What are we doing in Iraq?
 

I'm not asking this to be smart-ass, but I've serisouly lost the plot on this one. Without getting into an involved back-story of political debates, can someone please just explain to me in simple terms: What are we doing in Iraq? Why are we in Iraq? That simple question should have an answer that can be clearly stated and clearly understood. If someone could explain it to me, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Because Saddam was an imminent threat to the USA with his bountiful WMDs.

No, Wait. It was because we wanted his oil.

No, wait. It's the flypaper. We wanted all the terrorists to come to Iraq so we could 'bring it on' in one convenient location.

No, wait. It was because we needed to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and Iraq is a nice central location in the region to base them.

No, wait. It's because Bush always wanted to finish his father's job.

Take your pick. I'm sure there are other possible reasons too.

I don't think anyone knows.

You want the official answer, right Flint? The one that the government is using? To topple a brutal dictator that was a serious threat to the United States and to give Iraqis freedom from said dictator.

The real answer...pffft! We'll never really know...

Babysitting a civil war.

Diversion from Osama

The Domino Theory

Some kind of profit for Bush


The world may never know.

Because as long as we stay, we won't have lost yet.

There has to be a reason, or we wouldn't be doing it, right? Someone will surely be able to explain this to me.

So I can spend billions trying to fill up my gas tank?

The official reason was that Saddam Hussein wasn't complying fully with the weapons inspections, and we thought he still had the weapons of mass destruction he had years before.

I have no idea if that's the real reason.

If your question is "why are we still there?" I think the answer has more to do with Bush's psychology.

Did we think he had an inter-continental delivery system? Does the current objective consist of staying there until we find these weapons?

Yep, he's a megalomaniac who can't admit when he's wrong (see: new-cue-lar)

I don't want this to turn into a Bush-bashing thread. I'm asking a serious question here. People don't spend billions of dollars, and send their sons and daughters off to die, for no reason whatsoever. So, there has to be a reason. I don't know what it is so I'm seriously asking. Why are we in Iraq and what is our objective? There has to be one.

Sorry, shouldn't bash, I know. I just don't get the answer either...and from everything I've seen no one can enlighten you. So I had to look at what I perceive to be the common denominator.

Certainly someone can give a better answer, and I would love to learn from that too.

I do apologize about the bashing...that gets us nowhere.

It's not just one single objective.

The big one: this was (and probably still is) an attempt to create a lawful, productive, pro-western nation containing US military bases, in the center of the middle east and directly bordering several "problem countries", without seeming in any way to declare war on Islam specifically in any way.

See the Project for the New American Century page.

That's the reason that makes the most sense. I've only ever heard that reason given here on the Cellar, and even then it was a year or two after the war began that I first heard it presented here. There's a certain amount of revisionist history going on with that reason, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

I think the problem is that the government can't accomplish it's objectives effectively while showing all it's cards on the table; but, without some reasonable explanation for our very expensive actions, they cannot get the support of the public that is needed to continue.

That's a tough tightrope to walk, but I've found the problem with this war to be an utter failure to provide any rational-sounding reason whatsoever for it's necessity.

We could have started off the whole thing by saying "We need to establish some military bases in the region, to protect our interests, so we're toppling this dictator (which nobody will weep for) and setting up camp right here, like it or not." But instead... well you all know what happened.

Well, it's been out in the open on the PNAC website since Clinton was in office, and the PNAC members populated Bush's administration extensively. But they never explicitly acknowledged it, AFAIK. Possibly in part due to Bush's campaign derision of "nation building".

In hindsight we can maybe connect the dots a bit, but at the time the nation was headed for war, I don't recall a single person talking about building a pro-democracy country in the middle of the region as a base for our troops.

So instead we're bungling through a war that people don't support because it hasn't been explained to them - and this is because we were ashamed to admit our real reasons? That's fucking insane. I've been saying all along: just tell us what the reasons are! We already know, just say it out loud!
I was. More than "a single person" was talking about it. PNAC has some very high-profile members, and they are not the slightest bit secretive.

Gotta give you points for that answer.

I'm curious: is Islam the problem?

I've posted the Steven denBeste strategic overview many times in response to this thread's question... I think even before March 03. Most of it still applies, and still shows the framework for the decisions, even if the decisions were wrong.

Are you the spokesman for the US government, that explains to the population why we need to go to war and spend billions of dollars?

Islam is definitely not the problem.

Fundamentalist Islam is, because as a school of thought, it has adopted (or more likely inherited from Stalinism) a violent bloodlusty streak that civilization will not permit to go on in the long run.

F, I'm just some guy and I get a lot wrong, but since 9/11 I've been paying hard attention and doing all the assigned readings.

Foreign policy is a big difficult chess game. You know, you wouldn't talk out loud as you were deciding what chess move to make. "Let's see, if I move my rook here, you'll take my queen in two moves..."

And I wouldn't trust this President to describe what he had for breakfast correctly, let alone develop a comprehensive false-but-accurate explanation, including all the head-fakes you need to convince France something is a good idea.

In the end, the right way to decide on this, no matter what the complicated purpose is, is to look at the results. Which are poor, and too expensive in lives and money and worldwide respect.

I suspect that you [we] are in Iraq because, in some way that I have yet to discern, it was considered by the Bush administration to be politically expedient.

Undertoad: He's just this guy, you know?

The only thing I can think of is that the government doesn't want us to know the real reason. Also, I can't see it being one sole reason either.

I don't think it is fighting terrorists because we left Afghanistan to burn.

If you believe in the NWO, us staying in Iraq and attacking Iran fits in nicely.

Terrorism. Thanks for bringing it up. I hear sentences that start with Iraq and end with Terrorism. No connecting idea is offered.

The original neocon notion was that reforming Iraq would accelerate reforms in other countries, a sort of domino theory as pressures are put on theocratic rulers in the region. As of now it looks exactly wrong, as it accelerates sectarian instincts in the people, which precisely fails to solve the problem.

The question is, if you destroy the original Al Qaeda - including getting bin Laden - does that make the civilized world safe from islamist terrorism? Or is a bigger solution needed?

Seems to me almost everyone on both left and right believed in a bigger solution to address "root causes" - they disagreed on what those root causes are, because they come from different schools of thought.

Anyway, Iraq is the bigger solution that the right came up with to address the bigger problem of islamist terrorism.

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it.

Start at Iraq, take me through the middle part, step-by-step, and then end on Terrorism. It's the middle part I'm not getting.

It's the like the underpants gnome scheme:
1. Steal underpants
2. ???
3. Profit

It's a common solution to sticky problems.

They were telling the american people that these little airplanes could send in biological weapons. People were out buying duck tape and plastic to seal themselves inside.

Then there was the big mushroom cloud imagery Bush and Cheney used to scare people into voting their way.

This is what made it expedient in the beginning.

I don't think I can do it that way. It'd be like explaining a car by starting with the muffler.

There was a shortage of Devil's Food so there was an elevated demand for yellowcake.

Oh... I see, sorry. I guess what I mean is: starting at the War on Terror, explain a middle part that ends with us being in Iraq.
I just stated it the way I usually hear it, which is "Iraq, blah blah blah, Terrorism." It's that elusive middle part that confounds me.

Either I just plain don't know or it's still too difficult to sum up. There are so many schools of thought here. Plus I'm describing a discounted theory... let me try.

To start, "Terrorism" is actually code for "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" or perhaps, "the network of support in money, safehousing, and weapons that permit these assholes to do what they do."

One theory would say that the US should remain as active as possible overseas, because it is a benefit to the world, and necessary for orderly trade and diplomacy etc.. for *somebody* to be policing it.

That said, one thing you might do to stop "terrorism" is to pressure to reform or eliminate countries that are known to be friendly to such things. Countries that actually use terrorism, house terrorists, fund terrorists that sort of thing.

You can't change the entire Islamic world, so you just change the squares on the chessboard that will give you more influence, and -- in the worst case -- take the squares that will give you bases with 500 miles of flight, without refueling or overflight problems, if you have to run sorties to the other trouble countries.

So... where's most of the worst shit coming from? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Can we eliminate and pro-US-ize two of the others, and thus pressure the other three to reform? Let's see: S.A. is OUT, since that will cause ALL of Islam to go fundamental on our ass. Iran is out, because they're Persians, and won't affect the Arab world at all. Afghanistan is an easy choice, now who's next?

The reformation of Iraq into a pro-western democratic nation was also to provide an example for the Arab world of a nation that succeeds. Iraq has a history of being more western, somewhat more educated society than many other Arabic nations. The Arab world needs a non-Western model for how Democracy can work for them. They resent the west their success, they need more of a self-made success of their own.

That was the point of view, but it's kind of in tatters now.

Before the invasion:
"Saddam has WMD and will give them to Al-Q who will attack us with said WMD, as they did on Sept 11"

After the invasion (long after):
"Well, it appears that there were no WMD, and in fact Saddam had no contact with Al-Q, but the world is a better place with him out of power, so we did the right thing"

On-going, during the occupation:
"We must stay the course - we only lose by pulling out" translated "we're in a situation that we didn't plan for, and don't know what to do, but we can't admit we're wrong or look weak".

Now:
"We'll leave when Iraq has a sturdy democracy safely in place" translated "if we leave now, all hell will break loose, and Iraq will make pre-invasion Afghanistan look like a tea party"

My paraphrases of the administration's message. Translation is mine.

You have to remember every time they do have success we have torn it down. Iran was a democracy in 1950 but we took it down and reinstated the shah because it wasn't a US/British approved democracy.

I think that may have happened in Palestine as well but I'm not sure.

Stealing oil.

NonoNO! It's "Eh, heez juz zees guy, you know?"

Bahahahahaha! I was just thinking that before I saw this.

If you look back at the PNAC stuff the war makes sense in the world view of the folks who wrote it. The ultimate goal was a less dangerous middle east that would respect Israel and keep the oil flowing. To do that, if you are a true believer, you roll Saddam and set up shop like UT said. Folks in the region would see how good the Iraqis have it and are motivated to demand reform.

The unfortunate thing is that using force to get people to do the right thing is almost always a non-starter. Given your choice of enemies, do you pick someone who looks like you and shares a common religious heritage or do you fight the foreign guy trying to impose a completely different system on you? Its psychologically easier to fight the foreigner than to reform your neighbor.

I guess that leaves the question: what are we doing there now? Does anybody have a plan, now?

This is why we're there now.

Kinda. Because the US will be held responsible, the entire operation cannot end on a sour note, for the purposes of the Arab point of view.

The current plan is to use greater amounts of force and different rules of engagement, taking on not only insurgents but other sectarian militias; and to concentrate on Baghdad, and systematically make it into a much more controlled and thus peaceful city, so that it can better bootstrap into something productive.

It also doesn't help that we didn't know the Iraqis as well as we thought we did...or wildly overassumed shit.

And the Iraqis we did know were exiles who hoped that the US would put them in charge after the invasion.

Have you been watching who is where? The real president is Cheney. And he has not changed his agendas. He has no respect for last November's vote as should be obvious at Poor Old Dick. He is visiting leadership where?

Meanwhile, only the foreign press is noting dangerous actions. Massive numbers of Air Force air refueling tankers are moving to the Middle East. First the Eisenhower was surged to the Gulf. Now the Stennis. Truman and Nimitz may be less than a month from deployment; both now in at sea. A Marine Expeditionary force has been suddenly deployed. What is Cheney talking about to leaders in all those adjacent nations?

These are all symptomatic of a one shot strike on Iran.

So what are our plans? Well an attack on Iran could forestall the British withdrawal from Iraq - a need to desperately protect an exposed supply line to American combat units. Cheney - from his "I know what really are threats" attitude - knows the world will not withdrawal support for sanctions against Iran. Appreciate who this man is. He has no regard for American ethical or popularity standings in the world. His attitude is to fix things now; also with contempt even for American voters. He says the presidency does not have enough power - his comtempt for American principles are that great.

If it were anyone else, a one shot and surprise attack on Iran would not be reasonable. But what is reasonable to Cheney means even perverting US intelligence to prove Saddam is a threat. The man sees enemies in terms of black and white. The existence of an enemy justifies anything to destroy that enemy - and that included Amb Wilson and Valery Plame. Cheney has no compulsion about exercising power for his personal agenda.

Well maybe this buildup is because NATO situations in Afghanistan may have become tenuous. That remains a possibility because actions wasted in Iraq mean Afghanistan is also going downward.

So what is our plan? It is not a plan for victory. That would require a plan based in reality such as from the Iraq Study Group. Cheney rejected that before it was released. The one thing we know. What is our plan? Well what is the mindset and political agenda of Dick Cheney? It is that simple. The complicated part is second guessing Cheney.

Have you been watching this sudden deployment of 'one-strike' type weaponry? I have for more than a month now. We are preparing to attack something. Question is what.

Ya know, I used to think that Cheney was the Head Nigga In Charge, but I'm not so sure anymore. I'd say he's more of an enforcer. Bush, as retarded as he comes across sometimes, does not necessarily lack intelligence. What he does seem to lack is common sense and vision.

Bush calls the shots. Cheney controls the options Bush has to choose from. You know the options are all presented in a way Bush really has no choice but to do what Cheney wants done. Can you say, Geppetto. :(

Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46389/

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/roston

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-02.htm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2132574.ece

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.”

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”

Budget Director Josh Bolten: “We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year.”

Budget Director Mitch Daniels: “The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.”

How can people in these high places be so utterly and totally WRONG.... In real corporate life these people would have been sacked a long time ago.

The only reason that I have heard that makes any kind of sense is that withdrawl right now would probably result in a Taliban-type government, or civil war. Oil flow would likely stop, and terrorists/Jihadists would flock there to train and plan. All the other "reasons" that I've heard are bullshit.

The message from Congress: Iraq better get its shit straight, soon. (not that this means anything)

Bush is the decider.

Yup he decides when he wants his paddle-ball an' some ribs!

One or both of those things will happen anyway. Do you want them to happen after America spends more years getting hated even more? Or do you want them to happen when Americans still have some respect of Iraqis?

The Iraq Study Group was the only viable option we had left. It was about minimizing the defeat. It was about getting a problem solved by end of 2007. Anything else only makes this problem fester - makes Americans even more hated. But the ISG also means the defeat is on the legacy of George Jr (President Cheney). That is not acceptable to extremists whose legacy and agenda is more important than America.

The longer Americans occupy Iraq, then the more Iraqis hate Americans. When do 3000 attacks on Americans every day become 4000 attacks? This is why Military Science 101 - the planning for the peace - why nation building must be accomplished in that first six months. At the end of a year, the occupying power either pulls out and is loved - or the nation hates that occupying power.

As everyone knows, America did zero attempt to 'nation build' in Iraq for the first seven months. 'Nation building' is contrary 'big dic' thinking. George Jr foolishly confused a tactical victory with a strategic objective. Defeat in Iraq is now inevitable. The question is whether we can minimize that defeat. How? Iraq Study Group. ISG is the only viable solution left because extremists made the exact same mistake they created in 1991. They failed to plan for the peace.