Mancunian said:
Back to the subject matter. I understand the logic of your argument with regard to the big picture but I’m just not convinced that what you are saying is the real reason we are in Iraq or whether or not it will actually work. I think the fact that Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world with the second largest reserves is the main reason we’re there; that and the fact that it was pretty defenceless. Your view on why we’re there means it will take generations to complete that kind of mission. You’ve made a start you say. Well, yes, but GWB isn’t going to be around for much longer (politically!) and who’s to say your preferred party will be in power in just a few years time, never mind generations. The whole plan could go wrong very quickly. But wait, someone with a similar mindset to GWB may gain power at a later date and we can start over again….. Only time will tell who’s right.
Lastly….
The trick is not just to acknowledge your mistakes but learn from them. You might say thriving, I would say there is a place for people who remind others of their mistakes to ensure they don’t happen again. Can you imagine a population that agreed with everything their government did?
I love paragraphs like this. I call them launching pads, because my mind starts flooding itself with commentary and then I start pecking away. You bring up very good points.
Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan were all very well aware of the escalading threat this civilization was posing. The reports are clear, the books have been written, and the experts have studied. They chose to do nothing, because forcing change on a civilization is a near impossible thing to embark upon, not to mention political suicide. For one, how do you convince Americans who know nothing about the Middle East and think that terrorists are just a bunch of rogues of Islam and two, how do you make your intentions public to the world and still not infuriate the Muslim masses where we receive oil? Only twice did we have the opportunity presented to us. Both times were from Saddam, and we allowed the first chance to slip away. A democratic Middle East is not just in American interests, but to the whole world, especially so for the Muslims in the Middle East. They are the ones who are suffering and we are the ones they are lashing out at. We're an imagined enemy.
Make no mistake...this will take generations, but not necessarily violent action. The Middle East is something that we must stay engaged with, but not be consumed by. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. Iraq is just Iraq. Iran is just Iran. Syria is just Syria. Saudi is just Saudi. Together, they make a civilization that must change. They must meet the demands of the 21st century, because their treasured values and inherited behaviors simply do not work in today's world of global progress. Their extremists and terrorists are making a gory mess of their religion. When an entire civilization embraces such butchers, both the civilization and the religion are in trouble. When the rest of the world chooses to tolerate such behavior rather than face it, they are doomed to be consumed by it.
It's not a matter of if we should force a change. This civilization and the terrorist that break away from their millions of extremist within, is giving us no choice. They are determined to hate us and kill us no matter what we do. We largely ignored this problem throughout the 90's and it did us no good. The attacks worsened and it wasn't Al-Queda
persay. This is just a name among hundreds of other names where Muslims from all over the Middle East have been a part of against the west and in their own region. Al-Queda was seen as winners to the teenage masses every time they dealt a blow to the "Great Satan" where there was no retaliation. This is a war on attrition. One where we must continue to break the back of terror organizations and dictators that encourage said activity if we are going to win. It is far easier for Muslim states to purge themselves of their terrorists if they are on the losing side. While doing this, we must encourage democracy, the free flow of information, push education, industry, and everything else that will give the futurless masses a better choice than killing for "Allah."
No single President and no 8 year period can accomplish what must be done. What was necessary to give the Iraqis a chance to progress beyond their plight is not necessary for Iranians. Syria may be only in need of a punitive strike on it's military and their Baathist Party masters to allow the Syrians to progress. The next President may (and should) do very minor military action and spend most of his time nurturing what is already occuring in other Muslim countries surrounding Iraq. He will have no choice, because a determined enemy will make you face him one way or the other. Most everything that must occur in ours and our childrens futures will entail aggresive diplomacy. The diplomatic talks with Syria regarding Lebanon, Israel's recent pull from the Gaza Strip, and Europes talks with Iran are very much a part of this "War on Terror." Though not a part of the Middle East, even talks with North Korea can be a part of it. This is why the "War on Terror" is said to be a "global" war.
Oil and other such material gains are just perks. The same type of perks that come with every war. Even during WWII, we also protected our trade partners. It wasn't just about liberating Jews and taking out a tyrant. Receiving incentives and securing interests doesn't make the effort any less noble.