For a while now I have been irritated by the lame attempts to debate by the n00b Members. So this Debate is going to be for the more intellectually inclined Members. To get things really rolling we need a very controversial topic, and I think I have one. I'm here to argue that the Iraq War has been a complete and overwhelming success, and that Bush and his ilk are indeed master strategists. Doesn't sound much like me does it? Read on.
It's actually quite simple to see the validity of my conclusion when one makes a few very reasonable assumptions:
1. The US never intended to install a truly democratic government in Iraq.
2. Continued conflict is desirable as it keeps US troops in the region longer.
First, let's address how reasonable these assumptions are. For the first we may look to an extensive number of precedents. In every US intervention since the Korean War (which was actually a UN intervention) where the US line was that it was promoting democracy, how many of those nation-states became true democracies? Hmm.
Vietnam: We supposedly "lost" this one and that's why no democracy came about, but I think we achieved our goals there. If one is trying to establish a prosperous democracy in Southern Vietnam, does one napalm the hell out of only the southern part of Vietnam, destroying great swaths of land and other natural resources for decades? No. If one possesses the greatest military machine on earth, and North Vietnam is one's enemy, why doesn't one just march right up to Hanoi and decapitate the enemy rather than fight meaningless skirmishes in the jungles? In WWII, while fighting Japan, did we go to all their jungle territories and fight them, or did we take just enough islands to hop-skip-and-jump ourselves to Tokyo to force the surrender of all other Japanese territories? That's right: Tokyo. If democracy were truly the goal in Vietnam, the war would have been fought in an entirely different way.
South & Central America: The scope of US intervention in the name of democracy here is massive. From Guatemala to Nicaragua; El Salvador to Chile, the US had its fingers in everything. Did any democracies come about because of US actions? Or did it take decades for democracies to come about only after people overthrew the murderous, fascist regimes supported by the US via the CIA? That's right. Democracy took decades. This can even be found in US high school history textbooks. Take Nicaragua: The US supported the overthrow of the popular Sandanista gov't in favour of a fascist dictatorship. Or El Salvador: US supported an incredibly brutal fascist organization whose mass graves are still being discovered. Again, no democracy.
Thus, every time the US says it's promoting democracy, it is doing the opposite and indeed wants stable regime it can control rather than an independent democracy. Check on assumption number one.
I would hold that assumption two is self-evident, but in case it's not, let me expound. Recent opinion polls show that more than 60% of US citizens believe the Iraq War is a "mistake." However, a greater majority are against pulling US troops out until stability is established in Iraq. Now, let's recall some of Bush's own statements. Specifically that the US is "addicted to oil." It's true. If oil prices spiked much more, the US would be in big trouble. EVERYTHING, from agriculture to transportation is based on petroleum. It's not just that you would have to sell you SUV and get a hybrid, but that there might not be any food to eat if we cannot produce the oil-based fertilizers that make our crops grow. Quite simply: we would be freakinged.
It goes like this: The US needs lots of oil --> The US cannot meet its oil needs domestically --> The US must get its oil from foreign sources.
But where? We tried a coup in Venezuela but it backfired because the people love Chavez. Saudi Arabia is already our annoying one (or is it the other way around?) Western Africa already sends almost all their oil here. The Russians sell theirs to China and Europe. Where in the world is there a large oil supply that is not fully exploited and where we might have an excuse (like promoting democracy!) to somehow take control over that supply? Oh damn. Iraq. (Iran also fits this criteria, but they have a much bigger military.)
So as long is there is conflict in Iraq, public opinion will be in favour of keeping troops there to "finish the job" or "stay the course" or whatever. As long as troops are there, we will have de facto control over what is estimated to be the world's second largest oil supply. Thus, conflict is good. Check on assumption two.
And now, the conclusion follows. There is really no democracy in Iraq, just a puppet government which relies on the US military to exert any kind of control over the country. There is no law and order, and "insurgents" run free instigating violence, which will in turn keep US troops in the region, allowing US control of Iraqi oil. And it is in this sense, that the Iraq War has been an overwhelming success and a great triumph for the Neocons. They've got everything they ever wanted. Debate.
"People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range,
I used to care, but things have changed..."