Skip to main content

View Diary: Through the Looking Glass: Freeperville (324 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Too soon to tell. (none)
    The assessment of the result of the war in Iraq can only be made when we see what type government emerges and what affect that has on the region. The extreamism against us that brought down the towers on 9/11 (and bombed them earlier in the decade) had more to do with our interactions with Saudi Arabia and the governments oppression of it's people than with anything involved with Iraq.

    We didn't go to war with Iraq under Clinton because there wasn't a triggering event, we only lobbed some cruise missles. I'm not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11 but much like we declared war on Germany when Japan attacked us, it was something that had been on our mind for some time.

    We didn't conquer Iraq in Gulf War because we built a coalition for a purpose that did not include that which would have fallen apart on the battlefield if we had exceeded the goal. We also had no plans for capturing the cities and estimated many thousands of American casualties if we did. We also hoped the Iraqis would overthrow Saddam.

    If a reasonable democracy emerges in Iraq and provides an example to the youth of Iran as well as other oppressed people in the region then it may well work out well.

    •  well.. (none)
      I would argue that while the staunch fundamentalism was most definatly a direct result of American foreign policy. The rest of the muslim world just loved to hate us, like the head jock at school. Maybe there where a few head-cases who decided that things where so fucked up they would go into the school shooting (Bin Laden), the whole school yard wasn't yet about to join them. Now the head jock gets his ass beat every day and everybody hates him and I believe that is a direct result of Iraq.

      It could have worked out, we could have built a "McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner of Baghdad" in the middle east, had we gone about it the right way at the right time.

      And I think the whole in response to 9/11 thing is bullshit aswell. It was a individual act, we should have doubled our intelligence efforts and increased there funding 10 fold and then went after them with special ops, SWAT, like teams. Second we had already invaded another country because of 9/11, we should have waited to see how that turned out before setting such huge goals as a America in the middle east.

      You could argue that Clinton was already doing that in the Middle East and it wasn't working, but I would argue that it was working. As a result of Clintons aproach Iraq didn't have WMD (even if he thought they did) and Al-Quida had only managed to hit military targets.

      Not to say we should've taken 9/11 lightly, that would of been a political disaster for Bush, but we shouldn't have formed an imperial foreign policy in response to it either.  

      •  I pretty much agree with you (none)
        I'm not sure if American foreign policy is so much the source or we just make a good excuse to distract the oppressed people (Orwell's 1984), still our cold war choices have left us with some strange bedfellows.

        The 9/11 attack was planned during the Clinton administration, so I don't think we can lay that completely at Bush's feet. I suspect there was a certain level of panic involved in the decision to go into Iraq.  I will admit to still being concerned someone is going to float a nuclear weapon into a port on a container ship. Obviously there were many screw-ups and the people who had been agitating for attacking Iraq got the upper hand.

        None of this is to say that it can't work out for the good in the end if the Iraqi people can put together a reasonable government. They have the incentive, it's their country, their lives, their children. And if it does, perhaps the example will inspire others in the region.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site