Telegraph: Decline and fall of the Washington hawks

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, May 25, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes, no doubt

    0 vote(s)
  2. Rather yes

    0 vote(s)
  3. No but the withdrawal is more damagable

    0 vote(s)
  4. No but the withdrawal is an equally bad option

    0 vote(s)
  5. No but USA cares about Iraqi people

    0 vote(s)
  6. No

    0 vote(s)
  1. 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.
  2. Put down yes just for sh*ts and giggles.
  3. 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.
  4. I'm glad Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay are worm food. Destroying the Baath party was entirely a good thing.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

    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?
  8. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator


    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.
  9. 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?
  10. As we all know, 'Pride comes before the fall.'
    Here again are the words of dangerous pride said only a few short years ago:

    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.
  11. 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.

    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?
  12. 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.
  13. Cow

    Cow LE

    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.
  14. 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.