What The U.S. Really Wants (Maybe)

[Brian Rucker]

Let me run this idea past ya'll and then you can tell me why it doesn't make sense.

First off, I'm extremely suspicious of the Bush administration for a boatload of reasons but I'm beginning to think my suspicions are pointing me towards the wrong conclusions.

1) The invasion of Iraq isn't about WMD, it's about oil. Iraq is the second largest oil reserve in OPEC and deterrence was good enough for Stalin (who was twice as crazy and a hundred times the threat Saddam is). That's been pretty obvious from the beginning but my suspicions led me to assume this is soley for the benefit of the domestic oil industry. Maybe it's not.

2) The Saudis are not our friends. Despite everything the administration may have claimed, this is pretty clearly true. The House of Saud may not be enemies either but they have created the conditions for global Islamicist extremism to thrive by funding Wahibism and by spreading anti-American sentiment throughout the Gulf region (with the goal of diverting discontent from themselves to Israel and her American patron). There are elements in the administration, public face aside, that seem to agree.

3) The combatting the root causes of terrorism (poor eduction, limited opportunities for advancement, dictatorial regimes, externalized blame, religious extremism) is the only way to defeat terrorism. The administration seems to hold the view that attacking any country with remote ties to terrorism, aside from useful friends, is the key to success (which would probably only generate more terrorists in the long run). As above, there may be more to this seeming divergence from reality than meets the eye.

Let's say the policy makers in the Bush administration do, actually, understand the reality of the situation. If they confronted issues of democratization, modernization, and liberalization head on they would simply get nowhere, or possibly worse, trigger oil price hikes, and boycotts, by OPEC members as a hostile response. They'd probably also have to confront some embarrasing hypocrisy (such as social root causes actually contributing to behavior rather than just pure, good old, morality or our own very selective history of backing dictators and eliminating troublesome democracies that weren't friendly) that wouldn't help American political conservatives and vested business interests very much. Can't alienate the base. Can't let ourselves, or the world, be held hostage for oil either. And along these same lines a direct military confrontation with Saudi Arabia would also be disasterous.

So we have to say The Saudis are our friends while looking for another reserve. Say, how about Iraq? If we get ahold of those oil reserves we'll be able to dictate the price of oil. Not only for our own commercial benefit (though we should be aware of the potential for abuse there) but as a weapon to influence our oil producing friends in the region. If they don't behave and modernize we'll simply jack production and lower the price of oil. Now we don't have to admit anything politically unacceptable to our conservative base but we'll really be in a position to demand regional democratization (along neoconservative lines). Perhaps not in Iraq, right away, for a host of reasons but elsewhere at first. If the Arab street hasn't already exploded into an anti-American frenzy (and, frankly, we don't know what will happen one way or the other - there was no frenzy after we took Afghanistan) they may well realize that their interests and ours coincide. A happy, content, middle east is a middle east that doesn't need to feel insecure or hostile towards the rest of the world. Religious extremism and anti-American, anti-Israeli, sentiments and propoganda are simply pressure valves for deeper frustrations the Arab people feel towards their environment - even if they don't realize it.

We are culpable here, in some ways, nearly as much as the Saudis and other regimes as we've supported them unquestioningly as long as the oil kept flowing. While I don't expect any deep, public, introspection from this administration I'm beginning to think they might be on the right track. Unless I'm simply imagining things that aren't there.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I'm not sure that oil is the primary mover here. I think that Bush has a personal grievance about Saddam ("He tried to kill my dad") and sees a domestic constituency receptive to taking him out. WMD are an issue, though the imminent threat posed by Iraq is no greater than that posed by Pakistan, North Korea or Iran. Bush has been beating the Iraq drum in foreign policy for quite some time - it's not really a "new" issue - but now he has a willing audience.

Your argument assumes that a new American sponsored regime in Iraq would be willing to accept US diktats on the price of oil. This is by no means clear - after all, other American sponsored regimes in the area (Kuwait, Qatar, etc.) set their oil production with no consultation with Washington. Considering the infrastructure damage that any war would inflict on the cities and industrial centers of Iraq, it could be some time before oil production would be significant enough to affect American prices.

Besides, until the UN says so, Iraq's oil sales are restricted and any lifting of this embargo would send revenues straight back into reconstruction. Quicker reconstruction means shorter occupation, so there will an incentive not to disrupt oil prices too severely.

Troy

[Bub, Andrew]

Oh come on now Rucker, there isn't anyone in the administration with ties to the oil industry... is there?

FWIW I don't believe this is entirely about oil. I think it's a factor, but I think it'd be a factor for any administration. The suspiscion sticks, however, because of the administration's bold moves regarding ANWR and other "energy" issues over the past couple years. This is also about oil, I think, because Saddam is not just a crazy dictator, he's a crazy dictator with an unlimited cash reserve underneath his sandpile. Who knows how dangerous he would be right now had he not invaded Kuwait and inspired the sanctions?

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's about oil. I think it's paranoia about WMD and a grudge.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the US wants to occupy or govern Iraq (how else would we have complete access to their oil?), but I really don't think that the administration wants that. The US has come to fear, since Vietnam, casualties and long-term foreign commitments.

If the US believed it could easily and cheaply (in human life) control Iraq's oil then sure, that scenario makes sense. But I just don't think anyone in the military or government sees it that way--casualties are bad for ratings.

I think your argument is also too long term in its scope for a US administration. It's something that would take years to implement, several office terms I would think, and I don't believe that politicians think like that.

But it is a nice dream--peace in the middle east. I wonder if it will ever happen.

[Sean Tudor]

In King George Bush's perfect world there would only exist :

1. One country - the USA
2. One religion - that would not include Muslim's, Hindu's, Buddhists, or any of those other un-American waco religions
3. The CIA would have access to all communications and would veto all messages
4. Everyone would have a security camera in their house monitoring their actions
5. A mandatory 2 hours of propaganda would be piped through peoples TV's everyday
6. It would be your duty to dob your neighbour in to the government for any dissident tendencies
7. Electrodes would be permanently planted in everyones brain so all un-American thoughts can be detected

The world would be a much safer place ... oh yes indeed ... dribble ... dribble ...

[Met_K]

In King George Bush's perfect world there would only exist :

1. One country - the USA
2. One religion - that would not include Muslim's, Hindu's, Buddhists, or any of those other un-American waco religions
3. The CIA would have access to all communications and would veto all messages
4. Everyone would have a security camera in their house monitoring their actions
5. A mandatory 2 hours of propaganda would be piped through peoples TV's everyday
6. It would be your duty to dob your neighbour in to the government for any dissident tendencies
7. Electrodes would be permanently planted in everyones brain so all un-American thoughts can be detected

The world would be a much safer place ... oh yes indeed ... dribble ... dribble ...

Warning, warning: Possible democrat, liberal, or libertarian detected.

All in the vicinity please evacuate immediately.

[voltaic]

In King George Bush's perfect world there would only exist :

1. One country - the USA
2. One religion - that would not include Muslim's, Hindu's, Buddhists, or any of those other un-American waco religions
3. The CIA would have access to all communications and would veto all messages
4. Everyone would have a security camera in their house monitoring their actions
5. A mandatory 2 hours of propaganda would be piped through peoples TV's everyday
6. It would be your duty to dob your neighbour in to the government for any dissident tendencies
7. Electrodes would be permanently planted in everyones brain so all un-American thoughts can be detected

The world would be a much safer place ... oh yes indeed ... dribble ... dribble ...

Warning, warning: Possible democrat, liberal, or libertarian detected.

All in the vicinity please evacuate immediately.

If you think that anyone resembling a libertarian subscribes to that shit, I would like to ask you to check out our stance at http://www.lp.org/ and learn for yourself. We want government out of your lives more than your precious republican leaders do.

But you knew that of course.

[Met_K]

If you think that anyone resembling a libertarian subscribes to that shit, I would like to ask you to check out our stance at http://www.lp.org/ and learn for yourself. We want government out of your lives more than your precious republican leaders do.

But you knew that of course.

Why don't you go and read what I said again, voltaic.

If you'll notice, I was calling Sean one of the three because of his extreme anti-Bush sentiment.

[wumpus]

And how could anyone be anti-Bush?

http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/images/foolbushlr.mpg

[Bub, Andrew]

Heh, Wumpus, anyone have that in higher quality? His expression is what makes it for me. That mix of confusion, frustration and anger.

[Met_K]

There's a high-quality real audio clip that's the full segment from comedy central.

http://www.comedycentral.com/includes/rpmdirect.jhtml?ram=dailyshow/headlines/7034_headline_300.rm

[wumpus]

Here's my theory. Met_K is a Bush fan because he figures there's at least ONE guy who is a bigger dumbass than he is.

[Met_K]

Here's my theory. Met_K is a Bush fan because he figures there's at least ONE guy who is a bigger dumbass than he is.

That was right out of the left field. Making personal attacks now, Jeff?

And yes, I am a Bush fan. But not in that sense. I want to keep him in office just to keep seeing him blunder. Strip him of the powers, but damn, is he good. Like a retarded version of Rodney Dangerfield who doesn't realize everyone's laughing -at- him.

[Sean Tudor]

If you'll notice, I was calling Sean one of the three because of his extreme anti-Bush sentiment.

I am not anti-Bush - I just laugh everyday that Americans voted for and allowed themselves to be ruled by a complete moron.

Besides without George Bush we wouldn't have all those hilarious one liners and TV shows like That's My Bush!

[Met_K]

I am not anti-Bush - I just laugh everyday that Americans voted for and allowed themselves to be ruled by a complete moron.

Besides without George Bush we wouldn't have all those hilarious one liners and TV shows like That's My Bush!

Remember that America didn't vote for Bush, he was sort of pushed onto us by the electoral college.

Either way, I could give a rats ass less what you're anti or not, or whether he was elected or not. The guy's a fucking moron. He shouldn't be President. But is it just not fucking funny that he is? I find it so.

[Alan Au]

Two possible alternative motives are the boost in popularity that usually applies to a wartime president, and the economic recovery that historically follows on the heels of wartime. Iraq may indeed pose a valid threat, but I imagine the side-effects of war are as valuable to the administration as the actual result.

- Alan

[voltaic]

If you think that anyone resembling a libertarian subscribes to that shit, I would like to ask you to check out our stance at http://www.lp.org/ and learn for yourself. We want government out of your lives more than your precious republican leaders do.

But you knew that of course.

Why don't you go and read what I said again, voltaic.

If you'll notice, I was calling Sean one of the three because of his extreme anti-Bush sentiment.

So by that rationale, you could have thrown in any old adjectives you wanted since you said "or". Perhaps he is either democrat, liberal, libertarian, pink, hard-headed, ridden with cancer, or has balls of lightning shooting from his arse. Hey those last four choices may be basically completely retarded, but you did say "or" so we, as readers, ought to know you didn't really mean them even though you wrote them plain as day.

[Met_K]

So by that rationale, you could have thrown in any old adjectives you wanted since you said "or". Perhaps he is either democrat, liberal, libertarian, pink, hard-headed, ridden with cancer, or has balls of lightning shooting from his arse. Hey those last four choices may be basically completely retarded, but you did say "or" so we, as readers, ought to know you didn't really mean them even though you wrote them plain as day.

You're the only one choosing to make a big deal of it. Didn't offend you, did I?

[voltaic]

So by that rationale, you could have thrown in any old adjectives you wanted since you said "or". Perhaps he is either democrat, liberal, libertarian, pink, hard-headed, ridden with cancer, or has balls of lightning shooting from his arse. Hey those last four choices may be basically completely retarded, but you did say "or" so we, as readers, ought to know you didn't really mean them even though you wrote them plain as day.

You're the only one choosing to make a big deal of it. Didn't offend you, did I?

You're going to have to work very hard to offend me on anything. On the other hand, I was simply trying to forward some education onto you and other readers about who and what the libertarians really are. Does that offend you?

[Met_K]

You're going to have to work very hard to offend me on anything. On the other hand, I was simply trying to forward some education onto you and other readers about who and what the libertarians really are. Does that offend you?

Not in the least. Just as long as you know I was just using examples off the top of my head, and that I know you were simply trying to educate. All is good in the world.

[Anonymous]

There's nothing more amusing than reading the geopolitical pages of a videogames forum.

[balut]

There's nothing more amusing than reading the geopolitical pages of a videogames forum.

I dunno, stabbing one's self in the face with a spork comes close.

- Balut

[Jason McCullough]

.....or people who add the word "geo" to the front of "political" for some reason.

[Anonymous]

i'm sorry you don't know what the prefix "geo" means, jason.

might i suggest "hooked on phonics, the retard edition"?

[Jason McCullough]

I'll be damned, it's actually a word.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=geopolitical


ge·o·pol·i·tics (j-pl-tks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

1. The study of the relationship among politics and geography, demography, and economics, especially with respect to the foreign policy of a nation.

2. a. A governmental policy employing geopolitics.
b. A Nazi doctrine holding that the geographic, economic, and political needs of Germany justified its invasion and seizure of other lands.

A combination of geographic and political factors relating to or influencing a nation or region.


You can have your Nazi doctrine word. ;0

[TomChick]

There's nothing more amusing than reading the geopolitical pages of a videogames forum.

I dunno, I think it's kind of amusing when a PC Gamer editor refers to computer games as "videogames"...

Sorry, Dan, but you left yourself *wide* open for that one. :)

-Tom

[Brad Grenz]

No wonder! Jason didn't even know what it was we were arguing!

Cut and paste the deffinition to the Hitler thread. See! He gave us the word geopolitics!

[Matthew Gallant]

I dunno, I think it's kind of amusing when a PC Gamer editor refers to computer games as "videogames"...

Speaking of which, have you tried out that Radeon 9700 computer card?

[algahar]

when did terrorist acts become such a problem ? were there always terrorists threatening americans ? since when did they hate the americans so much ? and wth happened / the americans did to them to piss them off so much that they are willing to scarifice their lives, sometimes even their childrens' lives, for americans ?

[Brian Rucker]

It lives. Anyone remember this thread? :)

It looks like maybe my suspicions are being borne out though I'm much, much, less copacetic about the administration's execution and motives as I've come to better understand the players in the administration and how the rebuilding and oil management is being handled.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Well, we haven't had an Iraq thread for months. It had to happen sometime.

Anyway, I don't agree (with you) on the oil. There was an excellent in the previous Le Monde Dipomatique Nordic, which argued that there won't be much money in Iraqi oil for the foreseeable future, due to infrastructure needing rebuilding etc. Good that they accede to Al-Qaida's demands by getting themselves out of Saudi Arabia, though.

Now we don't have to admit anything politically unacceptable to our conservative base but we'll really be in a position to demand regional democratization (along neoconservative lines). Perhaps not in Iraq, right away, for a host of reasons but elsewhere at first. If the Arab street hasn't already exploded into an anti-American frenzy (and, frankly, we don't know what will happen one way or the other - there was no frenzy after we took Afghanistan) they may well realize that their interests and ours coincide.

Heh. A friend of mine went on a study tour to Egypt and Jordan recently. He lived next to a big mosque, which one day was hosting a demonstration after prayer. They lined up forty Riot Police on each side of the exit, and let the demonstrators out one at a time. They also had about twice as many policemen as demonstrators standing around. That might be one reason for the arab street not exploding into anger; that, and that their governments generally tried to distance themselves from the war.

As for what the US is going to do regarding the democratization and occupation, I'm unsure. I'm looking forward to finding out, though.

Oh yeah: Afghanistan. Anyone watch 60 minutes a while ago? Heh. Better luck next time, I guess.

[Brian Rucker]

I agree with you about democratization, now, one of the reasons I'm much less pleased with my reasoning than I was before. Still it does seem that this was about anything but WMD given some comments by folks like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in the press recently. That was just a convenient issue to justify a war some people wanted anyhow.

I do disagree about the oil. While the costs of reconstruction are going to be huge, oil companies aren't going to be paying them. American taxpayers are. Major, connected, contractors and oil companies are going to get a windfall out of this over time and they are extremely well politically represented in this administration.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Calling all weaselly Euro-Scandinavian Communist Pinkos:

The Empire Expands Wider and Still Wider
By ERIC HOBSBAWM
(http://www.counterpunch.org/hobsbawm06112003.html)
Originally printed in Le Monde Diplomatique, reproduced on Counterpunch, so you know it's got to be really Evil. It's a bit long, but rather good, and deserves to be read, if you're into this sort of thing. Well, I like it, at least.

EDIT: While on the subject of articles, I found the oil article (http://mondediplo.com/2003/04/03oil) I mentioned above. Presenting some not often heard unique views, at least.

[Damien Falgoust]

I agree with you about democratization, now, one of the reasons I'm much less pleased with my reasoning than I was before. Still it does seem that this was about anything but WMD given some comments by folks like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in the press recently. That was just a convenient issue to justify a war some people wanted anyhow.
This isn't quite accurate. I assume you're referring to either of two reports, one in Vanity Fair and one in the UK's Guardian. The publications deleted important context or rearranged quotations to grossly distort what Wolfowitz actually said. Let's examine both.

THE VANITY FAIR PIECE

The Vanity Fair piece quoted Wolfowitz as saying "[f]or bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Cite (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/30/wolfowitz.vanity.fair/).

The Pentagon released a tape recording and full transcript of what Wolfowitz actually said. The full quote is "[t]he truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason...[Pause]...There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually, I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one, which is the connection between the first two." Transcript (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html).

VF made it look like Wolfowitz was claiming the US falsely used WMD as a basis for war, when what he actually said was that WMD was one of the legitimate bases for war, and they elected to focus on that basis because it was the one that generated the greatest amount of consensus.

THE GUARDIAN PIECE

The Guardian had quoted Wolfowitz as saying, when asked why North Korea was treated differently than Iraq, that "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." Cite (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0604-10.htm).

Again, the Pentagon released a transcript of Wolfowitz's full remarks. What he actually said was "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different." Transcript (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html)

The Guardian makes it sound as though Wolfowitz is saying the Iraq war was fought to capture oil reserves, when what he actually said relates to economic influence: because Iraq has a valuable economic commodity, it was not as susceptible to economic leverage -- they are less dependent on the rest of the world because of their oil reserves. Since North Korea lacks those kinds of valuable resources, it is a much better candidate for the use of economic leverage.

Unfortunately, both stories were widely reported in other media outlets before the Pentagon made the transcripts available -- such is life in the Internet age. And of course, retractions are never as splashy as the sensationalistic story that preceded them. Thus are myths perpetuated.

[Jason McCullough]

The Guardian fucked up, but the Vanity Fair piece is getting a bum rap. Wolfwitz really did say that he thinks Saddam was behind the OKC bombing (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/june0301.html#060703128pm); there's just a dispute as to whether it was "on the record" or not.

[Damien Falgoust]

The Guardian fucked up, but the Vanity Fair piece is getting a bum rap. Wolfwitz really did say that he thinks Saddam was behind the OKC bombing (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/june0301.html#060703128pm); there's just a dispute as to whether it was "on the record" or not.
That'd be great if the main problem with the Vanity Fair piece was its description of what Wolfowitz thought about Saddam's involvement with other terrorist acts. It isn't. The problem with the article is it mis-states what Wolfowitz said about WMD as a casus belli.

The OKC stuff seems to be something the talkingpointsmemo guy is hung up on. Cite (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/june0301.html#060203945pm):
In fact, for all the buzz surrounding the WMD quotes, the real stunner comes in the very next paragraph. It's there where Tanenhaus says Wolfowitz is "confident" that Saddam was "connected" to the original World Trade Center attack in 1993 and that he has "entertained the theory" that Saddam was involved in the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995.
Even the TPM guy notes that it's the WMD quote that generated controversy, not the stuff about OKC.

And just to be nitpicky, the article you cite doesn't say that Wolfowitz thought Saddam was behind the OKC bombing; it says he had "entertained" the thought of such a connection, meaning he had considered the possibility, but does not necessarily mean that he reached that as an ultimate conclusion.

[Daniel Morris]

Damien Falgoust is correct.

[Slothrop]

Daniel Morris is right about Damien Falgoust being correct.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't understand the other Wolfowitz objection; the rephrasing looks like exactly the same thing to me.

Anyway, all the administration talked about was WMD, WMD, WMD. In Bush's SOTU (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001370.html) out of the 1200 words about Iraq, 1100 were about WMD.

Excuse me on the OKC thing:

According to Tanenhaus' article, Wolfowitz is "confident" Saddam played some role in the 1993 incident and has "entertained" the theory that he played a role in the Oklahoma City bombing as well.

Confident he played a role in '93 is pretty wierd too, but you're right, he didn't say he thought he was behind the OKC bombing. Just "entertained", whatever that means.

[Damien Falgoust]

I don't understand the other Wolfowitz objection; the rephrasing looks like exactly the same thing to me.
Vanity Fair's sin was one of omission. In isolation, the quote sounds like Wolfowitz is saying they were using WMD as a pretext solely because it was easier to sell politically -- in short, it sounds like he's saying he didn't really believe the WMD line, and he just used it to sell the war. In context, that is clearly not the case -- the full quotation illustrates that Wolfowitz really did believe that WMD was one of many valid reasons for war.

[bmulligan]

Brian Rucker Wrote:
I do disagree about the oil. While the costs of reconstruction are going to be huge, oil companies aren't going to be paying them. American taxpayers are. Major, connected, contractors and oil companies are going to get a windfall out of this over time and they are extremely well politically represented in this administration.

What's wrong with US contractors making some money off of this? Would you feel better if French contractors did? Or mayby the UN should take charge, we all know how well organized and decisive they can be in order to get a job done.

Frankly, I'm glad that these companies may be hiring more americans to go to Iraq and help with the job of rebuilding. The'll come home and put some of that money into circulation. Maybe their salaries will even generate more tax revenue for Uncle Sam. Somebody's got to do the job right? Why not Americans? We do things better than just about anybody.

Unfortunatelly, democracy in Iraq is doomed to failure. Regardless of the political and material infrastructure we can build for them, they will never acept a free society. It goes against a deeply imbedded cultural belief that Allah will punnish an entire nation for any infidcels allowed to live among them. Similar to the whacko christians in america who believe that AIDS is punishment from god for allowing homosexuality. I know many people from Iraq, and they are liberally practicing muslims who share this common belief. They love this country but believe that 9/11 occured because we allow people the freedom to break gods laws. They think it's a terrible thing but a somewhat deserving penalty for infidelity to god. How can we possibly expect to install the concept of freedom in a culture with such a mindset?

What's done is done. We've gone into Iraq and did what we thought was right. Second guessing about the WMD isn't going to make things better or re-build their counry. It's just political strategery. The left is gearing up for an election, and trying to find an issue they can run on for the next 18 months. Trying to make the Administration look like liars is really their only hope. Only everybody already knows the Democrats always accuse their enemies of doing exactly what they are doing themselves.

[Anders Hallin]

What's wrong with US contractors making some money off of this? Would you feel better if French contractors did? Or mayby the UN should take charge, we all know how well organized and decisive they can be in order to get a job done.

Frankly, I'm glad that these companies may be hiring more americans to go to Iraq and help with the job of rebuilding. The'll come home and put some of that money into circulation. Maybe their salaries will even generate more tax revenue for Uncle Sam. Somebody's got to do the job right? Why not Americans? We do things better than just about anybody.
Which, if nothing else, this rebuilding process is showing.

Unfortunatelly, democracy in Iraq is doomed to failure. Regardless of the political and material infrastructure we can build for them, they will never acept a free society. It goes against a deeply imbedded cultural belief that Allah will punnish an entire nation for any infidcels allowed to live among them. Similar to the whacko christians in america who believe that AIDS is punishment from god for allowing homosexuality. I know many people from Iraq, and they are liberally practicing muslims who share this common belief. They love this country but believe that 9/11 occured because we allow people the freedom to break gods laws. They think it's a terrible thing but a somewhat deserving penalty for infidelity to god. How can we possibly expect to install the concept of freedom in a culture with such a mindset?
By hard work, persistance and a competent rebuilding process. Good luck, Iraq :)
I really hope they're aiming for a state-owned water system, oil company, telephone company and a bunch of other state-owned companies, because I think Iraq is pretty much screwed if they somehow are counting on "the market" to make things right in Iraq.

What's done is done. We've gone into Iraq and did what we thought was right. Second guessing about the WMD isn't going to make things better or re-build their counry.
It might make them take the hint and try to look at things at least a bit objectively next time.

It's just political strategery. The left is gearing up for an election, and trying to find an issue they can run on for the next 18 months. Trying to make the Administration look like liars is really their only hope. Only everybody already knows the Democrats always accuse their enemies of doing exactly what they are doing themselves.
I wish for the day the US has a real left, mostly so that we can stop hearing about the Democrats being referred to as "left".

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

...Somebody's got to do the job right? Why not Americans? We do things better than just about anybody.
Which, if nothing else, this rebuilding process is showing.

Snicker.

I really hope they're aiming for a state-owned water system, oil company, telephone company and a bunch of other state-owned companies, because I think Iraq is pretty much screwed if they somehow are counting on "the market" to make things right in Iraq.

Seeing as how it's the Best Rebuilders in the World doing the job, I'll be surprised if they don't privatise the police force and infrastructure. Hey, someone has to make money off it, right, and why should it be the Iraqis? They have the Americans to thank for their liberty, and this is a good way of showing their gratitude.

I wish for the day the US has a real left, mostly so that we can stop hearing about the Democrats being referred to as "left".

Stop thinking like that. Are you waiting for the day the Scandinavian countries get a real, Republican-style right, so that we can stop hearing the Conservatives being callled "the right"?

[Brad Grenz]

I'm waiting for the day Scandinavia matters, so I can stop thinking, who cares?

[westyx2]

Unfortunatelly, democracy in Iraq is doomed to failure. Regardless of the political and material infrastructure we can build for them, they will never acept a free society. It goes against a deeply imbedded cultural belief that Allah will punnish an entire nation for any infidcels allowed to live among them. Similar to the whacko christians in america who believe that AIDS is punishment from god for allowing homosexuality. I know many people from Iraq, and they are liberally practicing muslims who share this common belief. They love this country but believe that 9/11 occured because we allow people the freedom to break gods laws. They think it's a terrible thing but a somewhat deserving penalty for infidelity to god. How can we possibly expect to install the concept of freedom in a culture with such a mindset?

no doubt people thought the same thing about japan in 1945. i'd say from an uninformed opinion things are fairly democratic over there, ignoring the close ties that businesses and politicians seems to have.

[XPav]

What's wrong with US contractors making some money off of this? Would you feel better if French contractors did? Or mayby the UN should take charge, we all know how well organized and decisive they can be in order to get a job done.
Its a credit to the free market that Halliburton and other large companies that have intimate connections to the administration get offered no-bid contracts for billions of dollars, right?

Its also great that we shut out our British and Australian allies from any of these contracts, because of course, we sent more troops, and might makes right.

What's done is done. We've gone into Iraq and did what we thought was right. Second guessing about the WMD isn't going to make things better or re-build their counry. It's just political strategery. The left is gearing up for an election, and trying to find an issue they can run on for the next 18 months. Trying to make the Administration look like liars is really their only hope. Only everybody already knows the Democrats always accuse their enemies of doing exactly what they are doing themselves.
Oh man, slam... I mean, how do you respond to "I know you are but what am I". Game over right there.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't understand the other Wolfowitz objection; the rephrasing looks like exactly the same thing to me.
Vanity Fair's sin was one of omission. In isolation, the quote sounds like Wolfowitz is saying they were using WMD as a pretext solely because it was easier to sell politically -- in short, it sounds like he's saying he didn't really believe the WMD line, and he just used it to sell the war. In context, that is clearly not the case -- the full quotation illustrates that Wolfowitz really did believe that WMD was one of many valid reasons for war.

Hmm, I don't see it, but ok.

Anyone going on about how beautiful and happy The New Iraq will be had better explain why Afghanistan is worse for its citizens now than under the Taliban.

[Anders Hallin]

...Somebody's got to do the job right? Why not Americans? We do things better than just about anybody.
Which, if nothing else, this rebuilding process is showing.
Snicker.
Well, let's not be too happy about this or the Afghanistan situation. The ones suffering are the Iraqi and Afhanistani peoples. And hey, I'd love to see a great future for the world, led by the world's strongest nation, the world's oldest democratic nation, with great ideals.
But all I feel is a growing sense of trepidation, day by day.

Seeing as how it's the Best Rebuilders in the World doing the job, I'll be surprised if they don't privatise the police force and infrastructure.
I'm afraid so. Because you know, it worked so great in Russia. And in Sweden for that matter. I'm not saying that it is an entirely bad idea (well, except for police force) in all situations, but seeing how difficult it is to do right with a well-developed government and a democratic tradition, Russia will be one of the nicer examples in a few years if they try it.

Stop thinking like that. Are you waiting for the day the Scandinavian countries get a real, Republican-style right, so that we can stop hearing the Conservatives being callled "the right"?
Good point.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

I'm waiting for the day Scandinavia matters, so I can stop thinking, who cares?
It matters to the people living there; so I've heard, anyway. But if talking about anything but the US and related matters in a public forum frequented by the Masters of the Universe, I'll go buy some Big Macs as atonement.

I'm not saying that it is an entirely bad idea (well, except for police force) in all situations, but seeing how difficult it is to do right with a well-developed government and a democratic tradition...
Well, we managed to screw it up in a lot of ways over here. It's a great service to the private industries, of course, and an easy way for politicians to avoid responsibility. Ultimately, that's not the best idea in a social democracy.

The ones suffering are the Iraqi and Afhanistani peoples. And hey, I'd love to see a great future for the world, led by the world's strongest nation, the world's oldest democratic nation, with great ideals.
All too true. We can only hope someone sensible is placed in charge eventually, and they learn how to be imperialists if that's what they're going to be doing.