So much of the Iraq debate is colored by the opposing ideological viewpoints to the point that a common refrain from self-identified Republican Conservative War Supporters (RCWS) are that War opponents are against it because Bush did it and they are against everything Bush does even though this war has arguably been fought for Liberal reasons. At the same time self-identified Democratic Liberal War Opponents (DLWO) argue the converse. I'm going to try to get beyond that by asking both sides to consider their opinions regarding the US military action in Serbia under Clinton vs US action in Iraq now. How many RCWS supported military intervention in Serbia or opposed it and why same with DLWO and what are your opinions of Iraq? I'm going to head off the obvious by recognizing that there are many differences regarding the situations but given that the main argument for Iraq now is primarily humanitarian (freedom and democracy) and the main argument for Serbia was that too to try to get at seeing how much does ideology and political affiliation affect one's views of going to battle.
I'll kick things off here to give an example. I opposed the current invasion of IRaq and the military intervention in Serbia because I didn't believe that in either case they represented and imminent threat to the safety of the US. While Serbia was a horrible humanitarian crisis and had the potential of destabilizing Southern Europe it didn't seem like it warranted to the US military intervention but instead was a matter that should've been handled by the Europeans or UN with the US playing a very limited role. At the sametime I believe Saddam was a tyrranical dictator who had threatened his neighbors in the past he was contained and the evidence regarding him being a threat to the US or anyone outside of the space between the two no-flyzones seemed unconvincing and exaggerated and not worthy of the potential costs of invasion, occupation and reconstruction. In both cases I don't think if Bush and Clinton's positions had been changed my opinion would've changed. I don't think I would've supported Bush going into Serbia in 1998 or Clinton going into Iraq in 2003. For the record I didn't vote for Clinton in 1996 or Bush in 2000 and 2004.
the answer is pretty simple, the opportunity cost of one, in both political, military, and economic terms, is galaxies apart from the other. That's a realist viewpoint, not a liberal one. Liberalist foreign policies (not D-R liberal) usually implode under their own weight, see Wilson, Carter, Bush II.
I can think of at least two more major differences: 1. Humanitarian and geopolitical stabilization were not the main reason why we went to war in Iraq. Our president told us, at first, that Iraq had WMDs. We only focused on the other two reasons after it was clear that no WMDs were found. 2. The war in Serbia was supported by NATO.
1. Serbia - a much more limited scale, that wouldn't call for occupation afterwards. Handled by much more able leadership. 80% of that operation was handeled by the Europeans as it should have been since it was their neighborhood. We didn't lose a soldier to enemy fire, and the mission was accomplished. There was an ongoing and active genocide, and the matter was much more urgent than Iraq. The reasons for going into Serbia were mentioned honestly and straight forward from the very beginning. We weren't mislead into that action. There was a clear cut objective that remained consistant before the invasion even started. 2. Iraq - A full scale invasion and occupation, in which almost the entire workload fell on the U.S. Leadership botched the plans from the beginning. The reasons for invading turned and shifted, twisted and changed. The planners and leadership were unrealistic in their expectations all along, and have recently even admitted as much. There was not an active genocide, no threat to Iraq's neighbors from Iraq, or to the U.S. Zero rationale for a poorly planned and carried out operation.
In Serbia there was a coalition of troops on the ground from many countries, under the NATO flag. In Iraq, the vast majority of troops are American.
Actually, the Bosnia campaign did call for a fairly significant (peacetime) deployment. In a little remembered Atlantic Monthly issue (little remembered because it was published in the September 2001 issue - guess why) there was a long and well written article on the long term strains and stress caused on the Army from having to continuously maintain the Bosnia deployment and how it was grinding it down.
But not by the size of US forces currently in Iraq. Being the minority security forces there should have allowed for a more regular rotation. I will have to go back and read that article.
It's interesting to see no right wing Bush War supporters have yet responded. WWII is perhaps the only one in recent history that was fought for humanitarian reason, among other less noble causes. If a war is started to save humanity (not just for your own race, religion, politics, territory), then it should be embraced at all costs. I for one don't think a forced "democracy" is good rationale for war.
The 'beyond r & d' stuff's throwing them off. They haven't found a way to call war opponents terror-loving traitors yet. Nor have they found some piddling thing with which to derail. When they do, they'll be here with their usual LOL's and 'Thanks in advances.'
Yes, apparently we've only gotten fatter the last two years. Because, you know, that's when the military recruitment started dropping dramatically.
1. There was ongoing genocide in Serbia. Genocide in Iraq hadn't occured in 20-30 years. 2. There was a true coalition addressing the Serbian issues. 3. The scope was immensly smaller (and therefore cost). Clearly the usual RCWS's have nothing to say because any response would clearly illustrate why they are on the wrong side of the Iraq debate.
Thanks for responses so far and I'm definately hoping that the RCWS posters like Basso, Bigtexx, SM, and Giddyup weigh in. I don't want to seem like I'm calling them out but want to try to move the debate beyond just accusing each other of partisan and ideological coloring by looking comparing the two sitautions where US troops have been deployed electively by Presidents of two different parties. Some interesting response but wanted to get to FB's point regarding more "capable leadership in Serbia." I'm presuming you feel that the Clinton Admin did a better job managing the Serbian conflict than GW Bush is in Iraq. Given that Clinton has supported GW Bush's decision to go to Iraq it seems very possible that if Clinton had been in office in 2003 he might've made the same decision to go to Iraq. He might've done it differently but we still might be there now. That said would the war opponents feel differently if Clinton was in running things now? Do you think Clinton could've gotten UN support or built a much larger coalition? At the same time many of you have brought up that Clinton had NATO support for going into Serbia but there wasn't UN support and to me would also violate international law as much as Iraq since the UN never approved of it. Does anyone in circumspect find this troubling?
A couple of points. 1. If Clinton had gone into Iraq I would still have been dead set against it. My complaints would have been slightly less because it would have been run better, with more accountability, but I would not have supported the attack. 2. As far as the UN not supporting the Serbian conflict, that is true. But the reasons given for attacking weren't that the Serbians hadn't lived up to their agreement regarding an UN treaty. So it isn't as crucial that the UN has that much say in the matter. In Iraq the reasons for going in were that Saddam wasn't following his own signed agreement with the UN. The UN definitely should have had more of a say. It is like if France and Spain sign a treaty. We don't believe that Spain is following the treaty. We tell France, but France decides not attack. Then we keep using Spain's refusal to follow the treaty as a reason and attack ourselves over Span's attention.
I think you'll be disappointed if you're expecting anyone to come on and say - yes I would support that action if BUSH had done it instead of CLINTON - or the other way around. I'm not a RCWS because I'm not a Republican and not a 'conservative' (although I am a hawk - so to speak). But I supported the interventions in Serbia/Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (despite my personal dislike for Bush).
Hmmm, interesting question (actually I guess its more of an accusation that a question). I'm not really sure if we're safer in the short term - but in the long term, yes - I think we'll be safer. And I'm pretty sure I'll still support the intervention in the future. Lots of positives and no where near the doomsday predictions from the Left pre-intervention.
You don't have to be but just figured if we tackle the issue head on we can get past the "Well you support / oppose the invasion just because you hate / love GW Bush." Trying to think about the issues and how they are colored by partisan views. YOu're right no one will probably come out and say that they are influenced purely on a partisan basis but at least this gives us the chance to discuss it directly.
