• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

It had everything to do with Neocons and the now defunct Project for a New American Century (PNAC) of which Cheney,
Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were members. They're the ones who were calling for a Pax Americana, meaning that the US would impose order on the world through force or threat of force.

That was just an offshoot of neorealism, which is basically the only thing foreign relations folks the world over adhere to.

The PNAC is now on the dustbin of history, but the war lives on.

That's great, but neorealism continues. The war was undertaken for all the reasons I've given you repeatedly in this thread. It might've failed, it might've not, but a bunch of anti-war/anti-imperialist folks at home all but assured it was useless as soon as they waged their public relations campaign. They're idealists and that's nice but it's- by definition- not practical.

...yet they keep trying to affect policy. It's depressing, really.
 
That was just an offshoot of neorealism, which is basically the only thing foreign relations folks the world over adhere to.



That's great, but neorealism continues. The war was undertaken for all the reasons I've given you repeatedly in this thread. It might've failed, it might've not, but a bunch of anti-war/anti-imperialist folks at home all but assured it was useless as soon as they waged their public relations campaign. They're idealists and that's nice but it's- by definition- not practical.

...yet they keep trying to affect policy. It's depressing, really.


Neorealism was a new term for me, so I looked it up. I found an interesting essay on the subject here:

American international leadership and that such leadership would depend on the power of our military, the dynamism of our economy, and the courage of our convictions. This strategic vision -- because it was based on fundamental realities and fundamental American values -- informed the policies not only of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower but also of every president, Democratic or Republican, for two generations.

America is a great nation that knows how to defend itself. But its greatness is built on foundations more solid than self-absorption. We defend ourselves best when we lead others, and the key to our history of effective leadership has been our willingness to seek and find common ground, to blend our interests with the interests of others. Truman and Eisenhower understood that defending Europe and America from the Soviets required a strong military, but they also understood that we could not lead our allies if they did not wish to follow.

These and subsequent American presidents knew the importance of moral leadership. While our remarkable military and prosperous economy gave us the power to lead, our commitment to human dignity -- including our willingness to struggle against our own prejudices -- inspired others to follow. If America is to lead again, we need to remember this history and to rebuild our overextended military, revive our alliances, and restore our reputation as a nation that respects international law, human rights, and civil liberties.

It sounds quite a lot different from the goals of the PNAC.
 
Neorealism is power politics, for the most part, and not worrying about idealism. That's where the name comes from (well, realism, which is a very simplistic construct itself): opposition to idealism. That article isn't really about neorealism. However, it's self-aware enough to try to hitch itself to the neorealist wagon, because neorealism is so all-encompassing that it has subsumed basically everything other than Marxist IR, which...isn't practiced by any nation state anyway.

The point is the invasion of Iraq had to do with remaking all of the Middle East. It could've been extremely effective, except it was executed improperly from the beginning and then later the Shia in Iraq and the antiwar folks in the US all but sabotaged it.
 
Neorealism is power politics, for the most part, and not worrying about idealism. That's where the name comes from (well, realism, which is a very simplistic construct itself): opposition to idealism. That article isn't really about neorealism. However, it's self-aware enough to try to hitch itself to the neorealist wagon, because neorealism is so all-encompassing that it has subsumed basically everything other than Marxist IR, which...isn't practiced by any nation state anyway.

The point is the invasion of Iraq had to do with remaking all of the Middle East. It could've been extremely effective, except it was executed improperly from the beginning and then later the Shia in Iraq and the antiwar folks in the US all but sabotaged it.

When you say that the invasion of Iraq could have been extremely effective, effective in accomplishing what? Had the invasion been carried out correctly, had it been supported by people at home and abroad (which it was, at first), what would have been accomplished? How would it have been an effective use of the resources it took to do it? It seems to me that the goals of the invasion were pretty fuzzy.
 
When you say that the invasion of Iraq could have been extremely effective, effective in accomplishing what? Had the invasion been carried out correctly, had it been supported by people at home and abroad (which it was, at first), what would have been accomplished? How would it have been an effective use of the resources it took to do it? It seems to me that the goals of the invasion were pretty fuzzy.

In a sentence: by opening up a means in which voices can be heard in an actual political setting in the Arab Middle East, in a secure environment that is friendly to American policies. It could then slowly spread. As opposed to just...doing nothing and hoping for the best.
 
In a sentence: by opening up a means in which voices can be heard in an actual political setting in the Arab Middle East, in a secure environment that is friendly to American policies. It could then slowly spread. As opposed to just...doing nothing and hoping for the best.

It's difficult to see how invading a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad could possibly have accomplished such a goal.

Not that it's not a laudable goal, but some things are simply not accomplished by military force alone.
 
It's difficult to see how invading a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad could possibly have accomplished such a goal.

Not that it's not a laudable goal, but some things are simply not accomplished by military force alone.
Well...I already expressed how disenfranchisement via totalitarian regimes clamping down on opposition, since the 1920s has resulted in funneling said opposition into the mosque, honing it and amplifying it. So what part of that do you disagree with? That political climate is what has created fundamentalist Islamic violence, so that's the source that has to be dealt with.

That's what Iraq was about. And the American people are partially to blame for it failing, because they either didn't have the stomach for it or the brains for it. Or both.
 
Well...I already expressed how disenfranchisement via totalitarian regimes clamping down on opposition, since the 1920s has resulted in funneling said opposition into the mosque, honing it and amplifying it. So what part of that do you disagree with? That political climate is what has created fundamentalist Islamic violence, so that's the source that has to be dealt with.

That's what Iraq was about. And the American people are partially to blame for it failing, because they either didn't have the stomach for it or the brains for it. Or both.
So, deposing totalitarian regimes and setting up democratic republics in order not to funnel opposition into the mosque is the goal, and the way to accomplish that goal is through military force.

How's that working out.... Oh, right. It would work out just dandy if the American people had the stomach and brains for it.
 
So, deposing totalitarian regimes and setting up democratic republics in order not to funnel opposition into the mosque is the goal, and the way to accomplish that goal is through military force.

There's lots of ways to do it. Military force is part of it.

How's that working out.... Oh, right. It would work out just dandy if the American people had the stomach and brains for it.

It would work out better, yes.
 
So, deposing totalitarian regimes and setting up democratic republics in order not to funnel opposition into the mosque is the goal, and the way to accomplish that goal is through military force.

How's that working out.... Oh, right. It would work out just dandy if the American people had the stomach and brains for it.
Yu seem to be inventing your own arguments and commenting on them. Why not just stick to the points being made and respond to them?
 
It's difficult to see how invading a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad could possibly have accomplished such a goal.

Not that it's not a laudable goal, but some things are simply not accomplished by military force alone.
What makes you think it would be military force alone? No one ever said that.
 
Yu seem to be inventing your own arguments and commenting on them. Why not just stick to the points being made and respond to them?

No, just responding to Oldworldorder's post.
 
Military force plus what then?

Honestly, what do you think? Let's say you're in charge of American foreign relations- what other tools do you think you might have at your disposal aside from military force?

I feel like you're hearing some of these things for the first time. Like...how can you talk about international relations if you had never heard of neorealism? I'm just kinda confused that you sauntered into this discussion so confidently but apparently all these things are new to you. Or you were just asking questions that you already knew the answers to: equally boggling.
 
Honestly, what do you think? Let's say you're in charge of American foreign relations- what other tools do you think you might have at your disposal aside from military force?

I feel like you're hearing some of these things for the first time. Like...how can you talk about international relations if you had never heard of neorealism? I'm just kinda confused that you sauntered into this discussion so confidently but apparently all these things are new to you. Or you were just asking questions that you already knew the answers to: equally boggling.

Grant is the one who said that military force alone wasn't enough. I was just asking him for some clarification of his position.
 
Grant is the one who said that military force alone wasn't enough. I was just asking him for some clarification of his position.

You're the one that implied anyone ever said anything about military force alone.

Not that it's not a laudable goal, but some things are simply not accomplished by military force alone.

You're the one that introduced the concept of "military force alone" into this thread, no one else.
 
You're the one that implied anyone ever said anything about military force alone.



You're the one that introduced the concept of "military force alone" into this thread, no one else.

Allow me to rephrase, then:

Not that it's not a laudable goal, but some things are simply not accomplished by military force.
 
Allow me to rephrase, then:

Not that it's not a laudable goal, but some things are simply not accomplished by military force.

And it was never said that military force would do that. Of course other influences and pressures need to be exerted. I honestly thought that went without saying. In Germany, South Korea, and Japan, there were other forces successfully used aside from military power. In South Vietnam, other forces were used less successfully. But rarely is military force by itself used, no?
 
And it was never said that military force would do that. Of course other influences and pressures need to be exerted. I honestly thought that went without saying. In Germany, South Korea, and Japan, there were other forces successfully used aside from military power. In South Vietnam, other forces were used less successfully. But rarely is military force by itself used, no?

In Vietnam, military force was used to attempt to establish a government friendly to the US. It didn't work. I'm not sure just why anyone thought it would work in Iraq, but, of course, it didn't.
 
In Vietnam, military force was used to attempt to establish a government friendly to the US. It didn't work. I'm not sure just why anyone thought it would work in Iraq, but, of course, it didn't.

???

It worked in South Korea, Germany, and Japan. It worked in the Philippines, Cuba, and Hawaii. Using your logic, "I'm not sure just why anyone thought it wouldn't work in Vietnam". Could it be maybe your logic is incredibly simplistic? Maybe there's a bit more to it than what you just talked about?
 
???

It worked in South Korea, Germany, and Japan. It worked in the Philippines, Cuba, and Hawaii. Using your logic, "I'm not sure just why anyone thought it wouldn't work in Vietnam". Could it be maybe your logic is incredibly simplistic? Maybe there's a bit more to it than what you just talked about?

Military force worked half way in Korea, sure. In Cuba?? Last I heard, Castro was still in power there, but then, the Cubans had no tradition of anything but strong man rule even before Castro. Hawaii is a state. When have we ever invaded Hawaii? Germany and Japan were defeated utterly in the Second World War, not by the US alone, but by the allied forces. Moreover, it was not the Germans or the Japanese we defeated, but the Nazis and the Imperialists.

Had the US gone all out to destroy Iraq, had we carried out the invasion the same way we did in Germany and Japan, we just might have won there, maybe. Had the people of Iraq actually greeted US forces as "liberators", as was predicted, perhaps then we would have succeeded. Had we had clear goals, and known when success was achieved, then we might have succeeded. In Germany, we knew exactly what the goal was, the Germans were more than happy to get rid of their Nazi overlords, and we were in the war to win.
 
Military force worked half way in Korea, sure. In Cuba?? Last I heard, Castro was still in power there, but then, the Cubans had no tradition of anything but strong man rule even before Castro. Hawaii is a state. When have we ever invaded Hawaii? Germany and Japan were defeated utterly in the Second World War, not by the US alone, but by the allied forces. Moreover, it was not the Germans or the Japanese we defeated, but the Nazis and the Imperialists.

Had the US gone all out to destroy Iraq, had we carried out the invasion the same way we did in Germany and Japan, we just might have won there, maybe. Had the people of Iraq actually greeted US forces as "liberators", as was predicted, perhaps then we would have succeeded. Had we had clear goals, and known when success was achieved, then we might have succeeded. In Germany, we knew exactly what the goal was, the Germans were more than happy to get rid of their Nazi overlords, and we were in the war to win.

Yes or no: are you trying to argue that military force wasn't a factor that assisted in any of making those places friendly to the US? Because in your post, you tried to imply that because military force wasn't a factor in a successful outcome in Vietnam (EDIT: or, to put it a different way, was a factor in an unsuccessful outcome there), we shouldn't have expected it to be part of a successful outcome in Iraq.

An incredibly short-sighted and simplistic argument, as far as history goes. I feel like we just had this discussion regarding imperialism, too. It's like you think that some things just plain can't work. Why do you think that? Who taught you that? Just because something isn't "nice" doesn't mean it's not effective.
 
Last edited:
Yes or no: are you trying to argue that military force wasn't a factor that assisted in any of making those places friendly to the US? Because in your post, you tried to imply that because military force wasn't a factor in a successful outcome in Vietnam (EDIT: or, to put it a different way, was a factor in an unsuccessful outcome there), we shouldn't have expected it to be part of a successful outcome in Iraq.

An incredibly short-sighted and simplistic argument, as far as history goes. I feel like we just had this discussion regarding imperialism, too. It's like you think that some things just plain can't work. Why do you think that? Who taught you that? Just because something isn't "nice" doesn't mean it's not effective.

Cuba is not friendly to the US.
Vietnam is friendly to the US despite our use of military force having failed, or perhaps because of it.

Does military force ever work? Sure. It worked in WWII, when we declared war and went all out to defeat Nazism. It worked when the US was under attack by a foreign power and when the entire country was on a war footing with one goal, the defeat of evil. Little "war is peace" sorts of wars when only the military is at war, no war is declared, the citizenry is not behind it, and there are no clear objectives haven't been shown to be effective.
 
Cuba is not friendly to the US.

I was talking about after the Spanish-American War.

Does military force ever work? Sure.

Then why are you trying to quibble here and not even doing it correctly? Sometimes military force can work. No one ever said it was supposed to solely accomplished through military force. So what are you trying to gain going down this rabbit hole?
 
I was talking about after the Spanish-American War.



Then why are you trying to quibble here and not even doing it correctly? Sometimes military force can work. No one ever said it was supposed to solely accomplished through military force. So what are you trying to gain going down this rabbit hole?

Read the rest of the post.

War is peace was supposed to have been a warning, not foreign policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom