The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, based on false pretenses, and well....shouldn't have happened. The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days). The US Military performed splendidly. The follow through (driven by political leaders) was idiotic. Stupid decisions like not listening to his generals (Bush), disbanding the Iraqi security forces (Paul Bremer), and the odd focus on turning on the oil taps as soon as possible after the invasion doomed any hope of short term success (yeah, sure, lets pay for the invasion with oil...that'll work, right). Many generals argued for an occupation force in the millions to keep the peace. If the occupation were modeled after the plan for Germany in WW2 where the allies planned for a prolonged insurgency (that never really appeared, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf), we should have had more troops than were available in the entire US Military combined. Likely given a real, concerted effort (Marshall Plan-like) to re-build Iraq after we'd destroyed it, we might have had a chance. Oil never lasts, it's not sustainable, and in every country where natural resource mining is dominant, we see a rise of more despotism. We never understood the cultures of Iraq, nor will most people. To defeat an enemy you have to understand them (see Sun Tzu). NYT isn't the only problem. Our pride was the problem. We thought we could fix everything, do it better. The US was led by a person (Bush) who spouted all kinds of wonderful nationalistic straight talk (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year). Bush had no real plans and he unfortunately didn't listen to his experienced military leaders. He, as the commander in chief, is where the buck should stop for Iraq...and the long slow disaster that followed. Sure, we're all to blame for going along, but short of impeachment from our congress there is nothing the American people could have done to stop it.
> The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days)
The initial "Shock and Awe" campaign in Baghdad killed an estimated 6,600+ civilians. [1]
It's stated purpose was to "impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on ... [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."
That is to say, it was terrorism. And what's even more disgusting is that Americans watched it on TV like fireworks.
Please don't redefine terrorism. Terrorists don't give fair warning. Terrorists don't primarily target military installations. Terrorists don't accept surrender. As abhorrent and terrifying as war is, nothing can excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians. Yeah, it was disgusting, but the whole world watched because the whole world's media decided to broadcast it. Without the terror of Saddam's reign coupled with the "shock and awe" of 9/11, none of this would have ever happened.
The first instance of the word terrorism was the terror of a democratically legitimated state against civilians. Its own in this case: I'm speaking of the Reign of Terror of the french revolutionary state. Since then the word terrorism was somewhat redefined. But of course not everywhere. Even you describe Hussein's actions as terror in your post.
I think it's acceptable to describe as terror that thing which kills you, wether you are someone in Bagdad 2003 who is too poor to flee to Jordan, wether you are a victim of ISIL or if you are a 16 year old male shepherd in Waziristan where there is a full legal procedure which in the end lawfully decides to kill you because you're you.
I wonder why people forget Libya. There's already a proven track record of bungling by this person. No one in the Pentagon wanted the war. Look at what is left of what in 2011 was Africa's wealthiest nation.
Is it me or does 400k seems like pennies for the defense industry? Didn't she get 200k to do a talk at goldman? Does 400k really in debt these pols so much? How much media does 400k even buy?
That kind of money gives the donor access.....that means the donor can talk to the politician, and present their side of the story (as convincingly as possible).
The politician will feel that she maintains neutrality, and is making decisions for herself (not influenced by money), but since she has only heard one side of the story, she is likely to choose in that direction.
Similarly, if someone says to you, "hey, I have a problem, can you help me?" then you will probably help them if it's not too much trouble. Politicians are the same, except it costs $400k to be able to tell them that. And then the politician feels good that they have helped someone.
Keep in mind its at least 400k, it does not include money given to PAC's or given directly to the DNC to get her elected via the victory for Hillary fund[0], also her foundation takes many questionable donations[1]. Add to that favors, like donating to allies campaigns, speaking fees, board postions and revolving door type jobs for friends.
Bit of a leap from the facts in that article (Clinton got $454k in donations from defence industry workers vs $310k to Sanders for example) to her having to go to war as a result.
The unpredictable megalomaniac is at heart an isolationist, though. I can't ever recall anyone else in my lifetime expressing the desire to step back from NATO and reduce overseas commitments.
Trump's offer to Kasich (as confirmed by Kasich himself) was that he would be the quote 'most powerful VP in history', in charge of both domestic and foreign policy, while Trump would be in charge of 'making America great again'. So the other poster is exactly right, Trump doesn't have anything at heart beyond self-aggrandizement.
You might reasonably expect that Pence was made a similar offer. If that's how it played out, you could probably expect a relatively vanilla foreign policy from Pence.
The problem is there's no guarantee that's how it would play out; Trump is narcissistic and unstable. He might actually intend to do that until Pence does something he doesn't like, and then Trump takes the reins back.
If all you care about is foreign policy, maybe Pence is okay with you. The guy is a garbage person though and made me ashamed of my home state on multiple occasions.
Pence is actually also a terrible choice and even people in Indiana don't like him.
For the record I'm not a Trump fan either. I'd like to reform some stuff like patent law but Trump would burn most of it down.
I'm just saying that ~in theory~ Pence is an olive branch towards the middle. I don't think Trump will follow up on it in any way, nor will he be elected given the polls.
I don't see evidence Trump has anything at heart beyond self-aggrandizement, just that he panders even more shamelessly and offensively than other politicians.
Given the utter disdain for both major candidates, perhaps this year we can hope for a 3rd party candidate. Here is a nice visualization of the 4 top candidates and their stances on a wide spectrum of issues http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV
In the eyes of supporters of either major party, a vote for a third party is a vote for the other major party. It may not have always been this way, but it has for as long as I've been an engaged voter (~20 years).
When anyone says that to me, I respond with, "No, because otherwise I would vote for Hillary." That both angers and confuses them, which delights me.
Alternately, to people who consider it the same as voting for Hillary, I blithely say, "No, because otherwise I would vote for Trump." Same lovely effect.
> And 3rd party. If there's ever a year where they gain traction, it's this year.
No, to all evidence, 1992 was a far stronger year for that; while things might change between now and November, for pretty much the entire election season then Perot alone was polling above the combined total (at the same point in the campaign) of all non-major-party candidates this year. (And, during the primary season, sometimes ahead of both of the major party frontrunners in head-to-head polls that year.)
In terms of the electoral votes, there's essentially no chance of a third party result this year more successful than 1836, 1892, or 1948, and little chance of either electoral or popular vote success of a third party candidate more than 1856 or 1924.
1856 was arguably a success, because it set the stage for a bigger electoral victory the next election cycle. You can't really expect a party to come from nowhere and win in a single election, they have to build up momentum, structure, and supporters.
Well, unlike Iraq in 2003, there will be a war in Syria 12 months from now whether Hillary tries to remove Assad or not. The question is whether we continue to try to shape the outcome.
Not so sure about that - the war was mostly Russia and Iran backing Assad against Turkey and the US backing the anti Assad rebels. Now Assad and Erdogan are buddies things may settle down with Assad, Putin and Erdogan all being presidents for life with questionable elections and the US not able to do a lot about it.
> Not so sure about that - the war was mostly Russia and Iran backing Assad against Turkey and the US backing the anti Assad rebels.
The series of wars in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq involve a lot more than that, and a Turkey-Syria-Russia alignment doesn't remove the basis for them (though it might reduce the level of violence in Syria while increasing it in Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan (and even moreso ex-Iraqi Kurdistan if the movement of that region to secede from Iraq progresses.)
Maybe eventually. But that would require more war, would it not? My point was not that the war in Syria will never end, but that Syria will remain in a state of civil war for some time to come whether or not Hillary goes after Assad.
So the decision is not between war and peace in Syria. It is between one war and another. The alternative you describe might be shorter (or it might not be, depending on how Hillary would execute her plan to go after Assad, among numerous other factors), but it may also be worse in many other respects.
Do you have a source? I just searched and see no such pledge. All I'm finding are vague statements from her allies and advisors that they think she'll prioritize Syria.
State Department policy on Syria is regime change going back to at least 2011. The method/means is still fluid.
See the article and State Department testimony below, emphasis mine.
NYT, from 2013:
"Last summer, as the fighting in Syria raged and questions about the United States’ inaction grew, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred privately with David H. Petraeus, the director of the C.I.A. The two officials were joining forces on a plan to arm the Syrian resistance.
The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and ___after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal___.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House, according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they were rebuffed."
From 2011, testimony by Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, State Department:
"But we take the advent of the [Syrian National Council] very seriously, and we support the broader opposition’s efforts to focus on the critical task of expanding and consolidating its base of support within Syria by articulating a clear and common vision and ___developing a concrete and credible post-Assad transition plan.___"
"The cables also show that U.S. support for efforts to overthrow the Syrian government beginning in 2011 were not a response to the Assad government’s repression of protests but rather a continuation of a years-long strategy by more directly violent means."
Without that cable, this would be impossible to prove. Helps understanding why Manning who leaked that was 9 months in solitary confinement, stripped naked:
Ok, so to be clear, I'm pretty unhappy Clinton's generally hawkish approach to foreign affairs. However, especially with such emotional matters, we should be as precise as possible:
> ... removing Assad...
Citation still needed. The material you provided is interesting and perhaps notable, and perhaps, if followed through, could be first steps in a campaign to remove Assad. But it's far from a direct call for regime change, as you are claiming.
Again, I'm probably more in agreement with your perspective than disagreement, but we all parties are best served if we make make more precise, evidence backed claims.
I haven't read that myself, but even in the absence citation, you have to believe it is true, given her Middle East affiliations.
Hint: She and her husband are in bed with the House of Saud. Her (their) deep commitment to Israel is unquestionable. Never forget that she's a neocon and worships Henry Kissinger. It's just that she's joined at the waist to a democrat.
> Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of her address would be removing Assad.
Great plan, weren't there all these terrorists cutting of heads and stuff, making him look like an angel. Also there is this tiny problem of Russian troops fighting for Assad, which could interfere with the otherwise genius plan.
I wonder how much use there is in putting a lot more effort into any of those countries. My angle is climate change. There is a record-breaking heat wave going on there right now, with temperatures close to making human life impossible. Outlook: Getting a lot worse. They already have water shortages. The population still is growing. The trouble in Syria is said to have been caused with a mismanaged big drought as a major contributing factor.
We would have to create infrastructure for AC-based indoor living in the entire region and beyond on a grand scale, or only for some and see the rest of the population live in a vegetative state during much of the year. If climate change and the predictions are real anything less is futile. Basically, the entire region is becoming Arizona - without AC for most people, much higher humidity directly at the Gulf, with even less freshwater and many more people who also are much poorer.
Just a dark thought: Maybe there simply is no solution. The climate problem is independent of all the human problems, so solving them, already seemingly impossible, would not even help much with this new issue growing stronger.
> infrastructure for AC-based indoor living in the entire region and beyond
Thats a huge amount of constant power and infrastructure, which is just not going to be built.
Easier to build an underground city with high ceilings and taking advantage of physics than managing to give AC to everyone in the region, which is to say both options are extremely difficult and require pre-existing infrastructure.
And this still doesn't solve the problem of what precisely people will do for work in the region
What people will do? Well, same as everywhere else, everything from agriculture to software. It's more a question of how many of them the local agriculture can support. The number of people who've fled Syria is more than its entire population was in 1950. Similar applies to places like Yemen. Malthusianism may not apply globally, but it can certainly bite locally.
saw those built in places like ancient city center of Yazd, they sure had the heating/cooling figured out. even saw a photo of ice storage building (looked a bit older). I mean, storing ice in the middle of the desert.
no wonder persians were called 'educated arabs' in the past.
The initial execution was not beautiful, it and the occupation that followed were remarkably brutal. Dropping bombs on a Baghdad, destroying the civilian infrastructure like sewage, electricity etc. It was a case of aggression, the same crime for which the Nazi's were hanged at Nuremberg.
It was "beautiful" because you were watching it on TV and marveling at how we manage to drop bombs from a distance through a building's smallest opening.
For the men, women and children of Iraq, it was hell. It was not fun, and, most definitely, was not beautiful.
> The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days)
War is not beautiful. The invasion was a revolting, unnecessary horror from conception to now, where it still has not ended and shows no sign of an end.
As far as Bush not listening to generals, etc. I don't believe Bush was anything more than a figurehead. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. were the decision makers. They knew what they were doing, and they didn't have an exit strategy because exiting was never their goal.
"The country maintains a combination of market economy and a Nordic welfare model with universal health care and a comprehensive social security system. Norway has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower. The petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East." (Wikipedia)
it still amazes me that people argue that there is even such a thing as "legal" war. war is the breakdown of social order. law is only relevant in the presence of existing social order.
when a country like the U.S. chooses to initiate a war of aggression against a foreign population it is effectively just an assertion that there is no such thing as law when it comes to wielding geo-political power. in the case of the congressional vote to authorize force, that wasn't really an exercise of law. that was a public performance of assent to break the law. it was congress saying "we capitulate to your plans and will not attempt to interfere with the war".
You are mixing rhetoric into your argument. Nations make agreements between themselves and bodies like the UN, and violating these agreements can be called legal. War is not the breakdown of social order, often order continues within the societies of the belligerents. We may say that an act of war is legal if its declaration and conduct does not break any of the nation's agreements.
When a country decides to break its agreements it is more useful to say that there is no strong rule of law in international relations, rather than that there is no law.
I find it obscene that you can even entertain the notion of "legal war" in your mind. Is there such a thing as legal theft, legal rape, or legal murder?
Any real look at the history of toppling governments in societies as divided as Iraq should understand the difficulty. The western world has hundreds of years of experience.
The interesting thing is that, when they were successful in 2007 (more troupes) it was completely accidental. They had no idea why it worked at first, and it took them a while to figure it out.
As everybody know, the US could not stay their with this much troupes forever and thus they could never credibly commit to long term stability and peace between the different sections. If you can not stay somewhere for 1-2 generations, don't go there in the first place.
I don't think we should say let's pay for the invasion with their oil, it's probably more accurate to say let's take their oil or steal it because when you say 'pay' it implies Iraqis asked for invasion(which they didn't) and you are talking of oil as payment.
Terrorism all depends on the beholder, doesn't it?
The forced restructuring of Iraq's economy along right-wing neoliberal lines by the occupying force was another war crime. Read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Chandrasekaran.
Something can be aesthetically beautiful and morally terrifying and wrong at the same time. Please disentangle aesthetics and morality, since not doing so tends to debase both.
Why would it be mental illness? Does it affect my ability to live my life, or anyone else's to live theirs? After all, I make decisions that carry moral weight based on my moral, not aesthetic compass.
Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and is derived from how we feel about something, not from some objective criteria. It's disturbing to the average person, if not truly mentally ill, to feel that war is beautiful. Do you feel war is beautiful? If not, how can you say that it's beautiful? based on what? There is no objective criteria for beauty. It is a feeling. Remember that.
