Back to basics: The Iraq War (political)

[Varian P]

Did the U.S. and the supporting coalition do the right thing, invading Iraq?

Are preemptive attacks on countries that make us nervous ethical?
Is waging war the most effective way to diminish the danger of terrorist attacks?
Was the invasion of Iraq really about ensuring the safety of the U.S. and its allies, or was the war a pretense for achieving other ends?

 

[sweetness6280]

Going into all of that could be a very lengthy and boring answer. So I will try to keep it short.

If our goal was to fight Bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorist attackers, then going into Iraq was wrong. With that goal in mind, we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with both a diplomatic and a military presence, using sanctions or withholding aid if necessary to procure cooperation from the Pakistanis.

We ousted a radical, and yes, terroristic government, which is never a bad thing. However, the cost to our country, first in loss of life and second financially, has been devastating. Iraq has an enormous financial surplus, and, IMHO, should be handed a bill for services rendered.

In all honesty, I supported the war in the beginning, but in retrospect, I have to admit that I believe this was, at the core, Jr determined to finish the job Sr started. There are many rationalizations out there for taking the action we took; history will be the best judge of our actions.

 

[The_Trouvere]

In his book American Theocracy Kevin Phillips speculated that Bush invaded Iraq in order to flood the market with cheap Iraqi oil, and break the economic power of OPEC. Phillips suggested that GW really thought the war would be easy, and that when the price of gasoline went down few Americans would care about the absence of weapons of mass destruction.

If Bush's delusions had been realized, the Republican Party would be looking forward to a landslide victory for John McCain, and large Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

I do think Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, and I wish it could be proven. If it could be proven, the GOP would be in a world of trouble for a long time to come.

 

[sr71plt]

Did the U.S. and the supporting coalition do the right thing, invading Iraq?

Nope.

Are preemptive attacks on countries that make us nervous ethical?

Nope. Not in terms of the United States' own accumulated guiding foreign policy philosophy.

Is waging war the most effective way to diminish the danger of terrorist attacks?

Nope. Since Vietnam the United States has brought conventional warfare strategy to guerilla warfare--and not done well with that strategy.

Was the invasion of Iraq really about ensuring the safety of the U.S. and its allies,

Nope

or was the war a pretense for achieving other ends?

Yep

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I posted the following here in June, 2006. It looks less wild-eyed today than it did then.

I think Bush was determined after 9/11 to "change the rules," because the ones in place appeared to him to tilt the playing field against the safety of the U.S., and assuring that is his primary responsibility, after all. Afghanistan was the first move in this game, and at the time it was universally approved. Even now it there is not much criticism.

Iraq was the second move. He took a big gamble there, betting on the "neocon" vision that creating a "beachhead" of democracy in a benighted region would bear fruit by causing some dominos to fall in a direction we like. Libya appears to be an example of this, and perhaps Lebanon.

Will the gamble pay off? I don't think anyone knows. I think those who say "absolutely not" don't know that, and those who say (or said) "of course" don't know that. I think the shrill criticism is not good, and diminishes the chances the gamble will pay off. I think too many of those on both sides are motivated by blind partisanship, and so I tune 99 percent of it out.

 

[rgraham666]

Did the U.S. and the supporting coalition do the right thing, invading Iraq?

No.

Are preemptive attacks on countries that make us nervous ethical?

No more than a person shooting a neighbor because said neighbor makes them nervous.

Is waging war the most effective way to diminish the danger of terrorist attacks?

No. It's the work of intelligence agencies and police departments.

Was the invasion of Iraq really about ensuring the safety of the U.S. and its allies, or was the war a pretense for achieving other ends?

The purpose of the invasion of Iraq was to overturn international law and replace it with Pax Americana. It was a message to the world, "We are now in sole charge. We go where we want, when we want and do whatever we want to the people there. We don't care if you hate us as long as you fear us."

Thanks to U.S. efforts international law is fading. We're returning to the anarchy of the 19th Century, which ended in WWI, and the years after that catastrophic event, which ended in WWII.

If we don't stop this slide the coming anarchy will end in another World War. A war in which all the major participants and some of the minor ones have weapons of mass destruction.

Won't that be fun?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VP

Bush made the correct decision but failed in the follow-up. That is, he had no plan beyond conquering Iraq and deposing Saddam.

Saddam was a vile killer who needed to go.
Iraq has 25% of the worlds oil reserves.
Iraq occupies a strategic position on the Persian Gulf.
We keep Israel and the Arabs apart.
Iran is boxed in.

But no WHAT NEXT? plan really hurt.

 

[incubus666]

VP

Bush made the correct decision but failed in the follow-up. That is, he had no plan beyond conquering Iraq and deposing Saddam.

Saddam was a vile killer who needed to go.
Iraq has 25% of the worlds oil reserves.
Iraq occupies a strategic position on the Persian Gulf.
We keep Israel and the Arabs apart.
Iran is boxed in.

But no WHAT NEXT? plan really hurt.

I seldom agree with JBJ but in this case he is dead on the money.

I put a lot of the blame on the military's senior officers. They should have said Mr. President if you if consider this invasion I will have my resignation on your desk in the morning. They should have resigned and then called a press conference and told the media of their objections. A couple of those and America would have been up in arms. The administration would have been forced to do it the right way.

There have been a few who did retire and then complain about the war. The problem was they took their promotion and the pay raises and then pissed and whined.

Mike S.