Will The Bush43 War on Terror End In Iraq?

Yes. Or the US will end in Bankruptcy Court. It is publicly stated the US has spent $357 b. in a war that was supposed to pay for itself, and there is a $124 b. request before Congress as I write. The Defense budget is the major contributor to our National Debt. If you add that, and the VA budget which is admittedly about 50% under the appropriate level, then the US is spending about $800 b. this year on war and the residual costs of war.

Iraq. Year 5. Day 3. America’s part in World War 2 began on December 7, 1941 and ended on September 2, 1945. Three years, eight months and 25 days. America has invested four years fighting in Iraq. Nearly 3,3000 KIA. 7,000 WIA so badly they will never again lead a normal life. The planners never expected this outcome. In fact, it could be argued that this outcome represents not only a grand miscalculation but also a strategic defeat for the US. The best that can be said about the war is that it is a strategic stalemate, which is an undesired outcome for almost all Americans. The worst that can be said is that the US failed to meet its strategic objectives and failure equals defeat.

But take heart. B43 is not the first American president to have miscalculated. We survived those short-falls in geopolitics and we will survive this one, too. Let’s look back: 1950-1953. Korea: After defeating the North Korean army by November, 1950, the UN say US forces were attacked by China. The result was a bloody stalemate, followed by a partition that mostly restored the status quo ante and our accepting a stalemate that continues to this day!

1959-1962. Cuba: After a pro-Soviet government was created inside the historical US’s zone of interest - Monroe Doctrine - W-DC attempted both overt and covert means to end Castro’s regime. All attempts have failed and Castro’s government remains in place nearly half a century later. It is my prayer that Fidel will live as long as January 20, 2009. He will by then have out-lived 9 American presidential office-holders. That in itself ought to tell you something or at least ring alarm bells.

1962-1974. Vietnam: the US fought an extended war in Vietnam, for the declared purpose to contain the expansion of Communism in Indochina. America failed to achieve its objectives despite massive infusions of force and North Vietnam established hegemony over the region. It is hard to say when America first got into Vietnam. The first tippy-toe started under Ike. The hard part of the War started with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Or more correctly, NON-incident.

1978-2007 Iran: US Cold War containment policy required a cordon of allies surrounding the USSR. Iran was a key link, blocking Soviet access to the Persian Gulf. The US expulsion from Iran following the Islamic Revolution represented a major strategic reversal. We have locked ourselves into a No Contact policy ever since. We wear our pride on our sleeve. But popular here at home.

1991-2007 Iraq: Up to today Iraq represents another strategic reversal. US ambitions to insert itself into the Middle East as a co-ally to Israel has failed big time. We sent too few, too late, to accomplish that overly ambitious and poorly thought out goal. Only amateurs in foreign affairs would have ever dreamed of such a possibility. Say thank you, 3,300 American KIAs. You will join you 59,000 compatriots on the Vietnam War Memorial. Another American misadventure.

We have been strikingly unsuccessful in inserting Israel into the Middle East. We have struggled to do that since 1948. But look at it this way. The US has spent about 19+ of the last 62 years engaged in political and military machinations that did not bring obvious success and more often have brought defeat or disaster. Yet in spite of these seemingly endless setbacks the long-term momentum of American power relative to the rest of the world remains favorable to the US. This paradox demands explanation.

Here I offer three plausible explanations:
A) US power does not rest on these politico-military involvements but derives from other factors, such as economic power. Therefore, the fact that America has consistently failed in major conflicts is an argument that these conflicts should not have been fought - that they were not relevant to the emergence of American power.

The American preoccupation with politico-military conflict has been an exercise in the irrelevant that has slowed, but has not derailed, expansion of American power. Applying this logic, it would be argued that the USSR would have collapsed under its own weight - as will the Islamic world - and that major or long-term US interventions are pointless.

B) Alternatively, the US has been extraordinarily fortunate that, despite its inability to use politico-military power effectively and being drawn repeatedly into stalemate or defeat, outside factors have saved the US from its own weakness. In other worlds, the world cannot afford to see the United States of America fail!

C) Last, the wars previously referenced were never as significant as they appeared to us to be in world geo-politics; we at home for excessive hubris have made them do or die! These conflicts drew on only a small fraction of potential US power and were always seen as peripheral to our fundamental national interests. Logically speaking, it follows that stalemate and defeat were trivial and except for the domestic political obsession, none were of fundamental importance to the United States.

Overview.
There is the non-ideological, non-political view that America won the Cold War in spite of the defeats and stalemates mentioned and several others not mentioned, because those wars were never as important as either the liberals or conservatives made them out to be, however necessary they might have been seen to be at the time.

Let’s apply this analysis to Iraq. The left of the Dems say that the Iraq war is unnecessary and even harmful in the context of the US-jihadist confrontation and regardless of the Iraq War outcome, it should not be fought.

The ISG Report and those types say the Iraq War is essential and that, while defeat or stalemate in this conflict perhaps would not be catastrophic to America, there is a possibility that it would be catastrophic in the Middle East. At any rate, the ongoing inability of the US to impose its will in conflicts of this nature ultimately will destroy us. This is ‘have it both ways’ thinking. Or damed if you do, damed if you don’t.

Finally, the Bush43, John McCain, and Neo Cons view Iraq as simply a small part of a bigger, world-wide war against Islamic terrorism. The outcome of this particular conflict (Iraq) will not only not be decisive, the continuance of the world wide war is an absolute necessity. The heated rhetoric surrounding the Iraq conflict stems from American’s traditional inability to view things in proper perspective. We don’t object to war if we are winning but we hate a war we are losing. We must learn to follow Kenny Roger’s sage advice, “Know when to hold’em, know when to fold’em.

Argument.
For a moment, let’s consider Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran and now Iraq. It is clear the US never devoted more than a tiny fraction of the military power it could have brought to bear if it had wished. In no case was there a general mobilization, or was US industry converted to a wartime footing. The proportion of force brought to bear, relative to our capacity as we showed in World War II, was minimal. We began the Pacific War with 3 aircraft carriers, we ended the war with 43. In less than 4 years. At one time we were launching one Liberty ship - 10,000 tones - every day! We shipped more tanks to the USSR than Germany had altogether. And etc.

The most remarkable aspect of those “losing” conflicts was the extreme restraint shown in committing our forces and in employing available forces. Especially our nuclear arsenal. In each of the 5 cases mentioned, the behavior of the US implied that there were important national security issues at stake, but measured in terms of the resources provided, these national security issues were not of the first order. Clearly, the US was prepared on some level to accept stalemate and defeat, even if it was not conscious in the President’s mind. Thinking now of LBJ, RMN, and B43.

Review.
In Korea, spoiling Communist goals created breathing space for the US and increased tension levels between China and Russia. A stalemate achieved outcomes as satisfactory to W-DC as taking North Korea would have.

In Cuba, containing Castro was, relative to cost, as useful as destroying him. What he did in Cuba itself was less important to W-DC than that he should not be an effective player in Latin America.

In Vietnam, frustrating the North's strategic goals for a decade fed the Sino-Soviet dispute, thus opening the door for Nixon’s Sino-U.S. entente even before the War ended.

In Iran, the US interest rested with Iran’s utility as a buffer to the Soviets. The US being ousted from Iran mattered only if the Iranians capitulated to the Soviets. Iran did not, so Iran's internal politics were of little interest to the US. Ignoring the forever smoldering Arab Israeli conflict since 1948, of course.

If we apply this concept to Iraq, it is possible to understand the reasons behind the size of the force deployed in Iraq which, while significant, still is limited when compared to our capability. This goes to prove the obvious, the willingness of Bush43 to tinker with military disaster.

Conclusion.
The invasion four years ago has led to the Sunnis and Shia turning against each other in direct conflict. Thereby splitting Islam? Was this our ultimate goal for Iraq? To make it possible for them to engage in a Civil War? Are the insurgents and militias agents provocateur for the US grand strategy? That is the most Machiavellian thing I can imagine! But, alas, not really! This outcome was not the start-up goal Bush43 in mind in his WMD run-up to the 2003 invasion; OTOH, it has become an unintended but highly significant outcome.

[edit on 3/22/2007 by donwhite]

You have voted donwhite for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Ah man spot on....

People should read this, and that also means the psychopathic patriots who are blind to what Empire means and how their nations actually goes about its business.

www.amazon.com...

Its all factual, theres no agenda or biased opinion it just happens to be a factual examination of U.S military intervention since the 50's. An encylopedia if you will of every covert and blatantly overt operation they have conducted.

Heres the chaps website, you can read watered down version of some of his chapters.

members.aol.com...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Islamo Facist]

posted by Islamo Facist

People should read this . . it means the psychopathic patriots who are blind to what ‘Empire’ means and how their nation actually goes about its business. It’s a factual examination of US military interventions since the 1950's. An encyclopedia of every covert and overt operation conducted [in the name of the American people]. [Edited by Don W]

I suppose this list includes the assassination of Chile’s first popularly elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, 1973. Thank you Mr Nixon. I suppose this list includes the deposing of the only democratically elected president of Guatemala? Jacabo Arbenz. 1982. Thank you Mr. Reagan. Or invading Granada? Thank you, Mr Reagan. Or interfering in the internal affairs of Nicaragua in violation of the UN Charter and American law? Thank you Mr Reagan. Or invading Panama? Thank You Mr Bush. Q. What message and to whom is the continued imprisonment (itself of doubtful legality) of Manuel Noriega meant to illustrate? How come all these guys are Republicans?

We have invaded Haiti more times than you can count on one hand, and we occupied the country from 1918 to 1933. And still, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Why’s that? I thought we were going to Haiti to help the people. Help them stay poor? Hmm?

The American Trial Run for Iraq? The Philippines Insurrection. In 1898 the US declared war on Spain over the explosion on the USS Maine, our primo battleship, in Havana Harbor. It was later decided coal dust had caused the explosion and not a Spanish mine as was first reported and which act justified our declaration of war. Sort of your early WMDs?

The Philippine island of Mindanao is the #2 in size and population. Unfortunately for them, they converted to Islam around the 11th century. After the discovery of the Philippines by Magellan in the 16th century, the main island of Luzon and its capital Manila converted to Catholicism. There have been sporadic efforts by Manila to convert the Mindanao people to Catholicism which have been resisted. When the US conquered the Islands, the people of Mindanao thought the US had come to liberate them from Manila’s dominance. Not so. We came to replace Spain and Manila, not to liberate anybody. Manila is still trying to convert Mindanao, and the US is still helping Manila, big time post the Nine Eleven Event.

1899-1913. US Army forces peaked at 146,000. US killed or died in the Philippine Insurrection, 4,324. WIA, 2,818. The Filipino Constabulary, aiding the US, suffered 1,000 killed and 1,000 died. Philippine resistance, we’d call them insurgents today, 16,000 dead and of the civilian population, more than 250,000 of disease, starvation or casualties of war.

U.S. President William McKinley told reporters “ . . that the insurgents had attacked Manila . . ” in justifying war on the Philippines. That is also disputed by non-Army historians. General Arthur MacArthur was one of the field commanders in the Philippines; his son was Douglas MacArthur.

American soldiers were accused of torture and summary executions after the war, but there was no independent authority to make an investigation. Say Hello Abu Ghraib.

OK, Mr I/F, I’m up to speed on this. Thanks.

Note: Arthur MacArthur and Douglas MacArthur are the only father-son team to become 4 star generals (Douglas later made 5 stars) and both received the Congressional Medal of Honor. End of note.

[edit on 3/22/2007 by donwhite]

glad i could help good buddy, you seem to quite like your history of the rise of the American Empire, youd probably like this?

www.amazon.com...

some of it can be found here, good read really considering it was written in 1935 not much has really changed to be honest. Kind off tells it how it is how the army are in reality are just enforcers for the banks and oil companies. Basicaly because thats where all their money came from.

www.lexrex.com...

Kinda disturbing really people seem to think its anything more than this, "patriotism", "democracy", "freedom" haha what a crock of #.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by yoyoyo]

What i heard is that bush will take everbody out of the wAr 2008... I thank we should of been out of there a l0ng time ag0... So only thing we can d0 is hope thay get out sooner then 2008....