Canute
A solution to what exactly?
An interesting question that has much merit. But there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was failing to comply with the terms that ended the first Gulf War. Now, whether or not that war was right is its own question, and despite the back-and-forth tale of an apparent "green-light" (expressed intent toward tacit approval) by the first Bush White House, there is no question that invading Kuwait was a very bad idea on Hussein's part. Slant-drilling is not a good excuse for military action, and any observant person knows that the industrialized world--whose reprisal Hussein was concerned about--treats traditional land claims as tenuous except for political convenience, and Hussein was not being very convenient about it.
So what, then, is the problem that requires a solution? In my humble opinion it's a longstanding trend of exploitative behavior that bit Americans where it hurts in Tehran in 1979, and found a new toll exacted in New York in 2001. (The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, prior to the US invasion, was the United States themselves.)
But if we look at Saddam Hussein and stamp him, "Problem," the issue seems to be that a tyrant was empowered with a certain undetermined but well-suspected number of nasty weapons, employing devices contrary to human dignity in order to maintain law, order, and power, and threw a deliberate thorn into the world energy scheme.
And of that last, well, I can hardly blame him or anyone. The world energy scheme needs some shaking up or down, as events in Nigeria and Venezuela, among others, suggest. But Saddam "Hitler the Stalinist" Hussein° demonstrated, not all thorns are useful in that sense.
The thing is that I didn't like Saddam Hussein back when he was an American buddy. A lot of people didn't. Some might speak of liberal conspiracies, but I cannot help if my first exposure to the tale of the Shah of Iran--events which played out during my life--is a wisecrack in a science-fiction novel about not thinking the US could get any lower than giving refuge to the Shah. I can't say whether or not those who thought our policies were just in Iran over that period aren't around anymore, or just don't think that nobility important enough to mention in novels, but it does come to mind that my first exposure to Saddam Hussein, whose name seemed just another term in a jumble of international news I didn't understand, was a syndicated article, a "top ten" list of petty dictators around the world. Interestingly, that was occurring in strange coincidence with the Watchtower publication
The Plain Truth's announcement that the Soviet bear would collapse in a decade's time. The Reagan administration had already taken Hussein off the terrorist-sponsor list.
He was evil then. When stories of Hussein's atrocities spread--and some were played unfairly, as Americans will discover soon enough when it's time to brawl with Iran and Tehran's role in at least one biochem massacre popularly attributed solely to Hussein--I knew approximately what people were talking about because I had seen horrifying footage of Afghan rebels dying from nerve gas when I was about 7.
But the whole time, Hussein seemed to be just another problematic American buddy.
So to me, yes, Hussein was a problem in and of himself. But I would have sought another solution. If it absolutely came down to the necessity of war, I've described in the past how one might construct UN/SC resolutions to hamstring Hussein and force him to stake his empire at risk of becoming otherwise irrelevant. It would be invasive in the end, yes, but it would be multilateral, defensive at the outset, and aimed truly at the best interests of the Iraqi people.
And if the plight of an oppressed people such as the Iraqis is to be regarded as problematic at all--for this was the effect of the Hussein problem, and in terms of a goal, perhaps more important--then the solution cannot rely on the necessity of aggravating the situation so dramatically as we have. The American people, through the Bush administration, have placed members of our military at the service of the Iraqi people. The least we could do is act like it, and that's why I would have sought a different solution to begin with.
I don't remember any alleged good intentions, just alleged good-for-us intentions.
I'll hand you that any day of the week on principle. But I'm referring to the idea that the selling points of this war were:
- Elimination of "imminent threat" to USA (false pretext)
- Elimination of "regional threat" of Iraq (shaky pretext)
- Elimination of tyrant Hussein (rational but unreasonable pretext)
- Reduction of suffering of Iraqi people (noble and deserved pretext)
- Establishment of "democracy" in Iraq (noble but dubiously-founded pretext)
As to the two noble pretexts ... there were still other ways. If this many billions are worth it, how come the $97 million passed by Congress under the Clinton administration to sponsor an Iraq coup wasn't worth pursuing? As we see now, the same people we couldn't rely on to stage a proper and satisfactory coup were among the people the Bush administration took advice from on starting this war.
There were a couple of noble intentions in there; if I had any faith in this administration or the American people to make those noble intentions real, I might support this rogue action against Iraq. But how can we bring what we don't have to anyone? Here I refer to democracy. So in accepting that true democracy ain't coming to the neighborhood, I guard against the idea that a wealth-driven, Westernized republic will bring real freedom to Iraq or anywhere else.
Listen to the war-dogs, especially during and immediately after the invasive war action; the nobility of the mission was all they had to stand on.
Now, I can accept that Americans never really believed it and will say whatever they have to if it means they get to sit at home with some popcorn and watch the pretty lights over Somewhere on CNN. But that's ... that's a pretty fierce assertion that I'm not sure plays in Peoria. While I'm well aware that my social circle tends a little more toward my side of the aisle on many ideas, even the fiercest war-dogs in my direct association are just a little flabbergasted. (I know one who's essentially waiting, hoping, nearly praying for Bush to reveal his true genius and let the idiots in on the ruse; in his faith he expects that Bush really is a genius and the misdirection is all part of a larger, brilliant campaign to establish working room and separation from the nitwits who didn't actually quite elect him properly. It's a little like waiting for Jesus to return.)
People wanted to believe we were doing the
right thing. That means putting some lofty and noble goals on the table; the only war-dog I've yet found who stands purely on might-is-right seems a caricature of a violent and educated idiot. Even Americans, from time to time, need lofty ambitions to hold up before the world. Whether or not they believe in them is irrelevant; if they sell on that point, they need to deliver that point.
