The US War - Five Years On

[6thGen]

George Friedmans analysis offers a great many reasons why we should NOT have remained in Iraq. Certainly once we gained the information we needed about Al-Qaeda, the funds spent since invasion, could have been much better used to enhance our own security here and in training operatives globally.
I don't believe for one second the US had as limited information they claim. The attack 9/11, while well orchestrated, was well up and beyond what Al-Qaeda had expected. We give them too much credit.
I do not think they expected all the towers 9/11 to come crumbling down, or that they would cause chaos in our economy, and I recall them admitting that.

No I do not feel safer just because US troops are in Iraq. (and I have high regard for our military)
Al-Qaeda is spread out all over the world.
Perhaps Mr. Friedman could give us a real reason why we are still there aside from being good ole boys staying to rebuild an infrastructure as we claim we are doing?

You see, Mango, the thing about offering an intellectually honest evaluation is that you have to defend it from people cherry picking what they want to critique. You left this part out, "It is, of course, easy to say that the United States should have intervened, achieved its goals and left each country in chaos; it is harder to do. Nevertheless, the United States intervened, did not leave the countries and still has chaos. That can be said with hindsight. Acting so callously with foresight is more difficult."

As Pat Dye says, hindsight is 50/50. As for why we are still there, it's because the US has consistently proven we don't have the stomach for war, and it's up to us to prove otherwise. We were attacked on 9/11 because we appeared weak, and that's well documented. The current surge is more about proving to the rest of the region, specifically Iran, that we aren't just ready to turn the keys over the the democrats.

On a side note, if you'll recall, the progressives had the discussion amongst themselves during and after WWI. Randolph Bourne played the part of Buchanon, but far more deftly. He argued the title in an unfinished "War is the Health of the State", and time would prove him right. WWI, the concessions at Versailles that followed, and WWII led to the consolidation of Federal power and move towards socialism that we are trying to undo. John Dewey played the part of the Neocon that everyone loves to hate. Dewey argued that America should use its power to spread democracy throughout the world, and argued that the ends justified the means. Funny how things come back around. If we had remained as isolationists, Europe and the worldwide power balance would look much different than it does now. However, we are all learning the hard way that spreading democracy isn't easy. In Iraq, we took a chance and we lost. We took the only realistic chance available. Did you believe at the time that it would have been best to attack Iraq, get what we need and leave the country in a mess? I'm guessing not.

 

[John R]

I look forward to discussing this article with Mr. Friedman at the mensa picnic, to see where he stands on these views now.

 

[6thGen]

I think he's bringing the potato salad.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

We've killed 50,000 Iraqis? Or they've killed each other? You prefer a strongman to selectively kill people?

I'd like to hear your suggestions on how we should invest the $300B on security and infrastructure. As for the analysis, Dr. Friedman never stated that he had closed the book on it, so I don't really know what you are talking about there. It's a point in time analysis. Critics of the administration argue that they should have had more of those. Do you disagree with that?

Well your average Bush supporter had no trouble blaming the 9-11 deaths on Iraq so I’m curious as to why you feel the Iraqis will look elsewhere for someone to blame for the state of their country.

Whether you or I ‘prefer a strongman’ is irrelevant. Clearly what matters, when we are considering the long term consequences of Bush’s actions, are the opinions of the Iraqis.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraq.poll.ap/index.html
“Fewer than half in the country, 42 percent, said that life in Iraq now is better than it was under Saddam Hussein, the late dictator accused of murdering tens of thousands during a brutal regime.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m interpreting that as a bad sign of things to come with regards to US interests in Iraq. And that’s not even the scariest part of the equation. The single biggest long term threat to US interests, not just in the region but globally –is the potential destabilization of the oil producing regimes in the gulf. Our economy is dependant on the flow of oil from that region. Period. Anyone want to look up support for the US, or for the US supported regimes in those countries at the moment? Potentially very scary, speaking in the long term.

If those regimes fall- and the fact that the possibility is now real and directly attributable to Bush’s actions- will secure Dubya’s place in history as the President who put the US on the road to national decline.

So now my question to you, 6th Gen, is what is a greater threat to US interests? Domestic Terrorism or the loss of Mid-East Oil?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Forget that the United States Constitution was sent through the shredder in seeking out terrorists.

I seem to recall seeing previews for a movie starring Tom Cruise, where potential crimes were being stopped by the law long before they were even planned out by the criminals, based on what might happen in the future. I for one, will give up security in the name of freedom! Any security which we are being provided is false security at best, and we are losing our freedoms daily because of the politrickshuns. I smell dirty diapers...

 

[Mango]

I'd like to hear your suggestions on how we should invest the $300B on security and infrastructure. As for the analysis,

Well gee, let me take you shopping with me and how I could have spent that money. For starters, hire, train and implement Internet Operatives since the Internet has become a safe haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have safe haven geographically in Afghanistan, spend more money in the aerospace and defense industries developing new technologies, use it for scientific purposes to study the use of alternative fuels. Shall I go on? and at the same time, creating new jobs. Imagine that.

You see, Mango, the thing about offering an intellectually honest evaluation is that you have to defend it from people cherry picking what they want to critique. You left this part out, "It is, of course, easy to say that the United States should have intervened, achieved its goals and left each country in chaos; it is harder to do. Nevertheless, the United States intervened, did not leave the countries and still has chaos. That can be said with hindsight. Acting so callously with foresight is more difficult."

Did you believe at the time that it would have been best to attack Iraq, get what we need and leave the country in a mess? I'm guessing not.

It was very easy to cherry pick Friedman's essay. He left it wide open.
I also noted that his analysis didn't answer the question why we are still there.

Do I believe it best to attack and leave? No, I think the governement should have had a better plan of action than just rolling a bulldozer around without any real plan. All we've done is create further dissent.
Our own National Intelligence Agency issued a report that the Iraq war hs just increased the threat of terrorism.

 

[6thGen]

?Well your average Bush supporter had no trouble blaming the 9-11 deaths on Iraq so I?m curious as to why you feel the Iraqis will look elsewhere for someone to blame for the state of their country.?

Not to be condescending, even though everyone knows I am a condescending ahole, but don?t you have anything beyond anecdotes and rhetoric? If what you state is correct, and neither of us has any way of knowing, the average Bush supporter isn?t very bright. The administration never claimed that. They claimed that Iraq was harboring terrorists, and that is very well documented and beyond dispute. As for blame, the Shiites blame the Sunnis, who blame the Shiites and the Kurds. There is a round robin of weapon pointing. There are not American flags on the shoulder of the ones setting off the car bombs and Iraqis know that.

?Whether you or I ?prefer a strongman? is irrelevant. Clearly what matters, when we are considering the long term consequences of Bush?s actions, are the opinions of the Iraqis.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraq.poll.ap/index.html
?Fewer than half in the country, 42 percent, said that life in Iraq now is better than it was under Saddam Hussein, the late dictator accused of murdering tens of thousands during a brutal regime.??

It is entirely relevant. You were the one just preaching about the long term. The French felt the same way when the Allies brought the fight through their once peaceful, yet occupied villages. Ask them how they feel about it now. Many of the colonists, hell, colonies, wanted no part of breaking away from Great Britain. Tree of liberty, blood of the tyrants and patriots and stuff. Sacrifice is necessary for change of this nature.

?I don?t know about you, but I?m interpreting that as a bad sign of things to come with regards to US interests in Iraq. And that?s not even the scariest part of the equation. The single biggest long term threat to US interests, not just in the region but globally ?is the potential destabilization of the oil producing regimes in the gulf. Our economy is dependant on the flow of oil from that region. Period. Anyone want to look up support for the US, or for the US supported regimes in those countries at the moment? Potentially very scary, speaking in the long term.?

That?s just not true. The U.S. imports about half of the oil we consume. We import the same amount of Canada that we do from all of the Middle East combined, and we import nearly as much from Mexico as we do from Canada. Yes, destabilization has global and economic consequences, but so do crazy dictators with ties to terrorists overtly threatening you with weapons of mass destruction. Don?t go into the fact that we did not dig up many WMDs, everyone on the planet thought he had them, all of Congress thought that he had them, so don?t tell me you knew he didn?t. The fact is he did, and the weapons were moved to other countries that hate us. As with Al Qaeda, better on the run that locked and loaded.

?If those regimes fall- and the fact that the possibility is now real and directly attributable to Bush?s actions- will secure Dubya?s place in history as the President who put the US on the road to national decline.?

That is nonsense.

?So now my question to you, 6th Gen, is what is a greater threat to US interests? Terrorism or the loss of Mid-East Oil??

Do I still need to answer that or is it pretty obvious?

 

[6thGen]

Forget that the United States Constitution was sent through the shredder in seeking out terrorists.

Please site some examples.

I seem to recall seeing previews for a movie starring Tom Cruise, where potential crimes were being stopped by the law long before they were even planned out by the criminals, based on what might happen in the future. I for one, will give up security in the name of freedom! Any security which we are being provided is false security at best, and we are losing our freedoms daily because of the politrickshuns. I smell dirty diapers...

I saw a movie with Arnold where they implant a memory chip to make him believe that he saw a woman with three breasts, but I don't think that our government has or would use such a memory chip. That's seriously the only thing I remember from that movie or this analogy would have been much more clever and snarky.

 

[6thGen]

Well gee, let me take you shopping with me and how I could have spent that money. For starters, hire, train and implement Internet Operatives since the Internet has become a safe haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have safe haven geographically in Afghanistan, spend more money in the aerospace and defense industries developing new technologies, use it for scientific purposes to study the use of alternative fuels. Shall I go on? and at the same time, creating new jobs. Imagine that.



It was very easy to cherry pick Friedman's essay. He left it wide open.
I also noted that his analysis didn't answer the question why we are still there.

Do I believe it best to attack and leave? No, I think the governement should have had a better plan of action than just rolling a bulldozer around without any real plan. All we've done is create further dissent.
Our own National Intelligence Agency issued a report that the Iraq war hs just increased the threat of terrorism.

Quickly, because I'm about to head out of town. First, we already do all that. As for creating jobs, the unemployment rate is too low as it is, which will lead to inflation, even Keynes agrees with that. We are due for a recession to correct it. Friedman's essay wasn't written to saw why we should still be there, it was written as an analysis of what has happened. It's not in his intent to tell us why we should be there, so you might as well be complaining that Jim Rome didn't mention why we should be there on his show today.

I agree on the planning, so does everyone else who can fog a mirror. It's not anywhere easy, and hindsight is 50/50, but I'll be the first to admit that the occupation plan sucked. So will Bush. As for the article, I'll read it later. I remember reading it when it came out but I'll have to look at it again. First you have to consider the source. The intelligencies hate any administration by nature. Until they can offer some examples, which is impossible thank God, I'll stand by my assessment.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Don’t go into the fact that we did not dig up many WMDs, everyone on the planet thought he had them, all of Congress thought that he had them, so don’t tell me you knew he didn’t.

Since a very large portion of the US Citizens can better list the names of the final ten contestants on American Idol than they can list the current US President and Vice President, I find your statement a very large stretch. I keep up with politricks and I didn't know whether or not Saddam had WMD. It would even be a stretch to say that all of the US Senators know this information for certain. All they know is what other, sometimes, uninformed people tell them. I do bet they know that there is much money spent by the taxpayers, and made by their croanies, by going to war. ;-)