Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:25:37 -0400
From: "Garrett M. Groff" <groffg@...design.com>
To: <Throwaway1@...umbus.rr.com>,
	<full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Free Iraq

Excellent points, with exception to the gratuitious name-calling (just b/c 
there are annoying people on this list who throw out invective doesn't mean 
we should submit to our temptation to do the same vile practice back to 
them).

I'll add the following (despite the fact that it's grossly off-topic!). The 
Iraq war was more than just a follow-up to a UN resolution or two. It was a 
desire by neo-conservatives to re-make the Middle East. That desire is 
partly strategic and partly political. Strategic: eliminate the threat of 
WMD proliferation (including to Salafist groups like Al Qaeda) by scaring 
rogue-ish countries into thinking "they're next" if they don't behave 
(think, Libya). The strategic plan was to go beyond Iraq and is often 
referred to as a "domino effect" whereby other mid-east nations liberalize 
their political systems and economies. Political: free up huge oil fields in 
Mesopotamia, bringing down global oil prices. Also, empower Republicans, 
making them appear more responsive & pro-active in a post-911 world to 
threats posed by rogue nations & global terrorist groups.

My focus is strategic, since the political side-effects are less important 
and less justifiable than the strategic argument.

Result...
Unforutnately, the nation-rebuilding effort is not going well (compared to 
the actual "war" which went well by historic standards, lasting only about 4 
weeks; everything since has involved dealing with the war's aftermath). I 
can think of specific things that would have made the nation re-building 
campaign much more likely to succeed. Rather than a lengthy explanation on 
that, I'll say this. Think about what would have happened if the Bush 
administration weren't so inept and if Iraq had been a successful model of 
nation re-building. That model could be replicated to other nation-states 
that are arguably and egregiously bad, be it countries with a) too much 
government (dictatorships) or b) too little government (many African states, 
which are tribal & lack sufficient central governance).

A "nation re-making" process that falls under UN legitimacy would be 
powerful, shifting the American focus from maintaining the "superpower 
status quo" to "making the world better." Sounds controversial (like some 
imperial colonial fantasy), but try living in the DPRK, Cuba, or Sudan, and 
tell me those nations aren't screwed up and wouldn't go for a "nation 
re-making" make-over, provided that it actually worked.

The US (and others) will certainly engage in nation re-building again. If 
you don't believe that, then check out recent US history. It's really just a 
question of when, where, and to what extent. Next time, I hope the war's 
aftermath goes substantially better and involves broad international 
legitimacy, not to mention significant involvement in the post-war phase 
(where the US actually needs allies).

- G


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Throwaway1@...umbus.rr.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq


===========================================================================

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote:

>
>Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all.
>

Actually, dummy...
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations
authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military action
was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The
United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be in
effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors
who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included
but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and
nuclear/radiological weapons.
After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American
political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same
patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and resumed
hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces
searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they
found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized biologicals,
final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this is
because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that he
simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of looking
for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current
American administration or your opinion of their actions.

However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you
demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job here.

No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's
murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan People.

THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I
ordinarily do to ALL of your posts.

============================================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists