Saddam's Dangerous Friends

Weekly Standard ^ | 03/24/08 | Stephen F. Hayes

[DFG]

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

[joseph20]

"The troops in combat today are just as brave and more skilled than past generations of soldiers. But they are by and large dying needlessly because of the liberalism that has so infected our collective mindset. The mindset that says that when an enemy combatant can be taken out but doing so will kill 4 civilians so you let him go and he later leads an ambush that takes out 4 of our own. The mindset that no longer uses our military power punitively but as some sort of international relief society, at a huge cost to ourselves in both lives and treasure."

So you believe that we should not have had the Marshall Plan? We should have just kept indiscriminantly bombing the crap out of Germany until the Nazi insurgents were all dead?

"Because of these deep rooted tribes and sects that are not a small fraction of the people, the only chance for a stable Iraq after we leave, is for it to have a strong central govt that rules with an iron fist."

Same arguments were used in the case of Japan. So if we had followed your reasoning, we would have left Japan alone after our victory. They were an entirely foreign culture, one so zealous that they would kill themselves to preserve their way of life. Who knows what modern day Japan would look like if we hadn't reconstructed them into a modern, free society?

[joseph20]

"This is why you don’t go to war unless your national security is at risk by not going."

So you were opposed to the war in 1991? I can't see that your threshold of "national security at risk" was met in 1991. Don't you think that you are setting the bar too high? Why shouldn't we be able to use our military in circumstance in which our national security is not directly threatened?

[LaurenD]

There are so many differences between Germany and Japan and the Muslims that I don’t even know where to start. I think I’ve explained my opinion on this in other posts so I’m not going to restate the same points over again.

First off, Japan was completely defeated and formally surrendered. Secondly, Japan and Germany were never third world countries. As evil as their motives were, they were always industrious, productive, resourceful people and were never self-destructive. Islam is a destructive force. We are not war with Islam......just ask the President, or ask John McCain, or any of our foreign policy makers.

At the end of WWll, Japan and Germany were ready to move forward and were still the same industrious, resourceful, productive, first world people they always were. If you look at their motives for war in the first place, it was motives that had to do with making their countries stronger and more powerful. They were driven by nationalism. Muslims are not driven by nationalism. A percentage of them are, but not enough of them are.

[joseph20]

"This is why you don’t go to war unless your national security is at risk by not going."

So you were opposed to the war in 1991? I can't see that your threshold of "national security at risk" was met in 1991.

Don't you think that you are setting the bar too high? Why shouldn't we be able to use our military in circumstances in which our national security is not directly threatened?

[arbee4bush]

LOL-I'll let her know she has a ham radio call sign for her FR screen name (she picked it out herself--her initials)

Thanks for the prayers--she will be deployed to the sandpit again next month for the summer.

[LaurenD]

I wasn’t against the war in 91. In fact, that was a perfect example of our military being used to punish an aggressor that was causing instability and threatening world markets. We didn’t go in and get ourselves bogged down trying to make Iraq a better place. Had we had the same military we do today, I would have advocated bombing Iraq until Sadam was forced out of power. I would not have been for a ground invasion followed by decades of propping them up however.

Every time we use our military for non military objectives, it comes back to bite us eventually. I once on here responded to someone saying that our troops deserve to come home with honor by saying that they come home with honor because they achieved every military objective given to them with both speed and precision and that just because the politicians keep setting non-military objectives, does not mean that our military comes home without honor.

I got a reply of “how is not allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven not a military objective”? Well, that is a military objective if use your military to punish those giving Al Qaeda a safe haven. It is not possible for a foreign military to do for a country what they should be doing for themselves. It is not the role of a military to go into other countries and change their cultures, values, belief systems, and way of life. It is simply not possible. It has never been done in the history of the world. Countries have been conquered and forced to change. Insurgencies have been put down with brutal force. But never in the history of the world has it been done what we are trying to do. It will not work and only when more of the lives of our own service-members have been lost and possibly a few more attacks against our civilians will we have learned the hard way. We are only delaying the inevitable.

[joseph20]

"It is not the role of a military to go into other countries and change their cultures, values, belief systems, and way of life. It is simply not possible. It has never been done in the history of the world."

Germany was under military occupation during the Marshall Plan. Same thing is true for Japan and Korea. After militarily defeating those countries and occupying them with our Army, we radically altered the societies of those countries.

[joseph20]

"I wasn’t against the war in 91."

Wait a minute. You just stated in a previous post that the U.S. should never use its military unless our national security is directly threatened. How is the world was Iraq in 1991 directly threatening our national security?

[LaurenD]

“So you believe that we should not have had the Marshall Plan? We should have just kept indiscriminantly bombing the crap out of Germany until the Nazi insurgents were all dead?
So you believe that we should not have had the Marshall Plan? We should have just kept indiscriminantly bombing the crap out of Germany until the Nazi insurgents were all dead?”

The British firebombed German cities indiscriminately because they were in a battle for their very survival. We used the atomic bomb on Japan even though we were killing more of their people with conventional bombs than the atomic bombs did. It was so devastating to them that they gave up. We flew day missions and more targeted mission over Germany than Britain did, but don’t kid yourself.......the Germans and Japanese were rendered completely defeated before anybody worried about helping the Germans or Japanese.

One would have gotten their ass kicked if in the middle of WWll, someone started talking about how we need to start helping those poor innocent Germans and Japanese people. They said things back then like “our boys”. Those were “our boys”. Their lives mattered more to Americans than the lives of did of the Germans or Japanese. I knew we were doomed after Sept 11th when none of our leaders would even dare say that we should go to war because “Americans” had been killed. That would have been so bigoted of a thing to say afterall. We surely couldn’t think of discriminating against what happened to Americans from what happened to all people everywhere. All People everywhere were under attack was the only way to justify any action on our part. God forbid we ever go to war again for our own national security interests only and to avenge the lives of just Americans. If it’s not an “international” mission designed to defend all free people around the world then we somehow aren’t justified.

[LaurenD]

Sadam was a threat because he would have destabilized world markets. That is a legitimate national security concern. Just like we had a valid national security reason for attacking Iraq in 03. I’m not arguing nor have I ever argued that Sadam and Iraq was not a threat to the world and therefore us. I’m arguing strategy. We should have bombed Iraq until we had a formal declaration of surrender. We then should have laid out our demands backed up with force if needed. The people in Iraq know better than we do who the bad guys are in their country. Look at how many of them help the insurgencies or at minimum do not turn them in. They would figure it out real fast what it is they need to be doing. As far as the countries like Iran sending in foreign fighters, you strike Tehran from the air. While bombing should always be targeted, we should never limit our actions based on fear of collateral damage. Look at how WWll was fought (the last all out, unlimited war) and tell me in all seriousness that the fear of collateral damage limited our actions. It did not. We had the luxury of conducting day raids because the British had firebombed entire German cities and we didn’t have to resort to that in Germany. Concerning Japan however, tell me in all seriousness that our military actions were limited out of fear for collateral damage. You can’t and be honest because they weren’t and that was the last war where they weren’t and it’s the last war we won. We won in less time than it’s taken to reduce violence in Iraq and we were fighting two super powers.

[LaurenD]

“Germany was under military occupation during the Marshall Plan. Same thing is true for Japan and Korea”.

Yea, and the people of those countries weren’t still fighting us then. There were a few Nazi insurgents but the German people didn’t like them. They blamed them for the war and didn’t identify with them. The Iraqi people identify more with the insurgents in their country than they identify with us because of Islam. That is more powerful to far too many of them than anything else is. Yea, some of them are helping us but that has to do more with a power grab after we leave than any loyalties on a large scale.

Am I saying there are no Iraqis that identify more with us than Islamic tribes, sects, and insurgents? No. But not enough of them do. There is a tipping point in every type of situation where stability breaks down. It’s like a classroom of kids where the teacher can control the kids if it’s only one or two trouble makers. Once it’s five, six, or seven, the whole class breaks down because the tipping point has been reached. It’s like my gangs in America analogy I gave earlier. As long as those in gangs make up a small percentage of people, law and order on a large scale does not break down. What if they represented half of our population though? How brutal do you think our govt and law enforcement would have to be to put them down? Our military in this day and age can never use the type of violence necessary to stabilize Iraq in the long term. Only another strong central govt in Iraq that puts down all insurgencies with an iron fist can do that. Sadly, Sadam was a byproduct of his environment just like so many dictators are. Whoever is the most brutal rises to power because they are the only ones that can achieve stability. As sad as that is, it does nobody any good to pretend things are otherwise.

[LaurenD]

“So you were opposed to the war in 1991? I can’t see that your threshold of “national security at risk” was met in 1991”.

My arguments is one that says we should know the difference between military objectives and non-military objectives. That we should be realistic about what a military can and cannot achieve in and for another country. Only when we are clear about this, can we be clear about what our goals should be.

[joseph20]

"Sadam was a threat because he would have destabilized world markets."

You would advocate the destruction of an entire country and bombing a population into the stone age because they "destabilized world markets"?

You need to rethink your analysis! You don't go "total war" on another country unless they have seriously threatened national security. What Saddam was doing didn't rise to the level to justify totally obliterating the country and just leaving smoke and ashes...

[LaurenD]

I never once advocated the compete obliteration of Iraq. Is there a Japan today? Is there a Germany today? Or are those civilizations we just read about in the history books that no longer exist?

There is a big difference between the complete obliteration of a country and fighting an unlimited war. In an unlimited war, you do not sacrifice your objectives and therefore your goals out of fear of inflicting collateral damage or what world opinion says. This is why it is critical to make sure the cause is worth the sacrifice in the first place. Before one guy in camouflage gets sent in for a mission, we better be darned sure we are willing to do what it takes to win and that includes an all out war if need be. If the cause is not worth it, then why is even one life being sacrificed for it?

No country has ever benefited from prolonged war. Any benefits you gain from war becomes not worth it. In other words, the war becomes worse than the problem itself. It doesn’t have to be that way though. If war is fought correctly and aggressively, it is over quickly. That does not mean you needlessly kill innocents just for the sake of doing so. It means you do not sacrifice the very objectives and goals you laid out in the first place out of fear of collateral damage.

[LaurenD]

Even though I never suggested the destruction of an entire country, you do realize what I mean by “destabilizing world markets” don’t you? Someone with enough power over world resources can cause a world depression. Cut off oil supplies and shipping routes. We are talking about more deaths from a world depression than any war has ever caused. Sadam, or anyone like him, allowed to take over the middle east could have caused more deaths in the world than we can ever imagine by being able to hold much of the world hostage economically.

[LaurenD]

We did not radically alter the societies of those countries. The Germans and Japanese, for all their other faults, have always been a productive people rather than a self-destructive one. The Germans and Japanese saw a benefit to working with those that defeated them in order to forge a better future for their countries. Islam is at odds with that. Like a said, it doesn’t take 100% of a population to make law and order impossible. It only takes enough to cause a tipping point.

Sadly, I had these exact same debates five years ago on a liberal forum discussing Iraq. And here I thought I stubbled upon a bastion of conservatism. HA.....we’re all liberals now aren’t we. From the comments you’ve been making and suggesting that I am in favor of oblliterating an entire country, I think you might want to brush up on WWll history.

We fire-bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany and Britain fire-bombed the hell out of German cities and nobody went around crying that entire populations were being obliterated. What will it take??????????????????? to get through????????????

[joseph20]

"Islam is at odds with that"

Your analysis hinges on the point that Iraq cannot change into a free society because of it's Islamic culture.

It's on this point that your analysis fails. Iraq has historically been a fairly secular country. The population of Iraq has historically been fairly secular.

[LaurenD]

Iraq has always had deep rooted tribes and sects. Enough of them to cause instability in the country. Sadam squashed that because he ruled with an iron fist and instilled fear into the population. That is not the same thing as being a secular country.

That is not to say that there are no secularists in Iraq. It is to say there aren’t nearly enough to counter those that engage in tribal and sectarian fighting and yes Islam is either at the root of that or is used by those mullahs in power in order to control people.

I am pessimistic of the long term stability of Iraq after we leave unless there is a central govt in Iraq that can put down insurgencies and that is hard to do without resorting to the type of brutality our military can never get away with again within the liberal world opinion that our foreign policy makers allow themselves to be manipulated by and therefore restrain our military with.