I'll end this bickering.
There was no WMD. There were no terrorists.
There was a tyrannical, bloothirsty dictator with a regime that would never leave power who murdered scores of people, invaded neighbors, raped, tortured and wrongfully imprisoned people for no reason.
He's dead now. That's a good thing.
There are times that I get pretty upset when I look back on the two years that I spent there. There are times when I mutter to myself the same things disneydude is saying. There are times when I can justify it, like Rev.
I don't really know what to think about it. Some of my buddies went home in bodybags; some have no legs. I got lucky, I guess.
I don't know what to think of it, even after all these years. It is what it is.
Most of the time, I think we helped more people than we hurt. If that's how I can justify it in my mind, the I guess that's good enough. There are those that will never see it that way; I understand. I'm not mad they feel that way.
And for those who have and will support it forever, I'm ok with that, too.
I strongly disagree with you. If we are going to be the world's policeman, then why don't we go to Rwanda? The leaders there make Saddam look like a boy scout. Why don't we invade ALL the places in the world where torture and mass murder run rampant? We just don't. Why? We don't have the resources.
So what was it with Iraq? Sure, Saddam was an asshole, but that was just a cover for the real reason, which was thought of by the Neocon think tank "Project for the New American Century". PNAC was put together as a result of a paper, written by Dick Cheney, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which detailed invading Middle East Nations and installing American-like governments in them. The Middle East has always been one of the most strategic places in the world in which to project power. Eventually, the plan was to overthrow seven nations in five years, starting with Iraq.
When 911 happened, Afghanistan was moved to the top of the list because we had to take out the Taliban for what they did. Before 911, the Taliban were actually close friends of the Administration. Hell, they were right here in Houston in the spring of 2001, meeting with Bush administration figures. 911 changed all these negotiations, because the Taliban wouldn't give bin Laden up, and decided to provide him with safe haven. Afghanistan had to be invaded, and I totally supported Bush on that.
However, Iraq was still the main objective. as the first nation to take down and westernize, according to PNAC philosophy. Syria, Iran, and others were also on the list, but Iraq was the starting point. Afghanistan was abandoned so that the Neocon plan could move forward.
This had nothing to do with Saddam being a bad guy. It also had nothing to do with oil, as many of the Liberals claim. It all had to do with cementing America as the lone superpower in the world, after the fall of Russia. Once accomplished, according to PNAC documents, America would be the world's ONLY power for a whole century, hence the name "Project for the New American Century".
The Iraq War was fought for ideology, nothing more. It was fought for a hairbrained ideology that was so full of holes it had no real chance to succeed. Did our leaders actually lie in their attempt to implement their radical ideas? Not exactly, but they did cherry pick their intel to justify going into Iraq, using forged documents and a contact known as "Curveball", who was known for stretching the truth, and rejected the mountains of information that showed Saddam has NO weapons of mass destruction, and no nuclear weapons program - Not even "under the rose bushes". While you can't exactly say they lied, they DID use the concept of "Noble Lies", taught by Neocon Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago, and which was one of the pillars of Neocon ideology. It's the same thing, but only worded differently.
"Noble Lies" is not a new concept. It originated with Plato, developed by Machiavelli, used by both Marx and Engels in their writings, and was also a pillar of Communist thought. Essentially, the concept is that a lie is not really a lie if it is done for a good cause. If the population would not normally go along with what the leaders considered a good plan, then the leaders have a responsibilty to twist the truth, so that the population would follow them. "Noble Lies" was a cornerstone of Neocon ideology. While you can make a case that the administraiton did not technically lie to get us into Iraq, the cherry picking of information, that is, picking the bad info and rejecting the good info, amounts to the same thing.
No, Iraq was not fought for oil, nor because Saddam was a bad guy. It wasn't even fought because Saddam wanted to kill Bush's father. It was fought over a hair brained ideology espoused by a group that was madder than hatters.
Having said all that, this does not reflect badly on the military, which is in place to keep America safe. Misuse of the military by the leaders does not make the military bad. It only makes those who misuse the military bad, and those who fought in Iraq are just as honorable as those who have fought in any other war. They bleed and die for the rest of us.
Thank you for your service.
