Posted on 05/21/2015 2:56:16 PM PDT by Kaslin
The U.S. was absolutely right to invade and conquer Iraq in 2003. It suddenly has become a stock question to ask candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination a seemingly simple question: would you have invaded Iraq in 2003, knowing then what we know now? And most of them have fumbled badly. And the usual liberal suspects are jabbering away about how the war was based on a bunch of lies and utterly unjustified. Let me explain the proper and most sensible answer to this question.
I have always been surprised that nobody seems to see the crucial importance of one essential fact. The price of oil for the last decade has averaged around $100 a barrel. In the decade or so prior to 2003, it was well under $20. In 2003, Saddam’s Iraq was, absent WMD, merely a potential threat to the security interests of the U.S. and our allies in the Middle East. (And. yes, the United States of America has serious and legitimate security interests which we would be foolhardy to deny.) Boxed in by sanctions and no-fly zones, and with oil at low prices, Saddam was financially broke and militarily broken.
But fast forward five or ten years. If we had not overthrown his regime, sooner or later Saddam would have wiggled out from under the sanctions regime. And with his coffers flush with record high oil revenues, does anyone doubt that the French and the Russians would have been more than eager to sell Saddam every kind of military hardware his heart desired? We would have been facing not a pathetically weak tin-horn dictator, but a well-armed menace to the security of the Gulf, but by extension to our security. I believe that if you face a nasty and vicious adversary who can someday potentially harm you, better to stomp him into the ground when he’s weak and helpless, rather than being nice and giving him a chance to arm himself.
Now it is clear the Bush administration ginned up the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD capabilities. I think they were right to do so. (I just hope they were smart enough to realize they were doing so.) In 2003, nobody could prove Iraq had WMD (ultimately, because they didn’t - yet anyway). But nobody could really prove they didn’t. If you are confronted with a potentially lethal peril, and you can’t prove it exists, you’d be a fool to ignore if you couldn’t be sure it didn’t exist. Skeptics like Obama were just as in the dark as the Bush administration was, but without the responsibility for answering for the consequences if they were wrong.
Now it is also an unfortunate fact that the U.S. bungled the occupation. We grossly underestimated the savagery of the Iraqis. People somehow blame the U.S. for the years of obscene bloodletting that followed in the wake of our occupation of that nasty little country. I grieve for the 4.491 American servicemen and women who gave their lives in that literally God forsaken country. But of the half million or so Iraqis, who actually killed them? In the immediate sense, their fellow Iraqis, their own bloody neighbors. When some Sunni Iraqi was having the bit of a power drill drive through his skull, it was a bunch of Shia Iraqis doing the job. When some Shia Iraqi was blown to pieces by a suicide bomb, it was a Sunni Iraqi how was wearing the bomb vest. We owe no apologies to the Iraqis for the bloodshed they brought upon themselves.
In fact, those miserable people should be grateful to us. We did bring them a chance to remake Iraq into a modern democratic state. Maybe we were foolish to think such a project would succeed, and I for one would not have sacrificed one American life trying to do so. But we did, and it is the Iraqis who have squandered that precious opportunity. One need only look at what is happening in Iraq and Syria today to see what these people are capable of doing left to their own devices.
That war is over, and I am glad we are no longer pouring money into that rathole, or exposing our troops to danger trying to make it a decent place to live. But the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the correct one, and had we not we would certainly be facing much more serious problems in this nasty little corner of the world, which is nonetheless critical to our security. And Americans should be proud that, notwithstanding numerous mistakes, we actually tried to bring a better way of life to the Iraqis, as we successfully had with the Germans and the Japanese. It was perhaps a foolhardy mission, but none the less noble for it, and its failure lies squarely with the Iraqi people.
We shoulda nuked it from orbit! SA & Iran too!
I always thought it was the right decision until Obama turned it over to the terrorists.
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all
John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)
John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all
John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:
"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:
Why?
Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?
Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?
Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?
Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?
Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?
Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?
Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?
Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all
“The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record
John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)
John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)
John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)
John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." –
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." –
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm
"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record – Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" –
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxman
There is a video somewhere where Clinton, Albright and most of the Democrats were all but chanting bomb Iraq. Of course, this was before 9/11 and before Bush was even in office.
It seems that no one ever points out that the US could not keep 1/4 of its tac air tied up enforcing the UN embargo of Iraq with the Global War on Terror in progress and that a first year ROTC student could point out the error of leaving a powerful foe placed on ones flank in SW Asia. The withdrawal of most US air assets would have led to the collapse of the embargo of Iraq in a year or so and Saddam could have strutted around proclaiming , again, ‘Brave Iraqis you have won (because my regime outlasted them).’ All of this is so elemental, but none of the Bush people will ever just say it.
Essentially, after 2003 the price of oil went very high, and this guy guesses Saddam would have bought a lot of cool weapons and become a menace, so we should crush him when he was broke.
And the other argument he makes is that the WMD evidence was probably faked, but that nobody could say he didn’t have them, so we should have attacked.
NO matter where you stand on the war, these were very VERY lame arguments.
Weird editorial. This is more like damning with faint praise. Every other sentence undermines the preceding one.
We could have built more than enough planes with the money we saved from not going to war such that the TAC air needed to enforce the embargo would have been manageable.
Exactly, very odd logic here. For people this was personal to, these justifications were amazingly weak.
Obama is just standing back allowing the Sunnis to take it back from the Iranians.
But we executed it horribly. Go in to win or don’t go in.
It's nice to read an article that is written by a prophet :-) In reality, Saddam could be dead by now by any one of 100 very good reasons. Most likely, by poison, or by a bullet fired by his most trusted lieutenant.
Saddam was also serving in an important role of a ruthless - but necessary - manager of lands that are collectively called Iraq. Right now such a manager is missing. Fall of Saddam also removed the threat of Iraq from consideration of Mullahs in Iran. This allowed them to spend their money elsewhere, which they do.
All in all, HWB was more correct when he left Saddam defeated, kicked out of Kuwait, but in power. Someone had to be a ruler of Iraq anyway. A defeated, broken dictator who is fully controlled by no-fly zones is good for that purpose. "Wiggled out?" I'd like to know how. Unless, of course, the new US President allows him to. Hmm.
We did bring them a chance to remake Iraq into a modern democratic state.
I wonder how would Mark Nuckols feel if Martians invade the USA tomorrow and force us all to adopt Communism? Should we be grateful to them for giving us the chance? Or, perhaps, we'd rather live like we want to live? Perhaps we'd find a way to let Martians know that they are not welcome?
Iraq is in ruins now and under siege by ISIS for one simple reason: democracies are weak, and the new Iraqi democracy is weaker still. Could Saddam, a dictator, fight ISIS? He did fight Iran, after all. Chances are that he would be successful. The modern Iraqi army runs away from the enemy because it's OK. They believe in nothing, and they protect nothing, and they are not afraid of their own side. Well, if they have no desire to fight, then by all means run - it's the most logical choice. Under Saddam that wouldn't work - deserters would be shot, and the reinforcements would have made it into the city.
The enemy center of gravity is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Iraq was, at best, a distraction and at worst a cowardly avoidance of the real enemy.
After 14 years, the enemy still sleeps soundly in their beds in Riyadh and Islamabad, while we still fear them.
This is what defeat looks like.
Of course we did. Unfortunately the MSM at the urging of the DNC did to Bush for his entire eight years of service as they did to Reagan during the bogus Iran/Contra hearings.........
The sole purpose of both campaigns was to discredit both presidents in order to lay the groundwork for the election of a Democrat president.........Fortunately for Reagan, it didn't work.
By virtue of the fact that Bush was re-elected in 2004 is a testimony to the support he had from the level headed Americans who also supported our war in Iraq.........
Pretty soon one of those left wing reporters is going to ask,”Knowing what we know today was it a good idea to fire back at the British’?
Here's Exhibit A in my case:
"It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq." -- Dick Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense, April 15, 1994
Case closed.
Never trust a bunch of Beltway pr!cks who send someone else to fight a war in a Third World sh!t-hole, while their own kids stay home to attend Ivy League schools.
In keeping with my practice of publishing long, here is a consolidation of two posts which appeared years ago and which have unhappily stood the test of time:
So This Is How Iraq Ends, in Futility, Bitterness, and Recrimination
After nearly 5000 body bags, tens of thousands of limbs, and $1 trillion, Obama is skedaddling from Iraq, vainly attempting to put the best face on the ignominy of our departure which is demanded by the very Iraqi nation we built. A war, originally started to make a safe from weapons of mass destruction, was waged against a psychotic dictator who had no such weapons. We succeeded in regime change, which was a good thing and proceeded to build a nation, which was a futile endeavor. Somehow, we lost sight of our national strategic interests for which we sacrificed our blood and treasure.
Today, we are facing a new Islamist crescent, dominated by Iran, and running from Pakistan nearly to the Atlantic shores of northern Africa. One of these nations is in possession of nuclear weapons and a second, even more fanatical than the other, will soon be possessed of such a weapon and poses a real existential danger to the security of the United States. The original justification for the war, to prevent Iraq from building an atomic bomb and passing it off to terrorists who would smuggle it into America and destroy one or more of our cities, is even more threatening today than it was the day before we commenced hostilities.
Whatever gains we have made in making the American people safer have been achieved almost exclusively by virtue of national technical means and by old-fashioned spy vs. spy sleuthing.
Our national security posture is substantially weaker. The nation has contributed to its own bankruptcy by squandering trillions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan. The war has estranged us from Europe and left us vulnerable to attack through that flank. It has aroused and energized the Arab street. The Mexican border remains a backdoor open to infiltration by terrorists carrying weapons of mass destruction as small as a mason jar full of germs. At the other end of the spectrum, Iran is at the verge of obtaining an atomic weapon and the means to explode it in the heavens over the homeland which could knock out our electric grids and leave tens of millions to die of thirst and starvation because they would be beyond the nation's power to succor them.
Whatever chance we had to prevent Iran from getting the bomb was always limited to a military strike and that option was swallowed up in the sands of Iraq.
Out of bitterness and frustration, we have turned upon one another in recrimination, even blaming John McCain of all people.
As a result of the American electorate's frustration with the war, Republicans were driven from office on Capitol Hill just days after the piece quoted below was written and they were later driven from the Oval Office. Today, we are ruled over by a potential tyrant whose allegiance to this country is dubious. His elevation to the highest office in the world could not have happened without our involvement in Iraq.
The following is a post which I first put up on these boards on November 4, 2006. As it says at the foot of the post, I invite your reaction. I do not repost this out of vanity but out of frustration and an aching heart. Above all, I ask what have we learned and where are we going?
Here is the piece:
Before the invasion I wrote that "God help me" I wanted the invasion to begin as soon as possible before the inspection regime or the French could so undermine the administration that the war could not be started.
Unlike these treacherous neocons, I will admit that I was wrong. In my own defense I can say, for what it's worth, that I was never seduced by the idea of imposing Wilsonian democracy on Iraq, although I of course would not have spurned it, but I saw the war in what I arrogantly believed were grown up and real world considerations of geopolitics. I wanted forward bases in the Mideast from which to strike at Syria and Iran if intimidation alone did not work. I wanted us to get all our hands on the oil fields to deprive Muslim terrorists of petrodollars with which to buy weapons of mass destruction. I wanted us to demonstrate to the Muslim world that no leader could sleep safe if he played a double game with America. I wanted to so intimidate the Muslim world with our military prowess that they themselves would turn against the terrorists in their midst because I believed, and still believe, that the only way we ultimately can win this war is to turn the sane Muslims against the crazies. And, of course, I wanted a regime change as the only effective defense against WMD's in Iraq. My mistake, and I believe Bush's, was to underestimate the tenacity of the Muslim belief system and to see the war in a two dimensional geographical box, like a game of checkers, where squares were to be taken and held.
Not only was I wrong but the result has been calamitous and every one of the "strategic" reasons for waging war in Iraq have been stood on its head. I suspect that the main reason there has been no terrorist attack on the heartland is because Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Iran, are quite content to see America founder in Iraq. Iran, likewise, is the big winner from all of this as it moves closer to upsetting the entire balance of power in the Middle East when it acquires the bomb and perhaps fashions a Shi'ite Crescent running to the Mediterranean Sea. I believe my error came out of the false understanding of the nature of the global intergenerational war against terrorism: that somehow it was a war which could be conceived of in geographical terms. It is not-- although if it is lost the ultimate impact will be geographical. This is a war for the soul of Islam and we must not lose our own souls before we can save theirs.
Perhaps the very worst legacy of this whole Irak tragedy is that we are a daily demonstrating to the world that we are presently incapable of winning asymmetrical wars of terrorism. The Israelis just proved that in Lebanon. The people in Afghanistan are beginning to understand it. The tide in the Muslim world is rising against us as their fear drains away. So the goal of saving the soul of Islam has been made more elusive.
To compound the catastrophe, the "socialist" world of Cuba and Venezuela, Russia and China can read the daily events in Iraq and are emboldened as they have not been since the first Iraq war and seem eager to make mischief 1960s style.
Meanwhile, we've increased the danger of losing our own soul as defined as the will to win. Western Europe already lacks it and half of America possesses an anemic red blood count. Another tragedy of the Iraq war might will be to cause the installation of a Democrat regime in America which will align itself with the appeasers in Europe and so fatally succumb to jihad. The danger is as near as next Tuesday when, if the Republicans suffer a stinging repudiation of the polls, Bush might be left in as feckless a state as Gerald Ford was during the final pathetic agony of Vietnam.
Our dilemma is that we cannot win in Iraq and we cannot abandon it. We cannot win until we learn how to fight asymmetrical insurgencies against our occupation. We show no evidence that we have any idea how to do this at a price America is willing to pay. The training up of Iraqi forces, especially the police, is clearly a failure. So we are mired in a situation that spills our blood and empties our treasury and turns our friends against us. Meanwhile, the existential threat against America, represented by Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon which it passes off to terrorists to explode in the heartland, grows daily closer to reality. Our efforts in Iraq have so attenuated our military force that we probably cannot mount an invasion and air power alone probably cannot interdict Iran's nuclear program. This is well known to the whole world and especially to Iran so our ability to intimidate the Iranians into good behavior has bled into the sands of Iraq along with the Bush Doctrine.
Soon it will be fashionable even in conservative circles to blame Bush just as the neocons now are doing so ignominiously. My belief is that the miscalculation was to presume that the Iraqis, read Muslims, would behave rationally when presented with the opportunity for self-determination and democracy. It is not really that we made fatal tactical military mistakes in Iraq which we can lay at the feet of Bush or Rumsfeld, rather it is the nature of the traditional Muslim society that caused all of this bloodshed to be inevitable. Iraq has revealed that America has no stomach for the pain which must be endured to see such a traditional Muslim society through to Western democratic values.
Asymmetrical warfare works against armies of occupation but these tactics do not work against 21st-century Blitzkrieg, American-style. I fear that the American military will engage in another Vietnam style soul-searching and draw the wrong conclusion, that military force does not work at all in the war against terrorism. I am tempted, therefore, to argue that it was the occupation and not the war itself which was the bridge too far. After Iraq, I am humble enough to admit and perhaps it is I who misses the lesson.
I am well aware that new military adventures will be virtually impossible to sell until the inevitable happens: a strike is made against the homeland. If Al Qaeda strikes with anything less than a mortal blow, ie. a series of nuclear explosions, America might yet be able to find its finest hour. But strike it must if Al Qaeda intends fulfill its ambitions. God grant that they settle for half a loaf with an intensity level not exceeding 911.
We must fashion a new policy, a new strategy for winning this intergenerational worldwide war against a portion of 1.4 billion Muslims who inhabit the earth. We must turn rational Islam against this jihad or we will perish because we will rot from the inside out or we will simply surrender after our cities are turned into glass. We cannot hope to prevail if we eschew all military operations as ultimately counterproductive. We must find what works. Above all, we must not lose our soul.
I would be grateful for your reaction to all this. 
In 1961, Barry Goldwater called it a fool's errand. He said that there were people in this world who would never be ready for self-government for either cultural or religious reasons. The best that could be hoped for was a benevolent dictator, preferably one loyal to the US and not the Soviet Union.
Goldwater was excoriated by the Foreign Policy Community for "wrong thinking," but his view has stood the test of time.
Indeed, one might go back even further to Woodrow Wilson and his remarkably inept efforts at the treaty of Versailles in which he alienated European allies over his anti-colonial approach, and demands for the self-determination of peoples etc.
It is interesting that both of these presidents were leftists who were handed major international roles as a consequence of America's victories in two world wars. Both of these presidents let ideology affect their judgment of America's national interests.
History has demonstrated that some people are ready for self-determination and others would be better nurtured as a colony until mature. Many politicians in America have made a career for more than two centuries twisting the British lion's tail and even those who were not Irish were receptive to an anti-colonial pitch which conjured images of colonial America rising up against the British.
There is a lesson to be learned here, that ideology is a very slippery foundation upon which to construct foreign policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.