Ed,
Well presented. I don't believe that we took over Iraq solely, or even mostly, to prevent the internal repression and killing that took place there; it was not a human rights agenda, if it had been it should have taken place years before. The idea that, with elections, with the "Iraq-ization" of Iraq we might exit having freed 25 million Iraqis from Saddam is merely a side benefit.
I don't think that saying Iraq was not a threat (imminent or in due time) makes it so--too many people have posted US statements going back 12 years to think that. We thought they were a threat, we were opposed not by countries who thought Iraq wasn't or who had better intelligence on the WMD question, but by countries who did not (and still do not) want to see US influence grow in the region. Talk about the coalition of the bribed, parle-t-on francais? It is the wielding of the big stick in the region that is our goal. It may not play well in school yards and middle school civics classes, but it is the dangerous hand we are forced to play by the world situation, the world economy and the growing radicalization of the Middle East. We have to take the steps we can now, even if they are fraught with danger and cost lives, rather than wait until something more dangerous is forced on us in the future. You can accept this or disagree with it, of course.
But you're right, to try to cloak Iraq in terms of a humanitarian mission (even though I believe it will have, eventually, a humanitarian outcome) is wrong.
Your conclusion, though, that it was either a bad mistake or a "deliberate power grab" (as though a "deliberate power grab" were, by definition, something bad) shades the options. It could end up being a good power play and a good decision, viewed 10 years from now. This is a much longer drama than you are presupposing, and we are barely into the first act.
Kb |
