To me, our mission in Iraq is much simpler. Get the country to the point where all factions are involved in the democratic process and the U.S. can be confident that the government will not collapse into anarchy when we leave. A secondary goal is to help rebuild the infrastructure and takes steps to ensure a sound economic future for the average Iraqi - that more then anything will combat radical Islam.
I initially supported the war because I assumed there were WMDs and I trusted Powell would get the UN on board (finding the nukes would go hand in hand with it). No I didn't buy the yellow cake or aluminum tubes, but who knew where those nuclear scientists Saddam employed were? Who knows now? I also liked the NeoCon domino plan in theory. Bush and his team ****ed up on planning and execution, but I still don't think we should pull out. Afghanistan anyone? Post Cold War Afghanistan... With so many wealthy extremist Muslim countries neighboring by, they could easily pull off Pakistani intelligence agency's creation of the Taliban. Who knows if they're doing that right now?
I think that not acknowledging our own economic interest would be disingenuous NOW GRANTED, I have no problem with us 'getting something out of it' beyond the democratically stable Iraq Iraq is to be our 'buffer' in the region. The Ideal is they would allow us a foothold there. . . . . a staging ground for future initiatives in the region To think that we expect NOTHING out of this for OUR interest beyond simple diffusing terrorism . . is naive Rocket River
By this standard, our mission has already been finished. Azadre - thank you for posting this thread. This is the very problem with this administration's military planning, and it is the very thing military commanders have been complaining about. There is no specific objective, so you can't ever determine if the mission is successful.
^^^ Looks like a RM95 post. I'd be interested to know if the mods can track who is actually logging in under Major's account -- especially in lieu of RM95's desperate pleas to get back into the forum and their documented history of sharing accounts.
Your posts are really starting to be a pattern that I find annoying. You aren't engaging in any substantive arguments. If someone actually provides an answer to any post you either ignore it or proceed to attack the person rather than the argument. Major makes his opinion on the subject and you proceed to not answer him but instead make some random statements about RM95 using the account. Regardless of whether or not account sharing is occuring, make an argument.
This non-denial denial, coupled with the "for someone who thinks..." intro is a very commonly used style of RM95. I am almost 100% certain that it is in fact RM95 posting this after logging in under Major's account.
So am I to accept that the current administration's policy on deployment in Iraq is indefinite and missionless? If so, I would be very pleased if they mentioned this during the next session of congress.
Well, that would fit well with your ignorance about virtually every other subject on the planet. Good job avoiding the question at hand too - it just confirms that when it comes to substance, you've got none. I guess that's what happens when you accidentally post that you believe our mission is accomplished.
I *did* answer your question by explaining what I thought to be the mission. The glaring question that I posed to you, as did New Yorker and basso indirectly has been ignored multiple times by you. Are you happy that Zarqawi may be dead?
For much of the last century the US has done many questionable things. I believe that have at times placed a bandaid when something more dire was needed. I think many times we placed policy over democracy and the principals of freedom that we cry so much about. I think our goal in Iraq is to actually do that. Yes we supported saddam, yes we've supported Egypt and Saudi for oil and their relations with Israel. But what were we doing in Iraq before? Placing economic embargo's that slowly starved a nation. The UN and Euros would rather starve the nation slowly to death than get out of their comfort zone and be compelled to act. I think Iraq was dying. It was not the easy thing to do, nor the safe or the popular thing to do, but changing this country and attempting to change the history of this region was and is the right thing to do. These people have never tasted freedom, they have been ruled over by oppressive tyrants that we've supported as long as the oil kept flowing and they played nicely with Israel. The idea was that we can change this region that is ripe with corruption, lack of basic freedoms, democratic systems and capitalist ideals that creates deplorable living conditions and paves the path towards extremism. Give the people a voice and an opportunity and they will not be left with the despair that drive them to the Bin Laden's of the world. I say that these people are worth it. I say we wronged them in 1990 by not finishing the job. I say we push these elections and we give these people a chance. We stay there till this thing is done. We forget that we are in this new "today and now" culture where everyone wants results immediately. We invested our time and energy in Japan and Germany and they coupled with us to become reasons the global economy strengthened. Look at the lives we affected there? We changed the course of their history by maintaining our composure and our resolve. Already we are seeing elections in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and throughout the middle east and the effects will continue as people when given the choice, will choose freedom. Much of our western colonial past placed these monarchs in power as to make it easier to micro manage these regimes instead of pushing for democracy for these people, and now we must pay the price to right those wrongs.
Of course I am happy he may be dead, he is a distablizing force in Iraq. Once he is dead, do we leave? And you shouldn't answer a question with a question when I am trying to get your viewpoint clear. If our mission is not clear because there is no defined criteria which can be acheived, then is it the administration's policy to keep our troops in Iraq indefinately?
FD; I have to say that was a very good post and very well articulated. Frankly you've made the case for the invasion better than many in the Admin.. That said though there are still many problems with the Neo-Wilsonian argument that you, Basso, Hayes, the Admin. and others have put forward. While I totally agree democracy is an admirable goal and that we are seeing the movement towards democracy in a variety of places that very well may be an outgrowth from Iraq there are still some basic problems with idea that democracy can be imposed on a society. I was hearing a report this morning that ten years after the Dayton accords there still are huge problems with Bosnia and the democractic system in Bosnia hasn't produced many tangible results. Instead ethnic tensions continue to simmer and previously ethnic cleansed areas still remain ethnically cleansed. The situation in Iraq is even more complicated with a far more complicated insurgency situation along with a tense three way ethnic split just below the level of a full on civil war. Further while imposed democracy might've worked in Japan and Germany there are huge differences between those countries and Iraq. Also while Japan and Germany might be successes we've been intervening off and on in Haiti for more than a 100 years and Haiti is no where near a democracy. In general countries that successfully move towards democracy seem to do so better when it comes from within such as the people powers movements that toppled Marcos and other dictators. Even granting that democracy can be imposed even the most ardent war supporters recognize that it will take a long time which comes to the question of how long do we stay in Iraq? Our government never really got organized until the Constitution was ratified 13 years after the declaration of Independence and 6 years after the treaty of Paris, there's a fair argument that our democracy never really got settled unitl 1920 when Constitutionally all citizens got the vote. So how long are we going to stay in Iraq until we can say they've got a good working democracy? 6 years, 13, years, 144 years? I'm not sure we have the longterm resources to maintain that or if its in our interest. Keep in mind I'm not talking about us just hanging around on bases but continuing to engage in the every day running and securing of Iraq. Finally the most problematic aspect of the Neo-Wilsonian argument is that it is all dependent on perception. As the occupiers we have to maintain the impression that we actually have the best interest of those occupied at heart. Its highly debatable whether most Iraqis feel that way since even many Shiites have said we should leave. If we cannot win the battle of perception it will be difficult for the Iraqis or anyone else in the region to accept the idea of US imposed democracy. Even if democracy does take root there's no guarentee that those democracies will look favorably at all upon the US. We could succeed in our mission of imposing democracy yet still end up with a region as hostile to us or even more so than it is now.
I think a democratic stable Iraq would be very much conducive to our economics interests - but right now, I think the Bush administration and the country as a whole would be happy with a political victory at this stage.
There is no such thing as an imposed democracy. That's an oxymoron. What an outside power CAN do is remove a structural impediment to democracy, which we've done by removing Saddam. The effect of that is that the Iraqi people are now moving TOWARD democracy by participating in ever increasing numbers in the form and substance of their government. As for the question, I think the mission was to remove Saddam. No matter which theory you subscribe to that seems to be the inherent variable in each one. The instability that came with that removal was obviously unanticipated by the administration, among others. Once that became an issue then it (stability) also became a part of the mission. Once the country is stable I think we can leave. What level of stability they have to achieve for that to happen I honestly am not sure about - ie I'm sure there is a set of variables to determine that although I don't know them of the top of my head.
