War in Iraq. Better than the do-nothing alternatives.
I see some are taking a 'getout/shouldn't have got in' approach to the Iraq war and the War on Terror. I disagree.
Examine the other options that could have been pursued, which mostly boil down to do nothing, and surmise where they lead.
Letting terrorists 'get away' with things like 9/11, and Bali, and London encourages them. So on one plane, we need to draw a line. That is why I support the moves against the Taliban, and Al Quaeda.
Iraq, under Saddam DID invade Kuwait in 1991, DID use gas against Iran in the First Gulf War, and the Kurds. It was a nasty regime and the world is better without such regimes. Stabilising that part of the world has got to be more desirable than the other alternative (remember the Scuds, Saddams long range guns, etc?). So I think getting involved in Iraq is a defensible position.
And these are but two heads of a larger beast. Radical and aggressive Islam. Shades of the philosophies that inderpinned agressive fascism (ie Hitler's Germany), and agressive Marxism (Cold War USSR).
I see an analogy to where the world was in 1933. if the line had been drawn then, and even a small war fought, that would have been better than the misery and 48 million dead of WW2.
I see the current challenge as every bit as serious as the fascist or Marxist challenges The West faced last century.
And the same 'usual suspects' line up to face that threat on the world's behalf.
Examine the other options that could have been pursued, which mostly boil down to do nothing, and surmise where they lead.
Letting terrorists 'get away' with things like 9/11, and Bali, and London encourages them. So on one plane, we need to draw a line. That is why I support the moves against the Taliban, and Al Quaeda.
Iraq, under Saddam DID invade Kuwait in 1991, DID use gas against Iran in the First Gulf War, and the Kurds. It was a nasty regime and the world is better without such regimes. Stabilising that part of the world has got to be more desirable than the other alternative (remember the Scuds, Saddams long range guns, etc?). So I think getting involved in Iraq is a defensible position.
And these are but two heads of a larger beast. Radical and aggressive Islam. Shades of the philosophies that inderpinned agressive fascism (ie Hitler's Germany), and agressive Marxism (Cold War USSR).
I see an analogy to where the world was in 1933. if the line had been drawn then, and even a small war fought, that would have been better than the misery and 48 million dead of WW2.
I see the current challenge as every bit as serious as the fascist or Marxist challenges The West faced last century.
And the same 'usual suspects' line up to face that threat on the world's behalf.
posted by Phil at 9:24 pm
2 Comments:
agree about getting in, agree that the world is a better place without Saddam - but it seems there was no proper planning done for those fragile days just after the first big victory - and this is where it turned bad. also the consequences for Afghanistan with the US getting so much involved in Iraq were not too good - less troops instead of more, a slight drop on the political agenda, and once again all players on the field are stuck in their own perception, not taking into account history and deeper learning.
I agree. We have seen things go pear-shaped in East Timor as well. Same reason.
What is needed (IMHO) is a Marshall plan or similar. It's important to win the war, it may be even more important to win the peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home