(no subject)

[xatalantax]

I'm interested to hear what people think of these recommended courses of action for after the fighting is over:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri032403.asp

I don't think much of the recommendation about France, Germany, and Russia, but at this point, at least, that is a reaction of scorn rather than considered judgment. I haven't thought about what would actually be best in the end.

Comments

[miss-manners.livejournal.com]

afganistan was stable, al qeada was down

Just out of curiosity, why? I know your reasoning on the last one (and I'm sure you know why I disagree), but I'm confused on the first two.

Personally I think the real reason for this war is #2, in an island hoping sense. The administration has decided, in my view, that as long as the US needs to be friendly with the House of Saud (friendly, hell, we kiss their ass compared to any country on the planet) the fight against Bin Laden et al isn't going anywhere. The best thing in this theory is a Middle East democracy in an Islamic country (tangentally, the same is probably the only thing that can lead to real productive talks between Isreal and the PA) that is friendly to us, especially in an oil rich country. Such a friend would enable us to tell the House of Saud where to get off and create the most important change needed to put Bin Laden and his friends back in the minor leagues on their way to has beens (the later will take time regardless).

This is where I think some of the hardliners (Wolfowitz et al) showed up after 9/11. Having come to the above conclusion there are two logical candidates: Iraq and Iran. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but there were enough mid-level people who've been committed (for various reasons good and bad) to change in Iraq that I don't think the issue got a good airing (personally, I think Iran was the better option for several reasons, although it is also the harder one).

As for your strong man fears, I concur, but I'm fairly sure this Administration is committed, as part of a long term strategy, to democracy in Iraq. I think the (looks like discarded) idea of a military governor stems from that: a distrust of anyone put in power before elections with regards to having elections, so we'll just do it.

I also think we need to go to the UN after, but for different reasons. With what's already out about Russia and assuming similar will come out about France (it started to before the war), a Bush return to the UN would repair most if not all the damage and cripple the credibility of France (and to a lesser degree Russia) by showing that they were the true intransigents not us, especially if France follows through with their threatened veto on that issue. Not going back to the UN proves the opposite, that we don't care at all.

[canongrrl.livejournal.com]

afganistan is not stable, the US basically went in, launched a huge air campaign, and then kinda is still there fighting and pissing off the civilian populace (if we are so popular there, why is there still a lot of fighting? Why is Karsai continually attacked? Why is Kabul basically the only area we have control over? Why is us humanitarian aid ready to roll to iraq but was not ready to roll to afghanistan? Why haven't we really commited to taking out the mountain caves there? Why is there talk of a marshall plan for Iraq but not afghanistan? Why are we generating more ill will in afghanistan the longer we are there (this is overall, I can find way more examples of this then the counter arguments)? Why isn't W freeing up money to the states for terror alerts (or at least more freely) etc...

Re Wolfowitz and the neocons

If I understand their world view - The US has been a force of general good for the world, giving it 50 odd years of world peace (developing nations only) and making the US the supreme monetary and military power in the world. We want to continue this for as long as possible. What's good for the US is good for the developed world. The middle east is a trouble spot. The one who controls the oil, controls the world (short term 20-50 years). The oil crisis of the 70s showed us this. The increase in oil prices the past 2 years proved this. The US needs a friendly, stable regime to ensure a flow of oil to us, and potentially have the ability to cut off enemies. This is sort of the Kissinger plan as outlined in the early 70s.

This is all well and good if you plan to have an empire or beleive that American interests are all that really matter (I'm not saying this is a bad viewpoint mind you, being aware of self interest is a good thing). And from that point of view, I can see its defense (I don't agree with much of it, but then again there is a lot there to work with). The issue I have is that it now turns the US into every other power that ever existed and with that, we aren't handling all that much better and, granted this is a 30 year plan but its still amazingly short sighted in my mind and basically sews the seeds of its downfall as its being built up. And its sorta been proven that kissingers policy with regards to the rest of the world, in my mind failed. You can directly link many of the worlds hot spots to him (or the british empire as a co worker used to say ;-) and much of the US support for horrific regimes goes back to him as well. Thus why we are stuck with the Saud family, why we supported the Shaw...and Saddam...

Now Iran.
Invade Iran, is that what you are saying? Are you smoking crack? I mean I know that is on the W's radar screen and that scares the shit out of me. There is no *way* that can be justified. The screen of rightful intervention that they are using for Iraq won't hold. The entire Muslim world (and the EU and most likely all but one of our allies (hello Israel)) would go against us (rightly so on that one) plus the work we are doing in Iran now is beginning to pay off (more secular leaders emerging, many friends in the military there etc) that to throw that away...well extreme short sightedness would be an understatement. Now a covert operation supporting regime change there...well that I'd support but you can't link the US to that.

Our current government truly believes in the big stick foreign policy, and that unilateral action gets the US in more trouble and creates more resentment then I think they realize. I truly think that a better president (Bush Sr or Clinton) could have gotten UN approval, could have gotten world backing, and would have just in general handled this better. My biggest issue with this whole mess is that W is a spoiled rich boy who feels entitled to everything and gets pissy when things don't go his way. The truly sad part is he treats the rest of the world the with the same sort of disdain he treats the american people to. Well at least 99% of the american people, he still loves big business (halburton already has contracts on the rebuilding of iraq. How sick is that)

[miss-manners.livejournal.com]

afganistan is not stable

So, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time? While the complaints about the follow through in Afganistan are valid, they don't mean we can't pursue other policies at the same time, we've certainly engaged in much more complex operations before. Personally, I think building a stable Afganistan is a mistake...it should be partitioned and merged into surrounding nations...while more problematic in the short term it probably will be more stable in the long run, modern Afganistan is a British creation. The conservatism (in the sense of preserving European colonial boundaries) that we've had the past decade is going to fail (and fail in a very ugly manner) in the long run.

Same for the first responders issue.

This is all well and good if you plan to have an empire or beleive that American interests are all that really matter

In an era when during military action in Bosnia members of Congress (Democrats) proclaimed that the great VIRTUE of our intervention in Bosnia was that there was no US interest involved that the opposite should soon come to rule the roost is unsuprising. That said I think their prominance in this administration is as much accident (they had an answer to an immediate problem. Prior to 9/11 the Bush administration was much more isolationist than assertive.

I think you misassign a lot to Kissenger that has origins before him. The Shah was a product of Eisenhower's love of anything but military force and one can argue the House of Saud is as well (Kissenger probably would have backed a real Oil War in the 70s had it been politically viable). Saddam may be more his issue, but I tend to assign it more to Reagan (and a little to Carter) due to an overly antagonistic Iran policy 79-82 or so (again, a legacy in the long run of Ike, who looking back damned near lost us the Cold War after Truman with Marshall and your hero Aachenson got us off to a good start). Not that I'm a huge fan of Kissenger (although you can't dismiss real politik outright, embracing it does just what you said), but sometimes I think he has become too convient a target.

As for Iran, no...guess I wasn't clear. I was suggesting if your long term strategy to end Islamic Fundamentalist terror and stabilize the Middle East is to create a US friendly, Islamic democracy in the Middle East you had two options: overthrow Saddam or help the forces opposing theocracy in Iran succeed. The former is easier, in large part because it is a military intervention. However, based on many issues I think the later has more chance of success (Iran has the needed structures in place, the population is attuned to it, the population is pushing for full democracy, and finally, there is a strong PRO-US sentiment in place already). However, because it is a delicate balancing act it is much harder. Effective assertive diplomacy hasn't been something the US has done well since 1990 (Clinton got agreements, but not by being assertive...his was okay for his time, but that style is even less workable than Bush right now IMHO and this Bush isn't the strongest diplomat we've hard...I won't argue he is). So I was on the same page as you (except for the covert stuff...the Sadinists soured me on proxy wars and the more I've learned about Ike the less I like the idea...I think the long term cost is higher when it comes out and it ALWAYS comes out).

However, given no one, left or right, has put serious effort into Iran in two decades, the huge political cost to making friends with Iran within the US and the fact that several mid-level people already had a working Iraq answer to the grand strategy idea (which dates back to the last administration), is workable on paper (if a longer bet to my mind).

[miss-manners.livejournal.com]

As for Clinton getting support, he might have at the UN but doubt he could have internally. Clinton was in many ways the anti-Bush in that he could do the speak softly well, but couldn't handle the big stick. Mogadeshu proves this: we won that battle in military terms and would have done fine if he had listened to the Army to begin with (do it at night and on the ground with armor...he was afraid to because of international opinion).

And you know how I feel about it being long past time for our "allies" to get told what's what (when in some NATO countries the view is American servicemen are automatically at fault in auto accidents for being in country [1] I have no need for them).

As for Halburton, first, I have yet to see anything but rumors. Second, fact is maybe three-four companies in the world can do that work (oil field infastructure) and get >90% of those contracts (after the Navy my father was in the oil business so I know many of these companies as people friends worked for). To not use them in Iraq would be stupid.

As for how Bush treats the public, that's a red/blue issue...believe me, lots of us felt that same treatment from Clinton, but feel nothing but respect from Bush...see jhimm's post on the split in this country for the best summary I've seen.

[1] First saw this in Naples, Italy, but have reports it is more common.

[canongrrl.livejournal.com]

couple of side comments

1) we've been working with the Iranian military since Reagan. We have a lot of friends there. But W raised the scales by placing them in the axis of evil. Why? I totally agree that a well played out diplomatic policy towards Iran would be wonderful, but I don't think the current government is capable of this. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of one that could....maybe bush sr...

1a) subsidiary of Halburton - I heard it on pacifica, again consider the source but they don't falisify news (they skew left, but never create). The contract is classified but deals with creating a clean up plan and assigning money.

2)Clinton was actually quite conservative. But honestly, W is quite bad in my mind. He is against clean air for cryin out loud! and the latest tax cuts? Cuts to the VAs? Social programs? 1 in 5 children in america lives below the poverty line, and texas is one of the worst states. still. What W is doing is making this trend intensify. Where are his cuts coming? Social services. What do we get? Cancelled treaties and star wars. Then Scalia saying that the people of the US enjoy too many freedoms and that they should be scaled back in times of war? Hell one of the reasons I'm left is because if you treat the poor like crap they will feel justified to rise up and kill you. And I can deal with conservative leaders, so far I think Romney is doing a decent job. McCain proved himself in how he listened to the people during his presidential run, Dole was one of our greatest statesmen in the past 40 years (not saying much mind you) but W is just....I still can't believe he is the president.

2a) yeah, I put too much against Kissinger, but its just so damn easy!!! He is just such a cause of world problems that its simple to just blame it all on him (or the british empire)

2b) Carter,ohhh don't get me started...one of the most overrated men of the 20th century. Yes he has had a major hand in iran and iraq.
and in further messing up our relations with s. america. Yeah, a real humanitarian my butt.

2c) Had the right not played dirty and gone after Clinton's indiscretions (the fact that Dole didn't makes Dole that much better a man then the idiots in the house and senate) I think you would have seen a more focused policy. He started strong for the first 4-5 years of his presidency, and then he got off track, unfocused. The cohesive plan failed to materialize and simply dissolved.

oh and W really is clinton lite, without the finesse and brains (though W is a lot smarter then the press gives him credit for). At least clinton masked his panderings to his major money supporters (or tried to) W just doesnt care to even cover it. Which is worse? I dunno they both suck.