In The Christian Science Monitor, Robert Dujarric and Andy Zelleke declare that there is nothing left to be won in Iraq.
Senator McCain has yet to give the American people clear answers to three fundamental questions: What, exactly, are the political objectives of keeping large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq for years to come? What plausible outcome would benefit the United States enough to justify the wrenching costs of achieving those objectives? And what, concretely, is the strategy for getting there?
Michael Totten responds mostly in terms of what can be prevented:
Even if an unambiguous victory is impossible in the short or medium term for the United States and the elected government of Iraq, a victory of any kind for Al Qaeda in Iraq or Moqtada al Sadr’s radical Mahdi Army militia is likewise impossible while American forces remain on the ground and in the HARMS way.
Let's be accurate here. American forces are in "harm's way". This should be reason enough to understand the folly of interfering in the first place. Who was it who even put al Sadr on the map? He was nothing before, ...now he is someone they have to contend with. And as long as American forces remain in Iraq, Sadr is boosted in power everyday.
As Totten says of himself, I am also not affiliated with the McCain campaign, and in fact am a Southern Democrat by political leaning. I agree with Mr. Totten that we all ought to respond to this question.
So I'll point to three things, each of which individually justifies the cost in my opinion.
Terrorists and other bad actors benefit from destabilizing nations and regions, and making havens from the chaos.
OK, on this point, I am in agreement. Ronald Reagan and his Contra "Freedom Fighters" had a field day. And his protegées are greedily stuffing their pockets as quickly as they can too. Probably the only thing out of this entire article that has any validity to it.
Our best efforts are "Foreign Internal Defense" (FID) missions that build up these chaotic regions, stabilizing them and bringing them into the global community. COIN operations are a subset of such missions. A crucial part of COIN is cultural knowledge; another is language capacity. The ISF, and an allied Iraq, will add a crucial capacity to future efforts by the free peoples of the world.
So therefore the firing of Iraqi members of the Secret Service added to the language capacity and cultural knowledge in what way? Neither Bush or his protegée McBush know the difference between a Sunni, a Shi'ite, or a Kurd.
Developing Iraq and its forces into an ally has the potential of stabilizing regions where the poor are kept in poverty and denied good governance by terrorists and extremists. It may help to avert future wars, each of which could be as expensive as Iraq has been. This alone will justify the expense.
That policy didn't work so well in Iran when they developed Iran into a stable ally did it? What makes them think it'll work now? Infact, if I recall, after it didn't work in Iran, they stabilized Iraq into an Ally. Look how well that turned out. Then there was Afghanistan, ...they sure stabilized OBL didn't they... a few times in fact. 1
st in Afghanistan, ...then again in the American hospital where they gave him dialysis. Afghanistan is now a stable producer of the world's opium. Now they're going for another kick at the can. Lovely!
And who is supporting these terrorists and extremists in the first place? Who finances these dictators into power? Who overthrows legitimately elected leaders and replaces them with dictators, funds and trains their death squads and secret police who brutally beat down the populace in the most undemocratic of ways. Seems to me, if there was no intervention and shenanigans in the first place, the eventual blowback wouldn't be there. As for stabilizing Iraq? Oh puleaze, ...only a lobotomized monkey would believe that is their goal over there. If they really wanted a stable Iraq, they'd be doing things alot differently.
2) There are benefits to the world economy from tying a stabilized Iraq into the global system. This is not limited to oil. The Mesopotamia region is historically fertile, and with proper capitalization could become another major source of food for the world's population.
I'm about to have an apoplectic fit! Is this man for real? Historically fertile doesn't mean squat. At one point, the Sahara desert was a lush and fertile place as well. Just because the land was "historically fertile" doesn't mean it will be again, ...and certainly not in any of our life times. I can't remember off hand what the half life is for depleted uranium, but you can rest assured none of us will be seeing it Bush 41 started the job bombarding and filling that land with depleted uranium armaments, poisoning alot of American soldiers in the process. Bush 43 is continuing the job. Food doesn't do too well when you try to grow it in contaminated radioactive soil. I would post a few pics of what that stuff does to humans, but they're far too graphic for me to want to have to look at again. I guess when you're tired of killing people with guns, you can always do it with their food supply huh? It's like selling contaminated "medicine" wasn't bad enough, ...now they propose feeding the world radioactive food. Amazing!
We are in an era in which biofuels and growing populations in Asia are driving up food prices. An additional large-scale supply of food would have a tremendously beneficial effect in terms of keeping the world's poorest from starvation.
I guess if they're dead or dying from radiation poisoning, ...they're technically not starving are they?
Millions of lives may be affected across the globe by the very sort of projects the US military is currently funding with CERP grants, and the US State Department through its Provincial Reconstruction Teams.
I think that's what most of the world is concerned about. We've seen how the McBush policies have affected millions of lives both at home and abroad.
Whether developing agricultural coops and unions, or providing fertilizer, or helping reinvigorate tractor factories like the one in the Iskandariyah Industrial Complex, we are helping the people of Iraq to capitalize their agriculture. In that way, we are also helping the people of the world -- especially the poorest people -- in a time of rising food prices. This moral good alone justifies the cost of finishing what we have begun.
Like how they helped the rice farmers in Africa, flooding their market with cheaper subsidized American rice, ...and in so doing simultaneously wiping out domestic rice production?
3) In addition to that moral good, there is a practical good as well.
Moral good. He dares to speak of moral good?
There will be a tremendous economic boon from a stabilized Iraq. This is a tide that will raise all boats -- chiefly Iraqi boats, but foreign investors as well.
Oh we've seen the wealth this fiasco has created all right. Haliburon will back you up 100% on that claim.
If and when Iraq is ever stabilized, ...I'm sure there will be many Haliburtons ready to destabilize her again, so they can grab a whole new round of profits.
