Hi quehubo; Re: "Bilow, do you think the liberation of Iraq ..."
"Liberation" is not a problem for our military, the problem is "pacification". Liberation is easy for a high tech army, very difficult for a less advanced army. Pacification is easy for a large army, very difficult for a small army like ours. Pacification is a problem for us, but even if you restrict your attention to wars which are liberation only, like WW2, it is not (real) US policy now, nor has it ever been, nor should it ever be, to wage wars for the purpose of liberation alone. First, it's too difficult to figure out what "liberated" means across cultural divides. Second, fighting for liberty is the responsibility of those who would be free, not the US. Third, we are a small nation without sufficient military power to police significant regions after the liberation. Even Iraq is too big for us. Fourth, the primary purpose of our military should be to protect our people from foreign military adventures, not promoting unnecessary adventures abroad. Fifth, foreigners don't pay US taxes and don't deserve our expenditures of those taxes. Sixth, foreigners have no vote in our elections and so we should not force our stupid ideas onto their unrepresented heads.
Re: "... and the security of oil was an issue for 2004?"
Hey, oil is considerably LESS secure in 2004 than it was in 2003. The trend indicates that 2005 will be even worse. "Secure oil" based on military force will arrive about the same time as the "worker's paradise" based on Communism. Like the Reds, you ignore the simple evidence of the daily newspaper, and instead continue to mouth empty platitudes.
Iraq's oil industry is suffering from sabotage. Saudi Arabia is destabilized. Before the invasion, Iraq had no problem pumping as much oil as they were allowed to sell. Now there is no limit, but they are pumping less oil. Before, foreign oil workers lived and worked peacefully in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Now, they lose their heads on video. They're going home. When are they going back?
I mean really! On the one hand you talk big about an invasion of Saudi Arabia. The Hell you think the foreign oil workers are going to go back to Saudi Arabia in the midst of a guerilla war??? Forget about it.
Re: "Enabling the Iraqi's to be free and to provide an increasing supply of oil is an objective over the next 3-6 years."
Three years from now you'll probably be saying something like "Enabling the Iraqis to be free and to provide an increasing supply of oil is an objective over the next 10 to 20 years." We're now one year on, and Iraqi oil production is down, Saudi's oil production is in danger, violence in Iraq is up, and the US shows few signs that it is preparing for your 3-6 year solution. If it were, we would be seeing a vast increase in the appropriate parts of the US military, among other things.
Re: "Did you read any of the reports I posted here a year ago about the rebuilding of the Iraqi oil infrastructure? Geez they expected billions required just to maintain production and tens of billions and years to increase it."
You're ignoring the real issue, which is not the "rebuilding" of Iraqi oil infrastructure, but the protection of it from sabotage. That sabotage is slowly spreading to Saudi Arabia, largely due to sympathy with the Iraqis for bearing the brunt of a US invasion.
Sure, Iraq's fields could use billions of dollars worth of improvements, but the security situation in the country prevents this from happening. You're going on and on about how much money is needed to fix Iraq's oil, and sure, that's a problem, but the problem was created by the war. If Saddam were in power, Iraq would be peaceful, and pumping the oil, as well as improving the infrastructure, would be easy to do.
You go on and on about how much work needs to be done to fix these oil fields, but the facts on the ground are that foreign companies are PULLING THEIR EMPLOYEES OUT OF BOTH IRAQ AND SAUDI ARABIA. Compared to the security problem in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq, the "problem" of fixing Iraq's infrastructure is a triviality.
Re: "Our military capabilities will respond to our needs."
We do not have now, and for the next 5 or 10 years, will not have, the military capability of responding to the need of pacifying Iraq or Saudi Arabia. The first rule of pacification campaigns (read the US military documents on the subject) is a military that is at least respected, if not loved, by the majority of the civilian population.
While our military is well respected and loved by our own population, that is not the view of our military in the Arab world. The Arab world views our military as composed of cowards who hide behind superior firepower and armor, sadists who shoot women and children, and perverts who act out their sexual fantasies on prisoners of war. This is the simple fact on the ground now. If you are unsure of this, watch some Al Jazeera television news reports, or read some Iraqi polling (but do remember to distinguish between the US and the US Military). The presence of our military among an Arab population reduces pacification, it does not improve the situation.
If the world unites to pacify Iraq or Saudi Arabia, it will first begin by excluding us from the process. Any other action would unnecessarily piss off the locals, which is the opposite of the objective of a pacification campaign. Given that most of the rest of the world believes that we created the problem (by invading Iraq) I doubt that we would be first in line to receive the "liberated" oil.
-- Carl |
