Originally posted by AMN Inc
Even under the assumption that Hussein had plans to build weapons, does that make him more of a threat than India or Korea, who have nuclear weapons? Besides, I have seen accounts of Iraqis saying that Iraq is in an even worse state now than it was under Hussein, and that no action takes place without the approval of Illawi (sp) the Prime Minister, almost making him a dictator himself. The footage of innumerable civilian casualties in Farhenheit 9/11 makes one wish the U.S. had taken a more careful approach.
It’s apparent from your comment that people in Australia have a starkly different view of both India and Iraq than many of us here in the states. Here in the US, India has always been viewed as a non-aggressive—even passive—ally that has never made any threatening gestures towards the US. Moreover, India is a free society, supports an open democracy and is largely dominated by religious sects that espouse non-violence. Non-violence is so pervasive in Indian culture that India traditionally only engages in armed conflict when it is forced to defend itself. (It is interesting to note that even a nation as passive as India understands the importance of national defense.)
Iraq, on the other hand, represents the antithesis of Indian culture to many Americans. Instead of being a passive, democratic ally, Sadam’s Iraq was a brutal dictatorship with a long history of torturing and killing its own citizens, attacking—or outright invading—its neighbors, openly supporting terrorism (remember the large stipends paid to the families of terrorists?), and destabilizing the region when left to its own devices. Moreover, as with many other Middle Eastern countries, the dominant religious sects in Iraq more closely resemble cults of death bent on the destruction of non-believers than the peaceful religions that dominate India.
So, now that you know our perspective on both India and Iraq, which would you view as being the larger threat? A passive and generally peaceful democratic ally that is already armed with nuclear weapons or a brutal, anti-western dictatorship that has the will, the means and the determination to create nuclear weapons?
As far as North Korea is concerned, I have to agree: North Korea is definitely on par with Iraq, and I’m sure it will ultimately be dealt with, as will Iran and its burgeoning nuclear program. You should keep in mind, however, that every situation is different, and common sense dictates that you cannot follow a cookie-cutter approach when it comes to foreign affairs, so what was appropriate for Iraq may not be appropriate for Korea—or even Iran. One grave concern I have regarding armed conflict with Northern Korea, for example, is the likelihood of failure. I think the probability of success with Iraq was quite high. North Korea, on the other hand, is a rather touchy situation: Despite the level of threat North Korea’s nuclear program poses, we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a larger conflict with a potentially more dangerous sometime ally of North Korea: China. This could be virtual suicide, not only for the US but possibly the entire world. My point here is that it is absurd to assume that because we invaded one country based on a perceived nuclear threat that we must treat every similar threat the same way just to give the appearance of moral consistency. It is not by coincidence or lack of moral consistency that lead us back in the 80’s to attack the small island of Grenada that posed little threat to the US while at the same time avoiding war at all costs with the nuclear armed Russia and Red China. This is really common sense, if you think about it. In my opinion, assessing both the potential costs and benefits of each unique situation is a much wiser foreign policy plan than simply implementing a cookie-cutter approach in the fancied interests of moral consistency.
As far as Illawi is concerned, I don’t know what to say. How do you prevent chaos in a country that has just lost its leadership without quickly imposing a new interim government? Do you really believe that it would have been in Iraq’s best interest to cut and run and simply say here is your new country devoid of leadership and security--you guys figure it out? Are you really concerned that the US might turn Iraq into a 51st state or a new colony? Come on now. Is this really who you think we are? Are you at all familiar with the US’s long-standing tradition of giving sovereignty back to countries we have conquered in war as soon as these countries have become stable? Do you remember Japan and Germany—or more recently, and more germane to this discussion, Kuwait? What, besides anarchy, would you suggest as an alternative to Illawi’s temporary assignment?
One brief note about the conditions in Iraq: As any student of history can tell you, living conditions always decline initially after the fall of a government as various factions vie for power. This was certainly the case in Germany at the end of World War II. In fact, after the war had essentially ended, over 400,000 Russians military men gave their lives just trying to gain control of Berlin and stamp out the last remnants of nazism—or, as we might call them today, insurgents. Also keep in mind that stability is a hallmark of those who rule with an iron fist, but I really hope you don’t believe that this makes tyranny preferable to the untidy road that leads to democracy and freedom.
Pictures of dying and injured civilians juxtaposed next to images of exploding bombs: Disturbing images intended to strike and emotional cord in the viewer for the purpose of demonizing the responsible parties. For many years, this has been one of the propagandist’s favorite tools. This technique can be used to curry favor for either side of an armed conflict. The fact is, civilian casualties are one of the tragic realities of any armed conflict, and it is no trick for someone opposed to the conflict to exploit these innocent victims of war to curry favor for their own political agenda. If you want to really see tragic civilian loses, do some research on the innocent victims on all sides of the World War II conflict. Once you have done this, come back and tell me how difficult it would have been for someone who was against the Allied forces’s opposition to Hitler to prance around Dresden or Berlin and exploit the death and suffering of ordinary citizens caused by Allied bombing runs. Would you also conclude from these images that the Allies were nothing more than a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers who engaged in wonton recklessness and who should have just left the poor Nazis alone?
As well used and tired as the above mentioned technique is, I am always amazed that there is such a ready crowd willing to be sucked in by this type of obvious and unsophisticated ploy. In my opinion, you either have to be incredibly naive or intellectually dishonest to be duped into believing based on images of civilian suffering that US service men and women are bloodthirsty warmongers who stoically engage in wonton recklessness and endanger innocent civilians. Anyone who has been paying attention and can put aside their own political prejudices long enough to develop even a modicum of intellectual integrity would realize than many of the US service men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq have die for such things as failing to gun down an approaching suicide bomber for fear it might really be an innocent civilian, for failing to level a Mosque that had been turned into a military bunker and shooting gallery, or for failing to level a whole city, for that matter, once it was determined to be infested with radical Islamists bend on destroying US troops. If you really had been paying attention to these types of things instead of latching on to every word or image that bolstered your inextricably ingrained political biases, you would have never come to the absurd conclusion that the civilian casualties in Iraq are simply the result of our wonton recklessness and utter disregard for the well-being of the Iraqi people.