BF2S Forums United States War in Iraq -- Can We Afford to Lose?

Why has Bolton been 'sharpening his talons' even before the Iran nuclear issue?
Why does Trump listen to him?
Why does the US cabinet need a 'bible study group'?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43534724

Do grown adults really need to sit around discussing fables when they've got a country to run?

The agenda of the fringe evangelicals is closely aligned with Israel - bring Aslan back to Narnia, re-open the Bifröst to Asgard, brink Jebus back to the promised land - its one of those anyway, all the fairy stories seem to blend together.

Its very disappointing that 35, 21 or 12 centuries after desert cults created bedtime stories for their kids they're still being used to control the direction of the world.

And they need to get Israel into a war to speed up the end times, too.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

American evangelicals in the 21st century only like Israel because they fight and oppress Muslims.

The sole reason America has an issue with muslims is because it suits Israel to sucker them into their fight.

'American geo-strategic interests' - What geo-strategic interests does America have in the middle-east apart from Israel?

Trump has surrounded himself with evangelical end-of-times nuts in his inner circle, introduced prayer meetings back into the white house and had his daughter marry into the jewish community.

Trump is an opportunist and like any good mafia boss will forge alliances if it suits his personal interests, never mind ideology or morality.

it’s actually slightly odd tracking the prevalence of anti-semitism again now. i feel like this forum discussed and debated through two wars in the middle-east and, back then, very few people ever put it down to evil zionists manipulating world affairs.

uziq wrote:

it’s actually slightly odd tracking the prevalence of anti-semitism again now. i feel like this forum discussed and debated through two wars in the middle-east and, back then, very few people ever put it down to evil zionists manipulating world affairs.

There's still no real answer to why we attacked Iraq.

Saudi terrorists based in Afghanistan attacked America.
Iraq is not involved and no threat to anyone except Israel, lets attack Iraq!

'Regime change' yes but why?

Now we're hellbent on attacking Iran without any provocation, another real shooting war where people will die on both sides and which will cost a fortune, and the reason is 'to spite Obama'?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-07-28 03:48:12)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

Privileged access to a very competent Israeli intelligence network in the region

Is this the same 'very competent' Israeli intelligence network which provided the bulk of the intelligence and analysis proving beyond doubt that Iraq had WMD?

providing them with information on all aspects of government of neighbouring countries.

Why would America have any interest in all the countries which neighbour Israel? Except to protect Israel?

It has no interest in any of the countries which neighbour, for example, Zambia does it?
Does America need up to the minute strategic analysis and intel on Angola, Tanzania and Botswana?

A forward deployment area for military operations (the Haifa port being very important to the US, also multiple US military weapons depots in the country).

Why would America need to conduct military operations from Israel, except to protect Israel?
So far America has never used Israel as a military base.

Israeli support for American strategic interests (Iraq, Afghanistan & everywhere else).

What 'strategic interests' does America have in Iraq or Afghanistan? Neither are or ever have been a threat to America.

Israel as a counterweight to Russian relations in the region such as in Syria, etc.

Why would America care if Russia has relations with countries neighbouring Israel? Does America care if Russia has relations with nations bordering Zambia?

There's plenty economic cooperation as well.

America gifts a lot of money to Israel, anything else?

All your arguments are circular.

I suspect this is going to be another discussion where we discover all your information comes from TV.

I'm not going to argue about things you can google. Last I checked curveball (or any other source crucial to the Iraq war argument) wasn't an Israeli source. Israel had little to do with the narrative constructed in Washington/London. That's your colourful imagination at play again.

And yes, US interest spans swathes of Africa as well. USAID is one of the biggest contributors of development aid on the planet much of it going to African nations. Why do they have global interests? Safe to say the long arm of the US allows it to exert some degree of control over world politics & the world economy. Also to maintain longstanding relationships built for various reasons after WW2.

I find it amusing that a good 12 years ago people on this forum were having running arguments regarding Neoconservativism and the Bush administration. Lowing vs CamPoe and that Argentinian guy. And now that stuff mostly doesn't matter.

The terrorist attacks of ISIS definitely had an effect on the extremely slim win of Donald Trump. They also derailed the 2012-2014 democrat agenda and led to a Republican Senate and Mitch McConnell.

But the people who often propel politics and agendas don't investigate history. They often just act and just do. Arguing about what recently led to XYZ is often pointless since XYZ doesn't care and ABC is just reacting. Maybe 100 years it could matter but I am not convinced of that. After WW1, the Republicans pushed for free trade and loosening restraint on businesses and a 100 years later they are doing the same thing.

Even though I teach history, I don't think it matters that much anyway or should. The world belongs to the living. Jay calls this all nihilism.

So the crimes of the Bush administration is as much distant past as Nixon bombing Cambodia. I guess we should have learned that bombing innocent people was a bad idea in 1972 but never did. Oh well. Let's focus on the next election.

Multiple reasons, most importantly:

• Flying from Incirlik to Afghanistan is a shorter distance than from anywhere in Israel. Saves time, money, fuel.
• Turkey as a NATO ally had an obligation to assist the US after the invocation of NATO's article 5 in 2001. Incirlik was immediately ready and available. They refused to cooperate in 2003 however, which made US forces divert to Kuwait for the invasion of Iraq. Which is also much closer than Israel.
• Considering Israel's regional reputation I can imagine they wouldn't be particularly chuffed by the prospect of acting as a forward deployment base for US operations in Afghanistan or Iraq (or to be involved in the forefront at all for that matter, despite the widespread public support for both wars).
• The US would have its interest far better served if it involved players that were much less controversial in the region. Turkey and Kuwait were far better suited as allies for forward military deployment than Israel, as they could help convince other ME powers to contribute. Israel would sooner unite them in opposition.

As for Iraq, one of the main issues is in the fact that people try and find reason where there was little. Grave errors were made in intelligence collection & dissemination, in the construction of the argument for war etc, all the way up to Powell & co. The war was as much a result of negligence and incompetence as it was a result of neoconservative ideology and their desire for conflict with Saddam. It's the human error we don't want to acknowledge, some people preferring to find reason in conspiracy rather than in the simple failure of those responsible.

SuperJail_Warden wrote:

Even though I teach history, I don't think it matters that much anyway or should. The world belongs to the living. Jay calls this all nihilism.

So the crimes of the Bush administration is as much distant past as Nixon bombing Cambodia. I guess we should have learned that bombing innocent people was a bad idea in 1972 but never did. Oh well. Let's focus on the next election.

It is nihilistic but a fair point as it's (as you probably know) a topic of intense discussion among historians themselves as well: does history actually matter?

I would argue that it does. If only for the fact that 'the living' often like to invoke history to justify actions or policies in the present. On the topic of ISIS, they routinely referred to the Sykes-Picot agreement when they opened the Iraqi-Syrian border and to justify aggression against the western-shaped world. Another example is that the world over nationalism thrives on carefully constructed narratives of historical identity, etc. You'll find it's impossible to decouple past and present in most places. People keep the past alive and will try and alter or reinterpret it to suit modern politics. Some historians reacted by considering themselves 'custodians of the past' resisting these recurring trends.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-07-29 13:36:54)

Larssen wrote:

Multiple reasons, most importantly:

• Flying from Incirlik to Afghanistan is a shorter distance than from anywhere in Israel. Saves time, money, fuel.
• Turkey as a NATO ally had an obligation to assist the US after the invocation of NATO's article 5 in 2001. Incirlik was immediately ready and available. They refused to cooperate in 2003 however, which made US forces divert to Kuwait for the invasion of Iraq. Which is also much closer than Israel.
• Considering Israel's regional reputation I can imagine they wouldn't be particularly chuffed by the prospect of acting as a forward deployment base for US operations in Afghanistan or Iraq (or to be involved in the forefront at all for that matter, despite the widespread public support for both wars).
• The US would have its interest far better served if it involved players that were much less controversial in the region. Turkey and Kuwait were far better suited as allies for forward military deployment than Israel, as they could help convince other ME powers to contribute. Israel would sooner unite them in opposition.

The difference in distance between Incirlik and Tel Aviv to Afghanistan is 64km, over 3,900km, hardly a big deal or huge time-saver.
Isn't Israel a US ally? Surely they'd be delighted to help out their number one and only ally in the world?
Why would Israel care about its 'regional reputation'? Its never given a shit before.
If there are other countries far better suited than Israel to be US allies why does the US need Israel as a 'key strategic ally'? It seems it doesn't.

As for Iraq, one of the main issues is in the fact that people try and find reason where there was little. Grave errors were made in intelligence collection & dissemination, in the construction of the argument for war etc, all the way up to Powell & co. The war was as much a result of negligence and incompetence as it was a result of neoconservative ideology and their desire for conflict with Saddam. It's the human error we don't want to acknowledge, some people preferring to find reason in conspiracy rather than in the simple failure of those responsible.

There were no errors, incompetence or negligence, the intelligence was aggressively cherry-picked and exaggerated to suit the agenda, and the Israelis were a big part of the process.

I hear a lot of "oh, geez. Another protest? Where do these (useless) people find the time?" from other Americans when it happens in the US.