Was Bush's War in Iraq truly "optional?"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Orson, Jun 28, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Orson

    Orson New Member

    In the context of a highly polarized presidential campaign, issues like Bush's War in Iraq are being re-fought and re-argued.

    One of the most potent arguments is that this truly was an optional war.
    A political science professor at Notre Dame University recently indicted Bush to me, saying that he's the first US president to wage a pre-emptive war.
    (He's wrong about this point - but that's a different argument.)

    On this account, the failure to find WMDs or any substantive tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda is proof that Bush's war was one of needless imperial aggression.

    I find myself sympathetic to this view, having made it myself.

    Here is the New York Times, editorializing in high dudgeon on June 17:
    "Now President Bush should apologize to the American people. . . . Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. . . . Mr. Bush and his top advisers . . . should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

    But now - equally with the wisdon of post-war hindsight - I wonder if this "account" isn't wholely inadequet. Other relevant post-war facts have come to light that change this conclusion.

    Consider the ex-ante outcomes anew. By most rekonings, several hundred thousand people had died from ill-health or ill-feeding over the previous dozen years because of US pushed trade sanctions. How many more would have died in the next dozen? Admittedly fewer - the UNs Food For Aid Program changed at least some, perhaps a lot of the problem.

    But now we know that the very success of the UN program - and its consequent corruption, amounting to tens of billions of dollars, along with corruption to major powers like Russia and France, where trials are pending or in progress reaching up to the presidents office - proves the inevitable instability of further "keeping Saddam in his box," as many have put it. It could not have lasted much longer. Saddam and his secret allies were convinced of it, too - betting the proverbial farm on a different result!

    If UN trade sanctions ultimately did come off - does anyone still doubt that Saddam would have reconstituted his WMD programs given the greater wealth and technical resources at his maniacal disposal? leading to further attacks on his neighbors, the US and western oil interests? - possibly even handing off WMD terror weapons to Al Qaeda?

    If true, then the War Against Saddam becomes not so much an "optional war" as rather a necessary war - optional only in terms of its timing and greater ultimate costs. In that case, Bush made the sound decision, getting it over while he could - and before a much more tragic outcome (as in North Korea - and unlike Libya) ensued.

    --Orson
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    There are many post-hoc justifications for going to war in Iraq--the Bush administration is making as many as possible. But none of the reasons stated for going to war--links to terrorism, WMD's, imminent danger to the U.S.--were true. And all of this was known PRIOR to going to war! Many knowledgeable people were on record as such, but were ignored by the Bush administration in its zeal to "get" Sadaam. Well, they got him, but at what cost? How many Americans and Iraqis have to die? How many billions of dollars have to be spent? How high to gas prices have to rise?

    Sadaam was a bad guy. Fine. But if being a despot and killing your citizens is a reason to be invaded by the U.S., well, we've got a lot of invading to do around the world! No, this was personal with Bush, determined to get Sadaam and using 9/11 as a pretense to do so. For that reason alone, Americans should send him and his cronies packing.
     
  3. anthonym

    anthonym New Member

    You're exactly right. It was fine, all through the 80's when members of the Reagan administration were aiding Saddam and helping him remain in power.
     
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    That's because they were fighting the Iran/Iraq War, which lasted from 1980-88 and cost both countries dearly.

    Keeping two of your enemies fighting each other at a relatively minimal cost to you sounds like a pretty damn good idea to me.
     
  5. anthonym

    anthonym New Member

    Saddam wasn't an enemy at the time and neither were the Kurds he gassed. And it wasn't at a miminal cost because we've spent $100's of billions in Iraq since.
     
  6. Khan

    Khan New Member

    How many of these troll threads are you going to start?
     
  7. Orson

    Orson New Member


    antony:
    Your wrong: It was brief support and it was inexpensive in dollar terms.

    What proved expensive was Carter's "hands-off" policy in Iraq - in hopes that a policy of "human rights" would make friends of radical Islamists that took power there.

    Iran's state sponsored terror in the Middle East, especially against Israel, cumlinated in Reagan's humanitarian intervention in Lebanon in 1983 when a Hezbollah terror attack resulted in the death of 241 soldiers.

    "'There's no question it was a major cause of 9-11,' said John Lehman, the then-secretary of the Navy, who today is a member of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. 'We told the world that terrorism succeeds.'"
    http://166.70.44.66/2003/Oct/10192003/nation_w/103305.asp

    We were, therefore, painfully disabused of Carter's idealistic hopes and policy.

    --Orson
     
  8. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Rich-

    There is much confusion about Bush and the war. I myself engaged debate with a Poli Sci prof teaching foreign policy at Notre Dame University about this issue only weeks ago. (He blamed Bush's advisors, resulting in misteps.)

    First, ask yourself: what would Clinton have done after 9/11?

    According to witness to his appearance in Qatar last January: “Asked...if he, Bill Clinton, would have behaved differently after 9/11 [than Bush], ***our former president said he would have followed an identical course [to Bush's], pursuing our enemies into Afghanistan and beyond.”***

    (NYPost, 19, January, 2004. Read it in full
    http://bbs.clubplanet.com/archive/index.php/t-206345.html)
    [***Emphasis mine***]

    Second - Rich - ask yourself WHAT DID BUSH ACTUALLY SAY about a post-war Iraq before it commenced?

    "The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the 'freedom gap' so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."
    (February 26, 2003)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

    Bush is a STRAIGHT SHOOTER to me!

    I posted a substantially similar media account of Bush's war motives - promote democracy in the Arab ME - on this board in March 2003.
    http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7782&highlight=Bush

    --Orson
     
  9. anthonym

    anthonym New Member

    It was not brief or inexpensive and Saddam's regime may not have survived the Iran-Iraq War, without U.S. arms, grain and loans. So the costs go beyond what was initially spent (2 wars so far). And while Carter chose a hands-off policy in some cases, Reagan chose to provide direct aid and friendship to a regime that proved more lethal than any other in the region, and he made the decision to open relations with Iraq after Saddam had already used poison gas. So there was no reason to believe that Reagan somehow misjudged Saddam. Choosing Saddam as an ally was short sighted and led to problems later, but that was a fatal characteristic of the Reagan administration. This administration demonstrates the same shortsightedness in its relations with other Middle East nations.

    And didn't Reagan also aid the Mujahideen as well?
     

Share This Page