Bin Laden And Hiroshima

#79, Shame on you for watching Jerry Sepngler - rated as the worst show on TV.

#79 by Raw_Dust on August 8, 2005 11:21am PT

Please don`t confuse our freiends of the Islamist persuasion with facts or logic...They`ve repeated the 100k civilian casualty mantra 100K times without once acknowledging that the majority of the civilian casualties are caused by the ``insurgents``...

If I had a penny for everytime a pakis has demanded sharon`s coviction for his complicity in the shabra and shatilla massacares, I could buy a merc...

OTOH, If I had a penny for every time a paki has written an indignant letter to a paki rag demanding prosecution of the paki army generals who butchered bengalis in 71, i wouldn`t have enough money to fill up the gas tank of my merc..

hiro:
eh what? spengler? :D . do jerry springer write under a psuedonym @ asitimes.com? that would be real funny.

cheers man...

Godot #27: ``I will not be surprised if American (and European) conservatives are secretly hoping for a Muslim terrorist nuclear attack on their mainland.``

I hope you are not serious, either. There are a lot of whackos in the USA, especially amongst the neo-cons and religious right. But I doubt anyone in the USA would want a nuclear bomb going off inside the USA, including Ann Coulter (though Ann Coulter did openly declare on Canadian TV that she wanted Canada to support the USA in the Iraq War, much like it supported the USA in Vietnam. Not realizing that Canada did not go to Vietnam!!).

I think you are giving undue importance to the American-Muslims, in this whole scenario. I suppose it is because you are one, and hence it is close to your heart. But, as I said, American-Muslims are insignificant expendable commodities, in this conflict. As far as either side is concerned. The Americans don`t really care much for them, and unlike the Jews, American-Muslims have developed no political clout (do keep in mind that for a long time, Jews and Blacks were expendable commodities also, until they developed political clout). And Al-Qaeda etc. don`t care much for American-Muslims, either. They are in a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. They are completely at the mercy of the actions of US govt. and/or Al-Qaeda. Which is why, so many of them are apprehensive, and taking their anger out on Pakistan and other such countries......Not realizing that, barring the rich elite of Pakistan, who have kids in the USA etc., no one else in those countries is too bothered about American-Muslims, either........

In any war, one has to counter and neutralize the strategic aims of the opposing sides. In that process, one may be forced to lose some tactical battles. But as long as one wins the strategic war, one is the winner..........

What is Al-Qaeda`s (and I am talking about any anti-US militant force here) strategic plan? It wants to create an, ``Us vs Them`` situation between the USA and the Arabs (or Muslims, as a whole). It`s target has always been primarily USA; not Europe or Canada, mind you. Once it has created that scenario, it gains ample room to carry out violence. All such orgnaizations need public support and sympathy to survive.

Once it has that, it will mark its time, to get a nuke that it can set off in the USA.........That`s it. That is the strategic goal of Al-Qaeda. After that, it could care less, what happens to whom...........

Is the USA countering Al-Qaeda`s strategic role, or unintentionally assisting in it. In my opinion, it has overwhelmingly done the later, through various policies. The day Bush said, ``You are with us or you are against us,`` he played straight into Al-Qaeda`s hands. Before that comment, there were a lot of Muslims, ``with`` the USA. Now far more are, ``against`` the USA.....

Let`s understand some definitions, or rather ``fine points.``

If a white man kills another white man, it is called a war.
If a white man kills a black man, it is called hot pursuit.
If a white man kills a brown man, it is called Crusade.
If a white man kills a yellow man, it is called saving lives.
If a white man kills a red man, it is called civilization.
If a white man commits suicide, it is called a tragedy.


If a black man kills a white man, it is called rebellion.
If a black man kills a black man, it is called jungle rumble.
If a black man kills a brown man, it is called ``who cares.``
If a black man kills a yellow man, it is called attempted looting.
If a black man kills a red man, it is called assimilation.

If a brown man kills a white man, it is called terrorism.
If a brown man kills a brown man, it is called insurgency.
If a brown man kills a black man, it is called extreme slavery.
If a brown man kills a yellow man, it is called heroism.
If a brown man kills a red man, it is called genocide.

Re. not using the first atomic weapons in Europe – the war in Europe ended in early May 1945 months before any devices were ready. The availability of adequate quantities of fissile material (production of which accounted for the bulk of the Manhattan project’s industrial effort – as opposed to scientific effort) was the limiting factor.

Large-scale (i.e. kilogram quantity) production of high-enriched uranium began only in early 1945; similar with weapons-grade plutonium. The first test of a plutonium bomb occurred on July 16th 1945 (it was considered imperative to test a prototype of the more complex plutonium weapon before actual use). The uranium bomb did not require to be tested but used a very large amount of uranium; the necessary amounts became available only by July 1945. A reasonable timeline can be found here. A very readable account of the entire Manhattan Project is Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

#83 by Romair on August 8, 2005 11:40am PT


The day Bush said, ``You are with us or you are against us,`` he played straight into Al-Qaeda`s hands. Before that comment, there were a lot of Muslims, ``with`` the USA. Now far more are, ``against`` the USA.....


If so, I`d question if those muslims were ever ``with`` the US....

Mista Premwalla Salim #52 haiiii!! Please to notu gleat conceln fol werfale of japaanese pipple in honolable hilishima/nagasaki by some pakistani pipple on chowk. Pakistani pipple velly velly concened for japanese plospellity and happiness. If someone say: look japanese empelol HiloHito (haiiii!!! Most Honolable Empelol San) he killu many chinoo pipple, Pakistani pipple say but japanese pipple not white lace. OK to killu pipple if not white lace.

Re: # 78

Romair:

``....... Iraq would not have been attacked, if it had nukes. And North Korea would have been attacked, if it did not have nukes...........

Not letting middle east / Arab / Iran become go nuclear is a deliberate strategy, and tactic. Iraq was and would have been pre-emptively attacked.

Iran is a bigger headache, especially a peaceful transfer to power thru democratic process. Thus does not give the west any reason or excuse to destablize it. I have a feeling that thru Shia alliance in Iran and Iraq, the west might find an accepted form of stable governance model for the middle east. The signal will be increasingly public signal of the West`s pressure on Pakistan. I will not be least bit surprised, if Pakistan looses favor to Iran+ Shia Iraq + Cost to the west as drivers to find common ground and become a part of the solution.

Even Saudis will be worried by Iran + Shia Iraq alliance recently signed. This in my view might achieve once again what the west could not achieve thru Iraq war, which would be diasterous for Pakistani interests, but not the West`s.

Regarding, North Korea, even the S. Kroeans concede that do not want the U.S. involvement in controlling N. Korean nuclear weapons. I had the personally known Dr. Wan Hee Kim - the father of S. Korea`s electronic revolution, and travelled with him all over S. Korea and brought him to India as advisor to my company in India. We spent many interesting hours together. Dr. Kim used to tell me that S. Koreans privately want N. Korea to remain nuclear to counter China and Japan. He would say that N. and S. Korea will merge and would have merged just about the time, E. and W. Germany merged. The cost of German merger was too much for S. Korea. to absorb.

The equation there is very different because players, including S. Korea and Japan do not want N. Korea to loose or have nuclear weapons under Chinese influence. They want to control them. That is where the delay is, and how much of the cost should of merger of Korea be absorbed by the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. has no strategic interest only historical interest left over from the encirclement of communism days.

``Nuclear warfare, specifically between NATO and USSR is well advanced, beyond the physical size of the areas. Each side has the ability to completely annihilate the other side, in a first strike, not leaving anything. 110 million Europeans or Americans could completely destroy USSR, not leaving anything behind.``

It is not the issue of advance warfare or not. All simulation games that I know were played. And there were quite a few. All led to one conclusion that the residual left over. The residula leftover was more devastating for the West than for the Soviets. Each reduced the West to the just about the same level as that of the Soviets. For the west, it pointed to a great decline from position of strength to almost equality with western society, economy and scientific development being pushed back several hundred years, and in case of Nuclear winter at least thousand year!!! No war strategician can be allowed to start such a war in civilian societies. In military dictatorship it may be a different thing.

``Only in scenarios like India/Pak would physical size matter. However, even there, the tonnage will eventually reach a stage where both sides could easily annihilate each other.... ``

No true, there is no such thing as a complete annihilation of India or Pakistan or both. Once again, there would be residual left over. Although that may include survivors living in Tora Bora like caves. Neither generals in Pakistan nor politicians in India want that to happen to their survivors. This thought and reasoning acts as a great deterrent.

``This is why submarine launched nukes were developed. So that, if one side is fully annihilated geographically, it can still have a second strike capability, from subs. In that sense, the number of subs available is the real second-strike capability. However, what is the point of having second strike capability, when the people on the subs have no country to return to.. ``

These were all part of upping the ante and quite deliberate. During informal conversations, the professor used to tell us that the U.S. and the Soviets exchanged the design blueprints of nuclear submarines so that they can help each others nuclear submarines in distress.

I think it is not worth while, I know it will hurt Indian and Pakistani pride, to discuss India Paksitan nuclear situation. It exists as a ground reality, which so controlled that generals in Pakistan feel enslaved to the U.S. to touch that nuclear button. India now gloating about joining the nuclear club, the price extracted by the West for India`s ego is no less than the price paid by Paksitan`s generals to remain an outside the club, nuclear power.

``Iraq war and susequent RE-grouping of Al-Qeda there as a consequence has confirmed that the west can create to centers of controlled violence - battlefields outside their backyard to make the rest safer and more secure trade and commerce and living.``

I hope you don`t seroiusly believe this.

In fact I do believe it to be the strategy the west is following and feel the West will continue to follow and may open a battlefront in Sudan and Somalia too. I entered ``RE`` which I had left out earlier. Mind you, I have never implied anything about whether it is right or wrong.

``This is the, ``We gathered them all there, so they don`t attack Kansas`` theory!! The only threat the USA has in its backyard are terrorist attacks. Iraq`s invasion has made that more probable. Not less. The USA never attacked Iraq to make it a center of Al-Qaeda.``

No you are stating just three (a) ``Kansas.....``, (b) threats more probable; and (c) never attacked Iraq -- of the infinite number of possible corollories and consequences of what I am saying and then jumping to justify. Presence in Iraq is a reality. I do believe that the West entered Iraq with a long term ground presence there, whether that presence will attract Al-Qaeda was expected or unexpected side-effect, I highly doubt that it was not discussed in the war-room and within the war-room openly wished also.

The West and the East have far greater resources to open more battlefront, as long as others can do their bidding and fighting. To them, it is administering radiation and chemotherapy in the malignant parts. Regarding urban attacks, of 9/11 and 7/7 type, all subsequent statements that have come out, spell out expect more not less. Britain is about to introduce a bill that makes preaching of hateful message a treason against the state!! Think about it as consequence manifestation of the chemo and radiation therapy to fight cancer cells the body fabric of the society.

``This is the biggest fear the USA had, i.e what if Al-Qaeda finds another center, which they now seem to have in Iraq...........In fact, Al-Qaeda will be far more dangerous, to the USA, from Iraq then it was from Afghanistan......... ``

I think you are over playing the fear factor, while I see that the West is upping the ante.... and is prepared for response. Al-Qaeda inside the U.S. and Europe is more dangerous. Even for this they are prepared to tackle. Examples exists in recent history that range from forcible conversion of muslims into christianity (Spain, Austria and Hungary), internment of entire Japanese population. I know these are unpalatable and extremely difficult to speak and listen, but when removing cancer cell from the body is the challenge?
Think about it, then.

The western strategicians do not exclude the surprise new battlefronts that Al-Qaeda can open. Besides, I don`t think the West thought an attack of the type happend in London would not happen and therefore was surprised.

So the surprise element is not ``as shock-and-awe`` as 9/11 was. I kind of agree with GODOT`s observation elsewhere that certain people in the West may even want Al-Qaeda to respond strongly and with greater frequency.

``In addition, Iraq now has a govt. that is heavily aligned with Iran, which is also the last thing the USA would have wanted.......... ``

This, as I have said earlier is the toughest scenario and the worst nightmare for the western planners. The transfer of power in Iranian election was more peaceful than any transfer of power in the middle east, probably ever had been.

Iranian elections have put the hardest bullet on the sliver platter to swallow for those planners who are currently ``trying`` to introduce democracry with bullets. I have said this many times at Chowk. Islamic organization should launch media campaign to illustrate it; and that the gunpointing at them is just as bad as gunpointing at anyother. Without gunpointing, the muslim world too is capable of producing its own democracry. I would go even further and reject Politcal Islam label, and OBL as the symbol of this label. Instead project democractic Iran as the alternative, something the west and east should be prepared to accept and then deal with it.

``Basically the USA has done in Iraq, what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, i.e. it has over-committed its forces, without a clear exit strategy.......Even the USA cannot keep adding $80 billion to its budget deficit every year, for Iraq. And it will be out of soldier rotations by the end of 2006. After which even the Republican congressmen will go against Bush, since their constituents will not want to be re-assigned to Iraq as National Guardsmen.......... ``

You are taking a short term view, whereas, the west is taking the view of continued world dominance.

What looks in the short term, for the control of levers that now annually generate wealth of several tens of trillion dollars (and by the time the turning point = alternate way of generating greater wealth emerges) may be big, but is chum change and sound investment for the West. The cost is on hundreds of trillion dollars annual economy would be $80 B x 50 (years) $400 Billion price tag, if the oil needs to be controlled for that long. Take an investment view, and you will see it as a decent return investment although the benefits will be realized by grand children`s generation, social security, healthcare etc. notwithstanding.

``Iraq, after 2006 or so, with no US forces there, has to be the biggest nightmare for any US govt., at the moment. I predicted, before the war started that it could turn into Afghanistan.....which seems to be happening. The USA, has made, almost one by one, the same moves USSR made in Afghanistan........... ``

No I do not think Iraq is the worst nightmare.

That would be if National Guardsmen, repeat Kent State University massacare, and thus make it possible for million men marches can be organized on a monthly basis in the cities all over the world. Something I was witness to during my student days as a result of Vietnam War. That forced the U.S. to find ``honor`` in defeat. Vietnam War was lost in college campuses, and streets of the U.S. and European cities.

``........I would be interested in your comments........and whether you have studied this subject formally.......... ``

Yes, my professor who taught us negotiating strategies at HBS was part of the negotiating team for SALT I & II, and an advisory team for PLO Israeli negotiations. He used to tell us interesting anecdotes during and after the class discussions.

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 70
Arjunm:
``If gas reaches 4.50 a gallon, they`ll dispense with such niceties and demand the marines take over the oil fields...

Don`t think for a minute that the US military doesn`t have contingency plans for just that...While they`re likely to be deployed should the saudi royal family get overthrown, 4.50 a gallon will do it...``

I guess Bush is drill a huge hole in Alaska at $4 a gallon and with draw some soldiers at $4.5. Congress will eventually say ````yes`` to both of them

Raja

Re: # 70
Arjunm:
``If gas reaches 4.50 a gallon, they`ll dispense with such niceties and demand the marines take over the oil fields...

Don`t think for a minute that the US military doesn`t have contingency plans for just that...While they`re likely to be deployed should the saudi royal family get overthrown, 4.50 a gallon will do it...``

I guess Bush is drill a huge hole in Alaska at $4 a gallon and with draw some soldiers at $4.5. Congress will eventually say ````yes`` to both of them

Raja

fuzair,

I am not looking for apologetics.

You are correct that the Americans and the allies had no hesitation to fire bomb ( I believe the original terminology was ``terror bomb``) Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, etc. It is said that more Japanese civilians had died due to the bombardments than from either tha ``fat man`` or ``little boy``.

The point was, the American atrocities against the Japanese were not in response to the Japanese atrocities against other Asians. It was for victory at all costs.

``There is a major distinction between the US/UK and Germany/Japan and it is this: the Allies did not sit around saying to themselves: how can we maximize the number of civilians we kill? The Axis did that.``

And that was stupid on their part, as it interfered with the war effort. The allies did not, however, think to ponder how to minimize civilian casualties. They had objectives, and could meet them by any means necessary. Loss of civilian life in no way impeded the allied war effort. In some cases, if not all, it was quite deliberate.

As for the two nukes, the goal was specifically to kill Japanese civilians...i.e. encourage surrender through terror. This is exactly the tactic you accuse the Japanese of.

``So while the Americans weren`t saints, they weren`t complete villains either. You cannot make glib moral equivalence arguments about WWII that easily.``

What you are doing is justifying the mass murder of civilians. There is no room for moral relativism on this matter. Please do call a spade a spade.

vertex #91 you write ``There is no room for moral relativism on this matter. Please do call a spade a spade. ``

Agreed. If the Japanese had won, you would have either not been born (because your elders would have been exterminated by the Japanese), or else would be slaving away as in illiterate villager for the glory of the Japanese god-King HiroHito. If this seems unbelievable, talk to the chinese or philipinos or indonesians who were unlucky enough to be ruled by japanese.

Luckily for you, the Japanese lost and the Americans won. So now you can write fancy stuff on the internet, and bash America on hiroshima and nagasaki (tomorrow it will be something else) like millions of half-brained muslims around the world.

You wanted to call a spade a spade. But do you have the nerve to handle this reality??

tahmed32, vertex, Fuzair-

The list of Truman’s military aides that believed the bombings were not a military necessity reads like a who’s who list of top US brass: Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower along with Under Secretaries of State and the Navy Grew and Bard respectively all dissented from the necessity logic. In 1963, an aging Eisenhower forcefully reiterated his position to Newsweek, saying, ``The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.``

Perhaps the most startling condemnation of Truman’s decision from a US military leader came from Admiral William D. Leahy, the president’s chief of staff. In his memoirs, Leahy denounced the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – an action he described as ``not worth of Christian man`` – as ``of no material assistance in our war against Japan. By using it Leahy said the US had descended to ``an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.``

Beside the condemnation of those who question the justification of the atomic bombings as ``anti-American`` a popular technique of those who defend Truman’s decision is to bring up the atrocities of the Japanese military. But, under what standards of morality are innocent Japanese men, women, and children legitimate targets because of the deplorable acts of Nanking and the Bataan Death March?

Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start: The decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded, testily:

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them

Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: ``The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,`` he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing ``all those kids.`` Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

Ralph Raico`s ``Harry S. Truman: Advancing the Revolution in John V. Denson, ed., Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Various other sources on the web.

While people talk about Nanking and Bataan, they forget that the same allies allowed the red army to march thru half of the Europe doing exactly the same thing that they were supposedly bombing Japan for.

# 61 fuzair
``There is a major distinction between the US/UK and Germany/Japan and it is this: the Allies did not sit around saying to themselves: how can we maximize the number of civilians we kill? The Axis did that.``

There is no need to be this callous while talking about a tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki magnitude.
The allies had won the war in the European theatre and they did not have to sit down and think about maximizing the dead body count after VE. They were planning to minimize their own body count at the expense of the Japanese. Things would have been different had they not already won in Europe. The reality is that as soon as the US entered the war, the allied victory was assured.

What is to say that if the situation had reversed? Knowing what we know now, Allies would too have planned to kill people in that situation. The West throughout the history had never hesitated to fight a bloody war and WWI is a good example of how brutally Europeans went after each other.

#92 by tahmed32
“Luckily for you, the Japanese lost and the Americans won.”

This is profound but difficult to predict. The Japanese, with little or no infrastructure to support and control the new colonies, could have been or could not have been worst than the current masters of the universe.
Thanks.

In my view, use of nuclear weapons is always condemnable except when used in retaliation. While conventional weapons kill a man, nuclear weapons kill the species. It harms DNA in an inheritable way causing misery for generations to come. Perhaps Truman wouldn`t have used it if he knew this.

Nuclear weapons, unlike fire bombs, also harm the biosphere in a virtually irreparable way.

In my opinion there should be a global consensus on `no first use` of nuclear weapons at least on paper. The existence of a declation to this effect will act as a comfort to countries that are involved in active pursuit of such weapons for nuclear deterrance.

Above all there should be an unequivocal public opinion against the use (not necessarily against acquisition) especially first use that it should be just unthinkable for the man with the finger on the button. If there was public awareness about the effects of nuclear weapons on germplasm, there would not have been people celebrating on Times Square. For them it was just another big bomb.

Internet gives power to people like never before. It is the most powerful anti-bomb force in my opinion. My request: condemn the use of the bomb so forcefully that there are no more Trumans and Fatmans.

Anil #88: Interesting discussions. I did a course in the USA, during the Afghan war. It involved a six month course, in their nuclear doctrine, as well. Most of all, it allowed me to see the USA military from the inside. I have a high opinion of the character and professionalism of the US military. Though I find their exposure and understanding of the world, quite limited. I regularly get emails from my friends, who are currently involved in US conflicts......

1. Regarding Korea, China etc., I really don`t know much. And I doubt I will have the chance to meet someone like Dr. Wan Hee Kim. So I will take your word for it, since I cannot put up much of an argument there.........

2. The rest I do have some knowledge of........

- I think you are greatly overestimating the long-term strategic planning of the USA. US politics, unlike US business and US academia and research or even US military, is not led by genuises. Moreover, it is very vulnerable to pressure groups and lobbyists. Due to which, the best long term decisions, for the USA, are generally over-ruled in favor of the best long-term decisions for pressure groups.

The three most powerful pressure groups in US domestic politics, as ranked by media surveys, are

- Religious Right
- NRA
- American Isreali Political Action Committee

All three of these groups, at least in my opinion, are detrimental to the long-term interests of the USA. Since these groups` interests are specifically catered to their own narrow funders, and not to the broader interest of the American population. However, they have so much influence in US politics that no govt. (specifically Republican) can ever make a decision, without taking thier views into account.

For example, I am quite sure the US leadership is quite aware that it losing far too much in fighting the long-term wars of Israel. The USA, itself, infact, has no kind of conflict with oil-rich Arab states. It should have a mutually beneficial relationship with Arab states. However, it cannot make any move due to the political influence of AIPAC etc. The USA would gain tremendously, if Israel agreed to the 67 borders. Yet it won`t agree, much to the loss of the USA......

Similarly, no US President can do anything to control the gun lobby.............And no Republican candidate can win the party nomination without the support of the Relgious Right...........

These, and similar pressure groups, need to be considered when evaluating US foreign policy. SALT treaties are handled by professional bearecrats and academicians. However, overall foreign policy is in the control of pressure groups. The US invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with these pressure groups. The neo-cons, under Dick Cheney, are heavily pro-Israel. Some actually worked for Israeli politicians. They are the ones, who planned out this whole strategy. 9/11 turned out to be the catalyst they were looking for. All of this is well-documented in papers, they, themselves authored. It is not a coincidence that the only country in the world, whose popualation still supports the Iraq War is Israel (even US population is against it now).......

There is only one way the USA can be attacked and harmed, ``in its backyard.`` And that is through a terrorist nuclear attack. That is it. Everything else is media hype, since all other terrorist attack will only carry out minor damage in comparison to other areas that are far more dangerous. 30,000 people die annually, in the USA, due to gun-related violence. This is 6 times as many as during the complete WTC/Pentagon attack by OBL. 17,000 people die annually in the USA, due to drunk driving. Hence, I have far more chance of getting killed in a gun gang-war or due to drunk driving, if I enter the USA, then in a terrorist attack. Yet you wouldn`t know that by seeing the media...........Even if one airliner explodes monthly in the USA, the dangers are less than gang wars and drunk driving.........

So the only thing the USA needs to consider is a nuclear terrorist attack; statistically speaking. Is the USA safer, becasue of Iraq, against a nuclear attack. The answer is an obvious No. It has become far more vulnerable. This is where the theory of, ``Keeping terrorist in Iraq, so they don`t attack Kansas`` fails. Due to the following reasons:

- Al-Qaeda has been handed a new base to operate from, in Iraq, due to the Iraq War
- There is far more hatred for the USA, in the Muslim world, due to Iraq
- Iraq has a very pro-Iran govt. (and it will be there for the long term)
- The USA does not have the ability or political will to threaten Iran, since it has all been exhausted on Iraq. Due to which Iran is openly going ahead with nukes

Neither Britain, nor the USA is going to keep permanent soldiers in Iraq. They cannot. Their own populations are agaisnt it. And the Iraqis will eventually want them out. Keeping long-term military establishment there may have been the original plan. But that plan is now down the drain...........

30 years ago, the USA had complete control of the world`s oil resources through Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Now it has lost control of Iran and Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the only one left. It is the key state for the USA. Which is why its leaders have received the more visits to Bush`s Crawford Ranch, then any other country in the world......However, Saudi Arabia is in unrest. Nearly all the WTC hijackers were Saudi. If its Kingdom topples, it will definitely have a religious govt. At which point, around 45% of the world oil (Iran, Iraq and Saudi) will be in control of the maulvis. All of whom will be quite willing to fight anyone, till death........as they have already shown...........

The possible toppling of the Saudi Kingdom and the acquisition of nukes by Al-Qaeda type organisations, is the biggest nightmare the US is facing..........Both of which have been accelerated and not decelerated by Iraq.

I think Iraq was a strategy carried out by a small but hugely influential pressure group (neo-cons etc.) to push their own agenda. Slowly but surely, they are now all being kicked out of the govt. One never sees Wolfowitz, Pearle etc. anymore. And I think if USA is in Iraq during the next elections, in any more than miniscule numbers, the Republican President will be out also...........

So you may want to look at the pressure groups, and not only the skills of Harvard professors, when evaluating US foreign policy..........