Critics like to judge an opposing party’s administration based on 20/20 hindsight and wishful thinking. As the below article helps us remember, the invasion of Iraq was not only a necessity, it was inevitable. The path toward invasion began in 1998 and gained a newfound immediacy after 9/11. The author makes an intriguing case that had we not invaded in 2003, Bush would likely have been a one term president and a democratic administration would have completed the task under John Kerry or Al Gore- such was the bipartisan support for invasion before the war and the nature of american political opportunism. And not surprisingly in this scenario, Republicans would likely have been the critics and naysayers of an “unjustified war.” What an interesting “what if” historical scenario to ponder.
I’m interested to hear Obama back up his assertion of an “unjustified war” by offering what he thought may have been a better solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein. Does he think that containment was still possible given the pattern of behavior in Saddam’s Iraq? The containment of Iraq in the 1990’s was a complete failure. The Oil For Food scandal guaranteed that the UN would never go beyond writing a nasty letter and issuing “paper tiger” sanctions. The Oil For Food scandal also guaranteed that a large allied coalition was impossible with countries like France declaring “nothing justifies war”. But instead of remembering how the state of affairs were from 1998 to 2003, we like to forget and cry foul after finding out once and for all what Saddam was and was not capable of (keep in mind this was only possible through invasion). Had we not invaded, Saddam could still be in power, could be just as secretive and crazy as before, and the stakes would be that much higher after 5 years of continued containment and indecision while not verifying his capabilities.
We can see today how well diplomacy is working with Iran who still refuses to give up any of it’s civilian or military uranium enrichment projects after our “historic meeting” in Geneva.
I welcome your witty and supported comments.
–Joel
10 comments ↓
Maybe you are correct, maybe not. In any case, it may have been better judgement to have taken out bin Laden and got things right in Afghanistan before taking out the man who “tried to kill my dad”. A cowboy does not necessarily a good president make.
Is Bin Laden himself activating every det pack on the suicide bombers? Are individual terrorists incapable of making decisions on their own? Last I checked, bin laden had many henchman, each capable of producing damage in their region of focus. Would killing Jefferson Davis, or Robert E Lee early on in the civil war end it abruptly? Of course not, because the mentality of the rebels still existed. Capturing Bin Laden does not equal victory, so why is that so much more important than removing a ruthless dictator who’s is in direct control of the means (and the desire) to ruin the US.
Define how bush is a cowboy. Is it the way he speaks? is it because cowboys are hard workers? i fail to see how the word cowboy has anything to do with politics
Dear Yado,
maybe you missed one of the major points in this very long article (assuming you read the whole thing). The best window for invasion was when we decided to act. Keep in mind that democrats such as John Kerry, and Al Gore were even more adamant about the threat of WMD’s than Bush was, and well before he took office. Clinton missed his chance; Bush did not (and neither did congress). By the time we had killed bin Laden and moved onto Saddam, the conditions for staging an invasion would be worse, and more of our troops would have died. Don’t forget that killing one man [Osama] will not likely solve the problem, as is evident from removing the POS Saddam. I agree Afghanistan was neglected, but mistakes are to be expected in war. Hopefully we learn from them.
As for the “tried to kill my dad” comment… give me a break, you know by now how many people Saddam killed. But maybe the mass murder of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people doesn’t bother you, so long as it’s on the other side of the world.
I disagree… cowboys necessarily make good presidents.
Yoda*
So many points to make, so little time to type…
Remind me again who attacked us on 9/11? It wasn’t Saddam and it wasn’t ANY Iraquis. That was a war of choice and despite all of the previous worry and machinations over whether or not Sadaam had WMDs we had other things to focus on after 9/11 and we didn’t. How does this article’s author explain the cherry picking of intelligence re: Sadaam’s nuclear program? How do they explain the silencing of Joe Wilson’s report about the lack of WMDs? It was obvious to anyone who hadn’t already made up their mind at the time that the case for war in Iraq was not open and shut and that going in could be a disaster. And it was.
I can’t speak for Obama, but from what I know about Sadaam before the invasion, he was fairly hostile to any groups like Al Quaida who threatened his power so I would have made sure (somehow) that it stayed that way… thus keeping terrorists largely out of Iraq. Destabilizing the country by invading it was probably the worst thing we could have done for stability PLUS it gave many terrorist organizations plenty of room to move about the country for years! We’re only now driving them out but we haven’t deterred their reason for existance… in fact we’ve given them MORE reasons to hate us and MORE recruiting tools: “The Americans have occupied your country and are stealing your oil… are you going to take that? Fight against the infidels!” Can’t you just hear that?
Billy, no, Osama isn’t the only terrorist… only the most famous and the most dangerous. He’s the one who started the modern terrorist movement. While taking him out won’t end terrorism, it will certainly deal an important (and somewhat symbolic) blow. Remember the “Wanted dead or alive” poster? Kinda makes a mockery of our country now doesn’t it? That we were going after him and we got Saddam instead.
And Eli, if you’re serious about your cowboy comment, then it shows the biggest ideological chasm between us. Cowboys, Billy, work alone and make their own decisions without anyone else’s opinions involved. Presidents CANNOT do that and if they do (or choose their top advisers wrong i.e. Cheney and Rumsfeld) they make HUGE mistakes like the one we’re discussing.
Cowboys are also really good at being in charge of sheep and cows, but when it comes to animals with other opinions, they just squash the dissent. Sound familiar? Patriot Act anyone? Habeas Corpus? Executive privilege?
There is a reason 61% of Americans think Bush is a terrible president. Because he is. And if american conservatism weren’t so foreign phobic they might take stock in the fact that WAY more than 61% of the rest of the world thinks he’s terrible.
And how can you guys keep making the argument that we should stay there forever when the Iraqi government is asking for us to set a timetable for withdrawal? Doesn’t that take out the whole argument that we’re giving them freedom? Why can’t we just declare victory (because we propped up a government who can finally talk back to us) and leave?
Bill to Billy: I use the second definition in the Dashboard dictionary”a person who is reckless or careless”.
Bill to Justin: Amen
Bill to Eli: Where are the WMD? What was the conection between Saddam and Wasn’t that the reason for the whole bloody mess in the first place? We are still in the wrong war, and one of the longest in our history, with no end in sight. And, the situation in Afghanistan gets worse. By the way, forgive my lack of pop culture, but who in the hell is Yoda and why are you calling me that?
Yoda is one who is strong with the force..
Bill to Eli: Merci bien. Je pense.
b
oh come on Bill! You’ve never heard of Yoda? Wow. (He’s old, folks, sorry… but so is Yoda!)
…and Yoda would have totally said “A cowboy does not necessarily a good president make.”
I wasn’t serious about the cowboy comment
But the fact that Bush surrounds himself with smarter people than himself (to get advice and discuss) shows how much he is not a cowboy by your definition. Actually, by your reasoning, in your latest post, Obama is more of a cowboy if he goes to all his talks with only an interpreter… But I guess he doesn’t need extra people to brown nose European appeasers!
Remember, congress is just as much to blame as Bush is for going into Iraq, so if you wanna point the finger there are plenty of Democrats who got us “into this mess.”
Oh and don’t bother making a comment about Bush’s intelligence, we already know what you think.
Leave a Comment