Debating Iraq
Posted by Moonage on 27 Sep 2004 | Tagged as: International Politics
The Volokh Conspiracy has respectfully asked the “hawks” three questions, and wants to link to the answers, so, thanks to filling me by Hedonstix, I think I’ll take a stab at it.
So here’s a little experiment in blogospheric dialogue. I would like members of the hawkish side of the blogosphere to post responses on their blogs to three questions I have about the situation in Iraq. In exchange, I’ll post links to the answers on the Volokh Conspiracy. Here are my questions:
First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?
I was in favor of the Iraqi invasion, but, I would have preferred it happened a lot longer ago than it did. The US Congress authorized all force necessary in 1991 in response to the Iraqi invasion. The UN authorized use of military force to enforce the DMZ’s in northern and southern Iraq for several reasons, one of which being Hussein’s use of WMD’s. This wasn’t speculation, it was fact. IMO, Hussein should have been taken out then. Bush caved to public and UN pressure when he pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait, which was authorized byt the UN, but didn’t take out Hussein, which was not authorized by the UN. Hussein repeatedly violated the terms of the UN cease fire and we basically did nothing. However, more and more countries bailed out of enforcing the DMZ’s and left it primarily a US and England affair. The politics under Clinton painted a picture that Iraq was becoming more hostile, not less. They were attacking our planes on a regular basis, and Hussein promised to rain fire from the skies. What reason was there for leaving him there and spending billions enforcing DMZ’s? It was quickly becoming another Korea situation where there was no solution. I wanted a solution. As Vietnam and North Korea has now proven unequivocally, police actions don’t work.
Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
These guys have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by posting what they are. Media outlets don’t make any money on good news. When they have good news, they know the headline banners are quickly coming to an end. Secondly, most of the “gloomy” outlooks are time sensitive. They’re not saying this is how it will be forever, they saying it’s going to take longer than we expected. We had to keep Hussein in a box for 12 years, and no one was complaining, this stage of the war takes two years and counting, and people are ready to give up and admit defeat. Thirdly, this is a national election year, you can expect anyone with an opinion that doesn’t like Bush to chime in as well. Fourthly, big money, namely George Soros and Jane Fonda, have made this a national issue to defeat Bush, they’re not going to have anything nice to say about it either. Fifthly, there is a segment of the US that hates any war for any reason, they’re not going to say anything nice either. But if you look real hard, and try to get the message from the Iraqis themselves, they keep saying things are getting better. Allawi tried to say that at the UN and US Senate, so Kerry called him a liar.
Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?
Slowly but surely the Iraqis are going to start defending themselves. Everyone keeps calling this an insurgency, but it’s more than that. Although Sadr would be an insurgent, Zarqawi and his like are not. Even though Sadr does not want the US there, he’s more fearful of Zarqawi. When Iraq can protect itself from foreign aggression, it’s time for us to leave. Even though we want democracy there, that’s not a measure of success IMO. Having a stable Iraq that can contribute to the world in a civilized manner is.
2 Comments »
on 28 Sep 2004 at 7:08 am 1.Major Tom said …
Even though we want democracy there, that’s not a measure of success IMO. Having a stable Iraq that can contribute to the world in a civilized manner is.
Right on! Nonetheless, I think the media has framed the expected outcome in such a way that this would be called a failure by the administration.
on 28 Sep 2004 at 9:07 am 2.Moonage
said …
I honestly don’t think media is having quite the impact on this war as they would like to think they have. I don’t how many times I heard that when the 1,000th soldier died, the country would erupt in protest and would be so sick of the war that it would protest worse than anything Vietnam experienced. The 1,000th soldier died, Dan Rather showed dead bodies and listed ever single soldier that died. The world watched, mourned the 1,000th soldier as they did the first, and moved on. There were no mass protests, and Dan Rather now looks like an idiot. The days when you got all of your news from ABC, NBC, or CBS are over and they need to realize that. The media can call any outcome a failure, but people will judge individually moreso than ever in the past. And the more often specific media misjudge the common perception, the lower they’ll fall on the media pecking order. Let them call it a failure, I don’t care. And, the problem major media is now facing is, I don’t think a lot of people care any more. They’ve got too many other options to turn to.