I agree the administration has handled the actual war poorly. IMO the whole scenario would have been completely different if they hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army. I thought that was a blunder of tremendous proportions in the absence of a much larger US troop presence. As for the cost/benefits I think it is still premature to declare a negative conclusion. I would still rather fight Al Queda in Iraq than in the mountains of Afghanistan, for example. Iraq could end up being their quagmire instead of ours. I still think the benefits of removing Saddam outweigh the costs. Some of the predicted benefits have occured as well though. The intervention has spurred democratic reform in the Middle East (Egypt and Lebanon, for example). A genocidal dictator, who was also an inevitable WMD threat, was removed. Sanctions have been lifted. US troops are no longer on holy ground in Saudi Arabia. Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraqis are getting a democratic voice in their future. And some of the problems predicted have no arisen. The whole middle east hasn't gone up in the flames of a radical Muslim revolution, for instance, as some predicted. I don't think that is the only defense of the war. Far from it. I do think that there is some merit in the argument that a call for immediate withdraw is a mistake, and would be worse than not. I don't think criticizing the administration's justification of the war, or criticizing their handling of the war, does this though to be fair.
HayesStreet...but the debate isnt if the costs outweigh the benefits of removing Sadam....its if there were alternate routes of doing so, and if so then why werent they done...just dont think war was neccessary but agree that removing him from power was
I'm not sure I agree with your framing of the choices. Two options were considered - continuing the status quo or intervening. What alternate routes to remove Saddam were being considered? Remember the debate was whether to intervene or to continue inspections. Continuing inspections is NOT an alternate route to removing Saddam. That choice explicitly leaves Saddam in power.
Your right, I was trying to say that they should have considered alternate options to remove him power. but i guess that brings the question how do you remove a guy like him from power? im not sure the only option is war, but then again i dont know the answer
If I were president for a day, I would have told Saddam he had 48 hours for him and his sons to seek asylum in another country. If he didn't leave, then I would have flattened everyone of his palaces with precision guided bombs. I would then tell the others in the ruling Baath party that if they wanted to keep their days jobs, they better turn over Saddam and his family. Sure seems easier then sending in the Marines and Army.
Attempts were made to both kill Saddam and to get the military to remove him. Both failed. His grip was too tight on the military and security apparatus in Iraq. And an ultimatum with the option to go into exile was given before the intervention started.
I thought he had at least some WMD, but he had had them for decades, with assistance from the United States, and didn't pose a threat to the US and it's allies with them. He invaded Kuwait, which he considered Iraqi territory, and didn't use them. We kicked him out and devastated his military, but he didn't use them. There is no evidence that Saddam was a threat to our interests with WMD, whether he had them or not. We could find no credible evidence that he was developing atomics prior to Bush's invasion. For those reasons, and others, I was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, when so many real threats remained that hadn't, and haven't been dealt with. Iran, North Korea, and Al Qaeda with it's leadership, being the obvious ones. Saddam was an expensive pain in the ass, and an obvious terror to a great many of Iraqi citizens, but the only terror he clearly supported was the payment of "bounties" to the families of suicide bombers acting against Israel. Was that worth invading and occupying Iraq and in our national interests, considering the totality of the problems facing our country? In my opinion, absolutely not. Keep D&D Civil.
You could have just googled it since it was pretty much front page news, but here it is... WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying the "danger was clear" that the Iraqi regime would provide terrorists with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours for him and his sons to leave Iraq before military action begins "at a time of our choosing." http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/
Didn't we attack less than 12 hours after that ultimatum b/c we thought we saw a chance to take Saddam out?
The problem is that we are fighting Al Qaeda now both in the mountains of Afghanistan and in Iraq and also in several other places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Europe and so forth. This roach motel idea that if we invade Iraq all the terrorists will go there and we can keep the war contained hasn't worked and frankly I'm not sure why anyone would think it would considering Al Qaeda was and still is an international organization. I'm not going to deny that no benefits from invading Iraq haven't occured at the same time though was this the best way to achieve those ends? Was while we were already engaged in one conflict and hunting down a hidden worldwide foe where we need the help and goodwill of many allies? Getting rid of Saddam wasn't a bad thing but at the costs of a longterm protracted occupation with no clear end, dividing the country and world when we're facing another enemy that actually has attacked us? I don't think its been worth it. Since I agree that calling for an immediate withdraw is a mistake I can't argue with that. My main argument is that this invasion was poorly planned, poorly executed and hasn't been worth the costs. We can't deny the fact we're there and we're probably the only thing holding Iraq from falling apart. That said though its not a mistake to exercise our freedom of speech, assembly and participation in the political process to criticize the Admin..
Yes, except now they are in an environment that is, frankly - unsympathetic to their ideals which is not necessarily the case with the warlords in Afghanistan. While there has been a marraige of convenience between AQ and the insurgency that is coming to an end. Muslims are getting tired of AQ killing Muslims. Tired of them killing people in markets and people lining up to be police. That could well be the beginning of the end of AQ and their ilk. That would not have happened in Afghanistan. As for Indonesia and other places, that was happening before we intervened in Iraq. The choice was between continuing containment or intervening. Those were the only two options on the table. Absent intervention the all the benefits listed would not have happened. Are you suggesting the international community has STOPPED looking for Osama because we intervened in Iraq? Honestly I find that preposterous.
That's all nice and well except that we're still fighting them in Afghanistan. Its not like all the Al Qaeda up and moved to the Iraq. Frankly I think its a lack of imagination that there were only two choices. Many of the benefits of democracy in places like Lebanon could've been achieved by us exerting more diplomatic pressure on countries like Egypt where even though we give them tons of aid we have been historically loath to criticize there policies. The containment of Saddam could've been ratcheted up. One option that I would've considered is arming and training Shiites in the areas protected by the No-Flyzone to further weaken the regime and take control of the Southern oil fields. I would've encouraged the Kurds to take control of the Northern oil fields. With both Southern and Northern oil fields in hostile hands Saddam's regimes days would've been numbered. Its only a lack of imagination and flexible thinking on the part of leadership that only two possibilites were considered. I didn't say that anyone stopped looking for him but a lot of countries haven't supporter our geo political efforts on a variety of fronts, including the war on terror, because of Iraq.
And there is nothing to say had we not gone into Iraq we still wouldn't be fighting them in Afghanistan. Except we would be wholly engaged against the local warlords in the mountains in Afghanistan ala the Soviets circa 1984. Not the best of options. Instead we have a battle for the hearts and minds of Islam in the heart of the Middle East. A battle that very well could be turning in our favor. Lol, we are not talking about any possible policy that YOU could think up. We are talking about the two choices that were on the table at the time. I can imagine that space aliens come from mars and zappo all the bad AQ guys and give us renewable energy. That doesn't mean that is an actual choice. You have to show a propensity for a particular choice to have occured. At the time there were only TWO likely outcomes - either continue the inspections (status quo) or intervene. Whether or not you think that should have been different is irrelevant. And of course there is the asides that we had three administrations in that span and their two choices we as mentioned above. But maybe the reasons they didn't consider YOUR options are that Turkey would have been NONE too happy to have the Kurds seize northern oil fields and declare independence. Nor would too many people have been real happy ARMING the Sadr militia. Nor is there any indication that Saddam could not have crushed any such rebellion in the south as he has empirically done again and again. Nor is there any indication that an ARMED shiite militia would have done anything but attempt to break off from Iraq - starting the full scale civil war so many doomsayers keep saying is around the bend. None of that, of course, even touches on the reality that you'd have gotten NO support for any of those policy fantasies from either the Middle East nations nor the EU or China or Russia. Not true. Please give an example where a country has refused to do something in the hunt for Osama because of Iraq. That is simply fiction. They are as scared of the guy as anyone else.
I'm still criticizing Dubya and will continue to criticize him, so if I'm not silenced, and if plenty of other people are not at all silenced, isn't the title of this thread complete B.S.? A liar has to lie to cover the lie that came before. Why should George stop now?
