|11-01-2005, 06:01 PM||#1|
lost in the ether
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 'cuse
The wrong war at the wrong time
At the time we rolled into Iraq, I was against the war. I figured that we would have no problem rolling up the Iraqi army (which was only slightly tougher than the French army) and taking control of the country. Which, if you think about it, is an incredible feat. Our military forces went almost as far on the planet away from their home base as you can go, assembled, and then disassembled an enemy - in less than a month. I believe that to be unprecedented in history.
What concerned me was 2 fold
1. The building of an new Iraq, the justification of war (or therefore lack of), the insurgency, etc. The troubles there are well documented. Every talking head trying to score points off our country is piling on.
2. The second is this. The prez said in his speech following 9/11 (it was on 9/17 I believe) that we should bring justice to our enemies, or our enemies to justice. I figured that was good. He said we would work to eliminate terrorist supporting countries. That is right on.
At that point, we went into Afghanistan. No problem, that was the #1 power base of terrorism. Then we went off on the wild tangent in Iraq, a country not defined as a terrorism supporter and off the radar in Sept 2001.
However, had we waited, right now would be our golden oppurtunity to take out a terrorist nation.
As we speak, the world is lining up to condemn one of the 3 or 4 biggest terrorist nations on the planet - Syria. Syria has a LONG history of supporting thugs and evildoers of all kinds for 30 years. The country is run by a Central American like junta that has gone and whacked a Lebanese leader - a country they have long worked to destabilize.
Imagine, had we not gone into Iraq. Our army wouldnt be tied up, over committed, and run down. Instead it would be ready to take action against the gov't of Syria. Syria has a coast line we could land on, and it also butts up to Turkey - a country where we have bases. I believe that unlike in the Iraqi scenario, the Turks would allow us to use their country as a staging ground.
Undoubtedly, there would countries opposed to our intervention there. Those that hate us, and the other nations (N Korea and Iran come to mind) that are state sponsors of terror. However, they would be soon for what they were - malcontents who oppose us just cuz they can.
After beating up on any Syrian units that wished to fight (I imagine more than a few would be happy to surrender their arms), we would be able to incorporate aid from other countries on the planet (Europeans, hopefully. You never know, they have become Frenchified). to rebuild the country, while we prepared our troops to either act in a new place, defend an ally, or jsut be a force in presence - instead of a fully engaged occupying force.
I doubt we will be able to punish Syria (really its gov't, not its people) for the action it took in Lebanon. Instead, we will be left to sanctions in the UN (an org that the US has little use or love of)... and we have all seen how just and pure the UN is its enforcement of sanctions.
|11-01-2005, 08:05 PM||#3|
lost in the ether
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 'cuse
The mistake of Iraq is nation building.
Replace the two bit family in charge in Syria with some other leader. Make it perfectly clear to him that if the same activity takes place under his leadership that he too will be displaced.
My take on Iraq (and life) is this. People dont respect what they are given. Look all around you. Its evident everywhere
-people who win lotteries have a higher bankruptcy rate than anyone else. Certainly higher than those who work hard to achieve wealth.
-I see women who undergo gastric by pass surgery and lose hundreds of lbs. Suddenly, there marriage fails as they discover their new "sexiness" and maybe their husband isnt good enough
-people who live in govt projects destroy them, where as home buyers improve houses.
What do all these circumstances have in common? People are given things (wealth, new figures, properties) that they havent earned. They havent struggled and worked for it. It is all the sudden thrust upon them.
Take America's course to representative govt. Did someone appear outta no where and give us liberty? Hell no. We had to take it. We fought, bleed, and died for it. Sure, there was dissent in the ranks, along with apathy. Sure, the French, Spanish, and Dutch joined the battle to help us (the Spanish and Dutch more just to get at the Brits). But, those nations didnt join in til after we had proven we were in the battle for the long run and that we could win a battle (Saratoga) against British forces.
In Iraq, they are under a dictator one day and then "free" the next. What does freedom mean to them? Did they fight for it? No. Freedom doesnt mean uniting together as a group to achieve victory. To them freedom can mean the right to go kill your neighbor for some slight (or imagined slight).
The question for you is this?
Have you learned any lessons from the 20th century? Look what happened. Tyrants flourished... Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao. What did they do? They set about insighting revolution elsewhere. Destabilizing neighbors. Allowing revolutionaries to operate with impunity in their territory while working to other throw a neighbor.
If this ding dong two bit thug in Damascus is allowed to get away with killing leaders in neighboring countries, with but a small slap on the wrist from the UN... whats next? Hell, he has been pulling crap for 30 years. Why should he now or ever change
The judicious use of force is often necessary, unfortunately. It is a sad fact that the only thing that some people (esp two bit thugs) understand is force.