Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 11:32 AM

  @Mark Denney

  Mark Denney: "Xrandadu Hutmamn I think you don't know what you're talking about." Are you always this rabid?"

  You refer to me as obtuse, but you can't handle somebody saying something milder?

  Mark Denney: "I think a large part of that problem and blame should be directed at Rumsfeld."

  I guess the buck doesn't stop with Bush (aka "the decider").

  Mark Denney: "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?"

  No. I am not claiming any one thing is as wrong as any other. I am saying there are multiple fronts on which Bush has failed.

  Mark Denney: "I think that's an unfair statement. The US has done humanitarian work around the world with Bush in office and at his direction."

  I am talking in terms of actions that involve taking actions to prevent or interrupt violent conflicts and the oppression governments, not about funding AIDS programs in Africa. The point being that if humanitarianism is to be used as a rationale for war, then it leaves a lot to be answered for in terms of all the things the U.S. hasn't done. It's a self-serving argument, made mostly after the fact as part of a shifting justification, after the first justification of WMD didn't work out.

  Mark Denney: "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."

  Right, the old Bush Doctrine. Except for one flaw: This was not the stated reason for invading Iraq. The stated reason was that Hussein posed a clear and present danger, an actual threat. Nor did 9/11 bear any resemblance to anything Hussein had done, other than some piddly money he throw at the families of Al Aqsa martyrs in Palestine. This rationale also fails when you consider the inaction that has followed. We didn't just remove Saddam Hussein from power, we occupied the country long after Hussein was gone, creating much less controlled scenario. Hussein was no friend of Al Qaeda, but now Iraq is prime recruiting ground. If Iraq was a response to 9/11, then we got it backwards.

  Mark Denney: "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."

  It doesn't much matter if you think it was right, or believe it, or feel deeply, or whatever. This isn't an opinion poll, and your arguments don't hold up. For instance, if the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a signal to an entire region to say "enough," what exactly were we saying "enough" of? Did invading Iraq have any impact on terrorist recruiting other than to accelerate it? What message were we sending to a friendly nation like Jordan? Or to a budding democracy like Lebanon? (Especially when we allowed Israel to attack and destroy their infrastructure, sending them back decades and giving Hezbollah a shiny new relevance?) We've created more conflict, not less. What happened to Bush's "Road Map to Peace" in Palestine, which he and Condoleezza Rice have completely given up on for no stated reason? What do you think happens in countries like Syria, Turkey or Egypt when our activities, or those of our allies, result in tens of thousands of refugees streaming into their countries? So again -- what are we saying "enough" of? Dictatorship? How many Middle Eastern countries still have monarchies that oppress their citizens only somewhat less than Hussein did? Do you think the Sudanese got the message?

  Mark Denney: "I think we act where we can when we can."

  That comment is on the verge of meaninglessness. It also reminds me of Rumsfeld, explaining, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." What does it mean? "We act where we can when we can" sounds like an all-purpose justification for being arbitrary.

  Mark Denney: "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."

  Not at all. I argued against the war before it began as well. The WMD justifications were clearly B.S. to anybody paying attention, and the other arguments put forth never passed a threshold that justified invasion.

  Mark Denney: "And we did the right thing with a bad plan."

  The repetition of statements that "we did the right thing" will not convince anybody, though it is probably useful as a way to quell your own self-doubts. Keep it up, if that's what you need.

  Mark Denney: "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."

  So the buck doesn't stop at Bush, eh? Not even with the reams of evidence that show Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Cheney with clear intentions of violating Geneva? Cheney is on record saying the U.S. would "go to the dark side" in its methodology. Orders for "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture) go all the way to the top. They don't stop at "senior military leadership," unless you're including the Commander in Chief. How far into the sand is your head, anyway? Enough to just wiggle your toes? Don't you think Bush knows about what happens during extraordinary rendition, or that he and Gonzales are directly tied to the suspension of habeus corpus at places like Guantanamo Bay?

  —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