POLL: The occupation of Iraq is a success

Remove all ads!

The chaos in Iraq is no accident, but the result of skilled and careful planning by The Great Neocons Leaders in the pentagon, to put into life "Operation Flypaper". So, all people speaking of blunders and failures or quagmires are wrong, rash, and unfair.

Well, at least according to Mr. Andrew Sullivan who below describes the deeper cunning behind attacking Iraq against all reason, not only without one. Enjoy:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030906

So, how plausible do you think is this guy's story about "Operation Flypaper"?

PS: An adequate comment, totally partisan, here.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 22 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The occupation of Iraq is a success (22 votes.)

The occupation of Iraq is a success (Choose 1)
* Absolutely plausible - 14% (3)
* Plausible - 14% (3)
* Dunno - 14% (3)
* Not really plausible - 18% (4)
* Totally implausible - 41% (9)

 

I find it highly unlikely. It is just some maniac trying to find "justification" in events. Even if that justification is perhaps worse than reality. I do find it quite amusing though, unless it proves to be right. Then I will be even more horrified over the people in charge of the greatest military machine the world have ever seen.

 

Only time can tell.

It could be that Saddam's iron fist was required to keep the Iraqi people from falling into chaos. I don't know. We will see if Democracy thrives in Iraq. Perhaps they are not intellectually or culturely ready. I hope so.

 

Somehow I don't think that democracy is going to begin until occupation is over. And BTW democracy is not synonymous with freedom.

 

Daniel Pipes, the warmongering new co-director of the ... err ... US Institute of Peace suggested that Iraq needs a strongman for the start. He had someone like Pinochet or Franco in mind

Well, in that case, why topple Saddam at all? Replacing one human rights violator with a US backed counterpart isn't what I'd call a ... progress? I wonder if Pipes ever wasted a thought about what the Iraqis think of his plans for their future. Already they aren't too happy with the new regime they've been given.

 

I would never suspect Bush of such cunning. But then again, it would not be his plan anyway. I can see how this kind of operation would be effective. The problem is such a revelation would make all of his supporters look like fools; those who had high words about how humanitarian and democratic our motives were for invading Iraq. Of course, we don't know that that is the real reason. Yet, to sacrafice a counrty for such a purpose is very, dare I say, Stalinist. I can feel the flamers getting ready now. Flame suit on.

[ September 17, 2003, 03:23: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Looking at the proxy wars in the cold war period, the idea to confront and fight an enemy on foreign soil isn't new. In angola and afganistan the US lured the cubans and the russians respectively into traps, that was an instrument of US foreign policy (more on that here).
As the leading neocons were active in politics at that time, they knew what was going on and understood what game was played. As a matter of fact, there were a couple of countries in the past which were "used" in such a way. They are familiar with this so it would nothing new or absurd for them, despite the lunatic touch.

Francis Fukuyama, neocon heavyweight, recently wrote in his article Can Any Good Come of Radical Islam that islamism needs a high to eventually collapse and pave the way for change in the ismalic societies. This implies provoking this growth to speed up the desired change.*

Though much more subtle in tone, it's pretty much in choir with the neocon Michael Ledeen's credo

(From Ledeen, The War Against The Terror Masters) The idea to escalate the war on terror in order to speed up a change seemingly isn't all that alien to the neocons. Lunatic armchair warriors like Max Boot, author of "This Victory May Haunt Us," which ran in the November 14, 2001 edition of the Wall Street Journal (Subtitled "Winning still requires getting bloody") cheer about blood and gore anyway, and bemoan the lack of US casualties as they would have given america the opportunity to show what it's made of

The effect of "undoing societies" can be observed in chechnya, where traditional family structures have collapsed, and where, as a result of this war, saudi sponsored wahhabi islam, has among youths replaced the traditional sufi islam. The image of children killing their fathers is pretty adequate, as it actually happened there. So to say, it isn't a thing a sane person aims on.

* a comment on this here

[ September 15, 2003, 12:22: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I wouldn't say the operation was an entire success. They ousted the leader, know its time to finish them off and win the people.

 

This is a plausible plan and i fear it is only a basic one (the first plan is secure oil flow). But i believe that these geniuses in USA planned and executed their plan without taking into consideration that they are facing not only humans but a different culture and way of thinking.
Organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other muslim extremistic organization have nothing in common with terrorist groups like 17N (in Greece) or Red Brigades (in Italy) or RAF(in Germany). They don't have an ideology they have a religion and they don't recruit, every muslim is considered by them as a soldier to fight for Allah. And many people do go voluntarily to fight, die, or be captured for their religion.
They are so opressed that they need only a small hit in the back to explode and try to kill someone. They don't consider the western way of life as a good one instead they think it is an evil way to live your life. And furthermore they did not, do not, will never do trust the USA and in generall most western countries for saving them from a difficult situation.
They want us out of there and leave them alone to live by their ways of living. So what is this coallition force is doing there?
IMHO is getting ready to get some pretty hard blows and then the US administration will go out and say "look they hit us and we must answer back" pop there goes Syria

 

It is illustrating that Boot, to title his book, chooses a line from Kipling's "White Man's Burden" - The Savage Wars of Peace. And so it isn't surprising that in his book he finds comfort that by killing some 200.000 native rebels the US did good - in bringing civilisation to the phillipines.

Something like that seemingly also drives him in his relentless promotion of the pax americana. The poor arabs just don't know better, so it is america's destiny to guide, that is as it looks atm: bomb, them back on the right path to modernise their culture *sigh* america's burden *sigh* Hubris anyone? But I'm getting carried away.

As for the "Flypaper" story, it's hard to say if it, just like Fukuyama's essay, is an attempt to find comfort in or glorify and justify the mess in Iraq in hindsight or if it is part of a program. A look on neocon ideology and program suggests that both views are plausible. The generous assumption that the neocons aren't *completely* insane and irresponsible suggests the first alternative.

[ September 15, 2003, 13:26: Message edited by: Prozac ]

 

All the Muslims need is a spark to set them off.

 

If true...The plan is ingenius. If it is true, I doubt Bush came up with it, he doesn't seem smart enough to put together a plan to draw terrorists into Iraq.

After reading the article, it does sound like a brilliant plan, even if it does costs the lives of our servicepeople. I just don't know if I can give this administration for coming up with a plan like this...

 

A brilliant plan it is, but you can expect heavy casualties on the coalition troops, and the civilians who want to live peaceful lives until a ripe old age.

 

IMO it is irresponsible and amoral. The life of peoples and the wellfare of nations are nothing to gamble with.

I'm sure that texas would love it if mexico preferred to settle a fictious and avoidable conflict it has with someone else on texan territory because that's safer and nicely away - as mexican infrastructure, civilians and cities would be much safer too. Saves a lot of money. I'm sure any texan would appreciate the brilliance of that scheme.

Invading a country in a war of agression is bad enough, doing so in the intent to invite islamiac whackos to an unnecessary prolonged guerrilla war there is plain sick - and irresponsible as it ignores the lessons from lebanon and vietnam. But Washington's far away and from a distance it all looks nice and pretty.

[ September 16, 2003, 16:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Despite the seediness of the plan, I'm sure less die each day now than did under the reign of Saddam. So I don't know if I can agree that the life of the people and the welfare of their nation is an worse off than under Saddam's rule.

Granted, I would prefer a straight fight but since we're fighting cowards who are tougher at killing civilians than soldiers, I'll take an Iraqi battleground than downtown Manhattan.

If it is drawing terror organizations to Iraq in order to fight our troops there, I think the end result will justify the means taken to get there.

At least the US & Britain are willing to do something about world terrorism, rather than condemning everything and offering no better solution.

 

You are aware that the US to an overwhelming degree has created the opponents it now has to fight against itself - by invading and occupying Iraq? Against international law, in a war of agression, to point that out again.
The people fighting there for example have a problem with US occupation. The invasion actually was the reason for them to fight, not the occasion to unload their ... errr ... insidious ... arabiac ... "hate for freedom" and America.
There weren't any acts of iraqi terror before the US invaded iirc.

And IMO it's is a very questionable thing to say: At least we kill less than Saddam, quite a progress

 

Exactly. A lesser of two evils. Saddam's regime is gone and the butchery of his leadership is gone too. Iraq was fairly peaceful right after we completed operations. There are flare ups now and since May because terrorist organizations are filtering weapons and extremists into Iraq to force us out.

The bottom line is, once we are finished our work there, Iraq will be a much better place. We should not withdraw until the job is done. Plus, if we withdraw, then the international community will whine that we just made the mess worse...It's lose/lose...We may as well stay. In for for a penny, in for a pound!

I look at it as if we are cleaning up our own messes from the Cold War, one at a time. We backed some dogs during the Cold War in the name of stopping the Domino Effect...Hussein and Bin Laden were once allies - they were bad/short sighted calls on our part...Now we are cleaning up.

 

Considering the fact that the US refused to count the iraqi victims of the camaign your claim will be hard to verify. Not to mention the figure of 500.000 iraqi children who fell victim the the UN embargo, that couldn't be lifted because of the US veto. All in all that questions your "they're better with us". Keeping this in mind the US, over the last 13 years also got a nice quota of some, let's guess ... 100 iraqis per day* over a decade?

The iraqis know that, they have no reason to thank the US for anything but ridding them of Saddam. Here is a good article named: "Oh, Now the U.S. Cares About Iraqis".

As for the need for action, and the war on terror. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The US took a country that was no terror threat and turned it into a one. Anyway, it's a good excuse for silly planning.
The poorly planned US occupation provoked resistance in form of underground warefare and the US sees it as the continuation of the war on terror? Jesus! So why a need for action in Iraq?

No brilliant "Flypaper" strategy can help Bush over the problem that with his stupid war caused more damage than he will ever be able to repair. The invasion of Iraq for various purposes, and that is about unanimous among critics, seriously worsened the US security situation as it inspired for more terror.
Your "but we did something" reminds me of this cartoon. No pun intended.
It is easy to say "but it is necessary". You do not pay the price in blood. Iraqis do. And the unfortunate GIs sent there.

* that calculation goes: 13 years - 500.000 victims -> victims per day. It is just a rough calculation, nothing exact, but it should give you an impression what sort of figures you're talking about. You should have a look at Joh Pilgers reports in the humanitarian situation in Iraq under the embargo or this interview with UN representative Denis Halliday who resigned in protest because of the sanctions.

[ September 16, 2003, 18:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

How can you add people that died during the embargo? That was imposed on Saddam's regime as a result of the Gulf War. That imposition was a result of Iraq's aggressive moves in the region and its use of chemical weapons ON ITS OWN PEOPLE.

Saddam could have stepped down after the war, and spared his people any suffering. Usually an embargo is placed on a nation to promote change...Which it was in this case. Any goods that would have gone into the country would have gone to Sadddam's ruling class, or Bathist supporters - they would not have gone to the people. So please, lay your accusations elsewhere - like on the regime that created the situation by invading Kuwait.

And in modern times, it is much more difficult to stage a coup or revolution, communication is too fast, and it would have been difficult for a rebel force to stand up to Saddam's military. So the US, UK & friends lent a hand by ousting Saddam. I can't believe you weep for Saddam and his regime.

You said it yourself, political and economic strategies were placed on Saddam for 13 years! 13 years without any result! So we decided to take the initiative after exhausting political and economic options. As far as I'm concerned, we gave him plenty of time and plenty of warning...The reconstruction will be long and arduous, but I think the end result will be a better, more stable region.

 

Sir Belisarius,
please check the links I gave above.

It is always easy to only blame Saddam. Yes, the US imposed sactions on Iraq because evil Saddam invaded Kuwait (and that wasn't nice, really, much unlike his invasion of Iran which killed many many more people). Of course. He should have stepped down. Yes, so easy. And he didn't. What show's he's evil.
You're naive. The US troops, and I don't doubt that, do their best to get out of Iraq alive and try at least not to kill too many civilians. Swell. But the US had no right to go there to topple Saddam. You as a lawyer should know that.

Technically speaking, the Iraqis they kill as they resist the US occupation have the bloody right to defend themselves and their country. The US are the invader, the agressor, no matter how evil Saddam was. Even now, after a few months of occupation, the US weren't able to justify a pre-emptive war. The Iraqis are just as much terrorists as the french resistance fighting the german army in WW-II. Considering the history of the US engagement in Iraq as well as the neocon agenda it is only reasonable to doubt in this administrations motives.

The US are in Iraq for many reasons, and helping the iraqis is pretty low on their list of goals, it's a mere spinoff of the geostrategical reasons behind it. It may motivate the troops, you may like it but it's most certainly pretty irrelevant for Rummy, Wolfie and Perle.
If you find comfort in that, fine, but a mere spinoff can't justify a criminal foreign policy.

And considering the "flypaper" strategy, planned or as an excuse: Luring terrorists into Iraq, focusing and escalating the war on terror there, isn't likely to improve the general situation of the average iraqi, to the contrary. So, I can't find comfort in that.
The US would victimise the iraqis once more. They paid the price of the US containment of Saddam and if the "plan" goes on they'll also host the war on terror. Congrats.