I agree with much of what you say. I differ on a few points. First, Saddam posed no regional threat and I think that was clear. Without the cold war protection of nuclear Russia, we could, and would, intervene militarily at the first sign of any aggression. Saddam had learned from the first Gulf war what our military intervention meant, and he was weaker militarily in 2001 than in 1991.
Second, the nexus between Saddam-led Iraq and terrorists that threatened America was not a sufficient reason to invade. He ruled with an iron fist and hated the Islamic Fundamentalists. He was responsible for executing Muslim clerics and their families, especially those that were radical and militant. The support that he gave the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian terrorists and political forces was more open, but not materially different than the aid they received from Saudi Arabia, Syria and others. The links between Al Queda and Iraq were analogous to the links between many countries and that organization, including our own. They were not nearly as pervasive as the Saudi-Al Queda ties so it's hard to spin that as a good reason for going in.
Your other reasons for justifying an invasion make good sense but the question is twofold; were they important enough to merit an invasion and occupation with the accompanying loss of American and Iraqi life, and could they have been accomplished through other, less deadly, means? When the most powerful nation in the world acts it must be acutely aware of the precedents it sets and the repercussions that flow from it's actions.
I fear that those that see a benevolent end to our destruction of Iraqi autonomy will be proven wrong and that the trust, credibility and moral leadership that we've lost will be difficult to restore and the anger that we've generated will breed a new generation of terrorist minded young men. For the sake of all of us, I hope that I'm wrong but, in view of my experience and the facts I know or can infer, I can't convince myself that I am. |
