Sunday, June 19, 2005

Oil and Murder

I see where you are going with this. What if a future U.S. president decides to pull out, caving in to pressure from the spineless Republicans in Congress and we are left with, as you say in your clsoing paragraph, essential a terrorist state with all the money they can literally pump out of the ground. What would happen? What would we do?

Sadly, this is an all-too plausible a scenario. That is, Republicans going soft; calling for timetables for withdrawal, etc. (see Capital Advantage's letters to Rep. Jones

And you don't need a crystal ball to know what will happen. Just turn to any reputable history of the Vietnam War and its aftermath. There will be refugees, mass murder, etc. You would think...hmmmm what can we do differently in Iraq to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam? Well, we could ruthless round up, mercilessy interrogate and summarily execute every mother son of the insurgency until "Baathist" becomes a word that is no longer uttered in polite company; it should become the most vile and ugly thing you could say about a person, much like the "N-word" is today.

We are never going to win the hearts and minds of those in the insurgency, so those concerned with our "image" as that of Gitmo' and Abu Grahib should consider this fact. There was no Gitmo, no Abu Grahib when civilian airliners were hijacked and used as missiles. What was our image problem then? Well I'll grant you, lobbing cruise missiles at an aspirin factory was a stupid mistake. So was committing troops to Somalia, and stupider still was pulling them out after Mogadishu.

So we should concentrate on winning the hearts and minds of those tens of millions of Iraqis who voted in January for a real government. The de-Nazification of Germany following the war was barbaric by today's standards, but it was successful. The allies and German civilian groups rounded up those remaining in Nazi cells hiding throughout Europe. Brutal but necessary to demonstrate to the civilian population that it was safe to go about life, run for public office, take financial risks by opening or improving a business, etc.

Anyway, in your closing paragraph you wonder about a murderous regime financed by oil. Well we have had them. One is gone, Saddam Hussein's murderous reign is over. We still have Iran, though. They have been financing suicide bombings in Israel for decades.


Barb said...


And this is where your argument balls up. Once again you say that the Iraq war is in retaliation for 9/11. I'm sorry Mike, but you are so wrong and bullheaded on that issue that I cannot even try to persuade you otherwise. Even GW himself admits that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were not responsible for 9/11. STOP CONNECTING THE REIGN OF SADDAM HUSSEIN WITH BIN LADEN AND THE TERRORISTS OF AL QUAEDA THAT ATTACKED OUR COUNTRY ON 9/11. That argument is a Republican fallacy and I refuse to listen to that as a reason for invading Iraq. The reason GW led us into war with Iraq was because he felt they had Weapons Of Mass Destruction. That is precisely the reason he told the American people. That proved false, and to try to go backwards and connect an unrelated (though ruthless) dictatorship with the terrorists of Al Quaeda is a well nourished Republican argument that has grown so old and so stale that even the American public can see through it, finally.

My point is that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was much less dangerous to us than Iraq in the hands of these new terrorists of Al Quaeda that are now able to assume control because we opened the country up to them by destroying their defenses and their control of their own country. THAT was the biggest mistake our country could have ever made. Like Powell said, you break it, you own it.

No, we can't cut and run. Instead we are forced to remain and continue to watch our soldiers die in a country that we were misled into invading for the wrong reasons, and to leave now would be WORSE than having not invaded in the first place. What a sad mess.

You tell me, if that isn't one giant screw up by a bullheaded president, bent on avenging a country that his father didn't finish when he had the chance, what is?

Mike Netherland said...

Barb, when you are right, you're right. That Saddam didn't have WMD has (so far) not been proven true. That every prominent Democratic pol from Clinton on down has said that he had WMD and was therefore a threat is conveniently LEFT OUT of liberals' short history. One of those ugly facts that get in the way of forming a tidy sound bite. ON TOP of the real or percieved WMD threat was the very real threat faced by coalition pilots everyday from Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery and rockets.

THEN came 9/11. And well I think everyone including Bush said enough is enough. The WMD threat was bearable UNTIL it was demonstrated on that grisly day that bin Laden and his fanatics would stop at nothing to murder and maime. ObL and his martyrs were themselves weapons systems; living, breathing, thinking, planning, plotting weapons systems. On 9/11, Obl demonstrated the awsome power of his weapon system not just to those of us sentient enough to grasp the real horror, but to those who seek to acquire such weapons for themselves. At this point, who was watching the ObL weapon demonstration AND SHOOTING AT OUR PILOTS on a daily basis? Hmmmmm? Iran? North Korea?

It is important to note that shooting at U.S. warplanes is something only a madman would risk doing, yes? I think that on the basis of contemporary and historical intelligence of the region, thin though it may have been, only a criminal would NOT have invaded Saddam Hussein's Iraq shortly after 9/11.

Only a madman would have watched as we invaded Afghanistan and continued to refuse to comply with UN Security Council resolutions as we demanded. Saddam would be in his palaces today if he simply complied with UN sanctions. Before 9/11 it was a safe bet to thumb his nose at the UN with impugnity. On 9/12 but before Afghnistan fell, it was an even bet, at best. But AFTER Afghanistan, all bets should have been off. The only thing standing between Saddam and the full weight of American military power, was France.

I think it was safe to say that we couldn't trust Saddam with a Tylenol-3 caplet and a can of Schlitz, let alone VX gas, sarin, etc. (this is pretty good, isn't it?)

Nor could we risk even the thought of Saddam and Obl EVER, EVER getting any closer than Iraqi intelligence agent reports. That the post Iraqi insurgency has been pursued with such vigor on proves that we have spoiled a grand design to use Iraq as a new base of operations of any terrorist willing to learn how to fly but not land. Proof enough for me any how.

These aren't NEW terrorists, Barb. There the ones being expelled from every corner of the Earth that has been mapped and loaded into the guidance systems of our cruise missiles. They are from Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudia Arabia, where they have been coming from for decades.

We broke it all right...we broke it good. Now it can only be used for the peaceful self-determination of its people. What a shame.

A more bullheaded pursuit? How about that of continuing to ascribe the war on terror as:

1. a cover to somehow steal oil for Texans?
2. a cover for "avenging" one's father's presidency
3. a cover for forcing America culture on poor defenseless Arabs
4. a cover for purposely recruiting and send to death the poor AND "ethnic" American citizens
5. a cover for high gas prices benefiting...Texans
6. a cover to divert attention from the president's philandering and impeachment (oh, wrong President)
7. a means to reelection!
8. a cover for establishing a prison camp in Cuba (Hey Fidel's got them....why can' we?)
9. a cover for provoking Amnesty Intn'l, ICRC, and Dick Durbin to compare Gitmo with Stalg-19, Auswitz (sp) and Siberia all rolled into one.
10 a cover just so we could have the spectacle of watching two U.S. Senators weep on the floor of the Senate.
11. a cover to enact tax cuts AND watch Federal revenues INCREASE.....AGAIN!

Barb said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barb said...

I give up!


Barb said...

"That the post Iraqi insurgency has been pursued with such vigor on proves that we have spoiled a grand design to use Iraq as a new base of operations of any terrorist willing to learn how to fly but not land. Proof enough for me any how." quote you.

Proof enough for you? Proof enough? This is what the whole argument comes down to? THIS is your proof? NO, this is your opinion, Mike. It would hardly stand up in court, a war crimes court that asked why we decided that attacking Iraq was the best way to fight terrorism.

Similar to all the explanations given for this war by the Bush administration, it is one of hindsight that seems to maybe fit the picture if focused exactly right through the right lens.

The truth is, this scenario was never brought up before the war--if it was, Bush sure as hell wouldn't have announced on that carrier with his balls all huge and hanging, "Mission accomplished!"

How do you explain that announcement, if the administration did indeed expect there to be a large insurgency of terrorists looking to take control of the country from the citizens who were supposed to greet us with open arms and flowers and kisses?

I believe that this war was ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed in the aftermath of shock and awe, and not supported with enough troops to do the job.

Mission accomplished? Will that EVER be the case? Only time will tell, certainly not Bush, that's for sure.