Quote:
Originally Posted by Herodotus
The problem I have had with the rationale for the war, is that prior to the war the Bush administration based almost its entire public case on WMD and Saddam's non-compliance, and the fear that another 9/11 could happen if he wasn't stopped/removed, whatever.
|
That's a problem for everybody. The pretext didn't hold up. Once it evaporated, people who supported going into Iraq from the gitgo divided into those who felt cheated and showed their anger by joining the opposition and those who pretty much knew from the start that the pretext was...well, just a pretext. Still, it was a problem even for those who continued to support the war, because now to keep going it was not only necessary to carry on a military/recontruction effort, but to fend off opponents at home. In a way, it's been 2 wars for the past 3 years, political and military.
I don't know how to get this across to you, but I'll try. The thinkers who pressed Bush to go into Iraq were way beyond WMD, Saddam and Baath party butchery. These were convenient symbols to them, the elements of a pretext. Pretexts are important because leaders need public support to launch a war, especially when not in response to a direct attack. Weinberger affirmed this principle in the 1980s, but it has been around since ancient times. The public responds immediately to a direct attack, but when the threat is well hidden except to those who are in tune with complex geopolitical currents, it is very difficult to awaken people to it.
Observers who had been watching the ME for years, many of them in think tanks, universities, and in the intelligence community became convinced even before 9/11 that the US should insert itself militarily into the ME. They believed that secular governments in the region were imperiled by a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism that in time would take over enough countries in the ME to join with with Iran in creating a formidable anti-western block. If this were to come about, the US would in time be forced to go to war to protect its vital interests in the region and to defend Israel. The neocons bought into this thinking well before 9/11 and tried for a long time to get the US to act. But the stars didn't line up until 9/11. And it just so happened at that time that there was a corrupt, sword-rattling, egomaniacal leader who was in violation of all sorts of international agreements who just happend to rule a piece of land in a perfect place for the US to insert itself into the ME.
We'll go in, topple the evil leader, free the people, run things awhile, set up a democratic government a la post WWII Japan and Germany, keep some troops there, delink Iran and Syria and now cover both their flanks, and generally throw a monkey wrench into the fundamentalists' plans. Enter the insurgency. (Translation: the fundamentalists fight back; they exploit Sunni resentment, religious devisions...and do whatever they can to force the US out.) The rise of the insurgency is in a sense a vindication of the assessment of those who urged the US to establish a military presense in the ME. The question we will never be able to answer is, has the decision to confront the fundamentalists now rather than later paid off? I think it will if we stick with it.
Like OoE I struggled with the question of going into Iraq; I expected them to have caches of WMD, but I never for a moment believed that that was the real reason for going in. I still have shakey moments, usually when another soldier dies or a bunch of Iraqi women and kids are splattered over the pavement by a suicide bomber. Is this the price of freedom or the punishment for human imperfection? Who knows?
I notice you have a tendency to put a lot of importance on details to the exclusion of the big picture. It's like you're in a situation where someone has a gun to your head and you want to debate what kind of gun it is or fret about whether the gunman legally owns the gun, or what would happen to your head if the gunman fired. The only term you need to define is threat and the only things you need to know is whether there is one, where it may lead and what to do about it.
Anyway, I guess I owe you a bit of gratitude for raising these questions again. It's always good to check one's pulse.
Quote:
|
BTW--No offense is taken by you laughing at S-2's line. I have a thick skin, and it was a good line.
|
Good to hear. We don't want to take ourselves too seriously.
