US Attack on Iraq: Just Do It!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I think the US will in fact ``just do it``, as per the title of your article. And once they have done it, the pious Germans (of Nazi fame) and French (of Vichy fame, of Algerian fame, of 1958 Attack on Suez fame) and Belgians (of the murderous rule in the Congo fame), not to mention the pious Russians (of Chechnya fame) and Chinese (of Tibetan fame) and Saudis (of Friday Beheadings of poor immigrants fame) and even my fellow Pakistanis (of Bangladesh massacres fame), will quiet down.
All, that is, except us Pakistanis. Many of my fellow countrymen will keep applying for visas to the US and they will keep bad mouthing the US at the same time.
This article makes a good point in saying that regardless of US motivations (and anyone who says ``controlling Iraqi oil`` doesnt know a thing about), we should see what is good for the Iraqi people in the short run (and, I would add, for the world at large in the longer run). On both counts counts, the Iraqi people will be better off, and the world a better place, if Saddam is put behind bars (or worse, as the tens of thousands of people who have died as a result of Saddam`s pursuit of self-glorification would no doubt attest if they were still with us).

In response to arjun-m`s post at # 6:

You asked:
``Guess which country has given more money for the welfare of poor muslims.. your choices are``

I believe its the USA. But read carefully and note that when I say US Troika, I am referring to the current US Gov, establishment and media policy. USA earned goodwill of the Muslims on its aid to various countries e.g. Bosnia, but the current Troika is bent upon undoing all the goodwill.

Also, I believe that most help to Muslims per GNP dollars would have been given by Pakistan. This is a tall claim, but I am open to discussing this in detail later.

You also wrote:
``A clue...don`t go by what governments say publicly. India is behind the US war on iraq. It is just waiting to extract the right price. Even in 91 when India opposed the war on iraq, US planes were getting gas in Bombay.``

I would say then that India`s policy is unethical/hypocritical. This takes me back to an earlier argument with you - Pakistan has higher moral ground on the issue of Kashmir. Why should we believe India`s stance on Kashmir when its policies elsewhere are hypocritical?

You wrote:
``sure..you can question whatever you want..but might is right..as the great one said ``ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force``. You dont have a choice really..you have to accept what the US said...You pakis did accept that post 9/11 didn`t you? and you agreed again with the US when your president promised an end to the infiltration.. ``

I would say:
I agree with you 100% that might is right. However, do note that we did not wait for US to tell us after 9/11 to do whatever we did. Read my response to Romair on Righsizing the army where I have written that our policy of clamping down on the extremists started much earlier. General Musharraf had announced certain measures in August 2001. Since you are a good reader of newspapers, I would encourage you to confirm that yourself.

And when you are searching for confirmation, kindly update all of us as to what happened to the 28 Pakistanis arrested by Italian police? I had said that rest assured all of them are going to be set free. Italian police may have proven me wrong afterall ;)

#14 by arjun_m
//...So what`s the problem with globalization again? ...//

Globalization is a problem for losers like commies and pakis. For those who know how to leverage it, it works wonders - like getting out of debt traps, for example.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37258546

1....India had last borrowed from the IMF during the balance of payment crisis in the early 1990s and since the country had fully repaid its loans, the IMF`s role had been ``considerably`` scaled down.....

2....With a foreign exchange reserve of $73 billion mop up within one decade, he said, ``frankly, something must have been done right``....

Ref arjun_m #14

[Indian firm to control London traffic

LONDON: The British capital is beginning the countdown to its ambitious congestion charging scheme, the largest and most technologically sophisticated traffic control system in the world, but it is an Indian software company that is nervously awaiting D-day.]

At least, Mastek doesn`t have a failure similar to Logica`s against it. Maybe the reason is there is no traffic control system in India ;)

[The software integration project, awarded to Mastek despite strong local competition from a leading British company Logica, will enforce a 21-square-kilometre congestion charging zone in an area visited by an estimated 40,000 vehicles an hour every single weekday.]

Logica is the same company that screwed up the contract with BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco) for traffic management. What was required was tracking of trains -- which is already being done anyway for safety reasons -- and reducing time intervals between trains so that more trains could be safely run. After about $42 million, the project was a resounding failure.

Um .... and after the deed is done the ruler is to be Gen Franks - this according to the Christian Science Monitor:

US General to Run Iraq

February 13, 2003
The Christian Science Monitor
Cameron W. Barr

SULAYMANIYAH, IRAQ -– The head of the US military`s Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, will rule Iraq in the initial aftermath of a US invasion to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.
Administration officials briefed senators Tuesday on postwar planning, stressing that the US goal is ``to liberate Iraq, not to occupy it,`` and last week a US envoy told leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to Hussein about American intentions.
The senators were told that even under good circumstances, it would take two years before the military could fully transfer control to an Iraqi government. As presented, the plan recalls postwar Germany and Japan, where American military occupations paved the way for transfers of power to democratic and constitutionally backed governments.
...Rather than allying itself with Iraq`s opposition, an ambitious and fractious collection of exiles and dissidents, the US seems to be gambling that large segments of the Iraqi establishment will cooperate in a American-led effort to rehabilitate the country and reform its political system. Makiya says with evident disappointment that years of collaborative effort with US officials - including US funding, an act of Congress promoting Iraq`s ``liberation,`` and a ``democratic principles working group on Iraq`` backed by the State Department - are ``all down the drain.``
But the US approach may increase the comfort level of some US friends in the Arab world, who preside over autocratic regimes and who may be uneasy with an effort to create a Western-style democracy in their midst.
``What concerns us a lot,`` Chalabi says, ``is the perception of the Arab governments and their friends in Washington about the effect Iraq could have by its example on the future of the Arab world.``

Someone is making sure of a long term compliant government ...

Only if the solution to all the problems were so easy. Just Do It.

Why not China just attack Taiwan. Why not South Korea attack N. Korea. Why not Just Crush the MMA (though they have democratically achieved victory). Why not India just attack Pakistan for Cross Border Terrorism.

The world will be left with lesser conflicts. For Gods sake, did u forget that US was supporting IRaq against Iran even when he was involved in ethnic cleansing of Kurds. OR Usama used to be their puppet in the War against Communism. Now when Saddam has been kept confined for the last 10 years, we want to attack him.

The US should first get the reconstruction work completed in Afghanistan like it promised then look for new avenues for propping up trouble elsewhere.

Re: Maz

I have to agree with Ras.

The fact that Saddam Hussein is not a good man or a leader is beyond dispute. It is also beyond dispute that the Iraqis would be better off without him.

Unfortunately, the reality is not as simple as you would wish it. War is not a simple solution. There is no denying the fact that the United States would win this war, but winnning the war is not the problem. The problem is dealing with the aftermath of the war; the consequences, which have not been fully considered. Let me put things in perspective. If the intention of the United States is to disarm and end Iraq`s NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) program, then regime change is meaningless. If, on the other hand, it is to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein, then disarming Iraq is will not solve anything. Thus, both have to affected: disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.

This is the easy part. The real concern, with its tangible problems, comes after the war is over. Iraq has to be politically re-constructed and the different political-ethnic groups in Iraq have to be accomodated and intergrated into a new politically created framework. The United States has delineated a term of about 18 months for this task. According to it, it will occupy Iraq for 18 months and seek to implement drastic changes in its politics. It is doubtful if this change, as envisioned by the United States, can be realized in 18 months. It is even more questionable if the United States has the political will to commit itself to Iraq, both economically and politically after the war. The case of Afghanistan in which the United States won in a military sense, but was resisting political committment speaks volumes. The United States is already suffering from ``committment fatigue`` in Afghanistan and Iraq does not inspire any confidence in its abilities. The internal political dynamics of the United States eschews the idea of nation building and this is not the United States of 1945, which was committed to nation building as in the case of Germany and Japan.

The other problem, which is causing the French and the Germans to resist this march of the Lemmings, is that though the immediate results of this war may be limited to Iraq, but the long term consequences will not be limited regionally. Far from chortling the menance of terrorism, this war`s end will provide a perfect breeding ground for terrorism, because it will create more political instability than stability.

Maz, what scares most people is not the outcome of this war, but what will happen after it is over. There is no indication, and it is a valid assumption, that nothing untoward may happen, but the concern remains - how to deal with it, if it happens?

The United States may be a hyper super power, but it is not omnipotent. The United States can defeat and the destroy the world, but the United States cannot garrison the world. The United States may win all the wars it fights, but it cannot necessarily win the peace. In the present international situation, political stability stems from winning the peace and not wars; globalization is a medium of consensus and not intimidation and what the United States is attempting to do, flys in the face of its own past historic experience.

Ciao

I like an average American because of his honesty, simplicity and compassion. That is why I do not go along with the writer.

A war on Iraq would only hasten the downfall of the great American Empire. Colin Powel and Rumsfeld keep comparing it with Gulf War and the Afghan war; and how initially the people opposed them and later everything turned out to be OK. Those Wars had a justifiable cause and world supported them. The justification given here has many holes in it.

The biggest one being the Israeli attitude towards the Palestinian next door.

Mercifully, the French and German opposition to it has already taken out the bite in it with regard to this being a West-Islam conflict. But the Anti-American sentiment remains.

A war on Iraq will give another issue to the Islamic fanatics to exploit to the gullible average uneducated Muslim.

It seems that no one can stop this war and America will win it hanfds down.

This will be followed by an increase in the worldwide terrorist activity against the US. America will be compelled to take further security measures and spread its forces and resources thin worldwide. There could be a strong movement in the Middle East for oil embargo, cutting off trade with US and withdrwaing deposits out of US banks.

What good are you as a Super Power if your citizens do not feel safe in most parts of the world. The American economy will suffer and a downhill cycle will be triggered. With no fuel and no jobs, a cycle of unrest in America could begin.

China will be the biggest gainer and its rise to Super Power status will be accelerated. India will be closely following.

To conclude, I love the Americans and I do not want them to go to this war. First tackle, the Osama and the kind.

``US Attack on Iraq: Just Do It! ``

Wish it was as simple as a commecial for Nike shoes. But it is not.

War should always be the last option and there should be no hurry

to start such deadly games without thinking about the fallout.

Many agree that Saddam needs to go, but is the killing of thousands

the only way?

Ras

romair # 8

Of course you conveniently forgot how your alma matter Pakistani army sucked up to uncle sam for a few dollars. I won`t get into Pakistani army propping up Gulf emirates for a few dollars.

get over it !!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

temporal

Mazallah -- the rationale for this column is MORE to do with gulliblization -- than globalization:-)

dear chowk staff -- thanks for listening to Ana and correcting the repeating paragraphs -- but did u forget the repeating Maz Maz?

I agree with most of the things said in this article except the last paragraph about globalization which is big enough issue to be discussed separately and independent of current situation.

The USA has not succeeded in justifying the war to the world but that was not the most important thing for USA. The decision and planning to go to war preceeded any convincing effort. Once decision is made to go to war, most important concerns are to win the war with least casualties and extract other benefits in post-war period (I am not talking about Kargill and Mutt here. That is an exception).

All the efforts to convince the world and the UN are in the hindsight or afterthoughts. The attacking party in an offensive war has always been concerned about winning the war first and formost, and not the hearts and minds of the `liberated people`. That is a secondary concern for the long term benefit of USA. However, if Iraqis are asked to choose between war and Sadddam in power, I am sure that Shias and Kurds would definitely like Saddam to go and possibly majority sunnis as well. The sad fact is that Iraqi public is helpless on averting war either way. I hope it is short and brings quick end to Saddam`s power.