NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about the Iraq War a lot recently, particularly about the media's coverage of the war. It seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that the Iraq War is treated, particularly by the so-called "anti-war" spokespeople who get the screen time.

Whether liberal or conservative, pro or anti-Iraq War, it seems that every commentator begins with the assumption of benevolence on the part of the Bush Administration. The prevailing attitude is that Bush and co. were "misguided idealists" that had the best interests of both the Iraqi and the American people in mind. From "anti-war" liberals, the contention is that Iraq War was a mistake, a failure. This contention is contingent on the assumption of benevolence on the part of the US (and to be fair, the UK and other coalition allies).

I think that this framing of the Iraq War debate is way off base. The Iraq War has certainly not been a mistake for defense contractors, in particular Halliburton. It's provided a wonderful boon for private American mercenary companies. And a tremendous source of oil wealth, once under state control, is now open American and British capital. Let's also not forget the tremendous market potential for "Westernizing" and rebuilding the now ruined country of Iraq.

I found an article on Znet that explores this issue in greater depth. I'd like to share an excerpt with you.

As Naomi Klein expertly explores in her bestseller The Shock Doctrine, the Bush administration sought, in Iraq at least, to create their own unique notion of the idealized free market economy, unfettered by regulation and government interference, a veritable tabula rasa on which the economy of boundless self-interest could script its utopian future. They wanted to create a perfect neoliberal nation. Democracy was a consideration only insofar as Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld conflated democracy with their free market ideology through the manipulable rubrick of freedom. Otherwise, as Paul Bremer's numerous actions belie (canceling elections, hand-picking governing councils, etc.), democracy was denied at every instance in which it conflicted with the broader aims of the neoliberal mandate. In fact, there is a strong argument to be made that these efforts to inhibit the democratic impulse were the incipient cause of the resistance movement.

It is probably inarguable that the administration underestimated the force required to ensure that their neoliberal dream took wing amid the rubble of that demolished nation, but this only suggests the failure was of a different character altogether. If the administration failed, their failure was an incapacity to foresee the repression required to install a neoliberal regime, and not--as has been ceaselessly implied--a failure to spread the light of democracy to a former dictatorship. Democracy was never the goal. Cracking open a nation with unlimited profit potential was. The administration can't then be said to have failed to impart something it never truly sought to share. It did fail to create the conditions for the free-wheeling pillage of Mesopotamia it imagined.

(Jason Hirthler, "The Ruse of Altruism (http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18826)", from Znet, September 16, 2008. Emphasis Mine - Trot)

This isn't exactly a "massive revelation". Activists understood this before the war began, and was one of the central uniting factors of the protest movement to stop the invasion of Iraq. Yet, this point is seldom if ever discussed in the mainstream media.

What else did you expect? The mainstream media are mainly commercial entities, so they make damn sure that they won't be too critical. Pissing off your sponsors doesn't make you profits.

What else did you expect? The mainstream media are mainly commercial entities, so they make damn sure that they won't be too critical. Pissing off your sponsors doesn't make you profits.

Mass media bias, while interesting and very important issue, is another topic unto itself. I'm perfectly aware why it is never discussed. The point of the thread was to discuss the issue of the Iraq War itself.

just as before the war started we WANT to believe that the president is a good man who has our best interests at heart. its very hard to accept that he was an asshole who lied to us.

did you see the daily show last night with the author on the book on cheney? cheney lied to dick armey's face (house majority leader at the time i think) about the need to go to war.

bush wanted the war from the day he stepped into the white house. 9/11 gave him the chance he needed to get the public to agree with him.

check out "bush's war", a frontline documentary on the iraq war. its not that there is much NEW in it, but there has been so much water under the dam that we tend to forget some of it and not connect the dots like we might in different circumstances. its on netflix instant view.

wait so what your saying is we should start putting conspiracy above stupidity?

because the republican government molded the new Iraq on Republican ideals (armed fundamentalists?) it means that they planned to make Iraq a conservative utopia all along?

The war profiteers *cue booing and hissing from 1915* made the coalition invade Iraq because they knew they could make lots of money?

the toast decided that it would be burnt?

Domestic disasters like Katrina aren't so much examples of government futility as they are of the administration's desire not to govern.
Lol. This guy is giving Bush entirely too much credit.

At any rate, people who want to make profits don't go into government. They stay earning big-ass salary packages in whatever firm they were working in before. I'm reasonably confident that if you checked the money people like Cheney made on their holdings in firms like Halliburton and try to isolate the earnings made due to Cheney's policies, it would pale to insignificance if you compare it to the money he would have made had he just stayed with the firm in the first place.

I'm afraid his argument doesn't stand in that regard. Which leaves an annoying mistake many left-wingers are only too familiar with: the equation of nutty bastards in government who may share miniscule percentages of an idology, with that ideology itself.

wait so what your saying is we should start putting conspiracy above stupidity?

because the republican government molded the new Iraq on Republican ideals (armed fundamentalists?) it means that they planned to make Iraq a conservative utopia all along?

The war profiteers *cue booing and hissing from 1915* made the coalition invade Iraq because they knew they could make lots of money?

the toast decided that it would be burnt?

I honestly don't think that the evidence really points towards benevolence gone wrong.

For instance, the Project for a New American Century, a think tank very influential among the Bush Administration staff and advisors, devoted considerable time to analyzing the economic benefits that could be realized from an invasion of Iraq and a institution of a neo-liberal trade regime.

wait so what your saying is we should start putting conspiracy above stupidity?

because the republican government molded the new Iraq on Republican ideals (armed fundamentalists?) it means that they planned to make Iraq a conservative utopia all along?

The war profiteers *cue booing and hissing from 1915* made the coalition invade Iraq because they knew they could make lots of money?

the toast decided that it would be burnt?
ya but why did BLAIR sign on to it?

Lol. This guy is giving Bush entirely too much credit.

At any rate, people who want to make profits don't go into government. They stay earning big-ass salary packages in whatever firm they were working in before. I'm reasonably confident that if you checked the money people like Cheney made on their holdings in firms like Halliburton and try to isolate the earnings made due to Cheney's policies, it would pale to insignificance if you compare it to the money he would have made had he just stayed with the firm in the first place.

I'm afraid his argument doesn't stand in that regard. Which leaves an annoying mistake many left-wingers are only too familiar with: the equation of nutty bastards in government who may share miniscule percentages of an idology, with that ideology itself.

Perhaps. I'm more interested in the Iraq War than Katrina though. There is much more to the equation than just Cheney's fortune. We're talking about a large number of people who don't hold any political office but still have an important interest in influencing government policy.

For instance, the Project for a New American Century, a think tank very influential among the Bush Administration staff and advisors, devoted considerable time to analyzing the economic benefits that could be realized from an invasion of Iraq and a institution of a neo-liberal trade regime.
Which points to nothing in particular. If they acted purely out of benevolence, and in the interest of the American people, then doing that sort of analysis would have been a part of it too. Plus, there probably would have been big economic benefits, had Iraq actually become a free economy, both to Iraq and to the global economy, including the US.

Ultimately the guy isn't saying anything. He seems to suggest that wanting to benefit the American or Iraqi people and wanting to create a free economy in Iraq are somehow mutually exclusive. He admits that the administration failed in creating such a free economy, which I can without a problem equate to having failed in a benevolent cause.

The only thing worthwhile he's saying is that perhaps the (entirely un-liberal) transfer of government funds to contractors under shady consequences had been the plan all along. I already pointed out that they wouldn't have done it out of an interest in their own personal paycheck, and whatever ideology it was then that prompted them to pursue this course - "neo-liberal" it wasn't.

ya but why did BLAIR sign on to it?

It was an attempt on our Prime Minister's part to gain diplomatic ground with the Bush Administration, in order to gain an influence upon American foreign policy concerning not only the war, but European and other global affairs.

However, it seems that with hindsight, British assistance was and still is pretty much unrespected by the American administration, military and intelligence agencies.

As far as the American government was concerned, Britain was a token ally, and hardly anything more.

Whether liberal or conservative, pro or anti-Iraq War, it seems that every commentator begins with the assumption of benevolence on the part of the Bush Administration. The prevailing attitude is that Bush and co. were "misguided idealists" that had the best interests of both the Iraqi and the American people in mind.

This isn't the case from what I've observed from the anti-war crowd in the UK at least. Not only have I seen the following argument made multiple times in the media, I also remember a sociology professor coming to my school a while back and literally telling us that the war was for oil and that was a matter of fact.


I think that this framing of the Iraq War debate is way off base. The Iraq War has certainly not been a mistake for defense contractors, in particular Halliburton. It's provided a wonderful boon for private American mercenary companies.

I don't think the US gov or any other government could really give a shit about the profit of private military contractors.


And a tremendous source of oil wealth, once under state control, is now open American and British capital. Let's also not forget the tremendous market potential for "Westernizing" and rebuilding the now ruined country of Iraq.


It's arguable that it was only for oil, but this is unproven and rather speculative. It's also arguable that had they not gone to the war the economy and oil industry would be in a far greater state.


As for the article, well whatever it could be argued that way. However I always have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who uses the utterly meaningless term 'neoliberal', it's almost as meaningless as Andaras constantly spurting 'bourgeois' all the time. I also dispute the idea that Iraq offers a tremendous profit opportunity.

It was an attempt on our Prime Minister's part to gain diplomatic ground with the Bush Administration, in order to gain an influence upon American foreign policy concerning not only the war, but European and other global affairs.

However, it seems that with hindsight, British assistance was and still is pretty much unrespected by the American administration, military and intelligence agencies.

As far as the American government was concerned, Britain was a token ally, and hardly anything more.
that seems a tad....is cynical the word? to send UK soldiers to fight and die for a lie so that he could suck up to bush.

i mean, thank god for y'all and your willingness to sign on to our insanity but if blair knew it was bullshit shouldnt he be in jail now?

Also, what made you come to this conclusion? Please do not say Klein.

As Naomi Klein expertly explores in her bestseller The Shock Doctrine, the Bush administration sought, in Iraq at least, to create their own unique notion of the idealized free market economy, unfettered by regulation and government interference, a veritable tabula rasa on which the economy of boundless self-interest could script its utopian future. They wanted to create a perfect neoliberal nation.

Right. Because that's what politicians want - utopian futures.

And that's so obviously what the Bush administration or even the Republicans want - a complete free market.

Because yeah. They're neoliberals, not neoconservatives.

And the "He tried to kill my daddy" motivation is just a coincidence. The fact that a foreign war takes the heat off domestic issues is another coincidence. And the fact that the Republicans, and Bush, do not support nor practice nor advocate a free market economy, in Iraq or elsewhere, is just a diversion!

:rolleyes:

This whole thing is just an attempt to blame an "ism" for the war. Naomi Klein wants to blame free market economics, and she doesn't seem to care about reality.

What a bunch of hogwash.

that seems a tad....is cynical the word? to send UK soldiers to fight and die for a lie so that he could suck up to bush.

i mean, thank god for y'all and your willingness to sign on to our insanity but if blair knew it was bullshit shouldnt he be in jail now?

Wasn't so much trying to suck up to Bush, but to become respected as a European leader America could trust. The British government knew the Americans were going into Iraq, United Nations and realities on the ground be damned, and so wanted to be in a position to subtly influence American policy in Post-War Iraq. To reign in the cowboys, so to speak.

that seems a tad....is cynical the word? to send UK soldiers to fight and die for a lie so that he could suck up to bush.

i mean, thank god for y'all and your willingness to sign on to our insanity but if blair knew it was bullshit shouldnt he be in jail now?
Many still think he should be. The question at the minute is not whether he did it for the right reasons, but the mitigating evaluation of whether his decision had a positive outcome, and the jury is still out on that one.

Whether liberal or conservative, pro or anti-Iraq War, it seems that every commentator begins with the assumption of benevolence on the part of the Bush Administration. The prevailing attitude is that Bush and co. were "misguided idealists" that had the best interests of both the Iraqi and the American people in mind. From "anti-war" liberals, the contention is that Iraq War was a mistake, a failure. This contention is contingent on the assumption of benevolence on the part of the US (and to be fair, the UK and other coalition allies).
I'd say the bolded is true. If George Bush intended the Iraq War to increase his own purse significantly, he's even less intelligent than I thought. I'm sure if you asked him or Dick Cheney whether a new, capitalist, US-friendly government in Iraq is better for Americans and Iraqis they would answer yes; they'd believe it, too. The problem is, of course, they are wrong in so many different ways. However, I agree they aren't idealists: they're clever men who believed the ends justified the means and were too arrogant or too lazy to consider no one else liked their ends.

Because yeah. They're neoliberals, not neoconservatives.


Don't even start a debate about that. :) As I've said just now, neoliberal is a completely meaningless term, but be warned you're probably going to get a load of people coming in here claiming that neoconservatives and neoliberals are essentially the same or at least not mutually exclusive. Technically they are correct, because the term is so overly broad it can include people who hardly practice a free market at all (republicans) and modern economists like Friedman (who incidentally did not support the war, even though Klein believes that he did).


And the "He tried to kill my daddy" motivation is just a coincidence. The fact that a foreign war takes the heat off domestic issues is another coincidence. And the fact that the Republicans, and Bush, do not support nor practice nor advocate a free market economy, in Iraq or elsewhere, is just a diversion!


Well said.

Wasn't so much trying to suck up to Bush, but to become respected as a European leader America could trust. The British government knew the Americans were going into Iraq, United Nations and realities on the ground be damned, and so wanted to be in a position to subtly influence American policy in Post-War Iraq. To reign in the cowboys, so to speak.
Meh, I think Blair was simply a fan of the idea that if a free country has the means to do so, it should prevent gross human rights violations and depose brutal dictatorships where possible. It worked out in Kosovo (sorta, anyways - at least it stopped the war), and the UN wasn't really playing along until after the fact there either.

There was probably a bit of self-deception and cognitive dissonance involved in picking Saddam over any given number of worse governments, or maybe it was just pragmatic, given that the UK doesn't have the means to do anything without the US. So when the Americans got themselves excited about Iraq, Blair joined in, with his own reasons in mind.

Because yeah. They're neoliberals, not neoconservatives.
The difference between the two is less distinct than you might suspect when big business and fundamentalism overlap in a single mindset.

EDIT: Hydesland got there first! :p

Meh, I think Blair was simply a fan of the idea that if a free country has the means to do so, it should prevent gross human rights violations and depose brutal dictatorships where possible. It worked out in Kosovo (sorta, anyways - at least it stopped the war), and the UN wasn't really playing along until after the fact there either.

There was probably a bit of self-deception and cognitive dissonance involved in picking Saddam over any given number of worse governments, or maybe it was just pragmatic, given that the UK doesn't have the means to do anything without the US. So when the Americans got themselves excited about Iraq, Blair joined in, with his own reasons in mind.

I completely agree that Blair certainly did have humanitarian motives in mind as well, and completely supported an Interventionist policy. I believe his own idealism did weigh heavily on his decision to commit to war.

Don't even start a debate about that. :) As I've said just now, neoliberal is a completely meaningless term, but be warned you're probably going to get a load of people coming in here claiming that neoconservatives and neoliberals are essentially the same or at least not mutually exclusive. Technically they are correct, because the term is so overly broad it can include people who hardly practice a free market at all (republicans) and modern economists like Friedman (who incidentally did not support the war, even though Klein believes that he did).

Well, when you come down to it, "liberal" and "conservative" are terms equally meaningless due to broadness of interpretation and scope. Technically, liberals are conservatives and vice versa. It's all rather pointless when one can correctly call diehard communists both 'right' and 'left' wing, depending on which 'wing' you perceive yourself as and perceive them to be.

But the term "neoliberal" in Naomi Klein's context was meant to refer to 'classic liberal' economic policies, namely a 'free market' which she mentioned in the bit in the OP. And by that way of thinking, Bush&Co are NOT neoliberal and blaming "free market economics" or "neoliberalism" for what Bush&Co did is plainly wrong.

I honestly don't think that the evidence really points towards benevolence gone wrong.

no you see the idea is its assumed to be general stupidity until some actual evidence comes up

ya but why did BLAIR sign on to it?

because there are considerable benefits in being a USA bitch

that seems a tad....is cynical the word? to send UK soldiers to fight and die for a lie so that he could suck up to bush.

we had a pretty big stake in the building of the Iraqi govenrment (or at least the South) and considering it is more or less just shifting troops from the now peaceful-ish Ireland I suppose Blair saw the greater cost of what would happen if we went against the US

Technically, liberals are conservatives and vice versa.
You can keep them apart by looking at their motivations. Conservatives have no interest in a free market apart from it being tradition. Chinese conservatives would look at it differently. The only thing approaching anything laissez-faire in conservative ideology is the idea of society as an organism too complex to fiddle around with, as detailed by Edmund Burke et al in response to the French revolution.

That offers the possibility of a conservative opposed to laws enshrining tradition...but they are few and far between. And more importantly, I've never seen a conservative who tolerated and accepted the natural, non-government-imposed change of accepted ways of behaviour.

Well, when you come down to it, "liberal" and "conservative" are terms equally meaningless due to broadness of interpretation and scope. Technically, liberals are conservatives and vice versa. It's all rather pointless when one can correctly call diehard communists both 'right' and 'left' wing, depending on which 'wing' you perceive yourself as and perceive them to be.


Agreed.


Naomi Klein's context was meant to refer to 'classic liberal' economic policies, namely a 'free market' which she mentioned in the bit in the OP.

Sure, but then how meaningful is even the term 'classic liberal'?

You can keep them apart by looking at their motivations. Conservatives have no interest in a free market apart from it being tradition. Chinese conservatives would look at it differently. The only thing approaching anything laissez-faire in conservative ideology is the idea of society as an organism too complex to fiddle around with, as detailed by Edmund Burke et al in response to the French revolution.


Well conservative means something different wherever you go, if one country has a strong liberal tradition, then conservatives are also liberal. The opposite to conservative is progressive, not liberal.

That offers the possibility of a conservative opposed to laws enshrining tradition...but they are few and far between. And more importantly, I've never seen a conservative who tolerated and accepted the natural, non-government-imposed change of accepted ways of behaviour.

Isn't a sort of "evolution vs. revolution" thing? Conservatives like Burke were great fans of gradual change, sometimes even with help from the government. Common law is the usual example. Liberals like Bentham thought the whole system could be revamped and start from scratch, based on reason. Most people are in between.

If these viewpoints had come from someone whose pet issue was not bitching about globalization, I'd sit up and take notice. But dearest Naomi Klein focuses on neoliberal globalization, and uses it as a universal bogeyman and cause of all the world's ills.

So, yeah, everything I've seen is that the Bush administration saw the Hussein regime as regional inconvenience, and potential future liability. This, combined with a viewpoint rooted heavily in the revisionist neoconservative ideology, and rooted in the seeming enthusiasm for "quick and easy" military solutions gave us the war.

There is a significant amount of evidence that this "quick and easy" attitude was extremely prominent elsewhere in the military. The stripping of the Crusader program, the emphasis on the JSF over the F-22 and the emphasis on building a cheap, light, mobile force useful for small scale wars, like Iraq was theorized to be. Rather than the heavy, strong units required for major inter-state conflicts or long-term fighting occupations.

Isn't a sort of "evolution vs. revolution" thing?
In theory, yes. I like the example of gay marriage: the acceptance of gay people and their rights wasn't imposed by any government, it was the result of a social movement that got its message into the mainstream and allowed gay people to step up rather than hide themselves away.

Now, Edmund Burke (unless he'd get into some sort of religious panty-twisting exercise) might support that. I've seen very few who call themselves conservatives do the same, and no politicians on that side of the spectrum. Instead they act as though legalising gay marriage was a government interference that was forcing a change upon society.

But this is a thread-jack, so I'll leave it.

Isn't a sort of "evolution vs. revolution" thing? Conservatives like Burke were great fans of gradual change, sometimes even with help from the government. Common law is the usual example. Liberals like Bentham thought the whole system could be revamped and start from scratch, based on reason. Most people are in between.

Yeah but then would you call people like the Mensheviks conservatives? They wanted gradual change.

Oil - there we go...

I'd have been far less offended had they just said that at the time, to be honest.

Although I am a staunch critic of the War in Iraq, it makes a lot of sense if you look at it from a purely tactical standpoint. With American soldiers in Afghanistan and in Iraq, we are in a much better position to twist Iran's arm or invade it if the presidency decides to do so (as both countries boarder Iran on either side).

The problem is this plan assumes that losses will be minimal in Iraq and Afghanistan and that all the people will see America as liberators rather than occupiers.

That's why there's such a big stink about pulling out... The government doesn't want to lose the possible tactical advantage of controling Iraq when it sets its sights totally on Iran (which, the only reason why they haven't done that yet is because they mucked everything up with Iraq).

Although I am a staunch critic of the War in Iraq, it makes a lot of sense if you look at it from a purely tactical standpoint. With American soldiers in Afghanistan and in Iraq, we are in a much better position to twist Iran's arm or invade it if the presidency decides to do so (as both countries boarder Iran on either side).

A ground invasion of Iran? Unlikely. The Iranian Army on the defensive won't be a push over. There would be a lot of bloodshed that America couldn't afford. Any action against Iran (god forbid) would consist of aerial bombing, and not much else.

America obviously invaded Iraq for oil; it is the only explanation for why oil has yet to be pumped by the U.S. there.

I'm afraid his argument doesn't stand in that regard. Which leaves an annoying mistake many left-wingers are only too familiar with: the equation of nutty bastards in government who may share miniscule percentages of an idology, with that ideology itself.

What if we look at it from another perspective? It's pretty much open knowledge that the likes of Haliburton and Blackwater have made huge profits off the adventures to the middle east. They couldn't have done that alone, but with the right people in charge of the government, they would have reaped massively.

The existence of lobbyists already proves that corporate interests will always try to interfere with governance anyway, so why not a step further?

A few answers:

1) Weapons Companies

2) To complete daddy's war

3) Oil

To correct some claims about the war:

1) Saddam Hussein never supported terrorists, and he refused to even meet with them.

2) Saddam sold his weapons of mass destruction or had them dismantled quite simply because he could no longer afford to keep them

3) Saddam Hussein complied fully with the UN weapons inspectors and the weapons inspectors said so

4) Saddam was never supporting US enemies, in fact the prominent US ally Turkey was in fully support of Iraq because of its help with the Kurds.

This thread is moot, no matter what the initial prerogative, it's still a failure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html

Naomi Klein is worth listening to. Corporations wait for disaters to happen and then they move in. If they can't wait for disasters, they cause them like invading Iraq - not because Hussein was a bad man (which he was) but because there is shitloads of oil there and nice little markets to monopolise.

Before that invasion, Australia was selling lots of its wheat to Iraq. After the invasion horrified US politicians found that Australia was in a "wheat for oil deal". Now surprise, surprise, the US has a virtual monopoly of wheat sales to Iraq.
Nice way to treat yer allies boys! But I suppose that all is fair in war and the free market.
I think that Cheyney is a little crook who uses the American flag to hide his nasty little plots.

Bush threw a dart at a map of the Middle East and invaded the country it landed in. Just be happy he didn't hit Israel, that would have been a mess.

distraction

Plus with claims of non existant nuclear weapons there was an excuse without the risk. It was a lone dictatorship anyway so no one really cared about it.

Hopefully at least democracy can be established. The war is questionable but at the moment there is only really the option of leaving and creating anarchy or at least trying to fix it.

Before that invasion, Australia was selling lots of its wheat to Iraq. After the invasion horrified US politicians found that Australia was in a "wheat for oil deal".
Actually, I don't think it was US politicians. I can't quite recall, but I think first doubts came from Australia, and a thorough UN investigation confirmed it. AWB was bribing the hell out of Saddam to get the contracts.

That's corruption and wrong regardless of which country AWB happened to have come from.

Operation
Iraqui
Liberation

Plus, another staging area in the region next to Iran.
Plus, playfield for U.S. corporations.
Plus, war is always good for the U.S. economy (though not necessarily for its people).

Wanna my own three secondary monetary units? This is my vision: it was not for oil for the sake of it. After the success of Afghani operation (which now, as we know, does not seem to be that much of a success, but at that time...), Bush and company looked after any other faraway country to wage a Short Victorious War and get more of these nice %s in polls (was he smarter, he'd realise that "short, victorious wars" invariably end neither short nor victorious). Iraq was perfect as one such country, as Saddam was one old enemy, who was easy to paint a Big Bad, and had little, if any, international backing. Oil was a nice bonus, but it wasn't the primary reason for invasion.

A ground invasion of Iran? Unlikely. The Iranian Army on the defensive won't be a push over. There would be a lot of bloodshed that America couldn't afford. Any action against Iran (god forbid) would consist of aerial bombing, and not much else.

Airial bombardment requires airbases. See above.

Bush threw a dart at a map of the Middle East and invaded the country it landed in. Just be happy he didn't hit Israel, that would have been a mess.

christ with the way the USian Army ran the Iraqi war the Israelis woulda crushed them.

christ with the way the USian Army ran the Iraqi war the Israelis woulda crushed them.

The initial invasion in 2003 went well, it didn't start to fall apart until we ran out of uniformed Iraqis to shoot.

Swimmingly well, I'd say. The US military did what it's best at, breaking large numbers of things. We couldn't break everything after we conquered them.

Swimmingly well, I'd say. The US military did what it's best at, breaking large numbers of things. We couldn't break everything after we conquered them.
True. One does have to give the military credit for at least trying to maintain and build up the infrastructure. Fire-bombing is a lot easier.

The initial invasion in 2003 went well, it didn't start to fall apart until we ran out of uniformed Iraqis to shoot.

Dear NW,
I remember reading a book in the 1970s by Robert Taber called "The War of the Flea" which was clearly inspired by the tactics of the Viet Cong among others. It likened an occupying force to an elephant anf the guerilla forces to fleas. The fleas are small and hard to find - and keep on biting.

A determined guerilla force with decentralised leadership can continue fighting indefinitely. And we can see why terror tactics could become a weapon of choice.