So... was the Iraqi Campaign in the self-interest of the United States? Going in, I thought it was. There were a number of governments in the Middle East that supported terrorism and needed to be changed. These included Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. All of these governments will need to be changed before we can declare victory in the overall war. (The true lynchpins, in my opinion, are Iran and Saudi Arabia.) The United States needed a beachhead. Iraq looked like a good candidate. There was much higher public support for invading Iraq than any other nation on the list. There seemed to be a solid causus belli. As the starting point of an extended campaign, Iraq was justified.
(This, incidentally, is why I call it the Iraqi Campaign instead of the Iraq War. The invasion of Iraq cannot be understood outside of the broader strategic context of which it was a part. And that's why, even if true, the claim that Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States is irrelevant. The first nation that the United States invaded in World War II was Morocco. They never attacked us; they posed no direct threat to us. But invading them was strategically necessary as part of the larger war against Germany. Dropping that strategic context and critizing the "Morocco War" as an isolated incident would be absurd.)
Those are my essential reasons for supporting the Iraqi Campaign ex ante. I think they were defensible. However, we are now faced with additional facts that were not available in 2002 -- specifically the fact that the Bush administration seems either unwilling or unable to prosecute the larger war of which the Iraqi Campaign should have been the first step. Instead, they are trying to build a freer society in Iraq in the hopes that it will serve as a reference model for internal reform or revolt in the other nations in the area. I think this is a mistake. Iraq cannot be stabilized while Syria and Iran are using it as a platform to wage war against us. This is just another indication that what we should be fighting (but aren't) is a regional war. In effect, what the Bush administration has done is undermine post facto the core justification for the Iraqi Campaign ex ante. Iraq is a beachhead, but a beachhead is only of value if you use it to stage further attacks on the remainder of the opposition.
If I had known how this would play out in advance, would I have supported the Iraqi Campaign going in? I'm not sure. I'm not happy about the way it's playing out. But what would have been the alternative? Should we have invaded Iran directly? Perhaps, although I suspect that if we had done so many of the same people complaining about the Iraqi Campaign would be making the same complaints with "Iran" in the place of "Iraq". Should we have done nothing after Afghanistan? What course of action would have both pleased those critical of the Iraqi Campaign and advanced the strategic goals of the war against Islamofascism?
akyron said:Why does it have to be one or the other? Cant it be both? Cant it be both and other things?
Because you would have to overlook everything that happened in the 12 years leading up to this. Assuming that you do, oil or "god told Bush to invade" makes perfect sense. However, those of us not living in a vacuum will look at it from a more realistic perspective.TimmyBoy said:Ok, so let's assume for a moment that Iraq or the Middle East had no oil, would the US have gone into Iraq? Would the US have been interested in ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussien?
The Real McCoy said:If the middle east had no oil, the last 100 years of history in that region would be 100% different. It's impossible to assume how world events would have unfolded if this were the case.
Another factor in the invasion of Iraq that isn't often mentioned is it's geographic location. It is dead center in the middle east and the perfect staging ground for campaigns against countries like Syria and Iran should the need for such action arise.
TimmyBoy said:Why do explanations offerred have to be so complex? Why can't it be simple and straight to the point?
We attacked Iraq for the same reason a dog licks its balls!Originally Posted by TimmyBoy
Why do explanations offerred have to be so complex? Why can't it be simple and straight to the point?
Originally Posted by akyron:
Because Political Correctness has become the rule...
Personally I think being PC just adds frustration.
Imagine the dog new it all along but was more preoccupied sniffing the asses of other bitches!Originally posted by Wrath:
Yeah, imagine a dog waiting 12 years to lick his balls only to find out he could have all along!
At least get it right Billy boy. It's better for you as it more suites your agenda. I have no interest in catering to your rather mundane humor.Billo_Really said:Good comeback! A lot better than Wrath's.
Your comments are always welcome.Originally posted by Wrath:
At least get it right Billy boy. It's better for you as it more suites your agenda. I have no interest in catering to your rather mundane humor.
TimmyBoy said:I was interested in seeing on the forum how many people genuinely believe the war is for fighting terror or if the invasion was about oil.
Saboteur said:It's about inciting terror. And the oils nice.
Saboteur said:President Bush and all his cronies want you sacred. And most of his supporters are. They're crazy with fear and call people who aren't unamerican.
The Real McCoy said:Yes, President Bush invaded Iraq to create more terror.
Give me a break, that **** belongs in the conspiracy forum.
Just about all of my extended family (maternal and paternal) are Republicans who support Bush and I can honestly say that none of them are "crazy with fear" or even very fearful at all.