WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ : Military Bases Are A Requirement, Democracy is Merely an Elective.

American Digest ^ | 9/22/2004 | Gerard Vanderleun

[angkor]

Ran across this excellent strategic analysis of Iraq, with ideas I hadn't seen elsewhere.

------------------------------------------

Resolved: To safeguard the personal and economic wellbeing of the civilized world in the 21st century, it is essential for the United States to control Iraq for strategic and tactical military purposes alone.

Let's take a step back from our always entertaining electoral circus to cast a cold eye on what needs to be done in Iraq beyond November and far beyond 2005. Don't watch the hand waving the magic wand around, watch the hand held behind the back. It holds what is going to be pulled out of the hat.

Instead of spending untold hours listening to this or that speech from the two sides of the American coin, it's more instructive to take down an atlas, turn to a spread displaying the middle-east and meditate on what needs to be done to control that section of the world.

And while you're at it here's a couple of things you can forget about:

1) Democracy in Iraq at all costs.

Forget that "We" are in Iraq to bring the blessings of "democracy" to the people. It would be a nice gift to instill "democracy" in an Islamic state of the middle-east. We will spend a lot of money trying to achieve this. We will be sincere in our desire for it to be born. It will make our task easier in the short and long term. But "democracy" is not strictly necessary for the current strategic interests of the United States in the region.

2) Troops home "sooner" or "later."

Forget the idea that our troops are coming home any time soon. We are going to be in Iraq for the long haul. The only question is "how many?"

[MNJohnnie]

Missed the major point. Iraq is death ground for the Terrorists. As part of the Arabian Peninsula, they cannot stand having a US presence in the "fatherland". Therefor Iraq is a battle ground the terrorist MUST fight for. Rather then letting the Terrorist sneak back into their holes to plan their next 9-11 style attack, the Bush Administration took the initiative away from the Terrorists by giving them a battlefield they MUST fight for. Not only fight for, but in a way that THEIR WEAKNESS is matched to OUR strengths. Iraq is a tarbaby the Terrorists have hugged to their breast and it is killing them.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Iraq is death ground for the Terrorists."

Yes, exactly.

[angkor]

It's there:

"In addition, control of Iraq compels hostile elements to move trained forces into the killing zones of Iraq to deny the United States a fait accompli. While our losses in Iraq have not been insignificant, the loses of our enemies exceeds ours by many orders of magnitude. The only hope for victory by our enemies is through a political attrition within the United States. The real attrition on the ground runs against him as long as he sends more forces to the fight. That rate of attrition will only increase with the coming end of the "patty-cake" phase on the part of American forces."

[HAL9000]

This article is the real deal. Thanks for posting.

Democracy is Iraq is a very desirable goal - but it is not the core reason for our mission there.

When Iraq has it's first election, we must emphasize to the people that this is their chance to invest in democracy. We must all strive to make it work and be successful.

If they fail to act on this opportunity for a democratic society, we may decide to withdraw from their political process, but we must remain as an occupying force in the region for the indefinite future because our national security interests require it.

[HAL9000]

Missed the major point. Iraq is death ground for the Terrorists.

That's a good point to add to the list. We're luring terrorists to Iraq and liquidating them.

But the #1 most important point is using our position in Iraq to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is The Major Point.

[angkor]

to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Yep, and I found this one of the most powerful statements in the essay:

"[Nukes] will, alas, not avail Iran, but are the only option open to that government short of capitulation. That this fact is tending towards a tragic end is clear."

A "tragic end is clear" if GWB is reelected, because the message from his admin has been absolutely unwavering: no nukes for Iran, period. Not acceptable.

Whereas from Kerry, it's all negotiable.

After pondering the issues raised in the article, it becomes crystal clear that Kerry would be an unmitigated disaster for America and the world.

[hosepipe]

Iraq always was a democracy(Mob rule).. the biggest or strongest mob rules.. as is the whole middle east It's that way in every single democracy on earth.. Socialism demands democracy.. Canada, England, France, Germany.. thats why the governments in those countrys are primitive wannabee's to the United States.. and are mostly unified agianst the United States. The only ones that DON'T know this are most american REPUBLICANS... and the democrats want to keep them STOOPID too..

DEMOCRACY SUCKS... Nows there a political slogan to run on..

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That rate of attrition (of Islamofascist terrorist trash from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) will only increase with the coming end of the "patty-cake" phase on the part of American forces."

Here's to the end of "patty-cake" and to the beginning of "turn them into fertilizer as quickly and efficiently as possible."

[Alia]

If/when you post more articles like this, please add me to your ping list!? Excellent analysis. Bottomline, sans all the fluffy "stuff".

[Austin Willard Wright]

You are describing the failed fly-paper strategy. Instead of providing flypaper for terrorists, the occupation has turned Iraq into a fly breeding ground. Hayek called it the law of unintended consequences.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Are we creating them faster than liquidating them? If the last year is any indication, the former is true. The flypaper strategy has failed.

[Plutarch]

No other country gets so much of a taste unless Iraq agrees. Iran has little fresh water...

If Iraq has a water weapon to use against Iran, why was that not used decisively during the Iran-Iraq war? Or was it?

[HAL9000]

Are we creating them faster than liquidating them?

That's a legitimate question.

If the last year is any indication, the former is true. The flypaper strategy has failed.

President Bush has always described this an on-going, multi-year global process. The general expectation was that things would get worse before they got better. It's painful, but we must endure it until the situation improve later in the process.

Have there been mistakes? Sure. But if we stop now and do nothing - that would increase the number of terrorists more than anything. al-Qaeda became the organization it is today because we were complacent and failed to act.

If we continue to improve conditions for ordinary Iraqis and eliminate terrorists at the current rate, I think we will succeed.

[freestyle]

There's already a nice discussion on this article hear on Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1224117/posts

[MNJohnnie]

You are describing the failed fly-paper strategy. Instead of providing flypaper for terrorists, the occupation has turned Iraq into a fly breeding ground. Hayek called it the law of unintended consequences.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. Do you have ANY FACTS to back this statement of your opinion up? NO one makes this argument that we are "breeding" terrorists. That fact that the terrorists can only operate in 3 of 18 Iraqi provides conclusive evidence that your opinion is completely wrong. Do you have ANY denouement evidence to back up your claims? ANY evidence?

[Theophilus]

Instead of providing flypaper for terrorists, the occupation has turned Iraq into a fly breeding ground.

1. On what verifiable basis do you assert that there are more "flies" in the world?
2. If you can verify that there are more "flies" in the world (you can't), on what basis do you allege that the "fly breeding ground" is Iraq?

I haven't seen any good poll numbers on the number of insurgents, potential insurgents or foreign fighters in Iraq have you? I believe that you are holding perceptions bred in the cesspools of the international MSM. My intuition tells me that killing an insurgent can provoke both fear and outrage in other potential insurgents, and that in the long run, fear is the stronger and more enduring motivation. I also believe that the pool of potential insurgents is finite and shrinking because I don't think that insurgent activities are very conducive to procreation or indoctrination.

[MNJohnnie]

Go to IRI.org and read the latest Iraqi Public Opinion polls. Not the polls cited by the US "News Media" that are from Last MAY but the latest data available from Iraq. This data give the lie to the unverfied, emotional claims of the unthinking Political Left that by FIGHT Terrorists we are BREEDING Terrorists. Terrorism breeds off instablity and hoplessness. Does this polling data support the assumption of growing instablity and hoplessness? As this poll shows, and President Bush stated last week, the Right Track/Wrong Track question shows a stronger RIGHT track opinion then the USA currently has!

[Theophilus]

I'm sorry, I should have replied to Austin Willard Wright but I misread your post as the origin whereas it was actually a reply.

[Theophilus]

...emotional claims of the unthinking Political Left that by FIGHT Terrorists we are BREEDING Terrorists

I prefer "too clever by half" to "unthinking".