Why did we go into Iraq?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

By having a secular, democratic buffer smack in the middle of the region (a great strategic location for military as well), we actually fix lots of potential problems.

Actually, instead of "secular, democratic buffer", I'd substitute "huge US military base". If it got too democratic, they might vote us out.

If Syria decides to use the Palestine/Israel conflict to make a major move against the filthy Zionists, we can kick them in the butt and simultaneously block aid from Iran. For that matter, we've thrown a big monkey wrench in the Shiite plan to utterly consume the middle east. Saddam was too secular for them as it was....now that Satan himself has taken up residence, they're worse off than ever.

Who's worse off? A US presence in the Middle East is exactly what the terrorist leaders need to ramp up recruiting, and military action isn't effective against terrorism.

No, it's not about WMDs. We get it. Bush perpetuated bad info. But it's not as much about oil as it is about a bunch of forward-looking geopolitical maneuvering. I think.

This is exactly what the Project for the New American Century was advocating. Take out Iraq, and build up a military presence in the heart of the Middle East. At the time, connections drawn between the PNAC and its members in the administration were considered to be nutty conspiracy theories. Now the PNAC line is being used as justification after the fact... Weird.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Who's worse off? A US presence in the Middle East is exactly what the terrorist leaders need to ramp up recruiting, and military action isn't effective against terrorism.

The shah and his cronies are. Our presence does make for juicier propogandizing and recruitment tactics, no question. But for the larger goal of establishing one big Islamic superpower with the head in Tehran, it's a backbreaker. Now, instead of using terrorism in conjunction with backroom deal-making to achieve their goals, the Shiites will have to distance themselves from the terror cells they created to get any policymaking to go their way.

And while military action can't answer every terrorist act tete-a-tete, it is effective. Once the tanks come in, it's a war of attrition -- regardless of what kind of war the terrorists would like to wage, we can kill them faster than they can kill us, and eventually they won't have the numbers to be effective. That's not counting the effect that running water, electricity, new schools, hospitals and women voting have on the message of the terrorists.

Every day the NY Times/al Jazeera runs an article talking about the US' failure in Iraq. Every day the death toll rises as more employment lines are bombed by terrorists. Yet every day, the lines fill up again, with more and more Iraqis banding together to take control of their country's future. If one is killed, two more dry their tears and come to stand in his/her place. As more Americans see what's actually occurring in country (thanks to the blogosphere and other non-big-media sources), fewer of them give credence to the obvious political partisanship of the "traditional" media.

All of this can be filed away under "Good Thing".

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Now, instead of using terrorism in conjunction with backroom deal-making to achieve their goals, the Shiites will have to distance themselves from the terror cells they created to get any policymaking to go their way.

Why? They've always been "wink wink nudge nudge" distanced from the terror cells officially. Why wouldn't they continue this arrangement now that the cells are getting an influx of new recruits?

And looking at the recruitment numbers, I don't think we're the ones who benefit in a war of attrition. Israel certainly hasn't, despite their military advantage.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Why? They've always been "wink wink nudge nudge" distanced from the terror cells officially. Why wouldn't they continue this arrangement now that the cells are getting an influx of new recruits?

There has always been an "everyone does it" mentality in the middle east in regards to terrorism, and it's a shaky foundation. If even ONE country takes an official (and unofficial) stand against terrorism as a matter of policy, the rest have to follow suit. Why? For the same reason that the school bully loses his playground mojo after one person stands up to him.

And looking at the recruitment numbers, I don't think we're the ones who benefit in a war of attrition. Israel certainly hasn't, despite their military advantage.

Israel hasn't gotten serious yet. They came close when they barricaded Arafat in his compound, but they just couldn't pull the trigger on it. May God have mercy on whoever twists Israel's tail hard enough to make it really bite. People seem to see the US as Israel's attack dog, but it's the US that has kept Israel from reducing the whole middle east to a slagheap. At least that's the impression I have.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

There has always been an "everyone does it" mentality in the middle east in regards to terrorism, and it's a shaky foundation. If even ONE country takes an official (and unofficial) stand against terrorism as a matter of policy, the rest have to follow suit. Why? For the same reason that the school bully loses his playground mojo after one person stands up to him.

I'm not sure where you get that, but even granting that, it is based on the assumption that the one country is perceived to be doing it on its own. Which is certainly not the case in Iraq.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not sure where you get that, but even granting that, it is based on the assumption that the one country is perceived to be doing it on its own. Which is certainly not the case in Iraq.

It's only based on that perception if you're a coddled introspective Westerner like we are. Someone who has been oppressed for a long time who suddenly has access to basic freedoms and rights isn't going to split hairs over who thought of the idea. Their leadership might, and armchair diplomats might, but not the recipient. Of course, there's a big exception to that rule -- the segment of the population that believes the anti-US propaganda machine. But they think we're there to cook and eat their babies anyway, so no amount of 'splainin is going to convince them -- just results.

As far as the bully metaphor goes, I can't think of an example where that model doesn't work. Is anyone in Europe really concerned about the Nazis gaining a serious foothold again? Once they saw Hitler crushed, they realized they didn't have to put up with his ilk again, and...well, they don't put up with his ilk any more.