Thread: Iraqi sees need for U.S. military until 2018

The US, at least (and I suspect France and UK) were ready more than once to enact regime change in 1999/2000. I was in Saudi at the time, not a pretty place. Madeline Albright and the Brit Def Min were in town repeating each other. Had more to do with Saddam's nose-thumbing at the UN and a decade-long enforcement of northern and southern no-fly-zones. Everyone was tiring. I believe the brains in charge suggested a balls-out run to the center of the middle east, killing several birds with one stone.

1. removing a despotic dictator (killing him was Iraq's idea)
2. show democracy can work and can provide opportunity for millions of otherwise disenfranchised people
3. Providing a permanent military presence in the center of the shitpit known around the world as the Middle East.

I believe they killed fewer birds than they had hoped, but history will be the judge. We'll see. Tactical Oil? Nah. Strategic access, of course. At an ever-increasing OPEC price. Free markets and all that.

Originally Posted by Texpat

I seriously doubt America will sustain the BILLION BUCKS A MONTH ride we've been on.

As I said on page 1: "The $120B will be paid by taxpayers, but the oil and weapons profits are unlikely to find their way to the treasury."

Originally Posted by Texpat

But ask Germany and Japan what kind of cards they were dealt following their misgivings.

What's that got to do with Iraq? Still claiming Brillo points for WW2? It's wearing thin...

Different scenario in that Iraq was only a putrid administration... but how soon we forget.

Extremely short memory.

^ Well I remember that the intial call to arms against Iraq was because they were involved in 9/11. When that was proven to not be the case then it became an issue of WMD. When that was likewise proven incorrect it became about freedom and liberation.

One could be forgiven that come hell or highwater Iraq was going to be invaded regardless. The more cynical amongst us might even suggest 9/11 was just the excuse needed.

Irrespective of that I think that given all the background to it portraying it now as being all about removing a brutal dictator is revisionist history.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Irrespective of that I think that given all the background to it portraying it now as being all about removing a brutal dictator is revisionist history.

I think you're wrong. It was merely delayed by 9/11. You really think Bush had his eyes anywhere but on Iraq when he nestled into the Oval Office?

Come on. Not only that, but the groundwork had been laid.

Originally Posted by Texpat

You really think Bush had his eyes anywhere but on Iraq when he nestled into the Oval Office?

Eh? That's the point I've been making. They used any excuse they could to invade and when one proved to be untenable they just switched to another - it was clearly on the cards the whole time.

So that's why I say to now portray the whole thing as being soley about liberating the poor, oppressed Iraqi people is revisionist history. If they could've sold us on ties to 9/11 or WMD they would've.

You haven't been reading what I've been writing.

Regime change was on the planning table two years before it happened. Before 9-11 -- it was a foregone conclusion. And whether it was to end the Sadaam UN-taunting nonsense, save money on Northern/Southern watch ( ongoing for 10 years) or to genuinely save the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, we'll never know. But the value of such action changed little because of 9-11. Still a strategic ME level point.

I was basing my comments on this:

Originally Posted by Texpat

But I'm still not convinced the US went into Iraq because of oil.

Far more noble goals of liberation, self-governance, liberty and freedom were at stake...

^And how to acheive those goals?

Regime change.

^ So what was all the stuff about Saddam being complicit in 9/11 and Iraq having WMD capable of imminent launch then.

Regime change for the sake of 'liberation' was proffered as a justification for invasion after both of the foregoing were proven to have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.

So again, my point is that the US may or may not have been in it for the oil (most likely were though, in my opinion) but to now portray it as a 'noble exercise in liberation' is disingenuous.

Does Secretary Madeleine Albright Regret Calling for Regime Change in Iraq?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright offers some foreign policy advice, "Good versus evil isn't a strategy," for the White House in today's Los Angeles Times. It's very nice of her. The sophisticated Clintonites weaved a world of stability and hope. They were problem solvers, not ideologues, you see. They enticed Pyongyang to "end" its nuclear weapons program with lots of goodies. They brokered Israel-Palestinian negotiations that brought both sides closer to peace. They reacted quickly to events in Rwanda and in the Balkans. They sent a message of strength and resolve following attacks on our forces in Mogadishu and in Dhahran, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and on the USS Cole. And because they acted against the Taliban, thousands upon thousands were prevented from graduating from the extensive network of al Qaeda terror training camps in Afghanistan and setting up shop in nations across the globe. They handed Bush a stable world in January 2001 and then September 11 hit and the ideologues took over, as Sec. Albright informs us. She also has an interesting take on regime change in Iran:

the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction.

The odd thing here is that Sec. Albright was, I believe, the first senior American official to call publicly for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. She even compared Saddam to Hitler, noting that the world has not "seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein." One of the lessons of history, Albright also lectured, is that "if you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far--that he can do untold damage" and "if the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier, then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War. So, my lesson out of all this is deal with the problem at the time that you can and don't step away from it thinking that it'll go away. I think that's the lesson here."

But if "the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely," why did she champion regime change in Iraq? Why did President Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq? Why did National Security Advisor Sandy Berger deliver a lengthy speech justifying the need for regime change in Iraq? Why did the Clinton administration call publicly for regime change in Iraq if doing so, according to Albright's own logic, not only made Saddam's ouster "less likely" but also strengthened his hold on power because of our "overt antagonism"?

Would Secretary Albright now like to say that she regrets the Clinton administration's comments about Saddam Hussein and the need to get rid of him?

The Weekly Standard

***
I personally listened to Albright deliver a speech in Saudi Arabia in 1999 espousing Iraq regime change. I wrote a news story about it. Some enterprising TD member might find it.

It wasn't GWB's idea at all. Trust me.

^
Excellent, Tex...spot on.
But don't post too many of these types of articles and desolve the left-wing moonbat's delusion it's all Dubya's fault.
BDS is a terrible disease.

Originally Posted by sabang

Decent synopsis Sabang

Just one head-scratcher.

4. Dominating the Iraqi oil production, by destroying it and then USA Inc. building it up again.

Haven't seen or heard one shred of evidence to support the assertion that the US destroyed any of Iraq's oil-making capability.

I'd also be uinterested in seeing how much Chevron or Texaco or Exxon pays for Iraq crude compared to how much BP or Caltex or other countries pay.

^ They destroyed oil infrastructure Tx, I don't really know how thoroughly. I know they targeted oil ports. Refineries I would be curious to know- if it was 'economic' factors dictating they would have deliberately taken out older stuff, if strategic, stuff closer to military facilities.

Bear in mind Iraqi's were queuing up for hours to fill their tank last thing I knew.

Bear in mind Iraqi's were queuing up for hours to fill their tank last thing I knew.

Wasn't it you who explained to me a few months past that drilling oil and refining it are world's apart? The discussion centered around why Iran needs nuke fuel when it has all that oil. No decent refining ability in Iraq/Iran.

Where is this Iraq crude being refined? Then it has to be shipped back to Iraq.

I have a hard time believing the US military destroyed any oil production capability of note. They're simply not targets. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Iraq has eight oil refineries- it still needs to import some refined product. Not as dire as Iran though. I have no evidence these were targeted, or seriously damaged during the invasion.

It is probably then transport, rather than production infrastructure, that accounts for the fact that it is (or was) a long process to get a tank of fuel, and that Iraqi oil production is less now than pre invasion.

It certainly is not a state of affairs the US occupation would desire.

Texpat:

I am still waiting for you answer to my post on page 2.


Thank you.

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

You had only one post on page two and this was the only question. I thought it was rhetorical.

Japan is not a resource rich nation. It required many sorts of materials to fuel its was machine to include: rubber, petroleum, oil, steel, food et. al. It viewed the US as its only hurdle to owning the entire Pacific to include Australia and NZ. It knew the US was entrenched in a war in Europe and could put up little immediate resistance. Japan had created, and sold to its occupied nations the idea of a Greater Eastern Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Then quickly forbid native languages and started scroggin' everyone they could catch from Cebu to Ceylon. They did little or nothing to improve the plight of the occupied citizens.

does that answer your question?