"Five Myths That Keep America in the Middle East" Topic

"Iraq no longer exists." My young friend M, sipping a cappuccino, is deadly serious. We are sitting in a scruffy restaurant across the street from the Cathedral of St. John the Divine on Manhattan's Upper West Side. It's been years since we've last seen each another. It may be years before our paths cross again. As if to drive his point home, M repeats himself: "Iraq just doesn't exist."

His is an opinion grounded in experience. As an enlisted soldier, he completed two Iraq tours, serving as a member of a rifle company, before and during the famous Petraeus "surge." After separating from the Army, he went on to graduate school where he is now writing a dissertation on insurgencies. Choosing the American war in Iraq as one of his cases, M has returned there to continue his research. Indeed, he was heading back again that very evening. As a researcher, his perch provides him with an excellent vantage point for taking stock of the ongoing crisis, now that the Islamic State, or IS, has made it impossible for Americans to sustain the pretense that the Iraq War ever ended.

Few in Washington would endorse M's assertion, of course. Inside the Beltway, policymakers, politicians, and pundits take Iraq's existence for granted. Many can even locate it on a map. They also take for granted the proposition that it is incumbent upon the United States to preserve that existence. To paraphrase Chris Hedges, for a certain group of Americans, Iraq is the cause that gives life meaning. For the military-industrial complex, it's the gift that keeps on giving…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Read this article yesterday. Totally agree with everything said. The truth laid out and the people at the top just cant see.

And there you have it. Sadly it will never come to pass and we in the United States will continue to sacrifice treasure, lives, and stability chasing this particular Chimera. Of course there are those who profit considerably at the continued propagation of these myths. If I believed in Hell there would be a particularly nasty place for these persons. Too bad it does not exist.

Yes, he pretty much speaks the truth … and his words after being an enlisted Grunt on the ground in the suck, trumps much of what Washington insiders, inside the Beltway, policymakers, politicians, etc. say or think … At this point after all the blood and treasure from the West literally wasted on places like Iraq, A'stan, etc. … If many in the moslem world want to live in their own self made Hell … then let them … The West tried to teach them how to fish … But they prefer to starve. And rather would be fed/served their daily meals by the Infidels, the non-believers. Who according to their (corrupted?) religious beliefs, they should hate. Again at this point, let them go on their way … until they want to move into the 20th let alone the 21st Century …

Spot on, in agreement. L4 you get to call it bud, now can a decent leader be elected in 2016 who for once is his/her own man/woman.:/ What you think?
Cheers nice article and we'll enough written

I agree with the points made in the article, too.

Doug and others, I disagree that "the people at the top just can't see," at least in the U.S. I think they see perfectly clearly, and what they see is profit. War is a business, and business is booming.

At the simplest level, munitions expended must be replaced. Ka-Ching!

More callously, if a multi-million-dollar plane goes down, you have to replace the plane, the munitions, and the pilot, all of which cost money, all of which has to be paid for, all of which means profit in many, many pockets. (Material, training, fuel, etc.)

There's always talk about the blood and treasure that's lost in a war. The blood, the lives lost, the soldiers injured, all to line pockets, that's the real tragedy.

As for "lost" treasure, in the calculations of the people at the top, it's not lost. It's a necessary expense to ensure long-term profits. It's a write-off.

Just like the men and women who are sacrificed.

L4 you get to call it bud, now can a decent leader be elected in 2016 who for once is his/her own man/woman.:/ What you think?

I just don't know anymore … if any one or any one group could fix much in the fragmented morass that those in charge may have create over the recent decades …

I have to agree with jpattern2 that war is big business for a few. While I was at lunch I was reading a sad and at the same time uplifting story in the latest Christian Science Monitor Weekly on a decade after the Battle of Fallujah. The reporter/photographer, Scott Peterson, who was embedded with Charlie Company, 1st Armored Recon battalion of Marines managed to follow up with the same Marines he followed into the mouth of hell that was Fallujah. All of the Marines suffer with PTSD. More than a few he was to learn had committed suicide. Just about all hit rock bottom when they returned home and to civilian life until finding a way to turn their lives around in one form or fashion. In many cases through a combined effort of their fellow Marines, wives, girlfriends, faith, and their own determination they have begun the path to healing. I choked up more than once while reading the article and I kept thinking to myself as I continued to read about these men who fought, bled and suffered where was the point of their sacrifice? There seemed little mention of help or support from the military, the VA, or other government agency. And of course the city they fought so hard to take is now in the hands of what has to be one of the most evil group of fanatics since the Spanish Inquisition.

A sad story there, repeated all too often …

I learned all I needed to know about war from Vietnam. Had 4 really great uncles go off to that madness. All 4 came back physically. But their minds did not. 2 left us much too early due to suicide. I still remember the going away parties. They were good men who deserved better.

Glad you enjoyed the article boys.
It's very good.

Amicalement
Armand

If the Us stopped meddling everywhere may including the US would be better off. Just as if our governments stopped interfering with the economy and freedoms.

The world as a whole is vastly better off with the USA and a select few good nations with it around trying to do the right thing than if they weren't. Yeah, sometimes we make mistakes. Better to try and fail than not try at all.

All points true. Not to mention it's a truly bipartisan mess.

What a complete load of garbage. Standard elitist holier than thou gibberish. We tried disengaging from the middle east, the entire 1990's we had nothing to do with Afghanistan and the result was 9/11. In the 80s we had nothing to do with Iraq and the result was the invasion of Kuwait. We can't afford to duck our head in the sand and ignore the world, especially with countries like Iran getting nuclear weapons.

First off stating an article from The American Conservative is, "Standard elitist holier than thou gibberish." strikes me as at the least ironic beside it being an exercise in hyperbole. As for the rest of your comments I believe anyone with a small amount of sense and the ability to do some research will find what you have said is completely false.

The United States has been heavily involved in the Middle East especially since 1947. We have never attempted to disengage. Because of our dependency on foreign oil and the misplaced doctrine of attempting to halt communism we have so fouled up things in this benighted area of the world we have deluded ourselves into thinking we are doing good. The majority of the arms now being used in all of the multitudes of armed conflicts taking place can be directly linked to United States involvement. We have either supplied arms or the funding to purchase said arms to those we now consider our enemies.

Remember the Soviet-Afghanistan War? We supplied the Mujahedeen with arms, intelligence, and other supplies Dn Jackson. Those same weapons are now being used against our troops that are still stationed in Afghanistan.

We supported both sides of the Iraq-Iran war. The Reagan administration was the one that sent in troops to Lebanon and made a deal with the Iranian government for return of the Embassy hostages. We turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait because the Kuwaitis are not meeting the oil quota. Then when Hussein does invade we suddenly decide to go to war to free the Kuwaitis people! Please, we wanted to make sure the oil would flow.

There is your load of garbage.

jcfrog

If the Us stopped meddling everywhere may including the US would be better off.

Again, I'd like to quote ThomasHobbes, who I try to match wits with often here in verbal debate. And we don't always agree, however he pointed something out to me which I have to agree.

… America is the key cornerstone of Western defence. It's the underpinning of the Western system. It's the backbone for our way of life.

If it's bleeding out fighting pointless battles then that's bad for all of us in the Western world.

jcfrog, may I remind you about the US assistance to France in WWI, WWII and SE Asia. Not to mention much of the map of the current Middle East was drawn up by France and the UK. After WWI, ignoring the POTUS at that time, Woodrow Wilson's attempts at something more reasonable, IMO. And had France given Ho his wish to be an independent state after WWII free of France's "meddling" … both your and my country as well as all those Indo-Chinese, would have not suffered all those deaths on all sides … And to quote John Leahy, whom in this case I agree…

The world as a whole is vastly better off with the USA and a select few good nations with it around trying to do the right thing than if they weren't. Yeah, sometimes we make mistakes. Better to try and fail than not try at all.

I agree with all five points.

And we had 11 years to fix the problem in Iraq, and we made it worse. Why would anyone think we can fix it again now, with a tenth of the troops?

No more MidEast wars for me please, I've had my fill.

Let the Israelis/Saudis/Turks/Egyptians reap their own whirlwind, instead of us trying to save them from their own policies.

We can't fix anything, that the locals don't want fix themselves … Too much Western non-islamic blood & treasure has been lost/wasted in Iraq and SW Asia. I forsee some Orwellian nightmare scenario for the next decade. With the West flying daily airstrikes in Iraq, etc. and SWA. The strikes do minor damage, some of the enemy is killed, they attempt terrorist attacks on the West. ISIS, the Taliban, et al., are running about doing as they wish. While the local border states doing little to nothing … Oh wait … that is already occuring, now we just have to see if it will go on for another decade.

Agree.

Amicalement
Armand

We have always been at war with…

The U.S. government has a lot at stake continuing the mythology of an Iraqi nation. It built the largest embassy ever constructed to show our commitment to the region. It broods over the surrounding landscape like Castle Dracula.

"Remember the Soviet-Afghanistan War? We supplied the Mujahedeen with arms, intelligence, and other supplies"

Yes I remember. It was part of the cold war and done to stop the Soviets. The Islamic terrorist movement was started, and funded by the Soviets as a way to attack the US.

"We supported both sides of the Iraq-Iran war."

No we did not. I wrote a long paper on the building of the Iraqi army years ago. The only equipment we ever sold to them was a handful of jeeps with recoiless rifles mounted on them in the 50s. We provided them intel to keep the muslim fundamentalist Iranians in check and sold a handful of ATGM to the Iranians to slow the Iraqis. We kept two enemies of ours fighting each other.

"We turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait because the Kuwaitis are not meeting the oil quota. Then when Hussein does invade we suddenly decide to go to war to free the Kuwaitis people! Please, we wanted to make sure the oil would flow"

That's an…interesting view of what happened. I'd really suggest doing a little research, because your facts are way off.

Dn Jackson check your facts. When I state we supported both sides that does not mean just with military material. We gave Iraq billions in credits as well as military advisory aid, and cleared the way for specific arms deals to the Iraqis. Maybe the aid did not directly come from the United States but that is rediculously splinting hairs. The Reagan administration also removed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism to further open the weapons buying flood gates. We gave Iran military intelligence on Iraq so in what way can you state we did not support both sides? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of the word support? Seems clear support to me. Yes of differing degrees but support none the less and counter to your claim of United States so call disengaging from the Mid-East. While much of this took place in the 1980s its impact continued into the 1990s but more on that later.

In regards Kuwait, then Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, made statements to the Hussein administration to the effect that the United States does not have an opinion on the conflict with Kuwait or on any Arab-Arab conflict. Part of Saddam Hussein's reasoning for the invasion of Kuwait had to do with OPEC oil production disputes between its members and the idea that Kuwait historically had originally been part of Iraq and had been partitioned off after WW I as part of the reorganization of the former Ottoman Empire. It is a known fact that the Hussein government considered the ambassador's comments as a green light that the United States would not interfere in any conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.

So no my facts are fine and your statement that we have attempted to disengage still is invalid. In the 1990s we fought the First Gulf War, Clinton tried to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fired missiles into Iraq upon discovery of an assassination attempt against former President Bush, Sr. The United States pushed for trade bans on Iran, continued and increased sanctions on Iraq that lead to the death of 4500 children in Iraq a month due to malnutrition according to UN sources, and of course we continued to work to contain Iran and support Israel. In 1996 Netanyaho urged the United States to join Israel in the "democratization" of the Middle East. Part of that idea became part of Bush, Jr's reasoning in the second Gulf War.

Kallman +1.

The United States pushed for trade bans on Iran, continued and increased sanctions on Iraq that lead to the death of 4500 children in Iraq a month due to malnutrition according to UN

But Saddam continued to buy weapons and build palaces, etc. … Those childrens' deaths are on the former Iraqi gov't and Saddam. If they wanted to take care of all those that needed it, they would have spent resources differently …

Legion 4, that is a fair point and of course the source for that particular statistic I gathered from a United Nations web site source. Some in the United States do feel that the UN has a particular ax to grind with America but that is a matter for another debate. My main counter argument is to Dn Jackson's warrant that the United States attempted to disengage from the Mid-East in the 1990's and his derisive dismissal of the article that started this thread. While I do not have a particular dog in the fight per se, I take issue with hyperbole regardless of which side of an argument I might support. Our continued involvement in the Middle East deserves a clear and dispassionate review. I felt the points made in the article were well reasoned and from a source that if reliable has a personal first hand experience of events. Even if "M" is a totally fictional person the five myths are still relevant and worthy of consideration.

Some in the United States do feel that the UN has a particular ax to grind with America

Won't get an argument from me …

Our continued involvement in the Middle East deserves a clear and dispassionate review.

I generally agree, but those who have been on the ground in the region, SWA ,etc. … Most likely see things differently and more accurately. Then elected officials/lawyers/et al in business suits in climate controlled rooms, with a full stomach and recently showered.

Great article.

Hopefully some people in the US centres of power will have a few saner more logical thoughts like these.

If it could only be so Deadone. Sadly I think the Panthers have a better chance of going to the Super Bowl then our elected officials and captains of industry suddenly having a moment of clarity.

Indeed … and the faces at the VA clinic I go to keep getting younger it appears sometimes …

That's not an illusion, Legion4.

Yeah … I know … Going on the 11th and 19th … I'm not in the oldest group at the VA. But I'm getting there …