Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

It’s WAR! It’s WAR! When the civil war is finally declared in Iraq will the US jump back in for round three?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (21138 points ) 1 month ago

They say nothing stimulates the economy like war, so when the civil war in Iraq is finally declared officially will the US jump back in for another round? They can get some jobless youth off the streets and into the military, stoke up factories feeding the war machine; more jobs there, and justify it all by attempting to prevent all the cash and lives invested there from going up in smoke, or sand in this case. Plus, it will be one more distraction the party of Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb can fight over.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

dappled_leaves's avatar

Dream on. The Iraq war certainly didn’t stimulate the US economy, unless you are only looking at Halliburton and its affiliates. There’s a reason Bush left those costs off the books while he was in office.

filmfann's avatar

Wars do NOT stimulate the economy. They suck the economy dry.
But that isn’t the reason we won’t put boots on the ground. The country won’t stand for it.
What I think might happen is we will start selling drones and bombs to Iraq. Yes, we will become war profiteers.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

We have been war profiteers for many many years.

JLeslie's avatar

What I want to know is if they will blame Obama for pulling troops out? I haven’t watched any of the news coverage regarding this, my dad informed me Iraq is a mess.

I think they should have left Sadam Hussein there. America really does not understand the middle east in my opinion. When we screw around with those countries things tend to get worse. Didn’t we support elections for the Palestinians? And, they elected Hamas! We are idealistic about democracy working for everyone, all sorts of assumptions we make that don’t pan out.

johnpowell's avatar

“What I want to know is if they will blame Obama for pulling troops out?” <- Already done. McCain wants to put the troops back.

Personally, I think it was stupid to go in to start and saw this coming. It sucks more people will die but unless we are willing to sit there for 100 years it will eventually happen so just rip the band-aid off now and let it break up into three countries.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

Aren’t we still fighting a war in Afghanistan?

stanleybmanly's avatar

the very thought of such a thing is now moot, because as everyone here has stated, infantry commitment to Iraq is now politically unfeasible. It will be 25 years at least until Americans forget the lessons of Iraq. For the next 10 years or so nothing short of a nuclear detonation in New York harbor will allow politicians to engage in military adventures requiring U S “boots on the ground”. The reason the decision to invade Iraq was this country’s greatest strategic blunder is precisely because it guaranteed the vacuum necessary to initiate the unraveling of the entire region. Thus far the uncontested winner in Iraq is Iran, but that is quickly on the way to changing. There is a reason that all of the stable governments in the region were brutal repressive authoritarian regimes. To repeat myself, a heavy hand is required to keep the lid on a boiling pot. The lid’s off in Iraq, and seriously ajar in Libya, Syria and Egypt. Afghanistan has been lidless for 200 years. Pakistan is an explosives factory staffed with heavy smokers. The failure of the knucklehead who put us in Iraq (and his retinue of fellow travelers) to understand or appreciate the history as well as the true nature of the region has probably sentenced us to gasoline at $20 a gallon and up, with the possible bonus of global economic collapse. If we’re liucky, the Europeans will recognize the necessity of occupying the region, but I wouldn’t count on it. It’s depressing.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@stanleybmanly …has probably sentenced us to gasoline at $20 a gallon and up…”

I can’t say I’m broken up about that. Cheap gas is not doing the planet any favours at all. Maybe a sharp global hike will finally spark some badly needed innovation in this sector.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It was going that way gradually. It’s the abrupt shifts that will torpedo the world economy.

kritiper's avatar

We never should have gotten involved in the first place but since we did, we never should have gotten out. This “war” is a fight to the death but no one seems to understand that. But for now, we should give unlimited air support in Iraq and nothing else.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@JLeslie I think they should have left Sadam Hussein there.
They could not, Bush and cronies were not smart enough to see that and too blinded by pride, arrogance and vengeance to see Vietnam of the Sand in the making.

@stanleybmanly The reason the decision to invade Iraq was this country’s greatest strategic blunder is precisely because it guaranteed the vacuum necessary to initiate the unraveling of the entire region.
I think they figured on having a gob of US/Israel friendly puppets installed over there.

CWOTUS's avatar

I’ve read a bit lately from some military experts who explain why starting the Iraq war made strategic sense, and the arguments are good ones.

We were already fighting a war in Afghanistan, which we considered to be a “just” war. Most of the world – the civilized world, anyway – backed our intent to take out the Taliban which had allowed Al Qaeda to flourish, and which supported and protected Bin Laden and his cohorts, and who had developed and carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks on the USA, as well as others before then. However, no one from “outside” wins wars in Afghanistan. The mountain pass into the country from Pakistan is known as the “Hindu Kush”, which means “killer of Hindus” from ancient Afghan / Indian conflicts. The British empire and all its might in the 19th century couldn’t conquer it. The Russians foundered and pretty much lost their entire empire on the gamble that they could take it over and somehow gain access to Indian Ocean bases.

Despite the easy going of the early part of the war for the United States and its allies: B52s using carpet bombs and smart bombs, and relatively inexpensive support for the Northern Alliance and some other homegrown opposition to the Taliban, a “boots on the ground” war was going to be every bit as expensive to the USA as it had been to anyone else who tried to take over the country from outside its borders.

The description for the strategy that had us invade Iraq was described as “accidentally brilliant”, and the rationale for that attack really was brilliant, if it actually occurred as described by the experts I’ve heard from. Baghdad, as one of Islam’s centers, and Iraq’s ancient civilization center at the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, was and is a psychologically important area to Muslims, especially the fundamentalist radical Muslims who had taken over Afghanistan’s government. Attacking there “affronted” the enemy in Afghanistan so much that it could not be ignored.

The brilliant strategy would have been to attack the Iraqi Army – as we did – and chew it up slowly while advancing on Baghdad. Saddam hardly mattered in this equation. The intent of the fight there should have been to bring the overwhelming might of US ground and air forces to ground of its choosing: flat and level, open, generally unpopulated in the southern part of the country, open to re-supply from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and sealift cabability to the Persian Gulf ports, and draw in a lot of the fighters who would have preferred to stay in the mountains, hills and caves in Afghanistan. Iraq was – clearly – ideal ground for the American tanks, artillery and infantry with all of the air support that the Air Force and Navy could also offer.

To a large extent that strategy worked, and many of the “deck of cards” ringleaders who were eventually captured or killed had been operating in Afghanistan before they were drawn into the fighting in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the civilian leadership of the entire operation screwed the pooch after the fall of Baghdad. One of the worst decisions was to fire the entire Iraqi Army. This created a huge pool of unemployed men, most of them still armed, and created a windfall for the insurgency.

No matter what strategic sense it might make to try to redo what we did once, or to retake the country, it’s unlikely in the extreme that we will attempt to do so. There is no support for that mission any more, and there’s no money for it, either.

gondwanalon's avatar

The second Iraq war was a huge mistake. It was all for nothing with a colossal cost which just keeps adding up. Without Saddam Hussein in power the Sunni and Shia are now free to destroy each other. If we ever learn anything from that mess it will be to just let it be.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@CWOTUS Regardless of any reasons proffered for the invasion of Iraq, the escapade was a strategic blunder, and absolutely avoidable. In the run-up to the war the chief of staff of the army was the same general Shinseki who recently resigned as head of the Veterans Administration. When asked for an analysis of the plan developed for the invasion of Iraq, Shinseki flatly told the civilian planners that the force envisioned was too small for the mission. He stated that the assumption that U S forces would be welcomed as liberators was nonsense on its face, and that while the U S might have forces sufficient to overrun the country, we lacked the manpower to hold and secure the place. Here I would like to comment that the reason we lacked and could not raise the numbers to hold and secure Iraq was a direct result of the previous great strategic blunder, the Vietnam war, Vietnam eliminated the possibility of a draft as a political reality, and as Rumsfeld stated “you go to war with the army you have.” Shinseki further asserted that occupation of the country was all but certain to generate uprisings and sectarian infighting. The general was very quickly rewarded for speaking truth to power by being forced to resign and the 3 trillion dollar ten year debacle was underway. There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt that the planners both military and civilian hadn’t a clue as to either the history of the region nor the nature of the opposition. The preposterous assertion of the Bush administration that the “liberation” of Iraq would lead to a democratic government should demonstrate just how clueless our leadership was (and still is) regarding the middle east in general and Iraq in particular.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

Actually, @stanleybmanly our leadership is anything but clueless regarding the middle east in general and Iraq in particular.
The results we have gotten are exactly the results our leaders wanted.

jca's avatar

I hope not. I’m tired of us feeling obligated to be involved in other countries’ politics. Let them kill each other if they want to.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@stanleybmanly He stated that the assumption that U S forces would be welcomed as liberators was nonsense on its face, and that while the U S might have forces sufficient to overrun the country, we lacked the manpower to hold and secure the place.
Capture and hold, why? Shock and Awe were supposed to leave too few combatants to worry about. Because we had seen Saddam as such a douche bag surely the Iraqis had to view him that way; Uncle Sam is always correct.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther