I do believe so. The Iraq war isn’t going well. In fact the War or Terror as a whole isn’t going well if you judge by news reports on Afghanistan, Iraq and al-Qaeda regrouping. Yes, America has certainly won the war against Iraq but it hasn’t won the peace (yet). Furthermore we all already know how withdrawing will be perceived “before the job is done” as Bush likes to say. DEFEAT. That won’t be good. If America withdraws before the job in Iraq is done, the message sent around the Arab and Muslim worlds will be loud and clear. “America is defeatable” (unless nuclear weapons come into play). That’s surely going to boost up confidence much higher than it has been boosted after Nasrallah’s victory against Israel. I fear this happening. High confidence within the average Arab or Muslim is not something I worry about. I’m afraid of the dark prospect of super confident terrorists (who by the way show no mercy even to Muslims themselves).Donkeys are currently in control of Congress and they have the power to cut funding for the war. Will they? Even if they don’t, just look at the Donkey candidates for the 2008 race. If I’m not mistaken all of them support immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq except Hillary. Now, I know tons of people who passionately hate Bush and Elephants. I bet some of you do. Me? I try my best to be practical by looking at things critically and I realize that withdrawing US troops from Iraq is a bad idea. It’s bad for Iraq, it’s bad for America and it’s bad for the Middle East as a whole.
On the other hand, there’s the threat of China as a rising superpower. I’m not very comfortable with that rise as I’ve mentioned previously here:
I fear what I don’t understand and I don’t understand China’s intentions well (maybe I should engage Chinese bloggers more often). I do however understand America’s and the West’s much better. Therefore I don’t mistrust them much. Moreover China is no democracy. It’s a country with no real freedom and a place where human rights are not well respected. It is communist, it is against religious freedom and it is essentially God denying. That does not sit well with me.
Anyways, you may hate Bush and you may hate Elephants. Hell even I myself hate many things about Bush and various things about Elephants, but you, ehm we need to be practical and realize the threat we’re facing. Donkeys? Me like them when it comes to some issues but not others. However when it comes to the Iraq war, me generally don’t like their views.
Some of my hopes and wishes? 1) That the American Right and Elephants stop being stubborn in regards to their rigid stance of not engaging Iran and Syria. 2) That Donkey candidates, come up with a decent plan for winning peace in Iraq first and THEN withdrawing. If both do that, I’ll probably be fine with whoever wins in ‘08. For now, me leaning towards Elephants or at least Hillary even though she’s boring (Obama is fun but he wants immediate withdrawal). As for China, I’m not really sure. I’d just love it if it had a higher level of transparency.
PS: I know many conservative right wingers will strongly oppose 1). I would like to remind them that, the US is currently allied with Maliki’s government and Maliki is backed up by al-Sadr. Moreover the US supported Bin Laden and trained him during his rightful jihad against the former Soviet Union before he started pursuing his second loony “jihad”. Why is engaging Iran and Syria such a big deal then? It’s worth a try, you know. Plus, according to this, it might already be on the way to happening.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Drima, I just found your website, wanted to hear from someone from Sudan for a long time.
First, “terrorists (who by the way show no mercy even to Muslims themselves)”. Well, I was wondering if any Muslims ever noticed that. I read somewhere that in the U.S. Embassy bombings by Al Qaeda, not a single American was killed, but several hundred Africans (some of them Muslims, I suppose) were.
OK, killing the folks supposedly on your own side isn’t as bizarre as all the suicide-bomber stuff, but it IS still bizarre. As far as confidence goes, it wouldn’t make me put much confidence in leaders with a strategy like that.
Regarding your point #1, you’re right, a lot of conservatives here in the U.S. are livid that we’re talking to North Korea, etc., but let’s face it, stonewalling hasn’t gotten U.S. foreign policy anywhere. I think it’s stupid not to talk, unless you’re so wishy-washy a negotiator that you’re going to give everything away for nothing.
The neo-con war hawks here are finally starting to be exposed for what they are, and a real debate on the war in Iraq seems to finally be starting. It’s sad, though, that Americans are so ignorant of everything going on in the world.
The balance of powers in the U.S. federal system hasn’t really worked well the last decade or so, ever since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995. They were stupid in the way they fought Clinton, and then were just a blank check for Bush. As much as I hate their liberal social policies, maybe we’ll get some sanity back with the Democrats.
I hope the rest of the world will be patient with the U.S. a little longer. I think Congress is going to reassert itself and put some limits on U.S. foreign policy, as long as some disaster doesn’t happen that causes another knee-jerk over-reaction.
The United States should get out immediately. To be honest, I do not see any difference between what the Mongol did to Baghdad and Bush and Blair’s modern army… the only difference is Bush or US government are better in propaganda… “Operation Freedom”
According to Lancet and John Hopkins University about 650,000 iraqis have directly or indirectly since the invasion… 20% are refugee scattered country and around the middle east and Gods knows where..
Drima,
You are seriously worried about:
“I’m afraid of the dark prospect of super confident terrorists”
Bush and US army are super confident terrorists- how many super confident middle eastern terrorist do know that have killed 650,000 people? How many superconfident terrorist do you know that destroyed a country’s infrastructure?
Your also leaning toward elephant? it was the elephant that got the American people in this quagmire… there is not a geuine moderate in the whole republican spectrum if there is he or she will not make it pass the primaries…
The Malki government is corrupt puppet government that would topple next day if the United States leaves.. That is why they are selling iraqi oil, it will be in the hands of international oil companies… unheard of anywhere in the world…
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2020560,00.html
Broad daylight robbery in front of the world!!! Maybe the slogan should be “Operation Oil Profit”
I am not sure what the United States is doing over there? Beside stealing the Oil, having a puppet government, building permanent miltary base?
Now they are talking about going to Iran?
I am sure if someone comes to your house destroys everything inside you do not want them to be around to fix the problem… I am sure you want to pay for fixing it but do want them around.. after what they have done.. The only thing the US should work for is national governement and let the Iraqi work out their problems…
You know there was not much Shia vs Sunni, at least to not this extreme until US went in there… I don’t have proof but I would not be surprised if US government played a role in in flaming the tension in order to deflect Iraqi resistance attack against US troops….
Initial most of Iraqi resistance attacks were against US troops then it suddenly shifted to sectarian violence.. it possible the US government played a role… divide and conqueror or should say divide and manage…
On China– hey the world needs a strong China… we need someone to counterbalance the only superpower US… someone to put it in check…
Otherwise, Bush can go around the destroying countries, calling countries “axis of evil”…
Drima
I’m not so sure that the US has won anything at all in terms of Iraq. First Bush Blair and Howard lied about weapons of mass destruction, then it became about bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. OK let’s accept that as the aim of invading Iraq- freedom and democracy. We’ll give them that even though there are 800 000 sex slaves flowing into the US, the biggest market for slaves, every year. Even though the Australian health system is in utter turmoil. Even though the UK is struggling to manage its own enclaves of radical Islamists- we’ll give them the whole freedom and democracy thing!
In order to answer if the US won the war you need to answer if they have achieved that aim- freedom and democracy in Iraq? I don’t see it, do you? Unless freedom means that people are now free to die, free to blow each other up, free to live in mayhem and chaos. I’m not completely in disagreement that something had to be done- just that the strategy was wrong.
The war on terror- aimed at what? Stopping terrorism? Failed at that too. On average 6 suicide bombers in Iraq each day- that’s 6 people willing to blow themselves up every single day- that’s equals an amazing arsenal of human ammunition. No, the war on terror hasn’t succeeded either. Trouble is the neo-cons promoted a strategy of “ride on in boyz, guns a blazing, round em up, smoke em out”. Problem is there was no actual qaeda (base) to smoke out- they’re hunting a ghost!
The war on terror will not be won with guns and bombs.
Hi Gordon, welcome to my blog.
“…but let’s face it, stonewalling hasn’t gotten U.S. foreign policy anywhere. I think it’s stupid not to talk, unless you’re so wishy-washy a negotiator that you’re going to give everything away for nothing.”
That’s what I believe too. America should engage Iran and Syria. America needs to. Right Conservatives should stop being stubborn unless they want to be stuck in Iraq and continue having their troops getting blown up almost daily.
“As much as I hate their liberal social policies, maybe we’ll get some sanity back with the Democrats.”
I hope so.
“I think Congress is going to reassert itself and put some limits on U.S. foreign policy, as long as some disaster doesn’t happen that causes another knee-jerk over-reaction. “
And that’s why, I’m afraid of a “Cindy Sheehan” type Donkey president winning in the ’08 elections. Imagine that happening and only 3 months later another terrorist “kaboom” in the US of A. Imagine the reactions that would occur within the country!
Hi Jonah,
“The United States should get out immediately.”
I think you underestimate the chaos that can occur if the US withdraws suddenly. Regarding the Lancet report, I think the numbers are questionable. Do you remember the timing of when it was released? It was highly politicized. Still though, let’s assume that the numbers are accurate. Terrorists caused and continue to cause many of the deaths. The blame falls on both the terrorists and the horrible mismanagement of that torture supporting retard named Rumsfailed.
“Your also leaning toward elephant? it was the elephant that got the American people in this quagmire… there is not a geuine moderate in the whole republican spectrum if there is he or she will not make it pass the primaries…”
Hmmmm…You have a point.
“The Malki government is corrupt puppet government that would topple next day if the United States leaves…”
Okay, so you think the United States should get out immediately and you acknowledge that the Maliki government (which is definitely very corrupt) would topple. Great! Here’s my question: what happens AFTER it topples? Let me tell you. Chaos, big chaos and many more deaths… it will be an all out civil war, worse than the one we’re witnessing now. Do you want that to happen? Dude, I know you’re angry at the US of A for what’s happening in Iraq right now and I’m guessing you opposed the invasion. Well guess what? I opposed the invasion too for various reasons, which can be discussed later. However you can’t keep opposing something that already happened. That’s not logical. The US army is in Iraq right now. That’s the reality. Whether you hate them or not, is something, but you not realizing that they serve an important purpose of maintaining some order, is something all together different. If America withdraws, Iraq will drown in its own blood.
I don’t agree with your views about the oil. The war cost is about to hit half a trillion dollars. Do you really believe that in the short term, America is actually profiting? Sure America didn’t go in just to bring “freedom” as Bush loves to tell us. America went into Iraq for a combination of reasons, mainly geopolitical self interests and then to experiment with the idea of liberating nations from tyrants and bringing democracy. The experiment failed and America has gotten itself in real trouble.
On America using the “divide and conquer” methodology, I think it’s ridiculous. That’s certainly not in America’s interest. America needs to stabilize Iraq and leave. How does inflaming civil war, help with that?
As for China, it would be nice to have a country that keeps the US of A in check. Sure, I agree but you speak as if China doesn’t have an agenda of its own. I’d prefer a secular democracy over a communist state any time. If you have a chance to bring back the former Soviet Union into existence again, would you? I have a feeling your answer might be yes and your reason will go something like this: “so that the Soviet Union can keep America in check”.
Jonah, anti-Americanism is fine with me. I don’t mind it at all, but when it blinds someone from seeing the obvious, I do mind it.
TUS,
When I said that America has won the war, I meant it succeeded in defeating Saddam’s army and invading the country. Now that army is already within Iraq, it’s failing miserable to win the peace or bring stability.
As for your last statement:
“The war on terror will not be won with guns and bombs”
I agree with you 100%. In fact, here is a post I believe you’ll enjoy.
cheers to all!
“According to Lancet and John Hopkins University about 650,000 iraqis have directly or indirectly since the invasion… 20% are refugee scattered country and around the middle east and Gods knows where..”
That “study” was released last year, which would give Iraq about 3 years to lose 650,000 people. That would be about 1200 days and thus
about 500 bodies a day. How do you vanish 500 bodies a day? Did the study mention that?
The Nazis needed furnaces to do that job. Do you know how difficult it is to get rid of bodies? Saddam Hussein used mass graves. Do you think they will find mass graves created in the last three years in the future?
“Bush and US army are super confident terrorists- how many super confident middle eastern terrorist do know that have killed 650,000 people?”
That’s a bit of an interesting move, from “died since the invasion” to “killed by the US”.
I think you made two mistakes here, one mathematical, one logical. Whenever you read a study that mentions numbers, do the maths, find out if it works.
And never ever make assumptions where you conclude that a certain outcome (dead Iraqis) can only have been caused by one act (Americans killed them). It’s a logical fallacy.
How come lefties can make such outrageous claims and still feel like the right are dogmatic and fundamentalist about it?
Did you even do the maths? Did you know how many bodies a day you were talking about? Because if not, I can only conclude that you read without thinking.
“Great! Here’s my question: what happens AFTER it topples? Let me tell you. Chaos, big chaos and many more deaths… it will be an all out civil war, worse than the one we’re witnessing now. Do you want that to happen?”
Most Europeans and many Americans do not pay attention to what happens when the Americans are not involved.
Few people in Europe know that Iraq has a Shia majority and a Sunni minority and that the Shi’ites were Saddam’s victims.
Drima, the world will not care about Iraq once America is no longer there. The world doesn’t care if Arabs slaughter each other (unless America can be blamed), the public did not care about Saddam slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Shi’ites, and Europeans still see no problem with having sold chemicals to a regime that used them to gas Kurds. Once the US are not there, Iraq will be at peace, BY DEFINITION.
“I hope the rest of the world will be patient with the U.S. a little longer. I think Congress is going to reassert itself and put some limits on U.S. foreign policy, as long as some disaster doesn’t happen that causes another knee-jerk over-reaction.”
The rest of the world will be patient with the US as long as the US don’t try to change the rest of the world. Europe and China are perfectly happy with murdering tyrants.
Heck, Europe sold Saddam the chemicals he used to gas Kurds. But are we Europeans blaming ourselves for that crime? No, we are not even blaming Saddam. We will simply claim that we knew he didn’t have chemical weapons all along. And whenver they find something, we can tell ourselves that it was the Americans who supported him. Right.
According to Lancet and John Hopkins University about 650,000 iraqis have directly or indirectly since the invasion… 20% are refugee scattered country and around the middle east and Gods knows where..
As Drima said, that report was highly politicized. But at the same time, it wasn’t American guns that killed the vast majority of Iraqi casualties. You know that as well as I do. It was explosives, in crowds, on cars, in mosques. You can’t blame everything on the Americans, no matter how much you want to.
How many superconfident terrorist do you know that destroyed a country’s infrastructure?
What infrastructure? Iraq hardly had an infrastructure outside the capitol city. The funds weren’t exactly directed to public welfare under Saddam.
there is not a geuine moderate in the whole republican spectrum if there is he or she will not make it pass the primaries…
We’ll see if Rudy Giuliani or even McCain manage to pass the primaries. Giuliani isa genuine moderate, and while McCain is not, he’s much better than Bush, has some long-forgotten political assets like ‘honesty’ and ‘principles’, or at least he has more of these than the current average politician. He also appears to have a brain.
The Malki government is corrupt puppet government that would topple next day if the United States leaves.. That is why they are selling iraqi oil, it will be in the hands of international oil companies… unheard of anywhere in the world…
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2020560,00.html
Broad daylight robbery in front of the world!!! Maybe the slogan should be “Operation Oil Profit”
Quoted from this very article: “The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it.”
What, you mean it will be like in other democratic capitalist countries in the world? Where does this law force contracts to be handed to foreign oil firms? And where does the law make these contracts permanent?
Oil extraction is a private-sector matter in just about every capitalist country.
You know there was not much Shia vs Sunni, at least to not this extreme until US went in there… I don’t have proof but I would not be surprised if US government played a role in in flaming the tension in order to deflect Iraqi resistance attack against US troops….
…
Saddam’s Sunni dictatorship was the pot that put the country to the boil it is in today. But it was also Saddam’s iron fist that kept it from exploding all over the place. The fist gone, the ensuing chaos should have been predictable… Only the idiots posing as experts around the world didn’t predict it, so there was no forward planning to handle it.
So now we have the mess we see today.
Initial most of Iraqi resistance attacks were against US troops then it suddenly shifted to sectarian violence.. it possible the US government played a role… divide and conqueror or should say divide and manage…
Initially most of the Iraqi resistance was a bunch of former Baath supporters. Then Iran and Syria opened their borders as wide as possible for foreign terrorists to enter. Neither the US nor the recovering Iraqi military were capable of securing these borders. And today, the average Iraqi Arab shows very little trust to foreign Arabs in Iraq. Very, very little. They had to learn a lesson of trust, or lack thereof, the hard way.
And as Drima said, the cost of the war and continued presence of American forces in Iraq is not exactly a cheap matter. Unless you think that the oil companies are so powerful that they can create a 500 Billion Dollar war to have about 5 Billion in profit.
On China– hey the world needs a strong China… we need someone to counterbalance the only superpower US… someone to put it in check…
If you have to support an imperialist dictatorship that doesn’t care for human rights, at least go for Russia. Comrade Putin doesn’t care what you believe in as long as you have money, and compared to China he’s a liberal-minded individual.
“If you have to support an imperialist dictatorship that doesn’t care for human rights”
It is amazing how many people will make a deal with the devil just to avoid an imbalance between good and evil.
We do need a counterbalance though, Andrew. Once one side wins, it starts to stagnate. This is what’s happening to the West these days. Conflict is a requirement for development.
“We do need a counterbalance though, Andrew.”
What’s the problem with stagnation?
The only problem I can see is that if the good power stagnates, an evil power could rise. But if there has been a balance, that particular problem would also exist, it would even be worse.
The only problem I can see is that if the good power stagnates, an evil power could rise. But if there has been a balance, that particular problem would also exist, it would even be worse.
I’m not saying that a constant balance is desirable, but if the lack of it continues for a long time then it will be like a see-saw. The new power rises, and the stagnated one is no longer able to respond.
“The new power rises, and the stagnated one is no longer able to respond.”
It turns out even a non-stagnated power is not able to respond, because stopping evil powers is a bad thing.
America in trouble? What are you talking about?
The economy has been booming thoughout the Bush term, even with the costs of 9/11, Katrina, and wars.
Saddam’s Iraq is gone for good, as well as the Taliban’s Afghanistan, with the US entrenched in both of those countries for years to come. Eventually less and less US soldiers will be needed for patrols, vastly reducing American death tolls, - which is what really upsets the US electorate (other people’s deaths don’t matter, especially if they enjoy killing each other).
What’s more, the US has successfully created a real, widening rift between Sunnis and Shias, who by all accounts are only helping to widen it. This has forced a new geopolitical alignment in the Middle East, much to the benefit of the US, which is now seen as the guarantor for security.
Thousands upon thousands of crazed jihadists are gleefully killing each other in Iraq in an effective process of eradication. What more could America ask for?
As to widespread international anti-American bigotry, that existed long before Bush and 9/11. If there is anything to be learned from this bigotry, it is simply that it doesn’t matter. In fact, it only provides an excellent rationale for America to ignore the rest of the world, and act on its own.
Finnpundit,
You have a point.
Considering how many people demand a US withdrawal and firmly believe that that would bring peace, perhaps it is time for a joke?
“Why have the Sunnis and Shi’ites been fighting each other for over a thousand years?”
“I don’t know, but I am sure they will stop if the US withdraw from Iraq.”
“That’s surely going to boost up confidence much higher than it has been boosted after Nasrallah’s victory against Israel.”
I find it almost ironic that Arab confidence can be boosted by seeing an Arab country destroyed.
Nasrallah’s “victory” over Israel destroyed half of Lebanon.
If the terrorists win against America in Iraq, it will be Iraq, not America, that is completely destroyed.
How many victories can the Arab world absorb?
Drima, just because I criticize american government policy does not mean I am part of anti-americanism camp.. Anyone that knows American history would definitely say Bush and his crew are not best america has produced.. on the same note if am critical of Bashirs policy in Sudan, it does not make part of Anti-Sudanism camp… so,let’s clarify that part…
On china- it might be communist gover… give whatever label but how many countries has china invaded? As an African person, I would prefer for African countries to be united and be superpower but that has not happened… But it is refreshing to see a geuinely non-European superpower coming to stage… especially since the American government as sole superpower is going around bullying countries… China might not be democratic but every country takes it time transition to democracy.. For example, how many democratic countries did we have before 1980s in Africa or even latin america or asia? I know there are people calling it evil power or good vs evil?..
it sounds like some the Bush’s speech writers are on this link… I remember the “axi of evil”…
Andrew brehem, if you want to dispute those numbers from a respected british medical journal and a renowned American university John Hopkins that fine.. I am sure professors who published it can discuss the fallacy stuff with you… but I would definitely not trust anything that camps from US government i.e WMD…
and I am sure you are going to tell me Iraqis are better off because they got their freedom..
Roman K. on the oil just read the article a little more you have the view of British MP, Iraqi Professor, and Iraqi Union…
Finnpudit… Your view on the widening rift between sunni and shia is too the point… I remember in the early 80s the US used Saddam to stop Iranian revolution from spreading, it was an containment by proxy…
I am sure they will widen the sunni vs shia… they will in flame..play with lives… I hope the iranian and arabs in general realize the game US policy is involved before it is too late..
Roman K. on the oil just read the article a little more you have the view of British MP, Iraqi Professor, and Iraqi Union…
*shrug* I did. Simpson’s logic is at great fault, because all I see is the British government giving British firms a virtual edge in future bidding, which was virtual because this law wasn’t a secret. Laws can’t really be secret in democracies. I do wonder if it was legal to share this knowledge with private sector firms, though.
al-Asadi is just making a general statement. That is all. Kamil Mahdi is correct, but neither is the alternative (fully state-owned firms) good in the terms he describes. It doesn’t cover corruption either, and so on.
To be frank? Private sector firms running on timed contracts that renew every few years are the much more efficient than government firms. Always were, always will be. If the Iraqi government can handle the contracting in an organized (and heavily reviewed) manner, then I see no problem with the law in question.
“Andrew brehem, if you want to dispute those numbers from a respected british medical journal and a renowned American university John Hopkins that fine.”
Don’t throw authorities at me. A lie is a lie no matter who tells it. You are not even arguing my criticisms. You seem to believe that mentioning an authority should somehow convince me that 500 bodies a day can easily be vanished. Well, I am sorry, but I am not used to bowing to authorities and I never will. I think for myself, at least to that extent.
“ust because I criticize american government policy does not mean I am part of anti-americanism camp.. ”
No. You are part of the anti-Americanism camp because you naturally assumed that the deaths in Iraq were caused by the Americans. For a neutral observer that conclusion is not immediately obvious. But for an anti-American it is, just like an anti-Semite would assume that it was the Jews.
And as for the “study”, please don’t tell me that you believed it because it comes from an authority. PLEASE tell me you thought about it too. I doubt it though. You didn’t notice the mathematical oddity of the numbers and you thought that naming the author of the study would be an argument.
It’s your second fallacy, appeal to authority.
“on the same note if am critical of Bashirs policy in Sudan, it does not make part of Anti-Sudanism camp…”
No, but if you concluded that the Sudanese were to blame for Iraqi deaths, you would be anti-Sudanese.
I am anti-terrorist. I think the terrorists do most of the killing in Iraq. I am prejudiced against the terrorists.
Let me tell you why:
1. Most targets appear to be mosques and civilian infrastructure. It is not in America’s interest to attack mosques and destroy the same infrastructure America is rebuilding.
2. Most Iraqis seem to believe that they are being targeted by terrorists rather than Americans and the elected Iraqi government works with the Americans.
3. The US and George Bush have no interest in seeing Iraqi casualties going up. I assume the US are not actively working on creating bad publicity for themselves.
4. OTOH the terrorists are working on precisely that goal and since people like you blame the Americans, it is working. Hence the terrorists will continue to pursue that strategy.
5. Iraqi Kurdistan is peaceful. And although there are American soldiers up there, what the region is lacking is Arab terrorists. The Kurds have a border between their territory and the rest of Iraq and don’t allow Arabs to cross it (and most terrorists are Arabs), and guess what, Kurdistan doesn’t have the problems. Apparently keeping the terrorists away keeps the violence away.
6. The terrorists actually proudly announce that they do the killing. The US have made no such statements about their own forces.
So you can cite authorities who cannot do maths as often as you like and you can claim that you are not anti-American, but as long as the numbers of the “studies” you cite make no sense and as long as you conclude that if there is death, America MUST be the murderer, you are both a sheep and an anti-American.
HAND
On china- it might be communist gover… give whatever label but how many countries has china invaded?
Tibet, Vietnam, Inner Mongolia. Tibet being the most important mentioned here.
“Tibet, Vietnam, Inner Mongolia. Tibet being the most important mentioned here.”
Don’t forget Korea.
The difference is, of course, that China is allowed.
“Tibet, Vietnam, Inner Mongolia. Tibet being the most important mentioned here.”
Don’t forget Korea.
Don’t forget Vietnam, in 1979. I remember that one distinctly, as it was so odd, from a young westerners point-of-view. Google that one, if you want to know more.
What most westerners forget is that the Vietnamese and the Chinese have never gotten along, even when they paid lip service to “international” communist/socialist ideals. China simply sent troops across the border, - then withdrew them after a few weeks - to remind the Vietnamese as to who calls the shots in the region.
Finnpudit… Your view on the widening rift between sunni and shia is too the point… I remember in the early 80s the US used Saddam to stop Iranian revolution from spreading, it was an containment by proxy…
I am sure they will widen the sunni vs shia… they will in flame..play with lives… I hope the iranian and arabs in general realize the game US policy is involved before it is too late..
I have too much respect for the intelligence of Iranians and Arabs to doubt that they have not already realized how US policy is affecting their regions. However, I believe that their hatred for each other is greater than that for the US, despite the best efforts of their state-sponsored medias.
In the end, the Middle East is extremely religious. The US, as a secular power, is seen as a lesser threat by Sunnis, who believe, - realistically, I think - that the US is a power that Sunnis can influence. Non-Iranian Shiites are realizing that they are at a disadvantage if they brand themselves as wholly anti-American reactionaries. Just witness the politicking of Shias in Iraq, who are very much torn apart as a unified front when it comes to their relations with America.
Arab Shias have come to realize that they cannot have the same influence as long as they ally themselves with “Death To America” Iranian Shias. Yet this is not because of any goodwill feelings for America: it’s completely because of their antagonistic feelings towards Sunnis.
In the middle, of course, is America. Though the US certainly commands a lot of power, it is also an extremely difficult position to be in, as it requires a lot of navigating in politically turbulent waters. However, the world’s focus is gradually drifting away from the constant terrorist murders in Iraq to… the carnival of the nascent American elections.
If that doesn’t proscribe the priorities of the world, nothing else does. Why in the world would the world want to care about US internal politics… if the world did not believe in the US as a possible alternative model to be emulated? It seems that the US is not such a monolithic monster to be feared, after all. Perhaps that’s due to its open society, where all political debate is bared, for everyone to see.
Anti-American Europeans (whom I rail against on a regular basis) are, by American election-time, green with envy. Nobody cares about European elections, as they just elect the same ones that guarantee the status quo of cultural, social, economic, and racial exclusion, - all in the name of the “morally superior” ideals of a welfare state.
America, however, continues to be the universal exception, - despite what America’s own dissidents would like to think. It is simply because of that exception - more so than its military or economic power - that America draws the attention that it gets.
So, no, America is very much not in trouble.
“What’s more, the US has successfully created a real, widening rift between Sunnis and Shias, who by all accounts are only helping to widen it. This has forced a new geopolitical alignment in the Middle East, much to the benefit of the US, which is now seen as the guarantor for security.”
Funny. It looks like I’m wrong for thinking that the whole notion of “divide and control” doesn’t benefit the US. Sorry Finnpundit, but you actually liking the idea of America creating rifts between people ie. Sunnis and Shias is sickening.
“So, no, America is very much not in trouble.”
You’re over confident and I think you’re in denial. I remember from our previous discussions how you always brushed aside negative media reports on Iraq as fabrications. Even when it came to the Chinese, you brushed aside the possibility of them being a growing threat to America. Dick Cheney would certainly disagree with you.
Isn’t the situation America is stuck in right now in regards to Iraq troublesome? What about the fact that the US army is already stretched while Iran is on the way to having nukes? How about the fact that the Taliban are making a comeback and Al-Qaeda is regrouping? What about the continuing debate of the negative effects of outsourcing production to China and China on the way to becoming the world’s biggest economy in about 20-30 years time? Or the military build up of Chavez’s Venezuela? Or the possibility of a Democrat president winning in ‘08, the US withdrawing from Iraq, leaving it behind in its current state and making al-Qaeda’s wet dream of victory against America true?
You’re too comfortable Finnpundit. Economic indicators aren’t everything.
“Isn’t the situation America is stuck in right now in regards to Iraq troublesome?”
Yes, but mainly for Iraq.
“What about the fact that the US army is already stretched while Iran is on the way to having nukes?”
Consider that on the other hand American and British forces are now located right next to Iran. If the US gave up policing Iraq, the entire army would be available for an attack on Iran. I am sure Iran knows that, which is why the Americans are kept busy and encouraged to leave.
“How about the fact that the Taliban are making a comeback and Al-Qaeda is regrouping?”
Bad for Afghanis. The Americans cannot be too worried, otherwise they wouldn’t allow the Europeans to police Afghanistan.
“What about the continuing debate of the negative effects of outsourcing production to China and China on the way to becoming the world’s biggest economy in about 20-30 years time?”
That is possible a real danger for America.
“Or the military build up of Chavez’s Venezuela?”
This is worrisome. My flatmate is from Guyana and his family live in the part of Guyana claimed by Venezuela (Venezuela claims most of Guyana). But nobody is protesting Chavez military build-up and threats. Instead he is hailed as a hero. A former colleague of mine once used the statement “but he is a libertarian socialist” as an argument for Chavez.
“Or the possibility of a Democrat president winning in ‘08, the US withdrawing from Iraq, leaving it behind in its current state and making al-Qaeda’s wet dream of victory against America true?”
The Democrats have been working on that for quite a while.
Finnpundit,
Saddam’s Iraq may be gone, but if you fuck up the rebuilding you’ll end up building up a country that will be a haven for every fanatical nutjob who wants a base.
Iraq didn’t have Al-Quaeda before, but they rushed to the place after the American invasion. Now they thrive. You kicked them out of Afganistan only to give them a bigger and better base in Iraq, and if you leave the country to collapse then it will be much worse for you, for me, and for all Western and Middle-Eastern countries. Take off the pink glasses, you’re looking at the short term. Look at the long-term man.
Because it’s the long-term that is important, not the short-term. The short-term is only good for politicians.
And the Sunni-Shia rift isn’t good for the US either. The Iraq-Iran stalemate was, but this isn’t. The current conflict effectively creates an open wound in the Middle East. A festering one. Festering wounds attract worms.
And that brings disease. And disease, my friend, spreads. This isn’t keeping terrorists occupied, this is making ten times the previous amount of terrorists. Failure in Iraq may have dire consequences for decades to come.
Drima, I guess I should respond, though Andrew Brehm did a fine job of it, too:
but you actually liking the idea of America creating rifts between people ie. Sunnis and Shias is sickening.
Sickening or not, geopolitical realpolitik is practiced by everyone. The lesson here is that if you hate someone passionately, like some Sunnis and Shias do, - or Arabs and Israelis - then your own passions will make you susceptible to being manipulated.
You’re over confident and I think you’re in denial.
You should use persuasive arguments, instead of declarative statements, in order to support your claims.
I remember from our previous discussions how you always brushed aside negative media reports on Iraq as fabrications.
That’s because many reports are fabrications, though the bigger problem is not outright fabrication, but distortion of facts for politically-motivated goals.
Even when it came to the Chinese, you brushed aside the possibility of them being a growing threat to America. Dick Cheney would certainly disagree with you.
Dick Cheney is doing exactly what he should be doing. You won’t see him calling for the reduction of Chinese economic growth, though. Rather, he sees that growth as an opportunity to engage China persuasively on other topics.
China is simply not a growing threat to the US in the long run, as it simply doesn’t show any signs of mastering the underpinnings of information-based economies. However, that doesn’t mean that the US shouldn’t be concerned: the fact that China remains a closed society may prove problematic should some other upheaval cause tensions. But all signs indicate that the Chinese are quite content in developing the good life for their emerging middle class. For that, China needs the peace that comes with vibrant trade.
Isn’t the situation America is stuck in right now in regards to Iraq troublesome?
Troublesome, yes, but that doesn’t mean that America itself is in trouble.
What about the fact that the US army is already stretched while Iran is on the way to having nukes?
The “overstretched” meme has been developed to an absurd degree by anti-war activists. Remember that the US easily fielded 3 times as many troops during the Kuwaiti War, while keeping to its commitment to fight a possible war in Korea, as today. This meme, therefore, can easily be discounted for exactly what it is: hyperbole.
As to Iran’s nukes, all evidence points that they will soon be destroyed by Israel. Most likely Israel will continue such attacks on an ongoing basis, for many years to come, with the collusion of the US, and possibly even of the Sunni states in the Gulf region. Invasion is not necessary.
How about the fact that the Taliban are making a comeback and Al-Qaeda is regrouping?
Keep in mind that the US fielded very few ground troops in Afghanistan. Most of the fighting was done by the Tajiks, etc., of the Northern League, who are the real guarantors of security in Afghanistan, - and they are the sworn enemies of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, then as well as now.
What about the continuing debate of the negative effects of outsourcing production to China and China on the way to becoming the world’s biggest economy in about 20-30 years time?
I hope the outsourcing continues, and China takes on more of the manual manufacturing industries nobody in the West likes to do anymore, and leave the crucial information management to the West. But wait… that’s already happening…
Or the military build up of Chavez’s Venezuela?
That’s bad for Venezuelans and their neighbors, not Americans.
Or the possibility of a Democrat president winning in ‘08, the US withdrawing from Iraq, leaving it behind in its current state and making al-Qaeda’s wet dream of victory against America true?
That’s bad for Iraq, mostly, not America. I doubt, though, that there will be a complete withdrawal, even with a Democratic president. It wouldn’t be the first time a president goes against a campaign promise. What’s certainly needed is a cessation of American patrols, as soon as Iraqis are trained enough to take care of that.
As to al-Qaeda’s wet dreams, I’m sure they’ll continue. But that just gives the US the opportunity to continue the conflict, with all of its benefits.
Finnpundit,
Regarding China and economy. It isn’t outsourcing that’s the risk, but rather Chinese toys. If the firm is Chinese, and the production is Chinese, then the money flows only one way. Into China.
Information-based economy? Who needs it when they can undermine you with mass-produced, slave-labor made fluffy teddy bears?
How’s the trade difference between China and the US doing these days? Still horribly large?
Wow, I hesitate to walk on the holy ground covered by such thinkers as you all, but I just want to say in a small voice: go drima!! you surprise me by seeing the elephant/ donkey/ Iraq thing like I do!! yay!
Wow, I’m sorry I only had time to skim some of the comments, since there’s a lot of interesting points being made.
Much of what I was trying to say in my first comment was that the U.S. has been in something of a bind, politically, for much of the last dozen years. Sometimes this is called “gridlock” here, and while the very even numbers in the U.S. Senate (which is more involved in foreign policy and where it’s harder to get bills passed) has a lot to do with this, it’s actually more complicated than that.
I discussed some of this in a recent post on my blog RealCurrents, and maybe I can write about it again before long. American conservatives are dealing with several factors that are making it hard to have a balanced foreign policy.
One is the continuing after-effects of the Vietnam syndrome, the fear that America is going to be weak militarily and not respond adequately to defend itself. This perception peaked, politically, in Reagan’s defeat of Carter in 1980, but it’s long outworn its usefulness. With the U.S. as the only superpower, we really ought to be walking softly as Theodore Roosevelt said, since being militaristic only encourages other countries to acquire more arms, as we have seen occurring in recent years.
One of the unfortunate outcomes of this mentality is that it’s been very hard for conservative Republicans to question the war in Iraq. As a result, there hasn’t really been a proper debate about the “war on terror”, though this seems to be finally beginning now that the Democrats have taken over Congress.
Another major political factor here in the U.S., not understood by outsiders, is the very great concern among conservatives and a growing number of moderates about the U.S. courts. The Judicial Branch of our government has grown very activist and increasingly appears to be gaining the upper hand, and a lot of conservatives are going to vote for someone like Bush, even if they dislike his foreign policy, because he will appoint more conservative Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges.
Because these Justices’ and federal judges’ terms are for life, and because the Democrats are almost uniformly militantly pro-abortion (through the 9th month, even) and pro-homosexual, etc., the choice of President is critically important in this regard, and I suspect the 2004 election was decided because of the huge turnout of conservatives that voted for Bush for this reason.
Regarding someone’s comments about anti-American attitude, I certainly hope that no one would construe an American’s criticism of his government or society as meaning he is anti-American. We have a long history of political debate and see this as a normal part of the democratic process, not as some sort of desire to overturn our government or turn our backs on our society! Americans’ patriotism has been underestimated repeatedly by our enemies, to their peril.
Finally, I’m not sure what kind of realignments are happening among Sunnis, Shias, and other Muslims, but it seems that the notion of partitioning Iraq is slowly gaining interest here in the U.S. I’ve been very upset with the media coverage of the war, in no small part for their almost complete ignoring of the Kurds, who likely impacted Turkey’s decision to stay out and may well play a key role in whatever political coalition is finally achieved.
I think we need a new paradigm for nation-states as they relate to ethnicity, something that the world as a whole can largely accept. It seems reasonable that some consideration be given to groups such as the Kurds and Palestinians in their claims for a separate country, and it might be easier for each to get their own land if it was done in a larger context. Israel and the Jews provided a precedent, but why should it stop with them?
Of course, it won’t be feasible to do this for all groups, but it should be given more consideration.
Gordon, I agree with some of your analysis but looking at American politics, it seems that there is not significant difference between the republican and democratic party. Most people seem to be saying the democrats do not have a real backbone. Of course, this is just perception since now they are in position to do something are they going to?
To be honest, I believe people choose the democrats in the last election not because the democrats had any strong position or ideas but the American people realized the Bush and his crew with the support of the Republican party were out of their minds.
From the diaster in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo, Response to Hurrcaine Katernia, Patriot act, spying on citizens, lobbying scandal with abramoff and tom delay, scotter libby and silencing of war critics, etc..
It is unfortunate for health democracy like the united states so much had to go wrong before citizens could say enough is enough.
It is good see the democratics at least to something more than “war on terror”, “embolden the terrorist”, etc
Gordon, however America has too much interests(oil) in addition to industrial-military complex for any party to make direction in middle east or iraq- even a democratic leadership. I thought the article below can give a picture to American miltary presences around the world..
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/043/The%20American%20Military%20Empire-A%20Threat%20to%20Human%20Rights%20By%20John%20M.%20Swomley_043_21_.htm
One of the main frustrations among “true” conservatives here in the U.S. is that regardless of who is elected, each party continues to grow the federal (and usually state) governments at a rate far beyond that of population growth.
This was one of the biggest disappointments with Reagan, who was notorious for his deficit spending. Up until his election, Republicans actually did tend to exercise more fiscal restraint, and Eisenhower actually had a surplus a year or two, I believe.
Of course, Clinton ran surpluses for some years, but there were a lot of problems behind the scenes, I understand (such as with the gold supply), though I’ve never been able to get the full story about this. Of course, he had the wind at his back because of the “peace dividend” achieved by Reagan and the elder Bush, as well as a very long economic expansion that likely ought to be credited to Bush as well.
So, in spending you are correct, there is little difference anymore. In judicial appointments, however, it is night and day, and conservatives here are convinced we have reached a state of crisis that will undermine our form of government if the judiciary isn’t reigned in. It’s unfortunate that it’s hard for those in other countries to understand why conservatives (who generally don’t like adventurous wars) would vote for Bush.
I don’t fully agree with the article you cited, that America is a giant military empire. A lot of us would just as soon we get out of a lot of places, and there is also plenty of history to support the argument that we DO get out. I’m not saying there hasn’t been a messy history at times, but we granted the Phillipines statehood about 1946, I believe it was, and left Clark and Subic Bay some years back. We returned Okinawa to Japan in the 1960s, I think, and would LOVE to see Japan use more of its export earnings to defend itself.
It seems clear that if nothing else, the Democratic Congress is going to follow the money and investigate the oil interests, Halliburton, etc. I guess the main point I was trying to make with my comments is that because of the many other battles American conservatives are having to fight over abortion, the judiciary, etc., their support of Bush has been hijacked by the Neo-Cons to promote a foreign policy that those outside the U.S. should NOT assume is the preferred course of most Americans.
The events of 9/11 gave these folks the perfect opportunity to jump in and re-direct foreign policy, unfortunately. Here’s a good description of what has happened, perhaps a little too negative, but in line with the topic of this post: Americans Have Lost Their Country by Paul Craig Roberts.
I guess this is worth a reply:
Regarding China and economy. It isn’t outsourcing that’s the risk, but rather Chinese toys. If the firm is Chinese, and the production is Chinese, then the money flows only one way. Into China.
Actually, you’re completely in error there. The Chinese get paid in dollars for their exports to the US. Where do these dollars go? Dollars are useless in China, so the money can only go abroad. Part of them get diverted to purchases of oil, which is traded in petrodollars, but that still leaves a huge chunk of change. That leftover cash has predominantly gone… back to America, to Chinese puchases of US Treasury notes.
How do you think America finances its budget deficits? The Chinese have had no choice but to do exactly that.
And if you think the Chinese are free to pull the cash out, think again. The collapse of the US financial system would mean the collapse of China. But even if that would happen, the US has the right to freeze foreign assets. (That, more than anything, is a guarantee that there will be peace between China and the US).
If you don’t think a freeze would never happen, think again. The US still holds, IIRC, some quarter of a trillion dollars in Iranian cash in its treasury, stemming from the days of the American embassy hostage crisis of 1978-80 (the US Treasury dutifully pays interest on the money, but refuses to let Iranians have it, until all the issues and claims from the embassy takeover are resolved. That’s not likely to happen, though there was some talk about it when Khatami was in power).
Information-based economy? Who needs it when they can undermine you with mass-produced, slave-labor made fluffy teddy bears?
A Finnish friend once described a recent purchase of some electronic gadget he needed at work, and marvelled at the power of globalization when this gadget came by the way of the Philippines. When I asked how did he find this gadget, he mentioned that it was through a website, which turned out to be maintained by Americans. When I asked how he paid for it, he mentioned it was paid through a credit card… maintained by American financial institutions.
So there you have it: Americans never even had to deal with the manufacturing, or the shipping of the product. The only thing they controlled was the marketing and financial information. That’s a pretty good chunk of change for merely providing information. (Keep in mind that financial services are part of the information industry).
How’s the trade difference between China and the US doing these days? Still horribly large?
Again, the US deficit in regards to trade in China is really an irrelevant factor if the Chinese have no choice but to invest the money back in the US. You should read up on the significance of globalized trade, before venturing statements on its feasibilty.
Leave a Comment