Quote:
Originally posted by Buff@Mar 20 2004, 08:39 PM
I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. You seem to oppose the invasion and occupation, yet you seem not to want things to be the way they were before the invasion.
So basically, it seems like you're saying you like the ends, but the ends didn't justify the means. Or something like that. Is that close?
|
I suppose that's close. Saddam was an evil guy. I thought Saddam was an evil guy when he was the darling of the Reagan Administration. I have never changed my opinion. I have never, however, been a subscriber to the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" way of thinking.
First of all, I have never accepted the idea that Iraq was connected to the broader war on terror - Saddam's regiime had nothing in common with the likes of alQaida.
Secondly, I was in favor of the war when it appeared that the Bush Administration "had the goods" on Saddam's WMD programs and the like. When Colin Powell went in front of the U.N. General Assembly and performed more like an inept local prosecutor with no case at all, rather than Adli Stevenson during the Cuban Missle Crisis, I knew the administration was trying to sell the world a falsified bill of goods.
Regardless of the assurances of the Bush Administration, I believe that the war has taken assets away from the real war on terror. I believe that the unilateral nature of the invasion has damaged the U.S. reputation abroad, and will serve al Qaida's (or some other fundamentalist Islamic organization or state's) interests far more than our own over the long run.
In the short term, the Iraqi people have been relieved of fearing the government only to fear lawlessness and anarchy - and the somewhat esoteric concept of political liberty is esaping them at the moment.
In the long run, I suspect that we have unleashed forces that Saddam's regime kept in check. Mike pointed out a poll the other day where 72% of the Iraqis felt that things were going to get better. While that's encouraging, I wonder if there were not similar results in the immediate period after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia - and even absent the meddling of Iran in the Sunni/Shiite difficulties, or Syria/Turkey in the Kurds vs the world difficulties, it is not difficult to believe the possibility is ripe for the rise of a Mullah Milosovich.
I don't think the Bush Administration told the truth about why they went to war in Iraq. I don't think the Bush Administration had a plan for what to do with Iraq once we won - so while supporters of the war can bring up the positive effects of occupation of Germany and/or Japan all they want, the analogy doesn't hold - because we very definitely had a plan there. I don't think the Administration really has a fucking clue on what to do next. Specifically I think they are uncertain how they are going to turn power over to Iraqis on June 1 - to whom, under what form, or who will be doing what.
In short - the war was based on false pretenses, the planning for the inevitable victory was non-existent, and the current policy seems to be getting made up as we go along - which does not fit my definition of "focused."
What I am afraid of is that, in the war on terror, Iraq has or will become our Gallipoli.
03-20-2004
Linear Mode
