Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: The Ugly American Response
Romanizzo
Thanks. Very interesting and food for thought. I usually have respect for STRATFOR analysis. I have to say though that this one does smack a bit of: "Hell, after 911 we have to make war on someone so lets pick the worst Arab bastard and attack him."
The second option consisted of trying to create what we called the "coalition of the coerced," Islamic countries prepared to cooperate in the covert war against al Qaeda.
You would have to admit that if that was the objective then the mission has been an abject failure.
It is interesting to see what STRATFOR is saying about the war now.The invasion of Iraq probably was a mistake, and certainly its execution was disastrous.
also: The motivation for the war, as we wrote, had to do with forcing Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative in the fight against al Qaeda by demonstrating that the United States actually was prepared to go to extreme measures. The United States invaded to change the psychology of the region, which had a low regard for American power. It also invaded to occupy the most strategic country in the Middle East, one that bordered seven other key countries.
The finance world is now trying to pin the blame for the debt crisis on the war. The case is made ins this article in business spectator. So I am not a lone voice on that.
I concede that my position now reeks of being wise after the event, but I truly did believe that the Iraq invasion was a mistake at the time.
Perhaps it was simply an honest mistake by a naive new President keen to 'bring the perpetrators of 911 to justice' and not at all influenced by the oil lobby. Even if we can swallow that one whole, is such a mistake tolerable given the huge intelligence resources available to guide the Chief in such decisions? What should he do when he realises that it was a mistake?
I guess it is all just history now and there will continue to be diverse opinions on the invasion of Iraq.
RSS
RE: The Ugly American Response
Acha! I've been gone from the O-nerd for a while, but remember Occams position on the war now. I will refer you to STRATFOR's assessment on the war in Iraq:
Our view was that the Bush administration would go to war in Iraq not because it saw it as a great idea, but because its options were to go on the defensive against al Qaeda and wait for the next attack or take the best of a bad lot of offensive actions (www.stratfor.com/analysis/iraq_terrorism_and_geopolitics). The second option consisted of trying to create what we called the "coalition of the coerced," Islamic countries prepared to cooperate in the covert war against al Qaeda. Fighting in Afghanistan was merely a holding action that alone would solve nothing. So lacking good options, the administration chose the best of a bad lot.
STRATFOR's assessment is accurate and well reasoned. We didn't have much of a choice, as the only effective way to fight is offensively - reference the Maginot Line.
I still hold that the war in Iraq has not had a significant impact on our economy and that the current economic decline is the result of dishonest bankers and crooked businessmen. Market watches that I read predict that we have reached the bottom and that the summer may well prove to be better. Time will tell.
The sad truth is that international political decisions will often not present you with any good choices, but instead will only leave you with less bad options.
View Full Discussion