Anti-War Fantasy

There are certainly some reasonable arguments against the war in Iraq. But I must admit that the unreasonable ones absolutely drive me nuts. A perfect example of an unreasonable argument is found by Daniel Davies at the high profile academic blog Crooked Timber. He has repeatedly claimed to be merely against the unilateral U.S. war in Iraq. In a number of different posts he suggests that a U.N. war against Iraq would have been much more acceptable. This is certainly true, and if his argument stopped there he would be correct if not helpful. But he has repeatedly claimed that U.N.-backed action was likely in the near future if only the U.S. had done it right (see here for instance):

Thus, I was in favour of allowing Saddam to remain in power for a short period (waiting for a coalition of people I trusted to be assembled).

Clearly, therefore, my moral culpability (and thus the extent to which I am prepared to take crap from pro-war lefties) is very heavily dependent on what might have happened in Iraq during that period of six months to a year.

Now he says:

I wish Saddam Hussein was still in power in Baghdad because if this were the case, then about 3,000 Iraqis would have been murdered by his regime and would be dead, the roughly 10,000 Iraqis we killed ourselves would still be alive, and we would most likely be well on our way to formulating a credible, sensible, properly resourced plan for getting rid of him and handling the aftermath.

This is pure fantasy. European countries and the UN were not in the process of figuring out how to get rid of Saddam just before bumbling George Bush talked them out of it. In January 2002 France, Germany and Russia were talking about having sanctions removed from Iraq and trade and diplomatic relations normalized. Even if he were one of those people who is easily impressed by European words decoupled from actions he couldn't take comfort in the words. There wasn't even a large rhetoric-only anti-Saddam pose being taken by European governments. At best there was the admission that he had been somewhat naughty in the past and aren't we glad that sanctions have brought him to heel.

We would not be 'most likely be well on our way to formulating a credible, sensible, properly resourced plan for getting rid of him' if only the U.S. hadn't invaded in 2003. Unless of course by 'we' he means the U.S. acting unilaterally. I understand the need to protect the leftist conscience, but let usat least stick to semi-plausible hypotheticals like "If we were lucky Saddam might have choked on a chicken bone."

UPDATE: I also would like to note that we know now that the UN Inspectors were not likely to find any major WMD programs. Doesn't that fact tend to suggest that France, Germany and Russia were even less likely to be willing to take action against Saddam than they were when they strongly suspected that he did have some serious WMD programs? You can argue that the war was wrong because of a lack of WMD programs to hang on as a justification. But to argue that Europe would have helped an invasion if only we had waited when we know that the inspectors weren't likely to find a justification for war seems like a huge stretch.

Comments

[william]

Not a substantive comment, just an observation that there seems to be a < /blockqoute > there where there should be a < /blockquote >.

[Phil]

A perfect example of an unreasonable argument is found by Daniel Davies at the high profile academic blog Crooked Timber.

Having read his many comments at Asymmetrical Information, and his posts at his old blog, I would venture to say you can simply save this sentence and repaste as necessary.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Quite right about the blockquote. For some reason the computer didn't want to recognize an end tag for 'blockqoute'.

[JimPortlandOR]

While playing "what if", lets do another round.

What if the US public knew in January 2003 that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Would there have been public and congressional support for invading Iraq nearly alone or alone on a pre-emptive basis to overthrow the Hussein regime?

It seems, IMO, very unlikely that Bush would have been supported in an invasion. Therefore the question of European support would not be material. Similarly, the question of civilian casualties in Iraq (from war) is moot, and the number of people murdered by Hussein is unknown, but likely to be the average number murdered during the previous several years.

The key question is not: Were there WMDs? The real question is how much real evidence did we have that suggested WMDs versus false or hyped evidence? The absence of evidence through inspections is not firm evidence of absence, but it should have triggered some reevaluaton.

Or, was the US public and congress mislead by intention or through mal-interpretation of evidence. I'd bet mislead by intention, but the evidence for that is certainly not clear.

[Edward]

I agree with Jim.

I also think there's a more basic question. Was the Bush Doctrine a good response to the 9/11 attacks? As someone writing in the War College journal has noted (still looking for that source), it was designed primarily as a defense of the plan to invade Iraq (and strongly on the idea that Iraq posed an intolerable threat). And if we toss that out with the non-support it is now known to have, can we return the saner pre-existing notion that a pre-emptive war is valid only with an clear imminent threat? (thereby, hopefully, restoring some deterence to Pakistan or India or whomever might decide the Bush Doctrine is precedent enough to justify desired aggression).

[Jadegold]

I believe you misstate D-Squared's argument somewhat. He has always maintained Saddam Hussein should have been toppled--but as the result of a competent campaign, honestly executed. As he wrote in October of 2002:

A further development in my Iraq policy as well. I am now, after comments from Brad DeLong and others, revising my opinion of the murderousness of the sanctions policy and concluding that it might not be as terrible as a number of quite possibly interested parties have portrayed it. On the other hand, I am also convinced by Max Sawicky's argument that Iraq is likely to be the first excursion of an American policy of empire-building in the Middle East, which is likely to be disastrous under any possible performance metric.

But, I retain my original belief that improvement in Iraq is politically impossible unless there is some sort of shooting war in the area culminating in the removal of Saddam Hussein. I don't set much score by "national-building", and don't really believe that what the Gulf needs is more US client states, and I never believed any of the scare stories related to the "WMD" acronym which is currently doing such sterling duty in picking out weblog authors who don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about. I just think that Saddam needs to go, because it's just one of those Damned Things which Has To Happen. I'm a fatalist, not a moralist.

I believe you may be hung up on the removal of Saddam and not the larger goal of stabilizing Iraq and the surrounding region.

[Jadegold]

A better explanation of Davies' rationale can be found here.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Dsquared, has been around the block and then some on the issue of the Iragi conflict. The one constant, he doesn't believe that the Bush Admin per se is capable in the waging of the war which fades into a host of rationals.

D2 very much reminds me of Josh Marshall, who was for the war and then he wasn't against it. The concept of empire played a role in that change but the key driver is that he didn't believe that testing of our allies (France and Germany) and institutions (the UN) was worth the conflict. Yesterday, Josh was proven wrong on 30 June Dsquared will be proven wrong and we will all move on, except for Edward who will be preparing for a gathering come next October.

[Edward]

except for Edward who will be preparing for a gathering come next October.

Not paying much attention to the Kurds these days, are ya Timmy?

Arguably, I've already won.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Jadegold you quote two older pieces by Davies which do not contradict his current thoughts. I quote two very recent posts of his where he highlights the ridiculous idea that world opinion would have come around if only given 6 months or a year. That would not have put him in a post-Bush era, it presupposes that Saddam would be gone BY NOW.

I have not misstated his argument at all. If anything I have made it look less ridiculous than it really is. In my view he is engaged in an attempt to fool himself into believing that the international community was on the verge of some consensus to rid itself of Saddam. This despite a 12-year crystal clear history of the international community only doing anything about Saddam when dragged kicking and screaming by the United States. He basically says that the invasion would be ok 'right after we get international agreement on it'. That is perhaps slightly more realistic than saying 'We can have a serious energy policy right after Naderites give up their opposition to nuclear power'. When you set a politically ridiculous proposition as a prerequisite for action the real effect is to preclude action while leaving your conscience intact to say "I really wanted to do something."

[sidereal]

"believing that the international community was on the verge of some consensus to rid itself of Saddam"

I think that's far afield from anything he actually wrote. He wrote "we would most likely be well on our way to formulating a credible, sensible, properly resourced plan for getting rid of him and handling the aftermath".

He suggests that right now we would be "well on our way" to "formulating a ... plan". In other words he gives us 2 years to enter into the process of coming up with a plan. Not at all unreasonable. Especially if you assume, as you reasonably should, that in the absence of invasion the Bush administration would instead expend great effort and capital on forming and driving that plan, something it manifestly did not do in the placid years leading up to the war.

Furthermore, you ignore what is apparently his primary justification: "about 3,000 Iraqis would have been murdered by his regime and would be dead, the roughly 10,000 Iraqis we killed ourselves would still be alive", which (if true) severely strains the humanitarian rationale, which if I have my finger on the pulse is now well ahead of the beacon of light rationale and nearly lapped WMD rationale in the race for retroactive justification of vengeance.

[Stentor]

"Not going to war" strikes me as verging on the politically ridiculous, because I don't see many events in the range of possibility that would have dissuaded the administration from their plans.

[Stentor]

"Not going to war" strikes me as verging on the politically ridiculous, because I don't see many events in the range of possibility that would have dissuaded the administration from their plans.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Stentor, if that were true why didn't France and Germany and Russia try to shape the form of the near-inevitable war rather than just stand in the way? They either didn't share your view, or found it more politically useful to play spoiler. I suspect they thought they could stop the war and continue their lucrative Food-For-Oil program indefinitely. Or slightly less cynically I might believe that they wanted to put a bell on the hyperpower cat. But there doesn't seem to be much indication that they were interested in getting rid of Saddam, which is the center of Davies' claim.

Sidereal, I provided a link to and then immediately quoted Daniel as saying that his plan allows for Saddam's removal 6 months to a year after the actual invasion. I fail to see how quoting a person in context and taking them seriously is anything remotely close to "far afield from anything he actually wrote."

The quote which I provided is: "Thus, I was in favour of allowing Saddam to remain in power for a short period (waiting for a coalition of people I trusted to be assembled).

Clearly, therefore, my moral culpability (and thus the extent to which I am prepared to take crap from pro-war lefties) is very heavily dependent on what might have happened in Iraq during that period of six months to a year."

and can be verified by following the link in the orignal post.

Furthermore even your proposition that we would be far along in the international planning of removing Saddam is wishful thinking. But feel free to prove me wrong. There were hundreds if not thousands of statements by European leaders on the issue of the war before it happened. If you can show me a fair number of high profile leaders who were leaning EVEN JUST RHETORICALLY toward ousting Saddam I will admit that I was unfair. Note I am not setting the bar at the ridiculous level of European action, merely high profile rhetoric.

[Nathan S.]

sidereal,

The problem with his comparison of 3,000 to 10,000 dead is that it fails to take into account the number of dead due to a U.N. war in Iraq, assuming that would be the other method of ending the Hussein regime. This is assuming that he was in favour of a U.N.-led war to topple Saddam and establish a democratic regime in his place.

In my opinion, a broader coalition war would likely have similar Iraqi casualties, due to the fact that the US would have been doing the majority of the fighting, anyway.

I also think that there would have been a higher level of friendly-fire deaths due to confusion between cooperating forces, who would have had language and procedural differences that do not exist within the US military (excepting the differences in procedure between Army, Navy, AF).

[Anarch]

Stentor, if that were true why didn't France and Germany and Russia try to shape the form of the near-inevitable war rather than just stand in the way? They either didn't share your view, or found it more politically useful to play spoiler. I suspect they thought they could stop the war and continue their lucrative Food-For-Oil program indefinitely.

I suspect the former: none of my European friends comprehended then, or understand now, how fixated the Bush Administration was on removing Saddam. There may also have been economic incentive (although I'm a little dubious that it was anything as obvious as the Food-For-Oil scandal) but I think "Old Europe" just colossally misjudged the underlying literality of the Bush Administration's rhetoric.

As for D2's post, it looks to me like he was aiming at "perverse" but misfired and ended up at "twit". I understand his basic point -- and am somewhat amenable to it -- but it's rather awkwardly phrased, to say the least.

[Edward]

Nathan,

I have to wonder if a UN war in Iraq would have sent so few troops...the blunder I blame as responsible for the number of civilian deaths. By not sealing the borders, patroling the streets, disarming the militia, etc, etc, the war dragged on and the number of civilians killed each day since "major combat" ended skyrocketed because of lousy security. Arguably, a UN-led war would have done this differently.

[Slartibartfast]

Arguably, a UN-led war would have done this differently.

Have you ever worked on a multinational project? I have. The level of communications and sharing of objectives between guys that sit one office away from each other was...uninspiring.

That anecdotal bit aside, I think the notion that the UN could have executed removal of Saddam Hussein more cleanly than we did is completely unsubstantiated, and unsupportable. But if we're going on feelings, my feeling is they'd make us look as if we know what we're doing. At every level imaginable.

[Nathan S.]

Edward,

The extra troops would have certainly helped at the borders and with street patrolling, which I think that a lot of the less advanced militaries would have done (with U.S. supervision, of course).

Just to be clear, I was assuming that the 10,000 number referred to both Iraqi conscript deaths and civilian deaths. I think that we would see little difference in Iraqi deaths in the actual shooting-war aspect of the conflict.

I think that it is also important to note that most other air forces do not have as many precision weapons as the U.S., which would likely lead to more accidental killings.

I am afraid that I do not know the breakdown in civilian deaths between major combat and occupation... and I am too lazy to search for it! I assume that most Iraqis died during major combat, though.

So, I think that it would probably be pretty similar in terms of Iraqi deaths.

[Anarch]

I am afraid that I do not know the breakdown in civilian deaths between major combat and occupation... and I am too lazy to search for it! I assume that most Iraqis died during major combat, though.

I too am too lazy too look for it (well, that and it's 5am here) but I'm fairly sure you're wrong: major combat operations accounted for much fewer casualties, simply because the Iraqi Army basically didn't fight.

And with that said, it's now time for someone who knows to come along and show us both up :)

[Nathan S.]

Anarch,

I think that more died in the major combat on account of all the heavy munitions flying around and because there did seem to be pockets of a couple hundred Iraqi soldiers every so often who would stand and fight. I could be wrong, of course.

[Edward]

Nathan,

I am afraid that I do not know the breakdown in civilian deaths between major combat and occupation... and I am too lazy to search for it! I assume that most Iraqis died during major combat, though.

Wide awake and fully caffienated here:

The latest numbers according to Iraq Body Count (and that's the most reliable source I know of) indicate between 9,356 and 11,232 civilians casualties since the invasion began. Major combat ended May 1, 2003. Using the minimum estimate, from the start of the war to the end of major combat, 5377 civilians had been killed. That leaves 3979 killed after the end of major combat.

So, you're right that most died during major combat, but it's only like 42% to 48%...not that big a difference.

[SDAI-Tech1]

There are so very few big picture folks out there and even fewer media types and bloggers who seem to see the big picture.

Whatever happens in Iraq, unless it becomes a closed secular theocracy, it's better than having Saddam in there with nuclear and biological warfare goals.

A. We now have unprecedented access to the Middle East.

B. We have a very convenient staging ground to take out Iran's nuclear reactor & program if necessary.

C. We have access to the Syrian frontier.

D. We have relieved the imminent threat Iraq posed to the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields.

E. We have created a flypaper/bugzapper zone for all militant fundamentalists to keep a large majority of them away from our homes.

F. We have interrupted many of the financial relationships the European corporations had with Iraq which propped up the Saddam regime and supported terror.

G. We have exposed the massive corruption within the UN oil for food program.

H. We have frightened Libya into revealing and dismantling their own WMD program.

I. We have set the US up in a position of power to respond to the many national threats that face us in the 21st century.

J. We have a FAR better convoy route and access to resupply our Afghanistan troops and keep Afghanistan on course.

These are just some of the benefits of the Bush doctrine. I hope no one here is naive enough to think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz invented the Bush doctrine. It was formulated in large part by thinktanks and paid consultants - citizens of the US who don't have regular positions in the administration.

Starting in the fifties RAND corporation took on a large role in defense policy. Military strategy in Korea was already messed with by a hodge-podge of these early predecessors to today's EOP consultants.

Bush is the Chief Executive. He takes all the options presented to him and makes decisions. He is not, generally, working late hours figuring out strategies to take out Osama or Saddam - that is other folks' job.

All the scorn heaped upon Bush for his policy is ridiculous. All these naysayers were mutes after 9/11. Just part of the sheep masses who couldn't think their way out of a cardboard box, much less devise a workable policy to deal with the rise of the fundamentalist threat.

I scoff at the countless journalists and blogger chair-warmer critics. If you want to change policy - get a job with a think tank.

SDAI-Tech1

[Edward]

Oooo...one tiny fly in your ointment there SDAI-Tech1. It all goes to hell if the Iraqis ask us to leave...forget about what we "say" about soveriegnty...you write as if we "own" the place...

[Anarch]

And here's Edward, right on cue, with a bookmark that I have on my home computer, no less. Damn you, Edward! Damn you and your intellect-producing coffee!

Anyway, regardless of how one parses the statistics I'm wrong, so I retract my claim. You may now return to your debate unencumbered :)

[Edward]

Anyway, regardless of how one parses the statistics I'm wrong, so I retract my claim. You may now return to your debate unencumbered :)

Not so fast, Anarch, it's still rather disturbing that 42% of civilian deaths happened after we had control of the country, so to speak. Stick to your guns...that security fiasco must be learned from.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Arguably, a UN-led war would have done this differently.

You might want to expand on the outcome the last time a UN (not the US) led a war turned out.

On the Kurds, just a little noise making to counter Sistani.

[Edward]

On the Kurds, just a little noise making to counter Sistani.

We'll see...we'll see...

"UN-led" is a euphemism of course for US-led with full UN backing...

[Slartibartfast]

"UN-led" is a euphemism of course for US-led with full UN backing...

Which would reduce the body count how, exactly?

[Gary Farber]

"...(thereby, hopefully, restoring some deterence to Pakistan or India or whomever might decide the Bush Doctrine is precedent enough to justify desired aggression)."

I have always thought, and continue to think, with all due respect to you, Edward, and with actually no relevance to you, since my opinion was formulated the first time I saw this argument, and this is the first time I've seen you making this argument, that this argument is nonsensical.

It puts the burden of all the world's acts on the acts of the U.S. government.

Which isn't how the world, notably, works.

Stalin didn't need precedence from the U.S. to invade Finland. Hitler, etc. Japan, etc. And down through all the wars unto today. Indonesia didn't, Argentina didn't, Saddan Hussein didn't, Sudan didn't. Etc.

It's completely inane, without the faintest bit of supporting evidence, and in utter contradiction of all available evidence. No war has yet been fought because "the United States did it!"

Yet, strangely, there has been no shortage of wars.

India and Pakistan have fought four wars; in no case did they need U.S. policy as a precedent. Should they do it again, the same will remain true.

[Gary Farber]

SDAI-Tech says:
"J. We have a FAR better convoy route [...] to resupply our Afghanistan troops...."

What, we're going to drive convoys through Iran?

[Gary Farber]

"Just part of the sheep masses who couldn't think their way out of a cardboard box, much less devise a workable policy to deal with the rise of the fundamentalist threat.

I scoff at the countless journalists and blogger chair-warmer critics. If you want to change policy - get a job with a think tank."

Respectfully, I take it that you are a different, non-sheep, sort of superior person, utterly unlike a "blogger chair-warmer," with a job at a prestigious think tank formulating important administration policy, and thus that is the basis for your condemnation of those sheep masses so unlike yourself?

"If you want to change policy - get a job with a think tank."

Alas, in our new modern democracy, what place for mere citizenry? Superior minds, after all, scoff at them as "sheep."

[crionna]

Sorry to be a broken record, but we should recall that UNICEF estimates a monthly death toll of 5,000 Iraqi children under five during Hussein's reign due to the sanctions (more like his misuse of the incoming money). Add those 60,000 to the 3,000 listed by D2 and it seems the 10,000 he mentions, while tragic and something that we should surely work to avoid, is not the humanitarian tragedy he identifies.*

*In a strictly numbers sense.

[Phil]

What, we're going to drive convoys through Iran?

Hey, maybe Chalabi knows somebody who knows somebody who can find us a good route!

[Gary Farber]

"UN-led" is a euphemism of course for US-led with full UN backing...

Which would reduce the body count how, exactly?

There's a perfectly reasonable case to be argued -- not proven, argued -- that with significantly more boots on the ground, the borders could have been better sealed, but more imporantly, the ratio of troops-to-population could have been significantly upped, which anyone at the Army War College would say historically results in a more successful occupation, all other factors remaining the same.

There would have been a great many more troops available to provide security, thus fewer killings, is the argument. One may disagree, but it's not, I think, dismissable.

How many more troops might have been gained is questionable, which is one of the first discussions I entered into on this blog, some months ago.

Another question is, would the world have, in fact, looked with more favor on an invasion of Iraq, organized within the UN, by a Democratic President next year? There's certainly a case to be made for that, on the "only Nixon can go to China, only Reagan can offer to give up all nuclear weapons" logic, just as there's a case to be made that it wouldn't actually have been significantly enough of a difference.

I don't think anyone can argue sure knowledge of the outcome of that hypothetical. And, then, of course, there's the question of the benefit to the costs of waiting.

It certainly would be nice to have a sure answer of how that alternative would have gone, but we never will.

[Slartibartfast]

And of course if you take into consideration the various death-toll figures for infant mortality and sanctions-related deaths, waiting a couple of years to do anything would be far, far worse (just for instance).

[Slartibartfast]

...all other factors remaining the same.

Precisely. Dismissable, I maintain, until such time as there's some iota of evidence to support it. Because all other factors would be decidedly different.

And if you think that Iraqi prisoners would automatically get better treatment under UN auspices, you just haven't been paying attention. Ditto if you're harboring the illusion that the UN would provide protection for the civilian population.

[Slartibartfast]

Nearly all other factors, anyway.

[Gary Farber]

For whatever it's worth, there's this today:

"...significantly, the four G-8 nations that have refused to send troops to Iraq -- Russia, France, Germany and Canada -- said the U.N. Security Council resolution did not change their opposition to putting troops in the country."

Maybe President Kerry would have , or still will be able to change that. It's not the easiest case to be made, though.

[Gary Farber]

"Because all other factors would be decidedly different. [...] Nearly all other factors, anyway."

Would I have the same haircut?

Wait, that wasn't a factor?

[SDAI-Tech1]

Gary,

Convoys are often in the air too.

Alas, in our new modern democracy, what place for mere citizenry? Superior minds, after all, scoff at them as "sheep."

Quite the contrary. Superior minds scoff at those who are eminently unqualified to critique especially when they do so without offering viable alternative courses of action. Journalists and bloggers aren't exactly "average" citizens either.

The citizenry, if qualified, are often sheepdogs and can be used to guide the sheepish masses. Journalists try to be sheepdogs but they are in reality foxes preying on the sheep. One can deny that the masses are sheepish, but, Gary, you just used that line to portray me as a condescending twerp, I don't believe you really disbelieve it, much less want to argue that it's not true.

Edward,

If the Iraqis ask us to leave (which is unlikely because this government will largely rely on US forces to keep it in power for the first year or two) we will still have many of the benefits in place - even without any sizable troops present. Air space, special forces movements, etcetera will still be available.

SDAI-Tech1

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"There's a perfectly reasonable case to be argued -- not proven, argued -- that with significantly more boots on the ground, the borders could have been better sealed, but more imporantly, the ratio of troops-to-population could have been significantly upped, which anyone at the Army War College would say historically results in a more successful occupation, all other factors remaining the same."

I just don't understand it when people cling to this argument as being supportive of UN involvement. Where are these "significantly more boots on the ground" coming from? In the crystal-clear war against terror case known as Afghanistan we top out at something pathetic like 20,000 international troops. That is a pittance compared to the number of US troops in Iraq. And that is in the clear case. Why would you believe that more troops would be available in the murky case of Iraq? Europe isn't sending them. Who has troops to spare? India? That will go over well. Turkey? Anyone (Kurds) have a problem with that?

And if you let in suspect nations like Iran and Syria are you helping things or making things worse?

And even then do you get even 50,000 troops?

Of course not.

[Slartibartfast]

Relevancy, Gary.

What'd be different, as far as troops on the ground? Tactics? Experience? Training? Equipment? Leadership? I'm pretty sure you can imagine a few differences that might lead to a less effective prosecution of war over there.

Not to mention the UN's history of standing by and letting people murder each other. Not that we ought to concern ourselves with such things.

[SDAI-Tech1]

C'mon Sebastian,

Deep in your heart of hearts you know the UN forces are the most competent and well equipped in the world. They are always well motivated and great fighters. Nothing strikes fear into a nation than the impending threat of being occupied by multinational forces under the UN banner!

SDAI-Tech1 ;-)

[Slartibartfast]

I'm trying to imagine the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle providing air support for the invasion of Iraq. Maybe if we'd waited a few years...

[Edward]

Sorry to be a broken record, but we should recall that UNICEF estimates a monthly death toll of 5,000 Iraqi children under five during Hussein's reign due to the sanctions (more like his misuse of the incoming money)

Anyone have any data on the infant mortality rate in Iraq since major combat ended? Without it, this is as useless data as any other.

[crionna]

Well, it seems from this that infant mortality may have increased in the year after major combat ended. Here's a bit more info from WHO that shows a much lower rate now.

Here Tommy Thompson states that we hope to halve it by 2005. This article describes the new Iraqi budget in comparison to Saddam's: Health officials like to weigh their spending today against that of Saddam Hussein, whose 2002 health budget of $16 million for 25 million Iraqis amounted to just 64 cents per person. The 2004 budget is $948 million, with an additional $793 million coming directly from the US - all told, a 100-fold increase.

This too is encouraging.

[Gary Farber]

"Convoys are often in the air too."

That's an interesting link, since, on my plane of reality, the word "air" is not to be found on that page.

But if it were, while I am no expert on military logistics, I would find it interesting to discover, given that we have complete control over all air space in Afghanistan, and over all airports, and can carve out airstrips anywhere we want in that country, and our primary base is, in fact, an aiport, Bagram Air Base, that it is more advantageous to fly equipment into Iraq, drive it across country, through Iran, a country not precisely friendly with us, and with which we have no diplomatic relations, over a thousand miles, and through Afghanistan, anywhere from hundreds, to over another thousand, miles, depending upon where you want to go.

It sounds a bit roundabout, as well as diplomatically impossible, and, well, downright pointless.

If your point is that it would be preferable to ship something heavy (M1-A2 tanks, perhaps, he offered helpfully) across the ocean, into Kuwait, across Iraq, and across Afghanistan, I really kinda think that just flying them into Afghanistan is going to be a tad quicker, cheaper, easier, and more likely.

But, as I said, I am not an expert on logistics.

On other fronts, I don't believe that "the masses are sheepish." I find it a contemptible point of view.

Sebastian, are you aware of the difference between someone saying "there's a perfectly reasonable case to be argued" and what they may believe and will argue for? If so, why are you asking me to defend a proposition I have not said I believe, and which I have specifically said I do not believe?

Do you have amnesia on the fact that I asked precisely the questions you throw at me, again, and argued precisely the same points that you are arguing, about UN troops? If not, why are you repeating what I said? If so, why should I re-engage in the same conversation we've already had, when you will apparently simply forget that we've had it, and you'll ask me the same pointless questions over again in three months?

Slarti: "Relevancy, Gary.

What'd be different, as far as troops on the ground?"

Hypothetically, numbers. As I've repeatedly stated, I am not making this argument. But that's the argument that those who make it, make. If the number of boots on the ground, of reasonably competent peacekeepers, could be or have been, greatly significantly increased, that would and would have greatly improved security. That's hardly a controversial point. The more relevant objection is the one I made in the earlier go-round, that Sebastian is now repeating as if prior conversation never took place, which is how likely was it, or is it, that we would get those significant additional numbers of competent boots on the ground.

"Not to mention the UN's history of standing by and letting people murder each other. Not that we ought to concern ourselves with such things."

How do you feel about how the Korean War worked out? Do you feel it was hindered by being a UN war? Do you feel that a UN force commanded by America would "stand by and let people murder each other"? If not, the point is irrelevant.

Y'know, I'm hardly a worshipper of the UN's magical properties, but it's useful to not react with a knee-jerk at the mention of the initials; the UN has its uses, and ignoring that, forgive me, is deeply foolish. I'm sure you wouldn't do such a thing, therefore.

What I don't understand is that you already replied, Slarti, to Edward's "'UN-led' is a euphemism of course for US-led with full UN backing..." Subsequently referring to "the UN's history of standing by and letting people murder each other," when the subject is a US-commanded UN force, seems inexplicable unless you are accusing the US of having commanded such a force. Can you clarify, please?

[victor falk]

Go to this blog. Scroll down till you come to "Core topic". Go through:

2. War aims:
2a. Why war?
2b. Meet Thomas Schelling
2c. The fog of war aims
2d. The war against what?
2e. How great a victory?

3. Declarations of war:
3a. The dog that didn't bark
3b. War and the US Constitution
3c. The dam and the river

4. Leverage and power:
4a. Power is only potential
4b. Power and context
4c. Power and anti-politics
4d. Alliances are more than constraints
4e. Showing your hand

5. The spectrum of strategy:
5a. "A war like no other"
5b. The levels of strategy
5c. The grand strategic level
5d. The theater level
5e. The operational level
5f. Operational strategy, another example
5g. The tactical level
5h. The technical level

6. Dynamics of strategy:
6a. Friction
more...

an excellent site.

[Slartibartfast]

Do you feel that a UN force commanded by America would...

Oh, is that what's being proposed? I guess I need a program.

I'm sure you wouldn't do such a thing, therefore.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. The UN does have its uses, indeed. Just not in the world of military endeavors.

As far as the rest of it goes, it's not entirely clear to me what's being proposed here as a solution for our postwar problems. If it's that we could supervise UN troops, the assumption that that would result in fewer fatalities still needs a little foundation; more boots on the ground doesn't necessarily guarantee that. More of our boots on the ground is a more plausible proposal, but that's not what Mr. Davies had in mind, I think. Also, the idea that command at the top level is automatically going to make UN troops effective at the squad level, for instance, needs a little work.

[Gary Farber]

This is a relevant post, by the way, as is this.

And this makes for highly interesting reading in hindsight.

[Slartibartfast]

The Flit article...which one were you pointing to? The one at the top has to do with Arafat.

The Kleiman article is old stuff. If you follow the logic, we ought to have a minimum of 500k troops in Iraq, and possibly as many as two and a half million.

It's not easy to see where you're going with this, Gary. I thought we were discussing UN troops. I'm not arguing that more troops in country might not be a good thing, I'm wondering on what grounds the claim is being made that the UN would have made things better, all around.

[asdf]

You know, all of this stuff about WMD and democracy is just "psyops" anyway. I'm not sure why everyone wastes their time on it.

Bottom line - the Iraq War was always about Middle East and world geopolitics. It was about removing a source of instability, putting US bases in Iraq and removing them from Saudi Arabia, boosting Iraqi production levels, and cementing US control over the region as we confront a recalcitrant Iran and a growing, resource-hungry China.

[Gary Farber]

"It's not easy to see where you're going with this, Gary."

I'm not "going" anywhere. I don't have an agenda here. I'm not making a case for anything. Perhaps rereading the thread, quickly, might clarify?

You also seem to have slipped, Slarti, from the earlier part of the discussion -- which was about how reasonable or not it was to suggest that a better course of action might have been to have delayed the invasion a year or two in time for a new administration in 2005, which -- the argument goes -- could have put more troops on the ground, and thus had a far less violent and troublesome occupation -- into debating what should be done now, though I can't tell who you're arguing with.

The Flit link was for the second entry (sorry he doesn't use individual permalinks) on ratios of occupation. Though his other thoughts of the time make interesting reading, as well.

[Edward]

Bottom line - the Iraq War was always about Middle East and world geopolitics. It was about removing a source of instability, putting US bases in Iraq and removing them from Saudi Arabia, boosting Iraqi production levels, and cementing US control over the region as we confront a recalcitrant Iran and a growing, resource-hungry China.

or as the saying goes, "blood for oil"

[Slartibartfast]

though I can't tell who you're arguing with.

No one, apparently.

or as the saying goes, "blood for oil"

Please, Edward. This sort of thing is beneath you.

[SDAI-Tech1]

Gary,

You're one of those folks who's never mistaken aren't you? ;-) When we first went into Afghanistan we had to fly off of carriers in a painfully long air route that exhausted our pilots.. Most of the nations in the region would not provide any logistical support. Let's use an image to refresh your memory. Afghanistan Assault

Having Iraq as a base to land and supply planes enroute to Afghanistan is infinitely easier than flying nonstop from Diego Garcia or Carriers which have limitations on what can launch and land is blatantly obvious to all but the blind.
Controlling airspace in Afghanistan is a tactical advantage but not a logistical solution to supplying those troops and replacing planes, etc.

But you've admitted you're not an expert on logistics so I'll just take your word for it. ;-)

Sorry. Your arguing over semantics and whether convoys exist in the air brings out such sarcasm.

And while to you it may be contemptible to view the masses as sheepish, any student of history can't help but arrive at that conclusion. Whether it be the mobs lynching a 'nigger' in the south during the 1800's or a stoning of a heretic in Italy in the fifteenth century, humanity is overflowing with evidence of the sheepishness of its masses. Religion alone is evidence enough. Religion - the ultimate bleating of sheeps following the ideas and philosophies of others. Billions exist upon this world whose beliefs originated outside of themselves. Folks whose spiritual enlightenment came packaged for them like a TV dinner - effortless consumption for the unthinking masses.

The masses that despise Bush are equally sheepish, and their hate is based on anecdotes, lampoons and is the mimicked hate of their colleagues and the foxes that surround them. They don't know Bush the man or whether he really is worthy of contempt - but they are sheep and sheep act without thinking.

The human that can actually think is quite rare. Most react. Folks read this post and react to it; anger, frustration or what have you. Few actually take their emotions out of the equation and respond to the content after analyzing it within their mind. Day after day the masses react to the happenings and these reactions are mostly emotion driven. They join in these hate-fest blogs to either surround themselves with others whose bile and contempt matches their own or to argue and prove their superiority mentally in some pointless tit for tat battle of words. Few blogs engage in genuinely constructive thought and action that benefit both the society at large and the individuals engaged in the discussion. That's the reality of the human condition and present level of development.

In time this will change and folks' debates will be more constructive as their intellect and educational institutions improve. Emotions will never leave us, but they will be diminshed and emotional oneupmanship will leave most of the discussions. The blogging world is an example of the intense communication that will take place in the future decades and centuries on an even greater scale as mankind communicates globally to build a better and more peaceful world.

[Jesurgislac]

Please, Edward. This sort of thing is beneath you.

You're wrong, Slarti: speaking the truth with clarity never seems to be beneath Edward - a trait for which I greatly admire him.

[Slartibartfast]

Blood for oil is truth with clarity? It's not even truth.

[Edward]

Please, Edward. This sort of thing is beneath you.

But, you know, Slarti, it's not...to pretend otherwise is beneath me. I know, in my gut, that this invasion was about securing resources. The rest is rhetorical window dressing.

As for the snarky tone of my comment, well, it all gets to you sometimes, you know? All the nonsense being shoved down your throat about patriotism and terrorism, when terrorism was simply a convenient excuse to do something they'd been hoping to find a way to do all along. asdf's right...this is ultimately about our access to oil. Now THAT may be closely tied to our national security, I'll admit, but all the rhetorical b.s. the WH spouted to justify the invasion is so completely offensive to my sense of who we are as a nation. The idea that we can be whipped up into a frenzy so disorienting that we'll support invading another country (when it could have been Iran and/or should have been Saudi Arabia) is frightening. Call it strategic necessity, if you must...just don't drag "liberation" or "human rights" or "American values" into it. That's a sleazy soiling of ideas I actually care about, and how this war dishonors them makes me want to vomit.

Also I'm offended that we, Americans, in this day and age, with all our access to free information, can be played like fiddles...I can't help but imagine the architects of this war smugly smiling at how their PR campaign swayed the masses.

Now I know there's the wise among us, who always knew it wasn't really about a few crusty cannisters of nerve gas or the potential odd mobile weapons lab, and, my, how they must have chuckled to themselves when they heard the cheers by Bush's audiences, as he told them how he had to do this to protect them from mushroom clouds...and yet, when pressed, they'll say, No, I did believe that there were WMD, really I did, but it just doesn't matter now, because well, there were other reasons to invade too and those still apply.

Only problem being, the majority supported a war based on the entire argument. The rationale was not presented as a set of mix-and-match modules...a grab bag of justifications for sending our nation's youth into battle. It was presented as a total set of circumstances, a lethal sum, adding up to a unique moral responsibility to start a pre-emptive war.

[SDAI-Tech1]

Blood for oil?

Might as well include the following: Blood for security, Blood for freedom, Blood to protect our children, Blood for blood, Blood for democracy, etc.

Soundbites are easily understood by the sheep for whom complex issues need to be condensed and spoonfed in engineered soundbites to control their emotions and actions.

It's quite sad really.

[Slartibartfast]

I know, in my gut, that this invasion was about securing resources.

That's what you get for thinking with the wrong organ. See, the thing is...where's our oil? If this is blood for oil, where's the oil? Where's the guarantees, the discounts? Where's dibs on oil purchases? Where's us operating Iraq as a puppet state, so we can swallow their entire petroleum output?

Nowhere, that's where. It's not a trade, not an exchange. Oh, I understand your point, however inaccurately and imprecisely it was made. But the thing is, it's oil that enabled Saddam to arm himself to the extent that he did, and oil that built him the palaces. Oh, and it's money from the oil that enabled him to send "gifts" to the families of suicide bombers. All we did is remove his hand from the spigot.

And if it was a "preemptive war", there had to be something to preempt. Not an immediate threat, mind you, but out there just the same.

[Edward]

Thanks for the kind words Jesurgislac. :)

[asdf]

See, the thing is...where's our oil? If this is blood for oil, where's the oil? Where's the guarantees, the discounts? Where's dibs on oil purchases? Where's us operating Iraq as a puppet state, so we can swallow their entire petroleum output?

Oh, Slarti. So naive. Of course it isn't that simple. It's about long term price stability, some control under the auspices of U.S. nationals, the ability to flex our muscles and shut off the spigots in the event of a major conflict, etc.

On the flip side, you're right -- it is oil that fundamentally corrupts the Middle East and leads to monsters like Saddam Hussein and the House of Saud.

So yes, it is about the oil.

[Edward]

That's what you get for thinking with the wrong organ.

At least that organ gets me into less trouble than another has, but, this is a family blog, so...

where's the oil?

It's beneath the desert and on both sides of that desert are two very hungry civlizations. One in the US and one in China...and China's coming for that oil, you can bet the family farm on that.

By positioning ourselves in there now, we're trying to pre-empt their getting it. And that's the only pre-emptive part about it.

[SDAI-Tech1]

Now I know there's the wise among us, who always knew it wasn't really about a few crusty cannisters of nerve gas or the potential odd mobile weapons lab, and, my, how they must have chuckled to themselves when they heard the cheers by Bush's audiences, as he told them how he had to do this to protect them from mushroom clouds...and yet, when pressed, they'll say, No, I did believe that there were WMD, really I did, but it just doesn't matter now, because well, there were other reasons to invade too and those still apply.

It's this level of cynicism that nonplusses me.

We had and have very real nuclear fears.

When Pakistan can develop a bomb with FAR less resources than Iraq has had, one naturally assumes nuclear programs are being conducted all over the Middle East.

The fear of an Iraq nuclear bomb was very real. The disclosures of Libya lead us to believe that other nations in the region are working on nuclear & WMD programs.

You've bought into the radical rhetoric which has created its own delusional version of the administration, the CIA and the government.

Like the kids that run past some harmless poorly maintained old man's house, believing it is a house of evil and its owner a monster - the Democratic Underground and its many intellectual equivalents have their own imaginary US government, CIA, President, etcetera which is only real in the undeveloped corners of their musty minds.

Kids have immaturity as an excuse for doing these things. Adults...well...they have a disorder.

[Slartibartfast]

...and China's coming for that oil, you can bet the family farm on that. And that's the only pre-emptive part about it.

I'm stunned, Edward. I can't even begin to respond to this sort of fabrication.

the ability to flex our muscles and shut off the spigots in the event of a major conflict

Is there some sort of hallucinogenic pollen in the air today, asdf? Good grief, what we're doing is unrelated to pursuit of that ability. Once Iraq is on its feet, they can elect to only export as much oil as they need to in order to feed the population, and we'd have absolutely no say in the matter.

[asdf]

Ah, but Tech, we knew that our fears were unwarranted, in the case of Iraq.

[asdf]

Maybe you're right, Slart.

The fundamental principles of grand strategy and the definition of national interest have changed since 9/11. History has truly ended.

Right.

[SDAI-Tech1]

Well asdf, one never really knows when one doesn't have enough feet on the ground and an ability to inspect truly unfettered. Though I will concede that the data we held and second-hand information sent mixed signals and could lead to many interpretations of the status of the previously existing Iraq WMD programs.

Bush opted to presume the worst. Which after 9/11 really wasn't that hard of a mindset for a President to get into.

[Edward]

I'm stunned, Edward. I can't even begin to respond to this sort of fabrication.

Theory, Slarti...the word you're looking for is "theory"...not fabrication. "Fabrication" has an air of being made up out of thin air. "Theory" suggests it's based on an observation or deduction (even if misguided). And If we can't spout theories in a thread titled "Antiwar Fantasy," when can we?

But it works as a theory, and make so much more sense to me than the idea that the Iraqis were much more deserving of our gift of liberty than the Iranians or whomever....

You read every day how "car crazy" China is becoming. And with a population 4 times the size of ours, plus, and an economy growing all the time, it's really just math. Math and PoliSci.
China will need more and more oil in the coming century. The price will go up. Nations will get desperate. Wars will break out.

He who best controls the oil will have the advantage.

Once Iraq is on its feet, they can elect to only export as much oil as they need to in order to feed the population, and we'd have absolutely no say in the matter.

Again, just theory here, but the military bases we're building in Iraq don't seem very "temporary" from what I read.

[Slartibartfast]

History has truly ended.

Just crying bullshit on an idea that's 100% supposition, is all. Unless, of course, you've got some sort of evidence for what you've represented as our real motives.

[Slartibartfast]

Theory, Slarti

I usually reserve that word for something that's a bit more defensible, normally. But usage varies. I'd treat this one as an untested hypothesis. Perhaps untestable.

[Edward]

I'd treat this one as an untested hypothesis. Perhaps untestable.

I suspect the point is to try and keep it that way.

[sidereal]

SDAI-Tech1,

"Soundbites are easily understood by the sheep for whom complex issues need to be condensed and spoonfed in engineered soundbites to control their emotions and actions."

"It's this level of cynicism that nonplusses me."

That you could unselfconsciously emit these two statements within an hour of each other is astounding.

That's the second time you've posted the first, in so many words, and it's offensive. Messages are condensed and spoonfed because by and large that is in the interests of those who deliver the message, not those who receive them.

And in the many cases where people do desire the neutered version of a story, it's usually because they desire moral clarity and certitude, which are hard to come by in an era of information and complexity. And while that is a frailty that we should all be on guard against, it makes people neither stupid, nor 'sheep'.

[Jeff Licquia]

Jim:

It seems, IMO, very unlikely that Bush would have been supported in an invasion.

I doubt even Bush would have supported Bush given your hypotheticals.

Which, of course, proves the danger of "what-if" games: you never know what the real implications would be.

[Slartibartfast]

So, it's a widespread conspiracy? What next? Skull and Bones? Freemasons? Jews? The Templar treasure?

All these have something in common: they represent overarching conspiracies that someone or other wishes were true. With as little evidence as you have available, Edward, multiple hypotheses could be devised to fit. You've merely selected one to that's your liking.

[sidereal]

"Unless, of course, you've got some sort of evidence for what you've represented as our real motives."

It abounds. Honestly. In mountains.
Unfortunately we're in an era where even evidence is a theory.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, let's see a bit of it, then. Let's see some of the purported evidence that points more toward war-for-oil (-to-avoid-China-getting-it, but that's a side issue) more than to the alternatives.

I mean, if there's mountains, it shouldn't be too hard to point to.

[sidereal]

Not at all, but even the pointing would be wasted effort. You're not interested in believe it and therefore won't. So what's my incentive?

[asdf]

Slartsville-

All I'm saying is that you can take generally accepted theories and practices regarding the strategies of nations, throw in global trends and geological realties, the history of American foreign policy (especially in the Middle East), and then toss in the formative writings of Paul Wolfowitz (who was writing about the strategic importance of Iraq in the 1970s!!!), Condi Rice (always worried about China), Donald Rumsfeld, and Zalmay Khalilzad (author of the '92 DoD strategy that led to the 2002 NSS), and I think you can understand what's going on here.

We're all adults. It's okay to talk about this.

[Slartibartfast]

You're not interested in believe it and therefore won't.

Well, that was a rather tidy exercise in utter wrongness. I'd already expressed an interest, but it must have gotten overridden by your belief system that I'm uninterested. This sort of mind-reading is a little too twisted for my taste.

[sidereal]

Grammatical wrongness, anyway.

If we have reached the stage when observing behavior and extrapolating likely future behavior is 'mind reading', then we're all done for.

[Slartibartfast]

We're all adults. It's okay to talk about this.

Isn't that what we're doing?

So, the story is: Iraq is important. The Middle East lacks stability. China needs our attention. Therefore, we must save Iraq from China. Or have I missed something?

[SDAI-Tech1]

And in the many cases where people do desire the neutered version of a story, it's usually because they desire moral clarity and certitude, which are hard to come by in an era of information and complexity. And while that is a frailty that we should all be on guard against, it makes people neither stupid, nor 'sheep'.

Sidereal,

Moral clarity? I don't think so. Nothing is clear about it. It's an intentional distortion of US action. "No blood for oil" is a monosyllabic soundbite rant that the smaller minds can easily assimilate, perhaps chant at protests, and which the foxes can use to snare their prey.

The "No blood for oil" rant originates from the modern Bolsheviks - the globalists, anti-capitalists and international tax supporters that wish to diminish the power of the United States and will devise little slogans to achieve their ends.

The sheep bleat "No blood for oil" and the only moral clarity it represents is that it achieves for the Bolsheviks the anti-US goal that it was designed to achieve. Kids and youth are susceptible because they are the least wordly, the most ignorant and bleat it loudly and proudly.

The foxes laugh and snicker because they know that the disenchanted, rebellious youth are their foot soldiers and they will have them for a while until they learn and live a bit. The youth here in the US and Europe shout "No blood for oil!" In Palestine they shout "death to Jews!" Al Qaeda youth are sent on suicide missions and shout "Allah Akbar!" Ah yes, the sheep of the world are indeed led to the slaughter.

I'm sorry you find the sheep bit offensive. I'd find it offensive too if it weren't true. The older one gets one realizes their are lots of young idiots and old idiots, and only a small sliver of wisdom contained in all too few minds.

Mankind has always been led. We need leaders because mankind are sheep. We need inventors, scientists, politicians and philosophers to help guide these young souls. One look at global literacy rates and you already have a barnyard indictment against the human race and its vast masses that are hopelessly uninformed and rely on the words of others immediately around them.

In civilized centers of the world and in parts of the US or Europe it is easy to believe that the savvy and educated are more numerous than they are.

Sadly, it's just an illusion. An illusion that fades away when one's perspective increases.

[Slartibartfast]

we're all done for.

How convenient for you. I hope this sort of reasoning serves you well elsewhere.

[sidereal]

SDAI-Tech1,

I find your analogies anti-humanistic, perverse, counterfactual, and oddly agrarian. But hey, it's Thursday. . what are you going to do? I'll be sure to convey your sentiments
to my younger friends, who will be happy to know that the educated elites in their towers of science and philosophy are taking care of them and/or leading them like foxes to the shearing at the barnyard.

"An illusion that fades away when one's perspective increases."
Let me know when you get there. (Snarktastic!, but I couldn't resist. I owe you a beer)

Slarti,
"I hope this sort of reasoning serves you well elsewhere."
Ah, I bet you don't. See? More mind reading! It's addictive.

You're well-read and well-informed. It's reasonable to expect you've already acquianted yourself with the available evidence of the administration's pervasive interest in Iraqi oil. If you've already found it unconvincing, reading it again isn't going to change your mind. It would, however, give you an opportunity to publicly find it unconvincing, and round and round the dance would go, and I hope you'll forgive my disinterest in dancing that dance today.

[crionna]

Hmmm. Interesting. Edward, asdf, sidereal, I’ve read others who see our most dangerous (if not immediate) enemy as China. Do you think that, barring a US attack on Iraq, that China would have attacked the Middle East to secure a supply of oil? If so, when?

[Gary Farber]

You're one of those folks who's never mistaken aren't you? ;-)

On the contrary, I make a variety of mistakes at varying intervals.

When we first went into Afghanistan we had to fly off of carriers in a painfully long air route that exhausted our pilots.. Most of the nations in the region would not provide any logistical support.

We, in fact, had use of in Enduring Freedom these Deployments:

...former Soviet bases in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan....

I take it you believe we are about to be thrown out of Afghanistan, militarily unable to return, and unable to use our airbases there. Why?

[...] Having Iraq as a base to land and supply planes enroute to Afghanistan is infinitely easier [...]

... than flying into Afghanistan. Right. Why?

...than flying nonstop from Diego Garcia or Carriers

What, precisely, do you expect to be flying from Diego Garcia or an aircraft carrier, to Iraq, to drive thousands of miles across Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?

[...] Controlling airspace in Afghanistan is a tactical advantage but not a logistical solution to supplying those troops and replacing planes, etc.

Why are we going to be unable to fly into Afghanistan? How are we going to be able to drive equipment across Iran? These are simple questions.

But you've admitted you're not an expert on logistics so I'll just take your word for it. ;-)

Yes. I gladly bow to your expertise in logistics, since you here assert greater such than I possess. Where did you obtain this training in military logistics?

Sorry. Your arguing over semantics and whether convoys exist in the air brings out such sarcasm.

You've not yet responded to the point that you cited a dictionary definition of "convoy" as a source for your assertion that "convoys" mean "shipping by air," yet the page you cited has no such reference whatsoever. What is your response to that?

And while to you it may be contemptible to view the masses as sheepish, any student of history can't help but arrive at that conclusion.

I see. As a student of history, please supply three reputable historians as a source fo this assertion. As a student of history, this should be child's play.

...humanity is overflowing with evidence of the sheepishness of its masses. Religion alone is evidence enough. Religion - the ultimate bleating of sheeps [...] The human that can actually think is quite rare.

That, of course, would be you. You must be very rare, and special, just as you tell us, to have such insight into religion, and humanity. It is a privilege to have you among us to teach us about the sheep. Was it through reincarnation you gained this wisdom, or was there some other means by which you lifted yourself above the mass of sheep and learned to think?

[Slartibartfast]

...I hope you'll forgive my disinterest in dancing that dance today.

For a guy who professes disinterest in dancing, you're dancing quite well. I do however have to confess complete ignorance of our plans to rescue Iraq from the clutches of China, so if you can stop dancing long enough to point out some evidence for that idea, I'd be happy to consider it.

Or not, if you'd rather dance around it.

[sidereal]

"For a guy who professes disinterest in dancing, you're dancing quite well"

Thanks, but honestly my part in the 'conversation' has been a glorified succession of 'There's no point in arguing about this's. So if it's a dance, it's a monotonous sort of march. There's no point in arguing about it because it's done. We already invaded. Changing your mind about the motives isn't going to wind time back 2 years, and if it did somehow I think your change of heart wouldn't undo the whole endeavor.

And I never hitched my wagon to China. That's Edward's game of Risk. I suggested that there is ample evidence that Iraq's petrochemical resources were a primary motivator for the war.

[Anarch]

Once Iraq is on its feet, they can elect to only export as much oil as they need to in order to feed the population, and we'd have absolutely no say in the matter.

That's probably technically true but IMO misleading. The obvious exemplar in that regard, Chile, is a bit overdrawn at this point, so let me just remark that I doubt very much that "we'd have absolutely no say in the matter" in any regime we install, our pretty rhetoric notwithstanding.

[For the record, I'm not asserting that the Iraq War was purely conducted to acquire resources. All I'm saying is that regardless of the rationale(s) for invasion, influence over Iraq's oil played at least a minimal role in the pondering of the aftermath.]

[Slartibartfast]

I suggested that there is ample evidence that Iraq's petrochemical resources were a primary motivator for the war.

Odd, then, that you continue to argue how it's fruitless discussing this, in place of simply pointing out a bit of this evidence.

And of course once we get that out of the way, it's going to be prudent to ask: motivator for whom? Was it motivation for the 296 Representatives and 77 Senators to vote in favor of war? Did John Kerry vote yea out of such motivation, or is he, like me, simply woefully uninformed?

[Slartibartfast]

...I doubt very much that "we'd have absolutely no say in the matter" in any regime we install, our pretty rhetoric notwithstanding.

That's hardly compelling, Anarch. And my reputation for being well-read notwithstanding, I've not seen anything about us building permanent bases in Iraq. Temporary bases of operation, certainly. Some fellow named Pepe Escobar has written an article on US military bases in Iraq (widely linked by the likes of indymedia), of which he claims there are 14. No names or locations, natch. There are a great deal more than 14 bases of operation, so it's hard to tell which he's referring to.

[Edward]

With as little evidence as you have available, Edward, multiple hypotheses could be devised to fit. You've merely selected one to that's your liking.

Well, it's certainly NOT to my liking, but I'll admit it's just conjecture at this point (I've stated flatly that I come from a place where every conspiracy is true until proven otherwise...some of them just so happen to be proven true, however).

Crionna is right, though; there's lots of whispering going on about China right now, and none of it looks too good for the US. I like to think it's the natural human tendency to scapegoat one's problems or identify a mortal enemy so that the world's nicely divided into the good and the bad, the us and the them. You'd think that the them focus right now would be the Muslims of the world, but the chatter's pointed toward Beijing more than Mecca.

The most pessimistic among the whisperers see the US dropping into second-world status within a generation or so, and feel that what's happening in the Middle East is not a land-grab of any expected duration, but rather a smash-and-grab, taking as much cash as you can before the Red Army rolls in sort of thing. Sounds like fantasy, I know...but then so did a lot a things that have come to pass recently if you step back and look at what folks thought 20 years ago.

Didn't mean for my "blood for oil" comment to spark the response it did...honestly thought it would simply be dismissed as a childish snark and that'd be it.

Still, been reading far too much history lately though, and if one thing emerges from a steady diet of human warfare history it's that you can trace most invasions back to a perceived need to acquire more resources. Religion, politics, ideology are the window dressing, the means. The end goal, and it's clearly discussed as such at the highest levels of government, is invariably acquiring access to resources. Read between the lines of SDAI-Tech1's comments. I'm not saying he's in on the conspiracy, but there's plenty of food for thought in his implications of our entitlements in Iraq.

[asdf]

crionna and Sir Slart,

It's not quite as simple as "omigod China's going to invade Iraq!"

It's more like, hmmm, Chinese influence seems to be exanding in Central Asia and Africa. Oil companies, agents, etc. We better counter that, and hold the line.

[Slartibartfast]

I like to think it's the natural human tendency to scapegoat one's problems or identify a mortal enemy so that the world's nicely divided into the good and the bad, the us and the them.

If that's the case, the thing you ought to be asking yourself is: in what way is Edward doing this very thing, in this very thread? You already know my devious ways as VRWC Deathbeast.

I think this has been beaten to death (if not well into decomposition), and barring something substantial being posted here, I'm now going to let this slide. I figured it was snark, Edward. But it was poorly substantiated snark, and I thought it much more like what I'd expect from Rall than what I'd expect from Edward.

[Anarch]

As an alcoholic digression, blame any failings of this post on the 12-year Tanduay rum from the Philippines. At $2 a bottle (plus the price of airfare to said locale), it's cheap, excellent and lethal, my favorite combination in a potation.

[Mixologically, I note that rum and ginger beer -- not ginger ale, perish the thought -- is a spectacular combination that I have insufficiently praised over the years, partly because I've just found out that one can utilize a good amber rum as well as a classic Jamaican dark.]

Slarti: That's hardly compelling, Anarch.

Well, it was your standard to begin with. If you're going to claim that the Iraqi regime is going to be completely free to determine its oil policy and we're going to have no say whatsoever, it seems reasonable to point out that that flourish -- which may have simply been a reductio, but may also have been literal -- is dubious at best.

And my reputation for being well-read notwithstanding, I've not seen anything about us building permanent bases in Iraq.

Huh? Your reputation for being well-read seems ill-deserved if you think I've said anything about us building permanent bases in Iraq. [Yes, I know that's unfair. My apologies; it was simply too tempting to pass up.] Were I forced to bet, I would reluctantly accede to that proposition; but atm I'm taking the view that, since it seems no-one has the faintest idea what the hell we're doing in Iraq in the long run, there's not much point in trying to make specific predictions w.r.t. the utilization of Iraq as a strategic asset in the Middle East.

As for US, China and Iraq... I don't doubt for a moment that there are strategic planners in our government somewhere who are rejoicing that we might be able to exert significant control over the world's dwindling supplies of crude oil; and that there are other governmental planners who doubtless rejoice over the fact that, once Hubbert's Peak is crossed, China will be out in the cold due to our machinations in the Middle East. [I say this in part because I'm a cynic and in part because I'm a 17-year resident of the now-Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China and have few remaining illusions about the mercies of the CCP.] Whether those planners were actually in positions to influence the President is not something I'm remotely qualified to assess, but I'll nonetheless guess that they were not a meaningful part of the decision-making process.

Everyone's Mileage May, and bloody well better given my current state, Vary.

[Edward]

But it was poorly substantiated snark, and I thought it much more like what I'd expect from Rall than what I'd expect from Edward.

Thanks...I think.

[Slartibartfast]

If you're going to claim that the Iraqi regime is going to be completely free to determine its oil policy...

And here I thought "full sovereignty" only meant one thing. Hopefully, though, that's the rum talking.

...seems ill-deserved if you think I've said anything about us building permanent bases in Iraq.

It appears I didn't read exactly, but rather thought to myself "just how are we going to influence oil policy if we're not maintaining a military presence in Iraq?" Silly, I know. Well, consider my response in that vein retracted, and the preceding question substituted.