z,
It's easy for me to grasp that the ending rule of a horribly oppressive dictator represents casus belli.
I am on the fence on this one. I think more was needed, some discrete event. And causus belli doesn't last forever. We had enough on Saddam to take him out in 91, later after the assassination attempt of former president Bush, when he was not cooperating with the inspecpectors, when he kicked them out, but we didn't use these opportunities.
I hate to bring Hitler into the discussion, but even he supposedly dressed some German soldiers in Polish uniforms to manufacture a provocation that lead to takeover of Poland.
It's just you and me that need to be satisfied with the explanation for war, but millions of people out there.
I'm saying that if not for our occupation, Germany and Japan would not be the liberal democracies they are today.
I can go along with that. There will most likely be occupation of Iraq, or at minimum, sationing of some troops.
If we don't stay there after taking out Saddam, there will be a horribly bloody civil war. Almost guaranteed. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
I have no way of knowing, but it may be better in the long run, it is better to solve the source of problem / dispute, than to sit on it and suppress te symptoms.
If it split, it wouldn't be without massive bloodshed. How many hundreds of thousands of people died in Yugoslavia? It might be worse in Iraq, because of the potential interference of Turkey, Iran, and Syria.
What would be wrong with keeping our troops in there to keep Turkey, Iran, and Syria out, while keeping the ethnic groups separated?
I am not against stationing troops. But you make it sound like a new, ongoing cost, when if fact, we can just re-deploy troops from Germany to Iraq, and actually save money, because Iraq may be a cheaper place to keep the troops than Germany.
Joe |
