The Forum > Article Comments > US prestige at stake > Comments
US prestige at stake : Comments
By Graham Cooke, published 4/4/2007The Republicans need a moderate withdrawal strategy from Iraq, similar to that of Senator Obama and other Democrats.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
If I hear or read one more reference to the prestige of the US I will puke - and eat it - Howard has made at least two references to this in recent months - prestige is a fairly hollow and subjective cocept at best - any one who actually values it worries me.
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 12:16:34 PM
| |
Good article. Reinforcing the political reality that the Republicans and Democrats need to converge toward the middle ground if they have any hope of winning in 2008. For Iraq this means Republicans and Democrats opting for s staged withdrawal that still leaves a substantial number of US troops in Iraq.
As the US has for years been building (by any measure) permanent fortesses in Iraq to protect these troops it looks like this strategy has long been on the drawing boards. The bottom line is that not only Republicas but Democrats realise that control of Iraq's oil is a geopolitical, military and economic necessity (for US Government and business interests). This justifies the downsides of a continuing Coalition presence in Iraq. The downsides being the immense Western budget allocations for the war, the contining anti Coalition insurgency and fanning the anti Western terrorism threat. Pete http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/ Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 1:12:40 PM
| |
Graham's representation of Dennis Richardson's comments on this occasion are spot on.
The problem is most westerners have little concept of the reality of the middle east and how long a western/UN or whatever presence is necessary to combat islamic fascism. Australia has being policing the Arab/Israeli peace/conflict since 1956, just to illustrate the timeframes involved. Many Australians for example think Kevin Rudd is actually talking of a complete withdrawal from Iraq, littel do they realise. I was critical of both the January and March comments of Barack Obama as for whatever nuances, most Americans do not appreciate the reality, and certainly our enemies don't. The US primary system for candidate selection may see candidates making statements pitched at their target party loyalists, but the impact on perceptions abroad can be significant, particularly as the US has such a critical influence in the world. A good way to assess a policy and its impact is how your allies and enemies respectively view your views and respond. Al Qaeda will be delighted with his comments and act accordingly; there is no escaping that conclusion. The Iranian President has also taken a cue from Obama’s earlier comments, claiming an American withdrawal is a precondition of peace in Iraq. Given Iran’s regional power plans and meddling in Lebanon and Iraq they too will be happy with Obama’s comments as they will fill any vacuum – Obama’s words will shape the Iranian position. In recent times the Democrats have had a more isolationist and trade protectionist view of the world and the appearance of disunity of opinion which we think as part of a democracy conveys an impression around the world which may be quite inimicable to US, western and democratic interests. The US Democrats do not understand how comments are perceived overseas, the partisan games are rather foolish in a context of a superpower, that whatever critics may say of it, is a very critical country in the world, and nothing meaningful in the world can happen without its support and muscle. Posted by Canberra Sceptic, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 5:39:50 PM
| |
OK Mr Howard, it was you wasn't it? lets get down and dirty ,how would America leave Iraq?
Yes most of the western world knows we must one day fight the fascist Islamics. We even know they will follow us around the world. But how will funding a government unable or willing to protect itself with American money and life help? Can anyone believe a win of any type is any chance? It is so very wrong to think opposition to the war is only from the left. It is also wrong to think those opposed to the war are in some way pleased to see America beaten, but it is also wrong to think victory can ever be won while America stays in Iraq. Let us install the dictator fund him/her and leave. Posted by Belly, Thursday, 5 April 2007 7:21:37 PM
| |
Well said Belly.
Mr Howard must await directions from his American political allies, but Australians will make up their own minds after OUR elections. Pete Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 6 April 2007 12:10:48 AM
| |
the concept of 'us prestige' escapes me.
there would be very few people in the middle east who admire us policies even if they shared the goals. the bush regime in particular is revealed to be not merely incompetent, but just as insane as the creation of war with iraq appeared in it's inception. the attraction of oil and possession of great force may suggest that the us will stay in the middle east. there are countervailing forces. the us government can only use professional soldiers in sustained and unpopular wars. the use of reserves is already generating resistance to the iraq war. the enlargement of the professional army is beginning to make demands on taxation which americans are unlikely to welcome. the biggest military establishment in the world has a very large tail to tooth ratio, which is particularly inefficient in pacification wars. the americans can go anywhere they want, but staying is different- i think napoleon said:" you can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it". Posted by DEMOS, Friday, 6 April 2007 11:18:14 AM
|