Why Nobama

[gagged_Louise]

Ragoczy, I honestly don't see what kind of hope you could have that an Iraqi government will become stable and sane, and neither give in to sects and tribes nor become a mere puppet of the US. The first seems the outcome of your view that it's a ragbag of a country that would dissolve fast unless kept together by force (isn't that what Saddam Hussein realized too?), and the other alternative, a puppet regime, means the US troops will stay for decades to come - and become a permanent recruitment poster for those militant movements that do not accept the idea of being puppeted. And anytime in the future when that unrest flares really high, more of those troops - young American men and women - would have to be sent in. So? This is exactly the quandary that the US found itself in as soon as the hot phase of the war was over and Hussein had fallen. They had no real idea how to build a civilian regime, to restore democracy. Some of the "leaders" they wanted to work with were the very kind of angry old mullahs that are the fear of every American schoolboy when they are reigning in Iran, just across the border.

As for your idea that the US can and should do what it wants - yeah okay, but then you'd have to agree that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a daring and extremely skillful act of war, don't you? And motivated too, because the Japanese felt hemmed in by the presence of the US navy and air force in the Pacific, and they could see that the age of European colonies in Asia was coming to an end. Who could argue with them if they aim to take the naval base out and run for the booty of east Asia and the Pacific?

I guess we've come a bit off the subject of what Obama will do if he's elected, but at least I think he sees that the matter of US presence in the Middle East isn't as simple as "our boys are there as a benevolent peacekeeper and to make sure things don't slide back to barbarism".

[Ragoczy]

Ragoczy, I honestly don't see what kind of hope you could have that an Iraqi government will become stable and sane, and neither give in to sects and tribes nor become a mere puppet of the US. The first seems the outcome of your vierw that it's a ragbag of a country that would dissolve unless kept together by foirce (isn't that what Saddam Hussein realized too?), and the other alternative, a puppet regime, means the US tropps will stay for decades to come - and become a constant recruitment poster for those militant movements that do not accept the idea of being puppeted. So? This is exactly the quandary that the US found itself in as soon as the hot phase of the war was over and Hussein had fallen. They had no real idea how to build a civilian regime, to restore democracy. Some of the "leaders" they wanted to work with were the very kind of angry old mullahs that are the fear of every American schoolboy when they are reigning in Iran, just across the border.

First of all, if I gave the impression I was calling the Iraqis a "ragbag", then I need to clarify. I meant nothing derogatory about the Iraqi people, simply that they have thousands of years of history behind their tribes and sects as something other than Iraqi. This is the same issue faced by so many African "nations" after the Europeans pulled out, having forged countries based on geography out of what had traditionally been multiple, hostile peoples. Overcoming that will be difficult for them, I think, but I hope they can and I also think they have a better chance of success if their new government is stable and in control before the US leaves.

Ultimately, I have a great deal of respect for the Iraqi people. I find it somewhat humbling that they had such a high percentage of voter turnout when there was the very real possibility of getting killed for voting -- when in America most people take it so much for granted that they don't bother.

But, yeah, the situation sucks. The question I have to ask myself is: Will the Iraqi people be better served by the US pulling out immediately or waiting until the Iraqi government tells us they're ready? I think, and always have, that it's the latter -- and there's significant progress toward that.

As for your idea that the US can and should do what it wants - yeah okay, but then you'd have to agree that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a daring and extremely skillful act of war, don't you? And motivated too, because the Japanese felt hemmed in by the presence of the US navy and air force in the Pacific, and they could see that the age of European colonies in Asia was coming to an end. Who could argue with them if they aim to take the naval base out and run for the booty of east Asia and the Pacific?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. The Japanese were an aggressor long before Pearl Harbor, taking significant land in Asia before attacking the US.

My point was that the US, faced with guarding another country's border for the next fifty years, might be reasonably expected to eliminate the need to do that. If you're comparing the US's involvement in Iraq with, say, the Japanese invasion of Korea, then I think your analogy is faulty. The US has never had the intent of conquering and ruling Iraq -- the intent has always been to stabilize an elected Iraqi government and then leave.

As to Pearl Harbor, I think it was a brilliantly executed military operation and those who characterize it as a "cowardly sneak attack" are fucking idiots. In war, you're supposed to try and catch the other bastard sleeping.

I guess we've come a bit off the subject of what Obama will do if he's elected, but at least I think he sees that the matter of US presence in the Middle East isn't as simple as "our boys are there as a benevolent peacekeeper and to make sure things don't slide back to barbansm".

Are their ulterior motives to being in Iraq? Sure. It's certainly not an altruistic desire to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. One of those motives is to not spend the next five decades defending Kuwait. Another is the hope that a democratic Iraq will be cordial to the US. Another reason for staying now is, hopefully, a lesson learned from Afghanistan after the Soviets left -- that abandoning a country to a power vacuum results in Bad Things happening.

No, if it was entirely altruistic, we'd also be in Darfur and wouldn't have left the Rwandans so totally fucked.

But yes, ranging far afield from the thread's topic.

Obama has a different perspective on the Middle East than I do, which is one of the reasons I don't support him. I don't think unconditionally sitting down with the leaders of Iran is the answer and he's willing to do that. I don't think lessening support for Israel is the right thing to do, and he will.