[quote=gandalf]urbanrealtor, not my fault you’re nodding off in the middle of the day. How about contributing your take on Middle East policy. I didn’t catch that in your last post.
– What are your views re: our nation-building exercise in Iraq?
[/quote]
It was a poor decision to go to war. I am not a true pacifist. Sometimes conflict really is the best option. However, war is almost never without mass casualties. I think you really need to have a good reason to kill a man. I don’t think that we had one (thats a different conversation but one I am fine with having). Once we were there it was important to reassess based upon conditions on the ground. I don’t think it should have taken 3 years and a loss of congressional majority to drive that point home.
Assuming we had a good reason to be there (again don’t buy that one), it would have been a good decision to follow the suggestions of the experts. Shinseki’s suggestion of several hundred troops and several years would have been good start. We keep forgetting what this looks like to the Iraqis. Every successful occupation involves coming in and improving peoples life (EG: Germany in 1945). IN IRAQ, WE ACTUALLY WENT INTO AN OPPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP AND MADE LIFE WORSE. Now thats impressive. We really should not be surprised that they want to kill us.
[quote=gandalf]
– How best to combat Al Qaeda? Occupy Iraq?
[/quote]
Terrorism and resistance movements are not just nihilistic animals (though some aims are very non-specific). They are a service to someone and for some purpose. Always. That is true throughout history. Think of the resistance movement (which used illegal and unprecedented forms of warfare) which formed our country. I think the issue in Iraq and Afghanistan while different have some similarities. In both cases you have demands for violent action (like anarchy, failing states, or swaggering invaders on streetcorners) and an ample supply of the means for violent action (lots of poor unemployed young men and cheap explosives and firearms). I would change that so their was more law (start writing big paychecks to existing police or safety militias), support the state (give them money training whatever), keep the occupying troops out of sight (nobody leaves the base unless absolutely necessary). On the supply side, I would raise the offer price for weapons (double the existing street price for weapons buy-backs) and find any fucking job that I could to start paying young men decent local wages. Even if it meant paying them to spend 9 hrs a day digging ditches, it is better spent than paying a soldier to guard them.
The irony is that as of today, most of these ideas are being implemented. This slow progression is the pound of cure.
[quote=gandalf]
– Would you send troops into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden?
[/quote]
Their sovereignty ends where our enemies begin. I would try to work it out with them (like a joint operation or get permission) but yeah I would napalm all of Waziristan if I really thought it was needed to help us. However, getting Bin Laden per se is less important than neutralizing him as a threat.
[quote=gandalf]
– What should our approach to Saudi Arabia look like?
[/quote]
Regarding terrorists:
They need to address it on their own soil or we will do it for them on their own soil.
Regarding oil:
Self-sufficiency is the name of the game. I really think the market is taking care of that though.
Regarding defense:
Its okay if they do it themselves, but if they need help, it really is in our best interests to capitulate.
[quote=gandalf]
Anybody can answer these. I’ve written enough. BTW, AFF: I think an Obama Admin would not utilize torture/rendition or resort to unconstitutional activities.[/quote]
I don’t agree. I think Bill Clinton had the best take on torture. He just said that there are times when you need it, however, that needs to be rare and an exception to the rules (not actually part of rules, like now). I think that Obama, as an intelligent man would agree.
