One would think it would... But given the continuing belief by some that overthrowing Saddam was not justifiable (for a whole lot of reasons), apparently it has no impact.
This issue is not whether the current debacle in Iraq is "justifiable." As the dominant superpower, we could "justify" wars around the globe. Syria has never answered for the murder of tens of thousands at al-Hamma. China's "Red Terror" resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and it's current human rights record is poor. Egypt's extra-judicial arrests and detentions are regrettable --but convenient when the US has terror suspects who won't talk and need extra persuasion; we just hand them over to the Egyptians (or Syrians, Jordanians,or Saudis)and they are soon singing like birds, minus some body parts.
There are bad governments doing terrible things to their own people all over the world.
The issue is whether overthrowing such regimes is prudent, practical, or likely to produce an outcome better than containment and dissuasion. In fact, the reason why Bush 41 did not overthrow Saddam in GW1--or prevent his slaughter of Shiites and Kurds when they rose up, at our urging, after the war, was precisely because of such considerations:
"Above all, Bush administration officials were afraid any action in support of the Shiites and Kurds might lead to the disintegration of Iraq, the result that the Saudis and others in the Middle East were trying to prevent...The most succinct and Machiavellian description of the Bush administration's underlying strategy came from Powell. The United States wasn't merely neutral, he later admitted; in fact, it actually favored Saddam's armed forces over the Shiites and the Kurds. "Our practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to an Iran that remained bitterly hostile to the United States."
-- James Mann, "Rise of the Vulcans" p. 193.
There's a real cognitive dissonance going on with many of these anti-war types.. They claim to want human rights, but they aren't willing to lift a finger to fight for them..
I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupid. And your criterion for when to fight for human rights are very selectively applied. When we want to use human rights to justify unilateral US military action, they become paramount and the chest-beating is truly touching. Otherwise, we make speeches and turn a blind eye to the human rights records of every other country in the world, especially our "friends."
I have to defer to you on cognitive dissonance. The amount of information you have to ignore on a daily basis must be mind-boggling. |
