The Bullshit Smells Prettier When It's Yours
My old line about us invading Iraq and taking out Saddam went like this: Somebody -- not you -- robbed a bank. Somebody should pay. They can't find that somebody who did it, but you'll do. They throw you in jail for the rest of your life for bank robbery.
Saddam was not a nice man (that business about gassing the Kurds, just for starters). But, I think we shouldn't disproportionately be the world's policeman (that's what the broken United Nations should be for). I'm also against "nation building," as the last occupant of the White House also claimed to be -- just before he sent troops into Iraq to do just that. (Yeah, I know, "weapons of miscommunication"...or something like that.)
About that poop on Iraq coming out of the Obama White House, David Harsanyi writes at reason that:
...The president, who once accused the Bush administration of intentionally sending soldiers to die in Iraq to create a political distraction, now asserts that "America is more secure."
Harsanyi asks, how is Iraq doing now?
Remarkably well, you'll be pleased to learn.Economically, Iraq is the 12th-fastest-growing economy in the world; oil production is back; living standards are improving; about 20 million Iraqis have cell phones. When it comes to political freedom, Iraq ranks fourth in the Middle East--which, let's be honest, is like finishing fourth in the weak NFC West.
And what's in it for us? Little that's good, Harsanyi continues:
...If the Islamic radical leadership of Iran--which many experts believe filled the vacuum left by the toppling of Saddam Hussein--is, as many believe, an imminent nuclear threat, we are powerless to stop it.And if every military action in defense of U.S. interests now comes with an obligatory 10-, 20- or 40-year Marshall Plan, you've made it even more politically unpalatable.
There are other questions that make the claim "we're more secure" highly suspect. If we do leave, where is the evidence that Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) will blossom into a secular democracy and an ally in the war against Islamic radicalism?
Doubtlessly, it is Islamophobic to bring this up, but Americans are dying not only in the war on terror but also to codify Shariah. Brooks claims that in Iraq, "the role of women remains surprisingly circumscribed." Surprisingly? Actually, that's just a polite way of saying--and I quote directly from the Iraqi Constitution--"Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation."
That's one reason many of us regret our support of the Iraq war. Though I am not reflexively isolationist, I am reflexively suspicious of social engineering. And nation building is social engineering on the grandest of scales.
"if the Islamic radical leadership of Iran--which many experts believe filled the vacuum left by the toppling of Saddam Hussein--is, as many believe, an imminent nuclear threat, we are powerless to stop it."
Well, that line is patently untrue. Now, should we have gone into Iraq? Who knows? No one can tell what would have happened had another path been travelled. All we can do is deal with the one we took. And I say that as someone who was rather against the Iraq war, and who did not vote for Bush.
momof4 at September 2, 2010 5:23 AM
On a crude level, keeping Saddam in place would have meant having a Sunni, secular foil to Iran. And if we'd ever gotten tired of that, I'm sure that - eventually - some ambitious general could have taken his place.
I mean, let's face it. If you're an Iraqi woman, life is worse now for than before the invasion. Sure, if you're a Shia man or a Kurd, things are looking up. But did 4300 American men and women really sacrifice theirs lives to advance the dream of a free Kurdistan?
kevin_m at September 2, 2010 5:34 AM
But did 4300 American men and women really sacrifice theirs lives to advance the dream of a free Kurdistan?
That's really the question here.
Amy Alkon at September 2, 2010 7:26 AM
If this blog had nested comments, I'd place a +1 right under kevin_m's comment.
Christopher at September 2, 2010 7:56 AM
Does anyone here really believe that a secular Iraq led by a Saddam Hussein, or one of his sons (forget about some general getting ideas about a coup, they got the noose early and often) would sit idly by while Iran armed it self with nukes?
Nah, we'd see a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East. How, exactly, does that help anyone's security?
Don't forget the other nearly immediate benefit of going into Iraq netted us: Libya turned over its nuclear weapons program en masse. I'd call that a win.
But did 4300 American men and women really sacrifice theirs lives to advance the dream of a free Kurdistan?
Call that a side benefit. What we did gain, however, was a free-fire zone where the jihadi's went to martyr themselves and collect 72 virgin goats. Instead of being trained to conduct attacks in the west.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 2, 2010 8:46 AM
"But, I think we shouldn't disproportionately be the world's policeman (that's what the broken United Nations should be for)"
Think about that for a second, Amy. Do you really want the UN to have the power to be the world's policeman? The UN that elected Muamar Qaddafi chairman of the Human Rights Commission, & Robert Mugabe chairman of the Commission for Sustainable Development? That UN?
Martin at September 2, 2010 9:40 AM
Does anyone here really believe that a secular Iraq led by a Saddam Hussein, or one of his sons (forget about some general getting ideas about a coup, they got the noose early and often) would sit idly by while Iran armed it self with nukes?
No. Saddam, whose research infrastructure was a terrible mess and years behind that of Iran probably would have resorted to launching a conventional attack on Iran before they got the point of having a functional weapon. This would weaken both countries and reduce their ability to threaten others. Iran now has no rivals in the Arab world, and deep influence in Iraq; the empowering of Iran was a predictable consequence of our invasion of Iraq.
Think about that for a second, Amy. Do you really want the UN to have the power to be the world's policeman?
No one should be the world's policeman. Not the UN, and not the US.
Christopher at September 2, 2010 1:11 PM
I think we should nuke the ice caps. It make the global warming debate go away and the rest of the world would be too busy saving itself from rising ocean levels to engage in terrorism.
Added bonus mankinds numbers would drop to a more resonable level.
luljp at September 2, 2010 5:48 PM
Leave a comment