What-if scenarios wanted

[Perd Hapley]

Let's say we hadn't gone into Iraq.  What should we have done?  Where should we have gone?  Where would we be now? 

[wingnutx]

Sanctions would have been effectively, if not technically, lifted by now.

Jihadis would be blowing up stuff in different areas of the middle east and asia.

Everybody would still be pissed off about something.

[Perd Hapley]

Can I presume from that answer that you think the war is a waste of time?

Please change your name back, by the way. 

[The Rabbi]

Saddam would be about where the Iranians and N.Koreans are now, except a lot more threatening.  The Europeans would be calling for restraint and threatening to pass new resolutions condemning Iraq in the U.N.  France, Germany, and Russia would be making money behind the U.S's back, all the time decrying our "unilateralism" and "cowboy mentality."

[280plus]

The enemy would have had plenty more time and people to sit back and plot against us here at home.

Besides, I like Rock Chuck, I'm thinking about changing mine to Chuck Rock just for giggles...

 

[HankB]

We'd be facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history. with way too much gasoline. Gas would be down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies would be hurting.

The President would therefore be proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.

On a positive note, we could've worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide free universal health care.

The national budget surplus would probably be down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.

Of course, we could use it to give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.

Afghanistan would replace Ft. Lauderdale as the most popular destination for Spring Break, and Six Flags Tehran would be the world's newest and best amusement park.

And right now we'd be so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists couldn't even go over to Europe or the Middle East anymore without getting hugged.






( . . . I figured we needed some Democratic party talking points for comic relief . . . mostly snipped from Algore's appearance on SNL.)

[wingnutx]

No I don't think it is a waste of time. I like keeping the jihadis busy in one spot, and a Saddam without sanctions would have been a nightmare. It also would have demonstrated to all his neighbors that they could get away with anything.

[Lee]

Let's say we went into Iraq, killed Saddam and sons, destroyed the Bath party and then left. Sunnis and Shiites would of killed each other for a a year or so; a deal of some sort would have been worked out with the help of Turkey, Jordan, Iran and Syria; 3000 American troops would be alive, 12,000 would not be disabled, and the other few hundred thousand would have been able to do something more productive.

[The Rabbi]

In which universe was this going to happen?
We left Afghanistan when they kicked the Russians out.  They fought a while.  And then the Taliban swept in and invited in every anti western terrorist in the world to come train etc.  Why wouldnt the same happen in Iraq?

[Perd Hapley]

Rabbi asks a good question.  Terrorists thrive in nations without a viable state.  Eg. Sudan, Iraq.

[Jamisjockey]

Let's say we hadn't gone into Iraq.  What should we have done?  Where should we have gone?  Where would we be now? 

What we should have done was dumped the UN for refusing to back up its own sanctions and policies. 

[Perd Hapley]

The question was, what would have been the better option?  Is there some other country that we should have invaded, or some other group we should have gone to war with?  Should we have just kept our attention on Afghanistan?  A million-troop cordon on our own borders?

[Standing Wolf]

Obvious solution #1: nuke Mecca, then issue a warning that unconditional surrenders will be accepted from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, et alia for no more than 24 hours. We should have done that on September 12, 2001. Brutal? Yes. Effective? That was the only way we've ever won a war in Asia.

Obvious solution #2: bomb Afghanistan most of the way back to the Stone Age; invade Iraq after bombing it most of the way back to the Stone Age; destroy Saddam Hussein and Baath party; divide former British colony into three ethnic nations; leave with stern warning not to make us return. Issue written warnings to other states supporting Islamic terrorist savagry not to antagonize us. Brutal? Moderately. Effective? Probably for a few weeks.

The sad, sorry, simple fact of the matter is that the Islamic terrorist savages neither respect nor understand anything other than strength.

Let me put it another way: I don't carry a gun so I can reason with criminals.

[meinbruder]

The sad, sorry, simple fact of the matter is that the Islamic terrorist savages neither respect nor understand anything other than strength.

Let me put it another way: I don't carry a gun so I can reason with criminals.

Hmmmm.  I would like to point out that most of Afghanistan is a thirteenth century feudal society, not very far out of the stone-age; it wouldnt take a lot of bombs to set them back.  As far as wining a war in the region goes, it has been at war with itself for the last twenty centuries and probably a lot longer into antiquity.  What makes anyone think that the U.S. can change that now?  Iraq isnt much better, at least Hussein kept the country together.

Heres a what- if for consideration.  How about the Kurds set up a government in their own province?  That would give the Kurdish populations of Iran, Turkey, and Syria an excuse to break out and join the new state forming in the region.  The U.S. gains a new ally in the Middle East and the Arabs get a new reason to hate the West.  Not to mention de-stabilizing the governments of Turkey and Iran.  It could be argued that destabilizing Iran is a good thing but the idea is to stabilize the region in favor of the West.


Standing Wolf is right, a tribal society will not respond to reason, only force.
Mike


}:)>

[LadySmith]

We could've gone after Bin Laden.

[Perd Hapley]

We could've gone after Bin Laden.

In all sincerity, I can't tell if you're serious, or just repeating an anti-war meme for comic effect.  Please don't take this as a repartee of some kind.  What might we have done in the hunt for bin Laden that our Iraq policy prevented us from doing? 

[doczinn]

How about the Kurds set up a government in their own province?

Iraqi Kurds have been effectively autonomous since the first Gulf War ended and we imposed a no-fly and no-drive zone which prevented Hussein from interfering.

[The Rabbi]

We could've gone after Bin Laden.

In all sincerity, I can't tell if you're serious, or just repeating an anti-war meme for comic effect.  Please don't take this as a repartee of some kind.  What might we have done in the hunt for bin Laden that our Iraq policy prevented us from doing? 

Ditto.
If the goal was neutralizing him, we've done a pretty good job.  He is hiding out, moving frequently, and forced to communicate by carrier pigeon.  He is not effectively commanding or controlling.

[Standing Wolf]

If the goal was neutralizing him, we've done a pretty good job.  He is hiding out, moving frequently, and forced to communicate by carrier pigeon.  He is not effectively commanding or controlling.

Well, sure, but is he dead?

[The Rabbi]

If the goal was neutralizing him, we've done a pretty good job.  He is hiding out, moving frequently, and forced to communicate by carrier pigeon.  He is not effectively commanding or controlling.

Well, sure, but is he dead?

No, but it doesnt matter.  "Neutralize" can take many forms.  Cutting him off from his troops is as effective as having him jail for the most part.

[Standing Wolf]

No, but it doesnt matter.  "Neutralize" can take many forms.  Cutting him off from his troops is as effective as having him jail for the most part.

"For the most part" isn't dead. Only dead is dead.

We didn't defeat Germany and Japan "for the most part." We just defeated them.

[Matthew Carberry]

No, but it doesnt matter.  "Neutralize" can take many forms.  Cutting him off from his troops is as effective as having him jail for the most part.

"For the most part" isn't dead. Only dead is dead.

We didn't defeat Germany and Japan "for the most part." We just defeated them.

There's a valid hair to be split there.  We didn't execute every German or Japanese to defeat them, we just neutralized their ability to effectively wage war and convinced them not to try.

I'd say the first part is pretty well done with Bin Laden as an individual, it's harder to do the second.

[The Rabbi]

Its a question of resources.  Ideally, yeah, the guy would be toast by now.  But what would that cost in terms of resources to accomplish?  This way we achieve pretty much the same objective at much less cost.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I certainly would have preferred to see bin Laden's head on a pike (figuratively speaking), but the current situation isn't half bad either.  Bin Laden hasn't been able to do anything substantive since late 2001.  His organization isn't terribly organized anymore, and any actions it takes lately are ineffective local jobs.  Bin Laden and Al Queda have been marginalized.  The world moves on, without him.

Some day, bin Laden or one of his agents will slip up and we'll catch him.  It may take 5 or 10 years, but he'll be caught eventually.

I'm not sure what the sociological affect of martyring bin Laden might have done for their side (or ours), but maybe it's good in a way that he wasn't killed outright.