highnote
08-04-2008, 02:54 AM
This is probably the best piece I've read on the Iraq war. I don't agree with everything they write, but I think they bring up points that have been totally missed by just about every piece I have ever read.
It's a real eye opener on why we went to war and where we stand now.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/stratfors_war_five_years_later
Public Justifications and Private Motivations
We have lived with the Iraq war for more than five years. It was our view in early 2002 that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was inevitable. We did not believe the invasion had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — which with others we believed were under development in Iraq. The motivation for the war, as we wrote, had to do with forcing Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative in the fight against al Qaeda by demonstrating that the United States actually was prepared to go to extreme measures. The United States invaded to change the psychology of the region, which had a low regard for American power. It also invaded to occupy the most strategic country in the Middle East, one that bordered seven other key countries.
This is perhaps the most important point -- Iraq borders seven other key countries. We will be there for a long time, but not forever. All great powers eventually leave Persia. That is why all Iran has to do is bide it's time. Eventually the U.S. will leave. It may not happen in our lifetimes or theirs, but eventually the U.S. will leave.
The administration certainly lied about its reasons for going into Iraq. But then FDR certainly lied about planning for involvement in World War II, John Kennedy lied about whether he had traded missiles in Turkey for missiles in Cuba and so on. Leaders cannot conduct foreign policy without deception, and frequently the people they deceive are their own publics. This is simply the way things are.
Why lie? And why should Americans accept lies from our government?
If we wanted to force Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative, why didn't we just tell them that. And if they didn't like it, too bad. What's the big secret. Everyone knew the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi Arabian.
Probably 1/2 of all Americans didn't like the false reason we were told of why we needed to go to war with Iraq and the admin wasn't worried about telling Americans too bad if you don't like it. We're invading anyway. If Americans knew the truth maybe they would have been more supportive. But when 1/2 of Americans didn't believe the reasons for going to war, then the admin should not be surprised that they don't have the support of the American people. We're grown up enough to handle the truth.
On the other hand, the admin only needed the support of Congress in order to wage the war. What anybody else thought didn't really matter.
I read a great book once by a philosopher who was a POW in the Civil War. It is called "A Lie is Never Justifiable". He was from the North. He tells a story of how he and his fellow POWs were working on a plan to escape. The plan required lying to their Confederate captors. He rejected the plan because of the lying. So he suggested a different plan that did not require lying, but it apparantly worked. Wish I could remember the details.
Since I read that book I also believe a lie is never justifiable. You can make up all kinds of scenarios where a person might need to lie -- like when they have to make a split second life or death decision. But in foreign policy where you have months to formulate a plan, why should lying be part of the plan? Maybe it's laziness -- or just plain ignorance. We are human beings, some of us have incredible minds -- hopefully, our leaders.
We underestimated Iraqi thinking. Knowing they could not fight a conventional war against the Americans, they opted instead to decline conventional combat and move to guerrilla warfare instead. We did not expect that.
How could our military analysts have missed that? Look at how the colonialists fought against the British. They didn't wear bright red uniforms and stand in a straight line and march across a meadow to engage in battle. They hid behind trees and used sniping tactics, etc.
The admin's big mistake was listening to Rumsfeld who did not put enough "boots on the ground" to fight a multisided war.
A Bigger Challenge Than ExpectedThat this was planned is obvious to us. On April 13, 2003, we noted what appeared to be an organized resistance group carrying out bombings. Organizing such attacks so quickly indicated to us that the operations were planned. Explosives and weapons had been hidden, command and control established, attacks and publicity coordinated. These things don’t just happen. Soon after the war, we recognized that the Sunnis in fact had planned a protracted war — just not a conventional one.
The EndgameWe have been focused on the U.S.-Iranian talks for quite awhile. We continue to believe this is a critical piece in any endgame. The United States is now providing an alternative scenario designed to be utterly frightening to the Iranians. They are arming and training the Iranians’ mortal enemies: the Sunnis who led the war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. That rearming is getting very serious indeed. Sunni units outside the aegis of the Iraqi military are now some of the most heavily armed Iraqis in Anbar, thanks to the Sunni relationship with U.S. forces there. It should be remembered that the Sunnis ruled Iraq because the Iraqi Shia were fragmented, fighting among themselves and therefore weak. That underlying reality remains true. A cohesive Sunni community armed and backed by the Americans will be a formidable force. That threat is the best way to bring the Iranians to the table.
The irony is that the war is now focused on empowering the very people the war was fought against: the Iraqi Sunnis.
You'd think we'd have learned something from the Russian/Afghanistan war. We armed the Taliban. Now we're fighting them.
What's that old saying -- "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." :bang:
Although I'm critical of the way the war has been handled, that doesn't mean I think it could have been avoided. But maybe the US should have taken longer in planning it. OK. Fine. Hindsight is 20-20, you say. It is easier to look back.
I suppose my biggest complaint is that the American public was lied to. I think that with our educated population we have the ability to understand complex international relations and how we might be threatened by outside forces.
When dealing with your own people, honesty is the best policy.
Maybe politicians the world over feel that lying is a necessary part of foriegn policy because that is the strategy they used to get elected in the first place? :D
It's a real eye opener on why we went to war and where we stand now.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/stratfors_war_five_years_later
Public Justifications and Private Motivations
We have lived with the Iraq war for more than five years. It was our view in early 2002 that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was inevitable. We did not believe the invasion had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — which with others we believed were under development in Iraq. The motivation for the war, as we wrote, had to do with forcing Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative in the fight against al Qaeda by demonstrating that the United States actually was prepared to go to extreme measures. The United States invaded to change the psychology of the region, which had a low regard for American power. It also invaded to occupy the most strategic country in the Middle East, one that bordered seven other key countries.
This is perhaps the most important point -- Iraq borders seven other key countries. We will be there for a long time, but not forever. All great powers eventually leave Persia. That is why all Iran has to do is bide it's time. Eventually the U.S. will leave. It may not happen in our lifetimes or theirs, but eventually the U.S. will leave.
The administration certainly lied about its reasons for going into Iraq. But then FDR certainly lied about planning for involvement in World War II, John Kennedy lied about whether he had traded missiles in Turkey for missiles in Cuba and so on. Leaders cannot conduct foreign policy without deception, and frequently the people they deceive are their own publics. This is simply the way things are.
Why lie? And why should Americans accept lies from our government?
If we wanted to force Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative, why didn't we just tell them that. And if they didn't like it, too bad. What's the big secret. Everyone knew the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi Arabian.
Probably 1/2 of all Americans didn't like the false reason we were told of why we needed to go to war with Iraq and the admin wasn't worried about telling Americans too bad if you don't like it. We're invading anyway. If Americans knew the truth maybe they would have been more supportive. But when 1/2 of Americans didn't believe the reasons for going to war, then the admin should not be surprised that they don't have the support of the American people. We're grown up enough to handle the truth.
On the other hand, the admin only needed the support of Congress in order to wage the war. What anybody else thought didn't really matter.
I read a great book once by a philosopher who was a POW in the Civil War. It is called "A Lie is Never Justifiable". He was from the North. He tells a story of how he and his fellow POWs were working on a plan to escape. The plan required lying to their Confederate captors. He rejected the plan because of the lying. So he suggested a different plan that did not require lying, but it apparantly worked. Wish I could remember the details.
Since I read that book I also believe a lie is never justifiable. You can make up all kinds of scenarios where a person might need to lie -- like when they have to make a split second life or death decision. But in foreign policy where you have months to formulate a plan, why should lying be part of the plan? Maybe it's laziness -- or just plain ignorance. We are human beings, some of us have incredible minds -- hopefully, our leaders.
We underestimated Iraqi thinking. Knowing they could not fight a conventional war against the Americans, they opted instead to decline conventional combat and move to guerrilla warfare instead. We did not expect that.
How could our military analysts have missed that? Look at how the colonialists fought against the British. They didn't wear bright red uniforms and stand in a straight line and march across a meadow to engage in battle. They hid behind trees and used sniping tactics, etc.
The admin's big mistake was listening to Rumsfeld who did not put enough "boots on the ground" to fight a multisided war.
A Bigger Challenge Than ExpectedThat this was planned is obvious to us. On April 13, 2003, we noted what appeared to be an organized resistance group carrying out bombings. Organizing such attacks so quickly indicated to us that the operations were planned. Explosives and weapons had been hidden, command and control established, attacks and publicity coordinated. These things don’t just happen. Soon after the war, we recognized that the Sunnis in fact had planned a protracted war — just not a conventional one.
The EndgameWe have been focused on the U.S.-Iranian talks for quite awhile. We continue to believe this is a critical piece in any endgame. The United States is now providing an alternative scenario designed to be utterly frightening to the Iranians. They are arming and training the Iranians’ mortal enemies: the Sunnis who led the war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. That rearming is getting very serious indeed. Sunni units outside the aegis of the Iraqi military are now some of the most heavily armed Iraqis in Anbar, thanks to the Sunni relationship with U.S. forces there. It should be remembered that the Sunnis ruled Iraq because the Iraqi Shia were fragmented, fighting among themselves and therefore weak. That underlying reality remains true. A cohesive Sunni community armed and backed by the Americans will be a formidable force. That threat is the best way to bring the Iranians to the table.
The irony is that the war is now focused on empowering the very people the war was fought against: the Iraqi Sunnis.
You'd think we'd have learned something from the Russian/Afghanistan war. We armed the Taliban. Now we're fighting them.
What's that old saying -- "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." :bang:
Although I'm critical of the way the war has been handled, that doesn't mean I think it could have been avoided. But maybe the US should have taken longer in planning it. OK. Fine. Hindsight is 20-20, you say. It is easier to look back.
I suppose my biggest complaint is that the American public was lied to. I think that with our educated population we have the ability to understand complex international relations and how we might be threatened by outside forces.
When dealing with your own people, honesty is the best policy.
Maybe politicians the world over feel that lying is a necessary part of foriegn policy because that is the strategy they used to get elected in the first place? :D