Enduring Freedom

[Hicksey]

With all due respect paid, the whole world thought Saddam Hussein was armed with nuclear and biologicals and we've seen how that turned out. The only dispute at the UN was how to proceed with them.

Well, first that's not entirely true. There was considerable skepticism within the global intelligence community about Saddam's capabilities. The consensus view existed at the political level among those who, in maany significant cases, only listened to the information that supported their existing views.

Lately, intelligence hasn't proven very reliable and especially unsavory since the 9/11 report.

Sure, there a re problems with intelligence and there's problems with bueracracy. But it's still the best tool available. Just because the cops don't catch every criminal is no reason to disband the police and declare martial law.

So what if they're wrong, AGAIN?

Then more people will die. But even if we put the odds of that at 50-50, it's still only a possibility. Whereas, under your solution, a lot of people will definitely die and you'll still be left with no guarantee that another catastrophic attack won't happen.

These people have always hated us because our way of life completely contradicts their belief system and also because of past strong arm tactics by the US and Europe. That will not change no matter how nice we are to them. The only thing that has changed over the last 25 years is the severity and location of the attacks.

I guess I'm not particularily clear on what your solution is. You're advocating a "get tough" approach, but what does that mean and how will it alleviate the threat of terrorism? One could, I suppose, try to end the threat posed by radical Islamic (which, contrary to all the hysteria about Islamonazifascistninjas, is at most a threat to our lives and property, not our actual way of life) by bombing every Muslim nation into submission, detaining everyone of the Muslim faith here and generally embarking on a kind of global ethnic-religious cleansing program that would give Himmler a boner, but I doubt that's a path anyone would seriously consider travelling. Basically, you can't beat an ideology with force unless you are prepaed to go all the way and exterminate every possible practicioner of said ideology.

So, what then?

We just sit and do nothing which has pretty well been our position for decades now? We've thrown a few bombs here and there where politically expedient, but we've really not tried for a long term solution that would stabilize the region until now. I won't deny that the current plan has its flaws, but I think a long term solution is much better than to wait for a terrorist organization like the Taliban to take over another country they can operate and train for another attack in like they did in Afghanistan. When they were done with it they basically abandoned it as soon the resulting response strike happened leaving its citizens to deal with the consequences of their actions.

There has to be a viable solution other than simply waiting for another attack to happen and responding.

[killjoy]

We've thrown a few bombs here and there where politically expedient, but we've really not tried for a long term solution that would stabilize the region until now.

Not for nothin', because I agree with most of your post, but Montenegro might disagree with that.

When there is success there is no rainbow. There is only the unknown yet still predictable which you have prevented, and diplomatic solutions naturally include concessions from both sides and are therefore born with a collective defeated sigh...like when two arguing children have been sent to their corners or when your mom tells you to kiss your sister. Then there is no fan fare, but there is also no more death. No more long ditches. We never hear about the 1000000's that died because that future was avoided. They, thankfully, are all hypothesis now...but I imagine that there are more than a few Rwandans who wish they were a little more hypothetical right now too.

.

[Black Dog]

So, what then?

We just sit and do nothing which has pretty well been our position for decades now? We've thrown a few bombs here and there where politically expedient, but we've really not tried for a long term solution that would stabilize the region until now.

Except, until very recently, the region was stable. And it was kept that way by our working with a veritable rogue's gallery of thugs and dictators (see Exhibit A: Huessin, Saddam). In most places in the region, that's still the situation. So it's not a question of stability: if anything, the invasion of Iraq is probably the most destablizing event in the region to occur in the last 60 years.

I won't deny that the current plan has its flaws, but I think a long term solution is much better than to wait for a terrorist organization like the Taliban to take over another country they can operate and train for another attack in like they did in Afghanistan.

Except the Taliban wasn't a "terrorist organization". It was a group of religious radicals that hapened to offer a place for a fellow radical to set up shop. Nutty as they were and as dangerous as hey were (to their fellow Afghans), the Taliban were never a threat.

But that aside, again, you're presenting a false choice between action (defined as military action, am I right?) or absolute inaction. I'm saying there's a middle ground. (I'm having trouble here because I don't know what exactly you are advocating here: what is your plan?)

There has to be a viable solution other than simply waiting for another attack to happen and responding.

There is and that involves preventing similar attacks through intelligence gathering and detective work (and even getting our hands dirty if necessary: I woudn't have had too much of a problem with Osama bin Laden getting whacked back when they knew exactly where he was). At the same time, we need to do our part to end the economic and social repression of so many in the Muslim world, repression that we've fostered for decades in the name of "stability" and cheap gasoline. For example, why are we palling around with leaders who would rather build themselves another gold-plated palace than build schools or provide workers with a decent wage? It would do a lot more good for the west to lean on the Islamic world's leaders to affect positive change than to simply wait around until we feel its necessary to go in, kill a bunch more Muslims and stick some other band of crooks in. I don't know how much good that would do at this point: in some ways the genie is out of the bottle and its gonna be tough to get it back in no matter what course of action is pursued. But simply throwing our weight around and dropping bombs isn't gonna work: if anything, we need to lessen our involvement, not get in deeper.

[Hicksey]

So, what then?

We just sit and do nothing which has pretty well been our position for decades now? We've thrown a few bombs here and there where politically expedient, but we've really not tried for a long term solution that would stabilize the region until now.

Except, until very recently, the region was stable. And it was kept that way by our working with a veritable rogue's gallery of thugs and dictators (see Exhibit A: Huessin, Saddam). In most places in the region, that's still the situation. So it's not a question of stability: if anything, the invasion of Iraq is probably the most destablizing event in the region to occur in the last 60 years.

I won't deny that the current plan has its flaws, but I think a long term solution is much better than to wait for a terrorist organization like the Taliban to take over another country they can operate and train for another attack in like they did in Afghanistan.

Except the Taliban wasn't a "terrorist organization". It was a group of religious radicals that hapened to offer a place for a fellow radical to set up shop. Nutty as they were and as dangerous as hey were (to their fellow Afghans), the Taliban were never a threat.

But that aside, again, you're presenting a false choice between action (defined as military action, am I right?) or absolute inaction. I'm saying there's a middle ground. (I'm having trouble here because I don't know what exactly you are advocating here: what is your plan?)

There has to be a viable solution other than simply waiting for another attack to happen and responding.

There is and that involves preventing similar attacks through intelligence gathering and detective work (and even getting our hands dirty if necessary: I woudn't have had too much of a problem with Osama bin Laden getting whacked back when they knew exactly where he was). At the same time, we need to do our part to end the economic and social repression of so many in the Muslim world, repression that we've fostered for decades in the name of "stability" and cheap gasoline. For example, why are we palling around with leaders who would rather build themselves another gold-plated palace than build schools or provide workers with a decent wage? It would do a lot more good for the west to lean on the Islamic world's leaders to affect positive change than to simply wait around until we feel its necessary to go in, kill a bunch more Muslims and stick some other band of crooks in. I don't know how much good that would do at this point: in some ways the genie is out of the bottle and its gonna be tough to get it back in no matter what course of action is pursued. But simply throwing our weight around and dropping bombs isn't gonna work: if anything, we need to lessen our involvement, not get in deeper.

So we should let them fight their fights between themselves, and only intervene if our security is compromised?

You don't think a brand of democracy (a brand, probably not ours) would promote some of your objectives?

You think that the "veritable rogue's gallery of thugs and dictators" would ever abstain from palace building to pay a decent wage?

I don't trust them to do those things which is the primary reason I advocate military intervention -- so we can force it. It won't be pretty I admit.

[Black Dog]

So we should let them fight their fights between themselves, and only intervene if our security is compromised?

A oversimplification, but true as far as it goes.

You don't think a brand of democracy (a brand, probably not ours) would promote some of your objectives?

Depends. Our brand of democracy is quite good and we've spent a large part of the time since the end of the Second World War making sure that the Middle East never gets close to democracy or any other form of self-determination. The "premptive/preventative war" model is simply more of the same, but repackaged for home consumption. What I mean by that is the fundamental principle of geopolitics, that being nations will always do what is in their own interests first with all others being secondary, is still operative. (Does anyone honestly think if the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to pull out tomorrow that the U.S. would listen?) This conclusion is often dismissed as stating the obvious, but the simple fact that our interests and the interests of those who happen to be actually living there may not jive is rarely acknowledged. All that to say: I'd like to see democracy being built. But invading, overthrowing and occupying them is not a great start.

You think that the "veritable rogue's gallery of thugs and dictators" would ever abstain from palace building to pay a decent wage?

No. Which is why we shouldn't support them, see?

I don't trust them to do those things which is the primary reason I advocate military intervention -- so we can force it. It won't be pretty I admit

In other words, you're advocating naked imperialism in all its paternalistic glory. But wait: I thought the people in Afghanistand and in Iraq were smart enough to make choices for themselves (at least when it comes to electons that occur under the wtachful eyes of our soldiers). Instead of forcing our choices on them (by supporting corrupt regimes, or installing military occupations) why don't we step back and let them choose? (I know why we don't BTW)

[Hicksey]

I don't trust them to do those things which is the primary reason I advocate military intervention -- so we can force it. It won't be pretty I admit

In other words, you're advocating naked imperialism in all its paternalistic glory. But wait: I thought the people in Afghanistand and in Iraq were smart enough to make choices for themselves (at least when it comes to electons that occur under the wtachful eyes of our soldiers). Instead of forcing our choices on them (by supporting corrupt regimes, or installing military occupations) why don't we step back and let them choose? (I know why we don't BTW)

I think we're in for a major economic crash and the reason for the energy prices and countries seeking energy surpluses is to weather the storm because about the only semi-stable industry is the energy industry.

We don't let them choose because we want to have control over their energy resources. That's also a big part of why we do not use our own as much as we could. The better geo-political energy policy is to use everyone else's until the crunch comes, at which time we'll have ample reserves on our own doorstep.

[Black Dog]

I think we're in for a major economic crash and the reason for the energy prices and countries seeking energy surpluses is to weather the storm because about the only semi-stable industry is the energy industry.

We don't let them choose because we want to have control over their energy resources. That's also a big part of why we do not use our own as much as we could. The better geo-political energy policy is to use everyone else's until the crunch comes, at which time we'll have ample reserves on our own doorstep.

So, you seem to be comfortable enough to admit that its not about freedom and democracy, nor is it even about security or keeping us safe from the Islamosatanistspaceinvaders. This is good. Honestly, I expect its easier to find a solution to the dependance on fossil fuels and the false economy of western nations (false in the sense of not actually producing anything of value) than the much thornier issue of bringing secular democracy to the Middle East.

[killjoy]

We don't let them choose because we want to have control over their energy resources. That's also a big part of why we do not use our own as much as we could.

We sell more and more oil the US every year. At the moment they get about 17% of their supply from us and our reserves are so large that they are essentially still unknown. We are currently, to the world of crude oil and petroleum, what the Beatles were to rock and roll. The Ayatollah of Petrolia. The oil-cheddar of all oil-cheeses. Seems to me we've been using our own as much as we possibly can.

Top suppliers of US oil:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm - 2004

Greatest oil reserves by country:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

(note that most of ours are still unknown)

Top world suppliers of crude oil and petroleum:

http://tinyurl.com/7ldt

The numbers suggest that we should really re-examine our idea of 'oil producing nations'.

To even get to Afghan natural resources will take years and will be costly and under a secure and functioning democracy I really don't see how it could benefit anyone more than the Afghans. Without a stable democracy there is every reason to believe NO Afghans will ever benefit from it...a'la practically all of Africa and most of the Middle East. It would be so much easier just to invade us or Mexico.

Not sayin’…just sayin’.

.

[KrustyKidd]

Does anyone honestly think if the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to pull out tomorrow that the U.S. would listen?

They certainly would except they would keep the bases they have built as part of the argreement made years ago. However, asking the US to leave would be the equivilent of telling your butler (who has sworn to serve and obey you) to cut your penis off with a rusty knife.

So, you seem to be comfortable enough to admit that its not about freedom and democracy, nor is it even about security or keeping us safe from the Islamosatanistspaceinvaders.

It's not about freedom or democracy but it is about security. The west is going to trade with the ME for oil with or without the US. As will Russia and China. So, the Arabs are goig to get the going rate for oil no matter what.

So, you think that having a militent Wahabbist group in charge of a good part of the world's oil supply is a good thing security wise? Placing conditions for oil on thirsty countries like China, Russia and France etc? Giving preferencial treatment to those who help them with weapons and all? I certainly don't. Terrporism is dangerous as it is now without allowing them access to untold trillions and a form of trade with other countries.

With money they would provide aid to countries whom they have destroyed the working governments of like the ones where you find terrorism active in. This increases their popularity and influence. With money, they become a real force able to negotiate with the West and purchase things we would certainly like to keep from them. That in turn allows them to pressure other countries of the region they have not already been able to take down. With each, it increases their strength and influence. I prefer not to have Conservative Wahabbists in charge of things over there.

Honestly, I expect its easier to find a solution to the dependance on fossil fuels and the false economy of western nations (false in the sense of not actually producing anything of value) than the much thornier issue of bringing secular democracy to the Middle East.

That day will come whether we like it or not. And, it will not happen overnight. Rather, it will occur in spurts here and there all over the globe with countries being willing to do almost anything (including trade weapons and goods) to procur it. I prefer to have it (oil) under the control of governments that are somewhat stable rather than under the influence of a 'kill the infidel' mentality. If democracy is not the answer, then let's move back to good old iron fisted dictaors.

"false in the sense of not actually producing anything of value" is descriptive of everything then. Nothing but a non replaceable commodity comes out of the ME. I own nothing that comes from there besides some cheap souvineers I got on some of my tours, how about you? Got any medical equipment or some Swiss precision like machinery made in Damascus perhaps?

the much thornier issue of bringing secular democracy to the Middle East.

Are you goig to tell me that the world, with all it's ecological problems is going to be able to survive beyond a century if there is cooperative groups and another groups that is not cooperative? The world is becomming smaller and, with it, societies and cultures are being forced together. Hence, soon, there will be no opportunity to have an 'us' and 'them.' It will all be 'us.' So, you wish to be part of the 'us' that is bent on killing the non believers or the 'us' that is try8ing to give each and every person equal rights and manage resources in some sort of manner other than to simply hold power to kill others and convert the world to a religion of control?

[Hicksey]

I think we're in for a major economic crash and the reason for the energy prices and countries seeking energy surpluses is to weather the storm because about the only semi-stable industry is the energy industry.

We don't let them choose because we want to have control over their energy resources. That's also a big part of why we do not use our own as much as we could. The better geo-political energy policy is to use everyone else's until the crunch comes, at which time we'll have ample reserves on our own doorstep.

So, you seem to be comfortable enough to admit that its not about freedom and democracy, nor is it even about security or keeping us safe from the Islamosatanistspaceinvaders. This is good. Honestly, I expect its easier to find a solution to the dependance on fossil fuels and the false economy of western nations (false in the sense of not actually producing anything of value) than the much thornier issue of bringing secular democracy to the Middle East.

I think that there are elements of all of those reasons intertwined into Iraq. But I am starting to think that the geopolitics of energy (not just oil) control is closer to the center of it all than most would like to admit.

I think that we're going to find ourselves in the middle of more such wars over energy over the next 15-20 years -- and not just ones started by the USA. I also think that as countries like China and India continue to develop into economic powers, the demand on energy will increase and such pressures will cause more Iraqs.

I don't know that I would call our economy "false" for the reason you quoted, but I do think that it is false because of all the out of touch values we place on things. From exhorbitant prices for unskilled labour to taxation, to profiteering, to the material value of certain things to us, we cannot compete on a global stage because pressures from these things have artificially placed the value of the goods we produce too high for us to sell the goods at a profit on other stages. We essentially have outpriced ourselves on the world stage. Companies in 2nd and 3rd world countries are building quality vehicles, paying to ship them halfway around the world and still they can make a profit selling for 20% less than the companies that build them here. Still others have surpassed the quality we produce here and can demand even higher prices than the North American Automakers. The system we have cannot continue if we want to compete in a world market. Between the mentality that we're all entitled to high wages (earned or not), social spending out of hand, profiteering by the government and corporations alike we're going to drive our own economy into the ground. Canadians are out there making moves that are going to ensure our financial collapse. As the prices of goods, services and energy go up ever faster than our incomes, we have sent our significant others into the working world and when even that was not enough many Canadians have refused to compromise their lifestyles and simply financed their extravagances. Eventually these people will buckle financially as interest rates continue to climb and they can no longer afford their lifestyles. The longer that takes, means a farther fall to the bottom. And when our economy hits bottom and will no longer will support the governments at a level high enough they can stockpile energy, they'll have to get it somehow. If they cannot buy it, maybe they can take control of it with their military ...

In the new world economy the haves will control the world's major energy sources and the have nots will have to pay whatever prices the haves want to charge. What we are seeing now and will see more of in the near future are strategic geopolitical strikes aimed at controlling energy sources. When we see countries developing renewable energy sources like nuclear we do not decry it for security reasons, but because we depend on revenues from selling energy as much as we do on supply for our own consumption. Every country that we supply now that develops its own energy sources is one less that can be held hostage for energy.

I think that the wars over energy are a protectionist policy designed to sustain our economy. What really needs to happen is a hard crash so we can rebuild and be able to compete on the world stage. We cannot continue the wasteful economic, environmental policies we have now. We cannot give money away. Our government must be streamlined and efficient. We cannot expect to live as we have.

[Black Dog]

KK:

They certainly would except they would keep the bases they have built as part of the argreement made years ago. However, asking the US to leave would be the equivilent of telling your butler (who has sworn to serve and obey you) to cut your penis off with a rusty knife.

In other words the answer is "no, the U.S. would not leave if asked to" (BTW, what "agreement"?) Whether it's a good idea for them to do so is beside the point.

So, you think that having a militent Wahabbist group in charge of a good part of the world's oil supply is a good thing security wise?

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia?

I prefer not to have Conservative Wahabbists in charge of things over there.

You mean you'd prefer not to have assertive conservative Wahabbists in charge.

In any case, I'm not friend of conservative, well, anything. The militant Islam espoused by Osama bin Lade and preached in the mosques and madrasas of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is the antithesis of my own beliefs. And I have no doubt that teh establishment of liberal democracies inthe region is, as Martha would say, a Good Thing. But I question whether he methods currently employed will provide those results (if indeed, such results are intended: I still have my doubts).

I think that there are elements of all of those reasons intertwined into Iraq. But I am starting to think that the geopolitics of energy (not just oil) control is closer to the center of it all than most would like to admit.

Well...yeah. It's always been a mystery to me why peole would poo-poo the cenral role oil and energy security play in this whole thing. As was pointed out back in the first Gulf War, if Kuwait's main export was broccoli no one would give a shit what happened to the Arabs.

We cannot continue the wasteful economic, environmental policies we have now. We cannot give money away. Our government must be streamlined and efficient. We cannot expect to live as we have.

That i'll agree with, though I expect I'd differ on the details. But hat's another discussion.

[KrustyKidd]

In other words the answer is "no, the U.S. would not leave if asked to" (BTW, what "agreement"?) Whether it's a good idea for them to do so is beside the point.

They would never be asked, they would be told. And, in light of the situation, they would never be told, asked or requested. Digging In

Picture it as South Korea.

BTW, what "agreement"?

Not one particular one but an overall common sense thing that says the Iraqis want the US to stay until not needed.

Talabani: U.S. forces to stay as long as needed

BAGHDAD, Iraq - President Jalal Talabani on Saturday underscored the need for a unity government in Iraq after a spasm of sectarian killing and said he had been assured U.S. forces would remain in the country as long as needed — “no matter what the period.”

The one with the Iraqi government.

One of Bush's top aides said the role of U.S. military in Iraq will change as the new government takes place.

But were the new government to say it could handle security, "then we would leave," Powell said.

L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, told a delegation from Iraq's Diyala province Friday that American forces would not stay where they were unwelcome.

"If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave," Bremer said, referring to an interim Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. "I don't think that will happen, but obviously we don't stay in countries where we're not welcome."

Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman had told the House International Relations Committee on Thursday that although it was unlikely, the Iraqi interim government could tell U.S. troops to leave. But Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, who was also at the hearing, contradicted his statement, telling the panel that only an elected government could order a U.S. withdrawal.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday that the Iraqi people still want help from the United States and coalition forces to provide security.

"Iraqi security forces are not fully equipped and trained to provide for their own security and defend their country against terrorists," McClellan said. "And so, after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30, we expect to continue to partner with the Iraqi forces to improve the security situation."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said at the news conference with Powell that stability in Iraq would not be served by an abrupt withdrawal.

"But were the government that takes over to ask us to leave, we would leave," Straw said.

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia?

In the short term yes if support is not provided for the House of Saud to continue their fight.