FAN-tastic Boston Globe Article

[nctpbsoya]

What if the reason for the war was not the stipulated one? The WMD always sounded like a specious argument to me, and I've always felt that there was something else behind the war - something that the administration was not telling us.
Given:
1. Fundamental (for lack of a better term) Islam is a combinaton of a violent form of religion, politics and military (see "Sword of the Prophet" by Trefkovic).
2. This is spreading throughout the world. The fundamentalists would like to see the return of the Caliphate at its peak (whose incursions into Europe, by the way, triggered the Crusades; the church got involved because the royal houses of Europe couldn't stop bickering long enough to mount a defense).
3. The Bush Administration sees this threat (as did Clinton's, but without 9/11 there was no way America could be taken into such a war, so he (Clinton) launched cruise missles instead).
4. A strong military presence in the area is needed in order to put pressure on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (especially the latter) to bend to our wishes. (This has worked to some extent, but probably not to the extent desired).
5. Iraq's behavior, by itself, for the past decade was enough to warrant force.
6. A war with radical Islam would have to be fought at some time (see #2).
7. Let's pick the time and place, and take the fight to the enemy (always preferable).
8. By broadcasting this as your stated goal, you make the entire Middle East unstable, because the war against terror then becomes a war on Islam. If it's a war on Islam, then most of the world's oil will be at risk.
9. So yes, it's about oil. But in an industrial society living in the petrolium era, it's either oil or the horse and buggy.
10. So instead of letting the country know what the REAL reason is behind the war, our leader takes the political heat for a tough decision. If it's true, then it sounds like we have a politician bodering on a statesman, to me.

This is a very condensed version of my thoughts on the subject, but they hit the high points.
Having said all that, does it sound plausible?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

The key to this article is this:

"Saddam could persist in the cocoon of his own delusions because he did not listen to opposing views and was loath to take advice from foreign leaders. Bush's own unchecked impulse to believe what he wanted to believe allowed him to be fooled about Saddam's weapons, the force levels needed to stabilize Iraq, the cost of not stopping postwar looting, and the ease of nation-building in Iraq."

Bush's determined reluctance to admit any error or miscalculations makes him vulnerable to more mistakes as the United States tries to gain control of the situation and bring it to a successful conclusion. And meanwhile the level of terror threat against Americans continues to grow and spread!

But why should we accept those conclusions? What reason have we to take either the article's analysis or your extrapolation of it as correct? That last sentence, for example, strikes me as standing on no firmer ground than partisan personal belief...why would anyone not already sharing the belief adopt it? Based on which facts? Supported by what proof?

Fervency is all very well, but without some foundation in evidence it's not worth much to anyone but true believers...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The attack on Iraq did nothing to increase the stability in the region and also did nothing to increase our safety. It shows our outdated desire to use conventional weapons and tactics to fight an unconventional war.

And your proof?

Opinion is all very well. Mine diametrically offsets it. Here: The attack on Iraq DID increase stability in the region ( quelling the activities of Libya and Syria, cutting off a source of funding for Hamas and hampering Hezbollah, drawing the terrorist-inclined elements from other Arab nations to Iraq, blah blah blah ) and it HAS increased our safety. Now where are we? Are you going to accept my assertions as fact? I rather think not...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I mean, our first order of business, after 9/11, should have been protecting ourselves, not liberating other countries.

As if the two were completely mutually exclusive, eh?

So after Pearl Harbor we ought not have gone into North Africa, Italy, Greece, France, the South Pacific, Burma, etc.? We ought not have sought out and destroyed the enemy wherever we thought he was? We should just have defended the homeland? And that's your grand strategy for making us safer now as well? The best defense is no offense?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I have a feeling that Bush could go on television, rape a baboon and as long as he continued to shout the "Save the babies, kill the Ay-rabs" mantra, the God, Bush, and Country people would spin as "Well, he was firm and resolute. A real leader!" Remember, the same people who are willing to burn Clinton on a stake for shacking up with his intern are willing to give Bush a free ride for

And finish off the trope, ess. Just as there were people who'd have defended Clinton if he'd been found naked barbecuing orphans in the Rose Garden, because he was "their guy", and just as there are those of you who would continue to hate Bush if God Himself spoke from heaven in a voice of thunder saying he was blameless and good-hearted...

You're just now noticing that there is blind loyalty and rabid partisanship abroad in the world? Or are you only noticing it with your right eye?

1) Secret policy meetings with known criminals

Do tell. How do you know of these "secret" meetings? Can't have been all that secret if you know about them, can they? Or are these like the "secret" plans for a draft the Kerry camp darkly attributes to the Administration?

2) Outing a CIA Agent

Wow, somehow you have stolen a march on the justice system, which has yet to determine who if anyone is responsible...for the "outing" of someone whose status was by all accounts fairly common knowledge in Washington circles. That's very impressive!

4) Illegally diverting funds from Afghanistan for a war that had yet to be approved

Oh, illegally, quotha! Citation, if you please? Which law was violated, exactly, and how?

5) Illegally profiting from insider trading

Again, you seem to be far in advance of the justice system here. Esskreemr, judge and jury! Wonderful to behold!

6) Consorting with enemies of the state

Like who? Chirac? Schroder? Really, this is most entertaining fantasy. Much better even than Arconia...

There are plenty more, but I don't feel like looking them up.

Or making them up?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by nctpbsoya

Having said all that, does it sound plausible?

I daresay that there may be elements of some of those rationales in the thinking of some people in the Administration, but I have my doubts as to whether there is anything like so coherent an overall theory or policy. In my experience that's just not how human beings operate---they tend instead to "muddle through" on an ad hoc or semi-ad hoc basis, at least when it comes to overarching grand strategies. When they succeed it's as often in spite of their own efforts as because of them...

But certainly it's as plausible as any of the dark conspiracy theories of the Left.

[nctpbsoya]

You're right, I have no proof that my alternate theory is correct (that's why it's just a theory). However, al Qaeda's STATED goal is the restoration of the Caliphate. The conduct of Islam is also documented (present day Suadi Arabia, Maurititius, Somalia, Sudan). I used to think that the genocide of the Armenians was just a Turkish thing, but have come to realize that the issue was really the enforcement of Shari-a with the Young Turks in power.

As to the why we are in there, it's the only reason that makes sense.
If I list a couple of the reasons I've heard and compare them they really don't hold water:
1. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.
Response: Why didn't we go in at the same time as Afganistan?
2. It's just for oil.
Response: Yes, it's for oil, but not just our oil (at that time, the bulk of our oil came from Venezuela), but the world's supply, which if threatened, would cause a problem with economies througout the war.

The only reason that I can find, that makes any sense to me is the one that I postulated.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by nctpbsoya

al Qaeda's STATED goal is the restoration of the Caliphate.

Stated where?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Stated where?

I've read that too - restore what in their mind is the legitemate Islam-based form of government - and not just for their neck of the woods, either.