The Emerging "Neocon" Alibi on Iraq

[J Wolfsberger]

... has never been noted for sloppy thinking.

One of the problems with the anti-war crowd is that they don't seem to have had a problem with the numerous bombing raids carried out under the previous administration, or the economic sanctions. (With the exception that some seemed to think we should have lifted them once Saddam turned "Oil for Food" into "Oil for Politicians and Weapons.") On the other hand, the fact that Bush wasn't 100% correct in everything, and the occupation was bungled, makes him and the US totally evil.

A second problem, that Hitchens has spoken to before, is that they refuse to recognize the world is a better place with Saddam out of power. That, too, is always ignored.

It would be nice to lock leftist, anti war types and "Neocons" in a room. The next day we could shoot the survivors.

[Ken White]

...
It would be nice to lock leftist, anti war types and "Neocons" in a room. The next day we could shoot the survivors.

I'll even donate a few. Voila, no survivors....

[marct]

I'll even donate a few. Voila, no survivors....

have an ideal way of dealing with Post Modernists and others suffering from PMS (Post Modernist Syndrome) which was similar. Lock them in a spherical room and tell them to deconstruct a continuous loop of Celine Dion .

There would be no survivors .

[Ski]

I find it quite ironic that the neo-cons are taking a page out of German history with the "dolchstoss" defense...these people are out to lunch.

Ken, sometimes lack of policy and action is good enough.

[Ken White]

Whether it's advisable or not when you're being stalked by a Pride of Lions is another question.

Turning the other cheek is, to steal a phrase from Marc, a Post Modernists preferred methodology. Works generally okay with most westerners. Not so much with folks from the ME who are definitely not into post modernism...

Response should be tailored to sources not dreams.

[J Wolfsberger]

have an ideal way of dealing with Post Modernists and others suffering from PMS (Post Modernist Syndrome) which was similar. Lock them in a spherical room and tell them to deconstruct a continuous loop of Celine Dion .

That's odd. I'd have thought you would be opposed to torture.

[Ski]

A pride of lions? Please. You give the Islamic radicals too much credit sir.

Iraq had no lions, they had a broken country that had the illusion of stability and strength.

The surveillance program under Desert Spring and other Iraq tailored operations worked quite fine. It was undoubedtly cheaper, both in blood and treasure, and kept a modicum of stability in the region.

Now there is a power vacuum that we are temporarily filling. I am of the opinion this cannot be sustained indefinatly.

[Ken White]

A pride of lions? Please. You give the Islamic radicals too much credit sir.

Not really, but I'm incredibly easy. Not lions then. How about a pack of Jackals -- or even wild dogs? Still propose to do nothing? If so, we have a different approach to life.

Iraq had no lions, they had a broken country that had the illusion of stability and strength.

If you were under that illusion, as were many, not my problem. IMO, they were neither stable nor strong but they did have the misfortune to have an unloved dictator and be smack dab in the geographic center of the ME, they thus became an easy target.

The surveillance program under Desert Spring and other Iraq tailored operations worked quite fine. It was undoubedtly cheaper, both in blood and treasure, and kept a modicum of stability in the region.

Stability in the region was not the issue -- export of nominally Islamic fundamentalist terrorism to the rest of the world was the issue and, in particular, attacks on the US (read: Afghanistan, here we come) and more importantly, US interests worldwide (as in Khobar towers, the embassies, Beirut and all that -- read Iraq and the greater ME, here we come...) were the triggers to do more than passively accept them -- which Desert Fox and such did absolutely nothing to deter. One could argue that such halfhearted foolishness merely encouraged the Jackals...

The object in attacking Iraq was not to produce a stable ME, it was to get bases in the area in order to facilitate the local development of greater stability and to deter local adventurers in the field of global terrorism by cutting the time to accomplish that from four or five generations to only two or so. May not have been the best plan in the world but it'll probably work and it is certainly vastly preferable to continuing to encourage the attacks by NOT responding significantly.

Now there is a power vacuum that we are temporarily filling. I am of the opinion this cannot be sustained indefinatly.

Shouldn't need to be sustained indefinitely, just another 15-30 years or so. Hang in there, it'll get worse before it gets better.

[Ski]

Jackals or wild dogs is a better desciption for Al Qaeda. Not for the Baathists in Iraq. They were mosquitos - kept at bay with a nice fresh dose of DDT every so often.

Agree that Iraq was not strong, but was relatively stable, much more so than what we are seeing today. Unloved dictators are dime a dozen in the world, it does not mean we are invading their countries however. I suspect our political beliefs are different and that's good.

Where we part ways - Gathering bases is a do-nothing plan for me when we have bases scattered in the region from Turkey to Oman to Kuwait to Qatar to Bahrain to Kyrgystan...how many is enough? We could have done enough damage to non-state terror groups without invading Iraq for additional bases (do you really believe that?) We could have kept a close eye on Iraq, built up a Division size presence on the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border. Hell, we had a great deal of military surveillance on the place as is...after 13 years, we should have known everything about the damned country.

I don't believe the American public will allow us to stay in Iraq for 15 years, much less 30. We shall see.

Not really, but I'm incredibly easy. Not lions then. How about a pack of Jackals -- or even wild dogs? Still propose to do nothing? If so, we have a different approach to life.If you were under that illusion, as were many, not my problem. IMO, they were neither stable nor strong but they did have the misfortune to have an unloved dictator and be smack dab in the geographic center of the ME, they thus became an easy target.Stability in the region was not the issue -- export of nominally Islamic fundamentalist terrorism to the rest of the world was the issue and, in particular, attacks on the US (read: Afghanistan, here we come) and more importantly, US interests worldwide (as in Khobar towers, the embassies, Beirut and all that -- read Iraq and the greater ME, here we come...) were the triggers to do more than passively accept them -- which Desert Fox and such did absolutely nothing to deter. One could argue that such halfhearted foolishness merely encouraged the Jackals...

The object in attacking Iraq was not to produce a stable ME, it was to get bases in the area in order to facilitate the local development of greater stability and to deter local adventurers in the field of global terrorism by cutting the time to accomplish that from four or five generations to only two or so. May not have been the best plan in the world but it'll probably work and it is certainly vastly preferable to continuing to encourage the attacks by NOT responding significantly.Shouldn't need to be sustained indefinitely, just another 15-30 years or so. Hang in there, it'll get worse before it gets better.

[Rank amateur]

and be smack dab in the geographic center of the ME, they thus became an easy target.

Define "easy."

The object in attacking Iraq was not to produce a stable ME, it was to get bases in the area

If you're right, then the war was unnecessary. Saddam would've given us a huge base in the dessert in exchange for his life.