Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US grand strategy and Iraq
The Hindustan Times ^ | 31 Dec 2002 | Pramit Pal Choudhuri

Posted on 12/30/2002 8:40:55 PM PST by akash

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 12/30/2002 8:40:55 PM PST by akash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Democracy1154; SJackson; FreedomPoster; chance33_98; swarthyguy; keri; BlackIce; spetznaz; ...
Ping !!!
2 posted on 12/30/2002 8:42:47 PM PST by akash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash
Akash, great article. Thanks for posting it.
3 posted on 12/30/2002 8:49:04 PM PST by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: akash
Very good article, I agree 100%
4 posted on 12/30/2002 8:51:16 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash
Great article - Thank you for posting it. Hope it contains some modicum of truth.
5 posted on 12/30/2002 8:55:51 PM PST by anthony634
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash
"Strategery" ?
6 posted on 12/30/2002 8:56:29 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: akash
Thanks, this is interesting.
7 posted on 12/30/2002 8:56:43 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash
Right on target. I was especially struck by this confirmation of why I think we are going into Iraq first:

"The obvious cases are two unrepentant state sponsors of terrorism: the Saudis and Pakistan. The Saudis can’t be bucked now because they can throw the world economy in chaos. But let Iraq, which some experts believe may have more reserves than Saudi Arabia, come back on stream and let the Russians get back to Soviet-levels of production. At that point, the Saudi oil weapon disappears."
8 posted on 12/30/2002 9:01:23 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense; Grampa Dave; JohnHuang2; sinkspur; deport; Recovering_Democrat; ohioWfan; Miss Marple; ...
Ping for a great article,

John I think this article deserves a Mega Ping :-)

9 posted on 12/30/2002 9:02:06 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
ditto
10 posted on 12/30/2002 9:04:08 PM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob; okie01; cake_crumb; pepsionice; Conservative Dr.Pepper Drinker; swarthyguy; ...
ping
11 posted on 12/30/2002 9:09:32 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; xm177e2; mercy; Wait4Truth; hole_n_one; GretchenEE; Clinton's a rapist; buffyt; ...
Here ya go =^)


12 posted on 12/30/2002 9:11:19 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: akash
Gee, they're just starting to figure this out? We had this figured for the last 6 months, but then, Freepers live this stuff every day :o)
13 posted on 12/30/2002 9:14:45 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: akash
I'll be honest. I am impressed with and admire this administration. It's not perfect by any means, but I'm more impressed by it than anything.

Great article.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

14 posted on 12/30/2002 9:17:52 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks, JH2 ! Bump for mornin' read !


15 posted on 12/30/2002 9:21:52 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I don't believe the oil issue is the most important to this administration. I believe they see Iraq as an opportunity to free the Iraqi people and (As the Article points out) Iraq has enough resources to pay for their own "Nation Building"

The Iranians are sick and tired of the Mullah's who have been trying to beat them into submission for over twenty years. My bet is that the Iranian people will stand up and toss out their oppressors once Saddam is gone. This will be the start of the spread of democracy and freedom, The same kinda stuff that happened in Europe when Poland finally said they had enough.

Dictators and Tyrant's do all they can to keep their people from witnessing our freedoms, They do all they can to block all of our transmissions, They shut down "Internet Cafe's" They refuse to allow their people to travel freely, Why is this? It's because if their people get a taste of freedom, Their days of ruling are numbered.

I like this quote from George W. Bush when he addressed the Congress shortlay after 9/11.....

"The of this conflict is not yet known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear. justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not nuetral between them" George W. Bush 9/20/01

16 posted on 12/30/2002 9:26:50 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks John, you're the KING
17 posted on 12/30/2002 9:28:53 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Correction:

"The COURSE of this conflict is not yet known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear. justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not nuetral between them"

18 posted on 12/30/2002 9:31:07 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Good points. I was just going to bring up the fact Iran may be the next to come around. Even before Pakistan and if that happens it will be a big stabilizing influence on the whole area. If it does then it may be the best outcome scenario.
19 posted on 12/30/2002 9:34:41 PM PST by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks for the heads up!
20 posted on 12/30/2002 9:35:10 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Welcome =^)
21 posted on 12/30/2002 9:38:00 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
More than welcome, friend -- And Happy New Year to you and yours!
22 posted on 12/30/2002 9:38:31 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Welcome, and good morningbackatya
23 posted on 12/30/2002 9:42:36 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: akash; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; randita; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; okie01; socal_parrot; snopercod; ...
Excellent ant thought provocating article!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
  click here >>> Bush Doctrine Unfold <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



24 posted on 12/30/2002 9:45:16 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balata
I own a busines just outside of Washington D.C. and I have three customers who once lived in Iran and have family there now, They tell me that the current movement in Iran is very very strong and the only reason why the Mullahs havn't been thrown out is because of their fear of Saddam Hussain. They believe that once Saddam is out of the picture, they're free of serious threats. The Mullah's were able to hold off Iraq in the 80's and they watched what happened after we drove Saddam out of Kuwait, (We didn't occupy Kuwait)

Even Ray Charles could see who is the agressor and who is Liberator. I believe once Saddam and his underlings are dismantled, The Iranian people will stand up and take control from the Mullah's. This is when we need to rally the world to support them

25 posted on 12/30/2002 9:47:21 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Happy New Year to you and yours also my friend.

MJY

26 posted on 12/30/2002 9:49:11 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: akash
This analysis could be an accurate guage of what the Administration is really thinking. But it does not change the likelihood that they are dead wrong about installing mob-democracy in this pan-arabic region. It will not change a thing. They will still adhere to the Koran. They will still oppress all other religions, and women. They will still harbor nothing but hatred for and warfare againt, the West. The basics of the vilifications against Western values have been inculcated too deep. I am not convinced that GWB's theory that the genie of democracy is able to turn these states into modern peaceful republics. Keep in mind, that Hitler came to power in a democratic Weimar Republic. I am, up to a point, willing for GWB to go ahead and try it. But we should be preparing our own people for the possibility of the failure of the scheme....and readying for the worst case scenarios...educating them as to what we really are fighting.
27 posted on 12/30/2002 9:49:40 PM PST by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *war_list
bump
28 posted on 12/30/2002 9:56:34 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Obstinate Insomniac; seamole; Lion's Cub; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; ...
Thanks for indexing this article!
29 posted on 12/30/2002 10:04:03 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: akash
Democracy in Iraq, three possible democratic states, with US and Westren Civilization support. This is the crux of opposition to America's war on terror in the Middle East. Approximately a two-thirds majority of countries "representated" at the United Nations do not allow their citizens any democracy and are either communist or run by dictators like the Arab Shieks. All tryants fear freedom and it's spread.
30 posted on 12/30/2002 10:08:46 PM PST by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
I think you are exactly right.

At this point the US can't be seen as the instigators in Iran. However, once the Iranian people stand up and take control of their own country then we'll see a strong democratic country. This will not only have the affect of regional political stabilization, but it will also decrease terrorism in the world and help to secure world energy stability.
31 posted on 12/30/2002 10:08:54 PM PST by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; Shermy; Mitchell
You guys will want in on this.

Great article. Confirming what most FReepers figured out months ago, of course...

32 posted on 12/30/2002 10:26:13 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Here's another view of the war on terror .....

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/31spec.htm

The Rediff Special/ Colonel Anil Athale (retd)

Terror 2002: Storing up trouble for the future

The dying moments of 2001 saw pyrrhic American victory in Afghanistan. Yet after one full year, the entire Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership and their families, numbering in their thousands, have eluded the American grasp.

As mentioned in these columns last October, the crucial delay in initial air attacks gave the Islamists ample opportunity to re-organise and disperse. 2002 saw the first stage of classic insurgency, small level hit and run attacks and some assassinations. The Islamists have established bases in eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the first stage of insurgency. But such is the American dread of this form of warfare (the 'V' for Vietnam word can still cause a chill at an American gathering), that no analyst or media has dared to utter the word ?counterinsurgency,' when in reality that is what the Americans are already fighting in Afghanistan.

The Americans, who have otherwise an impressive record of military victories, are at sea when it comes to fighting insurgency. The reasons are many, but at the risk of oversimplification, it can be said to be American impatience and lack of colonial experience. The signs are there for any one to see -- a puppet government, no ideology to rival 'Islam' -- Americanism cannot be a substitute to jihadi Islam.

The gates of Kabul may yet notch up another name of another defeated aggressor. The Americans may well join such illustrious losers as Alexander, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. The signs of that happening in the future were all visible except to the Americans who want to wish away a counterinsurgency in the 21st century.

When the US suddenly turned on Iraq, it was an indirect admission that even a Hyper Power cannot alter the geo-political environment!

The ruling elite in Islamic states have been quick to seize this opportunity to demand economic aid on the plea that they need it for their exploding populations which otherwise would turn 'jihadi.' The rulers have then been clever to keep the jihadis on the right side by carrying out sham attempts to crush them. All Muslim majority countries are playing this game, but none so well as Pakistan.

Pakistan has one additional card: its nuclear capability. The fear of these falling into jihadi hands is being used to browbeat the Americans.

There has been much satisfaction in 'peace at any cost' lobbies as well as in the West that a open conflict was avoided in the subcontinent. When jihadis in a neighbouring country attack Parliament, slaughter women and children in army barracks and kill pilgrims, and the victim country exercises 'restraint,' the terrorists have succeeded in further raising the 'bar of tolerance.'

India's non action in 2002 has made it absolutely certain that an even more audacious attack will be mounted in the coming year. As the recent election in Gujarat showed, this is leading slowly but surely to a situation where a major conflagration will be inevitable.

There are two reasons for this pessimistic assessment. One is the fact that the real problem is not the jihadi element in Pakistan, they are subhuman and need to be liquidated, but the so-called moderate and modern element that connives at this. They have calculated, and so far correctly, that when push comes to shove, India will always back down. They have a 800-year history to back them up.

The second problem is the Indian establishment that is yet to absorb the nuances of nuclear 'poker.' All and sundry keep repeating the 'mantra' of deterrence when the need is for 'compellence.' Deterrence works to prevent war. But when an opponent is already at war and using force (the ongoing proxy war) mere words, threats, deployment and sabre rattling will not work. To stop the ongoing war, escalatory 'action' is absolutely necessary. It is only then a condition of parity is created and a stable equilibrium can be achieved.

US intervention has been the 'key' to peace in the subcontinent, and not fear of nuclear weapons. This belief, while it has meant temporary peace, has surely sowed the seeds of future conflict.

Indians and the Americans have failed to realise that by avoiding a limited conflict they have made sure that a major and all out conflict will take place in the future.

History is more often made by the unrelenting forces that have an independent momentum of their own. When two large ships approach each other, there comes a point beyond which a head on collusion is inevitable. The only course open then is to prepare for damage limitation. At a global and subcontinental level, in 2002, we appear to have crossed that point.

33 posted on 12/30/2002 10:29:28 PM PST by akash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: akash
Excellent article and thanks for posting it.
34 posted on 12/30/2002 10:46:32 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Thanks for the ping. It is an excellent article.
35 posted on 12/30/2002 10:47:39 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Absolutely, once the Islamofacist mass killer Uncle Soddomite is out of the picture, the Mullah thugs's heads in Iran will be decorating pikes all over Iran within a week.

Once Uncle Soddomite and the Mullahs are gone, the power of the Opecker Princes to finance terrorism and Wahhabism around the world will be gone! Israel will whack the Islamofascists in Syria, that country will be able come around too.
36 posted on 12/30/2002 10:52:14 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: akash
The world will be much safer for Americans and American interests when we establish that those who threaten us, or attack us, can expect three things on a grand scale: pain death impoverishment.
37 posted on 12/30/2002 10:54:04 PM PST by 185JHP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash
Akash, I liked your first article better.

It seems to me the author of the second article has a very narrow and perhaps clouded perspective of the global picture. US intervention has been the 'key' to peace in the subcontinent, and not fear of nuclear weapons and it will continue to be the 'key' to peace in the area until both India and Pakistan obtain a healthy fear of each others nuclear weapons. Hopefully it won't take a nuclear event for them to gain that respect and fear.


38 posted on 12/30/2002 10:55:09 PM PST by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"... I am not convinced that GWB's theory that the genie of democracy is able to turn these states into modern peaceful republics ..."

You are absolutely right. This was a helluva good article, and a joy to read, but he leaves some questions unanswered:
What about Turkey's recent election of a hardliner? What about the population growth in Arab countries? How can he dismiss Iraq's relations with Al Qaeda? Why should we expect Saudi cooperation in this, when they come up short?

I still don't think democracy is the object because I don't think it is desirable for those societies, for the reasons you point out. I think we need to balance antagonists; that is the only dependable route to stability.

39 posted on 12/30/2002 10:57:13 PM PST by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
This analysis could be an accurate guage of what the Administration is really thinking. But it does not change the likelihood that they are dead wrong about installing mob-democracy in this pan-arabic region. It will not change a thing

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Jordon, Turkey, and Egypt come to mind at the moment. These were the most moderate Islamic countries, which all looked promising over past decades. Now I'm not so sure about their ability to withstand the fundamentalist trends.

40 posted on 12/31/2002 12:07:17 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: akash
Thanks for posting this incisive article.

Your additional posting with analysis of the stalemate in South Asia nails it as well.

41 posted on 12/31/2002 12:17:09 AM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: akash
A "Grand Strategy," indeed. Thanks!
42 posted on 12/31/2002 12:36:58 AM PST by Turbodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash; MJY1288; Miss Marple; Dog; Chairman_December_19th_Society; Common Tator; Howlin; ...
Interesting that it takes a journalist from India to "get it" ..... our American media are too busy dreaming up reasons to bash President Bush to seriously analyze the situation.
43 posted on 12/31/2002 12:48:34 AM PST by kayak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash; Freee-dame
When Haass visited India, he made it a point to meet a cross-section of Indian Muslim leaders. Why? Because Indian Muslims are the second largest Muslim population in the world and among the poorest. Yet, he said, none of them is a member of Al-Qaeda or its affiliates.

"I asked the leaders why this was so," Haas said, "And they said we live in a secular democracy. When we have problems we have alternatives to terrorism."

Third, US officials have quietly hinted that they are of the view that Iraq can be the wedge that will open the Arab world – and Iran – to the fresh air of representative government.

I guess Freepers are better than most in getting "hints." This strategy was certainly not a secret to me. Reporters in 'respected' media outlets must never have listened to anything that President Bush, Dr Rice, Secretary Powell, etc have said.

At least this writer can see the plan.

44 posted on 12/31/2002 6:11:42 AM PST by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akash
HOOVER INSTITUTION



John Lewis Gaddis

John Lewis Gaddis was a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution from 2000 to 2002.

Gaddis is an internationally renowned historian of the cold war. His books on the subject include The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947 (1972, 2d ed., 2000); Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History (1978, 2d ed., 1990); Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy (1982); The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War (1987); The United States and the End of the Cold War: Reconsiderations, Implications, Provocations (1992); We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (1997); and The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (2002).

Gaddis has also taught at Ohio University, the U. S. Naval War College, the University of Helsinki, Princeton University, and Oxford University. During the 2000–2001 academic year, Gaddis was again at Oxford as the George Eastman Visiting Professor at Balliol College.

Gaddis is on the advisory board of the Cold War International History Project. He served as a consultant on the CNN television documentary "Cold War" and is currently working on a book on a biography of George F. Kennan.

Gaddis received his Ph.D. in history from the University of Texas at Austin.






45 posted on 12/31/2002 6:14:29 AM PST by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Thanks for the ping. A fine article indeed...
46 posted on 12/31/2002 7:12:05 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: akash; JohnHuang2
Great post and article akash. John, thanks for the flag...
47 posted on 12/31/2002 7:16:44 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: akash
The policy of the past has been to favor monarchs and dictators in the Middle East. This has led to tyrannical, corrupt and backward Islamic states.

The only thing worse is modern, efficient, and democratic Islamic states.

48 posted on 12/31/2002 7:45:00 AM PST by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
While in the short run having the radical Muslims in charge, I say let them pay retail for their beliefs.
We only have to look at what's happening in Iran to see what will happen.
49 posted on 12/31/2002 8:03:33 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: maica
I guess Freepers are better than most in getting "hints." This strategy was certainly not a secret to me. Reporters in 'respected' media outlets must never have listened to anything that President Bush, Dr Rice, Secretary Powell, etc have said.

It is amazing that members of the media consider themselves informed when they read each others comments on speeches that they have never heard.

50 posted on 12/31/2002 8:06:50 AM PST by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson