We are talking in circles. I addressed this with my comment below. It was not charity, it was in our strategic interest.
We are talking in circles, but I feel it's primarily because of a fundamental difference regarding what qualifies as "strategically important" and why.
I'll get into more detail below:
I would say that the following are what makes it in the strategic interest:
OK, let's look at each listed example:
[*]oil reserves - the world relies on stable oil prices and the ME has the most proven reserves. This makes the region strategically important.
How has the war in Iraq stabilized oil prices, though? Recent data suggests the opposite. Prices have been pretty unstable over the last 7 years.
Are you saying that the ultimate outcome in Iraq will re-stabilize the oil prices somehow? If so, how?
Plus, this goal seems very short-sighted to me considering that a better long-term goal is to decrease, if not totally eliminate, our dependence on foreign energy commodities altogether.
[*]soft war between autocrats and islamists. The autocrats are restricting the populations. The populations are responding with radical Islamism. In some cases the autocrats are encouraging this - KSA. The way out of this is democratization.
How does democratization offer a way out of radical Islamism, exactly?
Also, was there a larger proportion of radical Islamism in Iraq before or after our intervention?
I ask because all the data I've ever found on the matter suggests that Islamism has
increased since the invasion, not decreased. Not just in Iraq either.
[*]Iraq had 17 resolutions against it. Easy pickings.
That makes it strategically important how, exactly?
Specifically, how does that benefit the US?
[*]Saddam subjugated his people. Humanitarian crisis.
Why is this strategically important to the US? To me, that's just charity, and as such, should be funded privately.
[*]Iraq is centrally located along fault lines: Kurdistan, Sunni v Shiite, Arab v Persian.
OK, and what is the strategic importance of this exactly?
What was the strategic benefit of invasion compared to the status quo?
Where are the US gains, exactly?
[*]Iraq's people are educated and capable of democracy.
Are you saying they were educated before the invasion, and thus were capable of democracy, or that we've made them educated and capable of democracy?
If it was a pre-existing condition, are they still as educated as they were after 7 years of war-torn strife?
If it's an after the invasion development, can you show evidence of increased education directly resulting from the invasion?
Also, this comes back to the same ultimate question, what specific benefit is for the US does this provide?
There is a fundamental difference between identifying somewhere as strategically important and our strategy for dealing with it. I clarified why I think the ME and Iraq is strategically important above. Democracy has political upheavals, but is more stable than an autocracy. We invaded because of the justification of humanitarian intervention, IMHO - not WMDs.
But the ultimate strategy
must be clearly defined
prior to designating something as "strategically important".
And the strategy must have a clear benefit for the American people to warrant taxpayer-funding of the venture.
Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement.
I flat out disagree with this.
Would overthrowing Israel and putting in an Islamist regime be an improvement?
Of course not. But it would certainly "break the stasis".
I think that anything done to break the stasis absolutely has to consider long-term ramifications, with a primary interest in benefit for the American people.
I simply don't agree that a change in the status quo in the Middle East always equals a benefit for the American people. I would require undeniable evidence evidence that
any change will be a benefit to Americans before I would ever buy that argument.
I don't think Al Qaeda's goal was to increase anti-americanism. It was to establish a caliphate. Iran will change as much as Iraq over time.
My belief is that you have described Al Qaeda's long-term goal and that one of the immediate steps necessary to achieving that goal is increasing anti-American sentiment.
Iran and Al Qaeda have lost this war.
Personally, I don't think such claims can be made until the final outcomes are determined, and that those outcomes can't really be determined for at least 20-30 years.
But my hope of hopes is that you are correct and I'm completely and totally incorrect.
No one could predict the actions of the enemy.
No one could predict them with 100%
certainty, but many did predict them pretty accurately. Specifically McCain comes to mind, again.
I think the insurgency was predictable, and the whole time Rumsfeld was saying no insurgency. Perhaps it was part of the plan, to create a honey pot. Bush was slow to go COIN, because of Rumsfeld I think, but once he did we went for it and it was a success.
I don't actually disagree with this. I would say Rummy was the primary cause of what I view as the strategic errors in Iraq.
While Bush is ultimately responsible for listening to him as CinC, he did do the right thing eventually and I would say that this action will help his legacy regardless of what the ultimate outcome in Iraq is.
But Rumsfeld is a huge factor in my lack of confidence in the
long-term planning of the decisions.
But I don't doubt that the actions were taken by Bush because he
felt they were in the best interests of the American people.
I just don't agree that these actions will ultimately be in the best interests of the American people. This is based on fundamental differences I have regarding an interventionist military strategy, which I feel usually ends up having negative long-term effects in general.
It is in the Iraqis hands.
That is true. I hope that, as you said, Iran and Al Qaeda and radicalism have lost there.
Thanks for the long message. I hope I addressed your points.
You're welcome and thanks for the response. I think we have at least one fundamental difference in opinion that might not be rectifiable, specifically the view that "Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement."
I would also appreciate further clarification of the strategic importance arguments. Specifically, how the war in Iraq can and will create the correct environment to achieve the stated goals you have listed, and what, if any, benefit this will have for the US.
Thanks.