All the candidates seemed to endorse what we did in Iraq, but said that it wasn't managed well. That may be true. But even if you don't think our blood and treasure was worth the mismanagement, you can think that our removal of Saddam and what we wanted to do generally in Iraq, compared to a reasonably realistic estimate of cost, was worth it.
I wish one candidate would have said, "Yes, it was worth it, it is worth it, but we have to be careful to make sure it continues to be worth it by managing it right."
Back when Saddam was alive and in power, few people felt bad about stopping him. Remember how bad he was. There are facts to give, but there are many who know them and know that they felt this way; I appeal to them. Saddam was bad to the bone, and dangerous, and was a brick and a thorn in the way of any efforts for peace in the middle east.
Consider:
The gulf: Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, even Saudi Arabia, were places of significant risk because of Saddam's risky and dangerous behaviors. What has happened to their economies since? The oil supply? What if Saddam was still around?
Iran: Think about how concerned we are about Iran's nukes? Think about how much we are struggling to deal with this problem. Imagine if Saddam was involved, egging on Iran, speculating about his own nuclear plans. Think about shear amount of attention he would require from consistently ineffective and difficult inspections. Remember those. Iran quietly prepares, uses Saddam as a distraction. Wow. Remember? Think about it.
Qaddafi: If you know, I don't need to say a thing. I you don't know, well, that's too bad.
Palestine: With Arafat gone, and a parliament in power, we still see how hard peace efforts are. What about the checks coming in from Saddam, how would that be going?
The Future: As bad as Saddam was for the region, what would have happened had we done nothing? Who would have replaced Saddam, his maniac sons? What about a home-grown revolution? It would be a civil war that involved Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda, honestly, wouldn't it? Would America involve itself, even if we didn't even cause it? You know we would. Honestly. In fact, the constant fighting that we engage in with Al Qaeda, Sadr, Iranian agents, Sunni nationalists (and the fact that such fights end quickly and that faction tends to quiet itself for a good while) is proof that only a giant, well-equipped, super-Army (like ours) is capable of providing stability in the Mesopotamian region. Saddam just, you know, tortured and oppressed people for that stability.
Side note - if you think there isn't stability in Iraq, what is the alternative? Some might argue that our army causes the instability. That's silly! It stems from the tired old marxist forces that still dominate and mastermind antiwar efforts in Western countries worldwide. By 'marxist forces' I refer to the fringe socialist/green activists who really believe in that stuff. They aren't really forces, because they don't (as far as we know) represent any sovereign entity, they're just radicals. These people drive the anti-war rhetoric. It can be proven (if you look at money trails, especially at the war's inception ca. 2003). They seem to think that the world can be characterized by a struggle between powerful and monolithic capitalist forces, and small proletarian local interests. All other considerations are non-existent or irrelevant. Therefore, if America's Army withdraws from Iraq - everything will be fine. The capitalist army will cease to provoke the 'people' against it, and things will work out. In other words, it's America vs. all, and nothing else is relevant. This is a silly digression, but the fact is that much of logic used against the war stems from sources that believe this kind of thing. In other words, this crazy philosophy has a direct impact on the debate over the war.
Back to the main story:
We approached Saddam methodically and fairly. We gave him a chance to play ball and he balked (thanks to French diplomacy - again, if you don't know... I'm sorry you don't pay attention). We tried to work it out, involving him. He wouldn't. So we went in. We're talking about 10 years of sanctions and corrupt UN dealings.
Now, there are lots of questions about how wise it is to 'pick and choose' wars. That's valid. However, even if not all agree that this war was a right choice now, or that you can pick wars, there are plenty of people who know that it was a good idea.
At least one Republican could have said it was worth it. George Bush, despite his flaws, would have say, "Yes, it was worth it." That may be obvious, but I really mean it. His one great strength, despite its associated drawbacks, has been his commitment, almost emotional, spiritual, to the effort in Iraq.
It may be messy, very messy, but Iraq is worth it. Iraq is worth it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment