The Oil Drum

181 comments on Breaking Down Prop 87

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kevembuangga on September 12, 2006 - 3:06pm

Personally I support the war in Iraq, I think it was a needed action(regardless if 9/11 had happened),

Ouch!
I suppose you are disappointed, are you?
If not, no need to reply.

I you are disappointed can you tell us what you expected and what made you think that your expectations were realistic?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on September 12, 2006 - 3:51pm

My reason for supporting the war in Iraq was that the pre-existing no fly zone and embargo we were maintaining was costly to us, costly to the Iraqi people and didn't do much of anything against Saddam. His rule and powerbase still pretty much did whatever they wanted within the confines of the no-fly zone and unfortunately Iraq is strategically located for causing problems with the whole world.

Further while Saddam was somewhat insane, his boys who stood to ascend to the throne so to speak were even nuttier, and dealing with Iraq during the rule of the evil we knew I think was more advantagous, than dealing with Iraq during the rule of the evil we didn't know. And Saddam was getting up there in years.

At the time, and given the intelligence provided I thought the case for WMDs was sufficient, especially as I was watching the UN become the laughing stock of the world because it lacked the teeth needed to enforce its own resolutions (not just the ones on WMDs but also the ones on humanitarian, and treaty clauses from Gulf War 1, and the internal corrupt oil for food programs). Essentially the lead up to Iraq, and then outcry of the UN against the US led coalition sealed the UN as just another League of Nations in my book.

But back to Iraq. My initial expectations were pretty much fully met with the initial offensive. A crushing roll over within a few weeks of operations. The subsequent rebuilding phase is where I think things are being botched, and where I think by our actions we have emboldened Islamic extremists and in the end given the appearance of a paper tiger(whether that appearance is true or not is irrelevant).

With the militants uprising around Iraq, and the soft response to those uprisings, the extremist Muslim mind sees in us a people unwilling to wage war to its fullest, and so as a result they now think that if they wage war more fully than us, they will win. A philosophy that I worry may end up proving true.

My first opinion on how to handle Iraq's rebuilding differently would've been to split the country into its 3 ethnic portions and help each portion form their own constitutional democracy/republic (a variation of Sen. Biden's plan if I remember correctly). This would've provided a useful tool to the Bush administration as it would've allowed them to first avoid rival power grabbing(and subsequent violence) from the sects, and further provide three examples of varying states of success and failure, and use those examples for both public relations to the American people and the world, and for a prod to those sectarian portions who were failing.

This would've also had the side benefit in that the Kurdish province(which had already hashed out a fairly good start to a working government ,with the beginnings of a basic constitution, during the no-fly zone period) could be used as a tool against Iran who controls several Kurdish dominated provinces and if properly supported, the US and Kurds could be doing to Iran, what Iran and the Shiites are doing to Iraq and the US now(a tool which might have helped to diffuse the current Iranian nuclear situation, or at least provided us another bargaining chip).

The other advantage in breaking up Iraq would've been a prevention of the entirety of Iraq falling into civil war as it risks currently doing. If the Kurds, or Sunnis or Shiites had regional infighting in their portions I think the containment of that infighting would've been more easily handled.

Further, I think the use of force and reward would've been more dynamic in a split portioned Iraq. In a province say like Falluja(sp?) where uprising had been fierce, a response of cordoning off the city, providing a 48 hour time table for civilians to leave(with the subsequent searching of weapons on those leaving), followed by a barrage of C130 gunships putting one bullet every square foot in the city(something that looks absolutely amazing in time lapsed photogrpahy), and therefore killing any person left inside would've removed the paper tiger the Muslims think they see now. In otherwords the Muslims respect and fear strength, so show them American strength, but with the 48 hour evacuation we maintain our humanitarian obligations by allowing civilians to get out of the way.

In reverse, for those provinces which showed stability, peace and progress, rewards of additional aid and infrastructure would provide further encouragement to work with the US. Essentially a re-enforcement of the "We can be your best friend or worst enemy" image.

Basically the lack of willingness to use overwhelming force and unequivically win peace through victory, combined with the lack of forsight in forcing 3 hostile factions to come together in one government not being ruled by tyrannical force is my problem with the administration of this war. Two strategic policy mistakes in my opinion, which may cost us the whole shebang.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dinopello on September 12, 2006 - 4:15pm

The untenable situation that existed with the embargo and no-fly is true, combined with the thought that the two nutty sons would rule with access to increasing oil wealth does make a good case that something had to be done.

However, invasion and occupation I don't think was evaluated as to the risks involved with it.

Your idea to level villages that have uprising, after humanitarianly warning the citizens might have some effect, however I'm not sure in practice it would be possible to carry it out in a humanitarian way since the bad guys would probably force the civilian population to stay and be slaughtered by our gunships through force, coercion etc. But, it would do something and such tactics are what have been used by other occupations. The Romans, I have been told would - if even one Roman soldier was killed would burn the village, sow the fields with salt and execute every adult male (age 12+ ?) and sell the women and children into slavery. Successful occupations are brutal and not really something i think most Americans want to be in the practice of.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on September 12, 2006 - 4:36pm

I've had to go round about with a few arguments both pro and con about leveling a city in such a fashion. Its not an easy thing to consider and I'm not suggesting the idea in a off the cuff cavalier way, but it does get a point across. Also I'm not saying that leveling a city in every instance of war is the move to make, but against Islamic Extremists who respect and respond to naked raw power, its something I think needs to be considered.

One of the problems I think exists with modern warfare (that is war after WWII), is that the countries who are striving to keep peace amongst civilizations have tried to bring civilization to war. War by its definition is a most uncivilized practice.

Tyrants and dictators have become less and less afraid of becoming aggressors and brutal killers. I think a lot of this is because they know the UN, and those nations which give the UN its muscle(as little as that is) won't fully prosecute a war to its most terrible conclusions. They hide behind the very rules of war we(Europe and the US) formed after WWII to try and limit civilian casualties. This puts civilians directly in the path of harm as they become human shields.

I sometimes wonder if more civilians would be spared if we just made it a point to all aggressors that if they violate the rules of war, then we toss them also, and show true unrestrained destruction upon them and their armies. Problem right now is we keep our hands tied while they fire Anti-Aircraft guns beside homes, or take up sniper positions from inside family's houses, or launch rockets from beside a UN watchpost, or suicide bomb markets, and disco studios.

They know we will play by the rules even if they don't. And in their minds us staying by the rules is not a sign of strength and humanitarian restraint(as we view it), it is viewed as weakness, and an exploit in our armor. And they will keep picking out at that chink in our armor until they finally cause us to seriously bleed or die from it.