Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill Weblog - Content

Thoughts on life — News, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Other Crowhill sites:
Crowhill PublishingGreg's Book Publishing blog
Greg's Marketing blogGreg's Home Brewing blog

Iraq and Afghanistan

by Greg Krehbiel on 24 January 2012

Generally speaking I see two kinds of comments these days about Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. We were right to go in and we need to keep fighting forever and ever (or until the military commanders say the job is done).

2. We never should have gone in and we should get out now.

My position is that we were probably right to go in, but we should have promptly kicked their butts, taken enough oil to pay for our trouble (in the case of Iraq — or enough rare earth minerals from Afghanistan), and then left. The whole campaign should have taken six months and we should have left the place a smoldering ruin.

The problem is not the war, the problem is the conscience-assuaging “nation-building” we’ve been doing afterwards.

We’re like the people of Eminiar VII (see A Taste of Armageddon) who have made war too nice and polite. That’s a problem for so many reasons, but I’ll list two.

First, it makes it too easy to get into a war in the first place, because we know we’ll kiss and make up after we finish destroying things. Second, it takes away the fear of getting into a war with America. In fact, if you want new bridges and schools, it might be a good strategy.

I want a situation where G. Gordon Liddy is managing the war, not some politically correct weenies. Then everybody would know — if we go to war, we are truly unleashing the dogs, and they are not going to play nice.

-- 2012-01-24  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 6

  1. John Krehbiel John Krehbiel
    24 January 2012 @ 10:22 am

    Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different situations. Afghanistan was playing host to the terrorist organization that planned and executed several attacks against the US.

    Invading Iraq was as if Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor and we invaded Guatemala.

    As to “taking” oil and other mineral wealth to pay for our troubles, we are not pirates.

  2. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    24 January 2012 @ 10:32 am

    We agree that the Iraq war can’t be justified as a response to 9-11, but I think it was justified for other reasons.

    And I don’t consider it piracy if, when a country forces us to go to war with them, we take the resources it cost us. That’s just the way war is done. Armies feed themselves from the land they’re attacking.

    It would be piracy if we attacked for the purpose of taking the resources.

  3. kdeb
    24 January 2012 @ 11:12 am

    Invading Iraq was as if Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor and we invaded Guatemala.
    It would be more like that if Guatemala had been led by a self-styled artful dodger of international politics. And if he had been playing “who-dun-it?” with the international community for years over what were essentially parole violations over human rights abuses. And if he had been playing cat-and-mouse about weapons much more powerful than the ones he clearly was able to happily wage against his own populace. And he was buddies with Japan. Okay, maybe more like that.

    As to “taking” oil and other mineral wealth to pay for our troubles, we are not pirates.
    Udeh and Kusai (sp?) would probably not have agreed to compensate us for the cost of uprooting the evil of their reign of terror. If there had been a way to contact the mothers of the girls they tortured and the men they disfigured, I bet they would have gladly paid double anything Greg proposes.

    Greg I agree with you about Iraq except for two things. I would not have left without setting up schools. And I would not have left the place quite a smouldering ruin. But I get the drift.

  4. John Krehbiel John K
    25 January 2012 @ 6:48 pm

    There is a convincing argument that Saddam was playing to his internal audience, not the international community. As long as his people thought he still had the kinds of weapons he had used on the Kurds, they would not revolt, which seems to be the thing he feared most. The story is that when the boms started falling he said “What’s that?” in real fear. When he was told that the Americans were attacking, his reaction was “Oh, that’s all.” and he laughed.

    I am convinced that they went to war in Iraq because the Bush I neo-cons wanted to “finish the job.” To that end they were willing to claim that obvious missile tubes were “perfect” for uranium centrifuges, that actually would have made pretty crappy centrifuge tubes; to completely fabricate scare stories about yellowcake uranium, and all of the other ways we were lied into that war.

  5. kdeb
    25 January 2012 @ 7:23 pm

    That Saddam dug his own grave with his imbecilic posturing is easy to believe.

  6. On burning Korans | Crowhill Weblog
    25 February 2012 @ 7:51 am

    [...] sick of kottowing to these nuts, and I stick by my previous assessment — that we should have spent no more than six months reducing the place to a smoldering ruin, [...]