At the time we invaded there was a resolution in the UN to allow a multi-lateral force, on the ground in Iraq, invasively search for anything related to nuclear or biological weapons. Instead of letting this run its course we decided to invade. The truth is that Sadaam probably would never have allowed the UN to fulfill this resolution. If he had not then invasion would have been justified and would have been supported by more than a token "coalition of the willing". The bottom line for me is that the US decided to attack while the attacking was good instead of letting things run their course (using the patriotic ferver and rhetoric of 911 as a launching pad). If things had progressed a little further we could have ended up with excellent support from the world community and troops on the ground in Iraq before a bullet was ever fired. It certainly would not have resulted in the aftermath of ineptitude that followed the invasion do to lack of planning for what comes after. I have said it before - this administration is so ****ed up that, many years into this thing, they would view securing the capital city of the country a huge success. Much less what is required to try and bring the whole country under control. In the meantime we can't get Afghanistan to the "mission accomplished" phase and the true villain behind 911 is sipping tea with tribal leaders in the country of one of our "allies". There is no other word to describe what has transpired other than pathetic.
My feeling on this issue has always been this: There will never be any WMDs found THAT WE ARE EVER TOLD ABOUT, whether there are/were any there or not. Why? Because large-scale and long-term geopolitical strategy simply does not care about the 'feelings' of a bunch of leftists in the United States, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter. The fact is that Hussein was without question the head of the strongest military regime in the middle east. Whether he was hated or loved by others in the region, he was still the strongest leader in the region to stand up to the 'Great Satan', the strongest to actually make threats and openly flout the U.N. Whether he had chemical, biological, or approaching nuclear weapons in large capacities was not relevant, because he fostered the belief among his people and the rest of the world that he did in fact have them, and was actively pursuing longer-range missile capabilities. It was this belief which made Hussein appear to be so strong, it was this belief that allowed other nations in the region to feel emboldened, by proxy, to be more openly hostile to the West. Any good military commander will tell you that in order to make the biggest impact in an assault, ideally you take out the opponent's strongest units in the initial strike. This was done quite effectively in the entire region by taking out Iraq's 'vaunted' military regime, but was made infinitely more effective by revealing to the entire region that their 'strongest leader' Hussein was nothing but a sham, that none of his boasting of being able to 'harm' America was ever real. This had an enormous pacification effect on the entire region. Witness Syria's being so effectively cowed without so much as having to glance in its direction. The lack of any publicly-revealed large stockpiles of deadly chemical and biological weapons is a good thing for the world, because of the effect it has had on the entire region. While it might make some people 'feel' better to have large stockpiles discovered and revealed, it would be a worse thing in the big picture. I know it's hard for a lot of people to accept that their personal feelings of being offended by what they perceive to be a 'lie' are not as important on the global geopolitical scale as the stability of the largest oil-producing region in the world, but that's life.
We will see how stable the region is if things regress into a fanatical religious leadership in the midst of a civil war. Our track record in that part of the world is historically not so grand. Current or Recent Regimes: Iraq - Saddam - created by the US Iran - Created as backlash against abandonment by the US Turkey - still a tentative democracy Pakistan - Currently supported by the US even though it is essentially a dictatorship with nuclear weapons (and in constant danger of turning into a radical religious leadership with nuclear weapons) Saudi Arabia - Allowed to undermine US efforts in these areas and support terrorism through government inaction - because oil is more important than truth Afghanistan - Created by a mutual effort between the US and the former Soviet Union - Recreated by the US and the outlook is cautiously optimistic although in danger of regressing do to the overstretched resources of our military and government. I am sure there are more fine examples of our actions to increase stability in this part of the world.
Well, that's an interesting perspective, even more so given that Saddam couldn't beat Iran in a war, got kicked out of Kuwait in short order, and was prohibited from flying over parts of Iraq. One could argue that if the intent was to show what a paper tiger Saddam was, the most effective thing you could do was to continue with the inspections, continue to force him to bow to the pressure of the inspections, continue or expand the no-fly zones, and embarrass him by continually saying he has nothing close to a WMD. (Of course, he came out and said he had nothing before the invasion, but I guess that doesn't count.) Anyway, there were many ways to continue to ruin his rep and make him a mockery short of invading and occupying Iraq to the tune of 3,000 US deaths, many thousands injured, and the countless Iraqis killed, wounded, dislocated, etc. Your statement about all this having "an enormous pacification effect on the entire region" is not applicable to Iraq and not borne out by the current reality of the region... the Middle East is certainly nowhere near "stable." And really, your assumptions are fundamentally anti-American. Sorry, but I don't want any government, especially this administration, deciding that a lie is best for me. Not to mention the fact that this administration is so craven they would sacrifice any long-term strategic advantage to the short-term political advantage.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BT5p9GCCUto"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BT5p9GCCUto" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Do you really believe the Iraq invasion has "pacified" the region? If so, there is no use in discussing this any further. Using your example of Syria, do you realize Syria let's insurgents cross into Iraq at will? Have you seen Syria's behavior in Lebanon since the invasion? I'd hate to see a belligerent Syria if that's how they act when "cowed". Taking a look at Iran, their behavior hasn't improved since the invasion. Taking a look at Al Qaeda, they weren't in Iraq until after the invasion. The fact is the Iraq catastrophe has set the region on fire instead of pacifying it.
We had various reasons to strongly suspect it, but those suspicions were met by Bush supporters with a demand for proof. Now that there's proof, they call it old news. In last night's debate the most spirited exchange was between anti-war Paul and pro-war Huckabee. The most striking thing about it was that Huckabee's whole argument was premised on the fact that the war was a mistake we must all take responsibility for. In other words, the most striking thing was that the pro-war guy fully acknowledged the war was a mistake. This evidence proves it was a wholly unnecessary one and not one based purely on wrong intel that everyone had the same access to, since we now know for a fact that there was right intel that was suppressed by Bush in order to make the case for war. "Running out of ammunition?" Hardly. There's new ammunition on an almost daily basis now. Unfortunately, apologists like Ass Magic think there is no argument whatsoever that can't be slapped down with his unending supply of roll-eyes. He represents a shrinking minority of the country that will go to any length to defend the admin no matter how bad they screw up or how much they lie.
the guy specifiec "long term". granted, it isnt a pretty picture now (nor was it before mind you) but long term is what matters most. Even though the last 5 years may seem long, when govts and world strategies are implemented those goals may be 10, 15, 20 years down the road.
Where Bin Ladden at? Bush knew it, I knew it too before the 2004 election. Shame on the people who still voted him then. Bush is the scapegoat here, but more than 50% of America share the blame too IMHO.
Neither Saddam nor the situations in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan were created by the US. OTOH we have pushed for democratic reform in Lebanon, Egypt and Kuwait to some effect, and in SA to a lesser degree.
I never said that the situations in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan were created by the US. but I stand by what I did say about those countries and US involvement with the same. The situation in Afghanistan, as I stated, was created by a joint effort between the US and the Soviet Union (each funding the other side to prevent the other from having control of the region). All the best, brock
In this case, "long term" is nothing more than an escape hatch of an argument, the thinnest of threads to hang on to instead of admitting something was a colossal mistake. The refuge for those who don't have anything more to say. This long term reality is our standing in the world has been greatly diminished. Giving this great recruiting tool, Al Qaeda's standing in the Sunni world has been greatly enhanced. Afghanistan will probably be lost (because of the huge distraction of resources). Our freedom and ability to act militarily in the region will be hamstrung because NOBODY will forget Iraq. The list could go on.
maybe it is a cop out, i'll admit that. But you will have to equally admit that it is not. I just think it will be interesting to see what it is like in 15-20 years. WHo knows, maybe the region is very stable and prosperous with a democratic form of govt...then would have all of this been a waste? Of course the reverse can be true, but i try to remain somewhat optimistic and keep an eye on the long run and not the short term.
I'm a realist. Optimism is why Bush and minions thought they could invade without planning and preparing for the aftermath. If the region is "stable" in 15-20 years, it might be very hard to believe the invasion helped instead of hindered progress getting there. Like you say, we'll see. I agree on looking long term and will hope for the best.
