Interesting op ed:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_07_16/article1.html
Yes, it calls for U.S. troops leaving soon so some of you may not be interested …
I got really bored by the long story and completely logged after he came up with the bit about an objective of the Iraq war was to create a nation that was friendly to Israel. I don’t know where he came up with that one.
Was there actually a cogent thought in there somewhere?
It wasn’t meant for you Art. I told you not to try.
Basically, it says let the Shia have Iraq (as they are the real majority) so they can build an actual “state” capable of controlling AQ and … if they ally with Iran, so what? It also compares Nixon’s visit to China with a possible meeting and airing of differences between the U.S. and Iran. Pie in the sky, but so is creating a U.S. ally from scratch I guess …
came up with the bit about an objective of the Iraq war was to create a nation that was friendly to Israel. I don’t know where he came up with that one.
Sure you do. That was one of the goals of the war.
TB- let’s say we let the Shia “have” Iraq, and they ally their country with Iran. What happens to the Sunni and the Kurds?
“Sure you do. That was one of the goals of the war.”
Says who? Whose goal?
The administration’s goal and the neo-cons goal. Said many of the architects and supporters of the war.
I guess I can’t blame you for forgetting momentarily, seeing as how the stated reasons for the war have changed so many times. Still.
Going out on a limb here and guessing you can’t support this.
One of the best list of reasons I ever saw was in the Congressional authorization. I am pretty sure that reason isn’t in there.
How about a quote from an actually player in the decision process.
Now I do remember the Democrats getting all excited just before an election that they were shocked, shocked to find that there was arguably some antisemitism from the recently elected Iraq government. Give me strength.
Surely you haven’t forgotten about men like Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
You have quotes from them to back up your position that one of the purposes of the war was to create a friend of Israel? I never heard that before this thread.
TB- let’s say we let the Shia “have” Iraq, and they ally their country with Iran. What happens to the Sunni and the Kurds?
I’m guessing relative Kurdish autonomy could continue as has been since 1991. The Shia, hopefully are smart enough not to screw with them and destabilize the north, which is doing so well. The Kurdish regions are a stablizing force, in general (problems with Turkey and Iran not withstanding).
Sunni? Good question. The author simply states it can’t get much worse for them than it is now, can it? Saudi Arabia is already helping Sunnis, just as Iran is helping some Shia. Maybe status quo, except unlike now, a new, mostly Shia government with no ties to the U.S. would have a ton more legitimacy.
I should say that I haven’t read your link, so if these questions are more adequately addressed in the article, disregard the following.
“Guessing” that Kurdish autonomy will continue as it has been since 1991 is unacceptable, for a number of reasons. In the first place, the autonomy was largely the result of American protection from a stable government- Saddam’s- and it isn’t clear to me that we could or would provide the same protection from the Shia, whether or not they’re allied with Iran.
And yes, as bad as things are for the Sunni (and the Shia) in Iraq right now, they could certainly get worse. What I gather from what you’re saying is that the author of the article is basically advocating abandoning the Sunni to likely genocide.
Gotta break a few eggs, I guess . . . But this doesn’t seem to me to be a reasonable, realistic solution.
I am not seeing the connection between a 1996 report and your position that creating a government in Iraq that would be a friend of Israel was a rationale for the 2003 invasion. I really think you will need a 2003 source for that, since that was when the case was being made.
No one questions that getting rid of Saddam would help Israel. Certainly helping Israel was one reason for the invasion, but it was pretty low on the list. Getting rid of a tyrant who paid stipends to the families of suicide bombers could only be a positive.
And I think you’re being unnecessarily obtuse. I don’t think men like Perle and Feith forgot about their 1996 study by 2003. I also think that if I had enough interest, I could find tons of statements in 2003 talking about how we were going to install a “pro-American, pro-Western” democracy in Iraq, and that’s clearly inclusive of “pro-Israel.”
I think that it’s absurd to think that the men who removed Saddam from power had any intention of accepting a new Iraqi government hostile to Israel. That wouldn’t be good for “peace and stability in the region,” would it?
I also think that your own support of military action against Iran, for the express purpose of protecting Israel, is indicative of much of the thinking before invading and occupying Iraq.
Or maybe I’m all wrong, and we really invaded Iraq and toppled the government because Iraq was behind 9/11.
install a “pro-American, pro-Western” democracy in Iraq, and that’s clearly inclusive of “pro-Israel.”
No, it isn’t inclusive of that at all, clearly or otherwise.
“I think that it’s absurd to think that the men who removed Saddam from power had any intention of accepting a new Iraqi government hostile to Israel.”
It is a long hike from not being proactively hostile to Israel and being a friend. It is pretty hard to imagine a politician campaigning in Iraq saying I support the great state of Israel, vote for me. The primary objective, stated over and over again, is to have a self sustaining representative government that is an ally in the war on terror. That doesn’t translate to being an ally of Israel.
Vitus, you won’t find anywhere a statement by anyone involved in the selling of the Iraq invasion that the said one of the objectives was to install a pro Israeli government. If you can, just provide it. Otherwise, fold your cards.
To the extent that I would potentially support military action against Iran, one of the reasons would certainly be that such an action would help insure the existence of Israel. That is a long way from saying that such action should be undertaken to install a pro Israeli government in Tehran. That is just not going to happen, not in Tehran and not in Baghdad.
Art, I showed you a paper written by some of the most vociferous supporters of invading Iraq in which they recommended that Saddam’s government be toppled for Isreal’s benefit. You can maintain that the paper, written 7 years before the invasion, is irrelevant if you want. Just as you can maintain that saying we want to install a pro-western, pro-American government does not mean that we want that government to be pro-Israeli, as well. Just as you can maintain that saying we want to topple Saddam’s government in part to protect Israel does not mean that we’d subsequently want a pro-Israeli government.
I won’t argue it with you. I am trying to learn the lesson that sometimes, the most effective way to refute an argument is to let that argument speak for itself.
“abandoning the Sunni to likely genocide.”
So you are saying right now our presence is pretty much preventing an all out civil conflict?
I would argue that a civil conflict is already going on.
Maybe our presence is preventing a full-on genocide. How is it preventing this, I wonder? Is the current Iraqi government preventing a genocide? No one ever really answers this.
I think the article is worth a read: The author addresses the Shia and Sunni and not the Kurds. The op ed addresses a pragmatic strategic and diplomatic option worth considering. But it does assume and hope the Shia (Al Sadr, too) would be heavy handed against AQ but not against the population in general.
I believe a no-fly zone should continue, as it has for 16 years.
The bottom line vitus, is that neither the author of the article nor you can come up with a single 2003 quote from anyone that establishes “an objective of the Iraq war was to create a nation that was friendly to Israel.”
We will let that speak for itself as well.
Certainly helping Israel was one reason for the invasion, but it was pretty low on the list.
That’s a highly contentious statement to say the least.
I also think you are being a bit too literal, again, in latching on to the phrase “pro-Israeli gov’t”. Protecting Israel as a justification is interchangeable with “pro-Israeli”. And I think that vitus (if I recall correctly), raised a salient point in that there is no way the US would allow an anti-Israel gov’t to take power in Iraq.