Liberals constantly critisize President Bush for painting things as "black and white," but they are no better, and the situation with Iran is a case in point.
It strikes me as very silly, this debate over whether or not the US will "attack" or "invade" Iran. We don't need to invade or attack; we are already at war with Iran. They know it, the Bush Administration knows it, the US military know it... Why don't you?…
Article comments
26 - Eric Olsen
I think it's a very positive idealism,
27 - Victor Plenty
Idealism brings out the best in both left and right wing types, I have often found, even though I do not classify myself in either group.
Most on the left would like to see the world go in the direction of growing freedom and self-determination which the right claims to seek in the war on terror. The left simply doubts, with quite a few good reasons, the sincerity of the current administration's claim to have such a world as its genuine goal.
The best response for those on the right, rather than attempting to smear the left as "traitors," would be to focus on cleaning up their own favorite administration's act.
Make sure those responsible for Abu Ghraib are brought to justice -- ALL of those responsible, not just a few scapegoats from the enlisted ranks.
Make sure the companies that steal money from the American taxpayer by overcharging for fuel and other supplies in the war zone are not subsequently rewarded with still more lucrative no-bid contracts.
Make sure the new governments in the countries we liberate from tyranny are not themselves merely new tyrants who happen to owe us their existence. The gratitude of tyrants is a notoriously unreliable foundation for security.
These are the type of steps needed to win the war on terror over the long term.
Until those on the right spill more ink in supporting these goals than they do in smearing their opponents on the left, they will not have much credibility with me.
28 - David Flanagan
Thanks for your comments Victor. I agree that, certainly, the Bush Administration has made some mistakes of which they are loathe to admit.
As I've commented on in the past, both the left and the right have locked themselves into this pattern because, upon showing human weakness and admitting, "we goofed," as all administrations do, the other party will then use that soundbyte to villify their opponents for the next several years.
It's not a healthy situation and it does hinder reforms.
Anyway, thank you again.
David
29 - Eric Olsen
very good points and very civil interaction
30 - bhw
The gratitude of tyrants is a notoriously unreliable foundation for security.
Beautifully said.
31 - SFC SKi
Good article.
On Hersh, I just read, maybe in WSJ, that Hersh, while worthy of praise for his My Lai coverage, and possible even for Abu Ghraib (I didn't read his article so I can't say for sure), is also known for jumping after "evidence" that suits whatever "conspiracy" he feels like uncovering. It maybe that he is dogged in pursuing a story, but less discerning in which trails to follow.
Anyone who knows more about Iran than its location on a map should be able to realize that while individual Iranians may be some of the nicest people on earth, and the ones I have met bear this out, the powers within their government are not people who have the milk of humna kindness flowing through them when it comes to pursuing their goals, and their goals are not peaceful coexistence with anyone unlike them.
32 - Dorian
Pure hogwash. Bush Inc. has no interest in democracy or freedom. All they want is to control the largest source of oil in the world. It is so obvious that I am amazed you folks don't see it. Come on, wake up. In case you would like more in depth information you may want to click on this link: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=7143
33 - Burton Burgess
How do you spread freedom and democracy?
By bombing a populace and destroying their infrastructure? Blockading their nation (strengthening the hand of the dictator you supported in the first place -- for "stability")? Then when said populace is weak enough invade them and steal their resources? Call me a cynic, but Operation Iraqi Liberation (the original name for this crime) provided us with the true motive of Bush & co.
34 - SFC SKI
I shouldn't waste electrons on 32 and 33, but I can't help myself.
Unless you are unaware of the Oil-For-Food scandal, you can see that Saddam was using his oil money to futher his interests, not to mention pay suicide bombers in Gaza money to conduct ops. He was the one starving and neglecting his people and the infrastructure of his country. Last spring we put in a huge generator that Hussein had but almost 10 years ago but never put into place, it provides power for about 1/3 of Baghdad.
Maybe you've also forgotten that every 2 years or so Saddam would take threatening actions against his neighbors, definitely a destabilizing presence in a strategically important region.
Should we have waited until he and his sons died off in hopes that agentler regime would take over and free its own people, it didn't happen in North Korea or Syria with the deaths of their leaders, and how many more would have been killed within those years?
We pour a lot more money into that country, directed toward rebuilding things unrelated to their petroleum industry, and we don't look to make a return on any of that investment. Again, it would have been cheaper to keep Hussein in power and buy the oil.
To be blunt, unless you are sitting on a bicycle power generator to keep your PC going, wearing natural fiber clothes
that you planted with a horse drawn plow and harvested by hand, and have calluses from choping firewood to light and heat your house, oil is important to you, too, so don't be so sanctimoniuos about it.
35 - Burton Burgess
Maybe you've forgotten that Saddam was given crucial economic, military, and diplomatic support by the U.S. through the worst of his atrocities (e.g. "gassing his own people"). Same as Somoza, Cecesceau, Suharto, Mobutu, and other murderers, torturers, and thugs that were supported by the current incumbents in their first go-around during the Reagan/BushI years. As far as the oil for food scandal, our government knew about the smuggling, was told about it by the US and UK missions to the UN, and did nothing to stop it - letting tankers go through to Amman to "build up strategic reserves in expectation of the Iraq war", according to an investigation that can be found in the Financial Times. There were also many U.S. based companies (not just German, French, and Russian companies) that violated sanctions and were "punished" with Pentagon contracts.
I also believe that access to Iraqi oil is far less important to Bush/Cheney and crew than control of the profits from that oil.
36 - Dave Nalle
>>I also believe that access to Iraqi oil is far less important to Bush/Cheney and crew than control of the profits from that oil.<<
If you had even a shred of knowledge of the situation in Iraq you'd realize that oil could not possibly be one of the objectives of the war. First off, we were already getting all the Iraqi oil we needed through the oil for food program before the war started. Second, the war has now shut down oil production in Iraq for almost 3 years. Third, Iraq doesn't produce all that much oil in the first place. 10 million barrels a day at peak production isn't much in the grand scheme of things. And finally, from the very beginning we've made it totally clear that profits from Iraqi oil would go to Iraqis. Anyone who believes oil was the motivation for going into Iraq is too ignorant to be allowed to discuss the war at all.
Dave
37 - Burton Burgess
Access to the second largest oil reserves have nothing to do with the war? Anybody ignorant enough to believe that (or anything the Bush crime family says) should not be allowed to discuss the war.
38 - Burton Burgess
Did I say access to the oil? I meant control.
39 - JR
First off, we were already getting all the Iraqi oil we needed through the oil for food program before the war started.
It's not about what we're getting, it's about what we might suddenly need. This very unstable and unfriendly region supplies most of the world's petroleum, any island of security is a huge benefit to us.
Second, the war has now shut down oil production in Iraq for almost 3 years.
If I believed the Bush administration knew that was going to happen, I might consider that a valid point. However, all indications are that the post-invasion didn't go as hoped. So, kind of a bogus argument.
Third, Iraq doesn't produce all that much oil in the first place.
10 million barrels a day at peak production isn't much in the grand scheme of things.
Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world. Why should we assume that they were at peak possible production under Saddam Hussein?
And finally, from the very beginning we've made it totally clear that profits from Iraqi oil would go to Iraqis.
And we've made it quite clear that whoever profits, we get access to it if we need it.
Anyone who believes oil was the motivation for going into Iraq is too ignorant to be allowed to discuss the war at all.
That kind of restriction on free speech could well come back and bite you in the ass.
40 - DrPat
it would have been cheaper to keep Hussein in power and buy the oil.
Yep.
Anyone who believes oil was the motivation for going into Iraq is too ignorant to be allowed to discuss the war at all. [Emphasis mine]
Nope. But no one should expect us to take seriously the opinions of anyone that ignorant.
41 - RJ
BLOOD FOR OIL!
BUSH IS HITLER!
Gawd, when will you wingnuts give up?
42 - andy marsh
What he said!
43 - Dave Nalle
True enough, Pat. We can't actually stop people like Burgess from spouting absolute idiocy, and I suppose we wouldn't want to. But we sure don't have to let them do it uncontested.
Here's the bottom line on oil in Iraq. No matter who controls the oil, no matter what is done with it, it goes through American hands. The same multinational corporations which have heavy American involvement in them do all the oil refining regardless of how the oil gets to them. Our interest as a nation is in oil getting to those refiners and from there to the marketplace. The business interests of America are tied to the refining businesses, not to the extracting end of the business in the Middle East. Once the oil gets out of the ground, we get our cut no matter what. If getting more oil out was all we cared about it would have been easier to keep Saddam in power.
As for the Iraqi oil reserves, they may be large compared to others, but they're just a working reserve, nothing compared to the value of ongoing production.
Dave
44 - SFC SKI
"Maybe you've forgotten that Saddam was given crucial economic, military, and diplomatic support by the U.S. through the worst of his atrocities (e.g. "gassing his own people"). Same as Somoza, Cecesceau, Suharto, Mobutu, and other murderers, torturers, and thugs that were supported by the current incumbents in their first go-around during the Reagan/BushI years. "
To that I have to say, so what? We did nothing to keep the above in power after the '90's either. The things we did to contain Communism need to be known, and assessed and remembered, but a mistake made in the Cold War is no reason not to correct it now.
One of the reasons the oil industry in Iraq is behind in production is that Saddam did not maintain its infrastructure very well either. He maintained enough production to meet his needs, he did in fact use the failing infrastructure that he allowed to happen as another bargaining point in trying to get sanctions lifted, "You know, if I had free access to buy anything I need, I could also improve oil production, and reduce oil prices, wouldn't everyone like that?" crazy like a fox, he is.
45 - SFC SKI
On what the US knew, I haven't read the report, but I will say this: The State Dept knowing about this and reporting it is only one link in the chain. What should the US have done then? Go to the UN to protest, I believe that was done, and we know the results of using the UN to control Iraq's oil flow. Do we bomb the trucks driving towards Jordan? The road was not in the patrolled no-fly areas, that would be outside the UN mandate, so should we ignore the UN?
Rael world politics is messy.