Perhaps but certainly this is nowhere even remotely near the rosy picture painted by the Admin and war supporters leading up to the invasion. Iraqis would great us as liberators and within relatively short time it would become stable. I didn't spend much time here on Clutch BBS during or leading up to the invasion but I'm guessing that most war supporters then weren't predicting that we would still be fighting so much in Iraq by now. As for me what's happened in Iraq is pretty much what I expected. We overthrow Saddam quickly and then have big problems trying to stabilize it.
I'm a conservative and a Republican. I did not support the Serbia intervetion and half-heartedly supported the Iraqi conquest. At the time, I thought the WMD's were a foregone conclusion - so I thought that there was a credible argument about US security. I would not have supported a war effort based solely on democratization and Saddam's ouster. I agree with Sishir - military interventions for humanitarian reasons seems more liberal than conservative.
I wasn't very political during the intervention in Eastern Europe, so I did not really develop much of an opinion on it. Looking back on it, I would say if the same situation arose today, I would wholeheartedly support action by the US military to resolve the conflict. I also support the US action in Iraq now, as I have from the beginning, based primarily on humanitarian reasons. To me, WMDs were never a big concern. I thought that Saddam had chem/bio weapons, but I would have supported the war had I known going in that we would not find any. To me, freeing the Iraqi people from living under the rule of Saddam and eventually his progeny is a good in and of itself. I also support the idea of intervention in the Sudan. This seems like a repeat of Rwanda, where we should have also gotten involved. I guess in the end America is like Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. As the global hegemon, we should do what we can to sort out the rest of the world. Domestically, I am very libertarian. Given the above, it makes it a b**** to find someone to support politically. Of course, living in California, my opportunities to affect the outcome of national elections is very limited. PS - thanks Sishir Chang for the mention, though I don't know if being included in a list with T_J and texxx is meant as an honor or an insult. It is always nice to know that someone is out there reading my ramblings, whether they agree with any of it or not.
No problem and that wasn't meant as an insult. I might find Texx exasperating now and then but he seems like a good guy. As for T_J I haven't seen enough of his post beyond the "Owned" variety to get a sense of him as a cardboard cut out but certainly Basso and Giddyup seem like good guys too although I disagree with them on a variety of issues. I appreciated your post too in regard to explaining how your viewpoint on the need for the US to act as a humanitarian agent is your primary motivation. That was what I was trying to get at with this thread by pointing out that Presidents of both parties have engaged in what could be termed as elective military conflicts to consider why we might support or oppose them.
Totally agree with this paragraph. I said something similar in the other pro-war vs. anti-war thread.....wait a minute, I just described every D&D thread for the last 3 years. I meant to say Batman's thread. I honestly think that if the Bush Administration would have just presented the case for war on this premise in the first place, instead of the WMD premise, there would be a lot less opposition now.
LOL. I'm sure that was the reason we invaded Iraq. If you were to use that line of reasoning, Iraq would probably be 5th or 6th in the line of countries that should be freed because of "humanitarian reasons".
I totally respect that. I would've respected Bush if he told us that we are not sure we will find WMDs in Iraq, but going in there is a good idea because the Iraqi people need our help. I'm not sure Bush would've received the same amount of support he had for the war. After all, Americans are not too keen on invading other countries for mostly humanitarian reasons without some sort of strong international support. This is especially true given that we're already fighting a war on terror and our economy is failing at home. However, if Bush were honest from the beginning, we as a nation would at least have had a decent debate based on correct intelligence and reasonable projections of costs. You know, the type of debate a free democracy is suppose to have before invading another country? As it is now, we are trapped in a war that many of us didn't vote for (and I'm including some people who voted for Bush) at at price that we didn't bargain for.
I'm pro-intervention but I don't think there would be any opposition now in that case, there never would have been an intervention. There is no reason to believe humanitarian concerns were not at least part of the motivation to intervene. Depending on your view of the administration, it could be the main motivator or a minor one - but in no realistic scenario is it NOT a reason the decision was made. Aside from that, SM said that was the reason he supported the intervention, not that it was the only motivation of the administration. Back to Mars, b****.
The important thing is that Bush told the world WMDs were the primary reason why containment is no longer a viable option. Leadership is not like making spaghetti--you can't keep throwing things against the wall until one of them sticks.
Why is that THE important thing? Certainly it is important that there were no WMDs and that the administration either incompetantly or purposely advocated such, but why is that the only important issue? I don't think it is. When we are discussing whether or not this policy is good, shouldn't we compare it to what the policy was BEFORE? That only seems to make sense. Besides, I didn't ever say Bush justified the intervention this way, or that he is justifying it now this way. I point out what I thought was fairly self evident - people are judging the intervention as 'senseless' and costly without comparing it to what was happening otherwise. That's not a good way to reach a conclusion. That sounds ominous - you are scary.
Um, because we live in a democracy and we deserve leaders who would tell us the truth before we decide whether or not we should invade a country. I'm not saying humanitarian policy is bad, per se. I'm saying this administration has lost all credibility given the pack of lies they've fed us since the beginning of this war.
OK, I grant your argument (not that I ever really contested it). The administration are liars (or incompetant). Feel better - that takes care of that? Now we can get on to the discussion at hand - whether or not the intervention is a good thing. Whether or not the intervention was justified publicly or not does nothing to determine whether actually intervening was good or not.
Whether the intervention was properly justified is relevant to the question of whether or not the intervention was good. An unjustified war created by faithless leaders is a direct affront to our democracy. The ends do not justify the means--i.e. the installation of democracy in Iraq is NOT more important than our OWN democracy. But, for argument sake, let's see if the intervention was good without regards to my concerns about our democratic institutions. I know this article has already been posted elsewhere on this forum, but I just wanted to post snippets for everyone's quick reference here.
It is not an all encompassing factor in whether or the intervention IS a good thing. That the administration was wrong about WMDs doesn't mean the intervention is not a good thing, and whether or not the administration 'lied' is also speculation (incompetance would be undesirable but hardly an 'affront' to our democracy). I give you they were wrong about WMDs - with the rest you are on your own. If the intervention was improperly justified to the public, that is an error. That does not mean there IS not justification for the intervention. As for our OWN democracy, I don't believe a cadre of administration officials took us to war - IIRC the administration got approval from Congress (which in OUR democracy is how it works). Post intervention, they could have demanded a withdraw long ago - but haven't. As far as ends/means, I saw this awhile ago and thought it sums it up best: "In matters of war and politics, it is rare for any course of morally pure action to be available - every choice has undesirable effects. But if one choice has a better outcome than another, surely it is the one that must be done, even if one's hands aren't entirely clean at the end. Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two wrongs." And? Its not going as well as expected so that means its bad? Objectives already reached: genocidal dictator removed? Check. inevitable proliferation threat removed? Check. troops out of Saudi Arabia? Check. Sanctions lifted? Check. Artificial impediment to self determination removed? Check. Democratic effect on neighboring states like Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria? Check. Stability in Iraq - not yet but we'll see.
And I never said it was the all encompassing factor. I said: "The important thing is that Bush told the world WMDs were the primary reason why containment is no longer a viable option...." and "Whether the intervention was properly justified is relevant to the question of whether or not the intervention was good." I think it is relevant and important, but I never said it is the all encompassing factor. So to that extent we do agree. That is an excellent point. Bush pulled the wool over our eyes, but the Democrats are not exactly innocent in all this. Many of them refused to challenge the president's "evidence" for fear of seeming "unpatriotic." But saying we all have responsibility in this does not change the fact that Bush is the most responsible. But the American people weren't given a choice. We were given, at best, carefully selected misinformation, or at worst, complete lies. I have nothing against choosing the lesser of two evils. I only have a problem when that choice is not clearly presented to the American people. Did you read the article? Does it sound like things are going well? To be replaced with random thugs and terrorists. Check. "Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve." Unsecured borders allows terrorists to travel in and out of Iraq. Iraqi insurgency possibly growing stronger and the anti-American sentiments caused by the badly justified invasion is likely to increase terrorist recruitment. Check. "We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University. Possibly opening up a bloody conflict among the various groups in Iraq. Check. Troops out of Saudi Arabia and troops into Iraq? Check. I agree with you that whether our invasion of Iraq will be beneficial remains to be seen. But as of now, things are not looking good.
Without knowing whether or not is was incompetance (administration seeing what they want to see, or what fits their preconceptions of the situation) or deception - I don't think you can declare the intervention unjust (on the basis we were lied to) and that the intervention is an affront to our democracy. Hmmm, that seems a little at odds with the ends/means totality. But as you pointed out maybe I misunderstood you. Uh, yes I read the article. I wouldn't make a conclusion about the intervention based on that, and from what you write below, neither would you. Is your position that it would be better to have Saddam still in power? First, even if your 'possibles' came true, they are dwarfed by the impact of a nuke holding Saddam. Second, the opposite is also possible - and we've seen a LOT of anti-bombing/anti-terrorism rhetoric out of Iraq because they don't want AQ et al in the country. I don't think that Muslims declaring Al Queda the enemy is helping their recruiting. Possibly. Is your position that totalitarian rule is better for the people of Iraq than a chance at self determination? Should we have supported Saddam for their own good? Also I might add that there has been plenty of bloody conflict when Saddam was in power (the Kurd gassing, Iran/Iraq War, Kuwait, crushing the Shiite uprising - as well as his normal annual deathcount). Yes, and that's the necessary step to withraw troops from the region. Can't do that with containment. btw: you left off: Sanctions lifted? Check; and Democratic effect on neighboring states like Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria? Check. I'll assume we agree those are beneficial developments. I don't think its unreasonable to want to wait to make a final determination. That's fair enough.
1. Being wrong about the reasons for going to war is close to meaning it was bad. War should never be something to be taken lightly. If you are going to commit troops to die, and shatter the lives of families, put the reputation of the U.S. on the line, then you better be as sure as possible you are right in what you are saying. That isn't the case with Iraq. There were conflicting intel reports which weren't investigated, and the inspectors, who could have shed light on which reports were valid were told to get out by the Bush administration. At the same time you have people such as Lawrence Eagleburger who knows the admnistration officials involved and is even pro military invasion of Iraq saying from the beginning that folks in the whitehouse did not want a peaceful solution, they were actually hoping for war. So given those reason I believe that is as close to an all encompassing reason that the invasion was wrong. Furthermore, this administration obviously wasn't up to the task of doing it right. If they aren't up to the task they shouldn't step to the plate. So their incompetence actually is a part of why the invasion was wrong. 2. You spoke about approval from congress. Bush got that approval by lying to congress. He told congress that a vote for authorization was really a way to keep the peace, and not a vote for war. One branch cheating the other branch in our democracy actually is a blow. 3. I agree that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two wrongs. Containment was the lesser.
I think we are communicating. If the nation building in Iraq goes well, then sure, the invasion of Iraq may have many potential benefits. I didn't vote for Bush, but I fully support his idea that we should stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job done. But as the MSNBC article indicates, there are signs that we may be getting out prematurely. Sure, Bush constantly assures us that we will not waiver. But his administration also constantly tell us that the insurgency is in the "last throes" of its resistance. To be fair, John Kerry would not do any better. If he were elected, he would probably take out the troops even faster than Bush. I guess that is part of my frustration with this whole situation: There are possible benefits, but everyday we see how badly this administration is handling the situation, and yet there is no hope that another administration can handle this situation any better. See, the two of us have this in common: We know the true costs of this war and we are STILL willing to continue fighting it. You support it because you believe in the potential humanitarian benefits. I support it mainly because to leave Iraq in a half-assed manner would completely undermine any semblance of security in that region. But our views do not reflect the views of most Americans. Many Americans are feeling squemish about the war. And why shouldn't they? They expected the international community to step in by now, red-faced, once we find the fabled WMDs. They see comments like "mission accomplished," "shock and awe" and "last throes" and they expect swift victories. In short, they believed the story fed to them by the Bush administration. But now, support for the war is waning; body counts and oil prices rise and yet we are no closer to finding Osama Bin Laden. Bush is moving further and further away from the "self defense" justification he used to sell us the war. "This is not the war we signed up for," many Americans are saying to themselves. "Let's get out now." This is why honesty from our leaders is so important. Had Bush told us the tough truth in the beginning--that we are fighting this war for humanitarian and long-term security reasons--then he would have a right to expect us to support his decision to rebuild Iraq at great cost to ourselves. But since he he went with the easy way out, he cannot be surprised that Americans are turning on him. I just want to clarify again: I have nothing against making tough choices. If Bush told us that we may have to kill many Iraqis and many American soldiers have to die, but that he belives it is all worth it in the end because of the tangible benefits you talked about, then I can respect that. But that is not what he told us or the world when he invaded Iraq. It is ok for a leader to present tough choices to the people; it is not acceptable for a leader to lie to the people to bypass the decision-making process that makes up very foundation of our nation. Neither of us can draw definite conclusions. But the article indicates that things are getting worse, and that we are likely to LEAVE Iraq in this terrible situation. To add insult to injury, certain members of the Bush administration are still telling us how well things are going. The key phrase there is "chance." Are we giving them a GOOD chance at self determination? Iraq is an artificially constructed country made up of many Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites who do not really consider themselves as part of the same nation. Nobody likes totalitarian rule. But a bloody civil war is no picnic either, especially if the civil war give countries like Syria and Iran even more excuses to grab power in the region at the expense of American interests. CNN: tubes that were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs" and said U.S. intelligence suggested that Iraqis had helped the al Qaeda terrorist network to develop chemical weapons. But both the Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, determined the tubes were meant to be used in artillery rockets. And the independent commission investigating the September 11 attacks found there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Excpet now we realized that the insurgents are much stronger than Bush gave them credit for, and that we cannot really pull out our troops from Iraq in the near future unless we want to doom that country into a nightmarish civil war. Sanctions that were replaced by an attack that destroyed Iraq's infrastructure? I didn't address it because it is obvious that sanctions were replaced by an invasion. It would be silly to continue sanctions against your own occupied territory. I actually agree with you that if nation building in Iraq goes well (which looks doubtful), then yes, that could be a positive effect on the region. But that all depends on whether the American people have the will to carry out this tough and costly nation building project. I doubt it, given that this was not the project they thought they were getting into when they supported Bush's invasion of Iraq.
