia, Thailand, Grenada, Nicaragua, etc.

The ideal we operated under was containment.

Too bad that policy was such an abject failure.

As for Afghanistan, I'm not why you included them on the list. The Soviets were trying to force communism on the Afghanis, and the Taliban were fighting to keep them out. And guess who supported the Taliban at the time with money and arms?

[JPhillips]

If we stay there, they lose. Each day we stay there we win a little more. If we pull out, we will lose face and it will embolden our enemies. Look at the Soviet Union moving into Afghanistan in the 80s, that can be seen as a direct result of reading public opinion in the US. All we did was raise money for the opposition there.

A couple points, one its standard thought among military folks that in a guerrilla war everyday that the guerrillas fight is a day closer to their victory. I have never heard any expert claim what you are claiming.

Second, you need to read up on the Afghan war. I'd suggest Charlie Wilson's War as a good primer. Your take on it is seriously flawed. There's a good argument that the resistance in Afghanistan was the single most effective act against the Soviets in the eighties. It was certainly much more effective than Nicaragua.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Afghanistan, Cambodia, Thailand, Grenada, Nicaragua, etc.

The ideal we operated under was containment.

And look who is back in Nicaragua.

[Leonidas]

Card argues the Republican's are the only side that offer a chance? And what chance does "stay the course" offer? After Saddam's statue fell pretty much everything this administration has planned and done in Iraq has failed and they offer nothing new to change a negative course spiralling down the tubes. So what is the great chance for victory being offered?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

After Saddam's statue fell pretty much everything this administration has planned and done in Iraq has failed and they offer nothing new to change a negative course spiralling down the tubes.

Incorrect. Card says that this was the most mistake free war in the history of human civilization. No, really:

Critics of Bush love to cite the many "mistakes" his administration has made. Most of these "mistakes" are arguable -- are they mistakes at all? -- and when you sum up the others, with any kind of rational understanding of military history, the only possible conclusion is that this is the best-run war in history, with the fewest mistakes.

I've saved this entire article on my hard drive, so that a couple years from now we can look back on it and laugh about how crazy these times were. It's right next to this: