Larry Blanchard wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Right. Sadaam & Son's butcher the innocent by the thousands, but it's
*Bush's* fault there is conflict in the region.

Well, there wasn't a lot of conflict when the conflictors (is that a word?)
were being butchered :-).

And in case you've forgotten, we didn't go into Iraq to "make the world just
slightly better". but to eliminate a threat to us that it turned out was bogus
- whether by mistake or intention is still to be determined.

If the Iraqis had a bad government, it was up to the Iraqis to do something to
fix the problem, not us. But the truth is that the Sunnis were quite happy
with Saddam and encouraged and abetted his atrocities against the Shia and
the Kurds.


So long as the conflict remained internal and had no real chance of
expanding, I more-or-less agree with you. The problem is:

1) We did - at the time - believe there was a larger threat

2) Sadaam had already demonstrated a willingness to export his
nonsense by invading his neighbors, funding suicide bombers
among the "Palestinians", and playing happy host to terrorists
living openly in Bagdhad.

So .. at the time, at least, there was some reasonable reason to
suppose the threat was larger than just local to Iraq.

Ironically, the same people who raise the loudest voices against
the Iraqi war, widely supported military intervention in Kosovo
(where there were not only no "good guys" but where the conflict
was entirely regional, or if not, at most, Europe's problem) and
are now howling for military intervention in the Darfur ... and
entirely local problem.

I have no problem staying out of other people's conflicts so long
as it does not have the real likelihood of moving from brushfire,
to wildfire, to forest fire ... a scenario that seemed likely
a few years ago.

But - and I say this as someone who did and does support US action
in Iraq, however grudgingly - W and necons' greatest mistake wasn't
going to war. It was going to war *for the wrong reasons*. Going to
war to neutralize threat is proper. Going to war to export Jesus
and democracy is a plainly stupid motivation. Democracy has to
be earned by its beneficiaries, not just handed out like candy from
your visiting uncle. It is this flawed motivation that keeps the
US mired down in Iraq today. W should get up and make this
statement:

We went to Iraq to erase a real threat to world stability.
We did so successfully. We also thought we could help the people
of the region accelerate their path to democracy - to do in a generation
what took us 200+ years. We were wrong - the Iraqi people weren't
ready for democracy as we understand it. Our policy now is to find
a way to place the burden of Iraq's future on its own citizens and
withdraw as soon as reasonably possible. We do retain the right to
reenter at any time when we see *our* enemies gathering, training,
and/or operating there. Iraq is the business of the Iraqi people
for here forward - we've opened the door, they have to walk through
it.


But, of course, he *can't* make that speech even if he believed it.
His political opponents - who care only about seizing power - will
use it as ammunition to undermine his remaining presidential years
and his political party. It makes no difference that a speech like
this would be good for our entire nation and the West broadly. The
Democrats have amply demonstrated that their interest is not liberty
or even the good of their own nation, but their own callow need for
power...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/