Folly in Fallujah

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on November 13, 2004, 02:11 PM | #

After posting this I noticed these headlines,

Hispanic gang plots to ambush Maryland cops: http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20041112-095753-8573r.htm

Iraqi troops rushed to Mosul to crush uprising: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041112-103218-4663r.htm

War at home and abroad.

Posted by Phil on November 13, 2004, 04:29 PM | #

It is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all. The United States of America fought Nazism and Communism and saved the west from both is now killing itself in a needless war.

I would disgaree about Oil. I don’t think Oil can explain much about this conflict. The US could have obtained far greater quantities of Oil by cutting a cold blooded deal with Saddam (and before I get lynched for suggesting such a thing - let us not forget the 1980s).

The script was written by Richard Perle in 1996. It has been on the Neo-con table for a very long time. They have always wanted this war. They urged Clinton to start it but he didn’t. 9-11 gave them the necessary excuse to start the war and they did.

Posted by Phil on November 13, 2004, 06:23 PM | #

Joe Guzzardi at VDare has an excellent article on Fallujah:

http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/041112_vfl.htm

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on November 13, 2004, 06:23 PM | #

Hello Phil:

I respect your position on the oil aspect.

I shared your skepticism about the oil component, in this war. About 4 months ago my views began changing.

1) Quietly articles appeared announcing Saudia Arabia and other producer’s re-appraisal of their reserve volume.

2) The U.S economy is extremely vulnerable to oil shocks, just look at what Americans drive. Anyone old enough to remember the oil shocks of the early ‘70s ought to be cautious. Turning Iraq into an American protectorate has obvious benefits.

3) The dollar, already weakened, would be ruined if OPEC were to denominate their oil in Euros. For excellent analysis of this aspect Karen Kwiatkowski’s, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.) you may wish to listen here: http://www.americafirstradio.com/audio/040731.ram

I think her interview appears after 30 or so minutes into the broadcast.

She argues the sanctions regime against Saddam was failing. The French, Russians, and Chinese were waiting to recieve new contracts from Saddam, with the expectation the new drilling and oil would be traded in Euros, with devastating consequences for the US economy.

I accept that oil isn’t the ONLY reason for the war, reasons I am reluctant to expound on. But anyone that believes we are fighting for “Democracy” needs to have their head examined.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 13, 2004, 06:55 PM | #

But, Geoff, the grinning pixie in No.10 sincerely does believe we are fighting for the big D (well, everything he does is sincere, of course).  It’s scary, I know.  But you should try having him as your political head honcho.  Come to think of it, why don’t you try having him as your political head honcho?  You’d be doing us a favour for once - and don’t remind me about World Wars 1 and 2.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on November 13, 2004, 07:11 PM | #

Guessdworker:

I can’t explain Blair’s decision to fight the war. I’m sure British companies are doing, or are planning to do, business in Iraq.

Britain has a long history in Iraq. Churchill was instrumental in transistioning the mighty (I mean that sincerely) British navy to oil. Mr. Churchill was a keen proponent for imperial adventures in Iraq, or Mesopotamia.

It was known then that Mosul was sitting on pool of oil. I assure you that the British would know what to do with all that oil, unlike the backward natives.

What does this have to do with events today? My guess is nothing has much changed in regards to oil and the needs of the modern western state, in the last 100 years.

Well, that’s my stab.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on November 13, 2004, 07:20 PM | #

Oh, about Blair, he comes off very sharp. I understand he is being vilified in Britain. Peter Hitchens has a great send-up of Blair and the Tories.

Well, It would be nice to have a president that can complete a complex sentence or expound on a topic spontaneously.

I don’t think that’s too much to ask from a president? Everything Bush utters seems tested and canned.

I’m not sure Bush is a moron but he seems to have little curiousity.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 13, 2004, 07:25 PM | #

Geoff,

The kind interpretation here is that Blair stubbornly clings to the belief that our role in the world is to bridge the EU and America.  It’s sad and rather revealing, but he thinks he can be friends with everyone.

Remember, he offered our help on 9/11 - the very day and in his first televised reaction to it.  He was speaking from an extanct position.  The rest of the world took its time to guage what would happen next.

Posted by Psellos on November 13, 2004, 08:25 PM | #

‘The idea of God dispensing politics on the battle field is more redolent of Islam than Christianity. ’

Someone tell that to Dwight D. Eisenhower, quick!

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on November 13, 2004, 09:37 PM | #

I grew up not far from the Atchison, Kansas, the home of Dwight Eisenhower. I’ve visited the Eisenhower Center many times. I recommend the trip.

President Eisenhower is buried with his wife, and son, Dowd, who died at age 2.

They are buried in a Chapel, of Protestant design, but, not one Cross or Bible verse is visible. Furthermore, the stained glass is of such an abstract design it cannot be identified as having any Christian theme.

http://www.americanpresidents.org/images/grantstomb/Eisenhower02.jpg

http://www.travelin-tigers.com/pics/przike3.jpg

The funeral oration was overtly Christian:

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/funeral/funeraldocumentluthermiller.html

Was WWII a Christian struggle? Maybe. Surely Hitler was no Christian, in word or deed.

Is the Iraq war of Christian struggle? I’m sure Osama thinks so.

Posted by Phil on November 14, 2004, 03:48 AM | #

I think Blair’s war involvement was based on a clever calculation of self-interest.

Blair’s first foray into Politics was a disaster. This was right after Falklands and he was running against Maggie Thatcher. The result was a landslide defeat.

But I think most of all, Blair has delusions of granduer if I may say so. I really think that he is very conscious of History and he knows that no Labour Prime Minister has ever gone down in the history books to stack up with the likes of Churchill or Thatcher even.

How many people remember Clement Atlee? He was prime minister right after the second world war when Churchill astonishingly lost the election in 1945.

Balir wants to go down as something of a Churchill. He doesn’t want to be forgotten after he retires from politics like all the other ineffectual Labour nobodies till today.

Posted by Phil on November 14, 2004, 03:59 AM | #

Hello Geoff,

Good point about Oil. I’ll need to think about that a little more.

The question would be: why did they do it now? They could have done this in 1991. It would have made sense to do this back then because Saddam had just ventured into Kuwait and committed an act of international aggression.

Posted by Psellos on November 14, 2004, 06:55 AM | #

‘Is the Iraq war of Christian struggle? I’m sure Osama thinks so.’

Bush’s War is anti-Christian

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on November 14, 2004, 12:25 PM | #

> Bush’s war is anti-Christian

The U.S. is a strong advocate of Turkish integration into the E.U. Also what can explain the murderous bombing of Orthodox Serbia and the establishment of an Islamic beach-head in Kossovo?

Speaking as Christian, a weak and sinful one, to be sure, I am alarmed that an apostate Mormon is “the” presidential advisor:

http://www.republicanunity.com/artcl/newsweek.htm

Bush’s Christian fervor seems to rise at election time.

Posted by Eric Wulf on November 14, 2004, 12:34 PM | #

This is just the natural consequence of decisions made centuries ago.  Historically, events like the storming of the Bastille seem to be events in and of themselves but in effect are “surprises” generations in the making.  November 14, 2005 is of worldwide historical significance precisely because nothing happens and the trends just continue building towards their ultimate climax.  Greek epics contain wars between the gods and it is rather ironic that the God of Abraham appears to be fighting himself.  In any event, the third gate is now open and the future is in the hands of the Microsoft Excel bureaucratic Gods.  Everyday that goes by seems to bring new news of trade deals between China and Iran, Hezbollah trying to provoke Israel into another invasion, etc.  War is a cycle that never ends it seems and events unfold in a rather predictable manner indicating that perhaps all characters involved are just mere pawns of circumstance that in simpler times seemed to be Gods whispering in the ears of men.  It is incredibly predictable and those of us who are able to maintain some degree of sanity must shake our heads at the religiosity attributed to simplistic secular events.  Bush might as well declare “Apre moi le deluge” because he is clearly uninterested in his civilization.  Had he been wise he would have handed the defeat off to Kerry.  Blind faith results in blindness.  The exact opposite of what Bush says will happen is likely to happen.  I could ramble on forever but I think we have the habit of just reinforcing each others common sense.  ‘Nuff said.

Posted by Phil on November 16, 2004, 03:16 AM | #

Incidentally, for those who are interested in seeing the extent of the folly, the War Nerd has a superb article on Fallujah:

http://www.exile.ru/2004-November-13/war_nerd.html