[q]The persistent threat posed by Saddam Hussein is permanently gone, the ethnic tensions in Iraq would have occured after any power shift and in the absence of the coalition the forces most likely to step in would have been Iran, Syria and Turkey. Iraq now has a democractically elected government that is allied with the United States in the GWOT and has an army that is getting stronger and more self-sufficient every day - the best course to get US troops out is supporting the elected government of the Iraqi people. Saddam has WMD programs which were ready for the time when sanctions were lifted, he was buying banned weapon systems up to the start of the war with money scammed from oil for food such as the North Korean missiles,.[/q]
Yes, we can say that these are good things, but we also have to look at what has been the cost of accomplishing these things. I think it’s simply bad thinking to present an either/or situation, and I think we both agree that Iraq would be in a state of all-out Civil War if not for US and British troops on the ground, sort of like the little Dutch boy and the dyke.
It’s very simple: all these accomplishments mean nothing if basic stability and security cannot be provided for people living in a post-dictatorship. I find the notion that the US is the only political model for the world to be offensive. Most people want economic and physical security first, as well as employment and basic human rights. Such things can be seen as great steps towards democratization, but a rush towards “democracy” at any cost in nations with no history of pluralism, no moderate political parties, and deep religious and ethnic divisions is almost asking for the legitimization of whichever strongman or religious thug “wins” the election.
We’ve also seen the igniting of Arab nationalism in many countries across the Middle East (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100599.html?sub=AR)
Quote: [q][ The war in Iraq has generated some of the most startling images in the Middle East today: a dictator's fall, elections in defiance of insurgent threats and carnage on a scale rarely witnessed. Less visibly, though, the war is building a profound legacy across the Arab world: fear and suspicion over Iraq's repercussions, a generation that casts the Bush administration's policy as an unquestioned war on Islam, and a subterranean reserve of men who, like Abu Haritha, declare that the fight against the United States in Iraq is a model for the future.[/q]
All the things you point out are true, but none of them constitute the “clear and present danger” or even a “grave and gathering threat” to the United States or to the UK. And this is the heart of the issue. There’s no question that some sort of international reckoning with SH was inevitable, but in order for the American public to have supported an all-out invasion of Iraq conducted mostly by American troops (and inevitable casualties), a sense of crisis and threat not only had to be created, but the specter of mushroom clouds and nukes floated on a barge up the East River to level Manhattan had to be instilled in the minds of the American public. Further, since no one wants a Vietnam, the public had to be reassured that it would be fairly quick and easy, that we’d be liberators, that the oil would pay for the reconstruction, that centuries of ethnic tensions could be dropped and Iraqis would suddenly discover modernity. Simply voting in an election doesn’t mean that tribal hatreds and beefs have been dropped.
Currently, we have 12,000 Iraqi deaths a year. We’re almost at 2,500 Americans killed. Close to 20,000 have been maimed (and I see legless and armless soldiers every week at lunchtime). Iran is in a much more influential position now than in 2002, and we are in a comparatively weaker situation to deal with them than we were in 2002.
We also need to look at what the occupation of Iraq has done to the region and to the world. I have already pointed out the drop in US credibility, which is of great concern, particularly because it is US leadership (predicated upon credibility) that will help the world face it’s biggest contemporary challenge: managing the rise of China and India, combating global AIDS, combating global warming, and brokering the creation of a Palestinian State. All of these tasks will be harder due to the damage Bush has inflicted on the international reputation of the US, making us seem more like the old USSR – from Abu Ghraib, to Gitmo, to the condoning of torture, to the secret prisons across Eastern Europe, and the rather obvious fact that
there were no WMDs in Iraq, which undercuts the entire case for war as presented to the American public and the world at large. this is a big deal. The case for war as made to the public had nothing to do with UN Resolutions and securing oil fields. It had everything to do with WMDs.
[q]The "narrative" that the stoppers are pushing don't gel with their own predictions pre-war , namely those of mass casualties (tens of thousands coalition troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's), mass exodus (millions of refugees) and inability of the Iraqi people to vote in elections because "it isn't in their culture". This coupled with a severe case of Vietnam attatchment syndrome which declares any foreign action a Vietnam-redux regardless of the actual conditions or forces has resulted in consistently wrong predictions (e.g. the actual time it took to topple the regime, taking Baghdad, casualties, elections, ratification of constitution, cabinets).[/q]
I wasn’t on FYM leading up to the war, but I can honestly say that I was never concerned with the war itself, or at least the first stage of the war. I believed Clinton when he said that he thought it would take about a week to overrun the Iraqi military. I was always concerned most with the damage to the US’s international reputation, the scary view that war is an acceptable (even preferable) foreign policy tool, as well as the difficulty in occupying a Muslim nation (Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule”).
anyway, I enjoy debating with you. It’s refreshing to hear actual arguments and engaged commentary instead of convenient numbers punctuated with exclamation points.
