|
Sanity -> RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War (3/27/2008 3:57:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
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.
I disagree. Containment forever was in no way a dirt cheap option, and again, containment wasn't even working.
Clinton was so convinced that your "contained" Saddam was working with al-Qaeda that he bombed their supposed joint venture in the Sudan, the aspirin factory / nerve gas production facility. Then there was Salman Pak, whether or not that was a terrorist camp is debatable, the CIA believed that's what it was.
quote:
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.
Yes, he supported terrorists, he was thought (by Clinton) to be working with al-Qaeda, and he had WMD technology and capability... the invasion was a no-brainer. Hindsight being 20/20 of course, things look different today but what that means is that we need better intelligence capabilities. Jimmy Carter working with Frank Church to destroy the CIA crippled the USA very badly in that regard and today the results are blamed on Bush, just like hurricanes and oil prices and everything else.
quote:
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.
We're maintaining forces in Korea indefinitely. In Germany indefinitely. And so on. So why not in Iraq, if they are our ally. And the propaganda that has formed current "world opinion" was crafted purely for political reasons. Had it been a Liberal like Bill Clinton who liberated Iraq "world opinion" would be completely different today.
quote:
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.
Nah, it seemed like the thing to do at the time. Really, the only ones who weren't on board were the hard core socialists who loved Saddam and those who were making killer money off the suffering of the Iraqi people. The propaganda campaign by the left has been effective though, they made a flavor of kool-aide that even some Conservatives obviously like to drink.
|
|
|
|
