World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Herodotus · 02-26-2008, 17:01 PM

Here are some (all) of the reasons for going to war in Iraq, their rationale, and my brief critique of them. If I am in error, feel free to correct me, or add your own comments. I am just curious as to why people supported this course of action:

Islamic Terrorism--Jad does make an interesting point that we had to go in there to face the threat of Islamic extremism and Iraq was the easiest entry point. But how has that worked so far? Our policies seem to have an adverse effect creating more terrorists than existed before the invasion. It would be an okay strategy I guess if we did actually kill all the terrorists, but if we don't kill every single one (and this probably includes family members who vow revenge), or co-opt them then what good will it have been to invade Iraq?

Democracy Promotion---Well and good if all countries are democratic or become Western democracies, but they aren't. I've always been uncomfortable with this as a rationale of the Iraq war, since it seems to be an arrogant policy (similar to 19th century imperialists justifying their occupation of Third World countries), and one that can easily blow back in our faces. Indeed 'democracy' seems to be a cover for some Iraqis to enforce religious laws, and for others (or the same) to further sectarian strife. When the Christian population of Iraq returns and no longer has to live in fear,(let alone the Sunnis) then maybe I will think democracy is possible.

Iraq as a Threat---I think this notion has been dispelled given the relative absence of WMD, and the way that Saddam's army rolled over. As a threat to its neighbors perhaps, to Iran, though I doubt he would have invaded Kuwait again. But as I have said both these hostilities (as well as toward Israel) pre-date Saddam's tenure in office, and his removal does nothing to alleviate the situations, except perhaps with Iran.

Upholding International Law---It's well and good that conservatives want to uphold international law, but Bush only gave this a half-hearted effort. He went to the UN and said Saddam is bad, we must get rid of him, the UN passed another resolution, Saddam complied, Bush went back to the UN said Saddam is still bad, let's get rid of him, the Security Council didn't/couldn't agree, so Bush/Blair went in anyway, without authorization.

Of these reasons. perhaps there are more, I think the first one holds the most water, and is the most defensible position. It is still a risky endeavor, and a course of action I probably would not have recommended, especially in the absence of any significant terrorist ties to Iraq, and the ham-fisted way in which we have conducted ourselves in Iraq. The other rationale are less meaningful, and are probably more appropriate as Fox News slogans.

02-26-2008, 17:01 PM	#33 (permalink)
Herodotus Contributor Join Date: 04-05-07 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 443 Country:	Here are some (all) of the reasons for going to war in Iraq, their rationale, and my brief critique of them. If I am in error, feel free to correct me, or add your own comments. I am just curious as to why people supported this course of action: Islamic Terrorism--Jad does make an interesting point that we had to go in there to face the threat of Islamic extremism and Iraq was the easiest entry point. But how has that worked so far? Our policies seem to have an adverse effect creating more terrorists than existed before the invasion. It would be an okay strategy I guess if we did actually kill all the terrorists, but if we don't kill every single one (and this probably includes family members who vow revenge), or co-opt them then what good will it have been to invade Iraq? Democracy Promotion---Well and good if all countries are democratic or become Western democracies, but they aren't. I've always been uncomfortable with this as a rationale of the Iraq war, since it seems to be an arrogant policy (similar to 19th century imperialists justifying their occupation of Third World countries), and one that can easily blow back in our faces. Indeed 'democracy' seems to be a cover for some Iraqis to enforce religious laws, and for others (or the same) to further sectarian strife. When the Christian population of Iraq returns and no longer has to live in fear,(let alone the Sunnis) then maybe I will think democracy is possible. Iraq as a Threat---I think this notion has been dispelled given the relative absence of WMD, and the way that Saddam's army rolled over. As a threat to its neighbors perhaps, to Iran, though I doubt he would have invaded Kuwait again. But as I have said both these hostilities (as well as toward Israel) pre-date Saddam's tenure in office, and his removal does nothing to alleviate the situations, except perhaps with Iran. Upholding International Law---It's well and good that conservatives want to uphold international law, but Bush only gave this a half-hearted effort. He went to the UN and said Saddam is bad, we must get rid of him, the UN passed another resolution, Saddam complied, Bush went back to the UN said Saddam is still bad, let's get rid of him, the Security Council didn't/couldn't agree, so Bush/Blair went in anyway, without authorization. Of these reasons. perhaps there are more, I think the first one holds the most water, and is the most defensible position. It is still a risky endeavor, and a course of action I probably would not have recommended, especially in the absence of any significant terrorist ties to Iraq, and the ham-fisted way in which we have conducted ourselves in Iraq. The other rationale are less meaningful, and are probably more appropriate as Fox News slogans.