I’m just curious why most of the world seems to have done a 180 degree turn on this–unless my memory is exaggerating the extent to which people wanted Saddam gone in 1991. Now, most of the world seems to hate us for trying. Protesters exhibit a level of rage, and determination to be as disruptive as possible in order to get their message across, not seen since the 60’s. In fact, though I was just a kid then and might not have heard, I don’t remember there ever being urban downtown protests like we’re seeing now. People did their protesting in the colleges, or held rallies or teach-ins in some large public place that could accommodate a crowd.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, in retrospect I could understand the passioned protests against our involvement in Viet Nam. To an extent, it’s arguable that we were mostly being fed lies by the media and by the schools, largely to the effect that any communist was the bad guy, and any noncommunist was the good guy, regardless of the fact that that category took in brutal Latin American dictators, and similar rulers elsewhere. So what were we fighting for in Viet Nam? Yeah, I can understand why people ask that question.
But coming down to the present, about the only difference I can make out is that, in this case, is that Saddam has not invaded Kuwait this time. Actually he has now, but only, supposedly, because we’ve attacked him first. But there’s no reason to think that Saddam has reformed in the past 12 years, unanimous elections notwithstanding. Why do people think he should be left alone to exercise his brutal dominion over the Iraqis? And what peaceful means do they imagine could remove him before the end of his natural life?
For starters, after having fought us once before, he now knows us, & our military’s little ways.
You’ll notice that he’s doing much better this time than last time, & he has no air power at all, now.
Also, 9/11 woke us up to something that was true the last time, but nobody quite grasped it-- the Middle East can hit us at home.
Finally, much of the problem is not anti-US sentiment, but anti-George W. sentiment. The man is just not liked, except by a few. And nobody likes him overseas. he just p^sses people off.
I’ve heard that even Thatcher dislikes him, at least personally.
I also don’t think there was an international desire to oust Saddam back in '91. IIRC, one of the key reasons that most Middle Eastern nations even supported the first Gulf War at all was because the United States and the United Nations made it very clear that ousting Saddam wasn’t the goal – merely the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
[nitpick]
Of course, last time we were fighting him in Kuwait, while this time we’ve actually invaded his country. Fighting someone away from their home is a lot different than fighting them on their own turf.
[/nitpick]
I agree with Bosda, though. Much of the opposition to this war stems from a great dislike of Bush. It’s not that the US is invading Iraq, it’s that Bush is invading Iraq. He’s a republican, but even moreso, he’s a Reaganite republican from Texas. That’s, like double the cooties, or something. If Clinton had done this, there would have been opposition, but nowhere near as much. Granted, Bush Sr. was a republican as well, but he was pretty squishy as the pubbies go.
The Bush angle is undoubtedly a big part of it. My own view is that if Saddam Hussein had happened to be directly responsible for the events of 9/11/01, and if Bush had happened to attack him then, his approval rating would be much more than it is.
I think that the biggest difference is that a lot of people don’t see Saddam as being an active aggressor this time around.
The first time, Saddam rolled tanks across the border into another country and a lot of people united to throw him out of Kuwait. It’s easy to see that as coming to the defense of a helpless victim.
This time, Saddam has been sitting in Iraq for the last 12 years, he’s certainly being sullen and uncooperative but it’s harder to find that general agreement that he’s taken some overt action that must be met with military force. There isn’t any worldwide consensus that he’s got WMD all brewed up and ready to go - there’s a lot of spirited debate about it but nobody has been able to say “Here’s the bank of missiles with the 500 mile range and the botulism toxin warheads, rarin’ to go.”
Think of it this way - you see your big, mean neighbor charge up and start hitting your small, relatively inoffensive neighbor. Pretty easy for a bunch of folks to justify jumping into the fray and whupping the big attacker - overt act of violence in progress, right in front of you.
A few years later you notice that while he hasn’t attacked anybody else, he’s spending a lot of time in his house mumbling to himself and giving people nasty looks and you think that you saw him putting together a shotgun in his living room. Now it’s harder to get everyone else all fired up about and charge in to take the guy down.
Now, having said that…let’s suppose GWB had raised the subject of Iraq with some initial addresses to the nation explaining his concerns that Iraq was in violation of agreements set up after Gulf War I and explaining why – either despite the fact that we were hip-deep in an open-ended fuzzily focused War on Terrorism already, or because of that fact, with supporting rationale; that GWB’s administration had subsequently taken his case to the international community (which was largely supportive of the US’s need to react to the events of 9/11) and set forth a timetable and conditions and whatnot; and that, subsequently, Iraq had been deemed by the international community to be insufficiently cooperative in light of the heightened concerns about terrorist activities in the post-9/11 world; and that, then, GWB had, in conjunction with a diverse coalition of nations, initiated military activities against Iraq.
Totally different situation. Even though it’s the same Iraq.
It’s the difference between calling the police and having the appropriate representatives of an orderly society arrest, charge, try and execute a murder suspect, and shooting him yourself.
Actually it’s the difference between callng the police and having the appropriate representatives of an orderly society arrest, charge, try and execute a murder suspect, and blowing his ass to smouldering smithereens yourself with a a barrage of anti-aircraft fire from your own personal armory of which the neighboring community is rather terrified without adequately explaining to anyone why you are so damn sure he committed a murder in the first place.
—I agree with Bosda, though. Much of the opposition to this war stems from a great dislike of Bush.—
I agree: but I think that it’s more complicated than that, and can’t just be dismissed because of it. They come from a lack of trust for the man and his motivations compared to someone like Clinton. I sincerely believe that Clinton could have sold this war to the world if he thought it was necessary (though I doubt he would have: Republicans destroyed his political capital with a scorched earth campaign that made it impossible for him to build support for any major change), and could have gotten even France and Germany on board. Clinton had built up great credit with the rest of the world. Bush spent the first two years of his Presidency snubbing and lashing out at the rest of the world in an almost nasty way. That proved to be unbelievably pointless and ill-timed.
I think the French government, in particular, is taking their position for very craven reasons. If anyone is in this for oil, it’s them. But they could have been brought on board with the right pitch: but instead they were made to feel totally alienated and directly threatened by the process. That too was a total waste, and utter lack of sensible diplomacy.
Many anti-war people agree that Saddam Hussein should go, but a war is not the way to do it: the end does not justify the means. US ecnomic actions in the war have strongly suggested that the “Blood for Oil” people is not that far off, that there is a very strong economic component behind this invasion. That simply is unethical.
Domestic opposition to Gulf War I itself was actually stronger than that to GWII. (Remember the Congressional war resolution of January 1991 squeaked through the Senate by only a few votes.)
As pointed out, the war aims did not include regime change, although they did include destroying any potential nuclear-weapons program Saddam had. (In fact, the possibility that Saddam might eventually have nukes was the only thing that finally moved the American public overall to a point of mild, and I emphasize mild, support for the war.)
The opportunity to drive to Baghdad and take out Saddam was exactly that - an opportunity that briefly arose in the final hours of GWI.
Consequently, there was never a full-scale public debate over the risks and consequences, even afterwards. (I have no idea how it’s been treated in serious journals of military affairs.) For most of us armchair generals, it’s along the lines of, “Geez, we coulda just walked right in there.” “Yeah, sure, we should have done it while we had the chance.” “Damn straight. Now, who wants another brewski?”
By the time that hypothetical opportunity arose in 1991, we’d already done all the objectionable bad shit to make it happen. We’d bombed Baghdad for six weeks, we’d killed thousands of Saddam’s reluctant draftees by various means, including burying them alive; we’d inadvertently killed Lord knows how many civilians.
Even if you believe we shouldn’t have done all the nasty shit in the first place, there’s an argument that, having already done it, we should make the best use of it. To reverse the old saying, if you’ve already broken the eggs, then you might as well go ahead and make a really good omelet.
Hussein (let’s not demean him by using his first name, shall we?) is not the issue for either Bush or the anti-war crew.
God only knows what Bush wants. A dollar that’s strong against the Euro? A good time? Ancient Sumerian artifacts? Jewish dominion over the middle east?
Many protesters, I believe, are scared that Bush is Hitler II. A protest against the war on Iraq is, I believe, a protest against religious crusades in general, against the 2000 election, against Homeland Security, against Alaskan oil drilling, against tax cuts for the rich, against Guantanamo bay, against propaganda and media control, against political nepotism, against plutocracy, against corporate corruption, and against capitalism.
I don’t mean to suggest that every protester is against all of these things, but I think that the vast majority have agendas beyond the welfare Iraqi civilians. The tragedy is that focusing on the war is playing into Bush’s hands, by failing to publicly acknowledge the important domestic issues.
I agree that the war is unjust, and I agree that Hussein should not be in power. From the little bit of information I can get, I think that the USA is conducting the war admirably. I’ll cheer them when they remove Hussein by whatever means. But starting a war unsupported by the UN, all the while removing freedoms from citizens, has too many similarities to horrors of history and fiction.
In 1991, the spectre of the USA as a police state was less imminent. The only people who bothered to protest were the people who were against the war itself.