I heard an interesting discussion on the radio a couple of days ago -- an interview of an author of a book. I missed both the name of the book and the author. Basically the author suggested that Ossama Bin Laden may have hoped that the response of the US to the 9/11 attack would be to drop out of the Middle East. Instead, the US tossed the Taliban out of Afghanistan and toppled Saddam. The author likened this to striking a bell with a hammer and discussed some of the "fall out" that this action may have produced or will produce. Instead of leaving the field of the Middle East to the locals, which Ossama may have wanted, the political cards are being reshuffled. Syria has largely been kicked out of Lebanon, something unthinkable before the Iraq war. Little people are kicking sand about democracy in other states around the Middle East. The landscape in which Al Quedda found solace and support has changed. Basically, the position of this author seemed to be that these moves have pushed these guys back onto their heels where they just have a hard time getting another attack mounted in the US. This was, in my view, a large part of the rationale for "taking the fight to the enemy" by fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Isn't it arguable that the Iraq war is indeed a success, in so far as it may accomplish this objective? to reduce our vulnerability to terrorism?
I find the media so incredibly lop sided on anything regarding the Bush administration that I can't believe anything they say. I have noted their refusal to acknowledge or cover any of the positives of this war in the past, particularly with regard to the very substantial change in Syria's involvement in Lebanon.
Who is to say the war in Iraq is not succeeding? The US news media? The Democrats? Are these reliable sources of information?
Another interesting point that was raised was the question of who benefits most from stable oil supplies in the Middle East: China was a big consumer of Middle East oil according to this guy.
i think the measure of success will be whether or not these fledgling democracies can sustain themselves without our support. the time will come when we'll have to let them try it on their own. that will be the true test, and it's years away.
i think the measure of success will be whether or not these fledgling democracies can sustain themselves without our support. the time will come when we'll have to let them try it on their own. that will be the true test, and it's years away.
Absolutely correct. Though I expected by now a whole rash of "This was has been a failure" responses.
The war has been a tremendous success if you are a terrorist wanting to hunt Americans. Where else would they have been given the opportunity to kill 2000+ of us and never have to leave home to do it.
Democracy and the middleeast are mutually exclusive without an American presence. So I guess if we are willing to spend decades there as a police force, then yes, eventually we will be successful. If we are not, then no, the war will not be successful.
I guess it's just a matter of how many American lives we're willing to spend over the next several years and at what point we believe we've spent too many.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,133
RE: Iraq war a success
I hope it all works out but I really doubt that any of those middle East countries will ever sustain themselves democratically. Their heritage and religion are ingrained into the way they live and what they believe. Most of those countries have been at war for decades.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
When you talk to military people who have been in Iraq, you get a completely different picture of the situation than when you watch the six o'clock news, for sure.
I think it was a war that needed to take place and I think in the end it will have been worth the effort and the lives lost. Of course if you are the family who lost a loved one then you may not feel that way. I quess the old saying that Feedom is not FREE, holds true. I also have to look at the lives lost in Vietnaum and can't help but think the price of lives in this war is nothing in coparison. 2000 vs 58000. the tragedy of Vietnaum was that those lives went for nothing the commander threw in the towel in a war we could have one without working up a sweat.[:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]
I live within 10 miles of Ft. Riley, Kansas and talkk to a lot of G.I.'s and everyone has expressed the same thing that underdog said. The nightly news has their own agenda.
Although any death is a tragedy, not all of them have been from hostile actions.
Also, I saw an article the other day(wish I would Have saved it) it stated that in the length of time that we have been in Iraq that more soldiers have been killed here in training accidents, car wrecks, accident around the house etc. but people seem to accept this as a fact of life and it no big deal.
We can fight over there or over here. No brainer!!!!
When you talk to military people who have been in Iraq, you get a completely different picture of the situation than when you watch the six o'clock news, for sure.
don't know if that's entirely true. i've talked to several who have said morale is low and that the GI's question why they're there.
On the bright side, they do understand that, unlike 'nam, the public supports the troops, regardless of the public'sdiverese views on the war.
One of the largest problems we face in Iraq isthe education of the people.
A very few of them can read or write.Thefemales have never been allowed to go to school.These people need job skills.It will take a new generation of Iraqies to instatute change.
Iraq war a success
