So, diplomacy and sanctions are useless except as a prelude to war?
9 times out of 10 they are ineffective - and almost always require a credible threat when they are credible. Your brand of "war is always a last resort" posturing sounds ever so high toned, but in the game of international power politics, it translates to "Not credible".
Because every word you say makes it clear that you wanted the troops to go over, and sit in Kuwait, but never to be used under any circumstances. As long as the UN honchos could run around and declare their diplomacy a success (diplomacy is always a success, according to diplomats) you would not have moved.
The end result would have been Saddam's survival, torture, mass graves and all, and a huge loss of US credibility and prestige.
This is a foreign policy? The 'realists', Scowcroft et al, were also against the war, but had more sense than to propose anything so obviously counter-productive. But then, Scowcroft et al have the interests of the United States at heart. I think you would be happy to see the United States weakened and hamstrung because you are rooting for some form of UN world government.
Sorry this war was immoral as conducted, and therefore can never be pointed to as a success
The Iraqis don't agree with you about that. Isn't odd that you sit in safety and declare it is "immoral", yet those who actually suffered and lost relatives tell the pollsters that it was the only war to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and their lives are much better because of it, despite their losses? Can you explain that to me?
If Iraq winds up as a prosperous and decent place to live, can we point to the war as a succes then? |
