Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "What are you smoking, Bilow? No one is proposing isolationism. On the contrary, the consensus is that isolationism -- paying too little attention to the outside world -- was just what exposed us to 9/11."
Plenty of people, especially on the left, have commented that it was America's excessive interest in the details of Middle East politics that exposed it to 9/11. What do you think the people in the US who've been saying that the attack was our fault mean to do? Of course they think that pulling our forces back would be an improvement.
Re: "The Democrats don't want to pull out. Have you heard a word from Daschle or Lieberman?" The reason the mainstream Democrats aren't being particular vocal about this is because currently Bush has very high ratings.
Re: "President Bush is pulling 80 - 90% approval ratings; the War on Terror is popular." As his father proved, this is not something which lasts forever. Already the Democrats are sniping at his domestic policy, the foreign policy is only a matter of time.
Re: "Is oil a driving motive for US policy or is it not?" Oil is a driving motive for US policy. But it is secondary to homeland security, and the US does not import that much oil from Saudi Arabia. Oil is more important to our European allies, that's why we will continue to support Saudi Arabia. How many US troops are stationed in Israel helping to defend it? Zero. This will remain the case.
I doubt that Bush will be able to start a war with Iraq. It's not true that all the hawks want one. The isolationists were forced to go into Afghanistan, they will also have to be forced to go into Iraq. I remind you again, the US didn't even declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on the US. In the absence of a friendly regime asking for US assistance against Iraqi agression, a US war against Iraq just isn't going to happen. Iraq's regime is a military dictatorship. It is not in the same boat as the Taliban. If there were some other fundamentalist regime that was allowing terrorists to openly operate against the US, then the US might have cause to attack, but there is none.
A more realistic scenario, especially given the changes in US policy on assassination, would be for the US secret service to act against Saddam Hussein personally. But even that isn't going to happen unless the US perceives that Saddam remains a threat -- to the US.
Re: "Do the Saudis even have an armed force in any real sense? Not really." Here's some links:
Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990, the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program during that same period.
fas.org
Also see:
fas.org
cia.gov
300 AMX-30 Armored Fighting Vehicles
150 M-60A1 Main Battle Tanks
milnet.com
Yes, those were Saudi Arabian tanks that rolled into Kuwait City, and yes they were side by side with US forces. In fact, our forces regularly meet with the Saudis for joint maneuvers.
Re: "Israel didn't fight on the side of the US in the Gulf War because it was forbidden to do so -- the US didn't give them the friend-or-foe codes to make sure of it." Reread what you wrote here and work out the logic of it. Now do you understand? The fact is that Israel was a hinderance to US policy, not an asset. If Israel had flown into Iraq we'd have shot their planes down. Think about it.
Re: "I think we're going to reacquire respect in the Middle East the old-fashioned way -- we're going to beat the crap out of someone. Can't think of a nicer, more deserving guy than Saddam Hussein." Anyone who paid attention during the Afghanistan conflict should have realize that US war fighting techniques have changed. If the US attacks Iraq it will be at the command and control level.
And before the US does take out Saddam, they will give him a chance to play by the new rules. Hell, the US gave the Taliban multiple opportunities to play by the rules before bombing them.
Also note that a big reason why the US was so successful in Afghanistan was because of the help of allies on the ground, and assistance from neighboring countries.
In Iraq, the situation would be more difficult. The Kurds are out because helping them breakaway from Iraq would piss off the Turks and Iranians. I doubt that Syria will give much assistance to the elimination of the Baathist party in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia is officially cold to the idea.
Re: "Arab diplomats are saying in private, 'You swear that you will finish Saddam this time?'" I don't talk to Arab diplomats privately, but I doubt that they are saying this. I think the rumor was a trial balloon floated by the US to see who would salute it.
The shipment of defensive stuff to Israel made perfect sense in the context of (1) the US bombing of Afghanistan, and (2) the possible use of poison gas by the Intifada.
-- Carl |
