PDA

View Full Version : This War Thing Again



CaptShady
22nd June 04, 09:08 AM
There exists "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States."

There were contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but "they do
not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
In 1994, Baghdad rebuffed approaches from bin Laden to
establish terrorist training camps inside Iraq. So the 9-11
commission has concluded.

And so, with no weapons of mass destruction yet found after
18 months of searching, the second pillar of the president's
case for war falls to earth. Iraq was an unnecessary war.

Yet, now we have 138,000 soldiers there, with casualties
mounting, the cost rising and the hostility to America's
presence growing. Every attack on U.S. troops or contractors,
even when they involve Iraqi dead and wounded, seems to be
cause for jubilation.

Yet, George Tenet of the CIA excepted, the men who told
President Bush the war was necessary, that it would be a
"cakewalk," that the Iraqis would welcome us with candy and
flowers and take to democracy like kids to ice cream are
still in place, still in power.

In his now-famous 2002 State of the Union, President Bush
named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." He
vowed that America would not allow any one of the three to
acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In 2003, we attacked and invaded the only one of the three
that did not have a secret nuclear program. And since that
State of the Union, the other two have accelerated their
programs to acquire the atomic weapons President Bush said
they would not be permitted to have. At this point, the
Bush Doctrine has to be judged a limited success.

Given the mess in Iraq, neither the American people nor
the White House appears to have the desire or will to force
an end to the Iranian or North Korean bomb programs. The
Iranians, who are threatening to crash the Nuclear Club,
are bristling with defiance. Tehran seems to have concluded
that America has no stomach for another war.

Tehran may be right. But if North Korea already has an
atomic bomb and Iran will not be stopped from acquiring
one, what does a new world of 10 nuclear nations, six of
them in Asia, mean for U.S. foreign policy? We had best
begin to consider the possibility.

No nation that has acquired nuclear weapons has ever been
invaded for a reason. The strategic base camp for any
Normandy, Inchon or Desert Storm invasion could be turned
into an inferno in minutes by atomic weapons.

This suggests that in confronting a nuclear-armed North
Korea or Iran, U.S. Army and Marine bases in South Korea
and Kuwait, and U.S. naval bases on Okinawa and on the
south shore of the Persian Gulf are becoming strategic
hostages and not strategic assets.

Put bluntly, if Pyongyang and Tehran acquire atomic
weapons, there are no more axis-of-evil nations with
which we can risk war. For there is nothing to be gained
from such a war to justify running the risk of nuclear
retaliation on U.S. bases in Asia or the Middle East, or
on Israel, an almost certain target in any war with Iran.

During the Cold War, both sides accepted outrages that
might have been casus belli before atomic weapons. The
United States did not use on Chinese armies in Korea over-
running our troops the weapons Truman unhesitatingly used
on Japanese cities. For Stalin, too, now had the bomb. Nor
did we intervene to halt the massacre of Hungarian freedom
fighters in 1956, or the building of the Berlin Wall in
1961. Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan was a wheat embargo and a boycott of the Moscow
Olympics.

Moscow, too, was inhibited from taking action in Berlin,
where it was strong, when the United States used tactical
and theater superiority to force the Soviet missiles out
of Cuba. And Moscow also failed to respond to Reagan's
seizure of Grenada and aid to the Afghan resistance.

As they used to say in the West, "God may have created all
men, but it was Sam Colt who made them equal." Nuclear
weapons are the great equalizers. They concentrate the
mind of a statesman wonderfully. And with North Korea and
Iran plodding along toward the building of these awful
weapons in blatant defiance of the Bush Doctrine the
president and Sen. Kerry should be thinking about the world
that will exist in the next presidential term. For by the
end of that term, Iran and North Korea could both be full-
fledged members of our nuclear fraternity.

If they are, the idea of an American empire will become as
outdated as the British Raj.

kismasher
22nd June 04, 09:24 AM
mutually assured destruction is a motherfucker

patfromlogan
22nd June 04, 09:41 AM
Mutually Assured Destruction = M.A.D.

punchingdummy
22nd June 04, 09:47 AM
But that is the problem: MAD is no longer a viable strategy with desperate nations like NK and unstable regimes like Pakistan. Condiser the possibility of muslim fundamentalists killing Musharref (sp?) and controlling the weapons? Extremsists don't care about MAD as many are willing to commit suicude and murder for their cause.

Ronin
22nd June 04, 10:07 AM
MAD only works when there are SANE people with something to LOSE in control.

kismasher
22nd June 04, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
But that is the problem: MAD is no longer a viable strategy with desperate nations like NK and unstable regimes like Pakistan. Condiser the possibility of muslim fundamentalists killing Musharref (sp?) and controlling the weapons? Extremsists don't care about MAD as many are willing to commit suicude and murder for their cause.


i thank god for israel

EuropIan
22nd June 04, 10:18 AM
The funny thing is that now there is Al-queda in Iraq, Now their influence in the in the region has increased.
Bad strategic move, we have just given the enemy more to work with.

As for the president, what do you expect from someone who pronunces it "nu-ke-ler".
The "we have the bombs, ok?" (thank you Dennis Leary) argument is dwindling. But was it inevitable that other nations accquired nuclear weapons as well? Could a new cold war be brewing? Will we have to go to the negotiation table?

liuzg150181
22nd June 04, 10:19 AM
Assumption of MAD:both sides are rational.

kismasher
22nd June 04, 11:03 AM
at some level of heirarchy the "enemy" is rational or else they would all be dead already

Xango
22nd June 04, 11:27 AM
Ian: on what level can encirclement of a nuclear Iran be considered a 'poor strategic move'?

I give this war a C on tactics, at best, but an A for strategy. Look long and hard at a map that contains both Afghanistan and Iraq. What does it tell you that we are occupying those places?

liuzg150181
22nd June 04, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by kismasher
at some level of heirarchy the "enemy" is rational or else they would all be dead already
If their mentality is that even if they die the whole world must die with them,so you are right to say that until they have the means and the will to do so~~~
But the terrorists doesnt have a fixed and clearly defined territory,so MAD is not so applicable......
Also imagine a leader who believes he/she would go to Vahalla/heaven/realm of joy after death,cant seems to apply MAD too......

Stold3
22nd June 04, 11:56 AM
I really don't think the world is going to end with a crazy islamic extremist punching the red button and nuking the world. People in control usually have a thing in common. They like power and money.

Now, on the other hand, the chances of North Korea selling it's nuclear arsenal to terrorists is a reality.

punchingdummy
22nd June 04, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Stold3
I really don't think the world is going to end with a crazy islamic extremist punching the red button and nuking the world. People in control usually have a thing in common. They like power and money.

Now, on the other hand, the chances of North Korea selling it's nuclear arsenal to terrorists is a reality.

As much as I wish it were true, I don't believe it is. Islamist extemists are driven by jihad, not cash. The most dangerous thing in the world is a nuke in the hands to such a group. Not only because they will likely use it, but because it is the one scenario where I could, unfortunately, forsee pre-emptive nuclear action.

North Korea is a buyer....Islamic Pakistani's are the sellers..

EuropIan
22nd June 04, 01:06 PM
Xango: Encirclement of Iran is a good/bad idea
Good: if they don't have DA B0MB (tm). We are now in a position to put the hurt on Iran
Bad: If they do have DA B0MB (tm). A-cornered-beast-is-a-dangerous-thing-analogy.

But I wasn't really referring to this.

I was talking Strategy, as in the strategy on "the war on terror" (tm) (Oh, great! Another ecruiting hot-bed)