BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Will This End in Iraq?

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:23 / 15.05.04
Never said it was. But while the US could fight in Iraq while maintaining a presence in Afghanistan (albeit a reduced one - the Special Forces were pretty pissed to be ripped out of their cultivated information networks and thrown on a plane to Iraq), I don't think it'd a whole lot of fun economically, politically, or logistically, for them to try to take on a third front.
 
 
w1rebaby
18:46 / 15.05.04
No, I can't see an actual invasion of another country, not in the near future. There's barely enough troops to *pacify* Iraq, let alone control it, the whole thing would have international diplomatic repercussions that would make the current state of affairs look like a Bush rally, and the domestic problems would be immense too. Even if there was a faction deluded enough to attempt it, people inside their own party would take them down sharpish.
 
 
Skeleton Camera
20:18 / 15.05.04
If China is really the last target, that puts things in a different light. China is apparently the world's unacknowledged superpower - I don't know many details, and if anyone could fill in that'd be great - and thus the greatest, and quietest, threat to "a new American century." There could be a buildup plan of sorts - using the accumulations of Iraq/Iran/Syria to fuel a war against China, not to mention North Korea as a jumpoff point...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:13 / 16.05.04
MM, but China really do have nukes out the backside, dont they?

And a staggeringly large population.
 
 
w1rebaby
13:40 / 16.05.04
Not even the most utterly deluded imperialist fantasist could think they could actually win a war against China. Besides, China is an important trade partner.
 
 
Baz Auckland
02:01 / 17.05.04
But... if the plan right now is to hand over authority to Iraq in 30 days, get the troops the hell out of there quickly so the mess is purely an 'Iraqi domestic problem', another war would be another distraction for us... seems incredibly unlikely, but considering how unlikely the Iraq war seemed two years ago I worry...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:37 / 17.05.04
The Chinese notionally have only a small number of nukes. This means they can afford to maintain them, which makes sense, and hey - are you really going to work on the assumption that you'll shoot them all down? Especially given that the ABM technology around seems to be more a case of "Well, gee, that wasn't bad, we got within a three miles radius!"

But invading China is a mug's game. You won't win, and if you do win, you just end up giving the place back to them so that you can pay them to run it.
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:52 / 17.05.04
I thought the strategy for China was to suck them into an Arms race - this being the real purpose of tearing up the ABM treaty - and do a Soviet Union on them.

I can't imagine that the Bush administration really has the resources and political will to engage in any new military endeavours in the near future. The cost in Iraq has just been too high.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:30 / 17.05.04
I hadn't looked at it that way, actually, Lurid... I always thought it was more of an "ignore them and they'll go away- and if they don't, another administration'll have to handle it" kind of deal. But that's interesting...

To me, China has always been the big joke about Western foreign policy. It's rarely mentioned, because to highlight it would point out the essential fact that all our high-falutin' malarkey about human rights abuses is just bullshit. If we REALLY cared, we'd be, at the very least, harrassing China a bit more. But we know that they can open so many cans of whoop-ass on us, it would be stupid to have a go.

The only way (other than what Lurid posited) I can ever see the West taking on China is in a Great Game kind of deal... war fought through client states. Which could get uglier than nukes.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:40 / 17.05.04
I don't think the Chinese are particularly interested in an arms race. Frankly, it would be simpler just to try to buy them off. They're pretty much up for it. So-and-so for this reform, so-and-so for that one.

But as of Si Hersch's New Yorker piece and (soon) Michael Moore's new movie, this administration may not get much chance at much of anything. If I was Karl Rove, I wouldn't be remotely concerned about John Kerry, but I'd have nightmares about Hersch. He took a big chunk out of Perle, and now he's in the process of nailing Rummy to a small piece of board and hanging him on the wall of the New Yorker Hunting Lodge. I swear to God, Si Hersch is one relentless motherfucker.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:12 / 17.05.04
The arms race thing is about controlling China, rather than reforming it. The fact that they don't want, and can't afford, an arms race is kinda the point. I'm not sure if it is a good reading of the situation (and even if it is, it isn't the only approach being adopted), but I don't know how else one can explain the US eagerness to develop missile defence. The official explanation of "countering terrorism" is obviously bollocks.

You are right about Hersh, Tycho, but I wonder if those of us who are news obsessed are making too much out of it. I mean, in the US where this is most relevant, the majority of people believe that WMD were found in Iraq despite the testimony of David Kay. If Bush and co keep saying "bad apples" and "not representative of America", then a unwillingness to confront hypocrisy could do the rest.

I still think logistics and a fear of the draft are the biggest factors to consider until the presidential election.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:20 / 17.05.04
In the US where this is most relevant, the majority of people believe that WMD were found in Iraq

Is this really true ? I'm not disputing your facts or anything, but I just can't believe it.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:39 / 17.05.04
Well, yes.

Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).
 
 
Alex's Grandma
18:12 / 17.05.04
LA, thanks for the link.

There's a lot in this to feel optimistic about, but I particularly liked;

Despite polling showing that the majority of world public opinion is opposed to the US war with Iraq, only 41% were aware that this is the case. A 59% majority was unaware of this.

So not even against world opinion, not even deliberately contemptuous of it, just simply... unaware.

Whoever eventually gets the job of composing the tombstone for human civilisation could probably do worse than start somewhere round about there.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:20 / 18.05.04
Lurid: thing is, Hersch doesn't need to connect with Middle America - that's Michael Moore's job - all he has to do is break the news. Someone's probably going to get it in the neck, and likely Cambone will go to protect Rummy, but it may not be enough. Congress is very, very pissed about this. If Rummy has to go, it'll damage Bush - he just endorsed the guy.

Another interesting thing which has happened recently is the speculation about Kerry asking McCain to be his running mate. McCain keeps saying "no" - but hasn't been officially asked...

Whatever the outcome, Bush may emerge too weak politically to go for another war - but I don't fully understand the US system in respect of a 2nd term president and what operates to constrain him (or, someday, her). I assume the party operates as a check - and Republicans are getting very wary of Bush & Co in many cases...
 
 
MJ-12
17:41 / 18.05.04
Hersch doesn't need to connect with Middle America - that's Michael Moore's job

No, Michael Moore's job is connect with Michael Moore fans. Howard Stern's job is to connect with middle America.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
07:25 / 19.05.04
[sigh]

Moore's fans are sufficiently numerous that they include a decent portion of Middle America. Try to see the upside occasionally...
 
 
MJ-12
12:39 / 19.05.04
Actually, I am. However numerous Moore's fans are, they are already Moore's fans, and likely already agree that Bush is a Bad Man. As appalling as you may find Stern to be, that very fact means that as he has come to a heavily anti-Bush position in the last 6 months, you've now got about 8 million daily listeners who are getting the message that they weren't getting before, and would likely have blown off entirely were someone from NPR to present it.
 
 
grant
19:48 / 19.05.04
MJ-12 is right. Stern might not be left-wing populist radio (like Air America tries to be) but he's populist radio that's not exactly right-wing, either.

Moore, whether you agree with him or not, is an ideologue first and an entertainer second. The entertainment stems from the ideology. Stern's an entertainer, and a hedonistic one at that. Not terribly ideological, except a staunch believer in his own freedom to look at topless women while on the air.

----

On China: historically, they kind of invented isolationism. Any war with China is not going to be the kind of war we're used to. Internally, they have major problems with poverty and the environment and will, as of next year (so I've heard) not be able to grow enough food to feed their own HUGE population. So they're not going to be picking fights with food-growing nations, like the US.

One thing that I *can* see happening is, if Bush is re-elected and things go further awry in Iraq, China deciding to invade Taiwan, which they still consider part of China. Kinda like Tibet. Officially, it's home to the government-in-exile (and as such, is listed *after* Zimbabwe in the CIA Factbook, with a big asterix next to the entry). It would require relatively little troop strength on their behalf, it could be compared (however fallaciously) with the repatriation of Hong Kong & Macau. And it might or might *not* piss off the US.

A US at war elsewhere, suffering a lame economy (thus needing to stir up profits by, say, selling excess grain to somebody), wouldn't really be in a position to defend their erstwhile allies on that tiny little island. Especially since Taiwan can't represent the manufacturing powerhouse it once was when compared to Shenzhen and other "new China" mainland cities.

The main question is how much face Bush would lose by not striking decisively against a China that invaded a trading partner, I think.

It could happen.
 
 
sleazenation
20:11 / 19.05.04
Especially since the few countries that actually recognise Taiwan (mainly poor states in the caribbean who are well paid to do so) are increasingly being paid off by China to shift their allegiences...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:55 / 18.07.04
Same old shit. A couple of British newspapers are pushing that Bush has decided that Iran is the next on his hitlist. The Times for yesterday reports; THE US will mount a concerted attempt to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term. It would work strenuously to foment a revolt against the ruling theocracy by Iran’s “hugely dissatisfied” population, a senior official has told The Times. The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq, but “if Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran”, declared the official, who is determined that there should be no let-up in the Administration’s War on Terror.

... [The White House official] hinted at a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran’s main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods. To destroy Bushehr after the delivery would cause huge environmental damage. The rods would allow the Iranians to obtain enough plutonium for many dozens of nuclear weapons, he said.

...Iran is one of the three members of President Bush’s “axis of evil” and has further angered Washington with its covert interference in Iraq since the end of last year’s war to topple Saddam Hussein.


Is Bush ready to fight another Islamic country because they fiddled with his toys?

However, it gets even better. According to todays Telegraph the Big Lie that helped win the American public over to attacking Saddam is getting an encore. Yes! Iran gave free passage to up to 10 of the September 11 hijackers just months before the 2001 attacks and offered to co-operate with al-Qa'eda against the US, an American report will say this week.

The all-party report by the 9/11 Commission, set up by Congress in 2002, will state that Iran, not Iraq, fostered relations with the al-Qa'eda network in the years leading up to the world's most devastating terrorist attack.

The bipartisan commission has established that between eight and 10 of the September 11 hijackers, who had been based in Afghanistan, travelled through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.


Presumerably it's absent-mindedness on the part of this pieces author not to mention how the hijackers went to iran via Iraq where they posed for photo's with Saddam Hussein and those stockpiles of WMD that Tony Blair used to insist must be there. Still, at least Bush has picked a country where there are members of Al Qaida this time.

Teheran said yesterday that it had arrested an unspecified number of Iranian al-Qa'eda supporters.

Do you feel safer yet?
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
00:02 / 15.10.04
usatoday 10/14/2004

More attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq from Syrian territory
QAIM, Iraq (AP) — American troops stationed along Iraq's border with Syria are coming under increasing mortar attack from shells fired from Syrian territory, but it's unclear who's responsible, U.S. officers said Thursday.

...

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld called the Syrians "unhelpful" and accused them of "facilitating terrorists moving back and forth, money moving back and forth" to Iraq. Rumsfeld made the remarks during a speech at Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply