Why I'm Joining the GOP

[Coyote]

Then I'd like to hear your reasoning. Why do you think that we should be in Iraq, even knowing what the soldiers have to go through. Remember, your answer must justify a great deal of human suffering.

Well, bear in mind that by "justifying" human suffering that does not mean that I think said suffering is a wonderful or trivial thing, or that I enjoy ot or enjoy seeing it inflicted...

There are many reasons to be there, not just one simple black-and-white pithy phrase that I can use to make it all better. In no particular order...

1- The Middle East has been a problem for a long time and, left to themselves, they were not going to get any better. It has been a source of terrorism and trouble for the entire world, not just America, and for many reasons besides just Israel. Some would point to the recent 'Cedar Revolution' in Lebanon as proof that the Middle East can work out its problems if left alone, but let's remember that the reason the 'Cedar Revolution' made news was precisely because it was a deviation from the norm.

The Middle East has inflicted suffering on many inocents-- dictators, kings, warlords, general, or fanatic Jihadists have exported pain and suffering to everyone from wealthy Westerners to shit-poor villiagers in places like Darfur. Tghe only way their behavior is going to be modified is through outside force.

2- As a misdirection. The US invasion of Afghanistan is largely seen as a asuccess, although operations are still ongoing. One of th ereasons for that success is because the foreign-soldier prescence there is kept to a minimum.

If Afghanistan was the only game in town regarding the War on Terror, then hundreds of thousands of lunatic Jihadis would go there instead of Iraq. Afghanistan is Jihad Central; many of the Jihadis fought and trained there before, they know the region intimately, and the mountainous terrain favors guerrilla war.

OTOH, the wide, flat expanse of Iraq and the town/highway infrastructure there very much favors American military strengths: we rely on heavy machinery, machinery we cannot use in Afghanistan. We can keep the Western prescence in Afghanistan small by cynically using Iraq as a easier to get to alternate. This is a variation on Bush's 'flypaper' concept.

3- Iraq was already fairly secular as far as Arab states go. It is easier to turn them away from Jihadism than it would, say, Saudi Arabia. It was also fairly Westernized, again, in comparison to other Arab states. If Iraq becomes a democratic, reform-oriented Arab state, it flanks Iran and several other problematic Arab states, alowing us to apply pressure that would not come if lefty alone (see #1 again).

4- Oil. Let's not kid ourselves, oil is a vital strategic asset and the lynchpin upon which the entire global economy is centered on. There is nothing wrong with admitting that. Saddam was not going to use it to build schools and libraries-- he was going to use it to wage far, far more dirty wars than we could have imagined.

5- Iraq needed a housecleaning. Saddam was a brutal racist dictator who'd attacked half his neighbors at various times and butchered masses of innocents in ethnic campaigns. There was no hope for a better future, since only his sons Uday and Qusay were on th ehorizon as the next potential leaders, and they made Saddam look like a Care Bear in comparison. The country, and probably the region, was only going to get worse if they took over and had access to the oil revenues mentioned in #4.

We are fortunate in that we did not install Saddam ourselves. He brought himself to power in a 1968 revolution, so while he was no Pinochet as far as US conspiracies go, we did support him for a time when it was politically convenient to do so (in fairness, at the time, Iran really did seem to be the worse enemy). So in a way we do bear some responsibility for some of the messes he made. Unlike Pinochet, we finally decided to go in there and clean up after the bastard. The French, Germans and Russians had some responsibility for this, too, but they opted out.

6- The entire region is in tragic need of some outside influences. The area beyond Iraq is rife with fundamentalist religious chowderheads that will only breed more of the same if left unchecked. This goes beyond mere Iraq-- the Iraq war is one phase of a giant, region-wide shakedown that has been a long time coming. The religious nutbags showed no sign of making detente, no negotiations, and no treaties could be signed with them.

If a democratic, reform-minded Iraq can be created, allowing for unheard of things like public debate, reason, courts based on law rather than "Allah's Will" or the whim of the bloody dictator, then the underpinnings of this religious nutbaggery can begin to crumble. Again, left to themselves, this was not going to happen on its own.

7- Treaty Legalities. Like it or not, Saddam signed a treaty at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 stating that he would abide by the UN Inspectors to allow free and unfettered access to Iraqi military sites. He did have WMDs at one time, he used them on numerous occassions, and yet after a few years of cooperation he shut the inspectors out and refused to cooperate any more, saying only "trust me".

Now, proliferation of WMDs in particular and nukes in particular is "bad", and Saddam's word was not exactly something you could take to the bank. Why he did this is beyond me, he knew that the treaty allowed for the resumption of hostilities if the demand was not met and yet for some reason the foll decided to block the inspectors. Why? I dunno, but he did, and after repeated warnings, the occassional missile strike, Saddam not only blew off the UN and the US, but he stepped up his attempts to shoot down Allied planes patrolling the "no fly zone" that was also agreed to in the treaty.

For someone who actually had nothing to hide, as it turned out, he sure didn't act like a reasonable person who truly cared about the fate of his people. The whole WMD 'fiasco', IMO, is more his fault.



Those are some of my reasons. They may seem cynical or unreasonable to some; to people who earnestly believe that "war is never the answer" and that "war is always unjust", well, there's probably not a goddamn thing I can say to people like that which they will see as reasonable.

I recognize that there are people out there that would refuse to sanction violence of any sort regardles of which human monster was being put down. I admire these people for their dedication to their principles of pacifism but I also think they are hopelessly naive. We will just have to exist on totally seperate planes of thought, for there is no bridge to be had between someone who occossionally recognizes conflict as a necessary means to bring change, and someone who is against violence no matter what the reason.

But I went there before, I will say I got trigger time and leave it at that, I was not at a desk, and I would go again-- not to support the President's "Crusade", he is a short-sighted individual and I doubt he himself sees the whole picture, but because I think the long-term goals are worth fighting for and will, in that long run, alleviate far more suffering than is being felt in the here and now.

**

[Alyrium Denryle]

On to the issue of veterans. It was mentioned because Bush has NO FUCKING IDEA what real war is like. Sure, he was in some Texas National Guard or some such shit, but has he actually seen the artillery go flying over his head? No he has not. I suspect he wouldn't be so eager to wage idiotic, jackassed wars with no planning, and no justification, if he knew what it was really like.

Just outta curiosity, what about those of us who actually do know what it is like over there, and still think that what we're doing is right (although not for the same fucked-up reasons of the GWB Admin)?

Then I'd like to hear your reasoning. Why do you think that we should be in Iraq, even knowing what the soldiers have to go through. Remember, your answer must justify a great deal of human suffering.

Not to answer for him or anything... but here is my two cents on it.

here are the alternatiuves the Iraqi people had

1. We dont do shit and the Iraqi people do not rebel.
They live under a series of despots who order their women raped, and people "disapeared" in the middle of the night. They have no rights, no freedom, and a stagnant economy that leaves them in dirt poor conditions, with no chance of relief because capitalism doesnt work when other freeoms dont exist. This is the case for at least another generation or two, probably much longer if they dont get invaded b y Iran and turned into an islamic theocratic shithole.

2. We dont do shit, and they rebel.
If they suceed, there will be a massive amount of suffering as their form of in-exact warfare does more damage to their infastructure than we could ever do with anything short of a flight of B 52's carrying bunker busters dropped at random over their cities. They then have a nice lovely power vaccum after Sadam is gone, and guess who takes over... the next islamic theocrat or tinpot dictator with two tanks to rub together.

If they fail they will be subject to the same results of number one, but what little infastructure they have will be damaged andn they will suffer from a series of reprisals, with, or without chemical weapons this time.

3.We go in
If we suceed we manage to hold off the series of wannabe dictators and rebuild their infastructure, and oversee a transition to a new government, preferable a secular(or mostly secular) republic.

if we fail, see number 2

hmmm... what is the best option... any way but one, a lot of people are fucked for a very long time.

[wolveraptor]

You both realize that there are numerous other countries in the world that need a helluva lot more help than Iraq, don't you? If you're going to go by the, "Well Sadaam was a baddie, 'n the Mid East sucks!", then you have to explain how the Middle East is so much worse than Africa or North Korea.

Personally, I despise it when people use the, "America must save the Iraqis!!!!oneoneoneleven!11" excuse. Since when do we go around foisting our government on other people? If Iraq were really a top priority in human rights, we’d have the support of the UN. Instead, we go blundering about in Iraq with Britain and a few other dudes (half of whom have not even given troops to the effort), insisting that we do it “our way”.

Don't use the "Iraq's in bad shape" arguement. You know very well they aren't the worst, and even admit they're more secular than other Ishitlam holes. None of this is sufficient justification to randomly go in and attack a country which is basically as bad as any random Middle East hellhole, and a helluva lot better than Africa.

[Nephtys]

You both realize that there are numerous other countries in the world that need a helluva lot more help than Iraq, don't you? If you're going to go by the, "Well Sadaam was a baddie, 'n the Mid East sucks!", then you have to explain how the Middle East is so much worse than Africa or North Korea.

Personally, I despise it when people use the, "America must save the Iraqis!!!!oneoneoneleven!11" excuse. Since when do we go around foisting our government on other people? If Iraq were really a top priority in human rights, we’d have the support of the UN. Instead, we go blundering about in Iraq with Britain and a few other dudes (half of whom have not even given troops to the effort), insisting that we do it “our way”.

Don't use the "Iraq's in bad shape" arguement. You know very well they aren't the worst, and even admit they're more secular than other Ishitlam holes. None of this is sufficient justification to randomly go in and attack a country which is basically as bad as any random Middle East hellhole, and a helluva lot better than Africa.

Invading Iraq would have a higher chance of accepting a secular government than the others in the area, as well as having a huge oil reserve, weakened military, and a hostile dictator the US had an axe to grind with for a while. Not to mention that the treaties can be brought up as more push for declaring it a legal action. It's really a very logical choice, because the US has the best chance of getting what it wants and sticking a stable puppet government there compared to the rest of the region.

[Coyote]

You both realize that there are numerous other countries in the world that need a helluva lot more help than Iraq, don't you? If you're going to go by the, "Well Sadaam was a baddie, 'n the Mid East sucks!", then you have to explain how the Middle East is so much worse than Africa or North Korea.....

Yes, but if ten states are shitholes but we only have the resource to deal with one, should we just write all ten of them off, then, since we can't help tham all?

And I don't buy the criticism about "foisting our government on someone else" line, myself-- to paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy may well be the worst possible form of government, except when compared to all the other choices. The government of Iraq under Saddam was a bloody kleptocracy, and again, it was only going to get worse.

You're attempt to couch my rationale into the Bush Admin Pigeonhole "Saddam was eeeevil!" is overly simplistic. Saddam was evil, yes, and he also had access to resources that would allow him to maximize his evil He'd demonstrated his evil by killing the neighbors and ethnic minorities before, and by contributing to WMD proliferation and use.

Why Saddam and not anyone else just as deserving? Because we were already involved in Iraq. Our hands were in it up to the elbows with the sanctions (a PR game we were losing-- again, time was not on our side) and the no-fly zones.

Everytime we tried to go to other MidEast coutries and tell them their shit stinks, they could point behind us and say "what about that mess you made of Iraq?" We had to deal with Iraq before going on to anything else, otherwise it would be a constant ghost haunting behind us.

Saddam: racist dictator. Engaged in ethnic cleansing using gas weapons. Started numerous wars with neighbors. Contributed to chemical weapons proliferation.... and we had an existing entaglement with him that demanded our full attention.

Let's think about it-- if we had attacked North Korea, people would be asking why we were dividing our military responsibilities among the ongoing Iraq sanctions and North Korea. People would say, "we already have one bloody dictator by the nose, now we're going into it with another? Finish the Iraq situation first before moving on".

Are there other countries out there that need our attention, yes. The US went proactive in the political arena by calling the Sudanese on their genocidal war in Darfur. We also helped arrange a cease fire with the north-south conflict there as well. We have teams in Northern Africa working with places such as Chad, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and others, chasing down nascent terrorist groups there. We're dealing with Afghanistan.

And we're dealing with North Korea in a way that-gasp- takes the wishes of the neighbors into account. Because the South Koreans, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Russians are all still of the opinion that Kim Long-Il can be dealt with without the use fo force. And we've given the diplomatic initiative regarding Iran to the Europeans. The Italians and the British already did the heavy lifting on Libya.

There are more things going on in this than just "Iraq-- Bush eeeeevil!" There are no simple answers to this or any other world situation.

[wolveraptor]

So we attack Iraq because we can (with least losses)? That's not exactly a rationale.

Furthermore, I think you misrepresent the magnitude of our involvement in Iraq. We were sanctioning the country, true, but we also had such restrictions on Libya (the PanAm thing), and previously, we had had numerous military engagements in Africa (Somalia, etc.). Essentially, there isn't a place on Earth where we haven't stuck our noses.

I think the best way to handle the Middle East is not through military conquest, but through economic power. As we become less and less dependent on oil, we become less and less the Mid East's bitch. A president truly concerned with the Mid East crisis would first take away the aristocracy of oil barons, who give rise to these dictators. Sure, it's quite a long-term solution, but a more peaceful one.

[Coyote]

I think the best way to handle the Middle East is not through military conquest, but through economic power. As we become less and less dependent on oil, we become less and less the Mid East's bitch. A president truly concerned with the Mid East crisis would first take away the aristocracy of oil barons, who give rise to these dictators. Sure, it's quite a long-term solution, but a more peaceful one.

That is correct, and it should be the "third pillar" of our overall plan. I see military force or threat of force and the empoyment of small combat teams (like in N Africa) as one pillar, and good diplomacy the second. Finally, our own strategic security should be met by domestic programs that remove the economic teeth from the Middle East fundamentalist wolfpack.

We have the military stuff wrapped up, but that's because it is an easy use item. The military is there, trained and ready, and using it creates the impression that Action Is Being Taken. But it is useless without the proper diplomatic and domestic follow-up, and that is where we are coming up short (and where my criticism of the GWB Admin kicks into high gear).

If I could set energy policy, I'd do whatever it took to reduce our reliance on MidEast oil to nothing. We'd pump what petroleum we needed from other sources and domestic fields for what the plastics and pharmaceuticals needed but as an energy source it would be the 'fossil' fuel. Give the money to Pemex (Mexican oil)-- nearby neighbors that need the cash.

But like you said-- long term.

[Gil Hamilton]

Coyote: That seems very well thought out and I respect that, but may I ask a question? Less than 2 months ago, Uzbek troops opened fire on a pro-democracy protest rally, leading to over a hundred dead and wounded, including women and children. Uzbekistan is a US ally, one pimped as evidence there are Muslim countries working with us on the "War on Terror", and in fact let's us use their airbases in operations in Afghanistan. What do you think the US government should do about the fact that the Uzbek government is giving their citizens the old Red China treatment when it comes to democracy? I'll tie this to your post on the rationale for the Iraq war in a second.

[Coyote]

What do you think the US government should do about the fact that the Uzbek government is giving their citizens the old Red China treatment when it comes to democracy?

I honestly don't know. I think we should support pro-Democracy forces where they exist. The GWB Admin is making the same mistake we made during the Cold War-- looking the other way as tyrants sidle up to us. It damages our rep in the long run and in a way is one of the contributing factors to our current situation in the MidEast.

[Gil Hamilton]

I honestly don't know. I think we should support pro-Democracy forces where they exist. The GWB Admin is making the same mistake we made during the Cold War-- looking the other way as tyrants sidle up to us. It damages our rep in the long run and in a way is one of the contributing factors to our current situation in the MidEast.

Fair enough, but that leads to an interesting problem. If we support their pro-democracy movements and condemned the government, that would endanger the airbases we are using to conduct operations in Afghanistan. Would you be willing to give those airbases up to back the pro-democracy movement?

[wolveraptor]

A question for Coyote: Would you consider it immoral if we had not gone to war in Iraq, and instead focussed on Afghanistan? Would it be acceptable to you if Iraq were put off?

I ask because I find your reasons for Iraq invasion to be well-reasoned, but now is the wrong time to be executing such maneuvers. Your vision of an Iraq war would be to bring democracy to the Middle East over gradual stages; a worthy goal, but not one to focus on when we haven't even confirmed Osama Bin Laden's death.

Suppose you were elected in '08, and The Magic Sky Pixie suddenly fixed Afghanistan, fixed the US deficit, and fixed our international relationship. Would you just barge into Iraq? Your justifications are based on the goal of Mid East peace, but is war the way to do this? Consider PR as well.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So we attack Iraq because we can (with least losses)? That's not exactly a rationale.

Great losses? Dude.. we invaded a country, and you dont expect us to lose troops? Seriously, less tghan 1 percent of our troops over there have died, compare that to the D-Day invasion which waqs just a few beaches. Any invasion is not completely sterile, and our troops know and accept the risks when they enlist.

I ask because I find your reasons for Iraq invasion to be well-reasoned, but now is the wrong time to be executing such maneuvers. Your vision of an Iraq war would be to bring democracy to the Middle East over gradual stages; a worthy goal, but not one to focus on when we haven't even confirmed Osama Bin Laden's death.

Why isnt it one to focus on? We will get Osama eventually.. shit he is a 7 foot something arab man on dialysis. I wouldnt be shocked if he is dead in a cave somewhere and he has no power. Even if he is dead, his organization still exists and his death does Jack and SHit to further our goals.

[Spambot Jedi]

I ask because I find your reasons for Iraq invasion to be well-reasoned, but now is the wrong time to be executing such maneuvers. Your vision of an Iraq war would be to bring democracy to the Middle East over gradual stages; a worthy goal, but not one to focus on when we haven't even confirmed Osama Bin Laden's death.

Suppose you were elected in '08, and The Magic Sky Pixie suddenly fixed Afghanistan, fixed the US deficit, and fixed our international relationship. Would you just barge into Iraq? Your justifications are based on the goal of Mid East peace, but is war the way to do this? Consider PR as well.

At this point, do you seriously think that confirming Osama Bin Laden's death will improve our streategic position better than a best-case result in Iraq? Remember, bin Laden is seriously ill and his activities have doubtless been greatly hindered since he's had to concentrate more and more of his efforts on simply running around to stay alive. There have definitely been people that have been doing his heavy lifting for him since we overthrew the Taliban and who would continue to do so in the event that we were able to inflict some sort of gruesome, cathartic death on him. You still haven't answered Coyote's contention that Iraq is a much more suitable place for us to engage these people than Afghanistan to my satisfaction. Also, PR? What on earth makes you think that we could win such a campaign? Remember that we are dealing with brain-washed, religious nutters--reasoned persuasion does not work so well against this. Also, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but the recent flap with Newsweek should illustrate that our freedom of the press would impose significant challenges on conducting such a PR approach. Western media outlets have a lot to gain from sensationalist stories and almost zero accountability. This would seem to pose non-trivial difficulties for the PR campaign that you have described.

[Coyote]

As for the airbases-- I would say that if we were honest dealers of democracy in the first places, the airbases would not be endangered. The pro-democracy forces would welcome us to use them, since they, too, would benefit by the pushing-back of radical Jihadis.

But I think that yes, if supporting democracy means giving up the bases, then we should. The long-term benefits are worth reaping, by displaying our respect for democracy and for the rights of "little guy" countries. That positive PR leverage will take wind from the sails of critics who--rightfully-- point to us as hypocrites for talking liberty but propping tyrants who suit us.


As to the invading of Iraq...

A question for Coyote: Would you consider it immoral if we had not gone to war in Iraq, and instead focussed on Afghanistan? Would it be acceptable to you if Iraq were put off?

I would have considered it immoral to allow Iraq to continue to bleed as it was. We had, I feel, a responsibility to clean up that mess. The people were suffering horribly, and whether it was Saddam's fault, or the fault of the American sanctions, or a combination of both (and probably myriad other factors not on our radar-- Kurdish rebels, Iran troubles, etc) we were the only ones in a position to do something about it.


Now, oddly enough, I think that the best for us to focus on Afghanistan is to allow Afghanistan to breathe on its own. If we had not given the Jihadis a place to go fight, they would have gone to Afghanistan, forcing us to increase our troop prescence in an area notorious for dialiking foreign occupiers.

It would have played perfectly into the hands of the Jihadis-- Hamid Karzai would have been thoroughly discredited as a US puppet. The 1979 Soviet scenario of a puppet government at the hand of a great infidel power would have motivated all the Jihadis to return to the place they already knew so well. We would have taken mass casualties as the Jihadis concentrated in an area they know like their own backyards-- that PR would have been far, far worse-- and the political parallels to both Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan would be much more imminent.

I ask because I find your reasons for Iraq invasion to be well-reasoned, but now is the wrong time to be executing such maneuvers.

On the surface, it seems like the classic mistake of a two-front war, but I don't feel that it is. This is not two seperate wars but two different battle campaigns in a larger, over-arcing conflict that can determine the direction of the region as a whole.

I think that we had to go into Iraq when we did for two reasons, primarily:
1 was to stop the slow hemmorage of both lives and PR that was already bleeding out due to the sanctions. By not "doing something" about Saddam, we revealed ourselves to be weak and indecisive. Iraq was running out of time as situations got worse and the sons were setting to take over.

2 was to give the Jihadis something to do in a area where we could play to US military strengths. The mountains of Afghanistan are so high helicopters have a hard time operating there; there are few roads and fewer suitable landing fields. It would have been a clash of light infantry, where the Jihadis had the advantages of politics, religion, language and culture.

Iraq is perfect ground for mechanized warfare that Americans favor. There is already infrastructure and resources to secure, and the population is much more open-minded and less radical than what we'd find in Afghanistan. The Iraqis are more cosmopolitan, more educated, and more aware of the world and more prone to think critically about the true value of what the Jihadis offer as opposed to the Americans. This totally cuts into the potential social advantages that the Jihadis would have enjoyed in Afghanistan.


Osama bin-Laden's death is a tactical victory at this point. Bin-Laden is the poster boy of the moment but we are fighting a regional conflict that predates him considerably. By demonstrating that we are serious in our resolve (no cut-and-run like in Lebanon after the Marine barracks boimbing, something the Jihadis studied and used as evidence that the US is a 'paper tiger') and that we have the ability to carry out two campaigns at once, puts the Jihadis in the realm of the unsure. They've lost the initiative, strategically, although terrorists will almost always hold tactical initiative.

Bin-Laden's death or capture will bring a couple weeks of morale changes to both sides, then it is business as usual. The Jihadist movement is an ideology, one every bit as poisonous and destructiuve as fascism, except that instead of hate based on race, it is hate based on religion. Neither is acceptable. It is not based on the personality of one man, the movement must be thoroughly discredited and defanged.

Suppose you were elected in '08, and The Magic Sky Pixie suddenly fixed Afghanistan, fixed the US deficit, and fixed our international relationship. Would you just barge into Iraq? Your justifications are based on the goal of Mid East peace, but is war the way to do this? Consider PR as well.

I probably would have to, eventually, because once again the problems we face in the MidEast are long-term and chronic. I would first try more economic and political incentives, but assuming Iraq was still bleeding away by sanctions and Uday/Qusay ran the place, the PR shortcomings we'd face (like now) will be deep and sharp, but much more temporary than if we let it crumble under long-term sanctions and containment of a demonstrated racist kleptocracy.

I am of the opinion that armies go to work only because diplomats have failed, and sometimes diplomats fail because they weren't serious/sincere in their diplomacy, or their government didn't back them. But sometimes diplomats also fail because the regime they try to negotiate with simply closes the doors or puts unreasonable conditions on the situation. Only then should the gun-totong policy makers go to work.

Libya and Lebanon, and North Africa are good-to-decent diplomacy in action-- the best kind, where war does not develop. But some people just won't take the carrot and need the stick. It is not something to be relished, but sometimes it is necessary.

[Axis Kast]

I think the best way to handle the Middle East is not through military conquest, but through economic power. As we become less and less dependent on oil, we become less and less the Mid East's bitch. A president truly concerned with the Mid East crisis would first take away the aristocracy of oil barons, who give rise to these dictators. Sure, it's quite a long-term solution, but a more peaceful one.

We'd still have to deal with terrorists even if we didn't have a part in proping up distasteful regimes in order to arrange better oil deals.

Part of the problem in the Middle East is that we keep paying for what happened decades ago, under different circumstances. We'd be in the same position even if we stopped buying Arab oil tommorrow.

[Gil Hamilton]

Now, oddly enough, I think that the best for us to focus on Afghanistan is to allow Afghanistan to breathe on its own. If we had not given the Jihadis a place to go fight, they would have gone to Afghanistan, forcing us to increase our troop prescence in an area notorious for dialiking foreign occupiers.

It would have played perfectly into the hands of the Jihadis-- Hamid Karzai would have been thoroughly discredited as a US puppet. The 1979 Soviet scenario of a puppet government at the hand of a great infidel power would have motivated all the Jihadis to return to the place they already knew so well. We would have taken mass casualties as the Jihadis concentrated in an area they know like their own backyards-- that PR would have been far, far worse-- and the political parallels to both Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan would be much more imminent.

I'm with you on alot of things here, but Afghanistan's problems aren't all due to the jihadists by a long shot. The problem is that Hamid Karzai and his government have absolutely no authority over much of the country and the only reason they haven't had a civil war already is because they are being very careful not to piss off what I think is Afghanistan's real problem, the warlords. They've gone right back to their old tricks of massive drug crops and their own brand of brutal Islam and they aren't being seriously challenged on it. Eventually, if Karzai is going to be more than Mayor of Kabul and Afghanistan is going to be a real country, they are going to have to be dealt with and there is going to be another war. Not only that, but Iraq isn't going to cause the Jihadists to go extinct; there are always going to be more of them, even if they aren't successful in Iraq. And they are still going to be around when things eventually come to a head in Afghanistan. This is going to be major problem since now our forces are tied up in Iraq and will be for the foreseeable future.

[Coyote]

The problem is that Hamid Karzai and his government have absolutely no authority over much of the country and the only reason they haven't had a civil war already is because they are being very careful not to piss off what I think is Afghanistan's real problem, the warlords.

Very true-- part of th ereason we are avoiding conflict there is because our policy is, so far, just that: conflict avoidance. We're also making American troops "not a problem" by using Afghan proxies to fight. All well and good in that it brings an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem, which is exactly they way they want it.

But we have to deal with the fact that the Afghan solution involves payoffs, graft, and other less-than-transparent means. But for now the important thing is to get them off Jihadism. I don't like it and I would prefer another way, but damned if I can think of one off the top of my head. I'd have to confer with a specialist in the Central Asian region and culture.

They've gone right back to their old tricks of massive drug crops and their own brand of brutal Islam and they aren't being seriously challenged on it.

And we risk the exact same mistakes we made when we left Afghanistan hanging after the Soviet retreat. The problem is, if we step in to help, we are 'imperial invaders', but if we don't, we're 'hanging them out to dry'.

I think we;re going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long time and to be honest I think we won't see long-term, widescale positive change there anytime before the next thirty years. The best we can hope for within the bounds of reality is that Kabul becomes an island of stability and slowly starts drawing nearby villages into a small bubble of peace and relative prosperity.

This will require massive long-term committed attention and deft political and economic maneuvering by the US State Department, and one of the problems with our democracy is a schitzophrenic foreign policy that changes every 4-8 years. But if we stick with it and people there see "Kabul's sphere of influence has paved roads, schools, cars, swimming pools and satellite TV, while the rest of the country lives in shit..." they'll bring themselves into Kabul's orbit.

But it musty be not only well-off, but secure, stable, and just. These things are all difficult to start with, but the most important part is the soft-power part: just. The Kabul enclave will have to provide fairness before it goes from a city-wide administration to a county-wide one.. then to a state, and finally to a full country.

Unlike Dick Cheney, I recognize that this will take years and years of commitment.

Not only that, but Iraq isn't going to cause the Jihadists to go extinct; there are always going to be more of them, even if they aren't successful in Iraq.

True, just as the fascist movement never went extinct... parts of it have been around for centuries and little encklaves of them still exist today, even in the US. But theuir movement is marginalized and they are a threat only on th emost basic, immediate personal level. A neo-Nazi may beat up a black man, and this must be dealt with, but the Nazi movement is no longer seen as a credible threat to the country.

Leaving the Jihadis be will do nothing to erode their credibility, but showing them they can't win in the long run, and that they provide nothing but pain to the people they claim to liberate, will undermine them. Because this ideology has permeated the region and soaked in for almost 200 years, it won't be easy to root out and it won't be done painlessly. But the cancer will grow if we don't do anything.

Again, this involves long-term hard work, it requires a proper balance of diplomacy, economics, and military force at the right time and place. It is both debate and martial arts... a careful application of force to pressure points, rather than the wielding of a massive club.

If anything, this is our Achilles Heel-- American society seeks the simple, easy "get'er done now" solution that cannot work in this case. Instant gratification and simple answers, which our society has become attuned to to an almost Pavlovian degree, will have a hard time putting up with such a long-term strategy. It will cost money and the benefits will not be immediately evident, pluse we have an insecure tendency to take it personally when other people around the world don't like us.

And they are still going to be around when things eventually come to a head in Afghanistan. This is going to be major problem since now our forces are tied up in Iraq and will be for the foreseeable future.

A politically astute President would have expanded the military with the scores of volunteers that lined up on September 12th, 2001. His marvelous advice was "go shopping". A wasted opportunity that we are regretting now. Had all those people signed on to 4-year contracts we'd still have them now. We'd have had enough troops to maintain credible pressure on North Korea...

But we've kinda let the locals take the initiative in Korea, primarily the South Koreans and Chinese, and except for rare moments of two dogs snarling through a fence, we've stuck to that and it is wise. The Chinese take the long view of things and have much more patience for dealing with the situation. Bush's willingness to let this continue may be an unexpected show of insight on his part, but more likely he's just trying not to rock his boat.

[wolveraptor]

Confirming Osama's death is nothing more than a PR thing. Had we been unswerving and a lot more focused in our pursuit of him, it would have sent a more effective message to terrorists.

Wars not only need long-term justification; they also need an immediate reason as to why they were started. For example, the US wanted to go to war with Spain. They used the the exploding ship thing as an excuse to beat the shit out of the country in only four months. They couldn't have used their real reasons as a justification.

I think that Afghanistan should've been given more attention whilst setting up their government. They would've also made an effective foothold in the Mid East (though technically they're in Asia). The Afghan people actually know why the US is in there. Iraqis don't.

[Coyote]

I think that Afghanistan should've been given more attention whilst setting up their government. They would've also made an effective foothold in the Mid East (though technically they're in Asia). The Afghan people actually know why the US is in there. Iraqis don't.

True, I would have paid more attention to them too, but again I think the best things is to keep them out of the public eye-- otherwise, these Jihadis will remember "oh, yeah, there's infidels in Afghanistan... and it's much easier to beat them there!"

As to the Iraqis not knowing why wer're there... trust me, they do, for themost part. Take a look at how the majority of the Shia'a over there are handling things. As the majority population, they stepped in and started becoming the movers and shakers-- but their official policy is inclusion with the Sunnis and Kurds, cooperation, and no reprisals. Ali Sistani has gone out of his way to see to it that they treat their former Sunni overlords with the justice they did not receive. The Kurds voted not to secceed from the country. No outside army can force that kind of artificial cooperation.

The Iraqis are frustrated at us and impatient, but part of that is the unrealistic expectations some people have about US power. We can't flick a switch and have the streets paved with gold overnight. But while they are angry and frustrated, they recognize that attacking us isn't going to make it any better. They see us as a necessary evil and realize that the sooner they get their shit together, we'll have to leave due to both international and domestic pressure-- these are not stupid people by any means, in many way their hard lives had made them much more pragmatic than the average Westerner.

Make no mistake-- they are glad Saddam is gone and Iraqis make no bones about that. I got to speak with an Iraqi truck driver about the eventual hopes for peace with Israelis and Palestinians. I did not expect that. An Iraqi Christian found out I am Jewish and was overjoyed-- to meet a Jew is a blessing to them. I certainly did not foresee that, either. It is a surprising land that defies stereotypes.

They want the job to be done so they can get on with their lives and rebuild, rebuild, rebuild. It is a nation of 30 million or so people-- if they all truly hated us that much, believe me, things would be a lot worse than they are. 30 million armed, motivated, angry patriots? No way. It's not Disneyland by a long shot-- The most sobering moment of my existence was inventorying the personal effects of one of our KIAs to send home to his family. But the insurgents we face are no where close to representing the will of 30 million haters.

Me, and half my guys, would not have come home if that were the case, because the Arabs are tenacious motherfuckers in a fight.