What’s to doubt? The statement is that no serious plan has been put forth. Thus, we cannot argue (except in blind faith) that this was will be a long term good for the Iraqi people.
I did not say the US would pull up stakes and go home the day after confirming the corpse, but that is no guarantee that the war will provide a better world for the Iraqi people.
You asked why you shoudl believe the war is wrong. Support for teh war tends to fall into one of three broad categories: it’s a good thing for Americans, it’s a good thing for the international community, it’s a good thing for the Iraqi people. The first two of those are highly suspect. The last is based upon blind faith. Blind faith is not, IMO, a good enough reason to invade another country.
I should qualify my statement, though, with the observation that teh lifting of economic sanctions will quite likely be a good thing for many Iraqi people. I do not acept the proposition, though, that the only way to lift sanctions is to invade first.
Yes. Iraq does not exist in a vaccuum. It exists in a very troubled and volitile part of the world. I see very little hope that teh outcome of this war will be a safer world.
I think the point here is that people are worried that our policy in Iraq will be much like our current policy in Afghanistan. Meaning that we’ll leave a comparitively small peacekeeping force, but it won’t be sufficient to actually control the entire country, and meanwhile there will be constant skirmishes with hostile forces.
Fair Persephone, if you haven’t seen a plan, why haven’t you? Surely the wise and just men who have been reluctantly dragged into this war, after about 10 years of demanding it, surely they have had time to consider this question.
Which leads some, including yours truly, to suspect that they have, indeed, a plan but not one that they think they can sell right now. Havent figured out a way to wrap it up in red white and blue bunting. Haven’t come up with a noble sounding purpose to compare with “liberating Iraq”.
And as to reasons to believe this war is wrong, well, how about being lied to? If a war is necessary and unavoidable, wouldn’t that be clear? If Iraq truly is a threat to the US, why would it be necessary to invent things to scare us with?
Actually, my fear is that post-war Iraq, with or without US occupation (sorry, liberation), the remaining factions will fight violently with each other.
Afghanistan is at least mostly as single ethnic group, with many smaller tribal-type alliances. Iraq has three major ethnic groups, forced to live together under borders drawn by colonialists.
We’ll be damn lucky if Iraq looks anywhere near as good as Afghanistan (and not that Afghanistan looks that great).
Anyway, with regards to the post-war Iraq plans, here is a link worthy of a quick read (not that it will instill any confidence):
No serious plan has been put forth, to whom? I’m not a Cabinet member, I’m not military, I’m not UN. No serious plan has been put forth to me, because I’m just a middle-class American citizen who, while concerned and confused and questioning, understands that the politicos don’t need my stamp of approval on what the “new Iraq” will look like. So yes, it’s blind faith, I guess.
What are they outright lying about, elucidator? I know we haven’t found any WMD’s yet, and the link between Hussein and Al-Qaida hasn’t been carved-in-stone proven (not yet, anyway–please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t a terrorist camp just found in Northern Iraq?), but that doesn’t mean that they’re just lying.
Don’t misunderstand me here–I’m certainly not saying the government tells the absolute truth 100% of the time. And I’m not a sheep here, just falling in line with the President because he said it was right and just. The opinions I’ve formed have been formed by me, not for me. That’s why I started this thread. I’m pretty sure this conflict is for the right reasons, but I still have questions.
That’s also why I praise my Deity every day for places like the SDMB, where I can ask these questions and get not just others’ plain old opinions, but concrete answers as well. So I think I’ll go read **Collounsbury’s ** thread now.
Persephone, dear, there’s an important misconception in your words here. ‘Just’ a middle-class American citizen? There ain’t no ‘just’ there: this is a democracy.
The details of waging the war may be the President’s to hold close to his vest, but the justification for it, and its aims, need to be shared with the American people, in order for us and our representatives in Congress to give meaningful consent to this action.
What we’re going to replace Saddam with is part of the war aims. And if the claim is that we’re going to bring democracy to Iraq, knowing how is essential, since you don’t get a viable democracy just by pushing a few buttons, or giving a handful of leaders some remedial civics classes.
If G.W. isn’t sharing that plan, then it’s reasonable to assume he doesn’t have a good one, and that his hope to bring democracy to Iraq is based on moonbeams.
I seem to recall a debate in congress wherein the reasons for war were discussed, and the athorization to use was force was given to the President by our elected congressional representatives.
You may not like the reasons. You may think they are wrong. You may not like the justification, but it is hardly accurate to suggest these things have not been done, have not been given.
Much more debate went into this than when we sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia, or Haiti, and the last President who attacked Iraq (for the very same reasons that we are doing so now,) didn’t bother to get Congressional athorization.
There has been an unprecedented amount of debate and discussion concerning this conflict, originating from the executive office, and I’ll challlenge anyone to find a case where more was disclosed and discussed to the public before the start of hostilities than this one.
If I understand the President we are not going to bring a Democracy to Iraq. Iraq will self-rule, and will choose its own government Democratically. But, there is no guarrantee that the Iraqi people will choose an American style Democracy.
It is not for us to design Iraq’s new government, and I’m glad we’re not trying to.
I seem to recall a debate in congress wherein the reasons for war were discussed, and the athorization to use was force was given to the President by our elected congressional representatives.
You may not like the reasons. You may think they are wrong. You may not like the justification, but it is hardly accurate to suggest these things have not been done, have not been given.
Much more debate went into this than when we sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia, or Haiti, and the last President who attacked Iraq (for the very same reasons that we are doing so now,) didn’t bother to get Congressional athorization.
There has been an unprecedented amount of debate and discussion concerning this conflict, originating from the executive office, and I’ll challlenge anyone to find a case where more was disclosed and discussed to the public before the start of hostilities than this one.
If I understand the President we are not going to bring a Democracy to Iraq. Iraq will self-rule, and will choose its own government Democratically. But, there is no guarrantee that the Iraqi people will choose an American style Democracy.
It is not for us to design Iraq’s new government, and I’m glad we’re not trying to.
No - Quite the opposite. Afghanistan is a very ethnically heterogenous country. Indeed there is no single group that equals even 50% of the total population - The largest are the dominant Pashtun, who make up about 45%.
What I should have referenced was religious differences as opposed to ethnic differences.
85% of Afghanis are Sunni Muslim, most of the remainder are Shia Muslims.
Iraq is more like 60% Shia, most of the remainder are Sunni.
And Tamerlane, should you stop back in, I’d be interested in your perspective as to whether Afghanistan is useful as a model for “nation-building” in Iraq. I’d be particularly interested in what you might see as the differences of significance.
The problem is, even though it is possible to justify taking out Saddam Hussein for humanitarian reasons, that is not the situation here.
I admit, I have been trying to convince myself of the same thing. That the war seems terrible, but we have to free the Iraqis from Hussein’s regime.
But is that really what is happening? On the contrary, Bush is playing up the idea that Iraq is a future threat to the US, and so we get to invade Iraq in advance, even without UN support, and even though it creates hatred of the US that is likely more dangerous than Iraq itself. And before that, he was telling us we had to enforce the UN’s rules, by disobeying the UN. Obviously a ridiculous justification.
If Bush had treated this as a humanitarian campaign from the beginning, he would have had more support. The fact that he did not, and was perhaps incapable of doing do, just as he is incapable of diplomacy or caring about international opinion, is scary.
So my conclusion is that, even though what we are doing could have been justified on humanitarian grounds, it was not, and it is not. It is wrong because we are going about it in a horribly wrong way, for the wrong reasons.
scylla
I do not believe that anyone has claimed that teh justifications were not given to the American public (and the world, for that matter). The claim is that the aims, beyond the immediate removal from power of the current regime, have not been presented to the American people (or the world, for that matter).
There is a fallacy involved in treating military operations of vastly different scope as if they were equivalent exercises of executive power. Digging back a bit further we can make similar observations about Panama, Grenada, and Lebanon. But the only event that is appropriately parallel in recent US history is the first Gulf War, for which there was quite a bit of public, and spirited, debate.
Then the entire premise that this is a rescue mission of sorts for the people of Iraq is entirely without foundation. Many things can happen once we let Iraq be Iraq, including a new boss bad as the old boss, or civil war and anarchy that would be even worse. (Yes, Virginia, there are worse things in the world than Saddam Hussein’s rule.) On the whole, bad things are more likely than good ones, since Iraq has no recent tradition of self-rule other than the sort they’ve got now.
Since that’s the moral justification that the Bushies are giving for this war, then it follows that if you’re telling the truth, then they’re lying. Not that that would fill me with shock and awe.