 |
September 12, 2006QueryBush, in his 9/11 speech this evening: "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power." True or false? I can think of strong arguments on both sides, what do commenters think? UPDATE: Looks like the "false" got it, eh? Posted by Gregory at September 12, 2006 03:35 AMComments
Had we taken a more thoughtful approach to him, we probably could have come to a secret arrangement where we helped him maintain the pretense of having a monitored WMD program, so that he could keep his internal and regional enemies in line, in return for an increased degree of liberalization and freedoms - China-grade freedoms, in other words, which we seem to be okay with. We probably could have required that his sons removed from positions of authority and kept in line, which, frankly, would have gone a long way towards improving things. As it stands, it looks like Saddam's Iraq was, in practice, more free and more liberal than today's Iraq. Certainly it was for women. Mere voting doesn't mean much when the real power is held by violent neighborhood authoritarians and militant sectarian factions. Iraqis might as well be voting in Iraqi Idol for all the good it does them. The power vacuum, and regional disruption (which is likely to increase), are a bigger threat than Saddam actually was. Posted by: Jon H at September 12, 2006 03:53 AM | Permalink to this comment
Saddam was in a box before we invaded. He was no threat and Iraq wasn't a haven for, a training ground for or a recruiting tool for terrorists. Saddam's Iraq neither had WMDs nor the means to produce them so long as sactions remained in effect. Further, Saddam's undoubtedly brutal and dictatorials regieme kept a lid on what we now know was a powerkeg of Sunni versus Shia sectarian violence. Also Saddam's relatively secular Ba'athist society served up a model in the muslim and arab world for the equality of opportunity for women. Additionally, Saddam viewed al Qu'aida as a threat so he denied the keystone Persian Gulf oil producing country to them. Saddam's uneasy British and American enforced cease-fire with Iraqi Kurds tamped down more direct efforts toward de facto and de jure establishment of an independent Kurdistan and the resulting elevated tensions among Iraq's neighbors with sizable Kurdish populations, namely Syria, Turkey and Iran. Finally, and perhaps as important as any of the above. Saddam's Iraq and it's antipathy to Iran served as a check on Iran's regional ambitions and served as a barrier for the free flow of resources from Iran to Syria. There are othew arguments which could be advanced, but those should suffice for the purpopse of this discussion. Whatever argumnets may be mustered in support of the proposition: "The world is safe because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power", will I think pale in comparison to the arguments against the folly Bush has wrought Posted by: Aaron Adams at September 12, 2006 03:58 AM | Permalink to this comment
False. We were an enormously strong country. Even after Bush, we remain one. For us, disorder in the Middle East is more troubling than a tin-pot dictator. A failed oil-producing country in the Middle East more troubling than that. A regional war would be worse yet. And my suspicion is that in the long run, the big mistakes we'll look back and see will be the regions and countries we did not address because our attention was elsewhere (my guess: Russia, maybe China). Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at September 12, 2006 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
A question such as whether "the world" "is safer" is a nonsense question. What exactly is the metric? How does one measure the "Safety Of The World" at any given time? These are not meaningful concepts. In general in these discussions, if you don't like what Bush has done, you will tend to be attracted to the concept that "the world isn't safer". If you do, you might say "the world is safer". In both cases you are reciting a string of words with, for all practical purposes, no objective content. It would be more honest just to say either "I don't like Bush" or "I like Bush" and be done with it. Posted by: xmath at September 12, 2006 04:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
Bush lied again when he said Saddam was a threat. He was not only not a threat to us but to no one else. Yes he was evil and cruel to his people but he was not a threat to either us or Israel. It is even doubtful he would ever have become a threat because we had him on his knees and he would have eventually given in like Khadafi. Is the world safer? Not by a long shot. Iraq will most likely splinter into three nations. The Kurds and the Turks will grow increasingly irritated at each other; the Shiites will move closer to Iran; and the Sunnis will provide greater assistance to the Al Qaeda type movements in an attempt to regain their lost country. Is the World safer? Al qaeda has learned how to fight a modern army. It has passed it knowledge through its channels to the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. (Notice the similarity of operations and attacks.) It has used Iraq as a recruiting tool and training ground for more of its forces. Is the world safer? The American ground forces have shown themselves to be somewhat of a paper tiger. They cannot seem to hold any ground; they are running short of equipment and men; and they are unable to do anything other than repeat over and over again the same thing dismal failures. This is not a criticism of the troops who I believe are the best in the world but of their leaders who have provided too few of them and too timid an approach. I would really like to hear the argument on the other side that says we are safer. By the way just read Teddy Roosevelt biography and see that the major reason we said we went to war with Spain was its cruel treatment of the Cuban people. 100 plus years later and we are still using the same spin.
What exactly is the metric I don't know if it's true or not, but some folks say the war has helped terrorist organizations with recruiting. More terrorists = higher likelihood of terrorism = less safe word...or something. But still, I agree with your overall point, the whole question is way too abstract and messy.
This is easy. False. It isn't too difficult of a question. Although Saddam was certainly a monster, it would be better for change to come from within the country on a solid base of common goals. As in the American Revolution. Democracy can't be imposed from the outside. Now we did what Iran wasn't able to do...topple Saddam. The world has a ton of more terrorists. That is Mr. Bush's legacy. Bush is the Ken Lay of Politics. He is nothing but a criminal.Pick something to impeach him on. War. Foreign Relations. Constitutional trangressions. Environment. Compassion for Others. Regard for Human Life. Carla Faye Tucker. Posted by: Kit at September 12, 2006 04:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
It's true, but only marginally so. The reason is that Saddam's loss of power is not the only thing that has happened in the last five years. You don't need to be an apologist for the Bush administration to recognize that not only were pre-9-11 sanctions on Iraq in the process of dissolving, leaving Saddam to resume his efforts to acquire unconventional weapons, but also that some of the most potent terrorist recruitment tools -- American bases in Saudi Arabia, for example -- were the product of the American containment of Iraq that some critics of the invasion now say was working so well. As well, if we think it will be hard to dissuade Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, imagine how much harder it would be with Saddam Hussein still in power. On the other hand you don't need to be an apologist for Saddam to recognize that the reach of his regime was limited, that the actual (as opposed to the potential) threat of an Iraqi arsenal of unconventional weapons was minimal, and most of all that after the invasion the United States has continued to pour resources on an enormous scale into Iraq as if this one, mid-sized Arab country held the key to the whole world's future. Well, it doesn't. It never did. Saddam became a bogeyman for America's political leadership during the 1990s as it sought to undo the damage inflicted by the first Bush administration's decision to end the Gulf War without overthrowing his regime or at least humiliating Saddam personally. After Republicans and Democrats, including any number of people who ought to have known better, subjected Saddam to years of impotent denuciations and the United States led a coalition of allies in a prolonged effort to secure through sanctions and containment what the elder Bush had not had the nerve to win on the battlefield, his son's Secretary of Defense sought to resolve the Saddam problem through brute force -- and thereby committed the United States to an expensive, wasting commitment on behalf of unattainable postwar goals. America now spends more in Iraq than it does on the rest of its foreign policy. It is a very high price to pay for a small measure of additional safety. Whether Saddam is in power or not must matter a great deal to Iraqis; indeed, the fact that he was in power for so long is an important reason Iraq is in chaos today. It is not and never has been crucial to the United States. With the passage of time this will become more and more evident to the American public, and President Bush's repeated claims that he has preserved us all from one especially grubby Arab dictator will lose much of their resonance. Posted by: Zathras at September 12, 2006 05:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
I believe the statement is False. Globally, the world's superpower has less hard power (exhausted military and budget) and significantly less soft power. The world no longer trusts its strongest power. Meanwhile, in the middle east, we abandoned a stable situation for an extremely unstable one. Containment works. We had Saddam contained. Iraq provided a counterweight to Iran. Iraq provided the US with a reasonable excuse to maintain regional control relativly cheaply. Now the US has lost much of its leadership capability in the region, perhaps for a lifetime. Now, that said, sanctions were becoming a problem, simply because the regime was not suffering (so much) while the average Iraqi was (though not as much as now). This was a situation that needed to be changed and didn't have a simple solution that didn't create other problems. But then again, none of the reasonable solutions on offer would have created the regional and global problems we now face.
False. If you are an Iraqi, you probably stand more chance now of being maimed or killed by your own people than you were while Saddam was in power. If you are a Westerner, even more false. If you are Israeli, extremely false! These last two go without saying, unless you've been living under a rock. Bulls--- and Lies for $1000, Alex! Posted by: Sharr at September 12, 2006 06:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
True. Iraq under current management is not the threat to world peace, its neighbors, its own population, and the West that it was under Saddam. That's not to say that can't or won't change, but since removing him from power, the answer is clear enough. Other, less graspable, factors also come into play. Some previously minor-league actors have become more of a threat, and some of the neighbors perhaps more of one as well (but possibly less). Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at September 12, 2006 08:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Imagine for a moment a hijacked airplane with several terrorists in the cockpit determined to fly it into a building. A group of passengers organize among themselves and attack the cockpit, successfully subduing the terrorists. But the pilots have been killed, and none of the passengers knows how to fly an airplane. Is the plane safer for having been rid of the terrorists? Posted by: Judah at September 12, 2006 08:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
FALSE Iraq was a stable country under a dictator. This is nothing new. We've supported other dictators and still do (Central Asia for example). Iraq also was a check on Iran's power. Iran's influence in the Middle East was stiffled by Iraq's position. Saddam was what kept the clerics in Iran at bay. Remove the plug and the water drains through to fill more area. As the Chatham House report released last month has shown, the real beneficiary of the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been Iran, NOT the rest of the world. Now, if people subscribe to the notion that a stronger Iran is less safe for the world, well the answer is easy. FALSE. Posted by: Daniel at September 12, 2006 12:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
True In the end my issue is that whilst the statement is fair, because of the way it's framed, it does not ask the real question pertinent to the US being "Has the manner and execution of Saddam's removal made the US stronger and safer?" & to those questions I would answer weaker ( now ) & less safe ( longer term ). In other words whilst the removal of Saddam made the world a better place, the manner/execution of that removal has caused dramatic reduction in US prestige and standing globally making it weaker that consequentially makes the US less safe longer term. Nigel Posted by: Nigel at September 12, 2006 12:11 PM | Permalink to this comment
2 million Iraqis have moved back into Iraq. I guess they are just danger addicts and were previously bored with the stability and safety of Saddam. Another notion. Was the US safer when FDR provided Coast Guard and Navy escorts against Nazi subs, even though we weren’t at war with Germany? Was it safer to stop oil and scrap metal shipments to Imperial Japan? Where we safer when we took on not one, but two world powers? Where we safer when we resisted the invasion of South Korea? Were we safer when we supported democratic forces in El Salvador and Nicaragua? When we placed Pershing missiles in Germany? Are we safer when we disturb, shake up, destroy the ancient despots of the Middle East?
A reply either way is conditional, a factor of suppositions. The only practical reason to get rid of Saddam was that the opportunity was there and if one tended towards scepticism viz his remaining in power it made sense to take advantage of that opportunity. It had nothing to do with WMD and the cause of freedom - as a practical concern of foreign policy. That being said, granting a logical reasonableness to the policy does not innoculate it from the pressures of conditionality: one is always taking a chance and once the chance is taken aguments concerning 'are we better off?' seem a little naive. Bush and his boys on the other hand were carrying out domestic policy not foreign policy when they went after Saddam and as above it was a policy vulnerable to conditions and supposititions despite there being a practical element to it as well, although admittedly a practicality of a rather evil and scheming sort. Their problem was that there was little that was 'reasonable' about their policy and if there was a logic to it was a logic that served a very cynical end. One is tempted to conclude this is why they have failed so miserably. Arguments comparing the reasonable to the unreasonable approach and how choice of the latter has left us worse off seem to be more cogent and useful - but of course you're still only guessing - a good guess, sure, and illiminating - but of dubious relevance. Posted by: saintsimon at September 12, 2006 02:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
Interesting. So far we have two Yes answers. One of them says that if we compare only Saddam's government versus the present iraqi government, ignoring everything else, the present iraqi government is less of a threat. The other says that we're better off without Saddam but the particular way we got rid of him leaves us worse off. Then we have a few people who try to weasel, who fall back on semantics, who want to argue about what the meaning of "is" is. Mostly there seems to be a consensus. OK, now what?
Arguing what the meaning of 'is' is is not semantics but rather epistemology - and the query was definitely epistemological in nature. Posted by: Heraclitus at September 12, 2006 04:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
Paul: You say that 2 million Iraqis have moved back. What is your source? It is well known that in the last couple of years hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have moved out, to Jordan and other countries. Posted by: steve at September 12, 2006 04:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
Overwhelmingly false. Here's what Bush wants us to hear: Toppling Saddam was the right thing to do. He was dangerous. Now he is not. Therefore, we are more safe. Maybe, for a period of time after the fall and before the insurgency, the world was a safer place. Now, the idea that Bush has lead us to safety -- the question that really matters -- is clearly incorrect. We are in profoundly troubled times. Posted by: Chris at September 12, 2006 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Don't know - though I can say I personally, never felt threatened by him. Truthfully, I don't know that his capture impacts me at all. Impacts people in Iraq, Iran, and the greater Middle East yes, but me - not so much. Posted by: ET at September 12, 2006 05:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
False, because the means by which Saddam was removed from power have made the world less safe -- and one cannot isolate the removal of the minor threat that Iraq under Saddam represented from the far greater threats that have developed because of the means employed to remove Saddam. First and foremost, the world no longer trusts ether the integrity or the wisdom of American leadership -- and there is simply no available replacement for that leadership on the world stage. Iran and North Korea feel perfectly safe thumbing their noses at the US, because of this lack of trust -- and feel perfectly justified in doing so because of the Bush regime's threats toward those countries. That is the real legacy of the removal of Saddam -- we squashed a gnat while creating incubators for poisonous vipers.....
"2 million Iraqis have moved back into Iraq." Bullshit. Cite a credible source for that, and it had better be recent. Every other source I've seen in the past year or so has documented tens of thousands of Iraqis leaving the country, moving to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Posted by: Joel at September 12, 2006 06:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
oh, and Le Monde has apparently replied to your Query, Greg (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-811674,0.html ) .... but since I don't read French I'm relying on Dan Froomkin's assessment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html)... Dave Goldiner writes in the New York Daily News: "Five years ago, the French paper Le Monde proclaimed, 'We are all Americans.' Yesterday, its top editorial was headlined ' Bush's Mistakes ' and catalogued a litany of missteps that it said has made the world more dangerous.
From all I have read, the secular middle class is fleeing in droves...so to get to the 2million net inflow of Iraqis....3 million Iraqi expat jihadists must have moved back to take the secular middle classes place. Posted by: centrist at September 12, 2006 07:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Don't know - though I can say I personally, never felt threatened by him. Truthfully, I don't know that his capture impacts me at all. Impacts people in Iraq, Iran, and the greater Middle East yes, but me - not so much. Posted by: ET at September 12, 2006 05:42 PM "
And as usual - the strawman is set up by Greg for the adoring few to vent their BDS for all to see I put it to you all that there is simply no way to know what the answer to the question is - and while we may agree with a true or false answer - the great missing variable is what might have been What would we be facing today if Saddam was still in power What dynamics would that have unleashed? What would Saddam have done as the jihadis now in Iraq were in Afghanistan instead - and the Dems were focussed on that "quaqmire" instead Posted by: Pogue Mahone at September 12, 2006 08:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
Undetermined --- as Iraq served as a check on Iran. If the Sadrites win in Iraq, and Anbar stays as disarranged as it appears to be, I think things will ultimately prove to be less safe for the world because Saddam is no longer in power. If some kind of government that is not an Iranian sock puppet retains control in Iraq, the world is likely better off If one factors in the fact the Iraq invasion may have scared Qaddafi out of the nuclear weapons business, there is a marginal "safer". But, all we're only marginally more or less safe because of Iraq, and the amount of time and attention spent there has not been marginal.
Unequivocally FALSE! This line would be the last gasp of Iraq war supporters except that it is repeated so much...so the idiots think it must be true. Fact: Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to the US, nor its allies. I saw easily through the trumped up lies, charges, and fear-mongering spread by those who don't let evidence interfere with the worst case scenarios they could imagine, or those who had financial interests in starting a war. The sabre-rattling made me sick to my stomach, as does the needless death, destruction, and all around ruined lives of Iraqis who deserve far better. Those who chose not to doubt Bush and company should be ashamed. To complain about the goods they bought without acknowledging they were stupid, unquestioning fools while in the store is passing the buck, and I won't allow it. Bush was enabled by a 'dissent is unpatriotic' and 'just trust' attitude, which brought untold harm to the world. US citizens seem to enjoy ignoring this point. What Bush has done to Iraq he is also doing to climate change...to all of our detriment. Way to go, USA, the largest polluter on the planet, for many years to come. Forget about admitting now that invading Iraq was a mistake, that's a conclusion supported by evidence so lopsided that to dispute it is akin to arguing for a flat earth, or a moon of cheese, not that it stops Cheney & other small minded pricks. Inhumane is the word I use to describe Dick Cheney, as the man has zero respect for human life, and seems to empathize with no one. Fact: Terrorism has skyrocketed worldwide thanks to the Iraq invasion. Without the Iraq invasion, it might have seen copycat blips, but nothing like we see today. Care to dispute this? Really? I mean, surely Guantanamo and other torture gulags would motivate some to kill innocent civilians, but some prisons vs. an entire country occupied for years without the slightest amount of truthful justification is a bit hard to compare when it comes to motivating individuals to become murderers. Of course, after that horrible day 5 years ago every country's government started calling its opponents terrorists, but I don't include Russia's Chechnya problems with Al-Qaeda's terrorists...notwithstanding Beslan, the hijackings, nor the Moscow theatre debacle, nor the Apartment bombings -- as Russia's invasion of that country preceded those terrible acts (with its oh-so well behaved soldiers, just like in Afghanistan in the 80s) and the arguable treatment of Chechan civilians is pretty clearly a domestic issue, and thoroughly homegrown. As long as the US army occupies Iraq it will be hell for Iraqis, and heaven for those who recruit Muslim terrorists who (a) believe that the Koran is the literal word of God and (b) think fighting unbelievers is a just cause. Get out ASAP. Iraqis will have to stand up -- this is something they can't do while occupiers remain. And for Pogue Mahone (and others who wish to play the "what might have been" we'll just never know game) I say this: Saddam, had he survived as leader, would be running a country that had suffered under sanctions for 16 years (from Aug 6, 1990, yes?), has running water and electricity, unlike the US occupied Iraq, and generally is poor and starved depite his stealing x million $ from the Oil-For-Food program. Iraq would continue to be an opponent of Al-Qaeda as Hussein is the personification of what Bin Laden rails against -- a bloodthirsty dictator propped up (at least in the 80s) by the callous US government. Oh, and no Iraqi civilians would be killed / murdered / raped / mistreated by US soldiers put in harms way by a team who believe that talk is cheap and bombs can solve everything. Simple enough? Too simple? Or the most likely outcome, what with Saddam's 30 years of experience ruling Iraq and all. Bush had one job after September 11, 2001 -- Catch or kill Osama Bin Laden. Only incompetence at a catastrophic level can take the largest defense budget available to anyone and fail at this task. But he can't be impeached for this failing, so how about his lying (repeatedly) to Congress and the country's citizens and residents? Why shouldn't he be impeached? Can the US, or the rest of the world, really take another 2 years of the worst President ever? I worry that because we can, we will. Posted by: Redwretch at September 12, 2006 11:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think the question is incomplete, because it ignores the cost of removing Saddam. Even the people who answer "yes" to this question are not able to argue convincingly that the world is unambigously or dramatically safer. But, for argument's sake, let's assume for a moment the world is safer without Saddam. How much of that safety is attributable to the US and the UK? The US has borne by far the largest share of the burden of removing Saddam; has the bulk of the benefit flowed to the US? I don't think so. If "the world" thought they would unambigously be safer without Saddam in power, then why did so many countries oppose our actions? Alternatively, if "the world" really did think they would be safer with Saddam gone, then perhaps the US could have led an international effort to remove Saddam that did not involve invading the country. Posted by: Whammer at September 12, 2006 11:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
Kurdistan is safer than it was, especially outside the major cities. Furthermore, Kurdish political futures look much stronger. Baghdad, and Anbar province, are much more dangerous places than before, obviously. Lebanon is much more dangerous, and MUCH poorer -- the south is devastated in many ways. It is much less safe on a day-to-day level, but it has the "safety" that Israel has now executed its planned for devastation of the infrastructure, and is less likely to do it again. Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, all have probably less safe authoritarian/dictatorial regimes, because all have authoritarian (or dictatorial) regimes which are close to the US, and so have become more unpopular as a result of the huge rise in US unpopularity. Whether that makes the individual citizens more or less safe is a tricky question, and involves estimating risks and comparing short-term and long-term goals. The US is safer for profit-making for friends of Bush and his supporters, but less safe for the vast majority of people who are middle class (and below), whose economic outlook is looking worse all the time. I think the position of North Korea is greatly improved, as is the position of China, and generally of India and Russia as well, by weakening of the US, and its loss in face, prestige, and leadership. Off the cuff, my guess is that both Salafi and Shiite radical and "terrorist" groups are generally better off now, both with Saddam removed, and with general resentment of the US and Israel so much higher. I'm sure there are many more ways to look at this equation. :) I won't even hazard a guess as to whether the world is safer for Iran or not. Its position is vastly improved for having Saddam gone, and is generally improved by the disaster the US has made there, but its future is colored uncertain by the desire of Bush' people to invade. Way to tricky for me to estimate right now...
Yes.
"If you are an Iraqi, you probably stand more chance now of being maimed or killed by your own people than you were while Saddam was in power." False. No more mass graves. So what do you call the amount of wounded and killed Iraqis that we read about every day? The number of Iraqi people wounded and killed is staggering. Just because it's not a mass grave doesn't mean it's safer, especially if you are Sunni. Give us a break. Posted by: Sharr at September 13, 2006 01:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
In the immediate term, we're clearly less safe. Our soldiers are getting killed and wounded in greater numbers than any time in the last 30 years. If we're safer from terrorism now than we were on 9-11, then it's almost certainly because of Afghanistan and homeland security, etc. - Iraq wasn't a significant source. And it's clear now that Iraq posed was pretty boxed in (read Ricks) and posed no near-term WMD threat. But in the long run, we did two things of possibly great value -- we got our soldiers out of Saudi Arabia, which removed Al Qaeda's #1 rally point, and we shook up an unstable and dangerous political structure in the Middle East. So far, we've handled that shake-up so badly that it might settle down in an even more dangerous configuration - but the jury is still out. Paul from Florida is (so far) the whipping boy of this discussion. And I'm also curious about the "2 million Iraqis have returned" comment. But his larger point is well taken. This could prove to be a dangerous but positive decision, like declaring war on Germany when only Japan attacked us. Of course, it could also prove to be more like the decision to fight in Vietnam, or ignore Kyoto. Posted by: Matt Chanoff at September 13, 2006 02:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
The USA was bitch-slapped on 9-11. Bush couldn’t go after the Saudis and Pakistanis, the real nations behind 9-11. Since “The Base” can’t tell them darkies apart, and darkies had to suffer for their transgressions, Iraq had to go. Posted by: NeoDude at September 13, 2006 02:55 AM | Permalink to this comment
Matt, two things: First, the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, but didn't declare war on Germany until Germany had already declared war on the US. This might be a meaningless distinction, but a distinction it is. Second, the farther away in time one gets from initial events, the harder it is to say "Event A caused Outcome B." Saying that the ME "might" settle down into something more stable and more democratic at some indefinite point in the future doesn't justify the damage we've done now, if that indefinite point in the future is 20 or so years off. There's no way of knowing what Iraq or the ME in general would have looked like in 20+ years if we hadn't invaded: Saddam would likely have been dead or otherwise replaced in that time frame in any case (I don't think his sons would have succeeded him - not for long, anyway.) Meanwhile, in that hypothetical 20 year interlude, Iraq would not have come apart at the seams, radical Islam would not have gained power in Iraq, Iran would not have emerged as the fulcrum of power in the Arab world, the Taliban would not have been making a comeback in Afghanistan (because we would not have diverted resources from *that* war), radical Islamism would not have been so energized, and pro-democracy movements in nearby states would not have had their energies diverted to anti-Americanism. People like to make WWII comparisons, pointing to the great success in rebuilding Japan and Germany. What they overlook is that Japan and Germany already had thriving industrial and educational bases that only needed to be repaired, not built from scratch; and that both had well-functioning political systems as well (in Germany's case, before the ruin of WWI let the Nazis gain power). Iraq had none of those things. And Iraq isn't the beneficiary of anything remotely resembling a Marshall Plan, either, nor is it likely to - at least, not one funded and managed by the US. So the equation can't just be what Iraq might look like in 20 or more years. The equation has to include the costs - in damage to the economy, the infrastructure, the governing apparatus, and the population demographics (not only in terms of deaths and severe injuries, but in terms of dispossession, displacement, and the long-term effects of those traumas) - associated with that 20+ year projection, and compare them to the value of the outcome. Posted by: CaseyL at September 13, 2006 03:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Since Iraq is no longer a threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, US troop levels have been reduced. But the US still uses Saudi and Kuwaiti military bases near the Iraqi border for the time being. One of the reasons al Qaeda hates the US is because there are US troops on "holy Islamic soil" at all." http://experts.about.com/q/Israel-Middle-East-352/U-S-Troops-Saudi-1.htm Posted by: Aaron Adams at September 13, 2006 03:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Fact: Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to the US, nor its allies. while I agree with your overall sentiments, this statement is simply ridiculous. Never? Remember Kuwait? Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 13, 2006 03:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
False, for the simple reason that net volatility in the Middle East has increased as a result of our invasion. It may be that in increase in volatility and instability is necessary before progress can be made--this is the "J-curve" problem. I'm not wise enough to say. In any case, I don;t see ow anyone can say this has improved things for the Middle East in the near term. Posted by: RWB at September 13, 2006 03:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
False. Saddam was less of a threat than advertised, pre-war. But, regardless, any benefit dispatching him is more than outweighed by the resultant empowering and emboldening of Iran (a greater threat), and by the partial filling of the void in Iraq with terrorist/jihadist groups. That's to circumscribe the issue tightly. There are many larger issues that are too difficult to answer at this stage. And there are several unpleasant shoes that may yet drop. When do we get to hear your strong arguments on both sides, Greg? Posted by: lewp at September 13, 2006 05:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
My facts have been challenged! My response... Remember Kuwait? Duh ... I remember the world supporting Bush 41 restoring the monarchy there with the greatest of ease. Add 13 years of economy crippling sanctions, and the fact remains as stated: Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to the US, nor its allies. And Iran? Did you REALLY raise Saddam's US advocated war on Iran as evidence of his threat ... TO THE US or its allies? That one is very easy to laugh off. What about his mushroom clouds? Not going to bring up the WMDs? How about Iraq's unmanned drones that *might* reach our shores? Why don't you bring up those aluminium tubes that clearly (or not so clearly) have only 1 purpose -- enriching uranium (or were merely used in conventional shells). I maintain my overall statement by pointing out that the US defence budget dwarfs the rest of the world's combined. Exactly how, short of hallucinating Iraqi intelligence agents meeting with Bin Laden's henchmen, could a drop in the bucket country like Saddam's Iraq threaten the US, or Poland, or Britain, or any Western country? With spitballs? Saddam certainly had big dreams when he was in power, but he sorely lacked the means to make them reality. And for my other assertion: "Fact: Terrorism has skyrocketed worldwide thanks to the Iraq invasion." False, unquantified assertion. How do you measure that? Show sources or go away. Ummm, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that by invading Iraq and destroying its infrastructure, then paying US corporations to rebuild (or like, not), the US has outraged much of the world, but in particular, the Muslim world. Can you really fault many of them for calling it a Christian invasion? The US administration can't drink a cup of coffee without going to a prayer group or start a conversation without the obligatory 'Well, I'm a christian...' as if it validates as fact whatever claptrap follows it out. To argue that there aren't more murderers sharpening their knives dreaming of US soldiers as the targets when compared to pre-March 2003 is to live in a closet. To quote Reza Aslan on The Daily Show earlier this year - "America is losing the marketing campaign to a guy in a cave." But you asked for a source, right? The Washington Post's Susan Glasser wrote an article in April 2005 titled "U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism" based on US government figures. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html) Here's an excerpt: The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before. Also occurring last year were such deadly attacks as the seizure of a school in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen militants that resulted in at least 330 dead, and the Madrid train bombings that left nearly 200 dead. So things were getting worse a year and a half ago...and Afghanistan has only gone downhill from there. Israel bombs Lebanon with impunity this summer -- Did that make you safer? I doubt it. But it's just another white country invading a brown country, right? Nothing wrong could possibly be misunderstood about a well armed, financed, professional army dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas. Nothing to motivate potential true believers there, move along. Another source, perhaps more reputable than the WaPost? Tom Regan, Christian Science Monitor, also April 2005, with "Global Terror attacks triple in 2004". An excerpt: Terror attacks around the world tripled in 2004, rising from 175 in 2003 to 655 last year, according to statistics released by the US government's National Counterterrorism Center (NCC) Wednesday. The figure includes the children killed in the Beslan massacre in Russia, and the victims of the Madrid train bombings.
Each day that the US holds on to land it has no just claim for is a terrorist recruiter's best day. Israel bombs Lebanon less discriminately than the US (not intended as a compliment to the US) and, rightly or wrongly, Hezbollah's ranks swell with young blood. It's predictable, and it's common sense. And don't even think about claiming that US soldiers currently remain in Iraq courtesy of the Iraqi gov't. The only thing they seem to agree on is that they want the occupiers out. But what about your sources RKV? Still trust Bush 43, your source, I assume? Or will *you* go away? PS - I do enjoy reading your posts, Greg. While I admit I've kind of gone off here I must reiterate that unlike Afghanistan, the Iraq invasion was an obvious lie, and any who believed it in March 2003 were gullible fools who deserve figurative tarring and literal feathering. Posted by: Redwretch at September 13, 2006 07:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
Others have hinted at this, but I want to point out how Bush's formulation of the statement pushes the administration's point of view. Bush wants listeners to focus on Saddam Hussein and the undeniable fact (I think) that, all things being equal, a world without Saddam is a safer world. But Bush does not ask listeners to focus on the direct consequences of our invasion and occupation of Iraq, much less the opportunity costs of these actions. As for Greg's question, there is no question that the statement (understood as referring to our Iraq policy and not to Saddam himself) is absolutely false. Posted by: FTJ at September 14, 2006 01:23 AM | Permalink to this comment
I wish add something, if it's ok. I understand why so many Americans supported the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. I empathize very much with a country so shaken on September 11, 2001. Unbowed, the US has sought to capture those responsible and identify and disrupt all terrorist plots, similar or not. I also support the Israeli government in defending its people, who have learned through experience that the next attack is always imminent. That is profoundly saddening to me. But to believe George W. Bush when he states that America is safer because it invaded Iraq takes a special kind of person. Right now any Muslim who is inclined to believe, rightly, that the US is unjustified in occupying Iraq might start identifying more with Bin Laden. A world where the US isn't occupying Iraq is a world with fewer reasons to become a terrorist. So...that's 3.5 years of a world with more reasons to become a terrorist. How about ending the streak, or at least announcing a timetable to end it? It is the avoidance and obfuscation of this question that gives weight to theories that suggest other motives: Oil. Controlling property in the Middle East that allows for greater US influence in the region. Empire. It isn't 'Cutting and Running', nor accepting defeat if the goal was never to stay forever. The US could leave Iraq at its whim since 'Saddam Hussein has been brought to Justice'. The man is in the middle of his trial. Testimony has been televised around the world. Sounds like a 'job well done' slogan to me. But to neither add troops to provide security, nor withdraw, boggles the mind. It is shocking to me that US soldiers are being left in harm's way by the Bush administration. If it is serious about fighting the insurgency in Iraq it must consider reinstituting the draft. So many Americans have suffered in Iraq. So many more Iraqis have died. One cannot dismiss them all as collateral damage, or terrorists. If the US largely leaves, any strife that occurs will weigh less on the American conscience directly proportional to time. We all hate the Pottery Barn analogy, but if you never leave, you clearly own it, and with ownership comes responsibility for today's chaos. The trust in Bush 43 and his team was misplaced. It remains misplaced. I lament this every day.
Bush is making Bin Laden look like a prophet. Posted by: NeoDude at September 14, 2006 08:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
