Why we are in Iraq
Tonight in the State of the Union address, President Bush talked frequently about Iraq. He even used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" which was not smart as it just reminds everyone that they were not there. Please retire that line. I do presume that the President, the CIA, and others thought they were there, but that was never why we are in Iraq. I wish that he would have just finally told the truth about their rationale, perhaps like this.
"The United States is at war. It is a different type of war, but it is no less important than World War II in Europe. We are fighting this war against a minority of the Middle Eastern Muslim population who fanatically dislike the U.S. and English long term support of Israel, and of exploitive dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They are fired by a centuries old version of Islam that has no limits on what one should do for their faith, be it mass murder, beheadings, or suicide. They are a danger to not only America but to Europe and the entire Middle East. Left to fester without this intervention they could terrorize the U.S. and Europe with 9/11 type catastrophes, and eventually build a Middle East with no rights for women, brutal suppression of any political dissent, probably some societies with stonings, chopped off hands, beheadings as punishments, and likely the end of Israel.
The United States must have a base of operations from which to fight this war. In World War II in Europe we had England, and since we won and introduced the Marshall Plan we put major bases in Germany to deal with the Soviet threat. We even have a base in Italy. In Asia we had to establish bases for naval operations in the South Pacific and for air force operations in southern China. And guess what, we now have bases in Japan and South Korea. So this is not a new idea. It is essential to be on the ground in the Middle East and not fight from a couple of aircraft carriers and slivers of land borrowed from Saudi Arabia for a limited time frame.
So why did we choose Iraq, because there is very little reason to think Osama bin Laden had any relationship or support there. Well, you know they could have had weapons of mass destruction. But they absolutely did have a brutal dictator who had committed mass murder in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north of the country, who tortured political opponents, who stole billions from the country's oil revenues with the help of international financial sociopaths like Marc Rich, who shot his son in law in the head in front of others, who invaded Kuwait without provocation, who fired missles into Israel, and who even conspired to assassinate my Daddy. Except for some of the Sunnis and the Russian and European firms that built his palaces and infrastructure, no one would miss this guy.
We are in Iraq for the long term. We must have a significant military presense in this region. We want the Iraqi people to have the freedom they did not have under Saddam and a chance for the Kurds and Shiites to have a life free from the fear of detention, torture, or slaughter. So we have two important goals --Establish a long term military presense and eventually help build an Iraq that is an example of Muslim integration and not tribalism.
But this is war, and war is not a good choice, but sometimes a necessary one. War is not predictable when you're in the middle of it. After our success in Afghanistan, we made some mistakes in Iraq about the level of sustained resistance. Inadvertantly, we created a roach hotel for terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere. That's made the mission more difficult, but we would have to face them somewhere and in a sense it's better to have them congregate in Iraq than focus elsewhere. They are attracted because they know what our real mission is.
Our soldiers that are fighting this war are heros and are not fighting just because of Saddam, oil, or some manifest destiny. They are fighting to preserve global stability and peace as we know it. They are fighting so that gradual change can come to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and other nations. And they are fighting so that we are on the ground if an international threat develops, as is the seeming case with Iran right now. They have a tough but heroic mission.
I appreciate the support of so many of you in this difficult but essential endeavor. And I urge those of you who have had differing opinions to carefully consider the magnitude of this threat. The United States is at war."
Of course, the above is conjecture. Holes can be punched into the logic by those with a different point of view. But the point here is to speculate about what the real rationale for this war is rather than to think that it's just, "MWD's not there but oh shucks now we're stuck" which is just too simple or "The only reason that we're there is for oil and Halliburton", which is simple, cynical, and ignores events that led to the present situation.
"The United States is at war. It is a different type of war, but it is no less important than World War II in Europe. We are fighting this war against a minority of the Middle Eastern Muslim population who fanatically dislike the U.S. and English long term support of Israel, and of exploitive dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They are fired by a centuries old version of Islam that has no limits on what one should do for their faith, be it mass murder, beheadings, or suicide. They are a danger to not only America but to Europe and the entire Middle East. Left to fester without this intervention they could terrorize the U.S. and Europe with 9/11 type catastrophes, and eventually build a Middle East with no rights for women, brutal suppression of any political dissent, probably some societies with stonings, chopped off hands, beheadings as punishments, and likely the end of Israel.
The United States must have a base of operations from which to fight this war. In World War II in Europe we had England, and since we won and introduced the Marshall Plan we put major bases in Germany to deal with the Soviet threat. We even have a base in Italy. In Asia we had to establish bases for naval operations in the South Pacific and for air force operations in southern China. And guess what, we now have bases in Japan and South Korea. So this is not a new idea. It is essential to be on the ground in the Middle East and not fight from a couple of aircraft carriers and slivers of land borrowed from Saudi Arabia for a limited time frame.
So why did we choose Iraq, because there is very little reason to think Osama bin Laden had any relationship or support there. Well, you know they could have had weapons of mass destruction. But they absolutely did have a brutal dictator who had committed mass murder in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north of the country, who tortured political opponents, who stole billions from the country's oil revenues with the help of international financial sociopaths like Marc Rich, who shot his son in law in the head in front of others, who invaded Kuwait without provocation, who fired missles into Israel, and who even conspired to assassinate my Daddy. Except for some of the Sunnis and the Russian and European firms that built his palaces and infrastructure, no one would miss this guy.
We are in Iraq for the long term. We must have a significant military presense in this region. We want the Iraqi people to have the freedom they did not have under Saddam and a chance for the Kurds and Shiites to have a life free from the fear of detention, torture, or slaughter. So we have two important goals --Establish a long term military presense and eventually help build an Iraq that is an example of Muslim integration and not tribalism.
But this is war, and war is not a good choice, but sometimes a necessary one. War is not predictable when you're in the middle of it. After our success in Afghanistan, we made some mistakes in Iraq about the level of sustained resistance. Inadvertantly, we created a roach hotel for terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere. That's made the mission more difficult, but we would have to face them somewhere and in a sense it's better to have them congregate in Iraq than focus elsewhere. They are attracted because they know what our real mission is.
Our soldiers that are fighting this war are heros and are not fighting just because of Saddam, oil, or some manifest destiny. They are fighting to preserve global stability and peace as we know it. They are fighting so that gradual change can come to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and other nations. And they are fighting so that we are on the ground if an international threat develops, as is the seeming case with Iran right now. They have a tough but heroic mission.
I appreciate the support of so many of you in this difficult but essential endeavor. And I urge those of you who have had differing opinions to carefully consider the magnitude of this threat. The United States is at war."
Of course, the above is conjecture. Holes can be punched into the logic by those with a different point of view. But the point here is to speculate about what the real rationale for this war is rather than to think that it's just, "MWD's not there but oh shucks now we're stuck" which is just too simple or "The only reason that we're there is for oil and Halliburton", which is simple, cynical, and ignores events that led to the present situation.
posted by John Borden at 2:28 AM
1 Comments:
Well thought out and perhaps a logical interpretation of the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld gangs approach to Iraq. But as you write, holes can be punched into this logic, one of which is that in establishing regional presences in WWII, we did not violate a nation's sovereignty.
Post a Comment
<< Home