Telegraph: Decline and fall of the Washington hawks

Is the Iraqi war in American interests now?

  • Yes, no doubt

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No but the withdrawal is more damagable

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No but the withdrawal is an equally bad option

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No but USA cares about Iraqi people

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
#2
There are a lot of other people taking advantage of the US's loss of confidence and moral authority, and their military entanglements there and in AFG.

If US isn't careful it could find itself gentle edged to the sidelines far quicker than anyone ever contemplated. If (for the sake of argument) you add in a revitalised isolationist movement, you could easily imagine a not-so-distant future where the US is an irrelevance in world affairs, lacking either the will or the ability to exert influence.
 
#3
Put down yes just for sh*ts and giggles.
 
#4
The war in Iraq has never been in America's interest. Nor has it ever been intended that it would be so. It was only considered in the interests of the P.N.A.C working with the Israeli lobby. The American public as well as the Iraqi one have just had to put up, shut up and pay for it in blood and treasure, as both were taken for the ride of the century.
 
#5
I'm glad Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay are worm food. Destroying the Baath party was entirely a good thing.
 
#6
Lipo said:
I'm glad Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay are worm food. Destroying the Baath party was entirely a good thing.
Lipo, what do you know about Ba'ath party? I fancy that literally nothing. At least it was not islamist political force. Let's compare Ba'ath party with Mahdi army led by fierce Moqtada al-Sadr or with Sunny insurgents. What do you prefer?

As for Saddam and his sons. Yes the Dragon is dead but his place had been occupied immediately by dozens of small dragons, faceless but not less brutal.

Returning to the theme of the thread let's ask ourselves is the war in the interests of al-Qaeda, in the interests of hard-core islamists. The answer is obvious - Yes. For them the war is an excellent possibility to unite their forces, to recruit only Allah knows how many new jihadists.

But is it possible that the war is in interests of USA and jihadists at the same time? No of course.
 
#7
I would expect my enemy to mobilize against me. The only other option is acquiesence and capitulation. Pardon me if I think it might be better to kill the enemy instead.

Kim Jong Il isn't an islamist political force either. This fact makes his demise - and that of his regime - no less desireable.

I'm glad Saddam Hussein is dead.
 
#8
Lipo said:
I would expect my enemy to mobilize against me. The only other option is acquiesence and capitulation. Pardon me if I think it might be better to kill the enemy instead.
It is the root of the problem. Who is your enemy? Entering Iraq, the Americans thought that it is Saddam, Ba'ath party. But now, as a result of the war influental anti-Saddam forces (mr. al-Sadr for example) became enemies. It is as legendary Hydra - you cut one head but two additional appear instead. It is impossible to kill all American enemies without total annihilation of Iraqi people and it is impossible now.

Lipo said:
Kim Jong Il isn't an islamist political force either. This fact makes his demise - and that of his regime - no less desireable.
Kim is a communist. Btw, USA co-operates with Iraqi communists. USA has trade relations with communist China and who know maybe in the near future communist Korea would be a partner of America. Why not?
 
#9
KGB_resident said:
Lipo said:
I'm glad Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay are worm food. Destroying the Baath party was entirely a good thing.
Lipo, what do you know about Ba'ath party? I fancy that literally nothing. At least it was not islamist political force. Let's compare Ba'ath party with Mahdi army led by fierce Moqtada al-Sadr or with Sunny insurgents. What do you prefer?

As for Saddam and his sons. Yes the Dragon is dead but his place had been occupied immediately by dozens of small dragons, faceless but not less brutal.

Returning to the theme of the thread let's ask ourselves is the war in the interests of al-Qaeda, in the interests of hard-core islamists. The answer is obvious - Yes. For them the war is an excellent possibility to unite their forces, to recruit only Allah knows how many new jihadists.

But is it possible that the war is in interests of USA and jihadists at the same time? No of course.
Sergey,

Of course or of course not?

In the horrible light of day, is your last statement not a horrible truth? Although it seems bizarre I know enough to know that the US can't back out. They have to keep their influence in oil, specifically to oil in the Middle East and if they back out now I doubt they will ever get back in. As long as the jihadists keep going, it gives them a good ustification to carry on too.

After all, the other great natural resource areas are Africa, an area that the US has had no interest in up until now and has limited influence in and an area that China has stolen a leap on and Russia, where in time (and perhaps right now?) it won't get the time of day.

The US simply can't afford to back out now - however painful the future is.
 
#10
The US seems to be doing quite well in its own backyard for natural resources (see Alaska) and so do they really need to maintain such a hold in the middle east?
 
#11
As we all know, 'Pride comes before the fall.'
Here again are the words of dangerous pride said only a few short years ago:

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:[1]

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
So arrogant were they such a short time ago that one of their hired scribes and 'thinkers', Frances Fcukwitama wrote a piece called 'The End of History'!
'The End of History? I mean, I ask you, just who the fcuk did these ********* actually think there were?

He we see man's hubris in full bloom. Whilst there maybe no justice in this world there are always periods of adjustment in ideas as there is in housing and shares.
Those who thought they could create reality now find the real stuff coming back to bite their ar'ses. And a damn good job too for all our sakes less some of rest of us also started getting fancy ideas.

On a hopeful note, in a few years time America may become different. It might do something it has never done in its short history. It might enter a culturally modest era and in doing so become a far more attractive nation because of it.
 
#12
in_the_cheapseats said:
KGB_resident said:
Lipo said:
I'm glad Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay are worm food. Destroying the Baath party was entirely a good thing.
Lipo, what do you know about Ba'ath party? I fancy that literally nothing. At least it was not islamist political force. Let's compare Ba'ath party with Mahdi army led by fierce Moqtada al-Sadr or with Sunny insurgents. What do you prefer?

As for Saddam and his sons. Yes the Dragon is dead but his place had been occupied immediately by dozens of small dragons, faceless but not less brutal.

Returning to the theme of the thread let's ask ourselves is the war in the interests of al-Qaeda, in the interests of hard-core islamists. The answer is obvious - Yes. For them the war is an excellent possibility to unite their forces, to recruit only Allah knows how many new jihadists.

But is it possible that the war is in interests of USA and jihadists at the same time? No of course.
Sergey,

Of course or of course not?

In the horrible light of day, is your last statement not a horrible truth? Although it seems bizarre I know enough to know that the US can't back out. They have to keep their influence in oil, specifically to oil in the Middle East and if they back out now I doubt they will ever get back in.
Why? It is possible at any moment. USA will keep its military infrastructure in the Gulf anyway.

And why would USA need to use its military force in Iraq again? What would be a reason?

USA retreated from Vietnam. And what is a result? Intel plans to built huge plant in the country.

Now, not military but economical methods to secure own vital interest are much more effective. Look, how Russia uses its 'gas weapons', another economical levers to deal with neighbours.

in_the_cheapseats said:
As long as the jihadists keep going, it gives them a good ustification to carry on too.

After all, the other great natural resource areas are Africa, an area that the US has had no interest in up until now and has limited influence in and an area that China has stolen a leap on and Russia, where in time (and perhaps right now?) it won't get the time of day.

The US simply can't afford to back out now - however painful the future is.
Personally I think that the war is not in interests of American (and also Iraqi) people. However, let's analyse possible counter-arguments. Suppose that OPEC would impose oil embargo against USA then of course all Iraqi oil would be sent to USA. But it is the only real benefit that I see. What else?
 
#13
I have said this before and I will say this again: when the US went to Iraq, we fell right into the Jihadists' trap. They wanted to fight us under their own terms and the only way they could do it was to to draw us into the heart of the middle east.

They did not have to try too hard because we chose to go to Iraq under very dubious circumstances and now we are stuck in a situation we can't get ourselves out of.

The war is in the interests of the US only because we dug ourselves into a hole so deep, getting out now will only validate the enemy.
 
#14
Having just selected that withdrawal would be worse I'm now unsure of my choice. America is still benefiting from being there,
They have contracts to build infrastructure: This will secure votes for the government from the companies who got them.
Oil is flowing: This saves them using their own resorces.
Technology and war fighting skills are being hardened and tested: Usefull if you plan more campains in the future.

I'm sure there are lots more benefits, they may appear not to outweigh the more unpopular events which happen over there but thats out point of view, they're looking at the bigger picture.
 
#15
Cow said:
Having just selected that withdrawal would be worse I'm now unsure of my choice. America is still benefiting from being there,
They have contracts to build infrastructure: This will secure votes for the government from the companies who got them.
Oil is flowing: This saves them using their own resorces.
Technology and war fighting skills are being hardened and tested: Usefull if you plan more campains in the future.

I'm sure there are lots more benefits, they may appear not to outweigh the more unpopular events which happen over there but thats out point of view, they're looking at the bigger picture.
Does it not seem like this, this current mess that is Iraq, the chaos, death and destruction, was the plan all along?
A part of me believes that, far from 'going wrong' in Iraq, 'things' are going swimmingly to plan, and on time.
 
#16
I doubt hawks will vanish from DC as a species. It's more a slow matter of natural selection as it dawns on Uncle Sam that Iraq is a strategic disaster on a grand scale and pickings get thin for tiny brained raptors.

However there's no real prospect of DC extracting itself from the mess in the region. The next POTUS is likely to have a large land army out among the sandflies when he leaves office. He'll be very lucky if its area of operation is confined by what was Iraqs borders.

It remains a mystery why we so hastily invaded Iraq. There was never a clear strategic purpose rather a mares nest of conflated threats and confused, contradictory policy goals. Anger, vainity, stupidity, incompetence and stubborn denial; it's been an unparrelled parade of human frailties across both Whitehall and in DC.

The best arguments for going to Baghdad included:

- Regional instability. The likelyness of a war with Saddam happening anyway
- longterm strategic basing to enhance energy security

These were always outweighed by the likely outcomes:

- a greatly strengthened Iran
- eventual loss of US hegemony in the Persian Gulf
- a rapid escalation of the threat from the Salafi Jihad

The worst amounted either to outright deceit or delusional thinking:

- The non-existent WMD threat. Even if Saddam had em his only likely use was defensive.
- Saddam's links to 9-11 and AQ. On a par with the Commies draining off our vital juices.
- Israel's defence. Israel is a costly strategic impediment to DC rather than an asset. Handing the Basra field to the Mullahs not helpful.
- Containment was failing/too expensive. Faith based assertion. Evidently it wasn't.
- Violation of UN Sanctions. Legalistic tosh.
- The Wilsonian crusade to spread freedom and democracy. To easily confused with installing a freemarket economy by bombing.
- Bringing Jesus to them thar infidel Musiloids. A Christian duty perhaps but not a basis for foreign policy.
- Human rights. Does not compute. They have no cash value.
- Weakest availble enemy state at a moment of political oppurtunity. Nice flight suit sir but Iraq is a bit bigger than Greneda Mr President.
- Lovely war of manoeuvre in open desert. Get back in your sandbox Genral Franks.
 
#17
on granby they rolled him back and stopped at the iraq border as the grown ups thought trying to rebuild iraq was too difficult a job
rather tough on the kurds and shia's but the right thing to do pity george did'nt listen to daddy :(
 
#18
Cow said:
Having just selected that withdrawal would be worse I'm now unsure of my choice. America is still benefiting from being there,
They have contracts to build infrastructure: This will secure votes for the government from the companies who got them.
Famous 'what is good for Ford is good for America' springs in mind. However I dare to disagree with you. No doubt that the war is in interests of some 'selected' companies, in interests of current administration. But it doesn't mean that the war is in national interests of USA.

Cow said:
Oil is flowing: This saves them using their own resorces.
Due to Iraqi war oil prices exploded. Maybe it is in interests of some American oil firms but USA pays more for oil now. Unlikely it is in American national interests. Btw, Iraqi oil industry is in stagnation. Huge oilfields still awaits oilers.

Cow said:
Technology and war fighting skills are being hardened and tested: Usefull if you plan more campains in the future.
Here I agree. But it is a bit strange that during the genocide in Rwanda such an excellent opportunity was not used by USA to train its troops.

Cow said:
I'm sure there are lots more benefits, they may appear not to outweigh the more unpopular events which happen over there but thats out point of view, they're looking at the bigger picture.
For example, this senseless war could stimulate global changes in American approach to international relations. USA could turn into peacefull country that uses its might to resolve international problem on democratic principles.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads