More Troops in Iraq and the new Iran War?

[Ther]

Well, tonight was the big speech by President Bush, and he confirmed what many reported he'd be doing - sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq in an attempt to quell the violence there. But as many former military officers have commented, this increase in troops won't solve any problems - so why do you think Bush is doing it? Stubbornness? Politics? Or do you think he honestly believes those troops can change something?

Also, those who watched the speech will have picked up on the hint of increasing tension and the threat of military force with Iran. Do you guys think we'll see an Iran conflict before the end of the Bush Administration or not? Should the U.S. invade Iran if there's a chance Iran can produce a nuclear weapon?

[Cyrus the virus]

It seems like it could be a ploy to show his dedication to the cause, even if the cause is pretty much lost. Iran was probably a bigger threat in the first place, but obviously the US didn't have as much reason (or need, given 9/11) to go there instead of Iraq.

[Koran]

I don't know what will come of all of this, I have a sinking feeling that it will all end badly, with us here in the USA getting the brunt of it.

The UN will then finally fulfill its life long mission, the destruction of the United States of America. Cause nobody likes the top dawg, and so far as the world is concerned, that's us.

[Lou]

Santhalas

But as many former military officers have commented, this increase in troops won't solve any problems - so why do you think Bush is doing it? Stubbornness? Politics? Or do you think he honestly believes those troops can change something?

I think that the sending of troops to Iraq will comfort some people - I don't know how many, but I understand why some may think "more troops equals more stability." Not only former officers, but also top commanders in the field happen to disagree: [http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/abizaid-mccain-iraq/]. But what do they know? I don't know who orchestrated the policy for the troop increase (I doubt Bush, or any other much-publicized name), but it seems to have been done for political purposes, which don't necessarily coincide with military advice or interests. I hope that someone here can present some proof to refute this being solely a political move.


Santhalas

Do you guys think we'll see an Iran conflict before the end of the Bush Administration or not? Should the U.S. invade Iran if there's a chance Iran can produce a nuclear weapon?

If we see an Iran conflict before the end of this administration... I don't know. I can't see anything good arising from it, that's for sure. I hope that some more moderate elements in this country's power structure manage to snuff out the idea of a military intervention in Iran; at least Robert Gates, I hear, is a careful man who has, in the past, favored diplomatic relations with Iran rather than abrasive public comments directed toward it - if Bush was completely set on a "pre-emptive" strike on Iran, I don't see why he would have support Gates' move into the Secretary of Defense position. Perhaps it was out of Bush's hands... a product of Baker's report, maybe? I have little doubt that Baker holds more weight in Washington (or the Pentagon) than our President.

I don't think one can justify a war with Iran based on whether it "might" get a nuclear weapon, or the "chance" of it attaining one exists. The US has an interest to invade Iran under most circumstances, and whatever the public excuse may be, there will be underlying reasons that may be just as important, if not more so. Iran is a major geopolitical prize - such is why we see a lot of cooperation of Iran with Russia and China, and the possible full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, created by Russia and China. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran is discouraging to some policy makers (most likely those affiliated with the New American Century), but so is nuclear technology at all. An efficient nuclear energy infrastructure in Iran would seemingly allow that country to make huge economic leaps, for it would be able to devote most or all of its oil revenue to other projects, notably a more modernized and powerful military. I really don't know, though; will Iran's leaders live up to the declaration of "wiping out the Zionist regime" by putting a nuclear weapon into the hands of a terrorist organization? What seems clear enough, though, is that Iran will not be able to produce a workable nuclear bomb in several years, a few after Bush's administration is done and gone. So if Bush enters Iran before he is out of office, in my opinion, it will solely be a move of aggressive "national security" rather than defensive.



Koran

I don't know what will come of all of this, I have a sinking feeling that it will all end badly, with us here in the USA getting the brunt of it.

I would have to disagree; the unfortunate victims in Iraq and other regions of the Middle East are getting the brunt of it, and will seemingly continue doing so until there is a major shift in international relations - probably something as major as the proposed "Peak Oil" theory.

[AdventWings]

Ugh~!!! Not again~!!!

Is it just me, or the Apocalypse is coming just around the bend now...?

More foreign military power in occupation = more tension and unease for the locals. Well, by my book anyways. And with more troops oversea, that also means less troop are in the U.S. of A. I know someone will bring up the fact that "there are always enough soldiers in America to deal with any threat" kind of thing, but I guess you can just call me paranoid. It all depends on the mission these people are going to be doing, though. Peace-Keeping or Dousing an Uprising?

I'm not exactly an American, so this may not mean a thing to some of you. Still, it's an unnerving news that there are troop build-up on foreign soil. That can very well spark a Preemptive Strike by nearby nations (Iran, perhaps?) claiming that the build-up of American Forces in Iraq is a threat to National Security.

Ignore my comments if you feel like it. It's not really that important.

[Dirge]

Fuck.

Yeah, I was supposed to watch that last night but completely forgot. Fortunate for us, Santh is the current events mastermind! Lol.

As a member of the military, a military police, I know I'll be going over. Originally my unit wasn't supposed to deploy again till the end of the summer of 2008. Now, however, we're most likely getting shot over there in a month or two.

As for war with Iran? What about Chavez or whatever that South American guy's name is? I'm not a political buff, mainly because I hate politics, but I thought we were getting into some conflict with those buggers too....

Feh.

[INDK]

We're not in any actual conflict with Chavez, at least as far as armed conflict goes, unless there is some kind of intelligence opperation going on that most of us don't know about. We've been butting heads a lot diplomatically, and the politics has certainly been contentious, but there really has been no serious talk in the US of a military invasion on Venezuela at least to the best of my knowledge.

Anyhow, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, Raven is absolutely correct in that more troops are likely to bring more tension and unease for ordinary Iraqis, at least in the short term, decreasing America's popularity and perhaps even leading to more recruits for the Islamic fundamentalists. On the other hand, the possibility of severe sectarian violence seems eminent if the US does nothing to stop it. I never wanted the US to invade, but now it seems like if we leave, we leave Iraq to genocide. A third part of me wonders if even if we do stay, will it do any good. I don't see the Iraq war being any shorter than 20 years at this point, and I don't know if Americans are going to support a war for that long. Additionally, nothing the Bush administration has done in handling the state building aspect of the war has really inspired confidence in me, and that makes me wonder if staying the course under Bush is really favorable. Personally, I would love to see a switch to more of a multilateral approach to the situation, but that will never happen under the Bush administration. Even when France and Germany offered to help in the state building process before, the Bush administration rebuffed them. Who says he will act any differently the next time around?

[Reiko]

I find it extremely disgusting that the administration thinks that simply throwing more troops at Iraq is going to fix it. It won't without a plan, and there just doesn't seem to be one. What we're doing is just delaying the genocide that will happen when we do leave since the way we're letting the Iraqi government do nothing but fester in corruption and police their country for them that we will be keeping troops in their indefinitely. When we get out it's going to really be a mess no matter what if Iraq can't stand on it's own two feet and it's not going to if we're just going to throw more troops at it and lesson the responsibility of the country even more.

[Lou]

AventWings

That can very well spark a Preemptive Strike by nearby nations (Iran, perhaps?) claiming that the build-up of American Forces in Iraq is a threat to National Security.

Iran wouldn't dare declare a war, or "preemptively strike" American forces head-on. It would utilize proxies, as many believe it is doing by encouraging the Iraqi insurgency, and as it does with Hezbollah, according to some. The build-up in Saudi Arabia never sparked a war, but the build-up in Israel of a western-oriented military has, obviously, sparked a lot of conflict. So it does seem possible that more and more troops would likely unnerve other powers; however, I doubt the American public will stand for a dramatic increase in troops amidst all the cries of Vietnam.


Dirge

As for war with Iran? What about Chavez or whatever that South American guy's name is? I'm not a political buff, mainly because I hate politics, but I thought we were getting into some conflict with those buggers too....

Well, Venezuela has some important sources of oil, so tension around the area is practically to be expected. It is difficult to tell just what is going on in the Chavez administration, for some people immediately adore anyone that opposes the United States, and then others immediately despise anyone that opposes the US. He has recieved a lot of attention in the American media, but it is difficult to gauge the degree of bias involved. Some praise the man as a hero and others deride him as a tyrant, and it is hard to wade through the propaganda to find the truth. I believe that Chavez caused friction because he cut some of the privileges given to American companies working in the Venezuelan petroleum industry, and he has taken measures toward creating a strong and indepedent nation. He is an ugly example for other South American countries, in the eyes of America's realist policy-makers (i.e. Kissinger). According to some people, the CIA assisted in an attempted coup d'etat several years ago, which wouldn't surprise me, so we'll have to see how long Chavez lasts.


INDK

Personally, I would love to see a switch to more of a multilateral approach to the situation, but that will never happen under the Bush administration. Even when France and Germany offered to help in the state building process before, the Bush administration rebuffed them. Who says he will act any differently the next time around?

I think he will act differently if he is prodded to do so by his advisors, such as Baker III or Kissinger or one of the other powerful personalities in Washington. A multilateral approach would mean sharing the spoils of war just as much as the burden of war, but it may be that the burden is just getting far too big for America to handle by herself.

[INDK]

Lou

I think he will act differently if he is prodded to do so by his advisors, such as Baker III or Kissinger or one of the other powerful personalities in Washington. A multilateral approach would mean sharing the spoils of war just as much as the burden of war, but it may be that the burden is just getting far too big for America to handle by herself.

He seems willing to ignore the report of the Iraq study group, and most accounts of his personality suggest that no matter what happens, or who advises him, Bush will interpret events in ways that assume that what he did was right in the first place. For instance, Bush believes that the election of Hamas was a sign that the Palestinians are ready for democracy, as Hamas had to promise to provide education and quality of life issues in order to win the election.

I really doubt that Bush will ever change his tune, though in 2 years I'm certain whoever the President is will probably see things at least somewhat differently. At least I hope.

[Max Dirks]

The Venesulean and Iranian economies are failing under their socialist regimes. In Venesula in particular, Chavez just purchased the only news network that opposed him in the election. He is also trying to get unlimited terms in office. If the 1980's taught us anything, socialist regimes lead to ridiculously high debt and inflation which ultimately leads to coups.

Screw those rhetorical bastards. It will be funny to see when their popularity in their own countries comes falling worse than Bush's did in the U.S.

[Lou]

INDK
I really doubt that Bush will ever change his tune, though in 2 years I'm certain whoever the President is will probably see things at least somewhat differently. At least I hope.

I hope so too. I don't know just how much power Bush actually holds in Washington, but I doubt it supercedes the combined advice of such various men as Kissinger, Baker, Brzezinski, etc., all those career politicians and "realists" that seem to have (or at least had) quite a grip on US policy abroad; I just hope they come up with a plan better than "stay the course."


Max
The Venesulean and Iranian economies are failing under their socialist regimes. In Venesula in particular, Chavez just purchased the only news network that opposed him in the election. He is also trying to get unlimited terms in office. If the 1980's taught us anything, socialist regimes lead to ridiculously high debt and inflation which ultimately leads to coups.

Screw those rhetorical bastards. It will be funny to see when their popularity in their own countries comes falling worse than Bush's did in the U.S.

Unfortunately, their popularity might not disintigrate any time soon as long as anti-Americanism has a potent political base. I can't comment on the actions of Chavez - there are two sides to every action he takes. Yes, he has taken measures at quieting or getting rid of some press agencies; but it has to be noted that some of these (prominent) agencies openly called for violence and a coup - would Washington hesitate in closing down such an enterprise? Some say he is trying to get unlimited terms in office, but then it has been retorted that he would still be subject to elections and referendums.

As for socialist regimes leading to ridiculously high debt: have you seen America's own debt? Our dollars aren't backed up by gold anymore, but rather by F-16s and Abrams tanks, according to one economist, Engdahl.

[LordLeopold]

It just seems unlikely that adding 20,000 more US troops and three more Iraqi divisions will solve the problems in Iraq. First of all, it's far too few troops - the US military's training manual for counter-insurgency warfare dictates a 20:1,000 ratio of soldiers to civilians in order to pacify an insurgency. By those numbers, we need about 140,000 American-quality ground troops in Baghdad alone (for reference, the US has currently deployed about 150,000 men and women of all branches of the military in the Iraq conflict). Of the Iraqi Army, one can say little except that its sectarian affinities and poor performance in combat do not recommend it in the slightest. The plan to invest in Baghdad's economy to create jobs and lessen the insurgency is unlikely to work, simply because the Iraqis aren't fighting a civil war because they can't get jobs - in fact, as the Iraqi economy has improved, the war has worsened.

I don't really know why Kissinger's name is being thrown around so much. Kissinger-style realism hasn't been a part of US foreign policy since 1977. George Bush's pick-and-choose attitude toward the Iraq Study Group, whose suggestions were imminently realist in attitude, indicates that the elder statesmen in Washington don't have as much clout in the White House as some people in this thread seem to believe. Shyam is right on about GWB, as far as I'm concerned.

There doesn't need to be any debate over whether Chavez is a socialist or is becoming a dictator, but on the other hand I don't really know why anyone's talking about him in this thread. In any event, there seems to be a dearth of actual knowledge about him in these parts. Venezuela's economy hasn't failed for the past two years - it's grown by double digits. A one-day tumble due to investment jitters over a nationalization program doesn't constitute a "failing economy." Iran (which, incidentally, is not a socialist country) has an economy that is also growing at a faster rate than the United States'. It's hard to say that there's so much "propaganda" out there that it's hard to "wade through to the truth" about Chavez's policies. The pure facts of his public statements and political program show that he's a socialist with dictatorial tendencies whose policies have limited democracy in Venezuela.

As for the longevity of the Iranian and Venezuelan regimes: Chavez's repeated re-elections and continued popularity make it seem unlikely that he will get kicked out of office unless gas hits $.50 a gallon; in Iran, Ahmadinejad's favored candidates fared poorly in local elections in Iran last month. It seems that the Guardian Council may have been involved in pushing the Ahmadinejadians out of electoral favor, demonstrating that the real power in Iran - the black-turbaned clerics - are still steering the country as effectively as they have done since 1979. (That whole incident seems a little ironic, since the involvement of the Revolutionary Guard and the Guardian Council in the Iranian Presidential election several years ago helped bring Ahmadinejad into power in the first place. But it just demonstrates that the Iranian regime is secure enough to afford capriciousness.)

[Lou]

LordLeopold
It just seems unlikely that adding 20,000 more US troops and three more Iraqi divisions will solve the problems in Iraq....

I'm just curious about your opinion on what will solve the current crisis. You say that 20,000 US troops is far too little, but General Abizaid has said there is no need for more American troops at all. Do you agree?


LL
I don't really know why Kissinger's name is being thrown around so much. Kissinger-style realism hasn't been a part of US foreign policy since 1977. George Bush's pick-and-choose attitude toward the Iraq Study Group, whose suggestions were imminently realist in attitude, indicates that the elder statesmen in Washington don't have as much clout in the White House as some people in this thread seem to believe. Shyam is right on about GWB, as far as I'm concerned.

My mistake. I recall reading that Kissinger is still enjoying the comfort of the White House, and with even a basic idea of his policies and influences several decades ago, I made the assumption that he was still a firm guiding hand in policy-circles. Or, if not him, then some other political powerhouse name; I guess I'm just accustomed to the idea of an oligarchical sort of rule in the US executive branch. That's the problem with me and politics - I tend to think I know more than I really do, so my ass begins to speak for me. I apologize for the excess gas. :o


LL
It's hard to say that there's so much "propaganda" out there that it's hard to "wade through to the truth" about Chavez's policies. The pure facts of his public statements and political program show that he's a socialist with dictatorial tendencies whose policies have limited democracy in Venezuela.

I haven't followed Chavez's actions closely, but I was under the impression that his camp was a difficult one to characterize and was subject to a lot of love/hate in the media. I've heard his political philosophy called not "socialism" or "authoritarianism," but rather "Bolivarianism"; [http://antiwar.com/justin/j010501.html]. The article is biased, certainly, but I enjoy the perspective it offers - Chavez not as a leftist or a rightist, but as a nationalist seeking to shake off the influence of the powerful "Anglo-American establishment," as some refer to it.

[INDK]

I haven't followed Chavez's actions closely, but I was under the impression that his camp was a difficult one to characterize and was subject to a lot of love/hate in the media. I've heard his political philosophy called not "socialism" or "authoritarianism," but rather "Bolivarianism"; [http://antiwar.com/justin/j010501.html]. The article is biased, certainly, but I enjoy the perspective it offers - Chavez not as a leftist or a rightist, but as a nationalist seeking to shake off the influence of the powerful "Anglo-American establishment," as some refer to it.

That article creates a bit of a false dichotomy. One can be a Bolivarianist with or without embracing either authoritarianism or socialism to the degree that Chavez has. Certainly Chavez is a Bolivarianist, but there are Bolivarianist tendencies in Lula, Bachelet and Kirchner as well, and none of them have embraced any degree of authoritarianism (though Lula's administration is somewhat corrupt). Bolivarianism is a lot like nationalism in that it can be used as an ideology that is compatable with many different forms of governments. All Bolivarianism really prescribes is that the Latin American countries encourage more cooperation amongst themselves than dependent trade with the US. It calls for Mercosur, not authoritarianism.

Also, I really don't know where Dirks is getting his evidence from that socialist regimes lead to hyperinflation and high debt. I know in Southeast Asia, the countries with the biggest debts and inflation were Indonesia and the Philippines, not Vietnam, Cabmodia or Laos. Additionally, the most noteworthy cases of global hyperinflation have all happened in right wing dictatorships or semi democracies such as Mexico under the PRI, Brazil under whoever it was who proposed Grandeeza, etc. Lately, it seems that democracies have been the form of government most suceptible to coups, at least looking recently at where coups have taken place. Granted there have been some coups in socialist (or nationalizing) regimes, like Allende in Chile or Mosadegh in Iran, but you could hardly call those organic since they were initiated by the CIA. Generally nationalizing industries makes friends among the wealthy in the society, and often feeds into feelings of nationalism, creating more popularity for the governments that do them.

[Ther]

Ugh~!!! Not again~!!!

Is it just me, or the Apocalypse is coming just around the bend now...?


Actually, now that you mention it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070112/ts_nm/doomsday_clock_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The keepers of the "Doomsday Clock" plan to move its hands forward next Wednesday to reflect what they call worsening nuclear and climate threats to the world.

[AdventWings]

O_____o;

Oh, noes.

I will shut up now before I say anything I'll regret.

[LordLeopold]

I'm just curious about your opinion on what will solve the current crisis. You say that 20,000 US troops is far too little, but General Abizaid has said there is no need for more American troops at all. Do you agree?

I think the only thing the US can really do to end the civil war in Iraq is put 300,000 more troops on the ground. The resulting backlash against the US occupation would make the situation even worse, however, and just create a national uprising against the occupying army. Honestly, I don't think there's any effective way to solve the problems we've created there. It was always a mistake to go into Iraq. Now, partially due to circumstances beyond our control and partially due to epic mismanagement, there are no good options for the future. As far as I'm concerned, we should scale our troops down to a training and advisement force in the next 18 months, and then get out entirely in the next 3-4 years.



I haven't followed Chavez's actions closely, but I was under the impression that his camp was a difficult one to characterize and was subject to a lot of love/hate in the media. I've heard his political philosophy called not "socialism" or "authoritarianism," but rather "Bolivarianism"; [http://antiwar.com/justin/j010501.html]. The article is biased, certainly, but I enjoy the perspective it offers - Chavez not as a leftist or a rightist, but as a nationalist seeking to shake off the influence of the powerful "Anglo-American establishment," as some refer to it.

Chavez has been pretty forward in saying he's a socialist: For instance. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6248787.stm) Bolivarianism is just what Chavez calls his version of socialism; it's his way of harkening back to Simon Bolivar, the father of South American independence, in the same way that American politicians refer to the Founding Fathers to give their policies weight. As regards his credentials as a dictator-in-training: this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6243299.stm) and this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm). I suspect the reason you think the media has a bias against Hugo Chavez is because you read "news" sources who are biased in favor of him. The BBC is generally unbiased on questions like this, largely because the British don't have much of a stake in Venezuela's relations with the United States, but also because it presents facts pretty plainly. I think that Hugo Chavez's public statements speak for themselves.

[Moonlit Raven]

The reasons that the solders are beginning to be sent over is inconsequential, its just a few more things added to a long list of bullshit that comes from the governing body. I wonder if they ever stop to think that while they think they maybe doing the right thing if they think about the consequences back here.

Yes, sending solders over may help but at the same time it breeds blind hatred in our own home and alot of hostility there. (Not that they don't already hate us.) Perhaps my point of view is biased, but after watching my mom go through Desert Storm and then spend two of the last four years in what she calls a Sand Pit, I really wonder and question.

Other than my mini rant, I have no opinion. I watch and wait.