Why I think we are at war

[angus]

Hey, all... i've been too busy to post for a long time, but just so you know, I am alive

The subject of the repressed photos of flag-draped coffins came up on another site I participate in, and I thought I'd post this little essay here as well:

People on both sides of the political isle don't understand what this war is really about.

This is not a war for oil. If our prime interest was really to secure Iraq's oil fields, US Big Oil could have just visited Iraq with several dumptrucks full of cash and said "you play nice, 'k?" Win-win situation all around.

This is not a war to protect the American people from terrorism. In a world in which our true threat is from Islamist extremists, a secular dictator is the least of our worries. If anything, it keeps us more safe, since Saddam was very good as tearing out all religious extremism at the root. Furthermore, Saddam was smart enough not to try anything stupid, as the world was watching him like a hawk. He was no immediate threat to us.

What this is really about is the neo-conservative ideology that American military might is the solution to the world's ills. The philosophy goes something along the lines of "Hey, we have the most powerful and advanced military in the history of mankind. Why aren't we f-ing using it?" The neo-cons honestly believe that we can make the world a Better Place through force. They have a grand vision that we can democratize and stabilize the world's trouble spots with a few F-14s and Bradley fighting vehicles. That decades- and centruies-old conflicts will be dropped once everyone has freedom and democracy. The intentions are good, but somewhere along line they have forgotten the consequences of invading an occupying a foriegn land, and that war, even with the best of intentions, is hell.

This is why our friends and loved ones are dying.

Now, to cover their asses, because they've gotten themselves tangled up in something they never really thoroughly thought through, they are trying to do as much PR damage control as they possibly can. They think that they are always one or two successful offensives away from ending the conflict, and if they can just candy-coat the war, they'll keep the American public on their side just long enough to finish operations. THAT is why the Bush administration is adamant about keeping these pictures from the public.

Maybe my analysis is incorrect, but things sure look that way with each passing month.

nice to see your green wisconson icon again, and to know I'm not the only butcher-shop afficionado at the forum.  yes, I think that's an interesting analysis.  I have always said that if scientists and engineers are going to be pawns of the military, then we'd at least like to have the internal gratification of knowing the toys we create will be taken out of the package and played with just a bit.  I think you may be underestimating the attraction of that country's vast natural resources, though.

[angus]

beef, we have always had venezuela and texas and louisiana and a closer relationship with the House of Saud than most OECD countries, so we pay a bit less for gasoline.  But it's hard to ignore the Vice President's and the President's business connections to the refining and petrochemical businesses.  I don't know whether it's a kneejerk overestimation, or an idealistic underestimation.  But I have to assume that, hostile or not, a hundred and twenty thousand US troops in the fertile crescent is better on my gasoline budget than a hundred and twenty thousand Iraqi troops.  but I'm generally a consumer, not a capitalist.  If I were a petrocapitalist, I think it still stands to reason that I'd rather my boys, not saddam's, not chirac's, not vladimir's, guard the ports and the wells, wouldn't you?

[angus]

War is poor business. Look what is oil price now. Look what is economical, political and human cost of war.

It is begining to seem clear, that war was mistake. Right time of this war was in 1991. But now you are there and you should keep your forces there. Withdrawing is NO solution.  
 
It's ironic that finally this war will benefit most the people of Iraq (or at least I want to believe that) not people of USA. I accepted this war, because I couldn't see peaceful overthrowing of Saddam regime. There was two alternatives: the foreign intervention or the civil war.

Depends on what business you're in really.  For example, an undertaker or a weapons expert might find war to be good for business.  If your business depends on selling a product, and profit equals revenue minus cost, then you want to lower costs.  One way to lower costs is to have some control over the supply of goods.  Or so the thinking went.  

There was never a good time for this war.  Not in 1991, not today.  Ho Chi Minh had often told the vietnamese people, "The enemy is the American government, not the American people."  In fact, Viet Nam had always been forgiving of its enemies (indeed, in 1426 the vietnamese provided a defeated Chinese army with boats and horses to carry home its soldiers.)  And the good people of Viet Nam acknowledge the practical benefits, economic and political, of a good relationship with the USA.  I think my government may have been expecting a similar logic to prevail in Iraq.  Many scholars and historians, in both 'coalition' countries, informed their respective governments not to expect this.