Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You’ve criticised James for being rather blasé about the costs of the war, I think you're doing much the same re containment. That cost was not inconsequential and it would have continued. The idea that the containment regime was there specifically to punish the Iraqis is a bit ridiculous.
Those sanctions were eventually fine-tuned so that oil revenue could be used to buy medicines etc. As we know Saddam pocketed the money (going on a palace building spree), the Iraqis suffered and that suffering was used as anti-US propaganda. While Saddam was in control that wasn't going to change.
(US troops were going to remain in Saudi Arabia until Saddam was gone. I'm sorry but that is the reality. Protecting Saudi Arabia from Saddam was one of the US's major objectives. The minute Saddam was gone, those troops were gone. It's hardly controversial.)
-
i know the feeling, I haven't had my first coffee yet.
-
There were a number of points, most of which were implied rather than stated overtly.
-
So if we conclude that the US actions were too costly isn't the next step to look at how things could have played out had the war not occurred? This wasn't a choice between war and peace but between two different wars.
Take Obama’s opposition to the war.
His opposition to the war was premised on the continuation of the sanctions and US/British military operations that kept Saddam contained. It was the presence of a large number of US and British military personal on Iraq's borders plus regular and often very large bombing campaigns, the enforcement of the no-fly zones plus extensive economic sanctions that were keeping Saddam contained.
Obama's opposition to the war was based on keeping all that going until at some unspecified point in time Saddam's rule came to an end.
And that containment had a cost. The economic sanctions were always going to cause hardship but because Saddam gamed them to make lots of money for himself that made things a lot worse for most Iraqis. Their increasingly desperate plight in turn was used by Saddam, bin Laden etc as very successful propaganda against the US. And bin Laden use the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (another unfortunate necessity for containing Saddam) as a rallying cry as well.
And meanwhile Saddam continued to try and undermine the Kurds in the north and his rule continued added fuel to the Sunni/Shiite conflict. He ruled by setting communities against each other - which is partly why there is sectarian violence now. The motivating forces for that conflict would have only increased under Saddam's continued rule.
At the same time Russia was determined to go back to business as usual with Saddam and was undermining the containment process.
That's the mess that would have existed indefinitely had the war not occurred. Now given the choice between the two containment may been the least worst option but one should have to front up to the consequences.
-
I just read in Newsweek that Obama wrote the speech himself.
It had so much personal experience in it I think he was the only one that could do the job. A speech writer no matter how good would have introduced a few false notes and he had to nail this one.
-
The era of ridiculous simplistic repetitiveness in presidential speechmaking can't end soon enough.
If you consider Democrats that era is just a bit of an anomaly.
-
Yet sadly, there are already plenty of entrenched views from the Clinton or Republican support bases who have completely dismissed the speech as nothing but empty, evasive words. No matter what happens between now and November, no matter what scandals are dredged up, many people have simply made up their minds.
Plenty of Clinton supporters? Do you have any links? I've visited pro-Clinton sites and all I've seen is praise.
But at least he strikes me as someone who wants -- and can lead -- a debate between civil and thoughtful grown-ups.
perhaps he can, but many of his supporters can't. I don't think anyone at dailyKos actually taks the time to digest what Obama is saying.
-
How there are moral imperatives in Iraq, but not in some other places around the world - Sudan for example - I just don't get.
I take it you're comparing a rather hasty intervention in Iraq vs the lack of intervention in Sudan?
-
...and polling is showing that the Iraqis themselves are saying they are better off without the US, as they've been saying for years.
The polls indicate a more ambivalent picture -
The presence of US troops is opposed by 72%
While more than a third of Iraqis believe the United States should pull out immediately, 63% believe the Americans should leave only after a period during which security and government get stronger.
And a full 80% believe the US should continue to fight Al Qaeda and foreign jihadis in Iraq.
And while there is widespread opposition to any long term large scale US military presence many still support the invasion -
95% of Sunnis say the invasion was wrong. 65% of Shia say it was right, as do 87% of Kurds.
-
...but we should take care to know what we're on about when we declare success
Marc Lynch has a bit of a break down of that BBC -reported poll which indicates the very mixed nature of poeples' experiences and opinions.