Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
And, GGG, I think the view of many is that instability in Iraq is irrelevant in light of the larger war on terror because, for many internal reasons, even an unstable Iraq is not going to become a welcoming staging & recruiting ground for al Q a la Afghanistan. So your (i) isn't a goal but is irrelevant to larger American purposes because (ii) just isn't realistically in the offing. (Dunno if I agree with that, but I believe that is the way the argument runs.) Now, Saudi Arabia would be another story ...
|
Who thinks instability in Iraq is irrelevant and what background do they have? What are these "internal reasons" that prevent Iraq from being a training ground.
This is the fundamental assumption of many neocons that I find absolutely lunatic, and I've seen it thrown out there quickly and without analysis over and over again - gee, if it's unstable over there they'll be too busy to come over here; gee, it always seems unstable, why is this any different.
If you look at the damage instability in Lebanon or the Caucuses has caused over the last decade or two, and then try to imagine the same issues in a country many times larger you'll see what I fear. Yes, the problems in the Caucuses remained isolated for a period while they were all busy fighting each other, but then suddenly Russia discovered that that fighting had bred a group of terrorists ready to take over a theatre or a school as part of their terrorism.
Also, if you look at the reasons instability becomes systematic and self-perpetuating, I think you see just about all the major elements present in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Somalia, the Caucuses, and Lebanon present in Iraq: (1) a variety of well defined ethnic and religious groups with separate institutional and governance structures; (2) an inability to reach consensus on national governance or goals, (3) a large supply of weapons, (4) a decimated infrastructure, (5) the displacement of significant populations, and (6) a history of conflict, including very recent conflict, among the major groups in the country. What is missing? What is different?
I know you weren't saying you agree with the neocon view, but were just trying to restate it. But, can any of this idea that an unstable Iraq is not a bad thing stand up to scrutiny?
