Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.
I've never pretended to know a whole lot about Mid-East geopolitics, but I thought this was self-evident. And while I can't stand The Chimp, I think he's exactly what the US deserves (elected or not).
I grew up reading science fiction about corrupt regimes overthrown by the intelligent minority. In the books, the people cared if the ruling technocracy fucked with their lives. They even got mad.
But that was fiction, and this is reality, or at least what passes for it.
10 comments:
But speaking of Saddam, the most workable-sounding "solution" to Iraq that I've come across is to put Saddam back in power.
Why? So he can kill another slew of his own people by gassing them? Oh wait...he didn't have the weapons to do that...except, he did. At least, before he managed to sneak them into Syria while the U.N. hemmed and hawwed about whether to send out more inspectors...
Damn, I'm going to get slammed for that comment, aren't I? :oP
Jezzie:
Not be me. Well said.
There's a big picture here, and people often miss it, including Bush. But I've always been curious - what exactly was the alternative to invading Iraq, which was in flagrant and repeated violation of UN security council resolutions imposed after the armistice (not an end to the war) of the first Gulf War? Continue crippling sanctions that killed more Iraqis than have died since the invasion (yes, things are badm but they used to be worse)? Let Hussein continue to kill his own people? Lob some cruise missiles in when a President needed to distract attention from domestic problems (hmm... that Clinton guy, foreign policy genius that he was - HA!). Let inspectors inspect for another six months to what end?? Wind up right back where they were, which is exactly what would have happened?? Nope. At some point you have to make the UN mean something, and at some point Iraq was going to get it, because Hussein was never going to change his behaviour. I supported then, and still support, the decision to go to war. It was the right thing to do, and people who think otherwise are living in a dreamworld.
Now, the mess afterwards, that's what I blame the administration for - poor planning, and a fair bit of hubris. But that doesn't mean the original decision to go into Iraq wasn't sound - a decision that a lot of other countries agreed with (and to call them the coalition of the bribed and coerced is an insult - it's just as easy to call France, Russia and Germany the leaders of the coalition of the corrupt, given all of their commercial, sanctions-busting deals with Hussein).
Here endeth the speech.
Paul
"At some point you have to make the UN mean something, and at some point Iraq was going to get it, because Hussein was never going to change his behaviour. I supported then, and still support, the decision to go to war. It was the right thing to do, and people who think otherwise are living in a dreamworld."
I personally think everything that went on and ultimately factored into the decision to go to war presents a very complicated picture. In fact, things were so complicated that we shouldn't try to draw moral conclusions about the outcome (i.e., whether the decision was "right" or "wrong"). I've got a sneaking suspicion, though, that one major factor leading to the decision was W's desire to settle a personal vendetta with Hussein. The carnage and mass destruction we've brought to Iraq, a country now teetering on the verge of civil war and threatening to plunge the whole of the Middle East into utter chaos -- all because one man wants to get even with another on entirely personal grounds. Uh...I don't know about right or wrong, but the scenario strikes me as a testament to a certain someone's unbelievable stupidity. It tells me that at the very least W lacks the sense to weigh moral questions about whether it is justified or "right" to start a whole fucking war simply because he wants to go in and nab someone who tried to kill his dad.
I think it's pretty clear that Hussein didn't present any immediate threat to the region or to the world when we broke international law and invaded Iraq. Was Sadaam an asshole? Sure, but I don't think it was worth the money or the lives to go in there and remove him just for that. The rest of the Bush administration (W not included) is probably far too pragmatic to start a war with Iraq just because Dubya wants to settle a score. THEY cast their chips in because they saw merit in the idea of going in and consolidating U.S. presence and political hegemony in that oil-rich region of the world. Thus the administration used 9/11 as a pretext, and painted Sadaam as a palpable threat, to try and bolster public and congressional support for their action.
If the administration were truly intent to stymie any sort of threat coming out of the region they would/should have gone after the badboys in Iran. Then, not now (now it's a little late in the day; and btw the U.N. is a fucking joke. What IS a deadline, folks?). Iraq, on the other hand, was a waste of a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of lives. So now, thanks to the executive idiots of our government, we're stuck in the quagmire of Iraq; if we pull our troops out now we'll just create a much bigger problem. Meanwhile Iran farts in the general direction of the U.N. and it looks like they're gonna have more than enough time to start making W.M.D's. When that happens we're all going to be in very deep shit, because Sadaam was just an asshole; these guys in Iran, on the other hand, they truly hate us with a black and deadly hatred -- and they mean business.
Here endeth MY speech.
>>"At some point you have to make the UN mean something"<<
Since we acted basically unilaterally, without UN sanction, Bush's pre-emptive war on Iraq rather that making the UN mean something, made it mean nothing. If one country can justify attacking another country without a declaration of war and without any provocation, in terms of actual physical assault on the persons or territory of that country, then any war can be justified. All the other countries in the world would be justified in attacking the U.S., since we have WMD, have used them, reserve the right to use them and threaten to use them whenever we feel it might be necessary.
Bush’s instigation of war without sufficient cause is going to be a black mark on our name that will ring through the centuries, laying the foundation for endless conflict. The only way for us to erase this mark is to get the warmongers out of office, get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, so they can get down to their business of killing each other which is going to happen whether we are there or not, and denounce all of Bush’s actions as loudly as we can, promising to restore the UN as a conflict mediator and giving up the idea of unilateral action.
I suppose I'm obliged to comment; I'll keep it brief.
Saddam Hussein became a "threat" when it was convenient for him to be a threat. We've all seen the photo of him shaking hands with Rumsfeld. At the time of that particular photo-op he was engaged in the same behavior we condemn now, and the US knew it.
This war has never been about displacing Saddam Hussein from power. But I suppose it's comforting to think it is.
"The only way for us to erase this mark is to get the warmongers out of office, get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, so they can get down to their business of killing each other which is going to happen whether we are there or not."
The problem is that we've exacerbated an already volatile situation in that region. If we get out of Iraq now, it'll precipitate an all-out regional war. The other Arab countries + Iran will get pulled into the turmoil, and what's that gonna do to OUR economy??? Oil exports will cease, or at least be severely hampered, so that we'd be paying well over $100 a barrell. In other words, pulling out now would amount to economic suicide for the U.S.
"promising to restore the UN as a conflict mediator and giving up the idea of unilateral action."
I personally wouldn't use the word "restore" -- mainly because I think the UN is pretty fucking worthless in its supposed role of "conflict mediator". I prefer to say "revamp"; but unfortunately the UN doesn't look like it's gonna be revamped anytime soon. In the absence of any alternatives, the U.S. is aggressively pursuing its own opposing rationale/ideology for maintaining global order -- viz., the "Pax Americana" doctrine. Pax Americana is basically about American Imperialism, a schematic design according to which order is globally imposed and the U.S., being on top, reaps all the economic benefits.
Like I said, I think W's primary motive for invading Iraq was something personal: he wanted to get even with Sadaam for having tried to kill his dad. W's ingenuous and simple-minded way of doing politics has left him wide open to manipulation by the real brains in the works. W is basically just a puppet; his administration and those in league with them are the de facto drivers of our foreign policy. And they're all about Pax Americana, which was the true and fundamental rationale behind our invasion of Iraq.
Unfortunately the technobureaucratic machinery of our government isn't very reason-friendly; it's just geared to operate, and as efficiently as possible at that. This would be the cause of the apparently "poor planning" that's now left us all in a world of shit.
I grew up reading science fiction about corrupt regimes overthrown by the intelligent minority. In the books, the people cared if the ruling technocracy fucked with their lives. They even got mad.
But that was fiction, and this is reality, or at least what passes for it.
You either need to read a lot more - or a lot less - Kurt Vonnegut.
:D
>>"The other Arab countries + Iran will get pulled into the turmoil, and what's that gonna do to OUR economy??? Oil exports will cease, or at least be severely hampered, so that we'd be paying well over $100 a barrell. In other words, pulling out now would amount to economic suicide for the U.S."<<
I think an occupying army in the Muslim heartland does nothing but stir up trouble. The potential for conflict will always exist in the Middle East. Nothing that we can do will ever change that. Would you like us to occupy Iraq for the next 3000 years?
If a major conflict arises in the region and oil prices skyrocket, is this not in fact a good thing? Truly high oil prices are the only thing that will push us away from using fossil fuels and move us towards the alternatives which have not stepped forward in our energy mix because they cannot compete for price with petroleum. We can moan about global warming until we are blue in the face, but economic reality is the only force that will have any effect.
Also, in worrying about the economic consequences of a Middle East conflict, you seem to be forgetting that we are wasting billions right now fighting in Iraq to no purpose. The massive debt we have amassed doing this is going to hurt our economy much more over the long term than any oil price spike caused by supply disruption in the Middle East.
"I think an occupying army in the Muslim heartland does nothing but stir up trouble. The potential for conflict will always exist in the Middle East. Nothing that we can do will ever change that. Would you like us to occupy Iraq for the next 3000 years?"
We shouldn't have began occupying Iraq in the first place, but now that we're there we're in it for the long haul.
"If a major conflict arises in the region and oil prices skyrocket, is this not in fact a good thing? Truly high oil prices are the only thing that will push us away from using fossil fuels and move us towards the alternatives which have not stepped forward in our energy mix because they cannot compete for price with petroleum. We can moan about global warming until we are blue in the face, but economic reality is the only force that will have any effect."
If oil prices skyrocket past $100 a barrell, America is fucked. We are a nation on wheels. If people can't afford gas, they can't get to work. If they can't get to work, they can't pay their bills. Moreover, oil is the backbone of our economy: if it gets too expensive, so does everything else -- such as food, water, energy, etc. In other words, there would be a total collapse of our economy. Then what?? Anarchy, baby! Law and order begins to break down, chaos reigns. The federal government loses legitimacy in the eyes of the populace, so it resorts to martial law. Finally, with this new state of affairs homeland security would be reduced to nil.
Very high oil prices would also rock the global economy, causing international destabilization. China and Russia would be just as desparate for oil as the U.S. and the EU. Get ready for World War III.
"Also, in worrying about the economic consequences of a Middle East conflict, you seem to be forgetting that we are wasting billions right now fighting in Iraq to no purpose. The massive debt we have amassed doing this is going to hurt our economy much more over the long term than any oil price spike caused by supply disruption in the Middle East."
No I haven't forgotten. Hey, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't: it's a catch 22. But the present administration still seems to think that Pax Americana will bring economic prosperity -- not to mention global stability -- "over the long term." Besides, the immediate prospect of economic collapse and all its ramifications makes it easy by comparison to tarry in Iraq and keep wasting all that money.
Post a Comment