Posted on 05/21/2006 4:51:33 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
What, in Bush's plan, do you see that will prevent the inevitable warring of religious factions in the next 30 years? When (if) the US leaves Iraq, the thugs will come. Greed is eternal. Religious animus is eternal. Iran is the perfect example. They had a chance at democracy and they failed. Which color will you be wearing if news reports are correct?
Troops will eventually draw down to well below combat levels, but the U.S. will maintain a military presence in Iraq for years to come.
After all, we still have bases in Germany, Japan, Italy and Korea. Iraq will join that list.
If you meant that a civil war is inevitable SOMEDAY, then you're just mindlessly carping.
As are you if you believe the opposite.
"Hmmm... I humbly disagree that the Iraqi people are backwards. They live their lives they way they have always done it - up until now, they've known no other way"
In otherwards they are backwards. Arab society collectivley is poor, corrupt ackwards given towards violence and fanatcism. Some have worked there way out of that but many have not. They are the most dysfunctinal culture on earth. As I said they are doing better then I expected. But, I would really take a good look at things if I was in the administration and utilize all of the inteligence that they have before I would in.
As a defie, I have a little trouble listening to anyone these days.
One of us will be right and the other wrong. We'll see.
This is an interesting switch. Now we have an Englishman steal Joe Biden-Biden's ideas. Nothing new under the sun, I guess.
"Sounds like parts of the U.K."
And which parts would that be?
"Nation building" can be quite messy and it has none of the dramatic glory of a World War One counter-attack at Belleau Wood or the World War Two storming of the Normandy beaches.
However, "nation building" does make the difference between between a lasting victory that has lasted to this day as with the European Pax Americana after World War Two and a wasted victory such as World War One where the job had to be done all over again 21 years later at the ultimate cost of 40 million European dead and over 400,000 American dead.
It makes the difference between fighting the Gulf War in 1991 and then fighting the Iraq War in 2003 and fighting Iraqi War III 12 years after that and Iraqi War IV 12 years after that.
In the end, however, it all boils down to strategic considerations. Some wars require fighting for vital national interests and other wars can be totally ignored without any strategic consequeces whatsoever.
If Iraq were in the middle of Africa, America could simply yawn as we watched radical Iraqi factions plunge the country into genocidal bloodbaths just as we did in the cases of Rwanda and now Darfur and, no matter which side won, it would not affect American vital interests in the least. The only effect such a war would have on most Americans would be a slight guilt attack but, after Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton apologize about it, America would go back to talking about how terrible it was that Barbaro broke his leg at the Preakness and America, as a nation, would care more about who will be the next American Idol than America ever cared about about a few hundred thousand dead Rwandans.
Unfortunately, however (from a strictly Realpolitik perspective), Iraq and Iran sit right smack in the middle of the region of the Planet Earth that controls the world's largest known oil reserves. Whoever controls the Persian Gulf controls the economic life's blood of Western Civilization.
Imagine the strategic consequences of Iranian and Iraqi radicals controlling the oil valves to Western Civilization. The Peacenik waving the "No Blood for Oil" banner in front of CNN cameras did not bicycle to the demonstration.
Before the Iraq War, America dealt with that prospect by keeping U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia which brought about the Osama bin Ladin "no infidels on sacred Islamic soil" problem which brought us 9/11 and the War on Terror.
Imagine Iraq turning into another Egypt (certainly not perfect today but infinately better than the radicalized Egypt of Nasser) and imagine such an Iraq leading to the overthrow of the radical Iranian mullahs by a new generation of young Iraqis who are sick of having radical Islamist cramming religious fanaticism down their throats. Imagine those two nations safeguarding the oil valves to Western Civilization.
At that point, America could take it's major military marbles and stay out of the Persian Gulf as it did prior to the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran.
Right now, for such strategic stakes, America has lost as many dead in the entire Iraq War as the U.S. lost in the Guadalcanal campaign alone.
After Guadalcanal, the U.S. still had years of major combat ahead against the mighty Japanese Empire but the U.S. had the stomach to finish the job.
Today, we have years of what, from a military historical perspective, would be considered very low intensity combat ahead of us if we do not wish to surrender Iraq to an enemy whose only military capabilities are suicide bombings and planting road side bombs in the middle of the night. (For historical perspective, the British casualties at the FIRST DAY of the Battle of the Somme totaled 57470, of which 19240 were fatal).
The difference between 1943 and 2003, however, is that in the 21st Century, even at the very start of a war, the American liberal news media and the Democratic Party do everything in their power to demoralize the American Home Front.
As a result, regardless of what some say about 21st Century America as a "hyper-power", the America of the 21st Century has become a nation with a glass jaws that, even after the war on the battlefield ends in a victory on a scale never seen before in military history, finds it very difficult to even stomach the unglamorous and messy business of finishing the job by "mopping up".
And in what category do you fit?
Same here.
I was, and am, all for retribution for what the muslims did to us on 9-11 and what they continue to do to us within and without our nation.
I draw the line at building them a nation. Give them seeds and a shovel (I was going to say a fishing pole, but they're limited as to where it could be used) and bid them farewell.
Yep, eventually parts will be and all the oil too.
RE: # 19: you can't help but wonder what percentage of Brits feel the same as this socialist.
The author drops this accusation about corruption yet provides not a single point of evidence to support it.
We have only to look back at the time before and after WWI to see how great their "diplomacy" and partitioning was.
Time wasted here is reading the vile you spew about.
You are always so busy insulting FReepers that you can't think of anything else to add to the discourse.Begone!
Oh, never mind, you'll just change your screen name and return to haunt.
Quite a few. I was just in England and Ireland on R&R. The Irish, as charming as they are, are just as bad, if not worse.
The Brits and the Irish kept trying to bring up politics when they found out I was American, and I kept waving them off of the subject. I will give them credit for respecting that. Once I made it known I didn't want to discuss it (I learned long ago it's pointless and leads to contention and anger), we moved on to talking about more fun things.
See?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.