09-11-2004, 06:57 AM
All right, with a little less vitriol. How about biting into the cake, friend Gekko, and not just licking off the icing. You chucked out a soundbyte that lacks substance. You can do far better than that.
Used as justification by whom?
Where do you come up with that conclusion? That comment is not an original thought. Who did you steal or borrow that half truth from?
A few thoughts that cover the topic in modest depth.
1. I watched the pre "Operation Iraqi Freedom" information campaign unfold over a series of months. Its aim was to generate support for the posturing, threat of, and if necessary attack on, Iraq. The decision that Saddam had to go was a Risk based course of action intended to rid the Mid East for once and for all of Saddam Hussein's regime as an impediment to Persian Gulf Security. There were of course a number of other factors involved, not all of which have seen the light of day, if my guesses are correct.
Your sound byte nonsense does not do the process justice. (For the moment, I would prefer to let lie the "once you've done that, what then" question that needed a better answer than any of us got in public media, although some did ask. They seem to have been ignored.)
The 9-11 attacks were a direct trigger to Operation Anaconda and Operation Enduring Freedom, the war in AFGHANISTAN.
The Iraq war is an attempt to resolve Persian Gulf Security vis a vis Iraq, a Gordian knot that had been constricting since the cease fire of 1991. Iraq is a subset of a larger matter we can call Mid East Security. The series of events that led to "Iraq once again has iron raindrops rain down from above" was the continuation of already extent regional security tensions.
The primary policy reasons given were: WMD, Support to international terrorists, failure to comply with the 1991 cease fire and subsequent UN one way sanctions, outlaw nation, illegal arms trade, Ansar Al Islam host, etc ad nauseum. A few other reasons could be inferred, but I have not confirmed: Change the balance of oil flow away from Saudi Arabia. Stop cutting Turkey's throat for supporting us in levying sanctions, support which cost them a lot of lost oil revenue via the pipeline deal, Iraq to the Mediterranean ports. Change the calculus of the anti Israel bloc in the Mid East.
Now, aid and connection to some organized terror cells was a matter of fact, Ansar Al Islam and a few others, one to AQ seems to have been inferred. Some spin meisters continually juxtaposed the 9-11 and Iraq subjects on TV and in print. It took a fool or an idiot, however, to make the leap of illogic that results in "Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, we are attacking him because of 9-11." Not quite. The US attacked him for a host of other reasons, and used the momentum of the emotional power of the 9-11 event as a catalyst to generate public support.
The rhetoric early on was: "How is it right for America to take on a posture of Pre emptive War?" An interesting question, worthy of consideration. Questions aside, the die has been cast.
One security assumption in re Saddam was: if left alone, he would find someone, AQ or others, no matter, to do the dirty work, most likely with a fig leaf and a few degrees of separation. The fact that Iraq is part of a very tangled international security structure in the Persian Gulf region seems once again lost on the average person, to include you.
Why? Is it becuse you dont' look any deeper than one or two sound bytes? INstability in the Persian Gulf negatively impacts the global economy, see the Iran and Iraq war and its impact on oil prices and shipping insurance levels.
War is a political act, one that requires harnessing emotion to get public support, particularly in a free society. (See Chris Hedges' writings on how myth is used.) The success of the Afghanistan campaign -- against which there were protests, even though there was clear and unambiguous state sponsorship of terror there for years -- and some of the information gleaned from the Gitmo Boys, set up a new series of "if-then" probabilities in geopolitical forecasting.
It has taken the sound byte crowd, whom you have parroted, very little time to craft their own version of why Iraq was attacked. Noise. May I ask, in a related question, what credibility "No blood for oil" has as a slogan when it was used as a sound byte regarding BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq? Two very different operations, both in kind and in motivation?
Read this next bit carefully.
I have yet to see a policy statement that tied the 9-11 events as the reason for attacking Iraq, yet that is what your statement implies. What the administration did was harness the emotional energy of the 9-11, "I'm a victim," fear, and a "somebody has gotta pay" attitude and ask the following questions:
"Do you want to trust Saddam Hussein, who does not like us at all, NOT to provide WMD's and-or support to a terrorist organization (of which there are many, AQ being only one) who would then use such tools against us in a manner LIKE 9-11?
Do you want to wait until the next attack? He is likely to provide tools, is there a reason to believe he won't?"
Do you see the difference in what you said and what was being sold to the public? What was presented was fear, uncertainty, and a known arsehole who was already documented as
having worked on WMD programs, and using them, in contravention of his own treaty obligations
having supoprted terror some terror groups, to include paying a wereguild to suicide bombers in Israel
was an outlaw nation already
was a tyrant along the lines of Joe Stalin Light in Iraq
Who was sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the Mid East and who thus had, or has, money to support terror organs. His access to capital is a key enabler to his ability to act.
To repeat, the line taken and the rationalization used was: Are you willing to let anyone, funded by him or not, come and hit us like that while doing nothing in the meantime? (note the loaded 'doing nothing' question.) Are you willing to take that risk? Are you willing to cede the initiative against any and all aggressors? Are you willing to trust an outlaw NOT to help people hurt you?
What is implied in The War Against Terror ;) policy statement is that we start with him, since he is already on our sh** list, and since we are certain that his contravention of the Cease Fire and UN Inspecitons, etc, shows he cannot be trusted AND is dangerous to the entire region, and thus to the global economy. Remember "It's about the economy, stupid?" ON a certain level, "it's about the global economy, stupid." (Too sound byte ish, that line.)
The follow on thought should now be "who is next?" Does anyone need to be next?
Is that what America reallly wants to sign up for?
I honestly don't know. I have my own misgivings. I have commented elsewhere on this forum about my discomfort in implementing democracy at the point of a bayonet, the ability of Iraq to remain on nation, and the "why now?" question that has only one answer that I can come up with, which is internal not external in implication.
War in Afghanistan was all about 9-11. The appeal made in the case of Iraq was very different. The attempt to enforce the will of the UN security council by force of arms as a united group was an attempt, one that failed, to rally the international community and put some Spine into the UN in re the sanctions and Mid East security. That failure will hurt the UN for a while, as will Kofi's gutless call to evacuate the UN assitance HQ in Baghdad after a car bomb killed a few blue hatters. Showing fear and cowardice, and lack of resolution to tough guys is no way to win hearts and minds, nor to establish authority or credibility.
I find it ironic that this morning, September 11, 2004, I am discussing this topic with you. Unlike many today, I am not heading off to any "worship the victim" whinging Remembrance Ceremony. I do not subscribe to beliefs of the Cult of the Victim.
I am, by preference, a subscriber to the code of the Warrior.
Occhi
Quote:However. How does the 9/11 attack justify the american military dropping hundreds of bombs on Iraq? It doesn't, but it has been, and is being, used as such justification.
Used as justification by whom?
Where do you come up with that conclusion? That comment is not an original thought. Who did you steal or borrow that half truth from?
A few thoughts that cover the topic in modest depth.
1. I watched the pre "Operation Iraqi Freedom" information campaign unfold over a series of months. Its aim was to generate support for the posturing, threat of, and if necessary attack on, Iraq. The decision that Saddam had to go was a Risk based course of action intended to rid the Mid East for once and for all of Saddam Hussein's regime as an impediment to Persian Gulf Security. There were of course a number of other factors involved, not all of which have seen the light of day, if my guesses are correct.
Your sound byte nonsense does not do the process justice. (For the moment, I would prefer to let lie the "once you've done that, what then" question that needed a better answer than any of us got in public media, although some did ask. They seem to have been ignored.)
The 9-11 attacks were a direct trigger to Operation Anaconda and Operation Enduring Freedom, the war in AFGHANISTAN.
The Iraq war is an attempt to resolve Persian Gulf Security vis a vis Iraq, a Gordian knot that had been constricting since the cease fire of 1991. Iraq is a subset of a larger matter we can call Mid East Security. The series of events that led to "Iraq once again has iron raindrops rain down from above" was the continuation of already extent regional security tensions.
The primary policy reasons given were: WMD, Support to international terrorists, failure to comply with the 1991 cease fire and subsequent UN one way sanctions, outlaw nation, illegal arms trade, Ansar Al Islam host, etc ad nauseum. A few other reasons could be inferred, but I have not confirmed: Change the balance of oil flow away from Saudi Arabia. Stop cutting Turkey's throat for supporting us in levying sanctions, support which cost them a lot of lost oil revenue via the pipeline deal, Iraq to the Mediterranean ports. Change the calculus of the anti Israel bloc in the Mid East.
Now, aid and connection to some organized terror cells was a matter of fact, Ansar Al Islam and a few others, one to AQ seems to have been inferred. Some spin meisters continually juxtaposed the 9-11 and Iraq subjects on TV and in print. It took a fool or an idiot, however, to make the leap of illogic that results in "Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, we are attacking him because of 9-11." Not quite. The US attacked him for a host of other reasons, and used the momentum of the emotional power of the 9-11 event as a catalyst to generate public support.
The rhetoric early on was: "How is it right for America to take on a posture of Pre emptive War?" An interesting question, worthy of consideration. Questions aside, the die has been cast.
One security assumption in re Saddam was: if left alone, he would find someone, AQ or others, no matter, to do the dirty work, most likely with a fig leaf and a few degrees of separation. The fact that Iraq is part of a very tangled international security structure in the Persian Gulf region seems once again lost on the average person, to include you.
Why? Is it becuse you dont' look any deeper than one or two sound bytes? INstability in the Persian Gulf negatively impacts the global economy, see the Iran and Iraq war and its impact on oil prices and shipping insurance levels.
War is a political act, one that requires harnessing emotion to get public support, particularly in a free society. (See Chris Hedges' writings on how myth is used.) The success of the Afghanistan campaign -- against which there were protests, even though there was clear and unambiguous state sponsorship of terror there for years -- and some of the information gleaned from the Gitmo Boys, set up a new series of "if-then" probabilities in geopolitical forecasting.
It has taken the sound byte crowd, whom you have parroted, very little time to craft their own version of why Iraq was attacked. Noise. May I ask, in a related question, what credibility "No blood for oil" has as a slogan when it was used as a sound byte regarding BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq? Two very different operations, both in kind and in motivation?
Read this next bit carefully.
I have yet to see a policy statement that tied the 9-11 events as the reason for attacking Iraq, yet that is what your statement implies. What the administration did was harness the emotional energy of the 9-11, "I'm a victim," fear, and a "somebody has gotta pay" attitude and ask the following questions:
"Do you want to trust Saddam Hussein, who does not like us at all, NOT to provide WMD's and-or support to a terrorist organization (of which there are many, AQ being only one) who would then use such tools against us in a manner LIKE 9-11?
Do you want to wait until the next attack? He is likely to provide tools, is there a reason to believe he won't?"
Do you see the difference in what you said and what was being sold to the public? What was presented was fear, uncertainty, and a known arsehole who was already documented as
having worked on WMD programs, and using them, in contravention of his own treaty obligations
having supoprted terror some terror groups, to include paying a wereguild to suicide bombers in Israel
was an outlaw nation already
was a tyrant along the lines of Joe Stalin Light in Iraq
Who was sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the Mid East and who thus had, or has, money to support terror organs. His access to capital is a key enabler to his ability to act.
To repeat, the line taken and the rationalization used was: Are you willing to let anyone, funded by him or not, come and hit us like that while doing nothing in the meantime? (note the loaded 'doing nothing' question.) Are you willing to take that risk? Are you willing to cede the initiative against any and all aggressors? Are you willing to trust an outlaw NOT to help people hurt you?
What is implied in The War Against Terror ;) policy statement is that we start with him, since he is already on our sh** list, and since we are certain that his contravention of the Cease Fire and UN Inspecitons, etc, shows he cannot be trusted AND is dangerous to the entire region, and thus to the global economy. Remember "It's about the economy, stupid?" ON a certain level, "it's about the global economy, stupid." (Too sound byte ish, that line.)
The follow on thought should now be "who is next?" Does anyone need to be next?
Is that what America reallly wants to sign up for?
I honestly don't know. I have my own misgivings. I have commented elsewhere on this forum about my discomfort in implementing democracy at the point of a bayonet, the ability of Iraq to remain on nation, and the "why now?" question that has only one answer that I can come up with, which is internal not external in implication.
War in Afghanistan was all about 9-11. The appeal made in the case of Iraq was very different. The attempt to enforce the will of the UN security council by force of arms as a united group was an attempt, one that failed, to rally the international community and put some Spine into the UN in re the sanctions and Mid East security. That failure will hurt the UN for a while, as will Kofi's gutless call to evacuate the UN assitance HQ in Baghdad after a car bomb killed a few blue hatters. Showing fear and cowardice, and lack of resolution to tough guys is no way to win hearts and minds, nor to establish authority or credibility.
I find it ironic that this morning, September 11, 2004, I am discussing this topic with you. Unlike many today, I am not heading off to any "worship the victim" whinging Remembrance Ceremony. I do not subscribe to beliefs of the Cult of the Victim.
I am, by preference, a subscriber to the code of the Warrior.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete