I'm hijacking your thread, there, peaches. I can't start threads for some reason. (Unless someone wants to start one for me and cut and paste this, which would be very very nice
)
On another board I frequent, a thread arose concerning Bush's plan for Iraq. Several of us tossed around some ideas but one poster came up with a very interesting theory on the whole issue of Iraq. I would love some feedback on this, from both sides.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, he intends to vote for Bush and he thinks the War on Terror is necessary.
_____________
What is Bush's strategic plan? Many people have assumed that Bush is not too bright, is a "cowboy" who wants to prove himself to his father or whatever, doesn't take the advice of other's counsel, etc. This may be right or it may disguise what is really going on here. Karl Rove is this diabolical genius who is able to manipulate election and news at his whim or so the story goes. Etc., etc. So what is the truth?
Several months ago I posted some information offered by this thinktank "stratfor.com." I'm not able to access that any longer as it has a $500 yearly subscription but I have saved it and have thought about this question only yesterday as I was working outdoors. I'll summarize briefly.
After 9/11 Bush declared that he didn't want to be shooting cruise missiles up "camel's butts" and "didn't want to be swatting flies." Now as any manager knows, if you have a problem the first thing to do is to identify the problem and then devise a plan. The problem should be evident to most anyone but is specifically pointed out in the 9/11 Commission Report. It is a virulent form of Islam practiced by bin Laden and his ilk. It is derived from the official religion of Saudi Arabia, Whabbism but is even more violent than practiced there. The "War on Terrorism" is really a misnomer. Terrorism will always be with us to some extent, as some crackpot or groups will always have a grievance and will use violence to accomplish their goals. But we have a specific target here in bin Laden and his associates/affiliates. So what to do?
One can argue that we should have cleaned out Afghanistan before going elsewhere. Hello! Anyone remember the Soviet Union's debacle? Put a lot of soldiers in one place and expect high casualties. I believe they took something like 30,000 dead there and eventually withdrew. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that we would likewise take high casualties had we chosen to go in and ferret out every possible terrorist on Afghan soil. Many would simply have gone into Pakistan that was off limits to our troops.
So that option is off the table. What else might we do? Well, we have had to deal with Iraq for a decade with all of that nonsense and ignored U.N. resolutions. There were after all WMD at one time for certain and not everything had been accounted for. Saddam was in his box as Mayor of Baghdad and the other two large areas were under Kurdish and Shi'ite control through our no-fly zones. The reality is that we could have contained Saddam indefinitely. What should we have done with Iraq? Well, it did offer an opportunity to establish a military presence in Iraq. Why might we want to do that? Well, as I have pointed out time and again here, the epicenter of state sponsored terrorism resides in Tehran, Iran. It also offers sanctuary to bin Laden and/or his lieutenants. It is within weeks or even days of developing the bomb. To permit this is not acceptable. And it would forever frustrate us in our war on terrorism.
So, the strategic plan was to establish our military presence in Iraq for the purpose of applying necessary pressure on Iran and Syria but the real underlying purpose was to draw in Al Queda and flush out the terrorists into Iraq, otherwise known as the "flypaper strategy." In order to do this we couldn't put large numbers of troops there because Al Queda would have seen that as an insurmountable hurdle. Because it appears that we are vulnerable they are becoming more and more emboldened and are stepping up their attacks in the belief that American politics will inevitably cause us to withdraw our forces.
Until November 2, Bush is lying low and hoping for the best. Keep our troop presence and exposure to a minumum and use air power to hit targets as they are discovered.
After November 3, 2004, expect the proverbial excrement to hit the fan.
Remember that Rice said this would be tough slogging. Remember that Bush 41 also said that Iraq would be a minefield of problems yet he supports this current effort. Remember than regardless of what one thinks of Bush and his intellectual capability, no one has ever accused Rumsfeld, Cheney or Powell as being dummies. They are on board and recently Powell is hinting at a second term as Secretary of State. It is unrealistic to believe that the current situation in Iraq would not have been discussed and expected. And remember this above all. "The Truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies." (Winston Churchill.)
On the other hand, if after November 3, 2004 and if Bush is still in power and the situation remains as it is, then I would have to say this theory is incorrect. Until that happens, I think this is likely the most logical explanation of his policy.
_________________
Makes alot of sense to me.
On another board I frequent, a thread arose concerning Bush's plan for Iraq. Several of us tossed around some ideas but one poster came up with a very interesting theory on the whole issue of Iraq. I would love some feedback on this, from both sides.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, he intends to vote for Bush and he thinks the War on Terror is necessary.
_____________
What is Bush's strategic plan? Many people have assumed that Bush is not too bright, is a "cowboy" who wants to prove himself to his father or whatever, doesn't take the advice of other's counsel, etc. This may be right or it may disguise what is really going on here. Karl Rove is this diabolical genius who is able to manipulate election and news at his whim or so the story goes. Etc., etc. So what is the truth?
Several months ago I posted some information offered by this thinktank "stratfor.com." I'm not able to access that any longer as it has a $500 yearly subscription but I have saved it and have thought about this question only yesterday as I was working outdoors. I'll summarize briefly.
After 9/11 Bush declared that he didn't want to be shooting cruise missiles up "camel's butts" and "didn't want to be swatting flies." Now as any manager knows, if you have a problem the first thing to do is to identify the problem and then devise a plan. The problem should be evident to most anyone but is specifically pointed out in the 9/11 Commission Report. It is a virulent form of Islam practiced by bin Laden and his ilk. It is derived from the official religion of Saudi Arabia, Whabbism but is even more violent than practiced there. The "War on Terrorism" is really a misnomer. Terrorism will always be with us to some extent, as some crackpot or groups will always have a grievance and will use violence to accomplish their goals. But we have a specific target here in bin Laden and his associates/affiliates. So what to do?
One can argue that we should have cleaned out Afghanistan before going elsewhere. Hello! Anyone remember the Soviet Union's debacle? Put a lot of soldiers in one place and expect high casualties. I believe they took something like 30,000 dead there and eventually withdrew. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that we would likewise take high casualties had we chosen to go in and ferret out every possible terrorist on Afghan soil. Many would simply have gone into Pakistan that was off limits to our troops.
So that option is off the table. What else might we do? Well, we have had to deal with Iraq for a decade with all of that nonsense and ignored U.N. resolutions. There were after all WMD at one time for certain and not everything had been accounted for. Saddam was in his box as Mayor of Baghdad and the other two large areas were under Kurdish and Shi'ite control through our no-fly zones. The reality is that we could have contained Saddam indefinitely. What should we have done with Iraq? Well, it did offer an opportunity to establish a military presence in Iraq. Why might we want to do that? Well, as I have pointed out time and again here, the epicenter of state sponsored terrorism resides in Tehran, Iran. It also offers sanctuary to bin Laden and/or his lieutenants. It is within weeks or even days of developing the bomb. To permit this is not acceptable. And it would forever frustrate us in our war on terrorism.
So, the strategic plan was to establish our military presence in Iraq for the purpose of applying necessary pressure on Iran and Syria but the real underlying purpose was to draw in Al Queda and flush out the terrorists into Iraq, otherwise known as the "flypaper strategy." In order to do this we couldn't put large numbers of troops there because Al Queda would have seen that as an insurmountable hurdle. Because it appears that we are vulnerable they are becoming more and more emboldened and are stepping up their attacks in the belief that American politics will inevitably cause us to withdraw our forces.
Until November 2, Bush is lying low and hoping for the best. Keep our troop presence and exposure to a minumum and use air power to hit targets as they are discovered.
After November 3, 2004, expect the proverbial excrement to hit the fan.
Remember that Rice said this would be tough slogging. Remember that Bush 41 also said that Iraq would be a minefield of problems yet he supports this current effort. Remember than regardless of what one thinks of Bush and his intellectual capability, no one has ever accused Rumsfeld, Cheney or Powell as being dummies. They are on board and recently Powell is hinting at a second term as Secretary of State. It is unrealistic to believe that the current situation in Iraq would not have been discussed and expected. And remember this above all. "The Truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies." (Winston Churchill.)
On the other hand, if after November 3, 2004 and if Bush is still in power and the situation remains as it is, then I would have to say this theory is incorrect. Until that happens, I think this is likely the most logical explanation of his policy.
_________________
Makes alot of sense to me.
I could nitpick with the premise that Saddam was boxed up indefinitely (the French and Germans were in the process of giving him box cutters), but there's a lot of good points in there. I do believe that Bush isn't going to do anything drastic in Iraq until after the November elections...way too much risk for him to do so.
On Nov 4th, though, the shit hits the fan as your article says.
On Nov 4th, though, the shit hits the fan as your article says.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
And what of the thesis that the war in Iraq was to deliberately lure the terrorists in instead of chasing them around Afghanistan? And, perhaps, to set the stage for Iran to do something stupid and make themselves a target legitimate enough to sell to the American public? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't agree with that. I think we had a lot of them bottled up at Tora Bora before we got soft, negotiated a cease-fire, then saw scores of them scoot down the mountain trails into Pakistan. We also expected a clean victory in Iraq; the terrorists are congregating there but it certainly wasn't part of Bush's plan. In the long run it might work out better for the US though...if we don't go soft again.
I don't know about Iran. I'm under the impression that a massive influx of covert support from the US (like we did in Poland during the crackdown on Solidarity) could take down their leadership. I doubt an invasion would be needed. Right now the public certainly wouldn't support a war against Iran.
And what of the thesis that the war in Iraq was to deliberately lure the terrorists in instead of chasing them around Afghanistan? And, perhaps, to set the stage for Iran to do something stupid and make themselves a target legitimate enough to sell to the American public? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't agree with that. I think we had a lot of them bottled up at Tora Bora before we got soft, negotiated a cease-fire, then saw scores of them scoot down the mountain trails into Pakistan. We also expected a clean victory in Iraq; the terrorists are congregating there but it certainly wasn't part of Bush's plan. In the long run it might work out better for the US though...if we don't go soft again.
I don't know about Iran. I'm under the impression that a massive influx of covert support from the US (like we did in Poland during the crackdown on Solidarity) could take down their leadership. I doubt an invasion would be needed. Right now the public certainly wouldn't support a war against Iran.
... unless Israel can freak them out sufficiently enough to provoke a preemptive attack which Iran has already stated is 'not a US monopoly.'
I think I do buy the idea that Iraq was a staging area to lure in terrorists. It makes alot of sense. Can you just imagine trying to sell that one to the Iraqi people? Their homeland was bait.
I didn't think it was possible, but I actually hate Bush more.
I think I do buy the idea that Iraq was a staging area to lure in terrorists. It makes alot of sense. Can you just imagine trying to sell that one to the Iraqi people? Their homeland was bait.
I didn't think it was possible, but I actually hate Bush more.
xpanda, I think the whole article imbues foreign policy with a greater degree of insight than I have been led to expect from past experience.
Further "So, the strategic plan was to establish our military presence in Iraq for the purpose of applying necessary pressure on Iran and Syria but the real underlying purpose was to draw in Al Queda and flush out the terrorists into Iraq, otherwise known as the "flypaper strategy." In order to do this we couldn't put large numbers of troops there because Al Queda would have seen that as an insurmountable hurdle. Because it appears that we are vulnerable they are becoming more and more emboldened and are stepping up their attacks in the belief that American politics will inevitably cause us to withdraw our forces." appears to put justification on an obvious outcome that that it seems the US failed to realise. They entered Iraq expecting to be welcomed as liberators when the reality is not that they are attracting Al Queda but developing a whole new generation of freedom fighters much like the Israel-Palestine situation.
Further "So, the strategic plan was to establish our military presence in Iraq for the purpose of applying necessary pressure on Iran and Syria but the real underlying purpose was to draw in Al Queda and flush out the terrorists into Iraq, otherwise known as the "flypaper strategy." In order to do this we couldn't put large numbers of troops there because Al Queda would have seen that as an insurmountable hurdle. Because it appears that we are vulnerable they are becoming more and more emboldened and are stepping up their attacks in the belief that American politics will inevitably cause us to withdraw our forces." appears to put justification on an obvious outcome that that it seems the US failed to realise. They entered Iraq expecting to be welcomed as liberators when the reality is not that they are attracting Al Queda but developing a whole new generation of freedom fighters much like the Israel-Palestine situation.
To think that any force opposed to the US that relies on terror as it's main weapon would decide a frontal attack on U.S. forces in Iraq is a worthwhile strategy is hard to imagine. Much more to be gained hitting soft targets in places where the loss of life by the citizenry would count for more. Those fighting in Iraq are Islamic no doubt but I believe they are more of the freedom fighter types than American hating Al Qeda.
I agree that being in a good strategic position relative to Iran and Syria was a major reason for the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think luring in Al Qaida was part of it.
Al Qaida will never be so stupid as to place themselves in a single area without being surrounded by large numbers of regular civilians. Ironically, the safest place for an Al Qaida member is right next to an American soldier (excluding the bosses of course, who as individuals are on the most wanted lists)
The part about waiting until after the elections to pounce sounds reasonable as well.
Al Qaida will never be so stupid as to place themselves in a single area without being surrounded by large numbers of regular civilians. Ironically, the safest place for an Al Qaida member is right next to an American soldier (excluding the bosses of course, who as individuals are on the most wanted lists)
The part about waiting until after the elections to pounce sounds reasonable as well.
