Reflections on the Iraq War

[Borachio]

But is that imperialism?

And if so, was it imperialism of the other nations that went to war with us as well?

I personally don't think it is imperialism (though plenty of people I know disagree with me). But it's definitely hegemonic behaviour.

 

[MobBoss]

I personally don't think it is imperialism (though plenty of people I know disagree with me). But it's definitely hegemonic behaviour.

I dont think its imperialsim either.

 

[r16]

now that ı can't download magazines at the web cafe 'cause the favourite site doesn't show up , hence lots of time at hand , what was the thing with the Iraqi Oil Ministry , reported to be the only Iraqi installation protected from looting ? Some security gap happened because the US didn't have enough troops on the ground , which happened because Rumsfeld didn't send "enough" , which apparently happened because there had to be a gap for the contractors to fill , which apparently resulted in loss of funds and does a billion US dollars in paper really weigh 36 tons , considering there are tales of people needing trucks to carry all that , and did those contractors shot Iraqi cars escorting Condeleeza Rice in Baghdad for she was not impressed by the value / cost ratio provided and would bash heads around ?

 

[Dachs]

I personally don't think it is imperialism (though plenty of people I know disagree with me). But it's definitely hegemonic behaviour.

Hegemonic systems tend to be the most stable.

 

[Arwon]

Freedom is costly. To get the freedoms we have herein the west did cost lives of people and it is the same everywhere.

Mate. You're Australian.

 

[Azale]

Hegemonic systems tend to be the most stable.

So it's a hegemon acting in a non-hegemonic way?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But is that imperialism?

Yes.

And if so, was it imperialism of the other nations that went to war with us as well?

Many of them are servants or sycophants of the hegemonic power.

Yeah, I guess young and edgy commies are the only ones awake these days. Ah well.

The old and edgy commies are awake too.

It had been an aim of the US Government since Clinton.

So then what the hell are you arguing with? You just admitted my point to be true!

 

[Borachio]

According to this, the US is indeed acting imperialistically with respect to Iraq.

Since the end of the previous century Battlespace domination has been an open and variously reported policy of the U.S. Department of defense and U.S. Administrations stated and restated in various Quadrennial Reports, force posture statements, etc. in execution of its role as sole remaining superpower.[31][32] The 2010 QDR indicates a change in perspective and it is unclear how the policy of the first decade of the 21st century would be sustained through the anticipated fiscal environment of the second.[33]

In 2005, the United States had 737 military bases in foreign countries, according to official sources.

I think some confusion arises because colonialism (the exploitation of one territory by colonies established by people from another territory?) is often mistaken for imperialism (the prosecution of politics through the use of force?).

 

[MobBoss]

So any nation that uses force as a means of diplomacy is guilty of imperialism?

Well, then, that only means almost every nation on the planet has been imperialistic at one time or another.

 

[Ailedhoo]

So any nation that uses force as a means of diplomacy is guilty of imperialism?

No. The way the US has used its force... ecomonic, influence and spying included... have raised eye brows.

Not every nation have couped goverments that do not agree with them... as was the case in Iran in the 1950s (Britian leaded with US aid) and Chile (CIA doing). Not every nation has claimed to go to war in the name of "freedom" but have allied with dictators. Not every nation goes on crusades. Not every nation has imposed its might on other nations.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yet another excellent example of how Mobboss is so much better at basic "research" than other forum members?

The caption reads: "School Begins. Uncle Sam (to his new class in Civilization): Now, children, you've got to learn these lessons whether you want to or not! But just take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that, in a little while, you will feel as glad to be here as they are!"

 

[Dachs]

So it's a hegemon acting in a non-hegemonic way?

I worded what I said poorly. Hegemonic systems are not intrinsically stable; they can be extremely stupid, badly managed, destructive, chaotic, etc. Exhibit A would obviously be the Napoleonic Empire. But of all the systems that can exist, hegemonic ones are the only ones capable of imparting stability. Multipolarity, even when it does exist, is generally a recipe for conflict.

The point I was trying to make is that hegemony isn't something intrinsically negative, or even all that negative at all, and that the fact that the United States' actions in Iraq were hegemonic ones could - devoid of the context of the actual war there - just be the normal operation of a relatively stable system.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm conflicted on the war and I think it will be a while before I personally can cast judgment on the whole thing. I felt at the time the reasons that were given to go in were bull and it seems I was right. It's hard for me to tell whether or not the reasons given were intentionally bull though. There is so much partisan rhetoric surrounding those events that it is exceedingly difficult to parse fact from spin and in the end we can't really know the principal actors internal thoughts. I do think that as with the outcome, with time there will be a general consensus on the motivations of the war but I think it will take even longer to reach than a consensus on the outcome - essentially most of the important players and their immediate descendants and current supporters will all have to die off where the outcome will be apparent probably before then.

I do not think I would have made the same decision to go in given the facts as they stood when we went in. But then again, I've never had that level of responsibility.

As for the outcome, I think it can turn out good for the region in the long run. It will take longer (if it will happen at all), but it is possible that Iraq could turn into a stable democracy in the Middle East. As to whether or not the price we paid and the Iraqis paid was worth that goal - well that really depends mostly on how well things turn out in the long run. It's all terrible that it happened and as I said, I probably wouldn't have gone in. But if things turn out really well, and lead to more stability and democracy (and importantly, another solid ally in the USA camp) then it may just be worth it. From the Iraqi side, it may (and I hesitate to put words in their mouths or speak for them and their opinions) be worth it. I mean, is trading a decade of absolute hell worth it to break the cycle of never-ending crap and abuse at the hands of a tyrant?

But I don't know, we'll have to see.

Yeah, I'm prepared for the liberal flames to engulf me now. And yes, I'm an irredeemable nationalist as well.

 

[MobBoss]

No. The way the US has used its force... ecomonic, influence and spying included... have raised eye brows.

Not every nation have couped goverments that do not agree with them... as was the case in Iran in the 1950s (Britian leaded with US aid) and Chile (CIA doing). Not every nation has claimed to go to war in the name of "freedom" but have allied with dictators. Not every nation goes on crusades. Not every nation has imposed its might on other nations.

Not every nation has been in a position to. That doesnt mean they wouldnt if they had the power to do so, just as powerful nations have done all throughout the history of the world.

 

[Borachio]

So any nation that uses force as a means of diplomacy is guilty of imperialism?

Well, then, that only means almost every nation on the planet has been imperialistic at one time or another.

Yes. I think so.

That is kind of what it means to be a nation isn't it? To grab as much territory as you think you can get away with. And if/when you're less interested in territory, to maintain some kind of threat of force is very seductive just the same. I don't think there's many nations that don't try/haven't tried to do so.

Whether there's any "guilt" attached, is another matter.

 

[bathsheba666]

Yeah, I'm not sure why we didn't take him out completely. If you're going to kick Saddam's butt like we did in '91, do it right and remove him completely.

It was well known why.

Bush senior was not stupid enough to remove Hussein, knowing that the US would be sucked into rebuilding the country, so they held back.
It was the same thinking that encouraged the Iraqis to rebel, then left them to their fate when they responded.

Bush junior failed to meet the intellectual requirements necessary to see that, with the results now plainly visible to all.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not every nation has been in a position to. That doesnt mean they wouldnt if they had the power to do so, just as powerful nations have done all throughout the history of the world.

You're treating it as an accusation while it's an observation.

Bush junior failed to meet the intellectual requirements necessary to see that, with the results now plainly visible to all.

It's easy to attribute the mess to the stupidity of one man. It's also oddly enough the reassuring explanation.

But in terms of an administration, with people in it who voiced the concerns Bush sr had (quagmire) it becomes harder to do that.

 

[bathsheba666]

You're treating it as an accusation while it's an observation.

It's easy to attribute the mess to the stupidity of one man. It's also oddly enough the reassuring explanation.

But in terms of an administration, with people in it who voiced the concerns Bush sr had (quagmire) it becomes harder to do that.

The intellectual requirements could be taken to include the ability to choose intelligent advisers. But I guess dubya fails on both counts.

 

[Azale]

Several people in Bush Jr's administration definitely had a reputation for intelligence (Wolfowitz especially). That they completely and utterly failed says more about the right and neoconservatives in America in general than it does about W Bush.

 

[MobBoss]

Bush junior failed to meet the intellectual requirements necessary to see that, with the results now plainly visible to all.

Bush made better grades in school than either democrat that ran against him. To continually allege he was not intelligent meanwhile making him out to be the evil mastermind pulling all the strings only makes you look dumb, not him.

You're treating it as an accusation while it's an observation.

Fair enough, but I dont agree with the observation either. If one broadens the meaning of the word to be that inclusive it basically renders it meaningless.

Sure this is diplomacy by other means, but that merely describes it via Clauswitz. We've withdrawn from Iraq....without colonizing it, or levying that it pay tribute to us.

But sure, thats not going to dissuade those desiring to label it imperialism from doing so. They gotta fight the man, you know.