[Damn True]

Thinking back to speeches and commentary immediately following 9/11 I recalled a recurrent theme. To root out terrorists and hold to task the regimes that support them. In light of this I compared our current activity to this theme.
It seems to me that the current campaign is just a stepping stone in a larger plan to go after terrorists and the nations that support them. I think the real objective here is not necessarily Hussein, though I believe that regardless of a larger objective he needs to be taken down. I think our real plan is to go after terrorists and those that support them in Syria, Iran, and other countries in the region. However, due to the fact that Iraq posesses the most formidible military in the region and that it posesses chem-bio weapons that could easilly be distributed. It is in our interest to take out that potential threat first as it would be easy for Hussein to lob chem-bio's onto our troops operating in Syria or to just give or sell them to enemy.

Not a complete scenario I know, but just something that occured to me.

Discuss.

 

[Spud]

I am sure that we will invade Saudi Arabia considering the link to their royal family and the 9/11 attackers is better documented and more persuasive than the link with Saddam. :devil:

Personally, I don’t believe that the current U.S. foreign policy has been projected much beyond 6 months.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by Spud

Personally, I don’t believe that the current U.S. foreign policy has been projected much beyond 6 months.

I don't know if our foreign policy extends past 6 months but I will say that it certainly does not extend past the 2004 elections. If an election comes down to domestic policies the current bums would be thrown out with little problem. If Bush makes is past the next election maybe he will decide to do something about North Korea sometime in 2007.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Spud
Personally, I don’t believe that the current U.S. foreign policy has been projected much beyond 6 months.

And if it does, then we should all be scared.

I was watching the BBC reports this weekend, nor sure if CNN reported it, but they were showing Iraqis the lived in Jordan, getting in buses, headed for Iraq so they can fight.

These were the same Iraqis that left Iraq because of Saddam, and now they are returning to fight the US. This war is beginning to infuriate more and more muslims, that see this invasion in the same light as the crusades.

 

[patconnole]

DT-- agreed.

Originally posted by SandMan
And if it does, then we should all be scared.

I was watching the BBC reports this weekend, nor sure if CNN reported it, but they were showing Iraqis the lived in Jordan, getting in buses, headed for Iraq so they can fight.

These were the same Iraqis that left Iraq because of Saddam, and now they are returning to fight the US. This war is beginning to infuriate more and more muslims, that see this invasion in the same light as the crusades.

Scary stuff. Hopefully we can get some good PR and avoid creating too many martyrs. I think this is why arguments like "Saddam has defied the UN for 12 years...." and some of the humanitarian/giving-them-freedom arguments are better applied to smaller cases instead of a large country in a troubled region.

Here are some of the "letters" in this weeks Time:

"It defies imagination to think that after Saddam Hussein there could be a democratic Iraq that would serve as a model for other Arab countries and revolutionize the Middle East. Unfortunately, a more likely scenario is that the many factions in Iraq-- the Kurds, Shiites and numerous tribal groups-- would all vie for power. In a postwar Iraq, US troops would be caught up in a factional strife and subjected to a devastating campaign of terrorism. Are we prepared to deal with that possibility?"

"Ideals such as capitalism and democracy are not accepted everywhere. We have the ignorant belief that because they are effective for us, they would be welcome everywhere else. These ideals were never-- and may never be-- universal. We are naive to believe that people with completeley different cultures would be quick to embrace a change in government. Why haven't we learned?"

"The enemy of our enemy is our friend. But if Iraq were defeated, the US would become the enemy of warring Iraqi factions."

"Americans underestimate the threat of a civil war following military action in Iraq. Although Saddam is a brutal dictator who is a problem for the world, he holds together a country that may sink into anarchy and chaos after he is gone. The Kurds, Shiites and different Sunni Arab tribes may try to set up their own countries or may fight for control of the government, a scenario that would have an enormously negative impact on the entire Middle East."--- From an Iranian man.

"The Bush administration's idea of modeling a postwar Iraq on the examples of Japan and German after World War 2 is naive. It took years of occupation to rebuild those countries, and Iraq is more akin to Yugoslavia than to Japan. Yugoslavia and Iraq were cobbled together from multiple state of losing empires (Austrian and Ottoman) after WW1. Even 20 years of US occupation in Iraq, I susubpect, would just delay the inevitable wars of secession and ethnic conflict there. I also suspect that future presidents would not want to spend the money to keep US troops in Iraq for the many years necessary for stabiliation."

And my own: I bet from a strategic point, we'd rather have all those tribes fighting, killing, and hating each other than organized under any government (saddam or other) that hates us collectively. Our precious gift of freedom.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Spud
I am sure that we will invade Saudi Arabia considering the link to their royal family and the 9/11 attackers is better documented and more persuasive than the link with Saddam. :devil:

Personally, I don’t believe that the current U.S. foreign policy has been projected much beyond 6 months.

You can add Pakistan to that list as well. Of course DT will ignore this as any friend of America can't by definition (his) be bad ( yeah, yeah, I know, you never said this...right ).
I think though that before wondering "right, who's next" this war should be won first and it may no be the fait accompli that everyone assumes. As Somalia, Vietnam and Chechnya have shown, overwhelming force is not always the sole determiner. While the likelihood (hopefully) is that the coalition will win the cost in lives may be so great as to cool the ardor of the hawks in the white house. This may, ironically, lead to some more creative of ways of dealing with terrorists and unsavory regimes.
The examples of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan show that terrorism cannot be dealt with solely by military means. Unfortunately Bush and co seem to be one-trick ponies and military force is their one and only solution. A failure of imagination to be sure.

 

[dangitboy]

Originally posted by Spud


Personally, I don’t believe that the current U.S. foreign policy has been projected much beyond 6 months.

Here Here! I second that! If not 3 months!!

Dave