Article

2004-04-16 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-04-16 10:02:02 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 this article way to long.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-04-16 10:07:49 AM|| [http://www.lettuceladies.com/meet.html] 2004-04-16 10:07:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 well whats problem with long if it's good?
I prefer a long good article than wasting my tme with 10 small s*&% ones.

Posted by Anonymous4075 2004-04-16 10:38:10 AM|| 2004-04-16 10:38:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The article is LONG and it is IDIOTIC. The WAR was initiated to enforce UNSCR 1441 passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which authorized the use of military force to bring target nation -- Iraq -- into compliance with international community's demand for free and unfettered inspections. Those inspections are now being conducted in the absence of Saddam and the Ba'athist Party. Could not have happened any other way. Of course, the old government must be replaced with a new government. Only a Stratfor dupe would maintain a dictator should replace a dictator. The beauty of the Iraq WMD inspections as a cause for war is it gave the USA and allies the excuse to eliminate an ISLAMIC-FASCIST TERRORIST and ally of USAMA BIN LADEN. God bless the US military for greasing half the Ba'athists, offing the male heirs of Saddam, and for putting Saddam into a cage.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-04-16 10:53:42 AM|| 2004-04-16 10:53:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I agree with comment #3.

Criticism for lack of a coherent strategy makes no sense to me. Bush and friends have noted that Iraq repeatedly and with impunity broke the cease fire, and the 17 UN resolution violations, but since the media ignores these things, the public debate becomes all the dumber for it. Sure Bush could do a better job of pushing his message, but to claim there isn't a coherent strategy just because Joe Six Pack doesn't know what it might be, well, that is more the fault of the media than Bush.

And the idea that Bush could have gotten away with selling a war based on a high-minded "strategic changing of the terrorist landscape" premise is a bit goofy. He would have been eaten alive by political opposition, and the press (but then that's redundant!). We don't even have the stones, as a nation, to admit that Iran runs Hezbollah. We are not a serious people.

I find the whining in the piece to be unrealistic - under what scenario in our over-politicized media would Bush's case be presented fairly anyway? There is no such scenario. As long as the real strategy is in place, and it is, and it makes sense, and it does, I'm ok with all of it. My $.02 anyway.

Posted by Jeff Brokaw 2004-04-16 11:16:27 AM|| [http://jeffbrokaw.net/notes/] 2004-04-16 11:16:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Strafor is lamer and more windy than ever. Talk to the press more.... jeez.

Posted by Shipman 2004-04-16 11:36:10 AM|| 2004-04-16 11:36:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 to #3 and #4>

"Bush and friends have noted that Iraq repeatedly and with impunity broke the cease fire, and the 17 UN resolution violations"

Many countries have broken many resolutions. Nobody gives a damn about them, and nobody thinks for a minute this was the *reason* for the war -- not even Rantburgers think that the whole problem was that Iraq broke some UN resolutions.

What you are talking about are justifications -- things that might make this war a LAWFUL one to wage.

But they don't tell anything about whether the war was a RATIONAL, a GOOD, a NECESSARY, a SANE war to wage.

-----
The WAR was initiated to enforce UNSCR 1441 passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which authorized the use of military force to bring target nation -- Iraq -- into compliance with international community's demand for free and unfettered inspections.

Then it had nothing to do with the War on Terror, nor about democratic change, nor about having a foothold in a central location of the middle east? It was all about enforcing compliance to the UN's resolutions?

Is the USA nothing but a UN puppet then, wasting American lives to enforce UN resolutions? If the UN had never existed the war on Iraq would have been immoral but now that it exists it suddenly becomes moral?

Bull.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-16 11:42:39 AM|| 2004-04-16 11:42:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Sure Bush could do a better job of pushing his message, but to claim there isn't a coherent strategy just because Joe Six Pack doesn't know what it might be, well, that is more the fault of the media than Bush."

Amen to that. It's also the result of a political opposition that wants to make damned sure Joe Sixpack doesn't understand that strategy, because if he did he'd be far more likely to approve of it. Combine this with the administration's need to avoid "telegraphing our punches" to the enemy, and it's no surprise that very few people have the slightest idea what we're doing in the WoT.

The problem with understanding what we are doing in Iraq, and why, is not that there aren't enough good reasons for us to be doing it- it's that there are so many good and plausible reasons--literally dozens of them, by my own reckoning--that it's difficult to get a handle on which ones have been foremost in the administrations's thinking, and which are not.

I agree with JB's comment about the "whining" in Stratfor's analysis. This piece isn't what I'd call "idiotic," but it's certainly less than insightful. Sometimes, Stratfor seem to fall madly in love with their own "analytical" skills, and lose sight of what ought to be a sharp distinction between what they know, and what they can only suspect.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-04-16 11:43:54 AM|| 2004-04-16 11:43:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I agree with both #3 and #4. BUT, The battle to take out saddam is over. This is a new battle and I'm not happy about the PC explanation Bush is giving. Thats the thing I get out of the post and I agree. The idea of bringing democracy to Iraq is an ideal but thats not going to happen as long as our enemies are allowed to interfer.

Bush said that Iraq was a battle in the WoT. The new battle is underway. But damn-it, it's time to quit talking about freedom of the Iraqies and instead talk about the targeting of those responsible for the WoT. And that isn't AQ. AQ is just a bunch Quantrils Raiders. Bush needs to name names regarding Iran, SA money men, and Paki beards.

I wrote last year, right here in Rantburg 101, that the WoT isn't going to be won in the dust of Afganistan or the slums of Iraq. I was slamed as a spegetti thrower. I'm not for cutting and runn'n. We can't. But to have to clean Iraq's dirty carpet, no way.

Kill sadr, treat faluja as a pocket of resistance from the invasion, start killing SA money men and start to prepare the toppling of Iranian mullahs. And say it out loud so I don't have to read between the lines. Screw the PC crap. Thats why 43 didn't do as well as he could have in his press conference. The American people are ready for the end game. I know I am.

My point is that no new carpet in Iraq until SA money men are dead and Iran is put into a defensive position ready to fall from within (Ideally).

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-16 11:56:14 AM|| 2004-04-16 11:56:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Aris wrote: Many countries have broken many resolutions. Nobody gives a damn about them

I couldn't have said it better myself. Is there any further reason needed to just disband the UN?

How can an institution with no resolve pass a resolution that anyone would care about?

Posted by eLarson 2004-04-16 12:09:05 PM|| 2004-04-16 12:09:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Sorry Aris. I'm not buying your bull. Your not at war. saddam was our enemy. Moral my ass.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-16 12:22:13 PM|| 2004-04-16 12:22:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 As much as I like Stratfor, they seem to have gone down the Road of paranoia.

It seems like each report is a 3 page essay on how the sky is falling.

There are a few good points in there (ie, better communication from the Administration in terms of justification for the war), but I also think it would be BAD to telegraph our punches.

I'm still waiting on a build up of force and a hard charge into Iran, Saudi and Syria. But that's just me. :D

Posted by Anonymous4021 2004-04-16 12:35:44 PM|| 2004-04-16 12:35:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 What you are talking about are justifications -- things that might make this war a LAWFUL one to wage.

Lawful, as in ~~French~~ UN approval? Can you (or someone else) define what a 'LAWFUL' war is?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by Raj 2004-04-16 1:12:41 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-04-16 1:12:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 "The single most important thing that happened during the recent offensive in Iraq was that the United States entered into negotiations for the first time with the Sunni guerrillas in Al Fallujah. The United States has now traveled a path that began with Donald Rumsfeldâs dismissing the guerrillas as a disorganized band of dead-enders and led to the belief (shared by us) that they had been fairly defeated in December 2003 -- and now to negotiations that were initiated by the United States. The negotiations began with a simple, limited cease-fire and have extended to a longer, more open-ended truce."

This is simply untrue. Several member of the IGC wanted to see if they could negotiate a peaceful end to the Fallujah hostilities. Since we are trying to instill the IGC and any future Iraqi government with legitimacy, we allowed them to pursue this approach, but always with the understanding that we expect there to be results -- militants turned over to the US or to the IP -- or the Marines would be free to pacify the city (i.e., kill or capture the militants).

Posted by Tibor 2004-04-16 1:37:26 PM|| 2004-04-16 1:37:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Christ, I gave up reading two-thirds through the first section. They're upset that the Bush Administration isn't justifying the war in Iraq by stating baldly that it's all a cynical bid to pressure nominal allies in the region? Well, *dur*!

Stratfor seems increasingly prone to worthless neo-realist posturing. Why the hell does anybody pay for this shit?

Posted by Mitch H. 2004-04-16 1:54:42 PM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2004-04-16 1:54:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 eLarson> If the Community of Democracies (or whatever it's called) is meaningfully established, I'll be the first to argue for the dissolution of the UN.

Until then, there's no point in dissolving the UN however.

Anonymous4021> "but I also think it would be BAD to telegraph our punches"

The problem is that America is pretending way too well to be without a long term strategy. Do you think that Syria and Iran would have dared wage their war through Sadr, had they actually believed the US was ready for them?

"Pressuring" has sure worked in their case. Except it seems that they didn't notice being pressured any, or you'd think they'd be a bit more careful.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-16 2:27:54 PM|| 2004-04-16 2:27:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 In my opinion , Stratfor is totally correct in their analysis that the Iraq invasion was Fase II in the War on Terror.. Like Den Beste writes on his webpage, there are several reasons why Iraq was the obvious target, but in the end, Bush has made poor choices in explaining the whole damn thing to the public opinion.. I think there can be little discussion about that. And that's consistent with Stratfor's analysis that if one doesn't maintain a firm conceptual footing , one will risk getting in trouble .. Your country needs a new Franklin Roosevelt , not someone who tries to fool public opinion..

Posted by lyot 2004-04-16 2:42:46 PM|| 2004-04-16 2:42:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Word up, Aris - what makes for a LAWFUL war, or is this just another bogus argument of yours?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by Raj 2004-04-16 3:33:18 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-04-16 3:33:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Bush is in almost the same position as Nixon was with regards to the Cambodian incursion. There were only two decisive military actions possible then:
* Invade and defeat NVN
* Stop the infiltration

Neither were supported by the American people at that point in the war. So Nixon went into Cambodia secretly to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail. The press tore him apart. He retreated.

Bush likewise has only two decisive courses of action (COA) available to him:
* Defeat the terror sponsor states (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine)
* Contain the terror sponsor states.

COA 1 is what he's chosen. Bush has articulated some things well:
* This is a war about human rights
* This is a war about WMD (because if AQ gets them, they'll use them and proliferation is out of control)
* This is a war on terror.

Other things he has not communicated at all
* We've been at war with Syria since the late 60's; SA since 1973; Iran since 1979
* There is a religious element to this war
* There is a civilizational/cultural element to this war.
* Sacrifices need to be made. We cannot have a LBJ-style guns and butter war.
* Warfare is changing. The Internet and CAD tools have made it trivial for someone like AQ Khan to proliferate nukes all over the world. Likewise for bio warfare. This has forced a change in the definition of pre-emptive attack. We can longer afford to look out just 30 days. We need to preempt assualts five or ten years in the future (five years was probably the planning cycle for major AQ ops like 9-11).

I think that if GWB was to get up and articulate my second five points, he'd be impeached. He'd be called a hater, a sci-fi reading loon, and a paranoid. I don't envy his position. My second five points can't be discussed except at "fringe" websites like this until the first nuke detonates or the first killer virus is released. And that's the reason why the Nazis and Bolsheviks suceeded at first -- most people can't quite force themselves to think like the bad guys until it's too late.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-16 3:50:41 PM|| 2004-04-16 3:50:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Raj> You didn't even understand my argument and latched onto something entirely trivia, a sidepoint, the idea of lawfulness in international relationships. But I'll humour you.

Yes, if you say that you went in there to enforce UN resolutions, or because they violated some contract/agreement/treaty, then you are talking about and accepting concepts of international law -- and enforcing obedience to it. And when you bring UN resolutions into it, then you are using UN as the equivalent of the law-making body, even as the "resolutions" become the equivalent of the law to be enforced.

That wasn't *my* argument. Those were the implications of the argument of the people I had replied to.

If they had been talking about the MORALITY of war instead, then there would be little to no need to talk about Iraq violating UN "resolutions".

And if they had been talking about the lawfulness according to US law, then they wouldn't have brought *UN* resolutions into it, they'd have only refered to US law.

So, the only interpretations I have is that they were talking about lawfulness or lawlessness according to UN "law" - aka "resolutions".

Mind you, I quite understand why one wouldn't give a damn about such "lawfulness", since the UN isn't a democratic body. I even understand the counterarguments --which seems difficult for many people to do, understanding arguments both for and against an issue.

Still.

---

Now, could you please why the hell were you pissed about that, since I actually didn't dispute the fact you were lawful according to that, but confirmed it instead? And I didn't even dispute the *morality* of the war to overthrow Saddam, morality being different to lawfulness but granting you'd be morally on the right to overthrow Saddam even if Iraq hadn't violated UN law?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-16 5:28:59 PM|| 2004-04-16 5:28:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Aris - point taken, and I maybe I misunderstood the thrust of your argument. The fact that Hussein stood in violation of 17 UN resolutions is not in dispute. However, mixed in with that are MORALITY based justifications (freeing the Iraqi people from the jackboot of Ba'athist fascism, removing a dictator who, fairly obviously, supported terrorists, etc.) which have been discussed ad nauseum by many supporters of the Iraqi liberation. One wonders, then, why we are even having this discussion. Let me clarify:

RATIONAL - to remove a threat to US /British warplanes patrolling the No-Fly zones (locking onto planes with their radar systems, etc.). In that sense, the war was never over, just reduced to low level conflicts like I just discussed. I believe it is RATIONAL to not have our planes shot down by someone we were still at war with.

GOOD / NECESSARY / SANE - I believe that's best summarized by the fact that there is a measurable segment of the Islamic population that is bent on the destruction of Western civilization which, for 'political' reasons, GWB has not quite had the courage (for lack of a better word) to state explicitly. Personally this disgusts me as it is bloody obvious. I am comfortable with the concept that non nuanced people like Jihadist thugs understand a .50 caliber shot to the head or a swift kick to the balls, and will react accordingly. Thugs and bullies do understand the application of superior violence, a concept which unfortunately eroded during the Clinton administration.

In short, there's plenty that is 'moral' about protecting ourselves from 757's crashing into people filled skyscrapers (I was in one in Boston that day, I doubt I'd have been too pleased to get dusted by these assholes), so if that's not clear, maybe I don't see the point of your argument, whatever it is.

Posted by Raj 2004-04-16 7:43:38 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-04-16 7:43:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 hi aris! i'm not thinking you are preposely atagaonistic but i'm hereing that nitratres getting cheap in yo hood ifin you catch my drift suggest good gtrain dogs to pervent a bad audience recdaction

Posted by HalfEmpty 2004-04-16 7:44:45 PM|| 2004-04-16 7:44:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 raj> My point was in dispute to people #3 and #4 alone -- both of whom seemed to want to claim that the reason for the war was the violated UN resolutions.

I tried to make them understand the difference between reasons for the war, and reasons for the "legality" of the war (for a given definition of "legality" that chooses to include UN resolutions in it, somehow).

As for morality, as I've said *very* often, I don't find anything wrong morally about launching a war in which you overthrow a brutal dictatorship and try to install a democracy in its place -- my opposition to the Iraqi war is because of practical reasons: in short I considered the War on Iraq a foolish, not an immoral, thing to do. My reasons for that are very long, and have been very often explained, and we don't need to go into them now.

Halfempty> If I could understand you, I might reply to you.

Or then again perhaps not.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-16 8:17:56 PM|| 2004-04-16 8:17:56 PM|| Front Page Top

01:47 Jack
01:47 Jack
01:47 Jack
01:47 Jack
01:46 Jack
01:46 Jack
01:44 Jack
01:44 Jack
01:42 Jack
01:42 Jack
01:39 Jim
01:39 Jim
01:38 George
01:38 George
15:06 Anonymous4420
14:20 Anonymous4414
03:39 Anonymous4394
03:36 Anonymous4393
23:22 Joe C
09:43 B
05:13 Evert Viser in NL
04:41 Dylan Lachmansingh
00:54 tu3031
00:28 Anon_of_E-LB-Ca