Preventive War

[zk]

Having a dictator wanting to add allahu akbar to the flag is a symbolic gesture that really means nothing. Ayatollah Sistani’s clout was not huge before we invaded, and grew enormously after we invaded. Turkey…well, if you count that as part of the middle east, you might be right about that one. Lebanon may be 30% christian, but that number doesn’t, in my opinion, mean that Lebanon’s contribution to islamic strife was less than pre-invasion Iraq’s. And while Iranians my have grown disenchanted with their theocracy, their theocracy is still powerful and dangerous. So despite your reasonable counterpoints, I don’t think I’m overstating my case. But even if I am, even if Iraq wasn’t strictly the very least islamic country in the middle east, my point remains valid: islam plays a much greater role there now than it did before we invaded, and we have increased the danger that Iraq’s muslims present by many times.

“Most of the violent Islamic strife is one Muslim faction vs another. To the extent Muslim savagery turns inward, it turns away from us. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years.”

“Thanks for trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam by setting up the first representative government in the history of the Arab world, Mr President!”

It seems to me there are some contradictions between those two statements. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years, and you want to thank the president for making them angrier at us than ever while accomplishing nothing? And if most violent islamic strife is one muslim faction vs another, then why are you worried about a fullscale civilizational war with islam? Won’t they just be fighting each other? And seriously, do you think we’re farther away from fullscale civilizational war with islam now than we were before we invaded Iraq?

How would I suggest stopping it? All I, personally, can do is vote for somebody who will attempt to go forward in the middle east using foresight, reason, deep thought, rigorous planning and preparation, and intelligence. Sort of the opposite of how bush did it. I don’t know who that will be yet in the presidential race in 2008. But I like Barack Obama. I’ve always liked McCain, but he’s a bit too loyal to bush for my taste. Hillary is a loser. Ditto Kerry. I don’t know much about Guliani yet.

Anyway, to really answer your question about how to stop it, I don’t know. Although I’m pretty sure that if I had access to all the information and advice that bush has access to (not that he ever appears to listen to any advice), I’d probably have a few ideas. As it is, my ideas would be to focus our resouces on Al Qaeda. Oh, the money and lives we’ve wasted on Iraq that we could’ve spent wisely on Al Qaeda. I know, that’s in the past. But it’s in the future, too, at least with bush as president it is. What we’re doing in Iraq right now isn’t working. Whether a troop surge will work remains to be seen. But doesn’t there have to be a point at which you say, “anything short of all-out, American-led martial law will not work to stop the violence. So let’s either implement that law at the expense of reimplementing the draft and spending trillions more, or let’s leave Iraq to the Iraqis and let them sink or swim.” I mean, is another 30,000 troops enough? I don’t know. Like I said, I only have limited information. Is it possible for a nation with the culture of Iraq’s to have a functioning, stable representative government? I doubt it. But again, I don’t have enough information to really make that call. My fear is that the man who does have the information is the same man that has consistently made the wrong decisions where Iraq is concerned.

[bgates]

zk, it’s not possible to leave Iraq to the Iraqis – much of the violence is instigated by Iran, which you agree is a powerful and dangerous theocracy.

You had cited the level of violence in Iraq as evidence that I am wrong to think the war could head off a larger conflict; to then ask why I’m worried about a larger conflict given the sectarian violence is incoherent. The best case result from the invasion would be to help Iraq become a beachhead of liberalism in the Arab world, something that could be a source of Muslim pride without being a threat to us. That was the President’s goal, and it’s a laudable one. It’s much better than the second-best and increasingly likely outcome of the invasion, which is a regional proxy war between Muslim powers.

But that second-best case is still preferable to the world as it would look without an attempt to reform the Muslim world. Iran would still have its nuclear program, and that would push Saddam to restart his own. Blunting that threat would require maintaining both the crumbling sanctions regime and the military presence in Arabia, both of which were considered intolerable provocations by Islamists. In that scenario, the best case would be a regional war much larger than the violence we see now. The worst case would be the same worst case we face now.

You want to focus on al Qaeda? They’re in Iraq. If you think fighting us in Iraq pays off for them in recruitment and training opportunities, what do you think beating us in Iraq would do for them? If we stay there, al Qaeda gets to choose between sacrificing lots of their people in attacks on the best military in the world or burning through their goodwill in the region by killing Muslim civilians. We leave, and they can train for attacks on American civilians in peace.

Finally, if you’re going to criticize others for making statements without evidence, you should avoid claims about things like Sistani’s pre-invasion importance and the religiosity of Iraqi Shia unless you have a summer home in Najaf you haven’t told us about.

[TheBreeze]

The best case result from the invasion would be to help Iraq become a beachhead of liberalism in the Arab world, something that could be a source of Muslim pride without being a threat to us. That was the President’s goal, and it’s a laudable one.

I thought President Chimpy went to war to rid Iraq of WMDs? Or was that just a lie? It’s pretty convenient how Bush keeps changes goals, strategies, tactics, and whatnot.

Iran would still have its nuclear program, and that would push Saddam to restart his own.

Under Clinton, none of these countries had nucular weapons. It was only when Bush unleashed this misguided war that Iran and North Korea put their nuclear programs into overdrive. I know you would love to blame Clinton for this nuclear proliferation, but the fact is that Bush’s hard line policies actually drove it.

You want to focus on al Qaeda? They’re in Iraq.

Was Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went in there? So you think it’s a good thing that Bush’s policies have helped Al Qaeda spread from Afghanistan to Iraq?

If you think fighting us in Iraq pays off for them in recruitment and training opportunities, what do you think beating us in Iraq would do for them? If we stay there, al Qaeda gets to choose between sacrificing lots of their people in attacks on the best military in the world or burning through their goodwill in the region by killing Muslim civilians.

Actually, most of our soldiers are killed by IEDs. Our soldiers rarely even see “the enemy.”

We leave, and they can train for attacks on American civilians in peace.

Just like your boy, you sure do have a black and white view of the world. Why do we have to stop fighting terrorists if we leave Iraq? The way I see it, if we leave Iraq we can get back to fighting actual terrorists as opposed to mediating a civil war.

[sdnativeson]

While Clinton was president, if you followed the news carefully you’ll remember some high profile (and others that barely made the news) regarding loss of nuclear data, submarine specs and nato battle plans. It’s ironic that these were for the most part brushed aside (oh there was a hand slap and then an apology) but then, who were some of Clintons biggest donors? Chinese. Let’s keep looking who donated millions to Clintons library? Arabs, who represented the Arabs in the recent port management fiasco? Clinton was their advisor. You don’t see a tiny conflict of interest at best?

To me, that is the action of a traitor. I never said clinton was the cause of this conflict (Islamic fundamentalism), it was alive way before he came along but, he showed the weakness that has caused the escalation of terror activities. In the current Arab tribal, sectarian culture (and the past and probably forever) this is a sign of lack of will and weakness and we pay dearly for it.

The first Gulf war? Do you read anything beyond the New York Times? Our goal was to roll into Baghdad, we stopped as out Arab “allies” in the coalition threatened to back out if we took out Hussien, why? Because the last thing they want, ALL of them is a local government with any sort of democratic leanings it is a direct threat to them. Bush sr. bowed to our “allies” and backed off… hmmm besides the Arab states that supported us there was who? Oh, France and Russia gee, they had no vested interest in Hussein staying in power.

Also, we really didn’t plan on occupying Iraq, which I agree is incredibly short sighted at best, I imagine that they were hoping to see the Iraqis bond together and work in the interest of their country now that the hammer was removed from over their heads but alas, no, we almost completely ignored the primitive tribal mentality that permeates most of the citizenry and is exploited by the religous leaders.

[sdnativeson]

According to the New York Times, Clinton removed $2 billion in trade with China from national security scrutiny. Among the results: 77 supercomputers – capable of 13 billion calculations per second – that could scramble and unscramble secret data and design nuclear weapons. These were purchased by the Chinese without a peep stateside. At least some of them would be used by the Chinese military.

With the transfer of the Panama Canal, four of Panama’s ports ended up being controlled by a company partially owned by Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd., which in turn was owned by Li Ka-Shing, a billionaire so close to the Chinese power structure that he was offered the governorship of Hong Kong.

Another owner of the Panamanian ports was China Resources Enterprise, called an “agent of espionage” by Senator Fred Thompson. CRE was also a partner of the Lippo Group, owned by the Riady family that played a central if mysterious role in the rise of William Clinton. According to congressional testimony by ex-JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] chief Admiral Thomas Moorer, Hutchison-Whampoa won the right to pilot all ships through the Panama Canal, including U.S. naval vessels.

President Clinton signed national security waivers to allow four U.S. commercial satellites to be launched in China, despite evidence that China was exporting nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran, among other nations. One of these satellites belonged to Loral. Nine days later a Chinese Long March rocket carrying a $200 million satellite belonging to Loral failed in mid-flight.

A subsequent lawsuit charged that the circuit board from the highly classified encryption device in the satellite was found to be missing when the Chinese returned debris from the explosion to U.S. authorities, even though a control box containing the circuit board was recovered intact. After the crash, NSA reportedly changed the encoded algorithms used by U.S. satellites because of the apparent release of highly classified information.

President Clinton approved a waiver allowing the launch of another satellite on board a Chinese rocket, despite a recommendation by the Department of Justice that the waiver would have a significant adverse impact on any prosecution arising from its pending investigation of Loral.

The New York Times reported in 1998 that the Defense Technology Security Administration said Loral’s unauthorized release of sensitive technology to the Chinese gave rise to at least three “major” violations of U.S. national security, three medium violations and 12 “minor” infractions.

Throughout these dealings, the CEO of Loral, Bernard Schwartz, contributed at least $1.5 million to the Democrats, making him the single largest contributor to these groups during the period in question.

Softwar newsletter reported that that some of the radios and cell phones being used by Chinese police in their campaign against dissidents were those sold to the Chinese by Motorola after Clinton overrode human rights objections by the State Department.

[sdnativeson]

The weapons were there, that is documented even by the lame UN. So what? Now they are in Syria. Seek information beyond your comfort level otherwise…. you are just as much of a chimp.

Gee, Under Clinton they had no nuclear weapons.. hey, they didn’t have any under Nassar either, or when Mohammad roamed the desert, thats a invalid argument. However, both Iraq and Iran were in the market for nuclear technology, I don’t know where you got your degree but, it takes more than six years to start a nuclear program. Before I forget, the several thousands of gallon of pesticides buried in a remote desert outpost (two to date I might be wrong) weren’t there for crop dusting the local farms, oh wait! there were no local farms, but coincidently are a primary ingredient for chemical weapons.

Islam is a religion of conquest, it has no comparision to the relatively peaceful Christian religion. It is based on conquest through warfare and subjugating(forgive my spelling) the populations. It is/was only a matter of time before the world got so small they could focus on us. The will never accept even you unless you convert to their religion but even then since you aren’t an Arab you really aren’t safe. I won’t touch on the sectarian butchering.

Actually, yes, Al Qaeda was, even the lame 9/11 commission report acknowledges that. And if you read the letters of the late Zarqawi, Iraq was one of the few chances Al Qaeda had for revitalizing their movement and gaining a base, his downfall was he butchered Iraqi citizens trying to do so. The religous equivilant of Che Guevera.

I guess the IED’s just “exist” right? No one goes out of their way to actually build them. The manner of the attack is moot, thats like arguing that tanks, artillery and missles aren’t tools of the enemy.

The world, if you have convictions and beliefs often is black and white. Those who live in a gray world stand for nothing and no one, except possibly themselves (even then who knows, akin to the white american male who apologizes for being white, male and american but I digress). Sometimes the lines may blur but that should be the exception. To you, in the case of Bush the world is black and white you use your points to contradict yourself.

Our war is with Islamic fundamentalism an ideology, like Communism or Nazism. The fundamentalists aren’t event radically deviating from the teachings of Mohammed, they are actually “good” muslims. Read the Quran and the hadiths and suras, it is a religion spread by violence and warfare. That is a world where it is black and white. There are no borders and their soldiers for the most part wear no uniforms. It will be fought all around the world for a long time. If you live in a gray world you have nothing to stand for, nothing to fight for, you are doomed to death or slavery.

[zk]

zk, it’s not possible to leave Iraq to the Iraqis – much of the violence is instigated by Iran, which you agree is a powerful and dangerous theocracy.

Ok then. Do you think 30,000 more troops will be enough? If so, why? If not, how many? If it’s another 300,000, and we have to reinstate the draft and spend trillions more, is that what you want to do? Before we decide whether to leave Iraq to the Iraqis, I think we should decide what it’s going to cost not to leave it to them and compare that to the cost of leaving it to them. (That’s the kind of thinking we should have done with clear eyes before we went in in the first place. But it’s too late for that now.)

“You had cited the level of violence in Iraq as evidence that I am wrong to think the war could head off a larger conflict; to then ask why I’m worried about a larger conflict given the sectarian violence is incoherent.”

I didn’t say, “given sectarian violence.” What I said was, “if most violent islamic strife is one muslim faction vs another (quoting you saying that most violent Islamic strife is one muslim faction against another), then why are you worried about a fullscale civilizational war with islam? Won’t they just be fighting each other?” Note that I said, “If.” The if being: “if, according to your argument.” You said that bush’s war in Iraq could head off full scale war. And then you said “Most of the violent Islamic strife is one Muslim faction vs another. To the extent Muslim savagery turns inward, it turns away from us.” So yes, it is incoherent to say on the one hand that we should be afraid of full scale war and then on the other hand say that most violent Islamic strife is one faction against the other. But that incoherence is yours, not mine.

“The best case result from the invasion would be to help Iraq become a beachhead of liberalism in the Arab world, something that could be a source of Muslim pride without being a threat to us.”

That kind of attempt to project American culture and ideas on middle eastern culture is a huge part of the problem we’ve had in trying to change the middle east. What makes you think a beachhead of liberalism would be a source of pride for them? And, really, you’re happy with a war in which 3,000 Americans were killed and trillions were spent and in which the best case outcome is muslim pride that isn’t a threat to us?

“That was the President’s goal, and it’s a laudable one.”

If that was the president’s goal, then he should’ve told congress and the American people that that was his goal before we let him send our kids off to die. Maybe we wouldn’t have let him.

“You want to focus on al Qaeda? They’re in Iraq.”

That’s true. They are in Iraq now that we’ve opened that country up to them. So far not much of a beachhead for liberalism or pride. Just a beachhead for al qaeda. Again, that’s in the past. We could’ve not attacked Iraq, and focused on al qaeda (which wasn’t in Iraq then and still wouldn’t be if it wasn’t for bush) in 2002-2006, but we screwed that up. Time to move on. So, like I said, we need to take a clear look – not the ever-optimistic “bush” look – at what our options are. And we need to decide whether 30k troops is enough. And if it’s not, either don’t send them (withdraw) or send more. Over-optimistic thinking has been as large a part of the bush problem as his emphasis on loyalty over competence, his refusal to listen to advice, his surrounding of himself with those who agree with him, his refusal to see his mistakes, his politics of fear, his separation from reality, and his general ineptitude. And I sure hope (like I hope I win the lottery) that he can start looking at things clearly now, before more Americans die from his failures.

“Finally, if you’re going to criticize others for making statements without evidence, you should avoid claims about things like Sistani’s pre-invasion importance and the religiosity of Iraqi Shia unless you have a summer home in Najaf you haven’t told us about.”

Now, that’s just plain silly. We all rely on things other than personal observations to make judgements. You yourself said, “The one where Ayatollah Sistani has so much clout?” How do you know that? And besides, I didn’t criticize sdnativeson for making a statement without evidence. In fact, I didn’t even criticize him. What I said was, “You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but stated with no reasons or substantiation, it’s meaningless.” I wasn’t asking for evidence. Just reasons. They’re different.

[Anonymous]

I don’t live in a gray world. That presumposes your idea of black and white. My world is wonderfully in color. I have found that the world isn’t black and white, good and bad; if fact, I break it down to things we understand, and things we don’t understand, yet. That is the beauty of experience.

But refusing to understand? What if you hadn’t won the “Lucky sperm” lottery and you were born instead in Iraq, in the middle east, child of extremism and violence. Your black would be white. IF you didn’t fight back, you would think you would be doomed for a life of death or slavery.

So your little circle is complete. You operate incredibly well in your box. The extremist you fear is your reflection.

[Borat]

sdnativeson wrote:

Islam is a religion of conquest, it has no comparision to the relatively peaceful Christian religion.

Did you ever hear of The Crusades?<.a>

[surveyor]

The Crusades were a response in part because of Muslim cruelty towards christian pilgrims, something that has been undernoted by most historians.

Also, christianity does not have at its core beliefs scriptures calling for violence. Islam does.

[sdnativeson]

Yes, I have. They crusades were a result of Muslim aggression.

[Anonymous]

Bullshit. That was just a rational for the looting of the holy land.

And now in Iraq. Same shit, different millenium.

[Anonymous]

How about the Spanish inquisition? Can you guys try to rationalize that also?

[PerryChase]

What is is about Clinton that riles up the conservatives to much? He was a good president and a normal person. So what if he had an affair? Good for him!

If Hillary gets the nomination, I’m voting for her just to piss-off the religious right.

I’m libertarian more than Democrat (and I support globalization, free trade and small government). I think that the partisanship on the part of Republicans is so egregious that the only way they’ll get is if they get a taste of their own medicine.

I can’t believe that some Republicans are still defending Bush for the biggest mistake in modern American foreign policy. The Democrats should cover their asses and let Bush make mistakes upon mistakes.

[sdnativeson]

I take it this is directed toward me. Sometimes in life you don’t have the luxury of time for experience, you need to make a hard and fast decision. Black or White, Yes or No. Live or Die. Integrity or Shame. It’s a metaphor for making decisions, taking responsibility for them, good or bad.
If I was born in Iraq, so what? If that is all I know then thats all I know – it has a different reality behind the black and white but it’s still black and white.

Fighting for a better life, I find different than fighting to impose your religous views on others and imposing your interpretation of life on them.

You chose to live in color. I don’t have a clear understanding of what that means, I can only assume. From my assumptions it’s a noble place, from my experience far beyond the majority of humanities consciousness, certainly my own.

Regardless, I marvel daily at the sunrise and sunset, at the complexity of human physiology, of the colors and textures of nature, thousands of different things. Still, I have decisions to make, responsibilites to carry out to my self and others.

Fear? Yes I have fear, fear of my own death however, isn’t one of them, if you have no fear then, IMHO you are either dead or a fool (well perhaps a very young child but that is a gift of youth and innocence).

In the end if you are happy, healthy and feel complete. Then I congratulate you and wish you that always.

White is no color, Black is all colors. Gray is a muddy mix of both.

[Author]

Posts