OK, pro and anti forces, you can be for or against military action. But I think everyone agrees, given the military buildup, the press conference, the course of the UN debates, that we're going to invade. It's a fait accompli. So, we invade. Now what? The future is always uncertain, but it seems to me we can understand the end-result of this invasion in the context of simple words: GOOD results; BAD results. And in terms of short-term results and long-term results. OK, here they are; Good Short Term Results The military action goes very well. Iraqi military surrenders immediately. The Generals in charge of WMDs think twice about using them, and don't. We occupy oil fields quickly; no sabotage. We reach Baghdad and engage in virtually no urban house-to-house fighting. Civilian casualties occur, regrettably, but the idea of 10s of thousands dying simply doesn't happen. Saddam hops on plane and leaves for Libya. Bad Short Term Results Military action is extensive. Iraqi military puts up a fight. Some of the Generals in charge of WMDs launch them, and Americans face chemical weapons attacks for the first time since 1918. The oil fields get blown up before we get there. We struggle to reach Baghdad, and once we get there, fanatical militia troops ambush and harrass us at every turn; house-to-house figting ensues. Large numbers of civilians get caught in the crossfire. Saddam bunkers in a presidential palace, and finally, with US troops knocking on the door, puts a bullet in his brain. Good Long Term Results With effective and fast military action, and Saddam's henchmen gone, the work of rebuilding Iraqi society begins. We find tons of WMDs and reveal them to the world. The UN now takes an active role, UN troops start to come in; US forces exit. A federation is established. Kurds retain their autonomy, but are still under the nominal contral of a central Baghdad government. Turks do nothing -- just watch and are relieved that everything in the north is more or less status quo. An analagous situation is set up for the Shiites in the south. This changes occur with no intra-regional violence and bloodshed. Seeing what has happend in Iraq, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Syrians start to instituted democratic reforms. Democracy begins to take root in the fundamentalist, theocratic, and authoritarian countries. Bad Long Term Results The USA and UK go it alone in the occupation of Iraq after protracted and horrific fighting. We discover some WMDS, but not the tons of VX and other agents we have claimed exist. The oil fields have been sabotaged...it will take nearly a year to get them back on line. Partisan-like guerilla bands organize and harrass occupying troops. The Iraqi state begins to fracture. The Kurds want an autonomous soverign state, set one up, and dare the Turks to stop them. The Turks go in and try to do exactly that. In the south, the Shiites want their own state, establish a governmental body and start having serious talks with Iran, up to and including annexation. The word "quagmire" is uttered over and over again. We finally leave in humiliation, and the region plunges into a new kind of darkness. Of course, I have put these end results in fairly binary terms, and things could wind up somewhere in between the extremes. But the extremes are good starting points for understanding the possibilities of the future.
So, c'mon guys. Stop your name calling for a moment..I will too..and let's really discuss something with meat on it.
I think the scenario of "Good Long Term Results" will be followed by a scenario much closer to "Bad Long Term Results." I'm not sure finding "tons of WMDs" will matter much if the Kurds and Turks are in combat with each other, or if the Shiites and Sunnis break out into civil war, making the region much more unstable than the current situation, which essentially is UN forces keeping Saddam pinned under his rock. If you want to argue that the current situation is untenable as a long-term situation, great. I'll agree with you. But given the Bush Administration's blunders over the past few months with its allies and in the United Nations, I have no faith that taking out Saddam will suddenly uncover the Springs of Knowledge (or at least the Bottled Water of Clue) for the Bush Administration. I have every confidence we'll win the war quickly. I have no confidence that we'll win the peace, at least certainly not with the current administration.
Karl, I have no disagreements with what you posted. You wrote out many possibilities that both sides can agree with. I tend to believe that the most of the good long term results will occur however anything could happen. Lets hope for the best.
It will take a month to take over Iraq. Take another year to find all the WMD. Then we leave maybe before. There is a good chance Saddam will escape he has the money to make that a reality. He will not be ruling iraq that is for sure. There is always the possibility that Iraq will hit israel, Turkey and Kuwait with WMD once war starts. The region will become much more stable after it. Is Iran going to start trouble after they see that iraq fell? If they do they will fall as well. Then the region will be pretty stable. You people worry to much. Korea will deal right after it or they will have a problem. Who would be their allies China, Russia? Don't think so. Then life will be a little safer for all concerned.
Their wrestling team is to damn good. I suppose you think they don't support terrorism? Go ahead tell me they don't.
I think invading Iraq is a hideous idea because the bad long term solutiobns are so much more likely than the good, and the bad short term solution to the tune of five or six figures worth of casualties is almost infinitely more likely than a waltz into Baghdad. If you want to tag me for being a total bean-counting cost-benefit actuary, fine. I freely admit that dumping Saddam is worth it, if it can be done as cheaply as we're being told it can. But there's just no freaking way. "Shock and Awe" is going to be horrific - come on, it's supposed to be horrific. And if we win horrifically, well, let's just say occupation afterwards will be, uh, problematic. Oh, and PS, that Kurd-Turk war we'll have unleashed in the north will be highly analyzed by future students of "What the **** were you THINKING"-ology. PPSS - As far as our stated reasons for invading? None of them will be accomplished, aside from regime change. If you count "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as "regime change."
Nobody's mentioned the scenario of Saddam being overthrown, a US puppet government being installed, resentment building up in the region because outsiders have control of a formerly powerful Arab nation, and a new generation of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists being born....
"and a new generation of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists being born...." That will always happen you can thank those childrens parents for that exclusively.
Mike stupidly said "That will always happen you can thank those childrens parents for that exclusively. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, there's the option of killing all the Muslims. That would remove that threat." ----------------------------------------- Terrorists are a very small percentage of all Muslims far less then 1 percent like 500 hundreths of 1 percent. The fault falls squarely on those parents. They simply are fuuccked up people or are also fuccccked up parents, turning out fucccked up children. The vast majority of all moslems are not terrorists. However, I would suspect 8 to 10 percent of them might make a donation to terrorists knowingly or unknowingly.
Mike can't answer simple questions because he has no answers. Do you know anything about soccer? Probably has no answer to that question either. What a surprise.
Sorry, I didn't see a question in your post. I do concede that what you wrote was very simple. . . minded. And since you did ask, I'm a soccer fan. I don't know a lot about tactics, but I do know that I love the game.
I answered it. I guess you missed it. I'm not sure how soccer knowledge is relevant to political opinion.
I was just wondering if your only on this board for the politcal topics. I don't see your posts on this or any other coaching soccer sites Or on the player topic. If your on the US National team topic I have not noticed. So I take that to mean there is nothing relevant comming from you on that topic worth remembering if you do post there. How did you get that love of game that you say you have. how much time do you put into the game? How much of your own money do you contribute to the game. Are you a life long club member of a soccer club? Have you started your own club or clubs. Are you a board member of any soccer organization. Can you chip the fuccking ball. What kind of player were you. Ever played against a professional club. They ever paid you to play or coach. Any of the above So how did that love of game come about? Just use the word love or do you show your love of game in a more tangible way?
I don't know why I'm doing this, but what the hell. I've been on this board since before it was called BigSoccer. I've never played the game, but I became a fan watching the 1986 World Cup when I lived in Germany. I have been a season ticket holder for DC United since 1998. I have traveled to Mexico, Jamaica, Los Angeles, Fort Lauderdale, Columbus, Rome, Chicago, Foxboro, and lots of other places to see soccer games. I've shot games as a photographer for the USMNT and for DC United, and am going to be shooting youth tournaments for Virginia Youth Soccer. And no, I still don't see how any of this is relevant to my opinion about the war in Iraq.
Well you're just not looking hard enough, Mike. Memorize this for future reference... I played soccer at the: high school level. Therefore, my opinions on US foreign policy are relevant - as long as they remain un-voiced and pro-war. college level. Therefore, my opinions on US foreign policy are relevant and should be expressed - as long as they are pro-war. professional level. Therefore, my opinions on US foreign policy should shape US foreign policy - as long as they are pro-war. I did not play soccer at any level besides kick-arounds in the parking lot. My right to free speech should be revoked. Remeber, Ritchie, learning is FUNdamental!
OK, I made a typo in that first sentence. But this is a time to hate being right in one's predictions.
Over the long term? Over the long term, the sun becomes a white dwarf star a little smaller than Earth, forever. Huh? Oh, not that long. Well, how long are we talking about? Long term; its the perfect commitment to ENDS over MEANS. Over the long-term everything is everything. Somewhere in that, Iraq is what we'd all alike it to be. Question is, how long is long, what's the cost, and how do we recover, if at ll, from a rape, an utter violation, of Principled Means as a tenet of our democratic system?
First part right, second part completely wrong. We didn't win horrifically, but the occupation was still problematic. Almost certainly wrong, unless the Kurds finally do decide they want to be independent and join FIFA. Well, we did get rid of Saddam's WMD. All in all, I was way off. Sure, I was right about the occupation going bad, but everyone with a brain saw that coming.