When the war is over, is it over?

[RvW]

Theres an issue with this war that I think the media, and the right are ignoring.

It is obvious that this Iraq campaign will have lasting effects on US relations with other countries. The response to this has never seemed to venture beyond some humorous (and immature) responses to the Idea (freedom fries etc)

I am concerned with comments from foriegn leaders such as the most recent "one Bin Laden before the war...100 Bin Ladens after the war"
Etc.

Not only does France and other countries have a monetary interest in Iraq but
the religeous aspect is threatening US intentions and support too.. Many believe the US is attemptng to scrub spiritual diversity.
Arabs resent the US involvement in the campaign to oust Saddam, many Iraqi civilians are not swayed by the righteousness of the US lead war.

My question is: What do you folks think the long term effects of the Iraq war will have.
Is there a suspicion that terrorism will be elevated to a level where we will all live to expect it, and possibly have to live with 9-11 type atrocities on any given day?

Will there be an effort from any number of sources to retaliate or seek vengance by whatever means...including terrorism?

I think the issue is being avoided due to the simple fact that our Gov doesnt know, and doesnt want to tell us they dont know.

Turkey has a motivation to turn its back on the US and attack the kurds which are long time enemies. How do we handle this if it happens? How many other toes will we step on to get our "job" done?

Fear threatens freedom as much as, or more than any bullet or bomb can.

[ 04-02-2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[FallRiverGuy]

Good Question. I worry that even with the war being very successful that the long-term side affects may be large. This will be hard to speculate, but will, I think depend on how fast the US finishes the war, and if they let the UN have the leading role in developing the new Iraqi government. A long war or and end to the war with a visible US presence that seems to largely benefit the US will be very detrimental straining foreign relations with many countries and will fan the flames of anti-US feelings.

I hope they find WMD to justify the strike, get out as quick as possible backing the statements that this is a war to free Iraqi.

[Thumper]

We are looking at a century or more of terror ahead, regardless of our role in removing Saddam. Getting his regime out of the way both simplifies and complicates our long-term situation. There are many terror attacks head for the U.S. The "good old days" of focusing all of our defenses on one enemy (the Soviet Union) are long gone. Mutual assured destruction only works with logical foes.

We are moving into a very complicated time in the world, full of unprecedented risks here at home and abroad. Many attacks lie ahead. To me the most important issue is the level or lethality of such attacks.

The WMD issue is an overriding one. The question is whether future terrorist attacks are conventional, with relatively low losses of life (like 9/11), or massively destructive, such as would result from detonation of a nuclear device or chem/bio weapon near or in one or more of our great cities. Those latter kind of WMD attacks would cause losses measured in the millions, not thousands, of lives.

Given the likelihood of many future attacks, the logical question is whether or not what we are now doing in Iraq creates an environment more likely to bring massive (WMD) attacks or smaller conventional ones. I believe that an Iraq left untouched by the U.S. for the next 5 years would have been our worst nightmare, substantially increasing the likelihood of massive losses in future attacks. Think of Saddam with a stockpile of deliverable WMD for sale or employed against Israel.

I believe that we have forestalled at least part of that danger. And in this complicated world you do what you can to minimize unacceptable alternatives.

The issues of North Korea, Iran and others still lie ahead.....

[Snapset]

In countries without checks and balances, the meanest, baddest man will eventually rise to the top, and remain ther until someone even more diabolical shows up and beheads him.

Unless we are able to install a constitutional base that provides the structure to support checks and balances, this war will have no lasting positive effect for the Iraqi people. I think this is particularly difficult to do in a Muslim country, or for that matter in a ny country without a clear separation of Church and State. i.e. There is no higher authority than God.
I fear that an occupation of 10 years or more is the only way to incubate a lasting positive change. I doubt we have the willpower to do it.

[skein]

I think perhaps we are judging the situation as it is, without dialing in changes that will happen because we did take out the Saddam regime.

Already the Arab nations are saying that they were powerless to stop the US, and that they need to become more cohesive and stronger. Does that automatically mean another enemy? Not necessarily.

As those nations change, they will find their ties to "the old ways" weakening, if for no other reason than those old ways don't work in a modern world. There will be factions that say they are moving too slowly and factions, like the Taliban, who will fight for fundamentalism. My guess is the Arab nations will be so busy with internal strife - their own benLadens - that we will become a secondary target. And don't forget that when they spring up on our soil we will bury them. They won't forget that either.

As they change, their level of sophistication and responsibility will grow to the point that terrorists from their own ranks will be ferreted out and put down.

Pollyanna? Perhaps. But maybe there's also some truth in what I say.

I'll take a 100 benLadens over one China. They hate us and are powerful enough to do something about it.

Skein

[Born to be Wild]

Right on Thumper. I agree with all you said.

It will be interesting to see how the world and especially the mid East reacts after Iraq is liberated and the Iraqi people speak out about there former leader and it becomes fact instead of speculation. At least Kuwait will be happy! And I would imagine many other countries will thankfull for our actions also.

It will indeed be interesting in these coming days and the world will be a safer place. When these other Arabs come to realize we were there to take out a threat and liberate it's people from a wicked dictator, I think a lot of attitudes will change. A lot of similarities to Afghanastan. A new chapter in history and I think it will be a favorable one.

[RvW]

Snapset Its my impression that the Majority of Muslim countries incorporate a far greater deal of religion in thier political structure.

The "seperation" of church and state is somewhat of an oxymoron if you ask me. Our gov protects organized religion. Our constitution (or is it the declaration of independance) is based upon christian fundamentals. "One nation , under god" "In god we trust" etc. Wasnt there a president, (lincoln? Jefferson?) who said the seperation of church and state is in fact a union of the two respecting the rights and freedoms of each without infringing on the principals of either?

Extracting Muslim fundamentals from a govornment body made to rule a muslim country will be far more dificult to accomplish than developing a goverment structure based upon thier beliefs wouldnt it?

[ 04-02-2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Snapset]

A religion is a specific organization, and although the government protects its right to exist within the laws of the country, the government does not promote one religion over another.

A system of beliefs: "Judeo-Christian heritage" may guide and inform our decisions, but once the constitution was written, the religions that taught this belief were given no greater respect under the law. Religions have certainly evolved since the eighteenth century, but the constitution was not meant to change, except under new paradigms that are slowly acknowledged by the people.

As far as extracting Muslim fundamentals from the government of Iraq, I think this is impossible. In fact, I think the fundamental beliefs of Muslims are similar enough to Judeo-Christian beliefs that the difference could be irrelevant to setting up a democracy. I think the task is to set up a government that is "By the people, for the people", instilled with the limits to power that prevent another Saddam. This is going to be a real juggling act considering the nationalist fervor of a country that has just been invaded and had its government overthrown. I think if the UN wants to arise from its irrelevance, there could be a role for it in Iraq in the coming months. They had better grow some canines first. Milk teeth just won't cut it here.

[Hoosier Daddy]

We'll never know the answer to this for sure. Once a course of action is taken, there isn't a legitimate way to determine what would have happened if different decisions were made.

My take, no it won't be over. But it won't be worse because of what we have done. And there may be some chance it will get better.

I still tend to think that terrorists and guys like Saddam have grown a little too complacent about the US reaction to their activities and politics, and THAT, not US foreign policy alone, has driven terrorism etc. to the extent that we were attacked on our own soil. I like to think that showing a strong resolve and demonstrating that our habit of turning the other cheek somewhat is over will help to deter future extremist actions. I know it won't change the super-radical's way of thinking, but it might influence the marginal folks.

I know many won't agree with this, but it's my take, and yes, I know the counterarguments, so don't waste your time

[RvW]

Snap..agreed. The fact still remains that Muslims and other religious sects fear the "Christian Americans" Our country enjoys spiritual diversity, but we are still seen as a Christian motivated nation. Either that or our tollerance for diversity is frowned upon because other countries/religions loath a freedom to chose. This is obviously a reason for resistance/retaliation although an unreasonable one.

HD..good post, I enjoy your optimism and I think this optimism is shared among those who decided to drop the first bomb. Theres an element of confidence that can be gained by us "negative skeptics" when looked at this way.

[EZ Limits]

I think we are getting into a long cycle of violence. I hope I am wrong but look how long the Israelis and Palistinians have been at it. After a while hate and revenge takes over on all sides.