- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I agree, the argument that Iraq's nuclear capability necessitated us invading were weak to non-existent. However, WMD (I think, could be wrong here) includes also Chemical and biological weapons. I have a vivid memory of Bill Clinton stating that it would be more likely that Saddam would use these weapons if we invaded than if we kept with the current strategy. Our troops weren't wearing chem gear because they liked it - trust me!
My argument was that, given the reasons we intervened in the Bosnia/Serbia conflict (which I think were good), I think it's fair to argue that we should have invaded Iraq given what Saddam had done to his people and the kurds.
To me, this is two basic questions. Should we have invaded - I think yes given the situation we were presented with. Secondly, did we screw it up badly and wreck all the good that could have come from it - I think yes on that one too.
I think a different strategy post invasion would have created a much different conversation about the war today. But, we'll never know and those who managed this post invasion should be hung in the town square.
But, should we have invaded in the first place? Again, I think yes. I think the mindset at the time was, we let bad situations fester and it led us to 9/11. Time to stop the festering where we can. I think to apply the reasons for Iraq with the evidence in NK and ask "why not there too?" ignores strategic operational thinking and the options available vs the expected and potential outcomes for each region. Did we end up with worst case in Iraq - absolutely. Was it all our fault - absolutely.
I think it's unfair, given the valid strategic post-invasion options given by those who were ignored and shoved aside by Rumsfeld and his dept, to take the results of our invasion and apply them to the decision to invade at all.
