These are the goals of the United States concerning Iraq. Some of them are selfless; and others are related to U.S. safety or economics. As opposed to the propaganda of the left, there are no further hidden agendas, other than this list:
1. The formation of a free Iraq, so that its people can actualize their full potential as a nation and as a united people.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
2. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East, which can serve as a model for other dictatorships and kingdoms.
3. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East, which might make the region more peaceful. Democracies are generally less imperialistic than totalitarian forms of government.
4. The removal of Iraq as a haven for terroristic activities.
5. Preventing the development and spread of WMD in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.
6. Helping U.S. allies Kuwait, other Middle Eastern partners, and Israel by creating a peaceful nation that won't attack it's neighbors.
7. Protecting the U.S. oil supply and keeping Iraq oil out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.
These are Legitimate Goals
There is nothing wrong with any of these goals. Protecting the U.S. oil supply, for example, is not a crime. Keeping the supply lines of oil open has always been a legitimate cause for war for all nations in history. One reason is that people actually die when this commodity is withheld. Furthermore, if the U.S. were to face a major disruption of oil, the first people to suffer in America would be the poor.The Dream and the Reality
The U.S. cannot achieve these legitimate goals in Iraq if the Iraqis don't defeat their insurgents. Even if they do, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will achieve all these goals. On the other hand, again, it was worth a try. Plus, just by trying the U.S. has shaken up the Middle East. Libya has backed down from its aggressiveness of the past, and there actually has been talk of democracy throughout the region. What a miracle it would be should democracy take root there. Then the world would actually have a chance for some real peace.Guerilla Warfare and the Ballot Box
Unfortunately, the war has served another purpose, by demonstrating once again to the world that the best way to defeat America is by guerilla warfare and the ballot box. The West does not yet fight effectively against guerilla fighters. Plus, the U.S. has a hard time motivating its people for sustained war efforts.Achieving These Goals
The West needs to learn to fight guerilla wars more effectively. The U.S. needs to inspire its people in their just war efforts by involving them more in the sacrifice, as they did in WWII. Plus, it would help if the U.S. government tell its people all of their goals for the war, and dispel the false rumors of hidden agendas.Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)
click to hide most of this post
3 comments:
Hey Rock...
I disagree with you totally.. I don't think the US really wants democracy in the Middle East.. Why would it? When we tried the closest thing to democracy in Egypt, the Islamic Brothers (who call for the cancellation of the Camp David agreement, and who vocally make calls against America) won.. The Egyptian President, the worst thing that could happen to democracy, and who declared himself President of Egypt while he lives (he literally did) fiddled with the results and locked up some of the candidates and thus his party won the majority of the house..
In Palestine, when democracy was tried, the people chose Hamas...
If you analyze opinion polls in Amman Jordan, (I'm half Jordanian) the majority of the people are against peace with Israel...
From there on, do you think the US doesn't know that and thus do you think the US really would want democracy in the Middle East? And don't forget that the whole uneasiness here (Iraq war, the Iranian threat) makes the US Army's presence in Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar more legitimate..
Just thoughts... Let me know what you think, and thanks a lot for mentioning me in the Thanksgiving post! Happy holidays!
tyk, thanks for your comments. You said:
I disagree with you totally.. I don't think the US really wants democracy in the Middle East.. Why would it? When we tried the closest thing to democracy in Egypt, the Islamic Brothers (who call for the cancellation of the Camp David agreement, and who vocally make calls against America) won.. The Egyptian President, the worst thing that could happen to democracy, and who declared himself President of Egypt while he lives (he literally did) fiddled with the results and locked up some of the candidates and thus his party won the majority of the house..
You bring up some valid points. President Bush's theory is that democracy always leads to more peaceful nations. I tend to agree with you, though, that democracies don't always choose to do the right things, and may even be warlike.
From there on, do you think the US doesn't know that and thus do you think the US really would want democracy in the Middle East?
One thing that might be good about American naivete, and I really do believe we are naive with our foreign policy sometimes, is that we are overly optimistic. Bush really does believe that democracy is the end all and be all for peace in the world.
He might be right in the long run. In the short run, countries that have never voted before will of course choose to elect what is familiar to them. The Palestinians were unhappy with the corruption of Arafat's party, and so chose Hamas, thinking things would be better. I understand, though, that now they are unhappy with Hamas, because their economic situation has deteriorated with Hamas, and they are no closer to peace.
Eventually, the Palestinians might choose to elect people that pledge to bring peace and get along better with the U.S. Then, they can live in peace and flower as a nation.
Is this kind of thinking naive? Yes, probably. Will it happen? I hope so, but we must accept whatever the reality turns out to be.
Is a benevolent dictator better than a warlike democracy? Good question.
And don't forget that the whole uneasiness here (Iraq war, the Iranian threat) makes the US Army's presence in Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar more legitimate..
Here I disagree with you, tyk. I don't feel a need, and neither do our leaders, I believe, to dominate the world militarily just for its own sake. We do want our army throughout the world in order to protect ourselves and our interests, and those of our allies, but we are not so Machiavellian that we are happy with world tension.
This is one reason why democracies do lead to more peaceful nations. Bush's number one concern is his reputation for posterity. He would do anything to bring peace to the Middle East and to the world. He does not want to go down in history as the president who lost the Iraq war and left the world in warlike tension.
This is different from some Arab or Muslim countries in the Middle East which want to remain in power by fomenting trouble, creating hatred for the West and for Israel--in order to divert attention away from their own corrupt regimes. The U.S. democracy doesn't work this way. Tension is bad for the party in power. That's why the Republicans lost. To say the U.S. wants trouble to keep our troops somewhere is to ignore reality--the U.S. always wants peace, because the leaders during peace get re-elected, whereas leaders that bring war, especially unnecessary war, get voted out (Truman, Johnson, the Republicans now, and so on).
Thanks tyk for your comments, and God bless.
Rock
Lofty goals/minute realities. It seems to me that the basis for all of these goals is flawed because the US started the war based on self interest only, not BECAUSE of the Iraqi people. THAT reason came a year or so later when the government's ever changing war rationale began to look for new reasons to "stay the course". In order for the cause to be as "noble" as you claim, the fight to topple Saddam and "liberate Iraq" needed to start WITHIN Iraq. As we all know, it didn't.
1. The formation of a free Iraq...
The Iraqi people didn't request US assistance to overthrow Saddam, and in fact it was a small group of rich cat expats (Chalabi et al) who said the US would be welcomed as "liberators" and encouraged the invasion. Oops! Now the Iraqis are being asked by US to "die in the name of freedom."
2. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East to serve as a model.....
Like Tyk said, Palestine already has a democracy, but instead of the US supporting the elected government, we destabilize it by withdrawing funds and punishing the citizens for their choices. Now I agree that Hamas has done some foul things regarding terrorism and whatnot, but instead of using the funding as a bargaining chip to ensure Israeli safety (i.e. helping move the peace process along), we automatically rejected the government as invalid and created BIGGER problems all around for the Palestinian and Israeli people.
3. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East, which might make the region more peaceful......
It's evident that the US doesn't support democracies in countries who elect leaders we don't like and what kind of example is THAT setting for other nations?
4. The removal of Iraq as a haven for terroristic activities....
Iraq, according to government reports, WASN'T a terrorist haven, but only became one when the US invaded. Ooops!
5. Preventing the development and spread of WMD in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.....
There is still NO evidence that Saddam had a viable WMD program. How could he give weapons he didn't have to "rogue" countries?
6. Helping U.S. allies Kuwait, other Middle Eastern partners, and Israel by creating a peaceful nation that won't attack it's neighbors.....
Huh? In it's 20 some odd years with Saddam at the helm, Iraq attacked TWO countries- Kuwait and Israel in 1990. Since then, nada. I know, he gassed Kurds in the 80's, gave money to the families of suicide bombers whose houses were bulldozed by the Israeli military, and shot at US warplanes (how many pilots were shot down since Gulf War 1 ended? -0) Sorry man, but this is far from being a compelling argument considering the lack of recent violence he's unleashed on his neighbors.
7. Protecting the U.S. oil supply...
Hmmm, well, I can't dispute this one!
"Unfortunately, the war has served another purpose, by demonstrating once again to the world that the best way to defeat America is by guerilla warfare and the ballot box.The West does not yet fight effectively against guerilla fighters. Plus, the U.S. has a hard time motivating its people for sustained war efforts."
I'm a bit perplexed by this statement. Considering the fluid nature of insurgencies, there IS no effective way to fight one unless there are enough troops to overwhelm the enemy (which the US clearly does not have in Iraq or Afghanistan!) Take a look at any country that has had to fight a large sustained insurgency and you'll find that most of them end guerilla wars by negotiating, not by crushing the enemy. Secondly, American resolve on the war was weak to begin with- little more than half of the country supported the war when it started. As time wore on, casualties mounted, rationales changed (again and again), that small amount of support eroded even more. The US government CAN'T garner a lot of support for wars that aren't COMPLETELY justifiable (which WW2 clearly was and Iraq clearly is not)- we're too smart for that!
Post a Comment