Quote:
Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 18 2004, 11:32 PM
First Cow, your statement
I've said repeatedly in this forum that I agree with taking out Afghanistan and Iraq, driving a stake into the hornets nest of the Middle East and stirring things up, while simultaneously predicting Iraq would be the last major land conflict the USA would be involved in for the next 25 years.
I see very little in the way of large scale military action in the future.
This doesn't make sense to me on a few level.
It's been proven (and is continuing to be proven) that Iraq was simply not the threat the U.S. claimed it was.# We can decide to believe them or not when they say things to the effect of, 'we PERCEIVED they were a threat'. Regardless, there is more proof that nations like N. Korea are more dangerous to their area, the world, and the U.S. global direction.#
If this is the case, why would the U.S. attack Iraq and then cease military opperations for a 25 years?
Unless of course attacking Iraq didn't have to do with safety.
If it did have to do with safety, then further incursions into the Middle East would seem like the next logical step.# The government is outright fooling itself if it thinks it can change Iraq into a beacon of 'democracy and freedom' that will have a domino effect on the rest of the Middle East.#
Lanny, I think people call you a conspiracy theorist because of the conclusions you jump to and the fact that you never back down from a argument to take a middle posistion.# You are obviously a very intelligent and well read individual but so are a lot of other people on there and the side you present is always just one side of the story.# Often the discussions come down to whose sources are you going to believe.# If there was overwhelming evidence either way, the U.S. and western world would not be as divdied as it is.
You have great ideas and arguments, but sometimes the conclusions you come to are a little skewed (even for me and I have found myself discussing lots of things with Displaced and Tranny and Cow usually taking the left).# But your insistance that your ideas are right and everyone needs to wake up can cause people to look at you like you are someone holding a sign that says 'the world is ending'.# If you didn't come into (and start) all discussion guns a blazing the term 'conspiracy theorist' might come up less.
Hey, you asked.
Still, I love to read your guys' threads.
|
My statement of "first Afghanistan, then Iraq, then no more major land wars for the USA for 25 years" was made BEFORE the Iraq conflict by the way, just so we're clear in the context in which it was made.
Nevertheless, I see nothing that would change the observation.
If this is the case, why would the U.S. attack Iraq and then cease military opperations for a 25 years?
Why not?
After Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming friendly governments emerge there, you've got Iran (with even a terror-wary Russia to the north) surrounded and Syria surrounded (Israel on the other side) and American air power presumeably still on the scene at isolated bases as an intimidation tool.
As well, Iran is a far stronger entity in comparison to Iraq or Afghanistan, with a population of 84 million or so and difficult terrain. The thought of invading that country in a land conflict is ridiculous. If Iran becomes responsible for a terrorist nuclear hit on the USA, the most likely solution is to vaporize parts of it rather than march in. Once you're a nuclear power, you're also a nuclear target, the downside. Aside from that, the moderate forces in Iran will likely ultimately emerge in spite of their recent setbacks in the recent electoral process. Given enough time, I like the future of Iran.
The North Korean government will likely ultimately collapse on its own. The South Korean government is strong enough to withstand any aggressive trouble there. However, of all the countries that might be considered enemies of the USA, North Korea is the most likely to be vaporized from top to bottom if it is considered the source of a nuclear hit on the USA. Again, no land conflict.
Aside from those two potential conflicts, what else is left?
I would readily agree the Saudi royal family might not be long for this earth. Heartening for the USA, even if you find the government there reprehensible, is the fact the Saudi royal family appears to finally understand it is in mortal danger and is aggressively hunting the enemy within its midst. They may survive after all, or perhaps in a modified form. This is the only place you might actually point to. In 1991, as Saddam was marching through Kuwait, you saw American forces rapidly deploying to Saudi. But a civil war is a different thing.
If a radical Islamic government were to supplant the present one in Pakistan, India would be vastly alarmed and might do something about it, with the USA in Afghanistan on the opposite border. But there would be absolutely no likelihood of an American land conflict in Pakistan. With a population of 140 million or so, it represents an even more difficult option than Iran.
I don't see the potential for a land conflict with China over Taiwan.
Anything else?
Really, where would we see a MAJOR land conflict involving American forces?
Syria? Sorry, I don't see it. EDIT: An interesting TIME Magazine article on American attempts to cozy up with Syria.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...00.html?cnn=yes
I said all that before the conflict in Iraq on this forum.
We all know how well Vietnam worked out.
Americans were dying at the rate of 30 or 40 a day for years in Vietnam, all within a conscripted army. That's how it added up to about 56,000 or so. As well, the other global superpower at the moment, the Soviet Union, was supplying the other side with limitless material. Iraq is a long way from a Vietnam comparison.
The comparison with Vietnam is best described this way: In Vietnam, the USA tried for years to prop up a friendly government that couldn't command the same morale and belief in mission - the committment to the fight - that the other side could deliver.
In that context, in the end, it has to be about empowering Iraqi's and having them believe and commit to their future as a democracy versus the view of the radicalized other side.
If 24 million Iraqi's don't want Americans there, then Americans can't stay there.
The mission would stand a far better chance of success if it were internationalized, but I would readily agree the same ideology in Washington that cut through the UN crap and got this done is also the same ideology that is resisting internationalization and making a bit of a hash of the post-war situation.
Lots of pitfalls. In the end though, I think its more likely to succeed than fail. But its a five to ten year project just as Afghanistan is a 20 year project.
Lastly, a comment about "stirring the hornets nest" thought. Can any of us have much doubt that without any action in Afghanistan or Iraq that the Middle East 50 years from now would STILL be a seething pit? I don't have much of a problem with attempting to stir up the status quo.
Of late, it's been somewhat refreshing to see a few leading Muslim media and leaders looking introspectively and wondering aloud if its actually Muslim's who need to do some self-examination about their place in the world. At least its the beginning of an internal debate rather than the uniform message of being victims. I doubt that would have been happening without the events of the last few years.
All of the above, of course, is merely an opinion of the future of the world that can be assaulted at will.
EDIT AFTER THE FACT: MSNBC with an analysis of whether or not the USA is likely to engage in further military action in a second Bush term.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6047304/
Cowperson