The war we had to have but for what?
- Thread starter noddy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Noddy's question, to which you have replied above was: What is the purpose?
You have stated what you believe we will do. You have not answered Noddy's question.
What does Australia gain by involving itself militarily in Iraq again?
First, we show we are obedient followers of the USA. Our alliance does have some long-term strategic advantages for us. But we are already providing vital signals and other support in Australia. I am sure the USA wouldn't mind if we sat out this one.
Secondly, we get to practice with our military toys in real combat zones with minimal risk of loss of equipment. This is useful training and keeps the military on its toes.
Thirdly, we assist in reducing the risk of any imminent genocide threats. I would not be happy to see hear and see through the news that innocent lives were being slaughtered in their tens of thousands with knowledge that perhaps some of those losses could be averted by our assistance.
What does Australia lose by involving itself militarily?
First, there will be a direct price to pay in money and possibly/probably Australian lives.
Secondly, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. It is now generally accepted that are involvement in the Iraq War of 2003 was an unmitigated disaster. We caused a very unpleasant dictator (Saddam) to be deposed and failed miserably to win the peace. Iraq has failed to develop any sort of political stability or social inclusion. The scale of human suffering for this oil-rich nation has been immeasurable. It has achieved substantial economic growth since 2003 (almost tenfold) but without political stability it is all just shifting sands. Meanwhile it is squandering its oil inheritance. There is no prospect that any deployment of air support or ground services will have any long-term impact on the geopolitical dynamic - and at least this time no one is pretending it might.
Thirdly, Australia is being gamed by ISIS. There can be little doubt ISIS is goading Australia and the USA into returning militarily. ISIS owes its existence to the 2003 War which toppled Saddam so ISIS belligerence is its default mode. ISIS thinks that if the USA et al return to Iraq to fight then ISIS will be the natural representative of all those who oppose the the USA et al. Being at war against the USA gives ISIS prestige with and funding from Arab states/individuals with ambivalent views about US cultural imperialism.
Fourthly, Iraq's problems are not confined to Iraq (or even Iraq and Syria). For so long as "mummy" in the form of a Western alliance continues to interfere with internecine disputes in the Middle East, will those disputes be continued. Until all sides in the Middle East find their own solutions without Western interference (perhaps not including Israel) there will be no chance of any of those sides sitting down with their enemies and working out liveable, workable compromises. Those compromises cannot be achieved whilst the USA et al are active players because, as always, we will be gamed. And working out some of those solutions will require considerable further "unpleasantness".
Fifthly with our further involvement in Iraq, ISIS hopes to radicalise Muslims here and appeal to disaffected belligerents in Australia to take up the struggle in Australia. It is doubtful that many will actually engage in politically motivated killings (as has already happened in the UK) but the suggestion from the recent raids and charges suggest some might. Protection from these threats means increased cost from increased security (red tape) and increased loss of civil liberties. But already our generally tolerant social fabric is being frayed with plenty of reports of Islamaphobic behaviour understandably arising from the outrageous terrorist threats. Just as ISIS would want for its recruitment purposes.
Sixthly, although by being engaged we can feel like we are "doing something" to prevent genocides from occurring, it is dubious whether this short-term benefit will have any long-term net benefit since, the longer it takes to reach a geopolitical solution the longer will efforts at genocide continue. I am troubled by the convenience of this "ends justifies means" argument insofar as it suggests doing nothing to stop genocides. Maybe allowing for very limited military intervention only when genocide is threatened could be a partial, best fit, solution. Coming in at the behest of and to support a politically bankrupt Government is well beyond that agenda.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I disagreed with the premise of his question.
As to the purpose...To support a moderate, fledgling, and somewhat unstable democracy in a fight against an an extremist group.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,590
- 23,335
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Obviously the 8mm home pr0n of Johnny blowing George never got out around your area.
Most people knew what was going on back then.
The vids of Tony are digital now and up on youtube, but it's still the same plot line, he still swallows and we take it in the rear.
Funnily enough it's still the same actors from the US.
Noddy asked you what the purpose was of Australia taking military action in Iraq. What premise are you disagreeing with?
To say we are supporting an unstable democracy fighting against an extremist group answers the question "What are we doing?" It does not answer the question: What is the purpose of taking military action? To answer this question you will need to state achievable outcomes like:
(a) ensuring the fledgling democracy survives; or
(b) wiping out ISIS; or
(c) being good friends with the USA.
Then we can all sit back and assess (a) whether our action will realistically achieve the intended outcome? and (b) whether, when our participation ends, we can regard our military action a success or a failure, and if so why?
The US are happy with their efforts so far. They've had a chance to get the F22 raptor into the action for the first time.
Nothing better than live practice with the new toys for the good ol' boys. Thats gotta be a good outcome for the Military/industrial complex.
Elroo
Premiership Player
- Jul 2, 2014
- 3,993
- 6,808
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
So what?
golf just got cosmopolitan. tiger, obama, jordan, barkley. they all "golf".
if you see guru play with the establishment on ladies day down at royal melbourne in blackrock, you will see doctors wives and graduates from MLC
- Sep 18, 2013
- 17,752
- 11,820
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #337
Isn’t it strange that we lived to see a mob-connected reality show host pardon Libby?#d'affaire_Valerie_Plame http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/plame/Plame_KeyPlayers.html
#Guru_duz_az-tro-terf-in
actually not a typo, just phonetix[sic]
well played Chief, you win this round,
but scorecard is about 1000-2 blackcat-Chief, so my lead is 998, I have a few rounds to squander
Darkyprotector
Premiership Player
- Apr 10, 2017
- 4,871
- 2,379
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Common denominator
ALL 3 COUNTRIES ARE DOMINATED BY MURDOCH
look whats happened since
Trump
Morrison
Johnson
Darkyprotector
Premiership Player
- Apr 10, 2017
- 4,871
- 2,379
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Yeah political fortune
Same as Israeli intelligence who were set up and filming
Or the updated insurance policy on the towers
Sheer political fortune
Similar threads
