"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

Why didn't BushCo TELL us that, in the beginning, or even NOW? If it
is so very clear to you, then it must be just as clear to Bush and his
cabinet. Why did he say we were going to Iraq to rid the world of
Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, if he knew we were actually
going there because of the above reasons? Am I to understand that,
because you've listed the above reasons, and those reasons only, that
you AGREE that Bush lied to us?