quote:The plain truth is this. We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it. That is the deep, relatively unarticulated strategy behind Operation Iraqi Freedom.
...
Of course, a stark declaration that the United States intended to force fundamental policy change on the states of the Middle East was not something that other governments, especially Middle Eastern ones, could accept. The United States could not simply go to the Gulf sheiks and say, “Join us in freeing your region of poisonous, autocratic rule.”
Instead, Bush emphasized the broadly appealing goal of ridding Mesopotamia of Saddam’s WMD arsenal. This was a goal Bush honestly believed in – again, there is no evidence of lying. But far more importantly, it was a goal that Middle Eastern governments could publicly support, or at least quietly accept. It was a goal even Germany and France could have supported, had they chosen to do so.
Like my friend, I am impressed but skeptical.
There are two ways one can take this article: (A) as an explanation of the administration's behavior leading up to the war, or (B) as a justification for the war. Surely the author intended it to be both.
In role (B), I think the article fares well in some ways and poorly in others. Certainly regime change in Iraq and pressure on other Middle Eastern states was a more important administration goal than WMDs. Also more important, I'm sure, than anything having to do with oil. But where the article goes wrong is in taking the WMD excuse as an appeal to international sentiment.
It seems to me that the WMD excuse was used mainly to stir American sentiment in favor of the war. If Bush and Co. had cared about foreign sentiment, they'd have done a better and more thorough job of appealing to European allies. Basically, they just wanted the war to happen, and so the American people were the ones they most needed to convince. Since we were very afraid at that time of terrorist WMD attacks from Islamic groups, this was the obvious way to appeal to us.
Now, about (B): does this motive make the Iraq war a just war? The author employs an analogy of how our "deep deployment" in Europe during the Cold War was justified, even though the "defend democracy" arguments we gave for it were not the real reasons.
Well, this is a pretty tough analogy to apply to the Iraq war. We sent troops to Europe during peacetime, with the consent of the countries involved. A trumped-up excuse for a peaceful foreign deployment is one thing; it's another thing entirely when we're talking about an aggressive war. Obviously the Iraqi people did not publicly express their consent for a US invasion in any way. After the fact, it's clear that we don't have a broad base of consent for our occupation.
There's also the whole question about whether we're deterring terrorism or just fueling anti-American sentiment among Arabs.
But the main failure of the analogy in the article is this: the American people would've supported our deployment in Europe during the Cold War if they'd known our true reasons for it. I don't have the data handy, but I was convinced by a number of polls before and after the war that the people would not have supported an Iraq invasion if they'd known what the author takes to be our true motives.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take note: this is not to say that the Iraq war isn't a "good strategy" from the point of view of American expedience! Things may well turn out better for us because we invaded Iraq.
But that doesn't necessarily make it right. That's why we have just war theory.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we have just war theory? I thought it was a theological concept.
Of course, in my view this war is very much an extension of the first war, which was thought to be a just war in protecting a weak country from a strong one.
The only rationalizations that made sense to me for renewing this war had to do with the oppresion of groups withing Iraq- i.e. the Shi'ites and Kurds.
Forgive me for not reading the article in its entirety at present. But a major factor in how this war is being fought and perceived internationally is the fact that there has been only one Shi'ite state and many Sunni states. I don't know if it is what Bush intended, but Iraq stands some chance of being a state of multiple groups- Sunnis who are ethnically Arab (I think) Kurdish Sunnis (who have been systematically disenfranchised) and Shi'ites.
But to the other Sunni states, an Iraq run by anyone other than Sunnis is a very threatening idea.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've spoken with many people, including some devout Christians (but, obviously, not "all" Christians) who believe that Islam must be weakened and possibly wiped out. They blame the Crusades on initial Ismlamic attacks on Christianity, and fault the Muslims for holding a completely war-like stance on the theo-political workings of the world.
They also fault all Muslims for being unable to accept responsibility for their actions, and then go on to blame Clinton for all our country's problems.
I have spoken with an East Indian fellow, who has nothing nice at all to say about (Muslim) Pakistan, and who is grateful to God for providing the United States to wipe out Islam.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised that there are people who're just now coming to this conclusion. It was pretty much the consensus on Hatrack that this was the real motivation even before we invaded.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, that this wasn't the motivation the Bush admin used to justify the war is somewhat problematic; its accepting that which many people (including on hatrack) have problems with.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm surprised that there are people who're just now coming to this conclusion.
It's not the official party line of either party, and most people who write on the subject are hacks for one side or the other Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
