[agrostis]

Oh, he seems to understand it well enough. Iraq '03 and Libya '11 have been excellent examples of 21st Century Power. (I'm omitting Serbia '99, as it was, formally speaking, 20th century, but that example was very spectacular, too.)

[einhverfr]

See, I was going to say that Putin isn't far behind. After all, apparently the US is still learning these same lessons.

one of the really annoying things one starts seeing in the American press when being away from the country for a while is the tremendous inability to see the same patterns at home as abroad. It's quite amusing and also quite disturbing.

[WesternStar]

I think they were. You have to look at the situation the US was in a the time. Long quagmires are politically untenable in the US and Afghanistan is the most tactically difficult terrain in the history of the world. Additionally my enemies really aren't states so much as a political movement who survives largely through the tacit support of the surrounding population. I need an easy war and I need a place to kill terrorists and expose the indifferent to the effects of their violence. Whether or not that was the stated purpose that was the effect of the Iraq war. I would argue that excluding the real dollar cost it was probably one of the most successful wars in American history.

As for Libya well to be honest it is no longer in America's interest to ensure stability in the middle east. In fact given the long reach of unhappy middle eastern people its our job to make sure they express that unhappiness right at home. The Libyan people are doing that right now.

[mercurial]

> Whether or not that was the stated purpose that was the effect of the Iraq war. I would argue that excluding the real dollar cost it was probably one of the most successful wars in American history.

Wait, what? Al Qaeda was [surviving] "largely through the tacit support of the surrounding population" [of Iraq]? Saddam was not a major terror sponsor. But the net effect of this little experiment in nation-building is at the very least 100k dead civilians, and the build-up of insurgencies movements throughout the region, who have by now good weaponry and plenty of veterans. Oh, and fantastic PR for the western world, too.

[WesternStar]

I didn't discuss Saddam because he was largely irrelevant to our strategic goals. The supporter I'm referring to is the ordinary citizen who helps to facilitate and fund the jihadi. Those 100k civilians were the medium for the message.

If those insurgents are largely focused on local state control that is a net win for the United States in my opinion.

[mercurial]

There was no insurgency in Iraq before the invasion. The net result of which was triggering a bloody civil war, fuel hatred of the West for decades, destabilize the whole area and reinforce Iran. I don't see how this furthers the US' strategic goals. My understanding is that the only message that has been taken home is that the Bush administration had as little understanding of the country as it had regard for the rule of law.