Damn, I fell for the bait... and now it becomes the libtards vs treeman thread instead of the civilized world vs ISIS thread... Of course, I am the more salient enemy here.
Treeman, honest question: Looking back, would we (the US/Western world) have been better just buying Saddam off, pledge a billion or so and then we'd make nice and be friends like we were when we needed to be (against Iran)? I don't like to think it or admit it, but do some countries/societies/tribes/whatever need a strongman to keep order? How does democracy fit into this?
I've gotta sleep, and I work on weekends, so have fun twisting this thread into anything other than what it should be about. You can safely attack me for the next two days, I won't respond.
OK, you tempt me... short response though. Yes, some populations do better with strongmen. Just look at most of continental Asia. It's a cultural preference and inclination. As for leaving Saddam... Keep in mind his established history of supporting terrorists abroad (mostly in the Palestinian territories, but also in Europe) and his deep animosity towards us after 9/11. Add in the fact that we suspected that AQ and Saddam's regime had contact (which was borne out and confirmed by documents captured at the Iraqi Intelligence Ministry), and the risk was too great to ignore. But... If we go into pretend land for a minute and assume that Saddam would have stayed in his box and not bothered anyone (a dubious assumption based on his extensive history of aggressive behavior), the question to ask is "Would the Iraqi people be better off now?" The answer depends upon which Iraqi people you're talking about. The Shiites (the largest group) are definitely better off now. The Kurds - imperiled though they appear - are better off too, especially if they can gain their independence. The Sunnis? Not so much. They are staring at ISIS sharia law imposed upon them, so I think it's easy to say they are much worse off. We tend to forget how truly awful Saddam was for most of Iraq. On average during his tenure approximately 50K or so people died per year of unnatural, state-related causes. Even with the most distorted stats we haven't gotten close to those figures post-Saddam. It is fair to ask whether any of this chaos would be going on right now were Saddam still in power, though. When I think back to the purple fingers, I am inclined to say "no" to that. We showed the Arab world that they could take charge of their destiny; before we came they seemed resigned to lives of servitude under their respective dictators. We gave them hope. They took that hope and turned it into war, and the most extreme among them took the opportunity to turn it into a chance to convert the world to Islam - and kill those who didn't go along. So, personally, I am inclined to think the Arab Spring - and the resulting chaos - never happens if we don't go into Iraq. But who is to say it doesn't? It's entirely possible that it still happens and Saddam is fighting a bunch of religious nutcases looking to set their caliphate in his seat. I wonder whose side we'd be on then?
Actually Syria and Iraq had separate Jihadist organizations - that then merged to form ISIS. Once this is for certain, the U.S. military effort had failed to take these guys out. They knew how to outlast the u.s., and they also knew how to fight well because they learned against fighting the u.s. The Iraqi war is turning out to be a catastrophic mistake by Bush and will go down in History as the act that completely destabilized the region. There will be only one way to contain this Jihadist army - and that's the u.s. returning to Iraq....and never leaving until the bitter end. Iraq is truly our next Vietnam.
Nice answer, thanks. The "what could have beens" are pretty fascinating in hindsight, but going forward it's a dark situation in that part of the world. It ain't pretty and there are no easy, or in my mind, even attainable, solutions.
These are laughable reasons. The supposed contact turned out to be a spoof. George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." Animosity isn't a case for regime change.
Remember when it used to be WMD's, aluminum tubes, and a reconstituted nuclear program? Ah, the ever evolving reasons to invade Iraq.
Removing Saddam by assassination or milliary coup was a great option suggested by bandar bin Sultan. keeping order and government t body with little change was needed ,clearly the best option back then. But it was vetoed by Tehran and Israel. They wanted a complete overhaul, destruction ,dismantle the army and replace everything that was previously in place. Ethnic ,religious dispute were all acceptable (justified ) risks. Bush heard voices in his head asking him to do what he did , who cares as long as Israel is save , so quit dropping alligators tears over kurd and minorities , Iraq wasn't religiose extremist heaven, it was systematic moves to put this place out of global sights for decades to come<O</O <!--EndFragment-->
I was of age and sound mind in 1990. I wanted The Coalition to smash Saddam as a prelude to a united Free World bringing Jeffersonian democracy to all corners of the globe. He was a tyrant who freely killed and tortured people and allowed his family and friends to run roughshod over the people. He needed to be stopped. It appeared to be the high minded, moral position then. The attraction of democracy seemed that it would appeal to all people from my American perspective. It was a perfectly valid choice, that was rendered invalid by the innate nature of human beings. The fact that even our own democratic system is failing, falling into a obstructive, propaganda driven, self-interested, race for power with little movement toward the greater good or compromise, is just further proof. People in general just aren't civilized to a point where democracy will work. We are still just animals... greed monkees. With the current ISIS, I'd think the same way, but I have a much better idea of what is possible and what isn't, what people will do and what they won't. The best we (the Free World) can do is manage and direct the chaos and provide humanitarian support. So I pretty much would do what the President is doing and don't have any real course change suggestions for him, in the US, the Ukraine, Gaza, the Arab Spring, S.E. Asia or Africa. He's following a practical, centrist course of actions consistent with reality. It's frustrating for those of us who want to see every drama as solvable, but in 2014 they are not.
The UN is pretty close to worthless most of the time and this isn't even their mess. The US caused this mess when they prematurely pulled out of Iraq after toppling the government there. You can argue that it was a bad decision to go in to Iraq in the first place, but it was a FAR worse decision to pull out when we did. I doubt the "cut bait and run" strategy was approved by many in the military but it was popular in polls so we went that route and now we'll end up having to go back in as a result.
I tend to agree somewhat, except that I think we should be more decisive and do things more quickly. If we think we're going to get involved somewhere, we should do it sooner - before ISIS can do all this damage. When we decide to launch airstrikes, go all in - obliterate every possible ISIS position you know of instead of dropping 2 bombs on a small artillery position and then reevaluating. Doing "just enough" to maintain a status quo and keep people alive but as refugees seems like a silly option, especially if the goal is humanitarian. That said, in the larger picture, I agree with Buck that this is a dark situation in that whole region of the world - but I also think it's ultimately a necessary one. To get from where we were 20 years ago to a modern Middle East and North Africa is going to entail a hell of a lot of violence and upheaval (and time) - no different than it was in any other part of the globe at various times through history in modernizing Europe, the US, etc. We can do our limited part to help direct the outcome we want and provide humanitarian assistance as possible, but ultimately, it's a fight that has to be fought within. There's no real shortcut to defeating extremist ideologies. It may take another 5 years or it may take another 50 - but it was never going to be some kind of overnight change to functional democracy and freedom.
