Now that the American and British military are being cheered and hugged in the streets of Baghdad, what are the protesters and Hollywood types going to do now? These who lived under the tyranny and brutality of Saddam are now dancing in the streets. Surely the protesters can’t claim that they know better than the Iraqi’s who lived under the shadow of Saddam. Will they admit that they were wrong, or do they continue to argue that this war was wrong? And if they do, what will be their argument?
This thread is going to be moved quickly to Great Debates, since your questions are more rhetorical than factual. But for some reportorial background on this question, see the New York Times article of April 9, “Residents Blare Horns, Dance and Empty Government Offices”.
This question wrongly presupposes that all antiwar protesters support Saddam’s regime. It moreover does not belong in GQ.
Oh heck, since this is going to be moved to Great Debates anyway, I’ll add a a few rhetorical questions of my own. Where were all those European protestors when Saddam Hussein gassed to death thousands of his own people? Where was the protestors’ compassion then? Did I miss those mass rallies?
In fairness, I think nobody was protesting in favor of Saddam Hussein any more then people were protesting in favor of Pol Pot.
And in not-so-fairness, I think the act of protesting against a clear tyrant for the sole sake of not wanting to take a chance of endangering your own is the dictionary definition of cowardice.
As factual as I can make this answer, since it’s still GQ: There exist at least some people who believe that, while Saddam’s regime was bad, that preemptive military action by a small number of countries was the wrong way to end that regime. In other words, they believe that the ends do not justify the means in this case.
Likewise, there exist at least some people who are opposed to Saddam’s actions, but restricted themselves to protesting the actions of their own government, since the United States government is a lot more likely to listen to United States protestors than is Saddam.
This is, indeed, going to get moved to Great Debates, where it can be discussed more fully.
But as a factual representation of someone’s opinion ;), I would assert that, in the protestors’ view, continuing to agitate about the Bush Administration’s short-sighted actions is a good idea. The military victory is only Phase One in a very long series of steps that will be required to bring peace and stability to Iraq, and it’s probably the easiest, too. The few weeks of military action was just the beginning; winning the peace will be far, far more difficult.
Therefore the protestors keep calling attention to what’s going on, so we can’t pretend this was all we had to do and turn our back on the region, the way we did to Afghanistan. (Remember them?) Furthermore, if you read up on Wolfowitz and those who share his views, the war on Iraq was never about liberation anyway; it’s merely the first instructive salvo in a much wider plan. Hell, they were advocating a pre-emptive attack on Iraq since before Bush was President; the “war on terror” stuff was just a lucky happenstance that made it easier to sell to the public.
Given all of this, it’s totally understandable why the protestors don’t feel the issue has evaporated. I think we’re all happy things seem to have gone well* and the fears about bloody street-by-street fighting in Baghdad didn’t materialize, but you’re fooling yourself if you think the hard part is over.
*Anybody else curious about why Saddam’s leadership seemed to bug out so quickly and efficiently? How hard would it be to stash a bunch of chemical-weapon devices on the top floors of several Baghdad high-rises and turn the whole city into a gigantic booby trap?
Let’s add it up, as Andrew Sullivan might say. Under 100 American casualties, half of which came from accidents. No use of tactical WMD. Extraordinarily targeted bombing; exceptionally light force; oil wells intact; Israel secure; Turks kept at bay.
Tyranical regime that killed thousands of its citizens, ten of thousands of its neighbors in two wars it started, and regularly practices torture, is now deposed.
Yes, I’d say the ends justify the means, by a huge margin.
When did we turn our backs? They just sent more troops over there a couple of weeks ago.
Since September 11, 2001, the United States provided nearly $900 million for Afghan relief and reconstruction.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has announced an initiative for the rehabilitation and construction of 1,000 schools across the country over the next three years, the printing of up to 15 million textbooks, and for the training of 30,000 classroom teachers.
The USAID has alsocompleted over 6,100 water-related projects, including wells, irrigation canals, karezes, dams, reservoirs, and potable water systems; and is rehabilitating 2,500 miles of road and reconstructing 31 bridges.
The USAID also contributed to an 82 percent increase in fall 2002 wheat yields by providing fertilizer and improved wheat seed to 113,000 farmers in 12 provinces.
More information on the USAID’s work in Afghanistan.
I suggest that the issue is moral, not mathematical.
Right. It was immoral to sit back and allow such atrocities in that country.
Thank you.
Except that–OOPS–GWB kinda sorta forgot to request any aid for Afghanistan in the last budget and Congress had to step in.
The Lefty Hollywood types surely were not in support or S.H., but how many times did we see Palestinians waiving pictures of that tyrant. I think we’ve only seen the beginning of Iraqis “dancing in the street”. What will the Palestinians have to say then???
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Well to be fair about it, unleashing vastly superior forces against another nation and killing it’s leaders on the mere supposition of potential threats, backed up with les and innuendo, but seldom facts, is a better fit for the definition of cowardice than standing up for what’s right in the face of millions mommies afraid that Saddam’s going to nuke their babies.
The invasion / liberation of Iraq had a moral motive - hands up who knew ?
Sure, the victor gets to right history, but on *the same day * ! Jeez …
I am genuinely glad for the Iraqis celebrating in the streets. If anything good comes out of this rotten war, it will be their freedom. And I sincerely hope that they are allowed to regain their self-determination; that the U.S. doesn’t install a puppet government and then look the other way when nasty things start happening. But I don’t think for a minute that the liberation of the Iraqi people is why the U.S. started the war.
Walloon: I notice that you did not mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties in your tally. How do they factor into the equation, if at all? Or do they fall under the “you have to break a few eggs in order to make an omlette” theory of war?