Iraq: failure for UN, US foreign policy, but victory for national sec?

[bullzam]

Before I begin this thread, let me say that I am a steadfast liberal and having lived in africa and seen the US screwups there from the coldwar take a generally cool view to US intervention, but...

I'd say that now we're in Iraq we're fighting a winning battle because Al Qaeda is using up their continually dwindling resources (albeit rising manpower) to send their operatives to attack us in Iraq. Why? because it is in their doctrine to get us out of the middle east and they think they can publicly emberass us by making us fail. Why are we winning? well because we have a full military in for the long haul and they are running out of space to train. I highly doubt they can force us out of Iraq, this isn't another vietnam. None of this is to say that Iraq is a great american victory at all, I just think that many liberals say NO WAR without actually thinking about both sides and a broader picture. The fact is, security is important. Anyway, I'd like to hear other points on how we're doing because my only source of this information is that I tend to read lots of State Dept. literature back home. As for going into Iraq, I think it showed more than anything a failure by the UN to fulfill any usefullness it had as a world power. otherwise its a mostly bloated organisation that send more money to buy jeeps in sudan than feed starving children or any such noble goal. Anyway, UN reform is another topic, but, all this bein said, I'm ready for attack, go at it...

[madp]

I am a moderate libertarian who believes in fiscal conservativism and small government, and social liberty/liberalism. I broke from the national Liberatarian Party over the Iraqi war because I believed very strongly that good things for the US, the Middle East as a whole, and the entire world would flow from getting rid of Hussein.

Having said that, I appreciate your post, and I think you are right on the money.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I don't see how Iraq was a failure for US foreign policy. The lines were drawn long before Bush was in office about us going there, its all a matter of Wolfowitz. I think it was an important move of politics bigger then WMD's and Saddam, and for all you "no blood for oil" people get serious. This was a show of strength. Japan awoke the sleeping giant in 1941. Now we aren't afraid to flex to show our muscles. Long story short Iraq was a brillant move for current US policies, doctrines, and interests. By going to Iraq we sent a clear message to all the asshats of the world, don't fuck with us in anyway shape or form, don't question our shit, we are top dog. I think the message worked, looking at the message sent by Iraq and "the war on terror" places like Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Libya have all gotten spooked and have showed many signs of improvement (maybe not so much N. Korea as far as improvement but they are definently scared).

[SecretMethod70]

Originally posted by madp
I am a moderate libertarian who believes in fiscal conservativism and small government, and social liberty/liberalism. I broke from the national Liberatarian Party over the Iraqi war because I believed very strongly that good things for the US, the Middle East as a whole, and the entire world would flow from getting rid of Hussein.

Having said that, I appreciate your post, and I think you are right on the money.

Replace Libertarian with Independant and you've basically got me.

[MSD]

I'm an extreme liberal/libertarian and conscientious objector who believes in compromise between extremes, and I was pissed off about being fed bullshit about why we went into Iraq. I realize that something had to be done, and I think the thing that bothered me most about the war is that we couldn't avoid it. I wish that we could have had more diplomacy first in order to build our case for war to full legitimacy and preserve the alliances between us and the countries that we have worked with for so long.

I think that the post-Saddam military occupation is going as well as we could expect it to, wiht a few minor problems here and there, and I think that those who are calling for immediate withdrawal are failing to see the bigger picture and not considering how much worse things will get if we just disappear overnight. I think the most productive thing to do is to quiet down about being anti-war, try to help the Iraqi people, and show disapproval of the president's policies at the polls in November.

You made an interesting point about draining Al-Quaeda's resources. I hadn't considered that, and I think you're right about it. This will never be another Vietnam because it isn't the same fight, the opposition doesn't have the same resources in a desert that they did in a jungle-covered country, and most of all, because the majority of the people there are pleased that someone came in and did something about the evil dictator.

[onetime2]

I pretty much agree with everyone so far in this thread. The only modification I would have is that I do think the war, rather than a failure of policy in itself, was a result of previous failed policy. Since the first major terrorist attacks on the US (maybe the Marine barracks in Beirut or the hostage taking in Iran) we've followed a losing policy. Every attack since then resulted in minor consequences for those perpetrating the attack. This fact isn't lost on anyone in terrorist organizations. The US has been seen as weak because we had no stomach for any type of prolonged conflict. That perception has certainly changed since Bush layed out his plans for the war on terror. Those governments who openly supported terrorism just months ago are, at the least, being forced to hide their support or stop it completely for fear of losing the power they've worked for years, decades, or lifetimes to achieve. This shift in itself is a worthwhile reason for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Throw in the possibility that Iraq could become a viable democracy in the center of the middle east and there's even more reason to think it was the right move.

[HunterDevourer]

Originally posted by onetime2
Throw in the possibility that Iraq could become a viable democracy in the center of the middle east and there's even more reason to think it was the right move.

Just curious, what government party are the US forces showing their support for currently?
Heard somewhere that they are throwing their weight behind a hardliner muslim group, just hoping that isn't the case.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by HunterDevourer
Just curious, what government party are the US forces showing their support for currently?
Heard somewhere that they are throwing their weight behind a hardliner muslim group, just hoping that isn't the case.

IMO, they are not really showing support for any one party. The goal is to create a government that gives all a voice in the country's affairs. Direct elections would likely put the Shiites in power since they have the greatest share of the population. The current plan is to have caucuses pick governmental leaders so there is more wide spread representation and so the US can hand control over to the Iraqis. The Shiites are calling for direct elections so they can get the most control. The UN has just today said they will look into the situation and determine what they think is the best course.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

It would be really swell if they partitioned the country and gave the Kurds a homeland, Turkey be damned.

[Sparhawk]

Well, now we see Bush and Company going hat in hand to the UN, asking for their "unnecessary, irrelevant" imprimatur. Irony, how I love you-let me count the ways...

link

U.N. to Consider Request to Study Earlier Elections in Iraq

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 20, 2004; Page A15


At talks yesterday with the United States and the Iraqi Governing Council, the United Nations took its first step toward reengaging in Iraq and helping the United States rescue its troubled plan to hand over political power to the Iraqis, U.S. and U.N. officials said.

Secretary General Kofi Annan promised to look at how the United Nations can help, after a request from L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, and Governing Council President Adnan Pachachi.

Bremer and Pachachi asked the United Nations to begin by dispatching a team to help decide whether elections can be held for a new provisional government before the U.S.-led occupation is scheduled to end on June 30.

The fate of the political transition hinges largely on how a provisional government is selected. The U.S. plan calls for a complex system of caucuses in 18 regional provinces; it has been rejected by Iraq's leading cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and a growing number of Iraqis. Tens of thousands took to the streets of Baghdad yesterday to support Sistani's call for direct elections.

"We have asked the secretary general to send a team to Iraq to investigate the possibility of having such elections and, in case that is not possible, to explain why so, and also to discuss alternatives to that," Pachachi said at one of three news briefings after the talks.

In private communications with Iraqis, Annan has signaled that elections seem impractical. But he tipped his hand publicly after the morning talks.

"I don't believe there may be enough time between now and May to hold elections, but the team will go down and look into that further and then report to me," he said at a news conference.

Intervention by the United Nations could defuse the mounting tension over elections, said Abdul Aziz Hakim, a member of the Governing Council and a Shiite Muslim cleric who has dealt with Sistani.

"We would like a technical committee to be sent to look into and consider the matter of elections in Iraq," said Hakim, who was also on the Governing Council delegation. "Then this conclusion will be respected by Mr. Sistani."

Despite rancorous relations between the Bush administration and the United Nations for more than a year, Annan stressed the importance of pooling resources, skills and leverage to help Iraq make the difficult transition.

"The stability of Iraq should be everyone's business. I think we have an opportunity to work together to try and move forward in a process that the council and all of us have believed in," Annan told reporters.

The United Nations had expected to play a prominent role in Iraq once the United States leaves at the end of June. The issue is what role the United Nations will play -- and how it will participate in decision-making -- between now and then.

"If we get it wrong at this stage, it will be even more difficult and we may not even get to the next stage. So I think it is extremely important that we do whatever we can to assist. And I'm looking at this issue and holding these discussions in that spirit," the secretary general said.

The talks were frank but cordial, according to Iraqi, U.S. and U.N. officials. The U.N. delegation was especially struck by what it perceived as a new U.S. attitude about working with other nations through the world body. U.N. envoys said they hope this will be the beginning of an enduring pattern of international cooperation.

The major obstacle could be security. Annan drilled delegations from Iraq and the occupation authority on the spate of recent attacks and the ability of U.S. or new Iraqi forces to protect the United Nations if it returns.

Annan pulled out the U.N. staff in October, after two suicide bombings at Baghdad headquarters in less than three months killed about two dozen people, including chief U.N. representative Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Yet Iraqi and U.S. officials came away convinced that the United Nations will agree in the next two weeks to send a U.N. team to Iraq as a harbinger of its return in some form -- first operating from offices in Cyprus and Amman, Jordan, and later inside Iraq.

"Certainly it is our hope that the United Nations can play an active role, and soon. This has been our hope all along. I am optimistic. I think this will be done," Pachachi said.

In a sign of U.N. interest in helping facilitate the return of Iraqi sovereignty, U.N. officials are already talking about possible options to adapt the caucus system and refine the U.S. plan to make it more acceptable to Sistani and other challengers.

Although the United Nations might not be able to provide enough personnel to provide independent monitoring of the caucus or indirect elections, it could advise on how to recruit such monitors and how to conduct the process, well-placed sources said.

Bremer and the Iraqi delegation are due to hold talks at the White House, Pentagon and State Department today.

On another front, the White House announced yesterday that former secretary of state James A. Baker III will travel to oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf to hold further discussions on relief of Iraq's $120 billion foreign debt. Baker already toured Europe and Asia to appeal for debt relief; he will visit Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia this week.

[onetime2]

UN participation may be helpful or it may be a complete catastrophe. As soon as the UN team gets attacked again, will they scatter back to the countries from which they came or will they actually stick it out?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by onetime2
The UN has just today said they will look into the situation and determine what they think is the best course.

And then we should do just the opposite

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I don't see how Iraq was a failure for US foreign policy. The lines were drawn long before Bush was in office about us going there, its all a matter of Wolfowitz. I think it was an important move of politics bigger then WMD's and Saddam, and for all you "no blood for oil" people get serious. This was a show of strength. Japan awoke the sleeping giant in 1941. Now we aren't afraid to flex to show our muscles. Long story short Iraq was a brillant move for current US policies, doctrines, and interests. By going to Iraq we sent a clear message to all the asshats of the world, don't fuck with us in anyway shape or form, don't question our shit, we are top dog. I think the message worked, looking at the message sent by Iraq and "the war on terror" places like Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Libya have all gotten spooked and have showed many signs of improvement (maybe not so much N. Korea as far as improvement but they are definently scared).

If this is indeed the case..which I would not have a problem with because I enjoy the luxuries of living in the uS...why not put that on the front page instead of all this fake terrorism flag waving stuff.
If we are zipping up our boots, talk that language instead of breeding a nation full of ignorant Aaron Brown-Wolf Blitzer immitators.

Secondly...where does Wolfwitz' real allegiance lie? Here in the US or elsewhwere?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Bookman
Secondly...where does Wolfwitz' real allegiance lie? Here in the US or elsewhwere?

Why not just come out and say Wolfwitz is a Jew and he is doing it for Israel.

Its ok, you can say it, anti-Semitism is getting popular in Europe again.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Why not just come out and say Wolfwitz is a Jew and he is doing it for Israel.

Its ok, you can say it, anti-Semitism is getting popular in Europe again.

<img src=http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/fish/images/fish2060.jpg>

There ya go.

[Ustwo]

#1 My trolling picture, find your own.

#2 Not a troll at all, he impiled something, I clarified. No point in innuendo. Some people think that the 'neo-cons' are nothing but pro-Israel Jews using America for the benifit of Israel.

[powerclown]

I see the point (and importance) of the US flexing its muscles and teaching a lesson to those who would wish it harm. But take over a country? As the current world 'superpower' (for now), its just human nature for lunatics around the world to want to challenge the champion.

So now theyre all going to want a piece of the US. They've set a target. A rallying cry for the enemy. Bush has made it crystal clear to all the malcontents, the radicals, the fundamentalists, the dictators, foreign armies, clandestine bomb makers, hostile scientists, resentful professors, scheming foreign politicians, made it clear to these and all the others lurking in the shadows, who to focus their anger upon. The US, our interests worldwide, and our Allies worldwide. Not saying that the US can't handle this, can't infiltrate it or otherwise de-fuse it, but thats what were going to find out in the coming years.

I also have concerns that the US (CIA, FBI, Government contractors, the Military, whoever) might be laying down a hidden infrastructure in Iraq. A police system or culture, or a spy network of some kind to guard their interests after the armed forces leave and the Iraqis return to power. After all the trouble they went to in ousting Hussein, and rebuilding the infrastructure of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, will the US risk handing over control of their own handiwork to a hostile enemy?

And where does it go from here? Do we invade, take over by force, and rebuild from the ground up other countries hostile to us?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

We do what suits our national interests and best protects our people, like every other nation out there.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Some people think that the 'neo-cons' are nothing but pro-Israel Jews using America for the benifit of Israel.

There's a very real, very powerful contingent in the Christian Coalition(tm) that wants Israel to succeed at the expense of Palestine, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because of their belief in the second coming of Christ. A lot of the support for Israel by the Bush Administration comes from the insistence of this group. Take that for what you will (and don't put words in my mouth like you did to Bookman )

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
There's a very real, very powerful contingent in the Christian Coalition(tm) that wants Israel to succeed at the expense of Palestine, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because of their belief in the second coming of Christ. A lot of the support for Israel by the Bush Administration comes from the insistence of this group. Take that for what you will (and don't put words in my mouth like you did to Bookman )

Who are these people, because personally I think this is the kind of idea from the tinfoil hat crowd.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

There are about 70 million of them, and they actually do have alot of sway.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
There are about 70 million of them, and they actually do have alot of sway.

Just because you are a US Christian doesn't mean you you are waiting for the second comming and think a Jewish Israel is the key.

Good friend of mine is a Jewish female from the NE who married a southern Baptist (now there is a sitcom waiting to happen). She says at times she feels like an exhibit because there are so few Jews in the bible belt, not that she makes a point to tell them. I find it rather amusing to think that there are 70 million of these people who would think something quite so nutty. If anything the true bible thumpers are still of the Jews killed Jesus mentality.

Sorry but this is just a buggaboo of the left. No substance.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Just because you are a US Christian doesn't mean you you are waiting for the second comming and think a Jewish Israel is the key.

Good friend of mine is a Jewish female from the NE who married a southern Baptist (now there is a sitcom waiting to happen). She says at times she feels like an exhibit because there are so few Jews in the bible belt, not that she makes a point to tell them. I find it rather amusing to think that there are 70 million of these people who would think something quite so nutty. If anything the true bible thumpers are still of the Jews killed Jesus mentality.

Sorry but this is just a buggaboo of the left. No substance.

Yes, thanks for trying to twist my argument against the Christian Coalition(tm) into an attack on Christianity. Just more of what I've come to expect from you.

Here's a link, educate yourself:

http://www.cc.org/

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Yes, thanks for trying to twist my argument against the Christian Coalition(tm) into an attack on Christianity. Just more of what I've come to expect from you.

Here's a link, educate yourself:

http://www.cc.org/

Yes they are opposed to a Palistinian state, for the same reason I am, I never said the CC doesn't exsist, I said you offered a theory with no proof.

Its what I expect from you, a claim with no proof.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes they are opposed to a Palistinian state, for the same reason I am, I never said the CC doesn't exsist, I said you offered a theory with no proof.

Its what I expect from you, a claim with no proof.

A quick google search for "christian coalition" israel "second coming" gives me quite a few articles to choose from. Here's a sample:

The second element of concern with the Christian Right has less to do with its proselytization efforts (which Jews find offensive) than with the strongly fatalistic messianic philosophy that underlies its political support for Israel.

That is, evangelicals read the Bible as though it was a huge jigsaw puzzle of prophecies, with Israel in the center. They believe that human history is following a predetermined divine script, and that they, the Jewish people and Israel are simply playing out their assigned roles "to the End of Days." They interpret the Bible literally, and believe that the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland is a precondition to the Second Coming of Christ.

To the evangelical Christian world, David Ben-Gurion's proclamation of Israeli statehood marked the imminent return of Jesus, who, after Israel expels the Palestinians from Judea and Sumeria ("as enemies of the modern State of Israel, they are enemies of God and servants of Satan") and rebuilds God's Temple in Jerusalem will descend from heaven during the apocalyptic Battle of Armageddon and subdue all Israel's enemies.

After his return (or "Second Coming"), according to their interpretation of Christian scriptures, a thousand year reign of peace will dawn, centered in Jerusalem. But, before that happens, two-thirds of Israeli Jewry (world Jewry, by then, having made aliyah to Israel) will have died in the final conflict, and the remaining third will convert to Christianity in the aftermath of Armageddon.

Viewed from this perspective, many Jews look with cynicism upon the motives behind evangelical efforts to finance Jewish aliyah from Eastern Europe, Ethiopia, Argentina, and from the four corners of the earth given that the ultimate goal is to facilitate "the ingathering of the exiles" as a pre-condition to Armageddon and subsequent conversion.

Here's more:

But they're not the only group that feels that way. So do Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals who make up the largest single religious grouping in the United States. Correspondent Bob Simon first reported this story on October 6, 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the number one item on the agenda of the Christian Right? Abortion? School Prayer? No and No. Believe it or not, what's most important to a lot of conservative Christians is the Jewish State. Israel: Its size, its strength, and its survival. Why?

There is the alliance between America and Israel in the war on Islamic terror. But it goes deeper. For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

Last fall, supporters of the Christian Coalition gathered on the Mall in Washington to express their faith and to lobby the administration. The rally was organized by the Christian Coalition, which wants to make sure that the Bush Administration sees the struggle in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims their way - the Christian way.

At one congregation in Colorado, it’s Israel Awareness Day. But this is not a Jewish congregation. They are all Christians. Not only are they holding these pep rallies all across America, they’re also streaming here to Israel, to the dangerous streets of Jerusalem to express their undying devotion.

American Christian Zionists say they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby.

“It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now,” says Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of the Christian Right. That’s the bulk of Evangelical Christians; Falwell claims to speak for all of them.

“There are 70 million of us,” he says. “And if there’s one thing that brings us together quickly it’s whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel.”

Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

“There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter,” Falwell says. The “Christian public” is, he says, Mr. Bush’s core constituency.

“I really believe when the chips are down Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time,” says Falwell.

[Bookman]

A classic tactic is calling someone an antisemite.
You failed to answer my question "What are Wolfie's Motives"?
"Who does he act for...who benefits"?

Instead you try to bash me....this behavior is a display of defeat and any further debate on this subject w/ YOU is futile.

Later

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Wolfowitz really answers to nobody, so you could never actually say what his motives are. He is not appointed, so basically he gets to do what ever he thinks needs to be done, not a pollster situation.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Wolfowitz really answers to nobody, so you could never actually say what his motives are. He is not appointed, so basically he gets to do what ever he thinks needs to be done, not a pollster situation.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense is a political appointee, and must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Bookman
A classic tactic is calling someone an antisemite.
You failed to answer my question "What are Wolfie's Motives"?
"Who does he act for...who benefits"?

Instead you try to bash me....this behavior is a display of defeat and any further debate on this subject w/ YOU is futile.

Later

Sorry buddy, but if you are going to insinuate something, just say it. Whats YOUR opinion on it? I think the USA benefits, who do YOU think benefits? If you are unwilling to answer this question, then you deserve nothing less then a bashing.

[Lebell]

CORECTION:

NO ONE on this forum DESERVES a bashing.

And I think some people around here are forgetting this.

Less bashing,

More facts.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
The Deputy Secretary of Defense is a political appointee, and must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

True, my bad. But unlike cabinet members he is in there for a long time hence Wolfowitz serving under Bush Sr., Clinton, and Dubya.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Lebell
CORECTION:

NO ONE on this forum DESERVES a bashing.

And I think some people around here are forgetting this.

Less bashing,

More facts.

I'm asking for facts, but if he thinks its a bashing I'll call it that. I think its a clarification of his point he was unwilling to make himself

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
True, my bad. But unlike cabinet members he is in there for a long time hence Wolfowitz serving under Bush Sr., Clinton, and Dubya.

Okay, here's the "feeling lucky" hit on google (wolfowitz, biography):

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 28th and sworn in March 2, 2001 as the 28th Deputy Secretary of Defense. This is Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of duty in the Pentagon.

For the last seven years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University.

...

From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and force posture at the end of the Cold War.

[blah blah blah etc]

[Bookman]

My point is this...
Wolfwitz and his decisions cost America $$$, in the form of taxes which are paid by many of us. The idea that Iraq was a move to make us safe has over the last year been PROVEN HIDEOUS. So I ask again..who or what do people like Wolf and his policy writing crew serve? It is not to clear to me. What is clear are the problems here at home. The Economy, Poverety etc etc. People like Wolf write, W goes to the puppet Senate and requests money..and the tax payers receive less as usual.

So before you try to accuse me of insinuating something, answer the question...in this forum I see no rule against asking questions.