The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

Agreed on your first part, if you go far enough back, Saddam's very presence and strength is partly the fault of the west. Kind of like the Israel/Palestine problem is ultimately caused by the creation of the Israeli state in the first place.

 

But I completely disagree on the first Gulf War aspect. I think Bush I handled that exactly the way it needed to be handled.

Pulling back to avoid the perception that we were killing indiscriminately, offering generous concessions, and establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East to patrol Iraq's airspace and enforce sanctions? That seemed like a good idea at the time but ended up backfiring (see 9-11 to present). It would've been one thing if we supported the uprising after we rhetorically encouraged it but we didn't do that for some reason.

 

I know a lot of my criticism of U.S. foreign policy has the benefit of hindsight but the common denominator in all of them is that excessive force doesn't work long-term, and we aren't consistent with any kinds of principles of who we support and why.

Edited December 1, 2009 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

Pulling back to avoid the perception that we were killing indiscriminately, offering generous concessions, and establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East to patrol Iraq's airspace and enforce sanctions? That seemed like a good idea at the time but ended up backfiring (see 9-11 to present). It would've been one thing if we supported the uprising after we rhetorically encouraged it but we didn't do that for some reason.

 

I know a lot of my criticism of U.S. foreign policy has the benefit of hindsight but the common denominator in all of them is that excessive force doesn't work long-term, and we aren't consistent with any kinds of principles of who we support and why.

I completely agree on excessive force, which is why I think we did it right that time. The sanctions had major collateral damage, but the overall effort to stifle Saddam actually served its purpose quite well, at a much lower cost of life and money than if we had tried to march into Baghdad. The more recent Iraq war should illustrate that nicely. Furthermore, I don't think 9/11 is traceable to either Iraq war in any material fashion.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

There is no split. The blame is squarely with Saddam and his buddies.

The UN was justified in forming the coalition against Saddam, but IMO beating the tar of his army should have been enough. The sanctions hurt the Iraqi people more than they hurt Saddam.

 

But I completely disagree on the first Gulf War aspect. I think Bush* I handled that exactly the way it needed to be handled.

*the UN

[lostfan]

I completely agree on excessive force, which is why I think we did it right that time. The sanctions had major collateral damage, but the overall effort to stifle Saddam actually served its purpose quite well, at a much lower cost of life and money than if we had tried to march into Baghdad. The more recent Iraq war should illustrate that nicely. Furthermore, I don't think 9/11 is traceable to either Iraq war in any material fashion.

The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia was a mistake. Granted, there wasn't really any way to know that then as clearly as we do now and we're obviously not in the business of making bin Laden happy, but that was a pretty big deal in the Muslim world and did play right into the narrative that they were still developing.

[NorthSideSox72]

The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia was a mistake. Granted, there wasn't really any way to know that then as clearly as we do now and we're obviously not in the business of making bin Laden happy, but that was a pretty big deal in the Muslim world and did play right into the narrative that they were still developing.

That part probably could have been handled better, I agree. After the first Gulf War was over, they could have supported the operation from Turkey and carriers in the Gulf, or Kuwait, and that would have been better.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

*the UN

Yes, the UN did right there too.

 

[lostfan]

My point in bringing that up though was to say that wars always seem to have unintended or undesired consequences, even ones that everyone thinks was an overwhelmingly decisive victory like the Gulf War.

 

The ability of the United States to beat on a much smaller, poorer country's military in a matter of days or hours has never been in question. It's the strategy behind it and the follow-up that's the problem.

[Rex Kickass]

It made it harder for them to trade for food and medical supplies. Those are just two things that were a problem. There are other issues that were created by the sanctions. Such as water purification. Chlorine and other chemicals were banned and those were needed to help clean the water.

 

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) survey noted that almost half the children under 5 years suffered from diarrhoea, in a country where the population is marked by its youth, with 45% being under 14 years of age in 2000.

 

If Saddam Hussein had spent half as much time working to provide his population with drinking water as he did to sell his oil on the black market between 1991 and 2003, we never would have needed to have this conversation.

[DukeNukeEm]

My point in bringing that up though was to say that wars always seem to have unintended or undesired consequences, even ones that everyone thinks was an overwhelmingly decisive victory like the Gulf War.

 

The ability of the United States to beat on a much smaller, poorer country's military in a matter of days or hours has never been in question. It's the strategy behind it and the follow-up that's the problem.

Ask the Romans, Soviets, British (the list goes on) if this problem is unique the US. Cant conquer people who refuse to be conquered.

[lostfan]

Ask the Romans, Soviets, British (the list goes on) if this problem is unique the US. Cant conquer people who refuse to be conquered.

We might have been able to get away with it in Iraq in 1991, but yeah the general thrust of your statement is true.

[DukeNukeEm]

Keith, you'd enjoy this when you have the time. It really echoes what you said in terms of strategy. Edited December 1, 2009 by DukeNukeEm

[GoSox05]

If Saddam Hussein had spent half as much time working to provide his population with drinking water as he did to sell his oil on the black market between 1991 and 2003, we never would have needed to have this conversation.

 

 

Just because Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator doesn't give us the right to punish the people of Iraq. It didn't work there and it hasn't worked in Cuba. All it does is help build resentment for the United States. In those countries and other countries around the world.

 

We've had the same backwards ass foreign policy in the middle east and south central Asia for the past 50 plus years. It's never worked and yet we still think more bombs and more troops will work.

Edited December 1, 2009 by GoSox05

[lostfan]

Keith, you'd enjoy this when you have the time. It really echoes what you said in terms of strategy.

I read the first few pages and I'm thinking of North Korea.

[DukeNukeEm]

Page 7 it gets really good.

[Rex Kickass]

Just because Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator doesn't give us the right to punish the people of Iraq. It didn't work there and it hasn't worked in Cuba. All it does is help build resentment for the United States. In those countries and other countries around the world.

 

We've had the same backwards ass foreign policy in the middle east and south central Asia for the past 50 plus years. It's never worked and yet we still think more bombs and more troops will work.

 

Again, had Saddam Hussein acted as a responsible leader for his people and done the necessary things to end sanctions after he was defeated in a war that HE started by the way, the UN would have removed sanctions. He chose not to. In fact, he worked hard to circumvent the sanctions but to further his own gains and not to provide proper food and water to his own people.

 

So how is this the US' fault again? Oh wait, it's not. There are lots of horrible things we did in Iraq in the 1990s, turning our backs on the Kurds and Shia when they had a chance to make real regime change from within, for example.

 

To sit there and equate the Bush41/Clinton containment strategy in Iraq to Vietnam or Korea or Afghanistan is really really really short sighted. In fact each of these conflicts have fully separate issues and problems, and different solutions. Iraq and Afghanistan probably share the most common ground, but its not especially similar, different pressures are made to bear and form different sets of challenges for us to face.

 

Just because more soldiers go to Afghanistan doesn't mean its more of the same. On the contrary, the direction we started to take in Iraq in 2007 and are starting to take in Afghanistan in 2009 are solid, reasonable directions that are looking to minimize the horrors of war and provide populations with not only access to safe drinking water, food and supplies, but the means to be able to provide it for themselves in the near future. I really can't see a comparison.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...mp;sc=YahooNews

 

The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

 

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

 

...

 

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

 

No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.

 

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

 

"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.

[lostfan]

Ok, so I feel better about the fact that President Obama made it clear that Afghanistan wouldn't be an open-ended conflict.

[Rex Kickass]

I think tonight's speech was one of the clearest outlays of foreign policy objectives that we have seen from a President in a lifetime.

 

And he threw in a Comparative Studies 101 lecture on top of it.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I think tonight's speech was one of the clearest outlays of foreign policy objectives that we have seen from a President in a lifetime.

 

And he threw in a Comparative Studies 101 lecture on top of it.

 

I agree. Thought it was well planned out and clearly demonstrated reasoning and an overall plan of action. Repeated himself several times but I understand he was trying to make sure certain points came across as they were meant so as to not get misconstrued.

[lostfan]

I would say Bush's pre-surge speech had about that level of detail. IIRC anyway. I was really pissed at him at the time and wasn't really listening that closely.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I would say Bush's pre-surge speech had about that level of detail. IIRC anyway. I was really pissed at him at the time and wasn't really listening that closely.

 

So you're saying you may have been one of those cadets caught during the speech yawning/falling asleep? haha

[lostfan]

So you're saying you may have been one of those cadets caught during the speech yawning/falling asleep? haha

Or trying to sneak pictures... rofl. Actually no I would've been intimidated as hell if the president was right there in front of me giving a national prime-time speech.

[BigSqwert]

via Digby's blog

 

What are those troops being sent to Afghanistan to do, exactly? It sounded to me like Obama was saying they would mostly be training the (corrupt) Karzai government's troops and doing little fighting. But if mostly what they're doing is teaching, then why are 30,000 more American soldiers needed in Afghanistan?

 

...

 

Here's what Obama said he wants the buildup to accomplish:

...a

s

Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it i

s

in our vital national intere

s

t to

s

end an additional 30,000 U.

S

. troop

s

to Afghani

s

tan. After 18 month

s

, our troop

s

will begin to come home. The

s

e are the re

s

ource

s

that we need to

s

eize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a re

s

pon

s

ible tran

s

ition of our force

s

out of Afghani

s

tan.

So Obama's goal in sending more troops is to "seize the initiative." What the hell could that possibly mean? Not destroying al Qaeda, surely. Not even crippling al Qaeda. It appears that Obama's is seeking not to eliminate a threat to the United States, let alone end the war, but rather merely to stop losing so badly. For 18 months.

 

And Obama expects Americans, not to mention Afghans and others, to lay down their lives for such a ludicrous, not to mention puny and obviously ineffective, objective?

 

Later in the speech, Obama does seem to imply a slightly broader military goal beyond simply "not losing." But exactly what that goal is remains maddeningly unclear. Is it to capture/kill al Qaeda's leaders? But they're not in Afghanistan and American troops are not (officially) in Pakistan. Is it to destroy the Taliban? Evil people they certainly are, but the Taliban didn't attack the US, al Qaeda did.

[Rex Kickass]

I would say Bush's pre-surge speech had about that level of detail. IIRC anyway. I was really pissed at him at the time and wasn't really listening that closely.

 

I was talking with my father about it, and I think that Obama set goals for success last night with a pretty refreshing clarity and was more honest and forthright about the why than we've seen since Poppa Bush did in 91 during Desert Storm's launch.

[Rex Kickass]

via Digby's blog

It seems pretty obvious to me, further squeeze the Taliban into disorganization, further squeeze Al-Qaeda out of the region, help Pakistan get the breathing room it needs to build its stability, and to provide Afghanis with tools necessary to build their own country from the ground up.