I previously explained why opposition to the invasion of Iraq is not based on on Libertarian principles. But with my last post being about Abu Ghraib, this is probably a good time to put in writing my additional thoughts on Iraq.
The way I see it, we didn't start a war in 2002. We were continuing a war that was started in 1991. Instead of finishing off Saddam back then (a bad decision), we agreed to a truce where Saddam Hussine would only be allowed limited sovereignty over his country. Between then and the beginning of the invasion in 2003, our military was patrolling the no-fly zone, and our planes were constantly attacked by Iraqi ground forces. So in response to people who say we "started" the war and that Hussein hadn't attacked us, that's a lie. He started the war when he invaded Kuwait back in 1990 and has been attacking us ever since.
Furthermore, Hussein also reneged on his agreement to allow weapons inspectors access to Iraq. A lot has been made of the fact that our troops didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. But I don't think that's the key issue. How were we supposed to know if he had them or not if inspectors were denied access to the country? I think that, even though Saddam didn't have any WMD, he wanted the world to think he had them so that he'd appear to be a bigshot.
How could we prevent other nations from aquiring WMD with Saddam thumbing his nose at us?
Furthermore, the coalition to contain Saddam Hussien would have crumbled in a few years if we didn't do anything. The status quo wasn't maintainable. From recent news stories, we know how big of a disaster the oil-for-food program was. And our European "allies" like the French were expressing greater interest in doing business with Saddam than containing him.
Bush has also been accused of invading Iraq in order to protect Israel, as if this were a bad thing. If our invasion helped our only true ally and the only Western oriented democracy in the region, then that's yet another benefit.
Clearly the Bush administration made a huge mistake in trumpeting actual possession of WMD as the only reason for the invasion of Iraq when there were a whole host of different reasons. But just because the Bush administration was incredibly stupid doesn't mean the invasion wasn't justified.
The invasion of Iraq was an amazing success. With only minimal U.S. casualties and in only a short amount of time, we ousted Saddam and took control of the country. The post-invasion occupation of Iraq hasn't been quite the success, but that I'll leave for a future post. This post is only about why the invasion of Iraq was justified.
5 comments:
"With only minimal U.S. casualties..."
The means to the end you're talking about had names, and faces, and photo albums. They had families and friends and co-workers. They went to movies and laughed and lit rooms up and kissed their lovers and hugged their children.
At least have the guts to confront the reality of "minimal U.S. casualties" about which you post with a disgusting cavalier attitude.
I believe that your blog is one of the best blogs at conveying your thoughts and views clearly. I agree with a lot of your views. I am a Republican (not to conservative), with Libertarian leanings. I do concur 100% with this post "why the invasion of Iraq was justified." It goes well beyond politics, It involves common sense. Keep up the good work! I have become a regular visitor to your blog.
"So in response to people who say we "started" the war and that Hussein hadn't attacked us, that's a lie. He started the war when he invaded Kuwait back in 1990 and has been attacking us ever since."
I wasn't aware that Kuwait was one of the United States.
"Bush has also been accused of invading Iraq in order to protect Israel, as if this were a bad thing. If our invasion helped our only true ally and the only Western oriented democracy in the region, then that's yet another benefit."
How the hell is Israel a Democracy? They don't allow a whole class of people to vote, own property or live in their cities. They operate more of an Apartheid oriented system..You are not very bright are you?
There was an argument that Iraq never fully lived up to the agreement that ended the 1991 Gulf war, and therefore it was time to finish the 1991 Gulf war, but had Bush made this his main argument, as others have pointed out, Congress would never have given him the authority to invade Iraq.
Iraq was not a threat to the US. Iraq has invaded both Iran and Kuwait. The invasion of Iran was probably approved by the US, but the invasion of Kuwait was clearly a threat to US strategic interest in large amounts of cheap oil from the Gulf region. You point out that Iraq fired missiles at US planes enforcing the no fly zone, but the no fly zone was not part of the cease-fire agreement that ended the 1991 Gulf war and the UN never approved the no fly zone. The no fly zone was simply declared by the United States and Britain. I believe that the US claimed it had the authority to do this as an enforcement action of some UN resolutions, but some other members of the UN with economic ties to Iraq, like France and Russia, questioned this. Iraq claimed that the US had no right to enforce the no fly zone and was violating Iraqi air space. Iraq claimed they were simply defending their national rights. It is a very weak argument to claim that the missiles fired at US planes enforcing the questionable no fly zone justified the invasion.
Finally there is the question of 9/11. Was the invasion of Iraq a reasonable response to 9/11? I think the answer is definitely NO. Radical Islamic Fundamentalist attacked us on 9/11. The main goal of Al Qaeda and similar groups is to overthrow the secular, pro-western governments in the Arab world, particularly in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria, and replace them with Islamic Fundamentalist governments. In the mid 1990’s the Islamic Fundamentalist had not made much progress in this goal. Egypt, Iraq and Syria had all brutally put down the Islamic Fundamentalist movements and Saudi Arabia was buying them off with oil money. Osama Bin Laden’s contribution to the movement was to refocus anger at the United States and Israel, rather than the real targets, in order to gain popularity in the Arab world. Bin Ladens’s idea was once Al Qaeda and the Islamic Fundamentalist had won some small victories against the US, this would make them so popular in the Arab world that countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to put down the Islamic Fundamentalist movements.
Iraq and the Ba’thest government of Saddam Hussein had brutally repressed Islamic Fundamentalist movements in Iraq. By invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein we have given the Islamic Fundamentalist a real chance to win control of Iraq, something they never could have accomplished on their own. We are now fighting and losing the battle for the control of Iraq. There is a significant chance that 5 to 10 years from now, Islamic Fundamentalist will control all or part of Iraq. Having foolishly decided to overthrow one of the strongly anti-Islamic Fundamentalist governments in the Arab world as a response to 9/11, George Bush has been unwilling to commit the troops necessary to make sure that Iraq does not in the end fall into the hands of the very people who attacked us on 9/11.
Post a Comment