I’ve Told You A Billion Times Not to Exaggerate
The anti-war crowd is all over the story about Bush incorrectly stating that Iraq sought uranium. The anti-war crowd also holds falsely to a belief that the war was entirely about weapons of mass destruction (or oil, depending on the day of the week).
The war was actually the result of several things:
Weapons of mass destruction and/or intent to make them
Violation of UN resolutions
Gross human rights violations
Fighting terrorism
Hussein is(was) generally an evil bastard
OK, I just put that last one in there. Bush was wrong to lie about uranium, if he lied. However, it is entirely possible that at the time it was believed to be true by the intelligence that the administration was privy to.
The anti-war crowd seems to conveniently forget the other reasons for the war. Their response is always to enquire about the weapons. Where are they? This is a very short-sighted measure of the war. Some people just oppose all war, and that is at least a somewhat morally respectable position. However, the rest fall into the category of believing that Bush can never be right about anything, ever.
I think the human rights violations alone warranted the action. This is based on the assumption that liberating the people will do more good than harm. For example, it would be impossible to liberate China without massive casualties. Therefore, the risk involved may not be worth the cost of millions of Chinese lives or a nuke lobbed at the West Coast. In addition, the anti-war crowd seems to think the word unilateral means without liberal approval. There was more than one country involved in the operation.
Does this mean I’d support efforts to remove the Mullah’s in Iran? Or to liberate Zimbabwe? Yes, assuming said liberation would be worth the cost in human lives.
I realize that quantifying the cost is fairly subjective and, arguably, cruel. Per Iraqometer, there have been roughly 6,000 civilian casualties. Is this a price that warrants action? Some say no. However, the former Iraqi regime likely would kill and torture many more than that over time. I would conclude that the cost is worth it. I (as one of those people not killed nor at risk of being killed) can easily sit back and say that. Also, the anti-war crowd just as easily can sit while people continue to suffer under Hussein because the suffering doesn’t affect them.
Ultimately, I’d like to have seen the people themselves revolt but that couldn’t happen due to the military stranglehold and overwhelming fear in the country. Intervention was needed.
I think the situation in Iran could lead to mass murder. If the people do revolt and the Mullahs are scared, people are going to die. Is it worth it? That’s up to the people to decide. If US intervention increases their chances and minimizes the risk, then I’m all for it as well.
July 10th, 2003 at 2:41 am
While I disagree with a great deal of what you say in your blog, well, I’m not all that often embarrassed that you’re a fellow Tennessean. But come on. “Some [of the “anti-war crowd”] just oppose all war… [and] the rest fall into the category that Bush can never be right about anything, ever.”???
See, you say crap like that and it really discredits how seriously you’ll be taken across the political spectrum. Maybe you don’t care about that. But if you do, you can’t suggest something as dumb as the idea that there are only two reasons why somebody might have opposed the action we took in Iraq. I’m guessing you know and accept this and just got a little careless.
More problematic, you can make as long a list of “reasons we went to war” as you want, and claim that WMD was only one of them, but the fact is is that WMD was the dealbreaker. The violations needed to be addressed, assuredly, but could (and were being) without an invasion and full-scale occupation that risked inflaming the Muslim world. Pretty much the rest of the world outside of Tony Blair understood this. Human rights violations in other parts of the world, like Africa, are far worse (3 million dead and counting), so please don’t suggest that American conservatives are interested in dropping $70+ billion on Iraq plus (we found out today) an additional $4 billion a month for an occupation that will most likely take years, all for “humanitarian reasons.” And finally, a) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and b) without WMD, Iraq posed us no risk even if Saddam decided to help out the hated bin Laden after all. So it doesn’t wash — without knowledge of WMD, the war doesn’t — and shouldn’t — happen.
Finally, when you say that the human rights violations in Iraq alone warranted what we did, assuming that “liberating the people will do more good than harm,” I’m assuming that the “good or harm” you’re worrying about is to us. Well, that’s exactly what we don’t know, and that’s a great example of another reason some people didn’t want to go to war when and how we did. If Saddam had no WMD, and his capabilities of developing them were being strangled by the ongoing inspections, then the war did very little to make the United States a safer place, and it ran a very serious risk of making things more dangerous, not to mention having the effect of alienating us internationally, giving al Queda even more leverage to recruit against us, costing us a couple of hundred billion dollars, and stretching our military dangerously thin. Without WMD’s over there, we’re looking at a real crappy risk/reward ratio.
Are you in the Knoxville area with Bubba?
Cheers,
Balisardo (Chattanooga)
July 10th, 2003 at 9:00 am
First, I’m in maryville.
Second, you make some good points:
The very reasons you gave, however, tend to justify the bush can do no right supposition. I was being a bit facetious. I realize that there are likely other reasons but those reasons are hardly ever (if at all) relayed in any op-ed or media piece.
Your assumption about ‘good or harm’ is off the mark. I view the human rights violations and the good or harm of an action in terms of its impact on everyone, as evidenced by stating that millions of chinese could die.
WMD were the deal breaker for some, not for me. Being a libertarian (with a little L), i view the supression of human rights as one of the most henious of crimes and it needs to be stopped. For me, that was the deal breaker. And the fact is that coalition forces have found discarded nuclear materials from a nuclear program. Now, the argument about them only seems to be how old are they and what were they doing with them?
And i’m glad you’re not embarassed that I’m a tennessean. And, as your comment illustrated, I needed some more explaining. Thanks for keeping me honest and thanks for reading.
July 10th, 2003 at 2:38 pm
Aha. Mare-vul, as many natives around here say.
Well, I initially thought that your mentioning the millions of chinese, etc. indicated that the ‘good or harm’ was meant in broader terms than just our self-interest. This is certainly the story the administration is now using, until they spin the bottle again. I think that we can agree that this is a phony justification from Mr. I-don’t-believe-in-nation-building. And while I recognize that his being phony in no way means you are, you both have an obstacle in your path of being convincing in this claim, and that’s the fact that there are human tragedies all over the globe that would cost a fraction of the cost of Iraq that simply don’t appear on anyone’s radar. Conservatives aren’t interested how many people are dying unless (at one time) Communism was involved or (now) Muslim terrorists are invol… oops. Well, you get my drift.
If the violations in Iraq are enough to justify for you what will be well in excess of $100 billion and potentially devastating foreign policy complications, then the Congo is a no-brainer, right? Three million innocents dead and counting, by both murder and imposed starvation. Why aren’t you pounding the drum incessantly for us to intervene there? Being a liberal (with a capital L), I view imposed human SUFFERING as the most heinous of crimes, and while I don’t doubt your stated desire to see the end of the denial of human rights, no one believes that this would be a sufficiently potent reason on its own to do what we’re doing, and on its own it is if Saddam didn’t have WMD’s that the UN inspection program couldn’t handle.
I don’t get how the reasons I gave tend to justify the “bush can do no right” supposition. Your implication is that they are invalid and don’t stand on their own, and thus must be shoved into the “bush just sucks” category. That’s certainly not the case. And I would suggest that there has been lots of expressed concern right from the start for the dangerous ramifications of a poorly-run peace, especially given the track record in Afghanistan, where we lost interest after the main shooting stopped. WMD is getting the lion’s share of the attention for two reasons: 1) it’s the principal reason that the administration settled on after going through a reason a week in the months leading up to the war, and 2) THEY AREN’T THERE, after we had been guaranteed they were. We were even given locations. So of course it’s going to be focused on, especially after the right spent eight years labelling everyone left of center as a bald liar.
And, if you’ll forgive my long-windedness, let me just say too that using concern for discarded nuclear materials rings just as hollow, given that the we made no effort to secure known sites of nuclear activity for more than a week after Baghdad fell. We made double-time to all the oil facilities, but blew off the nuclear stuff until looters had made it impossible to know for sure what had been there. So there are two possible conclusions to draw from this: either we already knew those sites were dormant and offered no threat, or Rumsfeld and our leadership in Washington are breathtaking incompetents.
Thanks for your civil tone in response. I don’t always expect it in these exchanges. Hope I matched it.
Sincerely,
b.
July 10th, 2003 at 2:46 pm
Well, wonder around this blog and you’ll see that i have sort of mentioned i’d support helping the congo, uganda, rwanda, and some others. At least I am consistent 🙂
July 17th, 2003 at 4:01 pm
Uncle says: “I think the situation in Iran could lead to mass murder. If the people do revolt and the Mullahs are scared, people are going to die. Is it worth it? That’s up to the people to decide. If US intervention increases their chances and minimizes the risk, then I’m all for it as well.”
I say: Criminy, there are lots and *lots* and *LOTS* of places where US intervention might increase people’s chances. It’s an endless list.
If we want a military force that acts as policeman of the world, can we at least stop lying to US military recruits — stop telling them they’ll be defending America.
I don’t think America’s up to being the world’s policeman, for the same reason Keith Richards would make a lousy DEA agent. The US track record for international inteventions calls out for a cop, certainly, but it’s American foreign policy that ought to be arrested.
peace and freedom, Unc
Helen