Author Topic: Question on Iraq  (Read 1634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Question on Iraq
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:03:47 AM »
Are we lousy imperialists?

I mean that word in a completely neutral connotation, as a nation that has essentially conquered another nation in an effort to re-shape it. I ask the question sincerely as well. Some people have said that we aren't using strong enough tactics with the local populations. Should we look back on Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, or Spain and create a modern imperialism?

Are ideas and discussions on terrorism, Iran, WMD, hearts & minds, and sectarian violence cluttering and confusing the situation? Would a thorough policy on imperialism remove problems with mixed objectives and inconsistent goals?
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question on Iraq
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2006, 11:11:19 AM »
No

No

No

No, so long as Bush, or any Republican were President
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question on Iraq
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2006, 01:03:10 PM »
Would it not be simpler to have one unifying policy for the troops as opposed to having them in the middle of a war on terrorism, sectarian violence, winning the hearts and minds, political positioning by various factions, Iran proxy supporters, etc?

You wouldn't have to call it "imperialism", I'm sure there is a suitable politically acceptable term. I mean Iraqi democracy is nice and all, but they won't have it if we don't win. It'll be as useful as the South Vietnamese government.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question on Iraq
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2006, 01:33:52 PM »
Define "policy" please, as it relates to what the functions of the military are

And it isn't "imperialism" in any way
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question on Iraq
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2006, 02:11:22 PM »
I mean one policy.

So the overall goal might be conquering and controlling Iraq. Then subsequent military objectives can be branched from that.

The reason imperialism worked is that it made no qualms about what it was doing. There typically weren't multiple goals or even multiple wars being fought in one location. Pacifying the indigenous people was a given. Being ruthless and running the affairs of the territory was a given.

The current system in Iraq is completely inefficient. It will never achieve any of the goals set for it.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question on Iraq
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2006, 02:33:25 PM »
I'm sorry Js, but you still haven't defined "policy".  As far as I'm aware the "policy" of the military is to kill enemies of the U.S. and destroy the means for them to make war on us.  That "policy" can't be applied to acting in a switching back & forth from "police mode" to "military mode", which the military is currently being employed as.  So a single "policy" as far as I'm aware can't be applied
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question on Iraq
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2006, 02:43:49 PM »
A policy is a plan of action to guide decisions.

In this case - Iraq - we have competing policies. We have a "war on terror," ending sectarian violence, stabilising Iraq's government, winning the hearts & minds, controlling the border with Iran, and establishing conditions under which the infrastructure can be rebuilt.

Think of it this way: there are a finite amount of resources we can use in Iraq in any given time period. The more policy goals we have, the more competition for resources it creates. Adding to the complexity is that we lose the decision-making over some of the resources due to the Iraqi government.

Much of this inefficiency would be removed by a thorough policy of imperialism.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.