Z Re..This is not a war of necessity. That was Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice — a legitimate choice to preserve the credibility of the U.N., which Saddam has defied for 12 years, and to destroy his tyranny and replace it with a decent regime that could drive reform in the Arab/Muslim world. That's the real case.<<<
Funny how he nails it on the head, and then declares, it isn't necessary. Yes, I have argued for months with Al, that the war in Iraq was necessary, because Iraq was in the center of the problems in the middle east; and that is why, WMD, or no WMD, we need to democratize Iraq. That is why it is a war of necessity, not choice. OBL states flat out that our methods to contain Saddam caused his jihad against the US. Only by replacing Saddam can we get the troops out of Sa, and eliminate the sanctions and the fly overs. I would agree, that after Iraq, our troops should head west, through Jordan, and force Israel, and Palestine to come to a equitable solution. Period. Enough of this shit already. A clamp down on Israel, should silence the critics, and make peace possible in the region.
The problem that Mr. Bush is having with the legitimate critics of this war stems from his consistent exaggeration on this point. When Mr. Bush takes a war of choice and turns it into a war of necessity, people naturally ask, "Hey, what's going on here? We're being hustled. The real reason must be his father, or oil, or some right-wing ideology."
Gee, and why is that. It is because Powell wanted to go to the UN, and the UN had all of these resolutions, preceding 9/11, which Powell intended to use to get UN compliance. The trouble is the France led the charge to make all of the resolutions and the UN irrelevant.
And that brings us to the second phrase: "We really don't need anybody's permission." Again, for a war of no choice against the 9/11 terrorists in Kabul, we didn't need anyone's permission. But for a war of choice in Iraq, we need the world's permission — because of what it would take to rebuild Iraq.
I disagree entirely on that. Afghanistan will be far harder to rebuild than Iraq. And the UN nations in Afghanistan designated for peacekeeping and rebuilding Afghanistan are failing there also, so who is to say, they would be any more effective in Iraq.
So here's where we are. Regime change in Iraq is the right choice for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world. Mr. Bush is right about that. But for now, this choice may be just too hard to sell. If the president can't make his war of choice the world's war of choice right now, we need to reconsider our options and our tactics. Because if Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not only lose the chance of building a decent Iraq, but something more important — America's efficacy as the strategic and moral leader of the free world.
If getting rid of Saddam is the right thing to do, then do it. Quit giving excuses. To get rid of Al qaeda, we must rebuild the middle east. That really is what all of the terrorist bombing is about. A demand that we do something we have all been too willing to let slide. Why would doing nothing lesson the need for more bombing. The same arguments against the US paying the costs of rebuilding the middle east, were there when the us adopted THE Marshall Plan. Europe didn't help us with the Marshall plan, they were the Marshall plan. And the same benefits could accrue to us after the middle east is rebuilt. So rebuilding Iraq could be a risk, just as the Marshal plan was, but the gains justify the risks. In addition, we could pull out of Kosovo, and use our peacekeepers and rebuilders there to rebuild Iraq. Its not like we don't have options. Also, Europe fears the US will rebuild the middle east, and they will be left out. My bet is that Europe will jump on board, if not out of goodwill, then fear; fear that just like the Marshall Plan, the benefits exceed the risk. |
