The Iraq War is an Overwhelming Success?

[Zyniker]

I wrote this about a year ago, it’s an edited version of an English paper I had to write. Anyway this Debate is going to be for the more intellectually inclined Members. To get things really rolling we need a very controversial topic, and I think I have one. I'm here to argue that the Iraq War has been a complete and overwhelming success, and that Bush and his ilk are indeed master strategists. Doesn't sound much like me does it? Read on.

It's actually quite simple to see the validity of my conclusion when one makes a few very reasonable assumptions:

1. The US never intended to install a truly democratic government in Iraq.
2. Continued conflict is desirable as it keeps US troops in the region longer.

First, let's address how reasonable these assumptions are. For the first we may look to an extensive number of precedents. In every US intervention since the Korean War (which was actually a UN intervention) where the US line was that it was promoting democracy, how many of those nation-states became true democracies? Hmm.

Vietnam: We supposedly "lost" this one and that's why no democracy came about, but I think we achieved our goals there. If one is trying to establish a prosperous democracy in Southern Vietnam, does one napalm the hell out of only the southern part of Vietnam, destroying great swaths of land and other natural resources for decades? No. If one possesses the greatest military machine on earth, and North Vietnam is one's enemy, why doesn't one just march right up to Hanoi and decapitate the enemy rather than fight meaningless skirmishes in the jungles? In WWII, while fighting Japan, did we go to all their jungle territories and fight them, or did we take just enough islands to hop-skip-and-jump ourselves to Tokyo to force the surrender of all other Japanese territories? That's right: Tokyo. If democracy were truly the goal in Vietnam, the war would have been fought in an entirely different way.

South & Central America: The scope of US intervention in the name of democracy here is massive. From Guatemala to Nicaragua; El Salvador to Chile, the US had its fingers in everything. Did any democracies come about because of US actions? Or did it take decades for democracies to come about only after people overthrew the murderous, fascist regimes supported by the US via the CIA? That's right. Democracy took decades. This can even be found in US high school history textbooks. Take Nicaragua: The US supported the overthrow of the popular Sandanista gov't in favour of a fascist dictatorship. Or El Salvador: US supported an incredibly brutal fascist organization whose mass graves are still being discovered. Again, no democracy.

Thus, every time the US says it's promoting democracy, it is doing the opposite and indeed wants stable regime it can control rather than an independent democracy. Check on assumption number one.

I would hold that assumption two is self-evident, but in case it's not, let me expound. Recent opinion polls show that more than 60% of US citizens believe the Iraq War is a "mistake." However, a greater majority are against pulling US troops out until stability is established in Iraq. Now, let's recall some of Bush's own statements. Specifically that the US is "addicted to oil." It's true. If oil prices spiked much more, the US would be in big trouble. EVERYTHING, from agriculture to transportation is based on petroleum. It's not just that you would have to sell you SUV and get a hybrid, but that there might not be any food to eat if we cannot produce the oil-based fertilizers that make our crops grow. Quite simply: we would be freakinged.

It goes like this: The US needs lots of oil --> The US cannot meet its oil needs domestically --> The US must get its oil from foreign sources.

But where? We tried a coup in Venezuela but it backfired because the people love Chavez. Saudi Arabia is already our annoying one (or is it the other way around?) Western Africa already sends almost all their oil here. The Russians sell theirs to China and Europe. Where in the world is there a large oil supply that is not fully exploited and where we might have an excuse (like promoting democracy!) to somehow take control over that supply? Oh damn. Iraq. (Iran also fits this criteria, but they have a much bigger military.)

So as long is there is conflict in Iraq, public opinion will be in favour of keeping troops there to "finish the job" or "stay the course" or whatever. As long as troops are there, we will have de facto control over what is estimated to be the world's second largest oil supply. Thus, conflict is good. Check on assumption two.

And now, the conclusion follows. There is really no democracy in Iraq, just a puppet government which relies on the US military to exert any kind of control over the country. There is no law and order, and "insurgents" run free instigating violence, which will in turn keep US troops in the region, allowing US control of Iraqi oil. And it is in this sense, that the Iraq War has been an overwhelming success and a great triumph for the Neocons. They've got everything they ever wanted. Debate.

[My Final Heaven]

There is one problem with this whole thing of course, and that is the example of Venezuela that you mentioned. There's plenty of people in Iraq in exactly the same possition, and public opinion for the war is in what you might call a critical down swing. It's never going to get back up at this point, the only thing they could hope for is that it stops dropping, but thats less likely.

This means, that the only thing anyone has to do to get elected is to promise to end the debacle, and it would be political suicide not to do so after promising to do it. Some people do commit political suicide, but less than don't, as it where.

Otherwise, yeah you pretty much nailed it. I think there is another reason in there that you might want to add as point number three, and that was this notion of preventive war. The White house said plainly that if there is a precieved threat of any kind, that they would reserve the right to use military force, now of course that would explain the whole Bull**** about the WMDs right? But the thing is, they couldn't say they where going to do that without turning around and actually doing it now could they? They'd loose credibility. This has had rather an alarming effect of resparking the nuclear arms race, because the reason they chose Iraq was due on the one hand, to it's ecconomic value, but also to it's military defensivelessness. The fact that they were attacked by Middle easterners based out of the middle east made it almost too easy to justify the war to the ignorant red neck american masses that make up thier constituents. What there was no chance of was a military failure in the invasion, because Iraq's military had been so strangled and squelched by the UN sanctions it hardly exsisted anymore and Iraq has no natural terrain of any kind to form an obstacle to a modern army. No jungles, no ravines, no mountains. Only miles and miles of open desert. And cities. But now, North Korea has the Bomb, you won't see tank convoys rolling out of Seol any time soon, and Iran probably has the Bomb by now, might be untested but would you want to risk it? Yet this notion of Preventive war has become the precedent and there isn't any one country in the world left that can reasonably hope to oppose the U.S.

[The Man]

As for the intentions, I think you pretty much nailed it, but I think it's going to end in failure because if Vietnam proved anything, it proved that we can't occupy a country that has no desire to be occupied. We're not getting any oil out of Iraq either, and I severely doubt we're ever going to because the occupation has been pretty horribly mismanaged since the start.

Destabilizing the Middle East does have one rather large upswing for the administration though, and that's that it allows them to extend the War on Terror indefinitely. It's quite Orwellian, really.

[Ssj7Crono]

Originally Posted by The Man

As for the intentions, I think you pretty much nailed it, but I think it's going to end in failure because if Vietnam proved anything, it proved that we can't occupy a country that has no desire to be occupied. We're not getting any oil out of Iraq either, and I severely doubt we're ever going to because the occupation has been pretty horribly mismanaged since the start.

Exactly why the U.S inst winning and very little is being accomplished. already most people in america oppose it since its a total waste of money (50 billion dollars a month i think) for little accompishment.

and this "war on/against terror" Bush keeps talking about that we will never going to leave untill its won. its never going to end. its no diffrent than saying "war on drugs" or "war on crime". there will always be drugs and crime. Terror is no diffrent, its going to continue. we do however have a right to defnd ourselves and fight against terrorists. but right now all Bush is doing is provoking and pissing them off.

Iran is going to be eventually be invaded next.

[itcouldbesweet]

Demilitarizing Iraq is not possible and unfortunately our president doesn't understand this. It's failure at best.