I don't believe that the choice to remove Saddam will result in a more stable Middle East. In the bad old days (Saddam), he played a large role in keeping Iran at bay. He had no WMD, etc. etc. etc. There was a balancing of interests between the Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, et al. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt. A terrible guy. But in removing a terrible guy, (with absolutely no plan for the endgame), we have created a mess....an absolute mess. And we can't pretend it isn't a mess. The Administration says it is a mess. Gates says it is a mess.
Agree or disagree on whether we should have spent 1.2 trillion dollars on Iraq, we did not HAVE to. It was a choice. Absolutely a choice. People make choices. Smart people learn from their bad choices and change direction.
This argument has been made a thousand times...if Saddam was in violation of U.N. resolutions AND was an imminent danger (which it turned out not to be...by any stretch of the imagination), why not take on IRAN first, or North Korea? Or Somalia? Or deal with the Sudan?
If we now say, o.k., what's done is done..let's look forward. There is still no reason to continue to toss our brave men and women into the teeth of a sectarian struggle.
I would love a "more stable Middle East". Unleashing a civil war in Iraq, drawing in Sunni support from Saudi Arabia adn Syria, and Shiite support from Iran..with all that that entails down the road...is not the way to get a more stable Middle East.
If we secure the Iraqi borders and let the fire burn itself out, it would be more in our national interest long term than what we are doing now. |
