| |
Strategic Forecasting decides to offer an opinion...
by Elonka at 7:25 pm EDT, May 21, 2004 |
] The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea.
] Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea
] among a series of even worse ideas. This is pretty much how I feel about it. There was a problem in Iraq, and it was regularly spilling over to other countries. All other methods of dealing with the situation had been tried (covert action, encouraging revolt, using U.N. sanctions, etc.), without success. Saddam was going to have to be dealt with eventually, and the longer we waited, the worse the problem was getting. We *might* have been able to time the war better, or do a better job of getting international support, but overall, I think the invasion was probably timed about the best it could be, considering issues of will, resources, weather, and so forth. Which still didn't mean it was a *good* time to invade, but was probably the best available option among a series of even worse options. |
| |
RE: Strategic Forecasting decides to offer an opinion...
by Jeremy at 10:32 pm EDT, May 21, 2004 |
Elonka wrote:
] ] The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea.
] ] Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea
] ] among a series of even worse ideas.
]
] This is pretty much how I feel about it.
] There was a problem in Iraq ... There are lots of places with "problems" that need "fixed," but we aren't the world's handyman. We simply don't have all the right tools. No one does. As the Stratfor piece said, "Iraq was not and never should have been thought of as an end in itself." |
|
| | |
RE: Iraq
by Elonka at 3:56 pm EDT, May 22, 2004 |
Jeremy wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] ] The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea.
] ] ] Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea
] ] ] among a series of even worse ideas.
] ]
] ] This is pretty much how I feel about it.
] ] There was a problem in Iraq ...
]
] There are lots of places with "problems" that need "fixed,"
] but we aren't the world's handyman. We simply don't have all
] the right tools. No one does. Sure, there are plenty of things wrong in the world (the major problems in Africa come to mind immediately), and it doesn't mean that we have to go around fixing all of them. Iraq, on the other hand, *was* our problem. We still had planes routinely flying there (and remember that Iraq was shooting at us over the no-fly-zones on a routine basis). Attacks on Western targets were being planned from inside Iraq, and it was clear that the infrastructure for further attacks was being built there as well. It's my belief that if we would have ignored Iraq, the problems would have gotten worse, and more innocents would have died, both inside and outside Iraq. Eventually the problems would have gotten bad enough that the world might have decided to take action, and the end result would have been the same -- either a military invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam, or a military reaction when Saddam once again attacked some other country. He'd already attacked multiple neighboring countries, including Iran, Israel, and of course Kuwait... It was just a matter of time before he tried again. He *was* developing WMDs. There was an active Ricin program up until the day we invaded. Nuclear scientists had clear instructions to hide key parts, along with the associated documentation. Missiles were being built that were in obvious violation of U.N. guidelines. Multiple clear indicators existed, that Saddam was just waiting until he could launch another attack. War is messy, war is ugly, and the loss of life is heartbreaking. But it's my firm belief that if we would have waited, there would have been *more* loss of life than there was when we acted as we did. It was a better choice, even if still an unpleasant one. |
|
Strategic Forecasting decides to offer an opinion...
by Decius at 9:32 pm EDT, May 20, 2004 |
] Intelligence professionals should always resist the temptation to
] become policy advocates because, being mostly human, intelligence
] analysts want to be right -- and when they are advocates of a strategy,
] they will be tempted to find evidence that proves that policy to be
] correct and ignore evidence that might prove the policy in error.
] Advocating policies impairs the critical faculties. Besides, in a world in
] which opinions are commonplace, there is a rare value in withholding
] opinions. ] The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea.
] Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea
] among a series of even worse ideas. ] This means the goal of reshaping Iraqi society is beyond the reach
] of the United States. Iraq is what it is. The United States, having
] performed the service of removing Saddam Hussein from power,
] cannot reshape a society that has millennia of layers. I guess William Safire would say that future "revisionist reportage" will blast Stratfor as "ignoble ethnic-racist" "naysayers." |
Iraq: New Strategies | Stratfor Weekly
by Jeremy at 10:38 pm EDT, May 21, 2004 |
"It is easy to catalogue problems, more difficult to provide solutions." This point is not only absolutely true, but lies at the heart of intelligence. In a world in which opinions are commonplace, there is a rare value in withholding opinions. The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea. Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea among a series of even worse ideas. The essential point is that the invasion of Iraq was not and never should have been thought of as an end in itself. [Since I am not] an ideologue, the nature of the Iraqi government -- or chaos -- does not affect me. What does affect me is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is trying to kill me. The key to al Qaeda is in Riyadh and in Islamabad. Sometimes the solution to complex situations is to simplify them. |
|
|
