The View From 1776

Two Current Views on Iraq Prospects

Updated pro and con on the Bush “surge.”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/25 at 11:45 PM
  1. First, they never mention the successful attack by Saddam on our economy. That 24% hit on the dollar with the euro by his selling oil in euros posed more of a problem than most realize and it is also something you can't tell the world without risking a panic selling of the dollar.

    Since we were already at war with Saddam and had been, even including bombing by Clinton, and he was constantly violating the cease fire, we had the ability to legitimately resume the war and stop the sale of oil in euros, as we did in June of 2004. Whether we did or didn't end that economic attack, we weren't at war with Pakistan and wouldn't have had support had we went to war with Pakistan.

    Same with Iran. We aren't already at war so, their selling of oil in euros isn't enough reason for an attack but they are successfully hurting our dollar and our economy for the middle and lower income who are paying more and more for any imports, food (thanks to ethanol to replace oil), and the rising cost of entitlements tied to inflation.

    Again, whether we end up doing something about Iran's nuclear program or not, we don't have the support to go to war with Pakistan and that is where al-qaeda will probably base operations from for Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, etc.

    In Iraq, you have another problem. We won the war against Iraq but as an "ally" to the new government are failing for a number of reasons. The main reason is that from almost the beginning, members of Congress have been undermining what we do with public comments that should have been fought out behind closed doors and instead are used to get votes while giving aid and comfort to the enemy especially in the psychological aspect of war, any war, and this war. Whether correct or not, those views are to be kept behind closed doors so the enemy doesn't see division that can be viewed as weakness.

    The other major reason we are having problems is three groups want to control Iraq oil. Iran, so it can sell it in euros and increase its own sagging exports of oil, al-Qaeda so it can use oil as a weapon against the U.S. and Iraq's own internal struggle between Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites that date back centuries.

    How, in foresight, could all those factors have been known? They couldn't. But, given our history, decline in economic power, dependence on oil, weakening dollar, growing debt and growing world view that our form of "democracy" was crumbling, we should have expected more problems than we did. Maybe our President didn't believe the U.S. was held in such low esteem as it is or that it was so weak internally (divided) or that it would be so costly in lives and money when they laid out a plan to let Iraq become a "democracy" with three groups hating each other, sharing power and not creating a "republic" where each group could have had their own "sovereignty" but unite to share the oil and the defense of the nation. Maybe, even that wouldn't have worked.

    You could write a novel about all the things we should have known, but didn't because we aren't clairvoyant. Some of us believed the nation was very weak and divided and would fail to unite behind the President for long. We also didn't believe our current "democracy" was a good model since it wasn't and still isn't working for us since we lost state sovereignty and centralized power in the Federal government, but, again, many didn't share that view and still don't.

    However, had the Congress done its job and kept the division behind closed doors as they are supposed to, it would have helped immensely and possibly changed the whole course of the war in Iraq and what Iran is doing now. It still can be saved but, it will have to come from within Iraq and Iraq's government. They will have to find a way to unite the people, establish a republic or some other form of government all factions will accept. If we can "stall" long enough for that to happen we can still succeed.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  04/26  at  12:31 AM
  2. The link to the Richard Clarke article must be wrong. The article I read doesn't say anything about limiting our efforts to Afghanistan, and does not say that Iraq caused the Islamists to assault us with terrorist tactics.

    Please provide an accurate link to the Clarke article you are criticizing so I can compare it to the Herman article.

    Thanks.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/03  at  06:53 PM
  3. In answer to comment number 2:

    I'm not sure why Freeman can't retrieve Mr. Clarke's article "PUT BUSH'S 'PUPPY DOG' TERROR THEORY TO SLEEP" via the link provided. Both links posted in the article are in working order at this time.

    Freeman writes, "The article I read doesn
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/16  at  12:35 AM
  4. Ahhh. According to comment No. 3, the link goes to the correct article, and the criticism is based on an interpretation of Clarke's article.

    No. 3 interprets Clarke's criticism of going into Iraq to mean that Clarke would limit the U.S. actions to Afghanistan, doing so by attributing to Clarke a "liberal policy position" that we should have stayed in Afghanistan, I guess as opposed to hunting down al Queda wherever we find it.

    However, it seems to me that No. 3 has created a straw man to attack. No. 3 subsequently points out that Clarke suggests that some of the enormous resources being spent in Iraq be used, in part, for "systematically dismantling Al Qaeda all over the world, from Canada to Asia to Africa.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/30  at  03:12 PM
  5. Freeman:
    So what is the real dispute with Clarke? Isn
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  05/30  at  03:57 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.