I fail at sarcasm again.< > < > Let me be serious then. No one can legitimately argue that Saddam was a good guy. He wasn't. He was an evil and sadistic man. I think one of the bad things we've done as a nation is made deals with evil and sadistic men, either putting them into power, or helping them to maintain their positions of power, because of other things that benefit the United States. Even when it does not benefit the people of that country. We've even quashed democracy before, to suit our interests.< > < > I'm also not adverse to playing 'America: World Police' as long as we have a clear idea of what our objectives are. It would be wonderful if ideally the UN could take on that role, but that would be a ten page discussion in and of itself.< > < > Rwanda in particular had a genocide where almost 1 million people were killed (approx. 800k) in under three months. We knew it, the world knew it. In a perfect world, had there been some type of 'world police', or the US was filling that role, many lives could have been saved. Of course the massacre took place within a short period of time, and it would require massive mobilization efforts to happen very quickly, but it could be done.< > < > But we don't play world police. Not really. We're interested in protecting our interests, which is why we've helped to keep some terrible people in power, and put some terrible people into power. I'm sure everyone recalls when Saddam was our buddy, pretty much prior to this invasion of Kuwait.< > < > So did we go into Iraq to 'liberate' the Iraqi people? Or did we go into Iraq to protect our own interests? Or did we go into Iraq for other reasons which have been proposed, everything from private business concerns, to Bush's agenda on wanting Saddam out both because of threats made specifically against his family as well as the fact that he should have been taken out of power during the Gulf War, and George Bush, Sr. failed to do so.< > < > I personally don't think there's a simple answer there, I think it's a factor of all those things, and the answer most presented to the American people is the one that works the best this week. But the truth is a combination of those factors, and probably other factors.< > < > Is the United States safer today because we went into Iraq? I don't think so. There's no terrorism links between 9/11 and Iraq. I also think it can be argued that we are less safe as a result of our actions there. We've destablized a secular government (which was clearly not a 'good' government, but serves our interests better than another theocracy in the region). We've created more zealots. Yes, there will always be zealots even without help, but we've made a fertile eeding ground for more.< > < > Are the Iraqi people better off today because we went into Iraq? Yes and no. Yes, in that some individuals are probably better off, no in that the majority *today* are not. If you look at every factor, most people were better off when Saddam was in power. That does not mean he was better for the people though, simply that *today* they are not better off.< > < > So what about the future? It's hard to say. And unfortunately we have biased perspectives. I would say that it appears to me that women are not better off, because previously when their society was more secular, women had far more rights, and far more freedoms. You see far more women today wearing the veil. However that's my perspective based off my bias. There are women I am sure who would say they believe that is positive change.< > < > The future is uncertain. I really don't know if it will be ultimately better for the Iraqi people. I think the situation today would have been far better had there been active popular resistance, which we went in and 'liberated', but we created a vaccum. It's truly a case of time will tell.< > < > And time will tell whether or not our actions will ultimately be of benefit to the United States or not too. < > < > I think we have to be aware of our biases though. I happen to think that our government style: A republic/democracy, or representitive democracy...is the best. I'm biased though, because I've always lived with it. I know people who truly believe a monarchy is the best form of government. I saw a very intelligent person the other day write a little bit on why they felt a monarchy was the way to go, with much the same bias we show democracy. (And no, they weren't British! ). < > < > We also tend to think of dictatorships as 'evil' because of our bias. I think there's a tendancy to think of theocracy as 'bad' too, when it's not one's personal religion. But when it is one's personal religious beliefs, then it doesn't seem as bad, or it may even seem like a good idea to ing some components of that faith system into government.< > < > But I'm starting to drift off topic. The real question here is, what is our role, and what do we want our role to be? If we play "World Police", then much like law enforcement all over the world, we have to prepare to be hated. And that hatred will make us vunerable. And we have to have clear goals on what we're doing, and why. Do we go in when it's genocide? Seems a no- ainer to me, sounds good. Okay, what about when a leader is 'bad'? Well we have to define bad. Of course with Saddam, it's pretty easy. Shoving people through a wood chipper, rape rooms, gassing Kurds...not a nice guy. Unfortunately we can probably come up with a list of world leaders who would be considered 'bad' under what we could come up with there.< > < > And there are those in the world who think our leaders are bad. I'm not talking so much about Americans who aren't thrilled with Bush. Even the ones who really dislike him (or perhaps even hate him) wouldn't usually classify his level of being bad with the more evil people in the world. If it was between Saddam and Bush, I think you could easily point to Saddam as far more 'evil' in totatlity. < > < > But there are people in the world who think Bush is just as evil, or more evil than Saddam. There are those who think we're the greatest threat to the world. And if we didn't have the best military in the world (my bias again, but it's also true) we might be in deeper shit. But instead that displeasure or hatred will be carried out in other ways. If you can't beat the biggest kid on the block, you can strike other ways: terrorism, kidnapping American tourists, etc.< > < > If we decide that world police is NOT our role, or is a role we should only play in part through another entity...like the UN, then what is our goal? If it's American interests, we need to be clear on what that is as well. Because unfortunately there's an appearance that 'American interests' is synonymous with corporate interests. < > < > Which isn't necessarily bad. Capitalism works for us, and corporate interests effect the United States greatly. But I think that line is a little too fuzzy for many people. < > < > Back to Iraq, Bush has said that the intelligence was faulty. This admission has helped his popularity numbers in the US. Which (IMO) is why the admission was finally made. But that's purely my cynical opinion, it doesn't matter for this discussion, I'm just tossing it in to demonstrate my bias here. He has also said though that if he knew then all that he knows now...he still would have gone in. Which is different mind you, than knowing that the intel was faulty then with no additional information.< > < > So, let's play hindsight. People knew at the time that the intelligence was 'questionable' at best. It's a fact that it was questionable then. What's uncertain who knew how wrong it was when. < > < > But let's say that there's no intelligence failure, and it's discovered then that there were no WMD. Would the people of the United States have supported an invasion into Iraq?< > < > I think the answer is 'no'. Would our allies have supported it? Again, I think the answer for most (if not all of them) would be 'no'.< > < > Without the WMD issue, there's no invasion.< > < > In other words, we aren't the world police. It was simply an added bonus to feel better that in addition to eliminating a threat against ourselves, we were also helping to free a people from oppression. And it served business interests to do so. Those are added bonuses, not reasons for invasion, no matter how it's spun today.< > < > And that's the hindsight on it. But as most people are well aware, we're at "well...we're there now!" point. Which illustrates the addage, 'it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission' I suppose. < > < > So where do we go from here? It seems like the main agenda now is to make this as small a clusterfuck as possible. It could still end 'okay', but there's a lot of big 'ifs' there. If a representitive government works. If islamic extremists don't disrupt or worse, gain power. If the region stabilizes. If the new government has enough support to stay in power. If the people really want this new government. And numerous other 'ifs', along with many I probably haven't even thought of.< > < > And there's an awful lot of 'ifs' on how badly this could end up. < > < > So where do we go from here? I don't know. I do know that if we don't learn from this mistake, we have no one to blame but ourselves when it fucks us in the ass again. I think we need for a President ot have the power to mobilize troops quickly in a crisis situation, without going through the governmental process of declaring an act of war. But that process is there for a balance. Would a better system in place have worked here? I don't know. I think another issue is access to intelligence. Based on what Congress knew, because their access was limited, they were in support. Would that have changed if they had known more about the intelligence, including the questioning of it.< > < > So many 'ifs', but I think it demonstrates a need for change. And not a knee-jerk reaction like the Patriot Act. But carefully considered change about balance of power, and what our role should be, and what our role will be in the world theater, and concerning our own interests.< > < > Meanwhile, while it seems so disgracefully on the backburner, Osama bin Laden is still out there. I know that it has been said that he's essentially powerless and in many ways we don't care (said in essense one way or another). Well, perhaps not that we don't care, that's a little too strong. More that it is not our focus, and it's very low on the list of priorities. < > < > It shouldn't be. If a serial killer was on the loose, it would be scant conciliation to the families of the victims if the police said it wasn't a priority because due to the publicity the killer was in hiding, and since he was unlikely to attack again due to the publicity...it was no longer a priority case. Bad analogy perhaps, but frankly I don't care if he's in the nastiest rat hole in the world with no electricity, he still holds power as long as he lives. He's a symbol, and a powerful one. Even if all funds were cut off (which they're probably not), even if his access to the world was limited only to video tapes which eventually surface, that is still a fuck of a lot of power. It galvanizes others to action, and is a living demonstration of 'See, I'm still outwitting the most powerful nation on earth. They haven't gotten me yet!'. And toss in a few things about it being because God is on their side.< > < > We weren't done with Afghanistan and we leapt into Iraq. And while we are still in Afghanistan, it seems that the very reasons we went to war...because we were attacked...are off the priority radar because of these other issues.< > < > Bleh, I've typed too much and probably three people will read it all, but that's my non-sarcastic thoughts on this whole mess. I truly wish I had better answers. I've certainly seen some good ideas offered. But I think one of our priorities needs to be taking a long hard look at how these things have happened, and making changes so they do not happen in the future, as well as figuring out our role. It doesn't have to be a hard rule, but I think it's better than continually trying to spin various reasons for actions we've already committed.
< >
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>
|