There's a hole in the hasty decision to go to war in Iraq. Some have tried to fill that hole with elusive WMDs. Some have tried to fill it with human rights for Iraqis (a cursory look at what this administration has done to Haiti-removed their democratically elected leader and supported coup leaders with a record of human rights violations-will quickly dispel this one), and some say it's about profits. Some say it's all about oil, too, and I think that's pretty close. But it still doesn't explain the haste with which we went in.

There are some who say that hole in our reason for going to war has an ominous and familiar shape-that the hole is shaped like China.

I started looking at this yesterday as I was thinking about the time, right before the Iraq War, when we announced that we were bombing Iraqi defense systems on a Chinese holiday to prevent Chinese workers from being killed. That always struck me as strange.

Clearly, we were letting China know we knew what they were up to. And didn't like it. I never thought the embassy bombing was an accident. And for years, commentators and experts have said that China is our biggest rival-and our greatest danger. Now the news is full of stories about China's role in our skyrocketing gas prices. China is growing, and it needs fuel.

So I started looking, and I found this:

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/opinion....ArticleID=69189




And this,

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/1819.html



and this,

http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/meria/journal/19...e1/jv3n1a4.html




And in addition, isn't it interesting how many old cold warriors are reconstituted and working for Bush, including Negroponte, Iraq's ambassador?

Russia still has some old cold warriors rattling around, too. Is the cold war really over?

So, on to some questions:

1. Do you think the rush from Afghanistan to Iraq had anything to do with fears that China would move in if we didn't?

2. If so, is that a justified reason for going to war?

3. If not, just why did we go to war in Iraq?

1. No, not directly. China couldn't possibly actually 'move in,' in the same way that the US has just done. It simply isn't strong enough yet. China hasn't even made it to Taiwan yet. When China feels it is ready to start exerting any kind of dominant status then it will begin with Taiwan, or more precisely the islands close to the mainland controlled by Taiwan. China might have tried to gain influence in Iraq by giving Saddam technology and other support, but I think a few workers are not an indication of anything unusual, an anything that the US would need to go to war over.

2. I don't think so myself. It's pre-emption, and we don't like that at all... Especially when there would be no direct threat to the US, only an indirect one.

3. I'm not even going to begin to answer this question now.

I think that this question overlooks the very basic fact that China is not an imperialistic society- they have had many chances to move far beyond (what they consider) thier borders- in fact- the end of the mongolian empire pretty much ended thier exploration of possible landings in America!

I can't see China ever moving beyond their hemisphere really- beyond ecnomic competition anyway- I just don't see them pulling a GW and invading countries thousands of miles away just for economic advantage.

China?

The Wests current relations with China are broadly best described as 'cautious but warm'

Its going to be the largest economy in the world in a couple of decades and probably the workshop of the world too.

So it can provide us with cheap manufactured goods (which is good, if I remember my economics) and will buy our more specialised goods (which is also good)

They're helping out with North Korea and , Taiwan aside, are generally behaving themselves.

So really, I think fear of China is a little premature

Hey, an angle to the Iraqi situation I hadn't seen before!!! And one which, to me, makes far too much sense...and is frankly a bit scary. What I think needs to be understood here is that China wouldn't even need to invade to cause us a major problem--all they'd have to do is continue growing and consuming oil. Then, the Middle East would have an alternative to their major customer--and could hold us over the barrel because of it. What do you think it might do to our economy were oil to hit, say, $75/bbl? With gas prices more like $4/gal? This could easily happen, and through nothing more than a couple of Middle Eastern countries deciding that they'd rather sell the oil to China.

As I have said repeatedly in response to claims this was 'all about oil'--oil certainly plays a part, and there's nothing devious about it. We consume a lot of it, it is criticial to our economy, and there's a shrinking supply of it--and most of what is there is in the Middle East. Access to that oil is critical to us--there just isn't any way to deny that, regardless of where you sit on the political fence. Further, I don't think you can argue, given some of the statements presented here, that China probably feels the same way. Personally, I find this situation not only plausible, but actually inarguable. I foresee the Middle East becoming a new political battleground--with the US (and probably Europe) vying with the Far East for access to oil. This then becomes a very strategic area--even more so than it is currently. It also heightens the need for continued good relations with Russia (which has the second largest reserves, and is right next to China) and China. For all those who have decried our involvement in the Middle East prior to this--without our intervention in Iraq, I think it would have just been more of the same, as we would have continued to use the same old methods to try and sway/control the area. Invading Iraq would give us a strong foothold in the area, which would be vital in this scenario since China is so much closer than we are. FWIW--I would also add that India, with its population growth and even closer proximity to the area, would also figure strongly in this--which might explain further some of the steps we have taken in our relationship with Pakistan.

Yes, this scenario rings very true, indeed. Kudos to ralou for coming up with it--I think that you have to admit that it does explain many things about the current situation. If not the true 'cause', it has to be at least a consideration.

China will be an economic rival with the power to beat us if we don't start playing smarter. I agree that they will be a major source of competition for oil and probably the greatest reason to find a way out of oil dependecy for good.
Time to do our best to leave oil and its warlords --both foreign and domestic-- behind.
As for the rest. No i doubt China had any role in why we went to war in iraq. The point made about the losers who were figures in the cold war and proponents of the pre emptive doctrine in its earlier forms--domino theory-- such as negroponte, just shows that we are continuing on a path of failure.
America has a simple choice. continue to whore herself out for oil like a crack addict or make the changes and move into the new century and effectively step ahead of China and any other possible competition.

Quite right, Ptarmigan (and welcome, fellow Brit - about time we had some more here ).

However, go back 120 years to when Britain was the unchallenged global superpower. And think of the USA in the same terms as you are thinking of China.

There is no reason to suppose that the USA will fare very differently from the UK, and will topple from the number one spot economically, politically and culturally at some point during the next century - maybe even within the next 20-50 years if their defecit doesn't get under control.

It's never likely that America will be outside the top five or ten inside the next 200 years, barrring disasters, but at the moment America as a whole has yet to really wake up to the possibility of moving from the top slot, except in some rarefied atmospheres like here at AD, where forward thinkers from all parts of the US spectrum congregate .

Certainly, the current world "consensus" (i.e. the American idea) that free market, lightly-regulated capitalism, globalisation (really about expanding access of Western business to other markets, and less the other way - most of the outsourcing of jobs and skills to China and India is being done by Western businesses, not Chinese or Indian ones) etc in liberal democracies as being the shining path of human cultural development is likely to be severely challenged in a world where a Confucianist, undemocratic, bureacratic capitalism (typified by China) is the most successful model.

The assumption that democracy and "freedom" are necessary prerequisites for peaceful success are just that - assumptions (albeit ones with plenting of supporting evidence). Even the American Founders said "We hold these truths to be self evident", and not "These truths are self-evident" - a kind of clarifying assumption to the Declaration of Independence that underpins the whole US Constitution.

Since China's language and culture are dramatically different to the USA, but the US & UK had and have many common themes, it can be argued that America's inevitable eventual transition from unchallenged superpower to equal or even subordinate (but still great) power will be a good deal more painful than ours was.

And, in the absence of any total national US commitment to a war of national survival that breaks them as the leading power the way it broke the UK in WW2 - and let's hope America doesn't have to face anything like this, for everyone's sake - the transition is likely to be longer and more gradual, and may appear to "sneak up" on them.

Increased competition for oil is clearly a very important issue now, but I see the dynamics working slightly differently to the way you describe.

Firstly, by going into Iraq the US did not gain any kind of exclusive right over Iraqi oil that would prevent the Iraqis choosing instead to sell the oil to China. It doesn't solve the problem that you envisage.

Secondly, higher prices generated by a higher demand for oil would affect both the US and China equally (or perhaps China more, as it has a lower GDP, and a much lower GDP per capita, so unless OPEC decided that it didn't want all those billions of American dollars at all and sold exclusively to China, it wouldn't disadvantage you. The chances of OPEC deciding that are, frankly, zero. Why impoverish themselves for China's sake? How would they even manage such a thing given that oil is bought and sold by international traders, not governments?

Basically, we don't have a situation where countries are competing strategically for access to certain oil markets. We have a situation where traders are competing economically for oil.

Also, proximity to the region isn't particularly important per se anymore. Even in the unlikley scenario of conflict in the region it it about the ability to project force, and China simply can't compete with the US on that point, whether the US has bases in Iraq or not.


If there is an issue over oil then it is an issue of price rather than excusive access. I think that the war is about Middle-Eastern stability - 'draining the swamp.' I think that a lot of people don't like the fact that the US is so dependent on a product that comes so extensively from one of the most autocratic and potentially least stable regions of the world.

Arty, to address your points:

Isn't one of the constant criticism's against the invasion of Iraq is that it was indeed for control of the oil? In any case, the US would certainly hold some sway over their production and distribution...if still under our control, that is obvious, if not, that would be because we helped them install a successful democracy. Note that this also removes our dependence on Saudi oil, which has been called into question in another thread.

No, higher prices is not the issue...supply is. As China grows, they will demand more and more oil, out of a relatively constant supply. So, it won't be a matter at all of Middle Eastern nations choosing to impoverish themselves, it will be exactly as you suggest--merely an economic decision to sell to the highest bidder. In that scenario, the US loses regardless, either by not getting enough oil, or by having to pay exorbitantly high prices for it.

Proximity to the reason is important, because with it one could lay down pipelines which would ensure a steadier supply. Pipelines aren't created to be empty...they require contractual obligations of supply. Further, they reduce the cost of the oil, thereby also allowing for a greater supply for the same price.

As to the issue of Middle East stability, I whole-heartedly agree. I would add that that also has a China perspective, though...since the existing regimes, or any in a situation of instability, would be more likely to blackmail us with supply choices, particularly with China such a willing trading partner.

Good points, Hobbes! I confess, you've now thought this through more than I have.

I would dearly love Don'tTreadOnMe's opinion on this one. Seein he's been around awhile, including, if I'm reading his posts right, through proxy wars with the USSR.

But the US doesn't actually officially control the oil. The fact that the army is there obviously makes a difference now, but the army will not be there forever. I think that the key point to grasp is that distribution is not decided by the producers; it is effectively decided by the buyers, because everyone, wherever they may be, has the same chance to buy the oil. $55 from America is the same as $55 from China. The producers simply control the price, and they set it so that the demand for oil at that price equals what they are supplying. They could affect the distribution by giving companies from the US or China a discounted price, but I don't think they would. Why bother? It lowers their cash intake. Furthermore, how could they stop those companies simply selling that cheaper oil on elsewhere? I don't think they could, actually. Once the oil is out in the market it is beyond their control.



When the supply is squeezed then there is no either/or about it - prices will rise and there will be less oil available. Price and supply can't be separated. So yes, the US clearly loses out, but equally so does China, who will also have to pay the higher prices and therefore use less. Invasion will only help, potentially, by securing (and thereby increasing in the long term) the overall oil supply, but this will again be equally helpful for the Chinese who will also be able to take advantage of the subsequent lower prices. Securing the supply certainly would help the US, but it would not shift the balance of power in relation to any other oil-guzzling country, as China now seems to be.



I don't quite understand. Pipelines from where to where? And is the US government going to lay them?!? I think it's usually done by private companies. They wouldn't benefit the US any more than they would benefit China, because they only benefit either through the global oil market, which each have access to on equal terms.

Found something new:

The most fruitful year for Chinese oil purchases was 1997. Within a short period of time, China announced that it was arranging large-scale oilfield development deals with Kazakhstan, Venezuela and Iraq totaling $5.6 billion. Though all three oilfields were considered to be potentially very rich and consistent with the serious geographical priorities of China's oil strategy, the Kazakhstan deal was considered the most important and most promising.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cnaps/papers/1999_troush.htm



So if sanctions had been lifted, Russia, France, Germany, and China would have had exploration rights, with the US shut out in the cold. And therefore, not profitting, and therefore, paying the market price without any benefit to itself or to its multinationals.



I'm also reading some interesting but so far (for me) unsubstantiated claims that the rush to war had to do with Iraq's willingness to sell its oil for Euros. A precedent the US did NOT want OPEC to learn from (although it might be too late for that).

There is not a "hole" in the reason to goto war with Iraq as I allready outlined here.

Well, what about Wolfowitz's fear of two powers, tired of American dominance, and increasingly able to do something about it.

Apparantly China is in on a project with the EU to build satelites. And those satelites could be used to pinpoint attacks on US forces.


http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&cl...98612009348B222




The paper also reported a disagreement between EU and US officials this month over Galileo at a London conference which led to the threat to blow up the future satellites.

The European delegates reportedly said they would not turn off or jam signals from their satellites, even if they were used in a war with the United States.

Wolfowitz does not decide if the US goes to war - as I pointed out in the other thread that I linked to - Bush does not have the same doctrine as Wolfowitz.

There is more than one way to fight a war. Wolfowitz isn't on the outs in the Bush Administration. And his war doctrine might very well have been adapted to a cold war rather than a head-on war with China (which, much as many Americans would like to believe otherwise) would be suicide, not conquest.

This is starting to go off base. The "hole" is not because the US is attempting to route China's ability to gather oil resources for there country. The war in Iraq is about defeating Islamic Terrorism.

How does Iraq relate to Islamic Terrorists?

The answer is right in front of everyone, but it is also elusive. Much like the answer to anything, the answer to transportation was right in front of mankind for centuries but it was not put into effect until the wheel was invented. It was right there in front of us but no one ever thought of it. E=MC2 was right in front of us the whole time but it was not until Einstein made the connection that it was brought into human intellect.

For most people the answer is elusive and so the conspiracy theories thrive.

Islamic Terrorism does not derive within a certian border nor do they maintain an army made up of terrorists. The Taliban army was mainly of rag-tag poor Afghani's that only took the job because they got paid or they where pressured into joining. Many in that army are now US allies because of the same reasons.

Many people overlook the fact that Saddam was aiding the enemy through means of money and intelligence support. Saddam was no friend to UBL but he was a friend to the "Islamic Terrorists" cause through his own means of defeating his enemies and stricking American interests. Sometimes this is not so clear through means of public information but it is available. Saddam openly funnelled money to Palestinain terrorist organizations and called for the destruction of US interests everywhere.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_irbr.htm


http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=cou...a=iraq&ID=SA302


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html


http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/...ain505316.shtml


Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated through means of negotiation with terrorists but through the means of freedom.

This "hole" you are speaking of only exists in the minds of people that do not understand the fundamental problem at hand. Given the outcome is not clear and the risk's are high, but such is war. Afghanistan and Iraq are only the beggining steps of a much longer struggle against Islamic radicals. You cannot defeat the ideal but you can defeat the movement through strategic powerplays of freedom throughout the land of the opposition.

Democracy is the most powerful weapon we have and we are using it. To retreat within our own borders the threat will only grow with each passing day and we will have to confront it whether it be now or later.

Well, that's all well and good, except for one thing: America has a reputation for squashing freedoms not in its interests and promoting dictatorships that are friendly to it. That's what Iraq was for thirty years: a nation in the grasp of a cruel dictator that America liked. We did the same thing in Iran, right after Iranians voted in a referendum to nationalize their oil wells. Not for a minute do I think the ordinary Iraqi will ever be free by our hand. There is no Marshall Plan for Iraq, and John Negroponte's presence in the country is adequete proof of that. Read up on Negroponte's time in Honduras if you don't believe me.

Frankly, this war is much like the Cold War even without the possible participation of China, because our rulers can use it as an excuse to justify anything. But that won't save Americans from reaping a bitter harvest if we keep letting them do it.

Torture encourages terrorism. Massive civilian death promotes terrorism. Poverty, hopelessness, and oppression promotes terrorism. All conditions American foreign policy is infamous for causing. Look at Haiti today, Chile in the 1970s, Nicaragua, Iran, the Congo, Indonesia, East Timor, and so many more I couldn't possibly take the time to type them all.

If only America really were dedicated to promoting freedom! But sadly, our track record since WWII is the opposite, with very, very few exceptions.

I agree that it is much like the Cold War in the sense of the tactics needed to defeat the enemy.

Haiti today, Chile in the 1970s, Nicaragua, Iran, the Congo, Indonesia, East Timor are all good examples of half-assed intervention. Go in fully loaded and be prepared to get the job done. The US has a very good track record of massive military interventions.

I dont see how you could come to the conclusion in the case of Iraq that it is not in our best interest to bring about a Democracy which is what we fully intent to do.

You are assuming that, given the choice, the people of Iraq would vote in a pro-US government. They might do that, but on the other hand, they might decide to vote in an anti-US government - not one that actively wages war against the US, but one that perhaps joins OPEC and tries to keep the oil prices high, secretly funds Islamic terrorism etc....

On the other hand, simply supporting a strongman/dictator to run the country instead offers the advantage that he will be reliant on the US to support him and keep him in power - and so do whatever the US tells him to do.

Democracy, although morally superior to dictatorships, can also be unpredictable, whereas a dictator, provide you hold the purse-strings - is much more straightforward.

History suggests that promoting democracy works in the long term (Germany, Japan) whereas supporting a particular undemocratic government brings short term benefits (S Arabia, Chile etc) but is a bad idea in the long run...

Exactly. Bush understands this more than any other recent past president, that if you truely wish to confront the enemy you must make - and achieve - long term goals and set out a strategy to achieve those goals. Lobbing a few missile's here and there and supporting another dictator will only repeat the problems of the past when it comes to the main threat we face today.

This is why Bush has stated that "after 9/11 changed everything" because the true enemy had revealed itself more than any other problems that where occuring. It was not UBL but it was the ideal of Islamic Radicals and that they where progressing to achieve their goals. The middle east is currently in a civil war of idealogy of the moderates and the fanatics. The Taliban had almost taken over the entire country of Afghanistan and Saddam had turned out to become a major threat against US interests, and the US itself, because of his cooperation with Islamic Radicals and his ties to WMD's. Indeed the moderates where fighting a losing battle. Many moderate Muslims are voicing out against the radicals and calling for reform. They may or may not agree with the exact strategy but you would be surprised at how many moderates support our overall objective - albeit many of them have a more "peaceful" solution in mind which is only a pipe dream and is also why they where losing. The passive policies of the past are what brought 9/11 upon our soil and to retreat within our borders while the threat grows abroad will only make the problem expand. As I provided some of the public information availiable above, Saddam was a prime target for the war on terror.

As of now the insurgency is violent - but still limited. If you look at US casualties there is not any type of huge upswing in deaths like the MSM like to portray. Given they have not gone down but there is progress that is very visible. It may not flash on the TV screen but it is there. The population has not turned against the US voilently and in fact I saw a "poll" that stated 80% of Iraqi's want the elections to happen despite the presence of 130,000 US troops.

Not only of Saddams will to support the enemy expansion because of his own objectives but also because it is directly in the middle of countries that provide a threat as well. If you roll out a map of the Middle East you will see it to be true. There is an ancient tactic called the "honeypot" doctrine in which you take over a strategic area and fortify your position in giving the enemy a prime target to attack you. While they are focusing their efforts to achieve their goal to take the strategic area you slowly "bleed" their recourses.

Cite the link I provided above, some people believe that Bush is a fumbling idiot in which it is quite the opposite because they are actually the ones who do not understand this.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8331

There is something that was said to me once by a person who probably had no idea that I would remember it years later and it has affected my life.

It was about a tire that my fiance's ex-boyfriend had stuck a knife in it. The tire did not actually go flat immidiately, but the hole was on the outer wall and could not be repaired easily and it was rather small. The leak would slowly leak air out of my tire and I had to put air in it every month.

I went to NAPA and told the person at the counter the story and I was short on money and didnt want to spend $100 on such a small thing, especially because the way I saw it is that I could just keep putting air in it, so I didnt want to spend the money for another tire and asked him if I should be worried about it.

He replied

"Well it's not going to get any better"

I said I don't think it's our intent to bring about democracy, for the reasons Ptarmigan states below, in fact. Also, let's go back to Iran.

They had a democratic leader. We didn't like him, and he wasn't all that democratic, but the people did like him. And he issued a referendum and asked for a referendum vote on an issue: should we nationalize our oil?

Most Iranians were for nationalization. They knew the oil profits were going out of their country. That was less money for their own needs. So they approved of their government's actions. And then American bombs started falling.

Chile before Pinochet was a democracy. We didn't like Allende. So Chile got a dictator.

Arbenz of Guatemala was a democratically elected President. America didn't like him. Guatemala got a dictatorship.

Frankly, if we'd wanted democracy in Iraq, we could have had that three decades ago. Saddam has been our guy from the beginning. It's even possible we directly helped him come to power. We definately helped him stay there.


America's track record is not one of removing dictators and installing democracies. In fact, just the opposite has usually been the case.

I allready responded to Ptarmigan in which you read what you wanted to read because this was also said.



You are talking about completely different situations. We do fully intend to bring about Democracy in Iraq otherwise we would not have asked for UN help with the election process.

Saddam was supported by Reagan because he was seen as a counter balance to Iran.

Bush Sr. was the first president to withdraw that support I might add.

I dont agree with Reagan's support of Saddam by providing WMD technology - that was a bad move even at the time.

How is the situation different in Iraq? What factors make you so sure we'll bring about democracy there when we didn't in so many other nations we've gone into, either militarily or with agents? Explain.

And Osama was a counterbalance to the USSR, and Hitler won our economic support because he was a counterbalance to German communists and socialists. Explain why this policy has worked, please?

That is true about Bush Sr. I don't give him credit for much, but I do give him credit for that.

We have made a lot of bad mistakes, seemingly the biggest can be summed up with that old story about a woman who sees a fly, and brings a spider in to eat it, then she gets a mouse to eat the spider, and a cat to eat the mouse, and she doesn't want the cat, so she fetches an alligator and brings it in to eat the cat, and then she has a hungry alligator in her house!
Sometimes it's better to just leave the fly.

Or come up with a better way to get rid of it!

Because it invlolves a massive amount of troops not a few. Our track record on that has worked rather well.


You just made my point for me.

No, I didn't make your point for you. If we had never built Hitler up, we most likely would not have had to deal with WWII.

I do not believe the number of troops will alter the outcome, because the policymakers (especially Negroponte) are the same.

But we shall see.

My apologies for the double post, but it's too late to edit my last one, and I wanted to add new information:


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/...ent_2157826.htm