You are seperating out the reasons, one by one, and then claim, that each reason by itself, did't deserve the response. However GW didn't have that luxury. They all came as a package, and like it or not, should be counted on their whole. And like it or not,geopolitics matter; the ME contains a valuable resource, without which millions of people in the west would starve, and our economies would be ruined. Any president who let the biggest three be controlled by our enemies, should and would be hung for stupidity and treason. You can't take that kind of chance with the lives of 289 million people. So, don't kid yourself,we have selfish reasons for wanting to stabilize the ME.
Oh, I agree with that -- I think stabilizing the Middle East is a good idea -- in fact, I read the 80-page neo-con "manifesto" from the mid-90s and liked what I'd read. I'm just very uncomfortable with the nature of our reconstruction and diplomatic efforts, as well as the fact that although there were some good reasons to go to war, they weren't the reasons that the administration gave us (until after the war).
Z,
I have to admit that I have only read excerpts from the neo-con manifesto but I get uncomfortable whenever people try to 'formularize' the democratization or stabilization of a region. When I was a kid, I used to imagine eastern Europe becoming free; after all, there had been a number of events in the prior decades that would suggest the people wanted to be free.
However, when push came to shove and it finally happened, it was not at all how I had envisioned it. I expected that there would be these localized revolts that over time built up a momentum until a point was reached when there were so many 'fires' the Soviet military couldn't keep up. Not in a million years did I imagine that the Czechs et al would gain their freedom because the Soviet Union was 'forced' into bankruptcy.
I believe there is a path that will lead the ME to peace and stability but I suspect it will be a torturous one in part because of the machinations by the West in the region since the 18th century. I don't think fighting a war in Iraq will do the trick. Anything involving humans becomes organic and chemical. You can't 'force' a design like you can for an inorganic structure like an office building.
The West would be better off weaning itself off oil and finding alternative energy sources. We may up being forced into that position in any case thanks to the hubris and policies of the current administration. I see very little good coming out this venture in Iraq, and potentially a good lot of pain.
ted |
