What really scares me about the Iraq war

[Alaskagrl]

Originally Posted by saganista

Governments are invariably placed under enormous pressure to react forcibly and fast in the wake of a terrorist attack. This response is not likely to be most conducive to long-term success against terrorists.
-- Louise Richardson

The catalogue of things that don't work very well against a terrorist enemy is a long one. Ms. Richardson's book, What Terrorists Want, would be an interesting read for those who are more interested in some of the things that might and have worked...

Thanks saganista...seems like a good read to educate oneself a bit more.

However, I am less interested in what terrorists want and more interested in the ways and means which with they are able to act against innocent people. I'd like to discover those ways and means, anticipate them, and crush any overt action before it happens. Seems to me that at least SOME of of the reasoning of the US (and others) for being involved in the Middle East for decades might have been born out of this desire.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by proud to be American

Big difference in the Soviet INVASION of Afghanistan and the Americans defending the freedom for the people of oppressive dictators.

Might be some cultural bias there. A typical Russian citizen might easily recognize the American INVASION of Iraq for exactly what it was, while noting that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was for the honorable purposes of protecting her people from burgeoning capitalist plots and growing civil unrest brought about by roving gangs of bandits sponsored by the CIA.

[Evlevo]

Originally Posted by saganista

Might be some cultural bias there. A typical Russian citizen might easily recognize the American INVASION of Iraq for exactly what it was, while noting that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was for the honorable purposes of protecting her people from burgeoning capitalist plots and growing civil unrest brought about by roving gangs of bandits sponsored by the CIA.

Russian citizens do think the US Invaded Iraq (lots of Americans do too). Your assessment of how they would view the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan is correct for their government, but not the people. Seldom did the people agree with the leaders.

I guess the best way to explain it is that the Russians did not like their government, but they had to accept it. Soviet Government vs citizen society would be kind of like if most of the US was liberal, but Bush was still the President. Liberals don't agree with Bush and they don't like him, but he is still in charge, and they "accept" he is President until the end of his term. Explaining that example in more detail is another thread!

[proud to be American]

Originally Posted by saganista

Might be some cultural bias there. A typical Russian citizen might easily recognize the American INVASION of Iraq for exactly what it was, while noting that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was for the honorable purposes of protecting her people from burgeoning capitalist plots and growing civil unrest brought about by roving gangs of bandits sponsored by the CIA.

Make no mistake the CIA was in Afghanistan because the Soviets invaded not the other way around.
Is it that hard to understand why the U.S. and coalition forces went into Iraq? If Clinton would have enforced the UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf war this would have never happened! This is fact! not debate.

[Evlevo]

Originally Posted by proud to be American

Make no mistake the CIA was in Afghanistan because the Soviets invaded not the other way around.
Is it that hard to understand why the U.S. and coalition forces went into Iraq? If Clinton would have enforced the UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf war this would have never happened! This is fact! not debate.

I wondered how long it would take for a conservative to dig up that old chestnut of "blame Clinton"!

[ontheroad]

Can you provide these facts? I don't recall them; my memory is failing.

Originally Posted by proud to be American

Make no mistake the CIA was in Afghanistan because the Soviets invaded not the other way around.
Is it that hard to understand why the U.S. and coalition forces went into Iraq? If Clinton would have enforced the UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf war this would have never happened! This is fact! not debate.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by proud to be American

Make no mistake the CIA was in Afghanistan because the Soviets invaded not the other way around.
Is it that hard to understand why the U.S. and coalition forces went into Iraq? If Clinton would have enforced the UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf war this would have never happened! This is fact! not debate.

And just why should Clinton or any other individual leader be responsible for enforcing UN resolutions?

If the body that enacts the resolution is unwilling/unable to enforce it then the resolution itself isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Evlevo]

Originally Posted by proud to be American

Make no mistake the CIA was in Afghanistan because the Soviets invaded not the other way around.
Is it that hard to understand why the U.S. and coalition forces went into Iraq? If Clinton would have enforced the UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf war this would have never happened! This is fact! not debate.

Why should the US be responsible for enforcing some UN resolutions when we [frequently] don't follow others (UN Declaration on Human Rights, for example). And in the time period in question, the [Republican controlled] congress was not even our UN dues (they even had to threaten to take away our General Assembly vote if we didn't start paying).

I think the policy of blaming Clinton instead of trying to solve the problem is in part why we are in a mess right now.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Evlevo

[NOTE: I am not making a judgement about the justness of the Iraq war or the greater war on terrorism; opinions on that are already everywhere. Please try to keep posts limited to the topic below (at least for the first couple!) Thanks!]

The thing that really gets me worried about the war in Iraq is the potential evil that it holds for the future.

Lets go back a step. Does anyone else remember all of the news reporting they did after Sept 11th to explain who Osama Bin Laden and his top lieutenants were? One thing that they kept repeating over and over was that they established themselves and gained credibility fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Fighting Soviets made Osama and his men heroes to the radical Muslim people.

I draw a lot of comparisons to the Iraq war and the Soviet invasion of the Afghans (and no, I don't think they're the same, so save the flame).

*Superpower in a fairly weak (globally speaking) Muslim country
*Muslim country dominated militarily in a matter of months (i.e. cities and strategic points all quickly captured)
*A protracted insurgency that proves to be very unpopular "back home" in the Superpower's country. In Afghanistan it led to withdrawl. It is a strong possiblity that Iraq could have the same effect on the US.

How many future Bin Laden's are we creating, making their name building IEDs or sniping US soldiers, that we won't hear about until there is another Sept 11th style attack in 10-30 years?

So in summary your concern in one sentence - the invasion in Iraq is prmoting radical islamics and creating more terrorism, which is a valid question. My simple question to you - so what brought on 9/11 then? We didn't invade any country at that point. Ok with that people are going to come on with synopsis of the crusades and support of Israel and explanation that "they are just misunderstood", etc. Please please don't bother.

I offer 2 responses for clarification of the Iraq issue vs. terrorism:
1.) The Iraq was a result of violations of the cease fire agreements in place after the first Gulf War and was seperate from the war on terrorism (again, to address further disputes that say "no Bush said Saddam caused 9/11" - that's simply not true, and anyone providing that argument please provide a link to that exact quote or be prepared to be shut down).
2.) After the fall of the Iraq government, islamic insurgents (mixed with some pro-Saddam elements) took advantage of the lack of a coherent government to try to turn Iraq into a radial islamic state. They are still trying to. We are there, the enemy is there. These islamic insurgents are not killing americans for the most part, they are killing other muslims. Are choice is to surrender the state of Iraq to become a radical islamic country or stick it out.

I believe a multi strategy to counter terrorism - a.) Detective - use intellegence sources, legal methods, and law enforcement to hit terrorist cells and funding sources of terrorims, b.) Preventive - win "hearts and minds", change causes of terrorism, promote moderate islamics, c.) Tactical - simply, destroy terrorists - Kill them. On the surface C may conflict with B, but there you have the balancing act. You still can't defeat terrorism without these three factors. I believe B will take perhaps generations to accomplish. One thing I do not believe in, and that is that appeasement/surrendor will result in peace and end of terrorism to radical islamic terrorism?

Osama is on record as calling the U.S. a paper tiger without stomach for a fight, and that radical islamic terrorism will suceed because of this.

[GregW]

Proud to be an American – “..Americans defending the freedom for the people of oppressive dictators.”

What would make you think we have ever defended the people of any country from oppressive dictators? Hell, we installed most of them after the sudden increase of republics after WW2. For instance: the Shah of Iran, the Diems in Vietnam, Marcos in the Philippines and countless thugs in Central and South America. Then we spent millions to keep them in power lest a democratic republic be formed and take over the country’s oil resources for their own good.

America’s track record is not very good at defending freedom anywhere including here at home. The police riot at the Seattle World Trade Organization meeting is a fine example of "protecting freedom. A peaceful, but disruptive, protest was turned into a disaster when the police sprayed, beat and tortured the protesters. So much for our First Amendment.