WillyJ
<font color=purple>NyQuil Aficionado<br><font colo
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,951
Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld (along with 30 other neo-conseratives) wrote, published, and signed a plan which basically said they felt that invading Iraq, getting rid of Saddam, and setting up a democracy there was do-able and would be the start of spreading American values and democracy to the entire Mideast, thus eventually stabilizing what is unquestionably a very dangerous and unstable part of the world. .
They came up with this theory, made it public, and started pushing for it in 1998, 3 full years before 9/11. . and it's exactly the blueprint the Bush administration is now following.
Certainly it's not totally unreasonable to see this as some kind of coincidence, but personally I think it strongly suggests Bush and Co used the 9/11 attack by al Qaeda as an excuse to go forward with a policy they had been planning well before that rather then 9/11 inspiring it.
About 6 months after 9/11 Bush started what has been coined the "suddenly Saddam" rhetoric- after (rightfully) placing the guilt of the cowardly attack on our country on al-Qieda and bin Laden and pinpointing the support and refuge supplied by the Taliban in Afghanistan he went in there to root them out, arrest or kill them, and bring down the Taliban. . . and every country in the world supported our right to do so and allies like France and Germany provided invaluable intelligence in finding cells both in Afghanistan and other countries. . but then out of nowhere Bush stopped saying "bin Laden" and inserted "Saddam" in the same "we're going to get him for attacking our country and everyone else had better be with us or they are against us. . ."
When pressed on why he the main focus of the war on terrorism suddenly seemed to shift to Saddam from bin Laden, Bush claimed we had "indisputable proof" Iraq and Saddam had worked hand and hand in planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack with al Qaeda. . . but as time as gone on, our own FBI and CIA have said over and over that is blatantly false; there is no such proof of any connection, and even the Bush people have finally backed off it- on the day the war started Ari Fleischer told the press that this was about "preventing the future possibility that someday Saddam might share his WMDs with terrorists and for our own national security, we need to do this and eliminate that possibility".
Anyway, since the original 9/11 justification, the Bush administration have said this war is about: disarming Saddam and destroying his WMDs; enforcing the UN sanctions and resolutions Saddam had defied after the Gulf War ceasefire agreement in 1991; get Saddam and either kill him or capture him and try him for his years of brutality and war crimes; and finally that were liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship and help them establish some sort of self-rule and democracy . . which of course was the original plan long before 9/11 anyway.
While all of those reasons have some validity, (except the bin Laden connection) since the "suddenly Saddam" switch the Bush administration has also: claimed to have absolute proof Saddam was still producing/ammassing WMDs, but are now saying it really doesn't matter if they're were or not; have stated that one of the main goals of the military action was the capture or death of Saddam, but now say that this isn't about "one person" and is instead about destroying his government and it's not necessary to actually capture him or confirm his death to declare a victory; claimed that we were doing this on behalf of the UN resolutions Saddamn had violated, but then when a majority of our allies on the National Security Council (not just France) held forth the opinion that containment, sanctions, diplomacy, and more vigilant inspections would keep Iraq from being a danger to the rest of world just as it had the past 12 years, the Bush people basically told them to go to hell.
And while I certainly see where there are legitimate arguments against the stand those other countires took, I must point out that the stand they took is almost exactly the stand Bush taken in regards to another country with a brutal dictator and WMDs; North Korea. Bush has consistantly said that at this time military action would most likely cause more problems then it would solve, and unilateral diplomecy though the UN is the best way to deal with the problem.
And in my personal opinion, when you sift through all the opinions; all the justifications; all the criticisms; all the arguments both pro and con; it comes down to one overriding question: Will this military action make the world at-large and especially our country safer in the long run?
Will this be the beginning of a wave of democracy in the Arab countries and stabilization that will reduce the terrorism that has up to now thrived in that part of the world?
Or will this end up as an endless, bloody civil war between the 3 main factions in Iraq (Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis) who have deep, historic, and religious differences that will be dealt with through violence instead of democracy and lead to further anti-American feelings in the Arab world, and breed more terrorism, not less?
You know something? It's impossible to know at this time, and more then likely it will be years before there is anyway to look back and make any kind of educated evaluation as to whether this was the right thing to do or if it was a mistake.
As to the original question of this thread: whether or not a person agreed or disagreed with the invasion, I can't imagine that since Bush went forward with it, anyone could be mad or unhappy that we have defeated Hussein's forces so quickly and with such little loss of American life, and that our POWs were rescued and for the most part in were in good health.
I also can't imagine any rational person being unhappy that Saddam's brutal regime is no more; the one indisputable fact at this point in all this was the horrid way he tortured and murdered those who dared (or who was suspected/accused of daring) to dispute or threaten his rule in his own country.
But. . . that's only half the equation here; not to take away anything from the professionalism, courage, and efficiency our troops have shown; I think it's quite likely the military victory we have achieved will prove to be the easy part of this situation- I think it's going to much harder for the Bush people to find a way to get the different Iraqi factions to settle their differences in a civil way and help them set up some type of government that will inspire the rest of the region in the years to come. (We were able to set up such a democracy in Japan after WWII, but it took 7 long years and the Japanese had much more united culture then Iraq has. . and we failed miserably in trying to "bomb democracy" in places like Vietnam, so while it go well and it's possible we can achieve both parts of our goals in Iraq in the 2 year time frame Rumsfeld and Franks have suggeted; it's just as likely we still have a long hard road ahead of us with no promise of success.)
There's no doubt we have achieved a military victory in Iraq, but it will be a phyrric victory at best if in the next few years no civil type of government is set up in Iraq and our troops are stuck there being car-bombed ever few weeks and the resentment of our actions spawn more terrorist attacks against our country rather then stopping them.
And just remember one thing: most of those people who are now waving American flags and chanting "USA, USA" were the same people in the street 3 weeks ago waving the Iraqi flag and chanting support for Saddam. . . they just have a different gun pointed at them now.
Maybe when it's all said and done this chapter of history will show that generations of Iraqis see the US as their great liberators who helped them begin a new, wonderful way of life. . but then again, it's just as likely they will in time see us as an invading force that dropped 30,000 bombs on their country and led to years of civil war and chaos and a life just as bad as the one they had under Saddam.
This thing has a long ways to go yet. . . and until it's all been played out everything pro or con is nothing more then theory and guesses, none more legit then the other.
They came up with this theory, made it public, and started pushing for it in 1998, 3 full years before 9/11. . and it's exactly the blueprint the Bush administration is now following.
Certainly it's not totally unreasonable to see this as some kind of coincidence, but personally I think it strongly suggests Bush and Co used the 9/11 attack by al Qaeda as an excuse to go forward with a policy they had been planning well before that rather then 9/11 inspiring it.
About 6 months after 9/11 Bush started what has been coined the "suddenly Saddam" rhetoric- after (rightfully) placing the guilt of the cowardly attack on our country on al-Qieda and bin Laden and pinpointing the support and refuge supplied by the Taliban in Afghanistan he went in there to root them out, arrest or kill them, and bring down the Taliban. . . and every country in the world supported our right to do so and allies like France and Germany provided invaluable intelligence in finding cells both in Afghanistan and other countries. . but then out of nowhere Bush stopped saying "bin Laden" and inserted "Saddam" in the same "we're going to get him for attacking our country and everyone else had better be with us or they are against us. . ."
When pressed on why he the main focus of the war on terrorism suddenly seemed to shift to Saddam from bin Laden, Bush claimed we had "indisputable proof" Iraq and Saddam had worked hand and hand in planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack with al Qaeda. . . but as time as gone on, our own FBI and CIA have said over and over that is blatantly false; there is no such proof of any connection, and even the Bush people have finally backed off it- on the day the war started Ari Fleischer told the press that this was about "preventing the future possibility that someday Saddam might share his WMDs with terrorists and for our own national security, we need to do this and eliminate that possibility".
Anyway, since the original 9/11 justification, the Bush administration have said this war is about: disarming Saddam and destroying his WMDs; enforcing the UN sanctions and resolutions Saddam had defied after the Gulf War ceasefire agreement in 1991; get Saddam and either kill him or capture him and try him for his years of brutality and war crimes; and finally that were liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship and help them establish some sort of self-rule and democracy . . which of course was the original plan long before 9/11 anyway.
While all of those reasons have some validity, (except the bin Laden connection) since the "suddenly Saddam" switch the Bush administration has also: claimed to have absolute proof Saddam was still producing/ammassing WMDs, but are now saying it really doesn't matter if they're were or not; have stated that one of the main goals of the military action was the capture or death of Saddam, but now say that this isn't about "one person" and is instead about destroying his government and it's not necessary to actually capture him or confirm his death to declare a victory; claimed that we were doing this on behalf of the UN resolutions Saddamn had violated, but then when a majority of our allies on the National Security Council (not just France) held forth the opinion that containment, sanctions, diplomacy, and more vigilant inspections would keep Iraq from being a danger to the rest of world just as it had the past 12 years, the Bush people basically told them to go to hell.
And while I certainly see where there are legitimate arguments against the stand those other countires took, I must point out that the stand they took is almost exactly the stand Bush taken in regards to another country with a brutal dictator and WMDs; North Korea. Bush has consistantly said that at this time military action would most likely cause more problems then it would solve, and unilateral diplomecy though the UN is the best way to deal with the problem.
And in my personal opinion, when you sift through all the opinions; all the justifications; all the criticisms; all the arguments both pro and con; it comes down to one overriding question: Will this military action make the world at-large and especially our country safer in the long run?
Will this be the beginning of a wave of democracy in the Arab countries and stabilization that will reduce the terrorism that has up to now thrived in that part of the world?
Or will this end up as an endless, bloody civil war between the 3 main factions in Iraq (Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis) who have deep, historic, and religious differences that will be dealt with through violence instead of democracy and lead to further anti-American feelings in the Arab world, and breed more terrorism, not less?
You know something? It's impossible to know at this time, and more then likely it will be years before there is anyway to look back and make any kind of educated evaluation as to whether this was the right thing to do or if it was a mistake.
As to the original question of this thread: whether or not a person agreed or disagreed with the invasion, I can't imagine that since Bush went forward with it, anyone could be mad or unhappy that we have defeated Hussein's forces so quickly and with such little loss of American life, and that our POWs were rescued and for the most part in were in good health.
I also can't imagine any rational person being unhappy that Saddam's brutal regime is no more; the one indisputable fact at this point in all this was the horrid way he tortured and murdered those who dared (or who was suspected/accused of daring) to dispute or threaten his rule in his own country.
But. . . that's only half the equation here; not to take away anything from the professionalism, courage, and efficiency our troops have shown; I think it's quite likely the military victory we have achieved will prove to be the easy part of this situation- I think it's going to much harder for the Bush people to find a way to get the different Iraqi factions to settle their differences in a civil way and help them set up some type of government that will inspire the rest of the region in the years to come. (We were able to set up such a democracy in Japan after WWII, but it took 7 long years and the Japanese had much more united culture then Iraq has. . and we failed miserably in trying to "bomb democracy" in places like Vietnam, so while it go well and it's possible we can achieve both parts of our goals in Iraq in the 2 year time frame Rumsfeld and Franks have suggeted; it's just as likely we still have a long hard road ahead of us with no promise of success.)
There's no doubt we have achieved a military victory in Iraq, but it will be a phyrric victory at best if in the next few years no civil type of government is set up in Iraq and our troops are stuck there being car-bombed ever few weeks and the resentment of our actions spawn more terrorist attacks against our country rather then stopping them.
And just remember one thing: most of those people who are now waving American flags and chanting "USA, USA" were the same people in the street 3 weeks ago waving the Iraqi flag and chanting support for Saddam. . . they just have a different gun pointed at them now.
Maybe when it's all said and done this chapter of history will show that generations of Iraqis see the US as their great liberators who helped them begin a new, wonderful way of life. . but then again, it's just as likely they will in time see us as an invading force that dropped 30,000 bombs on their country and led to years of civil war and chaos and a life just as bad as the one they had under Saddam.
This thing has a long ways to go yet. . . and until it's all been played out everything pro or con is nothing more then theory and guesses, none more legit then the other.
