I just had a long discussion with my liberal friend at work (his son is back at Bragg, and doing well) about the reasons we went into Iraq. I know, it’s a tired subject. But it is something he feels strongly enough about to make his support of Kerry very strong. We both know that discussion, not conversion, is the issue. Neither of us will change our mind about this election.
His bounce on this is the WMD reason for going to war, and the feeling that the war was economic. Had sanctions been lifted, Saddam was going to trade oil in Euros rather than dollars. Perhaps there is something to that.
But I raised the issue of Kosovo with him. In a way he hadn’t considered. Like most Democrats, the knee-jerk is “Clinton-basher!” But he knows me better, so he stifled it–but it took some inner strength to do so!
When Clinton decided we needed to intervene in Kosovo, the basis for that intervention was humanitarian. People were being murdered in genocidal fashion, and there were mass graves everywhere. We had no national interest in the doings there except in a humanitarian way. It was a European problem which the Europeans needed to handle. They couldn’t, and wouldn’t. Neither would the UN. So America did. I remember feeling there was a need to do something, but didn’t feel it was our place. When it became clear Europe was going to sit on their collective hands (or thumbs), I thought our involvement was justified. So did most Americans.
There were no mass graves. That doesn’t mean Clinton was wrong to use force.
When Bush decided to intervene in Iraq, the basis was to fight terrorism and prevent the development of WMD there. But something which is not talked about often enough is that the same reasons for invading Kosovo existed in Iraq. On top of that, we did have a national interest in doing so.
There were no WMDs in Iraq. That doesn’t mean Bush was wrong to use force.
There are mass graves in Iraq. That doesn’t mean Bush was wrong to use force.
Kosovo was not in our national interest, yet is was right for us to take action. Iraq was in our national interest, and had the identical situation as Kosovo–and more.
If we were right to go into Kosovo on humanitarian issues alone, were we not also right to go into Iraq for the same reason?
Nice post. I’ll have to keep this one in mind for the next time I have the same discussion.
I just hope that, if Kerry is elected, I won’t be as partisan as the Democrats are being now, as you’re pointing out.
Comment by David — October 8, 2004 @ 2:43 pm
It’s a said state of affairs when even logic doesn’t work with these folks!
Comment by DagneyT — October 8, 2004 @ 3:34 pm
“When Bush decided to intervene in Iraq, the basis was to fight terrorism and prevent the development of WMD there”
Well, I think you are confusing the CURRENT reasons for the war with the PAST reasons for the war. The first part about fighting terrorism is vaguely correct (but if we count up every connection of Iraq with international terrorists, it’s way less than Saudi Arabia). But when George Bush kept repeating those words “weapons of mass destruction” it sure didn’t sound like “Saddam had the capability of starting weapons of mass destruction related programs” (I didn’t google that last quote, it’s just a paraphrase).
Be honest, when George and Dick were speaking before the war, it was an “imminent” threat wasn’t it? NOW it’s different of course, recently Bush said we had to go to war because Iraq was abusing the oil for food program. A program which most of America probably wasn’t familiar with before the war.
Comment by Big Time Patriot — October 8, 2004 @ 3:54 pm
Actually, what Bush said was “..before the threat is imminent.”
I believe that is pretty much as you quoted me.
Did you support our venture into Kosovo?
Comment by Bunker — October 8, 2004 @ 4:17 pm
My desire for the USA to intervene in Iraq was a different than most, I think. I was convinced that if Saddam had continued to pay $25,000. to each suicide bomber’s family the Isreali army would invade and that could start World War III. The Arabs would attack and then Isreal would have to defend herself and it could go nuclear if everyone thought that Saddam had nukes.
Comment by Michael Hess — October 8, 2004 @ 5:15 pm
That falls in line with my previous post about inspections. Why people feel we could have continued them for the 18 months we’ve been there, and still come out with any certainty that he had, in fact, complied with resolutions is beyond my comprehension.
Comment by Bunker — October 8, 2004 @ 7:08 pm
I believe Mike Hess has a cogent point. I think his scenerio is all to plausible.
The war in Iraq is but one facet in the WoT; it provides us a strategic hold to try to bring about a change in the whole region.
Patriot? Bunker is correct, President Bush stated that we must act BEFORE Saddam becomes an imminent threat;post 9/11, with the intelligence availible at the time, it was far too perilous to our national security to allow Saddam to continue to the point where he WAS an imminent threat.
I still believe that there is WMD material in Iraq, and more importantly, I believe that some of that material may have been transported to either Syria or Iran, or both.
It was only a couple days ago when an IED detonated in Iraq and was found to contain 3 liters of Sarin gas…this was part of the material that Saddam was to have destroyed…one shell does not a stockpile make, but if there was this much existing; just how much MORE is there?
Comment by delftsman3 — October 9, 2004 @ 5:27 am
Kosovo vs Iraq
Bunker has an interesting point to use the next time your discussing the war with someone who is a Kerry supporter because of the war. The question posed is A. was Kosovo a “just” military action?, and B. If so,…
Trackback by Emigre With Digital Cluebat — October 9, 2004 @ 5:10 am