It’s looking less and less likely, Tony Blair’s borderline pathetic urgings notwithstanding, that we’re going to find WMDs in Iraq. To date, the best we can come up with is a few trailers that, while testing negative for anything remotely contraband, appear to have no legitimate purpose, according to the US (maybe).
So, knowing now what we do – that Iraq was about as much of a threat to the US as a rabid dog is to Godzilla – would you have been in favor of the war in Iraq if we had to do it all over again?
I’m particularly interested in those who feel disillusioned by the dishonesty/incompetence of the Bush Administration.
Also, if I may raise a pre-emptive corrolary… if you still would have been in favor of the War, because Saddam went against the U.N., are you in favor of war against all UN treaty breakers (such as Israel, if I’m not mistaken)? Or, if you still would have been in favor of the War because Saddam was a Bad Man and gassed his people and such… could you tell me why Iraq and not any other “evil” nation, such as the Congo, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Cuba… you get the picture.
I never bought in the "Irak has plenty of WMD and is going to use them soon or to give them to terrorists stuff. So, though I believed Irak had some…let’s say “banned weapons” rather than “WMD” (since the latter word doesn’t really fit with what I believed Irak had), the fact that none was found (and I’m not fully convinced that none will be ever found) doesn’t change my opinion.
It took me a long time to make my mind about this issue, especially since the US stance was so messed up, stinly and sometimes laughable, that it was difficult not to oppose the war just on this basis. On the overall, guiven Saddam’s history and acts, given the enormous number of his victims, I wished his dismissal dearly. My only concern was : what will be the likely outcome? Could the war last a long time, making so much victims and damages that it would be worse than Saddam staying in charge? What could be the consequences of this war (and we won’t know that for sure before many years). Also, I had some concerns about the precedent the US was creating and the way it could be used by many other countries. And actually many other issue I’m not going to list. Eventually, I thought it was worth it, and more likely to do more good than harm.
Now, you’re asking, why Irak rather than several other countries you’re listing. First, I would say that on my personnal “evil guy” scale, Saddam ranked very high, and that there are few dictatorships in the world I would have put at the same level. North-Korea would indeed be one, but certainly not Cuba, for instance. So, that’s the first part of my answer. IMO, Saddam’s Irak was much worse than most other dictatorships and he did much more harm than most other dictators.
The second part of my answer is that Bush didn’t ask me which country he should invade. The US wanted to oust Saddam, not Kim-Jong-Il. So, the only thing I had to wonder about was : “Do I support this war in particular?”, not “which dictator deserves the most to be ousted?”
I was not in favor of the war against Iraq for the very reason Bush and company had not convinced me Saddam was a threat to the USA, and that Bush had not convinced me those WMDs really existed. Even if WMDs had been found by now, I still would maintain my reservations for the war because of the the process used by Bush to justify and start the war.
What is truly unfortunate, in fact has serious undertones to it, is that Bush and company managed to create an atmosphere that the end justify the means, but that so many Americans believe this method is good and righteous in the first place.
Notwithstanding Saddam was a bad boy, and the atrocities he committed against his own people (let alone others) should have been enough to oust him. Yet Bush and company did not present this before or at the same time they pushed the WMD angle. I always got the impression Bush wanted to take out Saddam first, then tried to figure out a justification to do so second. And in doing so, he also bungled his justification steps and the process he used for those steps.
I do believe that ideology is the driving force in the Bush White House. What is missing are objective and pragmatic thought processes. The ideology must come first.
I was not in favor of the war in Iraq for the simple reason that I did not think it was in the US’s interest to do so. However, I did not doubt that S.H. had violated the terms and conditions of the cease fire of Gulf War I and, for that reason alone, the US was morally justified in undertaking the invasion. I think that is a point lost on many of the folks crying foul.
But I would say it was a tough call-- whether or not the invasion was the right thing to do for the US. And Iraq has a chance to be a better place for the 25M or so inhabitants of that country. There may be a few other dictators as evil as S.H., but none that I know of who were in a similar situation: S.H. invaded Kuwait, was repelled and given certain terms and conditions for a cease fire (ie, that we wouldn’t have taken out in Gulf War I). I would have preferred that we never offered him those conditions, and that we toppled his regime in 1990. The fact that it was delayed by 13 yrs or so does not make it any less legitimate.
Did Bush bumble on his communication of why he was invading Iraq? Yes, he did a terrible job of that. But it does not alter the facts.
Saddam’s Iraq may not have been an immediate threat to the US per say, but it is undeniable his regime was a threat to humanity.
Whether Bush and Co. misled the public about WMD is still up in the air, but removing Saddam’s regime from power is something that has been long overdue.
Because I believe the United States should be above manipulative and deceptive tactics like making up excuses to start a war against someone who didn’t pose a threat to us?
Well, yes, but when leaders make really lousy or manipulative arguments about issues, you don’t reject the merits of the issue out of hand. You simply ignore their claptrap and form your own educated opinion.
And although Bush exagerrated the threat, there was also the human rights portion of his argument, which had merit and could not have been overstated considering the nature of the regime.
I’d dispute that Bush and co. exagerrated. To exagerrate a threat, it has to first exist. And though I opposed the war, I’m actually less convinced of this than ever.
The human rights situation in Iraq was awful under Hussein, but I’m hard-pressed to argue it’s improved. Certainly thousands of people were killed in the war, which puts us on the wrong foot there. The use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs and such does not, in my opinion, indicate a concern for human rights.
And I DO have a problem with the argument itself, because I feel it was extremely disingenuous. There are tons of other countries with egregious human rights problems. Where is their help? [Of course, the US is not at all the only country guilty of ignoring this problem.] I think Bush harped on the issue because it was convenient and appeared to add weight to his argument - it was the one point nobody could argue with.
The human rights situation is better, simply because there is no madman committing mass murder right now. There is chaos and violence, yes, but no calculated campaigns of genocide going on as there were before, and now the people can speak where before they could not.
Have you seen the torture chambers and heard the stories of those brutally tortured under S.H.? I had to look away from the newcast I saw describing the details-- it was too horrible to imagine. Can you seriously say that human rights have not improved? Good God, man, have you not seen the massive protests that have been going on over there against the US? What would’ve happend to those people had the been protesting S.H. 6 months ago?
People were killed in the war. True. I’m not dismissing that. It was a tragedy. But other than the “velvet revolution” in Eastern Europe, dictators are rarely, if ever, overthrown without some booldshed.
Revisionism, John. We weren’t sold this military adventure as an excercise in international do-goody. We were sold on the notion of an imminent threat to us.
Intention either matter, or they don’t. I contend they do. Do you contend otherwise?
I am just continuously amazed at how lightly some things are taken.
The government of the United States LIES to us, threatens the UN, bribes governements, villifies governements, threatens NATO and starts a war of agression (even sets it as a policy).
And all people say is; “well, Saddam was a bad man, good he’s gone, next issue.”
I’ll admit I expected that evidence of WMD production and terrorist support would be found in Iraq after the war. Both activities certainly seemed in keeping with the Baghdad regime. And it now appears very likely neither activity was occurring.
But I still support the war. In my opinion, Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown because of his actions against the Iraqi people, and there is ample evidence that these actions were every bit as bad as pre-war reports said they were.
As for the other “bad dictatorships” mentioned in the OP, in my opinion, we should have intervened in Rwanda and North Korea if the opportunity existed. The other nations (again in my opinion) while bad, do not exceed the threshold of inhumanity.
As for my opinions of the Bush administration, nothing about its actions so far has caused changed me to change the opinions I held before its start. I continue to await 2004 with the hope that this nation can do better.
Basically, I’m saying that there are a lot of nations run by regimes that are unpleasant. But very few that are so bad that they should be overthrown by any army that’s in the neighborhood. Sort of a “Mussolini was bad, but Hitler was evil” scale.
Obviously it’s a highly subjective standard (and I stated so in my previous post). I guess if I had to try to create an objective standard, I’d ask “is this regime so bad, that virtually any change of government would be for the better?”
I dunno, I can name some pretty awful places that would really do nicely for intervention. Congo, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Cuba come to mind off the bat.
To address the OP, I think there are serious, serious ethical problems in the way this war was sold. Nobody in their right mind will argue that Saddam was a nice guy, that we should have negotiated with him, that we did a bad thing by “getting rid” of him. This war was sold to us on a number of levels.
The Iraqis are better off without Saddam.
The region is more stable without Saddam.
The world is better off without Saddam.
Everyone here agrees that 1) is probably true. Although, upsetting a regime and creating a power vacuum which we so far seem unable and unwilling to fill creates potential for very bad things to occur. Same thing with Afghanistan. Rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be going quite poorly to this point. While I recognize representative government isn’t built in a day, I really question whether the US has the backbone to stick around long enough for it to be built. By not finding Saddam and Sons, we have left open the possibility that he may one day return to power.
Number 2) and 3) is where we run into serious problems. This is where we start to question evidence about WMD and terrorist camps. Apparently, ousting Saddam has done nothing IMHO to increase anyone’s security outside of Iraq. He didn’t have a large WMD program, he didn’t support terrorist groups, he didn’t actively threaten his neighbors. He had a pathetic military totally hamstrung by sanctions and totally incapable of mounting even a modicum of resistance to an invasion. Certainly he did not have the capability to project power. While we have distracted ourselves with Iraq, others in the world have made our lives less secure. Iran and North Korea are developing nukes. al Qaeda apparently is still going strong, and is able to coordinate attacks against US interests in numerous countries.
After 9/11, we began fighting a war against terrorism. With each day that passes, Gulf War II looks like an unwelcome distraction from it. It was a waste of manpower and military resources. Most of all, it was a total squander of world support for a continuing effort to rid the planet of extremists who would kill innocents.