Just an observation. I am extremely proBush on most issues. His idealism and a desire to help the Iraqis propelled him into Iraq along with the WMD issues. Now that we have been at this for several years, I better understand why Sadam ruled as he did. These people do live, in large measure in midevil times. Not all,but many. I believe Sadam ruled ruthlessly because that is the only way to control that population. He was unnecessarily cruel to anyone he even thought might be an enemy. But, he did not have IEDs going off in the country. I believe the reason is because, if there was a wiff of criticism he crushed it ruthlessly and immediatly without concern for collateral damage. But there were no IEDs going off in any of the cities. I wonder how Sadam would deal with a foreign invaders trying to take over his country. I hope when the Americans are able to leave Iraq the standing military will be less shackled in its response to terrorism. I hope they do not have to worry about pantyhose on the head of terrorist that just days prior were trying to kill them. I hope they don't degrade to what will be tempting, that is, to respond so indescrimminantly that collateral damage is extraordinary.
I still believe Bush has to succeed in stablizing Iraq. We cannot afford to loose and ceed a nation state to alZarquari or benLaudin. For that kind to have the revenues of oil rich Iraq to foment and export terrorism on a scale we have not seen would certainly follow.
Damn, I want our military to come home ASAP.
I think that’s out of balance. I can’t read Bush’s mind, but as far the Administration goes, helping the Iraqis is a means to the goal of US security rather a primary goal for being there . Saddam’s willingness and potential to WMD enable future 9-11 style attacks is why we’re in Iraq. Helping the Iraqis is just what we have to do to keep a tyrant like him from reappearing.
I agree that Saddam had to be brutal to rule Iraq, but he did not have to invade Iran, Kuwait, employ WMDs or bring genocide on the Marsh Arabs. He didn’t have to spend tens of billions on WMD programs while Iraqi children starved. He didn’t have to give his sons free reign to rape and torture for sport. But getting rid of that was just a bonus, not our primary motivation. Maybe it’s over promoted because getting rid of tyranny plays well politically.
We’re helping the Iraqis to build their freedom because it’s the best long term defense from Islamist terrorism, not because we love Iraqis so much that we’ll sacrifice a few thousand lives for them. Bush may be idealistic to think that a Middle Eastern nation can be this democratic and free, but it has never been tried like this, not with a complete dismantling of civil service and military. We at least have to try. If not now with Iraq, when and with whom?