Saw your other response first.
I have thougth it through. That rationale doesn't hold up and it has nothing to do with duty, obligation or long time security. In fact, we likely hurt our long term securityy more than we helped it. The expense alone hurts more.
You might have thought this through, but not with the tools you need. It seems your thought process is peppered with denial or with headlines. It had everything to do with obligation and long term securty. History did not begin in February 2003. We spent an entire decade building our obligation to deal with our mess. It was a denied obligation that culminated in 9/11.
And just what do you base this damage to our long term security on? This is based on what? Immediate sensationalism in the newspaper? The fact is that 9/11 was orchestrated by people throughout the region. Al-Queda recruits from throughout the region. Therefore, for our long term security, the Arab world needed a hand out of their designed path to hell. With a continued UN mission over starving Iraq, the exponentially growing radical base throughout the Arab world would continue to have their "excuses." What hurt us was allowing a civilian named Rumsfeld and his coven of misfit theologists to dictate military mission. he mission was sound inthe handsof a military planner, which is what General Zinni and CENTCOM had devised over a decade. It was Washington dimwits with absolutely no military experience that made this expensive in treasure and blood. If you had thought it through honestly, your gripe would be about the execution, not some fancy that after a decade of starving these people out and aiding in Al-Queda's radical voice that we had no obligation. And don't cop out and state that we should have just invaded Saudi Arabia, because we didn't invade the Soviet Union to defeat that theology either.
An unhealthy Middle East is exactly counter to our long term security and despite Washington's willingness to ignore it, the military and CIA had been pointing this region out since Somalia. And with Iran looking to kick off a tribal/religious nuclear Cold War in the region, we can use as much democracy leaning help in the region that we can get. Saddam's Iraq was not the solution.
And then we added injury to injury. After all that was done. All those deaths. We brough them war?
You seem to keep dismissing the key issues here. We brought them exactly what their culture demanded. We brought them what we denied them in 1991 and what Europeans denied them for two centuries. We brought them opportunity and ourselves a way out of the UN mission that led us to 9/11. Simply pretending that we have to be on our death beds or be attacked to deal with obvious issues that lead us into very few choices is not honest. Our entire history is one of preservation and this most often meant conflict without your idea of imminent national danger. Keeping regions "peaceful" and opening up sea lanes and such for free trades never came after our being attacked. And let's be even more honest. If slaughtering themselves was their way of expressing decades of pent of rage once the dictator's bayonet was removed then so be it. Culture is fate. As you have seen, they have grown tired of slaughtering themselves and now seek a progressive future. In the mean time, they have all in this region looked in the mirror and recognized that the biggest threat to Muslims are fellow Muslims.
Until we wean off of oil we are stuck to what this regional culture can do. If they are to be nothing more than slaves to dictators and oppresive regimes for the sake of resource flow to the world, then let's stop bitching about supportng dictators. However, if we are better than our Cold War ways (forced by Soviet behaviors), then we have to start looking at long term security without the expense of the people we pretend we don't enslave by our "containment" missions. In the mean time, maybe we will lighten the radical load and make their streak of extremism more manageable, which is the ultimate goal to our long term security. Until 9/11, none of you would even know of the threat that is the Tali-Ban. Until 9/11, Al-Queda was just some thug organization that murdered those nothing military members abroad in their missions. But you people assume to know that merely containinng the Hussein regime indefinately would bring good things eventually? No you hjaven't really thought this trhough. You made an uniformed conclusion years ago and now you stick to it. Even the French government knew enough to throw in a consulate building into Iraq in 2005 so that they could steal some future inflluence in the region.
We didn't fear Saddam, and most his killing was over, not that his killing bothered us on the whole. We would never invade for that reason as evidenced by us not invading while he was doing it.
Are you doing this on purpose? Who gives a **** about Saddam Hussein? This is why you are hung up. The man and his supposed WMD was the simple explanation to do the necessary. The issue is Iraq and it's location in the heart land of extremist central. The region is the threat..not one neutered dictator who murdered and tortured while we supported his preservation and gave Al-Queda a legitimate gripe about our depravity. Leftists all over the world agree on America's hypocracy and why we should wither away into the trash heap of history. But when it comes to identifying where we are imperfect these same worthless human beings pretend to need a better excuse to do what is righton many levels. These are the pundist who make your headlines and report the sensationalism that warps opinions that conclude false analysis.
An no, it hasn't. Democracy was already moving in the region. Iraq may actually have hindered movements in Iran. Back then it was pointed out that Iraq played a role in helping their present leader take power. Iraq helped Iran in a lot of ways. Like I said, it hurt our long term interests far more than it helped.
This is your opinion. It is not the truth. First of all, Iran is not apart of the Arab world, which have been 95 percent of our extremist threat since Khomeini died. I don't know what you are basing your assumptions on, but they contradict the cultural experts, the local regions, intelligence reports, and even some headlines (when they feel like printing good news.) From Cairo to Islamabad, the modernists have been gaining steam since they watched Iraqis vote for the laws that would govern them (a first in Arab history.) Muslims groups have protected Christina celebrations in Egypt. The House of Saud have given into pressure and allowed low level elections as well as giving women more freedom (the first to drive a car was a few years ago). Because women have been allowed into schools and into leadership positions in Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Jordan, Al-Queda has been them targets making this modernist voice even more determined. Freedom of expression has loosened in Egypt and -to a lesser degree I grant you- in Saudi Arabia (but even they have to start somewhere). Did you know that in 2005, President Bush refused to give Egypt their annual allowance unitl they released a political author who was jailed for talking against the Egyptian "Pharoah?" (Ironically, he is also fond of talking crap about oppressive America.) Our influence, with the aid of progressing Iraq, into encouraging social change throughout the region has exponentially grown since we removed the the thorn of the desert and gave Iraqis their opportunity to prove to the world that they are good enough to offer hope towards. With every milestone, the people throughout this region gain hope and envy to create what they currently do not have in their own Arab countries. And in the end, our religious enemies come from locations where ignorance is bliss, there's a lack of education, and they have no way to express their political views other than the sword (or a good old fashion coup, which we deny them). You are confusing our long term security with what you see in the short term immediate headlines. Washington did this throughout the Cold War and pretended that we had no agenda for the decade leading up to 9/11. Long term security is exactly what Iraq was about. Even President Clinton knew this, which is why a 9/11 scenario under his watch would have sent us through the door as well. Of course, I'm inclined to believe that he would have allowed themilitary to do what it does best rather than relying on a coven of civilians who couldn't recite the rank structure.
But back to Iran......even Iranians are largely seeking for a way to invite the Western world into their country if only the religious zealots who oppress them would give them a chance. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Iranian government speaks on behalf of the people. It speaks on behalf of the religious zealots who only lose power if the people start to speak for freedom. Think Middle Age Catholic Church and you have exactly what is going on in the Middle East. We break this, we break the Middle East threat. This also means that bombs alone will not solve our problems, so don't think I'm a warmonger. I just know that in this world, some people just need killin so that everyone else can breath easy.
In any case, I've heard nothing I consider valid enough to justify the cost, the human misery associated with 7 -8 years of war.
That's because you assume that only Rumsfeld's answer to the mission was possible. The rediculous cost was due to Rumsfeld bungling, not the mission. If they had gotten out of the way, CENTCOM would have wrapped this up years ago and cheaper the cost and in treasure and blood. You should analyze the mission..not the civilian execution of it as the only way.