[Lorric]

Thanks for the help with the Moon, people.

One Giant Leap is much nicer than One Giant Hoax, don't you think? 

[Flipside]

Heh, don't worry about it, I think most people who watched the documentary at the very least had a 'Hmmm...' moment

[MP-Ryan]

What did you mean by strategic? Do you have a theory as to why this invasion took place?

Strategic interests - large-scale, long term implications for the security and prosperity of a nation (generally).  US strategic interests are served best by stability and friendly nations (not necessarily democracies) in the greater Middle East.  The greatest threats to Middle Eastern stability who were not 'friendly' to the US circa 2001-2003 were (in order):
-Iran
-Iraq
-Afghanistan
-Pakistan*
-Lebanon

Lebanon was a problem only because it was used as a base for attacks on Israel, which the Israelis dealt with.  Minor problem in the region.

Pakistan's government was ostensibly friendly to the United States, but US intelligence had long identified the ISI as being a potential haven for radicals, and the northern regions of Pakistan were known to contain some radical elements.  But, Pakistan itself was taking action in those areas to a limited extent.

Afghanistan was invaded because it was seen as the only way to make a very public stand against the state-sponsored terrorism that resulted in the September 11 2001 attacks.  Ousting the Taliban was the goal; staying for the aftermath was the unanticipated consequence.

Iraq, #2 on the strategic hit list, had an unstable dictatorial government that recently fought a war against Iran (and lost), then fought a war against Kuwait (and lost), threatened Saudi Arabia (#3 on the US oil supplier list), threatened Israel (one of the only functional democracies on the whole region and a US-friendly country), had used chemical and biological weapons on its own populace, and could easily be painted as a state-sponsor of terrorism even if it wasn't.  The only reason the Gulf War didn't flatten Hussein then and there was because the UN limited the scope of the operation.  Iraq was a thorn in the side of the whole region.  Furthermore, the ideological conflict between Iraq and Iran was still simmering and could have resulted in open war.  But, in 2003, the opportunity for military intervention in Iraq arose (based on some definite twisting of the truth, in hindsight).  What the administration didn't forsee was that ousting Hussein would lead to a factional civil war in Iraq, which it did, and caused all kinds of other chaos thereby actually strengthening Iran...

...and let's face it, Iran is US enemy number 1, but they're militarily untouchable because they almost never get caught doing the things that everyone knows they're up to.  Namely, it would (rightly) be seen as a war of aggression.

The trouble is that, despite a frightening similarity of religious belief, the governments and factions in Iran and Saudi Arabia REALLY don't like each other.  Saudi Arabia is only rich and relatively regionally powerful because it is a major source of oil for the world - the whole Persian Gulf is, really.  Disruption to that supply could cause economic chaos, and prior to the events of 2003 you had Iraq, Iran, and the Saudis all with extreme dislike of each other and all with respectably powerful (relatively speaking) military's in the region.  Iran also has nuclear ambitions (likely for weapons as well as peaceful purposes).  That's not good for US strategic purposes.  There is no question that reducing Iraq's ability to cause trouble was a strategic objective.  I also suspect that Iraq was actually practice for an engagement in Iran - Iran is friendly to China, China needs oil, China's government is full of pragmatists, Iran would dearly like to sell more of its oil, and an Iran with Chinese strategic backing is in nobody's interest.  That part is conjecture on my part.

Nevertheless, the military interventions in Afghanistan have had a few strategic effects (I'm not judging these as positive or negative, they simply happened):
- Iraq is no longer a player in terms of regional imbalance.  It's too internally conflicted.
- Persian Gulf oil supply to the world is therefore relatively safe, with the only actual threat being Iran and they aren't stupidly about to bite their only real source of revenue.
- The ability of radicals to hide within Afghanistan and support the logistics required to carry out another attack on the scale of September 11 has been eliminated.  The pockets of Taliban and Islamic radicals are too busy fighting to blow up girls' schools and kill locals and Afghani/NATO military to worry about grandiose attacks on Western nations.
- The radical-friendly elements in Pakistan's ISI have been largely flushed out (evidence:  bin Laden's death inside Pakistan).
- The primary locations of Islamic radical fighters have been pocketed into southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, are being constantly harassed by drone strikes, and pose no strategic threat to Western civilian populations or Middle Eastern regional stability.
- Large contingents of well-trained insurgents who got field experience in Iraq have now returned home and in some cases have successfully co-opted revolutionary actions.  Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria have all seen the results of this.  Egypt now has an Islamist PM, and Islamist forces will eventually take Syria.  Hamas in Gaza has been bolstered with new weapons and experienced insurgents.

So, as we can see, while the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had a definite net-gain on US strategic interests in the Middle East, the law of unintended consequences is now at work.  Actions of this magnitude are generally best reviewed with 20 years of hindsight to be properly judged.  Regardless, Iraq's oil supply is little more than a footnote in all of this.

[Dragon]

So, as we can see, while the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had a definite net-gain on US strategic interests in the Middle East, the law of unintended consequences is now at work.  Actions of this magnitude are generally best reviewed with 20 years of hindsight to be properly judged.  Regardless, Iraq's oil supply is little more than a footnote in all of this.

I wouldn't call it a foot note. Rather, an opening note.

Strategic interests - large-scale, long term implications for the security and prosperity of a nation (generally).  US strategic interests are served best by stability and friendly nations (not necessarily democracies) in the greater Middle East.

And what kind of strategic interests? Those countries have no realistic means to create ICBMs that could hit US. The way I see it, the biggest reason US needs friendly nations in the Middle East is oil. If there was nothing of value here, I don't think they'd bother messing with the region. Controlling oil sources gives a nation enormous political power, and by having friendly nations in the Middle East, US can secure a degree of indirect control over resources there.

[SpardaSon21]

Did you miss all of what MP-Ryan said?  Oil has nothing to do with Iraq.  We don't import any from them, and they certainly aren't a puppet state taking orders from the State Department.

[MP-Ryan]

I wouldn't call it a foot note. Rather, an opening note.

No.  Read above.

And what kind of strategic interests? Those countries have no realistic means to create ICBMs that could hit US. The way I see it, the biggest reason US needs friendly nations in the Middle East is oil. If there was nothing of value here, I don't think they'd bother messing with the region. Controlling oil sources gives a nation enormous political power, and by having friendly nations in the Middle East, US can secure a degree of indirect control over resources there.

The primary US strategic interest in the Middle East is security - for both US citizens, and the nation of Israel.  Secondary is the security of Persian Gulf oil production and distribution to the world - a failure in that region spells global economic consequences.  The fields of Saudi Arabia are the primary concern.  The Iraqi fields are an irrelevant "nice to have access to" but by no means a reason to invade.  Certainly when Iraq was already producing, selling, and exporting from its fields.  The only benefit to the US is employment of American firms, and the economic consequences of the war far outweigh the gains made in those areas.

Saying the invasion of Iraq was about Saudi oil is slightly more correct, but its still only a very small piece of the picture.  Mostly, the Iraq invasion was one of opportunity that was seen to satisfy some long-term strategic objectives.

[Lorric]

Unlike Iraq, I supported Afghanistan. Although I thought they could have persisted with the diplomacy a bit more first (although I'm just about sure now it wouldn't have worked.) But I also thought that they could have tried some sort of power display to intimidate the Taliban into stepping aside and letting us go and deal with the terrorists. Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban was never the original goal, was it? They just wanted to get rid of the terrorist cells there. The training camps.

If I remember right, first they said basically "Get rid of the terrorists" to the Taliban. They refused. So then it was "Alright, let us come and get rid of them for you." And they refused that too. And not long after that, the airstrikes started.

So then, since the Taliban were already warring with the Northern Alliance, they let the Northern Alliance win their ground battle for them, rather than sending troops, by assisting them with defeating the Taliban from the air. We help you take over, you help us get rid of the terrorists...

Of course, it wasn't so simple, was it, and boots ended up having to be on the ground after all, and still are today.

Ah, Islam. The "Religion of Peace." I'm sure if Islam ever converts the World 100%, there'll be no peace, the whole World will be a battleground. They kill each other as much as they kill everyone else. So what you're saying is rather than wanting to take the oil for themselves, the US wanted to make sure the oil flows. I know if I was wanting to destroy one of those countries, targetting the oil to cripple the country would be a high priority military target. The oil wouldn't flow, and prices would skyrocket over here.

Why go to all this trouble in Iraq? Why not just eliminate Saddam if he was the problem, and if necessary some other key personnel? There are all kinds of ways it could be done, an assassin, an attack team, a bounty on his head, even enabling the Iraqis to do it themselves.

Oh, Bin Laden, I certainly have my doubts there. They seemed to go to great trouble to make sure the body was disposed of ASAP without anyone seeing. Maybe you can do for that what was done with the Moon, but I think he died a long time ago, and this was set up. You've got the man you've been hunting for years and years and years, don't you want to make sure the whole World knows it?

War is the most unpredictable thing. I don't think America properly understand this, the way they wage war so easily, and the way they tell the World of schedules they have. You can't schedule war.

[IronBeer]

War is the most unpredictable thing.

"No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy."

[Flipside]

Well, the thing Islam has yet to figure out is that it is impossible to run the world. Look at any Empire or Religion and it has a 'critical mass' before fracturing into lots of pieces, Islam is no exception, and the tighter it tries to grip, the less control it will gain. It already suffers from the Sunni/Shiite divide, and that would be just the beginning.

[MP-Ryan]

Where to begin...

Unlike Iraq, I supported Afghanistan. Although I thought they could have persisted with the diplomacy a bit more first (although I'm just about sure now it wouldn't have worked.) But I also thought that they could have tried some sort of power display to intimidate the Taliban into stepping aside and letting us go and deal with the terrorists. Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban was never the original goal, was it? They just wanted to get rid of the terrorist cells there. The training camps.

If I remember right, first they said basically "Get rid of the terrorists" to the Taliban. They refused. So then it was "Alright, let us come and get rid of them for you." And they refused that too. And not long after that, the airstrikes started.

So then, since the Taliban were already warring with the Northern Alliance, they let the Northern Alliance win their ground battle for them, rather than sending troops, by assisting them with defeating the Taliban from the air. We help you take over, you help us get rid of the terrorists...

Of course, it wasn't so simple, was it, and boots ended up having to be on the ground after all, and still are today.

The Taliban, in addition to being comprised of some genuinely evil people with some genuinely screwed-up ideas about the place of women and human rights in general, was a state-sponsor of terrorism.  Specifically, a state-sponsor of attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on Western interests and insurrection in other countries with Islamic fundamentalists.

Had NATO been after "just training camps," bunker-busters, daisy-cutters, and a few special forces regiments would have taken care of it in a few months.  Invasion was planned from the start because the Taliban itself had to go.  Though the original point was not to install a new government, it was a consequence of flattening the Taliban.

So what you're saying is rather than wanting to take the oil for themselves, the US wanted to make sure the oil flows.

The US, as with any nation, is inherently selfish (this is not a bad thing).  It is not in US strategic interest to watch oil prices skyrocket around the world, nor is it in their interest to see instability in the Middle East to the point where there is open conflict.  Iraq was a focal point as a potential source of open conflict.

Why go to all this trouble in Iraq? Why not just eliminate Saddam if he was the problem, and if necessary some other key personnel? There are all kinds of ways it could be done, an assassin, an attack team, a bounty on his head, even enabling the Iraqis to do it themselves.

Hussein was one figure in the military governance structure.  More important is to realize that Iraq is a country of at least 4 religions factions, and the Baath party (which ran the place up until the US squashed it) was one of the smallest, keeping their grip through strength of arms.

Oh, Bin Laden, I certainly have my doubts there. They seemed to go to great trouble to make sure the body was disposed of ASAP without anyone seeing. Maybe you can do for that what was done with the Moon, but I think he died a long time ago, and this was set up. You've got the man you've been hunting for years and years and years, don't you want to make sure the whole World knows it?

He was positively ID'd (several times) and immediately buried at sea to avoid a circus, and the broad anger of the entire Islamic world at improper burial.  I'm not sure what there is to question there...

War is the most unpredictable thing. I don't think America properly understand this, the way they wage war so easily, and the way they tell the World of schedules they have. You can't schedule war.

I think you're taking a very simplistic view of complex geopolitical events...

[General Battuta]

Oh my god, HLP's discussions of Islam are so laughably frustrating. 'Islam' is not going to figure anything out because 'Islam' is not a thing. There are a huge number of Muslims in the world from so many different cultures and places. There is no monolithic agenda.

Most Muslims do not live in the Middle East. Islam in the Middle East is not Islam in the world.

[MP-Ryan]

Oh my god, HLP's discussions of Islam are so laughably frustrating. 'Islam' is not going to figure anything out because 'Islam' is not a thing. There are a huge number of Muslims in the world from so many different cultures and places. There is no monolithic agenda.

Most Muslims do not live in the Middle East. Islam in the Middle East is not Islam in the world.

QFT.

[Flipside]

Agreed, most Muslims, like most Christians, Jews, Sikhs etc couldn't really care less for the 'proposed' agenda of the more extreme ends of their church, they just want to live their lives in moderate peace and comfort, but then, it's not the majority that are causing the problem for all those religions. The main point I am trying to make is that it is impossible for any movement to remain cohesive over an area as large as the Earth. 2000 Years of Christianity has sprouted countless sub-movements and counter-movements etc, and the same fate awaits any concept that passes through lots of cultures.

[Lorric]

I'm not sure I understand why eliminating Saddam wouldn't help. Even if you had to destroy the whole party, wouldn't that be easier than full scale invasion? And Saddam was regarded as a madman pretty much universally. Surely there'd be a good chance of getting a more agreeable leader just by removing him? If it doesn't work, then you can still launch the invasion anyway.

I was not familiar with Muslim burial customs, so that kind of throws a big spanner in the works of the conspiracy theory. Nobody bothered to point that out on the news, and they were confused as to why it was done that way. I knew they supposedly had him identified in Afghanistan, but it all seems so flimsy. No photos taken, no nothing? No physical evidence to remain? We're just to trust that they're telling us the truth? Why not take evidence, then release it some time after things have cooled back down?

On the last point, I guess I'll have to ask what you think of it. The whole scheduling thing seems the absolute height of idiocy to me. "Oh, we're going to be out of Afghanistan in X time."

If I'm the Taliban, I'm thinking, "great, we'll just lie low in the shadows till then, make them think they've got things under control, strengthen our position as much as possible, then just take back over when they're gone and pick back up where we left off."

It's a morale boost for the enemy. It's like saying "We've only got the stomach to keep going this long. Then we'll be done, just like Vietnam."

Yet if they said "It'll take as long as it takes" you can't do that.

I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.

[The E]

You must be rather young and idealistic.

I'm not sure I understand why eliminating Saddam wouldn't help. Even if you had to destroy the whole party, wouldn't that be easier than full scale invasion? And Saddam was regarded as a madman pretty much universally. Surely there'd be a good chance of getting a more agreeable leader just by removing him? If it doesn't work, then you can still launch the invasion anyway.

Yeah, sure. Kill the dictator to get a more agreeable replacement. That works juuuuuuust fine (Hint: More agreeable to whom?).

I knew they supposedly had him identified in Afghanistan, but it all seems so flimsy. No photos taken, no nothing? No physical evidence to remain? We're just to trust that they're telling us the truth? Why not take evidence, then release it some time after things have cooled back down?

Do you honestly believe things have cooled down? Because I gotta tell ya, they kinda haven't.

On the last point, I guess I'll have to ask what you think of it. The whole scheduling thing seems the absolute height of idiocy to me. "Oh, we're going to be out of Afghanistan in X time."

If I'm the Taliban, I'm thinking, "great, we'll just lie low in the shadows till then, make them think they've got things under control, strengthen our position as much as possible, then just take back over when they're gone and pick back up where we left off."

Yeah, sure. Because that's what they totally did (Hint: It wasn't.). Also, their power structures aren't intact anymore. They can try for a takeover, certainly. But success isn't guaranteed.

Yet if they said "It'll take as long as it takes" you can't do that.

Right, because that's a survivable statement for a politician to make these days. "We'll occupy this foreign country until things are done and over." Yeah, that's gonna go over really well with the electorate. All those years of pumping money into a military operation with no end in sight, constant low-level combat operations with combat losses, that's really a good thing to inflict on your people if you want to get reelected.

(You may feel encouraged at this point to draw a parallel to the allied occupation of Germany 1945 to 1990. I would caution you not to do this, since there are slight differences. Such as the marked lack of resistance to the occupation, and less cultural differences between the occupiers and the occupied.)

[Mikes]

I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.

If the tool you have is a hammer you suddenly see a lot of nails in the world?

[Nuke]

its amazing what you can fix with just a hammer

[Flipside]

It's also amazing what you can break with one

[Lorric]

"You must be rather young and idealistic."

Why?

I didn't want any conflict in Iraq. What I'm saying is if the goal is regional stability, and you have a madman, why not just remove the madman? And if you're prepared for invasion, you still have that card to play if necessary.

No, I do not think things have cooled down. Need to wait a long time for that. But as far as I'm aware they didn't take any evidence at all.

"Yeah, sure. Because that's what they totally did (Hint: It wasn't.)."

What do you mean?

I don't give a damn about politicians. I care about what's right for saving people's lives. The enemy will cling on when you give them hope with stupid statements. When you make the will of the country to fight look feeble and the enemy people (that's us) look weak.

I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.

If the tool you have is a hammer you suddenly see a lot of nails in the world?

Yes and no. Yes, you're right, that is kind of what I'm getting at. But I wouldn't use a hammer, I'd use something else. A gun maybe and lots of targets to shoot at? I say don't use a hammer, because you can build and create with a hammer as well as destroy. A gun is just a weapon, it exists only to kill.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm going to spare you the history lesson on Iraq and just say that if the powers that be wanted to take out Saddam, it could have been done since the Gulf War.  The Israelis had the capacity for quite some time - it's just that the potential replacements were worse.  And when we're talking about the Baath Party, I'm not talking about something like the Conservatives, or Labour.  I'm talking about an entire social/religious class of people that ostensibly ran the Iraqi government and military.  They also comprised a large part of the military.  There is a reason that regime change in Iraq would take more than just a guy with a rifle in the right place at the right time.

You might be confusing "not taking evidence" with "not making the evidence public information."  Nevertheless, Al-Qaeda confirmed bin Laden's death as well, as did Pakistani authorities.

As for giving a timeline on occupying Afghanistan (and Iraq)...  In order to occupy a country and ensure smooth transition - like Germany after World War 2 - hundreds of thousands or millions of troops are required, along with minimal cultural differences.  To put this in perspective, Germany had more allied troops stationed there in 1946 and 1947 than Afghanistan and Iraq had rotate through for the entire duration of the ground wars.  The only rational choice for Western politicians was to say we're either staying indefinitely (politically unpalatable) or give timelines for draw-downs and conversion to local forces (which they did).  Those timelines were only given after local forces were starting to show they could function independently.

However, as I pointed out earlier, the point in all this conflict was not necessarily the installation of functioning democracies but the achievement of strategic goals, which have, to some extent, worked out.