War in Iraq... When should the troops come home???

Kix · #31 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Skinny,

I agree with you that we don't have to wait to be attacked to attack. But, Germany is not a good example of that since they declared war on us just after the Pearl Harbor attack. And this was really a gift to FDR....at the time, he was struggling with how to sell to the American people the "Germany first" idea....since Japan was the one who attacked us. But, Hitler's declaration let FDR off the hook.

As far as Iraq goes, this is what I think Skinny (just my opinion): The Bush Administration struck Iraq primarily for the following reasons:
- Access to the Middle East. We were wearing out our welcome in Saudi Arabia. Our basing access was becoming more and more tenuous. Basing access in Iraq would certainly solve that problem.
- To send places like Iran and N. Korea a very strong message....e.g, you could be next.
- I think they actually believed that they could help develop a Western-style democracy in Iraq.....and that this would be a beacon that would begin to transform the Middle East.
- Oil. I know that's not a real popular thing to say...but, I think its' crazy to think that it didn't play some role...at least, in the back of their minds. Iraq has a ton of oil....and it's very easily accessible.

I honestly now don't think that terrorism (Iraq/Al Qaeda connection) or WMDs really played that big of a role.....although they certainly were the primary selling points back in March 2003.

Today, the war on Iraq has certainly become a part of the fight against terrorism. It's also a battle between the US and the Iranians for influence in the Middle East.

I agree somewhat with what you say here, but don't you believe for even a moment that all those other items listed in all those UNSC Resolutions for all those years had anything at all to do with it? Or that Saddam's continued shell games with the inspectors gave a good indication that he was hiding something? The only inspector who may have had something serious to report ended up dead. I know it was just a car accident, but hey.. we learned the hard way on 9/11 that it doesn't take a bullet, rocket or a bomb to kill someone.

StormanNorman · #32 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

I agree somewhat with what you say here, but don't you believe for even a moment that all those other items listed in all those UNSC Resolutions for all those years had anything at all to do with it? Or that Saddam's continued shell games with the inspectors gave a good indication that he was hiding something? The only inspector who may have had something serious to report ended up dead. I know it was just a car accident, but hey.. we learned the hard way on 9/11 that it doesn't take a bullet, rocket or a bomb to kill someone.

Maybe, Kix....I'll tell you straight up.... I thought Saddam and Iraq had something in the form of WMDs.....nothing huge or accurately described as "some of the worst weapons ever know to mankind" and certainly nothing nuclear related, but I thought that he had something especially on the chemical side.

To me, the questions are the following: Assuming that the Bush Administration privately thought the same way I did,
- Has our effort been worth it? In other words, did this perceived threat merit this kind of effort? Now, I'm speaking here strictly from a US national security viewpoint.
- Were there better perhaps less drastic and costly ways to deal with Iraq? These other means probably required more time, but do they, in the end, achieve the same objectives in terms of US security?

I can't say this enough, Kix....we do NOT have an endless pool of resources....and this has been a pretty costly fight for what it seems to be getting us.

Skinny Fatts · #33 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Skinny,

I agree with you that we don't have to wait to be attacked to attack. But, Germany is not a good example of that since they declared war on us just after the Pearl Harbor attack. And this was really a gift to FDR....at the time, he was struggling with how to sell to the American people the "Germany first" idea....since Japan was the one who attacked us. But, Hitler's declaration let FDR off the hook.

As far as Iraq goes, this is what I think Skinny (just my opinion): The Bush Administration struck Iraq primarily for the following reasons:
- Access to the Middle East. We were wearing out our welcome in Saudi Arabia. Our basing access was becoming more and more tenuous. Basing access in Iraq would certainly solve that problem.
- To send places like Iran and N. Korea a very strong message....e.g, you could be next.
- I think they actually believed that they could help develop a Western-style democracy in Iraq.....and that this would be a beacon that would begin to transform the Middle East.
- Oil. I know that's not a real popular thing to say...but, I think its' crazy to think that it didn't play some role...at least, in the back of their minds. Iraq has a ton of oil....and it's very easily accessible.

I honestly now don't think that terrorism (Iraq/Al Qaeda connection) or WMDs really played that big of a role.....although they certainly were the primary selling points back in March 2003.

Today, the war on Iraq has certainly become a part of the fight against terrorism. It's also a battle between the US and the Iranians for influence in the Middle East.

I would pretty much echo these sentiments except I might be a bit more vigorous on the terrorism connection. Not in the traditional sense (Iraq/Al Qaeda connection), but more in the sense of Saddam funding our enemies and/or developing and selling WMD's to those with the ability to strike us.

I also agree on the "oil" idea, and it is unpopular. The bad part now is that Iran will probably get it now (I think we know who else is in it for the oil) and who knows...? I don't think we have the will to fight with Iran.

Pleasure talking to you. Keep us thinking!

StormanNorman · #34 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

I also agree on the "oil" idea, and it is unpopular. The bad part now is that Iran will probably get it now (I think we know who else is in it for the oil) and who knows...? I don't think we have the will to fight with Iran.

Yep, that can be a problem when you go in and shake up a region even with the best of intentions.....you just dont' know sometimes how things are going to shake out. And, I agree....we don't have the will to fight Iran...at least, not on the ground. Air strikes....maybe?

Quote:

Pleasure talking to you. Keep us thinking!

Same to you.

Sam · #35 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 03:08 PM

Yes SF I agree.. Storman please keep us thinking. you bring a great prspective to all of this.

One thought I have is this: The problems we now face...can they be solved by the minds that created them?

StormanNorman · #36 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Yes SF I agree.. Storman please keep us thinking. you bring a great prspective to all of this.

One thought I have is this: The problems we now face...can they be solved by the minds that created them?

Roger that, Sam....and that's a good question. Can they now be solved adequately by anyone for that matter?

Skinny Fatts · #37 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Air strikes....maybe?

Will those work...alone? I have heard repeatedly that airpower alone never works. It sure seems to be a bit more "clean"...except to the people on the receiving end. Regadless, a tangled web has certainly been woven...er...weaved...uh...you know what I mean.

StormanNorman · #38 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

Will those work...alone? I have heard repeatedly that airpower alone never works. It sure seems to be a bit more "clean"...except to the people on the receiving end. Regadless, a tangled web has certainly been woven...er...weaved...uh...you know what I mean.

Well, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's to totally and absolutely defeat an enemy, no....air strikes alone typically won't work. But, if it is to coerce them into changing their behavior, then it all depends. A prime example of this was Kosovo/Operation Allied Force where we were able to force the Serbians to change their behavior toward the Kosovar Albanians....it took time and it wasn't easy, but eventually it worked.

Iran is certainly a much different nut to crack. It all depends on what key Iranian centers of gravity that we (the US) can effectively hold at risk. And are they worth enough to the Iranians for them to back down?

Skinny, I'm certainly not advocating air strikes against Iran at this time. If they are, indeed, on the table, then we need to think very clearly about what our goals are and how air strikes can help (or hurt) achieving those goals. Paramount in all this is Iraq. In my mind, our first and number one strategic goal in the region should be to secure Iraq. Would air strikes against Iran help us or hurt us in that endeavor? That's a tough one.

Skinny Fatts · #39 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Well, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's to totally and absolutely defeat an enemy, no....air strikes alone typically won't work. But, if it is to coerce them into changing their behavior, then it all depends. A prime example of this was Kosovo/Operation Allied Force where we were able to force the Serbians to change their behavior toward the Kosovar Albanians....it took time and it wasn't easy, but eventually it worked.

Iran is certainly a much different nut to crack. It all depends on what key Iranian centers of gravity that we (the US) can effectively hold at risk. And are they worth enough to the Iranians for them to back down?

Skinny, I'm certainly not advocating air strikes against Iran at this time. If they are, indeed, on the table, then we need to think very clearly about what our goals are and how air strikes can help (or hurt) achieving those goals. Paramount in all this is Iraq. In my mind, our first and number one strategic goal in the region should be to secure Iraq. Would air strikes against Iran help us or hurt us in that endeavor? That's a tough one.

I knew you were hypothesizing and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. As to your question I think it would hurt. It would start something that we don't have the vision or the heart (politically and personally) to finish. Nor (IMO) do we really have a grasp on who and what we are dealing with. The right in this country seems to rely on force which I don't think scares them. The left in this country seems to think they can negotiate with ANYONE. Problem is we have nothing they want, making negotiation difficult. I don't see a viable option from either side?

Thoughts?

StormanNorman · #40 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

I knew you were hypothesizing and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. As to your question I think it would hurt. It would start something that we don't have the vision or the heart (politically and personally) to finish.

I tend to agree with you....at least, let's not consider air strikes right this moment. First things first, let's get things settled down in Iraq the very best we can without kinetic actions against Iran.

However, there are those who think that we need strike Iran or at least threaten to strike them in order to get them to cease meddling in Iraq. Clearly, the Iranians are doing things to make it more difficult for us there....it's a battle of influencers. For example, those four or five soldiers that were kidnapped and killed recently....that may have been the work of the Iranians. And, I'm sure you're like me....that pisses you off. And the understandable knee jerk response is "let's hit em."

But, one can't get emotional here. We have to think through this thing....how do we best secure Iraq? How do we limit Iranian influence without exacerbating it? And again, I tend to agree with you....focus on Iraq, first....then we can deal with Iran.

Quote:

Nor (IMO) do we really have a grasp on who and what we are dealing with. The right in this country seems to rely on force which I don't think scares them. The left in this country seems to think they can negotiate with ANYONE. Problem is we have nothing they want, making negotiation difficult. I don't see a viable option from either side?

Thoughts?

I agree.....negotiating with the Iranians is pointless....we really have nothing to offer them. They are content to wait us out. Now, the Syrians on the other hand....they might be a different story. I think most the Arab countries are very fearful of a stronger and more influential Iran including Syria. So, there is some common interest between us and the Syrians. Can we somehow work together to solve the crisis in Iraq and thwart the Iranians without alienating the Shiites....that's the question.