The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

History Historical Discussions - For discussion about the great (and not-so-great) happenings of history


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 24th, 2012, 12:47 PM   #1
Senator
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: United States
Posts: 554

The Iraq War

A new member, seeking intelligent and informed debate regarding the Iraq War from the earlier Persian Gulf conflict to the December 2011 withdrawl of US troops dictated by the Status of Forces Agreement.
Stonewall is offline  
Old December 24th, 2012, 01:30 PM   #2
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

Stonewall, et al,

Where do you want to start?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
A new member, seeking intelligent and informed debate regarding the Iraq War from the earlier Persian Gulf conflict to the December 2011 withdrawl of US troops dictated by the Status of Forces Agreement.
(COMMENT)

It is a huge topic.

v/r
R
RoccoR is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012, 02:22 PM   #3
Intern
 
JLetterman's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 7

Let's start with the beginning of Desert Storm and the events leading up to the declaration of war. We can look into how the past war and current efforts correlate to one another, as well as debate the validity of certain concerns and actions.
JLetterman is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012, 03:19 PM   #4
Representative
 
Joined: May 2009
From: USA
Posts: 225

Deleted Post

Last edited by Nemo; December 26th, 2012 at 04:31 PM.
Nemo is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012, 03:23 PM   #5
Representative
 
ThirdTerm's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
From: The motherland
Posts: 191

The main difference between the 1991 Gulf War and the Iraq War was the lack of a UN mandate in the latter authorising the use of force and Tony Blair tried to persuade President Bush to take the UN route before launching the invasion unilaterally but his desperate pleas fell on deaf ears. But the UN should not be the final arbiter of international security issues and sometimes nations have to go it alone for the sake of preserving their national interests without being approved by Russia and China.



http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307377229

Last edited by ThirdTerm; December 26th, 2012 at 06:23 PM.
ThirdTerm is offline  
Old January 11th, 2013, 08:12 AM   #6
Senator
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: United States
Posts: 554

I don't see any UN authorization as being any kind of difference. The United States Congress authorized and funded both conflicts. But a great start to the thread.

Rocco....let's start with why Iraq was attacked by the US in 2003. It is often asked "why Iraq" when terrorists from Saudi Arabia trained in Afghanistan attacked us on 9-11. Why would we then invade Iraq in 2003?

Your floor.
Stonewall is offline  
Old January 11th, 2013, 09:34 AM   #7
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,503

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
I don't see any UN authorization as being any kind of difference. The United States Congress authorized and funded both conflicts. But a great start to the thread.
So Bush's deficit was all a mass hallucination?
David is offline  
Old January 11th, 2013, 03:57 PM   #8
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

Stonewall, et al,

Yeah, this is a step-by-step logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
I don't see any UN authorization as being any kind of difference. The United States Congress authorized and funded both conflicts. But a great start to the thread.

Rocco....let's start with why Iraq was attacked by the US in 2003. It is often asked "why Iraq" when terrorists from Saudi Arabia trained in Afghanistan attacked us on 9-11. Why would we then invade Iraq in 2003?

Your floor.
(THE BACKDROP)

The US is (not theory) a political-military hegemony. We operate by the carrot and stick method; but we waive the stick very hard. At one time the military component had a saying:

Persuasive in Peace, Invincible in War.


Diplomacy was based on the presentation that any US suggestion was Option "A" --- and if you didn't do it our way, then you can go to option "B;" the military hard way.

There was a "Think Tank" called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (with a number of very influential members) that stressed US leadership into the 21st Century through brute strength.

Some of the members included (1997/8time frame):
  • Elliott Abrams, He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser in the administration of President George W. Bush.
  • Gary Bauer, held several jobs in the Ronald Reagan administration, rising to the directorship of the White House's Office of Policy Development.
  • William J. Bennett, served as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H. W. Bush.
  • Jeb Bush, the brother.
  • Dick Cheney, VP and former SECDEF
  • Paula Dobriansky, the Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
  • Aaron Friedberg, Cheney's Deputy Assistant for National-Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning.
  • Dan Quayle, former VP
  • Zalmay Khalilzad, former Ambo to Afghanistan and Iraq
  • I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, former CoS, Cheney
    Plus:
  • Donald Rumsfeld SECDEF and Paul Wolfowitz Principle Deputy SECDEF
  • R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence
  • Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
  • Richard L. Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State

In January 1998, the PNAC wrote a letter to then President Clinton, and stated in part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PNAC Ltr to POTUS January 26, 1998
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
SOURCE: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
While POTUS did not act on this recommendation, the key to remember is that many of the PNAC members that signed or supported this recommendation were soon to come into positions of great power and influence.

Having said that, the PNAC was correct in part: "American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War."

This is the seed that blossomed.

(The FOCUS of the DAY)

The grand plan was simple. The logic was to plant a huge stick right in the middle of the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region; equal distant from every aggressor and able to put a crimp in any offensive action that might develop a threat against oil interests or Israel. And Iraq fit the strategic bill. All they had to do was figure out a way to justify a regime change, and install a US friendly government that would be grateful and allow a couple of military bases.

Then fate intervened. The US was traumatized by 911, and itching for a fight. And the threat could all be traced back to the Middle East (Game-On). Cook the books, demonize Saddam, launch a Madison Avenue style campaign, and win public and Congressional support. Saddam Hussein became the greatest threat America has ever faced since Adolf Hitler; and the President gets to become the most famous wartime President history ever recorded since Lincoln and Roosevelt.

America could create a shadow force over any of the Arab Nations threatening Israel, lifting the pressure off them and changing the paradigm that might lead to peace in Palestine. At the same time, Iran would now be now well within striking distance. The bases were sufficient to support not only conventional strike capabilities, but asymmetric operations (covert, clandestine or paramilitary) throughout the two regions and even into Yemen.

That is the "why" in thumbnail form.

Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR is offline  
Old January 12th, 2013, 02:27 PM   #9
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

JLetterman, et al,

Desert Storm: 17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991(Ground) - 30 November 1995(AIR)

Somebody once told me that "WAR" is a result of diplomatic failures. As tumultuous the victory was in Gulf War I, at least part of the blame rest with the United States (my personal opinion). While it is true, that there was an oil dispute, and a $14B loan agreement, these were workable. But I think what made the invasion of Kuwait an option was the way in which Saddam Hussein interpreted the US position, as expressed by the on-scene Ambassador, April Glaspie, 25 July 1990. She essentially stated:
  • "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab issues, such as your border disagreement with Kuwait."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
... ... ... Break ... ... ...

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.
SOURCE: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...LE5/april.html
It was eight days later that Iraq invaded Kuwait, and announced annexation.

(OPINION)

It was my opinion then, and it is my opinion now, that our ally, Saddam Hussein, thought that (in political-ese) the US was giving Iraq a "green light" for military action. And we were, just not on the scale that Saddam Hussein was contemplating. As the Ambassador said: "I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait." Clearly implying that we did expect him to take some of Kuwait; just the oil dispute areas; the al-Rumaila Oil Field 15-20 miles from the Kuwaiti border, inside Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLetterman View Post
Let's start with the beginning of Desert Storm and the events leading up to the declaration of war. We can look into how the past war and current efforts correlate to one another, as well as debate the validity of certain concerns and actions.
(COMMENT)

On 3 March 1991: Iraq accepts the terms of a ceasefire Safwan Accords, and the UN Security Council Resolution 686 2 March 1991; and then the following month, the UNSC Resolution 687. It is in UNSC Resolution 687 that the first mention on WMD restrictions are made. This sets the stage for the subsequent struggle over WMD issues in Iraq.

Most Respectfully,
R

...................................In Remembrance:
General Norman Schwarzkopf (AKA: ""The Bear.""), US Army (Ret),
Commander, United States Central Command, Desert Storm & Coalition Forces,
22 August 1934 - 28 December, 2012
RoccoR is offline  
Old January 12th, 2013, 03:15 PM   #10
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,477

I bow before the power of logic and fact you just posted.

That is a like +1
tecoyah is online now  
Old January 14th, 2013, 07:45 AM   #11
Senator
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: United States
Posts: 554

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
Having said that, the PNAC was correct in part: "American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War."

This is the seed that blossomed.
No, the American policy toward Iraq was not working, in fact was a primary factor in al-Qaeda's attacks against the US including the attacks on 9-11. But where you're specific with many names, you cite "American policy" that wasn't working, this was the Clinton Administration policies that were being implemented.....Clinton and Bush I policies that weren't succeeding, in fact torching off Bin Laden's jihad.

Quote:
The grand plan was simple. The logic was to plant a huge stick right in the middle of the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region; equal distant from every aggressor and able to put a crimp in any offensive action that might develop a threat against oil interests or Israel. And Iraq fit the strategic bill. All they had to do was figure out a way to justify a regime change, and install a US friendly government that would be grateful and allow a couple of military bases.
Got a source for this grand plan? Or did you make this up?

Quote:
Then fate intervened. The US was traumatized by 911, and itching for a fight. And the threat could all be traced back to the Middle East (Game-On). Cook the books, demonize Saddam, launch a Madison Avenue style campaign, and win public and Congressional support. Saddam Hussein became the greatest threat America has ever faced since Adolf Hitler; and the President gets to become the most famous wartime President history ever recorded since Lincoln and Roosevelt.
Saddam Hussein and the American policies towards Iraq during the Clinton years were the greatest threat we'd faced in some time, but you're wrong when you state that Iraq "became" this. The Resolution passed by Congress.....while George Bush II was the Gov of Texas......cites Iraq as a grave danger to the United States and our national security. I can quote them if you'd like.

Quote:
America could create a shadow force over any of the Arab Nations threatening Israel, lifting the pressure off them and changing the paradigm that might lead to peace in Palestine. At the same time, Iran would now be now well within striking distance. The bases were sufficient to support not only conventional strike capabilities, but asymmetric operations (covert, clandestine or paramilitary) throughout the two regions and even into Yemen.
Didn't we already have this striking distance? Hadn't our operations and continued sanctions and continued no fly zone enforcements already given us such capabilities. I do agree Iran had much to do with our policy thoughts at the time, but you seem to try to make the point that Bush's invasion in 2003 gave us all these capabilities.....when we already had them.
Stonewall is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 07:47 AM   #12
Senator
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: United States
Posts: 554

Firstly, are we all in agreement why we were attacked on 9-11-2001? That al-Qaeda had attacked us previously in US embassies and in the USS Cole incident. That al-Qaeda had declared war on us and why, are we all rock solid there before we discuss the Iraq War?
Stonewall is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 08:47 AM   #13
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,503

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
Firstly, are we all in agreement why we were attacked on 9-11-2001? That al-Qaeda had attacked us previously in US embassies and in the USS Cole incident. That al-Qaeda had declared war on us and why, are we all rock solid there before we discuss the Iraq War?
Al Qaeda is irreverent to the topic. Iraq was a secular, nominally socialist nation populated by the 'wrong' Muslims, Al Qaeda in Iraq happened because of the war, it wasn't the cause.
David is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 01:16 PM   #14
Senator
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: United States
Posts: 554

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Al Qaeda is irreverent to the topic. Iraq was a secular, nominally socialist nation populated by the 'wrong' Muslims, Al Qaeda in Iraq happened because of the war, it wasn't the cause.
Iraq was not irrelevant to al-Qaeda, you are sadly mistaken in thinking so. Al-Qaeda didn't appear in Iraq with any relevance prior to the 2003 invasion......but your statement that AQ is irrelevant to the the topic is wrong. Care to learn?
Stonewall is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 01:35 PM   #15
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
Iraq was not irrelevant to al-Qaeda, you are sadly mistaken in thinking so. Al-Qaeda didn't appear in Iraq with any relevance prior to the 2003 invasion......but your statement that AQ is irrelevant to the the topic is wrong. Care to learn?

Please...enlighten me.
tecoyah is online now  
Old January 14th, 2013, 01:58 PM   #16
Senator
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: United States
Posts: 554

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Please...enlighten me.
Be glad to, firstly are you of the opinion that David is correct in claiming that "Al Qaeda is irreverent to the topic" of the Iraq War?
Stonewall is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 03:30 PM   #17
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,477

No...Al Quaeda likely wished to work into Iraq...but failed to do so due to the control of Saddam. Though they were unimportant to the ground game in Iraq...they are not irrelevant to the larger situation.
tecoyah is online now  
Old January 14th, 2013, 04:07 PM   #18
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

Stonewall, et al,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
No, the American policy toward Iraq was not working, in fact was a primary factor in al-Qaeda's attacks against the US including the attacks on 9-11. But where you're specific with many names, you cite "American policy" that wasn't working, this was the Clinton Administration policies that were being implemented.....Clinton and Bush I policies that weren't succeeding, in fact torching off Bin Laden's jihad.
(COMMENT)

We're not truly sure what cased al-Qaeda (Osama bin Laden) to target the US in 1992, leading the the 1993 bombing. There were a number of factors in play. None of which involved Iraq. We are fairly confident that US force using Saudi facilities was a major sticking point with al-Qaeda.

Relative to Iraq, al-Qaeda wasn't an issue. While there were a couple of known international terrorist hiding out in Iraq, they were not al-Qaeda assets. What we called al-Qaeda in Iraq, was really the JTJ under Abu Massab al-Zaqarwi, a Jordanian terrorist. He wanted credit for his operation and was always being misidentified as AQI. So, in August of '04, he pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and AQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
Got a source for this grand plan? Or did you make this up?
Yes, there are several Open Sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Project for the New American Century.
In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
SOURCE: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real But Unspoken Reasons For The Iraq War
In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no "exit strategy" in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive "regime change" if they too move to euros for their oil exportsâ¤.
SOURCE: http://rense.com/general34/realre.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
Saddam Hussein and the American policies towards Iraq during the Clinton years were the greatest threat we'd faced in some time, but you're wrong when you state that Iraq "became" this. The Resolution passed by Congress.....while George Bush II was the Gov of Texas......cites Iraq as a grave danger to the United States and our national security. I can quote them if you'd like.
(COMMENT)

The bulls-eye, painted on Iraq was painted long before George Bush II and the The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), which had many of the same members as the PNAC, was instrumental in lobbying for the Legislation of the same name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
Didn't we already have this striking distance? Hadn't our operations and continued sanctions and continued no fly zone enforcements already given us such capabilities. I do agree Iran had much to do with our policy thoughts at the time, but you seem to try to make the point that Bush's invasion in 2003 gave us all these capabilities.....when we already had them.
(COMMENT)

At the time, other than the naval air, there was no real regional, land base strike capability prior to Gulf War I. The Saudi bases were off-limits. The Kuwaiti base had not been established. After Gulf War I, the Kuwaiti base (Ali Al Salem Air Base) was too far south to cover tactical air all the way to the Occupied Territories, Lebanon or Syria, and still maintain any meaning time-on-target. However, there were 5 air bases west of Al Asad (along the Jordanian-Syrian Border), that were very capable of being made into US Tactical Stations. Right in the middle of every predictable Middle East targets.

Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 04:23 PM   #19
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
Stonewall, et al,


(COMMENT)

We're not truly sure what cased al-Qaeda (Osama bin Laden) to target the US in 1992, leading the the 1993 bombing. There were a number of factors in play. None of which involved Iraq. We are fairly confident that US force using Saudi facilities was a major sticking point with al-Qaeda.

Relative to Iraq, al-Qaeda wasn't an issue. While there were a couple of known international terrorist hiding out in Iraq, they were not al-Qaeda assets. What we called al-Qaeda in Iraq, was really the JTJ under Abu Massab al-Zaqarwi, a Jordanian terrorist. He wanted credit for his operation and was always being misidentified as AQI. So, in August of '04, he pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and AQ.



Yes, there are several Open Sources.(COMMENT)

The bulls-eye, painted on Iraq was painted long before George Bush II and the The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), which had many of the same members as the PNAC, was instrumental in lobbying for the Legislation of the same name.


(COMMENT)

At the time, other than the naval air, there was no real regional, land base strike capability prior to Gulf War I. The Saudi bases were off-limits. The Kuwaiti base had not been established. After Gulf War I, the Kuwaiti base (Ali Al Salem Air Base) was too far south to cover tactical air all the way to the Occupied Territories, Lebanon or Syria, and still maintain any meaning time-on-target. However, there were 5 air bases west of Al Asad (along the Jordanian-Syrian Border), that were very capable of being made into US Tactical Stations. Right in the middle of every predictable Middle East targets.

Most Respectfully,
R

Damn you...and your actual Data, well thought out positions....and logical thought process.
tecoyah is online now  
Old January 14th, 2013, 04:32 PM   #20
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Damn you...and your actual Data, well thought out positions....and logical thought process.
I need to learn to keep a level head like Rocco regardless of the lunacy or disrespect of the other side (not calling anyone lunatics or disrespectful here, just a general statement). Also, I need to start reading more of whatever he reads (which might just be reading more in general)
myp is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

Tags
iraq , war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iraq sides with Iran on Syria. David Current Events 2 October 12th, 2011 05:25 AM
Today marks the end of the Iraq War! David Current Events 14 August 25th, 2010 08:59 PM
Konami Reveals Iraq War Game GekiDan Current Events 18 May 4th, 2009 01:13 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.