War and its Aftermath

[IanS]

First off I'd like to say I fully support Pres. Bush's war against Al Qaeda and his succesful expelling of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I also support his Administrations' push for a full out war against Saddam Hussein. Whether he is a clear and present danger to the United States I honestly cannot say but his past crimes and the potential future threat he poses for Americans and others are very real I believe. And I don't care what corporate interests benefit from from a regime change in Iraq. He's a bad guy. Fine.

I'm not an expert on international affairs. I get news and information like most everyone; TV, radio, internet, and print. My point is while our military is capable of doing a bang up job of accomplishing its immediate goals I think the U.S. too often fail to properly support whatever government it helps prop up. I'm hearing too many reports (albeit from "liberal" sources) of the U.S. failing to send the money and "the know how" in rebuiding Afghanistan's infrastructure that it promised. That while Kabul is "secure" (relatively speaking) the rest of the country is in absolute chaos with warlords running amuck and basically acting worse than the Taliban (relatively speaking). And worse its civilians and returning refugees have nothing to rebuild with. The U.S. solved its short term goals with respect to security and politics but what about preventable consequences? These same concerns also haunt a potential future war with Iraq.

The U.S. has the right to wage war against its enemies but how it treats the civilians of its enemies (who often have absolutely no power compared to American citizens) does have its moral consequences as well as practical. And its the very fact its civilians have no economic or political power that they're victims and food for the powerful and easily ignored by everyone else.

Whatever mess we leave is ammunition that our enemies (as well as potential allies) can use to side against us. I just dont' believe we can just blow up $#@! and retreat to our homes. Some of you believe we've "earned" this right.....perhaps, but I don't believe its practical or even moral.

Does anyone else share my moral, ethical, and practical concerns? Or am I getting too liberal for everyone here?


*Moderators, I hope you don't lock this. I believe its related to guns; the nature, philosophies, and moralities of war.

 

[Apple a Day]

Afghanistan is the national equivalent of a sawdust-floored bar on a Saturday night. If there ain't a raging bar fight going on, just wait a while. The Taliban called a 'Time Out' to beat on the bystanders and send peple to other bars to start trouble. Now they're trying to switch management and turn it into a family-style restaurant. Sometimes it works, sometimes not but it always requires a little 'convincing'.
Stomp Saddam and the U.N. sanctions go away. The Iraqi people will be better off as long as someone strong immediately takes charge, unlike in Afghanistan. The people there are used to being controlled, as Machiavelli would say, thus would settle into the new regime with a sense of normalcy. The big question is: who is capable of taking the riegns?

 

[Marko Kloos]

Moved to Legal & Political.

 

[Leatherneck]

Ian,
I've shared exactly those same concerns, and we're not alone. I, too, have wondered if I was becoming faint of heart after too much combat. While I firmly believe that no direct connection can be made between Saddam and OBL or AQ, that bothers me less and less as we discover the extent of the threat that Saddam poses. I'm comfortable with the notion of a preemptive strike to thwart a nuclear/dirty weapon strike against our interests or country.
While it's tempting to think in terms of a drive-by against Saddam & Co. that would be a bad mistake. If we go in, we'd better be prepared to nation-build or whatever you want to call it. No quick strike this time.
One concept comes to mind that might minimize the pain and effort such a strategy would impose. I'm thinking of a sort of joint venture between the USG and industry (oil, of course). Turn Baghdad into a company town with military law enforcement. Get as many Iraqi citizens involved as possible, and impose a "sunset" clause on the arrangement after say ten years. Plan on a limited-duration occupation a la Macarthur in Japan and make it clear from the outset that all we want to do is stabilize the Iraqi DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and then leave. Think this would work?
TC

 

[WilderBill]

Well Leatherneck, I think it's a fine idea.
The problem is that the Iraqi people wouldn't know what to make of it. You might be forcing them to confront such scary issues as being responsible for their own future or even having choices.
They may not like having a strongman in charge, but most have never known anything else.
Despite all that, it would be to everyone's addvantage to have Sadam out. The current situation is sort of like continuing to add air to a tire and just hoping it doesn't blow up.
Another big problem is that the US is quite capable of causing a change of leadership, but history tells us that the new guy will probably turn out to be a rat himself and likely turn on us in the future.

 

[IanS]

Leatherneck,

Personally, I doubt it. The Middle East is hypersensitive to "western" intrusion and a government like that would most likely set off a tidal of wave of anti-Western feelings and a Jihad the likes we haven't seen. Perception is important over there and all Middle Easterners will only be comfortable with an autonomous regime. An Iraqi of royal lineage (I'm sure we can dig him up somewhere) perhaps to give it some legitimacy? Unfortunately, it'll be another possible brutal dictatorship that's willing to sell us oil but curse us when we turn our backs to them; another Saudi Arabia.

Even our staunchest "allies" in the Middle East get real pissed off if American soldiers overstay their welcome. They want our money but they want to be left alone so they can hate us and fight amongst themselves for power. That's the Middle East in a capsule.

 

[Fred Hansen]

And its the very fact its civilians have no economic or political power that they're victims and food for the powerful and easily ignored by everyone else.

Any power that they lack is their problem. They are human beings, they have the free will to make choices. They wish to live in the fashion of 7th century barbarians, yet they feel entitled to a 21st century living standard.

Sounds like it is time that they stopped groveling on their bellies like dogs, and stood upright like the human beings that they are. Short of making their own destiny, they can well expect to have it made for them.

BTW BooHooHoo

 

[IanS]

We're talking basics here. Enough for them to make their own start. From what I hear, Afghans are very proud people and I don't think they want to live on other people's "hand-outs" or live to "21st Century Standards" as you say. What I'm proposing is enough for them to get started to carve out their own destiny.

If a massive tornado or earthquake strikes a 3rd World Country I think its only decent countries like the U.S. give aid. Afghan civilians have been hit by Soviet, U.S. military power and various warlords for the past 20 + years. Afghanistan was the place the U.S. waged a proxy war against the Soviet Union forcing them to spend Billions and demoralizing their military. Some say its one of the reasons that lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union. The U.S. "used" Afghanistan and its people and got quite a lot out of it as far as the Cold War went. Also, this past war was fought largely by Afghans themselves aided by the U.S. Afghans want to do things for themselves and they prove that time and again.

And its rather indecent to kick a man into a ditch and tell him all about self reliance. That kind of attitude is similar to a rich Californian cursing dust bowl Okies like some character out of The Grapes of Wrath. They're not Americans no, but I wouldn't characterise every 3rd World nation as merely being jealous of our riches. On a side note: America should also curb its vain self promotion through its media. With pictures of excess conspicuous consumption, random violence, and vain sexual images. I know my life isn't like Baywatch and I live in L.A.!

Besides its in our best interest Afghanistan isn't used as a pawn for spreading terrorism again. We have the opportunity to gain another ally in the Middle East (like Kuwait) Why throw it away?

 

[Fred Hansen]

We have the opportunity to gain another ally in the Middle East

An ally in the Middle East? Do you even stop to think before you write this stuff?

The closest thing we have to an ally in the Middle East is Israel. As long as Israel exists we have zero chance of having another "ally" in the ME. So much the better. I need pseudo-theocrats, dictators and royals as allies like I need a hole in the head.