The wrong war/Why Iraq was a mistake

Minneapolis (Red) Star Tribune ^ | January 13, 2004

[nathanbedford]

Kindly post the whole article.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

That reality is truly gratifying, and it leads some Americans to conclude that the invasion of Iraq has proven itself both justified and worth the price.

Most Americans!!

The premise is flawed fron the start.

[The Old Hoosier]

This editorial is correct. No one would have fought the war simply to oust Hussein at the cost of hundreds of American lives.

However, two important points:

1) No one here will care as long as Iraq turns out ok. Americans are so accustomed to living in peace and so unaccustomed to the horrors of war that the anti-war movement will never sink Bush, not in a million years. Iraq will turn out successfully, and it won't be an issue at all.

2) The real, unspoken argument for the war in Iraq, which Bush will never make, is that it will cripple the spread of Islam and the terrorism that necessarily accompanies it. Call him dishonest, but I don't think anyone wants Bush to make this argument in public. I am convinced that this is the real motivation behind the war. By increasing production and driving down oil prices, we reduce the funds that currently go to spread Islam in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, Western Europe, and even the U.S. This is one of the ways Ronald Reagan, with the cooperation of the Saudis, helped destroy Communism--crippling the Soviet oil industry through over-production. Russian oilfields, which are more expensive to operate, became completely unprofitable. (There is some irony in the fact that now we are making overtures and asking the Russians to overproduce in order to do the opposite.)

Oil money is terror money, and the flow must be reduced. I don't know if the Iraq invasion actually will help to acheive this goal--I have argued in the past that it will not, and that's why I opposed the war. But whatever you think about the war, this is the real motivation, not WMDs or liberation or anything of the sort. All of these are afterthoughts.

[capt. norm]

What they don't like about it is simply the fact that it was not lead by a Democrat president.

Everythiing else they say is just political spin to cover up what they really think.

One only has to look back as far as Clinton/Kosovo to see the hypocrasy in what they are saying now.

[rudypoot]

Saddam was in material breach of several UN resolutions. End of story.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Comrade! This is from the Red Star, yes?

[SolutionsOnly]

Pretty lame article.

Iraq violated the cease fire terms, tried to assasinate Bush I, snubbed it's nose at multiple UN resolutions, had been shooting at our planes for years, and maniupulated the aid for oil program for his own personal advantage at the expense of the Iraqi people, and was guilty of human rights abuses, and so on and so forth.

I don't think Bush needed to try to link Iraq to terrorism.
But from a strategic point of view, I see how ousting Saddam was a brilliant move for shaking up the Middle East and going a the root cause of the terrorism problem - oppressive and backward governments blaming the west for all their dysfunction.

[Billthedrill]

The outcome of the invasion and the reasons for it have always been separable questions. They need to remain that way.

Actually, they are not, and do not. It is exceedingly convenient - in fact, vital - for those opposing the war through its antecedents to ignore the outcome, because it is theirs that is the illogical position, to wit: if one insists that there was insufficient reason for invading and hence the invasion ought never to have happened, then one must accept the outcome of that position, which is Saddam still in power, women in rape rooms and political opponents in acid baths and industrial shredders. There is simply no escape from this, and anyone who wishes to claim that another alternative would have been preferable must examine the outcomes of that as well - sanctions had been tried, reasoning and negotiation had been tried, ostracism had been tried, UN resolutions and stiffly-worded diplomatic notes had been tried, all to no avail. The choice is between war and Saddam's removal, with an outcome that even the Red Star considers beneficial, or no war and Saddam still in power.

What the position the Red Star is attempting to assume requires is that the argument be one from principle only, and not involve outcome, which is fine if you can hide your eyes from the outrageous oppression alluded to above, which is, in fact, precisely what the editorial desk at the Star has done for the preceding two decades. When reasonable people see that their principles lead to a negative result, they respond by examining those principles. When ideologues see negative results they ignore or redefine them. When partisan ideologues see them, they find a way to blame their opponents.

[Liberty Valance]

So, it's your contention that the war in Iraq was a "blood for oil" campaign?

[TheDon]

Iraq violated the cease fire terms, tried to assasinate Bush I, snubbed it's nose at multiple UN resolutions, had been shooting at our planes for years, and maniupulated the aid for oil program for his own personal advantage at the expense of the Iraqi people, and was guilty of human rights abuses, and so on and so forth.

Points many seem to have forgotten.

[TheDon]

Other editorials from the same author include:

Why the American Revolution was a mistake
Why the internal combustion engine was a mistake
Why the Internet was a mistake

[presidio9]

Sorry, for some reason, The Minneapolis (Red) Star Tribune does not like FR. All articles from there must be excerpted.

[presidio9]

Why the Internet was a mistake

According to the Red Star, Algore does not make mistakes.

[dirtboy]

The wrong war/Why Iraq was a mistake

Hmmm...over the last year, in addition to Iraq, we've seen:

More cooperation from the Saudis.

More cooperation from Pakistan.

Libya renouncing WMDs in direct response to the Iraq War and the fall of Saddam.

Sudan interested in ending its two-decade old civil war.

Syria making peace overtures towards Israel.

Egypt showing signs of political reform.

Iran and North Korea opening up their nuclear facilities for inspection, and

India and Pakistan are showing interest in resolving the Kashmir issue, the most volatile powder keg of our time.

But none of that could be tied to our invasion of Iraq, our holding the course in the face of guerilla attacks and howls of international criticism? Tied to the capture of Saddam? Tied to the fact that we vanquished the ghosts of Mogadishu, the yardstick by which despots formerly measured our resolve, and replaced it with Iraq, a much, much bigger stick?

Nah, to the liberals, none of that is related and Bush is a dismal foreign policy failure.

[The Old Hoosier]

Not "blood for oil" in the conventional sense. In fact, it is "blood for peace."

[Ancesthntr]

OK, I'll bite: the war was wrong. To paraphrase General Patton: What does this jerk want to do, give it back?

[Ancesthntr]

OK, I'll bite: the war was wrong. To paraphrase General Patton: What does this jerk want to do, give it back?

[Ancesthntr]

Sorry about the double post - there was a server error and I hit "Post" again.

[freedomson]

No there wasn't.

: )