Addressing War, National Interest, and Iraq-Part 1

On a previous post that I wrote, oddly enough one about Josh Romney possibly running for congress, a debate has broken out in the comments section about war and President Bush.  Anytime this is discussed between me and someone who wants us to withdraw immediately from Iraq, a few of the same arguments are made, two of which are stated in comment below, given to us by SLCondensed:

I guess my problem is I can’t honestly justify attacking a country for its oil when there are so many worse countries and regimes around the world. The situation in Darfur is much worse than it ever was in Iraq, and we don’t do something about it why?

I posted a fairly brief response to this comment, but feel that there is so much more involved with this comment that it justified a whole post here.  The first comment SLCondensed writes comes down an issue of national interest and this is what will be addressed in Part 1 (the comment about Darfur will be addressed in Part 2).  After reading that sentence there are a few questions that need to be asked: 

1. Why did we go to war in Iraq?
2. Did we go to war in Iraq for Oil?
3. Were there worse regimes and countries than Iraq?
4. Considering how much conflict there is in the world, what responsibility does the U.S. have to intervene?  What is the threshold for such an intervention? How should the U.S., being the industrialized world’s security provider, determine when military intervention is acceptable?
5. Does the reason we went to Iraq in the first place even matter to the situation today?

Regarding why we went to war in Iraq, there was not one single reason.  Sure, the Bush administration sold us that there were WMDs and that was really the only reason given, but it was so much more than that.  First, I need to remind the reader that EVERYONE believed Iraq had WMDs before we invaded, everyone (except Saddam).  The question wasn’t, “Does Iraq have WMDs?”, it was, “how much of a threat are those WMDs?”  So I don’t want to hear anything about Bush lied, what a crock.

Anyway, here is the list of reasons why I think we went to Iraq: 1. WMDs (9/11 was still fresh on our minds), 2. Surround Iran with U.S. forces 3. Oil and Gas, 4. Send a message to other despotic regimes (which worked magically, just about 9 months after Iraq started Libya gave up it’s WMD program, perhaps Bush’s greatest acheivement and solidified my vote for him in ’04), 5. Revenge against Saddam for trying to assassinate Bush ’41, 6. To provide freedom to the Iraqi people, 6. To finally force people to take Western threats seriously (I mean, how many times can you say, “you better do this or else” and never follow through-lookin’ at you U.N.), 7. To fight terrorists somewhere not named the United States.

Some of those reasons are more honorable than others, some are more realistic than others, some are childish, but ultimately I believe all of those things were considered by the Bush administration during the decision making process.  Of course, the Administration could not come out and say all those things, it would have been political suicide. No President, whether GOP or Dem, would be that stupid. 

Question 2 was answered in question one, of course the need for oil played a part in our decision to go to war in Iraq.  So what?  The need for energy and fuel is essential to any society, the whole reason we have any interest in the Middle-East at all is because of energy.  If they didn’t have oil or gas we would view them and treat them the way we do Mali and Sudan.

Question 3, certainly there were worse regimes in the world, but not many.  North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, and Haiti to name a few.   But this brings us back to national interest and it’s role in our decision making process, which I will discuss in full in Part II.

Question 4,  these questions have no cut and dry answer.  But I will certainly share my opinion.  The way I view the current world is I see the U.S as the world’s only superpower and essentially, as the military for Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand.   Each of these geographies, whether we or they like or not, rely on the U.S. predominantly for their security.  The reason they can get away with having such miniscule military forces is because they know the U.S. is there to back them up and we will so long as the reason is just.  This is a good scenario for both parties, it allows us to maintain our place in the world and grow and expand our economic interests.  It allows them to focus their more limited resources on providing for the people socially and economically.  The fact the U.S. acts in this role is precisely why the developed world blossomed.  Now these realities may upset you or you may like them, but the fact remains that this is the reality of the world in which we now live.

So, with the U.S. having such a large role in the world, both economically and militarily, it puts us in a place of responsibility.  How to use that responsibility is a question of great debate and the cause of much frustration and animosity, both on the part of America and the rest of the world.  The fact is, despite our current position as the world’s hegemon, we still have limited resources, we can’t do all things and we can’t be involved in everthing; nor should we.   Thus, all decisions are usually to be made based upon national interest.  Every country in the history of the world operates this way.

With the U.S. in such a unique and powerful position, we also have to show restraint.  Just because we have freedom and democracy does not mean that we have to force every other country to institute the same.  Forcing democracy seems like an oxymoron.  At the same time, the spread of democracy is in our national interests so we encourage democracy and try to demonstrate the value of it. 

Similarly, both because of national interest/limited resources and because we need to allow countries to largely work out their own issues, we just can’t and shouldn’t get involved everywhere.  Sometimes it is justified, but determining that justification is difficult.  I will address this much more in Part II.  Ultimately, though, the U.S. needs to make decisions based upon what is best for the U.S.

Question 5, ultimately SLCondensed’s comment basically was saying that we need to leave Iraq because we never should have been there in the first place.  Whether that reasoning is true or not, it has absolutely no relevance on the current situation.  The anti-Iraq people’s favorite argument against Iraq is this reason we are there thing and it is utterly ridiculous. The fact is, we are in Iraq, we destroyed their government, and we decided that we were going to help rebuild it and to provide freedom.  Essentially, we broke so we are going to fix it.

Why we went to Iraq in the first place does not change the fact that we are there.  Pulling out all of our troops and causing an even worse humanitarian crisis because you disagree of our original justification for the interaction is ridiculous, ignorant, and naieve.   Further, we are now winning.  Why are we going to pull out when victory and success is in our sights?

But you may say, what determine’s victory in Iraq? I would argue that victory is a country that is relatively stable, can provide for the basic needs of the people, and has a semblance of democracy.  We don’t need Iraq to be like the U.S. or even like Turkey right away, we need Iraq to just be able to largely support itself, defend its people from radicals, and provide an environment for continued economic development.

This leads me to briefly discuss U.S. history in war.  The United States has a large history of doing terrible in wars at the beginning but pulling out the victory in the end.  Let’s run down that history.  The U.S. had no business winning the revolutionary war.  We lost battle after battle and very nearly lost the war in the first year.  The war lasted about 8 years, in 1776 things were awful, yet by 1783 and ’84 we had come back and won. 

The War of 1812 was near disaster as well.  Our Navy was terrible and we lost many battles early on, but managed to pull it out in the end.  The Civil War is the perfect example.  From 1860 to 1863 the Union army was terrible, many people criticized the war and wanted us out.  had we listened to them the United States would be two countries. Fortunately we had a President that had resolve and refused to cower to public pressure.  Eventually, we won some big battles and won the war. 

In WWII the German military had the upperhand for the first year or two of our involvement, but again, American determination resulted in victory.  This takes us to Vietnam.  The reality in Vietnam is that when we gave up, we were on our way to winning, things were looking up.  The only reason we lost the War was because our politicians back home caved to public pressure.   We would have been outright victorious a short time later had we seen it through.

The only two wars that we haven’t been behind in were WWI, because we came in late and gave the Brits and French the boost they needed to break the stalemate with the Germans, and Iraq I, we faced a ridiculously weak military and only required Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.  (By the way, that was a War that was solely for oil, I wonder where all you were then?).

Today, we are going through a similar pattern to what we SHOULD be used to, except for the fact our people are historically ignorant.  The first 3 years of the “war” (I don’t even consider it a war, it more a peacekeeping and stability mission, we won the war when the Iraqi Army collapsed and Baghdad fell) were disasterous.  We made a lot of mistakes, just like the Lincoln administration did in the 1860’s, but year four has been a resounding success and year 5 is starting out much the same; even the Political situation is starting to stablize.  Yet so many of you still want us to throw in the towel.  It makes no sense!

As a result, the only conclusion I can come to as to why you want us to give up actually has nothing to do with Iraq or the realities there, it is that you hate and despise President Bush and want whatever it takes to bring him down to occur (short of assassination of course).   I am confident that had Kerry won in 2004 and followed the exact same path that Bush has taken in this second term, today you would be loving Kerry.  The reality is that so many of you are so blinded by your vitriol for Bush that you fail to recognize that the fastest way for us to get out of Iraq and the best way to ensure that a humanitarian crisis will be averted is by finishing the job there.  It reminds me of a common phrase our training instructors told us in Air Force Basic Training, “the fastest way out of here is to graduate.”   Things are going well in Iraq, sure they aren’t perfect, but they are still going well (you can tell that by the limited coverage Iraq gets in the media).  Give it a chance and try to look at the situation realistically.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under 9/11, Air Force, Anti-War, Army, Congress, Conservative, Democracy, Democrats, Election 2008, Genocide, History, International Affairs, Iraq, Liberal, Liberalism, Marines, Media, Military, Myanmar, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Senate, Terror, terrorism

6 responses to “Addressing War, National Interest, and Iraq-Part 1

  1. The purpose of getting Iraq oil pumping as soon as possible again is because that is the only thing worth money out of that country.

    Of course a major part of the war was for the oil, to be exported to the USA and all over the world to fund the rebuilding of a free Iraqi Government. If they are able to support themselves without taking loans and building deficits, good for them. That will make it easier to keep the country running smoothly in the beginning.

    Ok, for the hippies and anti-war people, you want the war to be over sooner?? Buy more fuel to support the Iraqi government by buying the oil they export….stop this ‘green energy’ because that is taking money away from the people in countries like Iraqi that would be just a sand pit if not for the oil.

    I personally think that getting oil at cheap prices is great. This ‘green energy’ and how the government is taxing oil to pay for developing green energy is horrible, forget $4 a gallon, next summer we will be seeing $5 – $6 a gallon as the norm….from cutting back on coal production and oil imports…the price will only rise and rise….the benefits of green energy are nowhere to be seen yet.

    I’m not trading in my car to get a sissy little car that doesn’t save me any money on fuel.

    The Liberals are winning the global warming debates by getting their laws passed no matter how many times people can disprove their ‘facts’ about global warming….conservatives are losing this fight.

  2. “Regarding why we went to war in Iraq, there was not one single reason. Sure, the Bush administration sold us that there were WMDs and that was really the only reason given, but it was so much more than that. First, I need to remind the reader that EVERYONE believed Iraq had WMDs before we invaded, everyone (except Saddam). The question wasn’t, “Does Iraq have WMDs?”, it was, “how much of a threat are those WMDs?” So I don’t want to hear anything about Bush lied, what a crock.”

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

    Actually Bush did know all about the WMDs in Iraq. Please do your homework before writing an article, especially one devoted entirely to proving me wrong, because when you can’t actually do it you appear ignorant.

    “Question 2 was answered in question one, of course the need for oil played a part in our decision to go to war in Iraq. So what? The need for energy and fuel is essential to any society, the whole reason we have any interest in the Middle-East at all is because of energy. If they didn’t have oil or gas we would view them and treat them the way we do Mali and Sudan.”

    So we need to create turmoil and instability in the Middle East to get cheap oil? Brilliant! And don’t try to equate Iraq and 9/11, that debate is as old as it is incoherently absurd.

    “Question 4, these questions have no cut and dry answer. But I will certainly share my opinion. The way I view the current world is I see the U.S as the world’s only superpower and essentially, as the military for Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. Each of these geographies, whether we or they like or not, rely on the U.S. predominantly for their security. The reason they can get away with having such miniscule military forces is because they know the U.S. is there to back them up and we will so long as the reason is just. This is a good scenario for both parties, it allows us to maintain our place in the world and grow and expand our economic interests. It allows them to focus their more limited resources on providing for the people socially and economically. The fact the U.S. acts in this role is precisely why the developed world blossomed. Now these realities may upset you or you may like them, but the fact remains that this is the reality of the world in which we now live.”

    Yeah! We’re number 1!! Woo go us! Who cares that we’re number 77 in healthcare, or that our life expectancy is shorter than most industrial countries, or that the rest of the world hates us for policing the globe (which was offset by 9/11 with bereavement worldwide that Bush, and only Bush, screwed up). Also, you have no historical backing that “the fact that the US acts in this role is precisely why the developed world blossomed,” had you actually studied history you would be aware these were the same comments made pre-WW1, that great war to end all wars which really just ended the first global economy and freedom of movement.

    “With the U.S. in such a unique and powerful position, we also have to show restraint. Just because we have freedom and democracy does not mean that we have to force every other country to institute the same. Forcing democracy seems like an oxymoron. At the same time, the spread of democracy is in our national interests so we encourage democracy and try to demonstrate the value of it. ”

    We ‘encourage’ democracy by killing the leaders of sovereign nations and putting our own lackeys in. Ironic that Bush was voted in on the promise of no nation building.

    “Similarly, both because of national interest/limited resources and because we need to allow countries to largely work out their own issues, we just can’t and shouldn’t get involved everywhere. Sometimes it is justified, but determining that justification is difficult. I will address this much more in Part II. Ultimately, though, the U.S. needs to make decisions based upon what is best for the U.S.”

    Actually the U.S. doesn’t need to get involved in any conflict, and their are a few people who agree with me, namely the Founding Fathers.

    “Question 5, ultimately SLCondensed’s comment basically was saying that we need to leave Iraq because we never should have been there in the first place. Whether that reasoning is true or not, it has absolutely no relevance on the current situation. The anti-Iraq people’s favorite argument against Iraq is this reason we are there thing and it is utterly ridiculous. The fact is, we are in Iraq, we destroyed their government, and we decided that we were going to help rebuild it and to provide freedom. Essentially, we broke so we are going to fix it.”

    We are in Iraq destroying the government. Our actions created the turmoil that has ensued. There was no insurgency before we attacked – it is a direct result of our presence. If you think you broke it, enroll in the military and fix it.

    “Why we went to Iraq in the first place does not change the fact that we are there. Pulling out all of our troops and causing an even worse humanitarian crisis because you disagree of our original justification for the interaction is ridiculous, ignorant, and naieve. Further, we are now winning. Why are we going to pull out when victory and success is in our sights?”

    No proof that that will happen, nor that ‘victory is in our sights’.

    “As a result, the only conclusion I can come to as to why you want us to give up actually has nothing to do with Iraq or the realities there, it is that you hate and despise President Bush and want whatever it takes to bring him down to occur (short of assassination of course). I am confident that had Kerry won in 2004 and followed the exact same path that Bush has taken in this second term, today you would be loving Kerry. The reality is that so many of you are so blinded by your vitriol for Bush that you fail to recognize that the fastest way for us to get out of Iraq and the best way to ensure that a humanitarian crisis will be averted is by finishing the job there. It reminds me of a common phrase our training instructors told us in Air Force Basic Training, “the fastest way out of here is to graduate.” Things are going well in Iraq, sure they aren’t perfect, but they are still going well (you can tell that by the limited coverage Iraq gets in the media). Give it a chance and try to look at the situation realistically.”

    You really have no proof that if we leave their will be a humanitarian crisis. As I said earlier we created the conflict that is going on, so of course, by your logic, our presence their will also decrease it. I have given it a chance – it’s had a longer chance than our involvement in WW2, and that was a “good war”, not a war for our own national interest.

    “The Liberals are winning the global warming debates by getting their laws passed no matter how many times people can disprove their ‘facts’ about global warming….conservatives are losing this fight.”

    Christopher that is probably the stupidest thing I have heard in weeks and does not in any way relate to what this article is about, and if you actually believe that you really should read a research article once in awhile. Regardless, I would hate for you to drive a ‘sissy car’ and put your masculinity in question – I’m sure driving a hummer proves to the world you have a large penis – all in the name of helping the environment.

  3. Really there is no reason for me to reply to anything else that is said. You have this mindset where whatever you say is right and whatever I say is vilified and only indicative of my blinding hatred for Bush. It’s comforting to know that even though I’m partisan I can see past political parties to realize when something is going terribly wrong with the United States.

  4. rationalzen

    Actually Bush did know all about the WMDs in Iraq. Please do your homework before writing an article, especially one devoted entirely to proving me wrong, because when you can’t actually do it you appear ignorant.

    Umm, ok.

    If Saddam didn’t in fact have any WMDs, then why did EVERYONE including his top generals think that he did? We know that he had them at one point, many people died from their exposure to sarin and mustard gas in Iraq. So between gulf war I, and Iraqi Freedom, we know the weapons were there at one point. Everyone agrees that is true.

    We know that there were WMDs in Iraq post invasion. Capsules containing traces of mustard gas were found, fuselages and turbine motors were found, the only part of the WMD we didn’t find were the completed explosives, but if I’m on a search for cars and find a pile of engines separate from some frames and transmissions I think it’s a good indicator that someone was manufacturing automobiles. Next, we know that in early 2004 there was at least one instance of an IED that contained the sarin nerve agent and mustard gas. Where did they get it?

    So a logical, rational person (a person not letting cognitive dissonance curb their view) would think that if we knew that he had them at one point, is making everyone think he has them (at least up until Sept. 11th), he never provided documentation of the disarming process that was imposed on him, then intelligence comes out saying he doesn’t have them that some conclusion must be drawn. You either conclude that he never had them at all (which is false, the probability that he had them is 1), that he had them at one point but has done something with them, or he wants us to think that he doesn’t have them so we don’t come in and back up our word.

    Out of the two latter options, which seems more likely to be Saddam’s style? Coming out and hearing what his top military advisers were saying after their surrender, the third option is clearly the road that Saddam took with most of his dealings in his every day dictating.

    You can blame Bush all you want, but don’t pretend that it’s for any other reason than your partisanship. It’s really easy AND BENEFICIAL towards self preservation to play Monday Morning Quarterback when you’re the minority party in both the legislative and executive branches. That doesn’t mean that what is being spouted is necessarily the whole truth, it just means that you need to say whatever it takes to get your party back in power.

    After this upcoming presidential election, the reps will do the same thing to the dems and we’ll see another shift in power, none of it based on reality or the truth. Politics isn’t about the truth, it’s about appealing to people’s emotions to get you in power, why do you think Obama is surging so far ahead right now?

    Was he lying to everyone to make them (and us) believe

  5. rationalzen

    On to the rest of the diatribe:

    So we need to create turmoil and instability in the Middle East to get cheap oil? Brilliant! And don’t try to equate Iraq and 9/11, that debate is as old as it is incoherently absurd.

    I really hope you don’t consider the middle east to be a “stable” place. We did not create turmoil or instability there, we just shifted what kind of turmoil and instability they are facing. Thinking otherwise is coherently absurd, which I think you’d agree is much worse than incoherently absurd 😉

    Yeah! We’re number 1!! Woo go us! Who cares that we’re number 77 in healthcare, or that our life expectancy is shorter than most industrial countries, or that the rest of the world hates us for policing the globe (which was offset by 9/11 with bereavement worldwide that Bush, and only Bush, screwed up).
    First of all, we’re not number 77 in the quality of healthcare given. There is a reason that most affluent people from other countries come here when something is truly life threatening. Also, I think you’d agree that most of the great medical advancements over the past couple centuries were rooted in work and research performed by and for Americans. Yes we may have a shorter life expectancy, and a higher rate of Type II diabetes than other countries, but that is due to obesity. I think that having too much to eat, is a much lighter problem than not enough. It would appear that most of the latin countries agree, based on our immigration numbers alone.

    ……There was no insurgency before we attacked – it is a direct result of our presence.

    You are right on this one. There wasn’t a lot of insurgency in Iraq before hand, generally because the dissonant voices were shot in public displays to ensure that other’s voices wouldn’t be heard. You should do some research on the Hussein family treatment of the Iraqi world cup soccer team to see how people that didn’t fall completely in line with the regime were treated.

    How dare we ruin their way of life like that, let the UN slap our nose with the newspaper.

    No proof that that will happen, nor that ‘victory is in our sights’.
    Are you nuts? Having the Iraqi citizens fighting against the “insurgency” is not a positive step towards the eradication of terror from their lives? Cooperation between the Iraqi people and US military is not looking like “victory” (whatever that means) is in sight? I think Obama and Hillary would disagree.

    Really there is no reason for me to reply to anything else that is said. You have this mindset where whatever you say is right and whatever I say is vilified and only indicative of my blinding hatred for Bush……..

    I think that if you were to read your own commentary objectively you’d find the same could be said about your comments.

    ~RZ

  6. Galt

    Bush went into Iraq for geopolitical reasons. He was arrogant enough to think that he could plant a democracy in Iraq which together with Afganistan would pressure Iran and other nations there to reform and move to more democratized, modern, and civililized society. Incredibly arrogant in my opinion.

    We see how his plan completely backfired and now Iran has been strengthened. If he was going to go into Iraq he should have gone in guns a blazing and laid down the law and forced it to work. Instead we pranced around trying to fight a war without killing anybody and allowing chaos to grip the country losing early on any chance of accomplishing his goals.

    Now we are left with a no win situation. We have to stick it out but he price paid has been astronomicaly because of the incompetence. I hate Bush. He is a stubborn idiot with a good heart. We need more than integrity and a good heart, we need competence in a president. We didn’t get that with bush and we passed up that chance by nominating mccain–someone just as stubborn but probably even more stupid.

    sorry for the bitterness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s