|
celticlord2112 -> RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War (3/27/2008 7:30:57 AM)
|
quote:
You might want to take another look at that. Iraq had been putting thorns under everyones' saddles for a very long time, it was by far the most destabilizing force in the region. There was the Iran / Iraq war, in which poison gas was used not only on Iran but on his own people. Genocide against the Kurds and the Shia, mass murder and unspeakable torture on a scale that is mind-numbing to consider. The invasion, rape and pillaging of Kuwait. The targeting of coalition aircraft which were trying to enforce the 'no fly zone". Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists, and many other grievous misdeeds highly suspected by several major world powers. Saddam even wanted the world to believe he had WMDs because he feared the Iranians, and he thought they wouldn't attack Iraq if he kept the appearance up that he had them.
You say that Iraq was contained, but how well and for how long? Were we to patrol the skies over Iraq forever, getting shot at all the while? The oil-for-French-weapons program was only enriching corrupt United Nations officials and the French, Germans and others who were profiteering off the misery of the Iraqi people... as well as Saddam & Sons.
In 2003, Iraq was not a problem in search of a solution. Saddam was contained. The military dimensions of the containment (e.g., the no-fly zones) were dirt cheap compared to the cost of the military presence the current situtation requires--cheap both in dollars and in lives lost.
Saddam did provide support to terrorist groups, yet perversely his support had a "keeping up with the Joneses" flavor: The most notable group enjoying Iraq support at the time, Hamas, enjoys broad support througout the Arab world. Of the other groups enjoying Saddam's aid, most were of questionable or declining influence in the Middle East. Saddam did not aid Al-Quaeda directly, preferring the secular movements to the Islamic fundamentalist movements (there is evidence to indicate Saddam supported many groups also supported by Al-Quaeda, but this merely makes Al-Queada a coincidental Saddam "friend" rather than a committed one); Islamic fundamentalism, which is a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, was not backed by Saddam.
It is arguable that containment could not have been maintained indefinitely. By the same token, neither can US combat forces be maintained in Iraq in their current configuration indefinitely. Had containment broken down, it is exceedingly likely that Saddam would have become a grave and immediate threat in the Middle East, but it is also exceedingly likely that world opinion would have perceived him as such--the perception which was glaringly absent when Bush invaded in 2003.
It is possible, perhaps even probable, that regime change was inevitable in Iraq. However, it is undeniable that, in 2003, that question was far from settled, and by acting before it was settled, Bush alienated the international community rather than leading it. The very best characterization that can be placed on the 2003 invasion is that it was premature.
|
|
|
|
