4 ms·

No. "Guys, at first we thought ISIS wouldn't take root as successfully as they have, so we didn't want to damage Iraqi and Syrian infrastructure (which will th

No. "Guys, at first we thought ISIS wouldn't take root as successfully as they have, so we didn't want to damage Iraqi and Syrian infrastructure (which will then have to be rebuilt). But they did take root, so now we have to suck it up and bomb the infrastructure."

tormeh 11y ago
I realize that this may be a possible explanation, but it strikes me as unlikely. The evidence that oil has a special status in US foreign policy are legion, the evidence that other countries' infrastructure has a similar status are substantially less numerous.
- DasIch 11y ago
  Well, if you follow that path to the logical conclusion why not just drop an atom bomb and be done with it? The thing is ISIS will lose, it's not a question of if but a question of when. Unlike a fairy tale there won't be a happy end afterwards though. These countries will have to be moved back on track and need to become stable. That requires state building which takes time, is expensive and very unpopular with voters. Additionally these strikes themselves cost lots of money. It also makes sense to avoid civilian casulties to not further support ISIS and other terrorist organizations in their recruitment, which is already going better than anyone would like. If you think ahead, I don't think you can come to any other choice than to try to minimize damage, especially to important infrastructure like this.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  >The evidence that oil has a special status in US foreign policy are legion Yes and no. Note that the Iraq War was funded by Americans, and that Iraq kept its own oil fields and refineries. It's unfair to compare the say... Eisenhower administration (1953 Iran revolution, which oil was a big part of) against the Bush administration (2000s Iraq invasion) and assume the policies are the same. The evidence, as far as I can tell, is that the Bush tried to do the right thing with regards to Iraq's oil. The fallacy of the Bush administration was believing that the Muslim world would love us after we killed the only secular leader in the region. But I don't see any evidence that oil had much to do with the decision. The 1953 Iran mistake is certainly a mistaken coup with regards to oil. The 2001 Iraq mistake was one of hubris, a lack of understanding about the Muslim world, and most importantly, piss poor intelligence (WMDs wasn't "Bush's lie", it was the failure of the entire US intelligence community)

tormeh 11y ago

I realize that this may be a possible explanation, but it strikes me as unlikely. The evidence that oil has a special status in US foreign policy are legion, the evidence that other countries' infrastructure has a similar status are substantially less numerous.

DasIch 11y ago
Well, if you follow that path to the logical conclusion why not just drop an atom bomb and be done with it? The thing is ISIS will lose, it's not a question of if but a question of when. Unlike a fairy tale there won't be a happy end afterwards though. These countries will have to be moved back on track and need to become stable. That requires state building which takes time, is expensive and very unpopular with voters. Additionally these strikes themselves cost lots of money. It also makes sense to avoid civilian casulties to not further support ISIS and other terrorist organizations in their recruitment, which is already going better than anyone would like. If you think ahead, I don't think you can come to any other choice than to try to minimize damage, especially to important infrastructure like this.
dragontamer 11y ago
>The evidence that oil has a special status in US foreign policy are legion Yes and no. Note that the Iraq War was funded by Americans, and that Iraq kept its own oil fields and refineries. It's unfair to compare the say... Eisenhower administration (1953 Iran revolution, which oil was a big part of) against the Bush administration (2000s Iraq invasion) and assume the policies are the same. The evidence, as far as I can tell, is that the Bush tried to do the right thing with regards to Iraq's oil. The fallacy of the Bush administration was believing that the Muslim world would love us after we killed the only secular leader in the region. But I don't see any evidence that oil had much to do with the decision. The 1953 Iran mistake is certainly a mistaken coup with regards to oil. The 2001 Iraq mistake was one of hubris, a lack of understanding about the Muslim world, and most importantly, piss poor intelligence (WMDs wasn't "Bush's lie", it was the failure of the entire US intelligence community)