"you preferred Saddam being in power to quash any fundamentalist movement that dared rear its head. And I'm sure you were quite proud of Hafez al-Assad for what he did in Hama."
Aside from the entirely unnecessary non-sequitar of the Assad reference, may I point out that the US never had any problems with setting up and/or supporting a number of brutal dictatorships during the Cold War? And while some of them may have been necessary (stress the word "may" here), a number of them were entirely unnecessary and counter productive, including but not limited to Vietnam (like virtually all of the regimes set up in the Americas). And of course (this is so often repeated that it is almost embarrassing to repeat it, but...) it was the Reagan administration that used and encouraged Saddam to counter the Iranian revolution.
That isn't in itself an argument against using or overthrowing brutal dictators. But priorities and lesser evils at the moment need to be set in foreign policy. The priority right now and in the past year was not Saddam. It was and is Al Qaeda. Going after Saddam at the expense of unity in the war against Al Qaeda was, as I suppose you know I believe, foolish at best. I repeat what I (and others) have said earlier that removing the guy has both strengthened the enemies who matter most here, has weakened the trust and support of our friends, has cost us money and lives that need not have been spent in this way at this time, and has distracted our attention from the real battle that must, as we agree, be won.
But the latter was, I am sorry to say that I am cynical enough to believe, an important part of the reason for the adventure in the first place. All politics are "local," and this administration is, first and foremost, a political "animal." |
