Is War Worth it!?

Originally posted by NSXJunkie:
http://www.digitalglobe.com/gallery/iraq/baghdad_overview_feb6_2002_DG.jpg

Feel like playing "Where's waldo?"

Try finding Saddam... among the millions of civilians...

Hey I know, we could just carpet bomb the entire city... that'll get'em.

-NSXJunkie

[This message has been edited by NSXJunkie (edited 25 March 2003).]

Well, where to begin.....

First of all, do you know anything at all about our current battle plans or our intelligence gathering capabilities? Do you know how restrictive our Mission Planning Cells in squadrons all across the middle east are with regards to selecting targets in urban areas? I didn't think so, so I respectfully ask you to keep your opinions to yourself (re: "carpet bombing") until you actually know what you are talking about. I've seen enough conjecture from the left lately about the military purposefully killing Iraqi civilians (no, I'm not lumping you in this group) and quite frankly it pisses me off to hear uneducated folks spout off about something they know nothing about. Armchair quarterback, maybe?

As for the rest of the conversation here, this is merely a re-hash of the last six pages of this thread. Re-read it and I'm sure that somewhere in there this all has already been said. The bottom line is that legitimate criticism and questioning authority is always good, unless the person asking the questions is (1) an idiot or (2) is intentionally stirring the pot.

I know you probably weren't serious that we would actually intentionally carpet bomb Baghdad, but there are people on the far left that would actually have you believe that we did that exact thing in 1991. Loose talk like this leads to rumors, which lead to web sites, which leads to armchair quarterbacks in the future running their mouths about the atrocities my brothers and siters in arms comitted. Don't believe me? Just do a web search on civilian casualties from 1991......you'll se some very interesting (but untrue) allegations going around that got their start the same way. And, in the end, it's never the armchair quarterback caught in a lie that pays the price.....it's the veteran at the airport in Hometown, USA getting spit on that does.

Let's Roll!

Chuck



------------------
'91 Black/Ivory NSX
'89 Gray/Gray F-16C
 
Amen Chuck!

You and the others in our armed forces deserve our undying gratitude.

As far as whether or not war is worth it....

0014.jpg


-Jim
 
First things first - anyone know where I can get one of those t-shirts?
smile.gif


After this thread got started, I decided that, while I knew quite a bit about American history, I had a couple of large gaps in my knowledge, so I got a book detailing the Korean War and another book, "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack, detailing the situation in Iraq. The only area I did not read up on was the conflict in Vietnam - maybe I'll tackle that next month.

I admit that, coming into this, I suffered from a few of the same delusions that a number of the American populace seem to believe - that this is about oil (directly), that Saddam was a petty despot and didn't pose a significant threat, and that our authorization/mandate from the U.N. to go in was weak. I didn't suffer from the perception that this conflict is based upon the war in terror (and I feel confirmed in that respect; that is also the one position in which I disagree with the president's position on Iraq).

After doing some research and reading, I can say that I have gained some important insights on the situation, and am thankful that the persons in charge of our government are willing to undertake an "unpopular" movement to finally resolve this festering situation in the Middle East. The oil in Iraq is of little consequence to America - the oil spread throughout the region, and stability in producing that oil, is of *vital* American interest, and of the interest of the industrialized nations around the globe. Saddam, while not possessing a powerful military at this time, with the erosions of the sanctions, is able to begin rebuilding his depleted military, and is continuing work on WMDs (chemical and biological weapons do not worry me nearly so much as his nuclear program), and has shown a complete lack of logic and reason with his dealings with the international community, and the U.S. in particular. And there are still U.N. resolutions that are in effect that support our action in Iraq - and resolution 1441 also reaffirms this - however, other countries are unwilling to enforce the will of the U.N., so again it falls upon us.

To anyone looking to learn a bit more about the region, about our diplomatic and political problems there, about the causes and options for dealing with Saddam Hussein, his sons, and a number of other high-ranking officials, I would recommend you get a book on the region, whichever author you choose, and form an educated opinion. It takes nothing to rally for defense of a position when you are ignorant to both perspectives of a given issue.

And as for the case of why now, when he's not a threat - well, those people apparently haven't read much history, it is far easier to stop a weakened military than a strengthened military. If we had moved cohesively against Germany before Hitler grew to such power (before the annexation of nearby lands), the process would have been relatively casualty-free. And it would have set a strong precedent that this world will not tolerate aggression, and will not tolerate a buildup of forces bent on aggression.

[This message has been edited by burbel (edited 25 March 2003).]
 
I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam

By Daniel Pepper - (Filed: 23/03/2003)

I wanted to join the human shields in Baghdad because it was direct action which had a chance of bringing the anti-war movement to the forefront of world attention. It was inspiring: the human shield volunteers were making a sacrifice for their political views - much more of a personal investment than going to a demonstration in Washington or London. It was simple - you get on the bus and you represent yourself.

So that is exactly what I did on the morning of Saturday, January 25. I am a 23-year-old Jewish-American photographer living in Islington, north London. I had travelled in the Middle East before: as a student, I went to the Palestinian West Bank during the intifada. I also went to Afghanistan as a photographer for Newsweek.

The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.

We on the bus felt that we were sympathetic to the views of the Iraqi civilians, even though we didn't actually know any. The group was less interested in standing up for their rights than protesting against the US and UK governments.

I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.

It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA - I just can't help you."

Of course I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. I told a few journalists who I knew. They said that this sort of thing often happened - spontaneous, emotional, and secretive outbursts imploring visitors to free them from Saddam's tyrannical Iraq.

I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others. Once over the border we felt comfortable enough to ask our driver what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment.

"Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?" he said. "Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam."

We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, "Oh my God" as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war.

The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.

Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don't think he believed us. Later he asked me: "Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?"

It hit me on visceral and emotional levels: this was a real portrayal of Iraq life. After the first conversation, I completely rethought my view of the Iraqi situation. My understanding changed on intellectual, emotional, psychological levels. I remembered the experience of seeing Saddam's egomaniacal portraits everywhere for the past two weeks and tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who had been subjected to seeing them every day for the last 20 or so years.

Last Thursday night I went to photograph the anti-war rally in Parliament Square. Thousands of people were shouting "No war" but without thinking about the implications for Iraqis. Some of them were drinking, dancing to Samba music and sparring with the police. It was as if the protesters were talking about a different country where the ruling government is perfectly acceptable. It really upset me.

Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F 03%2F23%2Fdo2305.xml

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 25 March 2003).]
 
I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam

By Daniel Pepper - (Filed: 23/03/2003)...
Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out.
So, a few days in Iraq can somehow exponentially raise one's IQ. Some people are so naive.
rolleyes.gif



[This message has been edited by KGP (edited 25 March 2003).]
 
That's horrific. i hope the families never see this.
frown.gif


That Al-jazeera TV is so uncensored it's inhuman... they showed the scene of the baghdad market bombing with a body laying on the ground covered...they pull back the cover to show a bloody skull. That's going too far.

i know this is the reality of war, but this will just inflame MORE hatred in Arab countries.
 
Unfortunately, that is precisely Al-Jazeera's motive.... that is, to foster anti-American sentiment.

Kuwait was host to numerous pro-coalition rallies the past few days. Supposedly, many of the Kuwaitis were seeking out the Al-Jazeera camera crews to present the anti-Sadaam views that are rampant in the area. One woman told a U.S. reporter that they only see pro-Sadaam material on the "impartial" news network and want to show what the real local populous think.
 
So tragic. It's obvious at least two soldiers were executed after surrender. The Iraqi monsters will pay for this
mad.gif
 
I have such mixed emotions...

Seeing the iraqi people bite their thumbs at the US and british soldiers while taking the food we brought to them...

are they doing this on TV just so they dont get slaughtered by saddam's forces? Or do they really feel this way?

Additionally, how can we be perceived as real heroes when this is taking place? Not to mention the massive civilian casualties today... No one seems to know the answer as to who's responsible.. Is Iraq doing this and pinning it on the US? The US doesn't know or won't admit that it was their missle... would they if it was their missle?

-NSXJunkie
 
If the US said it wasn't their missile, i believe them (and i'm not an American!!!)... because the US have more to lose by lying.

Saddam's strategy is clearly lying and deceit. That's obvious already, so i don't believe what he says.

The US knows exactly where all the targets are and exactly what bomb to put on that target, so they'd know if a target wasn't hit or a bomb was mis-fired.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Saddam DID bomb civilian areas because he knows that's what will turn the war against the US. It seems incredible that a bomb is dropped in the middle of a market; EXACTLY the place the US wouldn't want to drop a bomb near.

Saddam doesn't just a flying fart about civilians. They are expendible. I just hope the Iraqi people learn the truth (one way or another).
 
Originally posted by NSX_Dreamer:
So tragic. It's obvious at least two soldiers were executed after surrender. The Iraqi monsters will pay for this
mad.gif

I agree; the headshot wounds look very execution-style.
frown.gif


It's moments like this I wish nuke's were an option.
 
In every war civilians have suffered and died. Whether it is at our hand or their own governments bomb that killed them is irrelevant except for propaganda purposes. It is naive to think otherwise.

One of the unique aspects of this war is our ability to limit civilian casualties from our bombs/bullets. Our capabilities our more surgical than ever before. But civilians are still going to die.

Whether it is fair or not, whether they are under duress by their own government or not, they are indirectly a part of the Iraqi regime and exposed to potential harm. That is a truth as old as war itself.

the media glitz around civilian casualties is pure propaganda and voyeuristic news. Civilian casualties are tragic, but to be expected. The intentional targeting of civilians is another matter. THAT has happened in many wars and is suspected of Iraq in this war. We will see.

We DO think that Iraq has executed troops, both ours and theirs. This is criminal and a further proof of the corruption of the Iraq regime.

Did anybody see the interview of the captured US soldier from the gulf war? She admitted to being sexually assaulted. She went on to say that being a female soldier was no different than being male, and that these sort of crimes werent talked about.

This sort of criminal mistreatment of POW's may not be unique in war, but it does distinguish us from them. Regimes whose troops do this do not deserve to rule, and we have an obligation to depose them.

I hesitated to post this, but after reviewing this thread and realizing the varying opinions of many Americans, I believed that we need to acknowledge all the aspects of our conflict with Iraq. The willingness of Iraq's leadership to condone and conduct so many vulgar crimes against humanity needs to be recognized. I fear the coming days will further reveal the corruption of Saddam's regime, and the criminality of his leadership.
 
Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim

March 28 2003, 9:41 AM

Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.

At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war....

_______ And this is really unbelievable.....

Villepin refuses to say which side he supports
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 28/03/2003)

France's attempt to repair relations with America and Britain over Iraq backfired yesterday when Dominique de Villepin, their foreign minister, refused to say which side he supported.

During a speech in London, M de Villepin said he hoped for "a swift conclusion with the minimum possible number of casualties".

But asked by The Telegraph whether he hoped American and British forces would win the military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein, he replied angrily: "I'm not going to answer."

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 27 March 2003).]
 
Ok so doing my usual news updates I check around bbc.co.uk , cnn.com, abcnews.com, cbsnews.com, foxnews.com etc... but this article struck me as interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2908827.stm

Then I read about things like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2913985.stm

And this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.arab.voices/index.html

"The secretary-general of the Arab League ... said American accusations that Syria was helping Iraq militarily were untrue and baseless and would further inflame the situation in the Middle East."

We continue to call out countries like Russia & Syria saying that they've supplied weapons... have they? Would they admit it if they have? I think we need to have our proof ready and showing 100% before there is any accusations...that way countries like Russia & Syria won't be able to say "thos accusations are baseless" which is exactly what both of those countries have said.

"I'm not really surprised because if you take the Arab pride and the way of thinking, they're not looking at the coalition as a liberating army. They're looking at it as an invading army. And as much as they wanted some change to occur because of all the hardship that's been going on for 10 years in Iraq, and everything going backward economically and socially in Iraq -- they wanted to see some changes, but probably not this way, not through the daily bombings that they've been going through. "

This is EXACTLY what I had initially warned... I just knew that the majority view is not going to be one that we are the one's that are "helping"... by destroying an entire city... killing the power and water...

Ok so we dropped off some food... only to be resented.

Not to mention the massive civilian casualties that I knew were going to happen. Now you might say "this is going to happen in any war..." So why not oust saddam in a covert way? Why blanket the city with bombs when you know its not going to do much more than destroy civilian lives?


Was war the right answer? Will we ever be perceived as the real heroes?

-Electro
 
Electro,

Massive civilian casulties? Blanketing the city with bombs?

You're just plain wrong.

But what else is new?

-J

PS: We (the coalition forces) didn't kill the power in Baghdad. The bad guys did.

PPS: I guess the Russian (or Soviet) T-72 and T-80 tanks that are littering the Iraq highways somehow don't constitute proof for you, huh?
 
Last edited:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/5552797.htmv

Here's what the Iraqi doctor who helped save POW Jessica Lynch had to say...

"I am very happy," he said, adding that his wife wants to work in a hospital helping Americans and that he is eager to help the Marines any way he can until he can return home to Nasiriyah and resume his normal life.

"In future, when Saddam Hussein down, I will go back to Nasiriyah because my house and office are there," he said. As for the Fedayeen, he said, "when Saddam Hussein down, I sure they go away."

"Believe me, not only I, all the people of Iraq, not the people in the government, like Americans," Mohammed said. "They want to help the Americans, but they are all afraid."
 
Iraqi Civilians Cheer GIs

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/72646.htm


CIVILIANS BRING GIS GOOD CHEER
By BRIAN BLOMQUIST

April 3, 2003

WASHINGTON - American forces are finally getting friendlier greetings from Iraqi civilians two weeks into the war, and the United States is speeding up its effort to help the people with food and other aid.

A cheering crowd of several hundred Iraqis greeted soldiers in the Army's 101st Airborne in the city of An Najaf.

Some even pointed to hideouts used by Saddam Hussein's thugs...
 
Electro,

One more thing...

In the 20 odd years that Saddam has been in power - he has conservatively killed 1 million people.

That's 50,000 per year.

No doubt some innocent civilians (including the ones coerced to act as human bombs) had to pay the ultimate sacrifice, but I believe the coalition forces have taken every precaution to minimize civilian casualties.

And every day without Saddam - 136 innocent Iraqis are able to live.
 
Jimbo said:
Electro,

Massive civilian casulties? Blanketing the city with bombs?

You're just plain wrong.

But what else is new?

-J

PS: We (the coalition forces) didn't kill the power in Baghdad. The bad guys did.


Whats that last part mean?

Interesting attitude... so if you ignore it, it will go away right?

Just keep your head in the sand. It will all be over eventually.

No matter what I say in reply, it wont make a damn bit of difference to you. So don't even bother reading it.

And yes the info I've found was ON THE INTERNET (you know that big scary place that's filled with misinformation)

"American forces are finally getting friendlier greetings from Iraqi civilians...."

Its about time... But I think the battle of the hearts and minds is far from over... We better pull thru this one this time and not drop the ball like we did last time when we prompted the revolt against saddam after the first gulf war... and didnt support them - so everyone that was against saddam were murdered...

Let's not have that happen again.

And Jimbo lets try to keep the replies in one post ...it's called cohesive thought. =) I know you dont have any difficulties posting long messages so let's break out of that habit :)

(for those of you who don't understand my humor, yes that was a joke poking FUN at Jimbo - geez LIGHTEN UP)

-Electro
 
electro, i understand your concern about how we handle the war's aftermath in Iraq. Agreed that we need to make sure we rebuild the infrastructure and help them set up self-governance.

Im still not really sure where your anti-american anti-war sentiment is coming from. the reason i say 'anti-american' is because you continually talk about mistrust of our government and mistrust of our media reporting.

If you'd rather rely upon the reporting from other sources, you should remember that our press(such as it is--far from perfect), is operating freely. More so than anywhere else. Yet you want to draw info from the Syrian Daily.

By the way, your posts arent logical enough to criticize Jimbo. Go to your local university and take a course in logic. Then take a history overview course. You can do that in American.
Cost: 800$
Value to Prime members: Priceless
 
"The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.
"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.
Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about."


source:


http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
 
Back
Top