- Yes.
-It’s a complex question for me and I think the nation. I think that removing dictators from power is something that, on the face of things, everyone should support. I think that as the most powerful democracy we have an obligation to the world to gradually seek to make the world a better place, which means removing dictators and totalitarian governments where they are.
So, morally I support the idea of removing Saddam Hussein. At the time of the invasion I was not sure, and am still not sure, if I thought it would be the best thing to do right now. One can support the idea of removing Saddam Hussein and still believe that with other things considered it could actually be worse for all parties to make such a move at this time. Unfortunately not all dictatorships can be easily cured by an invasion.
Another issue is, the outright toppling of Saddam Hussein simply because he was a “bad guy” was only a very small part (almost overshadowed) of the justification to the war. To me, there’s a difference to how I justify military action and how the government does. The arguments that were coming out of the White House was that Saddam Hussein represented an ongoing threat that would eventually, with time, become a major threat. I do not disagree with that general assessment. I felt that in the here and now, Saddam was not a big threat to us, but I did feel that as years passed and sanctions were lifted and Saddam and his sons had time to rebuild Iraq would eventually become a threat on the level of Iran or North Korea. However, I do not think an outright war was the best “first choice” for dealing with a future threat.
From a geopolitical standpoint I never supported the war. I knew from day one this war would be a huge strategic involvement for the United States and would have huge costs. It is one reason I always found the “oil” argument so ridiculous, I knew it was beyond imagination that any oil we would get at reduced prices or whatever would even come close to covering the cost of a major war and reconstruction effort. However I’m not sure states should conduct themselves solely based on a 19th century geopolitical realpolitik view of the world.
In the here and now I unconditionally support the continued American involvement in Iraq. I was unsure about my feelings on the invasion, then and now. What I am not unsure about is that as the most powerful country in the world when we undertake something like this we have what should be an inerrant responsibility to stay the course and do whatever is necessary to help the Iraqi people towards a better life and a better country.
If at some point our presence actually hinders that process, I’d support a pullout. While I think our presences gives the insurgents a popular target, I do not at this juncture think we could pull out without causing more harm than good, and I will support our continued presence there until that equation changes, even if said presence lasts 50 years. \
-
Male
-
48