Iraq is NOT Strategically Important

[David Octavius]

Lets take away all the emotion for a moment. Lets say we had to look at this in the cold eye of objectivity, away from the emotions of all those that died or got hurt in this war and lets ask ourselves -

What is the main reason we went to war in the first place starting with Afghanistan? I always believed it was to destroy terrorism and to get those who are responsible for the attacks of 2001 (Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda). If this is still the primary objective then how is Iraq really that important?

Terrorism after all is decentralized, unlike WWII where our enemy was commanded and originated from specific countries like Japan, Italy and Germany which necessitated that we invaded and defeat them on their turf, this war is independent of one state, it operates in multiple countries with multiple leaders. So then what really happens if we "win" in Iraq? (By winning I mean a stable government is established and all factions in the country have been defeated.) We didn't defeat the enemy, Al-Qaeda would still be strong as new organizations spring up all over the globe - the Fatah al-Islam aligns itself with the warped ideals of Al-Qaeda and is now making war in Lebanon. The enemy cannot be defined by country of origin or citizenship, so how can we ever hope to win by defeating them in one country?

A decentralized enemy takes a more surgical approach, our military is a sword, it can swiftly cut the head of a snake, but if that snake has multiple heads than we run the risk of getting bitten as we cut off one of its heads - it takes a combination of military when needed, diplomacy, sanctions, economic plans, intelligence gathering and more .

Iraq then is just a tactical battle, we are fighting terrorists there yes (and we are also fighting Iraqi Sunni and Shia's), but ignoring the larger battles that are taking place in countries like Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (where the Bin Laden - the perpetrator - still reigns) and ingrown terror cells in England, Spain, Italy and our country. We should not devote all these resources to a tactic that in the end will yield us very little.

I agree with people when they say it would be horrible if we let Iraq fall now but that doesn't mean we should stay, it means we should draw down and keep on some forces only to train Iraq's and provide basic support so that they can fight for themselves and help us in this tactical battlefront so that we can deal with larger problems.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

What is the main reason we went to war in the first place starting with Afghanistan? I always believed it was to destroy terrorism and to get those who are responsible for the attacks of 2001 (Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda). If this is still the primary objective then how is Iraq really that important?

The main reason we went to Iraq was for WMD's. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda at that time. Bush tried very hard to spin the message to make America believe Iraq had something to do with the terrorist attacks on our soil. Since we have been in Iraq Al-Qaeda has shown up for the party.

[Diesel66]

Remove their source of money, remove nations that protect them, and help other nations patrol their country.

[Nonphixion]

It's a war to keep Iraq's oil out of the world market for a few years longer. Eventually coming under our ownership and distrobution, but not after market prices for crude have been driven up through the roof.

[DosEquis]

Iraq is strategically important if you are a member of PNAC, and PNAC members make up a very large part of this administration. This war was part of PNAC's geopolitical agenda. Their goal is for the US to remain the lone super power in the world. Nobody has bombers that can fly and an army that can march without fuel. Oil is a critical resource both economically and militarily and Iraq is in the center of it. Control of that region, in their opinion, is a major step in the right direction when it comes to remaining the global super power.

The war on terror, UN resolutions, and Saddam was an evil dictator were the excuses to go. Unfortunately only one of those really holds any water and it wouldn't be enough to invade on its own. They played on the patriotism of the country after 9/11. Terror, terror, torture chambers, mass graves, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, 500lbs of mustard gas in a turkey factory, etc etc etc.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror.

Saddam was evil and killed his own people, while we gave him money, weapons, and intelligence reports on Iran. We even helped install this asshole and was his ally for years despite his evil brutal nature we complain about. I dont have to post the rummy shaking saddams hand picture again. Saddam was only evil after he was in the way of PNACs foreign policy goals.

The only thing remaining is the UN resolutions that have been violated. That would have not been enough for a preemptive, unilateral invasion of that country on its own merit.

I know a few right wingers will try to post that Clinton supported regime change for the country. Just because one supports the fact they would like a new leader for that country, does not mean they support a unilateral military solution to replace them. When the rest of the world wants regime change in the United States, they are not saying that they will invade to remove George Bush. Those pleading with clinton to take military action against Iraq in 1998 might sound familiar.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Nearly every single person who autographed the letter has been part of this administration at some point, and some are still part of the administration.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Remove their source of money, remove nations that protect them, and help other nations patrol their country.

1) Iraq was not a source for money
2) Very suspect evidence that Saddam protected them
3) Well we broke it right? so we must fix it

Dos is right, we went in their because of a Neo-Con pie in the sky ideal that it would spur a flowering of democracy throughout the middle east. Silly idealists...

It still stands that it is not strategically important if the objective is stopping terrorism, it merely just one battlefront and not even the most important one at that

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

1) Iraq was not a source for money

he gave the palestian terrorists money.

2) Very suspect evidence that Saddam protected them

Was talking overall.

3) Well we broke it right? so we must fix it

He wasnt in control of his borders.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

he gave the palestian terrorists money.

So do the Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians. When do you plan on invading, with what allies, with what money to pay for it, and how can you sell it to congress that cutting funding sources for palenstinian terrorist organizations is actually defending the US so they declare war?

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Was talking overall. He wasnt in control of his borders.

He controlled his borders very well. Those like OBL and Al Qaeda were not allowed in because they were a threat to his semi-secular regime. Overall you may be able to tie him supporting some palenstine terrorism but there are far more countries with far greater implications regarding terrorism. Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all fund drastic amounts more in regards to terrorism.

If supporting terrorists is what you are going to bank on, we still invaded the wrong country.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

he gave the palestian terrorists money.

So? Iraq was one of MANY countries that give the Palestinians money. BTW, Palestinians != Al Queda.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Was talking overall.

There was NO Al Queda in Iraq (Bin Laden hated him).

Originally Posted by Diesel66

He wasnt in control of his borders.

And the US is the perfect teacher on how to secure your borders? Right.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So do the Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians. When do you plan on invading, with what allies, with what money to pay for it, and how can you sell it to congress that cutting funding sources for palenstinian terrorist organizations is actually defending the US so they declare war?

Bush: we will attack all terrorists and the nations that support them

And that wasnt the justification for Iraq. It was merely an added benefit.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So? Iraq was one of MANY countries that give the Palestinians money. BTW, Palestinians != Al Queda.

And ? The war is against international terrorists not al-qaeda.

And the US is the perfect teacher on how to secure your borders? Right.

Do we have active rebellions in our borders ?

Thailand, Philipenes, Pakistan are nations that need aid in securing their nation and we have provided aid/training to those nations.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Bush: we will attack all terrorists and the nations that support them

I know I will get a negative rep for this but whatever... the above is bullshit and lies that the neo-cons who wrap themselves in our flag spew.

As far as State Sponsored Terrorism:

Are we going to attack Saudi Arabia with all the state sponsored terrorism they have supported for decades? No

Have we attacked Syria and Iran for supporting Hezbollah? No

We haven't attacked them and we won't, the only reason we may attack Iran is because of their Nuclear Ambitions not for their support of Shia terror groups for fear of alienating the Shia majority in Iraq which is required to have a stable government

IN terms of getting terror groups:

And if we are too get all terror groups what are we doing about the Kurd terrorists that attack Turkey? Or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka that has killed hundreds within just last year? Or the Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon? Or how about the Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia that has killed many hundreds in their attacks? Nothing

Its all bullshit politics and its only a matter of time before they exposed for the liars they are

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I know I will get a negative rep for this but whatever... the above is bullshit and lies that the neo-cons who wrap themselves in our flag spew.

As far as State Sponsored Terrorism:

Are we going to attack Saudi Arabia with all the state sponsored terrorism they have supported for decades? No

Have we attacked Syria and Iran for supporting Hezbollah? No

List every terrorists group that meets the standard. Do you really expect us to attack every single one of them at once ?


Perhaps we would list them in the order of most dangerous and/or ones with the most positive change if they are eliminated. Taking out the Saudis would make us even a bigger target in the Muslim world. Hey guys, lets invade Mecca.

[smokie700]

some may not want to hear it but Iraq was important for the pending conflict with iran

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by smokie700

some may not want to hear it but Iraq was important for the pending conflict with iran

"everyone what's to go to baghdad but real men want to go to tehran"

was the phrase back in 2002

Sort of hasn't quite worked out the way envisaged.

the global economy is regulated through the levers of ME control.


Boris
London

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Bush: we will attack all terrorists and the nations that support them

And that wasnt the justification for Iraq. It was merely an added benefit.

We've supported rebel and terrorist groups throughout our history...we're not attacking them are we?

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And ? The war is against international terrorists not al-qaeda.

Please list the names of the terrorist groups that have attacked us on US soil.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Do we have active rebellions in our borders ?

Do we support "active rebellions" inside the borders of other countries?

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Thailand, Philipenes, Pakistan are nations that need aid in securing their nation and we have provided aid/training to those nations.

Again, if WE can't secure our own borders, who are we to tell others to do it?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Please list the names of the terrorist groups that have attacked us on US soil.

al-qaeda, ramzi yousef's group, white supremiscist groups, Beirut groups,

Why the focus at only US soil attacks ? Are Americans worth less if they are outside of the 50 states

Again, if WE can't secure our own borders, who are we to tell others to do it?

Our borders are secure on this matter. We do not have major groups in the US attacking us or using our nation as a platform to attack other nations.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

al-qaeda, ramzi yousef's group, white supremiscist groups, Beirut groups,

So you named one...Al Queda. Our "war" is against them. The other "groups" haven't attacked the US and the fact you mention white supremiscist groups is funny because they are Christian terrorists...yet most people on your side of the fence claim those don't exist. Besides, you said "international terrorists"...which brings up another point...we basically are labling ANY group that attacks us an "international terrorist" group on a whim. We try to stick that "Terror supporter" label on everyone we hate. Let's look at the facts...Saudi Arabians hijacking our planes? Yes. Pakistanis have nukes? Yes. We blow up Iranian airliners by "accident"...yes.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Why the focus at only US soil attacks ? Are Americans worth less if they are outside of the 50 states

What are Americans doing there in the first place? If you're in a different country, you are taking your life in your own hands. I don't go to Columbia because there's a good chance I would be kidnapped. I don't go to Iraq et al because I will probably be kidnapped and killed.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Our borders are secure on this matter. We do not have major groups in the US attacking us or using our nation as a platform to attack other nations.

No they are not...not in the slightest. Just because there hasn't been an attack using the borders doesn't mean they are safe. (like saying our planes were safe before 9/11 because they had never been used to crash into buildings.)

[mididoctors]

I think dos equis is sort of right as is smokie700...

the general "reason" for US involvement in the ME is control of the eurasian land mass by the distortion of energy markets that favours resource distribution from eurasia to the continental USA... this has been a default condition since ww2 and the USA replacing UK and french influence in the region.

the US state dept has had a thread of thinking concerning the "resource depletion of the eastern hemisphere" for over 50 years.... I think it best to think of this thread in policy as a generalization rather than some hard and fast doctrine written in some secret document..(which it may be!) essentially the physical reality of US consumption forces this logic on US behaviour/policy


superimposed on top of this is all the baggage of the Israel-arab conflict UsS domestic pressure and the house of Saud.... this following material is a few years old now but remains relevant...

--------------------------------------------------------

mididoctors 2005-10-31, 18:59:19
A Hindsight into the macro dynamics of oil depletion geopolitics

The idea for this post came from thinking about energy transitions in relation to macro economic history on the Lynch thread. What got me thinking was that subjective bias is built from a host of assumptions about ‘what happened’ and how there was a lack of understood precedent. In the geopolitics forum there is little analysis of how oil depletion has impacted on geopolitical decisions and IMV is often done backwards or with some circular logic that proves some peak oil agenda of this or that political elite.


The aspect of hindsight is that if we intend to understand how depletion impacts geopolitics and vice versa we need some broad macro overview of what happened and how oil depletion was a factor.

I have decided that starting such an ambitious endeavour , (and this is for me in relative terms , I should really be doing something else) I will break up my take on the impact of oil depletion into manageable chunks or more honestly into areas I feel I have some insight worth reading.


WW2 and post war changes in geopolitical influence:

WW2 has been described as a oil war in that the victors where powered by oil to a greater degree than the losers and access or lack of it to this single resource more than any other hastened the defeat of the axis powers. How much this is true is a separate argument but what is true is the US elite and the policy organs from the President down saw control and access to oil as fundamental to the projection of geopolitical influence and Saudi Arabia was seen as central to this aim as early as 1945 ...

Due to shrewd manoeuvring and lack of colonial reputation in the region the US had bought into the house of Saud before the UK and was better positioned at the war's end to gain influence in the kingdom

What is surprising from our perspective at this forum is the degree in which thinking in the US was dominated by long term views of depletion and by depletion I mean depletion and not just access. It is also surprising that the US analysts considered Saudi control and stability a potential trigger for WW3 at this time before the war had come to an end

US Navy secretary James Forrestal wrote:
"The prestige and hence the influence of the US is in part related the wealth of the government and its nationals in terms of oil resources, foreign as well as domestic."

In Jan 1945 Dean Ascheon Under-Secretary of State received from W Murry, head of the Near Eastern and African Affairs office, a secret memorandum in which Murry stated
"The government should consider what positive steps it must take immediately in order to afford adequate protection to this {Saudi} interest"

What he went on to say quite extraordinarily prophetic or perhaps self prophetic in its meaning
“If the Saudi economy should break down and political disintegration ensue, there is a danger that ether great Britain or Soviet Russia would attempt to move into Saudi Arabia to preserve order and thus prevent the other from doing so. Such a development in a country strategically located and rich in oil as is Saudi Arabia might well constitute a "causa belli" threatening the peace of the world"

This was in Jan 1945 when Saudi was producing barely 21 million barrels a year! Yet its importance even before the discoveries of the 1960s was foreseen. (One wonders if this potentiality mentality still exists about western Iraq?)

Here we can see that oil is playing its part in positioning the US as a replacement of UK colonial interests and Murry identifies Saudi oil as focal point for conflict. While US power was clearly seen as a stabilising force between Russia and the UK colonial legacy, (in a state of embarrassing decline), it is interesting to note the areas the US considered vital to gain influence in. There was no comparative strategic interest in India compared to the house of Saud.

This early post war period is not so much the start of the Cold War proper but also a phased replacement and petty spates between the UK and the US which would cumulate in the Suez crisis.

Moreover it is in this time period that some extraordinary claims are made, that