Posted on 09/11/2002 9:20:47 AM PDT by john bell hood
I am opposed to overt, armed intervention ("invasion") of Iraq. Unfortunately, we've painted ourselves into a corner not by events or facts, but with rhetoric, and created a situation where we probably have to do it. But I'm not happy about it. Here's a few reasons why (and why not). First, conquering Iraq will not be trivial, but it will be as "easy" as things get when it comes to this sort of thing. We will have kill ratios in the 500:1 or higher range if they actually face us in battle, which they won't. I would be very surprised and disappointed if we have more than a 500 casualties. Our technology and, more importantly, tactics, are so much superior to the Iraqi's that it will be overwhelming. The Iraqi army will fold up not so much because they hate Saddam or want democracy, but for the simple reason that they don't want to be slaughtered. And I'm hard pressed to see how the region can be more unstable after than before. I love it when Arab leaders say stuff like "an invasion will open the Gates of Hell". As if you don't have to cross the river Styx to get to the Middle East already.
So those are not reasons to oppose the war. The primary reason I oppose this thing is that I have seen no case made that the continuation of the current Iraqi government represents a threat to the vital national interests of the United States. The only reason I can see for the thing is that the President has by now pretty much staked our reputation on it - and that's nothing to laugh off.
His first point makes a lot of sense. But I'm not sure we shouldn't take the low-hanging fuit first, then go after the bigger threats, which he identifies as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Bush Doctrine II is preemption against terrorist nuts with nukes. I agree. That is the basis for invasion. All else is ancillary (freedom for Iraq; U.N. Sanctions; Congressional Resolutions, oil, jihadism, etc.)
Failure to intervene now runs a substantial risk of nuclear terrorism within months.
LET'S ROLL!
Pakistan
The best way to end terrorism and ensure peace is to kill terrorists.
The best way to end war and ensure peace is to kill the enemy.
Nukes, check.
Terrorists, well, on the wrong side of the law (so far).
Nuts, no. Musharraf is so far not nuts. The face off with India showed that he's no hair trigger on his WMD. Saddam in a similar circumstance would have an unacceptably high probability of launch.
Were Pakistan to go jihaddist instead of military dictatorship (odious enough), the I would agree, and preemption would be required.
The war on terror involves introducing the Democratic ideal into the region in order to attack the ROOT CAUSES of terror......theocratic totalitarianism/fascism!!!!.
Invading Iran, thinking they were weak.
Invading Kuwait, thinking he had clearance from our ambassador.
Lobbing Scuds at Israel (a non-combatant) and Saudi Arabia.
Brutal suppression of internal dissidents (well, more brutal, anyway)
In one way, I agree with you, though. Musharraf & Co. probably have had more truck with terrorists over time. Fortunately, he came down on the right side of the War On Terror at the right time. Saddam did not, and he stands with the terrorists against us.
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.