Teach me - Should the USA rethink our stance?

[NicksDad1970]

I've always been one of those people that believed in what the US typically does. You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems. Another argument on their side is that our country needs all the attention that we're giving other countries.

While this makes sense from one point of view the other has always been that if we don't help then people like Sadaam will take over and eventually get so big that they're a huge threat to us.

My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen? Like for example if we didn't go to Kuwait in 1990 to force Sadaam back to Iraq what do they think or what would they have hoped happen?

My line of thinking has always been if we don't stop them when they're small then they can become so big we wouldn't be able to stand up to them ourselves.

I'm don't want this to become a thread where people bash back and forth. I'm would like to become educated on this subject so maybe I'll have a better understanding of their beliefs and change my line of thinking.

What I was really hoping is that some people who really didn't like the way we do it to carry me through their thought process and let me know how they THINK it would be if the US did it their way.

Anyway I hope that I've made sense of what I'm really trying to find out.

[4 High]

You think that if we dont stand up to countries like Iraq in 1990, all of a sudden they will become super powers and be able to defeat us in standard warfare?

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
You think that if we dont stand up to countries like Iraq in 1990, all of a sudden they will become super powers and be able to defeat us in standard warfare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not "all of a sudden" but yes I do in 10-20 years time.

My understanding about that was this.. As of 1990 Iraq had 20% of the worlds oil. Kuwait had 20% and Saudi Arabia had a large % as well.

So if Sadaam keeps control of Kuwait then he just doubled his income so to speak. Then he goes after Saudi Arabia and gets bigger. The way I was looking at it was like a cancer that gets bigger and bigger.

But as I see all these soldiers die it really bothers me. Of all places the other night I saw a preview for a movie that took place in the late 60's early 70's where a guy gets draftes. He was kind of a free love hippie dude and going off to war changed everything about him (which makes sense).

Anyway it got me to thinking "just because I was raised to thikn X doesn't necessarily mean X is right." I was hoping to explore other peoples thinking and reevaluate.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
So if Sadaam keeps control of Kuwait then he just doubled his income so to speak. Then he goes after Saudi Arabia and gets bigger. The way I was looking at it was like a cancer that gets bigger and bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, I'm no expert here, but even if Saddam 'doubled his income' I don't think it would have been easy for him to go after Saudi Arabia

I agree America keeping Kuwait in existence was a success in regards to not letting Saddam control too much of the world's oil supply

But I wouldn't agree that Iraq was any kind of military threat to the US in 2002, either at that time, or 10/20 years down the line via cancerous growth

[danlux]

Well we certainly don't have a very good success record when it comes to "helping" small countries. Without the world's support, it is nearly impossible to police these countries for any significant amount of time.

We did have a country that was an enormous military threat, and was a direct enemy of us (Soviet Union), and we never fired a shot at them.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always been one of those people that believed in what the US typically does. You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems. Another argument on their side is that our country needs all the attention that we're giving other countries.

While this makes sense from one point of view the other has always been that if we don't help then people like Sadaam will take over and eventually get so big that they're a huge threat to us.

My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen? Like for example if we didn't go to Kuwait in 1990 to force Sadaam back to Iraq what do they think or what would they have hoped happen?

My line of thinking has always been if we don't stop them when they're small then they can become so big we wouldn't be able to stand up to them ourselves.

I'm don't want this to become a thread where people bash back and forth. I'm would like to become educated on this subject so maybe I'll have a better understanding of their beliefs and change my line of thinking.

What I was really hoping is that some people who really didn't like the way we do it to carry me through their thought process and let me know how they THINK it would be if the US did it their way.

Anyway I hope that I've made sense of what I'm really trying to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking a huge, complicated, open-ended question. I don't think you're going to get any fully satisfying answers. But, one thing is for sure, just because your country's elected government chooses a particular course of action, and that course of action is supported by a majority of the population, does not make that particular course of action right.

Regarding the war in the Middle-East, the Left will tell you that the war is about oil. The Right will tell you that the war is about terror, freedom and democracy. They are both right and they are both FOS.

Very simply, if there was no oil in the Middle-East, than it would simply be another Africa. Just like we are not in Africa, we would not be in the Middle-East.

For a president who had no foreign policy and few issues to focus on, 9/11 provided a Mount Rushmore moment (historically, the greatness of a president is determined by the events that occur during their presidency). For his foreign policy wonks (Cheney, Wolfowitz et al) 9/11 was the golden opportunity to advance a preexisting agenda that had been offered to, and refused by, the two preceding presidents.

Essentially the policy was based on the post WWII success of Germany and Japan. Democratize a Middle-Eastern country and, like moths to a flame, all the other countries will be drawn to the shining beacon of light and hope that would be their newly democratic, neighbor.

This concept is eerily reminiscent of LBJ's culturally flawed thought process regarding the North Vietnamese. Which basically centered around LBJ thinking he could just " set right down with old HO and work out a deal to solve this little old dispute among neighbors".

The thought process behind Middle-Eastern policy is, at minimum, more culturally flawed, and IMO, not very likely to work in any short-term (<8-years) time-frame. Further, the commitment required of a unilaterally acting US exceeds the available resources of men, material and money. Finally, the US public does not possess the will to fight a long-term foreign war of democratization.

Few people know that during WWII the US was precipitously close to financial collapse and that there was a strong under-current of desire to prematurely end the war.

With all of that said, we as a country and as a world, need access to oil that is stable, economical and reliable. Until there is an alternative source, we can not afford, on any level, to be forced into a potentially, devastating oil crisis.

On a final note, any US citizen who thinks that they were lied to or duped into supporting the war is either a liar or ignorant.

Prior to the start of the war in Iraq, everything regarding the implementation of the democratization of a Middle-Eastern country was published and on record. Further, Paul Wolfowitz was interviewed during the run up to war and admitted that the administration was focusing on WMDs, because WMD's were a better rallying point than a complicated foreign policy paper.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to the start of the war in Iraq, everything regarding the implementation of the democratization of a Middle-Eastern country was published and on record. Further, Paul Wolfowitz was interviewed during the run up to war and admitted that the administration was focusing on WMDs, because WMD's were a better rallying point than a complicated foreign policy paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I was just talking to my dad today, and while he was working for Exxon in 1999, he was chatting up some people in Iran in the hopes that USA would soon allow Exxon to do business there. He went to Washington to make sure what they were doing was ok, and some guy suggested he shouldn't bother with Iran and focus on Iraq instead, as USA was planning a regime change in Iraq

[ArturiusX]

This is so much more complicated than people realise. Iraq has never produced a terrorist, and only very loosely ever sponsored terrorism. Even so, taking Iraq was critical in winning the war on terror. Why? To explain would take too long, but there are some good books on the subject.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've always been one of those people that believed in what the US typically does. You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems. Another argument on their side is that our country needs all the attention that we're giving other countries.

While this makes sense from one point of view the other has always been that if we don't help then people like Sadaam will take over and eventually get so big that they're a huge threat to us.

My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen? Like for example if we didn't go to Kuwait in 1990 to force Sadaam back to Iraq what do they think or what would they have hoped happen?

My line of thinking has always been if we don't stop them when they're small then they can become so big we wouldn't be able to stand up to them ourselves.

I'm don't want this to become a thread where people bash back and forth. I'm would like to become educated on this subject so maybe I'll have a better understanding of their beliefs and change my line of thinking.

What I was really hoping is that some people who really didn't like the way we do it to carry me through their thought process and let me know how they THINK it would be if the US did it their way.

Anyway I hope that I've made sense of what I'm really trying to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking a huge, complicated, open-ended question. I don't think you're going to get any fully satisfying answers. But, one thing is for sure, just because your country's elected government chooses a particular course of action, and that course of action is supported by a majority of the population, does not make that particular course of action right.

Regarding the war in the Middle-East, the Left will tell you that the war is about oil. The Right will tell you that the war is about terror, freedom and democracy. They are both right and they are both FOS.

Very simply, if there was no oil in the Middle-East, than it would simply be another Africa. Just like we are not in Africa, we would not be in the Middle-East.

For a president who had no foreign policy and few issues to focus on, 9/11 provided a Mount Rushmore moment (historically, the greatness of a president is determined by the events that occur during their presidency). For his foreign policy wonks (Cheney, Wolfowitz et al) 9/11 was the golden opportunity to advance a preexisting agenda that had been offered to, and refused by, the two preceding presidents.

Essentially the policy was based on the post WWII success of Germany and Japan. Democratize a Middle-Eastern country and, like moths to a flame, all the other countries will be drawn to the shining beacon of light and hope that would be their newly democratic, neighbor.

This concept is eerily reminiscent of LBJ's culturally flawed thought process regarding the North Vietnamese. Which basically centered around LBJ thinking he could just " set right down with old HO and work out a deal to solve this little old dispute among neighbors".

The thought process behind Middle-Eastern policy is, at minimum, more culturally flawed, and IMO, not very likely to work in any short-term (<8-years) time-frame. Further, the commitment required of a unilaterally acting US exceeds the available resources of men, material and money. Finally, the US public does not possess the will to fight a long-term foreign war of democratization.

Few people know that during WWII the US was precipitously close to financial collapse and that there was a strong under-current of desire to prematurely end the war.

With all of that said, we as a country and as a world, need access to oil that is stable, economical and reliable. Until there is an alternative source, we can not afford, on any level, to be forced into a potentially, devastating oil crisis.

On a final note, any US citizen who thinks that they were lied to or duped into supporting the war is either a liar or ignorant.

Prior to the start of the war in Iraq, everything regarding the implementation of the democratization of a Middle-Eastern country was published and on record. Further, Paul Wolfowitz was interviewed during the run up to war and admitted that the administration was focusing on WMDs, because WMD's were a better rallying point than a complicated foreign policy paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome post BPA. This post really clarifies both sides of the main issues and I think it's important to note how both political parties are fatally wrong when choosing to address only one portion. (I.e., Republicans should acknowledge their were some economic motivations behind the war, and Democrats should acknowledge there were security and ideological motivations as well)

What is an interesting question to ask is whether the confluence of these issues is accidental. Is it just an accident of history that the world's security issues are intimately tied to its economic ones? Did and does terrorism and authoritarianism arise because of economic incentives to do so? A very gross survey seems to show that countries that export valuable natural commodities seem possess these maladaptive governments. Why?

[Jeffmet3]

Just so you know, no one who will makes any real decisions in washington believes that the US shouldn't ever intervene in other countries when necessary.

Isolationism to "take care of problems in the US" is a myth that far out members of the left can preach all they want, but it's not going to happen.

Basically, the foreign policy in America will shift between what it was under Clinton and what it is under Bush.

In simplistic form, they are to see a problem and then react or to anticipate a problem and act.

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton worked on the first strategy throughout the 90's, and then the Bush administration has worked with the second.

They both have flaws, with the Clinton one not doing enough, and the Bush one too much, and we'll have to see how the next administration walks the line in between.

But the reality is that in almost all cases, the actions taken would be similar under either party.