sinboldy wrote:
This means control of the flow of oil from the Middle East. [Relying on a mutual-interest-between-sovereign-states approach, à la western Europe, is considered naïve when it comes to Arab countries.
There are other countries with oil supplies that would be easier to seize then Iraq.
sinboldy wrote:
Everything else – from the initial justifications for the war to the current rhetoric-of-the-day (we have to ensure stability, we have to fight them there or they’ll follow us here, etc.…) – is aimed at making such control, by means of long-term military presence, possible. When 9/11 took Saudi Arabia off the table as a viable base, some other country had to be found – but of significant size. Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, et al. are simply not big enough
I disagree. Another possibility is that the administration officials believes what it is saying about Iraq and aren't just lying. They might have actually believed there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and they might have believed (and still believe) that a moderate state (a large one) in the center of the middle east could one answer to the scourge of the radical Islamists. They also might believe that withdrawing from Iraq will result in even more bloodshed and chaos then we see now (they did a poll of Iraqis and they seemed to think that is what would occur).
sinboldly wrote:
Cheney, in particular, is vicious enough to contemplate a long-term presence at the cost of a daily toll in the dozens or hundreds as well as ongoing domestic opposition.
There is a problem here however. What if Dick Cheney believes based on the information if front of him (as I do with the information in front of me) that a withdrawal from Iraq could very well result in genocide? Would that make the conclusions that he is "vicious" so clear? I mean, it is important to keep in mind the job of the executive isn't to follow the polls (that is something that pretty much all historians, left and right, condemn Bill Clinton for). Isn't it possible that the Vice President, using his reasoning skills like any person can, simply has come to a different conclusion then you have?
sinboldly wrote:
He’s convinced that the US needs to be there to keep an eye on – and always to be in a position to intervene in the affairs of the region, with particular attention to the the Arabian Sea oil fields, but also the Caspian Sea oil and gas fields.
This is entirely speculative and and literally based on nothing at all. I could easily flip around and make claims about Democrats or literally anyone regarding what they "convinced" of based on nothing. Nancy Pelosi is convinced the legislative branch must be co-equal to the Presidency. Angela Merkel is convinced that Jacque Chirac is actually a zombie.
sinboldy wrote:
in Laden was the publicly accepted casus belli for the invasion of Afghanistan; but finding Bin Laden is irrelevant to the true purpose: to be on the ground, to have bases, to be able to project force in the region.
Neither the military bases in Afghanistan or Iraq can really be described as reaching the level of "permanent" status (a really big embassy is not a military base).
sinboldy wrote:
[Remember that, within a month or two of 9/11, Bush and his people are known to have talked about going into Iraq in order to control the southern oil fields. This was explicit, and it has been widely reported, through seldom dwelt upon as explanatory of the whole enterprise.]
I am unaware of this. The United States does not currently control the oil fields of Iraq. After the war began, the military temporary seized them, but that was to prevent their destruction (the oil fields are most of the Iraqi economy).
sinboldy wrote:
Similarly with Iraq: WMD, democracy, removing a tyrant, fighting Al Qaeda,… all offered for public consumption, but none of any real importance to the White House and all irrelevant to the actual goal.
Why?
sinboldy wrote:
When the public rationales evaporate, or when events make the achievement of any of the rationales still being offered in fact impossible of achievement
Saddam Hussein appears not to have had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, although he had plans, and capabilities, and was in active violation of the Gulf War treaty in this regard. Saddam was removed so that was goal was met. I wouldn't say the "democracy" goal has been met. It has been partially met, although you can't have a functioning democracy just by voter participation. Stability is also important.
sinboldy wrote:
the White House will still keep troops on the ground – even when their presence makes the stated goals even harder to achieve (e.g. reconciliation between Iraq’s factions)
I do not see how the vacuum created by the withdraw of the United States (the one side with the least sectarian issues, and one that is improving it's relations notably of late with the Sunnis) will cause less bloodshed in Iraq.
That said, I do hope that if the U.S. does withdraw, I hope my predictions are wrong for obvious reasons.
sinboldly wrote:
Occam’s Razor supports me in this; the creation and maintenance of a long-term military presence is the only policy objective that unifies, aligns and makes sense of everything Bush has done. If any other goal is posited, his policies and actions are incoherent; but if this goal is posited, they all make sense.
I do not agree at all. In addition to reasonable alternative theories, President Bush publicly said that if the Iraqis "told us to leave" then we would leave. Iraq has it's own parliament. There was a rumor recently that al-Sadr of the Mahdi army (who is backed by Iran) had assembled enough votes to call for a timed pullout. This isn't impossible since the Iranians have allegedly bribed some of the parliament members. If everything Bush was doing was designed to further a military occupation, he never would have said this. Unless I suppose it means some
further conspiracy with Bush pulling a rabbit out of his hat a claiming he has proof that Iran bribed the Iraqi parliament to vote for a withdrawal.
31 May 2007, 1:09 am
