Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 10:37 AM

  @Xrandadu Hutmamn

  Xrandadu Hutmamn I think you don't know what you're talking about.

  Are you always this rabid?

  Xrandadu Hutmamn Sorry, but my point is that the entire rationale is empty. It's all well and good to claim you're invading for humanitarian reasons when, oh by the way, it just so happens that controlling the country will also serve your self interests.

  I think to claim empty the rationale that we invaded Iraq for reasons other than self interest is fair. Given our actions post invasion I totally understand that viewpoint. And I think a large part of that problem and blame should be directed at Rumsfeld. But, if we're asking ourselves was invading Iraq the right thing to do given everything that preceded, I'd say yes again to that.

  Xrandadu Hutmamn Note that you listed "estimates for success" among the considerations. How well did Bush estimate success? That's part of the reason I am criticizing him. He had no idea what he was doing. He didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia, let alone give any thought to what might happen in the event of Iraq's government breakdown in the aftermath of an invasion.

  Ah, ok. Well, on this point I agree. Our planning and execution of this war was awful and I agree that if we'd done things better we'd be having a much different conversation now. And I guess I see what you're saying "if this was the plan, then the action of invasion is as wrong as the execution of the plan". Is that right? I think there are a lot of Kurds who would disagree with you.

  Xrandadu Hutmamn Uh huh. I am not arguing that we should have invaded North Korea. I am arguing that it's B.S. to CLAIM you're waging war for humanitarian reasons when you don't lift a single finger to do a single humanitarian thing anywhere else in the entire world. And it's especially hypocriticial to say you have humanitarian interests in mind when you've sent a message down every chain of command that says it's A-OK to torture people.

  I think that's an unfair statement. The US has done humanitarian work around the world with Bush in office and at his direction. But, I agree with you on torture and what we've done at the direction of Bush in that regard. Not only is torture wrong and against agreed upon conventions, it doesn't work.

  Xrandadu Hutmamn You are right, Bush is no hero.

  Thanks.

  Xrandadu Hutmamn There's no iron in my red blood cells? Huh? And what is your argument here, that 9/11 had a bearing on policy toward Iraq? How exactly? We invaded Iraq to prevent terrorism by a loose faction of well-funded Islamic militants in other countries? This makes little sense. Invading Iraq was not a response to 9/11, Operation Enduring Freedom was. Even the stated goal of spreading democracy doesn't address what happened on 9/11 because there's no indication 9/11 had anything to do with democracy vs. dictatorship.

  a⋅ne⋅mic

     /əˈnimɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nee-mik] Show IPA Pronunciation

  –adjective

  1. Pathology. suffering from anemia.

  2. lacking power, vigor, vitality, or colorfulness; listless; weak : an anemic effort; anemic tones.

  Sorry, I thought that was a commonly understood expression. Invading Iraq was a direct reaction to 9/11. It was the decision to stop waiting for things to happen and take action when we can to remove people like Saddam from power. Personally I think it was a signal sent to that entire region to say "enough". The world is moving on and you refuse to move with it - we're not tolerating it anymore. Yes, indeed...I know...that's a stance frought with many problems but I think it was the right stance to take in this situation.

  Xrandadu Hutmamn I agree, I think we should have done much more about Rwanda. But we didn't. Nor has Bush done much about Sudan. We know Saddam Hussein killed thousands of people many years ago, but here's something that happened on Bush's watch, and he did nothing. What does that tell you? It tells me that the stated motive of ridding the world of genocide and dictatorship was a disingenuous justification.

  I think we act where we can when we can. I disagree with some of those decisions but that doesn't make all of the other ones bad too.

  Xrandadu Hutmamn So you think it was right to invade Iraq with no plan for a successful occupation and with no guidance in terms of how our troops interacted with citizens?

  I think it was right to invade Iraq and wrong to think we could do it the way we did. You're arguing a decision based on hindsight. I agree, we had a bad plan and there was ample advice to the contrary. But, that doesn't change the why of doing it. And we did the right thing with a bad plan.

  Xrandadu Hutmamn Do you really believe Bush and his administration cared at all about the Iraqis? Because if you really believe that, the burden is on you to explain why they maintained a policy in which Iraqis were routinely beaten and humiliated.

  I do. I think they were inept in carrying out their goals and arrogant in their assumptions about the region and how to deal with the consequences of their actions but, at the end of the day I think they did the right thing by taking saddam out of power and I think they did it with a strategic goal in mind that sought to improve that country and it's people.

  I hope you don't think that because I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do that I also support the horrific treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. I don't and I think the people who did that should pay - those people being senior military leadership.

  If you get a chance, I'd suggest reading "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas P.M. Barnett.

  —Mark Denney Read Mark Denney's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel