Sunday,February,04,2007

What I said about Iraq, and when I said it

I’m not one to say I told you so.... But.... in March of 2003....

When I first heard in 2002 that the Bush administration was going to launch a preemptive war against Iraq, I thought to myself that they would never be able to sell this to Americans. We were too smart. We would see through the lies and deception of the Bush administration. We would never waste our brave soldiers lives in such folly.  Obviously I was wrong. I underestimated the ability of the Bushies to pander to the fear of terrorism, and deceptively tie Iraq to the attacks of 9/11 by repeatedly mentioning them both in the same breath. Over and over and over again!  I underestimated the cowardice of most of the Democratic Party.

However, I don’t think I was too far off the mark with my estimation of how a war in Iraq would play out.  I was amazed at the number of people on the two email lists where I posted these messages that shouted me down and insisted that invasion of Iraq was a “good thing”. I knew that time would deliver a quagmire, thousands of dead US soldier, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Billions of dollars wasted, global instability, and insecurity, nearly universal hatred of the US, and ultimately vindication for those of us that opposed the war.

Here’s snippets from a couple of emails that I wrote in March of 2003, at the start of the war in Iraq (for the full emails, click the “more” link below):

Subject: [SFG] Alternatives to US war against Iraq WAS: Logical -- blah blah blah…
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:17:52 -0600 (CST)


The links I posted specifically refered to non-violent options. I'd like
to think that non-violence could solve most conflicts, but reality is
that not all can be solved that way… Maybe violence is required to
overthrow Saddam.  *IF* that is true, I'd much rather see the violence
happen in the context of an uprising by an organized opposition that
is ready to step in and run the country upon victory rather than at the
hands of an occuyping force like the US.

Maybe it's my "Inner Republican" speaking, personal (and societal)
responsibility matters. I think it's important that the US and the world
do not decide who needs help and decide to *impose* help upon them. A
people need to want liberation from a tyranical government bad enough
to move in that direction before outsiders should step in.  I believe
that if a people is unwilling to take action against a dictator, even a
brutal, ruthless, evil dictator like Saddam, any solution imposed upon
them from the outside will ultimately not solve the societal problems
that resulted in the dictator in the first place.  The ability to manage
democracy successfully comes in part from the struggle for it and the
process of earning it..

And some questions that I asked in another email:

From: "Mr. Steve" 
Subject:      War? was:Antiwar Demonstrations
Status: RO
Date: Mar 14, 2003 09:40:07 AM

Does Iraq currently pose a "clear and present danger" to the US?
Will the world (and the US) be safer without Sadaam running Iraq?
Has there been any evidence that Iraq has supported any terrorism?
Has there been any evidence that Iraq has supported any terrorism aimed at the US?
Has there been any proof that Iraq still has WMD?
Can we contain the Iraqi threat *without* war?
Who stands to gain financially from war with Iraq?

Do we have a plan for what to do after we topple Sadaam?
Are we going to be able to put in place a Democratic government in a
country that is populated by hugely different ethnic groups that don't
like each other, and may lack the societal acumen to make democracy
work?

Is the estimated $100 BILLION that we'll spend on Iraq best spent there?

What are the econmic consequences of war, both for the US and the world?

Could war cause more terrorism, and further alienate us from
Arab/Muslim people?

Is it possible that we aren't going to get what we think we will from
invading Iraq??

click “more” for the full text of my emails

Here is the Full text of both emails that I sent:

Subject: [SFG] Alternatives to US war against Iraq WAS: Logical -- blah blah blah…
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:17:52 -0600 (CST)

At some earlier point in time 'Petro' shaped the electrons thus:

>On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:16:54PM -0600, Mr. Steve wrote:
>> Here's a couple of alternatives:
>> http://snowcoalition.org/site/resources?show=resources&sub=iraqnv
>> and
>> http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/02mercury.html

>
>    Do you really believe that either of these are a viable alternative
>    in this case? 

Imagine if we spent some portion of the $75,000,000,000 that we're slated
(so far) to spend on this war (not including reconstruction costs)
on improving the living conditions, communications infrastructure
(both internal and external to the world media), education, medical
training and facilities, military training, defensive capabilities,
agricultural infrastructure etc of the Kurds in Northern Iraq, or the
Shiites in the south?  We could offer to fund UN peacekeeping forces.
For a fraction of the money (and American blood) that we'll be spending
destroying Iraq, we could nurture and support a popular revolt.

The links I posted specifically refered to non-violent options. I'd like
to think that non-violence could solve most conflicts, but reality is
that not all can be solved that way… Maybe violence is required to
overthrow Saddam.  *IF* that is true, I'd much rather see the violence
happen in the context of an uprising by an organized opposition that
is ready to step in and run the country upon victory rather than at the
hands of an occuyping force like the US.

Maybe it's my "Inner Republican" speaking, personal (and societal)
responsibility matters. I think it's important that the US and the world
do not decide who needs help and decide to *impose* help upon them. A
people need to want liberation from a tyranical government bad enough
to move in that direction before outsiders should step in.  I believe
that if a people is unwilling to take action against a dictator, even a
brutal, ruthless, evil dictator like Saddam, any solution imposed upon
them from the outside will ultimately not solve the societal problems
that resulted in the dictator in the first place.  The ability to manage
democracy successfully comes in part from the struggle for it and the
process of earning it..

I'm not saying that either one of those links is *the* answer at this
time, as our policies have so alienated us that it would be difficult for
us to achieve credibility among the Shiites or the Kurds.  We encouraged
them to revolt against Hussein in 1991, and then all but abandoned them.
AFAIK, all we gave them (after several massacres) is "no fly zones". But
we've had 12 years since we bombed the shit outta Iraq, if we had invested
wisely in nurturing the desire and abilities of two of the three ethnic
(and geographic) groups in Iraq, perhaps Iraqi's would have already
removed Hussein. Under the scrutiny of the world, and without the US to
help cover his attrocities with chemical weapons as we did in the 1980's,
a point would have been reached where he wouldn't have the option of
crushing an uprising unchallenged by the world.

However I am absolutely saying that there are solutions to the Iraqi
"humanitarian crisis" that do not involve war or a US invasion/occupation.

stevem

and the second email:

From: “Mr. Steve” 
Subject:      War? was:Antiwar Demonstrations
Status: RO
Date: Mar 14, 2003 09:40:07 AM


First, let me express my appreciation for the sacrifices and service of
the people that are our military… While I may question the policies
and actions of our government, my support for the brave men and women
of our military is unconditional and my respect unbounded.


If it was simply a matter of we wage war against Iraq, and the world
becomes a safer place, I’d be all for it…


The single biggest concern that I have right now is that we as a country
have adopted the “you’re either with us or against us” attitude that
President Bush expressed post 9-11. We are an open and democratic country,
yet the patriotism of anyone that questions the wisdom of a pending war
with Iraq is questioned. Members of Congress are busy changing menus to
eliminate the word “french” rather than debating the pressing issues of
our foreign policy. Open discussion and debate about a topic as critical
as WAR needs to happen. Not to prevent war, but rather to be sure that
war is the RIGHT answer. If war is the right answer, as ugly as it is,
it is necessary, but we need to be sure or what we are doing. The lack
of debate is most troubling… Why is debate unpatriotic today?


Some questions I have:


Does Iraq currently pose a “clear and present danger” to the US?
Will the world (and the US) be safer without Sadaam running Iraq?
Has there been any evidence that Iraq has supported any terrorism?
Has there been any evidence that Iraq has supported any terrorism aimed at the US?
Has there been any proof that Iraq still has WMD?
Can we contain the Iraqi threat *without* war?


Do we have a plan for what to do after we topple Sadaam?
Are we going to be able to put in place a Democratic government in a
country that is populated by hugely different ethnic groups that don’t
like each other, and may lack the societal acumen to make democracy
work?


Is the estimated $100 BILLION that we’ll spend on Iraq best spent there?


Could we get more bang for our buck elsewhere?


If the reasoning is that Sadaam is a bad man that terrorizes his people,
and should be removed from power, why aren’t we applying this logic
elsewhere in the world? There are lots of tyrants that are destined
for hell after they are done abusing their people here on earth. Even
so, just because he terrorizes his people doesn’t make him a threat to
US.


Why aren’t we addressing North Korea’s threats?  Everyone here on the
west coast of the US is within range of North Korea’s missles. It’s
acknowledged that they have nuclear bombs. They are loudly rattling
their sabre… They do present a “clear and present danger” to US.


Who stands to gain financially from war with Iraq?


Even if you think that war with Iraq is necessary, can we talk about
possible outcomes and costs?  Like:


What will the effect on our place in the world community be if we wage
war in without UN resolution/authorization?


What will the effect be if we wage war in VIOLATION of UN resolution?


What are the econmic consequences of war, both for the US and the world?
Could war cause more terrorism, and further alienate us from
Arab/Muslim people?


What will the ramifications of abandonding decades of foreign policy
that extolled the virtues of nonagression and international cooperation
for one that employs unilateral preemptive ware against those countries
that we think might threaten us someday?


Is it possible that we aren’t going to get what we think we will from
invading Iraq??







				



Feedback (0)


Posted by stevem on 02/04 at 12:14,PM

•


Category: Blah Blah Blah



Permalink

Share this entry with a friend


			





Page 1 of 1 pages 





Next entry: The answers to my Iraq War Questions of March 2003





Previous entry: Down Under 2




<< Previous Page
Shooter.net Home