Iraq war a success

[zoofer]

Email this article to a friend
Pipes calls war a success
by Bill Steigerwald
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
April 1, 2006

It's no surprise Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has made so many political friends and enemies. A conservative columnist, counter-terrorism analyst and author or co-author of 18 books, he's a staunch supporter of Israel and a harsh critic of radical Islam.

Praised as an "authoritative commentator on the Middle East" by his allies at the Wall Street Journal, he's been branded "an anti-Islamist extremist" by some Arab-American groups. He's also the founder of the Middle East Forum (www.meforum.org), which, among other things, has a Web site called Campus Watch that monitors how Middle East studies are taught at U.S. colleges.

Pipes will be a keynote speaker Thursday night at Grove City College's star-studded conference on the prospects of spreading democracy in the Arab world, "Mr. Jefferson Goes to the Middle East," April 5-6 (Info: 724-458-3302). I talked to Pipes by phone Tuesday from Sydney, Australia.

Q: Were you in favor of going to war in Iraq, and how do you think it's progressing or regressing?

A: I was in favor. I continue to be in favor of the campaign to eliminate the rule of Saddam Hussein, with all the dangers to the Iraqis, to the region and to ourselves. From April 2003 on, I have argued that the U.S. government and its allies should have lower expectations than actually is the case. That we should treat the Iraqis like adults; that we should understand that they are going to run their own future, their own destiny, not us; that our role there is at best advisory, and that we should be patient. So lower expectations and a longer time horizon.

Q: Does that mean a significant change in what we are doing now, in terms of policy. Should we announce withdrawals?

A: The number of troops is not my issue. It's the placement and role of the troops. For three years now I have been protesting the use of American troops to mediate between tribes, help rebuild electricity grids, oversee school construction, which seems to me to be a wrong use of our forces, of our money. The Iraqis should be in charge of that. We should keep the troops there, in the desert, looking after the international boundaries, making sure there are no atrocities, making sure oil and gas goes out, otherwise leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

Q: How do you define your politics?

A: Conservative.

Q: You're not one of those neocons who allegedly talked President Bush into going to war in the Middle East?

A: I have been called a neoconservative. I don't exactly know how a neoconservative differs from a conservative.

Q: Do you generally agree with President Bush's Middle East policy -- its goals and its methods?

A: I agree with the goals much more than the methods. I just gave an example of Iraq, where I believe the goal of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and trying to have a free and prosperous Iraq are worthy goals. I criticize the implementation. The same goes with democracy. I think democracy is a great goal for the region. I criticize the implementation; I think it's too fast, too American, too get-it-done yesterday.

Q: Is there anything major that the Bush administration should do now to make things go smoother?

A: We did something good in getting rid of the Taliban and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That is really the extent of our role, to get rid of the hideous totalitarian regimes.

Let me add that I see these issues as basically sidelines. We are engaged in a war, a profound war and long-term war, in which Afghanistan and Iraq are sideshows. The real issue is the war that radical Islam, a global phenomenon, has declared on us and that has already been underway for many years, and we're still at the beginning of it. That's the really major issue.

Q: Recently I talked to Peter Galbraith and Ivan Eland, foreign policy experts who both favor a three-part partition of Iraq as a way to forestall or make a civil war in Iraq go away. Any thoughts on that?

A: Well, the neighborhood is unanimously against it and Iraqis are fearful of it, so I don't think there is much of a chance.

Q: What should U.S. policy be in the Middle East?

A: Well, I endorse the president's vision of a Middle East that is no longer under the control of tyrants, as it is today, or despots -- unelected officials, at best. But it is a long-term project that's going to take decades, not months, and has to be approached with that in mind.

Secondly, if we go too fast, as is the case, we bring our most fervent enemies to power, as we've seen most dramatically in the Palestinian territories, where a terrorist organization (Hamas) won a majority of Palestinian support. One can see that also in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Algeria.

We have to be very cautious about pushing a process before the people of the area are really quite ready for it -- until they've gone beyond what I call the "totalitarian temptation," so that they have a more balanced, moderate view of the world than they do at this time.

Q: Do they have a lot of catching up to do?

A: To give an imperfect analogy: Germany went through a hideous period between 1933 and 1945. The condition of the Muslim world is not that bad but it's comparable. It's going through a particularly bad time. ... Our goal is to help the Muslim world move beyond this war through educational programs and other means. Fundamentally, we're at war with a substantial minority of the Muslim world and we are at war with them because they have declared war on us and we have to answer that.

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them -- to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They've more or less written us out of the picture.

Q: How will we know when the occupation or the invasion of Iraq was a success or a failure?

A: Oh, it was a success. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Beyond that is icing.

 

[zoofer]

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them -- to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They've more or less written us out of the picture.

People cannot stomach gratitude for long. Witness the French. No matter how much blood and treasure is expended liberating them they will resent it later.
Witness NAFTA. No matter how much prosperity it brings Canada, people will resent it.
Witness my educational and illuminating pastes. Lefties still resent them.

 

[aeon]

This war is a succes..... for coorporations, yes.

For the iraqies=nope

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: Iraq war a success

This war is a succes..... for coorporations, yes.

For the iraqies=nope

Halliburton made a killing - literally.

 

[zoofer]

Re: RE: Iraq war a success

This war is a succes..... for coorporations, yes.

For the iraqies=nope

Yep. Should not have liberated them. They deserved Saddam's enslavement.

 

[Hank C]

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them -- to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They've more or less written us out of the picture.

People cannot stomach gratitude for long. Witness the French. No matter how much blood and treasure is expended liberating them they will resent it later.
Witness NAFTA. No matter how much prosperity it brings Canada, people will resent it.
Witness my educational and illuminating pastes. Lefties still resent them.

God bless you and your illuminating pastes

 

[zoofer]

Re: RE: Iraq war a success

This war is a succes..... for coorporations, yes.

For the iraqies=nope

Halliburton made a killing - literally.

And the UN's oil for food scam was halted before they caused more Iraqi children to starve. Literally.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: Iraq war a success

This war is a succes..... for coorporations, yes.

For the iraqies=nope

Halliburton made a killing - literally.

And the UN's oil for food scam was halted before they caused more Iraqi children to starve. Literally.

Oh yes, the oil for food smokescreen.

Bush's fear and smear campaign is the modern day "War of the Worlds" screenplay.

 

[zoofer]

God bless you and your illuminating pastes

No need to have God bless me Hank..............................
As a Principled Conservative that's what I do......................
Paste illumination and educational posts...........................
For the benefit of the lefty forlorn ..................................
Who need all the help they can get ..................................
To become aware sensible citizens................................
:lol:

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Iraq war a success

This war is a succes..... for coorporations, yes.

For the iraqies=nope

Halliburton made a killing - literally.

And the UN's oil for food scam was halted before they caused more Iraqi children to starve. Literally.

According to people who has worked for the sanctions, the one to blame, are those who literally destroyed water infrastructure in iraq, during the sanctions, and who blocked humanitarian aid in iraq, 4bn was blocked in a month, which is the us , clinton and bush.

According to Pentagon officials, that was the intention. In a June 23, 1991, Washington Post article, Pentagon officials stated that Iraq's electrical grid had been targeted by bombing strikes in order to undermine the civilian economy. “People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'” said one planning officer at the Pentagon. “Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions-help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions.”

http://www.harpers.org/CoolWar.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bordeaux.com%2Ft_sa-harpers.html

 

[Finder]

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them -- to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They've more or less written us out of the picture.

People cannot stomach gratitude for long. Witness the French. No matter how much blood and treasure is expended liberating them they will resent it later.
Witness NAFTA. No matter how much prosperity it brings Canada, people will resent it.
Witness my educational and illuminating pastes. Lefties still resent them.

Zoofer, the French were our allies, and the UK and the rest of the world was just as much in danger, and if it were not for Canada being in the war from the start I think it may have gone a different way. With Canada as a base of operations for the British and a safe haven for there children and a good resource of Navel command and resources to boot, Canada had not gone to war to help Englands ally but to save england.

Edit: and to stop a mad man from taking all of Europe.

 

[zoofer]

The billions siphoned off by us, you mean by some in the West, France and the UN specifically, was not just for food and medicine. It inlcluded money to repair infrastructure.

 

[Finder]

The billions siphoned off by us, you mean by some in the West, France and the UN specifically, was not just for food and medicine. It inlcluded money to repair infrastructure.

Yes and it was apart of the cold war strategy to rebuild these economies as fast as possible so the communist movements in these nations such as France (most likely the one to turn to Communism) so that they would not become communist. Please, this is a historic fact in any history book that this relief was for this reason. As communism 1. was directed towards the poor, 2. the USSR was strong and one of the victors of the War 3. The old systems before the war didn't appear to have worked.

So it was with in our best interests to spend money to prevent something worse from happening.

 

[zoofer]

Zoofer, the French were our allies, and the UK and the rest of the world was just as much in danger, and if it were not for Canada being in the war from the start I think it may have gone a different way. With Canada as a base of operations for the British and a safe haven for there children and a good resource of Navel command and resources to boot, Canada had not gone to war to help Englands ally but to save england.

Yep. Canada did way more than could have been expected from a middle power.
The fact remains most of France wanted Saddam to win the Iraq war.

 

[aeon]

The billions siphoned off by us, you mean by some in the West, France and the UN specifically, was not just for food and medicine. It inlcluded money to repair infrastructure.

What is the point of destroying the infrastructure then??

 

[aeon]

Zoofer, the French were our allies, and the UK and the rest of the world was just as much in danger, and if it were not for Canada being in the war from the start I think it may have gone a different way. With Canada as a base of operations for the British and a safe haven for there children and a good resource of Navel command and resources to boot, Canada had not gone to war to help Englands ally but to save england.

Yep. Canada did way more than could have been expected from a middle power.
The fact remains most of France wanted Saddam to win the Iraq war.

France wanted saddam to win the iraq war?? where did you get that information??

 

[#juan]

Yes aeon,

We did well for a country with 9 or 10 million people. We had a million people in uniform and the third largest navy. Canada built thousand of B-24s and hundreds of Liberty Ships plus we trained hundreds of air crews. Proportionally, or per capita, we contributed more than any country to the second world war.

 

[zoofer]

France wanted saddam to win the iraq war?? where did you get that information??

Where have you been? Venture onto a few Conservative forums if you want to be exposed to facts lefties find unpalatable and ignore.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/19/1063625211956.html
Why France is the enemy of the US
September 20, 2003

It's time Americans came to terms with something: France is not just their annoying ally. It is not just their jealous rival. France is becoming America's enemy.

Small wonder that the Interior Ministry itself says a mere spark could "turn anti-Americanism in the suburbs into uncontrolled violence." That observation comes too late for Noam Levy, a Jew beaten with an iron bar while at an antiwar demonstration. He said he was shocked by "the anti-Zionist slogans." (He should check with the Quai d'Orsay about the provenance of these feelings.) And it's too late for the families of Britons who died defending France in World War I, and whose tombs near Calais were vandalized. Among the graffiti on a cenotaph: "Dig up your rubbish, it's contaminating our soil."

"France," wrote Mr. Chirac to Queen Elizabeth with all the pomp--not to mention pomposity--at his command, "knows what it owes to the sacrifice and courage of British soldiers who came to help her recover her liberty in the fight against barbarity. . . . From the French people and from me personally, I offer you my deepest regrets." Too late. Mr. Chirac has himself refused to say which side he backs in the war. No wonder a third of the French tell pollsters that they want Saddam to win. Mr. Chirac is basking in 60% approval ratings, but he's paid for them dearly. Demonstrators in the street shout "Long live Chirac, stop the Jews!"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003330

 

[aeon]

Yes aeon,

We did well for a country with 9 or 10 million people. We had a million people in uniform and the third largest navy. Canada built thousand of B-24s and hundreds of Liberty Ships plus we trained hundreds of air crews. Proportionally, or per capita, we contributed more than any country to the second world war.

sorry juan, but are you sure this post is toward me?

 

[aeon]

France wanted saddam to win the iraq war?? where did you get that information??

Where have you been? Venture onto a few Conservative forums if you want to be exposed to facts lefties find unpalatable and ignore.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/19/1063625211956.html
Why France is the enemy of the US
September 20, 2003

It's time Americans came to terms with something: France is not just their annoying ally. It is not just their jealous rival. France is becoming America's enemy.

Small wonder that the Interior Ministry itself says a mere spark could "turn anti-Americanism in the suburbs into uncontrolled violence." That observation comes too late for Noam Levy, a Jew beaten with an iron bar while at an antiwar demonstration. He said he was shocked by "the anti-Zionist slogans." (He should check with the Quai d'Orsay about the provenance of these feelings.) And it's too late for the families of Britons who died defending France in World War I, and whose tombs near Calais were vandalized. Among the graffiti on a cenotaph: "Dig up your rubbish, it's contaminating our soil."

"France," wrote Mr. Chirac to Queen Elizabeth with all the pomp--not to mention pomposity--at his command, "knows what it owes to the sacrifice and courage of British soldiers who came to help her recover her liberty in the fight against barbarity. . . . From the French people and from me personally, I offer you my deepest regrets." Too late. Mr. Chirac has himself refused to say which side he backs in the war. No wonder a third of the French tell pollsters that they want Saddam to win. Mr. Chirac is basking in 60% approval ratings, but he's paid for them dearly. Demonstrators in the street shout "Long live Chirac, stop the Jews!"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003330

1/3 of france wants saddam to win, first this isnt much, secondly where did he get this information? the rest is just opinions and speculations.