Like most people, I get overwhelmed by politics since just about everything is open for argument – everyone has their own view and who’s to say one view is better or worse than another? Without devoting the time to research the issues, you may as well throw your hands in the air and go play some Nintendo. Tack on the sheer mind-numbingness of today’s political discourse in the media and it’s a wonder anyone follows politics at all.
But the invasion of Iraq and its consequences is – and was – an absolute no-brainer. This didn’t require any political savvy whatsoever, just a modicum of common sense. Of course it’s resulted in more terrorism. Of course it’s resulted in more pain, suffering and death.
I slap my forehead in disgust.
Oh come now Ben, tsk tsk,
I don’t know if you can call all of the bad that is happening in Iraq worse now than it was before, perhaps you need to see some of the accounts of the rape rooms, torture chambers and general evil that was a daily occurance under Saddam. There were thousands that disappeared forever for silly things like losing a boxing match in the olympics. There are utterly cruel deaths of people that will never even be discovered due to the evil Saddam inflicted on that country. There were thousands that died of hunger per month so Saddam could build his palaces and weapons (thanks also to the oil-for-food corruption). I also don’t see how you can believe that there are more terrorists, they are all just concentrating themselves in one area. The head of al-quida in Iraq himself has issued letters that have been intercepted acknowledging that they are losing and desperately needed more people and weapons. Give it time and they will be crushed. We cannot allow a hint of weakness or they will be emboldened and re-double their efforts. Show strength and they will flee (ie. Muqtatda al Sadr and what happed in Somalia recently).
Haha :-) I was expecting your response within a day or two – but 30 minutes is excellent. I’m just at work – I’ll respond when I get home tonight.
Hmm. I’m going to have to take the gloves off on this one, since you said some really daft things. :-)
First, you say “I don’t know if you can call all of the bad that is happening in Iraq worse now than it was before…” and then write some generalized instances of inhumane actions by Saddam (plus the obligatory swipe at the UN).
If you look over my original post, I never claimed Iraq was all rose petals and kittens and snowflakes before the invasion – you’re missing the point. I live in the reality-based community (unfashionable though that may be in some states). To recap the study’s findings, it found that global (note the word “global”) terrorism has dramatically increased since the US invasion. We’re not just limited to Iraq, though obviously Iraq and Afghanistan are the most volatile focal points. The study is done by a couple of fellows at the Center on Law and Security at NYU. Give it a read. If you don’t find their statistics or interpretation credible, fair enough – post me back and point out the flaws, I’d be very curious to hear them.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html
But let’s turn to another source which might be of assistance: the last National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) – which constitutes the definitive findings of all the significant US intelligence agencies (something like 15 of them, if memory serves). This report says (wait for it…!) that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse. Shocker. What’s more, it predicted precisely the same thing back in 2003, two months before the war began (remember my remark that this was a no-brainer?) Here’s a NY Times article on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
I could keep citing other sources, but frankly it gets boring. You could either believe all this evidence that’s out there waiting for you to look at, or you just believe whatever nonsense Bush just spouted. Do you have any reason to believe what you’re being told? I’m really curious. Gimme some sources, baby! The fact that the world is a more dangerous place due to the US in Iraq isn’t news. What’s news is just how SIGNIFICANT the damage that the US has caused. 600% is an eye popper.
“I also don’t see how you can believe that there are more terrorists, they are all just concentrating themselves in one area.”
Interesting you’d say this, because it’s precisely what Bush has been saying (surprise!): that the US is “taking the fight to them” and that the US is doing a really great, noble thing by bearing the brunt of the terrorists’ insanity in a single geographical location.
Utter nonsense.
Worldwide terrorism – EXCLUDING Iraq and Afghanistan – has increased by a third (again, see the report). Bush and co are trying to talk their way out of a situation they themselves didn’t expect and are romanticizing the nobility and purpose of their actions. There’s no serious argument about this, Danny: the US has made the world a more dangerous place by invading Iraq.
Finally, your argument that “showing strength” will defeat them in the end is, well, simplistic and misguided. Some situations demand force, some don’t – and this is one of them. You’d think that after 4 years, people would clue into this fact – oh wait! They are! What are Bush’s ratings again? 28%?
And “give it time”? How much more time would you like, Danny? Another 4 years? How about 10? How long will it take for you to realize that this is a situation that can’t be “crushed”. Diplomacy is the solution. Diplomacy is almost ALWAYS the solution. It’s not as sexy as blowing shit up or “taking control”, but, well, it actually WORKS in most instances.
But maybe you’re right. Let’s go invade Iran. Those fuckers are CRAZY.
Impressive. Of course I already suspected this, but to see some figures to back this up makes it even more credible. Normally I’m not too worried about things, but in this case I am. Certainly with the developments around Iran at the moment. We hear exactly the same things from the same people who wanted the war in Iraq. I just don’t understand this. Are these hawks in the white house sponsored by the defense industry or something? The more war they create the higher their stock goes?
In part, I think yes. Cheney, of course, was formerly a CEO of Halliburton and holds stock the company which is worth millions. Considering the vast sums of money Halliburton has made on no-bid contracts for rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, it’s a wonder the allegations of conflict of interest against Cheney never stuck. Technically I seem to remember hearing that Cheney continues to receive annuities from Halliburton, but because it’s not related to how well the company performs he’s therefore not “conflicted” (correct me if I’m wrong about this). That said, it’s hard to believe his loyalties wouldn’t lie with a company that’s made him millions of dollars. I mean, c’mon! Rice worked for Chevron, and I won’t belabour the obvious interests that the oil corporations have in Iraq (which besides Saudi Arabia and Iran has the largest oil reserves in the Middle East so geez if would sure be nice to get a hold of them). Bush and his family have had long ties with the oil companies. So yes, the point is that there were clear financial benefits for the administration to go to war.
But I wonder how deep those same motivations are prompting the war-mongering over Iran… Iran isn’t Iraq (despite their oh-so-similar names and the feeling of deja vu over the recent faulty US intelligence over Iran’s nuclear capabilities). I wonder if Iran is more a way of drawing public attention away from the disaster of Iraq. Invading Iran really isn’t an option – that much is obvious. They can’t leave Iraq even if they wanted to, since it would leave the place in a bigger mess than it is now – and the Iran-friendly Shiites in a stronger position than ever. This, in turn, would threaten their good buddies Israel and Saudi Arabia. So no can do. Plus, I mean don’t forget that Iraq hasn’t been a disaster for everyone – a lot of people have made a lot of money. For those guys, who have such pull with the US administration, the war has been a resounding success.
My other thought is maybe they’re trying to whip public opinion into another frenzy like they did over Iraq, with the intention of generating an excuse to get out of Iraq… by invading Iran. I really doubt it, but the thought really nags.
No, I think the reason Iran is in the limelight is a far older one: the need for a bad-guy to perpetuate the war-driven US economy. But I could blather on about that for hours. :-)
I’m not denying that the statistics are true about this rise, what I am trying to say is that there is no other way to deal with this problem in any other way. There is nothing that these people want from us. You can’t negotiate with these people and even if we were to give them money or homes or anything, what are they going to go do after that? start a business selling kebab’s or falafel’s? No, of course not, they will continue doing what they do, kill innocent people. The only thing they want is a world controlled by Islam and it’s laws.
Another point you made was asking about how much longer do we continue this fight. If we look at how long previous fight like this were (ie. WWII) this battle isn’t out of the ordinary especially considering that it is broader fight against non-unified groups under no country banner. If it does take 4 more years or 10 more years or more, so what, there are still troops in Vietnam, Korea, Germany… we need to do what it takes to ensure there isn’t another Khmer Rouge created by leaving, that would be the real crime.
Heya.
To be perfectly honest, I really don’t know WHAT the solution is. There seems to be a rather depressing consensus that this is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation with no good solutions, just ever-worsening bad ones. But using force is just plain short-sighted – and it’s not like it’s even an option anyway. Unless Bush commits political suicide and re-introduces the draft, the US will never have enough man-power to make their “seize, control and move on” (or whatever) plan work (btw, this was attempted last year and proved an unbelievable failure).
I read the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group findings and they pretty much affirmed what I and every other 8th grader out there already thought was needed: diplomacy. It’s not like all Iraqis are extremists: most of them hate them as much as we do – if not far more, having lived through the horror (on a sidenote, it was my birthday yesterday: 128 people died in car bombs in Baghdad. Cheery). You may be right that there’s nothing the extremists want from us (other than to get the hell out of Iraq) but don’t forget that they’re a tiny, tiny fraction of the people of Iraq which have been fueled by the invasion. Working on getting the various factions of the Iraq government to talk to each other and place the goals of the country over their own sectarian goals is clearly the way to go. Consulting with neighbourhood nations like Iran, Syria, Jordan and Egypt to get them to quit their meddling is another.
And please – comparing Iraq to WWII??? Good heavens.
One other thing: “The only thing they want is a world controlled by Islam and it’s laws.” I could say EXACTLY the same thing about the right wing extremists in the US administration. Only they have nuclear weapons.
To follow up on this, the US State Department found that between 2005 and 2006, terrorist attacks against non-combatants rose 91%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01terror.html