The next war

[gumboot]

China
Iran
AlQ
Libya
US White Supremacists
Mexican drug lords
North Korea
Pirates

Each one more of a threat to the USA that Saddam COULD have been.

He was a threat to friendly states in the region until the Gulf War, but after that he was more of a bloody annoyance.

You've missed off two countries which are a much greater threat to the west than all of those you listed (with the exception of China) and Iraq combined.

Pakistan
Saudi Arabia

These two countries are the real problem. Iraq and Afghanistan were easy targets, and convenient targets, but they were the wrong targets.

Not that invading either of them [Saudi Arabia and Pakistan] would solve anything because the problem is ideological.

 

[bikerdruid]

They are blinded by hatred for their own wealthy and free societies.

western nations are not 'free' to the poor.

 

[Minoosh]

Re: invading Iraq, I wish we'd just kept our eye on the ball in Afghanistan.

Surely borrowing to finance optional wars is in itself deleterious to national security?

If we strike/invade Iran we're going to forfeit a ton of goodwill and get deeper in debt. To countries that are happy to buy Iranian oil.

 

[Virus]

Re: invading Iraq, I wish we'd just kept our eye on the ball in Afghanistan.

Surely borrowing to finance optional wars is in itself deleterious to national security?

If we strike/invade Iran we're going to forfeit a ton of goodwill and get deeper in debt. To countries that are happy to buy Iranian oil.

Destroying its nuclear facilities with a series of targeted strikes wouldn't be that expensive. Occupation and nation building is expensive, but nobody is suggesting Iran gets that.

 

[DC]

western nations are not 'free' to the poor.

not that i agree on anything Virus sais. But being poor in the west is like being rich in many non western countries.

 

[Minoosh]

Destroying its nuclear facilities with a series of targeted strikes wouldn't be that expensive.

Iraq wasn't supposed to be expensive either.

It amazes me that people think you can contain war, make it all nice and tidy and predictable. The U.S. has an interest in regime change in Iran, but bombing Iran would be counterproductive.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If only the next war will get silly arguments to end, can we have it start tomorrow morning?

I don't think resurrecting the bickering over the 2003 version of Gulf War furthers in any way a discussion of the "next war," be it big or small.

Michael Howard wrote some nice essays in his day about trying to be sure you weren't fighting the last war when you prepare for the next one, which, given human nature, is a near certainty to arrive ... eventually.

Pakistan's nukes make me uncomfortable because Pakistan more or less admits they are aimed at India. My estimate is that US and China will do a different version of dick measuring, like the Cold War only with better food, and the next significant war will be either:

Pakistan India
or
Egypt Israel ... once the bribe sponsored peace between them, funded by the US, falls apart.

Which I sincerely believe it will. Sorry to rain on your parade, folks, but there are some unresolved issues there that won't improve much with time.

 

[egslim]

Sorry to rain on your parade, folks, but there are some unresolved issues there that won't improve much with time.

Agreed, but that does not mean we should escalate, just to get it over with soon.

Conflict is part of human nature. War can be used to resolve one issue, but it usually spawns others afterwards. War is necessary at times, but the idea that victory makes the world a more peaceful place afterwards is a recurring delusion.