Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 08:32 AM

  @Groenhagen

  Groenhagen: "1. Iraq had consistently failed to comply with UNSC resolutions and might—no one could of course be sure, precisely because of Iraqi noncooperation—have retained or recovered the capability to use or to export chemical or biological weapons."

  Not a reason. UN inspections were ongoing. There was no rush EXCEPT for the fact that the U.S. military did not want to invade during the hot summer months, which would have made supply-running and other operations miserable. If UN inspections had been allowed to continue it would have forced the U.S. to wait to plan an invasion in the fall months. But Bush also knew the public will to support an invasion couldn't be sustained that long. So basically he rushed us headlong into a war in spite of a total lack of planning for an effective occupation. The criticism against Bush and the Iraq war is not only that it was wrong, but that it was conducted so incompetently that its ill effects were compounded. Be sure to keep ignoring that important point throughout your messages, as you have shown such skillful capacity at this behavior thus far.

  "2. Saddam was a bloody tyrant who had committed crimes against hu-manity, if not outright genocide."

  This reason is a total joke. If the U.S. invasion was based on Saddam's crimes against humanity, then the U.S. under Bush is guilty of a ridiculously uneven application of its own principles. What, our foreign policy suddenly "found religion" about one country and one country only, selectively ignoring every other country with a dictator? I'm all for removing tyrants, but please explain why Bush didn't invade and occupty North Korea or any of a number of other countries if "humanitarianism" was anywhere near the top of the list of reasons for the war? If you keep using this argument then sooner or later you will have to explain why you shouldn't be laughed off the web site.

  "3. The overthrow of Saddam might help to break the gridlock of the Middle East peace process by sending an unequivocal signal of hos-tility to any regime that defied the United States—pour encourager les autres, as much as to get rid of Saddam himself."

  Wow, the reasons for invasion and occupation keep getting thinner! This basically amounts to "we're engaging in war to set an example for the other bad dictators out there." The argument bears no relation to the reality of what happens in war. Does hitting a hornet's nest with a baseball bat make all the other hornets fly away in fear?

  "4. Creating a democratic Iraq might also begin a wholesale “transfor-mation of the Middle East” (in the words of Condoleezza Rice), with Iraq once again setting an example for the other Arab states."

  Right, good-old nation building! Exactly what Bush said he was against when he was campaigning in 2000. This reverse domino theory was not a reason he used prior to the invasion. But it was just that -- a theory. It certainly doesn't justify attacking anybody. It also plainly ignores the difficult strategic realities of turning an entire populace, split into very distinct factions, into peacefully democratic citizens overnight. In other words, it's just nutty....though it sounds real nice on paper, huh?

  "5. Controlling Iraq might create alternative bases for U.S. troops in the Middle East, allowing them to leave Saudi Arabia (and thereby meeting at least one of the radical Islamists’ demands.)"

  Aha! Well at least there's a little honesty to this. Even if that honesty didn't last. Nobody talks much about the 14+ major bases we've built in Iraq, which are like little barricated cities. Nobody talks about what we're going to do with them when we "leave," either. In any case, "we want a place to put army bases" is FAR from a valid reason for waging war!

  -----------------

  "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for invading Iraq]."

  --Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, June 2003

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

  Cancel