NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: At the bottom of this post, I have placed my personal opinions about each of the three "things about Iraq" covered by this article. I'm very iinterested in how you view these "three things about Iraq."


Three Things About Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinion/25sat1.html?th&emc=th)

Published: June 25, 2005

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder, and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency is growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.

If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. Gen. George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."

Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for us when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."

NOTE: My personal take on each of the above:

1. "The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11." Probably true, although the potential for Iraq's participation in later terrorist attacks was high IMHO.

2. "The war has not made the world or America safer from terrorism." This has yet to be determined.

3. "Someone needs to rethink the plan" for conducting the war. I agree with this one. What we have been doing so far has not succeeded in either reducing the casualty rates or in enabling Iraqi forces to replace US forces.

Your own take on these?

I belive people should stop making predictions about the fallout of the Iraq war until the bomb stops exploding.

1. Yeah that’s true. However, this is the “War on Terror”, not the war on Al Quida, and Saddam Hussein was known to financially support the Palestinian brand of terrorism.

2. Well, it is important to note that most terrorists in Iraq actually come from Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, your right Eutrusca, we don’t know this yet.

3. Yeah, some serious recourses need to go into coming up with a better plan.

I agree with this in most respects, but of course... there are two sides to each point covered.

I think that the second topic of discussion is the real gray area though, since there isn't and proably wont ever be any definitive proof to substantiate either side of the basal argument 100%.

A ruthless dictator was removed from power, that was a good thing no matter how its sliced... but, the actions used to do so have created more enemies against the United States, their allies, and those who have similar cultures. On top of that, the actions of the United States in Iraq are not a deterent to present threats, I would say that in my opinion it is more likely the actions taken will be used as fuel for the fires of those who already harbour ill will towards the States.

Anyone who knows me knows where I stand on war in general - so it should come as no surprise that I condemn the actions and justifications given at present.

However, this is the “War on Terror”...

You can't declare war on a concept. The genius of declaring a "War on Terror" is that it is impossible to tell when the 'war' has been won so it can continue or stop as and when it is convenient to the politicians. The other advantage that they get from calling it a 'war' is that they can make curbs on civil liberties that would never normally be tolerated, such as imprisonment and torture without trial, and justify this by saying, "We're at war!"

Sorry for going off topic. In response to the points I agree with all three. I also agree that Saddam was evil but the war should have been waged on humanitarian grounds, not for financial gain with a false pretext of WMDs.

1. Iraq had absolutely nothing at all to do with September 11th.
2. If anything, the war has created more terrorists - hell, even people who were indifferent to America in the past consider them arsefucks now.
3. America, historically, are terrible at military planning. From my unindoctrinated viewpoint, it seems that American military strategy is: "we've got lots of guns, let's go kill people." This works if you have the force to back up your arrogance, but right now, the situation in Iraq is out of control, and no amount of force is going to fix it. They need a new approach.

1. Yeah that’s true. However, this is the “War on Terror”, not the war on Al Quida, and Saddam Hussein was known to financially support the Palestinian brand of terrorism.


RandomlittleIsland has got the gist of it. Declaring a war on concept is silly since there is no method to determine if it can ever be won. Might as well declare war on chaos or order while your at it. They are abstract terms.

1. It was proven time and time again that Saddams top officals were conducting regular mettings with Al-Queda officials. He was a major sponsor of terrorist activities. It is a war on terror, not just strictly al-Queda.
2. The information that we are getting from detanees has saved countless lives, maybe even thousands.
3. I still think this is by far the smallest caualty rate war, when you factor in the number of troops and ocupation duration. This war is on the right track. We have liberated the nation, removed the dictator, gained valuable information from captured insurgents, and set up free democratic elections in an amazingly short period of time. The administration set a goal, and achieved it with flying colors.

1. I think it's been proven that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
2. The war in Iraq, IMHO, has done nothing for world terrorism, positive or neigitve. One positive, if you want to call it that, is the terrorists seem far more interested in taking the fight to the USA on 'home turf'. It fits in far better with their odd ideology to fight the evil invaders than to attack civillians.
3.The military leaders in Iraq need to read The Prince by a certain Italian to underastand where they went, and have been going wrong.

NOTE: My personal take on each of the above:

1. "The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11." Probably true, although the potential for Iraq's participation in later terrorist attacks was high IMHO.

2. "The war has not made the world or America safer from terrorism." This has yet to be determined.

3. "Someone needs to rethink the plan" for conducting the war. I agree with this one. What we have been doing so far has not succeeded in either reducing the casualty rates or in enabling Iraqi forces to replace US forces.

Your own take on these?
1. I agree. Probably no connection and Saddam might have become bold if absolutely nothing had happened.
2. I agree. The terror attacks in Spain are definitely not what I would consider "safe". Neither is the kidnapping of foreigners by terrorists to achieve such ludicrous goals as complete withdrawal and revocation of laws. America might currently be safer, but that's only because it's easier to get at the GIs and "collaborators" in Iraq.
3. I agree. I do believe that my opinion on what needs to be changed will differ from others, me being more of an international relations person than a strategy person.

1) IMO it was for oil. Modern way of living is really energivor and controlling worlds oil reserve mean controlling the world

2) You can't fight terrorism with a gun (at the exception of a direct response to a terrorist going to blow himself). You see, no war can be won only with terror. To claim a physical place (like a country) you need an army, more specifically, infantry to occupy the land. Terrorism happen when the opposing force is way to big for you to confront it and when the action of the opposing force (i.e. occupying your country) piss you off enough so your are ready to die in suicidal assault. As long as you will have ultra poor Muslim who see other country/organization stealing there resource, you are gonna have terrorism.

3) Agree with you, but the problem is how... Hitler and many other personage from history as told us it is not really possible to rule a population against is will. You can hold them some time with heavy repression (see south-America dictatorship) but even then, you need a local leader a local police to do it. I remember a Iraqi women saying on TV "yeah Sadam was screwing us, but at least he was one of us".

1. Yeah that’s true. However, this is the “War on Terror”, not the war on Al Quida, and Saddam Hussein was known to financially support the Palestinian brand of terrorism.
Which does not support, to any sufficient degree, the takeover of Iraq

2. Well, it is important to note that most terrorists in Iraq actually come from Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, your right Eutrusca, we don’t know this yet.
As long as we pretend terrorism, especially religious driven, can be solved with a gun, terrorism has no end and no one will be safer

1. "The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11." How many more times does this have to be stated for the 80% of Fox News viewers who still do not believe it? And while yes, the war did get a terrible dictator out of power, that only turned into its justification after it was found that neither WMD or 9/11 ties existed. That was not how it started out.

2. "The war has not made the world or America safer from terrorism." I agree with all those who have said that this is too difficult to determine, but it appears that the war sure has damaged America's worldwide reputation. And considering there have been multiple daily suicide bomb attacks, it definitely hasn't made Iraq any safer.

3. "Someone needs to rethink the plan" for conducting the war. The more suitable suggestion would be to to think of A plan for conducting the war. I find those are always quite useful.

1. "The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11." Probably true, although the potential for Iraq's participation in later terrorist attacks was high IMHO.

2. "The war has not made the world or America safer from terrorism." This has yet to be determined.

3. "Someone needs to rethink the plan" for conducting the war. I agree with this one. What we have been doing so far has not succeeded in either reducing the casualty rates or in enabling Iraqi forces to replace US forces.

Your own take on these?

1- Iraq support to terrorism mounted to giving money to the families of Palestinians that blew themselves. No more no less. The danger of Iraq participating in terrorist attacks was has high has the danger posed by North Korea. You know, Iraq under Saddam had a laicist regim, with harsh separation between state and church, and it even persecuted muslim clerics. Iraq's staunchest foe was Iran, a theocracy, so the idea that Iraq would support islamic terrorists is kinda weak: If it was in that basis that the US invaded Iraq, then it would have made alot more sence to invade NK (which is crazier) or Iran, or syria, or even Saudi Arabia, were most support for terrorism comes from. Just because Iraq is an Arab country, doesnt mean that they were all in terrorist attacks. Plus, Saddam wasnt/isnt stupid: He knew that if he were to pull one such attack off, and got discovered, he would be screwed, ousted. And no dictator likes to be ousted.

2 - Actually i disagree. The Invasion of Iraq HAS made the world, and America, safer from terrorist attacks. Today, most resources and funding for terrorist activities have been diverted to fund terrorist attacks in Iraq.. US soldiers have been turned into nifty targets for crazy islamic freaks, which are too busy finding out new ways to kill Marines, to think on new ways to slam planes into buildings (Well, you had Bali, Casablanca, Madrid, and some other attacks, but the trend seems to point to a decrease in international terrorist attacks.)

3 - Rethink the plan... the plan wasnt well thought in the first place.. now its a hell hole. Iraq is a hell hole.. but lets see things in perspective: the objective of the US is to spread democracy, get the hell out. How to do this in the volatile, sectarian iraqui society? Well......... stay there dying for more 20 years. That should fix it. I sincerely don't see a way how the US can pull out of Iraq fulfulling those two objectives in the short run. You could, however, swallow pride, and ask for help of the international community.. this could mean less US servicemen in Iraq, more legitimacy to the invasion (it would be alot harder to say that the US was occupying Iraq, if the UN had an even symbolic administrative presence) but now it may be a bit too late, no one will want to help you now. You pissed away (lets not discuss if the world is right or wrong in disliking the US) your soft power, your diplomatic strenght.

PS: I'm going to be ebil and sectarian myself to you, Eutrusca: If you take the time to read what "liberals" said (though in my country this wasnt so political, leftists and rightists were all saying the same thing), before the actual invasion took place, and at the beggining of the war, their predictions came to be true. Isnt it time to admit that the Bush administration inteligence in foreign affairs can be compared to the intelligence of a squirrel?

2 - Actually i disagree. The Invasion of Iraq HAS made the world, and America, safer from terrorist attacks. Today, most resources and funding for terrorist activities have been diverted to fund terrorist attacks in Iraq.. US soldiers have been turned into nifty targets for crazy islamic freaks, which are too busy finding out new ways to kill Marines, to think on new ways to slam planes into buildings (Well, you had Bali, Casablanca, Madrid, and some other attacks, but the trend seems to point to a decrease in international terrorist attacks.)

I don't think so. Before Sept. 11th, there weren't as many serious terror attacks in such a short time. Now, in Iraq, we have car bombs go off in very short intervals. I personally consider Iraq as part of the world... The attacks in Madrid especially show that safe places became dangerous. It's only really a matter of time before something else happens and it's more likely to be in Europe than in the US if you ask me. Let's not forget the kidnapping of foreing nationals in Iraq. The widespread use of this hadn't occured on this level, and not for the reasons behind them, much less with the publicity they had. (granted, kidnappings occur daily in South American countries, but this is mainly for profit and not terror)

1. It was proven time and time again that Saddams top officals were conducting regular mettings with Al-Queda officials. He was a major sponsor of terrorist activities. It is a war on terror, not just strictly al-Queda.

Proof please?

Another perspective:
Al- Qaeda should be thought less of a physical and tangible group- its very easy to label something, because it allows you to follow the manual on how to deal with the problem- Al-Qaeda is more of a ideology, a basic theory to fight 'Westernisation'- don't forget 'Al-Qaeda' means "the base"; not necessarily the physical 'base of operations' but the groundwork, base ideology used to fight against an enemy.

People have this misconception that there is a vast, complex global network with Bin Laden at its head and that it all started in Afghanistan.... the movement started there but he was never recognised as the 'head' of any thing let alone a 'terrorist army'- he was just another fighter (albeit one with a very rich background). There were (and are) many groups that fought a similar enemy (first USSR, now the 'West' in general)but lacked a common strategy and methodoligy to win... his ideology provided the logistical and financial common ground (or 'base'). Abu Sayyif, Al-Zarqawi (he was based in West Afghan. in the 1980's, never dealing with, nor wanting to deal with Bin Laden) Aceh rebels, etc never recognised Bin Ladens sureizanty (sp) over them- a common cause yes, but diff methods. The ideology that 'Al Qaeda' provides them with a similar, effective method.

Its easy to go "XYZ linked with Al Qaeda"... because their theories are linked, and its easier to grasp the less frightening reality that maybe, just maybe, there are dozens of groups out there- not all under one name- harder to label, harder to counter effectively.

Have a glance at investigative journalist Jasons Bourkes "Al-Qaeda: The true story of radical Islam" for more on that theory.
just my opinion.

1. The war had everything to do with September 11th. Neoconservativism needed an excuse to execute the plan for democracy promotion in the Middle East. Playing on the attitude after September 11th concerning terrorism was the only possible climate that could allow the American Public to accept this war.

2. As of right now, no. The war has created more terrorists than it killed - if you want proof, read the news reports about what's going on every day in Iraq. It also pissed off a hell of a lot of Arab Muslim youth.

3. I agree. The Rumsfeld Doctrine is an awful, awful way of waging war. I still believe the war, if executed correctly, would have been a good idea for humanitarian reasons. But it was done dead wrong.

1. The war had everything to do with September 11th. Neoconservativism needed an excuse to execute the plan for democracy promotion in the Middle East.

Not to mention needing an excuse to execute the plan for democracy reduction in North America.

*snip*

Great article. And, even for those who don't agree, it should spark good discussion.

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.

Yep. There is no relationship whatsoever.

Nor, despite the rhetoric, are we really fighting a "war on terrorism." We should be fighting Al Queda.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism.

So far, this is certainly true. Most experts think the contrary is true: we are less safe.

For those who say this is not yet known, fine. Things may change many years down the road, but the statement is true for now.

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.

Definitely.

If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested.

Definitely. Any attempt to criticize the way the war is being conducted is labeled as insulting our troops or un-American.

Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret.

Yep. But the information we do have tells us the earlier statements are true.

1. It was proven time and time again that Saddams top officals were conducting regular mettings with Al-Queda officials. He was a major sponsor of terrorist activities. It is a war on terror, not just strictly al-Queda.

LOL. After the 9/11 Commission proved the alleged links between Al-Queda and Saddam were false, even the Bush Administration admitted the lack of a connection.

2. The information that we are getting from detanees has saved countless lives, maybe even thousands.

Proof?

3. I still think this is by far the smallest caualty rate war, when you factor in the number of troops and ocupation duration. This war is on the right track. We have liberated the nation, removed the dictator, gained valuable information from captured insurgents, and set up free democratic elections in an amazingly short period of time. The administration set a goal, and achieved it with flying colors.

ROTFLASTC

Are you Karl Rove in disguise?

1. Ya, I agree with that.

2. Safer? How much safer can you get? There is a greater chance you'll drown in your bath tub than be killed by a terrorist (That is true). What we need are regulations and rules regarding the depth of water and safety devices worn when bathing, not a war on terror.

3. Yes, for sure. Bombing the shit out of people already down on their luck and then walking in and shooting or arresting everybody is really going to have them trust you.

1. "The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11."

True.

2. "The war has not made the world or America safer from terrorism."

Definitely not - in so far as Russia is concerned, it had its own 9-11 last year, in Beslan.


3. "Someone needs to rethink the plan" for conducting the war.

I'm not much of a war planner... My guess - 'true'.

The article is pretty much right on--what few quibbles I have with it are mostly about the resolution of the Iraq situation.

First of all, as many others have pointed out, the al Qaeda/Saddam links were bullshit, and the Saddam/Palestinian bombers links were never part of the equation. Palestine is a whole other issue, and whether or not Iraq was supporting the families of bombers is immaterial to the larger issue there.

Moreover, the administration knew ahead of time that the al Qaeda/Saddam links were bullshit, and yet not only went ahead with the rhetorical connection, they continue to do so--Cheney argued in an interview just a couple of months ago that the supposed Atta/Iraqi intelligence service meeting hasn't been disproven when it most certainly has been.

Secondly, while the argument can be made--weakly, I think, but it can be made--that the world is safer from terrorism for the moment because so many resources are going into Iraq, the long term strength of groups like al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations has been strengthened in a couple of ways. For starters, terror groups have seen an upsurge in recruiting ever since the war started, and that's been aided by the US treatment of POWs and detainees in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons, and Baghram and other Afghani prisons. Secondly, and this is the important part, people in terror groups are getting on the ground experience now in fighting coalition troops, experience they can take elsewhere in the world, which is precisely what's happening according to people in the national security arms of our government. In that way, the war in iraq has made us less safe--not the fact that we went to war in the first place as much as the piss poor way we've prosecuted that war.

As to the last point, underneath all the hubbub over whether or not Bush lied us into this war (he did), is a point you'd have to be really looking out for, because it's gotten precious little coverage--the complete and total lack of postwar planning. It's gotten a little more coverage lately because it was a worry for the British in the run up to the war, and that comes through in the Downing Street documents that have been coming out recently. It seems that the administration really took the notion that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers a bit too seriously.

Any strategist worth his salt says "hope for the best, prepare for the worst." The White House strategists and the military people they put in charge only prepared for the best, and look what it's gotten us--an insurgency we can't come close to controlling, a security nightmare, and a joke of a political system that has no real power in Iraq. And it's not like they didn't have warning from their own military people--at least two generals told the Congress and the DoD that we needed a force at least three times the size of what we sent in to do the job, and they got early retirement for their opinions. That, to me, is the most damning indictment of this administration's ability.

Much of the momentum that the anti-war left has gotten has come from the administration's inept bungling of Iraq, post Saddam's fall. If the occupation had gone well, the anti-war left would still be marginalized, the way they were during the lead up, but now polls show that nearly 60% of Americans think Iraq wasn't worth it. That's at least part of the reason for Rove's assholish remarks the other day--poll numbers are tanking, so demonize the opposition.

Okay, I've gone on long enough. Someone else take this on.

Who’s to judge how long it takes to rebuild a country? When’s the last time anyone did it?

Let’s look at Japan, post world war 2.

The occupation of Japan by the Allied Powers started in August 1945 and ended in April 1952. General MacArthur was its first Supreme Commander. The whole operation was mainly carried out by the United States.
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2124.html

It took seven years to get our troops home from Japanese mainland (it wasn’t until 1972’ that Okinawa was given back). With this timeline in mind, Iraq and Afganistan are doing just fine.

The remains of Japan's war machine were destroyed, and war crime trials were held. Over 500 military officers committed suicide right after Japan surrendered, and many hundreds more were executed for committing war crimes. Emperor Showa was not declared a war criminal.

What if the 500 suicidal officers had been told to strap bombs on themselves and kamikaze themselves on the occupying forces? What if instead of telling them to surrender peacefully the Japanese Emperor had told these men to do what Saddam told his loyalist to do, …to fight on via insurgency, do everything you can to hinder them forever etc., etc., etc.

How much longer would it have taken to rebuild Japan? How much damage would they have done? What silliness is it to blame Iraq’s insuregency and occupational timeline on Bush and some kind of irrational lack of planning accusations?. Who, ever, in the history of the modern world, has done what you guys claim should have been planned for and done this time, to get our troops back home by now.


A new constitution went into effect in 1947: The emperor lost all political and military power, and was solely made the symbol of the state. Universal suffrage was introduced and human rights were guaranteed. Japan was also forbidden to ever lead a war again or to maintain an army. Furthermore, Shinto and the state were clearly separated.

We’re holding pretty much on this schedule in Iraq now and Bush is doing even better than Truman did. Truman had the Japanese constitution written for them, Bush is trying to get them to write their own… Even with the insurgents. Japan was relatively peaceful because the emperor told them to be, and it took seven years. America, Britain and the rest of the alliance have been in Iraq how long?

The liberals naysayers should shut up. They run around advocate a fantasy world of dreamy nonsense when they say it could have been done so much better… blah blah blah.

Of course, with hindsight, anything could be done better if we could forsee all the problems the next day would bring, we would always be prepared. But to claim wholesale evilness (like some people here do) or neglect on Bush’s policies (like the democrats do on the podium) is ignoring real world history and just really making a lot of noise just for a chance to do some political posturing.

2. Well, it is important to note that most terrorists in Iraq actually come from Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, your right Eutrusca, we don’t know this yet.

DOn't forget Syria. Or Jordan

1. "The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11." Probably true, although the potential for Iraq's participation in later terrorist attacks was high IMHO.

2. "The war has not made the world or America safer from terrorism." This has yet to be determined.

3. "Someone needs to rethink the plan" for conducting the war. I agree with this one. What we have been doing so far has not succeeded in either reducing the casualty rates or in enabling Iraqi forces to replace US forces.

Your own take on these?


1. I agree, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But Saddam was a sidistic dictator who was willing to test missles on his own people and the people of neighboring countries.

2. I also agree that we cant tell yet but I think that it won't destroy all terrorism. Because terrorist cells in the middle east are not the only terrorist organizations. There are other organizations all over europe (ex. The IRA, The Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)). We need to pay attention to all the terrorism cells and organizations and not just the big ones. All I hear about is al queda(sp?). I never hear about some other group.

3. I agree with this one also. What we need to do is leave. Just go. Pull out all of the troops. Then we can starve the country by not buying oil from the region and by drilling from the huge oil reserves under our country. Of course we could have done this if it hadnt been for the enviornmentalists. Silly idiots.
We have drilling techniques that dont harm the enviornment at all and this would also create more jobs in the U.S..


Here are some links to sites about the RIRA and the Basque Fatherland and Liberty terrorist organizations:

RIRA- http://www.ds-osac.org/Groups/group.cfm?contentID=1293
The basque Fatherland and Liberty Party- http://www.ds-osac.org/Groups/group.cfm?contentID=1277


*EDIT*
Here is a URL for a site with hundreds of terrorist groups all over the world. It had information on all of them.
http://www.ds-osac.org/Groups/index.cfm

1. I agree, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But Saddam was a sidistic dictator who was willing to test missles on his own people and the people of neighboring countries.
And we already got him for that. Bush II is just continuing his family's tradition of trying to top their father's achievements.

2. I also agree that we cant tell yet but I think that it won't destroy all terrorism. Because terrorist cells in the middle east are not the only terrorist organizations. There are other organizations all over europe (ex. The IRA, The Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)). We need to pay attention to all the terrorism cells and organizations and not just the big ones. All I hear about is al queda(sp?). I never hear about some other group. Of course we can't destroy all terrorism. By trying to destroy it you in fact create more terrorists. If you want to eliminate or more practically decrease terrorism, you must understand why they are blowing themselves up and then try to make amends. Why we are beginning to see terrorism in the late 20th century to present is because America and other Western powers have exploited the Middle East for over half a century. That is why they hate us. It's not because we have freedom and they don't and they're jelous. It's not because they're evil. It's because we've screwed around with their religion, and exploited their resources.

3. I agree with this one also. What we need to do is leave. Just go. Pull out all of the troops. Then we can starve the country by not buying oil from the region and by drilling from the huge oil reserves under our country. Of course we could have done this if it hadnt been for the enviornmentalists. Silly idiots.
We have drilling techniques that dont harm the enviornment at all and this would also create more jobs in the U.S..

Wow. Drilling techniques that don't give off emissions of some sort and don't touch the ground? Cool! But who cares? We can't get out of Iraq now that we've gotten neck deep in a shithole, we have to get out of oil. Yeah, there's gonna be little pockets of oil but how long will that last? Especially with anti-abortion Christian families with over 10 kids, we'll have like 12 billion people in 2050.

I pretty much agree with the article.
I said from the beginning it was a pissing contest. It's gone from being from being between Bush and Saddam to between Bush and his detractors.

Are there really any people stupid enough to think we went over there because they had something to do with 9/11 or to save the Iraqi people from a heartless dictator? If we wanted to attack someone responsible for 9/11 we could have gone after the Saudis. If we were really after WMD's we could have gone after North Korea. The same if it were heartless dictators. IMO the Korean people are suffering more than the Iraqis were.

Who’s to judge how long it takes to rebuild a country? When’s the last time anyone did it?

Let’s look at Japan, post world war 2.

The occupation of Japan by the Allied Powers started in August 1945 and ended in April 1952. General MacArthur was its first Supreme Commander. The whole operation was mainly carried out by the United States.
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2124.html

It took seven years to get our troops home from Japanese mainland (it wasn’t until 1972’ that Okinawa was given back). With this timeline in mind, Iraq and Afganistan are doing just fine.

The remains of Japan's war machine were destroyed, and war crime trials were held. Over 500 military officers committed suicide right after Japan surrendered, and many hundreds more were executed for committing war crimes. Emperor Showa was not declared a war criminal.

What if the 500 suicidal officers had been told to strap bombs on themselves and kamikaze themselves on the occupying forces? What if instead of telling them to surrender peacefully the Japanese Emperor had told these men to do what Saddam told his loyalist to do, …to fight on via insurgency, do everything you can to hinder them forever etc., etc., etc.

How much longer would it have taken to rebuild Japan? How much damage would they have done? What silliness is it to blame Iraq’s insuregency and occupational timeline on Bush and some kind of irrational lack of planning accusations?. Who, ever, in the history of the modern world, has done what you guys claim should have been planned for and done this time, to get our troops back home by now.


A new constitution went into effect in 1947: The emperor lost all political and military power, and was solely made the symbol of the state. Universal suffrage was introduced and human rights were guaranteed. Japan was also forbidden to ever lead a war again or to maintain an army. Furthermore, Shinto and the state were clearly separated.

We’re holding pretty much on this schedule in Iraq now and Bush is doing even better than Truman did. Truman had the Japanese constitution written for them, Bush is trying to get them to write their own… Even with the insurgents. Japan was relatively peaceful because the emperor told them to be, and it took seven years. America, Britain and the rest of the alliance have been in Iraq how long?

The liberals naysayers should shut up. They run around advocate a fantasy world of dreamy nonsense when they say it could have been done so much better… blah blah blah.

Of course, with hindsight, anything could be done better if we could forsee all the problems the next day would bring, we would always be prepared. But to claim wholesale evilness (like some people here do) or neglect on Bush’s policies (like the democrats do on the podium) is ignoring real world history and just really making a lot of noise just for a chance to do some political posturing.


Good points. The funny and sick part of all this, is that I would submit that the American Left would oppose the war even if Don Rumsfeld was right and everything he's said was the absolute, unvarnished truth.

And, I submit that they would, in fact, oppose it in much the same way they currently are-because that opposition has more to do with the 2000 election than it has to do with anything resembling actual military or strategic matters.

And we already got him for that. Bush II is just continuing his family's tradition of trying to top their father's achievements.

Of course we can't destroy all terrorism. By trying to destroy it you in fact create more terrorists. If you want to eliminate or more practically decrease terrorism, you must understand why they are blowing themselves up and then try to make amends. Why we are beginning to see terrorism in the late 20th century to present is because America and other Western powers have exploited the Middle East for over half a century. That is why they hate us. It's not because we have freedom and they don't and they're jelous. It's not because they're evil. It's because we've screwed around with their religion, and exploited their resources.


Wow. Drilling techniques that don't give off emissions of some sort and don't touch the ground? Cool! But who cares? We can't get out of Iraq now that we've gotten neck deep in a shithole, we have to get out of oil. Yeah, there's gonna be little pockets of oil but how long will that last? Especially with anti-abortion Christian families with over 10 kids, we'll have like 12 billion people in 2050.



The drilling gives off little emiisions and preserves forests. And there are huge amounts of oil under america. Especially in Alaska

1. Yeah that’s true. However, this is the “War on Terror”, not the war on Al Quida, and Saddam Hussein was known to financially support the Palestinian brand of terrorism.

2. Well, it is important to note that most terrorists in Iraq actually come from Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, your right Eutrusca, we don’t know this yet.

3. Yeah, some serious recourses need to go into coming up with a better plan.


Sorry, but what is it with people forgetting that Saddam was a good friend of the US until the late 80s, thats right all through the Iran - Iraq war the US supported Iraq with weapons (including Mustard Gas and other chemical weapons) Saddam was a friend of the US, yes thats right the murdering tyrant was a good bloke in the eyes of the US, funny how that all changed when he threatened the Kuwaiti Oil fields ....

I also want to make the point that American military leaders do -not- set the plans for Iraq or Afghanistan. Rumsfeld does that, as the Secretary of Defense. At the beginning of the war, the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave him a plan that included overwhelming force of over 350,000, which would have gone in, broken the government, and seized control quite firmly.

He -vetoed- it, and cut the planned troops down to the pre-late-2004 levels of 120,000, which was in no way enough to secure the country. Only during elections did he suddenly realize that there weren't enough troops, and ordered more into the country.

The blame for the way Iraq is being handled goes all the way to the top, in many respects. The troops and the generals are doing their best to get what must be done, done.

If anyone's confused--no, I do not consider Rumsfeld or anyone who is -not- actually in the military as a military leader, no matter what control they have over the armed services. Bush is -not- a military leader, even though he is techinically our supreme commander (Commander in Chief).

The military creates plans to go within the specifications and regulations and -orders- handed down from above. We do not make foriegn or national policy. That's up to the actual government.

<snip>
You know, Etrusca, I agree with you, for the most part. I'll admit, I didn't expect to, but I do. Loooking at point 1. I would say that Saddam's potential for involvment in future terror was pretty low. He didn't have much to gain, and everything to lose.

In my opinion, the root cause of the whole war on terror is the desire by those who I will term 'neo-cons' (those influenced by the theories of Leo Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss)) to reintroduce constants - values of right and wrong - into american society, which they feel had become too relativistic. This battle of good against evil would reunite America, and reinstate morals. This began in the late 80's with the Reagan policies towards The 'Evil Empire' (I'm condensing severly here) It has continued to this day, but the Enemy, who must be fought in a battle of good against evil, has changed with the demise of communism. It is another 'global network of terror and evil' - Al-Qaeda that is the new enemy. As has been pointed out by Psycotic Mongooses, Al-Qaeda does not exist in the form the neo-cons want us to think, and as Randomlittleisland said, a 'War on Terror' is logically inconsistent.

So, in conlusion: We are fighting an endless war against an enemy that doesn't exist. Clever, isn't it?

1. Iraq had absolutely nothing at all to do with September 11th.
2. If anything, the war has created more terrorists - hell, even people who were indifferent to America in the past consider them arsefucks now.
3. America, historically, are terrible at military planning.

From my unindoctrinated viewpoint, it seems that American military strategy is: "we've got lots of guns, let's go kill people." This works if you have the force to back up your arrogance, but right now, the situation in Iraq is out of control, and no amount of force is going to fix it. They need a new approach.
1. I agree.

2. I agree.

3. Do you know history? America is probably the most successful country ever at planning and nation-building. They built up and handed sovereignty back to the Philippines in 1935, when it was unheard of for a colonial power to give up its territory to the natives.

They did an even better job in World War 2. They almost single handedly defeated the monstrous Japanese Empire, liberating millions. Between 1945 and 1951 they built Japan into the prosperous democracy we know and love.

From my unindoctrinated viewpoint, it seems that American military strategy is: "we've got lots of guns, let's go kill people."

No, this is not necessarily the American approach. Their modern methods are quite bloodless by comparison with methods used by the US herself in the past and certainly by comparison with methods used by other armies throughout history.

right now, the situation in Iraq is out of control, and no amount of force is going to fix it. They need a new approach.
I agree that much change is needed and that there is much work to do, but it's not quite out of control. US forces are inflicting many more casualties on the insurgents than vice-versa.

What a load of BS. The three things about Iraq are, quite clearly, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Jeez people, can't you read maps. </unnessecary sarcastic comment>

1. Quite true. And saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists is no justification for war. Unless you bomb... oh Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Palestine itself as well.
2. No the war has not made the world safer. The war has not made America safer. It sure as hell hasn't made Iraq safer.
3. No, the strategy is not working. Darth Cheney can go on and on about the last throes, but we have no evidence of that. The evidence we have is that the insurgents are either getting more effective, or that they are getting more powerful. Either way, the death rate is going up, not down. Not progress. Also, the attempt at Vietnamization(or actually Iraqization) doesn't seem to be working well. Though I'm honestly not sure how any of this can be changed.