'We ourselves crushed all resistance in Germany and Japan, who we bombed into submission with nuclear weapons, before we attempted establish democratic institutions among them.'

 

So are you suggesting that the Coalition attempt to establish democracy in Iraq has failed because they didn't kill enough civilians when initially going in?

 

Would nuking a couple of towns in Iraq really have a positive effect on the populations acceptance of democracy as 'imposed' by the Coalition or otherwise?

 

Everyone already wants Coalition forces out of Iraq, when Iraqs security forces are mature enough to effectively carry out the tasks required of them. At present they are not, the Basra and Mosul operations are encouraging first steps however even the most optimistic cannot use this as a justification for fixing a date for withdrawal without being guilty of ignoring the lessons of the Vietnam war.

A lot of the goals of OIF were publicly obscured because of several factors.

 

1: Osama bin Laden claimed the starvation of Iraqi children as part of his justification for 9/11. Few who support the GWOT are willing to concede anything that would make it appear that there was any justification for the attacks. Few who oppose the GWOT are willing to concede anything that would make it appear that there was any justification for OIF. Thus no one will ever cite this as a reason for OIF.

 

The US remains in Iraq at it's own peril and expense. While the USA continues to sink hundreds of billions of dollars into this fiasco, other potential rivals are moving forward developing their own economies and military capabilities. Under the best case scenerio Iraq will emerge as a republic but under Sharia Law. They will not be supportive of Isreal nor can we even count on diplomatic support or even commercial deals. Basically, George W Bush has decided to spend American money to resolve a UN mess that the UN and other members have been given a pass on to the detriment of our economy and the value of the dollar. 

 

If you support this then vote for John McCain, he'll ensure we spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on the Iraqis and he will ensure our soldiers will remain there untill the end of his term.

And one of them is John McCain's son.

John McCain has more to lose in Iraq than any other prez hopeful, he can be trusted to make the wiser choices.

 

As for the allegation that George Bush has somehow "failed" to bring Democracy to Iraq- feh.  Little more than a brain fart.  Iraq is the most successful Arab democracy in history.  Criticizing it is easy- but actually providing better is impossible.  The parties  hate each other and undermine each other, limiting the power of the government to actually get much accomplished.  Just like us. 

 

And the idea that Iraqi society is terminally unreformable is absolutely racist.  Societies- healthy ones, at least- are always in a state of change, and all the healthy ones were at one time unhealthy ones.  If modern day Scandinavia can arise from a culture of raiders and pirates, Iraq is forever unfixable why?  Because they don't have blue eyes?  It's still far from a done deal, but two centuries from now, when people think about the transition between dysfunctional tribal despotism and democracy in Iraq, they will name Mr. Bush as the person who caused it.

 

SGTObvious

But why should we alone be responsible to bankroll Iraq's reform? More power to them if they can get their act together and if they have the power and ability to do it. We are flushing money down a toilet in Iraq. That same amount of money given to willing allies in Latin America and Asia would garner much more of a dividend than an eventual republic under Sharia law.

I just hope that 2 centuries from now people are not able to see this as the apex of American power. When it reached it's hieght and began a decline. People will see this as a point the US abandoned the 2 war strategy, that the Euro eclipsed the Dollar, it began torturing people, and running secret prisons around the world, financial crisis after another, and the last of US heavy industry is up for firesale to foriegn ownership. To top it all off it launched a unnecissary war exacerbating it's finanial woes and eroding it's global standing.

 

Iraq will be seen as sort of like Trajan's ill fated adventure in the Middle East.

But why should we alone be responsible to bankroll Iraq's reform?

 

 

  1} WW2

 

  

  2} The Marshall Plan

 

 

  3} The United Nations

 

  

  4} Korea,well a few Brits earned some respect,but i wonder who paid the bill?

   

 

   5} USSR,well they are not in Berlin,nor sitting in Kabul! And again,who paid the real bill?

 

  

   6} Vietnam,well a bunch of surrounded and surrendered Frenchmen got is in it,and a few Aussies helped us out and went home a loser,without ever losing a battle!. And again,who paid the real bill? 

 

 

   7} NATO, well now they are sitting in Kabul,and who still pays the real bill?

 

 

                                                                              tigertony

Tigertony,

I don't see your point. In most if not all of the examples you gave we were not alone.

 

Patriotism aside we must coldly look at the cost benefit analysis. Surely 500 - 800 billion dollars can buy us something better than a a place where people can vote for sham political figures and a non-functioning parliment. Sounds like we are dumping money on this hoping at best it turns into a sad mirror image of Egypt.  

I clearly see his point - the US has been leading the free world for over 60 years - in short - without our efforts we would have suffered a WWIII and WWIV.  Isolationism is not a realistic policy - either in 1941 or 2008.

$500 to $800 billion is cheap compared to the alternatives.  While loads of libs point to the lack of WMD stockpiles - they seem to forget the real WMD was Saddam and his willing cohorts who were in the process of breaking out from under the UN arms embargo - so frequently violated by UN members such as France and China.  It was not a matter of if but how long before we saw Saddam bone up again.

 

As for Iraqi democracy - leave that to the Iraqis - we can help but it is not something we can create for them.

Finally, your portrait of a McCain vs. (Obama or Clinton) White House is almost laughable.  Of the three, the one with the most military experience and the least amount of patience for mucking around is McCain.  Thus, the reason why he is more likely to lead us out of Iraq rather than running away and sticking our collective heads in the sand, pretending that there is no threat. 

 

Isolationism is not a realistic or viable policy and that is the only policy that the Big O and Hill are spouting.

Far from advocating isolationism, maybe we should stop trying to run roughshod over the world and try something called cooperation and diplomacy. We do those things when the target country has potential to give us a bloody nose , but for nations that do not have nuclear weapons we move into a phase of dictating terms. The subtle message we are giving every tin pot dictator on the planet is that the only way of getting the US boot off your neck is by aquiring atomic weapons. North Korea has done it, and Iran is trying. If we bomb Iran it will only strengthen that rationale and more countries will earnestly push forward with nuclear programs.

 

Some of you guys border on paranoid seeing threats behind every corner. Muslim Fundamentalism and terrorism existed before the Iraq War and it will exist long after our troops leave Iraq. Invading Iraq did not take any threats off the table, did not get us any closer to finding Bin Laden, and did not weaken Al Qaeda. Fictional hypothetical fantasies that Saddam may work with Al Qaeda only makes this war justifiable to people that either simply wanted Saddam out of power or people that saw this as an opportunity to make lots and lots of money.  Others complain that Saddam shot at our planes. Well China forced one of our planes down tore it apart and held US servicemen hostage. What did we do, we sent Colin Powell begging bowl in hand to apoligize.  Once again proves my point that this administartion will back off if the adversary shows strength but will attack when the adversary is weak. The rest of the world watches and studies our actions. We are not hoodwinking or fooling anyone. 

Diplomacy does work but not all the time.  Carrot and stick.  Military action is an extension of diplomacy (apologies to Clausewitz). 

 

We don't always resort to military action - in fact it is rather rare.  We went through the entire 1990s all the way through to 2003 trying the diplomatic approach with a military shot every now and then (like when Clinton had to distract attention away from Monica).

Keep in mind - the EP-3 incident you cite had loads more than just diplomacy going on - two carrier battlegroups moved toward China at the same time and the USAF started bomber ops from Guam.  Once again - military action IS an extension of diplomacy.  The CCP clearly recognized that then and still does today.

 

A good example of using both to good effect is the current negotiations with North Korea.  We have not bombed but the threat of military action has brought the other side to the table.  Clearly, your characterization of Bush is biased - and unjustified.  We have yet to bomb Iran or North Korea but are reliant on diplomacy.  The 2003 invasion was pre-staged by a long series of diplomatic efforts - telegraphing our intentions - which may very well have allowed Saddam time to dispose of an incriminating evidence (e.g. Syrian border time) but it had to be tried.

 

The problem with Obama is that he wants to provide negotiations all the time - ruling out the military option.  Obama is "Inexperienced Jones" ...  His kind of diplomacy never works - when the stick is not an option - the carrot is never enough - e.g. 1938 Munich.  There are some people in the world who don't negotiate or will not negotiate seriously until they understand that we have other options and are deadly serious about using them if necessary.  Take away those options and the negotiations become a prelude to war.

 

As any parent or teacher will tell you: when you reward bad behavior, you only get more bad behavior.

 

Iran, North Korea, Syria, Hamas (etc...) all have something in common.  They have been rewarded for their bad behavior.  North Korea (for example) threatened its neighbors and got food and fuel as a result.  In short, we paid them to stop being bad.  While I do not blame us for their bad behavior, we have certainly enabled it.

 

The classic "carrot and stick" approach still works if properly used.  You punish bad behavior when it occurs.  You don't reward the miscreant when they stop the bad behavior, but you do stop the punishment.  You only reward GOOD behavior, which consistently seems to elude the above nations and organizations.  In short, with such behavior they should get no carrots, but differing degrees of stick.

 

One very effective carrot/stick used by the Bush admin with North Korea was to shut down its bank accounts.  When the Bush administration acted through the Treasury to issue an order to not trade with any bank doing business with North Korea - whoa - the squealing and screaming started in massive quantity.  Several Macau banks were sanctioned and the illegal funds provided to North Korea suddenly dried up.  Kim and his family were living with cash on hand, no checking accounts and no ATM.  This hurt - in particular - Kim's son in Macau who has a big gambling habit.

 

Basically, without firing a shot - we crippled the North Korea economy, hit the leadership in the wallet and set them on a clear course to negotiate a solution and stick to it.  The threat for a repeat bank ban remains very real.

 

Bombing the DPRK would have done little but antagonize the locals and provided fodder for the left at home.  Cutting off their ATM machine brought the little dictator back to the table.

What I am suggesting is that we invaded Iraq without fighting against Saddam Hussein and his military forces.  His army is dispersed among the population fighting to resist us in a covert operation.  They know they cannot defeat us in an open battle.  They disbanded and dispersed, and we do not know who they are or how to find them.  The face of warfare has changed.  We are the only superpower in the wo