[Alberta's Child]

I don't really dispute anything you've posted there. Nothing I've ever said in opposition to the invasion of Iraq was ever based on media reports like the idiotic criticisms you've referenced there.

The only error in your thinking is the way you present the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a continuum dating back to the first Gulf War in 1990-91. You are correct in describing it this way, but that doesn't necessarily make it justifiable. In fact, when the Saudi influence in radical Islam started getting some scrutiny after 9/11, a lot of people began to wonder about something I've contended since 1990 -- that perhaps the U.S. was on the wrong side in Desert Storm.

[Keb]

Reply to: “The only error in your thinking is the way you present the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a continuum dating back to the first Gulf War in 1990-91. You are correct in describing it this way, but that doesn’t necessarily make it justifiable. In fact, when the Saudi influence in radical Islam started getting some scrutiny after 9/11, a lot of people began to wonder about something I’ve contended since 1990 — that perhaps the U.S. was on the wrong side in Desert Storm.”

---

The point I was trying to make was about the younger President Bush’s handling of the war he inherited. That didn’t address the rightness of engaging in the first place (which was debatable), or President Clinton’s strategy of “marking time with bombs”, which was an atrocity. (Ideally, a new President should be able to instantly implement his strategy for a war he inherits. But I can’t fault an administration for marking time while preparing its strategy, even though people are dying the while. I do, however, fault an administration for not being ready with its strategy after eight years in office.)

While the decision to go to war at the beginning of 1991 is debatable, I’m going to have to disagree with you about it. We were on the right side of that one, and (what is not the same) getting involved was the right thing to do. Saddam Hussein had just conquered Kuwait, and looked to be preparing to invade Saudi Arabia. The Saudis deserve all the criticism they’ve gotten, for their support of Wahhabism. But letting Saddam Hussein take over the whole region, would have been a disaster, especially for Europe. We are partially insulated from European problems by an ocean, but anything that hits Europe that hard would be a disaster for the United States, as well. Shutting Saddam down was the right thing to do, in spite of the costs of war.