re:"I don't think anyone seriously believes that we invaded to save the Iraqis from Saddam."
I believe that it is certainly one of the reasons. First of all, Sanctions were not sustainable. The Arab world, because of Saddam and OBL (and a gaffe from Albright), were told that the U.S. was deliberately committing genocide in Iraq (Sanctions). The United States was attacked on 9/11 (and for almost a decade before that) because American troops, based in Saudi Arabia, were enforcing UN Sanctions and the No Fly Zones. Sanctions over time, became just an excuse, to leave Saddam alone, so he could commit genocide (or democide); while at the same time allies could claim that they were actively trying to oppose Saddam's bad behavior (and acts of genocide). It is clear, that allowing Saddam to remain in power after the first Gulf War, was a mistake, the attack at least corrected that grievous error.
The Clinton Doctrine states, that if it is within our power, and if we can make a difference, the United States should use force to remove evil people (those committing genocide) from power (and his remaining in power, was the fault of the original coalition).:o)
I believe that the Administration really believes that the region will be more stable, and a better place with Saddam gone. I don't believe that it was "just about the oil", then again, I also believe that the United States didn't "liberate" the French for their wine and cheese:o) |
