Skip to main content

View Diary: Why we HAD to invade Iraq (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes (none)
    all this is true.  But - if you read PNAC stuff carefully, and take their name seriously - they want to integrate the Middle East into a kind of informal imperial American sphere of influence much the way the US did with Europe after WWII as a means of reasserting the kind of world dominance the US once had (i.e. in 1945,  the US constituted 50% of the world's GDP; today, its 30%, and keep your eye on China (and, to a lesser extent, India) . . . ) Now, I think the whole project reeks of a kind of desperation and delusion, but this is what they really are trying to do. Terrorism and the idea that spreading democracy (best of all "western-style" - read US-approved - democracy) is the best antidote to terrorism dovetailed into a kind of perfect storm. I don't think the PNAC stuff is particularly important to Bush and his "domestic" wing (Rove, Hughes, et al.) But the conservative foreign policy establishment, esp. at Defense and around Cheney - this is what this war is all about.

    The United States has a conservative political culture defending a liberal heritage. The modern Republican Party's problem is that it is neither.

    by Ben P on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:08:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  convergence (4.00)
      A poster above said that this war had something for everybody, which is a great point. You get more political support for such an endeavor if large powerful institutions gain from it. Like the banking/currency industries, big oil, defense, etc. If you stop all of them from being naysayers, that guts a large built-in braking mechanism from kicking in. Add to that some jingoism and fearmongering, voila, you got yersef a war.

      The best thing of this diary is the dispassionate tone that simply describes motives, consequences, and benefits. That is the only way to understand. Projecting ones outrage only clouds the issue.

      All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

      by SeanF on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:36:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, but... (none)
      Here's where I get conflicted.  I would like us not to need to have a Middle Eastern sphere of influence to feed our out-of-control appetite foe oil.  But, and this is a pretty big but, I find myself concerned that the forces of evil in the Middle East will not rest until they have forced a kind of clash-of-civilizations conflict, in which case I want as many friends and allies as we can get.  I think this invasion was a foolish and obviously counter-productive way of winning friends, but I find myself sympathetic with the overall goal of establishing US dominance in that region.  I just wish we'd do it with foreign aid and respect, not with tanks and bombs.
      •  I don't (none)
        What need do we have to do so? I mean really. The oil will come if we don't fuck around too much. Besides being immoral and imperial and guaranteeing that are country will not be liked, I think such a policy could ultimately be counterproductive to our material interests as a nation.

        Ben P

        The United States has a conservative political culture defending a liberal heritage. The modern Republican Party's problem is that it is neither.

        by Ben P on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:28:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why I'm occasionally ambivalent... (none)
          I think our need to have some presence there is twofold.  One is the oil.  If the ME were to be turned off tomorrow, no one would be hurt more than us.  We are horrible over-consumers of oil, and the ME becoming unavailable to us would mean $5/gal gas, which would be a big blow to our lifestyle.  (Though some days, I think I'm prepared to sustain this blow.)  #2, recall that we have armed to the teeth the Saudis.  If the people of Saudi Arabia were to gain control of those weapons, they would use them to bomb Isreal back to biblical times, that is if any of them won't reach New York.  There is a huge pool of US-hatred there that really was only exasperated by GWB.  I'm not sure that some sort of conflict there isn't already inevitable, and having some forward bases there is probably desirable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site