Wednesday, December 14, 2005


My moderate buddy writes:

I'll give this administration points for taking a big risk to change the world, whatever their motivations. It's not like Gore or Kerry would have done as much [as invading Iraq].
This is where it gets interesting though. Short term memories being what they are, people forget that what brought the Iraq situation to a head was the fact that we were about to lose the first Gulf War - France and other nations (and crackpots within the U.S.) were forcing the situation by saying that we should fold on our demands upon Saddam, and the U.S. correctly stated that he never even came close to meeting his obligations to the 'peace' treaty he signed. So, if he met the obligations, we'd fold up shop and go home, if not we'd....we'd...we'd what?

Well Bush had an answer to that. The only other option was basically a 'surrender'; spending another ten years flying over Iraq and shooting at radar dishes wasn't an option that was on the table since Saddam's paid off allies were removing it. And since Afghanistan just fell, surrender would have sent a clear message to all parties in the region that the best option to beat the U.S. is to wait them out.

Would they have done as much? I have to ask myself "would they have had a choice?" (Or more likely "How badly would they have screwed it up?")

This leads my thoughts to the current treachery going down in the U.S. I think one of the reasons the pacifist Democrats are having an issue making their case is that the arguments presented are so bad (and to a large extent, dishonest):
  • WMD. Are they saying that if left to his own devices Saddam would never have acquired nuclear material. Even Joe 'Yellowcake' Wilson's report said that Saddam was trying to acquire material from Niger.
  • The threat. Bush never said it was imminent, saying differently is just dishonest.
  • Terrorists. Although no one said that Saddam had direct knowledge of 9/11, he and his intelligence services had been an active supporter of those that carried it out.

Even barring all that, opponents of the war, right and left, now get an easy path to criticize because they no longer have to answer the original 'Saddam question' - what would they have done? Do they now insinuate that the war is illegitimate? Well, we can put Saddam back into power, right now...right this very minute. No? Well then please, STFU and come up with something better than grade school level arguments.

(All this is not to excuse Bush's various faults on the war, the two worst of which was is unwillingness to 'pay' for the effort in any way and his near complete capitulation to the Arab/Muslim lobby on just about everything. However on these two faults opponents either do not have counter proposals, or they propose something worse).

No comments: